At the same time, people are confused. It's no secret that many critics of Darwinism - brilliant as they are in their scientific rigor - are also religious, mostly Christians. Some even try to smuggle in Jesus in their otherwise flawless books. If Darwinism is wrong, which it is without a shred of a doubt, should we all go back to the bible? Should we 'accept the Lord Jesus'?
Well, not so fast. For all the faults of the atheists (both old and new), their critique of religion is too powerful for any rational mind to ignore. And for all that Christianity has going for it, it is notoriously plagued by the blind acceptance of a ridiculous doctrine cobbled together by an unknown number of scribes throughout the ages.
Just to give a prominent example: what thinking mind could possibly accept the physical resurrection of Jesus? It is something that has never been observed by anyone; it flies in the face of what we know happens to an organism once the life force holding it together is withdrawn; it clearly sounds like a fairy-tale only a child could take literally. And yet, it is one of the most unshakable doctrines of the various Christian denominations. Tell a Christian believer that this is obvious nonsense and watch the reaction.
And who could argue with Sam Harris when he flippantly proclaims that he could quickly improve the ten commandments by just swapping one of them for a more sound, modern rule? We immediately recognize the truth: pretending that a bunch of hard-and-fast rules, written for a tribe in the distant path, should be considered unshakable and the end of wisdom is as childish as the belief that Jesus was the literal son of God, born of a virgin. Sorry, but these things are an insult to any thinking person. And I won't even go into the issue that the God of the Old Testament is a genocidal maniac and petty tyrant that any sane community would chase out of its village immediately. No sir, there is a reason why Christianity has been fair game for atheists for so long. And no elaborate theology can argue away the folly of many Christian doctrines, among them the very idea that any doctrine can be set in stone, removed from individual rational inquiry.
If you believe this to be too harsh, rest assured that the other side of the argument - materialist atheism - doesn't fare any better. In fact, it might be a much more dangerous menace to all that is true and beautiful.
Materialism Is Irrational Nonsense
Materialist 'explanation' of consciousness
Supposedly, consciousness is just a deception by Darwinian forces to make us survive and reproduce better, although it's just a byproduct and cannot do anything. So it's both an illusion that has a very definite purpose but also doesn't really exist. Neither does free will, despite free will being among the most obvious facts of human existence. What does exist, on the other hand, are super-intelligent little strings of molecules (selfish genes) that plot world domination by means of creating super-complicated organisms which they manipulate into elaborate schemes to propagate copies of themselves. But remember, all this plotting is "accidental". Does that make sense? Good. If it doesn't, and you're still wondering why and how, I'm sorry but you're going to have to ask the genes, because no scientist can give you an answer.
Should I go on? I hope not. If you are still unconvinced of the sheer madness of the materialist worldview, you can read a few books that have shown the philosophical absurdity of materialism in myriad ways, such as the works of Bernardo Kastrup, David Ray Griffin, Thomas Nagel and Ruppert Sheldrake. For the added bonus of the best Dawkins-bashing I have come across, read 'Darwinian Fairytales' by David Stove.
Scientific Evidence for Another Sphere of Existence
Dean Radin has collected tons of evidence for psychic phenomena.
First, there are reports - today as throughout the ages - of a whole lot of para-psychological phenomena, from ghosts to telekinesis, from Near Death Experiences to telepathy, from objects mysteriously going missing to communication with spirits and prophetic dreams. It takes a special kind of mind (and hubris) to dismiss all of these out of hand and declare the consistent experience of vast amounts of people as insanity and delusion. Ironically, it's the same dogmatic mindset that leads people to dismiss everything that doesn't jive with the bible: just swap the bible with the materialist creed (they're both beliefs after all).
But the evidence for a non-material world doesn't stop there, and it's not just 'hearsay'. Phenomena such as telepathy or telekinesis have been subjected to rigorous experiments and testing. Because of the widespread skepticism around such things, many of the experiments are among the most scientifically and methodologically-sound ever conducted by reputable scientists in sophisticated labs using cutting-edge statistical methods. Dean Radin, in his book 'The Conscious Universe', details many of these. There is no other way of putting it: anyone who has read this book, or others like it, and yet still maintains that all such things are mere fraud, illusion or wishful thinking, must be considered extremely irrational.
