The term “New Age”, in use in Metaphysical circles since the late 19th Century, came to be applied as a label for a major paradigm shift that occurred in our culture beginning in the 1970’s. About the only generalization that one can make about the hundreds (perhaps thousands) of different groups, practices and belief systems lumped together under the label “New Age”, is that they are all involved in what is typically referred to as a “new consciousness revolution”.
In the early years of this new facet of the culture, I saw a potential for those who were fully engaged to accrue the same benefits as those commonly attained by followers of the teachings of the early Oriental Occultism Schools of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. For example, in the face of the many vicissitudes that life can throw at one, individuals who faithfully adhered to these early practices and exercises often displayed a level of serenity not typically displayed by the general population. It became apparent to me within just a few years though, that the potential was, for the most part, to remain unrealized.
While beneficial practices such as meditation became so widespread as part of the movement as to become mainstream, I was surprised to observe in many of the individuals who frequented our shoppe, an increase in intensity rather than serenity. Tolerance for alternative spiritual paths, other than the one chosen by that specific individual seemed to decrease, often to the point of expressed hostility (what I came to refer to as the “my guru can whip your guru” attitude). And, aggression justified as “activism” became the norm for many. It got to the point that all one had to do to disrupt “my sense of serenity” was to utter two words, “SAVE THE”. It didn’t matter what was to be saved, if you were not in complete agreement with the call to action (activism) then you must be at the very least unspiritual, and most likely, even evil.
How and why did a movement based on spiritual practices, many of which have been around for millennia, come to create such a shift in attitude, in such a large segment of our population, in so short a time?
In the study and practice of Metaphysics, or Oriental Occultism, as it was identified during the turn of the last century (19th to 20th), it was thought that the advancement of mankind as a whole, socially and spiritually, could be hastened through the efforts of individuals who worked first and foremost on their own personal advancement. Or, to put it another way, the overall culture would advance if there were enough individuals who became accomplished at the use of tools and skills acquired through personal study and meditative practices that changed for the better the way the individual lived their lives, the way they interfaced with their fellow-man, etc.
A major component of this path was the acceptance of personal responsibility. Even when outside forces resulted in a negative impact on the individual, they were held to be totally responsible, not for the event, but for how they responded to it. The emphasis was on a life lived by doing what was perceived as spiritually right, not on what was considered as either socially acceptable or desirable. It was believed that by providing a real world example to follow, the practitioner of Oriental Occultism would surely inspire others to engage in similar work, plus they would incrementally help raise the level of consciousness of the entire race.
There were shared spiritual objectives to aspire to, to be sure, but the act of reaching them was strictly a personal quest. There were advantages to working within groups that shared common goals, but the attainment of personal advancement was held to be only possible as the result of individual effort. The raising of consciousness of the human race was not expected to be a short-term process, but rather required a lifetime commitment, and any significant influence on the culture might require generations to take effect. The study of Metaphysics, or Oriental Occultism, took a tremendous amount of personal commitment and was viewed as anything but a part-time occupation.
During the Twentieth Century both the stated goals and the means of reaching those goals evolved, producing a significantly different approach. The overall emphasis of the current Twenty First Century form of the New Age Movement focuses on pretty much the same goals of cultural, social, and spiritual advancement, and share the same concerns for the welfare of our fellow-man as did the earlier Oriental Occultism Movements, but the goals are now most often presented in the context of humanity as a whole. The individual’s personal growth and development of Occult abilities, (as they were defined in the late 1800’s) receives less emphasis than the goal of bringing about global change for the “greater good” through group effort and group thought.
People are still expected to work on themselves, but the methods employed are frequently not intended to develop people as individuals, but seem designed instead to bring about a diminishing of their individuality in such as way as to bring them into alignment with the overall philosophy of the movement. In other words, to de-emphasize the individual aspects of the personality, molding the person in such a way that they become a synergistic component of a “Consciousness of Oneness” [1].
A recurring theme, the Consciousness of Oneness is usually portrayed in terms indicating that we are all interrelated, that what affects one affects all. Personal responsibility no longer refers to responsibility for one’s own actions and choices, but to a responsibility for the events and conditions that affect the welfare of others, producing a shared responsibility for all that happens in the world at large and placing upon the individual an obligation to help those who are perceived to be in need of economic and social assistance.
