Theos-Talk Archives (January 1995 Message tl00006)

This is by Eldon Tucker

Liesel:

    When psychic faculties naturally arise, I don't suggest
that a heavy-handed approach be taken to repress them, where
we use the term "repress" in the Jungian sense. If they have
a disruptive influence upon one's inner life, measures need to
be taken to deal with them. For the general person, I would
recommend that they be de-emphasized, and not given a
prominent role in life. The requirement to "shut them down" is
not really necessary for the typical T.S. member, but more for
someone at a more advanced stage, beginning actual training
under a spiritual teacher.
    The physical senses are mayavic, but the psychic
extensions to the senses are subjective and open to far
greater abuse. Because of this I would put books based upon
learning, study, and inspired insight into a higher category
than those based upon visions and psychic experiences. In
either case, though, misconceptions and wrong thinking will
lead the author to see things incorrectly.

----

Jerry Schueler:

    I was expecting to hear from you after a while. My piece
on psychic powers and "the mind's eye" was to amplify a stray
remark I made and needed to explain. I appreciate our
interchanges, although I'm not sure how effective either of us
has been in bending the thinking of the other! Whenever we
attempt to communicate our ideas, I think that we end up with
creater clarity of understanding. And it's good that we
approach this in a friendly rather than hostile manner.
    As I was saying, I made a stray remark, and then did a
posting to explain what I meant. Even a simple remark, based
upon certain assumptions, can be controversial. I would find,
for instance, a statement that it was actually possible to
investigate chemistry through clairvoyant means as quite
controversial, while someone else may let it pass as obvious
and true without question. Was there a controversy when the
statement was made, when the person making it did not perhaps
even think anyone would disagree? Or was the controversy
caused by the person that dared question the statement? I
would say that the controversy is inherent in the statement,
and it is the fault of the person initially making it to have
been caught by surprise when it is questioned.
    There are many assumptions made by me that lead me to
write as I do. Likewise, there are many assumptions underlying
your response. I would not consider your response as a
"rebuttal," but as a statement of an alternate point of view,
a view that models your personal experience of life. Your view
is more akin to what I used to read in Leadbeater than what I
now read in Purucker. What we get from a single author,
though, is only a small portion of the influences that shape
our thinking.
    I suspect that a greater number of our readers are more
familiar with the view that you present, and may hold it as
their own. We've had a number of times where I say something,
you say "no it's not that way, it's this way instead," and
others follow with a "glad you said that" to you.
    Among the many participants on this list, we may find not
just two, but perhaps five to ten different theosophical
worldviews. Some are based upon Adyar traditions, other on
ULT, Point Loma, Christian, or Buddhist.
    Some of our differences are matter of terminology. I'd
use "psychic" to refer to extensions of the senses beyond the
ordinary ones we are typical born with. The senses themselves
are a principle or element of consciousness in their own
right, and I'd put them as principle number six, the astral or
Linga-Sharira. The term "astral" here is in the same sense as
the early theosophical writers used, and not "astral" as in
"astral plane" as redefined by later writers.
    It is possible to use "psychic" with a meaning as
associated with the psyche, or psychological nature.
Associating the term "psychic" with the mind does not, though,
make the extended senses an activity of thought.
    When we concentrate our attention, and attempt to
visualize something, we are using our various principles of
consciousness--Manas, Kama, and Prana--to assist us in
creating an image of sense perception apart from the physical
world. That image is not a form of understanding, nor of
desire, nor of life energy, although all are needed to help
create it. The image is sensory, and may or may not be
associated with an actual physical form. I would not call the
creation of a visual image as thought per se, or as an
activity of mind, but more an act of magic.
    When we get to the term "magic," I would not equate it
with the psychic or super-sensory.
    For the senses, there is a passive side where we perceive
what is present, where we take in impressions in a mediumistic
manner, like in watching television. This is what we can do
without more of. There is also an active side of our senses
where we create and direct them, where we change what we
observe by that act of observation, like looking at someone we
are talking to, and affect both them and us by the dynamic
interaction that is created, by the active living bond.
    I would associate "magic" with the power to make things
happen in the world, with Prana. Prana is not a lifeless
commodity like gas in a gas tank, but rather is a type of
consciousness in its own right, and holds its own important
place as one of our seven principles. Prana is the power to
make things happen, and when it reaches beyond ordinary means,
at the disposal of most people, and gets into producing
paranormal phenomena, then I'd describe its activity as
"magical".
    Another place where terminology can differ is regarding
the inhabitants of the other Globes. There are Elemental,
Mineral, Vegetable, Animal, Human, and Dhyani-Chohanic Monads
alive and active on each of the places of existence (Globes)
of our earth. Some are invisible to us on our earth (Globe D).
If we were to go to other Globes, some may still be invisible
to us on those Globes as well.
    On our earth, on Globe D, both the Elementals and Dhyani-
Chohans are invisible, so we only see the effects of their
activities upon our earth, and upon our inner natures. The
effects of the Elementals are mostly upon what we perceive as
the forces of nature, both outside and as passionately felt
within. This act of overseeing physical things, and helping
provide the basis for their manifestation, makes the use of
the term "Deva" seem good for them. Purucker speaks of
Elementals as being grandly wise and spiritual, and from there
ranging to hostile and of evil effect upon us, depending upon
which element, of which plane, that they arise from. I
wouldn't therefore, myself, use "Elemental" to only speak of
the lower, grosser, more material of them.
    You mention that early theosophical writers like HPB made
a "sketchy miss-mash" description of the deities of the
invisible worlds, whereas Leadbeater was a notable exception
that saw and conversed with some of them. I would say that
they were understood and well-known to HPB's Teachers, and
there was no purpose to disclose such knowledge. The confused
and limited description of the denizens of invisible worlds
may have been on purpose, to not provide any key to such
knowledge that could be turned to magical ends by the
uninitiated.
    We may find in various traditions, like Tibetan Buddhism,
a richly-developed classification of various beings. Some of
these may be collective names for the spiritual effects of the
Dhyani-Chohans; other may be descriptive of Elementals of
tremendous powers, some perhaps having persisted from ancient,
long-dead civilizations.
    Buddhism itself is a modern, exoteric religion, and not
the *source* of the Mystery Teachings. Theosophy is not an
imperfect Buddhism--not any more than it is an imperfect
Christianity. Just as there could be a Christian Neo-
Theosophy, there could be a Buddhist Neo-Theosophy. In either
case, an exoteric religion is taken as first-hand truth, and
Theosophy is given a secondary role. Core theosophical ideas
that do not fit in well with the exoteric religion are
rejected as untrue, and the remainder of the Teachings are
given enough of a twist to seem to affirm and agree with
someone's favorite religion.
    For a Westerner, there's a lot that can be learned from
a study of Buddhism. But for certain people, when a special
attraction is felt, when a special call is made, a more direct
study of the Teachings is the way to go.

----

    Having gone over some differences in terms, I've come to
a good breaking point. I'll write next time regarding our
differences over the inner nature of man and the structure of
the inner worlds.