While it's oversimplified to suggest that quantum physics points directly to the reality of psychic phenomena, modern quantum mechanics does appear to have demolished the materialist conception of a "billiard ball universe". The scientific reductionism and straight-forward physical determinism so many people still hold on to as central dogmas break down at the micro level. As for the macro level, it's kind of funny that so many materialist atheists use physics to argue against any hint of an unseen world when mainstream physicists openly propose a plethora of dimensions to make sense of their equations. No, no, what David Berlinski called "Atheism's Scientific Pretensions" in his brilliant book of the same title, are just that - pretensions. The fact is that, at best, physics is neutral on the existence of other planes and higher intelligences, and arguably downright supportive of the hypothesis.
And if you read Stafford Betty's book "When Did You Ever Become Less By Dying? Afterlife: The Evidence" and are not on a crusade to dismiss anything that contradicts the dead-matter cult, you cannot help but come to the conclusion: yes, there is a huge likelihood that something is going on after death.
None other than John Cleese of Monty Python fame, who has created one of the smartest parodies of religious dogmatism and general human stupidity of all time, has said that those who categorically oppose the possibility of an afterlife simply haven't read the literature. Cleese is probably too familiar with the workings of the authoritarian mind to fail to recognize its distinct signature in the Orthodox Priesthood of Materialist Scientism™.
Rational Spirituality
So, if neither dogmatic religion nor pseudo-scientific atheism cut it, what's the solution? How about non-dogmatic, rational spirituality? But what does this mean?
It means, first and foremost, to think for yourself. This catapults you into the jungle outside the land of dogma and on a hero's journey of discovery, constant refinement of your views, and life-changing lessons. It is a path of growth - growth of moral character, of understanding, of ability. This is the jewel of truth in Christianity that is hidden by a mountain of dogma.
You can find clues to this worldview, this rational spirituality, in many places. You can discern it in religious and secular teachings to a greater or lesser extent, in great literature, in traditional wisdom and even popular sayings. If you are a Jordan Peterson fan, you might be familiar with many such ideas in his work.
There are even some 'otherworldly' sources who have directly communicated with humanity through mediums. While there is much fraud and nonsense among these, there are also some very interesting communications that are well-worth reading and pondering. The truth-seeker looks for wisdom everywhere and must learn discernment.
Some channelled material is fascinating - Stainton Moses' Spirit Teachings is a good one.
If you will further recollect the standpoint we have selected, you will see that in place of blind faith, which accepts traditional teaching, the old merely because it is old, we appeal to your reason: and in place of credulity we demand rational, intelligent investigation, and acceptance grounded on conviction. So far from desiring you to accept what we tell you simply because we are spirit-messengers, the new merely because it is new, we ask you to weigh in the scales of reason, to ponder in the light of intellect, to reject if you be not satisfied, in no case to assent or to act until conviction has been thoroughly established. So that not only is the matter of the spirit-creed eminently conformable to right reason, but the grounds on which we ask you to accept it are those which a rational and logical mind will be most disposed to accept.That doesn't sound like your average false prophet or dogmatic preacher, or your ideologically-possessed professor. It seems to me that this attitude towards spirituality is precisely what has been missing for so long. It was either religious dogma or nihilist materialism. But here's a 'spirit' advocating for critical thinking and using logic to come to our own conclusions about spiritual matters. It's time to break off the chains and use our reason to the best of our abilities.
Beginning Of A New Understanding
In considering what this particular 'spirit' has to say about how we should live our lives, we notice that it promotes a very straight-forward, yet quite profound creed. I have quoted it here and added some comments to show how well it fits with other sources of wisdom, including Jordan Peterson's work, if you can get over the religious language:
We deal with the practical life; and our creed may be briefly written:In the last sentence, you find again the crucial difference between the religions of old and rational spirituality: your own rational mind must come to the conclusion that you accept something as true. There can't be any dogma that is set in stone. But this doesn't mean 'anything goes' either.
