Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00934)

Alexis:

>>The important thing is for us to
>>realize that the responsibility is ours; we need to stop paying lip
>>service to the spiritual, either hiding in books or chasing phantoms
>>of the psychic, but rather *work on our own awakening* and *practice
>>unselfishness.*

>You say, and rightly, that "as long as people feel free of insult
>and criticism", but how do you square that positive attitude with
>a line like "chasing phantoms of the psychic" which is clearly
>insulting to anyone ...

I appreciate that you're asking me what I'm trying to say. It's
not exactly as you read it, so I need to further explain.

I'm talking about a more basic or fundamental transformation that
we need to make in our attitudes, a profound change in our
relationship to life. This is something deeper than any particular
thing we may be doing, including intellectual study, or
studies and investigations of the paranormal. This has to do
with our awakening an *inner fire*.

Because this inner awakening is so important, and overshadows
anything else that we may be involved with, I speak of them
as unimportant in comparison. A serious study of the philosophy
is considerably important in its own right, but by comparison
to the Path, it is "hiding in books". And an investigation of
life, both seen and unseen, is also important, when properly
done, but by comparison to the Path would be "chasing phantoms
of the psychic".

>who: 1. Doesn't consider the "psychic" to be a phantom.

Here, we both may be inclined to over generalize, me in the
direction of discounting the paranormal, and you in painting
it is rosy colors. The truth probably can be found somewhere
in between.

>2. Who sincerely believes that study or research of things
>"Psychic" is an intrinsic part of the objects of the
>Theosophical society? i.e The Third Object.

I'm not making a case to exclude them. One's approach to
them is individual, and I won't impose my approach on others
of differing backgrounds. This does not mean, of course,
that if I were writing about the type of approach that I
follow, that I wouldn't downplay their importance, and
give considerable stress on other areas of life.

>You have, in the past two or three weeks attempted, or so I
>believe, to make the point that anyone who "chases the
>phantoms of the psychic" is psychotic.

Perhaps you were too quick to <DELETE> some of my postings,
where I clarify that point. I've been saying that schizophrenia
may involve perception of astral images, images of an subjective
nature. I've not been saying that people that cultivate the
psychic will as a consequence go mad, nor that only mad people
could be interested in it.

There are dangers, as we see from the suicide of Chuck's friend,
that we read about earlier this year. But that sort of thing
is fairly rare.

My interest in the subject, as I stated it previous postings,
was twofold. One was in connection with the ideas of the
spheres of causes and spheres of effects, and how these
tie in with hallucinations. (They basically allow for the
hallucinations to have a basis in realty, although being
subjective in nature, like our after-death experience of
devachan.)

The other was in connection with the Path. If the curing of
the mentally ill can help them to return to lucid and
self-aware existence, perhaps the techniques we use in those
cures can be applied to ourselves. We could use the same
techniques to achieve enhanced lucidity, e.g. take further
steps along the Path. (This was something that I was hoping
someone would pick up on and offer some useful insights.)

>Is this an example of "brotherhood? Is this being a true
>practitioner of Theosophy?

You may be too quick to jump to conclusions regarding theosophical
ideas in general, and what I'm saying in particular.

>After all Yelena Blavatskaya was one who spent her whole life
>"chasing after phantoms of the psychic". If you believe it is
>perfectly all right for her to do so, how can you possibly justify
>vitrifying the other people who do so.

I tend to look upon her akin to a college instructor, passing
on to undergraduates some introductory materials. These
materials are based upon what she had learned from an
established body of learning, and not something she made up
on her own. I don't think that her materials are the result
of her own clairvoyant investigations into nature. She was
speaking as a Teacher, not as a Seer.

>You must realize that to most educated people the Mahatmas were
>"phantoms of the psychic".

But I don't think that they were invisible spooks, visible
only to certain psychics. I think that they were flesh-and-blood
men, for the most part, and not disembodied.

>What you're doing, and I am afraid carefully so, is making
>Theosophy anything but a safe place for people interested in
>the Third Object.

I belong to four theosophical groups (Adyar, Pasadena, ULT, TI)
and none of them have, as far as I can tell, given me any
prohibitions regarding the Third Object.

What I may do at times is to indicate that there are other
approaches than the psychic, important and valid in their
own right, that can also be interpreted as "latent powers"
and sought.

>I totally fail to understand how any person ... can reject
>things psychic ... When you reject psych ism you reject Blavatsky.

I'll leave it to someone else to quote what Blavatsky has
to say about psychism. I don't reject the enhanced powers
of the senses -- like extended seeing in the form of
clairvoyance -- as awful.

But even if someone sees the page of a book in the astral
light, rather than from visiting a library, one still has
to *understand* what's on that page. That *understanding*
of the deeper side of life is related to the higher
faculties that I want to stress as important. It comes
with or without astral sight.

>And don't say she rejected it, she rejected uncontrolled or
>unconscious medium ship which is an entirely different kettle
>of fish.

We both agree with her, then, in this regard. We'd also
both agree, I suspect, that the siddhis are useful to
an adept, but not agree, perhaps, on the definition of
who or what an adept is.

>You prattle about "practicing unselfishness" and
>"practicing brotherhood" but I don't see how you square
>that away with the constant stream of division you direct
>at those who sincerely are trying to understand the "powers
>latent in man".

In my statement that elicited your response, I was, as
mentioned, stressing the importance of the Path, making
other pursuits pale by comparison. You picked up on my
passing remark about chasing phantoms, and missed the
"pale by comparison" aspect of my statement.

If you look for the basic points of what I write, and let
pass the little things that catch your eyes, you'll
probably get more out of reading them, assuming they get
pass the initial <DELETE>. I try to do the same with what
you write, ignoring the little things that are like
static on a noisy line, and look at the bigger picture.

It's something that we'll all have to work on, until
that happy day when we can write so clearly that everyone,
of all backgrounds, will gaze upon our words and immediately
know what we're saying!

(I suppose I've gotten you slightly mad at me, since you've
signed your posting "alexis dolgorukii" rather than "alexis",
although, if I understand the system correctly, you reserve
the long list of titles after your name for those you're
really pissed off at.)

-- Eldon