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

Re: One of JRC's comments

Sep 30, 1995 01:33 AM
by John R Crocker

On Fri, 29 Sep 1995 MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU wrote:
> JRC writes: "I will not try to demonstrate their nature and status in an
> areana where people have already reached conclusions prior to evidence even
> being presented. There are too many others places containing a spirit of
> genuinely open-minded inquiry."
> Is this directed to the 100 + members of the theos network?

Nope. It was directed at Eldon, who, despite the fact that I was
making no claim whatsoever for the authority or status of a perspective I
gained from a particular current of angelic energy (and in fact have
always been exceedingly careful *not* to), and was merely mentioning it
as one of several purely personal reasons for remaining connected to
Theosophy, still felt the need both to sound a cautionary note about such
sources, and to say I needed to somehow back up such claims if I wanted
others to respect the authority of the claims.

Nonetheless, if you or anyone else read this as implying a
judgement on any other individual Theosophist (and upon reflection I can
see how this could be done - Eldon tends to always speak in general terms
even when things are personal, and I tend to speak in personal terms,
even about general topics ... and I have been trying to mitigate this
conversational disonance (as has Eldon) - but this, I fear leads to other
confusions ... perhaps Eldon should have said "If you want *me* to accept
input from the sources you've mentioned, you need to demonstrate them" ...
and I should have replied "I didn't ask *you* to accept them, and have
no interest in trying to demonstrate the nature of the angelic, or the
reasons why I give them some authority in my own world, to one who
already has a predrawn picture into which such experiences will be
placed" ... but this would have lead to the charge that I was attacking
Eldon, and that "we" should all learn to be less judgemental and use
our words better ... so I was left with either remaining silent and
allowing Eldon to misuse my words to forward, yet again, his view of
the use of inner abilities, to respond in general terms and risk
insulting other members of the list, or to respond to Eldon personally
and risk getting lectured about not being nice ...) ANYway, if you or
anyone else took my words as a personal judgement, I do genuinely

> How do you KNOW that people in this "arena" have already reached conclusions
> about your experiences with angels prior to evidence even being presented?

Was not going to write about this anymore, but perhaps I will.
After a couple of weeks of attempting to see whether a large set of
attitudes about the use of inner abilities had altered since the last
time I had said anything in Theosophical circles, I have concluded that
they have not. It was not Eldon I was interacting with, nor simply for my
own sake that I was speaking ... rather it was a discourse between two
larger ideas circulating in Theosophy. One of the points I was attempting
to get across (and that I completely failed to, judging by your post), is
that there is a growing number of people who do not fit any of the
catagories a few on this list clearly put "psychism" into, who are
predisposed not to talk about their experiences, but to remain silent
about them, but who nonetheless expend effort, engage in research, and do
very real service ... and it does not take 100+ people arguing against
them, but merely a few voices, to cause these people to choose silence -
Theosophy is rejecting these people without even realizing it ... you
must understand that they become *used* to being rejected, disparaged,
demeaned - during the two week conversation with Eldon, there was also,
for instance, a meeting of scientists in New York, meeting for the
express purpose of committing to being more public in their denouncements
of "anti-scientific" thinking ... and one of the specific things they
mentioned was the "shocking" rise in the belief in "angels" among
otherwise "intelligent" people.

The conversation about inner abilities was not my attempt to find
a place in Theosophy to talk about what *I* was doing (in fact, I am far
more a researcher than a writer ... there are others who like to write
about the stuff) ... but to argue a larger principle: That attitudes
about inner abilities like those voiced by Eldon (and they articulate
very well a set of attitudes held by many people ... especially in the
Theosophical leadership) effectively *do* chase away people with valid
abilities who are doing serious work. I am not arguing that Eldon, or
anyone else, is not free to assert any perspective they wish - merely
trying to suggest (and this is often difficult for people primarily
intellectually based to understand) that to some, these are not just
abstract positions, but have ramifications ... and can very well serve to
choose *on behalf of the whole list* to cause people to remain silent, by
creating an environment that cannot help but be perceived as judgemental.
The people I work with would certainly not say a word of what they were
doing in that meeting of scientists (even though some of the scientists
may well have privately accepted the possibility of angels), or in their
workplaces (and, curiously enough, most of them actually *are*
scientists), or in a host of other places, *including* Theosophy ... why
*should* they? In the meeting of scientists, they would just be
condescended to, and told the abilities they have simply don't exist -
Theosophy may be worse ... they might be told they are choosing "cheap
thrills" instead of "real" spiritual growth, accused of talking about
such things for ego reasons - to try to somehow get adulation of some
sort - warned about all sorts of weird danger they are placing
themselves in, and encouraged to avoid such things until their "moral"
natures are developed ... and may even be given the inestimable gift of
essays from "source" writers - i.e., to be *condescended to* every bit
as much as they would in the roomful of scientists.

> IF I had what seems to be such a low opinion of this Theosophical group, I
> wouldn't waste my time; instead I would go to those "many other places" where
> there is "a spirt of genuinely open-minded inquiry"!

Again the either/or attitude. The current theos-l list has many
different discussion threads, about a whole wealth of different topics
.. and if you want to characterize my opinion for theos-l as "low"
that's certainly your choice ... but that is your characterization, not
mine. What I *have* said, several times and in a number of different
ways, is that there definately *are* some attitudes, asserted strongly by
more than one person on this list, that, *in the area of the use, for
research and service, of inner abilities* create an environment that *to
those who possess them and might discuss such things* seems to be
filled with something considerably different than a spirit of genuine and
open-minded inquiry. This does not mean the topics that are discussed do
not have value, but it hasn't been me that has believed that there is some
sort of contradiction between the "intellectual/spiritual" path and the
use of inner abilities.

My point has always been that there is a growing number of people
exercising inner abilities in this world, doing it in a fashion that
integrates spirituality into this exercise, to whom warnings about
"delusion" or "mistaking the psychic for the spiritual" are really
incredibly condescending, who are engaged in all sorts of very
interesting research and service with those abilities, and whose service
is as valid and empirically demonstrable as that of any MD, or
psychologist, or physicist. And that this entire range of activity has
been, for a number of years now, effectively suppressed and excluded from

 Lux et Veritas, -JRC

[Back to Top]

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