Honour and love your Father, God. (Worship) Duty to God.
[You may think of God as the perfect form of Being, and as such, as the highest ideal. You can never attain this ideal, but you can do all you can to get closer to it. This is practical worship - not mere words, but worship expressed in every deed in your life.]
Help your brother onward in the path of progress. (Brotherly Love) Duty to Neighbour.
[This is the embodiment of selflessness, of service to others. Note that it's not about weakness or agreeableness; it doesn't say "sacrifice yourself for everyone", it says "help your brother progress". As Jordan Peterson might put it: help that part in others that strives towards the light, whether this means kindness or tough love, depending on the situation.]
Tend and guard your own body. (Bodily culture) Duty to Self
[Far from the illusion that lofty thoughts are all that counts, spiritual development has many down-to-earth aspects, including a healthy diet, getting the body in shape and so on. It's a crucial aspect of striving upwards spiritually.]
Cultivate every means of extending knowledge. (Mental progress) Duty to Self
[Read great books, watch lectures, listen to other people, observe reality - every means of gathering knowledge is important.]
Seek for fuller views of progressive truths. (Spiritual growth) Duty to Self
[Note that there is no absolute truth here, only progressive truth. When you contemplate spiritual things, there is no definite statement of truth in our realm. But we can gain a fuller view by illuminating aspects of reality from new perspectives and progressively expand our understanding of how the world works.]
Do ever the right and good in accordance with your knowledge. (Integrity) Duty to Self.
[Or as Peterson would say: "tell the truth or at least don't lie". And act according to your deeply felt principles. These may not be the ultimate true principles, because your knowledge is ever-expanding and constantly refined. But it is the right thing to do for us at the stage we are at, and a prerequisite to progress to the next.]
Cultivate communion with the spirit-land by prayer and frequent intercourse. (Spirit nurture) Duty to Self.
[If you don't like the word prayer, think of it as asking your subconsciousness certain questions: what can I do better? Where do I still lack in my development? How should I handle this situation? Then, listen with your heart. You can also ask for guidance in taking the right decisions. Just don't expect prayer to work if you are after material gains or short-cuts. As JFK said: "Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men."]
Within these rules is roughly indicated most that concerns you here. Yield no obedience to any sectarian dogmas. Give no blind adherence to any teaching that is not commended by reason.
An Objective Morality
"Immutable laws govern the results of deeds. Deeds of good advance the spirit, whilst deeds of evil degrade and retard it. Happiness is found in progress, and in gradual assimilation to the Godlike and the perfect." ~ Stainton Moses, Spirit TeachingsPeople often categorically reject that there is such a thing as an objective morality. No doubt the main reason for this is that the idea of objective morality brings with it some painful realizations about our own shortcomings, and the impetus to change our ways. Who likes that? But at the same time, many of us instinctively feel this to be true. Jordan Peterson fans, for example, don't change their lives after listening to him just because they think it's an interesting teaching. They feel the moral truth in his words. Not hard-and-fast rules beginning with 'though shalt', but wider moral truths: unshakable principles of human existence that you violate at your own peril.
Our material world is constructed in a certain way. We can't just teleport somewhere if we wish, and we can't walk through walls. Similarly, maybe there is a higher world, in which our material world is embedded, that is also constructed in a certain way, although we usually can't see it. Part of its fabric is of an ethical nature. If you transgress its laws, you may not physically feel it, but the effects - subtle as they are - are very real and can accumulate rapidly. This leads to a spiritual abyss from which it is hard to recover. Just think about all those people you know, or have heard of, who have sunk into a sorry state of self-pity, resentment and constant blaming of others; those poor souls who seem forever unable to lift themselves out of their self-created misery. As Jordan Peterson would say: hell can be very real here on earth. Navigating this elusive, yet very real world of objective morality, while constantly learning more about it, seems to be a major goal of, or meaning for, our existence.
In "Spirit Teachings", the channeled source has the following to say, which should give everyone with some capability of self-criticism pause:
"The spirit carries its character impressed on the very atmosphere it breathes. This is a law of our being; a great safeguard, knowing we are open to the gaze and knowledge of all."Imagine that everyone you met in your life saw the sum total of your deeds, including their nobility or baseness, written in your face. A terrifying thought indeed! And yet, this is what may be going on at some level. How would your life be different if you accepted this to be true? What if, in a sense, there's always someone watching? A question worth pondering.
The good news is that if the ethical and truthful nature of our acts is all that counts as seen from a higher perspective, then our station in life and our circumstances are no hindrance to progress. We can always change our ways. We should start by admitting our errors and our sins to ourselves. Painful as that is, it will cleanse our soul and ultimately give us strength and dedication. The gates to spiritual progress are always open: it's up to us to walk through.
If you think I'm 'way out there' with these views, fair enough. You're under no obligation to accept any of it. But what you have no good reason NOT to do is to think rationally, do your own research and come to your own conclusions. The chances are that you will come to accept that reality is much grander than we have been taught, either by modern materialist culture or by the dogmatic religions, and that there is only one way up: the 'hard way' i.e. a way that involves conscious effort and that is based on deep reflection and refinement of daily deeds and habits.
Darwinism is nonsense, but evolution is true: namely evolution of consciousness, of spirit. But far from being an automatic process, it takes lots of effort. So for God's sake, for Christ's sake, and for the sake of all kind, loving and thinking souls who grace the heavens and the earth: let's evolve!
Reader Comments
for explanation; my original comment was ment to address the sarcastic tone in the article, which is basically bashing people with different oppinions. "darwinists" is this case. under disguise of "scientific"/newer/better knowledge or whatever. (garbage ways of argumenting to me anyhow).
as I see it; darwin was a scientist who observed and described his observation as best as he could -and then made his personal reasonings/assumptions/conclusions. if his assumptions/conclusions were wrong -i think he still deserves credit for his observations and parts of his reasoning, -even if they were wrong. (and no, i am not a darwinist, even if i appreciate parts of his work -as i read it a quarter of a century ago).
i also appreciate the parts of id-theory which mi was kind enough to explain to me in a previous thread; that darwins theories did fail misserably with regard to main parts of his (darwins) assumptions/conclutions. i do even have no obligations to his (mi's) belief/inclusion of a designer as a/the possible/probable explanation in the evolution-process, -as long as it not "forced" onto me.
i think science is about observations -and that making up theories/conclusions is up to individuals.
riduciling of opponents is however allways pissing me off. (also people who are stupid enough to think religion has anything to do with science - or scinece anything to do with religion).
again; thank you for your kind words joe ;-)
He was a plagiarist
"Keep thy own counsel." "Let no man take thy crown."
"With all thy getting, get thee understanding." "Understanding is the beginning of wisdom."
"Seek and ye shall find."
Good seeking, Luke, and good "investing" of your "talents."
My path has been one of seeking the truth also, asking and sharing what came to me.
God is never a religion; He is just the truth; He is real and it is our Destination in Time to find Him within us, for therein lies the Kingdom.
Delamer Duverus
On the same vein, self never changes. Only the conditions change. Everybody experiences primordial self, regardless of the attributes that make up personality, body, etc.
If you don't see that, it's perfectly understandable. I see it as clearly as I see the sun, which, by the way, is always there, whether you see it or not, in case you didn't realize that either.
What do you mean by "self never changes"? That to me would make everything pointless.
Maybe "perspective changing" isn't evolution, but then there's a lot more going on with my consciousness than just change of perspective. Accumulating knowledge and understanding changes individual consciousness (with long-term effects and not just temporary perspective change). Learning is evolution of consciousness.
Not sure what your perspective/definition is that's contrary to these notions.
Second, no, there isn't anything going on other than a change of perspective. There is only Whole. However, it is not possible to 'see' the Whole. Focus/attention is a perspective-narrowing event. When you 'pay attention' to something, you no longer have that 'capital' to spend elsewhere.
And, there's this simple yet impossible to reconcile condition of 'first person.' It appears to be singular and plural, but is, in reality, simply Whole: not one, not two.
If these are new concepts to you, then it's no shame to not understand them. They were new concepts to 'me' many years ago. But, having paid attention to the inner tension that such a concept draws within the contracted self, that tension 'pulls' the perspective wider and wider. From this perspective, it's impossible for 'me' to even imagine consciousness as anything other. It is synonymous with self. It is Whole and has no other, thus it cannot evolve. Period. And that's a very rational perspective.
What do you think Jesus meant when he (supposedly) said, "I and the Father are one?" He could not possibly have meant the limited physical form of Jesus and the various attributes of his personality were identical to the Supreme Being. No. He meant there is only one self, and by virtue of the expanded perspective of a descended soul, it was perfectly clear that Self is universal, and when one says, "I," they clearly mean self, and the Father is clearly the Christian ideal of universal Self. Does that help clarify...'my perspective?'
If "all there is is lessons", as the Cs say, then if there's only the Whole unchangeable consciousness, as you say, then what lessons? Who learns them if not "you" and "I"? Saying there's no "me" has some merit and meaning, but you have to consider the context and not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
You say there's only the "Whole", but you don't perceive the Whole. You perceive a part of it. To perceive the Whole, you have to expand your awareness through knowledge, understanding, learning, and so on. Whether you call it "seeing through the illusion of "self" in order to perceive the Whole" (or whatever words you prefer) or "evolving personal consciousness to become one with the Whole" (that in some way you're always a part of) makes little difference.
There is a clear process of expanding our awareness, whatever name you want to give it. And this process, which we may call learning, is what I think Luke meant when talking about evolution of consciousness. (But check with him.) I think you've just defined "consciousness" in a way that prevents you from accepting this perspective.
You say "Focus/attention is a perspective-narrowing event." So maybe the path from this narrow view to an all-encompassing awareness (or however close to it you can get) can be seen as evolution, if I get closer to your point of view.
I'd say that separating learning from evolving makes little sense unless you redefine the words. Learning is a change of state, which is more or less the definition of evolution. I don't see how you can learn things and not become different. (And again, if there's no "you", then who are the lessons for?)
It's practical to consider such things, and highly rewarding. It is something to be done integrally along with various other practices, like eating right, being mindful, yoga, meditation, etc.
"with each
New dawn of tomorrow, with each new generation, closer we
Become, until we once again unite, and you will be me, and
I will be you, and yet neither one will be either one,
For you and I will cease to be to become each other, and you
And I will answer together, and we will reply, I am me."
If you're heart path. No problem. Then you don't need any of this stuff. You just love unconditionally and it doesn't matter.
The outlook was like everyone is a part of our family, not just our immediate family, and we should treat them as such. Now we give freely to anyone who needs what we no longer need.
Perhaps Prime Creator is enriched by the experience of consciousness in its many manifestations, and so, Prime Creator is learning as well? "I and the Father are one?" If this is so, how could it be otherwise?
If you're so smart that you can't understand ordinary people, then maybe you skipped a few useful steps somewhere.
www.whatonearthishappening.com
Churches & religious institutions use the book. The book doesn't use them.
Parable,allegory & numerology written by ,,God knows.
End of day,it matters not what we believe as individuals
More important that we're 'free' to believe whatever it is we wish to believe.
"Be strong and live the valiant life, for the end is worth the cost, as we ourselves have proved."
Both tend to be properly self validating approaches: "Use your own experience, intellect and awareness to determine if this is BS, or not."
R.C.
Thanks for writing this!
As this article points out, there is wealth of information that points to reality having a definite non-material nature which 'hard' science studiously avoids and usually denigrates. By not including this information in the scientific discourse, which people are forced to believe', science may well be doing the masses of humanity a massive disservice.
Science is supposedly verifiable and falsifiable, yet notice that most (if not all) of the really important questions about human existence are not verifiable or falsifiable by science (evolution being one). People who have studied and learned enough can come to believe certain things - through direct experience - that science refuses to accept. Often, this knowledge IS verifiable and falsifiable, and therefore it IS scientific, but only for the individual concerned, or perhaps a group of individuals that share the same knowledge. And yet 'science' would say this is 'not scientific', apparently contradicting their own maxim.
Basically, for the majority of people (at least those interested) on the truly important and meaningful things in life, human hard science has no relevance, because development and growth and insight and knowledge is gained on a case by case basis.
However, " for the majority of people (at least those interested) on the truly important and meaningful things in life, human hard science has no relevance," I believe is perhaps overstating the point, isasmuch as we have no choice but to consciously deal with this 'theme/meme park' we're stuck in, lest the hammer hit our thumb whilst acting in this constrained existence.
R.C.
Lots of things on this site don't reflect peoples' lived experience. Most peoples' life experience includes learning about Darwinian evolution even though they've never personally categorized the variability in the beaks of Galapagos finches. I'll bet lots of people read about all the statistical evidence pointing out the flaws of the theory, and don't understand the least bit about statistical analysis. I wouldn't have the particular knowledge to make a case against Darwin, but I do understand the case others have made.
I do have enough experience to make the claims I'm making in this thread. It's not just personal experience, but lots of reading and studying and listening to others views. I think the best thing we can do, as a network, is to share our perspectives (we already share consciousness, whether we are aware of it or not). I don't think it's any more dangerous a claim to make than lots of whats posted here as articles and/or comments.
Why not just let people make their own choices of what to consider without you telling them whether or not they should consider my arguments are not?
Let me make it simpler:
The manifest universe is a kaleidoscope.
The light that illuminates the kaleidoscope is consciousness.
We are the mirrors in the kaleidoscope reflecting the light of consciousness, each mirror having a different angle/perspective, yet all of them simultaneously shining the same light.
What do We do with this information?
Chop wood and carry water.
As for the elitist comments. Just sayin', nobody that I can see in this thread has made a single argument against the notion presented that consciousness is not an object. It's all just "you're a jerk for saying so." I admit, I failed to accurately convey my point, which was originally stated as, I completely understand how it is seen that way. We have this seemingly linear process of mental activity and language processing, which makes it impossible to convey things such as No other way to really say some things other than using language that implies linear processes.
All I wanted to do was introduce what I find to be a very powerful concept, which can be used as a tool for (implicit linear languaging loading now....) evolving. But, is it consciousness that evolves, or mind, or something else entirely? Or maybe nothing changes (sages have been saying so and writing so for millenia). So, why do we perceive change, if, as I have proposed, consciousness doesn't change and self doesn't change? That's all I really wanted to say. It seems that language triggers lots of competing thoughts, but the responses have been mostly been shooting the messenger without actually addressing the core point.
So, please ignore everything previous to this post and let's go back to the beginning, and I'll post it as a question rather than a declarative statement (what was done to be provocative, and admittedly came across as combative, which was not the intention).
Question:
Does consciousness evolve? If so, how? If not, then is there something else that is going on in the mind that makes it appear that consciousness is evolving?
Answer:
Consciousness appears to evolve, but that is because of the oft-cited illusion of equating mind with consciousness.
It's fine if people do that for convenience in conversation. However, I think it's an important distinction to make.
If you disagree with that answer, that's fine. Say so and make arguments to support that case. Some have done so. Others have just said it's not helpful to say "all is one" (which I never said, but admit that can be inferred from my statements), or that I'm coming across as an someone who fancies himself enlightened. To clarify that last one, in no way does this personality think it's enlightened. Further, I don't think it's possible. Why? Because enlightenment is not an object and it can't be had or achieved or any such thing by human beings. As a human being, I consider the possibility of transcending human limitations, but that's purely speculative. Feel free to argue otherwise, but please don't kill the messenger.
The validity of answers really depends on how you define the terms present in the questions.
You asked how consciousness could evolve. We explained how, in the context of what we meant by consciousness. Instead of getting it, you argued that that's not what consciousness is and missed the point. If you refuse to agree on the premises, don't ask questions. I mean, when you ask a question about an article, you gotta work with the context provided by the author and not your own and stubbornly insist on it. I have nothing against your view of consciousness except that it seems to prevent you from understanding people's answers to your questions.
