From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 1 Mar 1994 16:16:09 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Dynamite Quote Just as the corrected page proofs are going back to the typesetter, I found a dynamite quote from the Mahatma letters to use as (what I just found out is called) an epigraph-- one of those pithy passages alone on a page at the beginning of a book that gives a keynote: There is more to this movement than you have yet had an inkling of, and the work of the T.S. is linked with similar work that is secretly going on in all parts of the world...know you anything of the WHOLE brotherhood and its ramifications? The Old Woman is accused of UNTRUTHFULNESS, INACCURACY in her statements. "Ask no questions and you will receive no lies." SHE IS FORBIDDEN to say what she knows. You may cut her to pieces and she will not tell. Nay-- she is ordered IN CASES OF NEED TO MISLEAD PEOPLE... Mahatma Morya, pp. 271-2 (I've rendered italics as caps) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 1 Mar 1994 17:45:05 -0500 From: Arvind Kumar Subject: AAB/HPB Jerry H-E, I notice that my last message got posted twice even though I had sent it only once. For those who may be paying for access by the minute, I should mention that I normally change the title of the message if I have to send a quick follow-up message after the first one, so that if you see two messages in quick succession with the same title, you can assume that the listserver has goofed, or somewhere along the line something has gone wrong ( therefore there is no need to pick up the 2nd message). I am having difficulty getting back to my 'normal' routine after 3 days off-site; there is so much to do here! Before I begin response to your last message, I have an observation to make, somewhat related to what Terry has also suggested. I hope we all have learnt from the exchange of messages regarding AAB/HPB so far, certainly I have learnt quite a bit. In order to 'speed up' the process of comparison of teachings (rather than 'yapping' about all and sundry, as I often do) perhaps we should include in each message either a specific teaching of HPB or AAB, or include a commentary on a teaching. My favorite part of the Bailey books is the teaching on 'Serving Humanity'. I'd like to, perhaps on a weekly basis, include a quote from Bailey for you (and others on the network) to comment on, with respect to its 'consistency' with HPB teachings. My impression as of this writing is that THERE IS NOTHING IN THE BAILEY TEACHINGS THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH HPB writings but Bailey has given out a lot of info which may not be available in the HPB writings (and vice-versa). > Yes he did have his shortcomings, but yours is not a very > typical reaction when one reads this book and finds that CWL was > a pathological liar (In this case, "lie" means just that). You > became very upset when you thought that I suggested that FB lied, > but for Leadbeater, whose lies were systematic, and proven to be > lies, your only comment is that he has short comings? Here is a > man that lied about his birth date, lied about his family > circumstances, lied about having a brother, announced that > Jinarajadasa was the reincarnation of a brother that never > existed etc. Does this mean that you continue to accept > Leadbeater's esoteric teachings without question on the basis > that he claimed to be an Arhat, even though you now know that he > lied about almost everything else that we can verify through > records? > I told you before that I have not read much written by CWL. The last part of your statement i.e."Does this mean that.." is misleading, to say the least. (a)I have said before that if someone claims to be an Arhat, he is definitely NOT an Arhat (so his writing should be read assuming that he is certainly below the rank of an Arhat). (b)If you are trying to link it with AAB writing, I have stated before that AAB has been critical of CWL in her autobiography, and in other AAB books there is only one reference to CWL, which is just an observation, neither too flattering nor very critical. Certainly I did NOT get the impression from the book that the author is somehow implicating AAB also as a lia r (if he has, pl let me have a reference). (c)After reading some chapters of THE ELDER BROTHER I have certainly learnt more about CWL, which is useful information for me, but my attitude is such that I donot believe in making a big deal about dead people who may have lied pathologically when they were alive. When I thought you had suggested that FB lied, it was my responsibility to let you know how I felt (there is no way for me to reach CWL to tell him not to lie, even if I wanted to give him that message!) (d)Who among us is without faults? If someone were to discover 50 years from today that you or I had what he thinks 'some terrible' faults of character, will that negate everything that you or I say when we are alive? I donot believe that there is sufficient evidence to DISREGARD CWL COMPLETELY. He may have truth mixed with falsities in his writings, and it is important to keep that in mind while reading anything written by him. I donot think that anyone has demonstrated (like Tillett has in the case of CWL) that AAB or HPB were (pathological or otherwise) liers, although Paul in his books has shown that HPB did not shy away from using 'blinds' when needed to 'further' the overall cause of esotericism. Based on this, if I only have so much time to devote to esoteric study, I'd much rather spend it on studying HPB or AAB writing rather than CWL or ABesant or other theosophical authors. > > She learned this from the Besant E.S.. Members were > admonished against the discussion of personality aspects of > others in the work. Besant also tried to press this rule on the > exoteric T.S. At one point she expelled an entire Lodge of 800 > members in Australia because they insisted upon voicing their > protest over her promotion of Leadbeater. In other words, this > rule of silence was used to control the membership and to keep > them in ignorance. The irony is that the E.S. members turned out > to be the biggest gossips. If you have read the AAB biography, then you should know that AAB spearheaded the 'back to HPB' movement; need I give you once more references where she has explained how she regarded the Besant ES/ TS leadership as counterproductive vis-a-vis the original TS objectives? I can see that it is hard for you to visualize an organization where ALL emphasis is on TEACHING and NONE on personality aspects of the people involved in the teaching. I donot blame you, I am merely pointing out that my preferred type of an esoteric organization is the one with emphasis on teaching and total de-emphasis on personality aspects. > It takes years of study to understand TSD. This is the > unspoken reason that I get down on you whenever you proclaim that > this or that statement in TSD "is just like what AAB says." Your > level of understanding of TSD is evident from your comments on > it. You are reading a lot into H.P.B. based upon your > experiences and understanding of AAB. Since HPB came first, and > the Bailey writings are supposed to expand on HPB, it should be > the other way around. I never came out with this before, because > it would have been a very high handed sounding thing to write. > Since you now state that you only understood a "fraction of the > material," I can now state what I was hinting at. (a)Bailey writings are NOT an expansion of HPB writings (in the manner of GdeP) but rather an extension of HPB teachings. As an example, HPB talked about the basic unity of the Kosmos and the individual human being (see IG Teachings, p.vii first paragraph). AAB has shown (primarily in TCF) how this is so, in that there is an ENTITY, a stupendous Being 'in whom we live and move and have our being', and HE in turn is but a part of an even more stupendous Being, etc. etc. You may reject this extension of HPB teaching if it does not appeal to you. If you want to show me or others how it is INCONSISTENT with HPB teaching, I'd be very interested in knowing that. So far no one has shown me anything in AAB teaching that is INCONSISTENT with HPB teaching. (b)HPB/AAB have both said that there are seven levels of meaning to their teaching. How many levels have you been able to interpret HPB TEACHINGS at? It is with this in mind that I say that I hardly understand 10-15% of what HPB or AAB may have meant. > It hasn't been done for HPB yet. Most people still > interpret HPB in terms of neo-theosophy, and/or through a > victorian paradigm. HPB has to be rediscovered. Maybe in the > next century. This also needs to be done for AAB writings! > There is a conference in Madras in June that we might be > going to. If you are in the area, we may meet you then. My > daughter will be visiting in August, but the date isn't set yet. > What is the conference in June at Madras about? We are planning to leave here on June 16 and come back on July 21 or so, but will be in New Delhi (possibly in Bombay for a few days, which is still several hundred miles away from Madras). What are the dates for the conference and who all is going to be in attendance? Thanks for the vegan recipe. I hope to include a quote from AAB next time I write. I should also take this opportunity to thank Mike Grenier for pointing out the quote from Sylvia Cranston's biography of HPB. Fraternally, Arvind From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 2 Mar 1994 03:10:20 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: AAB/HPB Arvind > I told you before that I have not read much written by CWL. > The last part of your statement i.e."Does this mean that.." > is misleading, to say the least. My comments were based upon the evidence Tillett gives in the first two chapters of the Biography, which you reported that you had read. Even if you have read nothing of CWL's writings, my comment would have been the same. > (a)I have said before that if someone claims to be an Arhat, > he is definitely NOT an Arhat (so his writing should be > read assuming that he is certainly below the rank of an Arhat). Are you suggesting that CWL could still have been, say, a third degree initiate, since he did not claim to be this? If this is your argument, that it would follow that CWL could also be a fifth or sixth degree initiate, since he did not claim this either. If this is your argument, I would disagree. My understanding of HPB's admonitions concerning this is that if one claims *any* occult status, it is evidence that he has no occult status at all. I think this is more in line with HPB's statements concerning people who claimed to be in touch with the Masters. If they publicly make that claim, she says, that means they are not in touch with the Masters. Following this reasoning, the evidence is that CWL was not an initiate at all. The evidence is against him being so--unless being a pathological liar is a qualification for being an initiate. I think not. Some people point to the letters to CWL from the Masters as evidence of his occult status. It is true that Leadbeater may have received three letters from the Masters. Assuming they are not forgeries (many people believe they are), they still are not evidence that he has any occult status. Many people without occult status received letters from the Masters at that time. Neither the letters to CWL, the circumstances, nor the content of those letters are at all remarkable. > (b)If you are trying to link it with AAB writing, I have stated > before that AAB has been critical of CWL in her autobiography, > and in other AAB books there is only one reference to CWL, > which is just an observation, neither too flattering nor very > critical. Certainly I did NOT get the impression from the book > that the author is somehow implicating AAB also as a liar (if > he has, pl let me have a reference). Aside from a speculative passing mention of AAB at the end of his book, Tillett does not deal with AAB at all. So there are no "links" here. I am only trying to clarify your position on CWL's believability. AAB had to make treatment of CWL either directly or indirectly, because they were contemporary, and he dominated the ES at the time. There is no way for her to avoid doing so, if she did not want a confused mulligan stew of theosophy and neo-theosophy. Therefore it is important to be clear on Leadbeater before we get into any of these direct or indirect treatments. You say that you know of only one reference to Leadbeater in AAB's writings. If there is truly only one reference (direct or indirect) to Leadbeater, then he is probably of no importance, and we can drop the whole thing right here. But if Leadbeater's teachings are part of AAB's (acknowledged or not), then we have a problem. Do you follow my reasoning? It is very important that you do. > (c)After reading some chapters of THE ELDER BROTHER I have > certainly learnt more about CWL, which is useful information > for me, but my attitude is such that I donot believe in making > a big deal about dead people who may have lied pathologically > when they were alive. When I thought you had suggested that > FB lied, it was my responsibility to let you know how I felt > (there is no way for me to reach CWL to tell him not to lie, > even if I wanted to give him that message!) The issue is simply CWL's believability. Do you believe people who lie? Do you believe the occult teachings of a person, whom every teaching that has become confirmable, has been shown to be false? Does that not, in your mind, throw into *question* *all* of Leadbeater's teachings? It does in my mind. There is no trick of logic here. It is a simple question: Do you believe people who lie to you? > (d)Who among us is without faults? If someone were