Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00591)

>Richard Ihle:
     Richard - guess what! You've been elected to be used as the
one through which Eldon takes his shots at me this time! A
curious rhetorical device no doubt, but since I `spect you'll get
quite a chuckle about it, I'll play the game.

>As you suggested might happen, many of the pro-psychic crowd
>were infuriated at my postings. Perhaps it is related to this
>statement of Alexis that was written to Bee today:
     You were quite correct, Richard, in telling the principle
spokesman for the "anti-psychic" crowd that if he wanted to throw
rocks at people, wanted to restate the same tired argument that
has always lead to nastiness, that people would probably respond
to him as they usually responded (I myself positively delight in
giving the predictable, expected response the predictable
position of others!) The curious thing is that he responded
according to the pattern I described ... "Look daddy - look how
mean they're being to poor virtuous me, when I did nothing but
try to start a learned examination of these issues!"

>>One of the primary features of that "next step
>>forward" is psychic sensitivity. Well, in that case, you've hit
>>the nail squarely on the head! One of the missions of the
>>theosophical movement was to prepare 19th and early 20th
>>century humanity for this "great leap forward", and to ready
>>people, especially young people, for the new awareness of the
>>greater reality outside of human reality that they would
>>experience.

>Since they define adepts as someone with "inner powers", and
>those powers equated as the sort of psychical abilities that
>they have or are seeking, I suppose they want the rest of us
>seeking higher powers of mind and lucidity to abandon our
>foolish ways and follow in their footsteps?
     Several of us certainly had the unmitigated gall to point
out that not only the Adepts, but their various chelas each, to
the person, both developed and used a variety of inner abilities,
"psychic" and otherwise - an uncomfortable fact for those that
have wanted to re-write "traditional" Theosophy to completely
exclude all such activity, and even the entire Third Object. But
no one ever *defined* an "Adept" simply as one who possessed such
things.
     And look carefully at Eldon's projection here ... for it is
indeed a big point (especially since he ends his post by saying
that apparently because of our reactions Theosophy *can't* become
am "umbrella big enough for different points of view"): He says
*we* want everyone else to "abandon" their search for "higher
powers of mind" and "follow" in our footsteps.
     However, can you think of a single instance when any of "us"
(he certainly likes to categorize people) ever tried to tell
anyone else to *not* seek to develop "higher powers of mind"? A
single instance where any of us *promoted* the development
"psychic" abilities? A single time when we asked someone to
"follow" our "paths"? No - in fact I don't think any of us
believe anyone ought to *if they don't have the prompting coming
from within*.
     Alexis has never once *promulgated* Shamanism, never once
said anyone *else* should follow the path he's chosen (though he
has pointed out that HPB used similar powers). I have never
*once* said anyone ought to try to develop any "psychic
abilities" (though I did point out that the Adepts and their
Chelas all *did*).
     Eldon, however, *has* seen fit to continually warn about
such things, continually has framed them as an either/or
situation - to follow the "real" path, one must resist and
supress any "psychic" abilities, even if they begin rising quite
naturally (as the Adepts said they would).
     It is, in fact, Eldon that has virtually *preached* that we
should "abandon" our "foolish" development of "psychic"
abilities, and *follow in his footsteps* (`course, he doesn't see
it as little more than his personal reading of the "path" - he
claims it to be "the" path ... of which he is just a humble
exponent).

