Theos-Talk Archives (October 1995 Message tl00059)

JRC:

Since I see my name a number of times in this posting, I think that
I'd like to make a comment or two.

We should be able to allow differing views to be discussed and to coexist
without having to silence any of them. That doesn't mean that we agree with
something, once we've heard it, just that we give everyone's ideas a place
in the sun. We can comment on the other ideas from our standpoint, or from
the standpoint of the source teachings, without attempting to silence anyone.

>> Rich
> JRC

>Gee, perhaps I need to say it *again*: It was not just to be able
>to talk about my own experiences that I was arguing ... and not just
>against Eldon as an individual. It was on behalf of a growing number of
>people

We both agree that we're speaking for different classes of people, a
group of people with similar beliefs, and not simply the two of us as
individuals. How well we can understand each other and coexist as
individuals may show on a small scale what the groups may or may not
be able to do in a larger scale.

>who are using various inner abilities ... dismissed in condescending
>tones as "psychic"

It's not really condenscending until you start using "higher than" or
"lower than". We could say that the physical is "lower than" the feelings,
but that doesn't mean we will always refuse to go jogging, and instead
spend our time writing love poems.

The difference is that we are offered a spiritual path that involves a
different part of our nature than the psychic.

>... and against a large thoughtform that Eldon does articulate quite clearly

I'd call it a body of thought or belief system, and say that it is based
upon the source teachings of Theosophy, althought I might not be able to
do a point-for-point justification of it using HPB quotes.

>... the ideas Eldon voices (which are held by
>far more people than Eldon) create an environment *hostile* to those
>many who have a whole range of inner experiences they might begin to
>share were there a more open environment.

That sense of hostility is something we should work on removing, to the
extent that it is present. Certainly differing beliefs about what is happening
during a paranormal experience should not per se require hostility.

I've sensed a similar argument with Daniel H., where my different ideas
that would describe his subjective experiences, where I don't use the Bible
and Jesus and God in my descriptions, may be seen as hostile. With him too,
I accept the experience but may not accept the explanation offered. Is that
hostile? Only to the fixed ideas.

> ... you and Eldon both seem to be interceding for one another, and
>because many of his "labels" are in agreement with your labels.

We use labels when we want a pat answer, when we want to say that "you're
just one of *those* people," and want to end any discussion and dialog.
We're labelling you when we dismiss things as "merely psychic" without giving
them a second though. You're labelling us when you dismiss us as "hostile
critics" and not give our viewpoint a second thought.

>You want the path, or do you want a nice, uncomplicated purely
>abstract discussion of "occultism".

The Path is when we get practical with our lives. Getting practical involves
opening ourselves up in unexpected ways. It's not obivious until such an
opening happens in what direction it will come. We cannot make a generalization
for everyone.

>As *HPB* mentioned in her Esoteric
>Writings, the *first* thing that happens when people actually step onto
>the path is that *everything buried is thrown to the surface*

This is why we're warned to ripen ourselves, and consider gravely any
pledges we might take, for we don't want to open ourselves to more than
we can handle. But the appearance of paranormal powers is more akin to
the ability to run a six-minute mile than it is to the ability to write
a book or compose a concert. Their presence does not indicate that one
is closer to (or farther from) the Path than another person.

>tremendous psychological energies are unleashed ... and in general people
>become an *enormous* pain in the ass.

They don't *have to be*. That's like driving too fast, and being unable
to stay in your own lane on the freeway.

The energies can channel into great creative works, or a profound sensitivity
to and empathy with others. How the energies channel in your life, or in my
life, depend upon the structure of our respective personalities. Are we really
ready to "let 'em rip"?

>You think *I'm* nasty? Christ, I thought you knew something about HPB ...
>you would have kicked *her* off the list months ago.

HPB had her particular style. She often would go for shock value in her
communications. That was to make an emotional impact on people. When writing
(with the assistance of her Masters) "The Secret Doctrine", we see more of an
attempt at communication of grand ideas.

You can also use words for their emotional impact, and grab our attention.
But you'll also need some philosophy to go along with your words, or you'll
sound like Daniel H. promising us hellfire if we don't convert.

>Have you read the Mahatma Letters? Those guys were
>often *scathing*, and had no problem getting personal.

They had little patience at times with those untrained in their methods.
They also had a fairly low view of Spiritualism and spirit guides.

>We are all adults here, and many of those here are in the middle
>of withstanding the periodic internal pressures that are the first steps
>of the actual path

True. And it happens in our lives in quite individual ways.

> - which has very little to do with abstract philosophy, and quite a
>bit to do with the transformation of the whole human energy system.

Which has very much to do with our deep studies, leading to awakening a
budding sense of direct knowing of things, an opening of higher faculties
of mind, quite apart from any sense of sence perception. This opening is
metaphorically spoken of as our "inner teacher", which is not a voice of
some external being, but rather a power of mind.

The whole human energy system is in flux, and in transformation, but
the Path involves hastened evolution for the purpose of participating in
the work of the Hierarchy of Compassion. And the Path does not involve
riding the crestwave of modern thought -- or "post-modern" if that term
is preferred -- but rather evolving in ways that are unrelated to any
particular culture or society. The training is in Fifth-Round consciousness,
not in the advances of the current Fourth-Round subrace.

>The road to harmony is *not* through avoidance of conflict,
>but through entering fully into it - in staying engaged - and having the
>emotional courage to remain engaged until some final point of view, perhaps
>much much larger than both individual points of view emerges out of the
>discourse.

A certain degree of change may be possible in both of our views, but I
see that we'll come to a point where we understand and can describe the
other's views, but cannot come any closer to agreement on it.

>there is as of yet only the barest beginnings of anything that might be called
>resolution ... but there may *be* some much larger picture *neither* of
>us as of yet grasp

It's always possible for us to change over time. Or for others to read
our discussions and benefit by seeing the different sides presented.

>- that may not appear until he and I engage one
>another on various different topics for several *years*

Perhaps years. We do change over time, and we are altered to a degree
by the people that we associate with.

>... but I believe
>in staying engaged with one another we are delivering to one another
>gifts that little else could ... can you perhaps grasp that possibly a
>decade from now we will each consider one another to have been teachers

Rich is responding from a different standpoint, I think. We're taught
to not defend ourselves when slighted, but to quickly rise to the
defense of others. Rich is rising to defend me, and the defense is
appreciated.

>.. that precisely *because* of the intensity of our disputes a spiritual
>bond of great beauty may be being forged? Can you grasp that what you are
>objecting to is but a superficial, and almost epiphenomenal aspect of the
>real debate - which is one in which both of our root paradigms are
>withstanding pressure ... being pushed to expand beyond their current
>limits ... and that far from being a "distraction", such stuff is at the
>very core of what the actual travelling of the path *is*?

It's possible that we'll grow from the dialog, but we also need to be
cautious about thinking about ourselves in terms that are too grand.
It's easy to find something that one is doing in life, and to tell oneself
that one is therefore on the "fast track" and stops the hard work of
questioning life, and looking in unexpected places for spiritual treasures.

>If you want to *study* the "path", keep reading the "source"
>materiels, and discussing the finer points in them ... but if you
>actually intend to *walk* the damn thing ... then you are going to invoke
>whirlwinds of turmoil (and there are a considerable number of people on
>this list that know this through terribly personal experience)

But I'd say there's a way to "walk" it *through the reading*, a method
of engaging the process which then starts opening up in other areas of
life on its own.

>... and if
>you can't even stand the discomfort of minor and fleeting personal squabbles
>on the list ... then you're *really* gonna be upset when the first few
>demons of your buried anger, your sublimated sexuality, or carefully hidden
>judgements come raging out of your basement with fangs bared.

Why do I think of a dragon breathing fire at this point? A bit of a flame?
On the Arcana list I was critiqued for not speaking with enough passion in
my writings. My response was that it was possible to speak with passion,
but that passion did not need to be fueled by anger. Passion comes from
really caring about something, and that caring can come out in many different
kinds of feelings. Perhaps we can keep the passion but find more useful
feelings to convey it?

-- Eldon