Talk:Edgar Cayce - Definition

This article needs work. -- Zoe

Quite. It's both credulous and poorly written: "sickness and other ailments"? Vicki Rosenzweig

Much of the research is not finished. The article could be expanded. As far as "other ailments", evidently the author was not prepared to dive into the Akashic Files or the myriad of other documented Cayce readings. This could become another in-depth similar to New Age. "Poorly written" may be correct also since it appears the ongoing wiki problem with copyrights might prohibit even paraprhasing some of the 100,000+ readings which would validate or appease the finer authors here. BF

What part of these amazing abilities is the result of attempts to avoid copyright violations? -- Zoe

The readings may be viewed at the online Edgar Cayce Foundation. Permissions to quote ad lib haven't been granted. Perhaps "retelling the story" would be ok. If anyone wants to dive into the over 100,000 readings, that's what Wikipediahololics do. Apparently this author is not willing to spend a month doing so. Others may. BF

Sounds like self-justification to me. -- Zoe

I moved this comment from the article page to here for discussion:

...Dr. Hugo Münsterberg, a professor from Harvard University who investigated Cayce to determine if he was a fraud, or not-- the results were supportive.

This claim needs a citation and more detail: professor of what, investigation published where. Just tossing names like Harvard University into the article without proper citations would give credibility to a claim that otherwise is lacking. --Zippy 00:39, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Karma

I created a section about Karma based on Edgar Cayce's readings in the Wikipedia Karma article. The book, Many Mansions (about E.C.) was my first introduction into Reincarnation and Karma. I don't know if I should copy the Karma section here. Would that create a needless duplication? What appeals to me is E.C. 's Christian orientation towards Hindu concepts of Reincarnation and Karma.

I suggest the section should remain over there only. I am doing some similar articles on people and their doctrines, and a natural line seems to occur between the events in the life, which go in the person's article, and the content of the doctrine, which go in the doctrine's article. Otherwise, if the doctrines are comprehensive and someone does a good job including them all, the personal article just bloats up and diffuses. Some doctrine will naturally end up included in the personal article, but mostly just summaries or how the doctrine interacted with events in the life.--Gary D 19:13, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps there should also be a list of E.C. sayings: Karma is the meeting of one's self. You are your brother's keeper. etc..--Jondel 06:59, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This article needs work.

Anyone with better info should contribute to (edit) the article. Whoever wrote the article didn't do a thorough research or reading on Edgar Cayce.--Say Yang

I am hardly "credulous" when it comes to Edgar Cayce. I'm the one who peppered the article with Cayce's massive mistakes and spectacular strikeouts. The man was a puppet in the hands of people with an agenda to promote. It took all I had not to insert a (polite) word or two on the concept beloved by the New Age religion that anything said while in a hypnotic or trance state is The TRVTH.

The problem with Cayce's "doctrine" is that it was an eclectic mix of whatever he'd picked up from assorted books on theosophy and Hindu philosophy, combined with the belief systems of whoever he'd allowed to hypnotize him. Cayce was a people-pleaser whose audience liked to hear a good story in which everything was explained (thus the Ra Ta business et al). A sampling of Cayce past life readings reveals the usual mixed bag; lonely, bored housewives told that they'd been queens who were suffering now because they'd been unjust to their people; a boy with polio and epilepsy told that his sufferings were the result of "severe sexual misconduct"; and so forth. Cayce also said that God arranged for innocents to suffer in order to raise their spiritual consciousness. What does that say about the people who cause the suffering of the innocents -- a man who rapes his daughter, for instance? Is he absolved of his crime because he contributes to her spiritual elevation?

