Page Content (OCR)
This of course led to corrosive distrust regarding the possible, lurking presence of ego behind any agent occupying the same (notoriously ego-riddled) plane as ourself. Embodied, walking—talking Enlightenment was a novelty devoutly to be wished by those whose cultural instruction confined the benefits of spirituality to an afterlife, and to one historical personage possessing exclusive proprietary rights to the genre; but the barrier to locating the living address of such a sublime state of consciousness seemed proportionately insurmountable, since the very factor making it so attractive (i.e. the possibility such a Freedom could arise precisely in the heart of ego—territory) was also the factor making its identification through that agency and in that milieu terminally ambiguous. It's for this reason that the phenomenon of channeling, young and marginal in the '70s heyday of Esalen, human-potentials, est and Divine Light Mission inevitably flowered as that first hope waned. The prospect of channeling seemed suddenly made to order. If the Catch—22 of locating Enlightenment—incarnate in "3rd density" hinged on the common presence of ego belonging to so low a plane (permitting sheer chicanery to cloud perception) then the obvious answer was to inquire after that Enlightened status only through planes or states of being intrinsically ego free, and thus patently safe—by definition—from the subterfuge of self-serving. The presumption underlying this, of course, took background from our very cultural conditioning through which we'd long learned to make the conventional equation between "spiritual" existence and innate beneficence. Naturally we were more than delighted when (ignoring our own new, highly—touted occult discovery re "like attracting like") we began apparently receiving "objective" corroboration of this equation from our contacts with the Other Side. For yes indeed, Seth Spoke and many more followed suit to the effect that "negativity" is a subjective misperception, brought about by the masking opacities of our 3rd density camouflage world and therefore—like a deepsea fish—unable to survive the transition to the "upper atmospheres". Ignore for a moment that Seth actually qualified what was otherwise a very emphatic and consistent teaching about the formative power of thought, in a minute passage from Unknown Reality in which he proclaimed that "90% of the time", encounters with the specter of negativity are purely self-created. Ignore the fact that the exception of even one all—but—negligible percentage point changes the picture dramatically from the wholesale authorship otherwise espoused—ignore all that but for the /arger issue as to how it is that Voices speak to us from an apparently Homogenous Beyond, in tones of supreme confidence allowing no room for reservation and still manage to contradict each other as flatly as spokesmen of competing political parties? How is it, we may well ask, that one Voice lulls us with the glamor of a world in which all "evil" is reduced to a subjective ignorance that can't withstand the all—absorptive Good composing the inner planes; and another is equally sanguine that the Negative comprises a whole Ontological Orientation, a basically spiritual interpretation of Being existing independent of the projection-screens of our privately enveloping auric wall, vouchsafed validity as a polarized I/MI verse of implication extending a particular hypothesis of "unity" to its logical extreme? The usual new-age afflatus to the effect that both may be "equally valid in their own space", just doesn't sit well. It's for this very reason that we turn again to the Ra material, as per our method of last month in which we "play by Queensberry rules" and consult the internal evidence at its highest available source in order to find some resolving principle. 44 T-Bird_Vs_The_Flying_saucers.htm or automatically enlightened. And how may we, in our apparently inferior position, possibly discriminate between the two?