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


Aug 29, 1994 07:11 AM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins


S> I see images when I close my eyes. What is the principle
> which gives them life?  What principle is vital in this
> matter. (no pun intended).

     Kama-manas.  I'm assuming you are not taking about the
lightshows that one gets when one closes their eyes.  That, of
course, is physical.  What we see astrally has a life of its own,
but we attract these images according to our habits of thinking.
We perceive these images by exercising an "astral consciousness,"
through the Kama-manasic principle.

S> The images appear in the mind.
> Can one say that the mind is manas and that it has a
> reflective quality like a mirror?

The mind (as we experience and think of it) is kama-manas.  Manas
is described as having a reflective quality "like a mirror", but
even the Mahatmas never claimed to be conscious on this level, as
a normal day to day consciousness.  Being conscious in Manas is
only done in deep meditation.  Even KH talked of having likes,
dislikes, preferences etc.  The difference between HPB's Mahatmas
and us has more to do with the states of consciousness they can
reach, than with the day to day state of consciousness.  Though,
even here there is a difference, by virtue of their training.

S> Then I put words
> together with the pictures and call them thoughts. If I
> can forget the words the pictures disappear. If I forget
> the images/pictures the words disappear. If I have the
> power to forget words/thoughts/images then I could say
> I have control over my thinking. If I don't think or
> imagine, I do not feel, and thus I cannot take action.
> Action follows feeling, as you have pointed out an order
> in Sanskrit partly: thoughts (kama-manas), feelings
> (kama), actions (physical). It would then be important
> to have a way to learn and practice thought and emotion-
> al control. Control in the sense of being able to forget
> and remember at will.

If I understand you correctly, you are describing the "thinking"
process of what I call a "psychic personality." One
characteristic of this type is that they think in pictures.
Another characteristic I have found (for whatever it is worth) is
that they have an easier time grasping geometry and trigonometry
than algebra.

The trick isn't "forgetting" but "focusing", and being free of
what one remembers.

S> I would like to have theosophical
> terms or Sanskrit words to correspond to this process I
> have described.

Go through ~The Voice of the Silence~, particularly in the first
section, with this process in mind.  It's all there, but slightly
veiled--but I think you will see it easily enough.

S> Would you elaborate on the process that
> the Chela undergoes in order to achieve mastery?  What
> principles are involved throughout their development?

In the Eastern tradition that HPB draws from, the chela goes
though a period of training based upon the paramitas.  The chela
must learn to live and practice a very lofty set of ethical
standards.  These standards were partially presented in ~The
Voice of the Silence.~

When ready, they are entrusted with teachings, then finally with
training and preparation for initiation.  You might take a look
at HPB's article "Practical Occultism" (CW IX, 155-62) where she
discusses some of this in detail.

All of the principles are involved in their development.

S> Will you explain it also in terms of where we are in
> rounds, races, etc.?

We are just past the half way point of evolution.  In
theosophical jargon: fourth round, fifth root race.  The fifth
root race started about five million years ago.  This is the
beginning of the journey up the luminous arc, when we will start
loosing people.  Rounds and races is a very difficult doctrine to
grasp, mainly because it is not linear, and requires a different
way of thinking.  The only written exposition I have ever seen on
this subject that is correct and reasonably complete is the one
done by Adam Warcup.

> If I react to stress with the feeling of anger, that
> feeling makes me think aggressive and negative thoughts.
> Then I say and do things that I will regret when the
> emotion is past. If I do not allow circumstances to
> control my feelings, and I remain calm, I could say
> that I have mastery over my environment. What would
> be the principle that I would be manifesting if I
> could do this?

There are meditation techniques designed to train a person to do
just this.  One is still in kama-manas, but gaining control over

S> Would you say that I have compassion
> as I am not prone to upset over the faults and short-
> comings of others?

At least patience and understanding.

S> If so, which of the higher princi-
> ples is active at this time?

Compassion is an attribute of buddhi.  You would still be in
kama-manas, but could, metaphorically speaking, have a ray of
buddhi illuminating kama-manas.

S> Or is compassion an
> attribute of adepts only, or could an ordinary
> individual display a higher principle if they
> developed the capacity of non-emotional response.

I don't know if "non emotional response" fits here.  Depends upon
what you mean.  Everyone, except such people like full blown
sociopaths are capable of compassion.

S> Are we climbing the ladder of
> principles through the rounds, races, etc.?


> We are
> in the fourth round and fifth race; what principles
> have center stage at this time?

The manasic subprinciple of kama.

S> I realize that you have given some of the answers
> to these questions in your previous post, however,
> the repetition will drive the message in, especially
> if it is the same answer but in response to a new
> question. Thanks for your patience.

Delighted to do it.

> Yes I know Brett, but not real well. Please give him
> my regards. I met you and April once in Los Angeles.
> Brett was there. Thank you also for the update on
> your group

We had another meeting tonight, and I remembered you to Brett.  A
local authority on Alice Bailey did a presentation for us.  We
questioned him for three hours.


JHE>> since he admitted to all of the allegations (plus a lot
>> more) in a formal hearing made up of people who (until he
>> confessed) supported him.  There was also a legal stenographer
>> present who recorded the proceedings.
>>    I see the correlation between the movie and the Leadbeater
>> scandal, as far as both issues concerned taking advantage of
>> children.  But beyond that, I'm not sure what you mean.  For
>> instance, in the movie; Mel Gibson was "tried" by a group of
>> people who had already assumed his guilt, and Gibson never
>> "confessed" any guilt.  Mr. Leadbeater on the other hand, was
>> tried by a group of people who all knew him personally,
>> thought very highly of him, were very supportive (with the
>> exception of only one person), and did not believe him capable
>> of doing any wrong. That is why they were so deeply shocked
>> when CWL not only admitted to doing all that he was accused
>> of, but admitted to much more.
>>    By putting quotes around the words "historical facts" I
>> take it that you question the historicity of what I have
>> mentioned.  Which "historical fact" do you question?

L> Didn't the teacher admit guilt to save the boy in question
> further inquiries?  Perhaps CWL did the same.

I didn't catch the movie that way.  I thought he just agreed to
stop seeing the boy, but didn't admit guilt.  I don't see any
reason to believe that CWL admitted guilt to save the boys of
further inquires.  Actually CWL's motivation for his admissions
seem pretty transparent (though, as you say, we can't know for
sure).  He was in a room of supportive friends, who believed him
to be of high occult status.  When he made the admissions, he was
unrepentant, and tried to argue that he had "occult reasons" for
his actions, and made an allusion to some church practices.  No
one bought his argument, nor would they accept that any church
would condone the practices that he admitted to.  The more
questions he answered, and the more he explained, the worse he
looked.  By the time he finished, every single person was solidly
in favor of getting him out of the T.S., and as far away from it
as fast as possible.  But when it came to deciding upon an
action, the room was divided over whether to accept his
resignation or expel him.  Olcott decided to accept his
resignation and to not allow the members to know the reasons, for
fear of causing a public scandal and embarrassment to the T.S.
CWL offered to compose a letter of resignation and explanation to
be published, but Olcott didn't feel that to be appropriate.

L> Another similarity I thought was the teacher in the movie was
> feared and misunderstood by the towns people who were suspicious
> of him because of his burned face.  I can imagine CWL, who was
> clairvoyant, was someone consider "unusual" or strange.

I don't think that fits the case with CWL.  Rather than being
feared, he was very much admired and respected by every person on
that committee except one.

L> The movie illustrates how someone can be misunderstood and
> judged harshly by others because of circumstances and events
> which seem to be one thing, but may in fact be another.

For Mel yes.  For Charles, I can't see it.  CWL confirmed the
circumstances and events to be what the witnesses reported.  As
for his "occult reason," he never raised that argument again.
When the membership, years later, did become aware of some of the
charges, he actually had the nerve to deny everything he had
originally admitted.

L> History is constantly being rewritten. I only heard last week
> that the events which we all witnessed in Russia are already
> being changed to suit the current mood of the country. The coup
> leaders have been d declared innocent and that they were only
> trying to protect their country!

No doubt CWL also tried to "rewrite" history when he changed his
story years later.  However, he could not change the transcript
that recorded what he said in the first place.

L> Noone can truly know anothers motives. It has often been
> suggested that we not judge others to harshly for this reason.
> If I must judge CWL then I must do so based on what I know of
> him. What I know of him is from reading many of his books.
> Books which changed my life for the better and left me with a
> deep feeling of gratitude and appreciation for his
> contributions and still inspire me to work to help spread these
> ideas.

Motives aside, his actions are clearly wrong, even in light of
today's more liberal laws and values.  If he had made those
admissions in a court of law, they would have put him behind bars
for the rest of his life--which is probably why he never returned
to Britain.  But if we to consider motives, whatever they were,
they won't undo the damage he did through his actions.

If CWL inspires you to be a better person, then that is great.

L> This brings me to another point I have often wanted to make
> while reading comments on this list about the authority of one
> writer vs another. I think it was in the preface to "Man, How,
> Whince and Wither" that Annie Besant and CWL stated that they
> were "early" students of theosophy and their writings should be
> studied as their reports on their experiments. I think it was
> also CWL who made the point that one should always consider the
> latest work because it was only natural that the students who
> came along later would build on the past making corrections and
> adding to the body of information.
> This seems very sensible to me. I can't help but wonder if HPB
> wouldn't be a little taken aback by the attitude that her work
> was superior to others.

Have you ever compared current editions of CWL's works to the
original ones? If you haven't, your are in for a shock.  Every
new edition is a little thinner than the last, as they take out
teachings that no longer hold up to what we know.  For instance,
the last edition of ~The Inner Life~ had 50 plus pages of CWL's
description of the Martian people and their cities edited out.
Someone once remarked to me that soon there will be nothing left
to edit.

In the first issue of ~The Theosophist~ HPB stated her editorial
policy to be to publish what a person has to say in its entirety.
In other words, an author should stand or fall on his own merits,
and not be supported by the apologetic red pencil of the editor.

Though HPB never claimed infallibility, and she wasn't, her
teachings seem to have stood the test of time far better than

L> She constantly questioned her own work
> and relied on others to help correct her mistakes.

Can you give me an example or two?

Jerry S.,

JS> Either Jerry is pulling my leg here, or perhaps Jerry doesn't
> know what ethics are, or perhaps we are defining ethics
> differently.  I don't know which (?)  But, just in case Jerry
> is serious, and really doesn't know what ethics are, or is
> defining them in some kind of theosophical way that I am
> unaware of, let me quote from my Webster's New World
> Dictionary:...

If you look back to my initial suggestion and following
discussion of the same, you will find that I did offer a
definition of ethics, that is not inclusive of things like church
regulations of how far from the shore a fisherman has to be
before he is exempt from attending church.

One again, I feel that I'm being challenged on straw man
arguments that I never made in the first place.  I don't know
your motivation for this, but it is becoming evident that the
subject of ethics really pushes a button in you.  I would be
interested in knowing what the underlying issues are with you,
that you are so resistant to having people talk about ethics in a
manner other than condemning the subject.

Jerry Hejka-Ekins

[Back to Top]

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