[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Re Eldon's Direct vs Indirect

Sep 01, 1995 07:06 PM
by Richtay

>It would seem to me that any new idea G de P,
>or anyone else, has given out was done so via their
>"personal psychic and clairvoyant experiences." Except
>for physical contact or physical letters, it simply has
>to be through psychism. Even if the Mahatmas approached me
>in their subtle body, I would need to be a bit clairvoyant
>to see them and hear them.<

No, no, no. We must distinguish spiritual (buddhic) from psychic (astral,
kamic) faculties. We need to upload HPB's article "Psychic and Noetic
Action" for the archives, if it isn't already there.

Chelas, including Adepts who are chelas of those still higher (like HPB) are
not "channeling" the Masters, not are they necessarily clairvoyantly seeing
them. Olcott was hardly clairvoyant, and saw the Master M. on several
occasions. But there is a spiritual bond which is not psychic.

Rather, chelas (conscious or unconscious) have an inner link (through Buddhi)
with the Mahatmas that is conditional upon the chela's purity or motive and
effort. If that purity is defiled, the link is broken, they chela's Buddhi
has been overwhlemed by lower, psychic energies. If spiritual powers are
misused by a chela, they fall of naturally, or the guru cuts them off.

This is quite different from psychism, which has no such restraints other
than the long, drawn-out process of Karma, which necessarily follows upon
exertion of the ego, rather than the All-self (alaya-vijnana). Psychic
powers are always inperfectly developed, and PERSONAL, because they emanate
from the astral, kama, and lower Manas regions of the entity.

These lower regions cannot be compared with the swift, certain and
CONDITIONAL awareness of Buddhi or pure spiritual awareness.

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application