- The Departing Spirit -
The VAU Communicators --
"The spirit at death leaves the body taking with it much of memory, both conscious and subconscious, and some of the soul substance. A period of three and a half days helps the spirit a great deal to gather fragments of godliness and of the soul from the body. Post mortem operations on the body (embalming) are not good, however they do not do sufficient harm to the spirit so that it cannot be quickly overcome. If we could only get access to people the importance of that body which is considered dead being in perfect peace and rest, amid as much beauty as possible, with flowers and candles, for that length of time.
During the actual dying - a cool room, and beauty! But these are even more important after death.
(A solid ice pack is not necessary, but can be used if desired. George Washington's body was kept for three and a half days, which was very unusual for that time)
The content of the blood is important to the spirit after death. For the blood can be charged with qualities, as by prayer and by occult practises, and if it is removed, this content cannot be given over to the spirit.
The soul is the spirit body in which the personality is carried over. The soul consists of ions and electrons and is intangible, yet material.
Cremation is best, after 3 1/2 days. Nothing then remains of soul or spirit (in the body). Cremation is best anyway, at any time. It injures the spirit less than post mortem operations."
(San Diego, Calif. Jan. 1946)
- Communication by the Spirit LIDA -
The Anguish of Despair of Most Departed: Lida once said to me through a trance medium, that the first thing the discarnate spirits think of, after they realize they have left their material bodies, is to let their dear ones at home know that they yet live. She said that all try; and that some, after repeated efforts, give up in despair. The anguish of their despair is terrible. Others, though they are not successful, keep on trying. She undoubtedly referred to spirits of the highest character.
(From The Silver Cord, p. 21. Frederick and Tildes, Christopher Pub. House, 1140 Columbus Ave, Boston, 1946. 600 pp. $5.00)
Nothing is more heartless, more cruel than our resolute ignoring of our dead. We grieve for them, but we deny them what they most desire. We heap up flowers and utter lamentations and eulogies, but we will not open or even try to open by a single inch the doors of our perceptions. And if at last some voice or whisper, some hint and stir of their existence comes through to us, we are terrified (by those who were our beet beloved!) or think we suffer from dreams and hallucinations, and thrust away with fear and violence these faint signs of  their desire and hard achievement. Well, we too in time must join these outcast "dead", and ourselves taste of the cup we have offered them, and so be forced to admit the justice of our frustration.
We continue with this sad theme (sad, because of our stupidities only). In States where embalming is required by law, the alternative of an ice-pack or refrigeration for three and a half days, followed by cremation is also allowable. This should always be adopted - embalming should never be permitted, or any operations upon the body (except, perhaps, where there is important scientific need), or any rough and casual treatment. The knowledge and practise of these fundamental human decencies is the mark of a culture not yet attained by most us.
If you cannot accept this 'occult' knowledge, or even the fact of survival, at least consider its possibility of truth, and that you yourself may by chance be wrong. Or is it easier to risk brutality toward your loved ones?
Because you cannot yourself see, or hear, or feel - do not deny that there are those who can. Do not ignore and dismiss, as if forever the beloved spirit. Contrariwise, do not earth-bind and distress any spirit by continued grief - but do not believe those who would tell us that any is earth-bound by your love.
Sorrow and sorrow is the lot of the discarnate soul. For why? This shadow is of our own casting, this veil of our own making; or, it is there because we put forth no hand to lift it. This knowledge, this illumination, even this enlightened commonsense is not yet acceptable to us.
Dr Charles Ryan, contributing Editor for the Theosophical Forum, (Covina, Calif.) writes us about our comment on authoritarianism in Theosophy. He points out that both Madame Blavatsky and Wm. Q. Judge opposed dogmatism and emphasized self-responsibility. The early teachings "need no radical modification" in Dr. Ryan's opinion, nevertheless they are flexible and progressive and some additions have been made to them. And there is a distinct tendency, among spiritualists and 'psychics' (Conan Doyle, Lord Dowding, Edgar Cayce, publications such as the Psychic Observer for example) to adopt Theosophical ideas, especially reincarnation; and the same may be said of our more advanced and philosophical scientists. Theosophical teachings, we understand Dr Ryan to affirm, are authoritative because they are true, not because of the personalities who uttered them.
