Re: Don 02 Eldon
Nov 13, 1995 04:11 PM
A late reply ...
>>Science represents the common public heritage of knowledge as opposed to the
>>*hidden heritage* preserved by the Masters. As the world changes over time
>>these bodies of knowledge need to adapt as well.
>Are you saying here that the hidden knowledge also needs to adapt?
In the sense that the Masters are living men too and are subject to change
over time as much as we are. They are not static and I'd expect that they
might both have "dead languages" like we have latin and living languages as
spoken and currently thought in.
>My hope is that as time moves forward the hidden and the public knowledge will
>converge. Of course we all here on the list share the general opinion that
>this is a cyclic phenomena.
I don't expect the two to converge although the hidden heritage will always
remain an influence upon public knowledge. There are a number of reasons for
this. Their knowledge relates to Fifth Round experiences that are hundreds of
millions of years away from external realization in our external world.
Their knowledge is based upon hundreds of thousands of generations of
experience in not only "altered states of consciousness" but in evolved or
enlightened states of consciousness.
Our western knowledge could be compared to a few dozen iterations by our
current culture in understanding life. The knowledge that the Masters preserve
might represent millions or billions of iterations in understanding life.
>>Philosophy is not exactly science.
>The point I was making is that at any given moment in history there is a
>philosophical "envelope" that surrounds the scientific knowledge of the day.
>These are the broader interpretations and significance that people give to
The distinctions that we make between religion science and philosophy
are artificial. I'd say that they don't just arise because of the strong
points in each but also because of their weak points. We can combine a
love of wisdom philosophy with a spiritual path religion and an
organized approach to understanding the material world science. The
three don't have to be separate categories.
When you place science foremost and depict philosophy as just an
envelope about science there seems to be a bit of a bias.
>These philosophical opinions change much more readily than the
>scientific ideas they are based upon ... the philosophies change
>but the science doesn't or at least not in the same way.
>Philosophies come and go whereas science grows.
In taking a short-run picture of human experience I'd find science
as stable and growing. But societies come and go and the same with
popular knowledge. You're writing from the standpoint that the body
of scientific thought is the repository of human experience. My view
is that we cannot take for granted what we are taught. In perhaps as
short as 20000 years our society could have gone under and been
replaced with another with its own common knowledge about life an
understanding that may or may not resemble what is currently thought.
The real body of knowledge that is retained by humanity in the long
run is that held by the Mahatmas not by the pundits of this or that
Science is not more real than philosophy. Science may lead to the
production of better material goods weapons of war and advances in
medicine but it is religion that deals with the spiritual path and
philosophy that deals with living a wise life. The three should not
be separated and one raised to rulership over the others.
>there are tried and proven methods of obtaining spiritual knoweldge ...
>The methods of yoga have remained unchanged for over 2000 years
>because they work.
Agreed. And the training methods of the Mahatmas have become refined
over a far vaster time period unchanged due to the same reason: they work.
>I am saying we should apply the same rigorous tests of validity to
>spiritual knowledge just as we do to physical knowledge. The actual
>tests are of course different but the intention is not.
That is fine. But the subject for the tests is ourselves and it
requires that we undergo various experiences that we may not be
ready for in the next hundred lifetimes. So in the absense of
personal experience of personally replicating the experiences that
we've heard of we are left to study second-hand knowledge or
>And the intention is to validate our beliefs through experience
>and not just mindlessly say things or promulgate beliefs that
>do nothing for people spiritually.
When we get to validating our beliefs through experience we're
talking about a spiritual practice. That implies that we've found
an established spiritual school and started our training or that
we're attempting a much-harder ad hoc approach. How many T.S.
members have done either?
You have to be careful when you say "mindlessly say things" or
"promulgate beliefs that do nothing for people spiritually". Those
things happen but it's possible to call something mindless banter
when it's not. The unadulterated teachings of the Mahatmas as they've
described them would sound like "insane gibberish" to the uniniated.
Even simple versions of reincarnation and karma may seem unintellible
to a Fundamentalist Christian totally unfamiliar with the ideas.
Also the theosophical doctrines can do something for people spiritually.
They can form the basis of a jnana yoga practice. And they are presented
by at least some like Purucker in a manner that trains the student to
develop his own innate ability to know truth directly to awaken the
inner teacher and come into direct contact with the theosophic thought
>You are exactly right that you cannot measure the nonphysical with
>physical devices. What this means is we must be creative and
>devise new methods for observing nonphysical realities.
These methods would involve the acquisition of inner powers that
necessitate one to have progressed along the Path. They involve the
occult arts and those that know them the Mahatmas have kept
>However this situation is not cut and dry because if the planes
>really do interact with each other then we should observe physical
>events that correspond to nonphysical events. And indeed these
The planes interpenetrate each other but it's only in living
beings that exist on multiple planes in which a change on one
plane can be observed on the next.
To move from one plane to the next requires complete dissolution
and the passing through a laya center. The reason that there is
no apparnent separation between the astral and the physical is
that they are *on the same plane* and HPB mentions in "The Inner
The astral Linga-Sharira is our body of senses and our lowest
principle. The physical Sthula-Sharira is merely condensed
astral and not really a separate principle. What happens to
one shows up in the other because they are both on the same
plane and both composed of the astral light.
>If for example we want to interpret dream experiences as
>perceptions of the astral plane well its widely known that
>dreams occur during REM sleep. And REM sleep is measured by
>EEG machines which measure the elctricity coming from the brain.
