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

Re: Various comments

Sep 03, 1995 08:24 PM
by Eldon B. Tucker

Jerry S:

>Group Souls: "The term 'group-soul' is used in an attempt
> to find a word which would describe, however imperfectly,
>the peculiar aggregates of entities more or less on the
>same plane or grade of evolution and who, because of that
>fact, find themselves more or less reimbodying in groups or
>aggregates. In one repsect the term 'group-soul' is
>unfortunate, because it gives the idea that there is but
>one soul in the same plane which manifests through all the
>individual members of such aggregate groups; and this is
>inaccurate." (G de Purucker, Studies in Occult Philosophy,
>p 569).

>In the sense given by G de P, I think that even we humans
>have a group soul (i.e., the human life-wave of which we
>are each a part). In synergistics, the whole can be
>shown to be more than the sum of its parts - and this
>is where the group soul comes from.

We can take ideas like that of "group souls" and put a certain
twist on them that gives them a reasonable sense. But there
are certain aspects of "group souls", as taught sometimes,
that need to be objected to. One is that we are eternal Monads,
without beginning or end, and preexist any participation in a
"group soul". Another is that we do not, after a lifetime, lose our
personal karma in some karmic pool shared by all in the group
soul; we always make and retain our personal karma, even thought
there is also something called group karma.

>JRC: Your posting "psychic powers" was absolutely words
>taken from my own mouth. I agree completely. The
>notion that we should repress the psychic is self-
>defeating insofar as the third objective is concerened. I
>do not fault G de P here, though, because I rather agree
>with what I believe was his intent - to temporarily
>stiffle or ignore the psychic until a certain amount of
>compassion for others was instilled, and a sense of
>moral values developed. I feel that I have done this
>reasonable well. So, to continue stiffling or ignoring
>my own psychic inner voice is not only silly, but could
>be even more dangerous to myself than practicing psychism.

I'd say that it depends upon the individual, one's personal
circumstances, and what is required about the particular
esoteric training, if any, that the person is undertaking.
Blanket statements like "don't eat sugar," "meat is bad,"
"don't smoke," "sex is wrong for teenagers," etc. are all
generalizations and must be carefully considered when applied
to specific individuals.

>The Point Loma folks seem to want to outlaw psychic
>investigation and use for all time, period. I do not
>feel that this was G de P's intent. If he was not
>psychic himself, then I certainly have to wonder where
>he got his info.

I'll agree that this tendency exists in all of the groups, the
tendency to take a particular statement or approach and to
over-apply it, to try to carry the rule into circumstances where
it is not appropriate.

>JRC:<Is it not rather bizarre that Theosophy, that actually
>helped introduce the concept of clairvoyance as an
>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
> Unfortunately, I have to agree with you.

This is more true, perhaps, of Adyar. I'm not sure that in
Point Loma books there is any promotion of reading about psychical
powers while telling people to avoid them. Rather, little is written
and the practice is not encouraged.

>Eldon:<The evolution that is before us, the *important*
>part of that evolution, has to do with the unfolding of new
>*faculties of consciousness,* which is entirely a different
>thing that the unfolding of sense perception on other
>planes, nor with reading thoughts, seeing the astral light,
>nor using magic to make things happen>

> What "faculties of consciousness" did you have in
>mind? You seem to have rejected all of the ones that I
>would have suggested.

Perhaps you could repeat them again. I'm talking about different
ways to consciously experience life that we currently know and
use. This is not taking some existing faculty, like that of sense
perception, and simply enhancing it or applying it to some other
plane of existence. Nor is it taking feelings or thoughts and making
them richer or more powerful, or bringing them into relationship
with another plane or with things invisible. It is rather entirely
different ways of being conscious about life. Consider an animal
considering how there is nothing to the mind and thought, and not
able to understand books, intellectual activity, conversations, etc.
Now consider *our* thinking there is nothing to higher forms of
consciousness, not being able to understand the activities of the
Dhyani-Chohans. I'd suggest that our evolutionary goal is to become
aware of, then to become capable of experience in higher forms of
consciousness, and not merely to enhance the powers of our
existing faculties.

>JRC:<, I should say that I have come to greatly dislike the
>terms "angel" and "deva" ... as they both carry with them
>centuries of connotations, most of which have almost
>nothing to do with the "things" I've been working with>
> The fact that the names are silly and impractical
>is exactly why they SHOULD be used. Using the word Angel,
>for example, always brings with it a sense of the unreal
>and childish - which helps us from being trapped into
>taking them all too seriously, and actually helps us to
>keep our sense of control during encounters.

Use of works has an evocative effect. The connotations and
mental pictures that come with the words act as a filter that
qualifies our perceptions and experience. That manner of
qualification varies with the words and ideas that we bring to
our experience. Appropriate terms and ideas might, I'd suggest,
lead to a more useful experience.

>Eldon:<When the Lodge sends out a Messanger, how is that
> Messanger trained? I've seen no article or materials that
>discuss this topic in depth. How do you think that he
>learned what he taught?>

> The Lodge itself inspires them via (dare I say the
>naughty p word?) psychism in the form of intuitive
>communications. The Messenger is stirred intuitively
>and made to wrestle internally with notions and doctrines
>that others seem not to care about, or are quite satisfied
>using faith. ... eventually a
>little lightbulb sort of lights up over their heads, and it
>all begins to make sense. Once the Dark Night of the Soul
>is behind them, telepathic communication is established
>with the Lodge, and their mission takes form.

I'd generally agree that the the Messanger comes in touch
with ideas, with a certain "thought current" or fount of
ideas that contains materials he is meant to teach. And some
ideas may specifically be given emphasis, or "placed" in his
mind via telepathic means. But I would not use the term "psychic"
to describe this process.

>I also believe that some
>Messengers remain behind the scenes, and the public never
>sees them. Perhaps they write. Perhaps they inspire in
>some way. It all depends. But only a few ever go public.
>The burden is just too great.

I'd agree with you.

-- Eldon

[Back to Top]

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