Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00454)

Richard I:
>Sometimes, however, I wonder whether there will be a future for
>*psychogenesis* or not, since people ordinarily think it is primarily
>concerned with academic or therapeutic psychology in some way and then often
>immediately begin arguing against it on that basis.

	The layman gets the two confused, yes.  But there is
a big difference between psychology (the study of human behavior)
and psychotherapy (fixing mental disorders & problems).  Actually,
a compare/contrast of pathological states and the spiritual Path
could make for an interesting study.

> Actually, psychogenesis
>may be a possible way to partially reclaim the word *psyche* from the
>philistines paid according to the fifty-minute-hour.  Isn't it interesting
>that *psyche* comes from the Greek root meaning not only "soul" but also
>"butterfly"?
	This Greek meaning is, I thin, one reason why Jung adopted
the word, while most modern psychologists avoid it.


>However "cosmogenesis" or "anthropogenesis" can be successfully approached,
>the understanding of the psychogenetic "heuristic overlay" seems most
>dependent upon being a good observer of one's sequentially changing states of
>consciousness in meditation.  (I believe that someone with a high Degree of
>Self-Awareness could observe exactly the same sequence in the process of
>falling asleep.)  The *Theosophical Pattern* is the crucial thing--whether it
>is psyche-building, human-building, or cosmos-building.
	I clearly agree with the need for a Theosophical Pattern.  I believe
that G de P once wrote that one can never tell exactly when one falls alseep.
This is simply not so.  I have done this many times.  As a matter of fact, it
comes about when you hear voices.  Visual dream images aren't enough.
I see images first.  Then, as soon as I hear a voice talking to me, off I go.
It is nothing more than changing my focus of consciousness.  Yet I find
myself in a new body with new surroundings, and sometimes with a
whole new personality complete with a new set of  memories.

> <snip>"--thus, I cling so strongly to the definition of *theosophy* as
>"knowledge which has its base in, or at least originally derives from,
>transcendental, mystical, or intuitive insight.")
	Yes, it has to.  Even Eldon agrees that this insight was
from a line of Adepts.  Each school of Tibetan Buddhism was
generated by an Adept who passed his/her insights down through
a line of disciples, who often became Adepts in turn.  Its an ageless
process, apparently still going on today.  But it all has to go back
to someone's personal direct experience of other worlds besides
this physical Earth.  And what we don't want to forget is that each
school has differences, large or small, from each other.  This
demonstrates a certain "subjectivity" to all such experiences.
The areas of agreement, I have called "signposts" in that
most people should share those experiences.  All other areas
are variable, and one's experiences may or may not converge
to anothers.

>Anyway, I am not so optimistic at this point that I will live long enough to
>see psychogenesis become a respectable idea in the Theosophical world.
	Nor I.  Because it is just beginning.  HPB would have done
so herself, if modern psychology had been available to her.

> Whenever I have spoken about it in talks, I have generally had the
>"interesting-but-not-really-Theosophy" response (thus, my obsessive
>discussion with Eldon about the limiting aspects of the capital *T*).
	This is because most theosophists are intellectual but
not experiential.  They have probably tried yoga at some point, but
had no success.  They are not aware of the limitations of the
intellect, or human mind, even though HPB tells us time and
time again that the mortal cannot know the immortal or the
human the divine.  Using the globes and planes model, we can
say that Theosophy (cap T) is limited to the lower three cosmic
planes which contain the lower 5 globes, while theosophy (little t)
runs through all 7 planes and 12 globes.  However, try to explain
this to the human intellect, and watch it scream in protest.

Sorry to hear about your book (no, I haven't read it).  Maybe you
could do a revision?

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI