Can you please clarify some points in the lecture called: Types of Spiritual Schools?
Here are some excerpts:
Every school that teaches the dissolution of the "I" is a Soul school. There are Soul schools in the teachings of Krishnamurti, Chan Buddhism, Zen Buddhism, Sufism, Christian "Quietude," etc. Every Soul school teaches the technique for the dissolution of the "I." Really, only through the creative comprehension of all our errors, in all the deep levels of the mind, is the "I" inevitably disintegrated.
Every school that teaches the dissolution of the "I" is a soul school, a school that teaches how to crystallize the soul.
The one that only crystallizes the soul (does it through the dissolution of the "I") can be mortal or immortal.
Such a one is immortal if he enters into a school of regeneration, and is mortal if he does not enter into any school of regeneration.
I remember that Master Samael mentioned that he really wasn’t satisfied with Krishnamurti techniques of dissolution of the ego because he didn’t teach the science of transmutation/tantra or praying to our particular divine mother kundalini or something like that.
So my question is:
Are these “soul schools” supposed to be teaching annihilation of the ego to a certain degree? Let’s say those 50 percent because as we know to completely eradicate an ego we need the sexual magic and then such a school would be called a school of regeneration.
It’s just the wording that I am confused with a little bit because Master Samael used this word crystallization of the soul in different lectures (About the Soul, The Didactic for the Dissolution of the "I", The Knowledge of Oneself) and to me it seems that he refers to a complete crystallization of the soul- meaning no ego whatsoever and that would be equivalent of creating the soul, would it not? But these so called “soul schools” in the lecture: Types of Spiritual Schools don’t teach the whole process so isn’t that a little bit misleading to use that word “crystallize the soul?” I don’t know maybe if he had used the word “partial” crystallization of the soul that would be more appropriate.
Here are some excerpts from the other lectures:
From the lecture: The Didactic for the Dissolution of the "I"
However, we know very well that “if the water does not boil at one hundred degrees” that which should crystallize is not crystallized, that which should disintegrate is not disintegrated. Thus, in any case, it is necessary for “the water to boil at one hundred degrees”… Obviously, if we do not pass through great emotional crises we cannot crystallize Soul either.
In order to radically dissolve any psychological inhuman aggregate, it is inevitably necessary to undergo a great emotional crisis. I have met people capable to undergo such crises; it is coming into my memory the case of certain Gnostic sister, from the Patriarchal headquarters in Mexico, who endured frightful tribulations, horrible moral crises when remembering grave errors from her former lives. Thus, people like this, with that tremendous capacity of remorse, persons which are capable to undergo very grave emotional crises, obviously can crystallize Soul.
Therefore, what is worthy for us is precisely that: the crystallization of all the psychological principles within own selves, here and now.
From the lecture: The Knowledge of Oneself
Unquestionably, the most important thing in practical life is precisely to crystallize in the human personality that which is called Soul. This gives us all the powers, strength, virtues and faculties of the Being. If one eliminates, for example, the defect or "I" of anger, in its place will be crystallized the virtue of serenity. If one eliminates the defect of egotism, in its place will crystallize the marvelous virtue of altruism. If one eliminates the defect of lust, in its place will crystallize the extraordinary virtue of chastity. If one eliminates the intimate nature of hatred, in its place will crystallize love. If one eliminates from his or her personality the defect of envy, in its place will crystallize the joy of another's well being, and so on.
Therefore we must understand the necessity of eliminating all the subjective thoughts from our psyche in order to crystallize in our human person that which is called the Soul. It means cosmic powers, virtues, etc.
From the lecture: About the Soul
In Japan, China, India, and Nepal, wherever Gautama, the Buddha Sakyamuni, was born, the crystallized Soul in a man or a woman was called Bodhichitta. It is marvelous to see how those diverse spiritual elements, virtues, and powers crystallize slowly in the Essence as it is being liberated.
For this reason we said the Essence is material to crystallize the Soul. The term “produce” does not seem very correct to us. We truly find it very heavy, grotesque. Nevertheless, many authors use this term. Permit me the liberty to dissent with them. I prefer to say crystallize, because the Soul is not something one must produce, it exists. It happens to be that we must crystallize it, and that is different.
Thank you kindly