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

[Sacred Fool]

Have you read Book V? If I remember correctly, Carla discusses the incident there. I believe she used LSD twice recreationally. The book is available for download from L/L's site.

As I said at the outset, no, I've not read Book V. The personal stuff held no interest for me heretofore. It's now on my reading list.

My understanding is that Carla, Don, and Jim viewed the Ra contact as a sacred trust and that none of the three would have consciously done anything to damage or distort the contact. Carla, naively, thought that doing LSD with a friend on her own time would not affect the contact. I don't think she was high at the time of any session, nor do I think her having done LSD affected the quality of the information that came through.

Personally, I find this perfectly understandable. I'm sorry to have ruffled some folks' feathers about this, but I feel that potential distortion due to psychedelic drug use is a topic most worthy of explanation.

There is a tape flipping issue in the Ra sessions, to a minor extent, at least as far as the re-listening project goes. The original sessions were recorded on three tapes each (I think) and the tapes were started at slightly different times so that the flip would occur at a different time on each and none of the sessions be lost. However, only one tape was kept from each session; the others were re-used after the transcription was done. So in the re-listening project there is a tape flipping issue. Later sessions at wiki.lawofone.info indicate where the tape flip occurred; this has not been done yet with the earlier sessions.

The blank tape in the LSD session is not because of a tape flip, however. On that tape the one word seems to have been intentionally erased.

Thanks for clearing this up.

By the way, peregrine, you say you're interested in clarity, but the way you titled this thread(!!!!!) suggests that a certain amount of emotion may be involved, too.

Well, what can I say? Must clarity be divorced from emotion and devoid of humor? If so, I was out of the loop when that memo went around. (Such is the story of my life. I must have been wandering off somewhere at the time.)

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?

Sorry, Q. I was amusing myself with the distortion of cleverness.

PS, I was speaking specifically about the tape erasure, not about anyone's character.

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?"

Thank you very much, Q. This is just what I was looking for.

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.

As it happens, I also have much admiration for Carla's character. I was in no position to question her veracity about the drug taking because I was not aware of what her statement was. All I did know was that I had very carefully and repeatedly gone through Books I-IV (some years prior to Books V's publication) and never seen any reference which might have suggested the contacts could have been tainted by psychedelic drug use. I'm sorry, other-self, but that really floored me when I came across it the other day.

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.

With all due respect, Questioner, I feel that's a bit much.

As to my introducing suspicions, my feeling is that, as this work becomes more popular, that's something the Keepers of the Faith will have to adjust to. The information on homosexuality, for instance, will probably not go unchallenged at some point.

Speaking of "Challenging"...Well, maybe discussion of how to salubriously respond to a *challenge* is a topic for another thread?

I'm just trying to say that you can't promote the material as genuine and not expect reasonable inquiries into it's credibility. Or am I wrong?

Thanks.
~P~