Featured Blog Posts - Theosophy.Net2024-03-19T12:44:06Zhttps://theosophy.net/profiles/blog/feed?promoted=1&xn_auth=noGeneral Theosophy #16tag:theosophy.net,2010-12-06:3055387:BlogPost:345772010-12-06T20:00:00.000ZRichard Ihlehttps://theosophy.net/profile/RichardIhle
<span style="font-size: 13pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; color: black;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">"Before surrendering, always try sending in a better version of yourself.”</span>—General Theosophy</span>
<span style="font-size: 13pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; color: black;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">"Before surrendering, always try sending in a better version of yourself.”</span>—General Theosophy</span>General Theosophy #15tag:theosophy.net,2010-11-30:3055387:BlogPost:343432010-11-30T00:30:00.000ZRichard Ihlehttps://theosophy.net/profile/RichardIhle
<span style="font-size: 13pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"><span style="font-weight: bold;">“The new method for keeping one’s esoteric insights away from the attention of the profane is to simply</span> <b style="font-weight: bold;"><i style="">NOT</i></b> <span style="font-weight: bold;">claim that they came from anyone more exalted or off-planet than oneself.”</span>—General Theosophy</span>
<span style="font-size: 13pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"><span style="font-weight: bold;">“The new method for keeping one’s esoteric insights away from the attention of the profane is to simply</span> <b style="font-weight: bold;"><i style="">NOT</i></b> <span style="font-weight: bold;">claim that they came from anyone more exalted or off-planet than oneself.”</span>—General Theosophy</span>General Theosophy #14tag:theosophy.net,2010-11-14:3055387:BlogPost:335022010-11-14T15:36:26.000ZRichard Ihlehttps://theosophy.net/profile/RichardIhle
<span style="font-size: 13pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"><span style="font-weight: bold;">“A difference between a Theosopher and a Theosophist might be that the former is striving and the latter is subscribing.”</span>—General Theosophy</span>
<span style="font-size: 13pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"><span style="font-weight: bold;">“A difference between a Theosopher and a Theosophist might be that the former is striving and the latter is subscribing.”</span>—General Theosophy</span>General Theosophy #12tag:theosophy.net,2010-11-10:3055387:BlogPost:333032010-11-10T15:58:29.000ZRichard Ihlehttps://theosophy.net/profile/RichardIhle
<span style="font-size: 13pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"><span style="font-weight: bold;">"Scientists say that human beings are ninety-eight percent chimpanzee at the DNA genetic level; those who make this the most important thing, however, may be one hundred percent chimpanzee at the Spiritual level."</span></span> <span style="font-size: 13pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">—General Theosophy</span>
<span style="font-size: 13pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"><span style="font-weight: bold;">"Scientists say that human beings are ninety-eight percent chimpanzee at the DNA genetic level; those who make this the most important thing, however, may be one hundred percent chimpanzee at the Spiritual level."</span></span> <span style="font-size: 13pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">—General Theosophy</span>General Theosophy #11tag:theosophy.net,2010-11-07:3055387:BlogPost:330882010-11-07T13:23:16.000ZRichard Ihlehttps://theosophy.net/profile/RichardIhle
<span style="font-size: 13pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Wiccan Rede with an added emphasis: “Do anything you want, but do not harm others—</span><i style="font-weight: bold;">or</i> <i style="font-weight: bold;">yourself—</i><span style="font-weight: bold;">physically, emotionally, mentally, or Spiritually.”</span>—General Theosophy</span>
<span style="font-size: 13pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Wiccan Rede with an added emphasis: “Do anything you want, but do not harm others—</span><i style="font-weight: bold;">or</i> <i style="font-weight: bold;">yourself—</i><span style="font-weight: bold;">physically, emotionally, mentally, or Spiritually.”</span>—General Theosophy</span>General Theosophy #10tag:theosophy.net,2010-10-29:3055387:BlogPost:327382010-10-29T17:30:00.000ZRichard Ihlehttps://theosophy.net/profile/RichardIhle
<br/>
<br/>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 13pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"><span style="font-weight: bold;">“Apart from those things you identify as your life-duties, all other decisions can be made just by asking yourself the question, ‘Will it lead toward more seriousness or toward better play?’ As a child you knew which answer you were looking for. . . .”</span>—General Theosophy</span></p>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 13pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"><span style="font-weight: bold;">“Apart from those things you identify as your life-duties, all other decisions can be made just by asking yourself the question, ‘Will it lead toward more seriousness or toward better play?’ As a child you knew which answer you were looking for. . . .”</span>—General Theosophy</span></p>
<br/>General Theosophy #9tag:theosophy.net,2010-10-26:3055387:BlogPost:326252010-10-26T13:30:00.000ZRichard Ihlehttps://theosophy.net/profile/RichardIhle
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 13pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"><span style="font-weight: bold;">“Aspirants of the past had to dig through a mountain of ignorance to find a few scraps of useful knowledge; aspirants of the present have to dig through a mountain of knowledge to find a few scraps of useful knowledge.”</span> —General Theosophy</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 13pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"><span style="font-weight: bold;">“Aspirants of the past had to dig through a mountain of ignorance to find a few scraps of useful knowledge; aspirants of the present have to dig through a mountain of knowledge to find a few scraps of useful knowledge.”</span> —General Theosophy</span></p>General Theosophy #211tag:theosophy.net,2019-10-26:3055387:BlogPost:1640092019-10-26T17:30:00.000ZRichard Ihlehttps://theosophy.net/profile/RichardIhle
<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><strong>"It is probably best not to bother discussing death with anyone <em>too scientific</em> to even entertain a doubt about its finality."</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><strong>"It is probably best not to bother discussing death with anyone <em>too scientific</em> to even entertain a doubt about its finality."</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>Captain Theosophy (Part One: Meeting Your Personal Genie/Genius)tag:theosophy.net,2019-07-29:3055387:BlogPost:1630482019-07-29T18:02:40.000ZRichard Ihlehttps://theosophy.net/profile/RichardIhle
<p>Captain Theosophy (Part One: <em>Meeting</em> Your Personal Genie/Genius) by Richard Ihle</p>
<p>"<em>There's a man in the funny papers we all know</em>. . . ."</p>
<p>Some people started to call me "<strong>Captain Theosophy</strong>.". . .</p>
<p>Initially, this was almost certainly because it was the title of an article I had written for the old THE AMERICAN THEOSOPHIST magazine. In those days I guess I did sometimes seem sort of like a cartoonish superhero—not only because of my…</p>
<p>Captain Theosophy (Part One: <em>Meeting</em> Your Personal Genie/Genius) by Richard Ihle</p>
<p>"<em>There's a man in the funny papers we all know</em>. . . ."</p>
<p>Some people started to call me "<strong>Captain Theosophy</strong>.". . .</p>
<p>Initially, this was almost certainly because it was the title of an article I had written for the old THE AMERICAN THEOSOPHIST magazine. In those days I guess I did sometimes seem sort of like a cartoonish superhero—not only because of my faster-than-speeding-bullet rattle-offs regarding the benefits of conventional meditation etc., but also because of my non-stop hinting that maybe the Theosophical Society needed to rescue itself from the limiting definition of <em>Theosophy</em> <strong>AS</strong> "The teachings of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky."</p>
<p>Specifically, my a.k.a. Captain Theosophy believed that it was unlikely that the 100-plus-year old society could ever attain its Blavatsky-predicted future as perhaps Franchise License Holder #1 of the coming "Universal World Religion" unless it returned to a broader, more epistemologically oriented definition for Theosophy—maybe something like the one now found on theosophy.net:</p>
<p><strong>Theosophy</strong>: "<em>Intuitional knowledge or wisdom resulting from progress in Self-awareness and/or experience of one's own Transcendental ('Divine') Nature</em>."</p>
<p>Such a definitional re-orientation was necessary, in the Captain’s view, because many of H.P. Blavatsky's teachings no longer seemed to look so good as more and more light from twentieth-century science began to shine upon them. For example, contemporary biology was finding evidence that humans and apes had progressed up separate evolutionary branches after leaving a ferret-like common ancestor perhaps 10 million years ago; however, Blavatsky’s ISIS UNVEILED clearly asserted that the gorillas and orangutans which could be seen in modern zoos had actually "de-volved" from former <em>Homo sapiens</em> into their present, less-cerebral, poorer-postured, more hygiene-dubious configurations.</p>
<p>For another example, contemporary paleoanthropology was turning up some very modest and sketchy, yet impressive and hard-earned, information about the <em>3- or 4-million-year-old</em> forerunners in the hominid line (the australopithecines); however, Blavatsky’s arcane compendium confidently revealed many more, apparently-a-lot-easier-to-have-come-by, details about humanity's "Third-Race" progenitors—the twelve-foot, four-armed, cave- or hole-dwelling, telepathic Lemurians, often with eyes on backs of their heads, who lived somewhere in the Southern Hemisphere of our planet <em>no less than 40 million years ago.</em></p>
<p>How such precise descriptions could have been passed along so reliably millennium after millennium for an <em>extra 36-37 million years</em> compared to the rough sketches modern paleoanthropologists were so hesitantly venturing to present was<a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3391629367?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3391629367?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-right" width="149" height="148"/></a> anyone’s guess.</p>
<p>The most popular guess within the Theosophical Society at that time, of course, was that it had all been Preternaturally transmitted, courtesy of Madame Blavatsky’s “Mahatma” guides (Morya, Koot Hoomi, et al.). These “Masters” were not only regarded as “Accuracy Underwriters” for this nearly-from-the-dinosaur-era information, but more than a few members also believed that that the Mahatmas, or Others of their same “Brotherhood,” were still living in some <em>non</em>-GPS-friendly place like Tibet and were continuing to guide the Society by means of something like the “Astral” equivalent of wi-fi. . . .</p>
<p>Anyway, little by little Captain T found it harder and harder to persuade himself that certain of Blavatsky's teachings were <em>LITERALLY</em> true. Nevertheless, he remained persuaded that there were many UNIQUE BENEFITS—not only philosophical and “Spiritual,” but also down-to-earth psychological and even physiological—which could be had by FIGURATIVELY working with H.P.B.'s greatest work, THE SECRET DOCTRINE, <em>while at the same time experimentally adopting a Theosophical life-style which encouraged cultivation and “temporary trust” of one’s own INTUITIONS—the source for POSSIBLY-NOT-OTHERWISE-OBTAINABLE knowledge. . . .</em></p>
<p>Therefore, it was never his intention to <em>entirely</em> throw the old Russian woman out with her gray bathwater. . . .</p>
<p>Such was Captain Theosophy's mind-frame when, quite a few decades ago, he agreed to give a presentation at the National Theosophical Summer Convention held in Wheaton, Illinois. The Son-of-Smallville’s specific <a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3391640060?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3391640060?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-left" width="248" height="166"/></a>message on that occasion was that at least some of H.P.B.'s esoteric teachings (e.g., "Rounds," "Root-Races," "Sub-Races," etc.) might have been speculatively produced by making as-below-so-Above ANALOGIES out of the six varieties of psychological consciousnesses which ancient/modern sages, yogis, and perhaps even Madame herself, may have become introspectively familiar with while meditating.</p>
<p>Most importantly, Cappy surmised that significant real-life value might come from using the more familiar one-half of the Hermetic Emerald Tablet axiom, the <em>as-Above-so-below</em> (rather than the <em>as-below-so-Above</em>), to help identify the "Levels"—the PSYCHOLOGICAL belows—which may have at least been the analogical inspirations for Blavatsky's grand transcendental Cosmogenetic and Anthropogenetic teachings—the philosophical/religious Aboves (including graduate-school versions of the doctrines of Karma and Reincarnation found in the Vedas).</p>
<p>For some reason the Theo-Caped Crusader thought that all this esoteric spaghetti would be of enormous interest to the Theosophists attending his talk that summer. Indeed, the Levels of consciousness he was trying to summarize directly related to the various types of "tainted <em>I-am's</em>" (animating, physical, emotional, and mental) which regularly psychologically show up to keep ordinary life all-too-ordinary. Unless one has enough socio-economic luxury/indifference to perpetually sit in <em>savikalpa samadhi</em> atop a mountain somewhere, such in-the-moment identity-mistakes continually arise in daily life, pass away, and then either re-arise or are immediately replaced by other identity-mistakes—the resultant psycho-mishmash perhaps thereby qualifying, right after everyone’s inevitable death, as the second-most basic "human condition" of all. . . .</p>
<p>Notwithstanding this, Krypton’s Final Hope probably should have realized that all this could not be presented in anything even close to entertainment-grade form. Of course, it also did not help that he could not resist several times catechistically reciting the six categories of false-ego-creating differentiated consciousnesses—animating, physical/sensory, desire-feeling, desire-mental, mental, Spirit-mental—and then follow each with a salt-rub of its Eastern equivalent—<em>pranamaya, annamaya, kamamaya, kama-manomaya, manomaya, Buddhi-manomaya</em>.</p>
<p>Still, one might think that T-Rocket could have predicted the very possible, very powerful, very long-lasting result his talk might have: <em>the very real actual circumstance that, even though he continues to be a member of the Society to this very day, he would never again be asked to speak from a national Theosophical podium. . . .</em></p>
<p>"Oh well. . . ," as C. Kent has learned to say over the years. . . .</p>
<p><strong>Meeting Your Personal Genie/Genius:</strong></p>
<p>“<em>Incidentally,” said old Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, “I despise everything which merely instructs me without increasing or immediately enlivening my activity.</em>”</p>
<p>Upon reflection, however, J.W.v.G's remark above might actually have been the real reason why young Kal-El’s presentation was something like throwing a kryptonite blanket of <em>ennui</em> over the audience that summer. Indeed, what good is an advertisement for a broader, intuition-allowing, EPISTEMOLOGICAL definition for <em>Theosophy</em> if it does not even mention the many down-to-earth <em>increasings</em> and <em>enlivenings</em> which may result from using it?</p>
<p>Indeed, what good if getting <strong>EXTRA-ordinary INTUITIVE HELP</strong> from one's <strong>PERSONAL GENIE/GENIUS</strong> is not even thrown out there as a little <em>siddhi</em>-tempting audience-bait?</p>
<p>Furthermore, the concept of a helpful <em>personal genius</em> (removing the equivalent "<em>genie</em>") is really nothing new. It certainly goes back to at least Greek and Roman times when it was widely believed that everyone was born with such a "tutelary spirit" and kept it throughout life. The human being was not considered to be the genius; rather, only that he or she <em>had</em> one. Socrates called this <em>potential</em> (potentialized by learning how to pay better attention to it) life-asset his "<em>daimon</em>," and he explains its guardian-angel role below:</p>
<p>“You have often heard me speak of an oracle or sign which comes to me. This sign I have had ever since I was a child. The sign is a voice which comes to me and always forbids me to do something which I am going to do, but never commands me to do anything, and this is what stands in the way of my being a politician.” [Plato, APOLOGY]</p>
<p>Of course as the centuries passed, the meaning of genius gradually changed. Not only did the word become a general synonym for exceptionally high intelligence and/or seminal accomplishment, but also some special primates even <strong>began to be defined AS geniuses</strong>—e.g., Newton, Einstein, Mozart, . . . Blavatsky. . . .</p>
<p>Therefore, it might be understandable why so many moderns with IQ scores under 140 and/or little-or-no aptitude for intellectual/scientific/creative ground-breaking started thinking that the word <em>genius</em> had nothing at all to do with themselves. For sure, gone was the old Greek/Roman assumption that each individual had a <em>personal</em> helper which could occasionally provide far more reliable advice about <em>what-NOT-to-do</em> than could even laborious pondering using solid science and anal-tightlocked logic.</p>
