Re to Keith
Feb 06, 1995 05:01 PM
by Jerry Schueler
Keith: "I would like to include art and psychology into
theosophy, but maybe they don't really fit. Maybe they were left
out with good cause."
Why can't they be included? Who left them out? Any philosophy or
doctrine that leaves out art or psychology can't be much of a
philosophy. I have found that theosophy has a good deal to say
about both of these areas. It seems to me, Keith, that you have
talked a good deal about art already. It all sounded pretty good
Keith: "Feeling issues tend to be expresssed and processed more
in art and in psychological practice (therapy) than in theosophy
which deals more with thinking issues."
Wrong. Theosophy, like Mahayana Buddhism, doesn't try to ignore
or repress feelings, but rather tries to sublimate or refine
them. Theosophists seek to turn hate into love, and love into
compassion. HPB says again and again that the heart doctrine is
more important than the eye (or brain) doctrine. Most good art
is a language of feeling rather than thinking. As long as we are
human beings, we will feel emotions, and to ignore our feelings
or to repress them is worse than useless.
Keith: "So what good are feelings? Without feelings, instincts
and attachments we would probaly not bother to live or study
theosophy, although the goal seems to be to gid rid of them?"
Again, our goal is not to get rid of our feelngs (heavens knows
HPB had her share) but rather to refine them. In Enochian Magic,
it is taught that those Adepts who totally eliminate their
feelings go to the City of the Pyramids where their body becomes
ashes in the form of a pyramid; they become a lifeless
consciousness center who stagnates at that location. Theosophy
speaks of the Black Brotherhood, which is said to be composed
largely of those without any feelings for others.
Keith: " Feelings, some might say, come largely from the astral
plane and therfore are ipso facto to be mistrusted."
Why should astral plane objects be any more or less mistrusted
than any object anywhere in Maya? Yes, feelings are illusory. So
are thoughts. So is our physical world. But while we are human,
they are about all we have, and we need to take care of them.
Keith: "How can you tell a feeling (astral) from a high intution
(buddhic) or a necessity (atmic)?"
Although I am unfamiliar with your term "necessity (atmic)" I
would refer you to an earlier posting of mine in which I said
that astral feelings are usually tainted with self, or
ego-centered, while buddhic feelings are not ego-centered but
rather other-centered or more altruistic. This is one way to
tell the difference.
Keith: "There seems a common theme in many related posts recently
that everything relates to its own level that is math to math,
but not math to spirituality, in the sense that the uncertainty
principle says nothing to us about universal laws on other levels
or about Eastern mysticism."
Why not math to spirituality? I have used the expression S=Fv2
where S is spirit, F is form, v is the speed or velocity of
thought, and the 2 is a square term (v is squared as in
Einstein's equation for the speed of light, c, from which this
was taken). The problem is that it is difficult to measure
parameters such as spirit and the speed of thought. But as a
language of relationships, equations can be used nicely to show
how things can work together.
Actually, the uncertainty principle says a lot about universal
laws. Haven't you read the Tao of Physics yet? How about my
Enochian Physics? What the uncertainty principle says, is that
every observer effects what is observed in some way. Mind
effects matter by being conscious of it. Carl Jung used this
idea in his principle of synchronicity. Tantric yoga uses this
principle to control the flow of prana in the body. It has lots
of fallouts and carry overs.
So cheer up, Keith. Theosophy has lots of room for both art and
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application