Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl00102)

(Paul)
>>> [JRC]:
>>> respectfully, suggest to those that do not operate with those senses opened
>>> that they perhaps consider more deeply the attitudes and words they
>convey with
>>> their philosophical ideas ... simply because Theosophy *could*
>>> become a place where, in the future, people with abilities
>>> that are no longer "latent" might come to learn how to turn
>>> what is very often considered a *curse* into something that
>>> is not only validated, but refined into a tool for service.
>
>>John, you should write a book! All these things need to be
>>said, because people who approach the TS with these concerns
>>often get stones rather than bread.
.
>We've been told that the T.S. was not intended as a training ground for
>occultists. While it is true that it might be possible to offer some form
>of training to new people regarding the cultivation of their psychical
>abilities, is this a good thing? Are there really people qualified to give
>this training? The emphasis of theosophical groups has been to offer a
>different kind of training, related to the spiritual.

Ah, yes, this is *precisely* what I was talking about. Theosophy seems
full of this sort of fanatical urge to *rank* everything. The spiritual is
"higher", then, is it? Higher than "psychism" which is "lower"? In people's
*minds* there exist these nice neat "levels" and distinctions ... but dare I
suggest that the actual reality is that life & the universe is simply one
enormous *continuum*. That the *mind* introduces delusions ever bit as potent
as those attributed to "psychism" by giving into its predilection to slice
everything into nice discrete layers and levels ... that also forms the root
assumptions necessary to say that one *person* is "higher" or "lower" than
another? And, IMO anyway, *here* is what we've been *told* the TS is intended
to do:

1. To form a nucleus of the universal brotherhood of humanity, without
distinction of race, creed, sex, caste or color.

2. To encourage the study of comparative religion, philosophy and
science.

3. To investigate unexplained laws of nature and the powers latent in
man.

The first *two* of these compose the vast majority of TS activity, and
can be accomplished by reading & meditating and slowly but surely following the
"spiritual" path. The third has been (IMO) quite ignored, because it is *far*
riskier. It holds the implication of not just studying the "ancient wisdom" and
learning what to call all sorts of levels of postulated awareness ... but of
actively seeking to break new ground ... of *discovery*. It is damn
uncomfortable, sloppy business. Is there possibly delusion? Certainly. Is there
danger involved? Of course ... as in almost all scientific discovery. You
may be comfortable pursuing "higher" thought, but please do not say that that
version of theosophy is the only one that was intended. If numbers of people
are beginning to find themselves born with a sensory apparatus that permits
them to see a vibratory range outside of the current human norm, is this not
something operating according to an unexplained law of nature? Is it not a
power latent in man? Is not what I was suggesting *fully* in line with the 3rd
Object of the TS? Especially when I am suggesting that the phenomena not only
be "investigated", but integrated into the powerful service ethic implicit in
the First Object?

>Are these abilities a useful tool for service? Take psychometry, where
>someone is able to sense what has happened in the past by touching an
>object that was at the sceen. Would these people make better policemen?
>Should some be expert witnesses at O.J. Simpson's trial?

For what its worth, working with a partner I helped the police in
western Montana catch a rapist/murderer a few years ago. And this is perhaps
one of the *least* of the posibilities for service inherent in abilities. I
might add that I'll never do such work again ... it necessitated entering, for
a moment, fully into the subjective nature of the psyche that committed those
crimes ... and I was horrified and ill for two weeks afterward - 'twas a wee
bit *too* much brotherhood for me (-:).

>Because of the unreliable nature of clarivoyance for investigating
>invisible worlds, we would likely not be inclined to take at face
>value the visions of new investigators.

This, with all due respect, is an avoidance, not a reason not to
explore. Are there uncertainties? Of course there are, enormous ones. could not
the same objection be raised to virtually *any* new arena or technique of
investigation? Is the *conscious mind* any *better* of a tool for investigating
invisible worlds? Imagine Freud and Jung as they were beginning their work.
They were most certainly investigating "invisible" things ... the subtle
essence of the subjective human psyche ... and they used the rational mind to
accomplish this ... were they often deluded? Most assuredly. Did their
subjective complexes often get in the way? *Enormously* (as the criticism of
their work over the years has amply demonstrated). Did they often go off on
wild goose chases, follow ideas down dead-end streets? You bet. Should they
have, because of this *not pursued their investigations*?
Should they have stopped before they began because of the "unreliable" nature
of their investigations, because many people would refuse to take "at face
value" the conclusions of their uncertain and stumbling investigations?

And yet no one has any problem discussing Jung in Theosophical circles.
He could listen to people's *dreams*, and draw conclusions about the operations
of the invisible human psyche from them (introducing the double distortion of
the patient turning a dream into words ... which can never fully be done ...
and the distortion that comes when those words are understood within the
context of Jung's own psyche) without being accused of "psychism" or avoided
because of the inherently "subjective" nature of his studies ... but take
someone that *sees* what Jung could only hear about second hand and suddenly we
should ignore everything coming from *that* investigative tool because there is
a possibility that the seer might not be completely clear?

>The whole approach of clarivoyance is to "go there and see it", which
>still involves the senses, of this or some other plane. It is entirely
>a different faculty of knowing than is available to us, that of
>direct insight, a spiritual-intellectual faculty (of buddhi-manas, as
>contrasted with prana-linga-sharira).

And please tell me, having *not experienced clairvoyance* how you speak
with such certainty about this. Upon what basis do you say that it is an
"entirely different faculty". Did a *book* say so? I have met and spoken with
a number of people who possessed abilities to varying degrees. With some, it
did seem to be quite partial. With others, I have seen "clairvoyance" so
thoroughly integrated into a faculty that you might call "buddhi-manas" that
their clairvoyance was simply remarkable ... they were seeing, simultaneously,
effect *and* cause when they looked at a person's auric field. "Clairvoyance"
is not *a* thing that can just be neatly pidgeon-holed into "oh that's just
prana-linga-sharira" ... there are (as far as I've been able to discover) a
whole host of different forms of clairvoyance ... and in practice, it doesn't
*disappear* when "buddhi-manas" becomes operative (any more, I might add, than
the physical eyes suddenly go blind), it *deepens immeasurably into something
even more remarkable*. "Direct insight" and clairvoyance are *not* mutually
exclusive phenomena, and in fact are fully capable of not only cooperation, but
integration. When you speak as though they are two "entirely different things",
and even further, as though clairvoyance is *a* single thing, you demonstrate
clearly that you really have no understanding of clairvoyance as anything other
than a concept. Yet you speak with a tone that implies you know exactly what it
is and where it fits neatly into spiritual development (which is obviously at a
"lower" level than the "direct insight" that you pursue). This is *exactly* the
attitude I was trying to suggest was perceived as extremely demeaning to those
who *were* born with such abilities. I have reached an age and have become
comfortable enough with it personally that its worth it to bitch about this
attitude, in the hopes that it might alter things, but there are many who
wouldn't bother ... they just wouldn't come to a second TS meeting ... and I
know at least three people personally that this describes.

Is it not rather bizarre that Theosophy, that actually helped introduce
the concept of clairvoyance as a operative human ability to the modern western
world, seems to want to avoid any of the difficulties inherent in the actual
practice of it in favor of reading and "studying" what dead people wrote about
it ... that the TS, of all places, as often as not unconsciously *ejects* those
who possess in fact what the original Theosophists introduced conceptually to
America?

 -JRC