Theos-Talk Archives (February 2007 Message tt00336)

A few thoughts on channelers,

I wonder if this discussion on channeled entities might be missing
what should be a very central theosophical principle.  Theosophy does
not hold to any dogmas.  The individual is free to believe what he
understands to be true after investigating matters for himself.  How
do you investigate the word of a channeled entity?  Why should anyone
believe anything a channeled entity has to say?  From my limited
experience with this type of literature, the entity often speaks along
vague lines on subjects of the far past or of the future that there is
no way of verifying.  The reader is asked to believe and yet given no
basis on which to come to a well informed understanding of the matters
at hand.

Perhaps what is channeled is 90% harmless and 10% poison. What if that
poison is addictive and morally damaging in the long run?  You keep
coming back for more thereby sinking further and further into a world
of fantasy.  This is nothing short of idolatry.

If you believe in the work of Madame Blavatsky because you believe she
was an agent of the Masters, then you are guilty of idol worship.

If you believe that Krishnamurti was a prophesied World Teacher based
on the word of Besant because you thought Besant was an agent of the
Masters, then you are guilty of idol-worship.

If you believe  in the work of Alice Bailey because you believe she
was a channeler of the Masters, then you are guilty of idol-worship.

If Katherine Tingley was made president of TS in America solely on the
fact that it was believed that she was an agent of the Masters, then
that was an act of idol-worship.  And yet, when you think of it, what
other reason could there have been?  That is not to say that she was
not the right person for the job, nor that she may not have gone on to
make some remarkable achievements, only that she was installed for the
wrong reasons.

Not any of these persons are gods whose word should be taken as
sacrosanct.  Not even the Masters are gods.  They are men.  We make
idols of them when we believe everything they say for no other reason
than they said it.  Some of the second-generation theosophical leaders
had very little background in the Theosophical Society.  What gave
them political power was a perceived linking of their names with the
Masters. The only Master for truth that any one of us has is our own
Higher Selves. The Theosophical Movement was begun so as to help
people Master themselves. For this reason, Blavatsky's Masters would
never allow their names to be associated with anyone as verifications
for truth. That would undermine everything that they are about. They
knew this better than anyone. They knew that the 10% of the pill that
was poisoned was the belief itself that mediums and channelers might
have something of value to say.

We do not make progress by believing true things, we make progress by
understanding why things are true. Beliefs can be shaken,
understanding cannot.

Bruce

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, samblo@... wrote:
>
> Ton,
> . . .
> I would look forward to your reports of the convergence's you may find 
> between Jane Roberts Materials and the Sethian texts of the Nag
Hammadi that you may 
> find and share.
> 
> Regards,
> John
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>