[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Theosophical Doctrines (HPB)

May 24, 1998 05:41 PM
by Annette Rivington

Dear Dallas:
I thought I would like to respond to some of your points, to sort of end
our debate on this list.  This is a long one and thank you for the

You said:
> As to astral travel, etc. some have that facility apparently from
> birth.  And others (like me) are born with a great wariness in
> regard to that area of our environment.

I say:
It seems reasonable to postulate that, in this botherhood of man, all
have this facility apparently from birth, and some choose, for various
karmic reasons, not to persue it in a particular life time.  Recent
historical records tend to support the fact that only a chosen few had
this ability and used it for the benefit of the many.  However, I
believe that all historical records contain personal agendas, and that
it is the stuff that has been lost or eradicated that provides the
answers to the full capabilites of human-kind.  Logically, if mankind
lost it's way it would leave behind most of those things that embodied
the truth.  Since the physical records have gone, but the energy and
hence the memory has not, a method of searching that uncovers the pure
memory seems like a valid approach.

Also, there is no doubt that the perception and experience of "life" is
a much different one when one accepts and uses this facility compared to
when one does not.

You said:
> I can
> also see the reasons for the issuing of cautions against forcing
> one's way into it out of curiosity, or some other desire for
> entertainment, or excitement, or of securing some personal power
> or information that will give them an edge over others not so
> fortunate.  In my opinion the risks outweigh any possible benefit
> that I see in doing that.  So I abstain.  Of one thing I am quite
> certain, and that is the Law of Karma will prevail in any and all
> cases.  So in my ignorance, why should I invite some calamity
> which I cannot foresee ?

I say:
The caution you propose is a given for any who consciously force their
way into it for selfish or power motives.  Those who dabble for these
reasons are aware of the risks or if not, they are very soon made aware
by being slapped up side the head by it coming back at them.

Those, like myself, who are drawn into it, kicking and screaming their
analytical, logical, physical selves against the natural laws, finally
understand that it is part of the universal and hence part of us, and it
is our task to live with it in balance.

As for man's excitement is another's sufferance.

You offered:
> What I hear or read of the adventures of others tends to confirm
> my wariness.  I have posted notes on Bulwer-Lytton's books:
> ZANONI, and A STRANGE STORY.  If you have not read them, you
> could do so, and either be entertained or repelled by the
> problems that the characters faced there in dealing with the
> astral realm and its living characters there.  Similarly, in ISIS
> UNVEILED, HPB gives us a bird's eye-view of many of the events
> and possibilities that flow from the "invisible astral plane"
> which surrounds and inter-penetrates our earth and each one of
> us.

I admit:
I have not read Bulwer-Lytton's books, but have read others' and have
talked to people who have experienced travel to other realms.  My
readings and contacts have been people who have not consciously sought
the experience, because I attract to me people who are seeking spiritual
growth on a similar path.  I have observed that the key factor in
dealing with these experiences is the strength of the individual's
You wrote:
> Mme. Blavatsky indeed could penetrate those veils at will.  She
> was an Adept.  Of herself she wrote to her family and spoke to
> others of her early years when she struggled to control her own
> tendencies to enter the astral ream without being able to control
> herself or it. The information that she has provided us is the
> basis that I, for one, use.   I gather that one ought not to
> adventure into that realm unless there is a very good reason to
> do so.  Next, one ought to be morally pure so as to repel some of
> the worst denizens of those places.

I say:
HPB's early years struggle seems to be her expression of the conflict
she felt when she compared herself to the normal and of the fear of
losing personal control, which is quite understandable. Later, in
response to the outbreak of attraction to psychic phenomena and the
seduction by those who used it for personal gain, an expression of
frustration at seeing a valuable concept taken by the general populous
and turned into a sideshow.   In another time and place, where "entering
the astral realm" was considered "normal", there was no need for
conflict or concern about "loss of sanity or credibility".  In another
time and place where "control" is not an issue, ditto.  Or put another
way:  if everyone can do it and attain it in purity of spirit, no one
needs to control or utilize it personally.

Entering this "realm" and encountering entities that seem to draw one
into chaos or "evil", is one great experience for finding out that one
is not as pure as one first thought.  One enters with the faith and
knowledge that no "denizen" can influence us unless we invite it to.
Meeting and recognizing a "denizen" tests one's strength in the purity.

You said:
> Although you may consider me, and others as dependent on "book"
> knowledge and therefore, information at "second hand,"  we (at
> least speaking for myself) would rather play it "safe."

I respond:
I don't consider you "dependent" on books, nor do I see you as playing
"safe".  I do find you a lot "one-sided" in your treatment most issues
and this causes conflict for me, as I "know" that the paths are many,
that the journey is the point of life and that the ending is the same
for all.  How do I "know"?  It's knowledge I came in with, from wherever
I came.  Why do I not change my mind now?  Because whenever I did in the
past, I ended up on a detour sometimes for years, only to be brought
right back to this intuitive knowlege.

And I still maintain that, you can tell me about a concept and tell me
it's "the way", but unless I am ready to learn and unless it works for
me, you're wasting your breath if you think you can convert me by your
experience alone.

Also, as soon as I ask, listen, understand, feel and accept, the
information is no longer "second hand", but part of me, again.
It's not too difficult to tell when someone is quoting from a book to
illustrate what is part of them as opposed to quoting for the purpose of
influence or posture.
You quote to communicate your "faith".  It is strong in you and feels
right to me for you.  But that's you and this is me! And since we both
believe we are just parts of Spirit, we have a major problem it

You said:
> This is, please, not being judgmental, but only stating a fact.
> If I am told that a fire is hot, I need not stick my hand in it
> to prove the fact.  If I am told that there is danger in the
> "astral plane," and cannot value it, since I have not developed
> the equipment ( also, I am not curious), why should I risk my
> life, sanity, or whatever, by jumping, unprepared, into an
> adventure I know I am unprepared for ?

I say:
I do not consider you judgemental.  If I did, I would be judgemental
myself.  Furthermore, since you are trying not to be judgemental, you
must think that I am (or you wouldn't have thought it), and since I am
trying not to be, either we both are or we both are not.

I will dispute what you call fact though.  If *I* am told that fire is
hot, it is a fact that those telling me have experienced fire as hot,
however, it is not a fact that I will experience fire as hot, nor is it
a fact that fire is fire and hot is hot.  I can postulate that an
experiencer in a place where hot is thousands of times hotter than we
have experienced will tell us that what we call fire is cold.  The
"fire" of passion in my experience maybe the ice of stupidity in yours.
It is also fact that those who transcend the physical can experience
fire without feeling heat or being burned.  It is a fact that
2.99infinite is not the same as 3, yet it is when used in mathematical

I am not asking you to think it or do it my way and go against your
feelings of safety.  I am simply asking that you accept that I do it
differently, and that you consider that I am neither misguided nor is my
chosen path a threat to your chosen path.

You say:
> You evidently are quite at ease there, and so you speak from that
> point of view.  I speak from mine, of part knowledge.  Other
> report having met frightening things they could not control or
> handle.  Some departments of Science Fiction are full of this
> kind of thing.  None of them give any facts, nor do they speak of
> any process or method of establishing invulnerability and control
> when in that environment.

I say:
I am no more at ease "there" than here, because I am wherever I go.  If
I am fearful and impure here then I am same there.  Hence the search for
the truth, here and there, which will reconnect the purity with me
everywhere and infinitely.

I think you are speaking of people who perceive having to control
themselves and others in order for things to be safe and right.
There is an excellent process of establishing invulnerability.  Some
call it faith, some call it hope, some call it white light, some call it
manifesting, some call it simply common sense and respecting things more
powerful than oneself.

You report:
> You may say to me that certain bodies claim to have secret
> knowledge on the how, and the why of handling these things.  I
> have been fortunate enough to discuss such matters with them, and
> have found that they really have very scanty knowledge as
> compared to the old Indians (of India, Tibet, Mongolia, etc...)
> or even of their modern descendents.

I have been trying to say:
No organizations or bodies have secret knowledge of this.  We all have
the knowledge and power and have forgotten it, for now.  The residual
energy of that knowledge remains in this creation, for all to experience
in whatever way is most comfortable for them to reconnect to it.
Secret societies, secret doctrines ..... means to me that either the
people involved feel vulnerable or they seek power for themselves, both
of which defeats their very purpose eventually.  The sweet smelling
brightly coloured flower grows boldly in the open sunshine.  What
blossoms in the secret dark corner?

You say:
> And that seems to be the jumble of information available -- I
> also go to bookstores and look over the titles there, as well as
> browse in the reports said to be from this or that "authority."
> Much often is hearsay and pretense -- and in that I can be
> accused of being judgmental.  But, I say:  "It's my 'skin' that's
> up for risking.  and I want to be sure that it stays 'whole.'"

I say:
You're correct.  Most is heresay and pretense.  I prefer to get my
information from other means, especially through myself.  I am a
fantastic creation and will not do anything to risk that.  I am part of
the great Love and am protected always.  I can trust myself, but not the
will of others for me.  I find you a little contradictory when you say
that you want to be sure that you stay physically 'whole', unless being
bounded in this physical body is the only way you feel you can
accomplish what it is you are here to do this time.

You say:
> I consider what I have learned from Theosophy to be reasonable
> and valuable.  I have been testing it for the past 50 or so
> years, and continue to do so.  So far it has proved to be quite
> accurate.  And if it says: " beware ! "  I take it as a friendly
> warning.

I say:
Funny thing.  I consider the same about what I have learned through
other methods, like dream walking and talking to trees and animals, and
have been testing this for the past 50 years or so too!  They also say
"beware" and I listen.

As long as you let me be, I have no problem with you.

You ask me:
> Have you read through ISIS ?  Do you happen to have a copy of THE
> OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY  by W. q. Judge ?  If so, then in the Ocean,
> look again through the chapters 4, 5, 6, 12, 16, 17. -- not too
> much to scan, but very valuable, I think, insofar as it gives an
> overview of the subject.

I'll piss you off by saying:
I have scanned both and have had to sit still while my husband has read
from these books to me and I say now what I said then:
There's far too many words; passages appear contradictory to me; every
few dozen pages I recognize a wisdom only to lose it in the jungle of
words; the text does not evoke an emotion in me and hence I forget it as
soon as I have heard it.  So.... it's not my vehicle.  That's all.  It's
simply not my vehicle this time around.

You say:
> As to the actual mixture of past, present and future.  The astral
> light in one part is a repository for Karma -- the karma of every
> being is recorded there -- so the view of anyone's past is
> available to those who have the power to view it.  Locked up in
> that "past" are the logical and lawful seeds of the "future."
> Again, those who have the "power," and when there is need, may
> envisage anyone's probable future.  Again, I am not curious about
> that, although I find that many people are.  [ I find that we all
> fear "exposure."  We all know that there are many of our secret
> thought and feelings that we are not proud of.  We hide them from
> others, and sometimes from our selves.  We may even think of it
> as our "evil self."  But it is part of us.  As I understand it it
> is necessary to purify and cleanse ourselves of such things.  I
> am not going to go into details.  But, psychologically, those
> "evil" constructs of ours are very clever at concealing
> themselves and at sustaining their own existence.  It is of such
> things that the lower planes of the astral light are formed.  The
> superior planes of the Astral  Light are the ones that we ought
> to be able to contact, if any contact is at all to be made.
>  Is it not worthwhile remembering that all beings bathe in the
> universal light of the One Spirit ?  And cannot we visualize this
> "speck" of inner "Spirit" as our Higher Self, as our Conscience
> ? ]

I say:
Whatever words *you* choose to use, if you look at mine, we are saying
the same thing.  You say "planes", I say elemental spirits.  You say
"purify", I say meditation and travel to Otherworlds.  You say "ought to
be able to contact", I say accept the invitiation to reconnect.  You say
"bathe in the universal light", I say we are all fragments of this
Spirit.  You say "Higher Self", I say disconnected and seeking
And later you say "sphericity", and I say "spiral".

Finally you offer:
> WE, as human mind-beings are in the process of transforming our
> baser self into an angelic being, into our spiritual self.  If
> this is true, then our labor ought to be directed at that aspect
> of the process, and that is strenuous work.
> I offer these ideas to you to consider and see if there is any
> merit in them.
> Best wishes to you ,                Dallas

I conclude:
You bet we are.  If you surf the Net you will find a few thousands of
like-minded humans striving to do just that.  Angels and aparitions are
reported appearing to many more people who are then transformed.  People
are leaving their professions and financial security to follow a
"spiritual calling", and it is my observation that everyone I work with
and meet socially is aware of a movement within themselves to throw off
the old bullshit ways and engage in a truer way of life. Once again,
some call it the 4th plane, some call it the Age of Aquarious, and some
say it's Masters from Arcturus getting the message across.

I say, about bloody time!

It is strenuous work if one chooses a strenuous path.  For some it is
simply a process of "giving up to the Spirit" and takes no effort at

So Dallas, where do we go from here now that I have reiterated that our
only differences are in terminology and the path we have chosen as
If I can accept you and your books, can you accept me and my messages
from outside of myself?

When it comes down to it, the only thing we are discussing is this:
Is there only one way to "enlightenment" or are there as many ways as
there are parts to this creation?

This is critical.  Because, if we can stand together in "brotherhood"
and your language is called Theosophy and mine is called Druidism and
our neighbours' are called Hinduism, Catholicism, Starseed etc. etc. and
we all seek the truth which is universal, respecting each other and all
parts of creation and live in peace with each other and all parts of
creation, then, by george, we've hit on the perfect life for human-kind.
And, IMHO, when (and not if) that happens, all of us will transcend the
physical.  Why not now...... because each one of us has to reach that
ability individually, and retain it alone, without a shred of doubt or
fear, before this "plane" is done.

Much merit in them
Blessed Be

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application