The justification for advancing the development of a Consciousness of Oneness is that if enough individuals hold the same view (think the same way) with respect to “spirituality”, and now “social systems”, a critical mass will eventually be reached and suddenly, the whole world will experience a significant positive shift in consciousness that will solve many of the world’s problems. There are several assumptions that go with using this approach that, in my opinion, are not based in reality and can result in negative consequences for the race as a whole.
A big one is the assumption that all humans are the same. That human consciousness differs only because of the influence of the cultural environment the person grew up in. There is both a certain arrogance and a level of naivety involved in believing that everyone else’s view of what constitutes spirituality would be the same as that embraced by the Consciousness of Oneness Movement, if only they could be brought to understand just how much they are really loved. This hypothesis assumes that the only stumbling block to the development of a worldwide Consciousness of Oneness is that less spiritual beings and organizations in the world are resisting it for their own greedy purposes.
The reality is that there are people in the world today that, no matter how much you express your love for them, still will want to terminate your existence just because you don’t fit the mold for what they consider to be the correct form of spirituality, or the correct social system to live within. It is their understanding of reality and their chosen path, and they believe it just as strongly as those who seek to bring about a Consciousness of Oneness. Not a criticism or an endorsement, just an observed fact.
Within the parameters of the Science of Metaphysical and Occult Philosophy, what is happening here and what are the possible effects and projected ultimate outcome of a movement towards a Consciousness of Oneness? In some branches of Oriental Occultism there is a tradition of a sharing of consciousness between members of a species, a Group Soul as it is sometimes called. That does not mean for example, that all dogs of the same species share one consciousness or soul, rather that there is a continuous connection between these consciousness’s (souls), that allows the sharing of experiences. That is how a fawn, just minutes out of the womb, knows to freeze and remain hidden if the mother indicates danger is near.
Group consciousness is what I believe Rupert Sheldrake, the English biochemist and plant physiologist is describing in his theory of morphogenesis as the morphogenic field. This sharing of experiences and information is similar in many respects to a modern computer network in which all data acquired by any one computer on the net is instantaneously and continuously available to all of the computers on the network in real-time.
The human body too is that of an animal, and displays many of the traits associated with having a group soul, or to use Sheldrake’s terminology, possessing access to the human morphogenic field. For instance, research has found that a newborn baby knows to hold its breath and attempt to swim to the surface when they find themselves in water, a reflex reaction that is equivalent to the pre-programmed at birth response of the newborn fawn in the example above.
But with humans, there is a difference. In addition to the group soul, there is what I call the Discrete Human Consciousness, discrete because it is separate from other Human consciousness; there is no sharing of information other than through direct communication utilizing both physical and non-physical means (e.g. esp). In Eastern traditions it is the Discrete Consciousness that reincarnates, that carries the memories of its past lives, but not of the lives of other Discrete Consciousness’s, past or present, as occurs in the Group Soul. In Western traditions, it is referred to simply as the Soul. How we came to be different is the subject of much ancient mythology and is too extensive a topic to go into here.
It is this Human Triad, consisting of an Organic Body, a Group Soul, and a Discrete Human Consciousness (Soul) that creates many of the personal challenges we face in life.
The Group Soul is the computer program for what we generally refer to as our “animal nature”, and has a great deal, but not all, of its processing capacity taken up by the maintenance and operation of the organic body. It’s how a person can be in a coma with no hint of the personality present, yet the body can continue to function, so long as it has liquids and nourishment artificially supplied. But it does much more that just provide operational control for the organic body. Keep in mind that in all other animals the Group Souls not only share information and experiences, but is the source for each animal in the species’ cognitive abilities as well. The Human Group Soul retains, and will continue to attempt to exercise its cognitive function, if not restrained or regulated by the Discreet Human Consciousness.
It is the Human Group Soul that Jung called the “Collective Unconscious”, that part of the unconscious that possesses the shared experiences of the entire human race. He also put forward that there was a “Personal Unconscious”, which possessed only those experiences that had been accumulated by the individual. In the language of the Human Triad Model the Personal Unconscious would be called the Discrete Human Consciousness.
The challenge we face is in ensuring that the dominant force in our lives is the Discrete Human Consciousness, not the Group Soul. The Human Group Soul, in addition to acting as the equivalent of a computer’s operating system, enhances our survival prospects by being able to make use of the accumulated experience of the race, but by its very nature its decisions are going to be shaped by its perception of what’s best for the survival of the organic body and of the species as a whole. At least some of its commonly shared data comes not from direct experience, but from beliefs that a significant portion of the Group Soul has come to accept with respect to social systems. The basis for some of these beliefs may not necessarily be founded on anything other than “everyone else is doing it”.
The Discrete Human Consciousness on the other hand, is the part of us that is intended to be the one engaged in intellectual pursuits; social, scientific and spiritual. It is an independent process riding on top of the Group Soul process. It is in the Discrete Consciousness where we theoretically make those decisions that help us rise above our animal nature, that allows us to engage in cooperative efforts that would appear to not be of an immediate direct benefit to ourselves, such as providing disaster relief to a country and a population thousands of miles from us, rather than restricting all of our efforts to just that which would enhance the survival of those in our immediate circle. It is here too that we should be intellectually analyzing the issues that we encounter on a daily basis relating to the social, political and spiritual aspects of our lives.
But what happens if we allow the Group Soul to dominate our Discrete Consciousness? In my research I have found that many people who hold passionate positions, especially with respect to social issues, when pressed for the justification for their position, can only repeat the buzzwords and the popularly expressed statements consistent with the commonly held beliefs of the movement they are passionate about. They are unable to come up with a personal justification, or examples of cause and effect, that could account for the strong emotions they experience. I want to make clear that these are people who, in all other respects, are kind, caring, intelligent individuals, sincerely working on following a spiritual path, which makes a statement delivered on their part with great passion, such as “I hate _____” really stand out as seeming to be out of character.
After a time, I came to realize that many people hold opinions based on one of two very different sources, The Human Group Soul aspect of their being, or their Discrete Human Consciousness. For the individuals referenced above, what became apparent was that some of their strongest opinions were based on a “well known truth” in the overall Group Soul Consciousness of a specific social, spiritual, or political movement, not from their own Discrete Human Consciousness.
What I often recommend to people when (1) they find themselves possessing a really strong opinion about an area of which they have very little personal experience, or (2) are not sure as to why it is that they hold a particular opinion, is that they stop and ask themselves the question:
Do I think what I think,
Because I think it?
Or, do I think what I think,
Just because I think,
That I think it?
A rather silly little limerick I know, but a good reminder that we should always be prepared to question, not the beliefs of others, but the beliefs and truths that we ourselves hold to be self-evident. Some things that we know or hold to be true may not be based on personal experience or knowledge, but are simply articles of faith. Nothing wrong with that, so long as we recognize the things we know by personal experience, and the things that we know on faith, and remember that there is a difference. If, on the other hand, you cannot find in your own mind a basis for an opinion, or a truth, not even as an article of faith, it may well be that it is an opinion, or a truth, that is not your own.
And this is the concern that I have for the development of a Consciousness of Oneness, if it is accomplished through the conditioning of its adherents to accept the group consensus without having done any critical analysis of issues at hand. If individuals begin to surrender the use of their intellect (Discreet Consciousness) to the rule of the Consciousness of Oneness as propagated through the Human Group Soul, one would expect to see just what I have observed in much of both the New Age Movement, and in the social/political arena today. The dominant driving force appears to be emotion, rather than intellect.
[1] A Consciousness of Oneness was described as the projected ultimate outcome of human evolution in the article; “Toward a Consciousness of Oneness” by Robert Atkinson, PhD in the Institute of Noetic Sciences’ April Issue of their “Noetic Now” Ezine at: http://www.smopblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Noetic-Now-Issue-9-Toward-a-Consciousness-of-Oneness.pdf, an excellent article that presents a somewhat different view of this topic.
11 Responses to “Towards a Consciousness of Oneness, or Not”
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Thank you John,
Very insightful.
-michael
This article really makes me think. To me is about taking responsibility for our own thoughts and actions. If we start with ourselves doing what we persive to be beneficial to us and all, eventually it will catch on and elevate the consciousness of the rest. We have to start somewhere, let’s start with us making a difference. Thank you John for sharing your very enlightening views.
Greetings, John. I’ve looked over your whole blog and found lots of stimulating stuff. I’ll start here with my response.
