Theos-Talk Archives (August 1996 Message tl00116)

>(Murray Stentiford)
Richard Ihle writes>>
>>The biggest stumbling block seems to be getting other people to regard
>>something they see, taste, touch, smell or hear as a temporary
>>ego-formation ("physical'--e.g., "I am my toothache"), or something they
>>want as another type of ego-formation ("desire-feeling"--e.g., "I am my
>>craving for pizza") or like/dislike-tainted idea as still another type of
>>ego-formation ("desire-mental"--e.g., "I am my gut-opposition to
[gut-supported >>reasons for opposing] abortion") etc.

Murray Stentiford writes>
>I dunno. It seems really obvious to me that consciousness is forever playing
>games of identifying itself with something or somestate, and then bouncing
>out and doing it again in another way. I find this particularly evident in
>meditation. In little loops within bigger ones, too. The big loops are
>evolutionary stages and the little ones are hour-to-hour or even
>second-by-second, and other stages in between like a fractal.
>

Richard Ihle writes>

Thank you ~very~ much for sharing this, Murray.  Actually, my original
intention for bringing these subjects up on theos-l was the hope that
"Psychogenesis" could come into being as some sort of "collaborative
product":  that a consensual terminology would gradually emerge and that the
thus-far primitive understandings of the possible analogical correspondences
between it and Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis would be improved and
corrected by the many on this list who have far greater scholarly mastership
of the latter pair of components than I do.

Then I woke up.  I woke up, I guess, mainly because of the capital ~T~ issue.
 As you know, for convenience sake or something, "lay-public usage," has
apparently succeeded in establishing the "fact" that ~Theosophy~ is a synonym
for HPB's writings (or those understandings which can be "corroberated" by
them).  By enthusiastically endorsing this "past-practice semanticizing,"
unfortunately, some of the worthiest scholars who I had been thinking could
help with a fuller articulation of Psychogenesis seem clearly in the camp of
those who think that "Theosophy" has been a done-deal for more than a hundred
years.

However, in my mind at least, HPB did not leave the Principal Theosophical
Philosophy (PTP) in the condition of being any kind of done-deal.  As Jerry
Schueler often points out, even Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis (HPB's most
complete contributions) have room for expansion/modification; however,
Psychogenesis, which HPB begins to address when she slides into talking about
~manas~, human principles, etc., she more or less clearly invites us to
further develop--"find the Psychological Key" etc.

I believe that the PTP will not be complete until it is fully wearable as a
"CAP"--that is, includes Cosmogenesis, Anthropogenesis, and Psychogenesis.
 To accomplish this, it would be nice if more people who actually know
something about the intricacies of the Rounds, Root Races, Sub-Races etc.
could rise above the limitation of  ~Theosophy = HPB's Finished Bible~ and
help determine, by discussion and debate, the (if any) exact analogical
correspondences between these subjects and possible realities at the
psychological level.

~Analogy~ should not be a dirty word in theosophy; neither, I believe, should
it be only a one way street--i.e. that the micro only points to possible
knowledge of the macro.  In THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY,  HPB herself says:  "The
name Theosophy dates from the third century of our era, and began with
Ammonius Saccas and his disciples, also called Analogeticists, [. . .] they
were called so because of their practice of interpreting all sacred legends
and narratives, myths and mysteries, by a rule or principle of analogy and
correspondence: [. . . .]"

Can Cosmogensis and Anthropogenesis themselves be thought of as "sacred
legend, narrative, myth and mystery"?  Perhaps all or in part, yes; perhaps
all or in part, no.

One thing I am sure of, however, is that when I began to (undoubtedly
influenced by Gurdjieff) make the "slight readjustment" which allowed me to
start regarding all my animating, physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual
experiences as possible "egos" ("semi-Selves," "psyches") coming into and
going out of existence (one at a time, please), C and A became unbelievable
analogical treasure-troves for the development of a P for sure.

While the idea of "egoic delusions" (I suppose one might sooner or latter
have to start calling them ~psyches~ to be consistent with the term
~Psychogenesis~--i.e., that the incarnated experience is really one of
progressive unfoldment of potential categories of psyches within oneself at
ever-more rarefied levels of consciousness) can certainly be found in places
other than Theosophy (the org./move.), only THE SECRET DOCTRINE, as far as I
know, provides by analogy the secret "psychomaturational" pattern for them.

Yes, the ~I am~ can be temporarily deluded into considering itself something
animating, physical, desire-feeling, desire-mental, mental, or Spirit
mental--but NOT until it has passed into the necessary septenary cycle, and
NOT at the upper levels of this sequence unless the Self-awareness has become
a subtle-enough instrument to continue to discriminate between Itself as
Witness and the psyches formed in and of the "contaminated" condition of
consciousness it is attempting to witness.  I call this latter development
~Degree of Self-awareness~ . . . and for now, I claim that it is the
Psychogenetic analog of the Anthropogenetic ~Root Race~. . . .   (For
example, one needs to be a Sixth Degree person in order to have at least the
potential to prevent full-egoic delusion at the Fifth Level.)

Unfortunately, Murray, the most down-to-earth component of the PTP always
seems to turn into the same kind of nightmare of uninviting verbiage as the
cosmos-building and translifetime components.  This is especially irritating
since the insights Psychogenesis provides are so day-to-day practical and
useful.

For example, I still hear "parenting experts" giving advice about how even
very young children should be ~given reasons~ in order to make them behave in
desired ways.

"Given reasons?" I think to myself.  "Well, let me think:  According to
Psychogenesis, there is no chance that the child will be able to have any
true ego-involvement with reasons until the Desire-Mental Cycle, age 21-28.
 At the earliest, this potential will start showing itself somewhere near the
mid-point of the previous cycle, age 17 1/2."  (I believe the order of the
cycles are invariable but that the ages suggested are probably just for
general convenience--i.e., wide approximations; it could be considerably
earlier than 17 1/2 for some; who knows?).

The child, at let's say age 10, can be given reasons, understand reasons, and
have his or her mental development be improved by reasons; however, it is
unlikely that this child will be convinced that reasons have anything to do
with his or her inner identity.  It will not be until the child is much older
that a psyche (ego-formation) can be formed which resembles something like
this:  ~I REALLY AM my idea/mental strategy that by posponing my desire to go
out and to do homework instead I will be able to attain my greater future
desire of getting into Stanford~.

No, Psychogenesis suggests that the ten-year-old so-far has only two Levels
at which psyches may temporarily form:  animating and physical.  If there is
"spunk" involved with the behavior problem, chances are that is the latter.
 The wise parent might be advised to forget the fancy stuff and not be
ashamed just to employ what has probably always been the only successful
operating principle of the Physical Cycle:  AUTHORITY--the big (more
powerful) gets to boss the small (less powerful).  (Unfortunately, this won't
work very well in a few short years when the child starts forming psyches
which may resemble something of this nature:  ~I REALLY AM my desire to go
out and therefore regard your use of parental authority to thwart this as an
attack on my true identity--feelings~.)

Older adults, of course, have psychomatured through enough cycles to make
assessments like the foregoing a little more difficult:  there are more
Levels at which temporary psyches may now form and pass away.  Still, with
just a modest amount of practice, becomes almost embarrassingly easy to make
a good guess about who-is-where-at-what-moment (and that includes oneself,
first and foremost).

Is this "Adeptship"?  Well, perhaps not in its entirety.  However, it is hard
to imagine that the entirety of Adeptship is possible without this practical
psychological component, either.

All-in-all, Murray, for the moment it sort of looks like I may be slipping
back into my old dream--viz., that multiple contributors on theos-l might be
surprised one day to look up and see that somehow, in the midst of all their
discussions and arguments, the Principal Theosophical Philosophy has become a
perfectly reasonable-looking CAP.  Needless to say, it was great
encouragement for me to learn that you have already been thinking and working
in this direction.

Godspeed,

Richard Ihle