Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00163)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Perry Coles wrote:

> I don't think it's a question of who the spirit claims to be but
> rather the veracity of the philosophy that is being expounded.
> If a `dead grocer' comes out with a profound philosophical argument
> over someone claiming to be a `Master' then in the end it's the

Dear Perry,

I agree, but I mean rather comparative value. Some critics say
that Blavatsky could compile her books from oriental and other
works which were already available in her time.

But spiritualistic communications somitimes are higher than
intellectual level and cultural background of mediums and those
persons who were known as living people and later communicated
as spirits (grocers and other people of that kind). (Though I
admit that the cases when "spirits" of great people say platitudes
are far more numerous).

We may take an example of Allan Kardec. He was not a medium
himself, but rather a compiler of accounts of many mediums.
Not theosophists, but he and his team were the first people
in the modern Europe who taught reincarnation and some other
important features of theosophy (complex constitution of human
being, soul growth through reincarnation, different planes of
nature and so on). We may call it simplified theosophy mingled
with christianity, but remember that it was published at least
for 20 years before the first theosophical book Isis Unveiled,
which also gave human constitution in simplified form. They
also said that Plato, Jesus and other ancient philosophers
held one ageless teaching. Blavatsky was acquainted with
teachings of Kardec's school.

It seems to me quite impossible that the teaching published
by Kardec in several volumes might come from unconscious thoughts
of the mediums or from elementals and decaying remnants of
personalities.

Other important feature is that only those ideas were admitted
to the books which were received independently through different
mediums, so there were no one authority, unlike the cases of
modern channelers. They also knew the difference between the meduims
and mediators. Of course they didn't use latter word which was
introduced by HPB but called them respectively passive and active
mediums.

HPB rightly says about dangers of mediumship, but modern technique
of transcommunication removes many objections, for the medium is
replaced by an electronic device. So health doesn'r suffer anymore
and the messages become less tinged by our thoughts.