Mediumism and the Critique

Convictions, morals, other societies and religions.
User avatar
Smaragd
Posts: 1120
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 4:27 am

Mediumism and the Critique

Post by Smaragd »

Mediumism and especially the critique of it was a sort of a springboard for Theosophy to dynamicly portray ancient philosophy and requirements for occultism and do this to a rather large audiences as mediumism had become quite a popular hobby in by the latter half of the 19th century. In this topic we can discuss the ethics of mediumism as well as the possible spectrum of it. It would be very much interesting to investigate where in the spectrum things could still be within the bounds of ethics and more so does it still help our endeavour as occultists who might have to keep that ethical noose somewhat tighter than folks with goals a bit on the meager side.

As this question rised up from another topic I will make quotes on relevant comments there:
Zeraim wrote: Mon Jan 02, 2023 11:41 pm I think part of the Theosophists' critique on mediumism was somehow accurate just because of the spiritist movements of the time. People were trying to find meaning and deeper knowledge from the ghosts. For that part I can agree to the critique. It would be quite the same, as we would pick random people from the streets and ask them how we should live and ask them what we should do to find enlightenment. And would you ask your father, mother or grandparents these things? Were they somehow so wise during time they were with us?
Yes, and more so, there was:
1. A burning need in the seance culture to find something of the hidden, which is a fruitful ground for future occult students.
2. Mediumism offered a clear example of one of the most crucial snares guarding the gates of occult strive, where in reaching in to the hidden and the unconsciousness one easily falls completely in to individual irresponsiblity by the lack of Will of the individual Self. This was a great opportunity to showcase how one could actually reach to the occult – the hidden world – with balance of the unconscious and the conscious, and not only avoiding losing the Self, but preparing one’s individuality in to the brilliance of an Adept.
3. The forementioned spearhead of the critique, questioning the ethics of getting karmic particles (skandhas) mixed, challenged those willing to take up these ethical ponderings in order to seek occult adepthood. Time was ripe.
Istar wrote: Wed Jan 04, 2023 12:42 pm As a personal experience, I can tell you that while doing genealogy, a couple of late relatives (died in the middle of the 20th century) communicated with me because of their difficult life fates. In another case, I found an old photo of my relative online as a result of communication. I wasn't trying to contact these dead relatives of mine, I was looking for concrete information about them for genealogical research. I don't consider myself a medium, although I sometimes communicate with the dead. What is the reason that there is such a negative attitude towards mediumism here on the forum? However, communication with deities or other spirits is not reacted the same way? Isn't that also some form of mediumism, to be in contact with deities or other spirits? Or are you using term mediumism to mean possession like in old fashioned spiritism? I think an empathetic approach to the ghosts left in the between would be appropriate and a certain respect for the dead.
This is quite a complex question. Some portions of it I already answered in the above numbered answers, some of it I answered in the previous topic but let's go into this in a bit more specific way under the perspective of this topic. First, yes I have used the term 'mediumism' in the sense of possession-like states. We can investigate here whether or not the critique reaches to less macabre spectrum of mediumism.

The Theosophical critique is two-part, as I see it. First there is the mixing of the skandhas which connects to the intuition, understanding the macabre puppet dance to be an act of disturbing the dead. The dead shells, which the medium effectively plays with, are said to be waiting for their spirit to return from its higher realms in reincarnation, and to mess with this shell is to mess with its karmic particles - skandhas. If this language and terminology seems awfully specific and imaginary, one can return to the simple question: How questionable, to say the least, it is to have intimate relations with things that are not able to give their consent? And more so when we speak of things that are not ours to hassle with (the latest episode on death and mortification, Serpent & the Star podcast touched this aspect of the problem briefly). Thus when we approach goetic magic, I think it can remain within good ethical conduct when we are doing it within the limits that are ours to work with. This is typically our own being. When we are approaching entites through theurgy we are calling much higher spirits than ourselves and they may move a finger to our call if the so Will, so it seems to be within the limits of consent.

