Whoa, Nelly!!!!! LSD used in Ra channeling sessions????

[Questioner]

Does anyone know where that quote is? I'd like to inspect it myself.

Do you want to inspect the quote or the chemical?

I believe that the side-flipping hole in the audio is a genuine artifact of circumstance, not any attempt to cover anything up.

I hate to turn the tables, Questioner, and question you, but do you have a basis in fact for this or is it...something else.

In a discussion forum, asking and answering questions is equally a part of everyone's role, isn't it?

My opinion is that the Ra material was no LSD trip or any kind of drug trip. I have both indirect and direct evidence.

Carla has revealed a lot of unflattering and "socially unacceptable" information. This includes discussion of what some people might consider unorthodox relationships and sexuality, issues with income, and other less-than-heroic experiences. None of these revelations would serve someone trying to set themselves up as a "hero of the faith." Compare them, for example, with the typical televangelist's self-aggrandizing claims.

Throughout the discussion of her experiences with channeling, Carla has acknowledged mistakes and imperfections. She has consistently presented herself as a sincere seeker, one who has foibles and struggles along with some successes. Nothing about that material sets herself up as a saint.

She consistently says that the wisdom she's channeled and learned has come because she was available to be of service to greater spiritual forces, not because she was already holy. And also, not because she was clever.

She's even outspoken about some of the Ra material being over her head, especially about science, with the need for herself to look to more scientifically developed people to explain to her what she channeled! This is not behavior consistent with taking drug trips and lying about them.

Being a dishonest deceiver about drug use, would be inconsistent with the forthrightness she's consistently demonstrated about other aspects of life. It would also be a major blow to her credibility and to the value of her work. Such a harsh claim should not be made lightly of someone who has decades of evidence against it.

Beyond these indirect hints, she addresses the topic head-on in her "Wanderer's Handbook," in chapter 10 available online free here at http://www.llresearch.org/library/a_wand...ook_10.pdf.

In this portion of the text, which is her own opinion not channeling, she writes, "I would be the last to condemn the more innocuous
substances out of hand, for I enjoy a little, in moderation. On the other hand, having had alcoholics in my birth family, I know exactly how much chaos and distress overuse of addictive substances causes in a family. .... The drug seeker is looking for ways to feel better. In this way, it can be clearly seen that drug usage is service-to-self in its polarity."

She goes on to contrast various reasons for taking drugs, such as experimentation, sociability, pain relief, and escape. She suggests careful consideration about the underlying intentions, and advises moderation.

And she then writes about the use of "consciousness-expanding" drugs, "My experience is limited to having taken LSD twice, in the early ’80s, and finding no trips in consciousness taking place .... However, the after-effects of this usage were so severe for me, physically, that I decided not to take LSD again, and I have not. .... Taking addictive drugs to achieve enlightenment is a cul de sac. It may bring moments of enhanced awareness, but the question remains: can we be responsible for the material we have learned?"

Peregrine, I'm familiar with much of the work of someone I respect greatly, who has demonstrated honesty and integrity in life, and who has explicitly said, for herself, statements that flat-out contradict your innuendo and suspicions.

Either Carla's a flat-out liar about drugs, in a way that would not gain her anything to have made the lie, or your suspicions are inappropriate.

I have a strong bias towards clarity.

I admire that.
I respectfully point out that it is not clarity to invent suspicious, cast aspersions, and make innuendos.
It is not clarity to suggest dishonesty on the part of someone else with a total absence of evidence.
It is not clarity to develop an imagined storyline about another person's life, without first trying to find out what the person said on her own behalf.
It is not clarity to imply that a lack of cleverness equals a lack of morality.
It is not clarity to introduce a tone of wariness and implications of some unspecified issue alleged to be present in another person's heart.
It is not clarity to leave blanks for other people to fill in about what might have been your own message.
Assuming that others have something they hide because it's a shameful character flaw, and that sufficient digging will expose it so they can be distrusted, is a common game among some intellectuals, including my family of origin and many people I've had as colleagues and friends. This means I can quickly and easily spot the pattern. But it has nothing to do with clarity, never did, and doesn't here.

I invite you to use this catalyst to consider which actions and words actually promote clarity, and which undermine the clarity they claim to serve. I believe the type of suspicions you've introduced in this thread present great risk of a service-to-self temptation of self-promotion through clever, indirect and unfounded undermining of the reputation and goodwill of others. This may be an inaccurate conclusion on my part, and if so, I apologize. But if there is some truth to it, then it is a form of intellectual practice that's not consistent with clarity of sincere seeking.