Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00342)

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