Theos-Talk Archives (June 1995 Message tl00069)

To Daniel...
     [from JRC ... a long post; hopefully worth reading (-:]

>(1)  If you are inclined to disbelieve in "karma" and
>"reincarnation", what other theosophical "ideas" do you believe
>are true?  What other Theosophical teachings do you think have
>been proven and what kinds of evidence are their that have lead
>you to believe that these "ideas" have validity and reality?

I draw a sharp distinction between Theosophical "teachings", the
Theosophical "Society", and being a "Theosophist".  I *am* a
Theosophist, as I accept the Three Objects as being excellent
goals ...  and in fact consider the First Object to be filled
with both transcendental beauty and pragmatic brilliance.  I have
been, off and on over the last decade or so, a member of the
Theosophical Society headquatered in Wheaton, but this has always
been a somewhat questionable membership to me ...  it is often
very difficult to pay for a yearly membership (with my very
scarce money) when the money seems to go to supporting the
personal visions of that small cotiere that dominates
headquarters and keeps (IMO) a very limited, anarchistic view of
Theosophy institutionalized.  In fact, I fear I often believe
that there are other organizations that are actually
*accomplishing* various parts of the Three Objects far more
effectively than the TS itself is.

As far as Theosophical "teachings" go, if what you refer to is
the standard dogma, I certainly do not accept any of it as true
on faith, but rather read the old books in the same way as I read
the ideas from dozens of different philosophies, religions, and
even sciences.  Some are interesting, others provide unique
angles of vision, others are worth exploring, and still others
seem to be severely limited by the superstitious assumptions of
the eras in which they were born, or framed.  I am on my own hunt
for the Real, but I do not accept any particular, single
viewpoint as my "home".  I am not a Theosophical "student" ...
simply an explorer that visits the Theosophical island sometimes.

>For example, do you believe in "astral bodies" or "causal
>bodies"?  Is there good evidence to support a belief in some
>kind of "life after death?"

Have spent much time ramblin' through the inner realms, and for
the life of me I can't say I've ever seen the nice neat lines
that the Theosophical construct seems to imply.  Seven sub-planes
of the seven planes of the seventh cosmic plane? How many rounds
on how many globes? Good gracious, sounds like there's road signs
and traffic cops in there or something (-:).

>Does "telepathy" or "levitation" occur?  Did HPB's Masters
>exist?  Could HPB "materialize" cups and saucers?

Telepathy yes, after a fashion ...  have seen plenty of evidence
of its empirical manifestation.  Unclear about the full set of
principles & relevant variables needed for its consistant
operation however.  HPB's Masters ...  probably.  Have personally
bumped into a couple of Things that certainly possessed fairly
impressive energy-systems ...  wouldn't have any desire to
personalize them however (and they didn't seem to have any desire
to be personalized)...seemed rather more intensely goal-oriented
than most denizens of the innerland.  Materialization? Who knows?
Wouldn't actually make much difference to me one way or the
other.  A group of people who can raise the money, marshal the
resources, and organize the logistics needed to get thousands of
tons of grain to a starving nation strikes a far deeper chord in
me than a tea cup appearing out of the blue.

>Back to the bigger picture, do you believe in "other planes of
>existence" or in "devas" or in the "Logos"?

I don't believe in "planes", because the notion is simply too
structured.  Had the odd circumstance of being born "clairvoyant"
(as many children are), lost it by the time I was six or seven,
and had it re-open again in my early twenties as the result of
exercises I was playing with.  Was a *bear* to wrestle under some
sort of control.  I began all sorts of interactions with all
sorts of different "beings" ...  and they showed me all sorts of
possible permutations of human consciousness.  That is, I had a
huge wealth of experience *before* I ran into Theosophical
construct.  When I did, I began noticing that things spoken of in
Theosophy as "Devas" bore some resemblance to a particular
kingdom I was used to dealing with, but frankly a *lot* of the
writings seemed far too concerned with form and structure to
accurately reflect the "Devic" worldview.