I enjoyed your critique of the “Consciousness of Oneness” and the “critical mass” belief. I have similar feelings about the issue, but am coming from a somewhat different perspective. Likewise with morphogenetic fields and Group Souls: I perceive their reality, but also subdivisions within them ~ it’s not just a matter of one big one for humanity as a whole. Jung agreed that various groupings of people each had a collective unconscious distinct from that of other groups, though all within the larger human collective unconscious. I see it as a nested holarchy.
Here’s an entry on my own blog which I feel expresses the similarities and differences between us on the issues, some of which seem pretty striking:
http://metablog18aa.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/pathfinding-in-the-postmodern-wilderness/
Your “think what I think” limerick reminded me of this one:
There was a young man who said, “though
It seems that I know that I know,
What I WOULD like to see
Is an “I” that knows “me”
When I KNOW that I know that I know.”
I’ll have more comments later. Meanwhile, I’m pleased to meet ya!
~ Joseph
Welcome Joseph
I agree with you completely on the concept of subdivisions within the sharing of Consciousness within humanity. I do think that all of the information trickles up the organizational structure, and then trickles down to everyone eventually, but is disseminated much more quickly within the subgroups. The group soul subdivision that I was attempting to address within the article seems to primarily be limited to those in the USA, a larger portion of the British Commonwealth, and most of Western Europe. Large groups like the Chinese will certainly more easily share more data that is generated within their own experience than that generated in the West. Didn’t try to address it in the article because the blog was pretty long already as it was.
Will respond more fully when I have had a chance to peruse your blog.
And I really like your limerick.
And am pleased to meet you too!
John
Hi, John. I attempted to add a comment to our exchange on Facebook, but discovered that posts are evidently limited to very short statements. I’ll reply here instead. To fill in any other folks who may be reading, my initial Facebook message was a reference to this essay on my website, titled *The Imagians*:
http://www.ramaspirit.com/Imagians.html
Thanks for your thoughtful comments on it. In general, I’m familiar with most of the things you talked about. The only really new and surprising thing for me was your statement: “Each Root Race encompasses a period of time in which the laws of physics of both the physical and non-physical are slightly different”. Question: did Madame B. & friends use the exact same terminology, viz. that the laws of physics changed?
In the years after writing Imagians, I developed a further theory about the metaphysical nature of the Modern Age, by which I mean Renaissance to about 1970. In *Imagians* I called it the Age of the Ego (5th stage of 5th root race, for whatever that might be worth). My new idea is that it centers on the *Faust* myth:
http://www.ramaspirit.com/Faust.html
I know that you have a scientific background, which may give you a critical perspective on this, and in fact in the essays on the linked webpage I’m highly critical of what I term *Faustian science*. Likewise I refined my notion of the new faculty of consciousness that developed in modern times as the *Faustian ego*.
You believe that “Our history and our future are shaped by individual choice” and “It is the choices of individuals, not divine providence or random chance that drives evolution”. This type of individuality, and the belief in individualism that springs from it, is what I specifically identify as the Faustian ego. People are more individuated now than at any previous time in history, and in my view there’s a big downside to it.
Your statements about individual choice may be perfectly true now, but I feel they are not universally true. To combine my prognostications with your terminology, the laws of meta/physics will undergo a slight but seismic shift and we’ll find ourselves in a New Aeon with a new root race which will have an entirely different relationship to individuality, collectivity, and a currently inconceivable conjunction of the two. In a word, they’ll be Imagians.
BTW, you said that your early development involved study of Oriental Occultists. I took this as a general reference, but I see on the Web that this term is associated with the teachings of Yogi Ramacharaka. Is this what you were into? If not, perhaps you could give some further details & names.
Hello Joseph
Since you covered quite a bit of territory in your comment above, I have picked just three areas to respond to. Also, since my responses themselves are somewhat long, I have broken them up into three separate postings, as follows:
From your comment above:
“Each Root Race encompasses a period of time in which the laws of physics of both the physical and non-physical are slightly different”. Question: did Madame B. & friends use the exact same terminology, viz. that the laws of physics changed?”
My Response:
In “The Secret Doctrine”, Blavatsky uses the term “Cosmic Physics”. In both Volume I, Cosmogenesis, and in Volume II, Anthropogenesis, she refers to cyclic changes in physicality triggered by each succeeding Root Race. She also goes into some detail about how these changes in physicality, plus changes in structure relating to the non-physical portions of the Universe, affect the abilities of the general population of each Root Race, particularly with respect to those human abilities that we today lump under the term Clairvoyance.
In this system a continuous circle symbolizes the cycle of the seven Root Races. At the top of the circle is the division between the beginning of the end of the 7th Root Race of the previous cycle, and the beginning of the beginning of the 1st Root Race of the new cycle. At this point the material world is described as being less solid in form than that which we see today. Although she does not go into much detail re: the difference in physicality experienced by each of the Root Races, the worlds of the 7th and 1st Root Races are described as being more gaseous than the material world of today, meaning less fixed in nature, or more easy to influence.
As the progression of the Root Races move clockwise along the right side of the circle to the bottom, where the 4th Root Race is shown, the maximum in physicality is reached, accompanied by a significant diminishing of Clairvoyant abilities. This is the point of “greatest descent into matter”, or as it would be expressed today, the point of least spirituality, where the average person’s ability to “see” or “communicate” clairvoyantly is almost non-existent. This is the portion of the cycle we are just leaving.
As the cycle continues, moving up the left side of the circle, barriers that exist between the “planes of existence” begin to weaken allowing the incarnate individual to become more aware of the totality of their existence as they gain an increase in abilities brought about by of the addition of senses beyond the five physical ones.
It is important to take into account the time frame she is projecting for the completion of a full cycle when attempting to understand the model she is presenting for the cyclic nature of existence. She uses a time scale that is even vaster than the Geological Time-Scale in use by science today to divide up the period of time that the planet Earth has existed. To show just how vast these time periods are projected to be, all of what we know of human history to date, has occurred in this Root Race.
From your comment above:
“You believe that “Our history and our future are shaped by individual choice” and “It is the choices of individuals, not divine providence or random chance that drives evolution”. This type of individuality, and the belief in individualism that springs from it, is what I specifically identify as the Faustian ego. People are more individuated now than at any previous time in history, and in my view there’s a big downside to it.”
My Response:
It is not a question of belief that our history and our future are shaped by individual choice, but an observation of the mechanics of human existence.
Whether we like it or not, while we tend to generalize and look at the human race as a whole, it functions as the result of actions taken by individuals. When we refer to the state of the human race, we are actually referring to an observed accumulative effect that results from the manner in which individuals function, and that is by making decisions in answer to a constant stream of questions. Do I get up now? What shall I eat for breakfast? Should I bother to vote, etc.? Therefore, the overall observed composite view of the human race is the result of individual decisions.
In the theory of evolution, the sustained health of a species determines whether or not that species survives. Species, that are weakened by change in environmental or external conditions and who cannot then adapt to the change, tend to die out. If the overall health of our species is the result of the individual decisions referenced in the last paragraph, then our evolution is being driven by the results of individual choice.
When considering the health of a person we create a fictitious entity that we label as “in good health’, or “sick” and treat it as if it had an existence of its own separate from the human body. The state of the person’s health is determined not by some composite concept, but by the sum total effect created by the health of individual cells. If we say that someone has cancer for example, what we are really saying is that there are a significant number of individual cells in that person’s body that have mutated to the point that they are disrupting the overall operation the body, but we address these individual cells as if they were one entity that goes by the name “cancer”. When we treat cancer, we kill these mutated cells, one at a time, not some composite concept.
During the time frame you reference in your article “Faust: The Mythical Key to the Modern Age”, there has been a shift in emphasis on the development of individual consciousness from one that looked inward, to one where external associations became the paramount concern.
The Human Soul cannot be split into ego and soul, at least not in the way the concept of ego viewed in early Theosophy. The Mortal Ego was simply the personality of the physical form of the individual. A strong ego or personality is essential for being incarnate, without it you do not continue to “live”. The Higher form of ego was that of the Divine Individual, what most would call the Soul, and as the Mortal Ego was the given the name “Personality”, the Divine Ego was called “Individuality”. To complete an incarnation required the continued development of Individuality, which in turn was the root source for the Personality.
Ironically, it is the development of Individuality that enhances human personality traits such as empathy, not the suppression of Individuality. I find myself for the second time this week composing a response where I have to point out the significance of the need for the “Doctor, heal thyself” phrase to be taken to heart. We cannot, as individual cells of the body of the human race, contribute to the overall good health of that body, unless we as individual cells or beings, are not first made healthy ourselves. Not working on ourselves first, leaves us open the possibility that we become the cancer cells of the body that we refer to as the human race. But, if while working on ourselves we are able to advance as Souls, we are making a valuable contribution to the health of the race as a whole.
From your comment above:
“BTW, you said that your early development involved study of Oriental Occultists. I took this as a general reference, but I see on the Web that this term is associated with the teachings of Yogi Ramacharaka. Is this what you were into? If not, perhaps you could give some further details & names.”
My response:
The first generation Theosophists, Madame Blavatsky and company, used the terms Oriental Occultism and Occultism interchangeably in their teachings and publications. Occultism, as they defined it, was both a philosophy and a way of life, one that required a certain frame of mind and willingness to place themselves in a position of total service to humanity. Blavatsky states in the opening chapter of her work “Practical Occultism”, that anyone can become a Theosophist, but only a select few were capable of developing into practicing Occultist because most people in the West were neither prepared for, or capable of dealing with the onerous requirements that were placed upon the individuals who follow that path. As a result it is not surprising that there were a lot more Theosophists during this period than there were Occultists.
The second generation of Theosophists was the generation of Besant, Leadbeater, Gardner, and Company. This generation took the concepts of Occultism and found ways of making the knowledge, practices and benefits that could be accrued through the practice of Occultism more readily available to the average Westerner. This same time period, roughly the first third of the 20th Century, saw a number of parallel organizations come into existence; all based on the work of the first generation Theosophists, but not directly linked to the Theosophical Society itself. The Yoga Society, which published a series of books during this period by an author who used the pen name, Ramacharaka, was just one of these groups.
As this generation made the practice of Occultism more widespread, it paradoxically began to use the term Occultism less and less, and by mid-century it had became unwise to use it outside of the community, due to its misappropriation by Hollywood for use in Horror Movies.
In answer to the last part of your question, “is this what you were into?”, I associate being into something as having a fascination with, or possibly a preference for something that is external to your life. The field of Oriental Occultism is a field of study that you then integrate, to the best of your abilities, into your life.
If you would like to follow up with some additional reading on this subject you might want to check out some of the titles that are listed in no special order below.
“The Kybalion” by Yogi Ramacharaka
“Fourteen Lessons in Yogi Philosophy” by Yogi Ramacharaka
“Advanced Lessons in Yogi Philosophy” by Yogi Ramacharaka
“Science Of Breath,” by Yogi Ramacharaka
“The Astral Body, And Other Astral Phenomena” by Arthur E. Powell
“The Chakras” by C. W. Leadbeater
“The Aura” by Geoffrey Hodson
“The Devachanic Plane” by C. W. Leadbeater
“Clairvoyance” by C. W. Leadbeater
“The Etheric Double” by A. E. Powell
“Thought Power” by Annie Besant
“Karma” by Annie Besant
“Dharma” by Annie Besant
“Reincarnation” by Annie Besant
“The Mental Body” by Arthur E. Powell
“The Seven Principles of Man” by Annie Besant
“A Study in Consciousness” by Annie Besant
“A Study in Karma” by Annie Besant
“Thought Forms” by Annie Besant
“The Stanzas of Dyzan” by H. P. Blavatsky
“The Voice of the Silence” by H. P. Blavatsky
“Death and After” by Annie Besant
“Clairvoyant Investigations” by Geoffrey Hodson
“The Kingdom of the Gods” by Geoffrey Hodson
“The Personal Aura” by Dora van Gelder Kunz
“The Real World of Fairies: A First-Person Account” by Dora van Gelder Kunz
“Spiritual Healing” by Dora van Gelder Kunz
“The Chakras and the Human Energy Fields” by Dora van Gelder Kunz
“Invisible Helpers” by C. W. Leadbeater
“The Life after Death” by C. W. Leadbeater
“Man, Visible and Invisible” by C. W. Leadbeater “
“The Secret Doctrine” by H. P. Blavatsky
“The Monad” by C. W. Leadbeater
“Thought Forms” by C. W. Leadbeater
“The Key to Theosophy” by H. P. Blavatsky
“The Etheric Body of Man” by Phoebe and Laurence Bendit
“The Causal Body and the Ego” by Arthur E. Powell
“Isis Unveiled” by H. P. Blavatsky
“Mystic Christianity” by Yogi Ramacharaka
gotcha john! facinating discussion. also the bibliography at the end is most helpful.
[…] […]
[…] […]