Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00149)

At 08:50 PM 4/9/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Alexis:
>> Most humans are afraid of developing
>>awareness of the levels of the relative realities beyond the
>>physical/emotional because they are afraid of what they will learn about the
>>nature of the human condition by way of that awareness.
>	I think you hit the nail on the head.
>
>> My only
>>real complaint in regard to your position is that I have a strong suspicion
>>that you are over simplifying something that really isn't at all simple.
>	Of course I am.  And, no, it isn't.  BUt what I am trying to do, is
>show some theosophists that it can be put into relatively simple words, and
>really doesn't need the vast array of confusing and misleading terminology
>that theosophy now uses.

That, my friend, is exactly what I've been saying and drawing some contumely
for.
>
>>Jerry: here's one spot where I disagree, but not only with you. I just
>>cannot accept the notion of "seven planes of existence" I see the relative
>>realities as composed of infinite numners of levels of reality. Does that
>>mean I disagree with HPB? Yep! I think the so-called "seven cosmic planes"
>>are a tremendous over-simplification of abstract reality.
>
	I doubt that HPB would disagree with you.  Her 7 planes is only
>a model--one of many models that human beings create from time to
>time to try to structure the magical universe.  Its as good as any.  The fact
>is, within those 7 planes, there are, as you say, an infinite number of
>possible experiences (just like there are millions of separate and
>distinct experiences going on here on Earth right now).

O.K. Jerry, I understand it's "only a model" or "su]ymbol", and it's clear
that you do too. But, what about all the old "shell backs" who think the
universal reality is some kind of onion? I know HPB wouldn't disagree with
me, but HPB isn't the problem. CWL, Besant, Jinarajadasa. and Arundale et
al, are the problem. If any of those people had made it clear theywere
speaking symbolically or creating models of reality to make the
comprehension of abstractions more attainable, we'd not be in such a pickle.
>
>> Of course the body doesn't go
>>anywhere, but as to the "spirit". perhaps it can, perhaps, on occasion, it
>>does.
>	Well, I don't know about "spirit" but consciousness sure
>seems to move around, or as I like to say, shift its focus.  I agree
>with Richard that Theosophy needs to concentrate on a psychological
>perspective, or psychogenesis, if it is to survive.  Thats why I prefer
>to talk about sensitivity and shifting conscious focus, rather than
>going to other planes or globes.

O.K. Let's agree on this: you say consciousness and I say spirit, but in my
book I constantly interidentify the two phenomena. Spirit is disembodied
consciousness and awareness. That's all I believe it to be, that's all I
have experienced it to be. But I have worked with Roberto Assagioli and I
know that his Jungian approach is a long way from my ideas about
psychogenesis. I also aprehend there is a great danger in using a so-called
"psychological" approach to theosophy as it tends to either avoid or
euphemise reality into psychological states of physical human consciousness,
and they, as I see it, are the least important aspects of consciousness.
>
>>Well, I don't know Jerry. Any dicipline that regularly leads to abuse can be
>>said to have an "in-built" flaw. What is there, intrinsic to Yoga and
>>"magic" that so regularly produces spiritual onanism?
>	I suspect that we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
>I see yoga and magic as techniques or devices that we human beings
>can use as a means to an end.  If someone smokes at night and
>burns down their house, I would not blame fire.  The fact that only a
>few use magic and yoga successfully is a demonstration of human
>beings at the present time, and not the fault of the devices used.  I
>probably risk saying this to you, but I see Shamanism as another
>device or technique, and it too is only successful for the few.
>
>	Jerry S.
>	Member, TI
>
>
It is clear that you too acknolwedge that Yoga and "Magic" are regularly
abused. In fact, in my over thirty years of experience I have seen them more
frequently abused than utilized correctly. And no, the techniques
themselves, are clearly not to "blame". But the point that I was attempting
to make is that any technigue which is more easil misused than used
correctly, perhaps is in need of replacement with something more
"foolproof"nd I use the word advisedly. From your point of view I suppose
that Shamanism, that is "Echte Shamanism der ding an sich", is a
"technique", though I question the meaning of "device". And, in fact, it may
be true in some or many cases. But, in the case of the fully successful
Shaman, it is not so, it is then a "state-of-beingness". I am sure that you
will disagree and that I will draw some ire on my head from other
directions, but the fully developed senior shaman/shamanka is post-human. As
you know I regard the dfully developed Shaman as a synonym for the Tibetan
Tulku, and they too are "post-human". HPB was a Tulku, she was also a Shaman.
With her ancestry she came by it very naturally. The history of
pre-christian Russia is the history of Shamanism.

alexis, MTI, FTSA
>