<p>While such antique, often quite affable, genii have largely faded into mythology, they have at least left behind a word which reminds us of how they communicated with their human hosts: INTUITION: "lower" and "Higher." Although both types may sometimes seem "uncanny," there is probably not so much mystery about the former. These "immediate understandings which need no further deliberation," could simply be the result of previous—<em>but unremembered</em>—sensory perceptions, emotional stimulations, mental operations, pre-existing conclusions (particularly those originally reached <em>subconsciously</em>), etc. They could also simply be immediate analogies/inductions generated from such <em>forgotten</em> material. They could also be simply very wrong. . . .</p>
<p>By contrast, instant apprehensions in the latter category are significantly different. Not only may Higher intuitions seem to come with more of a "numinous feeling," but they are also generally not regarded as having been derived from any past experiences—<em>NOT, at least, any past experiences in the CURRENT lifetime of the individual. . . .</em></p>
<p>This <em>Higher</em> carries the connotation of trans-time, trans-space, and perhaps even trans-"temporary-personhoods." Often, the supernality gets explained in one or both of these ways: 1) that a person's "soul" has always been in possession of a pre-existing "Spiritual Fullness" of understandings, information, wisdom, etc. and/or 2) that a more limited, but still highly impressive, treasure trove—notably including the "heads-up warnings" which are the psychological fruit of "<em>previously mastered</em> life-lessons"—has been steadily accumulating over the course of many "previous incarnations."</p>
<p>Socrates' "Slave Boy" story illustrates Higher intuition. In the 2,400-year-old sturdy piece of Greek literature called MENO, an uneducated youth suddenly "Retrieves" the geometrical understanding that twice the area of a square can be found by drawing a diagonal line from two of its corners and then using that particular length for the four sides of a new square.</p>
<p>Socrates tells what he thinks this proves: "But if he [Meno's slave] did not acquire the knowledge in this life, then he must have had and learned it at some other time? [. . .] And if there have been always true thoughts in him, both at the time when he was and [also when he] was not a man, and which only need to be awakened into knowledge by putting questions to him, his soul must have always possessed this knowledge, for he always either was or was not a man? [. . .] And if the truth of all things always exist in the soul, then the soul is immortal. Wherefore be of good cheer [Meno], and try to recollect what you do not know, or rather what you do not <strong>Remember</strong> [emphasis and capital added]." [Plato, MENO, 402 BCE]</p>
<p>Sometimes, an add-on to this Borderless epistemology is that an individual's advancing “Spiritual development" may greatly improve his or her "Remembering Process." Full-bloom bodhisattvas, for instance, might even get access to a "Central Astral Storage System". . . containing not only the record of every historical and geological event which has ever happened on earth, but also every single thing every human being has ever sensed, felt, or thought. . . .</p>
<p>Madame Blavatsky called this the "Akashic Records.”</p>
<p>Cap-damn Theosophy, unfortunately, just called this another good example of something which he, little by little, could not keep convincing himself that Helena <em>LITERALLY</em> knew anything about—particularly whether or not such an imaginative "Pre-Silicon-Valley-Super-Data-Cloud" even existed. Therefore . . . notwithstanding any "theatrical support" this or other similarily Woo-Woo-dripping dispensations may have come with—for example, communicated by "Spirit Guides," "Masters," "Angels," "Burning Bushes," "Golden Plates," etc.—the Dynamic Demurrer started thinking that certain extramundane merchandise which had been labeled "<em>Product of Higher Intuition</em>" could also be <strong>very wrong</strong>. . . .</p>
<p>Nevertheless, the Captain remained open to the possibility that some of this otherwise unavailable content might actually turn out to be <strong>very right</strong> —or at least <strong>very helpful</strong> once the "occult" as-Above-so-below <em>psychological analogies</em> they were associated with became evident. What difference if the chances for this might be as low as <strong>1-in-100</strong> or even lower!? These odds were actually pretty decent considering that they undoubtedly would have been <strong><em>0</em>-in-100</strong> if the Transformable Truth-seeker were only allowed to proceed while keeping himself <em>entirely</em> underneath a strict smother-shroud of "scientific methodological naturalism."</p>
<p>After all, he still called himself a <em>Theosophist</em> . . . and after all, one definition was still this: "<em>Someone who is willing to consider not only his or her own, but also other individuals' <strong>potential</strong> knowledge and/or wisdom <strong>purportedly</strong> aided by their Higher intuition, advanced progress in Self-awareness, and/or direct personal experience with their own '<strong>Divine</strong>' natures.</em>" Moreover, these other individuals could include everybody from an anonymous ancient sage who is contributing to the oral tradition which eventually becomes the written Rig Veda . . . to a college student in a dorm room who is sharing a spotlight-inviting hunch about who he or she was in a "past life" . . . or maybe even to a cosplaying "Mahatma" who is dropping memos from a 19th century ceiling. . . .</p>
<p>Here it should be observed that an upper case "<strong><em>T</em></strong>" on the word <em><strong>T</strong>heosophy</em> and its derivatives (<em><strong>T</strong>heosophist</em>,<em><strong>T</strong>heosopher</em>) sometimes just points to its <strong><em>claim</em></strong> of having been assisted by the special transcendental epistemology described above; in other words, the capital is not necessarily meant to validate or elevate particular content. Furthermore, the "<strong><em>Divine</em></strong>" in the definition normally does not refer to any specific, nameable "God-personality" like Jehovah, Jesus, Allah, or Krishna. <strong><em>Theo</em></strong> in <em><strong>Theo</strong>sophy</em> is traditionally thought of as a broad abstraction, perhaps similar to Spinoza's "Self-Subsistent Substance," or Vedanta's <em>Atman</em> ("Undifferentiated I-Consciousness"/"Higher Self" etc.). It may qualify as "religious" only in the same sense that the Latin root <em>re-ligare</em> means "to bind back" or "connect [with the '<strong>One</strong>'] again." Looked at in this way, big-<strong><em>T</em></strong> is a great ongoing subliminal advertisement for "<strong>God-Within</strong>."</p>
<p>But to satisfy standard writing convention, <em>upper-<strong>T</strong> <strong>T</strong>heosophy</em> is otherwise reserved for the name of an official organization, a sort of imaginary "historical movement," a proprietary grab of some putative "Ancient Wisdom,". . . or, all too often, a cultish-flavored endeavor to turn <em>Theosophy</em> into a spandex-girdled synonym for "the teachings of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky" by those who think that even her sizeable <em>derivative</em> reportage justifies usurping the general <strong><em>T</em></strong>-word for her own private brand-name like <em>Kleenex</em>. . . .</p>
<p><strong>BEWARE, therefore, anything which may follow the capitalized expression "<em>Theosophy teaches</em>. . . ."</strong></p>
<p><strong>But BE SUPER-CORDIAL, therefore, to anything with enough humility to start off with "<em>MY Theosophy teaches</em>. . . .")</strong></p>
<p>Of course, small-<em><strong>t</strong> theosophy</em> is now what is most often encountered in dictionaries, encyclopedias, and on internet blogs. Unfortunately, when the ordinary-little-<strong>t</strong> is used in this way, it sometimes runs the risk of giving the impression that a reader has merely stumbled upon some barely moving, barely breathing occupant of an old basket which has been left on mythology's doorstep.</p>
<p>Granted, some of these old (and also "New-Age"-new) drop-offs really do belong there. Indeed, the sad truth is that it might be difficult to find another sub-classification of the Dewey Decimal System which contains as much dubious material as t/Theosophy. While this particularly applies to what Karl Popper would call "unfalsifiable assertions," it is also the case for many things which <em>can</em> <em>be—and actually should be</em>—evaluated, corroborated, or falsified by means of modern empirical science, scholarly research, personal experimentation, etc.</p>
<p>Then, of course, there is also the problem of what to do about the dissimilarities, disagreements, and differing interpretations between and among even some of the most highly respected figures within the Theosophical tradition. A good example of this is the well-known dispute between the notable Vedanta scholar T. Subba Row and H.P. Blavatsky regarding "The Principles of Man." The former individual insisted that only Raja Yoga's <em>four</em>-fold classification could be considered reliable; the latter individual said that her <em>seven</em>-fold version was the "esoteric improvement" upon his commonplace Hindu opinion; the former individual left the Theosophical Society not too long afterwards.</p>
<p><strong>Question:</strong> Given so much multifariousness and gradation in the validity of the "teachings," what, then, might be some <em>common denominators</em> which can apply to all who call themselves <em>Theosophists</em> and/or <em>Theosophers</em>?</p>
<p><strong>Answer:</strong> Actually, there might only be <strong>one</strong>—that none of these deeper-pool-end swimmers have been able to completely dry-off from their "<strong>PERENNIAL SUSPICION</strong>."</p>
<p>The more full-bore "<strong>The PERENNIAL <em>PHILOSOPHY</em></strong>" is a much better-known phrase, of course. It refers to the historically ever-cropping-up notion that behind, within, and including all things there is an indivisible "Universal Ground" which provides the underpinning for all authentic religions. Especially in what is sometimes called the "Wisdom Tradition," there is also the suggestion that mystical apprehension of this Truth may be available to those who are first willing to "fulfill certain conditions"—and (unless these conditions have already been fulfilled in a "previous lifetime") this is typically accomplished by meditation, prayer, and/or some other form of "creative introversion."</p>
<p>Interestingly, Aldous Huxley's description of The Perennial Philosophy not only uses the term <em>psychology</em> rather than something with more metaphysical opportunity like <em>cosmology</em>, but it also seems very-well-aligned with the way the root <strong><em>Theo</em></strong> is generally regarded in the word <em><strong>Theo</strong>sophy</em>: "[The Perennial Philosophy is] the <strong>psychology</strong> [emphasis added] which finds in the soul something similar to, or even identical to, <strong>divine</strong> [emphasis added] Reality." [Huxley, THE PERENNIAL PHILOSOPHY, 1945]</p>
<p>Actually, The Perennial <strong>SUSPICION</strong> is pretty much the same thing; that is, it refers to a similar Realization that everyone shares an Undifferentiated Foundation of I-Consciousness (<em>Atman</em>, <em>Purusa</em>) which, when "mutually interpenetrating" Undifferentiated Substance (<em>Prakriti</em>), becomes the <em>really</em> Universal Ground (Shankara: "<em>Atman is Brahman</em>"). Yes, pretty much the same . . . with possibly the only difference being that it tends to show a little more hesitation, a little less finalized articulation, and a lot less hucksterized disciple-collecting in the way it is usually presented to others. . . .</p>
<p>This is not to say, however, that the admittedly slightly underpowered <em>SS Perennial Suspicion</em> cannot itself cause many additional "<strong>sub-suspicions</strong>" to form her wake. Such resultant inklings, inspirations, sometimes even quite elaborate meta-terrestrial speculations, may or may not be conveyed to others with a certain degree of conviction; nevertheless, there can also be an admirable degree of candor as well. For example, Annie Besant [1847-1933], the charismatic early leader of the Society, expressed herself this way:</p>
<p>"<strong>I believe in the life everlasting</strong> [emphasis added]. We do not pretend to know anything about it; the belief is intuitive [emphasis added], but is not demonstrable; it is a hope and a trust, not an absolute knowledge. We entertain a reasonable hope of immortality; we argue its likelihood from considerations of the justice and the love which, as we believe, rule the universe; we, many of us—as I freely confess I do myself—believe in it with a firmness of conviction absolutely immovable; but challenged to prove it, we cannot answer." [Besant, MY PATH TO ATHEISM, p.161, 1885]</p>
<p>Captain Theosophy, however, never really felt so much "challenged to prove" as he did "self-challenged to <em>disprove</em>" the intuitive content he continued to take seriously, sometimes without a shred of corroborating empirical evidence. Indeed, he tried and tried, used every countervailing science, every solid bit of atheistic logic, every hostile-flavored ratiocination, but he was never quite able to escape not only the primary Suspicion but also quite a few secondary ones as well.</p>
<p>Here are three of his <em>unfalsifiable</em> Theosophical Tar-Babies:</p>
<p>1) [the otherwise unsupported intuition that] Because everyone's Fundamental Psychological Nature is the Self (Atman, Undifferentiated I-Consciousness), a human being neither "comes" from anywhere when born, nor will be able "go" anywhere when he or she dies.</p>
<p>2) [the otherwise unsupported intuition that] A person might be better advised to stop <em>wanting</em> to reincarnate and, rather, begin <em>worrying</em> about <em>having to</em> . . . for it is likely that yet-unperfected Self-awareness may again have to be "<em>re-associated</em>" as his or her own new, suffering, Identity-benighted, "succeedent psyche."</p>
<p>3) [the otherwise unsupported intuition that] Every individual on earth, according to his or her "Degree" of Self-awareness, is at some particular rung on a hierarchical, possibly <em>translifetime</em>, "Ladder of Adeptship". . . and it is only by "religiously" climbing upward upon this psychological structure can there be any hope for <em>longer-term</em> purpose and meaning in human life.</p>
<p>Unlike the Tar Babies above, however, many sub-suspicions <em>can</em> be falsified; they <em>are</em> readily available for empirical/experiential corroboration or calumniation. This is certainly the case for the intuitional promptings one may get to experiment with the <em>conventional</em> "Spiritual self-help" techniques found both in older books and newer promiscuous purveyors like YouTube. Various meditative practices, breathing exercises (<em>pranayama</em>), mantra chanting, "sound-current" (<em>shabdt</em>) listening, psycho-cybernetic affirmations, make-a-wish visualizations, self-hypnosis, orgone pillowings, etc: an aspirant need only give these things a conscientious try and then pay attention to any life-changes afterwards.</p>
<p>A similar down-to-earth methodology may also be used to evaluate the <em>unconventional</em>, off-the-beaten-Spiritual-Path experiments one may decide to devise for himself or herself. Some which have been successfully prospected by the Lycra-Tighted Hero may be found in "<strong>Captain Theosophy (Part Two: <em>Managing</em> Your Personal Genie/Genius)</strong>." For examples: "Blessing Only the Attained," "'<em>I</em>'-Vacuum with Compression," "Weaponizing Your Psycho-Immune System," "Glad-Bag Disembranglement," "Re-Writing Personal History," "Undifferentiating Your '<em>I</em>,'" etc.</p>
<p>Naturally, though, one of the sub-suspicions probably most worthy of experimentation is <strong>Personal Genius</strong>. Does it exist or not? Can an individual really be "in esoteric possession" of a "psychological meta-mechanism" which not only gives warnings about <em>what <strong>not</strong> to do</em> from time to time, but, with the proper "interrogative solicitation" may also provide him or her with ongoing guidance about <em>what <strong>to</strong> do</em> as well?</p>
<p>In some ways this is almost a religious question. Indeed, if Personal Genius is not just wizard-wish-fulfillment, it might be the only thing which has any prospect for surviving death. Also, it is at least hypothetically possible that such a "slowly Self-perfecting <em>Substrate</em> of Self-awareness" could retain some "psychological baggage"—not only "subtle-tendencies"/"traces"/"scars" (<em>samskaras</em>) from the just-departed, but also some insights and wisdom from learned-life-lessons. When <em>and if</em> Personal Genius functions something like a <em>semi-particularized</em> matrix of consciousness," it may be "re-utilized” by a new genetic-package, and its ongoing lifetime-to-lifetime content might become intuitionally/religously available to <em>it</em> , . . . or speaking more precisely, to "<em>him"/"her</em>" . . . as the new genome-meat-bundle will undoubtedly start <em>Identity</em>-misleading itself soon after the toddler stage. . . .</p>
<p>But for those not quite ready to get so Theosophically carried away, there is also a very solid possibility that Personal Genius is real, but nevertheless nothing more than a product of Darwinian evolution. There may be no <em>Higher</em> intuition involved at all, nothing translifetime; rather, only <em>lower</em> intuitions empirically based upon already existing, but <em>unremembered</em>, perceptions, conclusions, behavioral-corrections, etc. So what? Even if it is just some sort of brain-related DNA mutation which has been gradually maturing in Homo sapiens for maybe 100,000 to 200,000 years, becoming chummier with it might still give an individual a big natural-selection advantage.</p>
<p>The premise is simple: <em>Your Personal Genius knows more than you do</em>. Its <em>subconscious</em> repository of past and present data has the capacity to provide a broader, deeper, and <em>more properly prioritized</em> directive than only that which can be cobbled together <em>consciously</em> at any given moment. To fully benefit from this "insider information," however, it might be necessary for certain individuals to adjust their approach to daily life: they may need to give up obsessive control and direction over every little thing they do from morning to night.</p>
<p><strong>Here are three UNDIRECTED questions:</strong> 1) "Who am I?" 2)"How can I be helped?” and 3) "What should I do?"</p>
<p>While other of the Captain's strategies may in some ways be considered "more advanced," perhaps none surpass the effectiveness of these questions, especially for establishing the "let-go-let-<span style="text-decoration: line-through;">God</span>Genie" mindset which is best for getting intuitive help. It is important to notice that their form is different from that often used for conventional prayer (e.g., "God, <strong>give me</strong> increased energy [perpetual youth, better health, more money, a new, sexy love interest, etc.]"). By contrast, these initiatives <strong>inquire</strong> like a beginning student, <strong>not</strong> <strong>beg</strong> specifically like a bossy beggar.</p>
<p>"Who am I?" Question #1 is undoubtedly the most important, at least in the respect of heading directl<a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3391825955?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3391825955?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-right" width="157" height="160"/></a>y toward Universal Ground. It is interesting that those who sought Spiritual guidance from the great 19th-century Hindu sage Ramana Maharishi were often just told to silently repeat <em>Who am I?</em> over and over again until they could detect a definite sort of "up-click" in their "inner stance."</p>
<p>Sometimes such Adept-clicking is referred to as "re-establishing the 'Once-Removed-Vantage.'" While the result may be experienced as some needed detachment and/or a slight increase in psycho-beatitude, it is undoubtedly a mistake to think that <em>ultimate</em> Self-awareness can be attained in this simple way. Indeed, the testimony of saints, sages, and yogis down through history seems to be that the <em>complete</em> transcendental trip typically takes much longer and definitely requires far, far more "subtlety-of-subtlety-of-subtlety.". . .</p>
<p>Actually, it could even be that <em>ultimate</em> Self (Atman, Purusa, Undifferentiated I-Consciousness) can never be <em>totally</em> experienced anyway: it may involve way-too-much "witness-erasing" <em>nirvikalpa samadhi</em> ("bliss of absolute absorption"). Perhaps, therefore, the whole "introverted adventure" might just be a valiant exploration of a sort of "infinite regress" where a Once-Removed-Vantage becomes the "Superintendent" of the psychological playground/war-zone of the moment but then Itself may, by the successive attempt to up-shift the attention onto <em>It</em>, become Superintended by another Once-Removed-Vantage which in turn may become Superintended by still another Once-Removed-Vantage etc. etc. As the familiar saying goes: "<em>What we are searching for is what is doing the searching</em>. . . ." —With perhaps the addition: "<em>and also what is doing the searching for what is doing the searching for what is doing the searching etc. etc. . . .</em>"</p>
<p>Here it should be noted that Ramana himself recognized that the still-person-flavored who used in the question might more accurately be the word <em>What</em>. The sage continued to recommend <em>who am I?</em>, however, perhaps just because it seemed more homeboy/homegirl. In any case, especially when it is silently asked several times at the start of a meditation session, Question #1 may significantly strengthen a person's Perennial Suspicion. This, of course, is provided that he or she follows each repetition by <em>listening in silence</em> for the <em>ineffable answer</em> . . . thereby prompting, perhaps, the not-quite-as-familiar, and certainly less likely to be quoted by a Plato, saying, "<em>Wait a minute . . . maybe my Ground is your Ground, after all. . . .</em>"</p>
<p><strong>"How can I be helped?"</strong> Question #2, on the other hand, has less to do with becoming Universally Grounded and more to do with becoming increasingly solid and successful on the earth-ground a person is already standing upon.</p>
<p>One might say its goal is to pass up Socrates. This would be accomplished by learning how to receive regular <em>what-to-do</em> directions rather than just hoping for a few nannyish <em>what-<strong>not</strong>-to-dos</em> now and then. For example, someone may have <em>consciously</em> decided that more Trump-type-time should be spent trying to make money and/or advance a career; however, Personal Genius, being <em>subconsciously</em> abreast of other essential but below-the-radar needs, might instead prompt him or her to put such gold-/glory-grubbing on hold and undertake some activities related to health, physical fitness, family situations, general relationships, intellectual growth, emotional well-being, repressed memories, suppressed problems, etc.</p>
<p>And all this guidance could just be a product of <em>lower</em> intuition. If, in addition, there is actually such a thing as <em>Highe</em>r intuition, there might also be encouragements to do some things which really have no obvious payoffs in the New York real estate market: e.g., studying religions, philosophies, psychologies, various "esoteric" subjects, and just in general spending quite a bit of time on what used to be less embarrassingly called "<em>The Search for Truth</em>."</p>
<p>And yes . . . finding abstract Truth would be a very good thing. Nevertheless, finding a way to make it through a normal day with less fatigue, less physical pain, less emotional stress, and less mental confetti would be a very good thing too. <em>How can I be helped?</em>, of course, may also assist progress in Self-awareness over the long haul; however, its primary orientation might just be to improve chances that there <em>will be</em> a long haul . . . or at least that a shorter haul will be optimally happy, productive, and properly custom-designed for the particular individual who has to do the hauling. . . .</p>
<p>And no . . . nothing besides a little patience may be required for getting this U-Haul™ help. Okay, maybe a lot of patience. While a few "suspiciously traceable life-nudgings" might seem to show up quickly, these are likely just exceptions. Therefore, it may be better just to ask (the more repetitions the better with Question #2) and then forget about having asked. After all, if a repressed bad memory from childhood can continue to have a powerful impact on the life of an adult, it is perhaps not so farfetched to think that a good undirected question (or, some of the other things which can be found in Part Two of this series) can also still keep working <em>subconsciously</em> for an hour, day, week, year, decade, or half-century . . . or maybe for whatever time might have passed since a "former incarnation.". . .</p>
<p><strong>"What should I do?"</strong> Question #3, comparatively, does not require so much patience. It can even be used by those who only have adolescent tolerance for snail-paced, or merely hypothetically possible, results. Its answers/impulses/directions usually appear without delay, especially if the silent asking (only a few repetitions are needed with this query) is done toward the end of a meditation session: either 1) the person will continue to meditate because of the <em>subconscious</em> directive/awareness that more "inner time" needs to be logged; or 2) the person will abruptly stop meditating, get up, and, without any need to <em>consciously</em> motivate himself or herself, start initiating various activities. In short, he or she will go on volitional AUTOPILOT for a while.</p>
<p>For most, this will be nothing new; just the attempt to intentionally produce it by means of Question #3 might be novel. Because "inner-questions" are not usually in the form of completely articulated sentences, anyway, their results commonly show up in an "unnoticed" psychological condition called "<em>involitional</em> AUTOPILOT."</p>
<p>Individuals who regularly indulge this robotic state may use "inchoate interrogations" to "subliminally motivate" themselves all day long without realizing it—perhaps by employing the "internally budding" versions of specific questions like these: 1) "How can I shift my position in my overpriced ergonomic chair in order to become more comfortable?"; 2) "If I set aside my silly sugar/sodium/saturated sanctimoniousness, what do I <em>really</em> want to eat for lunch today?"; 3) "Are there any diversions lying on the coffee table which can save me from the boredom of these political party ads on TV?"</p>
<p>If the nascent stages of these <em>subconscious</em> inquiries can still strongly influence behavior, it might be reasonable to guess that fully articulated, fully conscious, repetitions of Question #3 could be more powerful yet. Furthermore, their purpose would be clearly extra-ordinary: that is, to wake up, complete with all its superior potential for <em>subconscious</em> prioritizing and motivating, one's own Personal Genius and get it going on the additional job of intuitively communicating <em>what-<strong>should</strong>-be-done</em>."</p>
<p>Here, admittedly, there seems to be a curious "operative similarity" between the cultivation of a relationship with one's Personal Genius and something like the "cultivation of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ Lord and Savior." Notwithstanding that both can function as a "psycho-utility," however, a significant difference may be that the former is only "informed" by an individual's own idiosyncratic intuitions, while the latter usually seems conveniently pre-screened to conform with a couple thousand years of overconfident Christian-template theology.</p>
<p>Fortunately, a Theosophical experimenter can also bolster confidence in, and perhaps improve the effectiveness of, communication with his or her Personal Genius by "cultivating," or at least noticing, these two things: 1) <strong><em>CE>ME</em></strong>, and 2) "<strong><em>PRIVATE FUNDAMENTALISM</em></strong>." The continued repetition of any or all of the Three Undirected Questions—or just the meditation session itself—will usually be enough to gradually and automatically produce these "physical effects."</p>
<p>The first, <strong><em>CE>ME</em></strong>, has to do with the breath—but not with any of <em>pranayama</em>’s usual fetishes about its depth, alternative patterns, how sadomasochistically long it can be held, etc. The <strong><em>E</em></strong> in this sort-of-cleverly-math/science-imitating expression simply refers to the "midpoint" between an individual’s inhalation and exhalation. Therefore, the position of a person's “<strong>Current Equipoint</strong>,” <strong>CE</strong>, can be roughly determined by dividing by 2 the "travel length" of one of his or her normal breaths during some physically inactive time. Similarly, "<strong>Maximal Equipoint</strong>," <strong>ME</strong>, can be approximated by inhaling to the fullest extent possible, exhaling to the most painful degree, and then finding the imaginary midpoint by halving this "breathing distance."</p>
<p>For communicating with one's Personal Genius, <strong>CE>ME is probably better than CE<ME</strong>. Indeed, this particular higher-to-lower relationship of equipoints is generally associated not only with "creative inspiration" and psychological well-being, but also the feeling of "Spiritual elevation" produced by meditation. The opposite, viz. when CE "is lower" than ME, usually indicates a physical, emotional, or mental "recovery" phase of some sort. This is completely natural and necessary; however, if the "approximated gap" remains extreme and seldom seems to reverse, it might actually be one of the indicators of "depression."</p>
<p>The second, <em><strong>PRIVATE FUNDAMENTALISM</strong></em>, may also be something worth paying attention to from time to time. It refers to the slight, <em>involuntary</em> "anal sphincter tightening" which is similarly associated with "better tone" in certain Psycho-Spiritual contexts. (Incidentally, the Taoists even have something called the "Deer Exercise" where aspirants <em>voluntarily</em> practice such contractions, based on the observation that deer do this all the time and thus it might be the reason they are such "high-energy" [<em>prana</em>-infused?] creatures.) Anyway, look up the word <strong><em>fundament</em></strong> in the Merriam-Webster dictionary and notice the second definition: "<strong>anus</strong>." Therefore, . . . perhaps not only saints, sages, and yogis, but also just those trying to make better contact with their Personal Geniuses might in fact be the true <strong>FUNDAMENTALISTS</strong> of this world. . . .</p>
<p>. . . Okay, just kidding about the honorific <strong>FUNDAMENTALIST</strong> label. . . . Actually, though, this might also be a good illustration of just the kind of thing which explains why Captain Theosophy never really attained universal popularity within the Theosophical Society. For <em>some</em> members, at least, his natural writing style lacked sufficient "gravitas" (attempted too much humor) to be saying anything at all about the Ancient Wisdom.</p>
<p>Fortunately, not <em>all</em> members. Below is a cartoon, appearing in THE AMERICAN THEOSOPHIST, by the highly talented Gene Coulter:</p>
<p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3391945515?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3391945515?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-center" width="297" height="360"/></a>Many thanks to Mr. Coulter. Indeed, many thanks to H.P.Blavatsky as well. Had this Tectonic Russian Woman been alive at the same time as Captain Theosophy, she and he would have undoubtedly been going along hand-in-hand promoting the same main message:</p>
<p>"Our duty is to keep alive in man his spiritual <strong>intuitions</strong> [emphasis added]." [Blavatsky, THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY, p.48, 1889]</p>
<p>"<em>There's a man in the funny papers we all know . . . he lived 'way back a long time ago</em>. . . ." ["Alley Oop," The Hollywood Argyles, 1960]</p>
<p>[Comments and/or any kind of support for the "Perennial Suspicion" always welcome at theosophy.net]</p>A Private Theosophical Email #1tag:theosophy.net,2018-10-24:3055387:BlogPost:1599192018-10-24T21:36:06.000ZRichard Ihlehttps://theosophy.net/profile/RichardIhle
<p>[10-20-18 Just an informal email exchanged with an old friend who had encountered some negative personal information about the Eastern teacher Swami Rama.]</p>
<p>Hi, Jeff—<strong>Windstorm</strong> day in my locale today.</p>
<p>Thus, I probably should add to the gale:</p>
<p>Thank you for your thoughts on Swami Rama. Good and maybe not-so-good in everyone as usual, I suppose. Perhaps there is even the chance that, despite considerable devotee-testimony to the contrary, Swami might have…</p>
<p>[10-20-18 Just an informal email exchanged with an old friend who had encountered some negative personal information about the Eastern teacher Swami Rama.]</p>
<p>Hi, Jeff—<strong>Windstorm</strong> day in my locale today.</p>
<p>Thus, I probably should add to the gale:</p>
<p>Thank you for your thoughts on Swami Rama. Good and maybe not-so-good in everyone as usual, I suppose. Perhaps there is even the chance that, despite considerable devotee-testimony to the contrary, Swami might have been merely a <strong>Fourth-</strong> or <strong>Fifth-<em>Degree</em></strong> individual (Degree of Self-awareness) who was in the habit of utilizing/indulging <strong>Fourth-<em>Level</em></strong> (<em>kama-manas</em>, "desire-mental") consciousness for the role-playing purpose of furthering his career of trying to get as many people as possible to kneel in his presence.</p>
<p>Anyway, by way of contrast, and as I have mentioned to you several times previously (but I'm not sure I have ever quite convinced you of this), I continue to "See" you as possibly at least at the early stages of <strong>Sixth-Degree</strong> Self-awareness. (Incidentally, <em><strong>Six</strong></em> is the top of every "truly esoteric" Psycho-Spiritual continuum; <em><strong>Seven</strong></em> is always just representing total Dissolution/Re-Absorption (c.f. <em>Nirvikalpa Samadhi</em>) with no Witness left to observe and report on anything).</p>
<p>Why might I intuitively rank you higher in such a "Transcendental Hierarchy"? Because from my perspective it seems like you have displayed unusual "Mindfulness" throughout your whole life—and this may have helped you in many practical ways. In other words, you were probably often and regularly able to maintain a "Once-Removed Vantage" instead of completely merging with everyday physical, emotional, and/or mental "tainted" types of consciousnesses which could have led you toward a lot more life- and/or health-endangering screw-ups. So . . . perhaps if Swami had used you as a role model, who knows?, he might be alive today rather than having passed away at only age 71.</p>
<p>Speaking of which, and which I have probably also mentioned to you many times, I think it may be good policy to evaluate individuals who are widely promoted as "Transcendental Transmitters" and/or "Soteriological Guides" with an <em>exception</em> to something which would otherwise be an invalid yardstick—that is, <strong>ad hominem argument</strong> (evaluating a person or his/her personal circumstances rather than only his/her stand-alone ideas). Indeed, if particular "Preternatural Teachings" are not just earth-worthless, unfalsifiable abstractions, it is my view that one might expect to see some practical, terrestrial, physical, emotional, and/or mental "rub-off" benefits in the lives of those who promulgate/bloviate-about them. And . . . perhaps included in such benefits one might even expect to see some evidence of moment-to-moment improved Mindfulness leading to <strong>improved longevity</strong>.</p>
<p>But look at the "Big Three" you and I first encountered in our Theosophical studies so many years ago: Rudolf Steiner (dead at 64); Helena Blavatsky (59); Max Heindel (54). Sure, medicine etc. had not advanced so far at the time they lived, and this might explain some of their early departures; however, Annie Besant made it to 85 and Krishnamurti 90. Nothing absolutely persuasive about all this, of course. . . .</p>
<p>Thank you again for your email, Jeff. I am always interested in the many insightful things you say; for example, this sentence: "<strong>The East may be composed of many 'younger souls' as Heindel alluded to.</strong>" [Max Heindel, 1865-1919, Rosicrucian Fellowship]</p>
<p>Here, my own inclination is that it is highly unlikely, if not actually impossible, that any H. sapiens primate could ever know something like this with such casual 100% certainty. Indeed, many of us who subscribe to the <strong>epistemological definition</strong> of <strong><em>Theosophy</em></strong> (found on theosophy.net) are pretty-much resigned to the limitation that we are only in possession of vague, intuitive "inklings" or "intimations" about the most remote subjects in Theosophy. By coincidence, the little writing I am presently working on (it will re-animate "Captain Theosophy") actually takes a look at H.P.Blavatsky for possibly displaying some similar over-steppings. A sample:</p>
<p></p>
<p>"Such a definitional re-orientation was necessary, in the Captain’s view, because many of H.P. Blavatsky's teachings were no longer looking so good as more and more light from twentieth-century science shone upon them. For example, contemporary biology was finding evidence that humans and apes had progressed up separate evolutionary branches after leaving a ferret-like common ancestor perhaps 10 million years ago; however, Blavatsky’s ISIS UNVEILED clearly asserted that the gorillas and orangutans seen in modern zoos had actually 'de-volved' from former Homo sapiens into their present, less-cerebral, poorer-postured, more hygiene-dubious configurations.</p>
<p>"For another example, contemporary paleoanthropology was turning up some very modest and sketchy, yet impressive and hard-earned, information about the 3- or 4-million-year-old forerunners in the hominid line (the australopithecines); however, Blavatsky’s arcane compendium confidently revealed many more, apparently-a-lot-easier-to-have-come-by, details about humanity's 'Third-Race' progenitors—the twelve-foot, four-armed, cave- or hole-dwelling, telepathic Lemurians, often with eyes on backs of their heads, who lived somewhere in the Southern Hemisphere of our planet no less than 40 million years ago.</p>
<p>"How such precise descriptions could have been passed along so reliably millennium after millennium for an extra 36-37 million years compared to the rough sketches modern paleoanthropologists were now so hesitantly venturing to present was anyone’s guess.</p>
<p>"The most popular guess within the Theosophical Society at that time, of course, was that it had all been Preternaturally transmitted, courtesy of Madam Blavatsky’s 'Mahatma' guides (Morya, Koot Hoomi, et al.). These 'Masters' were not only regarded as 'Accuracy Underwriters' for this nearly-from-the-dinosaur-era information, but more than a few members also believed that that the Mahatmas, or Others of their same 'Brotherhood,' were still living in some non-GPS-friendly place like Tibet and were continuing to guide the Society by means of something like the 'Astral' equivalent of wi-fi. . . .</p>
<p>"Captain T found it harder and harder to persuade himself that certain of Madam Blavatsky's teachings were LITERALLY true. Nevertheless, he always remained persuaded that there were many UNIQUE BENEFITS—not only philosophical and 'Spiritual,' but also down-to-earth psychological and physiological—available by FIGURATIVELY interpreting H.P.B.'s greatest work, THE SECRET DOCTRINE, while at the same time experimentally adopting a Theosophical life-style which encouraged the cultivation and 'temporary trust' of one’s own INTUITIONS—the potential source of POSSIBLY-NOT-OTHERWISE-OBTAINABLE knowledge. . . .</p>
<p>"Therefore, it was never Captain T’s intention to completely throw the old Russian woman out with her bathwater. . . ."</p>
<p></p>
<p>I guess that should be enough <strong>Windstorm</strong> for today, my old friend.<br/>Richard<br/>[comments welcome at theosophy.net]</p>Divergent perceptionstag:theosophy.net,2018-09-05:3055387:BlogPost:1591702018-09-05T12:27:47.000ZUnseeking Seekerhttps://theosophy.net/profile/BikramMehta
<p><span>Thought of the day on: Mental parallax</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span>Perceptions vary from person to person based upon past experiences and assimilated knowledge, coloured by the texture of our mind. A prejudiced mind will see things quite differently as compared to a free flowing, unfettered spirit.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span>Suspending judgment altogether however seems to be a far fetched notion, since our memory automatically recalls stored information it considers applicable to the…</span></p>
<p><span>Thought of the day on: Mental parallax</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span>Perceptions vary from person to person based upon past experiences and assimilated knowledge, coloured by the texture of our mind. A prejudiced mind will see things quite differently as compared to a free flowing, unfettered spirit.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span>Suspending judgment altogether however seems to be a far fetched notion, since our memory automatically recalls stored information it considers applicable to the matter occupying our attention. Yet, a humble and ego surrendered orientation is likely to manifest the least contorted view for our absorption.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span>A present moment orientation, free of both desire and fear makes for the purest level of awareness to experience the engagement offered in the continuum of now-moments.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span>There is no such thing as the singular perfect view. The truth is singular, yet its manifestations may be plural and diverse, all in their own right true, just as light refracts it’s multitude rays on passing through a prism.</span></p>General Theosophy #80tag:theosophy.net,2012-10-25:3055387:BlogPost:1172962012-10-25T23:30:00.000ZRichard Ihlehttps://theosophy.net/profile/RichardIhle
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"><strong>“<em>Theosophy</em>, as ‘personal religion,’ begins with the realization that no one, past or present, can know more about fundamentally unknowable subjects than you yourself.”</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"><strong>“<em>Theosophy</em>, as ‘personal religion,’ begins with the realization that no one, past or present, can know more about fundamentally unknowable subjects than you yourself.”</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>General Theosophy #157tag:theosophy.net,2016-02-20:3055387:BlogPost:1480522016-02-20T19:30:00.000ZRichard Ihlehttps://theosophy.net/profile/RichardIhle
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"><strong>"Seek the sage who knows life well enough not to bother signing his or her name to whatever he or she knows."</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"><strong>"Seek the sage who knows life well enough not to bother signing his or her name to whatever he or she knows."</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>General Theosophy #158tag:theosophy.net,2016-03-22:3055387:BlogPost:1486122016-03-22T01:58:18.000ZRichard Ihlehttps://theosophy.net/profile/RichardIhle
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"><strong>"Modern science might convince you that you are a biochemical machine; Theosophy, that you are <em>in</em> the machine."</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"><strong>"Modern science might convince you that you are a biochemical machine; Theosophy, that you are <em>in</em> the machine."</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>General Theosophy #145tag:theosophy.net,2015-06-23:3055387:BlogPost:1432712015-06-23T17:00:00.000ZRichard Ihlehttps://theosophy.net/profile/RichardIhle
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"><strong>“It is often easier to weather the storm than the storm warning.”</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"><strong>“It is often easier to weather the storm than the storm warning.”</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>General Theosophy #144tag:theosophy.net,2015-06-20:3055387:BlogPost:1435162015-06-20T18:46:22.000ZRichard Ihlehttps://theosophy.net/profile/RichardIhle
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"><strong>“An accident is often just a lower state of mindfulness trying to wake up a higher one.”</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"><strong>“An accident is often just a lower state of mindfulness trying to wake up a higher one.”</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>General Theosophy #143tag:theosophy.net,2015-06-20:3055387:BlogPost:1434222015-06-20T18:30:00.000ZRichard Ihlehttps://theosophy.net/profile/RichardIhle
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"><strong>“Youth is the search for your own exceptional attributes; old age is the search for your own possible exceptions to the rule.”</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"><strong>“Youth is the search for your own exceptional attributes; old age is the search for your own possible exceptions to the rule.”</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>General Theosophy #142tag:theosophy.net,2015-05-24:3055387:BlogPost:1432152015-05-24T18:41:18.000ZRichard Ihlehttps://theosophy.net/profile/RichardIhle
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"><strong>“Old age can only exist if you blame it for something.”</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"><strong>“Old age can only exist if you blame it for something.”</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>General Theosophy #141tag:theosophy.net,2015-04-30:3055387:BlogPost:1428052015-04-30T21:00:00.000ZRichard Ihlehttps://theosophy.net/profile/RichardIhle
<p><strong><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;">“If you have detailed beliefs rather than just intuitive inklings about transcendental subjects like</span></strong> <span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"><strong>karma and reincarnation, you may have traded religion for philosophy.”</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>
<p><strong><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;">“If you have detailed beliefs rather than just intuitive inklings about transcendental subjects like</span></strong> <span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"><strong>karma and reincarnation, you may have traded religion for philosophy.”</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>General Theosophy #140tag:theosophy.net,2015-04-30:3055387:BlogPost:1429782015-04-30T14:30:00.000ZRichard Ihlehttps://theosophy.net/profile/RichardIhle
<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><strong>"Not much of a trick is needed to <em>keep busy</em> with petty things; much more of a trick is required to keep <em>un-busy</em> with Undifferentiated Everything."</strong>—General Theosophy <br/></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><strong>"Not much of a trick is needed to <em>keep busy</em> with petty things; much more of a trick is required to keep <em>un-busy</em> with Undifferentiated Everything."</strong>—General Theosophy <br/></span></p>General Theosophy #139tag:theosophy.net,2015-04-20:3055387:BlogPost:1421832015-04-20T15:16:05.000ZRichard Ihlehttps://theosophy.net/profile/RichardIhle
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"><strong>“A Theosopher is a philosopher who has lost interest in other philosophers.”</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"><strong>“A Theosopher is a philosopher who has lost interest in other philosophers.”</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>General Theosophy #138tag:theosophy.net,2015-04-20:3055387:BlogPost:1419902015-04-20T02:23:44.000ZRichard Ihlehttps://theosophy.net/profile/RichardIhle
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"><strong>“An Adept does not need anything from the world in order to produce the same consciousness as having it.”</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"><strong>“An Adept does not need anything from the world in order to produce the same consciousness as having it.”</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>General Theosophy #137tag:theosophy.net,2015-04-15:3055387:BlogPost:1420822015-04-15T16:05:22.000ZRichard Ihlehttps://theosophy.net/profile/RichardIhle
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"><strong>“Adolescence in Psycho-Spiritual life may be the middle developmental period between rejoicing about the possibility of reincarnation and worrying about the actual possibility of it.”</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"><strong>“Adolescence in Psycho-Spiritual life may be the middle developmental period between rejoicing about the possibility of reincarnation and worrying about the actual possibility of it.”</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>General Theosophy #135tag:theosophy.net,2015-03-25:3055387:BlogPost:1419382015-03-25T01:33:14.000ZRichard Ihlehttps://theosophy.net/profile/RichardIhle
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"><strong>“Old age for some is finally being able to buy almost everything they can no longer use or enjoy.”</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"><strong>“Old age for some is finally being able to buy almost everything they can no longer use or enjoy.”</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>General Theosophy #136tag:theosophy.net,2015-03-30:3055387:BlogPost:1421482015-03-30T16:51:21.000ZRichard Ihlehttps://theosophy.net/profile/RichardIhle
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"><strong>“The <em>Self</em> is a proper noun nibbled away by bingeing physical, emotional, and mental pronouns.”</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"><strong>“The <em>Self</em> is a proper noun nibbled away by bingeing physical, emotional, and mental pronouns.”</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>General Theosophy #134tag:theosophy.net,2015-03-14:3055387:BlogPost:1421212015-03-14T23:09:54.000ZRichard Ihlehttps://theosophy.net/profile/RichardIhle
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"><strong>“Work without supervision is almost play.”</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"><strong>“Work without supervision is almost play.”</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>General Theosophy #133tag:theosophy.net,2015-02-28:3055387:BlogPost:1414232015-02-28T16:36:12.000ZRichard Ihlehttps://theosophy.net/profile/RichardIhle
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"><strong>“Some religions teach how to avoid or extract poison arrows; others, how and where to shoot them.”</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"><strong>“Some religions teach how to avoid or extract poison arrows; others, how and where to shoot them.”</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>General Theosophy #132tag:theosophy.net,2015-02-18:3055387:BlogPost:1406762015-02-18T16:57:38.000ZRichard Ihlehttps://theosophy.net/profile/RichardIhle
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"><strong>“Don’t worry about making mistakes; just worry about not Mindfully watching yourself as you make them.”</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"><strong>“Don’t worry about making mistakes; just worry about not Mindfully watching yourself as you make them.”</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>General Theosophy #130tag:theosophy.net,2015-02-08:3055387:BlogPost:1407692015-02-08T17:17:52.000ZRichard Ihlehttps://theosophy.net/profile/RichardIhle
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"><strong>“Good health is normally much less educational than poor.”</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"><strong>“Good health is normally much less educational than poor.”</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>General Theosophy #129tag:theosophy.net,2015-01-15:3055387:BlogPost:1405142015-01-15T22:11:28.000ZRichard Ihlehttps://theosophy.net/profile/RichardIhle
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"><strong>“The difference between a <em>theosophist</em> and a Theosopher: the former is possibly just a person who is at least willing to consider as epistemologically valid someone else’s intuitive knowledge or wisdom resulting from personal experience of Transcendental (‘Divine’) Nature; the latter is possibly the someone else.”</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"><strong>“The difference between a <em>theosophist</em> and a Theosopher: the former is possibly just a person who is at least willing to consider as epistemologically valid someone else’s intuitive knowledge or wisdom resulting from personal experience of Transcendental (‘Divine’) Nature; the latter is possibly the someone else.”</strong>—General Theosophy</span></p>