I am interested whether mediumism could be seen within ethical bounds in its less macabre ways. For example, there are institutes that train mediumism and some wield these capacities to solely heal people. What do you think? This brings us to the second part of Blavatsky's critique. According to her, the spiritual path of occultism is shut from those who train themselves mediumism, driving themselves in to disintegration rather than integration as a complete Human Being. This comes back to the 2nd point in the numbered points above.

It is good to remember that Blavatsky's critique comes from personal experience, and the roots of Theosophical Society lies in mediumistic circles, where it seemed to became apparent to the seeding occultists, that certain ways of working does not support the aims of reaching in to the occult. Thus Theosophical Society separated in to its own direction emphasising occultism.
"Would to God that all the Lord's people were Prophets”, Numbers 11:29 as echoed by William Blake
Kenazis
Posts: 811
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:57 pm
Location: Satakunta - Limbo

Re: Mediumism and the Critique

Post by Kenazis »

My answer is very short and simple for the question of negative attitude against mediumism and contacting dead relatives. I don't believe in that and as I understand basic philosophy of theosophy and SoA doesn't support that either.
"We live for the woods and the moon and the night"
User avatar
Nefastos
Posts: 3029
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Mediumism and the Critique

Post by Nefastos »

I tend to agree with Kenazis. I consider spirits in quite a different way than unchanging blocks of personality, and join to the idea of Blavatsky, who considered all kinds of spiritism as harmful: harmful both to the spirits of the deceased, who should not be re-integrated when on the arch of natural disintegration, and to mediums, who on the path of integration should not join themselves with beings in the states of disintegration. On the top of that, she stressed the fact that the spirits of the deceased are very seldom whom they claim and often even think (!) they are, but simple elemental minds, psychic remnants of the dead and figments of the medium's subconscious woven together.

This said, that "philosophy of... SoA" invoked by Kenazis must also be remembered: namely, that very different aspects of occultism can co-exist in a helpful way. If an individual sees that some kind of mediumism, spiritualism or necromancy is factually part of his or her dharma or spiritual journey, then they naturally should continue on such a special path – warned and self-reflecting. There are always exceptions to every rule, and very few forms of religion or spirituality are just plain bad in every possible situation. As examples for the latter we can take religious mutilations of infants and ritual sacrifice of animals. Both of these are widely practiced and yet simply wrong. Mediumism is a harder nut to crack.
Faust: "Lo contempla. / Ei muove in tortuosa spire / e s'avvicina lento alla nostra volta. / Oh! se non erro, / orme di foco imprime al suol!"
Istar
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:08 pm

Re: Mediumism and the Critique

Post by Istar »

Because the astral plane overlaps with the physical world so closely, many people have experiences of ghosts. When you have a lot of these experiences, they become a natural part of life, and it's hard to think that they are harmful. I approach communicating with the dead as an possibility to help. When encounters with ghosts continue on a regular basis, while still maintaining clear, reflective and critical state of consciousness, it may be something related to your own life path. Although it is difficult to know what is the structural essence of what appears as a ghost, it contains a form of consciousness, i.e. the possibility of suffering. This, in turn, makes people who are capable of it, responsible for helping others. It's the same when I see, for example, a suffering animal in nature or a child who has fallen on a bicycle in the yard and has hurt himself. If I see these things and would just turn my back on them, I would be doing against myself. Whatever one may think about the personality traits or consciousness of dead spirits, in my own experience they are still able to communicate and express their need to connect with the living. It's about reciprocity. A person has the same possibility to refuse communication, as does a spirit. My own consciousness in such encounters is very close to my normal state of consciousness. Possessions and loss of self-focus sound like very unlikely consequences, but in some cases possible. Perhaps working too much with certain types of dead spirits can cause these consequences and upset the balance of mind and body.

