|
Berserk
|
Matthew and I may disagree on certain esoteric insights. But the orientation of his quest is clearly honest and well suited to pursuing the truth. I do not dispute Recoverer's stress on personal experience. We all need to transcend 2nd-hand spirituality. But personal experience of the astral planes has yielded so many contradictory claims.
Reason is essential to sort out the line between self-delusion and genuine insight. Reason is also necessary to conceive future experiments that might solve some of the key impasses.
As some of you know, I object to Seth because his reincarnational claims can be discredited where they can be historically examined. ACIM is more difficult to assess. The ACIM course has been very helpful in some ways to those who have taken it. But I have satisfied myself that its source is not who he claims to be--Jesus. Given that deception, I'm suspicious of the rest of "His" metaphysical claims, especially its claims about our illusion of evil. Like Seth, ACIM fails tests of historical verification. By contrast, Howard Storm's NDE Jesus passes such tests in very subtle and impressive ways. Critics might imagine that I simply find Storm more ideologically compatible. In fact, Storm disturbs me too, especially his revelation that, though the doctrine of reincarnation is false, some souls DO nevertheless reincarnate on this earth. But I am open to this claim from Storm precisely because of the credibility established by verifications.
I want to reprint my earlier post in the hope of gaining a considered response, especially to the Gordon Davis case summarized below. I'm convinced that the elusive line between supernatural intervention and the latent potential of the mind should be a top priority for academic research. Let me give 4 examples.
(1) When I was in my 20s, I would sometimes seek a "sign" of impending romance by trying to draw 4 consecutive hearts out of a shuffled deck. This odd method actually seemed to work in the beginning! (2) I also found that an old method used by St. Francis also initially worked for me--bibliomancy. I would meditate on a question and then randomly open a Bible and react to the first verse as if it were divine guidance. For example, I would blindly place my finger on a verse that promised intense romance and then experience an all-electric encounter not long after.
After a while, I became skeptical that these methods truly were effective. So I practiced countless repetitions. To my dismay, I found I could quite consistently draw 4 consecutive hearts from a shuffled deck. But the "sign" that this method was supposed to prefigure no longer occurred. Similarly, I could instantly place my finger at random on a Bible verse and find one that mirrored my exact thought (e.g. a grain). I even demonstrated these odd abilities publicly--to my dismay as well the audience.
Once a gorgeous female friend at Harvard used bibliomancy to determine whether she should divorce her hopelessly unfaithful husband. In her mind it worked. The verse she touched prohibited divorce. I smiled and insisted, "Give me that Bible!" I then instantly "fingered" a verse that encouraged her divorce. She was stunned. She smiled and asked, "Don, are you saying your divine guidance trumps mine?" I replied, "No, Linda, I'm saying that I can do this at will and it means nothing in terms of divine guidance. Follow instead your own heart and rational judgment in your decision about divorce."
I know missionaries who felt called to Kenya because of bibliomancy. Their finger fell on a biblical reference to "the Lion of Judah," a symbol of Kenya. A real trap! The big issue for me is the question of how these amusing psychic talents might be transformed into something truly useful for people.
(3) When I conduct prayer meetings, I try to create a state of group consciousness that both maximizes the placebo effect and satisifies the biblical criteria for generating healing faith. Occasionally, the results seem clearly supernatural. But more often, I suspect, I've simply helped mobilize the sick person's immune system in ways that eliminate painful symptoms without eradicating the illness.
Even that can be a blessing. But it leaves me frustrated. I want to learn more about how to be a channel for complete divine healing! The Bible hints that a vital partnership exists between the physician's craft and faith healing, but does not make it clear exactly how this works and can be enhanced (so Eccleasiasticus).
(4) The most interesting case of possible confusion between psychic talent and genuine contact with spiritual dimensions is the Gordon Davis case in the 1920s. Dr. Sam Soal visited a famous British medium, Blanche Cooper, in the hope of contacting his recently deceased brother. Instead, Cooper channeled an unexpected drop-in communicator, Gordon Davis. Davis was a casual high school friend of Sam's. Sam had been told that Davis was killed in action in France during WW1. Davis seemingly proved his identity by describing his house in detail, by using characteristic jargon (e.g. "old chap" and "confab"), and by recounting shared schoolboy experiences. Davis lamented, "I nnly care about my wife now--and my kiddie!"
A few months later, Soal discovered that Davis had not died after all and knew nothing about the seance. Why is channeling not discredited in this way more often? Well, ask yourself how often you are mistakenly told that an old friend has been killed. it seems that the medium was somehow able to exploit Soal's mistaken belief in Davis's death to recreate Davis's persona via ESP. If that can be done, how can any verifications through channeling be accepted as genuine?
On the other hand, a few channeling cases do seem convincing to me. Despite this, I have no answer for the Gordon Davis case and take exception when New Agers summarily dismiss it simply because it challenges their rigid belief system. The Gordon Davis case also poses a challenge to verifications allegedly gained through astral exploration. I admit I prefer to embrace Swedenborg's verified contacts with the dead as genuine. But I must also recognize my need to believe in Swedenborg rather than in the negative implications of the Gordon Davis case. More and better research is needed on this difficult question.
Don
|
Home
Pages: 