>Thus this is a physical event that corresponds to a nonphysical event.
The astral double is the living prototype of the physical form
and not really on a separate plane. Dreams are a form of preception
into the astral light using the astral double. What we do in the
astral double affects the physical because the two jointly compose
our external form on this world Globe D.
>So as I learn more it becomes apparent to me that none of this
>is simple or cut and dry and the possibilities will not be captured
>with simple minded ideas. The important thing is to keep our minds
>open and to refine our ideas because as Pastuer is attributed with
>saying: "luck favors the prepared mind".
Agreed that we need to progress from simple ideas and models to
more-and-more refined ideas. And we need to keep a high degree of
flexibility in our thought. This applies not only to keeping an
open mind regarding the capabilities and direction of science but
also to our study of the Mystery Teachings.
>>If the senses are basically astral and the physical body is an external
>>form that we use for sensory input I'd expect the same with the brain:
>>thought is in the mind and the brain is the physical organ for the experience
>>of thought. But that only applies while we're in the physical body and
>>not separate in the Linga Sharira or mind-created Mayavi-Rupa.
>These kinds of statements Eldon can be taken as starting hypotheses to
>investigate the connection between physical and nonphysical things.
You can take any theosophical statement as the starting hypothesis for
purposes of investigation. Given the vast quantity of materials provided
for our study there's almost an unlimited assortment of points that
could be verified and proven.
>The broadest possible hypothesis is that nonphysical things exist.
>In the early 1980s Stephen LaBerge has set up a situation in which
>it is now basically impossible to conclude that nonphysical things
>do not exist as long as we use nonphysical in a theosophical sense.
>LaBerge ... [showed] that either 01: there exists some world that is not
>the physical world where the two lucid dreamers met and communciated or
>2. the two lucid dreamers communicated by telepathy. In either case
>conventional ideas are obliterated.
It's good to demonstrate that there's much more to life than the
>Thus the state of science today is much different than it was at
>the turn of the century. This idea that occult facts cannot be
>proven is no longer relevant.
What's been proven so far seems to be rather basic stuff. The more
significant side of the occult arts will I suspect remain "classified"
for quite some time to come. Scientists cannot prove something that
they don't know about.
>People such as myself who are in both worlds occultism and science
>are taking it upon ourselves to draw the connections and make sure that
>scientists without occult training are aware that they are not the
>first people to have discovered these realities.
The work that you're doing can be helpful. But although you may be
a trained scientist do you really consider yourself a trained
>I think gradually over time Humanity as a whole will increase the
>general level of psychic abilities. It will begin in the
>investigation of dreams and grow from there. It will be a slow
>evolution and I do not foresee a seperate subrace forming as a result.
My view is different. I see the psychic as coming and going in
specific historic periods. The long-range goal is the evolution
of consciousness and the perfecting of skills in self-expression
in the world. At different points in any cycle we may find the
psychic intellectual religious scientific or artistic/mystical
emphasized. A subrace cycles through an emphasis on certain
qualities then on others and eventually repeats itself.
>>And apart from the evolution of these external systems we're free
>>as individuals to directly persue the Path and *go beyond*.>
>This to me is the bottom line. Humanity is at some "average"
>level of evolution but this does not stop some indivduals from
>going far ahead of this average.
And this is where Theosophy comes into play. It provides *one*
opportunity for individuals to get started on their running ahead
of the average. This is not elitism as some would suggest and
requires the development and practice of compassion.
>the thing about true occult knowledge is that it has built in
>safe guards. The general scepticism of our society towards
>occult knowledge is a manifestation of such a safeguard. Until a
>person is intellectually emotionally and morally developed
>enough occult knowledge appears to them as absurd. Thus
>clearly our society as a whole is not mature enough to deal
>with the deeper occult secrets of knowledge.
If left to itself humanity would not come into occult
knowledge until it was ready for it. But there's still a moral
decision on the part of those that have occult knowledge regarding
telling what whey have learned. Although humanity might not feel
inclined to explore occultism if knowledge is presented to it --
practical knowledge -- that knowledge would be taken up and
misused. There would be harmful effects. My analogy would be
to compare this with the knowledge of sex. A child may not feel
inclined to explore sex or seek out knowledge about it until the
child feels ready to know. This may be based upon the child's
own maturation. But someone could prematurely initiate the child
into sexual knowledge and that may have a disruptive affect on
the child's life. My point here is that humanity may not be ready
for occult knowledge and not seeking it out but could be harmfully
affected if any significant knowledge were prematurely given out.
>Personally Eldon I don't worry about it. People only see what
>they are capable of seeing no matter what one says or does.
But you don't have to know how a gun works or believe in it
in order to own and use one.
>And if a "monkey see monkey do" situation comes about
>then the dumb monkeys will burn themselves and perhaps learn.
That's what they said happened in Atlantean times.
Now I should mention that what I'm writing against are perhaps
the deeper occult secrets perhaps those that are only disclosed
under pledge of secrecy. What you are working with including
lucid dreaming and the relationship of altered states of consciousness
to the biochemistry of the brain is fine as it now stands. Where
I would start to worry would be when drugs start getting engineered
to alter the chemical makeup of the brain in order to induce
paranormal abilities and engineer personality attributes. Or with
genetics seeking to build a master race according to some formula
of socially desirable traits.
I think that in your case if you are sincere and working for the
betterment of humanity that your motivation and conscience will act
as guides and you will be protected against discovering or publishing
anything that would turn out to be truly harmful that your work
will be for the betterment of us all.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application