Theos-Talk Archives (November 1995 Message tl00264)

Keith:

Very powerful words:

< most people do not want to read what others wrote in
1888 but want to travel the spiritual path for themselves.>

I think that reading what others wrote is an important first step for
afterall you have to get the ideas from somewhere. But it is a first step.
Reading what people wrote then stopping there and deifying the people is IMO
bad news. One has to take the next step and learn to do for themselves what
they have read about. And not in secret either. The world is different today.
There can be no more "secret societies". There is no need for them. Occult
knowledge is now so widely available that the idea of keeping anything a secret
is an absurdity.

And after one learns to do it for themself the next step is to build a
reliable science of these altered states. Like any science this will be a
group process. Not a democratic process for we do not vote on the laws of
nature but a community process where the efforts and trails and errors of all
participating will lead to the construction of reliable knowledge.

< 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.>

Yes you are exactly right.

<Things
like modern brain research and genetic engineering to mention but two offer
possibilities that even Blavatsky didn't directly forsee>

Exactly. The world is vastly different than it was 100 years ago. The world is
now interconnected. We are drowning in information. Things are more decadent
than ever before. There is a deep need for spirituality but a rational and
reasonable spirituality and one that has organically evolved. You cannot
create a paradigm. Paradigms evolve. The best we can do is contribute to this
process for it is occuring whether we want to admit it or not or whether we
are aware of it or not.

<Thus we should not
look back but move forward with the wisdom of the past as our guide but not
our limitation.>

Very wise words.

<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 are exactly correct. And you are also correct that these are dramatic
experiences full of deep meaning to the indivdual. But in time the initial
thrill fades and it is then that the mind takes over and tries to make sense of
the happening. I know this was the case with me. In some cases it took me 2-3
years to "come down" from some of the things I have experienced. The
experiences are so shattering that it takes time for the intial "blast" to fade
but fade it does sooner or later. And when it does and things are again
quiet one can then ponder even deeper and even further on their significance.
I guess this is very much where I am presently at and why I am so cautious and
conservative in my views presently. I have not always been this way!

So I'll clos ehere. Thanks for the insights!

Best

Don