The original Round Robin comment referred to Dr. Ryan's review of The Country Beyond, in the January Forum. "Difficulties arise," Dr. Ryan wrote, "when we are asked to believe that these teachings (the automatic writing) come directly from ordinary human beings like ourselves." This difficulty is then said to arise from the difficulty and rarity of spirit communication, as taught by the Master K.H. It is probable that the subconscious mind taps some store of information . . . and the subconsciousness is capable of the most elaborate impersonations - of which Dr. Ryan gives a number of instances. "This, however,  endows the subconscious with an uncanny and almost unbelievable skill and creative power to build up pseudo-personalities able to reason like ordinary persons." (Underscore by RR Editor.) The Round Robin Editor personally agrees with everything stated in Dr. Ryan's letter, but the review in the January Forum gave us the impression that Dr. Ryan prefers to accept the "unbelievable" on the score of various Theosophical teachings, rather than make a point of his own instinctive doubts . . . The RR Editor, in his turn, injudiciously used the expression 'Theosophical position' as if he meant the whole body of teachings, and not merely this one point.
Not by way of beginning or continuing any debate with Dr. Ryan, to whom RR is indebted for much help and encouragement, but simply as an addendum to the point here raised: Let us assume, if only for the sake of argument, the visible and tangible appearance, under reasonable test conditions, with a trustworthy medium, and with competent observers, of beings like ourselves, fully formed, normally clothed, speaking rationally and clearly, acting in every way like normal human beings, and like personalities known to us but now deceased - and capable of prolonged conversation, displaying all the mental characteristics and turns of speech, and possessing the memories natural to their alleged identities. Let us assume that these normal human beings (to all appearance) are formed before our very eyes, and disappear in the same way, appearing to pass downward through the floor - and add that all this happens not once, or with one witness, but hundreds of times, observed by hundreds of people (in the course of months). Assuming that all this happens, we would then say flatly that we must accept these beings as truly our departed friends. We have to do this in the name of logic and common sense, and because there is no evidence that they are anything else. We are not obliged to "prove" anything further about them, for the total weight of the facts is on our side; who-so denies must himself prove a contrary and incompatible affirmative. We have no business to assume, on anybody's authority, that these beings are lying phantoms or hallucinations, unless facts can be adduced to support that view. And that fraud and hallucination have occurred ten thousand times, proves only that they have occurred. Common sense and right reason must have their day in court - even in spiritualism, and even in defiance of High Authorities in times past. The burden of proof for spirit communication and return is no longer on the affirmative, but on the negative, that is, on the opposition party, the denier, who must establish a contrary case, and bring his own evidence in support. The teachings of spirit communication and return are not on the defensive. For such phenomena at their best there is no alternative explanation yet offered to the world; there is only a vast incredible ignorance, and the will-to-deny, and suspicion and fear, and the stupidities of pseudo-science and orthodox religionism - and certain oracular utterances which have been construed far too narrowly - for we are bidden to try the spirits, but not to deny them . . . We do not agree, that denial is argument or that ignorance is disproof. Since we seek truth, we would welcome true disproof of the spiritualist principles (on this point here discussed) but we have yet to find it . . . And we are weary, with the weariness of decades, of listening to people who know everything about spiritism except the facts . . . RR is not a spiritualist publication, but we must affirm true things in such form and measure as we apprehend them, and care not two straws what brand or medal or price-tag even our best friends may put upon them.
- Frederick, James M. H, and Olga A. Tildes. The Silver Cord: Or, Life Here and Hereafter. Boston: Christopher Pub. House, 1946. Print. <http://amzn.to/1owM6yc>