Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00875)

On Sat, 20 Apr 1996, Eldon B. Tucker wrote:

> 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 He's stated that he's read the books and sees them as out-of-date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!
	Perhaps you should stick to categorizing your own thoughts, 
Eldon, and allow me to explain mine. So far as "channeling" goes, I first 
differentiate between the ML, the SD & Isis, and the lesser writers that 
came later and who tried to *formalize* a theosophical "path". Second, by 
"out of date" I mean that whiìe HPB certainly *did* speak against passive 
mediumship, the modern phenomena called "channeling" contains at least 
some practices that have virtually nothing to do with what HPB was 
arguing against. She *may or may not have* agreed or disagreed with these 
practices, but they were not what she was analyzing. The main point was 
that we cannot just pick her criticisms of "mediumship" up out of her 
writings, and automatically simply apply them to a very different 
phenomena a century in the future. *You* may wish to reduce this to "he 
thinks they're out of date and wrong", but that is not what I said, it is 
your subjective interpretation of what I said. 
	The attempt to portray me as someone who so completely 
disregards Theosophical literature that I wouldn't even bother to quote 
from it is just outright mean-spirited. From here on in Eldon, for fun, I 
cease to hold back. You virtually continually answer not my ideas, but 
your categorizations of them; not my points or arguments, but your own 
speculations as to my motives for stating them. And you almost invariably 
completely misunderstand my arguments and are utterly wrong about my 
motives. I now feel fully free to do the same to you. What a hoot this 
will be! 
	Daniel ... I should make clear what I meant (in answer to your 
question, not Eldon's reading of it): I do not discount HPB, KH or M. I 
*do* believe many interpretations are possible of what they wrote, 
however, and they wrote what appears to be very different things at 
different times. When I refer to "traditional Theosophy", I'm not 
referring to the *three founders* (the two Adepts and HPB), rather to a 
particular (and to my mind very reductionist) viewpoint of their writings 
that has arisen over the decades, and that has now reached the point of 
being virtually institutionally enforced in formal TS organizations. This 
viewpoint is almost purely intellectually based, and quite naturally 
selects quotes from the original writings that prove that the "psychic" 
may contain the danger of "delusion" - conveniently, of course, *not* 
looking for all the quotes that would indicate that the intellectual 
carries dangers just as deep. In fact, it was in part to mitigate the 
materialism of the *science* of the time, not the "psychism", that the 
original TS impulse was delivered - which appears to have been a profound 
piece of foreknowledge ... as the dangers to our current world from the 
misuse of the *intellect* make the dangers of the "psychic" positively 
pale in comparison.
	It is this misreading, this entirely form-based reduction of the 
original impulse, whose *proponents* have tried to claim it to be 
"traditional", that I have rejected. - not KH or M, both of whom used a 
rather impressive array of such things *in service*, nor HPB, whom, 
throughout her travels, sought out, investigated, and developed within 
herself a stunning number of "latent powers", and who in fact made the 
investigation of such things one of the three pillars of Theosophy.    
 
> 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.
	Gee thanks! But I wonder who you are talking to? I get the 
feeling Daniel knew full well what he was "getting at", and believe it or 
not, *I* am actually capable of understanding what he said as well. I 
don't believe Daniel was attempting to get me to "reflect on and review 
the basis for my thinking" - he simply *asked a question*. One of your 
more endearing habits is to almost continually guess people's motives, and 
then proceed as though your assessment of them is some sort of truth. For 
someone continually warning others to beware of the "subjective" nature 
of those evil psychic powers, you certainly seem disinclined to apply 
those warnings to your own "intuitions". 
	I suspect neither Daniel nor I need your interpretation of his 
question to me ... an interpretation that sounds curiously closer to 
what *you* want me to do than to what was actually asked. And I certainly 
don't need *you* portraying my thoughts and attitudes on my behalf, as 
you distort them with your "personal equation" worse than any psychic 
I've met. 

