Re: What's next in the movement~
Jul 31, 1996 02:42 PM
by Jerry Schueler
>You see, I remain quite convinced that both the elaborate systems of
>Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis were the direct, analogical, creative
>products of perhaps a long line of advanced individuals who were
>first-and-foremost expert witnesses of their own states of consciousness.
Could be. I remain skeptical, largely because it is hard for
me to believe that HPB, and only HPB, has given this out publically.
Knowing human beings as I do, it seems like if such were the case,
we would have heard of some confirmation from others by now. As
far as I know, this teaching has only been given out publically by
HPB. Humans, even Chelas and Adepts, are not normally given
over to such vigorous secrecy. Schools of Adepts should have leaks,
just like other human organizations.
> They were adept at following the career of the ~I am~, so to speak, not only
>by making use of the parallel with the famous
>Breath/stone/plant/animal/man/angel/god sequence which can be noticed in both
>in "monitored sleep" and meditation, but also by being adept seers of the
>"psychomaturational" seven-year pattern of unfolding "egoic opportunities" as
>it progresses in children, young adults etc.
This is a logical fallout from "As above, so below." Where HPB
really differs from others, is in her detailed (almost kama-manas) descriptions.
>(The key to the latter is to take note of HPB's clue about ~midpoints~...
At the midpoint, the forces change direction, and certain
doors close, while others open. This is very much in line with Jung's
individuation process--the first half of life we spend developing the ego
as it separates from the Self, and in the second half of life we spend in
assimilating the ego with the Self into a harmonious union, rather like a
triumphant return (as in the Biblical prodigal son story).
>Yes, I remain convinced that the first two components of the Principal
>Theosophical Philosophy (PTP) are ~myths~--but only in the holiest of senses.
> "They are," like the approximation of what some old Roman once said,
>"stories which never were but contain things which always ~are~."
Yes, myths in the psychological sense. This is exactly why
we can take the genesis of the cosmos and of man, and apply this equally
well to the psyche. Our psyche develops and evolves just like our body does.
>Nonetheless, I am already on record as saying that I believe that some
>knowledge included in the PTP may also be actual, literal knowledge as well
>as metaphorical truth or mere "analogical pointer."
I also believe. Unless proved otherwise, I tend to accept it all on
>This is especially the
>case for subjects like karma and reincarnation. I take seriously not only
>~as above, so below~ but also "~as below, so possibly above~." You mentioned
>the ~4th Round and 5th Root Race~. I take these terms seriously--not only
>because they have valuable, ~observable~ parallels in one's own psychogentic
>development, but also because they may be valid, face-value "facts" in and of
>But how can one actually know anything at all about the Fourth Round and
>Fifth Root Race? Reading about them and not seeing logical contradictions
>etc.? No. After all the study and ratiocinating, this still remains a job
>only ~personal theosophy~ can do: there ~must~ be some individual
>development which allows one to approach the subjects with a degree of
>"transcendental, mystical, or intuitive insight or higher perception."
The idea of Rounds and Root Races is very intuitive simply
because we see cycles going on all around us. I think that basing it
all on sevens is oversimplification, but our whole universe is based
on numbers, so who knows, it could be true. When I approach this
subject with the degree you mention, I intuitively feel a certain "rightness"
about it. But I am sceptical of much of the details given in the SD. In
other words, the general picture of Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis
is buddhi-manas and probably true, but the details smack of kama-manas
to me, and may or may not be true. But even if some details are proven
false, I still would accept the general outline of Rounds and Root Races
as being true.
>~A growing certainty~ about things otherwise unknowable is, in my opinion,
>what you should get by being a theosophist. It is not, perhaps, a dramatic-
>and apodictic-enough certainty to make you into a Moses followed by
>multitudes . . . but it is ~enough~, I think--at least in the sense that it
>is, after all, some sort of ~certainty~ . . . and not merely a wish or a hope
>or a sentiment. . . .
Your idea of growing certainty, leaving room for doubt, is a
healthy approach because it hedges against ego-inflation. Certainty
itself is dangerous, because life will someday pull the rug out from
under you, no matter what your worldview. Nothing is certain except
> while I agree with what you had to say about
>intuition being "flaky" at times, it is ironical to remember that to have
>~personal authority~ when talking about Rounds and Root Races, a
>person must at least in part be relying on intuition or a similar type of
>Buddhi-manas Gate-Crasher. . . .
The intuition itself is never flakey, of course. Its how we
hear or interpret it, and act on it, that is flakey. I hate it when I ignore
that voice, going with logic and reason instead, just to be dead
wrong. My problem is not in hearing it, but in acting on it in spite
of what seems logical at the time. And lately I have been getting
an "I told you so" whisper in my head afterward, which is very
If we can develop a "Buddhi-Manas Gate Crasher"
which is easy to use, we may be able to keep the TSs going
for another century or so.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application