to discover > 50 years from today that you or I had what he thinks 'some > terrible' faults of character, will that negate everything > that you or I say when we are alive? I donot believe that > there is sufficient evidence to DISREGARD CWL COMPLETELY. He > may have truth mixed with falsities in his writings, and > it is important to keep that in mind while reading anything > written by him. He may have mixed truth with falsities. Do you know which are true (if any) and which are false? So far, his record for truth is not very good. What kind of evidence do you think is "sufficient" to "DISREGARD CWL COMPLETELY"? > I donot think that anyone has demonstrated > (like Tillett has in the case of CWL) that AAB or HPB were > (pathological or otherwise) liers, although Paul in his books > has shown that HPB did not shy away from using 'blinds' when > needed to 'further' the overall cause of esotericism. Based on > this, if I only have so much time to devote to esoteric study, > I'd much rather spend it on studying HPB or AAB writing rather > than CWL or ABesant or other theosophical authors. As I stated earlier, this is not an issue concerning whether or not AAB or HPB lied. No one is accusing them of this. > If you have read the AAB biography, then you should know that > AAB spearheaded the 'back to HPB' movement; need I give you > once more references where she has explained how she regarded > the Besant ES/TS leadership as counterproductive vis-a-vis the > original TS objectives? I have told you many times that I have read AAB's biography. Regardless, of what is in the Autobiography, the historical evidence differs from what you assert here. The "back to Blavatsky" movement was "spearheaded" by several people. Most prominent among them was B.P. Wadia and H.N. Stokes. Besant, did *not* oppose this movement at the time. It was only after 1921 or so, when Wadia resigned, that the real problems began. AAB was without doubt sympathetic and more or less supportive to the "Black to Blavatsky" movement, but all of the evidence points to Wadia, Stokes and company as being the "spearhead" of this movement, not AAB. AAB's role was very secondary, and outside of the AS, she is not considered a "back to Blavatsky" person. > I can see that it is hard for you to > visualize an organization where ALL emphasis is on TEACHING and > NONE on personality aspects of the people involved in the > teaching. I donot blame you, I am merely pointing out that my > preferred type of an esoteric organization is the one with > emphasis on teaching and total de-emphasis on personality > aspects. I can "visualize" it just fine. I just don't see such an organization existing on the physical plane. If such an organization exists, I would have joined it. But alas, organizations have all of the frailties of the humans that run them. It is a nice ideal, but it never works. My work puts me in contact with those physical, less nice Organizations. This is where I try to accomplish what good I can. It is not as pleasant a job as working on the "higher planes," but it is my job. Perhaps, some day I'll get a promotion. But it seems to be a perennial truth that the jobs most needed to be done are the ones no body wants to do. > (a)Bailey writings are NOT an expansion of HPB writings > (in the manner of GdeP) but rather an extension of HPB > teachings. As an example, HPB talked about the basic unity > of the Kosmos and the individual human being (see IG Teachings, > p.vii first paragraph). AAB has shown (primarily in TCF) how > this is so, in that there is an ENTITY, a stupendous Being'in > whom we live and move and have our being', and HE in turn is > but a part of an even more stupendous Being, etc. etc. You > may reject this extension of HPB teaching if it does not appeal > to you. Since, I didn't mention G. de P., I'm at a loss to know what you are responding to, or correcting me on here. That you distinguish AAB from GdeP by saying that one is an "extension" and the other an "expansion" is an interesting distinction, but you would also have to give an example of how GdeP's "expansion" is different from AAB's "extension" for me to follow your point. The entity that you I think your are referring to is discussed in TSD under a lot of different names: The ever-living human Banyan; GREAT SACRIFICE etc. Read beginning on the bottom of page 207, vol. 1 of TSD, and you will find a discussion on this, that I think you will feel is "just like AAB." Therefore, I would have to disagree with you that this is AAB's teaching. It was in TSD first. However, since you are looking for specific teachings to compare, perhaps this would be one to start with-- though I would have preferred beginning with a more basic teaching. I will pull together the HPB material on this, and you can pull together the AAB material. Then we can do a comparison. OK? > If you want to show me or others how it is > INCONSISTENT with HPB teaching, I'd be very interested in > knowing that. So far no one has shown me anything in AAB > teaching that is INCONSISTENT with HPB teaching. I have lost count as to how many times you have made the above statement, and I have lost count as to how many times I have replied that I am *not interested* in proving to you that AAB is consistent or inconsistent with HPB's teachings. This is an investigation. If you really want this kind of challenge, I will be happy to put you in touch with a dozen people who believe that AAB is inconsistent with HPB. You are welcome to argue with them. So far no one (at least on this bulletin board) has tried to show you that anything in AAB teaching is INCONSISTENT with HPB teaching." Because you repeatedly post this challenge, I wonder what you really want. Do you want someone to take an adversarial roll and try to prove to you something that you don't believe? What would be accomplished in doing this? I'm at a loss to understand why you keep repeating the above statement. There is an old saying that one who keeps protesting the same thing over and over again, reallly means the opposite: "Me thinks that thou protests too much" is a famous line form the Shakespearean plays. From your repeated and unsolicited protest, should I read an underlying fear that AAB may be inconsistant with HPB? > (b)HPB/AAB have both said that there are seven levels of > meaning to their teaching. How many levels have you been able > to interpret HPB TEACHINGS at? It is with this in mind that I > say that I hardly understand 10-15% of what HPB or AAB may have > meant. This is not a productive question, nor does it exhibit an understanding of what is meant by "levels of meaning." The SD has seven keys (levels of meaning if you like), but TSD is an outline of the SD. TSD is written in English. It is not some coded hieroglyphic with seven simultaneous interpretations. One doesn't have to know every last thing about the seven keys in order to understand TSD. I have repeated this many times, but it appears that you still don't understand what I'm trying to get across. For the sake of argument, I will answer you and say that I understand the SD on seven levels. This is a true and accurate statement. When you understand my above explanation, you will understand my answer. > What is the conference in June at Madras about? We are > planning to leave here on June 16 and come back on July 21 or. > so, but will be in New Delhi (possibly in Bombay for a few > days, which is still several hundred miles away from Madras). > What are the dates for the conference and who all is going to > be in attendance? It is a professional conference put on by Indian women who have professional careers in India. The conference concerns issues of social, economic and political equality for Indian women. My wife has a professional interest in this issue, and we will be attending this conference providing there is funding for us to do so. As of this time, we haven't received word one way or the other. The conference has nothing to do with any Theosophical Organizations. Until next time Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 2 Mar 1994 13:42:18 -0500 From: mike@atc.sp.Paramax.com (Michael W. Grenier) Subject: Re: AAB/HPB Jerry writes: > Do you believe the occult teachings of a person, > whom every teaching that has become confirmable, > has been shown to be false? I tend not to. You mentioned in a previous letter that CWL lied about family circumstances, a brother, and the like. Where would this information be documented (both CWL statements and the truth)? CWL was one of the initial reasons for my interest in Theosophy 14 years ago. While he hasn't held my interest lately, it would be disappointing to fine out the he is a "pathological liar" -Mike Grenier mike@atc.sp.paramax.com Mike Grenier Unisys Govt. Systems mike@atc.sp.paramax.com 612-456-7869 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 2 Mar 1994 20:04:04 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: Theosophical Order of Service This is a somewhat open letter to Leonard Cole... The TOS would seem to be advantaged by increasing their networking capabilities. I mention this for the following reasons: 1) My wife and I specifically like the 'Circles for Peace' project. After reading their literature recently, it appeared that long-distance communication between groups could accelerate and benefit the overall project. 2) Louise and I belong to the UU church, where she has become the liason between the local Church and the National UU Social Concerns organization. There too, easy access and communication between local groups can increase the overall effectivity of the various efforts. 3) My wife is completing a thesis on a new model for the media which synthesises the areas of 1) conflict resolution, 2) The dialectic process (Hegelian), and 3) Mass media (specifically involving the Global Village). Coupling these items, one could generate a 1 or 2 day workshop to educate TS individuals to use the Internet (et al) to further Social Concerns and enhance the effectivity of the TOS.... Louise has a great case-study on how "intelligent" use of the media can be quite powerful and influential when coordinated correctly too. I guess my ramblings boil down to a single question for Leonard. If Louise and I pull this together, would TOS be willing to Input some work (it may initially be in the form of sending out information packets, surveys etc. to the members)? Peace -- John Mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 03:24:38 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: CWL Mike Grenier, Tillett documents CWL's statements in his biography THE ELDER BROTHER. If you want copies of the actual documents that he cites, you should be able to find this stuff at the National Library at Wheaton. If they can't help you, I will be able to make you copies of most things he referenced in such sources as THE THEOSOPHIST, THEOSOPHIC MESSENGER, MERCURY, HERALD OF THE STAR, etc., but I'm sparse on the LCC publications. Just let me know which citations in Tillett's book you want copied. As for the truth about CWL's family circumstances, Tillett located Leadbeater's actual birth certificate, that showed the discrepancies concerning his age, younger siblings, father's occupation etc. The Birth Certificate is reproduced in the Biography. Leadbeater was an initial attraction for me also about thirty years ago. I lost interest in him long before the Biography was published, when I found, among other things, that he made no distinction between nebulas and galaxies. They were all local phenomena to him (as they were to science until about 1925). I soon found a richer source of information in Blavatsky, who endorsed the idea of "island universes." Even if Leadbeater had been truthful concerning his family information, his clairvoyant observations concerning such things as Martian cities (presently existing, not ancient) are a bit hard to justify in light of modern knowledge. Sorry you are disappointed, but I hope you don't give up on Theosophy. The early (pre Leadbeater) literature is still a gold mine of exciting material--much of it only (relatively) recently accessible. Every once in a while someone comes up with an interesting current work also. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 15:38:02 -0500 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: end to unkindness This is by Brenda. Dear Friends, Leadbeater is the most kind, gentle, patient, encouraging, thoughtful, loving, gracious teacher of theosophy that I have ever had. I would place him next to Jesus in his endurance of criticism and personal injustice. A favorite quote of mine that I memorized after reading is that we should try to be "perfectly impervious to any attempt on our dignified serenity." Please put down your guns, bring your most compassionate thoughts to mind, and peacefully encourage the thoughts of brotherhood and religious ideals as he did in his writings. If we approach this study with dignity we won't fall prey to the concept that the occult work is as easy as a "simple refusal to lie," as well as a dogmatic adherence to the other nine of the ten commandments. It would mean as much to me if you said someone is guilty of swearing and can't be an initiate for this reason. I doubt if Leadbeater ever said a harsh word about anybody. Can you imagine the level of criticism aimed at him because he dared to be different and pursue knowledge of the inner realms for the purpose of sharing it with humanity, not for selfish purposes. If we think H.P.B. endured because of her beliefs and teachings, wouldn't it be a fine emotion to admire that endurance in another, too? I don't pretend to be a scholar or a diplomat, but regardless of my profession, there are many who work as I do, with the theosophical teachings in hope that we may help the work in some small way. If this is offensive to you, do you think you should continue in theosophical circles? They have never excluded members because of their literacy or literary skill. All types of intellect are welcome, and the members themselves decided who are to be their leaders and teachers. Even if a member doesn't become a major voice in theosophy, he has the right to speak out, defend, and give voice to that still small spark within. Leadbeater taught good solid truths and beautiful ideals, and I will always love and admire him and long to be like him, even at the cost of personal sacrifice in the way that "the world" might perceive me. (I already see the "naive, irrational, and blinded" insults coming at me.) If your concern is to bring the outer life in line with the inner life, perhaps this is worth working for, but at times it may be a decision of the masters to allow things to take place on the outer physical plane because the rewards may not be relative to the work involved. They (the masters) have defended H.P.B.'s good name perhaps to a greater extent than they have for Leadbeater. It isn't always possible to tell what the adepts have accomplished, only by looking at what has transpired, attempts have always been made to uphold H.P.B.'s character at all cost. Is this what irks you? I would say it's instructive to see it done both ways: allowed to happen and revolted against. I'm sorry I'm not always able to prove what I believe, but there is some basis to the way my thoughts have formed. I have read some of the controversies and masters' thoughts and words. And I have read Leadbeater's books which to me are the teachings that lead us to greatness. They are very much like Jesus's teachings and embody the good solid moral qualities of life. Don't try to shatter this by harsh words and scorn. One of the books I am referring to is TALKS ON THE PATH OF OCCULTISM, with commentary by Leadbeater and Besant. I do think there are people worth revolting against and that at times a warlike attitude is necessary, but must we use "kicks in the teeth" to everyone studying theosophy? Perhaps your aim is to bring as many unloved human beings into theosophical circles as possible, that if we are unable to love someone we are in the process of learning a valuable lesson. But couldn't it be possible that before the universal love becomes available to a human being that they be asked to lay down certain qualities which are inconsistent with altruism. When a human being begins to learn peace and to halt anger and condemnation, isn't that the time when the love of the adepts flows out to encourage them onward? Doesn't anger and an unforgiving attitude mis-color our perceptions, too? Can't one be blinded by revenge? Do you feel that there is some justice missing in the outer world and work to bring about the justice as you feel it should be done? Not even a judge or jury is able to make a decision without enough facts. Even if they have a limited number of facts and certainties, it may not be enough for them to decide "guilty or not guilty." They may have to throw the case out of court on the basis that there is not enough evidence. If you prefer to be lawyer-like and insist on justice, maybe you should study the legal system as this might be an outlet for your longing to prosecute. Why can't we just allow each person to judge for themselves and not speak so harshly of anyone's supposed shortcomings? I think you're going to meet many members of The Theosophical Society that you won't really like or ever understand what it is they are doing as a member. So whether or not you understand The Secret Doctrine is inconsequential if you are unable to tolerate religious preference in the members. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 16:23:41 -0500 From: mike@atc.sp.Paramax.com (Michael W. Grenier) Subject: Re: end to unkindness >Leadbeater is the most kind, gentle, patient, encouraging, thoughtful, >loving, gracious teacher of theosophy that I have ever had. Brenda, The motto of our society is "There is no religion higher than the truth". I can accept that Blavatsky may of had to mislead some in an attempt to conceal certain things from people who are are not ready. I can accept that few are perfect and I for one make many mistakes. It is not that we are blasting CWL for his (accused) lying. Rather, we have to determine whether his teachings are true. Just as a woman should be careful around a convicted rapist alone in the dark, likewise we may need to be careful when we bet our lives following the teachings of a convicted lier. Of course, in living a Theosophical life, we may need to be careful anyway. :-) -Mike Grenier Mike Grenier Unisys Govt. Systems mike@atc.sp.paramax.com 612-456-7869 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 23:42:44 -0500 From: "Ronald A. Banister" <70402.2301@CompuServe.COM> Subject: UNKINDNESS Brenda, Thanks for making my day. Over the years I have read a number of theosophical books, including most of Leadbeater's books, most of the Secret Doctrine, and a few of Bailey's books. My favorite set of books is the Powell series on man's bodies. I, also, like Leadbeater. I've learned a lot from him. It doesn't bother me that he was not perfect. I don't think Blavatsky was either. But, we still can learn from them. Anyhow, I really appreciate what you said. And now I'll go back to lurking. Ron Banister From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 4 Mar 1994 12:09:07 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: UNKINDNESS When a person has been accused of serious crimes by a substantial number of alleged victims, I think our definition of appropriate kindness should take into account those victims. CWL may have helped some people through his writings, but there were many who felt he had ruined their lives through his behavior. I think we owe Hubert Van Hook, Douglas Pettit, Robin Dennis, Krishnamurti and who knows how many others the kindness of regretting that CWL used the TS in a way that deeply hurt them. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 4 Mar 1994 14:41:13 -0500 From: "Leonard E. Cole" <71664.3642@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Theosophical Order of Service To John Mead - Since you addressed me through the Theos-L net, I will respond in the same way. I haven't logged on for a few days, so didn't see your message until today (11:00 AM, Mar 4). Thanks for your interest and suggestions. I must take some time to analyze the implications and to think of how best to respond. I am very, very busy just now, so be patient about a response. Peace with justice to all sentient life - Leonard From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 5 Mar 1994 12:51:18 -0500 From: Joseph Titland Subject: Re: UNKINDNESS I've been listening in for a couple of months to these discussions. As I have only read parts of most of the readings mentioned, and don't know a lot about the personalities involved, I have yet to comment. Brenda's letter (and the reaction to it) evokes a response. One can intellectualize ad infinitum as to the usefulness and accuracy of teachings, and to the relative merits and demerits of the authors. I have always liked the practical approach. Does it touch me - illicit a spark within? Does it work when I try it out? As to Michael's comment about determining if CWL's teachings are true I would apply the formula above. As to betting my life on them - I'm not about to do that with anyone. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 7 Mar 1994 03:52:48 -0500 From: Andrew Rooke Subject: Family life 1994 is the International Year of the Family so I thought perhaps a few thoughts on the pressures on family life in the 1990s from a theosophical angle might be of interest. The following comments are based on the Australian experience but they could equally hold for any Western country these days: Any society is built on the nobility of family life. Unfortunately the last 20 years have witnessed an accelerated disintegration of family life in Australia which will have a powerful influence on the future of this country. Over the past 15 years there has been a silent shift in the nation's wealth so that we have approx 30% of the population poor , compared to 10% in 1979. High bank interest rates in the 1980s forced both parents to work to pay unrealistically inflated home morgages with consequently wide reaching affects on the development of children. An extreme barometer of these changes was reported by The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in 1989. The Commission found that there were between 20,000 and 25,000 homeless children in Australia some of them suffering horrific abuses and others dying of malnutrition , drug abuse, and AIDS. These are "nobody's children" of the 1990s who have left home due mostly to intolerable stresses, yet who do not have the skills and attitudes necessary for "success" in today's comptetive world. They will eventually have a major impact on the whole country due to the increasing crime rate related to homelessness and drug addiction, and in the future burden the community with the possible one in five kids who will be permanently unemployable. What on earth has caused this situation in a comparitively wealthy country like Australia? Sociologists and economists cite statistics illustrating the decline in family life and the rise of domestic abuses such as incest and violence. Social workers and criminologists speak of loss of respect and trust mutually between the parents and children of many stressed families where kids have not had the opportunity to develop the capacity to love. In the case of the "street kids" who leave home, social workers say that a more apt description would be to say that home left them! Of course, the majority of Australian families provide a warm and stable environment for children, but these trends are alarming. They point to the importance of nuturing love and respect within individuals, towards family members of our immediate family, and outwards to the community - no matter how hard this may be given today's social problems. Such positive attitudes could be built upon and acknowledgement that there are greater dimensions and responsibilities in life than the material values of our popular culture. Our churches used to supply this needed balance between the demands of the inner and outer life and to provide simple and commonly accepted rules for social behaviour. This is no longer the case for many people as they reach, often blindly, towards new explanations for ancient questions or simply ignore the fact that human beings have one foot in the subconscious realm, and go on living as many do absorbed in the values of the outer world. Theosophical teachers have always taught the practical value of the Ancient Wisdom in all aspects of human life. An appreciation of the fudamental truths of brotherhood, karma and reincarnation expressed in the mythology and religions the world over, is basic to the structure of the longest lived societies such as our Australian aboriginal culture. They have helped to build the great civilizations of the past, and must do so again in the future. Today, practical help in the form of food, shelter, medical and financial assistance is needed urgently for the children of the street. We all owe a great debt of gratitude to the courageous individuals of many philanthropic organizations who provide such help unrelentingly. Beyond these physical measures, the pervasive power of a loving environment built on mutual respect between parents and children and ultimately upon knowledge of the responsibilities of the different stages and stations in life based on Universal Law, is needed in our society. Theosophicts as latter day guardians of the Ancient Wisdom, carry a responsibility to cast forth these powerful seed ideas into the consciousness of our nations. Katherine Tingley, founder of the Point Loma theosophical community and mentor of Dr G de Purucker, concentrated much of her work on the practical value of theosophy to home life and social problems. Her words prophetically echo the challenges of the changing family structures of the 1990s: "The question naturally arises: What remedies must be applied to bring about a change for the better in the home life? What factors can be introduced to adjust it and bring it nearer to perfection? Theosophy answers that the parents should begin to study the science of life, self-evolution, and the greater responsibilities of fatherhood and motherhood even before marriage. Home should be acclaimed as the centre from which the higher life of nations should spring." - Katherine Tingley interviewed by Claire Merton in 1921. Perhaps others, particularly with experience in the Theosophical Order of Service or other philanthropic endeavours which attempt to apply theosophic ideals, may wish to comment on this subject. With good wishes to all, Andrew From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 7 Mar 1994 14:42:40 -0500 From: Arvind Kumar Subject: Bailey on Internet Jerry H-E I saw an ad for the California Institue for Integral Studies in the lates Quest; aparently it is an 'accredited' school and the degrees awarded by them are recognized by the state of California as 'legitimate'. I'll write more to you later, possibly tommorrow. In the meantime, you may also like to read the rest of this message, intended for Jim Meier. Jim Meier I tried to send you a reply to your letter via compuserve but my message was rejected (see the full text of the returned message below). I have previously mailed to compuserv addresses successfully and donot know why this rejection occurred! If you can figure it out, do let me know. More later/Arvind From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 