Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl00557)

According to jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu:
> In fact, surveying both this list and recent Theosophical
> journals ... there *have* been people setting themselves up as
> authorities on matters spiritual, but they have *not* been
> psychics using inner abilities as a foundation, but rather
> intellectuals using either their knowledge of Theosophical
> literature or the implied claim of a deeper wisdom that had come
> from study and meditation as a foundation. If someone has studied

Let's allow for more than a twofold division between psychics
and intellectuals. I'd say dogmatists are not real
intellectuals, because there is no real respect for
intellectual inquiry, only intellectual justification of
positions reached non-intellectually. There are intellectuals
in the movement, but IMO it's dogmatists masquerading as
intellectuals who set themselves up as authorities.

> thing (-:) ... but at least in recent times, the vast majority of
> this arrogance has not come from "psychics" saying "I see things
> you don't" ... but by intellectuals saying "I *know* things that
> you don't".

Again, is this "knowing" intellectual or kama-manasic? I'd
call it pseudo-intellect if it manifests as authoritarianism.

> In fact, not only do I believe wonders are not negative,
> they can provide substantial boosts - a personality incapable of
> resonating with joy, with wonder, incapable of saying "wow!
> that's remarkable!" is (IMO) *unfit* to touch higher states of
> awareness. I would agree with you that there may be some who
> might initially overevaluate "signs and wonders" ... but they are
> far more likely to be found in Fundamentalist churches than in
> Theosophical circles.

There's a psychological phenomenon called evoked potential
which is measured by eeg, showing brainwave pattern response to
stimuli like lights flashing, etc. Some people, "reducers,"
tend to have reduced brain wave frequencies in such situations,
while others, "enhancers," show increases. IMO this relates to
Theosophists and their behavior in response to new ideas or
ways of expressing things. "Reducers" want to diminish the
impact of the new and unfamiliar, while "enhancers" make the
most of it.
> intellectual type who felt in some way threatened. There were
> problems in the history of the TS with this sort of stuff ... but
> we have grown substantially - the Krishnamurti fiasco *could not
> happen in today's Theosophy* ... I believe we have grown beyond
> such things. It is not too much belief unbalanced by reflective
> thought that threatens us, but the urge to institutionalize, to
> make solid decisions about what is permissable and what is not,
> to *shrink* Theosophy into a controllable form composed of little
> other than quiet "deep" study that is our greatest (IMO) threat.

Isn't there a cause and effect relationship, though? Isn't the
urge to institutionalize and define what's acceptable a result
of belief unbalanced by reflective inquiry?

> Headquaters is currently locked up by a little group of people
> absolutely determining (or attempting to) what Theosophy is or is
> not ... passing laws that increase control ... and would love to
> squeeze out *any* mention of actual abilities (expect in
> historical accounts), any mention of people who believe the
> Masters work with them, in their attempt to make Theosophy
> "acceptable" to the mainstream academic and philosophical worlds.

John, I'd have to say there's another side to this. The
Masters Revealed was the first book on HPB ever published by a
university press, the first one by a Theosophist to get a rave
in the New York Times Book Review, has generally been quite
well received outside the TS-- and as you know has received two
recent blasts from Wheaton. One of my greatest joys has been
seeing the book impact the "mainstream academic and
philosophical world" in the direction of accepting the reality
of HPB's Masters and the authenticity of her sources. Having
attained this to some extent, I'd have hoped for more support
from within the TS; or at least a less sweeping condemnation.
There are other motives than desire for academic respectability
afoot in the TS.

> That dynamic balance between the ordered and chaotic, between
> known and the unknown, between the existant and the possible,
> seems to have swung far to the side of order and form. 40 years
> ago, I would have agreed with *everything* you've said, but I
> believe that today we could use some fresh life, we could use
> something to upset the applecart. We could use a few *wonders*.
Amen.

and Namaste.