What does everyone think of Spiritualism?
Inspired by Mahatmas, it helped change the Western world significantly throughout much of the 19th Century. Without it, we'd be far more materialistic. I know things seem that way to some folks already, and we wonder,
how could it be any worse? I even wonder if we'd have made it through the World Wars if certain movements such as Spiritualism and the Labour Movement had not been inspired ... as they were.
- If Prophets talked to Angels, would they be considered as mediums today?
Some of them would certainly have been. Joseph Smith spoke with the Angel Moroni, and Mormons consider
him a Prophet. But I think our world is far more skeptical, and the Scientific and Industrial Revolution definitely changed our thinking ... to which we may add Darwinism and the impact of modern Psychology on mass consciousness.
There is so little acceptance by some people today of things that
were simply taken as granted during the days of Spiritualism, that we really
have done a bit of back-pedaling, in my opinion. Plenty of the most enlightened and inspired of the Prophets of Biblical times wouldn't be accepted as anything except quacks today.
Perhaps the best cases I know of to illustrate what I mean, are the contributions made by Theosophists and other esotericists in this tradition. Some reject their claims out of hand, although H.P. Blavatsky was quite interested in Spiritualism early on ... prior to the founding of the Theosophical Society. She came into contact, through various means, with Mahatmas in the East
and West, traveling to meet Them in several cases. Some of her experiences have been attested to by
so many eyewitnesses, sworn to with evidence placed in the British Museum, etc. ... that no sane individual would deny her claims if properly and thoroughly investigated.
Who ever said our society, especially the religious components, was strictly composed of
sane individuals?
Yet there are
dozens upon dozens of cases where HPB delivered prophecy after prophecy which not only came true, but which revealed (reveals) that the Mahatmas were and are
exactly what she claimed. She was perhaps the greatest Prophet our world has ever known, certainly dedicating her life to the Service of Humanity ... and claiming only to serve as an
amanuensis, or
Sibyl, rather than as the actual
source of what she wrote and taught.
- If Prophets healed the sick would they be considered as Spiritual healers today?
Again, I don't think so. We do everything we can to
discredit such individuals. Matthew Manning is the best case I know of a modern day healer, also possessing mediumistic tendencies displayed during his teen years ... including the ability to channel or
`ghost write,' and even
`ghost draw' [for Picasso, Durer,
et al]. His story can be investigated on the web, his web page readily accessed. He is an
excellent example of someone who took tremendous potential for good or ill, a gift which could have potentially had
any number of applications, and invested it for
healing.
The success stories for Matthew Manning and others should speak for themselves. Yet how does the world of today
greet such cases? In laboratories they have been studied, and WHAT conclusions have we drawn? Aren't our
filtering glasses more firmly attached to our heads than ever when we hear of such cases? The Prophets of old would probably be burned at the stake for what some would perceive as
demon-possession and the like. In fact, I think that's
exactly how Christ Jesus was sometimes greeted ... and He had to
flee the unruly mob.
- Spiritualism talks of departed spirits being asked what they have learnt on the earth plain. Is this the same as the Biblical Judgement Day?
If the true individual is being contacted, usually possible only a few months following death, then all that they can describe will be their experiences up until that point. If they have been heavily influenced by a tradition that believes in
Judgment Day, then sure, I think they could describe their Purgatorial experience as
precisely that. Yet Tibetan Buddhists will know that they have actually simply moved
through the Bardo. And an ancient Egyptian would have ventured across
the Fields of Aanroo.
In all of this, who's the more accurate? Which experience is
correct? The question becomes even more difficult when, at a seance, the sitter becomes
en rapport NOT with the actual individual, but - in the case of the seeking of those
who have been dead for years - simply a SHELL. The
galvanized shell may appear, and because this astral
corpse retains all of the memories of the true person, though in an
unpleasant, sickly cast, this
false contact with the departed may result in a tremendously skewed, negative characterization of what the
actual person went through after death.
After all, the TRUE Individual eventually
dissociated from the lower, self-centered vibrations which characterize the lower astral plane, and they have moved on to
greener pastures, as the proverbial expression goes. It may well be that
the shell retains memories of the most unpleasant of all of after-death conditions, as it tends to
vibrate in association with the lowest sub-strata in its gradual, decaying state. The shell may convey true
horrors which some individuals experience, although usually these don't last very long at all ... and are transcended entirely once we are better and properly oriented to the afterlife condition.