7 Mar 1994 15:58:52 -0500 From: Arvind Kumar Subject: Second Try Jim, This is to acknowledge the receipt of your letter and the book on 'The Fourteen Rules of Initiation' that you had borrowed from me. I agree with you fully that it is one of the best books that I have seen, shedding considerable light on the rules for meditation. I met Zachary Lansdowne at a conference arranged by the Seven Ray University last year and found him to be a wonderful source of information on Bailey books. I got all the books that he has written by calling the toll free number for Samuel Wiser which appears in the Quest magazine every now and then. Yes, all of his books are based on the Bailey material. He has a very interesting background. I think he studied under Haridas Chowdhary when the California Institue for Integral Studies was founded. Haridas was a direct disciple of Sri Aurobindo (I think) and had wonderful ideas for this institute but after he passed on, apprarently his successors sought accredition for the institute, which was granted but at a cost of some compromises (which according to Zachary L. have rendered the institute a lot less effective. I think he meant that it had become much more theoretical or academic than what Haridas meant it to be). Anyways, Mr. Lansdowne then proceeded to complete an MS and a PhD in Systems Engineering (I think) and now works with the USAir Force (if I remember correctly) somewhere near Boston. He is apparently quite active in the Boston Theosophical Lodge (which was involved in some controversy with TSA over funds that were received as a result of the sale of a building by the Lodge). This lodge apprently studies the works of Bailey, at least most of the time! This is part of what I gathered by talking to Mr. Lansdowne last year. Anyway, we enjoyed your visit very much and look forward to seeing you here again soon. There seems to be a move to start a listserver for Bailey studies as well. I am forwarding a message I got on it (see below) to you so you can contact Eric directly if interested. I'll give you info on the Dallas Bailey groups later; got to go now -- Best Regards/Arvind > From zarathu@aol.com Fri Mar 4 11:09:55 1994 > From: zarathu@aol.com > Date: Fri, 04 Mar 94 12:08:23 EST > Subject: Re: AAB Teachings > > Arvind, > > It seems that there is a group of us now who are wishing to participate in > the development of the e-mail list. The following is a comment I made to one > of the people who have been corresponding with me. Do you want to be > included in the discussion group? It would be your responsibility to send > your comments to everyone on the group(not more than tenand currently about > 6): > > Nelda>>> If very few of us are intersted in your proposed list i > Nelda>>> suggest we just post to each other on a regular basis on > Nelda>>> our faith/work concerns. > > This is a delightful idea. It appears to me that there may be a small group > of us with similiar concerns about the development of such a list. Perhaps > we could communicate with each other regarding it. > > I have envisioned the list in two ways: > 1. Discussion of various writings that show the practical asepcts of World > Discipleship. This is the elimination of the focus on the personal spiritual > development and the tranference to efforts that will augment the development > of Humanity itself, in physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual ways. > This means that any disussion about individual growth that does not have > some impact on affecting the group(perceived in wider and wider circles until > it encomapsses all of humanity) would be discouraged. It does not mean that > there would be no discussion of practical aspects of meditation or other > things like that, but they would have to be addressed from their usefulness > in helping humanity and how and why that would be accomplished. > > 2. A second goal would be to continue to provide an ongoing list of > activities of individuals and groups IN THE WORLD TODAY that are doing > discipleship tasks. These tasks could include activities such as those > provided by AFSC, Christian Children's fund, and more esoteric discussions of > activities of individuals as they impact on the world spiritual growth. > Necessarily, some of these discussions might be disputed by others as not > helping the group. We would have to remember that just becuase one of us is > not able to see the connection doesn't mean that there isn't one. > > 3. A discussion of literature would be permitted. Much of this would be > old(such as the Bible, or the Sutras of Patanjali, or the Bhagavad Gita, and > much of it might be fairly new continuing revelation such as writings of A > Course In Miracles or the Writings of Alice A. Bailey/Djwahl Kuhl. In any > case these writings would be accepted for areas that are strict in their > appreciation of World discipleship, and not in the gobble-de-gook > discussions af various theology. It would be up to the poster(and the > moderator) to determine whether they are appropriate to the goals of the > list. > ----------------------------------------- > > A Worship Sharing approach would be wonderful. Individual discussions on > various points would be encouraged---OUTSIDE OF THE MAIN LIST i.e. via > e-mail, and small combined interactions might take place there, with > occasional returns to the main group. > > Nelda, this: > > Nelda>>> I fear we are more concerned with *my* spiritual path > Nelda>>> than*our* spiritual path. > > is a wonderful statement, and a great view of where this list might want to > go. > > eric From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 08:21:01 -0500 From: mike@atc.sp.Paramax.com (Michael W. Grenier) Subject: The Mosquito A stupid question? After reading a closing remark here: "Peace to all sentient beings", is it complete unappropiate for me to continue to swat at the mosquitos which bite in the summer evening? -Mike Grenier mike@atc.sp.paramax.com Mike Grenier Unisys Govt. Systems mike@atc.sp.paramax.com 612-456-7869 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 13:24:05 -0500 From: Arvind Kumar Subject: Re: end to unkindness Hi Brenda, This is a somewhat belated response to your message on Unkindness. > Leadbeater is the most kind, gentle, patient, encouraging, thoughtful, > loving, gracious teacher of theosophy that I have ever had. I would > place him next to Jesus in his endurance of criticism and personal > injustice. A favorite quote of mine that I memorized after reading is > that we should try to be "perfectly impervious to any attempt on our > dignified serenity." The qualities of CWL that you have quoted above are also acknowledged by Mr. Tillet, the author of the biography of CWL called THE ELDER BROTHER which Jerry H-E and I were discussing. Perhaps our discussion centered around the 'negatives' of CWL but you are very right, CWL appears to have had several wonderful qualities as well. > Please put down your guns, bring your most compassionate thoughts to > mind, and peacefully encourage the thoughts of brotherhood and > religious ideals as he did in his writings. If we approach this study > with dignity we won't fall prey to the concept that the occult work is > as easy as a "simple refusal to lie," as well as a dogmatic adherence > to the other nine of the ten commandments. It would mean as much to me > if you said someone is guilty of swearing and can't be an initiate for > this reason. I doubt if Leadbeater ever said a harsh word about > anybody. Can you imagine the level of criticism aimed at him because > he dared to be different and pursue knowledge of the inner realms for > the purpose of sharing it with humanity, not for selfish purposes (a)I admit that some of our exchanges have not been worded in a loving or compassionate manner and that should change. (b)I think everyone (HPB/AAB and others) agrees that even high initiates (perhaps everyone below the rank of an Avatar) have their personality faults when incarnated. Certainly HPB/AAB/CWL all had their share of negative personality traits, just as you and I and others on this network do. In my humble opinion (IMHO), it is ok to discuss the personality traits (negative or positive) of CWL provided it is done with a view towards learning lessons that such a discussion might provide. I believe in the 'law of reflection'. If in my reading of THE ELDER BROTHER I feel struck most by CWL's tendency to lie (for whatever reasons, whether to further the overall esoteric interest or just for furthering personal gain at the moment), then I am seeing a part of myself which I normally donot see. So all the negative comments that you are seeing in my messages at least are really a reflection of my own personality problems. And yes, I have lied in the past under certain circumstances (not to anyone connected with this network, mind you!) You will be doing me a favor by quoting relevant portions from my messages where I might have used critical language that offended you; your writing of this message is a useful first step but please provide specifics next time, if possible at all. > If this is offensive > to you, do you think you should continue in theosophical circles? They > have never excluded members because of their literacy or literary > skill. All types of intellect are welcome, and the members themselves > decided who are to be their leaders and teachers. Even if a member > doesn't become a major voice in theosophy, he has the right to speak > out, defend, and give voice to that still small spark within. > Leadbeater taught good solid truths and beautiful ideals, and I will > always love and admire him and long to be like him, even at the cost of > personal sacrifice in the way that "the world" might perceive me. (I > already see the "naive, irrational, and blinded" insults coming at me.) I think all types of people can co-exist in theosophical circles, including those who endeavor to research theosophy along more academic lines but also including those that just want to imbibe as much of theosophical teaching in their personal selves as possible. You can take the approach to only look for those portions of the written teachings (or the messages on theos-listserv) which appeal to you and ignore those that you find offensive. Personally, I am trying to detach myself from all teachers and look at the teaching dispassionately, choosing to make it (i.e. any teaching) a part of myself only if it elicits a favorable response within myself. This presupposes an ability for DISCRIMINATION, and to tap the intuitive capability, both of which are sometimes difficult to practice. I have not seen you post any passages from CWL's writings, and I myself have read very few of his books. Perhaps you can cite some lines from CWL's writings which appeal to you so much that you want to be just like him. > If your concern is to bring the outer life in line with the inner life, > perhaps this is worth working for, but at times it may be a decision of > the masters to allow things to take place on the outer physical plane > because the rewards may not be relative to the work involved. They > (the masters) have defended H.P.B.'s good name perhaps to a greater > extent than they have for Leadbeater. It isn't always possible to tell > what the adepts have accomplished, only by looking at what has > transpired, attempts have always been made to uphold H.P.B.'s character > at all cost. Is this what irks you? I would say it's instructive to > see it done both ways: allowed to happen and revolted against. I'm > sorry I'm not always able to prove what I believe, but there is some > basis to the way my thoughts have formed. I have read some of the > controversies and masters' thoughts and words. And I have read > Leadbeater's books which to me are the teachings that lead us to > greatness. They are very much like Jesus's teachings and embody the > good solid moral qualities of life. Don't try to shatter this by harsh > words and scorn. One of the books I am referring to is TALKS ON THE > PATH OF OCCULTISM, with commentary by Leadbeater and Besant. It appears that the Masters use anyone who is available for use i.e. who can provide the right 'channel' through which teaching can be 'poured'. Witness for example the case of Mabel Collins and the couple of books that were 'dictated' to her even though she was an 'unconscious' receiver and did have a number of personality problems. I donot know if the Master(s) used CWL as a channel or not, and I have not read TALKS... to give any comment on that. > I do think there are people worth revolting against and that at times a > warlike attitude is necessary, but must we use "kicks in the teeth" to > everyone studying theosophy? Perhaps your aim is to bring as many > unloved human beings into theosophical circles as possible, that if we > are unable to love someone we are in the process of learning a valuable > lesson. But couldn't it be possible that before the universal love > becomes available to a human being that they be asked to lay down > certain qualities which are inconsistent with altruism. When a human > being begins to learn peace and to halt anger and condemnation, isn't > that the time when the love of the adepts flows out to encourage them > onward? Doesn't anger and an unforgiving attitude mis-color our > perceptions, too? Can't one be blinded by revenge? I agree that we all need to 'learn peace and to halt anger and condemnation' and strive for altruism. One can indeed be blinded by revenge but I thought I had passed that stage! Do you see anger, condemnation or revenge in my messages? Once again, please show me the specific lines and I'll try to correct myself. Theos-listserver can be a great learning tool for personality fault corrections if each of us points us what he or she sees reflected in the messages! I encourage you to examine my messages critically and send your comments via theos-l or private e-mail. Thanks! > Do you feel that there is some justice missing in the outer world and > work to bring about the justice as you feel it should be done? Not even > a judge or jury is able to make a decision without enough facts. Even > if they have a limited number of facts and certainties, it may not be > enough for them to decide "guilty or not guilty." They may have to > throw the case out of court on the basis that there is not enough > evidence. If you prefer to be lawyer-like and insist on justice, maybe > you should study the legal system as this might be an outlet for your > longing to prosecute. Why can't we just allow each person to judge for > themselves and not speak so harshly of anyone's supposed shortcomings? > I think you're going to meet many members of The Theosophical Society > that you won't really like or ever understand what it is they are doing > as a member. So whether or not you understand The Secret Doctrine is > inconsequential if you are unable to tolerate religious preference in > the members. > IMHO, there is perfect justice in the world as I believe in the Law of Karma. It has never been my intent (at least not consciously) to judge anyone, either on this network or elsewhere. I have made observations about others and tried to analyse their character/motives with a view towards learning to become a better Server myself. Perhaps the needs of this group (or at least your needs) are better met by just inspirational messages, with positive comments about them. In that spirit, I am quoting below the very first quote ("The True Server") from my favorite compilation from AAB bboks called 'Serving Humanity': "The Master looks not at a worker's wordly force or status, not at the numbers of people who are gathered around his personality, but at the motives which prompt his activity and at the effect of his influence upon his fellow men. True service is the spontaneous outflow of a loving heart and an intelligent mind; it is the result of being in the right place and staying there; it is produced by the inevitable inflow of spiritual force and not by strenous physical activity; it is the effect of a man's being what he truly is, a divine Son of God, and not by the studied effect of his words or deeds. A true server gathers around him those who it is his duty to serve and aid by the force of his life and his spiritualised personality, and not by his claims or loud speaking. In self-forgetfulness he serves, in self-abnegation he walks the earth, and he gives no thought to the magnitude or the reverse of his accomplishment, and has no preconceived ideas as to his own value or usefulness. He lives, serves, works and influences, asking nothing for the separated self." (A treatise on White Magic, pp 188-189). BTW, it is theorized in THE ELDER BROTHER that CWL had great admiration for Alice Bailey (even though the outer TS was officially condemning her). In Love and Light, Arvind From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 16:43:05 -0500 From: "Leonard E. Cole" <71664.3642@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Mosquito To Mike Grenier - Do you think a ". . .swat at the mosquitos which bite in the summer evening. . ." is the best choice of action by a highly intelligent life form? To phrase it another way, do you think the relatively minor nuisance of a nibble by a small insect deserves death by "swat" when less violent, non-lethal choices are available? If the first human reaction to an irritation is murder, what does that say about the human specie? We have no way of knowing that the mosquito does not value its own life as much as we value ours. I'm glad you thought enough about the issue to ask the question. That way leads to a kinder, gentler, more compassionate life. Peace with justice to all life - leonard cole INTERNET:71664.3642@compuserve.com COMPUSERVE 71664,3642 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 18:06:59 -0500 From: Arvind Kumar Subject: AAB/HPB Jerry H-E, > > Aside from a speculative passing mention of AAB at the end > of his book, Tillett does not deal with AAB at all. So there are > no "links" here. I am only trying to clarify your position on > CWL's believability. AAB had to make treatment of CWL either > directly or indirectly, because they were contemporary, and he > dominated the ES at the time. There is no way for her to avoid > doing so, if she did not want a confused mulligan stew of > theosophy and neo-theosophy. Therefore it is important to be > clear on Leadbeater before we get into any of these direct or > indirect treatments. You say that you know of only one reference > to Leadbeater in AAB's writings. If there is truly only one > reference (direct or indirect) to Leadbeater, then he is probably > of no importance, and we can drop the whole thing right here. > But if Leadbeater's teachings are part of AAB's (acknowledged or > not), then we have a problem. Do you follow my reasoning? It is > very important that you do. I follow your reasoning; let drop the discussion regarding CWL right here. > > Since, I didn't mention G. de P., I'm at a loss to know what > you are responding to, or correcting me on here. That you > distinguish AAB from GdeP by saying that one is an "extension" > and the other an "expansion" is an interesting distinction, but > you would also have to give an example of how GdeP's "expansion" > is different from AAB's "extension" for me to follow your point. Let me explain my position by reference to what is called 'theorems' in math. Each theorem is a 'fundamental truth'. Some theorems can be extended further and the related extension may be called a 'Lemma' in case of a minor extension and a new theorem in case of a major extension of the original theorem. My impression is that if HPB gave out, let us say the equivalent of 100 'theorems',then AAB gave out an additional 100 or more theorems. This is what I mean by AAB extending theosophical teaching given by HPB. GdeP did an excellent job of explaining further HPB's 100 theorems (so to speak) and perhaps adding a few Lemmas here and there but it is my impression that he did not give out the equivalent of any new 'theorems'.This is what I meant by expansion. You can see why it is not possible to take AAB teaching and see how it is derived from HPB teaching. There is no incompatibility that we have found so far between the two sets of teachings but they are independent of each other. > The entity that you I think your are referring to is > discussed in TSD under a lot of different names: The ever-living > human Banyan; GREAT SACRIFICE etc. Read beginning on the bottom > of page 207, vol. 1 of TSD, and you will find a discussion on > this, that I think you will feel is "just like AAB." Therefore, > I would have to disagree with you that this is AAB's teaching. > It was in TSD first. However, since you are looking for specific > teachings to compare, perhaps this would be one to start with-- > though I would have preferred beginning with a more basic > teaching. I will pull together the HPB material on this, and you > can pull together the AAB material. Then we can do a comparison. > OK? I'll post what I know about the Planetary Logos from AAB books soon and'll look forward to the HPB material that you collect. > I have lost count as to how many times you have made the > above statement, and I have lost count as to how many times I > have replied that I am *not interested* in proving to you that > AAB is consistent or inconsistent with HPB's teachings. This is > an investigation. If you really want this kind of challenge, I > will be happy to put you in touch with a dozen people who believe > that AAB is inconsistent with HPB. You are welcome to argue with > them. So far no one (at least on this bulletin board) has tried > to show you that anything in AAB teaching is INCONSISTENT with > HPB teaching." Because you repeatedly post this challenge, I > wonder what you really want. Do you want someone to take an > adversarial roll and try to prove to you something that you don't > believe? What would be accomplished in doing this? I'm at a > loss to understand why you keep repeating the above statement. > There is an old saying that one who keeps protesting the same > thing over and over again, reallly means the opposite: "Me thinks > that thou protests too much" is a famous line form the > Shakespearean plays. From your repeated and unsolicited protest, > should I read an underlying fear that AAB may be inconsistant > with HPB? (a)What do you mean that 'this is an investigation'? In many investigations that I have undertaken, there is a 'hypothesis' to be tested. What is your hypothesis for the investigation? What result do you hope to achieve by this investigation? Please foregive me for being very dumb, but you need to clearly lay down your ideas about what you hope to accomplish in this 'investigation' and how you hope it will be carried. Every now and then you make a statement like '.. this will come in handy down the road in our investigation..' which I donot quite understand. We seem to be working on two different sets of objectives; what you are calling a challenge from me is really what my hypothesis for this investigation is. Do you follow me, brother? (b)If it turns out that AAB is inconsistent with HPB with regard to some specific teaching, I'll have to see which one appeals to me more. I am not afraid that we may find inconsistencies between the two sets of teachings. Discovery of inconsistencies will give legitimacy to the opinions of many theosophists that 'they donot care for AAB teachings' (I am willing to accept that as a reason for not reading AAB). Do you follow where I am coming from? > This is not a productive question, nor does it exhibit an > understanding of what is meant by "levels of meaning." The SD > has seven keys (levels of meaning if you like), but TSD is an > outline of the SD. TSD is written in English. It is not some > coded hieroglyphic with seven simultaneous interpretations. One > doesn't have to know every last thing about the seven keys in > order to understand TSD. I have repeated this many times, but it > appears that you still don't understand what I'm trying to get > across. OK, may be I did not quite word my initial comment exactly. There are the seven keys, and then there are the different levels at which the teaching itself can be interpreted i.e. TSD and each of the AAB/DK books have multiple meanings. I thought I read somewhere that (at least for AAB/DK books) there are seven ways to interpret the text of the teaching itself. Many people who have read these books repeatedly several times claim that every time they read them, they get a different meaning... > For the sake of argument, I will answer you and say that I > understand the SD on seven levels. This is a true and accurate > statement. When you understand my above explanation, you will > understand my answer. You claim to understand SD (not TSD) on seven levels. Well, I see that makes you at least a Mahatma, because even HPB did not claim to understand SD fully... Fraternally, Arvind From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 18:17:41 -0500 From: zgg002@sol1.solinet.net Subject: Re: The Mosquito > A stupid question? > > After reading a closing remark here: "Peace to all > sentient beings", is it complete unappropiate for > me to continue to swat at the mosquitos which > bite in the summer evening? > > -Mike Grenier > mike@atc.sp.paramax.com > Mike Grenier Unisys Govt. Systems > mike@atc.sp.paramax.com 612-456-7869 I recall reading once that in occult matters, as with others, common sense...which is so uncommon!...is your best guide. -- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lewis Lucas Chestatee Regional Library (404)532-3311 l_lucas@solinet.net From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 00:55:31 -0500 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: more keys This is by Brenda. Thanks, Arvind, for your responses. I just know that all the teachers of theosophy I have met are inspirational. No one takes the lectern and condemns us with hell-fire. Why do they make theosophy so pleasing to us in speeches and books? I guess it's a matter of style. Nobody carries their professional work into friendly conversations, I suppose. I've been looking at A TREATISE ON COSMIC FIRE (TCF) by Bailey and found some material on the Root Races and also on the keys. AAB gives a list that looks like this in a footnote on p. 110. "The keys, as hinted by H.P.B., are: a. Psychological - S.D. II, 25, note; I, 389. b. Astronomical - S.D. II, 25, note; I, 389; III, 198. c. Physical or Physiological - S.D. II, 25, note; III, 198. d. Metaphysical - S.D. II, 25, note; II, 394. e. Anthropological - S.D. I, 389; III, 198. f. Astrological - S.D. II, 343. g. Geometrical - S.D. II, 494; III, 176. h. Mystical - S.D., I, 401. i. Symbolical - S.D., II, 561. j. Numerical. - S.D., II, 198." Did anyone know that this list was here? AAB also implies the first four as being physiological, psychological, astrological, metaphysical, and says, like H.P.B., that the fifth is geometrical, and that the Jews availed themselves of two of the keys. This is found on p. 110 in a footnote. This leaves us to wonder what the sixth and seventh keys are or perhaps they haven't been fully formed yet. I don't know why we need an Anthropological key if as said "The seven keys open the mysteries, past and future, of the seven great rootraces and of the seven kalpas." Astronomical is just physical, in a sense. On p. 374 SD Vol I, H.P.B. says "While the Eastern Occultists have seven modes of interpretation, the Jews have only four namely, the real-mystical; the