Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00642)

April 30th 1998

>From: "Jerry Schueler" <gschueler@netgsi.com>
>Date: Thursday, April 30, 1998 6:40 AM
>Subject: Re:Jerry Challenges Dallas but What does
Jerry Offer as an Alternative?

>
>>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 ]] I would not advance CROWLEY as a sample of
either Theosophy or of ethical advocacy -- since everything that
he emphasized ( and others of his 'followers' too -- glorified
thepersonality, and the "powers" that could be acquired to
dominate others. It is an exposition of pride and selfishness.
In other words the direct opposite of THEOSOPHY.

As I have said before THEOSOPHY is knowledge and therefore
presents us with "history." If the word "Ethics" is to be used
then it needs to be further defined as "an observation of the
operations of KARMA in all departments of Nature and expressly in
regard to the power of Humanfree-will, thought, and emotion. The
esoteric history records the effects that rebound on each human
entirely depending on thequality of their generation. Is it
impartial, universal, impersonal, benecolent ? if not the Karma
generated becomes educative as the entire thrust of the Universe
is towards progression and perfection -- not so much individual
perfection, as a general rise of the quality of living as a
community, where each brother and sister tries to assist the
rest.

A rather wornderful allegory is around of the saintly man who
earned the right to visit "Heaven" prior to his death. He was
greated at Heaven's Gate by St. Peter andas he was welcomed, he
was told that God had granted him a boon. He could ask one
question and it would be answered. He thought a while and siad:
"Tell me, St. Peter, what is the difference between Heaven and
Hell."

St. Peter, said " Come with em, I'll show you." A short distance
away were two halls of equal size and beauty. From one howls,
jeers, curses and screams emanated, and from the other there were
sweet songs and delightful music. St. Peter led the man to the
first hall, and, entering he saw a large banquet table at which
were seated a large number of men and women. The food was
excellent, and the music was divine. But the diners there were
restricted to eating what they could reach, and, as they could
only feed themselves with the large spoons that they had been
given, all of them were enraged because they could not eat, --
the handles of the spoons were 5 feet long. Their angry selfish
voices drowned out the sweet celestial music. Sadly St. Peter
closed the door and turned away with the abashed visitor in tow.
>
Leaving that hall of pandemonium, St. Peter led his guest to the
next one, and there as they entered they saw that the same
situation prevailed -- same food, same table, same music, same
type of spoon with 5 foot handles. But the difference was that
here each guest was busy feeding his neighbours with the good
food that was available within the reach of the spoon that he or
she held. Laughter, and other terms of friendship echoed around
the hall and, occasionally, the feasters would break into song
and accompny the music for a while, and harmony and contentment
prevailed.

Closing the door, St. Peter turned to the envoy, and said simply:
"Now you know."

>>> >[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.
>>

 [[ DALLAS ]] quite true nothing is gained without hard
work. Where are the maps, the rules, the procedures ? what are
we looking for ? and if we secure the "treasures of heaven" how
will we use them ?

It is only natural that Nature and the Wise Ones who have
preceded us know that without certain safeguards our in herent
selfishness would make of of the golden gifts of knowlege flails
and shackles that could be used to enslave othes. Hence, until
we porve that we are completely HARMLESS to ourselves and to
othes, we cannot be entrusted with any powers or knowlege that
would enable us to dominate or reign over others. At lease that
is how I understand that the barriers of Initation are raised.
They are not extraordinary. Nature raises them. If you read the
VOICE OF THE SILENCE you will find them defined there.

>>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.
>
As far as I am concened those are all words and names, and they
do not say anything in the way of value. Who knows what
"Kundalini Yoga" is. Who can balance the Brahmarandhra -- the
inner and the Supreme ? What is the Yoga of the heart ?

>>>[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.
>

Those who say don't know. and those who KNOW are silent -- They
wait to see when the disciples will transcend personality, serve
others, and rise to the level of harmlessness TO ALL CREATURES,
which ALONE serves as the only key to the Gates of Gold. -- THUS
HAVE I HEARD .....

>>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

 [[ DALLAS ]]

WHY SHOULD WE ASSUME THAT THINKING AND THE MIND STOP ?
It is a great gallacy to assume that mediation means "blanking th
mind."
1. Who or what "has" a mind ?
2. When it is 'blanked' who or what restores it to function ?
3. Of what value is time spent in mindlessness ?
4. Are we to rely on the carelss words of those who cannot
explain these processes or give us an understanding of the true
nature of the Universe and of Man ? Why not try HPB and the
Theosophy of the Masters ? What are our barriers ?

>>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.

 [[ DALLAS ]]

All experience can be previewed with the finely attuned mind.
How do we secure information about doing that ?
HOW DO WE ASSURE OURSELVES OF ITS ACCURACY ?

I do not like the idea of diving into a dry swimming pool !

>>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?

 [[ DALLAS ]]

If interiorly at core we are IMMORTALS the HIGHER -SELF then we
are not far from the ultimate myster or wisdom. How do we
consciously communicate ?

Is not our true GURU interior to us ?

>>
>>
>
>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: I do not mean to be condescending in any way. I only say
to you that which I have found to be reasonable. apparently some
of our ideas diverge. need it be so ?

I am not anxious to convert anyone to my views. But when I sense
dangers, I raise caution flags.

 And that's all I can
think of now, 'bye
 Dal

>Jerry S.
>
theos-talk@theosophy.com
>
consisting of
theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.
>