From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 13:41:59 -0400 From: "Donald J. Degracia" Subject: More Tech stuff Hi All! John, Sorry it has taken a while to get back to you. I haven't had a lot of time to write lately. Yes. The program is based on uuencode/uudecode. However, I've been testing things out and found that WINCODE is not completely general. First, I found a server that would transfer files via e-mail instead of regular FTP. Using this system (it's at Princeton Univ.) I got a directory and file list from an anonomous FTP system at Mich State Univ. Next, I requested a couple *.zip files from the MSU server using UUENCODE formatting. I recvieved the files ok as e-mail. However, I then tried to use WINCODE to decode these and I got garbage. So, I went into the compuserve Telecommunications forum, did a keyword search with the term 'FTP' and found a Dos based program called UUEXE5.zip. This program successfully decoded one of the 2 files I recieved from MSU. The other file I could not decode succesfully, but I don't know why. So, I suspect what the case is, is that as long as a file is encoded with WINCODE, that, as long as the person recieving the file can decode it with WINCODE, then everything should be ok. However, it appears that WINCODE is inadequate for decoding files pulled off of anonomous sites on internet. Perhaps the Windows users amongst us would like to set up a system using WINCODE. Or maybe, we could set up a more DOS based means of file transfer and go with this UUEXE5.ZIP program. I suppose it depends on how enthusiastic we are about sending files to each other over the list, or through the internet e-mail. Anyone have any feelings about this? BTW, The THEO.EXE is in the New Age Forum in Compuserve. Well, I think that's it for now. Hope all is well with everyone. Best, Don From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 18:04:06 -0400 From: John Mead Subject: send mail from the same address.. Hi - Just a quick note. to successfully send mail through Theos-l you must always send the mail from the same node (internet address) that you have subscribed from. If you want to send from multiple addresses you must subscribe from all addresses (not recommended unless the e-mail is free for you). I have gotten some bounced mail and still am holding it if anyone wants me to resend it for them (I am the bitbucket for the theos-l list... Any error message gets to my box). Sorry that listserv is so picky. Peace -- John Mead 1 Sep 93 18:42 EDT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 18:28:27 -0400 From: John Mead Subject: Update from the Parliament... Hi -- We have entered the stage of the Parliament where the peons (ME) can go to various workshops, while the religious leaders can discuss the resolution that will be issued. I have found refuge in the meditation room as my most popular event. The quiet and energy is terrific, and also mandatory for us introverts who get stressed in crowds. I went to a lecture on Auroville in India. It is the Sri Aurobindo international village as started by The Mother. If you have never heard of Sri Aurobindo, don't feel too bad. The books are only published by the Sri Aurobindo Trust, and are not found in the standard newAge Bookstores. Rudyar called Sri Aurobindo "the greatest mind and seer of modern India" (p. 26; Rythm of Wholeness). These Global villages seem to be challenging the modern eco-political concept of society. It is a beautiful oasis constructed from the desertification practice of western civilization. It is amazing how the land was reclaimed and is now beautiful forest etc. It is nice to see everyone so friendly. I should mention that the incident on Monday ended with everyone dancing around the room... holding hands etc. The organizers/people are very prepared for almost all conflict. They have many facilitators and professional negotiators to de-stress the few instances of unleashed emotion. Rather impressive. I did hear that the Greek Orthodox had pulled out. They were mysteriously absent from the start. Apparantly they did not want to be seen acknowledging any groups that are not monotheistic. (I think this was directed at the Pagans rather than Hindu/Buddhist). I want to get Tony Lysy over to Charlotte to give a talk to our UU church about the conflicts he encountered. Of course he might be sworn to secrecy (??!!). :-) If he ever stops running around the Hotel with a Fire extinguisher I'll ask him. Peace -- John Mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1993 12:10:44 -0400 From: eldon@raider.sandiegoca.NCR.COM Subject: hi We've just subscribed to "theos-l". We live in Los Angeles, and have studied Theosophy for many years. We're members of the Los Angeles Branch (the Los Angeles Center for Theosophic Studies). We'll each write a brief sketch of ourselves in a day or two. Eldon & Brenda Tucker eldon@netcom.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1993 17:52:48 -0400 From: John Mead Subject: TS formal study group -- Forwarded message: > From: eldon@raider.sandiegoca.ncr.com > > It would be good if you could sent me a copy of the earlier > email to the discussion group. > > ---- > > There are a number of rules and procedures related to having > a membership in a single branch/study center at a time in the > Theosophical Society in America. I'm somewhat familiar with > them since I've implemented them for the Membership Deparment. > For about six years I've provided and supported the software > (in dbase) for the Membership Department, and produced a large > number of graphics, charts, and spreadsheets in Excel for the > annual board meeting. > > The few points that I recall at this moment are: > > 1. If you are a member of a Branch or Study Center, you are > in the district that it resides for voting purposes. > > 2. If you are a member-at-large, you are in the distruct that > you live in, and if you live outside the USA, you are > in an "Unassigned District". > > 3. To be an official officer of a group, you must be a member > of it. > > Various database tables, reports, and tracking of information > are based upon these (and other) assumptions. The database > would need some redesign and various reports and programs > modified to support any changes. > > Say we track receipts and membership counts by group and/or > national section. If you belong to multiple groups, do we > track you as 50% or 33% of a member etc. in the different > groups? > > The National Secretary would have to (probably with Board > approval) decides the changes and works out how they would > be implemented. > > Which group you belong to is something of a formality. Anyone > can belong to a "project", so if you call the internet group > a "project" it does not affect affiliation elsewhere. If you > were a formal TSA group, you could not have a full members > anyone not a member of the TSA. Are non-TSA members given > full voting and leadership rights with everyone else? If so, > then you would be more of an independent theosophical group. > > ---- > > Is the creation of a list a special service that you've arranged > with your local internet provider, or is it something that anyone > on internet can set up? > > > Eldon Tucker > eldon@netcom.com > Hi -- I've forwarded this message fron Eldon (with permission). I think we have two people (Don D. and Mike G.) who are not affiliated with another study group. George Snoddy had to drop out (time constraints) but plans to be back later. He was a third possibility, now removed. If we can get another person, we can proceed with a formal request for organizing to National. I think we should do this, since the National headquarters will (probably -- my guess) move us up the priority list if we are actually a recognized group. This is a call for any others who are not affiliated (Member at large) to please respond! Thanks -- John Mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 00:56:24 -0400 From: "Donald J. Degracia" Subject: Advertising the list? Hi everyone! I would like to get everyone's opinion about something, and especially John's: Should we advertise the Theos-L discussion list? What I was thinking about doing was writting up a short announcement in the form of a text file about the list and blasting it off into cyberspace. I know of a number of occult BBSes around the country where I could post the announcement. Not to mention posting a text file in CompuServe as well. Here's a sample announcement I wrote: --------------------------------------------------------------- Electronic Theosophy Study Group on INTERNET 9/3/93 This is an announcement that the Theosophical Society has entered the internet. The Theosophical Society of America has recently established a mail list on the internet. This informal discussion list has been created to serve as an "Electronic Study Group" for the Theosophical Society in America. However, all Theosophists are welcome regardless of any formal membership status. We are here to serve Humanity, rather than any specific organization. To join (subscribe to) this list send an email message to the address: listserv@char.vnet.net and have the message say: subscribe Theos-L Alternatively, if you would like further information about this list without actually joining the list contact either of the below addresses for more information: jem@char.vnet.net 71331.3517@compuserve.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- So, that's the announcement. What do you all think? Should we advertise like this? Can anyone think of pros or cons about doing this? Best to you all! Don From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 13:27:22 -0400 From: "Donald J. Degracia" Subject: Don to Judy Judy (and all too!): First off, thank you for the reply. No question we are still getting the mechanics of the list together. Speaking of which: John, do we have any archive services? < Maybe "cyperspace" needs to know more about theosophy in general first? > I don't know exactly what you mean here. At any rate, the idea behind advertising our list here is that we would likely attract others with a similar interest. There is just so much going on out here in the internet that I doubt if people not interested would come into the list. Myself, I am quite interested in making known that the list exists to the internet community for the following reasons. First, we would likely attract others who know the internet well, which would help those of us who don't, such as what John Mead and Mike Grenier have been doing. And secondly, and to me most importantly, I suspect we would attract some very bright people to the list which would, of course, continue to enhance what goes on here. I suspect we wouldn't attract the internet "rabble" just because our group is so specialized and also because our list is outside of the main internet streams such as the Usenet groups. Posting in compuserve would be good because my expereince there is that people are bright and friendly too. Mainly, however, I am just trying to think of ways to get the list better known. I am quite enthusiastic about using the computer as a means for communication and I think we have a tremendous opportunity here to spread theosophical ideas to a much wider base of people. So, there is some of my motivation behind wanting to advertise our list. Lets continue to collect opinions and see what kind of a consensus we can come to about this issue. Again, Judy, thanks for responding. Best to you and everyone else. Don From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 15:58:53 -0400 From: eldon@raider.sandiegoca.NCR.COM Subject: Re: Advertising the list? > Should we advertise the Theos-L discussion list? This would be a good idea. > Here's a sample announcement I wrote: > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Electronic Theosophy Study Group on INTERNET > > 9/3/93 > ... description deleted I'd suggest the writeup, to this point be something like: Electronic Theosophical Study Group on INTERNET 9/3/93 ------------------------------------------------------------ This is an announcement that the Theosophical Society is now active on the internet. Members of the Theosophical Society in America have recently established an internet mail list. It is hoped that the list will form the first Electronic Study Group within the Theosophical Society in America. This list provides a forum for informal discussion of ideas of concern to Theosophists, regardless of membership status. We--the participants--wish to serve Humanity, and not any specific organization. The list is for the free exchange of ideas relevant to Theosophy, and does not represent the official views of The Theosophical Society in America or any other organization. Subscription to the list does not require one to agree to any particular beliefs, and membership in The Theosophical Society is not required. Although many active contributers to the list may be members of a Theosophical Study Center, the free exchange of ideas carried on in the list is open to all. To join (subscribe to) the list, send an email message to listserv@char.vnet.net with the text of the message saying: subscribe theos-l NNNNN where "NNNNN" is your name, like "John Deva". If you would like further information about the list, feel free to ask for more information from: jem@char.vnet.net 71331.3517@compuserve.com ------------------------------------------------------------ The reasons are (a) that you don't want to give the impression that The Theosophical Society in America (e.g. Wheaton, Headquarters) is itself creating and managing the list, (b) that you want to make clear one is welcome to participate without any organizational pressures to join anything, (c) that the group is the *first* such group, not *the* group of the TS, and (d) and that one is not subscribing to any belief system by participating, I'm glad to see that the list has been created and this sort of activity is starting up, although I do not want to give up my T.S. membership in the Los Angeles lodge, so I could not join the Study Center. I've told some former PeaceNet contributors about the list and they've passed on the information to others that they know. You may have a few more inquiries in the next few days. Eldon Tucker eldon@netcom.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 16:22:53 -0400 From: eldon@raider.sandiegoca.NCR.COM Subject: stray comments I read the back-mail from the group last night. Here's my first comment. --- The membership database is confidential and I doubt that online access will ever be generally available. Although the membership has been asked if it is ok to release their names, and the assumtion made that if they did not reply it was an implied "ok", the names have never been given out except to selected one-time-use purposes, like 1. an annual mailing by the Theosophical Book Gift Assoc. for the Blind 2. an annual mailing by the Theosophical Order of Service, 3. a district-wide list for use by a Directory of the region (e.g. all Southeast District names to the current Southeast Director), 4. a city-wide list for a one-time mailing to a local theosophical group, approved on a case-by-case basis, for some special promotion. Many of the people in charge in the past were not computer literate, and dependended on their friends for advice. That advice was not always, though, for the best. I have brought up, over the past years, the suggestion to Wheaton that they get an T.S. network account on PeaceNet (which has email access to internet), which might have only cost $10 to $20 per month. The suggestion was never taken up. There are printouts of membership information at Wheaton for the various departments to consult, but no online access. (I may help setup something for the Library to access current membership info. later this year.) A public directory of people interested in Theosophy might be more practical, and that does not have to be limited to members of the TSA. (I did something on this line with setting up and managing the database for the Theosophical Network, which the Theosophical Network Directory was generated from, which Rick Nurrie later took over when it moved from San Diego to Oklahoma.) The problem with a directory, is who has the time to build, maintain, and electronically (and in paper) publish it? --- Eldon Tucker eldon@netcom.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 18:25:13 -0400 From: "Donald J. Degracia" Subject: Advertising the list Eldon: Thanks for the great reply. I agree with everything you said. Presuming we reach a consensus around here about advertising the list, I will happily use your message as a posting. The advert I wrote was just a rough sketch, and yours is much better. If anyone else feels like modifying the advert, feel free. So, at this point, we have two "yays" and one "nay" for advertising the list. Anyone else who cares to offer their opinion about this, please do. Best to all, Don From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1993 23:38:09 -0400 From: Gerald Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Member at Large John. In response to your "call for any others who are not affiliated (Member at large) to please respond" let me say (again) that I am a Member at Large, and not a member of any other group, and am a volunteer for your third member, if you want me. Don. I haven't heard from you lately. Did you get my last? I sent it twice. Maybe I should get a comeback copy so I know if messages are actually being sent? Jerry From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1993 01:20:58 -0400 From: John Mead Subject: Thank you Jerry! Hi -- Jerry -- thanks for the memory update! I am still in Chicago, and will be back in Charlotte late Sunday. Unfortunately, my notes on this are in my HOME computer! Peace - John E. Mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1993 01:24:21 -0400 From: John Mead Subject: Wellcome to TS Library Pasadena!! Hi -- I wanted everyone to know that we received a subscribtion to theos-l from the TS/Pasadena Library! Perhaps Michael Meyer can update us on the status of the Ecumenical TS Conference?? Take Care -- John Mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1993 11:12:39 -0400 From: "Donald J. Degracia" Subject: Don meets Rilla Hi Everyone: This posting is from Don to the list. I had a really interesting evening last night and I thought I'd share it with the list memebers. It turns out that Rilla Muldoon, who is the sysop on the New Age forum on CompuServe, lives in Grand Rapids MI. Me, I live in Detroit, so we arranged a meeting in Ann Arbor. Kathy and I met Rilla, her husband and two boys, along with two other couples who frequent the New Age forum. It was quite an interesting evening. We had an Ethiopian dinner at the Blue Nile restaurant and then checked out a couple Ann Arbor New Age bookstores and ended up in a coffe house. A couple of really interesting things came out of the meeting. First, I got a lot of interesting "behind the scences" information about compuserve. One thing I learned is that the various forums on CServe are, basically, subcontracted out. That is to say, people own the forums and CompuServe essentially "rents space" to the forum owners. The owners make a profit from the forums based on their user attendance and then the owner splits the profits with Compuserve corporation. Interesting arrangement! Another interesting aspect of the evening is that one of the couples who showed up, Patty and Bill Rayl, are publishers of Connect Magazine. Connect is a newer magazine that focuses on BBS and internet activity and has articles about using internet, and about computer telecommunication in general. Well, I asked Patty if they advertise new internet mail lists in their magazine and she said that yes they do announce new lists. As well, her husband Bill explained that there is a specific UseNet newsgroup devoted exclusively to announcing new mailing lists. So, whenever we formally decide to advertise the list, I can contact Bill and Patty and get an announcement put in their magazine, and Bill said he would put the announcement in the Usenet group for us. So, just give me the word and I'll contact Bill and Patty and have them do their thing. I thought that was very cool of them. Also, another interesting tidbit that came up was that Rilla and I were talking and *she* expressed an interest in starting a Theosophy section with in the New Age forum. Now, I remember that sometime back, John Mead contacted CompuServe about starting a theosophy forum. I discussed this with Rilla and she thought it was a pretty untenable idea given the way CompuServe does its buisness. However, she was very gun ho about starting a Theosophy section in the New Age forum. I think this would be a nice place for theosophy to get situated in cyberspace. I didn't realize this, but Rilla explained that the New Age forum on CompuServe is one of CompuServe's biggest money makers. Rilla said that the New Age forum is one of the most sucessful nontechie forums on CompuServe. Now, what this translates to for compuserve is $$$. What this translates to for theosophy is exposure. Presently, thesosophy exists under the "Esoteric Societies" section in the New Age Froum, along with Golden Dawn, and a number of other occult type societies. Personally, I think it would be a great idea to establish a base of operations on CompuServe. We would have our own archive there. We could use it as a place for announcing events, ect. A Theosophy section in the New Age forum on Compuserve would not substitute this internet list we have, but it would supplement it considerably. Compuserve itself is quite a cyberspace center and to be located their, again, would be excellent exposure. So, please, list members, let me know your feelings about this, especially the list members who have compuserve accounts. So, those are the highlights of last night that are relevant to what we are doing around here. All in all it was agreat night. We had tons of fun and got some buisness done too. So, talk to you all soon. All my best, Don From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1993 11:12:45 -0400 From: "Donald J. Degracia" Subject: Don to Jerry Jerry: > Don. I haven't heard from you lately. Did you get > my last? I sent it twice. Maybe I should get a comeback > copy so I know if messages are actually being sent? Jerry, I did get your letter. I've simply been busy with other things lately and haven't had my usual amount of time for writing one of my usual responces. I have a half written responce to you in my "uncompleted letters directory". Hopefully I'll get to it soon for you. Otherwise I've been trying to figure out how to get a full fledged internet hookup through my PC. So, take care and I'll ry to get my responce to you ASAP. Don From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1993 21:50:13 -0400 From: John Mead Subject: CIS forum. Hi -- CIS seemed more than happy to start a Theosophy Forum. I think the difficulty (ala Rilla's comments) is if you are in it for money. If you let CIS keep all the money, they get alot friendlier. also --- if the Theosophy *section* is successfull then Neil may convert it to a forum (and the theosophy forum would be run by people who are not really interested in Theosophy). Not sure if this is a problem.?? Most Public BBS's will let you start a forum. Peace -- John Mead p.s. last time I (and George Snoddy) mentioned a TS section (to Rilla) in the NewAge forum we were received very coldly. I wonder what changed her mind?? It is rathe curious. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1993 12:34:21 -0400 From: can@igc.apc.org Subject: Hello Dear Theos-l folk, I just joined this discussion group and thought I'd introduce myself: D. Kim Titchenell, member of T.S. Pasadena. I was involved with a theosophic electronic conference on IGC (Institute for Global Communications (peacenet)) which has gradually gone fallow. The conference does still exist and still contains all postings. As Jerry Schueler is already a member of this list you may have heard it mentioned (Hi, Jerry). I noticed some discussion on the subject of advertising the list and thought I'd throw in a couple of ideas. I have sought unsuccessfully for the word "Theosophy" using a number of internet resources and found virtually nothing. I think that the most important visibility this list could have is inclusion in indices that would enable people seeking specifically for theosophy to find it. This could be accomplished in most cases by sending a message to those entities responsible for indices and searching resources. There was a very interesting message posted by Donald J. Degracia mentioning the possibility of a compuserve forum or a theosophic section of the existing new-age forum. I do subscribe to compuserve but feel it would be unfortunate if non-subscribers were excluded from participation. There can be a danger in high- visibility theosophy, one problem can be the extreme acrimony likely to be evoked from some fundamentalist sources and the tendency to be vilified (undeservedly) together with other non- theosophic systems. I don't mean to discourage the idea, just to mention some problems that friends of mine encountered when discussing theosophy on Prodigy. I was very glad to hear of this discussion list and hope it is successful. In a sense it is ideal in that it is universally available (given an e-mail account) and unstructured. If a forum structure is desired, perhaps a Usenet conference should be considered. Best wishes for success in the venture. Kim PS: Eldon's suggestions hit the mark re: internet references for the list. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1993 13:22:28 -0400 From: Donald DeGracia <71331.3517@compuserve.com> Subject: Don to Gerald: ongoing chatter Hi Gerald I'm picking up where we left off. I hope it hasn't been too long and that you still remember where we were at, or have your last letter to me of 8/27/93. if you will, but it is necessary.> Whether its necessary or not, people will indulge in it anyway, whether I like it or not. Sometimes I get a bit of a "purist" attitude about me that isn't very agreeable with specultative thinking, and coupling this with my generally zen attitude is just kind of unctuous at times. So, I apologize for coming off more hard headed than I really am. < But chaos theory is useless stuff if not applicable in more meaningful ways than mathematics and science.> Chaos theory has a very general utility within the context of science and math, a utility quite distinct from any type of speculative thinking or philosophizing. A number of important systems in Nature have chaotic dynamics, including, according to recent articles, the organization of nerve impulses in the nervous system, not to mention the weather. Such applications are hardly meaningless. As a matter of fact, the philosophical significance of chaos theory is that dynamical systems display a much broader and more flexible range of behavior than physicsts ever originally envisioned. True, but I didn't do it. Glieck and several others did,> I read Glieck too. I don't recall him ever saying anything about order verses chaos. He did a great job explaining chaos theory in layman's terms and accounting the history of the development of the ideas. Again, I really recommend you find van der Leuuw's book. He lays out a basis with which to discuss science and occultism. In a nut shell, van der Leuuw points out that occultism *is* science. See, in our society, the way we have defined the subjects or topics of science is relatively arbitrary and is completely biased towards only analyzing the physical world with machines. Furthermore, scientists have this attitude that their currently accepted methods of enquiry into Nature are the *only* correct methods. This is bunk. The valid occult teachings stem from the very real expereinces of human beings, expereinces based on quite repeatable methods. Thus, valid occultism is just as empirical as modern science. The real problem here is one of world-views. Our sciences are still caught up in the mystique of materialism. That is to say that modern science only considers valid the study of the physical world as revealed through the senses of our physical body. You know as well as I do that there is more to the universe than what we see with our senses. To me, the issue is one of *extending* modern science. I believe that there is a very real physics to the planes for example, and that the occult anatomy is real. We really have astral and mental bodies. The idea is to open science up to this broader level of thinking. Frankly, I do not think present day science has the tools to describe occult phenomena. Only the physicsts and Jungian psychologists are on the right track. The Jungian people recognize this, the physicsts don't. However, I very much feel that it is possible to *extend* the methods of science to embrace occult phenomena. Yes, I've read much of Prigogine's writings. His concepts of thermodynamics are brilliant. As a philosopher he is as nieve as any other materialist. < This was not nice, Don, throwing my own words back on me. > Nice is not the issue. If you are going to present your ideas in a public forum you have to be prepared to deal with all kinds of responces, especially is you want to deal with scientists. Scientists are not dummys. They may be metaphysically ignorant, but they are not stupid people. And the first thing they will do is try to find internal inconsitencies in your thinking and ideas. Its your responsibility to present ideas in a clear and conscise fashion so that stuff like this doesn't happen. And furthermore, science itself progresses because of its open community criticism. Every idea is put to the choping block. If the ideas can't stand up, either as logically consistent theoretical constructs or (better yet) empirical realities, they are tossed out. That's the way the game is played. If you want to play the science game, this is what you better be prepared to deal with. Faith and dogma are really prevalent in religion and occulltism. To mix occultism with science, you have to cut through all this chaff and get to the stuff that can stand up under the rigor of detailed intellectual analysis and empirical verifiability. When you put your ideas into public, you are not playing kid games anymore. Its very cut throat and those ripping apart your ideas usualy have no feeling for you at all. You just have to be prepared to deal with this. Believe me, Gerald, I'm being very nice here to you and your ideas because I'm sympathetic with your cause. Go into the science/education forum on ComupServe and say some of the things we are discussing and see what happens. What do they say about assuming? It makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me". No, I've never heard of the ideas until you mentioned them in your letter. Exactly! < The *facts* so far are all derived by science itself, so I can't agree with the last part of your sentence. > If I remeber correctly, I qualifyed my statement to the effect that the idea of the "heat death" of the universe came from the ideas of Carnot, Gibbs, LaPlace and others who were working with 19th century thermodynamics, which is *equilibrium* thermodynamics. Talk about fudge factor science! Equilibrium thermodynamics barely even works in test tube chemistry, let alone if you try to design a chemical plant! Chemists and chem enginneers have miles and miles of pages of tables of little fudge factors to append to their thermodynamic equations to prevent laboratories and chemical plants from blowing up! There is, in other words, little basis in fact for the picture of the world described by classical thermodynaimcs. The idea of the "heat death" was derived from this paradigm. The paradigm is massively incomplete, so any philosophical specualtions drawn from the paradigm are likely to be bunk. And yes, all things pass through a cycle of birth, growth, decay and death. This is very clearly recognized in occultism, and, as a matter of fact, Dane Rudhyar did an increadible job at showing how the symbolism of astrolgy can be used as an algebra of this process. But regarding science, this very obvious fact of life is more clearly recognized in the biological and social sciences than in the physical sciences. The physical sciences have not yet codified the reality that all things undergo the cyclic process of birth-death-rebirth. When they do, they will have effectively re-invented astrology . No, Gerald, its the way *you* view things, and other people who share this opinion. However, there are many people, and I am one of them, who don't take dualisms as fundamental at all. The idea of dualisms serves usefully in some circumstances but not all. There are alternative ways to view things. Sometimes things can only be understood as a gestalt. Other times things can only be understood as multi-faceted. < It is not a good way to view things, and leads to a lot of mental anguish and suffering. Buddha pointed out his Eightfold Way in which to eliminate such wrong thinking, but so far, only Adepts can really do it. > If its not a good way to view things, then why do you view things this way? And claiming that only an adept can transcend thinking dualistically is bunk, unless I'm an adept, which I'm not, because I lost my card and badge and got kicked out of the club too - for smoking and swearing and having sex . But seriously, Gerald, these statements reflect a subtle type of alienation. When you say things like, "Only buddhas and adepts can do this or that..." you are setting up one of those "ring pass nots" that you talk about, you are creating an insurmountable wall in people's mind that somehow they are not good enough, that its beyond them. This isn't really an attitude conducive to growth. Buddha was a human just like you and me. Everything that buddha, jesus, or any so-called master can do, you can do too. Its just a matter of setting your sights, figuring out how to do it, and going for it. "Taking heaven by Storm" I believe is the buzz-term. Of course, I'm not saying that great people don't deserve respect. They do. But its a fine line between respect and worship. Respecting greatness is healthy, worshipping anything isn't always good. Attitude is everything. < Most are semantics. If you accept the Anthropic Principle, then I think we are on the same track. If not, then I guess we are at some odds.> Thanks for the description of the WAP, SAP and FAP. However, Geralds, if your basis to determine if we are on the same track is whether or not I pledge my alligiance to some intellectual statement well, that just seems silly to me, and a little too sectarian for my tastes. I read carefully your descriptions of the WAP, SAP and FAP, and I have no problem with what they say. However, they are just words that came out of someone's mouth. Haven't you heard or understood anything I've been saying? What the hell are these words and ideas in the face of our expereince? They are just a coating, a coating that imparts a particular "color" or mood to our expereince. That's it. Nothing more. We secrete ideas the way that cows make milk or bees make honey. So what? I love ideas and I hate ideas. They are fun to play with, but I hate it when people make up ideas and use them as a basis to find distinctions amongst people and things. All ideas of distinction serve only to limit perception. Sometimes this is good, sometimes its bad. It all depends on why you make the distinction to begin with. But this thing that people do, they make a statement and imply that the statement somehow captures all of reality. This is just pure dumb. Its a very primitive way to use the mind and senses and intellect. One time when I was stoned out of my gourd on 5 hits of acid I saw in one instant all of the philosophers that ever lived. I saw each one of them making his pronouncement, his judgement, expressing his idea of what reality is all about. i saw billions of people doing this up and down the throes of history. And not one of them was saying the same thing. All I could do was laugh, laugh at the fact that all these guuys completely missed the point. Then I felt a great sorrow that they couldn't see what the point was cause they were so preoccupied with their little ideas. I felt sad cause, when you see what the point is, everything becomes just so great, and all these shmucks were missing that greatness, which is the greatness of all things. And this made me feel sad to see all these billions of philosophers missing the greatness of life, but then I felt great because I felt sad. It was all a very teriffic joke in the scheme of things. All I can say to you , Gerald, is I *know* why Buddha was smiling all the time. :) Don From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1993 22:58:06 -0400 From: John Mead Subject: publicity etc. Hi -- welcome to the "Newcomers"! I am especially pleased to see this becoming an "Ecumenical" Theosophy group!!! 1) I could very easily submit something similar to what we have been placing in the _American Theosophist_, to _The Theosophist_ (adyar). It would be easy to send the same paragraph (or two) to the National groups listed on the back of _The Theosophist_ too. I appreciate the idea. 2) As to getting the other Theosophy lodges involved, we would need someone in their organiztion to work with? (my guess). any volunteers?? (hint-hint) Perhaps Michael Meyers could help represent the group (i.e. make sure we get some exposure) at the Ecumenical Theosophy Convention (I hope it is still goint to happen!). 3) Regarding PeaceNet... why didn't this take off? also -- I have some literature on "TogetherNet", which is viewed as the next generation Econet. It received ALOT of exposure at the Parliament of World's Religions. Certainly we could set up Internet Feeds to both of these. (PeaceNet *and* a BBS on TogetherNet?? the Compuserve network does not support feeds to Forums. I think). I believe that there is ongoing work from/with the Parliament Trustees to assure that TogetherNet becomes an International discussion area/network for future Religious Pluralism communications. TogetherNet seems to view it's mission in life as promoting precisely the type of Forums (i.e. creating) which we are looking for. 4) There is an Internet on-line book called "The Electronic Mystics Guide to the Internet" which we should get listed in. I'll try and dig up the address. The purpose of the book was to centralize a source of these BBS's, Discussion Lists, etc. for Internet hoppers. 5) Eldon -- do you want to buid a FAQ file?? you seem to have an excellent idea. We will need one in our LIbrary too. (no news on that one yet) 6) I might add that Louise and I both picked up a horrible Cold/Sore-Throat at the Parliament. We got Home and literally collapsed. I slept from 1am to 7pm today (18 hours). I'm still tired. Many people were complaining that the air-conditioning was making their throat sore. I think it was the beginning of a viral outbreak. I am betting that we picked up some exotic virus from India or Africa. sigh. Peace -- John Mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1993 19:09:21 -0400 From: John Mead Subject: Brenda's message -- forwarded by jem Dear Group, I am happy to be a new participant in this type of study group. I have several comments on the material which has been written here since August and have spent most of the day today reading over the several pages of statements. My name is Brenda Tucker and I remember Gerald Schueler and Kim Titchnell from the previous group. I feel as if the old group may have been resurrected as most of the messages near the end of its life were from one or two people only and for that reason not stimulating or rewarding enough. When I first read Don DeGracia, I was very impressed with his professionalism. I felt very elevated at the thought of becoming his acquaintance since he seemed so attentive to his scientific training. My husband mentioned that I worked for a few years at the National Headquarters in Wheaton and while there was fortunate enough to attend every seminar, panel discussion and symposium, (or almost). I heard people like Marilyn Ferguson, Fritjof Capra, Renee Weber, and many other Quest authors. Sometimes I wish desperately to be back in the fold with such notable thinkers. I love Don's "school work" because of where it could take him in the future. Jerry and Don had stimulating conflicts, I'm sure, but something in me was wondering why they couldn't put their uncertainty or disagreements in more of a question form? Instead of commenting on what each other is saying in such a detailed manner, it is possible to pose questions that will bring to light the difficulty in understanding or to write material from a slightly different point of view that isn't so to the picky. I enjoy heated discussions as much as the next person, but it could be more of a challenge to try to keep the material flowing as if it were a presentation and not just bits and pieces of difficult or poorly chosen phrases here and there to comment on. However, since the several discussions that followed between he and Jerry, I wondered if his youth wasn't being exposed as he didn't continue to strictly adhere to the scientific professionalism that was apparent at first. He had sounded like a serious person with a future and not just a university student, which is something I wish he could have continued as (I was wondering if you, Don, were hoping to come to San Diego in search of employment? Also, what types of employment do you have in mind after receiving a Master's Degree? Do you ever want to teach physics?) I know Jerry is hard to keep at bay sometimes, because he has so many wonderful ideas and isn't afraid to communicate them or to thoroughly question someone else's. I'd like to update our cohort, Jerry, on my status since we last corresponded. I remember our last correspondence to be concerning your original translation of THE BOOK OF THE DEAD (Egyptian). I was so surprised that anyone could attempt that with some success that I very much wanted to investigate hieroglyphics as you did, but am only now just beginning a book called THE MUMMY by E. Wallis Budge. Would this be a good place to start? Would you be able to recount to us here a little bit of the history behind your attempting such a phenomenal work? What was your first hint that the other translations were in error or who do you know that was eager in the study of the cultures and languages of that time? Did you take any university courses that stimulated a translation? Do you know Hebrew? Please, any history would be helpful, because I believe that since the last correspondence I have been pondering this very thought-provoking attainment of yours and have only barely started to see for myself if it might be possible for me or any novice to uncover these profound secrets (or are the hieroglyphs really commonplace? They're just words.) I worked at an engineering company for three to four months at the beginning of this year and end of last year and believe me I received an education. I wish I could have worked there permanently, I suppose, because their heads were always on their jobs and didn't wander or stray from presenting the best image they could. I've recently (last week) been meditating on the phrase, "You are the path." for the purpose of directing my more mundane existence into proper channels. I frequently recall this little mantra to mind as the path is very important to me and my life is dedicated to this experiment of "powers, service, and an inner government." As a theosophist I want to stimulate the people here to go on to be better people and to do work in harmony with the Great Plan and The Theosophical Society. I did feel that my being in the peacenet group was a starting point for my going on to having a live study center in my home. There were six of us meeting twice a month as I believe I mentioned before signing off for the last time. We have successfully completed FUNDAMENTALS OF THE ESOTERIC PHILOSOPHY by G. dePurucker with one of the original members and have since met, through Michael Meyer, a serious student of the occult who lives within only a mile of our home in L.A. Unfortunately we are there only on weekends and in a San Diego apartment during the week. This student has blessed our group significantly since getting in touch with her in May or June. She has been asked to give a series of classes at the LACTS (Los Angeles Center for Theosophic Studies) and is continuing to dive into the reading material, contact other theosophists on a national level, and reorganize her life along the goals of studying with theosophists. This has been my only experience of this nature and so to the seasoned veterans of study center management, may seem like nothing, but I recognize it as a first step and contribute some of the success to my work on an electronic bulletin like this one. We aren't members of a study group here in San Diego. Perhaps we're too new in the area or are here so temporarily it wouldn't be possible, but even as a member of the continuing "off the record" study center at our house, I want to see something improved come out of it. Michael's and our mutual acquaintance has been involved in organizing a new group other than the informal group at our house and I want to know more about what qualities are attractive to new members and what qualities are necessary for "formal" groups. Does anyone else have this preoccupation with elections and leadership that I've recently encountered? Even in reading this material, I'm thinking who would be the best person to lead us? Who would I vote for or nominate in an election? (part 2) Subject: Hello to new members Wow! Only a few days went by, and some 17 new messages have been posted. I am having difficulties keeping up. Glad to see some old friends join us. Hello Kim, its good to hear from you. I am glad to hear that the old postings are still on PeaceNet. I am sorry to hear that things are "fallow" there. I fully agree with Eldon, who listed several reasons for PeaceNet's demise. Hopefully CompuServe will do better. It costs more, but there is a lot more to do here. I have ported a few articles from PeaceNet over to the New Age Forum, and have also placed a couple of my programs there. I have been learning to program for Windows 3.1 in C for the last year. I also have been attending school, and both Betty and I have now got our Masters degree. I also want to say hello to Brenda, who gave me a lot of feedback on PeaceNet. Brenda asked about my discussions ("stimulating conflicts")with Don. I forget how we got started. I think someone mentioned that the Study Group take a look at Besant and Leadbeater's OCCULT CHEMISTRY, and thats how we got to talking about science. I mentioned my ENOCHIAN PHYSICS, and someone said the word "statistics" and we were deep into it. But our discussions are peripheral to the Study Group, and are intended to be informal while the group itself forms into some kind of structure. I agree that picking on selected verbiage is counter-productive and I am going to quit. But, if nothing else, I think our discussions have set a tone for any science-oriented study work that we decide to do. I believe that we all have agreed that the idea of relating science to theosophy and/or vice versa is a good way to start our group (those who first signed up were all science-oriented). However, I have yet to read OCCULT CHEMISTRY. About my book on Egyptian translations, let me try to be brief. I have always felt a rapport with ancient Egypt. One day I purchased Budge's EGYPTIAN LANGUAGE as well as his book on the Papyrus of Ani (I currently have most of his works, and THE MUMMY is pretty good). Out of curiosity, I matched Budges' rules with his own translations. I discovered that he deviated a lot from his own rules. When I inserted his own transliterations (from his Language book) into his translations, they made more sense than what he had done himself. So why did he deliberately deviate from his own transliterations? I speculate that he was biased. A lot of early Egyptologists thought that the ancient Egyptians were ignorant savages. I can't recall where I read it, but I remember reading one Egyptologist who wrote that they were incapable of philosophic thought. The result is that we have a 6,000-year old society with math, arts, architecture, agriculture, etc, whose language was mostly gibberish and whose religion was based on superstition. Modern Egyptologists have lightened up on this somewhat. But even new translations, such as that by R.O. Faulkner, are mostly garbage and nonsense. This is not entirely true, and several excellent translations are now available (see THE SHRINES OF TUT-ANKH-AMON by Piankoff, for example). Anyway, this led me to try doing my own translations using Budge's own language book as a guide. I spent 8 years, off and on, working on this. Meanwhile I had three Enochian Magic books published. One day, at a convention, my publisher asked me if I knew anyone who wrote about ancient Egypt, because the subject was selling well. I told him about my translations and later sent him a typescript. He wrote back saying that they were nice, but unsellable. Then I got my wife into the act, and she edited my work and wrote stuff about talismans, inserted pictures, and so on. Also, I decided to try an experiment. A lot of occult writers (W.W. Wescott for one) taught that the Book of the Dead was originally written as a set of rituals for the living. I decided to see how hard it would be to turn my own translations (written as verbiage spoken by a priest over a corpse) into living rituals. I was amazed at how easy it was. It only required a tiny tweak. The "rubric" became written guidelines for the ritual, and everything else was to be spoken. I changed "the Osiris Ani" into "the osirified magician" (I believe HPB used the term osirified) and the Book of the Dead became a book of rituals for the living (Coming Into the Light). We resubmitted this and the publisher liked it so much, he wrote the introduction to the book. I am very happy with the book, but sad that it has sold so poorly. The problem is, I have no Egyptian credentials, and so my book is not taken seriously by Egyptologists. If you are interested in Egyptian hieroglyphics, I recommend the "bible," which is Gardiner's EGYPTIAN GRAMMAR, which costs about $65. I got my copy from the Oriental Institute in Chicago. A real nice introduction is HIEROGLYPHICS WITHOUT MYSTERY by Karl- Theodor Zauzich (trans by Ann Macy Roth, pub by University of Texas Press). EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPHS FOR EVERYONE by Joseph and Lenore Scott is also nice. I had to make some hard choices as to translations. I found that the ancient Egyptians used terse technical terms, much like the "pith instructions" of Tibetan Buddhists. They assumed that the reader understood the definitions. Let me give you one quick example. On page 17 of COMING INTO THE LIGHT, I show the glyphs for seta and shes (using the old transliterations) as "the subplane of solidification" and the "subplane of dispersion." These glyphs are translated by Egyptologists in all sorts of ways - very inconsistent. I made the decision to use these translations, and stuck to it. Every time they came up in a text, I used "subplane of solidification" or "subplane of dispersion." So, I was at least consistent, and they fit with the context as well. Do you know how many translations of the Gita are available, or of the Tao Te Ching? Lots. Everyone acknowledges that Sanskrit is adaptable to several possible meanings. But Egyptologists are loth to do the same with ancient Egyptian while freely admitting that the glyphs will vary in meaning with the "context." Anyway, I think that my translations are at least as valid as anyone elses. Brenda, do you recall the topic on PeaceNet that I wrote about the Globes and Paths of the Gupta Vidya Model? I used the 7-Plane 12-Globe Model provided by G de Purucker in his FUNDAMENTALS OF THE ESOTERIC PHILOSOPHY (see page 499 for example). Well, I have taken those ideas and written a whole book on it. It is in typescript now. The point is, Globe B-prime (the Globe above Globe A) is equivalent to the "subplane of solidification" while Globe F-prime (the Globe right above Globe G) is equivalent to the "subplane of dispersion." In other words, I have been able to link the Egyptian Model with the Gupta-Vidya Model. This helps confirm, to me, that my translations are on the right track. Well, I think this is enough for now. Again, hello to my old PeaceNet friends. May our lives be lightened by our sharing together. Brenda, your "I am the path" is an excellent mantra. Mine is "love is the law" which has been a big help to me. Jerry From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 00:28:01 -0400 From: Gerald Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Theos.hlp file I finally downloaded THEO.EXE from CompuServe's New Age forum and read it. Sorry this took so long. I would like to compliment Don and everyone who put it together. Some thoughts: Good Points. I loved the pictures. The use of graphics to enhance and emphasize the ideas works well. Also, the use of the popup windows is great. A not-so-good point. As a member of the Pasadena TS, I was rather shocked to find "Beliefs and Teachings" to include Planes, Auras, Thought-Forms, and Chakras with a heavy emphasis on siddhas. I was expecting Cycles, Karma and Reincarnation, and perhaps some mention of a spiritual path with an emphasis on universal brotherhood. Pasadena theosophists downplay chakras and never mention thought-forms or siddhas. Is Adyar agreed that these four areas are representative of theosophical "beliefs and teachings?" It doesn't bother me one way or another, personally, because I am into magic and yoga myself. But many theosophists are going to get the idea that theosophy and occultism are synonymous. Another point of interest is the list of theosophists mentioned. I was a theosophist for 24 years before ever hearing of Dane Rhudyar (I first heard of him through Don and this Study Group). While this is certainly OK, I can't help wonder why others like Olcott and Judge are not even mentioned (?). Overall, I like the concept very much. Has there been any thought given to making a second or third program, kind of like volumes of a series? I write this in the spirit of an honest critique, in response to a request for such, but which is probably too late to have much impact. Jerry From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 10:18:13 -0400 From: "Grenier, Michael W." Subject: Re: Theos.hlp file Gerald writes: > I finally downloaded THEO.EXE from CompuServe's New Age forum and > read it A silly question - is this file available anywhere on the internet? -Mike Grenier mgrenier@mhs.sp.parmax.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 10:49:50 -0400 From: eldon@raider.sandiegoca.NCR.COM Subject: which ideas are theosophical? Based on G.S.'s comments on "theos.exe", I'd like to bring up some points of discussion. To discuss what should be considered as basic ideas of Theosophy, you might consider a quick-and-dirty family tree of various philosophies coming from the original Theosophy of HPB: -- H.P. Blavatsky -- F. Hartmann (also took German T.S. section at another time?) -- * indep. Theosophical group in Germany -- A. Besant -- C.W. Leadbeater -- A. Bailey (wife of Foster Bailey, head of American T.S.) -- * Arcane School -- J. Krishnamurti ("coming Christ" of CWL's, renounced idea) -- * large following of his "no followers, no belief" belief -- R. Steiner (took German T.S. section) -- * Anthroprosophical (sp?) Society -- G. Arundale -- C. Jinarajadasa -- etc. (con'd CWL's ideas) -- * TS Adyar -- W.Q. Judge -- F. LaDue (???) -- * Temple of the People at Halycon (not accept Tingley) -- K. Tingley -- R. Crosby (broke with Tingley) -- * ULT Los Angeles (mainline ULT) -- * ULT Santa Barbara (different yet the same) -- G. de Purucker -- I.L. Harris (adm. 3 yrs) -- A.L. Conger -- J.A. Long -- G.F. Knoche -- * Pasadena T.S. -- indep. Point Loma students (not accept Conger/Long) -- * Point Loma Publications -- * various study groups (Chicago, Berlin, etc.) -- * indep workers (B. de Zirkoff, G. Barborka etc.) -- other Point Loma T.S.'s (also claim to be -- official T.S.) -- * the School in the Hague etc. There may be errors in the above, and it could use refinement, but for purposes of this discussion, it can suffice. The original Theosophy of HPB emphasized certain teachings, an approach of learning and study and morals that might be characterized as a form of Jnana Yoga, a path of study and contemplation. It is important to be familiar with HPB's writings, and those of her Teachers (found in "The Mahatma Letters"). New ideas were introduced in each of the various branches of the family tree above. If you don't know what Blavatsky said, you may not be able to tell if what you're reading is a further exposition of the same Mystery Teachings, or if it is something different. There are a number of questions that I would like the group to consider, and might be discussed: 1. Are the differences between the teachings of the different groups merely a manner of emphasis and expression, or are some right and others wrong? (We read of the considerable value of the study of the theosophical philosophy, yet Krishnamurti would be against such an effort.) 2. It is necessary to know the actual personality and history of the theosophical writers that you study, in order to properly evaluate their books? Do their respective personality flaws reveal their philosophies to be invalid? (For example, did you know *what* Blavatsky smoked? Or the sort of language that she'd use in polite company?) 3. Is it necessary to rewrite history to make theosophical authors saintly, and to edit out offensive portions of their books in order to preserve respect for their ideas? (An example that I heard--correct me if I'm wrong and I don't mean to single out CWL for special criticism--is that "The Inner Life" was reprinted in an edition with all his mention of human society on mars with water in the canals etc. edited out.) Eldon B. Tucker eldon@netcom.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 11:34:48 -0400 From: "Donald J. Degracia" Subject: Don to Eldon and all Hi All: This is a responce from Don to the questions Eldon raised. First, i'd like to say that these were very penetrating questions, and that I agree with Eldon that it would be valuable to discuss these questions. I am only slightly familiar with the actual teachings of these various shades of theosophical teachings, mostly knowing of them only on a historical basis. I've read a lot of Blavatsky, but I am personally disposed to the Besant/Leadbeater teachings, of which the Help file in THEO.EXE reflects. In terms of the validity of the variety of schools of thought that fall under the heading of theosophy, I think, first, its important to keep in mind one of the stated objects or declarations of the TS itself, and that is the fact that each member is free to believe whatever she wants. However, in and of itself, this ideal doesn't mean a lot. It is not right for a person to believe they have the right to kill other people for example. Or a better example can be found in the very nature of science. Scientists are not free to believe whatever they want. Their beliefs are constained by theories and experiements. In science, the ideal is to build a *consensus*. If indivdual scientists went about believing whatever they wanted then science would be intellectual chaos. In other words, some limitation or criteria is necessary to achieve coherence and consensus. Thus, the idea of absolute freedom of belief is not really very productive. I think the very nature of the social and historical reality of theosophy reflects what happens when there is no basis for consensus; you get fragmentation and the forming of a myriad schools of thought. So, IMO, to fall back on the idea that all are free to believe what they want as a justification for the different schools of thought in theosophy is somewhat weak. A much stronger justification for the relative validity of the various theosophical teachings can be found in the realization that people at different stages of their emotional, mental and spiritual development have different requirements and needs. This is how Hindu teachings are structured. There are different teachings aimed at indivduals who are at different stages of life development. Likewise, I suspect this is the basis of the variety of schools of thought in theosophy. Each school of thought will appeal to individuals at different stages of their development. Thus, the issue is not whether one school is right and another wrong. The issue is pinpointing just how a specific shool of thought appeals to indivduals at a particular stage of development. Eldon said: <(We read of the considerable value of the study of the theosophical philosophy, yet Krishnamurti would be against such an effort.)> From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1993 12:24:06 -0400 From: John Mead Subject: which ideas are theosophical? (fwd) > The original Theosophy of HPB emphasized certain teachings, an > approach of learning and study and morals that might be characterized > as a form of Jnana Yoga, a path of study and contemplation. > It is interesting that you mention this. Theosophy is more an attitude or Process than a Doctrine or set of beliefs. > 1. Are the differences between the teachings of the different groups > merely a manner of emphasis and expression, or are some right and > others wrong? I would lean toward a difference mostly in emphasis and expression. I might add that it was nice to see the various societies working together at the Parliament in Chicago. > (For example, did you know *what* Blavatsky smoked? Or the sort of > language that she'd use in polite company?) > > 3. Is it necessary to rewrite history to make theosophical authors > saintly, and to edit out offensive portions of their books in order > to preserve respect for their ideas? Only the societal Elders seem to care much about this.(?) When compared to the modern media-scandals these seem very tame. It actually enhances the "Human"-ness of the society, which is good. > (An example that I heard--correct me if I'm wrong and I don't mean > to single out CWL for special criticism--is that "The Inner Life" > was reprinted in an edition with all his mention of human society > on matters with water in the canals etc. edited out.) I hadn't heard that one! Peace -- John Mead p.s. Thanks for the FTP site! Have you put Don's Help-file on it? I think that he was waiting to receive comments before releasing another version? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1993 19:29:07 -0400 From: LMOFFITT@delphi.com Subject: 1993 Parliament of Religions Hello - Just heard about this Study Group. Excellent! If I'm not covering ground that you've already trodden, let me ask if anyone participating here has attended the 1993 Work Parliament (Sorry for typo) World Parliament of Religions in Chicago, and can share their experiences. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1993 22:57:49 -0400 From: Gerald Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Theosophical Schools I agree with Don's assessment, that current theosophical schools (ie TSs) attract people in different stages of development. But lets not start thinking that any one school is "more developed" than another school. I was told once by Grace Knoche (current Leader, Pasadena TS) that the different TS schools were a matter of emphasis. Each school/society emphasizes different theosophical teachings. Each thus faces theosophy in a somewhat different direction, but all will agree that theosophy, per se, includes all of these directions within its overall umbrella. I agree with this view, and can see that by varying the emphasis, each will attract different people. (One of my concerns is that virtually none of the current theosophical schools seems to be able to hold its members for any length of time, and all experience a rather high turnover rate, for whatever reason, although each has its small "hard core" of devoted members). Thus I think that most differences between the schools are a matter of emphasis and expression, and it is not a question of some right and others wrong (else we must pose the questions, which one is wrong, and why?). For one thing, each one accepts the validity of HPB's works and the Mahatma Letters, and thus each is built on the same basic foundation (at least I think this is true). I would say, however, that excepting HPB and her Mahatmas, I haven't found one single writer/teacher who is 100% right (meaning of course, 100% in agreement to my own worldview). But I consider this to be an individual thing rather than a school thing. And so I find at least some disagreement with all subsequent theosophical writers (but usually very small points). I don't know if anyone else shares this problem or not, but someone (Einstein, I think) once said that there are as many religions in the world as there are people. With this in mind, I can see where Don is coming from. The THEOS.HLP file emphasizes the Besant/Leadbeater school (if we can call it that?). In this sense, I would like to refine my comment to: the title "Beliefs and Teachings" should be changed to "Some Theosophical Teachings" or something similar, so as to not give the impresssion that the four areas addressed are the "main" theosophical teachings (also, I don't like the word "beliefs" associated with theosophy, but this is probably my own personal problem). I like Eldon's characterization of modern theosophy as "a form of Jnana Yoga" and I think that it hits the mark. Here we can see a point where the past discussions between Don and myself can come together. The thrust of Jnana Yoga is to read, study, and contemplate ideas. This takes the human mind up to a certain point (a ring-pass-not, if you will) towards the spiritual realms, but no further. After continuing with mental machinations long enough, the mind becomes exhausted and sinks back into itself (the metaphor often used is a dog chasing its own tail in never-ending circles). Then the intuitive idea dawns that spiritual reality lies beyond/above our mental processes (ie the spiritual plane is above the mental plane). Yoga teaches us that when the thinking processes stop, rather than the death or annihilation that one might expect, spiritual light shines into our consciousness in much the same way that sunlight shines onto the earth between clouds. Thus if a theosophist studies the Secret Doctrine, for example, until becoming mentally exhausted from the effort, the light of spiritual truth, which is beyond words and beyond our everyday thinking processes, will dawn (Zen calls this experience satori). Meanwhile, most of us are not Adepts, and we are trapped in our mental processes and we must learn to deal with them. In other words, for most of us, our ideas and beliefs are very important and need to be communicated to others. We tend to think that our worldview is right, while other views are wrong. While to some extent this may be true, we have to remember the Hindu metaphor of the three blind men describing an elephant - truth can be seen in different ways, all of which are valid relative to the observer. Eldon poses the question, "Do their respective personality flaws reveal their philosophies to be invalid?" To this I can only repeat that you cannot tell a book from its cover (you shouldn't judge the validity of what someone says by their physical appearance nor by their social habits) and "by their words, you shall know them" (look at what a person is saying and judge that, not the person because no one is perfect). HPB, like most Messengers, was somewhat antisocial (because society itself is a constricting human convention, albeit a necessary one, and occassionally needs to be tweaked). She did, however, predict that modern 20th century science would verify much of what she taught. It has done that. Jerry From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1993 23:12:18 -0400 From: BALAM@delphi.com Subject: Eldon's message Hello Eldon and all: In response to #2 of your "questionaire": I have often listened to and enjoyed immensely the beautiful music coming from a virtuoso, never thinking of how many cigarettes he or she smoked the day before or if a coin was stolen with the same hand that also moved the inspired bow. Many a masterpiece i.e., the Bhagavad Gita, was written by one who could not be identified as far as personality or personal history and yet the merit of the work is intrinsic within the piece itself. You use the word "evaluate" to describe the process one would go through as one reads theosophical material. In other words: Should I believe these words to have value in relationship to myself and others. Philosophies are ideas, are thoughts, and thus they are mortal, and by that limitation should be judged by their usefulness in the moment of a particular circumstance ultimately. Refrain from giving these human, though divinely inspired thoughts the status of the "Gods", who alone understand the nature of LAW, which lies beyond the human mental imagination. By the way, what DID Blavatsky smoke?.......Sarah...... From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1993 10:56:55 -0400 From: eldon@raider.sandiegoca.NCR.COM Subject: what is theosophy I'd like to comment and expand on some of the discussion on what is Theosophy. Someone recently commented to me that ULT members are typically the best students of Theosophy, because they approach the core writings of HPB and Judge with an high level of scholarship and study, i.e. they undertake the study as a serious intellectual effort which I might compare to that of graduate studies in college. While the stated objects of the Adyar T.S. (and many others) allow the members the freedom to study and believe what they like, within a framework of tolerance for all, nearly every organization has behind-the-sceens politics. One example is the Canadian Section of the Adyar T.S. They maintained a strong pro-Blavatsky stance from the very beginning, and never took up the Besant/Leadbeater ideas, yet they remained within the T.S. Just a few years ago, they were expelled en masse (the section, lodges, and members, ... everything) on a pretext, presumably to maintain the "purity" of the Besant/Leadbeater nature of the Adyar T.S. There have been numerous explusions originating in Adyar over the years. When you go in to buy a car, you could be met with high-pressure sales tactics, or sometimes with low-pressure tactics. Theosophical organizations follow the latter. The tolerance for varying beliefs in most organizations is, unfortunately, just to provide an opportunity for potential "believers" to gradually be introduced to the ideas of the organization. You're welcome if you are someone looking for answers (e.g. a potential believer) but not if you do not buy into the package of beliefs presented. The behind-the-sceens control is a mixed bag, there's both good and bad in it. Take the T.S. in America [Aydar]. Because of the high turnover in membership, in five-to-ten years a majority of members are new and it would be easy for the section to take on an entirely different approach and belief. Without any control, it would not take long to oganizationally forget what Theosophy is and have entirely different ideas and beliefs taught in its place. Some might even argue that this has already happened at some point. An important question that we face in our studies is: What is Theosophy? There are several ways that we could look at it, and will each feel happiest with the explanation that describes how we are using Theosophy in our lives. This understanding is a relationship that we have with the reality that Theosophy is; it is not Theosophy itself. I believe that there are genuine Mystery Teachings, in an exoteric form, at the core of the theosophical writings, and feel concerned that they are being hidden from or lost to the general public behind a smoke screen of personal opinions and interpretations. I'd like to write more about this next time. Eldon Tucker eldon@netcom.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 10:15:32 -0400 From: Donald DeGracia <71331.3517@compuserve.com> Subject: More what is theosophy? Status: O Well, It would seem that Eldon has hit on an interesting and useful topic here. I would like to continue commenting on the msgs that have appeared so far. First, to Sarah: Yes she did, and she swore a lot too! Olcott often called here "the old cow", and they both got a kick out of that! Now in regard to what Eldon said: