Theos-Talk Archives (November 1994 Message tl00008)

Arthur--

I like your thoughts on the Voice, and have been on the same
wavelength in responding to a work with a similar theme.  As I
mentioned earlier, the first fragment is much more Hindu in
content than the other two.  I'm reading Spiritual Gems by
Sawan Singh, a guru in the Radhasoami lineage, which is
Sikh-influenced Hinduism.  The gist of the Radhasoami message
is that our true home is Sachchand, a spiritual realm beyond
the physical, astral, and mental worlds.  We can only return to
this home through spiritual practices involving three stages.
Nam is repetition of divine names while centered in the third
eye.  Bhajan is hearing the Sound Current which we can follow
through all the realms back to Sachchand.  Dhyan is envisioning
the form of the guru, whom we can meet in the inner planes and
who will guide us back.  All this has interesting corollaries
to the Voice; the spiritual sounds HPB says one can hear are
identical to those taught by Radhasoami gurus.  The Mahatma
letters discuss the second one in the lineage, Rai Saligram,
and encourage Sinnett to join his group: "no harm and much
instruction" can come of it according to KH.

All this is producing strongly ambivalent reactions in me.  On
the one hand, there is something very inviting and compelling
about the book and its teachings; the practices, such as I
can experiment with them without initiation, seem to really
unlock inner worlds.  BUT the thing that is missing from all
this, in my view, is the value of integration.  Soul travel is
all about getting out of the physical, astral and mental planes
because they are seen as contemptible in comparison to the
spiritual realms.  The practices promise to enable us to get
out of the cycle of incarnation immediately; to hell with
everyone else.

What I would suggest to you is that the first fragment in The
Voice of the Silence has very much the same attitude toward the
physical, astral, emotional, mental aspects of ourselves--
outright rejection.  "Let the disciple slay the slayer."  BUT
this is only the first act in a three-act play.  In the next two
fragments the tone changes entirely, even reverses itself, and
by the end we have an endorsement of full engagement with life and
service to others.

Maybe it would be helpful to look at the first fragment as
thesis, the second as antithesis, and the third as synthesis?
I'll reread the Voice and see if this works.

Namaste