Conference hydra::dejavu

    I think that music can be channelled.  I'm sure some of the Grateful
    Dead music is channelled.  I wonder if music can't affect us on
    different levels and in different ways, opening... inspiring...
    perhaps even enlightening on some subconcious level.  We know the
    power of light... we've harnessed it in lasers.  I wonder if we
    appreciate the full spectrum of the power of sound.  I wonder how
    much we learn and evolve from information channelled to us in 
    subliminal ways... from music, from art, from the power of words
    in literature.

         This is just a pointer to anyone who is reading these notes
    for the first time or whatever to also look to notes 288, 316 and
    358 for other information on channeling or channeled entities.
    There are also elsewhere in the notes information on Ramtha 
    (a channeled entity) and Seth (another channeled entity)
    among others.
      
    Frederick
    

  As has been mentioned elsewhere, Edgar Cayce was a psychic (?-1946) who
conducted literally thousands of sessions where he entered a trace state
and provided a wealth of what could be called 'channeled' material.
ALL of these sessions were diligently recorded, and are stored at the ARE
(Association for Research and Enlightenment) archives in Virginia.  Anyone
can go there and peruse them.

  The channeled information was stated to be obtained from what was called
a 'Universal Consciousness' and not from a discarnate entity.  In fact,
Cayce described that through a process of "reading the akashic records"
ANY information could be clearly determined.  Supporting Topher's note in
479.0, Cayce indicated that in general, the personality, knowledge, and
attitudes of the 'channeling' person inherently affect the content and
style of the channelled material, but indicated that many of these inherent
information filters had been cleansed in the case of Cayce.

  While Edgar Cayce provided material on nearly all subjects, he specialized
in several areas, including determining the status of missing persons (WWII),
past-life readings, Atlantis, and individual health readings.  The volume of
this material is astounding, and is all recorded.  I would like to relate
one series of Cayce's readings which appear to conclusively prove (to me
anyway) that SOMETHING IS DEFINITELY GOING ON HERE that cannot be explained
by conventional means.

  In one of the health readings performed by Cayce, he recommended the use
of a particular medicine to be mixed with other ingredients into a poultice
which could be directly applied to the affected area of an ill woman.
This information was given to the woman, who tried every means to obtain
the particular medicine, but to no avail.  Few pharmacists had even heard
of it (BTW: Cayce had NO medical training), and none of them could obtain
it for her.  The woman asked Cayce for further assistance in locating the
medicine, and Cayce promptly identified a pharmacy not too far from where
the woman lived (but hundreds of miles from Cayce) that had a bottle of the
medicine.  The woman went to the pharmacy and asked for the medicine several
times, but was consistently told that they didn't have any of it.  So, the
woman consulted Cayce for the third time to see if she could substitute some
other medicine or some other treatment.  Cayce maintained that the pharmacy
did in fact have the medicine, but that it was hidden behind some other
medicines on a particular shelf in the back room of the pharmacy.  The woman
returned (a bit sheepishly) to the same pharmacy, and lo and behold, the
medicine was found stashed behind other bottles, exactly where Cayce had
said it would be.

  Now, do we have to continue tip-toeing on thin ice whenever we contend that
obviously SOMETHING beyond the scope of our current understanding is involved
in at least some cases of trance channeling?  How else can this example be
explained?

  I can imagine that Topher may propose a plausible explanation based on a
reduced set of 'paranormal' mechanism's (actually I hope he does!), but I
would welcome this as an open-minded scientific approach to determine the
minimum set of paranormal mechanisms required to explain this. (I'm all in
favor of Occam's razor so long as the beard still gets a close shave ;-})
However, it seems that the die-hard skeptical explanation that nothing
unusual is going on, or that everybody involved is lying or cheating just
doesn't cut the beard in this case.  Remember, these are just three of the
THOUSANDS of Cayce trance seesions which are fully recorded.

  By the way, I also consider that both Seth and Lazaris have provided
channelled material at the consistently high level demonstrated by Cayce,
while Ramtha is another case entirely.  The 20/20 report showing Knight/Ramtha
using one voice when speaking to adherents, and then turning her head over
her shoulder to use her normal voice to talk to one of her helpers, then
turning back to the front as Ramtha, struck me very much the wrong way;
to say nothing of Knight's apparent obsession with money.

						Todd

RE: .3 (Clever title, that one.)

Cayce said much about Atlantis: the existence of which has never been
established (in fact, the only classical references to it I know about are
by Plato, who mentions Atlantis anecdotally).


> to say nothing of Knight's apparent obsession with money. <


And I suppose Seth and Lazaris are doing it for free?


John M.

RE: .3    
    
    I'll devote a separate note to your request for a "minimal set" of
    paranormal abilities.  In this note I'll play devil's advocate and
    present possible non-paranormal explanations for the event you
    describe.  Please note that I am *not* saying that any of these
    is what occurred, or is even likely -- it is just meant to illustrate
    the difficulties of "conclusive" evidence for the paranormal in
    "uncontrolled" circumstances.

         1. Coincidence.  Yes, it would be an outrageously unlikely
         coincidence, but there are so many possible outrageously unlikely
         coincidences that, paradoxically, it is almost certain that *some*
         outrageously unlikely coincidences will occur. 

         2. Fraud.  The events described did not happen, they were made up.
         The documents are not there, or only describe part of what has
         been claimed occurs.  That someone offers to let you look at a
         huge collection of documents does not mean that if you take them
         up on it, that you will find what they tell you that you will
         find.  The art of the bluff is is a useful one for a con artist. 

         3. Fraud.  Same as 2, except the documents are there, but are
         forged. 

         4. Rumor.  The story has changed with multiple levels of telling.
         The Cayce archivists may believe that the documents are there but
         may not have actually checked. 

         5. Fraud.  The documents are there, and are in a sense genuine,
         but the whole incident was a set-up. 

         6. Fraud.  The incident may have been as described but a member of
         the Cayce organization planted the bottle to match the prediction,
         perhaps without Cayce's knowledge. 

         7. Cryptonesia.  Cayce may have been in the area at some time in
         the past (believe it or not, I have been in places hundreds or
         even thousands of miles from my home :-), been in the drugstore
         and seen the hidden medicine.  Although he may not have
         consciously remembered this, he may subconsciously remembered it.
         A request for treatment from that general area may have triggered
         an unconscious association between the place and the medicine.
         If, in the meantime, someone had bought the medicine, so it wasn't
         really there, we would never have heard about it. 

    I could come up with more possible conventional explanations, but I
    think this gives you the idea.  Essentially, in cases like this, we
    never can be sure that we have all of the facts.  Given that I think
    that it is highly likely that paranormal abilities exist, I don't think
    that it is at all unlikely that this is an illustration of them.  But
    that isn't the same thing as saying that it would (or should) convince
    a rational skeptic.

				    Topher

re .5;
  Well, I sort of expected John M. to play the devils advocate here, but I
think I understand the context under which Topher is presenting these ideas.

  While in .5 these arguments may be presented as a requirement for ever
conclusively PROVING to a skeptic that this event happened as described,
I have seen these same arguments listed as a rebuttal for nearly every
paranormal occurrence that has ever been propounded (ie. coincidence and
intentional or unintentional fraud).  While these points are certainly valid
(ie. that we can't know because we didn't fully control the 'experiment',
and thus a skeptic should not be swayed), frankly I don't find this line of
reasoning at all conducive to my own or others' individual growth.  Of course,
these critical evaluations should be kept in the background when encountering
any new information, but they should not justify ruling something out as being
not of interest because it COULD be a fake (Topher did not rule it out,but
many people would).

  I often wonder of the magnetic attraction of some people to these lines of
reasoning, and I firmly believe that they serve to PROTECT the adherents from
any QUESTIONS which can't be scientifically PROVEN, and thus provide a nearly
authoritarian justification for the reality of the status quo.  With this
rationale, no testimonial evidence at all could ever be entertained without
the assumption of fraud.  I clearly see it as a defensive posture, which
rarely contains any potential for growth.

  Is this position actually based upon the practical skepticism of the
scientific method, or could it be based upon a FEAR of being duped into
believing something, or the inability to entertain any belief which is not
provable (literally the inability to _believe_ anything)?  Personally, I would
rather be duped into a few beliefs (I have confidence that I could eventually
uncover the truth) than to never allow my self to experience or accept any
of the extraordinary growth possibilities proposed in channelled material.

  In addition, at some time we must consider the sheer volume of these types
of reports (I thought that an indication of THOUSANDS of recorded trance
sessions for Cayce alone might be a start).  The scientific method is very
effective at using statistical probabilities (correlations and standard
deviations) in proofs for individual experiments, but similar probabilities
are never applied to the vast number of testimonial accounts.  My proposition
is: what is the probability that EVERY channeling trance session is faked AND
that EVERY testimonial of the legitimacy of channelled imforation can be
explained by fraud or coincidence. 

  It seems to me that the odds are staggering!  Skeptics may say that no odds
can be determined, but that seems to be a cop-out to me.  Once you accept that
AT LEAST ONE of the events is LIKELY to be legitimate (Cayce described hundreds
of events which were testimonially verified), then you open yourself up to a
new world of phenomena and a new potential for growth.  Skeptics may find that
they can apply their their scientific reality filter even more productively
while still accepting that something unprovable COULD be true (I believe that
this is typically Tophers position).

						Todd

    re: -.1
         Very nice, Todd (to me, at least.)  While arguing the merits
    of "Topherism", however, let me say that this past weekend I was
    talking to my girlfriend about the notes files this past week
    (she is kind enough to ask, usually and often, and "knows" many
    of you by name) and I brought Topher up.  I pointed out to her
    that Topher (and I *know* you are probably red-faced here, Topher,
    but just bear with this) is probably inches away from *Believing.*
    It is true that Topher's intellectualisms seem to convey skepticism,
    Todd, (and in "fact" they do) but if you read *between the lines*
    you will see that there is, indeed, a great deal of interest and
    desire to reach for levels of understanding and "enlightenment."
    You are very correct, however, from the "other side," in making
    the arguments that you do.  It has been stated throughout these
    notesfiles by many others in many different ways...those of *US*
    who have "crossed over" have pretty well rejected mainstream logic
    as "reason d'etre."  Personally, I like the freedom that this position
    has given me...I feel much less accountable to others this way
    (but a whole lot more accountable to myself...which usually means
    that I DO, paradoxically, account for others.)  In any case, none
    of us can be the judge of anyone else, for, as Lazaris once pointed
    out to me...my judgmentalness of others eventually comes back more
    severely as a prison of judgment of myself, to myself.  So, in that
    light, all one can do is point out to others that there are perhaps
    other ways of viewing the world and that those ways may very well
    push buttons that most of the world seems to have, i.e., crossing
    Lazaris' "bridge of belief" is very difficult in the face of the
    logic most of us have grown up with.  As someone pointed out 
    elsewhere, perhaps a certain "faith" is required...what is interesting
    to me, though, is that many people who cross this particular "bridge"
    seem to have a rather happy and fulfilling life, while conversely
    (to me) it seems that those values which I grew up with (that
    supposedly make sense) seem more and more distant and unrealistic.
         In response to your earlier note, let me just add here that
    in regards to Lazaris, Seth and Cayce, according to someone I know
    who has been studying Lazaris' teachings longer than I told me that
    Lazaris once said that Seth has also studied Lazaris' teachings.
    Do you follow this?  In other words (as I pointed out early in 316)
    Lazaris is *known* as the teachers' teacher.  I have frequently
    heard Lazaris mention Seth in regards to having respect for him
    because of his willingness to offer so much.  He has also said
    (according to the guy I mentioned above) that Seth is 99% *correct*
    in what he says.  In regards to Cayce, I have heard Lazaris mention
    him several times (but often to tell us that Cayce was NOT correct
    in some of the things he related to us.)  One thing should be mentioned
    here (or anywhere else for that matter) and that is that Lazaris
    really doesn't want any part of this "better than" game that we
    insist on playing.  He spells it out quite clearly that he does
    not want to say that he is from such and such a level because then
    we'll go around saying "my channel is better than your channel."
    He simply says that if we name a level, he'll be there.  Again,
    as I stated in 316 (I believe it was,) he says that the major
    difference between him and us is that he has chosen to not experience
    the physical planes directly (as we have) and that he, unlike us,
    has an awareness of himself on all of his levels (is aware of his
    multiple existences---which we also have.)  In other words, he is
    more aware of his relationship to God/Goddess/All-THAT-Is than we
    are though we have that relationship as well.
         
      
    Frederick
    

    
    Take a trip to your local library and look up a book by Randi on
    the activities of PSICOP...I wish that I could remember the name.
    While I sometimes am angered by Randi's arrogance, and find that
    he jumps to just as many conclusions as the would-be psychics he
    exposes, I recall that he gave a level-headed (for him, at least)
    discussion of Cayce and the mass of evidence he left behind. 
    
    Randi's conclusion was that the Cayce material is outright fraud.
    
    Tananda
    

    Re .8:
    
    I believe the book you have in mind is _Flim-Flam!_.
    
    Randi is very shrill in it, but it's a useful read.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re: 8
    Knowing that one of the originator's of CSICOP resigned because
    he believed they were biased and made no attempt to rationally
    weigh the evidence presented... I believe the term he used was 
    "fanatics".. I no longer give CSICOP any credence.  The article
    I am referencing was in Omni (if I recall) and is discussed in
    note 27 on UFOs.

RE: .10
    
    Actually, two of the original members left over this issue, although
    its a little hard to say whether they quit or were forced out.
    
    The article was actually in FATE magazine, and was by and about
    Rollins (sp?).  It was entitled sTARBABY.  A very interesting article.
    He discusses, rather briefly, the effort that he and others made
    to force Marcello Truzzi, the editor of their original magazine,
    out of the organization for being "soft on psychics" (i.e., he believed
    in presenting both sides of issues and leaving it up to the readers
    to figure out who was "right").
    
    					Topher   

    Re .4 (John M)
    
    While I can't speak for Cayce or Lazaris, I have read several books
    about Seth, and my belief is that Jane Roberts conducted meditation
    groups where she channeled Seth.  I don't believe that she charged
    money for these sessions, and I don't believe that she ever held
    large seminars.  My impression of Jane was that she really wanted
    to help people and was not interesed in fame and fortune. 
    
    BTW - Jane has left this world, and I am unsure if anyone is now
    channeling Seth.
    
    Deb

    The following article appears in Electronic Business (12/10/87):
    
         DEC Channels Its Third-Party Power
    
    The article is written by Ann Knowles.  (Do you suppose Ann knowles
    something we don't?)
    
    ;^)
    EmB