>Although I read, on almost a daily basis, comments such as
>these, there seems to be a harsh reaction to any suggestion that
>all this might not be real. JRC is quick to tell me my motives -
>- whether I agree or not -- and indicate his willingness to
>engage in a fight. There's a lot that cannot be discussed on
>theos-l, and it is precisely this sort of reaction that makes
>most people lurk.
     Actually, the "motive" charge is a good one. There may be no
one on the list who tells others their "motives" more often than
Eldon. In fact his usual response to arguments is not to respond
directly to what anyone says, but to restate (usually with
substantial distortion) what was said, speculate as to the
motives of the writer, and then answer the restatement and the
motives. I've actually never got the feeling that he's *heard* a
single thing I've said.
     And the "reaction" is to an *action*. I'll certainly engage
in a fight *when someone delibrately starts it* - and Eldon seems
unable to resist starting it. Curious that he now believes that
"most people" agree with him ... in fact, "most" lists on the
Internet have about a tenth of the members that are active, and
nine tenths that are silent - this list actually has a slightly
*larger* number than most that actively participate (this one-
tenth/nine-tenths ration is remarkably consistant ... across the
scientific, mathematical, environmental and philosophical lists
I'm on). There are probably various reasons for that ratio - but
one of the most curious phenomena that also seems to cross the
list landscape is people *using* the large quantity of "lurkers"
as an arguing point - the thing about lurkers is that they *lurk*
- anyone can claim that they are lurking for any reason, and the
vast majority will neither confirm or deny it.
     I, myself, don't happen to believe that most on this list
are lurking because a few people will not behave as Eldon wishes
them to, but simply because this is an Internet list, and the
majority of its members will simply lurk regardless of what the
discussion is.
     This paragraph of Eldon's contains the classic avoidance -
in which he is guiltless, and I'm the nasty one. However, his
choice of examples rather argues against this, no? For example,
say I very innocently said something like ... "let's examine the
dangers of the development of the higher functions of the mind,
and the delusions and self-righteousness that such things are
prone to lead to ... let's look at this article about the
Unabomber, in light of the Theosophical teachings about the
terrible illusions the development of the "slayer of the real"
can lead to". Would starting a discussion with such an assertion
be likely to lead to a "neutral" discussion? Do you think Eldon
would interpret it as anything other than a cheap shot at his
perspective?

>Apparently the views that I'm writing about, like subjective
>states and spheres of effects, etc. is new to him. It comes from
>my study and thought based upon the source writings, and I
>should be able to discuss them without facing this!
     Gimme a break. I've read all the books Eldon has. And in
addition, have read a good deal of neurophysiology and
neurochemistry - in scientific journals, not newspapers. I've
studied the "astral light" not just by reading the writings of
others and, yes, *thinking* about them, but by years of
experiments, and long and substantial discourse with a good
number of people. And, having been born with a few such things
and taken time and considerable effort and discipline to develop
them into *tools of service*, should be able to be on a
*Theosophical list* without having to face *continual* cheap
shots, condescending comments, and now the lovely assertion that
a severe mental illness is related to clairvoyant vision.
     If Eldon does not want to *face* it, he shouldn't *start*
it.

>While I may be in the  minority in writing about the subject the
>way that I do, I suspect  that it's because many avoid this
>list, or are gun shy, and choose  to lurk.
     Look at the attempt to become the poor minority voice
holding up the single light in the wilderness. Eldon's view is
hardly minority, and is in fact if anything the *dominant*
perspective in current Theosophy. In fact there are some places
where its virtually institutionally *imposed*. This list is one
of those places where it has been unable to dominate.
     And again that cheap political trick - he is in the minority
because people avoid the list, or "lurk" ... fact we have
absolutely no way of knowing *what* position the lurkers hold, or
even *if* they hold a position on this particular subject.

>I have seen on-going discussion of psychic powers being the next
>great step in evolution and the sign of adeptship. I read this,
>and wonder, when is someone going to say something and set the
>record straight?
     Look at marvelous attitude here! Anyone holding any position
other than Eldon's is implied to be flawed, as he needs to "set
the record straight". And again the avoidance. The vast majority
of those "on-going discussions" are not really discussions, but
comments in one or two posts - and almost all of them
(*including* the quote by Alexis Eldon used at the beginning of
his post) were not assertions made out of the blue, but were in
*response* to threads *started by Eldon* - usually in which he
claimed such things were "lower", dangerous, delusional, and a
*past* step in human evolution (and in this current instance,
actually related to schizophrenia).

>It's quite unbalanced. But see what happens. If something is
>said either in support of spiritual or intellectual awakening,
>or of other faculties of consciousness being the next step
>forward, they'll quickly get in hot water!
     Anytime *one person* claims that *their view* of the "next
step forward", their *personal reading* of Theosophical texts, is
the "one true" reading, anytime they *begin discussions* with the
contention that the "path" they follow is *higher* than the paths
of others, they certainly *will* get in hot water. No one on this
list has *ever* said a word against "spiritual awakening" - but
Eldon seems to have a hard time understanding that his personal
opinion about what that word means is not accepted as the "true"
meaning by everyone else.

