Re: Art: Group Project Question 1
Sep 23, 1995 01:51 AM
by Arthur Paul Patterson
At 7:21 PM 9/22/95, Lewis Lucas wrote:
>> ...The work did what any classic should do and that is to point you
>> back to the experiential ground of your life with a renewed
> I know it was me who recently called attention to the importance
>of experience, but I was listening to a song by Jimi Hendrix on the
>radio called "Are you experienced." It is talking about his LSD
>experiences in the '70's. That raised a question in my mind about the
>value of experience--their quality and not just their quantity. I
>would be interested in your thoughts.
Experience psychedelic, or otherwise, has as much authority as we give it.
Since consciousness is the means of apprehension it is important. But what
we allow ourselves to be exposed to in my opinion is the key. They are
plausibilty structures - you will only experience that which it is
possible for you to conceive of. What Hendrix was getting at, along with
many other experimenters of more repute than he (Aldous Huxley, Timoth
Leary, Stanislav Grof) , is that psychedelics can stretch those
possibilities and allow for what was then called and expanded
consciousness. I experimented with psychedelics in the sixties and found
that they worked to alienate from the collective consciousness - ie called
droping out. I have never quite dropped into the collective in the same way
again. Psychotropic drugs can also contract consciousness if mishandled and
used wrongly. I am fortunate that I walked through this experiment
relatively unscathed. But I have as Jim says been experienced.
Unfortunately Hendrix and other voyagers of consciousness take a improper
pride in what they experienced and the fact that others have not . This
does not lead to enlightment but arrogance. Spiritual hedonism is no better
than material hedonism.
>Lewis: I am confused. Aren't "blinds" a very useful window cover?:)
No blinds seem to be intentional distractions from the truth so that those
of lesser evolved spirituality can not see what is going on.
> I would like to suggest that the Mahatmas are not the culprits,
>but only the chagrined recipients of the adulation heaped upon them
>by those who were impressed (and rightfully so, I think) by their
>wisdom, humor, and compassion.
Of course you are right that the mahatmas themselves are not the culprits
for spiritual evolution I think precludes the idea of arrogance and pride.
It is the stewards of the mahatmas that I think very well might be making a
mess of their teaching. Van der Leeuw warns against trusting those who
claim to interpret the Masters. I remember reading in Christology the
different portraits of Jesus Christ that have emerged through the history
of the church. Christ for the early romans was a Caesar, for the liberal 19
Century he was a kind of Teacher Servant not unlike Schwiezter who wrote
the Quest for the Historial Jesus - he ended up projecting his culture on
Christ. The same I am sure holds true for the interpretations of the
Mahatmas. I bet they have a very New Age hue in some quarters today:)
> It seems to me sometimes we complain to much about heirarchy and
>authority, as if it were some shackle forced upon us. Might it be us
>and not them who create these heiarchies and give Them their
>authority. As we become more centered, stronger, knowledgeable
>doesn't the need/desire for outside authority atrophy? Maybe we are
>railing against a natural law which has its place in the scheme of
>things, but falls away or diminishes because (to paraphrase another
>of J.J. van der Leeuw's works) we are all gods in the becoming.
> If we accept HPB, the Mahatmas, Jesus, or some other teacher as
>an authority it is, in part, a recognition by us of Their valuable
>experiences. As children we often look up to our parents and other
>adults for guidance and support until we grow strong and wise enough
>to support and counsel others.
Perhaps this could be construed as arrogant but I don't like the idea of
men and women in the Twentieth and Twenty First Century thinking of
themselves as children - I don't mind childlike but childish and immature
too undeveloped to take responsibility then I have a reaction. I can image
that some take the master to be the mom and dad they never related to and
want to be cuddled into consciousness by a benevolent higher being. That is
regression not progression. I am in no way saying that a sophisticated and
well won understanding of the Masters would lead to this infantilism but it
is certainly a danger.
It takes more than a good brain to acquire esoteric knowledge - the
character as Blavatsky tells us needs forming first.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application