From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 1 Jan 1994 01:59:05 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: a special summer... eldon -- after glancing at part 5 of "A Special Summer" (as well as the others) I'm not sure of their Theosophical intent or purpose. I'm rather curious what you are actually trying to express in the fictional writings. could you elaborate?? Thanks -- John E. Mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 3 Jan 1994 09:05:36 -0500 From: eldon@raider.sandiegoca.NCR.COM Subject: regarding "A Special Summer" John M: I did not have a special outline to follow on "A Special Summer", but the theme has been emerging as I write additional chapters. The short book will deal with the basic theme of the battle between good and evil, with some degree of triumpt as well as tragedy. The world is semi-real, a make-believe land that does not exactly match any historic period, and there is a bit of fantasy mixed in with occult and philosophical principles. In addition to the good and spiritual, there is an evil side to life too, and we must be aware of it, even if we don't dwell on it. Some people don't like scarey movies, like my wife, and they might not like some of the chapters dealing with some of the worest characters. For myself, I do not find myself bothered by scarey movies, and have not since a child recalled having any scarey dreams at night. I feel that I have kept my own consciousness rooted in the goodness of nature. If I can paint, though, what spiritual evil might be like, and arouse a mild sense of horror or revulsion, then it would be good, because it is possible for evil to creep into one's life in disguise. And we do read about it in our theosophical literature. We read about the left hand path and initiates of evil, as well as those of good. There is no danger as long as we keep of spiritual mind and avoid the occult practices, we can be fairly safe from destructive influences. Otherwise, we must apply caution to what we do. It is just as possible, out of the body, to be drawn to dark, corrupting worlds, as to the more spiritual ones. The theme of the aweful nature of evil and the need to avoid it is in the book, but it is not the main theme. The main theme is the battle of good against evil, and how it is a never-ending struggle. Even if the feeling of the book is bitter-sweet, I hope to end on a positive note. Eldon Tucker (eldon@netcom.com) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 3 Jan 1994 11:38:21 -0500 From: eldon@raider.sandiegoca.NCR.COM Subject: is evil real? There's one topic that we haven't gotten into, but quite important in its own right. It is regarding the nature of good and evil. There are a number of levels of meaning to it, and it is written about in our theosophical literature. We find that it even extends into initiation, with both a right-hand path and a left-hand path, one of good and the other of evil. Without time at the moment to write on it, I'd like to pose a few questions to the group: 1. What is the nature of evil, and how does it express itself in our lives? 2. Are their useen forces for evil, working behind the sceens? If so, how in in what way do they work? 3. How does evil affect us in our lives, with us trying to be theosophical and serve others? 4. Can evil find expression in us, and through our lives, with us unaware of it's presence, unaware of it working its way into us? 5. Given that there is something to it, how far should we write about and describe evil, as opposed to ignoring it, and not giving it our attention? Does ignoring it and denial make it less powerful, or more so, in our lives? Eldon Tucker (eldon@netcom.com) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 3 Jan 1994 14:25:49 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: is evil real? These are big questions which no one can claim to answer thoroughly. But I would submit that in Vladimir Zhirinovksy we are seeing as pure an expression of evil as has manifested since Hitler. The essence of human evil is, in my tentative view, the compulsion to destroy those who are different from ourselves. In Bosnia this is apparent on all sides, especially among the Serbs, even though the alleged "different" ones are racially and linguistically identical to their persecutors. There, and in India, adherence to the "wrong" religion is reason enough in itself to be killed. For Zhirinovsky's ilk, Latvians, Belorussians, etc. all deserve to die because their independent existence is somehow threatening to Russia's identity as a power. Destructive impulses toward those different from ourselves can manifest much more subtly than in these cases. Anyone pursuing a spiritual path faces the temptation to denigrate everyone on a different path. Despite Theosophy's proclamation of tolerance, Theosophical attitudes seem no better or worse in practice than the average. As to where this evil comes from, I suggest that it is natural biological "fight or flight" mechanisms that remain part of our genetic inheritance. In animals, this is a morally neutral part of nature. In humans, it becomes the root of all evil. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 3 Jan 1994 15:49:19 -0500 From: mlevin@jade.tufts.edu Subject: a question on evil, dark chohans, left hand path, etc. Hi all - Perhaps someone out there can enlighten me on this. Within the various theosophical writings, I often come across statements to the effect that one can only evolve through good deeds, that once one takes his/her 1st initiation that person is on the path permanently, etc. I also however came across (somewhere, don't remember exactly where) statements regarding "Dark Chohans". I am fuzzy on the whole thing, but it seems that what was meant were beings who have attained a high degree of development but were following the left hand path. So, does anyone have thoughts on exactly what is possible in terms of evolution if you follow the "left hand path"? I.e., is this a temporary gain of power which is limited, or is the Hierarchy paralleled all the way up by correspondingly-powerful beings who are on the "evil" path? I am probably not explaining myself very well. What I am asking is: is the power these beings get temporary (in the sense of an evil but powerful man in a human life who will have to re-trace his steps so to speak, and become good), or is there a corresponding Hierarchy of evil beings whose evolution is "unlimited" in their own direction? So what do people think (preferably with references to the various Theosophical or other sources)? Mike Levin From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 3 Jan 1994 15:54:45 -0500 From: mlevin@jade.tufts.edu Subject: planes as dimensions vs. matter types Hi all - Another question. In the various occult literature very common reference is made to "planes". They are described as "other" spaces, interpenetrating each other and our own. I have seen two major formalizations of this idea. One sees different planes as actual different dimensions in the sense that physics understands dimensions. The other sees planes as co-existing types of matter ("different frequency of vibration" is used a lot to describe the difference), where all matter of some specific quality defines a plane. The first view has some interesting models (Ouspensky's for example) for various psychic phenomena, but has the problem that physics seems to have quite a bit to say about how many dimensions the universe seems to have (and this doesn't match what the occultists say). So, do people have any thoughts on this topic? Do you favor one (or both - they don't seem to be contradictory) model? Do you have (or know of) a different one? Mike Levin From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 3 Jan 1994 18:51:26 -0500 From: "L. Lucas a.k.a." Subject: Re:"Dark Chohans" >...is this a temporary gain of power... While I can not quote a source for my opinion, I think that it is a temporary gain. >...or is the Hierarchy paralleled all the way up by > correspondingly-powerful beings who are on the "evil" path? I once read that it was impossible for there to be a "Dark Brotherhood" because a principle difference in the left and right hand paths was selfishnes vs unselfishness. It was noted that while a loose alliance might be formed for a specific reason, that it was domed to failure because each was so wrapped up in his own selfish ends. The word "Brotherhood" implies a level of cooperation which is not in the character of one on that path. I would imagine this would be even more true of a "hierarchy". This would imply an organized structure with lines of communication. All this is contradictory to the modus operendum of those "seduced by the dark side of the force" (that source I know, it's Obie Wan Kanobi:) And that makes sense to me, regardless of who said it first. Lewis Lucas Chestatee Regional Library (404)532-3311 l_lucas@solinet.net From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 3 Jan 1994 21:43:43 -0500 From: pplasto@peg.apc.org Subject: Re: a special summer... Can evil be other than static: devoid of life, devoid of quality? Devoid of the possibility of change/evolution? I do not doubt that levels of energy, which manifest as ignorance and immaturity exist....that within this level are those who seek to perpetuate and control and manipulate and, thus, by their nature contract and divide. But they too are of the whole and will be changed by evolutionary forces or will change themselves. Although I also have read that 'evil' beings exist...I cannot understand how they do. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 05:07:16 -0500 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Healing, Bailey and Paul's Book Upon returning from our ten day trip, I downloaded over 150 pages from this bulletin board. It is going to take a little time to get through it but here is a start, as I go through the messages in order. Nancy The pamphlet THE PSEUDO OCCULTISM OF ALICE BAILEY came up some time ago. I think Dan Caldwell mentioned it. I had read the pamphlet years ago and its conclusions are as the title suggests. As the authors mentioned, the study was not very extensive, so I didn't feel it to be very productive to bring in the pamphlet for discussion, but did offer to send Arvind a copy if he wanted to read it. He never responded to the offer, so that was the end of it. If you could find out the details of the physical condition of the child, I would be very interested. I knew of a deaf child who was missing the auditory nerve that connects the ear to the brain. Is this child an example of the same problem? I wouldn't presume to explain what happens theosophically with these healings. My only guess is that it is karmic--that is has to do with the readiness of the person to be healed. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. I know that this isn't much of an explanation, but it is as far as I can get right now. Here is a story to add to this though: A friend and member of the Los Angeles Lodge came down with cancer. He also had one leg shorter than the other as a result of Polio (I think), so he used to wear a special shoe to even his legs up. As his cancer became more serious, and the doctors less optimistic, he started looking for faith healers. One night he came into the Lodge with his legs evened up--he found a healer who made a legs the same length--a miracle in itself. He died about a year later, as he never found a healer for his cancer. Arvind Per your message of 12/27/93: You need to keep in mind that the word "psychology" has been around for about 400 years-- at least according to the OED. "Psychology" has always been understood as a study of the "mind" or of the "soul." Descartes sort of lumped the soul and brain together, and later positivistic science (which HPB also calls "materialistic." science) identified the mind as a emanation of the physical brain. Therefore HPB in the footnote on page 620 was trying to direct the reader back to the older, pre-modern-scientific understanding of psychology as a study of the mind or soul, and *not* as it came to mean by 1879, as a branch of the biological sciences. Therefore, HPB's statement shows her awareness of the older understanding of the term. Rather than hinting at some esoteric meaning of psychology, as you suggest, she was simply trying to be consistent with her overall statements made elsewhere that consciousness is not a product of the physical brain. Go back and re-read the material in context, and it should be clearer as to where she is coming form. Per your message of 12/28/93: Re questions: Yes, I have read quite a lot of Robert Browning. I liked him enough to go out and buy a collection of his works. Where do you find a reference of him as a Master of Wisdom? Per your message of 12/29/93: I just got back tonight, and haven't been to the post office, but should pick up your order tomorrow, and will fill it then. I will send Vol. 1 only of Purucker. If you want the rest after looking at vol. 1, let me know. I don't carry Paul's book, because I haven't had any calls for it, but I do feel that it is very worth while to read. You can get it from him, or I will order it for you, which ever you prefer. All of HPB's published writings (with the exception of some of her Russian writings) is in print. THE PEOPLE OF THE BLUE HILLS is the only book length work previously published that is not available. I had three or four copies of this a couple of years ago, but they went very fast, and I haven't found any more since. I'll let you know if I do. The SD isn't yet available on CD, but will be. Eldon is one of the key people working on that project, and is cleaning up a scanned copy. Since I'm not involved in that project, I don't have a copy of it on disk. Send me your new references, and I will look at them-- However, I'm beginning to get the impression that you are reading the SD for the purpose of finding references to confirm what you have read in AAB's writings. If this is so, I'm afraid that it will work against your understanding the S.D. as a book in its own right. Every book has to be approached upon its own merits-- not with the assumption that it does or does not say the same thing as another book. Anytime one reads a book with assumptions, those assumptions become a filter through which the book is understood. I had this problem when I first tried to read the S.D., because I expected it to echo Leadbeater's writings. Once I abandoned that assumption, I began for the first time to really understand what I was reading. Jerry S. Re. your message to Paul on 12/29, you mentioned that I was "apparently" against Paul's book. Apparently, I was misunderstood, I would like to clarify my position: I originally read Paul's book when it was in final Mss form, and was very excited about it. I told him that I loved the book and still do. It is true that I disagreed with many of his conclusions, and felt that he did a poor job supporting many of them, but this does not mean that I am "against" his book. If I was "against" every book that has something I disagree with in it, then there would be little or nothing left for me to read. My biggest disappointment was that Paul was unwilling to make any (other than minor) changes at the time that I reviewed the mss. The changes we wanted to make were aimed to make the book scholastically tighter. Paul told me at the time that he was tired of working on the book, and wanted it out. As a writer, I'm sure you understand the feeling. Therefore, I want to make it clear that I like Paul's book-- I enjoyed reading it, and learned a lot from it. I feel that Paul has a lot to contribute to the T.M., his research is of great value, but he is just as fallible as the rest of us. I recommend Paul's book to be read and debated. I hope this clarifies things. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 10:20:48 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Healing, Bailey and Paul's Book A brief comment on In Search of the Masters. I agree fully with Jerry (H-E)'s point about the book falling short of scholarly standards in a number of areas. But the rush to get it out fast was determined by tax laws which required me to have sold some books by the end of 1990 in order to deduct my travels and printing costs as business expenses. As it turns out this was penny wise and pound foolish and I wish I'd taken Jerry's (and Jim Santucci's advice) to go over it carefully before publication. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 10:39:43 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: book contract and outline To all interested in advising me constructively-- Amazingly, SUNY Press responded to my query about a sequel to the book now in production with an immediate contract. They specify the title to be simply "Disciples of the Theosophical Masters," apparently thinking "Chelas" is too in-group a word. I have until 10/1 to submit a finished ms. About 150 pages (double spaced) are on hand but all needs drastic rewriting. Anyone's advice is welcome but I do want to use what I have from ISM and unpublished ms., so the shape of the book is somewhat foreordained. Here's the outline: Prologue: Initiatory Power Struggles From the founding of the Theosophical Society, competition for power was mediated through claims about Masters and initiations. Madame Blavatsky's initiatory experiences in varied traditions are compared and contrasted with myths that surround them. Relations among Blavatsky, Olcott, Judge, Besant, Leadbeater, Sinnett, Hume and others are examined to discern the organizational impact of initiatory competition in Theosophy. 1. Chelas and Rajas During Blavatsky's years in India, she and her Masters recruited several native rulers and young "chelas" as Theosophists. Why did this alliance falter in the wake of Hodgson's report to the Society for Psychical Research? Primary sources provide extensive clues. 2. Preserving the Dharma More successful and lasting was Theosophy's impact on the Buddhist world. Its contribution to Buddhist revival is reviewed with emphasis on the careers of Colonel Olcott, Anagarika Dharmapala, Esper Ukhtomskii and Alexandra David-Neel. 3. The Secret World of Jamal ad-Din Jamal ad-Din "al-Afghani" played the role of spiritual Master or political mentor to an amazing variety of disciples. The careers of Muhammad Abduh, Wilfrid Scawen Blunt, Adib Ishaq, Mirza Reza Kirmani and Isabelle Eberhardt are reviewed in order to trace the legacy of Afghani. 4. An Occult Revival Most surviving expressions of the 19th-century occult revival in Europe and America have some initiatory links to Blavatsky. These are examined with emphasis on the Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor, the Rites of Memphis and Mizraim, the Golden Dawn, the Ordo Templi Orientis, and astrology. 5. A Fourth Way into the New Age The occult universe of Blavatsky's Masters included all the major figures of the Fourth Way movement. Gurdjieff, Ouspensky and Orage are discussed as initiatory heirs to Blavatsky. The content of Gurdjieff's teachin is compared and contrasted with Theosophy, with emphasis on Isma`ili septenary motifs. I plan to work on this in the order given above. The prologue and chapter 4 haven't been started, but everything else is over half done. All comments welcome. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 15:46:27 -0500 From: eldon@raider.sandiegoca.NCR.COM Subject: telling good from evil The subject of good versus evil has multiple levels of meaning, multiple possible interpretations, each true in a certain sense, but all of them capable of abuse. Consider the word *evil*. It is considered, in certain groups, among the followers of certain philosophies, a bad word to use. Some of us may want to avoid the word, to say that it is judgemental and narrow-minded to use. In talking about a particular individual, we may not want to say "that evil man!", but rather describe him in more neutral terms, to say that he is just a person like us, with a particular problem that we do not have. This may be kinder to that man's feelings, but it is the right thing to do? When we speak of a holy man, or someone with a special sense of goodness, we don't describe him by saying that he is just an ordinary person, with a particular gift or advantage. We are not being nice to someone that is bad, to describe things in such a way as to not hurt his feelings, if in doing so, we allow him to go along in life, hurting himself and others, perhaps unaware of what he is doing. Certainly we should have more responsibility to him! It is not really possible to separate the person from his actions. It is not possible to say that this is a man that *does evil*, whereas that is a man that *does good*. That assumes a uniform, indentical self that is unaffected by what he does. The description would hold true of the Monad itself, which is above and apart from anything that the personality may do, apart from anything in the manifest world, but not true of the personality itself. We are what we do, and in the processing of doing good or evil, we are good or evil people. Now it is possible to change, over time, to be an evil man that turns for the good and changes himself. It is also possible for a good man to become corrupted. Change is possible. But the personality, whatever it is, is the sum total of what it has done. The personality is the totality of actions taken, and relationships established, in this lifetime. We may look at an evil man, and choose not to associate with him. Looking at his personality, we may not be able to pass absolute judgement on him, because we do not know the totality of the person, the person's individuality and karma from previous lifetimes, karma that did not find its way into expression in the current life. We may not know the limits of good or evil that he could aspire to, and become, as a personality, based upon what he carries within. But we do know his current self, his current personality, and it is a very real part of him, something that we have to face and deal with. We learn to distinguish the real from the unreal, to preceive through the maya and illusion that surrounds things and perceive them correctly. We can also learn to distinguish the good from the evil, the right from the wrong, to perceive through an ethical and moral maya that surrounds things, and judge the character and nature of things. We are not judging things in the sense of the law, we are not evaluating them for purposes of punishment or reward. But we are judging them in the sense of perceiving their true nature, a correct discrimination of one aspect of the truth in people and situations. The ability to tell right from wrong is considered a sign of adulthood in our society. It shows that one is responsible for his own actions. It is one sign that the childhood is over, and the higher nature is fully incarnate in the personality. And it is a quality that we need, for in order to know what is good, virtuous, and moral, we need to know what it is not. There is a certain type of consciousness that we mostly lack, one that will grow and evolve in the future. It is a *moral consciousness*, where we are aware of the full impact and implications of our every action in the world. We are aware of how we affect others because of our associations with them. We are composed, in fact, of those associations, it defines our being, and it is found in Buddhi, the principle of inter-relatedness, the priniple of personal oneness with others. This moral consciousness will become as intricate, as involved, as complex a part of our consideration of what we do, that it will rival the activities of the mind, the complexities of thought. This sense is largely asleep in us at our current point of evolution, it is instinctual and automatic in operation, lacking in self-consciousness. This buddhic consciousness is what distinguishes us from those on a path of evil. It is that which not only allows us to be spiritual, but to be good as well. It contains the sense of compassion and caring for other lives, and it is that which will one day make of us Buddhas! Eldon Tucker (eldon@netcom.com) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 01:58:40 -0500 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Subject: evolution of thought This is by Brenda Tucker. I'd like to present a large number of quotes from THE SECRET DOCTRINE, but first try to explain in outline form what it is I'm getting at. After discussion of the globes and rounds (Monadic evolution), it's only appropriate that we take the next step and study the system for the evolution of Ideas. In contrast to what many people propose the function of karma to be: a cushion for manifested existence, evolution of thought works by a knowledge of the way that ideas become manifest in the world about us, not always through our own personal self, I would hope, but through the group of chelas and non-chelas acting in harmony with divine law. I. Evolution of Ideas A. One of three evolutionary schemes B. Thoughts find their way into manifestation C. Fohat is the active law operating to manifest thought. D. The mind is won by mankind's battles. II. Maya or Reflection, which is your choice? A. Prototypes live and then become reflections. B. All is either shadow or light. C. The reflection (or true form) exists in the solar logos as on a "mirror" or on the "waters of space" before it reaches embodiment. III. Some ideas of karma may be only a perception of Maya. Focus on ideas proceeds differently. IV. Mysteries All quotes which follow are found in THE SECRET DOCTRINE by H.P.Blavatsky. "It now becomes plain that there exists in Nature a triple evolutionary scheme, for the formation of the three periodical Upadhis; or rather three separate schemes of evolution, which in our system are inextricably interwoven and interblended at every point. These are the Monadic (or spiritual), the intellectual, and the physical evolutions. These three are the finite aspects or the reflections on the field of Cosmic Illusion of ATMA, the seventh, the ONE REALITY." p.181 Vol I "Three distinct representations of the Universe in its three distinct aspects are impressed upon our thought by the esoteric philosophy: the PRE-EXISTING (evolved from) the EVER-EXISTING; and the PHENOMENAL the world of illusion, the reflection, and shadow thereof. During the great mystery and drama of life known as the Manvantara, real Kosmos is like the object placed behind the white screen upon which