Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00379)

Barkus23@aol.com wrote:
>
>        No I don't regard Blavatsky as a channeler.  As you probably know,
> there is a very important difference between a "mediator" and a "medium"
> (channeler.)  The mediator is fully self-conscious and in full control and
> possession of their faculties -  while in most mediumship, the channeler goes
> into some nature of trance state (often assumed possibly.)  Mediatorship is a
> heighted state of personal awareness, while mediumship is a lowered state of
> personal awareness, with the medium even not retaining any memory sometimes.
>      The mediator is inspired by an adept or nirmanakaya possibly, or Higher
> Self, while the medium is used by subhuman entities or black.

I agree with you that the distinction you make is an important one. From all I
have heard and my own tuning in to the subject it appears to me that the Masters
are highly unlikely to use trance mediums to convey their messages. But, in the
name of fairness, this does not necessarily mean that every thing channeled
"Cayce style" is "wrong", "false" or "bad". There can still be a lot of valuable
information that can be tapped into through trance mediumship. However, the
adepts warn against it because of dangers in the process.

Bjorn