*Enormous* amounts of what I witness in the inner realms is not
mentioned in any writings I've read ...  many other things are
hinted at, and a few things seem to be aprroached directly.  I
don't really "believe" in Devas, I simply interact with them ...
but they really aren't "beings" so much as (?) particular sorts
of movements.  As far as I can tell, the vast majority of that
"kingdom" has very little to do with humans ...  but a few
streams of that kingdom *do* wish interaction with humans ...
and seem to believe that some interaction will further both Devic
and human unfolding ...  but (for instance) the particular waves
that would probably be called "healing angels" do not themselves
think of themselves as "healing angels" ...  but rather are a
sort of energy stream that, when it refracts through the human
vibratory band, produces (almost as an aftereffect) the surface
phenomena that humans would configure as "healing".

I certainly have attempted to make sure that this is not just my
imagination, and they have aided in this ...  in fact, they will
entertain requests from me 'cause at times I'll help them with
projects they get themselves involved in (humans *can* create
inner forms that permit them to condense themselves far more
fully than they can alone) ...  and they seem to be virtually
*always* experimenting.  I have been able to see, for instance, a
huge difference in the growth rate of two identical plants (yes I
*have* used to scientific method with them) ...  and am currently
attempting to set up an experiment to determine whether (as I
fully suspect from lesser experiments) a group of humans
interacting with a group of Devas can greatly increase the
recovery rates in one wing of a hospital.  Problem, of course, is
that this stuff still has to be done quite on the sly.

Point is, again, I have *never* seen "planes" or "sub- planes" or
any sort of hierarchal ranking ...  in fact their existances
aren't really seperate enough to even make such distinctions.
Humans believe that life is composed of "things that move", and
that assumption conditions our philosophies at a very deep level
...  but is irrelevant when dealing with existances that *do*
have a form of awareness, even a bizarre form of self-awareness,
but whose fundamental existance is as *movement itself*, which
simply fluctuates between relatively patterned or free-flowing
states.

Fact (I just remembered) I attempted to "ask" them once (to the
extent that communication is possible ...  which is really kind
of obliquely) about all the different "rankings" in various
religious literature ...  Archangels, angels, etc., etc...  and
it took the longest time to even get them to understand what the
hell I was talking about.  They finally "replied" with what I
perceived as humor ...  said most of that stuff was human fantasy
..  that incarnate humans are kind of skittish beings that
frighten very easily, and that many *do* have aspects that *are*
aware of their realm, but that its reality is so fluid that this
subtle knowledge is quite disturbing ...  and that (I thought
this was a good one) the human mind's instinctive reaction
whenever it even touches the free-flowing energies of creation
was to immediately try to structure the living hell out of it as
a means of feeling itself to be again in control.  (They have a
sort of wry sense of humor about the human kingdom (-:).

> And what evidence do you have that would show non-theosophists
> that there is something to these other Theosophical beliefs,
> *excluding karma, reincarnation, Lemuria and Atlantis?

See previous comments ...  if a "Theosophist" is one who accepts
the standard writings ...  then *I* am a non-theosophist.

It's good to be skeptical and challenge beliefs and assumptions
and it is valid to ask for evidence, proof, and good reasons for
believing in karma reincarnation, Lemuria, etc.  But if you
believe in other Theosophical ideas or concepts, then are you
also applying the same skeptical attitude, etc.  to these other
ideas?

I fear I don't believe in *anything*.  It's enough of a challenge
to fully comprehend and digest the experiences I do have.

>Several weeks or months ago (??), JRC said something to the
>effect that he did NOT believe in karma for several reasons.
>One of those reasons was to the  effect that if karma was so
>universal, etc, etc. then why doesn't everyone in the whole wide
>world accept?  Sorry, JRC, if I am mutilating what you actually
>wrote!!  In other words, JRC was using that criterion to
>discount the validity of "karma".  But if that criterion is a
>valid and useful one, I ask in turn, what theosophical idea
>would pass the test?  In fact, what "belief" could such a test?
>JRC, if I have muddled your argument on this, please correct me
>and, if  possible, post what you originally wrote.

Forgot what I wrote.  And there are many reasons why I don't
accept "karma" as it is framed in Theosophical writings.  Again,
I don't priviledge Theosophical writings above the writings of
any other religion, philosophy or science I've read.  I *do* like
the idea of the Universal Family of Humanity, of the study of
comparative Religions and Sciences, and of the investigation of
the powers latent in Human Beings ...  thus I am a Theosophist.
(And thus I am often in trouble with Theosophical institutions).