Probably not much sense in continuing with this, but I would ask you:
1. Do you learn?
2. Does that change you?
(Of course you can say there's no "you" or engage in another semantics argument of your choice, but then you'll be missing the point again.)
"Our mind has it's own ideal time, which is no other than consciousness of the progressive development of our beings." ~ A Schlegel
I enjoyed the article, very thought provoking and I generally agree with the theme. I am however (as always) cautious. I take the advice "think for your self" and put it into practice.
What really has me concerned here is the "chanelled source" being referenced. No I don't believe in "blind faith" either, (which is why I'm ever wary of chanelled sources who usually turn out to be, as John Keel remarked "the pranksters and con-men of the spirit world".)
Don't get me wrong, there's definitely value in this article, but tread with caution and discernment!
Good article Luke, it has certainly generated plenty of interest and discussion, and that is how we make progress.
There was no recommendation. It was only shown that some such material contains words of wisdom. Take this quote: Can you say there's something wrong with these words? Because the message is what the author is showing you. Something to think about. He's not saying that channelling is how you should usually receive information or giving you any similar recommendation. He's even including a warning that much of it is fraud and nonsense. There's nothing in the article that could be reasonably interpreted as "recommending mediumship".
My point was that there was no recommendation to communicate through mediums. There was just the notion that some such communications that have occurred have provided some interesting information worth looking at, exemplified by the included quotations.
Most of us here are familiar with the Cassiopaean transcripts and consider them very valuable, but probably none of us would recommend anyone to try that too, and none of us are under the illusion that if we tried that ourselves, we'd get the same quality of information.
The problem with what you and others wrote about that is that you did the same mistake as those people who take isolated bible passages literally. You take my statement that some channelled material is useful, isolate it from the context, and then turn it into "he recommends chamnelled material" or even "he recommends mediumship" etc. You can discredit anything with that method. And what's your point anyway? Should channelled sources be forbidden material nobody shoud ever read? Why not treat them like any other material - and use our reason to judge if there's anything useful in there or not?
There are some interesting things about that in "Spirit Teachings". They talk about the lunacy that is theological speculations based on isolated sentences in the bible. Too much intellect, not enoug wisdom leads to this kind of sophistery. Also, people can only take in the amount of truth they are capable of, the rest is rejected. True.
As I said: it's a good one
There seem to be a lot of people around here who don't understand the regular meaning of words, make up their own, and then act like they have some kind of deeper understanding of... whatever.
Vis-à-Vis the approach of an elemental ascese, as the basis of its own mastery of spiritism / chanelling invites to accept the pre-eminence of an outer entity over the free will of the medium . Of course, in the ethical sense , it is the most delusional and perverse minds that are hovering in the 'channel' of consciousness opened by elementary confusion by the experimentalist outside the completely natural framework that most often preserved him from this kind of intrusion, with the forgotten role of what was called by 'spirits of nature', also forbidden to exist by all hierarchical or sectarian currents.
There can be no spirituality out of nature, the notion of rationalization is to try to grow crops grown for yield to serve parasites in onion rows.
The systematic and populist demolition of Darwin and his intuition following the discoveries of Cuvier ( ....for this "West" only ,it is still a knowing of the rest of the world especially Asian !) coming out of the same hidden dirigisme procedure, with a new sauce inspired by some entities of spiritism / Channeling, remains to know the actual wills of these Entities often removed from what they promise ?
I talked about it to my dad who is not so incline to believe anything I said just because it sounds far from the atheist leftist ground I was raised in, but it ripples and I think the ideas make its way in, at least it did for other topics (like veganism terrorism).
And thank Joe, for emphasizing the linear way we learn as human, trying to be god in "seeing everything" at the same time lead to over contemplation and wasted time in navel gazing. I wish I should have learned that since childhood, now it's quite hard to stop the inertia of over meditation in the desperate attempt to heal the "poor soul"/child inside. Active life is really the best professor in my opinion.
R.C.