Theos-Talk Archives (November 1995 Message tl00248)

Hi Don. Thanks for the e-mail on lucid dreams. You seem to emphasize like Jung
that we must be very careful about the explanations and interpretations we put
on things like lucid drams visions obe's nde's close encounters and all
things we might lump under spiritual experiences. Yes this is true but the
experience is so powerful it creates its own importance in the mind of the
person. It's very Gnostic in that there is a big difference in analyzing
Blavatsky vs. Purucker vs. Leadbetter vs Bailey etc and having the same kind of
experience they claim to have had.

You say:

. Most theosophists have no experience at all with
altered states though they act like experts know nothing whatsoever about the
experiences of brain doctors and brain scientists though like John Algeo in
his AT article they act like experts and most theosophists just sit around
and run off at the mouth with all their cute and pretty and completely
unsubstantiated little myths.

Of course this absudity makes me upset! How do you expect anyone with any
intelligence or any sensitivity at all to take theosophy seriously when it acts
so smug popmpus and uncaring?

clip

I think we are heading toward what I want to call a neo-neo-theosophy or a
post-theosophy in that most people do not want to read what others wrote in
1888 but want to travel the spiritual path for themselves. We are moving from
a quaint romantic Victorian discussion of states of consciousness and human
evolution to practicing and taking conscious control of the process. Things
like modern brain research and genetic engineering to mention but two offer
possibilities that even Blavatsky didn't directly forsee. Thus we should not
look back but move forward with the wisdom of the past as our guide but not
our limitation.

Namaste

Keith Price