'Course I can't say any of that in the article 'cause that isn't NPOV. Have to find another source that makes similar observances and cite it. Shouldn't be too hard. Also, police reports about his monumental failure in the Lindbergh case. --Bluejay Young 03:41, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

I too added a lot of the skepticism.In fairness, the New Agers have a perfect right to submit whatever they like--this is wikipedia--but the skeptics have a right to debunk every word. Cayce was a fraud. --

dino 16:49, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Skeptics

You are entitle to your own choices. 64.171.224.83 23:25, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi, did you(the Skeptics) read the 'In fairness to' paragraph. Edgar Cayce didn't promote his Psychic abilites. He wanted people to grow in Spirituality and Christianity. He wasn't a crowd pleaser. In fact the seemingly Hindu concepts of Karma andReincarnation contradicts the prevailing Christian dogmas.His aid was sought only as a last resort, when medical help was futile. Focus on the spirituality not the psychic abilities. Cayce is NO fraud because he himself, never made active claims to his ability. His reputed abilities spread through word of mouth. This is what I say about people who cause the suffering of innocents. If you have no free will to do good you have no free will to do evil. Cayce doesn't say that the rapist is absolved of crime because he contributes to spiritual elevation. If reincarnation is true, it may be possible,however that the daughter was a man who did the raping(to her father) in a previous life. And if it 'Shouldn't be too hard' to find similar observance and cite it, please go ahead. Enlighten us. --Jondel 02:49, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So Cayce was a sincere fraud. As far as I can tell, he was still a fraud. He just didn't realise it himself. It's very common under hypnosis to disclose whatever you think your audience want to hear, even if that goes against your known views and belief system when non-hypnotised. The mind of a hypnotised person actually retains a certain amount of control, rendering it quite possible to tell lies, misremember things, make up stories, or retell a historical novel from first-person perspective. Source: Studies cited in All in the Mind? by Ian Wilson.

I was raised with Cayce. Rosicrucianism, the Gnostic Gospels and mystery religions were common, dinner-table talk. Reincarnation was taken as a complete given. I still think this: The argument that a child who is raped may have been a rapist in a previous life does nothing to justify the fact that someone in her present life chose to rape her. By this logic, parents should abuse children to help expiate their karma. But there's that ol'Veil of Maya again, blocking our past life memories. What good does it do to experience life-shattering trauma supposedly for a valuable lesson if one is unaware of what one is supposed to learn? Conveniently explaining believers' misfortunes by choices made in a past life -- a past life they may never be able to recall -- is not my idea of elevated spirituality.

But that really isn't and shouldn't be the issue when we are contributing to Wikipedia. When it comes to matters of spirituality, it's hard not to do "Believers think X" and "Nonbelievers think Y". But we still have to find some way to give it as much perspective as possible.

--Bluejay Young 07:27, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Can't we let the New Agers have their section, and us skeptics have ours? I got peeved when some New Ager removed the skeptical voice I added. I never removed the New Age perspective, even though I as a skeptic find everything about New Age extremely offensive.

dino 15:12, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your responce and participation.

Really long reply

Please go ahead an put you views, I will not touch it then.

>But we still have to find some way to give it as much perspective as possible.
- - - -
>Can't we let the New Agers have their section, and us skeptics have ours?
>I got peeved when some New Ager removed the skeptical voice I

I believe in perspective.
I am not advocating or deleting any major skeptical material.
The truth is, it would be good to give both sides. Many new agers tend to become cultic and detached from reality. I resent this very much and wish very much that they never knew about Cayce other new age stuff. There are just too many new agers who are not down to earth.

Could I ask which deleted portion you are referring to that you (dino)are peeved?

Well my own edit was that he really never claimed to be a medical authority. That 's exagerating his claim. He really focused on spiritual stuff. And for some , his advice is enlightening, eg. --You go to heaven on the wings people youve helped , You are your brothers keeper etc.. - -- I will try hard not touch the skeptic stuff though. It would be good for people to see both the bad and good side of things. Pls do insert your (skeptic)views to give a balanced perspective. At least I telling you guys out in the open.

About the Lindenberg case, as with others psychics are at times, affected by the mental state of the participants. Thingking and believing it won't work affects the psychic. But I am not touching the Lindberg paragraph.

Accidents, and free will

Getting raped or trauma doesn't help but Karma or 'our subconscious' mind needs to justify itself for past sins. Rape or traumatic events can be totally accidental or karmic. If they are karmic they have an educative correctional purpose. i. e. the person will tend to think twice before he/she does the wrong thing. The girl who gets raped may need to learn not to take advantage of helpless victims. But again, this may not be karmic at all but all accidental.

Our subconscious minds are very powerful. We may be creating our very own misfortunes, diseases, unfortunate situations and sufferings. We need to study our subconscious.

New age stuff is Not for everyone it is only an alternative

Gnostics, Rosicrucians, Cayce may not be good with out the sufficient amount of spirituality ( and Chrisitanity if you were raised as one.) I don't recommend it for everyone, although I read and follow it. It was however, a power revelation for me because with the concept of Karma (which I got from Cayce not Buddhism/Hinduism ) , everything because fair and just and evolving, getting better. If Cayce's Christian background helped me a lot. It would have taken me a lot longer if I had to research Hinduism and Buddhism.

My conflict with dogma and How Cayce help resove them

I was a very devout 'Heaven and Hell ', Christian, even going around evangelizing. For Catholics, reincarnation was blasphemous and I did loose sleep thinking I would be going to hell for contemplating reincarnation which Cayce introduced. I don't claim to be a yoga expert or practising one but my reply to all in the mind is you are right. But the mind (I read) is very powerful , whether you use yoga or hypnosis. I read of people who are successfully hypnotized to make their names appear in different colors on their skin! I feel attached to Cayce because he had fundamental Christian/Bible beliefs like I did(but no I don't have psychic powers nor do I get hypnotized for readings)l

Spirituality requires a heavy amount of introspection so it is not fruitful to discuss this but for each person to do their own spiritual 'homework'.

I am very glad that you (Bluejay )know about Maya. Isn't Maya a form of hypnosis? I feel that (common man )everyone is partially hypnotized. We believe what we want to believe and our beliefs do not accurately reflect reality. I believe that eventually, everyone will have to retrain or recondition themselves. It is hard to believe that Cayce was lying under hypnosis. Anyway, I don't focus too much on the psychic readings but the spiritual revelations and how Reincarnations,Karma, etc relate to Christianity, Jesus , etc.. It made quite an impact for me.

I will try to get a copy of 'All in the Mind. --Jondel 02:35, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Revised Cayce Page

just made a big revision to the readings section, and even the intro. could someone look over it for grammar etc.

Knightt 20:26, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for adding content. I saw a few typos, misspellings, stutters[same word repeated consecutively], but overall OK. I think you could correct any of the aforementioned yourself, Knightt. The squabble in the Illiterate? heading needs to be moved to discussion. Now the skeptics, who tried to POV this article I began so long ago I forgot when, see more to argue about. BF 02:12, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article is beginning to look like I intended, at the beginning, but drifted away from it. Cayce's portrait looks great! Whoever thinks it matters how you pronounce "Cayce", and that's the extent of their interest in this article, please find another playground? Lots of articles on Wikipedia to put "how should you speak this ________"! BF 17:33, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am the one who added the point about the pronunciation of the name and you are being very flippant and rude . Is does matter in an encyclopaedia that facts are recorded clearly and a common misconception needs to be corrected. In Gina Cerminaras book ‘’Many Mansions’’ (1950), written with a forward by Cayce’s son Hugh Lynn Cayce, she clearly states the correct pronunciation of the name at the start of chapter 2. The mispronunciation of the name of an historical figure is not the trivial matter you seem to think it is. Lumos3 22:03, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. The photo has no copyright info. I put a "unverified" note on it, but if it is PD or GFDL (whatever), please give a source & remove my note.
2. Would it make sense to move the the "Readings" section to a separate article? It's kinda long. Detracts. If no response in a week or so, I'll do it.

dino 04:37, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Readings are too long. The reader may loose interest. The article is about Cayce not his readings. I think the readings belong in a separate article or replace with a brief description. Jondel

Thanks for looking over my work Lumos3, i know i sometimes do that.

A note about the spelling of cayce, i see many people(including myself at one point) type the altered spelling into a computer and get no results. For search purposes, it would be good to work the wrong spelling into it somewhere if possible.

The readings are why Cayce is known and worthy of making note of in the article. IT would make sense to talk about way he is important! There is still much that could be said with over 14,000 readings he covered a lot of ground. There has been almost nothing said about geology and many other topics.

Moving the content from the readings into other groups would be nice if done well. I tend to think that the reading information is more important than some of the other info on the page. I would vote for deleting some of the content in the other sections of the page before the information on the readings.

please explain: POV, PD, GFDL Knightt 15:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Flippant or not, at least I began working on the readings section. If it's too long anyone can crop it, but what is this article other than a short bio with mostly slams by skeptics? The man gave readings. This is why I decided to begin this article. And if you READ at the top of this discussion, Zoe and Vicki were more flippant. I'm glad someone is at least adding content, not talking about eliminating content. This is a recurrent problem here on Wiki. People don't like the way an article is developing, and act like someone else's work is not important, when those same people do nothing to collaborate. This is why I said "find another playground." I had many problems with New Age, in just the same way as this article here. At least that article stands today, despite even daily lashings by Larry Sanger.

sceptics respond

some of the info in skeptics respond is inaccurate. His wife died after cayce. The article says cayce "failed to heal them" cayce was dead! And he never healed anyone! It also implies that he is a healer. It sounds like the person who wrote this was very misinformed about Cayce basics.

When cayce did not locate the missing person, it was published in books "new age" publications. i read about this in a cayce book. In the skeptics respond section it says it was not published.

The information about earthquakes and floods is also inaccurate. Cayce said they would gradually start, effects would start to be seen around the year 2000. Not "By the year 2000, Cayce predicted, the ocean would invade North America as far as Idaho and Kansas, leaving a trail of islands to the west." This is ridiculous.

The language is also written in a way that presupposes it being right. I don't have a problem with this. But, would like the page to be consistent. I vote for changing the top of the page to absolute, or changing the skeptics respond section to neutral view.

There is some good reason why people should not believe cacye, and the skeptics section does illustrate some of this. But it dosnt do a good job at it and often throws inaccurate information into the facts.

Any comments? I feel as though i am going to get grilled.

Knightt 14:04, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I noticed the inaccurate statement about his wife and child as well. I suggest removing these as non statements and like the sound of your proposals, go ahead and do them.

I'd also like to see a simple chronological NPOV para on his life history etc Lumos3 08:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just fixed the skeptics section. Could, again, someone check it over for spelling and grammar. I would also appreciate any comments on what has been said.

Want to fix some of the inaccuracies in the few sections left before i start thinking about new sections. I will keep the life history in mind.Knightt 18:48, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Restored some skepticism. I tried to be nice. Of note, I put out a note aways back about the photo. Is there copyright info on it?

dino 22:28, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It appears as though you put criticism into the article rather than scepticism. The comments put back into the article are not from a neutral point of view, but are rather from a hardcore extreme. Unclear and deceptive comments have been placed back into the article.

My intent in re-working the skeptics section was to create a section that a) gave cause to be sceptical b) gave a brief overview of why people are sceptical. While, at the same time, using words, parses and examples that are not controversial.

Criticism and deception has changed the article into a debating ground. The article now tries to prove that cayce was a fake, rather then giving ground for it and letting people make there own mind up. It tells a one sided story. Words, phrases and examples in the article are now very deceiving.

I would be up for one of the following:

1) If the section gives proofs for why cayce is a fake, i would like to see the other side. So in other words, change the heading to Real or Fiction? and one can play "faking out cayce your best shot", and i will comment below, showing in an non-deceptive way, why it is false.

2) The deceptive comments removed. aka. restore the article to being informative and neutral, rather than an "well get this fake" battle ground.

