Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00533)

Richard Ihle:

>I have found a curious thing about the little bit of
>adeptship I am familiar with:  Most of it does not seem to involve ~knowing
>what to do~, but rather ~knowing what NOT to do~.

Both are important, I think. It was an coincidence that I would happen
to find that article in the newspaper to clip at lunchtime, and only have
found a few minutes to read and comment on it recently.

The article ties in with a number of topics that have been discussed in the
past month or two. I can think of perhaps half a dozen topics that could
come out of this article. Some would elicit certain reactions that I've
come to expect:

One person would say, "Non-psychics can be as crazy as anyone else." Another
would say, "I'm psychic and you're not so I certainly know more about this
than you ever will!" A third person would immediately assert: "They're quivering
in terror! The poor fools are afraid of the psychic! It's pure fear!" And
I'd just have to smile, shake my head, and think, "what nonsense!" even
though I'd have to keep my mouth shut, most of the time, in the nature of
putting up with petty slights in the name of brotherhood.

I could go on, and on, and on, listing the words I hear time after time. There's
no new information, though, and it's all an attempt to quash any discussion
that would put the psychical in a neutral light, even if it embraces science in
some way, like a discussion of mental illness, how it might relate to psychic
abilities, and how it ties in with the theosophical scheme that we find outlined
in "The Mahatma Letters".

>Now, in reading your post about the possible connection between schizophrenia
>and the psychic, I could not help asking myself, "Is it possible that Eldon
>does not realize that bringing up this presently quiescent subject
>again--especially in this manner--is going to set-off JRC and possibly Alexis
>and possibly some others in a predictable way again?"

That thought crossed my mind. The information in the article, though, is
interesting, and draws our attention away from 'the gang' nonsense. It would
be tempting to use the same rhetoric and harsh words that I read daily, but
that would only further enrage people, and not be productive nor helpful.

Also, the article, in a way, appeared to me and attracted my attention, and
the timing of it was coincidental in a synchronistic way. I think that it may
serve a useful purpose, even if I did not foresee that purpose when posting it.

>Oh well, if your personal adeptship was not there telling you NOT to do it,
>perhaps it will turn out better than I think. . . .

I think that the final result of *everyone's* postings is that we'll all tire
of things we realize inflame each other with anger, and instead learn to
find words that inflame each other with the spirit. That requires some personal
experience of the futility of nasty, condemning, condescending, vehement words.
With enough experience, we'll change our ways, one by one, and become more
productive people in the world.

-- Eldon