> >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:
	Aaahhh, but this is a major point. Daniel asked a question in the 
spirit of *the Third Object*, that is, as an *investigator asking for 
evidence to inform debate*. He has asked for *specifics* rather than 
general ideas, for demonstration rather than quotes. And for this reason 
when I get time I will answer Daniel, but not argue with you - you have 
not the grounds to discuss the matter, and in fact you, and the many 
others that have dominated this debate in recent years in TS circles, 
have attempted undermine the very foundations upon which an *actual* 
"investigation" might proceed.  
	I *have*, over the years, *investigated*. Have you spoken to, 
examined, gathered evidence from, and analyzed the relative veracity of 
several *hundred* practitioners of various forms of and manifestations of 
inner abilities? I have. Of the few who you've come into contact with, 
did you approach the evidence *without presumptions of what you would 
find* ... neither believing it was right until proven wrong *nor 
assuming it delusion?* I did. Have you done a literature survey ... not 
just the literature of one philosophy, but the writings from a wide 
variety of different religions, philosophies, and sciences on the 
subject? I have. Have you further experienced some of the phenomena 
within yourself ... put years of effort and discipline into taking a raw 
trait and forming it into a consistant, *empirically verifiable* ability? 
Experimented with a whole host of different conditions, both internal and 
external, to discover as many permutations of the ability as possible? 
Experimented with the results of *combining* such ability with other 
meditations, with causing that inner vision to sublimate and refine into 
something completely different than its first manifestations? I have.
	My *premises* were not that I would discover things that 
conveniently fit some sort of predefined paradigm, Theosophical or 
otherwise. I was not, and am not attempting to *confirm* a picture I've 
gotten from a single philosophical standpoint. And it would be as useless 
to debate the subject with such a person as it would be to debate Gould's 
theory of punctuated evolution with a Creationist, or the nuances of 
macroeconomic modelling equations with someone who thinks money is "evil".
	You speak of the subject not with the tones of an investigating 
scientist, but with the normative attitude of a priest who has arrived at 
conclusions before evidence has even been gathered.
	I have never actually presented any research, or experiments, or 
tentative conclusions on this list - what I've been forced to debate is 
whether or not such things are even valid in Theosophy. There are places 
where such *investigations* proceed, in fact growing numbers of places, 
but the proper atmosphere must exist to make such investigations possible 
- and that atmosphere is not present in a place were every mention of such 
things brings warnings that "illusion" is possible, hints that anyone who 
even presents evidence is doing so just to "get attention", and dark 
warnings of terrible dangers. 

The Adepts of the ML, and HPB certainly said only Adepts could see with 
total clarity 100% of the time, but do you think they became Adepts, and 
suddenly just sort of *had* the vision, just instantly *discovered* they 
could exercise a whole manner of abilities? Or is it more likely such 
things developed slowly over lifetimes - were at furst blurred and 
confused, but through use and exercise, combined with spiritual 
development, *gradually* turned into the abilities that *in the cause of 
service to humanity* are exceedingly valuable things to possess? 

> 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.]
> 

okay ...

Hhhhmmmm, lemme grab the first available ...
HPB> To see and appreciate the difference - the immense gulf that 
HPB> separates terrestrial matter from the finer grades of supersensuous 
HPB> matter - every astronomer, every chemist and *physicist* ought to be a 
HPB> *psychometer*, to say the least; he ought to be able to sense for 
HPB> himself that difference in which he now refuses to believe. 
[Italics are HPB's]. 

[Secret Doctrine, footnote to Stanza VI(6)(b) - (named thus instead of by 
page as there are so many different editions floating around)].

I generally do not quote from the SD to back up my arguments, as it 
really is too immense, seemingly enormously contradictory, and many 
apparently opposing conclusions can be reached from it. When I talk about 
rejecting, or finding flaws in "traditional" Theosophy, I'm talking not 
about HPB, but about a "doctrine" that was formalized by lesser minds out 
of the vastness of her thought ... a doctrine I consider "tamed, leashed 
and shrunken" Theosophy - that winds up often being presented in such a 
fashion as to imply that HPB or the Adepts want everyone to spend their 
lives sitting around studying books, meditating, having calm "deep" 
discussions of the intricacies of arcane "truths" and studiously avoiding 
anything that might lead them into "illusion". 
	Of course, if the Adepts had done this, they never would have 
become Adepts, and if HPB had done so, we wouldn't have the very 
literature that people quote from to justify this "playpen Theosophy".

> >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.
> 
> 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 will presume you are quoting Theosophical writings, and not 
claiming to be a "probationary chela" (though you sometimes seem to hint 
that you might be). Presuming this then, how do you know there is a 
difference? That becoming a "probationary chela" does not itself serve to 
open that "Pandora's box"? In fact, if the early TS is any evidence, 
virtually everyone who *was* accepted as such *almost immediately began 
developing* - or attempting to develop - a whole palette of such 
abilities - *with the aid and complicity of the Adepts*. 
	
> (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 nice. A veiled warning. Not even the vaguest notion that 
perhaps your ideas of the "psychic" are proper *for your path* (who 
knows, you may have gone *overboard* in some past time into the psychic, 
and be spending a few lives delibrately avoiding it) but that 
*generalizing* what is proper for *you* may not apply at all to anyone 
else's path ... that is, maybe it actually *is* your internal problems 
with it from which your attitudes spring.  
	Out of the substantial number of people I've *systematically* 
surveyed, spoken and experimented with, a particular *subset* has had 
negative experiences - others have had very intensely positive 
experiences, but most fall in between in something close to a normal 
distribution. It is to the extreme end of one tail of that distribution 
that your "Pandora's Box" of chaos and confusion effects, and most of 
those seem to fall into one of two groups ... one in which the people, 
due to some bad psychological or physiological imbalance or distorion 
probably should never have touched the stuff in the first place - but in 
whom the chaos and confusion existed *independently* of psychic stuff 
(that is, the psychic was not a *cause*, but an *avenue of 
manifestation*) ... and one in which the chaos and confusion was 
*temporary*, and either the person stopped experimenting, or simply 
overcame *initial* confusion (a blind man who suddenly had his eyesight 
restored would *also* initially experience great chaos and confusion, and 
might well be temporarily deluded as he tried to fit actual perceptions 
into the conceptual picture he had built of the world ... but that would 
hardly be an argument for keeping him *blind*).
	A very *very* small number actually seem to have experienced 
permanently negative effects ... but even this must be understood within 
the context of doing *any* actual inner work ... there is a small subset 
of those undergoing Jungian analysis that *also* crack as the result of 
*that* - which, by the way, is capable of unleashing a "Pandora's Box of 
chaos and confusion" as bad as any "psychic" development can - but this 
is certainly not a reason to issue general warnings against analysis.  
		
> 
> >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.
	This may be your view. It isn't mine. In fact, I have never 
actually *stated* my *position* - most posts have been deconstructions 
of, and arguments against, *your* assertions, and through them the 
assertions of what I consider a ridiculous thought-form that hovers 
around modern Theosophy, and has served to keep debate on the subject 
trapped within hundred year old categories.

> He may make occasional comments that make psychism sound
> good, wonderful, wholesome, the great next step forward in
> human evolution. 
	I have never made affirmative comments suggesting any such thing. 
I once sketched a paradigm I was playing with intellectually, that 
suggested that the phenomena of disciplined channeling might be the first 
step of something new (and this was really just playing with a particular 
viewpoint, it was not a *belief* nor an *assertion*) - and I have now and 
then pointed out that *HPB* correctly predicted that there would be an 
increase in children *born* with "latent" powers active in this and 
coming centuries. 
	I have *never* called psychic development a "path"; I have never 
once even *suggested* that anyone attempt in any way, shape or form begin 
experimenting with it - and in fact believe anyone that *is* afraid of 
it, that does feel nervous about it, *should* stay the hell away from it, 
as the fear may very well be an intuitive signal that it is not 
appropriate to *that person's path in that lifetime* ... I have not been 
*selling* the idea that psychism is "good" as some general thing to 
pursue ... in fact have only argued that I think it the height of 
arrogance for someone to *make* generalized statements about what is 
"right" for others to do. To portray me as an *advocate* of "psychism" 
and yourself as one who warns people of its dangers is a false picture - 
fact in the thousands of pages I've written in my lifetime there is not 
*one sentence* in which I've even hinted that another person or general 
group of people "should" engage in any such development. 
	What I *have* said is that within the TS *should exist an 
environment in which the pursuit of the Third Object is possible*, and 
that the condescending and dismissive tones and attitudes with which 
so-called "traditional" Theosophy speaks about such things not only does 
not create such an environment, but assures that any actual 
*investigators* will not waste their time in Theosophical circles - 
undoubtadly, of course, because they're not yet "ready" to be lead into 
something "higher". 

> 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.
	A curious categorization. It has been a *long time* since I 
stated anything at all about the "psychic". In fact, I determined not to. 
*You* seem unable to resist introducing what you call "stray comments", 
often into discussions that don't even relate to psychism. Most of these 
I have just let pass. Periodically I'll respond to one, (which you call 
an "outburst", based on "resentment" that has alledgedly built up in me), 
not, however, to attempt to convince you of anything, but to make it 
clear to any newcomers on the list that your view is *not* "the" only 
Theosophical view. 
	Get real clear about this: *You* keep starting it; I *respond*. 
If you want "us" to stop, then *you* stop. I personally don't care all 
that much about styles of presentation. And generally I'll try to 
*reflect* the attitudes I'm responding to. You seem to see yourself as 
trying to maintain some sort of ground above the personality level, and 
myself as descending to personal shots. From *my* perspective, I take 
your personal shots and reflect them in and overt rather than covert 
fashion. If you are serious about raising the level of discourse to that 
of idea, then *do it*, and I'll respond in like fashion. Please think 
*real hard* about this, Eldon, and contemplate whether there is not some 
truth to it.
	From your last post: 
"You mention that I've taught you to "throw aside all notions of 
empathizing with the point of view of another, and to simply state 
my own perspective as forcefully as possible." That certainly was 
not something I either try to practice or teach others. 
I suppose that you may get the feeling that I've been that way in 
the past, because there have been times when you've posted things 
and gotten praise. There have been times when I've been the only 
person that attempts to contrast what you've said with a 
traditional theosophical view, which you're quick to dismiss as 
mere intellectual stuff."
	Examine the picture this paints. You appear as someone bodly 
standing at times as the sole voice of "traditional Theosophy", without 
any ill intent, and simply responding to me. I appear as someone who 
*mistakes* that pure stance as a lack of empathy, because it apparently 
puts a damper on the *praise* I receive from my postings. What, your 
motive is to uphold the truth, and mine is simply to *get praise*? Good 
grief.
	When *you* speak your mind, it is simply someone standing for 
truth and trying nobly to lead people into something "higher", when *I* 
respond, it is because resentment has built, and it is not an equally 
valid *philosophical position*, but an "outburst". 
	Is this then, a demonstration of what you call "not putting 
people down"? 
	You can determine how things go Eldon. If you keep making "stray 
comments", I'll keep having "outbursts". If you keep categorizing *my 
motives*, I'll keep "blasting away at your character". If you wish the 
conversation to raise to the level you advocate, *then raise it*, and I 
will respond in like fashion.
							Regards, -JRC