[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

To Jerry -Models, ect, from Don

Dec 30, 1993 11:03 AM
by Donald DeGracia


Nice exposition on the relevance of occult models for explaining
dreams and OOBEs.

I'd like to add my 2 cents worth on the matter, since its come up <g>.

First, I think you are absolutely correct in the assertion that models
give us a basis to structure our expereince. You then make the
following statement:

<The mind needs such structures, else experiences that do not fit into
socially accepted patterns could be deemed madness. >

Now, you touch upon an important point here, and tangent on very
important issues related to applying *any* occult model to dream and
OOBE expereince. The key phrase is "fit into socially accepted
patterns".  In terms of our society as a whole, occultism is NOT a
socially acceptable pattern, in general that is. Obviously, folks such
as you and I see it differently. But generally speaking, the educated
elite of our culture does not accept, nor do they have any
comprehension of occult models at all. Thus, in your terms, we are
"insane" for not fitting socially accepted patterns of belief <g>.

The point I'm getting at is the ubiquitous impulse of my current
thinking, and that is mixing science and occultism. The fact of dreams
is perhaps the strongest inroad to mixing the two. Dreams cannot be
denied (though various philosophers have argued that dreams are not
real), and neither can they be adequetly explained in terms of
accepted scientific concepts. You mentioned Jungian notions of dreams,
and even these have the subtle implication that dreams are only
relevant in the context of mental health, or in other words, in terms
of human subjectivity, a thing that, by its very definition, is NOT

One of the profound consequences of occult models is that they posit a
means whereby phenomena that are conventionally construed as subjective
(i.e. dreams, mind, emotion, etc) are actually objective. That is, the
realm of dreams (the astral plane, or whatever term you wish to
substitute) is an actual *objective* realm of matter, energy, time and
space. Likewise with the realm of thought (i.e. the mental plane) and
the realm of spirit (the buddhic plane, or again, whatever equivilenty
term you prefer). Granted, terms such as "matter", "time", "space"
take on different meanings within the context of the planes, but the
common factor in all occult models is that these realms are literal,
objective and real, in the fullest sense of these words. Again, this
is in contrast to current psychological thought that sees these realms
as subjective, metaphorical and unrelated to physics in any fashion.
The chakras are symbolic to Jung, they are very real to Gopi Krishna.

What I'm getting at is that we cannot be nieve as to the implications
of mixing science and occult models. The implications of doing so are
astounding in terms of the underlying metaphysics of current science.
Modern science is based on a number of assumptions that are completely
shattered by occult models. Some such assumptions are; 1. that there
is a dichotomy between mind and matter, 2. that only the physical
universe we percieve with our sense is *real* or "objective", and the
word of thought, imagination and mind are subjective. Actually, these
are different statements of the same assumption. The point is, that
science as it exists today is founded on such intellectual premises,
and the claims of occultism are in direct contradiction to these.

This now leads back to your idea of applying occult models to our
expereince, for the reality of the matter is that, from a sociological
standpoint, the occult models are *competing* models with those of
modern science. Again, this is the situation on a sociological level.
However, on a purely intelletual level, you and I know, Jerry, that
science and occultism have a lot in common, so much so that one bleeds
right into the other. Now, the burden that falls upon us, then, is to
articulate as clearly and as accurately as possible just how it is
that occult models are actually *extensions* of certain scientific
models, and that there actually does exist a great harmony between
scientific and occult models.

Like it or not, Jerry, the sober truth of the matter is that the
attempt to mix science and occultism is an issue of persuasion and
propaganda. "Truth" has little to do with what people actually believe.
However, what people believe has everything to do with how "truth" is
construed. Fortunately, I think you summed the matter up perfectly in
your closing sentance:

<Probably the best, and most pragmatic, approach to take is to study
each model and then adopt the model that comes closest to explaining
your own experiences.>

This is an imminently reasonable attitude and I agree wholeheartedly
with it and, as a matter of fact, this is how I conduct my own personal
buisness. However, we have to make a distinction between personal and
social. On a personal level, your idea is exactly correct, and it is,
I suppose, a function of ones karma whether they ever learn to
conceptualize their expereince accurately or not. On the other hand,
our society is actually a vast field of thought-forms on the mental
plane. These thought-forms determine the collective behavior of our
society and fill the minds of the indivduals in our society. These
models you speak of are actually *living* fields (actually,
"ecosystems" is a better term) of thought-forms on the mental plane.
Our minds live in a symbiosis with these throught-forms collectives.

What I think is important to appreciate is that the attempts we make
to mix scientific and occult models is actually a battle between
competeing sets of thought-forms on the mental plane. We are agents
for the thought-forms we support and destroyers of those we don't
support. So, I've wandered far afield from the issue of dream models.
Oh well <g>. Just thought I'd write and add my two cents worth.

Take care,


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application