If people, do not agree with me that the article is single sided, and i am sure there is not many of you, but in any case, I am willing to comment on specific words and phrases and examples used and show why it is inappropriate.

Any comments?

Knightt 20:05, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here we go again. This reminds me of political debates where anyone from the other side with with whom I disagree is the "hardcore extreme" (what I seem to be). I'll start one by one ...

It appears as though you put criticism into the article rather than scepticism....

How? It was skepticism. Did was anything ad hominem or critical of Cayce as a human being? I used language like

Skeptics do not believe Cayce had any paranormal powers whatsoever...,

Skeptics also cite the supposed vagueness in his language ...

That is not ad hominem. I think it fairly balanced.

Oh, what "Unclear and deceptive comments?" They seem pretty direct to me.

The article now tries to prove that cayce was a fake ...

Oh? The article is full of New-Agey worship of him. Much of it. Such as

The readings would often describe incarnations where the individual was at its spiritual highest, ...

Also,

:1) If the section gives proofs for why cayce is a fake, i would like to see the other side. ...

It's a section devoted to skepticism. Feel free to make a section dedicated to why Cayce had actual powers.

In conclusion, I was trying to be nice, and mask my feelings about the entire New Age movement, and all spiritual beliefs. I realize, the New Agers and the religionists wish us skeptics and freethinkers would just go away. But we're not.

Because of the edit wars I see going on, and the endless bickering, I put an NPOV notice at the top of the article.

Just my $0.02. I want to be nice & NPOV, not offend anyone, & give everyone their chance to speak their piece.

dino 00:12, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

wow. you are being much more open than i though you were going to be.

I would like to say that you have not offended me.

I don't want to make the section devoted to why "cayce had powers", quite frankly, who cares if he did. nor do i want to see the section about why cayce did not have powers. But currently see the section as the later.

sorry, i am not going to go away, but am willing to share why i think the comments are deceptive. I know you may not think they are deceptive but would be willing to show you why i think they are. I dont want to pin you personally.

I dont see endless bickering. I dont see any bickering. I have been very direct in my speech but didnt mean it to be bickering or rude. I feel confident that we can come to an agreement on every issue after i explain what i see. Is this agreeable?

As to your comments and quotes in the earlier half of the last post, I fully agree with many and see others as maybe misinformed. (please take no offence)

We are on a very similar page, despite you viewing me as a New Age worship person.lol(i thought that comment was kinda cute) Maybe after we talk, you will change your view of me a little.

I must also apologize, as i said the text was deceitful. I do believe the text is misleading, but didn't mean to say you were purposefully being misleading, only that i thought the comments were. I am sorry if this felt like a personal attack.

Knightt 03:25, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New-Agey Worship

dino, (and perhaps others) I would like to work with you to remove all of the "new age worship" out of the article. I don't take the word worship literally, but this idea does portray a good image. It has been discussed that one of the problems people see with the article is its heavy new age influence. I hope to come to an agreement that everyone likes.

The readings would often describe incarnations where the individual was at its spiritual highest,

would it be agreeable to say:

Cayce said the readings would often describe incarnations where the individual was at its spiritual highest,

Or am i way off the mark? Please comment.

Skeptics Explanation

Here i want to (so long as i have a partner), go over the skeptics section.

Skeptics do not believe Cayce had any paranormal powers whatsoever..

To me, skeptic means unsure with a tendency toward the answer no. but it would appear as though scepticism is defined as no belief whatsoever in the article. Please explain.

I am going to remove that statement. This is not about what Skeptics believe.I will be making edits, hopefully it will be NPOV and acceptable to all.--Jondel 10:37, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Life History

I have added a section on Cayce’s life which is lacking in the article and which can generally be told without offending supporters or sceptics since its a matter of record. My sources are the time line of his life at www.kyseeker.com/ christian/cayce.html and the biography in Many mansions by Gina Cerminara pub 1950. Lumos3 22:11, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)