are thrown the Chinese shadows, called forth by the magic lantern. The actual figures and things remain invisible, while the wires of evolution are pulled by the unseen hands; and men and things are thus but the reflections, ON the white field, of the realities BEHIND the snares of Mahamaya, or the great Illusion." p.278 Vol I (I would say that pre-existing is monadic, ever-existing is intellectual and phenomenal is physical.) "...man ought to be ever striving to help the divine evolution of IDEAS, by becoming to the best of his ability a CO-WORKER WITH NATURE in the cyclic task. The ever unknowable and incognizable KARANA alone, the CAUSELESS CAUSE of all causes, should have its shrine and altar on the holy and ever untrodden ground of our heart invisible, intangible, unmentioned, save through "the still small voice" of our spiritual consciousness. Those who worship before it, ought to do so in the silence and the sanctified solitude of their Souls; making their spirit the sole mediator between them and the UNIVERSAL SPIRIT, their good actions the only priests, and their sinful intentions the only visible and objective sacrificial victims to the PRESENCE." p.280 Vol I "In its totality, viewed from the standpoint of manifested Divine Thought in the esoteric doctrine, it represents the Hosts of the higher creative Dhyani- Chohans. Simultaneously with the evolution of the Universal Mind, the concealed Wisdom of Adi-Buddha the One Supreme and eternal manifests itself as Avalkitsvara (or manifested Isvara), which is the Osiris of the Egyptians, the AhuraMazda of the Zoroastrians, the Heavenly Man of the Hermetic philosopher, the Logos of the Platonists, and the Atman of the Vedantins. By the action of the manifested Wisdom, or Mahat, represented by these innumerable centres of spiritual Energy in the Kosmos, the reflection of the Universal Mind, which is Cosmic Ideation and the intellectual Force accompanying such ideation, becomes objectively the Fohat of the Buddhist esoteric philosopher. Fohat, running along the seven principles of Akasa, acts upon manifested substance or the One Element, as declared above, and by differentiating it into various centres of Energy, sets in motion the law of Cosmic Evolution, which, in obedience to the Ideation of the Universal Mind, brings into existence all the various states of being in the manifested Solar System." p.110, Vol I "The centripetal and the centrifugal forces, which are male and female, positive and negative, physical and spiritual, the two being the one Primordial Force." and "Occultism teaches that no form can be given to anything, either by nature or by man, whose ideal type does not already exist on the subjective plane. More than this; that no such form or shape can possibly enter man's consciousness, or evolve in his imagination, which does not exist in prototype, at least as an approximation." p.282 Footnotes, Vol I "Maya or illusion is an element which enters into all finite things, for everything that exists has only a relative, not an absolute, reality, since the appearance which the hidden noumenon assumes for any observer depends upon his power of cognition. To the untrained eye of the savage, a painting is at first an unmeaning confusion of streaks and daubs of colour, while an educated eye sees instantly a face or a landscape. Nothing is permanent except the one hidden absolute existence which contains in itself the noumena of all realities. The existences belonging to every plane of being, up to the highest Dhyan-Chohans, are, in degree, of the nature of shadows cast by a magic lantern on a colourless screen; but all things are relatively real, for the cogniser is also a reflection, and the things cognised are therefore as real to him as himself. Whatever reality things possess must be looked for in them before or after they have passed like a flash through the material world; but we cannot cognise any such existence directly, so long as we have sense-instruments which bring only material existence into the field of our consciousness. Whatever plane our consciousness may be acting in, both we and the things belonging to that plane are, for the time being, our only realities. As we rise in the scale of development we perceive that during the stages through which we have passed we mistook shadows for realities, and the upward progress of the Ego is a series of progressive awakenings, each advance bringing with it the idea that now, at last, we have reached reality; but only when we shall have reached the absolute Consciousness, and blended our own with it, shall we be free from the delusions produced by Maya." p.39 Vol I "Yes; "Our destiny is written in the stars!" Only, the closer the union between the mortal reflection MAN and his celestial PROTOTYPE, the less dangerous the external conditions and subsequent reincarnations which neither Buddhas nor Christs can escape. This is not superstition, least of all is it Fatalism. The latter implies a blind course of some still blinder power, and man is a free agent during his stay on earth. He cannot escape his ruling Destiny, but he has the choice of two paths that lead him in that direction, and he can reach the goal of misery if such is decreed to him, either in the snowy white robes of the Martyr, or in the soiled garments of a volunteer in the iniquitous course; for, there are external and internal conditions which affect the determination of our will upon our actions, and it is in our power to follow either of the two. Those who believe in Karma have to believe in destiny, which, from birth to death, every man is weaving thread by thread around himself, as a spider does his cobweb; and this destiny is guided either by the heavenly voice of the invisible prototype outside of us, or by our more intimate astral, or inner man, who is but too often the evil genius of the embodied entity called man. Both these lead on the outward man, but one of them must prevail- and from the very beginning of the invisible affray the stern and implacable law of compensation steps in and takes its course, faithfully following the fluctuations. When the last strand is woven, and man is seemingly enwrapped in the network of his own doing, then he finds himself completely under the empire of this self-made destiny. It then either fixes him like the inert shell against the immovable rock, or carries him away like a feather in a whirlwind raised by his own actions, and this is KARMA." p.639, Vol I "The expansion from within without of the Mother, called elsewhere the Waters of Space, Universal Matrix, etc., does not allude to an expansion from a small centre or focus, but, without reference to size "or limitation or area, means the development of limitless subjectivity into as limitless objectivity. The ever (to us) invisible and immaterial Substance present in eternity, threw its periodical shadow from its own plane into the lap of Maya. It implies that this expansion, not being an increase in size for infinite extension admits of no enlargement was a change of condition. It expanded like the bud of the Lotus ; for the Lotus plant exists not only as a miniature embryo in its seed (a physical characteristic), but its prototype is present in an ideal form in the Astral Light from Dawn to Night during the Manvantaric period, like everything else, as a matter of fact, in this objective Universe; from man down to mite, from giant trees down to the tiniest blades of grass." p.62-63, Vol I "In the same manner as a man approaches a mirror placed upon a stand, beholds in it his own image, so the energy or reflection of Vishnu (the Sun) is never disjoined but remains in the Sun as in a mirror that is there stationed" (Vishnu Purana). p.290, Vol I MYSTERIES "The Divine Thought does not imply the idea of a Divine thinker. The Universe, not only past, present, and future which is a human and finite idea expressed by finite thought but in its totality, the Sat (an untranslatable term), the absolute being, with the Past and Future crystallized in an eternal Present, is that Thought itself reflected in a secondary or manifest cause. Brahma (neuter) as the Mysterium Magnum of Paracelsus is an absolute mystery to the human mind. Brahm, the male-female, its aspect and anthropomorphic reflection, is conceivable to the perceptions of blind faith, though rejected by human intellect when it attains its majority." p.61, Vol I (What does this mean, "human intellect when it attains its majority"? Does this mean a fabricated mind becomes replaced by a mind of our own making?) "This desire for a sentient life shows itself in everything, from an atom to a sun, and is a reflection of the Divine Thought propelled into objective existence, into a law that the Universe should exist. According to esoteric teaching, the real cause of that supposed desire, and of all existence, remains for ever hidden, and its first emanations are the most complete abstractions mind can conceive. These abstractions must of necessity be postulated as the cause of the material Universe which presents itself to the senses and intellect; and they underlie the secondary and subordinate powers of Nature, which, anthropomorphized, have been worshipped as God and gods by the common herd of every age." p.44, Vol I "There was no "EVIL thought" that originated the opposing Power, but simply THOUGHT per se; something which, being cogitative, and containing design and purpose, is therefore finite, and must thus find itself naturally in opposition to pure quiescence, the as natural state of absolute Spirituality and Perfection. It was simply the law of Evolution that asserted itself; the progress of mental unfolding, differentiated from spirit, involved and entangled already with matter, into which it is irresistibly drawn. Ideas, in their very nature and essence, as conceptions being relation to objects, whether true or imaginary, are opposed to absolute THOUGHT, that unknowable ALL of whose mysterious operations ... can be said, but that "it has no kinship of nature with Evolution," which it certainly has not." p.490, Vol II "... "the highest trinity are capable of understanding," which is Mulaprakriti (the veil), the Logos, and the conscious energy "of the latter," or its power and light-; or "matter, force and the Ego, or the one root of self, of which every other kind of self is but a manifestation or a reflection." It is then only in this " light" (of consciousness) of mental and physical perception, that practical Occultism can throw this into visibility by geometrical figures; which, when closely studied, will yield not only a scientific explanation of the real, objective, existence of the "Seven sons of the divine Sophia," which is this light of the Logos, but show by means of other yet undiscovered keys that, with regard to Humanity, these "Seven Sons" and their numberless emanations, centres of energy personified, are an absolute necessity. Make away with them, and the mystery of Being and Mankind will never be unriddled, not even closely approached. p.429-430, Vol I ------------------------------------------------ So how does mankind help the evolution of ideas? By placing on their heart the incognizable absolute and dwelling in the heart, they allow for the working of the natural forces on the noble ideas contemplated. With mankind, as our thoughts reach higher and higher planes, there is a mysterious force at work which causes those very same thoughts to reflect and manifest on the physical plane. As a result, a great work is accomplished not by attention to the circumstances we see around us on a plane of illusion or Maya, but through attention to the inner side of life. By concentrating on noble thoughts and the working of certain laws of nature, the manifested world changes according to plan. Not by trying to process good karma through a "selfish" sort of physical action, but by non-attachment, unselfishness, and humility, we allow the thoughts to manifest wherever there may be a receptive energy for their use. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 10:46:45 -0500 From: eldon@raider.sandiegoca.NCR.COM Subject: do we transcend good and evil? We are brought up in the west to consider good and evil as two opposing forces, with us on the side of good, and our opponents in life on the side of evil. We may as children play with ourselves being cowboys, fighting the bad indians, being Christians battling the non-believers, or being policemen, chasing the crooked robbers. It is all the same game. The situations may change, but it all resolves to a drama of a battle of wills in life, with the victor as the good guys, and the vanquished forced to accept the label of being the bad ones. In eastern philosophy, we find the idea that good and evil are relative, that we can achieve a state of consciousness where we rise about it, and experience life from an entirely different perspective. And there is such a consciousness, but it is not as easy to attain as we might think. There is the ever-present danger of abusing this idea, of not really achieving this type of consciousness, but rather twisting the idea into being an excuse for doing evil without a sense of guilt, of condoning what we had previously avoided and thought to be wrong. Even when we achieve this state of consciousness, and are not making personal judgements about others, and not personally defining things to be good or evil based upon what we know in our current life, we still choose the good, and don't give ourselves to evil. We may not be aware of doing so, we may not be conscious of making choices, we may not think in terms of such distinctions, but we do know and follow the good. It may sound paradoxical, as do many of the experiences of the higher life, but the paradox is only apparent, it is only due to a lack of the experience. The transcendence of a personal sense of good and evil, of the exercise of the *moral consciousness* in the personality, does not leave us with no sense of morality, no sense of telling right from wrong, no sense of appreciating the impact upon others of our actions. When we, in the personality, have no consciousness of making judgements anymore, when we do not exercise this form of awareness, it is because we now have it functioning in a higher part of ourselves, in a higher self within. Consider our sense of self. At first it is identified with the personality. If we lead a spiritual live, and elevate our consciousness, we can center it in the individuality. When we have done that, we are aware of what we do, but there is no sense of us as personalities-- as this creature of flesh and blood and petty habits--doing things. We still have personalities, we still are people doing things, but the seat of consciousness is in a higher self within. It is similiar with the moral consciousness, the awareness of our relatedness to others, the awareness of the impact that we have on others, through our connectedness with them, the consciousness of right and wrong, of good and evil. This too can be elevated from the personal to the impersonal, and in doing so, from the standpoint of the personality, it will have disappeared. When this has happened, there will be no personal sense of right and wrong, no personal sense of distinguishing good from evil in one's life. But this is because that sense has been *elevated*, and functions deeper within. People may hear that it is a higher form of consciousness to transcend the consciousness of good and evil, to no longer think in those terms. This is simply not true. There is always such an awareness, because we cannot exist, were it not for our being related to others, and part of that being related to them involves knowing them, truly knowing them, and that knowing involves judging, evaluating, understanding them in terms of their place in life. When we entertain such a thought, without carefully thinking it through and seeing its fallacy, we open ourselves up to negative influences, and our lives can be changed for the worse. And this is true of many spiritual things, they can be twisted in such a way as to apparently condone self-choosen failures in life, to condone our turning of our backs on the good and right and beautiful in life, to condone our accepting and our weakness and failing to keep striving for the spiritual. Transcend the *personal* consciousness of good and evil. Elevate it to the impersonal! See and relate to life in terms of grand causes, universal themes, in selfless actions in service of others! And forget the low, petty, judgemental side of things, forget the personality, when uninspired with the higher, forget the mean, the selfish, the narrow-minded. Open up to the higher side of things and expand into the light! Eldon Tucker (eldon@netcom.com) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 14:45:34 -0500 From: Arvind Kumar Subject: AAB/HPB comparison Jerry H-E _________ Please see my responses to your comments. I also want to let you and Eldon know that I have received a letter from Mr. Nicholas Weeks regrarding this subject. I hope to respond to him in a few days, and perhaps will post my response on theos-l. I am also reminded of a quote that I just read yesterday attributed to Sree Narayana Guru: "WHICHEVER THE RELIGION, IT SUFFICES IF IT MAKES A BETTER MAN". So let us try to get on with the task at hand, in a spirit of cooperation! > > The pamphlet THE PSEUDO OCCULTISM OF ALICE BAILEY came up > some time ago. I think Dan Caldwell mentioned it. I had read > the pamphlet years ago and its conclusions are as the title > suggests. As the authors mentioned, the study was not very > extensive, so I didn't feel it to be very productive to bring in > the pamphlet for