Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00621)

This is a very interesting post, Jerry. It jives with a lot of what I was
thinking and intuiting about, although I'm not at your level of study. I
would be interested in reading any of your published findings.

Dallas, in my post about madness, Jerry helped me to clarify what I was
trying to get at. (Most of the time, I intuit something that feels true for
me, but I haven't found the right words for it.) Yes, we need guidelines,
be it ethics, books, laws, to live our lives. However, as a student of the
occult, you need to release the boundaries of your mind and go beyond the
madness. That means you also go beyond ethics, laws, social concerns, HPB,
Masters, Krisnamurti, CWL, pro-con drugs, etc.. Until you are able to
release your hold of everything that is your guideline and stability, you
will have a hard time grasping the occult concepts(?). This does not mean
you have to live your life immorally and give up social concerns. It means
you play a mental and intuitional gymnastics. It's a process of putting on
and tossing off your personal clothing.

Thoa :o)

>>Jerry Challenges Dallas but What does Jerry Offer as an Alternative?
>>
>>
>>> >[Dallas]Every ancient esoteric school, including Theosophy states that
>>> >moral refinement and universalizing our perception (brotherhood
>>> >in actuality) are the real tools.
>>> >
>>>
>>> [Jerry] I seriously challenge you on this one. This is a typical
>Theosophical
>>> statement that just isn't true. Tools, perhaps. But "real" tools implies
>>> the only ones or best ones, and I doubt that. As a matter of fact, it
>>> is Theosophy's emphasis on ethics and morals as a first step along
>>> the Path that drew me into it. I have not found that idea elsewhere.
>>
>>Jerry, what "tools" do you advocate that are "better"?
>>
>>
>
>None, and I appreciate that Theosophy has an emphasis on
>ethics (although most seem to get stuck here and can't get on
>to other things, and I have already outlined my "problem with
>ethics" elsewhere). But the notion that "every ancient esoteric
>school" has had such an emphasis is silly. Please read
>esoteric history ala Crowley and other contemporary magic
>schools and you will find that none has this emphasis. Please
>don't misunderstand me, I am not challenging ethics or the need
>for it, but rather the (false) idea that all ancient esoteric schools
>had such a high opinion of ethics. They didn't and still don't (which
>is not to say that they did not encouraged it. They did. But
>not to the emphasis that Theosophy does).
>
>>> >[Dallas] If we insist on being selfish, if we insist on securing a key
>to
>>> >"sudden enlightenment" -- as the Chinese peasant did when he
>>> >suddenly remembered the wisdom he had acquired in his past lives,
>>> >and brought it into being when he heard the verses from the
>>> >"Diamond sutra," [ and that experience appears chronologically,
>>> >to have antedated the Buddha ! ] we are going to be disappointed.
>>> >
>>>
>>> [Jerry] Why so? I guarantee that without expectation, nothing will
>happen.
>>> It has been my experience that storming the Gates of Heaven is
>>> the only real way to get anywhere. The Path as espoused by HPB
>>> and other Theosophical writers is a long slow safe path that I have
>>> doubts will take one very far, though I could be wrong. All I can really
>>> say is that it didn't work for me. I stormed the gates, and am
>>> currently working out my own salvation thank you very much.
>>
>>
>>So Jerry, you didn't take the "long slow safe path". What path did you
>>take and what worked for you?
>>
>>
>
>Kundalini Yoga worked for me, but I don't recommend it to others
>unless they really feel an inner need for it. Now here again we get
>into a semantic problem with the words work and worked. I don't
>mean that I can now walk on water, nor would I wish to be the
>next messenger from the GWB to the TSs. But such yogic
>practices coupled with magical practices of astral traveling have
>allowed me to obtain what is called mystical experiences, peak
>experiences, self-actualization (to a degree) and so on. This
>inner experience, in turn, has helped me to understand much of
>HPB's writing that previously escaped me. I am currently finishing
>my second Ph.D. focusing on Transpersonal Psychology and
>because I know from experience that the ego can be transcended
>I feel that I am in a position to help others in this area. I am
>becomming a fan of Ken Wilber (sorry, Chuck) and others who
>are trying to incorporate Eastern teachings into modern Western
>psychology.
>
>>>
>>>[Jerry] Your idea here is good, but unworkable. The Dali Lama et al had
>>> gurus who knew what they were talking about. The modern
>>> Theosophical movement has no living gurus today, that I know of.
>>> All we have are writings, and they are all subject to interpretation
>>> and are exoteric mind-brain-knowledge stuff anyway.
>>
>>Well? What does one do if "all we have are writings"? What are
>>the alternatives that you advocate?
>>
>
>There is only one path that we can take today. Basically it is
>Jnana Yoga or reading and studying until the ego breaks down
>and consciousness can transcend it. Most Theosophists think
>that this kind of yoga is just reading and studying. But this is
>only the first half. The second half is leaping or jumping over
>the human mind altogether. Some Theosophists know this, and
>I read an article in a Theosophical publication not long ago about
>this that was actually very good. The idea of transcending the
>personality or human mind is the basic goal of all yogas, but
>some are better than others at getting there.
>
>>Just "exoteric mind-brain-knowledge stuff"??? Well, what else
>>could they be? But what are the implications of your observations?
>>What would you suggest that we do?
>>
>
>Stuffing the mind full of knowledge is the first step. The realization
>that you are a like a dog chasing after its own tail is the second
>step that allows the mind to relax to the point where consciousness
>can transcend it. This point is when all thinking stops. It is equivilant
>to death, and is a mini-death for the ego or personality. All of this
>can be found in yoga books, and I am not saying anything new
>here.
>
>>I personally have found these writings to be "entry ways" to
>>deeper realities.
>
>Of course they are. But they only take you so far.
>
>>One day about a year ago, I was pondering
>>on a page of the S.D. where Thor's hammer is mentioned.
>>In my full waking consciousness and with my eyes wide open
>>Mjolner (many different spellings) the hammer manifested itself
>>to my perception. "It" was like a motion of many, blinding lights of
>>tremendous energy and power. It invoked in me an expanded
>>awareness and a surge of bliss consciousness flowed through
>>me. A certain kind of "knowledge" was "communicated"
>>in this manifestation. This is an *extreme* example but not the
>>only one I could cite.
>>
>>
>
>This is Jnana Yoga in action.
>
>>This experience may have been merely a psychic phenomenon or some sort
>>of kriyashakti, nevertheless it was very uplifting and
>>was anything BUT "exoteric mind-brain knowledge stuff."
>>
>
>But the reading part IS just mind-brain stuff. What I am saying
>is that we all need to be able to jump from reading to the kind
>of experiences you describe. What you describe is exactly the
>manner in which the SD should be read.
>
>>Again you write that "the modern
>>Theosophical movement has no living gurus today. . . ."
>>
>>How do you know that? Need they appear before you in
>>the physical?
>>
>
>I was referring to the official "guru" stereotypes that existed
>in HPB's day. My own definition of a guru is anything or anyone
>who can teach you something.
>
>>
>>> [Jerry] I would challenge anyone to find enlightenment from following
>>> these, or any other, such rules. They set forth a groundwork of
>>> sorts, but thats about all. Rules such as those of HPB are fine in
>>> a monastic setting which includes knowledgable gurus. They
>>> mean little in today's world. They have certainly not helped me
>>> much. I doubt that they would help you. Have you tried them?
>>> Did they enlighten you at all? Did your following them help
>>> humanity at all?
>>
>>Well, if these "rules" didn't help you much, what did?
>>
>>
>
>In the climate and environment of a guru's retreat or monestary
>they problem help a lot to set the tone and keep psychic experiences
>reasonable safe. But you will never get enlightenment (however
>you want to define this) by following a set of rules, and I don't care
>what the rules are. The mind doesn't work that way. Rules are, by
>definition, limitations or restrictions. Transcendence can't come
>through restriction but only through freedom. Ethical rules are
>good because they keep you from hurting others. Monastic
>rules allow a community to operate together in harmony. But
>none of these will lead to enlightenment. The "rules" given by
>HPB and CWL and others are not necessary in order to be
>enlightened, but rather they help encourage a beneficial
>atmosphere or environment in which to work largely by
>eliminating distractions. I am not saying that we shouldn't
>follow them. I am saying that they only set the tone and won't
>in themselves solve any of our problems.
>
>>> [Jerry] Again, I challenge this kind of statement. The core teachings, if
>>> you will, provide a heady theoretical framework from which to
>>> tread a spiritual path, but provide almost nothing about technique
>>> that we in the modern West can use to tread that path. Maybe
>>> it all comes down to motive and goal? What is our real goal
>>> here? Is it to be the bodhisattva? Or is it to be an enlightened
>>> Buddha? My own feeling on this is that it is highly personal and
>>> should remain a secret within each person.
>>>
>>
>>What techniques do you advocate instead of the "heady theoretical
>>framework" of theosophy?
>>
>>
>I think we already answered this. Your own experience is exactly
>what we all should be doing. But when psychic experiences
>begin happening (and they will if we are progressing) then having
>a Theosophical framework to help explain it all is a godsend.
>
>>> [Jerry] This is condescending Dallas, and I am surprised at you. BTW,
>>> I challange your last idea that self-discipline is "first needed"
>>> etc. Its certainly a safer approach, but hardly a necessary one.
>>
>>Well, if self-discipline is "hardly a necessary one", what do
>>you suggest or advocate in its place?
>>
>
>Again you misunderstand me. I do believe it is a good practice.
>But to say that it is necessary is not so. Some people have a
>mystical experience all on their own, and have no idea what it
>means or what is happening to them. They think that they are
>going crazy. This is known as a spiritual crisis and they often
>need therapy or help from someone in order to make meaning
>out of their experience. They have no self-discipline at all, so
>how can we say that self-discipline is necessary?"
>
>Jerry S.