Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00607)

Some responses to Dan:

>For example, JRC and Eldon have debated the issue of
>psychism many times on theos-l and I have come away with very little
>from either side.  Has JRC shown the fallacies in the core teachings on
>psychism?
	Well, he has for me (but then, I already agreed with him
to begin with).

>Has Eldon defined what the core teaching on psychism is?
	Yes.  It is wrong, evil, dangerous, and not to be used.

>What writers has he based this definition on?
	Judge and G de P.  HPB practiced it herself.  She
wanted it out of the TSs, but otherwise had little against it.

>Has JRC given detailed reasons that would indicate that
>there are serious misunderstandings in the core teaching on
psychism?
	Yes.  And I have too.  For example, the core teachings
overdramatize the dangers of psychism.  The chief danger is
that the information obtained may be wrong (like cities on Mars).
Big deal!  I have, several times now, pointed out a way around
this problem--if the information obtained has little personal
meaning to you, forget it.  If it has a lot of personal meaning
to you, then it should be taken as valid.  Psychism is a very
personal thing.

>Has JRC detailed the evidence to show that what HPB or the
>Masters wrote 100 years ago is not
>valid today or does not cover the whole field, etc. etc?
	I think he has.  I have also said many times that what
HPB and her Adepts wrote is but the tip of an iceberg, all
exoteric and intellectual.  This does not mean that it is wrong,
but rather not the whole story.  Let me give you just one simple
example--mystical experience.  Now, a mystical experience is
what the east calls samadhi, and HPB mentions it, but makes
no attempt to detail it at all.  She glosses over it, and suggests
that only the highest Adepts can attain it.   It is, after all, one of
the chief goals of Raja Yoga, which HPB condoned for our use.
Well, I just read an essay by three transpersonal psychologists
(David Lukoff, Francis G. Lu, and robert Turner "Diagnosis: A
Transpersonal Clinical Approach to religious and Spiritual
Problems") in which they mention a study that found that from
30 to 40 percent of all Americans have had a mystical experience.
They conclude that these statistics are  "suggesting that these
are normal rather than pathological phenomena."  The vast
majority of these are reluctant to admit it, fearing
adverse reaction from friends and family.  In fact, I recall
Jane Huston (spelling ??) saying in a recent Quest article
that she too had a mystical experience which frightened
her because she didn't understand it.
	The same can be said for near death experiences
or NDE.  The same essay says that it is estimated that one-
third of all people who are close to dying have NDEs that
significantly change their lives.  That is a lot of people.  One
of the things that transpersonal psychology is doing is
helping these people to understand their experiences.
Why can't theosophy help?
	So, the statistics
that HPB was paying with a hundred years ago, no longer
applies, Dan.  The same can be said for her GV model
where she confines herself to the lower 4 planes and 7
globes, because she felt the higher planes were too
difficult for people to understand.  I submit that this is
not the case today.

>Too many times we just get
>simple declarative statements.  But I would like to
>know how the writer came up with that statement.
	For my part, experience as well as study
in area areas such as Tibetan Buddhism and Magic.
As far as my saying that karma is complicated; this
is a fallout from a realization that we are in constant
telepathic communication, and under karmic
interaction, with every other human monad in this
human lifewave on Globe D--billions of monads.
The possibilites for increase or decrease of our
individual and collective karmic burdens are staggering.

>"WHERE'S THE BEEF?  SO FAR I'VE ONLY SEEN THE BUNS
>AND A LITTLE LETTUCE...."
	Beef comes from direct experience.  Only buns
and lettuce can be put into words.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI