Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00815)

Daniel:

[writing to JRC]

>Could you state what you think the traditional Theosophical view is on
>psychism and supply the Theos-l audience with some citations from the
>early literature that illustrate this traditional stance? Furthermore,
>I would like to know why you discount this view.

In first reading this, it seems if you're asking JRC to prove his
ideas by providing citations to theosophical literature to back them
up. He's stated that he's read the books and sees them as out-of-date
and wrong when it comes to things like channeling. Asking him to
"prove" his ideas by giving theosophical quotes would be like a
fundamentalist Christian asking us to prove our theosophical ideas
by giving Bible quotes, as though the Bible made that much difference
in what we think!

But that is not what you mean. What you're getting at is that JRC
needs to show that he has some clear understanding of the
theosophical viewpoint before he can discount it or disagree with
it. If he's not clear on what it says, he cannot say it's wrong
and offer better ideas. You're not trying to put him on the spot
but rather attempting to get him to reflect on and review the
basis for his thinking.

>Both you and Eldon have this habit of writing sometimes in very
>general terms and I find it very hard to follow exactly what you
>are both talking about.

I've been trying to state the broad picture and avoid another
venture into a detailed discussion at the present, which could
involve dozens of pages of writing.

>Possibly you two could illustrate some of your differing
>viewpoints with detailed examples, case histories (something
>that the rest of us could sink our teeth into!).

This sounds like write some articles. As time permits, I may
write something, but not immediately. The quotes that you
provided were useful. Here's one more:

HPB> Psychic vision, however, is not to be desired, since Psyche
HPB> is earthy and evil. More and more as science advances, the
HPB> psychic will be reached and understood; psychism has in it
HPB> nothing that is spiritual. ...

["The Inner Group Teachings of H.P. Blavatsky, pages 11-12.]

The problem even with this single passage is that a discussion
is necessary to put the quote in context, explain "earthy and
evil", etc. It's not enough to give a good quote, come informed
commentary is necessary, or we end up with much undigested
content that does not benefit the reader. (This is, of course,
when we use the quotes to communicate and inform, rather than
to "prove" a particular viewpoint, using the quotes as an
appeal to authority rather than as a teaching tool.)

>I personally am very much interested in psychic phenomena of all
>sorts. I follow very closely all the latest developments in
>parapsychology and I have done a lot of study and research on
>the Spiritualism of the 19th century.

It is interesting to learn of paranormal powers and phenomena,
to read actual case studies and scientific experiments. This
is an area of study that can be followed, like any other.

The personal pursuit of powers, though, and the effect upon
one's inner life, is an entirely different matter. We can
talk about the general way that things work, or the situation
of particular people, people that may be exceptions to the
rule. Something could be generally bad to follow, yet for
some exceptional individuals their unique karmic circumstances
allow for them to continue that path with benefit.

There's a difference between the chaos and confusion in
someone's life that opening the pandora's box of the psychical
brings, and the disorder and turbulence that arises in one's
life with probationary chelaship when one is faced with a
lifetime's karma in a few years.

(I can picture someone reading this and automatically saying
in reply, "But *I* don't experience chaos and confusion with
the psychic, it's all *your* internal problems with the
psychic; things are simply rosy for me!" I could only wish
continued good luck to such a person.)

How, then, do we distinguish the spiritual path from surface
confusions, when turbulence arises in our outer lives in
either case? What is it that distinguishes that someone is
alive and awakened to the Path, and is not an imposter, a
person consumed with psychological inflation and delusions
of grandeur? How do we identify living Gold from fools gold?
This is another topic, requiring much writing, and would
probably sound quite different depending upon which of us
was speaking.

>Hoping that you and Eldon will take what I have said above
>as an encouragement to engage in a more constructive
>dialog on a very important topic.

But until either JRC or I have any new, original ideas on the
subject, we have little more to say, other than restating
our positions again and repeating the same thoughts in
slightly different words each time.

He may make occasional comments that make psychism sound
good, wonderful, wholesome, the great next step forward in
human evolution. I may make occasional remarks about
psychism being not such a good thing. Either of us may feel
it necessary, after reading enough of the other's comments,
to "set the record straight" with a detailed reply. It's
best, I think, when our replies deal with the ideas and
issues, and don't find it necessary to try to humble the
other by blasting their person, by putting them down and
trying to find significant character or behavioral flaws.

-- Eldon