8/13/58 [
1188]'s letter to Al and Gladys:
..., Washington
Dear Al and Gladys:
My membership runs out soon so I include a check for the
coming year [$25 ck. turned over to Grace-Myra, GD
8/19/58
and ans'd by AET] when I wish to begin a sponsoring
membership. Since I wanted to write you anyway, I would
appreciate you conveying said check to the front desk.
I am having a most interesting time out here from the
spiritual side of things. Also, I am starting to understand
the difficulty if not impossibility of presenting to some
people the fact of reincarnation. Among my various local
associations I have met some religious fundamentalists,
members of a Presbyterian church, and they happen to be the
first fundamentalists I have ever known who are rational,
intelligent people.
Since Paul says, "You die but once and then the judgement," I
know I could never get to first base in presenting any other
theory. Yet implicit in their view of the evolution of
civilization is the truth as we see it that all of us
participated in that evolution. Otherwise there is no power
on Earth that could taint us with original sin unless we did
it to ourselves. These people talk of the way God's only Son
was sent because of man's fall in the Garden, but if people
were so bad back in those days why should that have such
a direct or binding affect on us. The reason why I so
completely back the philosophy of Mr. Cayce is that this
philosophy appears to represent supreme concepts of life and
man's relationship to God. Further I believe that for any
who were close to Mr. Cayce the privilege of gaining this
advanced knowledge was a direct grant of God.
Anyway, getting back to my friends, they, of course, believe
that one must accept Christ as his personal savior, that by
that means one's sins are forgiven, and the result of this
decision is the instant granting of salvation and the act
of being "born again". Some of them are very advanced and
live and breathe the Spirit of God so the theory they accept
does not retard them. Thus, they accept salvation as an
established fact for themselves but make no judgment on
the souls who have not accepted what they have accepted.
But in my mind there are dangers in these concepts. If one
considers himself saved he then is merely obliged to bide his
time doing good works until the "day". Next the sins of a
saved soul become different from the sins of one who is lost.
For the former the sin can in no way separate that soul from
God because separation no longer exists. At the time of
judgment, however, God will grant perfection to the saved
souls. Thus the element of daily trying to unite closer with
God does not have quite the same significance as it does to
us. The uniting angle is considered differently because the
question of uniting no longer exists. Another thing I have
tried to explain to these people is that I abhor the
implication that Christ died for our sins. The death of
Christ, say I, is such a fantastically significant act that
the emphasis must be placed on the positive side rather than
the negative side. Thus, Christ did not die for our sins but
rather for us. He died, just as Cayce said, as an act of
surrendering His ego to God and as an example that we should
symbolically do the same. Also, say I, we must not be
anxious for God's obligation to us but rather our obligation
to God. Thus we must concentrate on that which is most
significant which consists of making a daily dedication to
God in our every breath. Then what results in eternity is
God's business. Otherwise, we are not doing right for
right's sake which is the only way God would ultimately
have it. Instead we are supplanting an earthy reward for a
heavenly reward. In this instance we are contemplating what
we expect of God for what we do and we should expect nothing
more from God then that which God wills. You can imagine
the reaction to this thinking of people who consider the
"decision" to be paramount and further thinking merely an
interesting diversion.
I look upon my associations with them, however, as being very
vital because it puts me in contact with Christian thinking
people and is making it possible for me more closely to
effect a daily dedication to God. All will go well as long
as their fundamentalism doesn't become too depressing.
Actually, the culprit is Paul. [GD's note: Isn't this
interesting, considering that [
1188] was Gamaliel, teacher
of Paul?] I am sure God knew what He was doing when He
determined that Paul should be the one to spread the Word.
An indication of Paul's complete acceptance of his beliefs is
evident in his stoning of Stephen. With the World against
Paul I doubt that any but the extreme approach would have
succeeded. Yet, certainly you cannot take everything in his
letters seriously. If the "wages of sin is death" there
would be nobody alive at this moment.
You can see that if my present religious environment does not
in the long run become depressing that I am going right along
with my reading which states that I must make every effort to
continue my spiritual growth.
Now I shall stop. I did think that you would enjoy these
random thoughts.
My kindest regards, [
1188]
P.S. As you might imagine I have not dared mention
"reincarnation" to any of these people aside from the fellow
whom I mentioned earlier.
11/03/58 [
1188]'s ltr. to Gladys and Al:
Dear Gladys and Al:
The enclosed letter you need not return. It is an expression
of a remarkable phenomenon in which a fellow rejects Cayce
after having received just about the full treatment. I
mentioned the guy to you earlier. He read THERE IS A RIVER
and elicited considerable interest in it. I even went so far
as to show him my life reading; an act which since has caused
me considerable anxiety since I believe that such a reading
is in a certain sense sacred. Then when he still seemed to
require further confirmation I told him of the flash-back
experience I had as a child which was later supported by a
biography of a former experience which recounted events in
the flash-back. I told him of the way Uncle [
1173] was cured
and this was followed by some pretty good material to which
the fellow refers in his letter. The reason for the Cayce
rejection is apparent, of course. The fellow has found
answers that satisfy him in fundamentalism and if he listened
to the concept of reincarnation he could not hold to the
belief that "a decision for Christ" was the one path to
salvation irrespective of what one might do with his life
afterwards. You might as well know that I recently sent
off a letter to him in which I dismiss the whole subject of
Cayce. Had I not shown him my reading I would not have done
this; but that reading is hot stuff and I want him to forget
it before he decides to present its contents to many of the
people here with whom I come in contact.
My plans for the coming year are not definite. Probably I
will remain out here awhile longer anyway. Yet I think I may
manage to effect a job change which could be VERY MUCH to my
advantage. One can never be sure that his steps were guided
until the die has been cast and he has nothing more than
the confirmation of hindsight. I do see my ideas of life
becoming more firmly anchored, however. At ..., for instance
I see people who are possibly doing a more efficient job
of their tasks than I might ever do. Yet I see their
concentration on a narrower scope of activity so that if they
were ever confronted with decisions that would determine wide
spread future trends they would hopelessly bungle them. Thus
education in some ways should center on certain original
causes which embody all activities universally. Thus
Thurgood Marshall is incapable of understanding what
motivates the strong segregationist (except the selfish
motive, in certain cases, and this is analyzed completely).
Then the segregationist cannot understand whatever might
be motivating Thurgood Marshall which is likewise of an
unselfish nature. What I want, then, is to keep my thinking
flexible enough to see what basically of a beneficial nature
is embodied in all motivation.
Getting back to my plans, next year I may manage to secure a
job which will give me much practical information regarding
personnel work or labor relations. I probably could have
done the same thing if I had stayed in ... and worked at ...
Last year I broached this subject to those people back there.
Still there was something about the ever present concern for
my welfare which disturbed me. The concern I know was too
much based on a courtesy for those who had gone before me and
I just felt I must go elsewhere. When one goes unannounced
to a strange city he might enjoy a certain limited success,
but conditions must be fortuitous if he is to win over the
ever present stiff competition. This would be my problem
if I remained at ... under the present circumstances.
Fortunately, I had an experience during the summer which may
make for improved conditions...
7/23/60 [
1188]'s ltr. [Reply to
7/08/60 inquiry in re early
America incarnation - see under
2791-1 Reports]:
Edgar Cayce Foundation, Inc.
Gentlemen:
The historical existence of the entity you mention in your
letter has been satisfactorily established, I think. Thus, I
thought I might drop you a note only to give you the name of
a biography which I have found most helpful in studying this
entity. It is: JOHN JAY, by Frank Monaghan, The
Bobbs-Merrill Company, New York, 1935.
Sincerely, [
1188]
12/21/63 Christmas card indicated he was still an employee
of the same airplane company out West. "I suspect that the
chance is better than even that I will remain in the
Northwest."