So, a Fundamentalist Christian could
well preserve, either directly or
simply in the evacuated, decaying astral shell ... such memories as would correlate with
what s/he expected to encounter of the `Judgment Day,' while I would argue that the
true Record exists only within `the atom,' meaning that it is [also] preserved
in the `Book of God's Remembrance,' as the Bible puts it. This, the
true Akasha, is always accessible, but only to a properly trained, high-grade medium ... and in such cases, misinterpretation or interpolation of meaning is unlikely to occur.
- What was the knowledge of the Gnostic Christains?
These understood the true Nature of the Christ, at least insofar as accepting that what
Jesus embodied, they too could and would gradually come to embody.
No less is what Christ taught, and there are dozens of Scriptural passages which the astute individual will be able to trace in support. Sure, there has been much which has been systematically expunged from the Gospel record ... yet
"the Truth of the Ages" is said to still reside within the New Testament.
That such is true is made evident in the words and teachings of St. Paul, in the writing of John the Evangelist and even in the consistency of the Four Canonical Gospels. Dozens of other sources all contribute to our understanding of - not one group, but many groups, which all recognized a great deal more in Jesus of Nazareth than many modern Christians would care to admit. Ironically, it would only make their case and the Christian Faith much stronger; yet where
caveats and
compromises must be made there is often an understandable resistance.
Knowing what the given name `Jesus' means is one line of inquiry, as also a questioning of the origin and meaning of
`chrestos' ... as distinct from
`Christos.' There are
excellent writings, extensively researched, along these lines ... for those who want to know where the name of their religion, and the title of the Christian Savior, originates. Many do not understand that this is
not the man's last name!
I believe that the Gnostic Christians were quite familiar with an esoteric Christianity which it is pointless to refute today. There were, unfortunately, already
special interests existing just 400 or 500 years after the appearance of Jesus ... and how the Gnostics were treated - being forced underground and systematically exterminated - tells us a great deal about how Church tradition evolved from there on out.
Cases such as Hypatia of Alexandria illustrate what
great intolerance the early church fathers demonstrated when it came to anyone who dared to openly question their doctrines ... much less teach a different one. And when such Fathers as Origen and Clement
dare to teach different, again, we find the response:
Conform or ELSE!
What DID the Gnostics teach? Indeed, what you suggest, P&K. Your take on it is a pretty good summary:
peaceandkarma said:
All religions seem to me to tell a similar story, its just that people tend to view things the way they want to see them. To me the Prophets channelled spirit much the same way as mediums do today. This is my view point which others may not share. Is Spiritualism really a new religion as it seems to have been around for a long long time.
I would only add, that I believe the Presence of the Christos overshadowed Jesus of Nazareth 2100 years ago, and that nearly 100 years ago a similar event may
already have occurred in the world of the early 20th Century. Clearly, this was not recognized by most Christians, or even more than perhaps a handful of individuals for what it was. But the world changes much in 100 years, and the 20th Century proves to be exceptional only in that this is true
100fold moreover.
Thus, as some also believe, I am quite certain that Christ is active in the world today, and of that
I am certain. Belief is one thing; gnosis is definitely another. Faith, even on my
best of days, is what helps me to try and remember to
remain humble, yet NEVER to forsake what I have learned, based on what I have experienced, and based on what I have been taught. As we are sometimes reminded, the best teacher of all is usually EXPERIENCE ... which does not mean that we must jump in front of a bus to learn the consequences, but simply,
once you get kind of used to the talk, don't forget to WALK THE WALK!
Christ, I am quite certain, overshadows both Groups and Individuals in the world today
by the many hundreds [and thousands] ... thus, I would suggest for the
sincere and interested student, consider further inquiry into
the ample evidence that this is indeed the case ~
IF you feel that you are even remotely open to such an idea. I phrase it thus, because I am as certain that you can
find such evidence, as I am that I'm sitting here.
That Teaching, after all, is thoroughly Biblical.
And I wasn't the One Who uttered it ... all those years ago.
Namaskar, and
God Bless!
