Theos-Talk Archives (August 1995 Message tl00195)

According to Arthur Paul Patterson:
>
> This sounds like a great conversation starter. The reason I like it is
> because it offers a principle of critique to those who think that they
> have the "correct" interpretation of the masters or of spiritual reality. I
> think it allows us to stand above what we believe and ask the more
> pertinent question of how we believe - the way you believe is more
> important in my estimate than in the content.

Quite so. And the idea that being conscious in one function
implies being unconscious in its opposite tells us that no one
can believe without imposing his/her own limitations on the
content.
>
> >1. Intuition perceives the Masters as elements in the pattern
> >of life in the universe.
>
> True but intuition is about "possibilities" intuitions of things not
> entirely apparent. If this is so then the intuitive might approach the
> Masters as metaphors or mythogem.
> Could this be the approach of the Jungian Theosophist?
Various Theosophists have been working toward this idea for
years; Stephan Hoeller and others have written on the
theme. I'd say, on the issue of "possibilities," that there
are two sides at least. First, seeing the existence of Masters
as a possibility because of the overall pattern we see in the
universe (evolution of consciousness). Second, seeing the
particular stories about the Masters as symbolic of human
possibilities.
>
> I think that the sequential thinker would take the data concerning the
> masters form a hypothesis and then attempt to verify it through testing for
> consistency.
> Undoubtedly the historians would be inclined to this perspective.
Yet even the most historically-oriented of Theosophists have
been heretofore disinclined to approach the Masters in this way.
>
> Those who are concerned with human values and caring would consider the
> Masters as emblematic of the relational accompaniment. We are not alone, we
> are guided by Wisdom figures and we can establish a relationship to them.
>
> Those interested in mentoring or spiritual guiding might be oriented this way.
And those who are attracted to Theosophy as a universal
solvent, reconciling diverse traditions. The ideal of a single
category of persons who are responsible for all great spiritual
movements somehow gives people a feeling of connection and
affirmation.
>
> It depends whether the senser is introverted or extroverted. The introvert
> would strive to establish as physical sense of inward peace that is derived
> from contemplation of the image of the master whereas the extravert would
> go in for the more spiritualistic phenomenon associated with spiritual
> power in the world.
OK. But might not the e/i preference affect all the other
choices, too? For example my thinking is extroverted, so I am
more interested in collecting facts than analyzing them.
>
> I find your analysis of your work to be completely the way I would see it
> too. I however would be far more inclined toward #1 as I stated above. What
> are the possibilites for the meaning of the Masters as mythologems? In my
> estimate they could be real people but more than that they are
> transcendently meaningful.
The real impetus for my explorations comes not from extroverted
thinking, but from introverted intuition. Its contemplation of
questions like "where does Theosophy come from?" and "what is
HPB's real historical significance?" led to factual inquiries,
but these were always directed by "hunches" about where
evidence might be found.

Thanks, Art