allegorical; the moral; and the literal or Pashut. The latter is the key of the exoteric Churches and not worth discussion. Read in the first, or mystical key, here are several sentences which show the identity of the foundations of construction in every Scripture." Maybe the two keys she is speaking of, by process of elimination, are the mystical and the allegorical (symbolical). Moral could possibly be interpreted as psychological. This process has left us with only a numerical key to reason with. One of the ways which H.P.B. uses the numerical key is a Kabalistic method of using numbers for letters. I have seen at least two versions of numerology and there are probably quite a few more. One version uses our English alphabet A-Z, and repeats 1-9, 1-9, 1-8 in order for each letter. The other version I have seen, I think by Sepharial, but I could look it up uses numbers such as 700, 300, for key letters. And then, of course, there's the version in THE SECRET DOCTRINE which I have never seen put into a system, so don't know if this is presented in its completeness or not. If the numerical is not a key, but really a mystical or geometrical aid, then this would have narrowed down the ten that AAB lists above to a more concise seven. Here's another quick quote from THE SECRET DOCTRINE, Vol I, p. 673. "Fohat is the key in Occultism which opens and unriddles the multiform symbols and respective allegories in the so-called mythology of every nation; demonstrating the wonderful philosophy and the deep insight into the mysteries of nature, in the Egyptian and Chaldean as well as in the Aryan religions." If the sixth and seventh keys are still a mystery, as AAB implies on p. 110 TCF, these semi-complete, mystical and symbolical understandings can still be perceived, as can the Geometrical, as corresponding to the thought that the Race as a whole is progressing towards more abstract thinking. The placement of the keys in a reverse order from that which Jerry had postulated runs nicely from the concrete to the abstract, and places psychological fairly low on the scale, with astrological (does this mean cosmic beings? the 3rd Race?) and metaphysical (does this mean cosmic forces? primarily, karma?) running up the scale nicely. Oh well, I sure could get interested in the mystical side in THE SECRET DOCTRINE. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 17:42:26 -0500 From: Gerald Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Family Crisis Andrew. I want to thank you for the very interesting report that you gave on 7 March concerning families. We in the US also have problems - in fact this seems to be a worldwide problem. Reports of domestic abuse are way up today. Does this mean that domestic abuse/violence is on the rise? Or that it is being reported better today? Certainly more people today are coming forward and acknowledging it than ever before. One interesting problem that we have in the US is that while the cost of living has escalated to the point where both husband and wife must work to support a house, more and more single-parent families are cropping up. Only a few weeks ago, I heard a TV commentator say that 60% of all families in the US are now single-parent. Thus a majority of our children are being raised by one parent who probably cannot afford a nice home environment for them. Modern psychology has shown that the first 2 years of a child s life are the most important. Most, if not all, serious mental problems (i.e., long-term psychological diseases, not those caused by genetic imbalances or accident) result from how a child is raised during their first 2 years. If they don t get love or proper care from a care-giver, for example, then they will inevitably grow up not trusting others and will have little self-esteem. As you pointed out, such children will sooner or later become a drain on society. My wife and I have seen a lot of this in our work as theraputic foster parents. Even by the age of 7 years, it is too late to do much. We have noticed that it is very difficult (but possible with patience) to help even 5 year olds. By the time a child is 12, they will have drifted through the foster care system so many times that help is virtually impossible and all one can do is babysit. We see a lot of potential criminals also, because these children have no respect for themselves let alone for others. Most, if not all, of this could have been prevented by offering love and care during the child s first 2 years. While we can always chalk it up to their karma, I can t help by being saddened at the lack of a loving environment that many of our youngsters today must undergo. There is an interesting psychological problem today known as a borderline personality disorder. A university professor once told me that once a borderline, always a borderline because to date, none have ever been cured. These are people who have no sense of personal space or boundaries. They live vicariously through others. They are always trying to control others, in the guise of offering help. They have low self-esteem, but put on a show of knowing everything. I have personally known several people like this, one of whom was diagnosed as borderline by a psychiatrist. They will try to run your life for you and they are a real problem to deal with. Psychology tells us that this mental condition develops around the age of 2 years. It results from a parent or primary care-giver never being consistent. The parent loves the child one minute, and then rejects the child the next. This uncertainty from the parent to the child is devastating to the child. This condition is also passed on from mother to child (most, but not all, borderlines are women). A borderline mother will treat her child the same way that she was treated. While psychology knows about this condition, it has yet to figure out a way to correct it or to break the cycle. I am offering this simply as an example of the importance of the first 2 years of a child s life. As theosophists, we don't need to lecture or teach theories to our children so much as to provide a consistently loving environment in which they can grow. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 11:52:39 -0500 From: Arvind Kumar Subject: Re: more keys Hi Brenda (some material below is for Jerry H-E), > > Thanks, Arvind, for your responses. I just know that all the > teachers of theosophy I have met are inspirational. No one takes > the lectern and condemns us with hell-fire. Why do they make > theosophy so pleasing to us in speeches and books? I guess it's > a matter of style. Nobody carries their professional work into > friendly conversations, I suppose. Your previous message was certainly very relevant for me. After writing to you, I observed myself as I was writing to Jerry H-E the same day and I discovered that there were what appeared to be 'hostile areas' within the messages. In many cases, I found that I did not have the time to 'correct' my language to make it more friendly and loving. Perhaps it is better to not say anything rather than saying something in an unfriendly manner (which may have a potentially negative effect on the readers of the message). I am going to try to restrict myself in this way from now on. Our outer life MUST reflect what we profess to know as Inner Reality and we must ever strive to focus on the not-self in every activity. So thanks again, my friend, my teacher! > > I've been looking at A TREATISE ON COSMIC FIRE (TCF) by Bailey > and found some material on the Root Races and also on the keys. > AAB gives a list that looks like this in a footnote on p. 110. > > "The keys, as hinted by H.P.B., are: > a. Psychological - S.D. II, 25, note; I, 389. > b. Astronomical - S.D. II, 25, note; I, 389; III, 198. > c. Physical or Physiological - S.D. II, 25, note; III, 198. > d. Metaphysical - S.D. II, 25, note; II, 394. > e. Anthropological - S.D. I, 389; III, 198. > f. Astrological - S.D. II, 343. > g. Geometrical - S.D. II, 494; III, 176. > h. Mystical - S.D., I, 401. > i. Symbolical - S.D., II, 561. > j. Numerical. - S.D., II, 198." > > Did anyone know that this list was here? I certainly did not know about this list. There is probably a need to study the entire TCF before we can have a more meaningful public discussion on it. I have the original (facsimile edition) of TSD so the references provided in TCF to TSD are not easy for me to look up. Can you provide the quotation related to the psychological key from TSD? Is it the same one that you provided some 6 months ago? Even if it is, I'd still appreciate if you can write it down again. Fraternally, Arvind Kumar From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 01:36:52 -0500 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: requested references This is by Brenda. Dear Arvind, AAB might be using the Third Edition, 1893. Anyway, if you have the same version that I do, there is a concordance printed in the index starting on p. 401. The first quote in THE SECRET DOCTRINE for a psychological key is found at the very beginning of Volume Two, first page of the commentary to Stanza 1, p. 22: "The teaching is offered as it is understood; and as there are seven keys of interpretation to every symbol and allegory, that which may not fit a meaning, say from the psychological or astronomical aspect, will be found quite correct from the physical or metaphysical." The next quote AAB says is Volume One, p. 389. The concordance puts this on p. 363 of the Original Edition and should refer to the psychological, astronomical, and anthropological keys as listed by AAB. It reads, in length: "As truly stated by Ragon, "the ancient Hierophants have combined so cleverly the dogmas and symbols of their religious philosophies, that these symbols can be fully explained only by the combination and knowledge of ALL the keys." They can be only approximately interpreted, even if one finds out three of these seven systems: the anthropological, the psychic, and the astronomical. The two chief interpretations, the highest and the lowest, the spiritual and the physiological, they preserved in the greatest secrecy until the latter fell into the dominion of the profane. Thus far, with regard only to the prehistoric Hierophants, with whom that which has now become purely (or impurely) phallic, was a science as profound and as mysterious as biology and physiology are now. This was their exclusive property, the fruit of their studies and discoveries. The other two were those which dealt with the creative gods (theogony), and with creative man, i.e., the ideal and the practical mysteries. These interpretations were so cleverly veiled and combined, that many were those who, while arriving at the discovery of one meaning, were baffled in understanding the significance of the others, and could never unriddle them sufficiently to commit dangerous indiscretions. The highest, the first and the fourth - theogony in relation to anthropogony - were almost impossible to fathom. We find the proofs of this in the Jewish "Holy Writ."" Good luck. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 18:42:57 -0500 From: "Jessica L. Coker" Subject: Re: Family Crisis To Jerry from Nancy Thanks for your comments. It reminds me of the idea that if a young sapling is cut, the wound grows larger as the tree grows. It emphasizes the idea that timing is critical -- almost as if our actions are escalated or de-escalated based on where in the cycle the energy is applied. Nancy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 18 Mar 1994 12:24:29 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Hyperspace The 3/20 New York Times Book Review has an interesting review of a book entitled Hyperspace by theoretical physicist Michio Kaku. Here are some excerpts: Ever since Einstein tried and failed to find a unified field theory relating gravity to the other forces of nature, physicists have vainly sought a method of describing the gravitational force in terms of quantum mechanics...Mr. Kaku believes that the mathematical theory of "superstrings" may already have accomplished this... this means thinking of reality in terms of 10 dimensions, rather than in terms of the three dimensions of space that ordinary mortals can perceive, plus the one dimension of time... Mr. Kaku even gives an explanation of what may have happened to the six dimensions that we cannot perceive...the 10-dimensional infant universe may have split into two parts an instant after it came into being: one part became embedded in the familiar three dimensions of space and one of time, and the other part was retracted from view, so that the six remaining dimensions became hidden in string-like entities of almost infinitesimal size... in the 16th century, Rabbi Isaac ben Solomon Luria devised a cosmological world view that seems to have prefigured superstring theory...the soul and inner life of the hidden God were expressed by the 10 primordial numbers, known as the sefirot. God's first act of creation, the zimzum, was to retract Himself from the cosmos to make room for the world. Sounds like a book worth reading and comparing to Theosophical teachings on cosmology, especially HPB and G de P. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 20 Mar 1994 02:55:48 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: AAB/HPB Arvind My apologies for not getting back to you. I have been completely buried in work. My class alone was demanding 40 hours just planning the lessons and going through my student's reading guides, essays and journals. On top of that, I have been taking three seminar classes, each requiring a research paper by the end of the semester. Needless to say, I'm in trouble. Being a student and a teacher at the same time is almost an impossible task when taking a full load of classes. So as I warned you before, my visits with you and Internet will have to be much less frequent until summer. To pick up from your post of March 10th: JHE>> Aside from a speculative passing mention of AAB at the end >> of his book, Tillett does not deal with AAB at all. So there >> are no "links" here. I am only trying to clarify your >> position on CWL's believability. AAB had to make treatment of >> CWL either directly or indirectly, because they were >> contemporary, and he dominated the ES at the time. There is >> no way for her to avoid doing so, if she did not want a >> confused mulligan stew of theosophy and neo-theosophy. >> Therefore it is important to be clear on Leadbeater before we >> get into any of these direct or indirect treatments. You say >> that you know of only one reference to Leadbeater in AAB's >> writings. If there is truly only one reference (direct or >> indirect) to Leadbeater, then he is probably of no importance, >> and we can drop the whole thing right here. But if >> Leadbeater's teachings are part of AAB's (acknowledged or >> not), then we have a problem. Do you follow my reasoning? It >> is very important that you do. AK> I follow your reasoning; let drop the discussion regarding > CWL right here. Then I am to understand that you don't believe that Leadbeater's teachings are used anywhere in AAB's writings. Our investigations over the last six months did show evidence that Leadbeater's teachings were combined with AAB's. However, if this was a misreading, and Leadbeater's teachings are not part of AAB's, then I agree that there is no reason to scrutinize Leadbeater. However, if it turns out that AAB did incorporate CWL's teachings, then we will have to bring him up again. JHE>> Since, I didn't mention G. de P., I'm at a loss to know >> what you are responding to, or correcting me on here. That >> you distinguish AAB from GdeP by saying that one is an >> "extension" and the other an "expansion" is an interesting >> distinction, but you would also have to give an example of how >> GdeP's "expansion" is different from AAB's "extension" for me >> to follow your point. AK> Let me explain my position by reference to what is called > 'theorems' in math. Each theorem is a 'fundamental truth'. > Some theorems can be extended further and the related extension > may be called a 'Lemma' in case of a minor extension and a new > theorem in case of a major extension of the original theorem. > My impression is that if HPB gave out, let us say the > equivalent of 100 'theorems',then AAB gave out an additional > 100 or more theorems. This is what I mean by AAB extending > theosophical teaching given by HPB. GdeP did an excellent job > of explaining further HPB's 100 theorems (so to speak) and > perhaps adding a few Lemmas here and there but it is my > impression that he did not give out the equivalent of any new > 'theorems'.This is what I meant by expansion. You can see why > it is not possible to take AAB teaching and see how it is > derived from HPB teaching. There is no incompatibility that we > have found so far between the two sets of teachings but they > are independent of each other. I would have to see specific examples of the new "fundamental truths" that you believe AAB gave out in order for me to follow and make an evaluation of your statement. A specific example of AAB's teaching that is an "extension" and a specific example of G.deP.'s teaching that is an "expansion," showing how each differs from HPB's teaching on the same subject would help me a lot. AK> (a)What do you mean that 'this is an investigation'? In many > investigations that I have undertaken, there is > a 'hypothesis' to be tested. What is your hypothesis for > the investigation? I don't have one. In the scientific method, a hypothesis is a "guess" that is put forth to explain a particular phenomena. A hypothesis is made *after* the data is collected. Since we are still collecting data, a hypothesis is inappropriate. Therefore any "hypothesis" at this point of our investigation is really just a mis-named presumption. As we look at the "phenomena" (i.e. HPB's and AAB's writings) and make note of consistencies and/or inconsistencies, then we can formulate hypothesis to explain them. In other words, as far as I'm concerned, we haven't collected the evidence yet upon which to form a hypothesis--therefore, I don't have one. AK> What result do you hope to achieve by this > investigation? Please foregive me for being very dumb, but you > need to clearly lay down your ideas about what you hope to > accomplish in this 'investigation' and how you hope it will > be carried. Every now and then you make a statement like '.. > this will come in handy down the road in our investigation..' > which I donot quite understand. We seem to be working on two > different sets of objectives; what you are calling a challenge > from me is really what my hypothesis for this investigation > is. Do you follow me, brother? Yes I follow you. You are saying that what I call your challenge, i.e. that there is no conflict between the teachings of AAB and HPB, is really your "hypothesis." From the stand point of scientific methodology, it follows then that you are pursuing this investigation to prove your "hypothesis." The reason why I didn't follow you before is because in the beginning of this enquiry, I pains takingly laid down what I hoped we would accomplish and stressed that we put aside any preconceptions. Obviously, your hypothesis (since we haven't collected any meaningful amount of data) is by definition a preconception. The problem is that your preconception makes this investigation problematical. While I'm exploring the subject with you, based upon the question: how do HPB and AAB compare?; your preconception obligates you to concentrate your energy towards defending against any data that may contradict your so called "hypothesis." Thank you for clarifying this, because it explains your constant declarations, and your almost sacerdotal tone of defense against anything that has come up that may have been evidence showing any possible incongruencies between AAB and HPB's writings. Yes, early in our correspondence, I often made that statement ("this will come in handy down the road in our investigation"), but this had nothing to do with hypothesis. I think you may be confusing "hypothesis" with "methodology." In the beginning we had agreed to begin our investigation by comparing HPB and AAB's use of occult terms. Whenever you or I mentioned something that was not immediately germane to the task at hand, but yet referred to the investigation in general, I would say something to the effect that this information or idea `will come in handy down the road.' But we quickly found problems in our comparisons when we looked at AAB's seven principles. I raised some issues, which you promised to respond to but never did. Shortly after that, you suggested that we change our methodology and read one of AAB's books. I agreed, and you suggested TCF. We got about 80 pages into the book, I raised some issues, many of which you responded to, some you let drop. We also got tied up with the SD/TSD issue, which you never saw the point of. More recently (March 1st), the term "stupendous being" came up, and I suggested that we compare HPB and AAB's usage. In other words, I suggested that we go back to the more straight forward task of comparing terms. You agreed (Message of March 10th), and said that you would collect material on the "planetary logos." So we are back to comparing terms again. I would rather if we started with the more elementary terms, as we tried in the beginning, but I think we can do it this way too. What worries me, however, is your "hypothesis." As long as you hold to it, I see little hope of us accomplishing anything. I suppose I could adopt the opposite "hypothesis," and we can debate, but I see nothing positive coming out of this approach either. I can come up with convincing arguments to prove either hypothesis. It doesn't matter to me. Debates just prove who is better at logic. I'm interested in something more meaningful. AK> (b)If it turns out that AAB is inconsistent with HPB with > regard to some specific teaching, I'll have to see which one > appeals to me more. I am not afraid that we may find > inconsistencies between the two sets of teachings. Discovery > of inconsistencies will give legitimacy to the opinions of > many theosophists that 'they donot care for AAB teachings' (I > am willing to accept that as a reason for not reading AAB). Do > you follow where I am coming from? Yes, I follow you. If the teachings conflict, you will choose the teaching that is most appealing to you. This is a very different approach than the one I would take if I were in your position. If I discovered that they were incongruent, I would ask myself which system, (if either one) is correct; i.e. which system is most consistent with what I know and able to discover about the real world. I would hope that the "appeal" of the system would not determine my choice. This is because I learned from experience that the "appeal" of a system tell me more about my personal needs, than it does about Truth. But, being different people, we approach life differently. JHE>> This is not a productive question, nor does it exhibit an >> understanding of what is meant by "levels of meaning." The SD >> has seven keys (levels of meaning if you like), but TSD is an >> outline of the SD. TSD is written in English. It is not some >> coded hieroglyphic with seven simultaneous interpretations. >> One doesn't have to know every last thing about the seven keys >> in order to understand TSD. I have repeated this many times, >> but it appears that you still don't understand what I'm trying >> to get across. AK> OK, may be I did not quite word my initial comment exactly. > There are the seven keys, and then there are the different > levels at which the teaching itself can be interpreted i.e. TSD > and each of the AAB/DK books have multiple meanings. I thought > I read somewhere that (at least for AAB/DK books) there are > seven ways to interpret the text of the teaching itself. Many > people who have read these books repeatedly several times claim > that every time they read them, they get a different meaning... Yes there are countless meanings that can be found in any complex piece of literature. Any attentive reader will get different meanings from any literary work, every time he reads it. It doesn't have to be an occult work either. There are whole journals and books devoted to interpreting the meaning of works of literature, and whole books anthologizing different interpretations of a single work. This is precisely the type of thing a literature student studies. There is nothing esoteric about any book having multiple meanings. Perhaps the AAB books do say that their texts have seven keys. It would be an interesting statement. Please send the quote when you find it. As for TSD, I can say with reasonable certainty that HPB did not claim seven keys to its interpretation --the seven keys are applied to the SD, not TSD. But of course, like every other complex work, there are countless levels of interpretation to TSD. Every person who reads it will get a different experience out of it, and that experience will be different with every re-reading. There is nothing esoteric about this. It is true with all good novels, philosophical works, poems, and short stories. JHE>> For the sake of argument, I will answer you and say that I >> understand the SD on seven levels. This is a true and >> accurate statement. When you understand my above explanation, >> you will understand my answer. AK> You claim to understand SD (not TSD) on seven levels. Well, > I see that makes you at least a Mahatma, because even HPB did > not claim to understand SD fully... As I anticipated, you did not understand my answer. As for H.P.B.'s statement, I'm of course will aware of what she says on this subject. Since you had discussed the issue of HPB's understanding in an earlier posting, I had guessed that if you misunderstood me, you would raise it again in answer to my statement. HPB's statement is also true and accurate, and yet is not contradictory to mine. Obviously, you neither understand my statement nor hers. I suggest that you carefully read the Bowen article (also published as a pamphlet) usually entitled: "H.P. Blavatsky on How to Study The Secret Doctrine" In this pamphlet, HPB discusses in some detail the nature of "truth" and about her "understanding" of TSD and the SD. I also suggest that while reading it, you keep in the back of your mind the concept of there being an infinitely gradated spectrum between the extremes of "truth" and "TRUTH." If you are able to grasp the meaning of what HPB is trying to say in this pamphlet, the above apparent contradiction will make sense, and no longer be contradictory. I would try to explain it myself, but past efforts have shown that I don't do very well in communicating subtle ideas to you. Until later Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 22 Mar 1994 16:28:03 -0500 From: mlevin@Jade.Tufts.EDU Subject: looking for organizations offering theos. courses in meditation etc. Hi all - I am gathering information on organizations etc. which offer specific courses/instructions in things like meditation and other exercises, from the Theosophical perspective (that is, I am interested in schools, correspondence or "in person", of practical activity, rather than publishers of books and journals). I am aware of the Arcane School. What else is out there? Any pointers, to addresses, and any personal info or experiences with these would be appreciated. Please email to mlevin@husc8.harvard.edu. Mike Levin From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 22 Mar 1994 16:34:22 