>In countering these ideas, instead of hearing the positive
>aspects of the psychical, I've found various counterattacks
>being made, directed at other subjects.
     I've never personally argued for the "positive aspects"
because, quite at variance with Eldon, I'm *not* trying to get
people to experiment with anything, not calling their development
a "path" - not trying to say *one* way is "the" way. I don't
speak with *collective* pronouns ... never say *WE* should do
anything.
     There *are* places where I talk about clairvoyance, and
about its relation to modern medicene and psychology ... with
others who are developing such things, as well as doctors and
psychologists who are recognizing the *usefulness* of such things
- but I do not enter into discussions when from the beginning I'm
going to have to overcome completely ridiculous attitudes.
     And again, this assertion that Eldon is *countering* these
ideas. The *fact* is that almost everything Eldon is *countering*
is actually a *response* to an original assertion on *his* part.
And so far as "other subjects" are concerned, most of the time
Eldon starts it he starts by responding to a post (or in this
case a newspaper article) that has *nothing* to do with the
subject of "psychic abilities".

>JRC, for instance, has been trying out a number of approaches.
     So then, I am here being charged with experimenting with a
bunch of different arguments to avoid responding to Eldon's
uncompromising "truths". `Course I might say that I've seen
nothing on the subject from Eldon other than the trying out of a
number of different approaches to trash the "psychic" and make
sure everyone knows his path is the "real" one. This latest
"approach" being a delightful one ... Psychic vision is related
to mental illness.

>One was something like the books were out-of-date and one needed
>a living channel to guide one.

     Some of the books *are* out of date ... and in many more
areas than the "psychic" - see, for instance, the example from
the "Quantum" post, re: HPB's assertion that comets' tails
blowing away from the sun refuted the universiality of the law of
gravity.
     And I *NEVER* said anyone needed a living channel as a
guide. That is a *bad* distortion of a post in which I was simply
playing with the thought that the hierarchal power of churches
was in the midst of decentralizing. This is just a downright
nasty assertion.

>A second was that he was a better Theosophist than the students
>of the literature because he accepted the earlier primary
>objective of Universal Brotherhood.
     Once again Eldon not only re-states and distorts what I
said, but forgets the context that prompted my statements. After,
in one of *his posts* hearing myself portrayed, yet again, as one
who completely rejects the literature, completely rejects
"traditional" Theosophy, having, once again, the foundations of
my Theosophy *questioned*, and alledged to be lacking, ... yes,
again, *IN RESPONSE* ... I felt it finally time to make a strong
case for *my foundations* - which *I* contend to be every bit as
*valid*, containing every bit as much of a claim to be called
*TRADITIONAL* Theosophy as the perspective that people have been
calling by that name. I never said I was a *better* Theosophist,
I *did*, however, hold that the founders *DID say that the
principle of "Universal Brotherhood" held a *priviledged
position*, was  not just "another doctrine", but was both an idea
they held *superior* to others, and that regardless of what
*else* people did, be it reading and study, meditation, or
following some "occult" system of training, it was to be *in
addtion to*, not *instead of* the work of Universal Brotherhood.
     Perhaps the fact that I contend it is to be the *central
idea*, and it is *not* considered to be so in much of what is
*now* called "traditional" Theosophy, Eldon takes this to mean
that I've said I'm a "better" Theosophist. In fact, all I did,
*IN RESPONSE TO HIS CATEGORIZATION OF MY PERSPECTIVE*, articulate
my own, and back it up with "source" literature.
     And yet this first actual articulation of my foundations is
dismissed by Eldon as nothing but an "approach" I'm "trying" in
an effort to avoid his arguments ... as though I adopted it just
to argue with him, and would throw it out if it didn't work.

>A third now is that he is the valiant defender of free speech on
>theos-l, willing to do battle with Eldon's devilish
>provocations!
     Yes! How else can one respond to Eldon's "approach" that he
is some poor, innocent, beat upon saint, willing to descend into
"hell" to bring light to those still caight in their "illusions",
and willing to suffer nobly completely undeserved attacks.

>There's not much that can be said in response to that! Perhaps
>it won't be possible for all the different variants and
>offshoots of Theosophy to exist under a single tent?
     Er, what? Simply because Eldon can't take shots at others
without getting shots back suddenly all the varients of Theosophy
can't exist under the same tent? If Eldon
     1) Stopped taking cheap shots at the "psychic";
     2) Articulated his own path as his own path, and not "the"
path ... one "higher" than that of others; and
     3) *Genuinely* behaved as though his notion of the "big
tent" was something he wanted,
     then I `spect rather a lot of divisiveness would disappear.

Again, if he wants it to stop, he should cease to *start* it.
                                                  Regards, -JRC