Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00633)

Daniel>Possibly the core teaching on some particular subject is just flat wrong.
But to just say that the teaching is wrong or exoteric or simplistic and not
to go
on and then show with illustrations and detail how the teaching is wrong,
etc., serves
no useful purpose and leaves me totally in the dark.  I believe this was what
Martin Euser was in part trying to say recently in one of his posts to
Alexis.


Daniel: exactly. I cannot discuss these subjects properly when someone
only points at his or her psychic experiences. I have had psychic experiences
too, but realize that one has to put one's experiences in such a form
as to be understandable for others and find some way to express one's
understandings in clear language. I realize, however, that that may be difficult
to do. New terms may have to be coined.


Daniel> BUT IN SUCH A CASE, all that I am suggesting, is that the person,
who says such & such teaching
is wrong, allow the rest of us ACCESS to his reasoning, etc.  which lead to
the conclusion,
"This is wrong."   In other words, what is his conclusion based upon?  How
did he arrive at that
conclusion?  etc.

Giving examples of what one means is often the best way, it concretizes
notions. Applying one's ideas to recognizable, daily life events and processes
is instructive.

Jerry S.>(Re ruminations) Fortunately for us, karma does
not work that way.


Jerry S: how *does* it work?
 Let me ask you another question: how did your character you had at birth
 come into existence? I don't think you believe in the 'tabula rasa' concept
of human character, do you? So, isn't this character somehow a sum-total
of experiences of previous lives? And doesn't imply this a certain
pattern for your life and an appropriate environment you're drawn to
at the time of conception? Please elucidate what your opinion is on that .
How does the event of a baby being born from a heroine addicted mother
fit in in your opinion of karma?
Some people say: 'roll of the dice', but that's a meaningless phrase to me.
Who is rolling this dice?
IOW, which consciousnesses are at work here? There is much more behind
it, but it has never been thoroughly researched IMO. And if it has been done
none has ever been able to explain these processes clearly to me, if to any
at all.

Jerry S>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.

How or where did you get/find this essay? It looks interesting to me.

Jerry S>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?



Jerry: why don't you give us a start on that?
 When I have some spare time for doing some reading on transpersonal psychology
 I will certainly do so. Some synthesis with theosophy seems appropriate
 to me.


Jerry S>So, the statistics
that HPB was paying with a hundred years ago, no longer
applies, Dan.

Right. The 'signs of the time' tell us that we can't ignore NDE and other
psychic experiences. Theosophists should do well to think this over and
consider what theosophy can mean to people with this kind of experiences.


Martin