discussion, but did offer to send Arvind a copy > if he wanted to read it. He never responded to the offer, so > that was the end of it. I'd like to get a copy of this pamphlet, please do send it to me. I had asked for a copy of it from both Daniel (he did not have it) and Nancy (she never replied), but I donot remember you offering to send it to me before! > > Per your message of 12/27/93: You need to keep in mind that > the word "psychology" has been around for about 400 years-- at > least according to the OED. "Psychology" has always been > understood as a study of the "mind" or of the "soul." Descartes > sort of lumped the soul and brain together, and later > positivistic science (which HPB also calls "materialistic." > science) identified the mind as a emanation of the physical > brain. Therefore HPB in the footnote on page 620 was trying to > direct the reader back to the older, pre-modern-scientific > understanding of psychology as a study of the mind or soul, and > *not* as it came to mean by 1879, as a branch of the biological > sciences. Therefore, HPB's statement shows her awareness of the > older understanding of the term. Rather than hinting at some > esoteric meaning of psychology, as you suggest, she was simply > trying to be consistent with her overall statements made > elsewhere that consciousness is not a product of the physical > brain. Go back and re-read the material in context, and it > should be clearer as to where she is coming form. I was only responding to your question about the 'psychological' interpretation of SD. Bailey defines psychology as the 'science of the soul'. You questioned whether HPB's use of the term 'psychology' as found in the quotation that Brenda had cited meant the same as Bailey has intended. You suggested that HPB uses 'psychology' as the 'modern day psychologists' use, namely devoid of the idea of soul. In the meantime, I have finished reading SD and started reading Isis Unveiled (Adyar Edition edited by Boris de Zirkoff). And what do I find on p.xxvii of the Introductory material...a definition of Anthropology, as embracing among other things, psychology, with psychology, defined as "the science of soul, both as an entity distinct from the spirit and in its relations with the spirit and body". It proves to me that HPB's use of the term psychology is in the same exact sense as AAB's (see more references below as well). > > Per your message of 12/28/93: Re questions: Yes, I have > read quite a lot of Robert Browning. I liked him enough to go > out and buy a collection of his works. Where do you find a > reference of him as a Master of Wisdom? There is an English esotericist by the name of Dr. Douglas Baker, who apparently used to visit the US once a year during the 1970's. One of the local theosophists in the Dallas area has his books and tapes, which I managed to get hold of some time back. He is the one who claims that Robert Browning is none other than the 'English Master' about whom AAB has written. I have with me only one of Douglas Baker's books, called 'Esoteric Psychology--the 7 Rays' Volume 5 Part 1 - copyright 1975 by Douglas Baker, 'Little Elephant' Essendon, Herts, England. This is a beautiful book, dedicated to 'the Master Balavatsky'. In the Bailey books, references to Robert Browning can be found as follows: SIM 91, 152-153 (on man), quotations : CA 82,91, 93-94, 103, ITI 82-83, TWM 619, BC 39-40, 42, 146, Work: EH 667. References to the English master are: EXH 665-666, 682, 504, 507, 644, 646-647, 664-667, 668, IHS 59-60. > > Per your message of 12/29/93: I just got back tonight, and > haven't been to the post office, but should pick up your order > tomorrow, and will fill it then. I will send Vol. 1 only of > Purucker. If you want the rest after looking at vol. 1, let me > know. > > I don't carry Paul's book, because I haven't had any calls > for it, but I do feel that it is very worth while to read. You > can get it from him, or I will order it for you, which ever you > prefer. That will be great, pl do send a copy of Paul's book also. > > Send me your new references, and I will look at them-- > However, I'm beginning to get the impression that you are reading > the SD for the purpose of finding references to confirm what you > have read in AAB's writings. If this is so, I'm afraid that it > will work against your understanding the S.D. as a book in its > own right. Every book has to be approached upon its own merits-- > not with the assumption that it does or does not say the same > thing as another book. Anytime one reads a book with > assumptions, those assumptions become a filter through which the > book is understood. I had this problem when I first tried to > read the S.D., because I expected it to echo Leadbeater's > writings. Once I abandoned that assumption, I began for the > first time to really understand what I was reading. No, really, I am not reading HPB's books to confirm what AAB has written, but you can bet that whatever of HPB I am reading, I am reviewing it from the standpoint of any comparison with AAB's writings. I have finished reading SD (a sigh of relief!) and have just started with Isis Unveiled (and at bedtime, I am reading 'Tales from the Caves and Jungles of Hindostan' in a family setting). It is my opinion that HPB and AAB teachings follow a common thread, and there is no incomptability between the two. I love the 'mystery' aspect of HPB's books (there is a lot of 'new' revelation for me in them), but I also love the same aspect in AAB's books. IMHO (in my humble opinion), both of these teachers have sacrificed themselves in the service of humanity and deserve nothing but praise for their efforts. But more on that later... Now, for the additional references in SD to the term 'psychology', look at p. 626 Vol I Part III in the chapter on 'Gods, Monads and Atoms' towards the last 2/5th of the chapter I think..."But it is time to leave modern physical science and turn to the psychological and metaphysical side of the question..." this quote starts about 2-3 pages of discourse wherein it is quite clear that HPB's use of the term 'psychology' is in the sense of metaphysics and soul, rather than the normal use of the term (and there are no footnotes here!) Also, p. 636 in the middle of a paragraph, HPB talks about psychology referring to the inner man, not to the 'modern sense of the term..' I have no means of conducting a 'global' search for all the places where HPB has used the term 'psychology' but you can see from her definition in UI (quoted previously above) that she was using it in the sense of the 'science of the soul' most, if not all the time. That is all for now, look forward to hearing from you soon/Arvind "The network of souls underlies all phenomena. This must be known, not conjectured. Thus brotherhood will be established and the forces of the form negated." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 21:20:33 -0500 From: Gerald Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Good and Evil Eldon, You asked for views on good and evil, so here goes my own 2-cents worth. I believe that good and evil are relative terms period. There simply is no such thing as "good" or "evil" in reality. They only exist in our minds and then only in a relational sense. Our values, morals, and sense of ethics change with time and culture. Having said this, let me address some of your specific thoughts: True. When I think of such a person, I think of H.H. the Dali Lama. But we must remember that many other equally "holy" men and women exist/live, or have lived, who are amoral rather than moral. The H.H. Dali Lama is the head of a religious organization, and thus part of the role he is playing in this life is to act as a religious leader and thus must be pious and holy. But other "holy" people take on different roles, and they act differently accordingly. Messengers sent out from the Lodge take on behavioral roles in accordance with their specific mission. More than a few pious religious folk would find some of these downright immoral, but I think of them as rather amoral being above good and evil. The problem with this view is that we must put ourself into the role of a judge. Who am I, or who is anyone else, to judge another human being? Let me remove the mote in my own eye before I worry about the splinter in my neighbor's eye. Certainly we want to help our fellowman. But we must be careful to refrain from helping those who don't want our help (albeit most of these likely need it the most). Helping someone who doesn't ask for it first is a form of manipulation and will likely do more harm than good. Psychology now recognizes a mental disorder called a "borderline personality disorder." One of the traits of a borderline is manipulating others in the guise of helping them. I strongly disagree. In fact, psychology now recognizes the