Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00652)

>>Jerry S.>(Re ruminations) Fortunately for us, karma does
>>not work that way.
>
>Jerry S: how *does* it work?
	Impersonally as causation.  Good and evil, reward
and punishment, have nothing to do with it.  This is how we
human beings see it most of the time, but karma, like nature,
doesn't care about "sin" and dispensing rewards to human
beings who have been "good."  This is our own psychological
projection.


> 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?
	No, I don't.  Nor did Jung.  I agree with Jung that the psyche
pre-exists birth.  It is the conscious ego that is born and grows and
finally dies.


>So, isn't this character somehow a sum-total
>of experiences of previous lives?
	It could be, but it has to be more than that, and doesn't
need to be that at all.  It is not our character or personality that
reincarnates, but the skandhas or propensities.  Tendencies.
These are the "genetic" part of each incarnation.  But there is
also an environmental part.  Cancer, for example is now known
to require both an environmental "trigger" and a "cancer gene."
So, in order to get cancer we must have the gene (past life
tendency) as well as trigger it environmentally (e.g., some kind
of exposure to a carcinigen).  The same is true for everything in
life.  In an exoteric sense, we can say that we need karma from
past lives together with karma from this life.  But since our past
life karma takes the form of genetics in this life, we can simply
look at our genetics and forget past lives to get the same effect.

>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 .
	Yes.  I believe that we have a preview of our coming life
just prior to entering the womb.  This is *not* with certainty, but rather
a preview of likely possibilities.  Why is one person born to a certain
family, if not karma?  Our past-life karma takes the form of genetics.
We are enabled to do this by selecting our parents.  I am also certain
that we enter the womb at conception.


>How does the event of a baby being born from a heroine addicted mother
>fit in in your opinion of karma?
	There is no hard and fast rule here.  Perhaps the desire
for physical expression overcomes the desire for quality?  Perhaps
there is a past bond between the incoming child and the mother?
Of one thing I am certain: the "innocent victims" in this life subconsciously
accept their position as victims.  Modern psychology also agrees with
this.  The only way a car can run into you on the highway, for example,
is if you (subconsciously) let it.


>Some people say: 'roll of the dice', but that's a meaningless phrase to me.
>Who is rolling this dice?
	You are.  You agreed to the dice roll when you let yourself
be born.  "God's will," "karma," "past lives," "genetics," "luck," and "chaos"
are all attempts to explain the unfairness of life.  As Jimmy Carter once
said, "Nobody ever said that life was fair."


>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.
	The consciousnesses at work are all subsconscious--there
is constant telepathic communiation going on between every monad
in our human lifewave on Globe D.  Not in words, so much as ideas
and images.  Every victim subconsciously agrees to be such.  Every
person on a doomed airplane, for example, subconsciously agrees
to it.  Death is but a part of life, and life is an intricate dance.

>>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.
	Its in TEXTBOOK OF TRANSPERSONAL PSYCHIATRY
AND PSYCHOLOGY,  B.S. Scotton, A.B. Chinen, & J.R. Battista (eds).
New York: BasicBooks (a div of HarperCollins) 1996.

>> 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?
	I have done so, many times.  But the typical
Theosophical attitude is to ignore it.  Even Eldon says
that Kundalini should be left alone.  The problem is,
a lot of people are having spontaneous Kundalini
rousings.  This brings them to a therapist or shrink,
rather than to a TS.  In point of fact, I doubt that any
TS can help these people much anyway.  The danger
of ignoring Kundalini and the like, is that without
knowledge, you can't help others.  Today, transpersonal
psychology is doing more help than the TSs in this
area (i.e., in the new area of spiritual emergency).


> 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.
	Check out some of Ken Wilber's material.  As Chuck says,
he is a bit dry and tedious at times, but the ideas that he presents
are building a bridge between Theosophy and psychology.


>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.
	It has helped me, because by studying Theosophy, Magic, and
Occultism, I have built up a worldview that accommodates NDE, Kundalini,
and the like.  But you can't do this by ignoring topics that are relevant
to people nowdays.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI