Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00077)

>First, let me put everyone on notice that I come to you as a Theosophist;
that
>is, someone who speaks in some degree from his or her own authority as a
>result of at least some personal experience with the "less differentiated"
>("divine") states of consciousness.

That goes for me too. Isn't everyone on this list?


>I may be a new political party of one, but since I have long given up hope
>that the Theosophical Society is likely to accomplish much more in this
world
>in light of its ever more clear "definitional grab" (defining ~Theosophy~
as
>HPB's "indefectable" presentation of Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis)...

What should the TS be accomplishing? At least one purpose is to maintain
the original literature (i.e., form a library), which they do rather well.


>Thus, I hereby exercise my prerogative to speak from my own authority as a
>Theosophist; therefore, you can and should hereby exercise your prerogative
to
>intuitively rank the validity of my authority from 0% to 100%

How about somewhere in the mid to high 90's?


>I, at least, have no doubt whatever that Theosophists of the past utilized
the
>"analogical method."  That is, they were careful observers of their own
inner
>states of consciousness during meditative sessions and then used the
commonly
>reversed "as below, so Above" technique to put together a larger world
view.


This is what modern magicians still do.


>So anyway, we have these true Theosophists watching more or less the same
>inner sequence for perhaps thousands and thousands of years.  Is it too
far-
>fetched to imagine that the thought came to many of them, "If that is what
my
>own inner life is like, perhaps that is how things are macrocosmically as
>well"?  No, not far-fetched to me, at least.
>

The only problem here is that few, if any, observed exactly the same things.
The subjective nature of the inner (or higher) planes eventually led to the
formation of many different schools and Teachers. A similar thread runs
through them all, but it is esoteric and not put into words.


>Which brings us directly to the subjects of Consciousness, Spirit, manas,
>duality etc.  In my opinion, all of these things will just remain a jumble
>unless one logs some serious meditation time.

Agreed. Reading about these thing only brings confusion.


>...suspect he may be using interchangeably with ~soul~

I don't particularly like the term soul. Like the term mind, its definiton
is vague and no two people can seem to agree on what it is.
I view mind as the mental body when consciousness is focussed there
during the waking state. This comes from CWL a little, but also from
my own meditative experiences where I can be fully conscious without
a human mind as such (i.e., no normal thought processes). I know
very well that consciousness can transcend the human mind, but
trying to define these terms always gets me into trouble.


> Undifferentiated
>Consciousness is the beginning/ending point of everything.

Agreed.


>Does any of this abstract stuff really matter?  Well, to those who have no
>Adept aspirations whatever, I sometimes wonder how it could really matter.


Agreed. I think it only really matters to people who have had spiritual
experiences and then want to put them into thoughts and words.


>Perhaps many people want to be comforted by the it-doesn't-really-end-here
>component of the "Theosophical Philosophy" or something.

I have said this time and again, but because the early pioneers like
Judge taught this, I get nowhere. It does, I have to admit, appear
comforting. However, my own experiences just don't bear it out.

Good post, as usual.

Jerry S.