Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt01010)

It seems to be the case that as human beings we all fall into the same
traps of as you say only hearing what we want to hear.
John Edwards may well be a fraud as you suggest but telepathy is also
a possibility.

When I was involved with the LCC I too was glamorised by many of the
claims made regarding what is supposed to happen as a result of the
mass being celebrated and that a priest had some magical ability I
didn't in being able to `consecrate' the host.
CWL had such authority in my mind at the time I didn't question it
that deeply as I shoud have. (I am now at pains to admit)

However it was interesting that I never could accept CWL's claims that
women could not be priests.

This for me became such an issue internally within myself I could not
support the LCC any longer as I believed it was an utter insult to
women and simply `kept them in their place'and did go against the idea
of there being "no distinction of race, creed, SEX, CASTE, or colour".

If you try and question CWL's psychic findings regarding women priests
in the LCC it seems that you just can't get over the hurdle of CWL's
authority in his `clairvoyant verifications' on this issue.

Peoples wishes and fantasies want to be able to eat a little round bit
of bread and wine and think their whole nature can be changed by that.
And I think HPB's writings get you to challenge and not be afraid to
no matter who makes the claim especially Bishops and Priests.

It's a shame because I think the energies in the church would become
much different with women priests and it would show the church to be
truly a "liberal" one in my oh so humble opinion.
(However the whole idea of a priesthood now seems distasteful for me
anyway)

Once I allowed myself (and dare I say respected myself enough) to
challenge the old bish with the beard the whole myth and glamour
started falling apart.

I also agree with you over the shrine room it just sets up a
worshiping dynamic.

But I think HPB's writings help to get you to challenge and not be
afraid to, no matter who makes a claim, that's the great dept I owe to
her………. she snapped me out of it.
I find them very self empowering and put the mirror up to myself
rather than outside to some authority.

That's been my experience anyway.

Perry
 




--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@y...>
wrote:
> 
> Hi Perry,
> 
> Bouncing off some of your thoughts---
> 
> > 
> > It could be memories the reader is telepathically picking up from 
> the subject as I think could be the case with the TV psychic John 
> Edwards, rather than it actually being a deceased friend or 
> relative. He is a classic passive medium.
> > 
> Alleged discarnates appear in only a tiny fraction of the thousands 
> of Cayce readings. But after examining many of them I conclude that 
> the past life readings are generally implausible and appear to be 
> based on "readings" of what people wanted to hear-- such as that 
> they knew Jesus in a past life. Or that they lived in Atlantis, or 
> knew Cayce, etc. Edward is probably a deliberate faker whereas 
> Cayce appears not to have been. After all, he did only medical 
> readings for 20+ years before the spiritual and "historical" 
> material started coming through.
> 
> > I am sure CWL did have some level of clairvoyance as have many 
> others including Geoffrey Hodson.
> > 
> Not I. Evidence seems substantial for distant viewing in 
> the "physical plane" but how could we ever confirm alleged 
> encounters with invisible entities? 
> 
> > 
> > Past life readings is another area that can have different occult
> > rationale, this could be tapping into astral shells and then 
> risking the danger of becoming a passive medium.
> > 
> The greater danger for the sincere "clairvoyant" is tapping into the 
> wishes and fantasies of the person who is getting the reading.
> 
> > 
> > I think this is why HPB and the Adepts always discouraged blind 
> belief and hero worship.
> > 
> With all due respect I suggest replacing "always" with "sometimes" 
> since words and actions encouraging same are easy to find along with 
> their opposites. HPB and Olcott promoted a cult of the Mahatmas 
> pretty feverishly in the early 1880s before realizing what awful 
> consequences would ensue. I mean that the Shrine Room, for example, 
> was the height of poor judgment and if any Masters encouraged such 
> shenanigans they were as lacking in wisdom as HPB, Damodar, et al.  
> At least the Founders recognized the mistake of sensationalism and 
> changed course, but the lines had been laid down for all the 
> subsequent "contactees"-- Judge, CWL, Bailey, Prophets, etc.-- to 
> follow. And so they have.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Paul