Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00375)

>All the foregoing is "in my opinion," of course--which, when one thinks of
it,
>is fairly sure to be regarded as second- or third-class knowledge in the
>present Theosophical (organizational) world. First-class knowledge for
many
>individuals is only that which comes from a Master--a "real" Master,
>naturally, and this, alas, is usually defined as someone other than
oneself. .
>. .
>

This response, Richard, is MHO, and for the same reason you give above.

>My view of the reason why it is so difficult for some to conceive that any
>theosophy is possible without Masters leading the way is pretty harsh: not
>enough time spent in meditation, or at least not enough meditational time
>spent in getting personally acquainted with the "I Am" which remains when
ego-
>formations at the animating, physical, desire-feeling, desire-mental, and
>Spirit-mental levels fall away.

I think the Masters fulfill a god-desire that we all tend to have. This may
be
especially necessary for those who have given up their religious
faith in order to enter the Theosophical tent.

>The first requisite for any legitimate
>theosophy at all, at least it seems to me, is to experience this very real
>"meta-psychological" phenomena. "First Contact" is not something
difficult;
>it does not take years. The difficult part is perfecting the ability to
hold
>on to what one has found in oneself--in particular, keeping Self-aware in
>evermore subtle psychological ("semi-Self," egoic) environments.
>
I have been saying something like this for years, and so far have gotten
about as far as you have with it. You will doubtless recall the sheep vs
wolves debate on theos-l years back about this very thing. I doubt that
the debate amounted to much, and I suspect that we each have maintained
our separate positions with the sheep remaining sheep and so on.

>So anyway, first one must have an inkling of a higher, more permanent
Identity
>residing behind all the ever-changing, ego-deluded states of consciousness
>that one experiences every day. Second, One just starts watching
"the-many-
>and-the-One."
>
Even if we do nothing, sooner or later this higher Self will come knocking
at our door. The result will be a truly religious or spiritual experience.
On
the downside, if we take our experience to our pastor for help and comfort
he would almost certainly suggest therapy. Until recently spiritual
experiences were considered pathological, and one kept them to oneself.
Nowdays we can call them transpersonal and hold our head up.

>It probably does not take a Master at the wonder-working level to make some
>simple observations like this: I wake up in the morning. I begin life
anew.
>I find myself with certain attributes, inclinations, and general
>circumstances. Some of my general circumstances are either improved or
>worsened because of what I have done the day before, or the days before
that.
>Many of these results can be traced back to the indulgence or
non-indulgence
>of my special set of inclination-spawned desires. I have learned some
lessons
>but not others. Hopefully, today I am a little better in terms of
awareness
>and the ability to protect myself. I set out on another day. Things
happen.
>I react. I initiate. I get some consequences, but not all. By the end of
>the day I have become completely embrangled. I go to sleep. I wake up in
the
>morning. I begin life anew.
>
>Is this theosophy? Well, perhaps not yet.

Agreed. The fact of cyclic existence all around us does not deter
the Christian or Jew from ignoring reincarnation. We often get the
feeling that we are independent on-lookers of life rather than parts
of it so that we sometimes feel things don't really apply when perhaps
they really do.

> Theosophy usually comes into being
>after ANALOGIZING takes place.

Agreed. It has to be put into words (a lot of words) first.

>
>And what should be another individual's posture regarding such "macro-
>knowledge" arrived at in this analogical way? Believe? Not believe?

It is always belief until experience occurs. Then later a new experience
occurs and we shift our belief system to adapt to the new experience,
and so on maybe forever. I don't know if we will ever "know" anything
at all.

>"Vibration," Direct Perception, Seeing, Mystical Apprehension--these things
>all refer to what I call THEOSOPHICAL EPISTEMOLOGY. One is either
compelled
>or not compelled. Theosophy, in its non-sectarian form, is simply a way of
>going after knowledge not (yet) available in any other way: no OUTSIDE,
>"first-class" Master really needed. . . .
>

This is the Gnosis of the old Gnostics and I think that HPB was a Gnostic
at heart. But I have found that even direct perception can change as we
grow and evolve. At least it does for me.

Jerry S.