There are no similar boundaries on the astral plane that separate beings from one another when the shield of the physical body is gone. In my opinion, however, the separation is only apparent when we live as physical beings, because we constantly influence each other just by being what we are. Feelings and thoughts are like clouds that move from one person and one being to another. Borders are partly an illusionary. When the feelings and suffering of another being become your own, things that affect your own body and mind, the ethical aspects arise more vividly. An empath can transform these emotional states that cause suffering in himself, so that they also transform in another being. If such a person did not transform the influences coming from the outside in himself, they would remain and make his own being sick. In any case, the benefit is only temporary for the other being, because everyone eventually has to do the work themselves to develop. Karma does not go away from a small acts of help. Can acting through love affect karma negatively in the first place? Although on the other hand, not helping can be the best possible solution and loving choice in certain situations. I feel it is morally right to help other beings, living and dead, when necessary, but it requires reflection and understanding before intervening. If you can communicate with the dead, I think it is right to help a suffering spirit if it needs help.
Zeraim
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 6:47 pm

Re: Mediumism and the Critique

Post by Zeraim »

Personally I do not regard my self as a spiritist, nor do I consider myself having mediumists gifts.

I find it very fascinating how different views we can have about the between states. I know how Theosophists consider death to cause separation of the principles and the belief how only adepts and sorcerers are conscious in kama-loka because Ego falls asleep. And I am aware of their idea of lost souls.

But for an occultist there are lot of other ideas also to consider. For example Pekka Ervast, who has been important for many Finnish occultists had very different ideas about the matter. He was also a theosophist even though he was later part of Rosicrucianist movement. In his book, Mitä on kuolema, he describes states after death and for example quotes C.W. Leadbeter about person who needed outside help in her states between. Ervast also comments how we should not forget the help that students of the occult can give to people in these states (The quote in Finnish: Emme myöskään saa unohtaa sitä apua, jota tällä tasolla vaikuttavat olennot, etenkin okkultistien oppilaat, kaikesta sydämestään antavat onnettomille ihmisraukoille.)

Very similar ideas can be found from some Buddhist teachings about the between states.

In the mentioned book there are also passages describing how our vengeful thoughts and emotions can harm the dead. So maybe it doesn’t always even need direct communication to mix things up in their karmas and ways after they have passed from this world.

I think one of the problem here is tight labels and boxes we put ourselves and others. Not all people who are able to communicate with the dead are mediums or spiritists. And being an occultist should not be taken as limiting factor for spiritual experiences. I think becoming more aware of astral plane and especially if you can enter it repeatedly, you will come across with the dead in some form. Then you have to consider the possibility that there might be things with some kind of consciousness other than your own. The question, what is the most ethical way there, will then be every ones own challenge just like while living with other living beings.

I am not claiming that Ervast was right and personally I do not agree with some of his ideas about the matter. I don’t know what is his standing in current Theosophical circles here, nor how people think about him in AT circles. I understand he might have gotten some ideas from the spiritists of hist time. But I just wanted to mention him to broaden the idea, that there may be different views about what really happens after dying and that view affects a lot when we consider our relationship to the dead.

I will quote here the end of Chapter 6 from the mentioned book just to give the idea of helping the dead from his perspective. Here he speaks of death of an occultist, but also mentions it may be so in life. Sorry for hasty translation...

“The astral life is full of good opportunities for the people, e.g. students of occult science, who while living on earth had not only tried to overcome their own personal desires, but in addition they had the positive characteristic of their greatest desire being to help others. They are somewhat self-conscious in their new environment and have the possibility of continuing their work in the service for the good. Their main task is to help their fellow dead people: to talk to them, to explain their condition to them, to teach and advise them. Many materialists and skeptics think they still live on the physical plane and only extensive and long communication convinces them about change in the situation. Many such persons, whose life on the astral plane would be quite dry and fruitless, because his personal weakness while living on earth was carelessness, unwillingness and ignorance, has received from these astral helpers the enthusiasm to take the realities of life from more serious view.

The life of such advanced people is as rich after death as it was before. It is neither purgatory nor hell for them, their undertone is heavenly feelings, as was their undertone in physical life. Several of them have already learned to move freely in the astral body and work on the astral plane already while living.”