> As far as I know, "science" (or the "scientific community") does
> NOT even in 1995 accept the reality of ESP, PK, telepathy,
> clairvoyance, out of body experiences, etc.  , etc.  How many
> universities in the world have a department of parapsychology or
> how many psychology departments in universities and colleges
> throughout the world teach a course on parapsychology and accept
> that such paranormal phenomena exist and are a part of everyday
> life.

Of course, it wasn't Theosophy that came up with a cure for
small-pox either.  So universities don't have parapsychology
departments? Well, 150 years ago they didn't even have psychology
departments, and the barest rudiments of the normal operations of
the human psyche are still, at this early stage, being vehemently
disputed ...  not suprising that there isn't yet much study of
people and phenomena that are way outside of the norm.  Devas
once seemed to hint that several decades down the road a science
that is an odd combination of understandings currently being
formed in quantum physics and depth & cognitive psychology *will*
produce a *far* clearer, more precise understanding of some of
those phenomena than any current religious or philosophical
construct does.

> What can be proven and verifed in the Theosophical teachings and
> in Theosophical history? Can we (whether JRC, AB, Dan Caldwell,
> etc, etc.) pin down any "facts"? Some may think "karma" and
> "reincarnation" fairly elusive concepts, vague and very, very
> hard to "pin down"! That is, "ideas" way up in the clouds.  But
> what other concepts or teachings are closer to the ground and
> more verifiable? In other words, I think JRC's and AB's
> "skeptical" comments have opened up a whole can of worms.  And
> others on Theos-l should examine their own "belief-system"
> involving karma and reincarnation.  But in turn, JRC and AB
> should apply their own skepticism to other parts of their own
> belief system.  I assume they have one?! :)

I probably do have a belief system, but I actually don't care
that much what it is at any particular point, as it alters
virtually continually ...  and I guess I just consider any belief
"system" to be nothing but an epiphenomena, an aftereffect, a
static crystallization of experience.  I do think about and
attempt to digest experience when I have time, but it is
expanding the range of possible experience, it is discovering new
permutations of awareness, new vibratory frequencies upon which
consciousness can resonate, discovering and refining new types
and aspects of perceptual abilities within the human constitution
that is what I'm after ...  and the opportunity for some new
adventure will always take precedence over maintaining some nice
neat conceptual model.

I have become convinced, experientially convinced, that this 'ol
universe is almost impossibly, unimaginably alive ...  and that
the primary tones and vibrations of most beings are those of
utter joyful playfullness and almost continually creative ecstacy
..  and if at the root of it all is the "One Life" it seems the
most appropriate, "spiritual" response is to *live it*, to
provide (in a tiny, tiny way) one avenue through which that life
can expand and experience to the fullest degree possible ...  not
to try to nail the sucker into a little philosophical box.  My
skepticism is not a way of proving any truth ...  but a means of
knocking holes in boxes.

I don't think any religion or philosophy is "true", but I do
think some are interesting, and others probably quite useful.
Were I one of those Spooks whose particular predilection included
accepting some responsibility for enlivening the human race, I
suppose pure creativity might suggest that those constructs
called karma and reincarnation, or heaven and hell, would seem
almost necessary.  Goodness, there are actually people all over
the place who choose to resonate along the bands of hatred and
violence and thievery ...  you'd have to construct an awfully
*dense* set of truths to even get such a species to pay
attention.  (-:)

I've never attempted to get anyone to accept anything I frame as
true as being some *absolute* truth ...  and if at times I get
testy and try to knock holes in things ...  its 'cause it seems
as though others *are* speaking in such a fashion.

Were I to attempt to convince anyone on this list to entertain
any idea, it might be this: That perhaps many here have so
completely internalized noble ethical standards that perhpas they
can do away with the dense truths that are needed to keep
children from killing one another (and don't even work too well
at that) but that may greatly limit both the service and joy of
those increasing numbers who have but to claim what they've
earned to be able to live again as fully conscious, immortal
spiritual entities, with suprisingly few restrictions and "laws",
in the Kingdom of Joy.

W/ Love & more giggles,     -JRC