importance of such a separation in rearing children. When punishing your child, for example, you should always be sure to let the child know that you love him or her, but don't like their behavior. If they understand that your hatred or anger is directed toward their behavior rather than themselves, they can readily adjust and stop the bad behavior without feeling rejection. To hate a person because of their behaviors has been a major cause of man's inhumanity to man for centuries. Such a separation is not only possible - it is essential. I can honestly say that I don't hate anyone. However, there are a lot of behaviors in people that I hate. While I think that saying something along these lines is, in fact, possible (heavens knows, many do this), I would question any need for doing so. Why should we want to wrap a label on someone? This is your definition. Probably many would agree. I do not. I would never label a person good or evil because of what I see them do. Who knows, for example, their motives for doing it? Perhaps it was a tumor exerting pressure on their brain? Perhaps in their shoes, I would have done the same thing? Good and evil are seldom clearly black and white. There is a terribly wide "grey" area in between, where most actions actually fall. When I see someone doing a very good thing, how do I know their motive? Maybe they figure such action will get them into heaven? Maybe they are unconsciously making up for past deeds in another life? Sould such people be judged as good? How can we ever really know enough to judge someone? HPB says that the *only* difference between white (good) magic and black (evil) magic is the motive. Unless we know the motive, how can we judge someone's actions? The true of the matter is, we seldom are conscious of our own motivations for our own actions. You can often change from a good person to a bad person or vice versa just by moving to another country or locality where the definitions are different. Again, I strongly disagree here. This is far too simplistic. I have taken enough psychology courses to know that modern psychology would disagree with your definition of personality too. Personality develops not so much from what we do, but primarily from what is done to us as well as our genetic makeup (i.e., what we bring with us from our past lives). Personality develops according to both genetic and environmental factors, all of which are very complex. Our actions are quite often the result of our worldview and our perception of the events (usually somewhat distorted) at the time. Sometimes we do bad things with good motives (i.e., whenever we believe that the end justifies the means. Hitler, for example, honestly thought he was making the world a better place to live!). It is not sufficient to simply look at one's actions. It is also insufficient to just look at one's motives. We should walk a mile in another's shoes before we make judgements. I doubt that anyone really knows anyone else's current personality very well. Stephen King (the horror writer) once wrote a book called "the Blind Zone" (or something like that) which had a guy who always made correct predictions about other people. One day this guy saw a young man who he "knew" would grow up into a Hitler and kill millions of people. The book poses the question, should he kill the guy and save the world from horror, or should he leave the guy alone and hope his prediction was wrong? What to do? Is the good of the many to be preferred over the good of the few? This kind of moral question must be faced so long as we insist on judging others by their actions. I personally think that when anyone looks at a person and sees evil, he/she is really seeing the darkness that lies in their own heart. If your own heart is full of light, you will see no evil in anyone because you will see everyone as a child of God with an inner nature as divine as your own. Good luck with this one. Virtually every Christian I know thinks that he or she can correctly judge others in this way. Judge not that ye be not judged, is my motto. Whoever thinks that they can truly tell the difference between good and evil is a dangerous person. Wrong (at least I hope so). "The ability to tell right from wrong" is only given to God, not to people. "Justice is mine, sayth the Lord." I really hate to have to quote the Bible, but in the case of judging others, the Bible is right (unfortunately, few Christians subscribe to it). Who is the supreme judge who knows for certain that all of the adults are judging right from wrong correctly? Moral consciousness will follow nicely if you obey the Golden Rule of doing unto others as you want them to do to you without judging or labeling them. I have a lot of problems with this too. First of all, we all are already spiritual. Second, who exactly is on "the path of evil?" I'll wager that they don't think so! Personally, I would rather not be distinquished from those on a path of evil. I don't consider helping others "good" nor do I consider not helping "evil." And I certainly would not care to cast stones at others for not agreeing with me as to what "good" is. The first sentence here sounds a lot like a fundamentalist who says "The Bible, the Word of God, is what distinguishes us from those on a path of evil." What, pray tell, is the difference? Final Note. I have read a lot over the years, but so far the best essay on good and evil that I have read is on pp 35-57 of W.Y. Evan-Wentz's THE TIBETAN BOOK OF THE GREAT LIBERATION (Oxford University Press). Evans-Wentz was a theosophist but I fell in love with his view of good and evil before I heard of theosophy and before I knew that he was one. I have never found anyone to equal what he has to say. In his essay, he quotes from the famous Sri Ramana Maharshi as saying, "There are no two such things as a good mind and an evil mind. It is one and the same mind." I highly recommend this short essay to anyone interested in the true esoteric viewpoint of good and evil. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 23:20:15 -0500 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: AAB/HPB Arvind Your communication today came as quite a surprise concerning two of the three items you covered. My first surprise is that Nicholas Weeks had written you. We saw Nicholas and Dara while passing through Los Angeles during our vacation. I almost fell off the chair when he mentioned you by name! But he later explained that he really didn't know you, but that Brenda had been coming to him for S.D. quotes to use in our discussion group--therefore he was aware of what we are doing. I briefed him on the nature of our discussion group, and expressed an appreciation for anything he could contribute. That he wrote you directly is quite a surprise. How did he get your address? If you are going to post your response to him, will you be able to post what you are responding to also? Otherwise, we will only be getting one side of the conversation. My second surprise is your writing that I "suggested that HPB uses `psychology' as the `modern day psychologists' use, namely devoid of the idea of soul." Where did I suggest this? If I ever wrote this, it certainly does not represent my opinion on the matter. In fact, in the very statement you quoted from me, I said exactly the opposite: > Therefore HPB in the footnote on page 620 was trying to > direct the reader back to the older, pre-modern-scientific > understanding of psychology as a study of the mind or soul, > and *not* as it came to mean by 1879, as a branch of the > biological sciences. To my own re-reading of my quote, I am saying that HPB *is* in this instance using the term "psychology" as a study of the mind or soul. This is the older use of the term. In other places she uses the term in the modern (for her time) sense, i.e. as a branch of biology. If all depends upon the overall point she is trying to make. My point is that HPB, as far as I have been able to tell, does not have a special definition for the word "psychology." Instead, she assumes the dictionary definitions. In the footnote on p. 620, she is only directing the reader to an earlier dictionary definition, that would have been known to anyone over twelve years old at that time. That definition therefore, was hardly esoteric. I can't think of a good parallel for this today, because language isn't changing as fast as it was in the 1850's though 1880's. Perhaps a bad example that might get the point across is a Theosophical lecture I attended in Los Angeles in the 1960's. The speaker was the Australian Clairvoyant, Geoffrey Hodson. He talked about the "fairies" that he knew and spoke to. The younger members of the audience chuckled all through it. Hodson, being of a much earlier generation, and from another English speaking country, didn't realize that "fairy" had obtained to very different meaning here--especially in Los Angeles. On the other hand, I have pages of notes citing where HPB has made a point to define key words in a certain way, rather than depending upon dictionary meanings. This she does with foreign words of course, but also sometimes with English words. These definitions usually look more like encyclopedic entries. For instance, look on page 48 vol. I of the S.D. Here, she goes into a long drawn out discussion defining the words "alaya" and "paramartha." This is a pretty typical example of the type of thing she does for key terms. Instead of giving a ten word or less definition to memorize, she will discuss the various meanings in different philosophical schools. After the reader has gone through the pain of reading and digesting all of this, a working idea of her use of the word will emerge. In the case of the word "psychology," I have never found such an instance, because it is in itself, not a key word in the S.D. However, there are lots of discussions on such terms as "consciousness," "soul," "mind," etc. and they all get their own special treatment. Regarding the quote that Brenda found using the term psychology--this was in context with the discussion concerning the existence of a psychological key--not in defining the word psychology. As I recall, Brenda had offered that quote as evidence of the existence of this key as mentioned by AAB. I thought I had sufficiently addressed this issue, and had shown that HPB was *not* referring to a "psychological key" in Brenda's quote. Brenda appears to have been satisfied with my response. If you are not, what still needs to be discussed concerning this? I understand that you are still convinced that somewhere in HPB's writings, she discusses a "psychological key." I can't say that she doesn't--I'm only saying that I have never seen it, nor has anyone I have studied under, ever made reference to it, nor has anyone I have talked to ever seen it. Therefore I deeply doubt that such a reference does exist, and I will be very surprised if it turns up. Regarding your reference to Isis Unveiled (I: xxvii-xxviii), I think that my comments above also cover this. But in context with this reference, I should add that her definition here is also very standard. "Psychology" is the combination of two words: Psyche; meaning "soul," and ology; a suffix meaning "the study of." Thus to define psychology as "the science of the soul" is a truism, *not* an esoteric definition. If you read immediately beyond where you ended your quote, you will see that she also discusses the modern use of the word: In modern science, psychology relates only or principally to conditions of the nervous system, and almost absolutely ignores the psychical essence and nature. Physicians denominate the science of insanity psychology, and name the lunatic chair in medical colleges by that designation." So, as you see, even here she makes the same distinction of there being two definitions of the term, just as she did in the citation you gave in the SD. As for the other references you have found. I agree with you, she is in these instances using the word "psychology" in the old sense, and does so most of the time. As I pointed out above, this definition is neither esoteric, nor uncommon. I hope this clarifies things. I will make you a xerox copy of THE PSEUDO OCCULTISM OF ALICE BAILEY, as I only have a personal copy, and I don't carry it in stock. But if you prefer a published copy, I will order it for you. The pamphlet is solidly against Alice Bailey's writings, and I understand it caused quite a stir when it came out. Victor Endersby did an updated annotated republishing of it in THEOSOPHICAL NOTES the 1960's or 70's. I have shipped your books today. Two are on back order and I will send them as soon as received. Brenda Your message today was aborted halfway through and jammed my machine while I was trying to download it. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 6 Jan 1994 04:29:40 -0500 From: a stoper <71441.3066@compuserve.com> Subject: jim anderson reply to many by Jim Anderson Everyone Various things have caused me to get way behind in keeping up with this estimable group. Aiming at catching up sometime in January. I sent my SEX AND SPIRITUALITY paper to John for inclusion in and availability from the library - along with a synopsis for posting for anyone interested. Transmission to John turned out to have to go in three parts, so labeled, but the paper itself is not divided into those three sections. There is just the long Preface, and the uninterrupted main body. Please note this, in case John has to send the paper in the three divisions in which I had to send it to him. Jerry Hejka-Ekins Excellent response regarding our differing insects-on-the-wall experiences. Six excellent questions which I'll try to have in mind the next time my version happens. For now, quick answers based on past experience: 1. Yes. 2. No. 3. No. 4. No. 5.No. 6. Only the fact that I'm invariably coming out of a sleep or doze. Arvin Kumar I'm following with interest your linkage of Blavatsky and Bailey. No time to comment at length but I will say this: Bailey always struck me as a mischievous departure from the HPB source. I once asked a fine old Hollywood theosophist what he thought of her, and I wholeheartedly agree with his answer -"A good way to get mixed up." Bailey is not totally devoid of the worthwhile, but that part of her is fairly drowned in the other stuff. I recommend doubting that her Djual Khul is HPB's DK. Neither she nor anyone after HPB and currently known is the "successor" Blavatsky said would not come before 1975. In the genuine theosophical stream, only Krishnamurti "follows" what was originally given out - and this in stark opposition to the orientation of the original. This opposition has a stamp of authenticity on it when it comes to the matter of "what followed", but Krishnaji was not the "successor", being more in the nature of a "pause that refreshes." Besant and Leadbeater, Steiner, Bailey, etc. do not rise to the level of "next", but, to one degree or another of departure, to one kind or another of deviation, are variations on the original tune. Keep probing; good luck. Jerry Hejka-Ekins and Daniel Caldwell Jerry: Superb survey regarding the "third volume" of THE SECRET DOCTRINE and the Besant/Leadbeater stream. It nicely expands on the short look The Theosophy Company gave to the matter in its publication in one volume of the original two of TSD. I met Boris de Zirkoff at Adyar many years ago, and my impression of him strongly supports your view that his perspective on the subject is persuasive. What transpired in the heady journey from Blavatsky to Krishnamurti is extremely complex and a tale not yet told. (Not that I can tell it, or that it's even tellable at this point.) My position is that HPB and her teachers are ONE, and that everybody after them so far is, in divers good and bad ways, material hanging in the air somewhere between ONE and TWO. Daniel: We know each other. I regularly attended TS meetings in Tucson at the van Thiel home between June '77 and April '78, and you were often there. You might remember me as a composer, someone much involved with the space colonization L5 Society in Tucson, someone who spoke of his months at Adyar, someone who thought much of Martha Madsen's contribution to the group. I've recently seen a compilation book of yours. Hearty congratulations and many thanks for your work on the "third volume" matter. Prior to seeing it, I'm inclined to disagree with your conclusion, but upon seeing it, I might be moved to change my mind. Unable to send for your and Ray Morgan's papers just now. Good to be back in touch. Brenda Tucker Brenda Tucker is the name of a lovely cousin of mine whose soul settled in India. I strongly concur with your Nov 8, '93 criticisms of your husband. You echo what I wrote him about THE MAHATMA LETTERS' tchang-chub adept when you say, "The mind labeled 'slayer of the real' in THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE, can make such intricate amazing systems of thought and study that we may experience difficulty 'going beyond' what we know. Our philosophy may engulf us and shut others out." I'm very moved by your focus on "purifications." If I may, let me recommend to you my SEX AND SPIRITUALITY paper which I sent to John for the library. I think we all have to take a hard, new look at this whole matter of sex, celibacy, philosophy, and occultism. What does purification really mean? What does it mean in our time, and for the future? I offer this: The to be pure is overrated. The to be good, and so on. Genuine purity, genuine good, are without effort. The highest purity, the highest good, come without trying. Indeed, they defy approach. If my memory serves, Arthur Edward Waite said in his treasure of a book,