Theos-Talk Archives (August 1996 Message tl00332)

Richard

It's now rather a long time since you wrote your most interesting piece on
this in reply to one of mine, which was in reply to one of yours ... etc.
I would have replied much earlier but for the fact that I'm doing
essentially one and a half jobs at the moment and "spare" time is something
that will only appear in weekends - and only some of those - for a while.

Anyway, to recap (yes, pun noticed)

Richard Ihle>
>>>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") .... .
>
Murray Stentiford>
>>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. ....
>
Richard Ihle>
>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.

Yes, this has kind of woken in me a hope that we could see a collaborative
process between those with that kind of scholarship on side and those with
clear and active awareness (intuitive, clairvoyant, etc) on the other. If
they're combined in the one person, so much the better. This is becoming an
age of productive collaboration between those with different strengths and
backgrounds (eg medical and engineering, in biomedical engineering), so it
shouldn't be outside the human possibility zones of today.

The challenge is great, and so are the potential rewards - and the risks of
falling off the pathway of progress. It is so hard, of course. One of the
risks is of becoming completely sunk in a morass of verbiage, as you said
(quoted below), with everybody having their own interpretative shades on
everything. A bit like theos-l, eh? And perhaps at this stage of history,
each person has to tread for themselves. Nevertheless, I find the idea of a
consensus, even if it is just that here is a great and rewarding field,
compellingly attractive.


>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.

I think this sort of insight is of immense practical potential, too. Perhaps
the approach should be multidisciplinary and include inputs from the best of
the psychology of personal development, and of mythology. Plus plain (!)
parenting. Imagine a team of 4 or 5 like this, with mutual respect and true
openness to each others' value.


>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.

I agree.


>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.

Even when she portrays a clear conceptual picture, I often have the feeling
that the question "What does it actually MEAN?" is lying there, unseen most
of the time. And even when we ask that, the reality of a new layer of
insight always comes as a surprise, when it comes.

A shift towards being more aware of the mytho-psychological dimensions and
not just historical interpretation, could work wonders.


>I believe that the PTP will not be complete until it is fully wearable as a
>"CAP"--that is, includes Cosmogenesis, Anthropogenesis, and Psychogenesis.

Sounds very likely to me. I think most indigenous people's treasures of
wisdom-myth are a connected network of these things, too.


> 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 is certainly one of the most potent tools we have, at this stage of
activation of the human psyche.


>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.

Yes, that's where my thinking is heading too; not entirely just sacred
legend etc, but certainly with depths going a long way into those realms.


>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),

      ...  Why???   :-)   ...

> and A became unbelievable analogical treasure-troves for the development
>of a P for sure.

The scope is enormous and without any need to feel the value of the
literature is in any way belittled. In fact, on the contary.

To cut short now, I liked your analysis of giving a 10-year-old "reasons",
and would like to hear from other parents if they felt it was a good
portrayal of what's going on. Early days, of course, and plenty of scope for
detailed variation. Certainly, in my own development, it took a long time
(and I'm talking more than a couple of decades) to identify fully with the
idea of myself as engaged with the situational world - all those things like
the need for a "good" job, and motivation to "do well". I even knew the
reasons myself, as a young adult, but somehow wasn't fully connected and
identified with them. Now they seem to sit fairly well into a network of
understandings and energy flows that manage to combine the need for survival
with the desire to be of service, in an embracing ethos of participation.
Then, there's my shadow ... :-}>

>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.

Keep that dream alive, Richard - and flexible. It probably has a bit of a
life of its own, like books that write themselves inside their authors.
Thanks for your most stimulating thoughts.

Murray
Member TI and the TS in NZ