Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00390)

August 21st 1998

In addition to the suggestions that Daniel Caldwell offers one might like to
make a quick review of the subjects and this can be done by opening W. Q.
Judge's THE OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY and reading

Chapter 16 on PSYCHIC LAWS, FORCES & PHENOMENA; and

Chapter 17 on PSYCHIC PHENOMENA AND SPIRITUALISM

As a preliminary one ought to consult in the same short book:

Chapter 5,  BODY AND ASTRAL BODY

Chapter 12    KAMA-LOKA

I find those most helpful in identifying the range and the laws that operate
in the "Astral or Psychic Plane."

Dallas

> Date: Wednesday, August 19, 1998 8:06 AM
> From: "Daniel H Caldwell" <blafoun@azstarnet.com>
> Subject: Re: Mediums vs. Mediators

>Paul & Jake have brought up an interesting subject.
>
>One could write a huge book on what Blavatsky & the Mahatmas said about
>Mediumship, Seership, Mediatorship, Psychism and related topics.
>I believe even most Blavatksy students don't realize the profundity of
>what is found on these subjects in the HPB/Mahatma writings.
>
>In order to appreciate much of what is written by HPB on these subjects,
>one needs a background in Spiritualism, psychical
>research/parapsychology, mysticism, magic, psychology, tranpersonal
>psychology, etc.  A good knowledge of early Theosophical history
>wouldn't hurt either!
>
>I think Paul is very correct when he makes the observation:
>
>> But you
>> cannot automatically assume that everyone who goes into deep
>> trance is channeling something negative, while everyone who
>> consciously "mediates" (isn't that what ECP claims to do?) is
>> channeling something higher and better.
>
>Paul also comments:
>
>> Whether the sources inspiring someone are positive or
>> negative, evolved or regressed, etc. is IMO independent of the
>> means whereby they are contacted.
>
>I'm not so sure that "THE MEANS whereby they are contacted" is
>irrelevant.  If the "seer" is hypnotised, this method by which
>"contact" is made may influence and color the perceptions, and the
>content of what is received.  The hypnotiser may (unknown to
>himself/herself) be telepathically infecting what is received by the
>"psychic" or "sensitive". This is just one example from many that could
>be presented.
>
>This whole area is a very complex and complicated subject.  Some of
>Blavatsky's material has been compiled in DYNAMICS OF THE PSYCHIC WORLD
>and in the books of Geoffrey Farthing. But reams of material could be
>written.  For example, on the "seership/mediumship" of Laura Holloway,
>Stainton Moses, Anna Kingsford, Suby Ram (Rai Salig Ram), and others.
>Geoffrey Barborka has written a volume dealing in part with HPB as a
>"tulku" but he only scratches the surface of that particular subject.
>
>Concerning Paul's references to HPB's "personality" and "negative" (?)
>behavior, one must also take into consideration what is said about this
>very subject in letters from her Teachers.  Also Colonel Olcott and
>other persons who knew her well have made a number of valuable
>observations extremely relevant to Paul's references.  Again even this
>particular subject cannot be easily understood or summarized in a few
>pages of text.
>
>Daniel
>
>
>K. Paul Johnson wrote:
>>
>> Dear Jake,
>>
>> If I seem to take issue with your statements more than anyone
>> else's, please don't take it as a personal thing.  Actually I
>> have come to like and respect you from seeing you on this list,
>> and wish others sharing your belief system were as polite about
>> exprerssing their views.
>>
>> But in light of my knowledge of Cayce, I can't see your
>> mediator/medium distinction as having much validity.  You say
>> that "the mediator is fully self-conscious and in full control
>> and possession of their faculties" and make HPB an example of
>> this.  But we of course cannot know that this was true of her, as
>> an awful lot of her behavior seems to me *not* fully self-conscious
>> or in full control and possession of her faculties.  I mean by
>> this the personality traits that brought her into near-constant
>> conflict with people around her.  Whether this was a by-product
>> of spending so much time in the world of "phenomena" is
>> debatable.  But Cayce clearly did go into a trance state, not
>> even retaining memory.  Yet as a person, he displayed a lot more
>> equilibrium, lightheartedness, sweetness even, than she seems to
>> have done, and there is no one on record AFAIK complaining about
>> his treatment of people around him.  I know that these are not
>> the domains you had in mind when making the distinction, but they
>> are relevant to me in comparing the two types.  You say that the
>> "mediator is inspired by an adept or nirmanakaya possibly, or
>> Higher Self, while the medium is used by subhuman entities or
>> `black.'  The mediator is inspired, while the medium is `taken
>> over.'"  I can think of no evidence that Cayce was used by
>> subhuman or `black' entities, as what he "channeled" was in the
>> overwhelming majority of cases the *person who sought the
>> reading*.  Whether the sources inspiring someone are positive or
>> negative, evolved or regressed, etc. is IMO independent of the
>> means whereby they are contacted.
>>
>> Yes, ideally it is better not to lose self-consciousness in order
>> to make contact with other realms and entities.  Cayce himself
>> says so, and that his need to go into deep trance reflected
>> previous lives in which he had squandered his gifts.  But you
>> cannot automatically assume that everyone who goes into deep
>> trance is channeling something negative, while everyone who
>> consciously "mediates" (isn't that what ECP claims to do?) is
>> channeling something higher and better.
>>
>> Namaste,
>> Paul
>
>
>