The original Finnish text for the Finnish speakers:
“Tietysti astraalinen elämä on täynnä hyviä mahdollisuuksia semmoisille ihmisille, esim. salatieteen oppilaille, joista voi sanoa, että he eläessään maan päällä eivät ainoastaan ole koettaneet voittaa omia personallisia himojaan, vaan että heillä vielä on se positiivinen ominaisuus, että heidän suurin halunsa on auttaa muita. He ovat johonkin määrin itsetajuisia uudessa ympäristössään ja ovat tilaisuudessa täällä jatkamaan työtään hyvän palveluksessa. Heidän päätehtävänään on auttaa kuolleita kanssaihmisiään: puhua heille, selvittää heille heidän tilansa, opettaa ja neuvoa heitä. Moni piintynyt materialisti ja skeptikko luulee vielä elävänsä fyysillisellä tasolla ja vasta laajat ja pitkät selitykset saavat hänet vakuutetuksi tilanteen muutoksesta. Moni ihminen, jonka elämä astraalitasolla muodostuisi sangen kuivaksi ja hedelmättömäksi, koska hänen personallinen heikkoutensa maan päällä eläessään oli huolimattomuus, haluttomuus ja yhtäkaikkisuus, on näiltä astraalisilta auttajilta saanut intoa ottamaan elämän todellisuuksia vakavammalta kannalta.

Tämmöisten kehittyneiden ihmisten elämä on kuoleman jälkeen yhtä rikas kuin se oli sitä ennenkin. Se ei ole heille kiirastulta eikä helvettiä, sen pohjasäveleenä on taivaalliset tunteet, niinkuin oli heidän fyysillisenkin elämänsä pohjasävel. Useat heistä ovat sitäpaitsi jo maan päällä oppineet vapaasti liikkumaan astraaliruumiissa ja tekemään työtä astraalitasolla.”
Tulihenki
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Mediumism and the Critique

Post by Tulihenki »

My grandparents died quite recently. They were married about 70 years and lived in the same house all that time. I was visiting their house couple of months ago and I guess I met their ghosts. These ''entities'' looked of course like them and and did activities familiar to me and everyone who knew them. Grandma was cleaning and grandpa was sitting and studying something. Their movement and presence were like in choreographic theater shows while I observed the phenomena. I didn't sense any emotions in them. They were like footprints of that house. Decades old habits and things that everyone there were used to see.

Maybe I don't dare to say that I'm absolute sure, but with confidence I still say that I don't see spiritual benefits to really delve into that kind of experiences. Not sure how I would reacted if the situation would have shown me them actually approaching me, but I feel like I saw them quite clearly and something major was missing. In a way beautiful scenery on its own but not something to get lost in.

What I have found useful and deep is to take astral world/entities to rosary practice. That way I don't cut that part of the Nature away.

Anyway agree with everyone here that this is not the only way to approach the topic.
User avatar
Smaragd
Posts: 1120
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 4:27 am

Re: Mediumism and the Critique

Post by Smaragd »

I am no Ervast expert and haven’t read this specific book of his. If I were to read those words of his separately and compare them to my own experiences and what theory and philosophy I have learned, I would interpret them as semi-allegory where the profane materialist dead, stuck in their grey reality, would be a representation of an area in my soul where I share something with that particular materialist who then takes part of my inner dialogue. In other words, it is the occultists duty to work these areas where his soul reaches those deceased, in order to open the knots in his soul and bring his inner materialist to take part of the vaster understanding of reality, and perhaps free some rational capacity within to work the greater mysteries.
Zeraim wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 10:38 pm I find it very fascinating how different views we can have about the between states.
I believe these differences speak of how our perspectives alter our view of things, obviously, and consequently (more importantly) our capacity for interpretation.

The above is my personal take on the matter, as I individually experience these things. I don’t believe the less allegorical interpretation to change much actually (of how the nature of reality is), but it is only a perspective of a more mediumistically inclined individual. This means that when our karma has brought us to the disintegrating ramp of a medium, we experience the inner things as more and more outer all the way to the extremity of apparations where our plasma has been pulled outsides of our body. It seems to me that the more we make accurate interpretations of the dead, and reality in general, the more integrated our reality becomes and thus the state of disintegrating mediumism can be left behind.

To make more accurate interpretations, we can ask what part of the dead speaking to us are our soulful and karmic connection to these deceased, and is their cry for help that what it seems to be? What part of the ghosts are only mechanisms of the dead appearing as anything that might trick us giving life force to a being that really doesn’t need that right now, as Blavatsky warned? And what part of the dead are actually those that are part of our dharma and relevant to be dealed with? We must remember that Love is not a form, and thus acts that outerly seem like loving, may be ignorant and downright harmful. The higher triad of Atma-Buddhi-Manas as a whole may reveal Love, not some feeling, idea, or good will alone. Thus if we ourselves repeat a pattern where we "help" beings that actually do not need help, but only repeat a manipulative patterns to make us cater for their blind hunger, it is not Love to continue such dead habits. I'm not saying anyone here is necessarily doing such mistakes (well, probably all of us), only that these things should be taken in to consideration.

In this last paragraph I'm mostly just repeating in a more elaborate, and less elegant way what Nefastos said here:
Nefastos wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 10:18 am On the top of that, she stressed the fact that the spirits of the deceased are very seldom whom they claim and often even think (!) they are, but simple elemental minds, psychic remnants of the dead and figments of the medium's subconscious woven together.
"Would to God that all the Lord's people were Prophets”, Numbers 11:29 as echoed by William Blake
User avatar
Necros
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2022 10:19 am

Re: Mediumism and the Critique

Post by Necros »

In mundane life, it is challenging for me that various environments and conditions cause me to feel immense feelings of attraction or repulsion. I feel constant friction which is painful while I experience either a strong passion or antipathy. But I still think that it is kind of a blessing for me that I'm quite limited to exclusively functioning in this mundane aspect of reality. If I would have any gifts or capabilities in mediumism and it would not be limited by fear, I believe it would provide an alternative plane of experience and activity providing me joy but also great dangers that I would not be able to understand. Even if I would be able to help some astral beings I would risk doing this at the expense of my own being and not just my physical temporal one. I believe what others already mentioned about the dangers of mediumism.
Zeraim
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 6:47 pm

Re: Mediumism and the Critique

Post by Zeraim »

Smaragd wrote: Sat Jan 07, 2023 11:40 am I am no Ervast expert and haven’t read this specific book of his. If I were to read those words of his separately and compare them to my own experiences and what theory and philosophy I have learned, I would interpret them as semi-allegory where the profane materialist dead, stuck in their grey reality, would be a representation of an area in my soul where I share something with that particular materialist who then takes part of my inner dialogue. In other words, it is the occultists duty to work these areas where his soul reaches those deceased, in order to open the knots in his soul and bring his inner materialist to take part of the vaster understanding of reality, and perhaps free some rational capacity within to work the greater mysteries.
I am also far from being an Ervast scholar. I just recently started to reread some of his writings. I tried to read something (mostly his Kaleva stuff) during and I did not think very highly of him back then.

Ervast did write a lot about death and states people are in the between states. He actually wrote many books about the subject during different phases of his development. In his earlier writings, he was trying to create some link between Finnish mythological thinking and theosophy. During his time there were many author trying to promote Finnish ideas like Sigurd Wettenhovi-Aspa who tried to create link between Finns and Egyptians.

My interpretation is that Ervast did first try to fit ideas of Theosophy to Finnish ideas and in his earlier books about death and rebirth he spoke of Tuonela (place people go after death in the Finnish mythology) and explained how these people are in rest state and no medium should disturb them or they harm themselves and the dead. He wrote how there is no way to communicate with the dead after they are in Heaven (later phase) only exception being the relatives. And even in such cases only through remembering them with love. During this time his writings seem to be more allegorical and symbolic, trying to find some common ground with theosophical ideas. Quite easily you can see how his ideas were just copies from theosophy and just trying to make them more Finn.

Later he seemed to become more fixed on some rosicrucian ideas and really trying to understand the experiences people had, even those “evil mediums”, and what did other theosophical, anthroposophical and rosicrucian writers say, and also maybe his own experiences. After that his writings became much less allegorical and he even tried to explain real and actual practices (like practicing practices of memory to go between the lives and also different method for that). Many of his later writings seem to be more based on experiences and how did he interpreted them in occult context instead of just philosophizing.

I really like your idea of things being allegorical! It is just great!!!
I think Ervast himself was not thinking them to be allegories, but facts, but I think it is very important for the students of the occult to keep their minds open. And I mean open to the possibility of that even the most intense experience (yours or others) might be just a presentation of their own minds – an allegory of something “true”. I see, how often we all think, that our experiences are somehow true and just as they seem. But most often the spirits, daemons, the dead, the gods and all the things might just reflect our interpretations (of content of the mind or some more archetypal) and are always filtered through our personal minds. This doesn’t mean, they all have to be untrue or just fantasy.
This is very important to keep in mind, especially when we see or experience something in a dream or somehow in other less awakened state during our normal daily consciouness. There might be lot of subconscious elements involved in all spiritual experinces. If we take lucid dreaming for example, as it quite easy and bit more common than other experiences, there are truly wide range of different states of conscious awareness. Often they are bit similar to normal dreaming with vague understanding that you are in a dream and might even be able to change something in it. On the other end of the spectrum there are states of “super” consciousness, what is far beyond what an individual experience during their waking life and which will affect your daily life afterwards with boosted conscious awareness. Most of the experiences fall somewhere between. And the state of lucid dreaming is just one range of conscious states among countless others. But it is one state, where people often encounter the dead, just like bit similar and connected out of body experiences which also have similar ranges of different consciousness states in them. Any of these states do not mean that it is actually true, what you will experience in them. But with practice it will become more and more easier to distinguish and recognize your own current state during different experiences.

I recently held a small lecture for the SoA members about the transmission of occult. I tried to underline the fact, that occult knowledge is all about the consciousness or awakening step by step. And how you need to understand that almost nothing is really true. When you make your next step, the things you have experienced and learned, just become half-thrusts and lies the next day. But it shouldn’t keep us from trying to develop further.

Even if things are just allegories, in this case the dead be representations of our own psyche, I think we still should not just ignore them. In case it is some aspect of our own inner reality, why would you want to just shut those things out or prevent your consciousness of becoming aware them? Would it not be better just to handle them to really look at them? I think it as bit similar to therapeutic process, if there is a image in your head, you need to confront and deal with it. Sometimes these presentations, be they shadows or some other ignored and repressed aspects, we need to confront them, make our peace with them (be it sending them to the light or just “loving” connection). You may first regard it as something, but when you actually confront it, it may reveal its true form and you see how did your childhood trauma has been with our all the way or what ever. So maybe one day we will learn, that the dead or spirits we encountered were just our own pieces, or we may realize that it was the way we symbolically/allegorically dealt with some archetypal energy/consciousness (be it external or internal) we were not able to really recognize before. But if we just deny them outright, we deny them from our consciousness and they continue breed within (in case they were our own missing pieces). Just like our longings, traumas or bad habits.
User avatar
Smaragd
Posts: 1120
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 4:27 am

Re: Mediumism and the Critique

Post by Smaragd »

Zeraim wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 11:36 am But if we just deny them outright, we deny them from our consciousness and they continue breed within (in case they were our own missing pieces). Just like our longings, traumas or bad habits.
I agree. Thus the most crucial process is that of sorting (sometimes by interpretation) when we are dealing with those empty shells that do harm for themselves by vampirising the living, and what sort of entities are really integral parts of our own being that need be attended. But ofcourse we must remember not to get too neurotic or overly sensitive, and crash on the other side of the challenge.
Zeraim wrote: Sun Jan 08, 2023 11:36 amto understand that almost nothing is really true. When you make your next step, the things you have experienced and learned, just become half-thrusts and lies the next day. But it shouldn’t keep us from trying to develop further.
I recognize the Mercurial virtue and function from this, and it is ofcourse yet another relevant aspect of the human whole to get a hold of as an occultist. The vice of the Mercurial fluidity of the mind is there where it starts to slice the Mothers matrix with too much relativism. In such cases Mercury is no longer the guide of the souls but one who takes meaning away. In practice we can ask questions whether our use of the Mercurial function of our minds takes difficult ethical questions away from us by allowing ourselves too much abstraction. If it is so and we have made a defence mechanism out of it, then the demon of Mercury has surely fooled us.
"Would to God that all the Lord's people were Prophets”, Numbers 11:29 as echoed by William Blake
Locked