Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00246)

While reflecting on Daniel's post to/from/about Mike Mueckler's
scientism, and what I really believe, or rather believe I
*know* about the paranormal/mystical/esoteric-- there are two
bottom lines.

1) Every single time I have done and interpreted a natal
astrological chart for someone, he or she has been blown away
by its accuracy and depth.  And the dozens of people for whom I
have done them have *not* been particularly predisposed to
believe-- anyone *really* sympathetic to astrology would
have done their chart or had it done while they were still in
their teens, like me.  Anyone who waits until age 30 or older
to have it done cannot be very biased in favor of astrology.
So, I don't know *how* it works and I don't know *why* it
works, but all the skeptics in the world cannot shake my
knowledge *that* it works.

2) In almost 20 years of very sporadic practice, I have
confirmed this much: application of the Edgar Cayce guidelines
on meditation, diet, exercise, and attitudes/emotions has
consistently proved its worth in terms of an increased sense of
physical, psychological, and spiritual well-being.  To go
further, the degree of psychic integration and well-being
experienced at different times has been *directly proportional*
to the degree to which I have applied these guidelines.  (Which
has varied a lot).  Don't know how, don't know why, just know
it works.

For someone like Mike, none of this may mean anything
scientifically, and I can't argue.  But I wish the scientists
would at least *look into* subjects like Cayce and astrology,
instead of looking down their noses.

On realizing that these were the two things in life about which
I felt most confident/secure, I realized that they entered my
life the same time-- 1978-79-- as did Theosophy.  But while
astrology and Cayce kept the implicit promises I perceived in
them, I can't say the same so unreservedly for Theosophy.  It
seems to parallel the refuges in the Buddha, the dharma and the
sangha.  The three promises I felt or registered in that one
year period were:

1.  You can rely on the Christ Consciousness or the Divine
Forces to provide spiritual guidance, to the extent that you
open yourself to same.  This equates to refuge in the Buddha--
although I would universalize that to the buddhi.  Cayce made
this promise, and it has never failed.

2.  You can rely on astrology to provide practical guidance on
understanding what you need to do and when, and how to relate
to others.  This is like the refuge in the dharma-- a
particular systematic discipline that harmonizes us with the
universe.

But behind door number 3 was a perceived promise that didn't
work out quite as planned:

3.  You can count on the Theosophical movement to provide a
network of supportive, mutually respectful fellow-seekers whose
shared values and interests will be a source of, well social security.

That one never failed at the local level, neither in the
Tidewater branch of the Pasadena TS, nor in any other local
group with which I have interacted.  But at the national and
international levels, Theosophy became not something *in which
I could find refuge* but rather something *from which I would
need refuge*.  This is the level of finding refuge in the
sangha, a group of like-minded spiritual pilgrims.

Now, does this mean that Theosophy is inherently less reliable
than astrology or Cayce?  No, I don't think so.  If I had
relied on astrological organizations or the A.R.E. to provide an
ever-supportive network, they would probably have been
just as disappointing as Theosophy.  What it *does* mean,
however, is that whatever group you're in, you had better put
most of your eggs in the baskets of buddha and dharma, because
no sangha can be guaranteed to keep its promises (implicit or
otherwise).

More later.