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: olcott on-line!! > Hi -- > > I wanted to welcome the OLCOTT library on-line!! > also we have the Wheaton headquarters on-line... > however, the full Wheaton presence will be active AFTER > they get their full Internet wings! they will hear now, we will see later!! > > we have sent in an application (trial app only) to get formal study > group status. However, it needs to be processed fully > in order to allow "Dual Memberships" in all cases. > > when this precipitates we will be able to add all Wheaton > members to the list, WITHOUT jepordizing their local status. > also the Members at Large will NOW have a plce to reside!! > > I would like to have other Socities officially form study groups here > also!! please let me know if I can help!! > > The ability to communicate and listen between societies > is neccesary for the next step, towards a global > mind!! > > Peace -- > > John Mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 24 Mar 1994 19:43:06 -0500 From: Gerald Schueler <76400.1474@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Hyperspace & Black Holes Paul. The book entitled Hyperspace is indeed interesting. It is absolutely amazing how far scientists and mathematicians have come using Einstein's basic field equation. The discovery, for example, of black holes, is a prediction of his equation (Einstein himself never liked the idea of black holes. He also never liked quantum physics. However, he has since been proved wrong, and his equation right.) Black holes, although not yet discovered with 100% certainty, are very very likely to exist simply because so many other things that have been derived from Einstein's equation have checked out. They certainly do exist mathematically (as do the 6 dimensions of Hyperspace - which when added to our 4 of spacetime make a total of 10 dimensions, which indeed correspond to the 10 Sephirah of the Qabbala). Everyone has been trying to relate relativity (the outer macrocosm) with quantum mechanics (the inner microcosm), including Einstein but so far as I know it has been done only in a partial manner - and that largely by Stephen Hawking. Hawking "discovered" mathematically that black holes can grow and also can dissolve through radiation. He also showed that their laws correspond to the laws of thermodynamic. We now know that they can spin and can have a charge. I think that an article, if not a book, showing the similarities between black holes (and white holes and worm holes) of modern science and HPB's laya centers would be a good project for someone. I am not a scientist (rather, I am an engineer) but I can see a lot of similarities between the two. I have already tried to show similarities between relativity and occultism in Enochian Physics, but my book is in need of revision and update - for example, the theories of superstrings and dark matter were too new when I wrote it and thus were not discussed at all. One possibility that comes to my mind right away is that perhaps there is a correspondence between the sutratman and a small black hole existing within each of us (?). Another is that if wormholes exist in spacetime, then perhaps a smaller version exists within our selves (or is somehow accessible to consciousness) so that somehow time travel (reading the akashic records, for example, or prophecy) is scientifically possible (?). Lots of other possibilities also could be addressed. Jerry From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 24 Mar 1994 19:44:46 -0500 From: "Jessica L. Coker" Subject: Re: looking for organizations offering theos. courses in meditation etc. This is from Nancy TS Pasadena offers correspondence courses. You can obtain a complete listing from Theosophical University Press P O Box C Pasadena CA 91109 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 25 Mar 1994 11:53:48 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: testing listserver.... Hi -- the listserver has been down for a day or two. This is a test message to double check it's activity. sorry for the delays... Peace -- John Mead p.s. vnet has had troubles with the raleigh site. I hope it is no longer a problem! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 23:21:51 -0500 From: Arvind Kumar Subject: AAB/HPB Hi Jerry H-E, I saw your name (alongwith that of Nancy and John Coker) mentioned in the American Theosophist that I was reading over the weekend. This was in connection with some meeting planned for March 26 to discuss the past and the future of the theosophical movement. How was it? Any conclusions or action items? > My apologies for not getting back to you. I have been > completely buried in work. My class alone was demanding 40 hours > just planning the lessons and going through my student's reading > guides, essays and journals. On top of that, I have been taking > three seminar classes, each requiring a research paper by the end > of the semester. Needless to say, I'm in trouble. Being a > student and a teacher at the same time is almost an impossible > task when taking a full load of classes. So as I warned you > before, my visits with you and Internet will have to be much less > frequent until summer. I am having a similar scenario unfold at my end due to some organizational changes which have resulted in a much heavier than ususal workload for me. It was great when we could exchange a couple of messages a week but I am afraid I'll have to limit my time on the network as well, which is quite all right. We have reached a stage where I think (a)I have learnt a fair bit from you and about you, and benefited greatly from it, and (b) I need to study a number of references, not to mention TCF itself, and above all, all of the works by HPB! I am going to try to put in as much effort as possible into the study of these materials so I can contribute better to our discussion eventually. > > Then I am to understand that you don't believe that > Leadbeater's teachings are used anywhere in AAB's writings. Our > investigations over the last six months did show evidence that > Leadbeater's teachings were combined with AAB's. However, if > this was a misreading, and Leadbeater's teachings are not part of > AAB's, then I agree that there is no reason to scrutinize > Leadbeater. However, if it turns out that AAB did incorporate > CWL's teachings, then we will have to bring him up again. I definitely see a few areas where Leadbeater's teaching seems to jive with AAB's (e.g. terminology for man's constitution or vehicles, the description of the Wesak festival in The Masters and the Path matches AAB's description) but I have no idea whether AAB incorporated CWL's teachings (or vice-versa) or what exactly lies behind this 'slight overlap' of their teachings. > I would have to see specific examples of the new > "fundamental truths" that you believe AAB gave out in order for > me to follow and make an evaluation of your statement. A > specific example of AAB's teaching that is an "extension" and a > specific example of G.deP.'s teaching that is an "expansion," > showing how each differs from HPB's teaching on the same subject > would help me a lot. Just by looking at the titles of AAB books, you can see that she has written entire books on topics on which HPB perhaps wrote a few paragraphs or a chapter or two. I have no time to write down the teachings of AAB here but as examples, you can refer to the rules given in a treatise on white magic or A Treatise on the Seven Rays etc. Each one of AAB's books extends 'theosophic' material or ideas hinted at by HPB (or perhaps not even hinted by HPB but rather altogether new material presented by AAB for the first time in this cycle of humanity's progress). I am not very familiar with G.deP.'s works but it is my understanding that his main contribution to the theosophical movement was to expand on, and/or simplify HPB's teachings. Is that not your understanding? > I don't have one. In the scientific method, a hypothesis > is a "guess" that is put forth to explain a particular phenomena. > A hypothesis is made *after* the data is collected. Since we are > still collecting data, a hypothesis is inappropriate. Therefore > any "hypothesis" at this point of our investigation is really > just a mis-named presumption. As we look at the "phenomena" > (i.e. HPB's and AAB's writings) and make note of consistencies > and/or inconsistencies, then we can formulate hypothesis to > explain them. In other words, as far as I'm concerned, we > haven't collected the evidence yet upon which to form a > hypothesis--therefore, I don't have one. I think that it is very hard to work without a hypothesis! Your intentions are no doubt very noble (and you claim to be able to study both AAB and HPB objectively, in a dispassionate manner). But I have seen your reactions on this network which lead me to believe that you have difficulty in accepting AAB teaching. I am not blaming you, but rather just pointing out what I have observed about you. I think it will be better to work with a hypothesis because of our backgrounds. > Yes I follow you. You are saying that what I call your > challenge, i.e. that there is no conflict between the teachings > of AAB and HPB, is really your "hypothesis." From the stand > point of scientific methodology, it follows then that you are > pursuing this investigation to prove your "hypothesis." The > reason why I didn't follow you before is because in the beginning > of this enquiry, I pains takingly laid down what I hoped we would > accomplish and stressed that we put aside any preconceptions. > Obviously, your hypothesis (since we haven't collected any > meaningful amount of data) is by definition a preconception. The > problem is that your preconception makes this investigation > problematical. While I'm exploring the subject with you, based > upon the question: how do HPB and AAB compare?; your > preconception obligates you to concentrate your energy towards > defending against any data that may contradict your so called > "hypothesis." Thank you for clarifying this, because it explains > your constant declarations, and your almost sacerdotal tone of > defense against anything that has come up that may have been > evidence showing any possible incongruencies between AAB and > HPB's writings. Yes, that is me, and you have correctly diagnosed the problem! Objective evaluation of the two sets of teachings I believe I cannot attempt because of lack of knowledge of other systems of thought (e.g. Vedanta), hence my preference for an approach involving a hypothesis that I can relate to. > Yes, early in our correspondence, I often made that > statement ("this will come in handy down the road in our > investigation"), but this had nothing to do with hypothesis. I > think you may be confusing "hypothesis" with "methodology." In > the beginning we had agreed to begin our investigation by > comparing HPB and AAB's use of occult terms. Whenever you or I > mentioned something that was not immediately germane to the task > at hand, but yet referred to the investigation in general, I > would say something to the effect that this information or idea > `will come in handy down the road.' > > But we quickly found problems in our comparisons when we > looked at AAB's seven principles. I raised some issues, which > you promised to respond to but never did. Shortly after that, > you suggested that we change our methodology and read one of > AAB's books. I agreed, and you suggested TCF. We got about 80 > pages into the book, I raised some issues, many of which you > responded to, some you let drop. We also got tied up with the > SD/TSD issue, which you never saw the point of. > > More recently (March 1st), the term "stupendous being" came > up, and I suggested that we compare HPB and AAB's usage. In > other words, I suggested that we go back to the more straight > forward task of comparing terms. You agreed (Message of March > 10th), and said that you would collect material on the "planetary > logos." So we are back to comparing terms again. I would rather > if we started with the more elementary terms, as we tried in the > beginning, but I think we can do it this way too. > > What worries me, however, is your "hypothesis." As long as > you hold to it, I see little hope of us accomplishing anything. > I suppose I could adopt the opposite "hypothesis," and we can > debate, but I see nothing positive coming out of this approach > either. I can come up with convincing arguments to prove either > hypothesis. It doesn't matter to me. Debates just prove who is > better at logic. I'm interested in something more meaningful. This is a good summary of what has happened and I still hope to cover some of the action items for me eventually! > Yes, I follow you. If the teachings conflict, you will > choose the teaching that is most appealing to you. This is a > very different approach than the one I would take if I were in > your position. If I discovered that they were incongruent, I > would ask myself which system, (if either one) is correct; i.e. > which system is most consistent with what I know and able to > discover about the real world. I would hope that the "appeal" of > the system would not determine my choice. This is because I > learned from experience that the "appeal" of a system tell me > more about my personal needs, than it does about Truth. But, > being different people, we approach life differently. Excellent point! > Yes there are countless meanings that can be found in any > complex piece of literature. Any attentive reader will get > different meanings from any literary work, every time he reads > it. It doesn't have to be an occult work either. There are > whole journals and books devoted to interpreting the meaning of > works of literature, and whole books anthologizing different > interpretations of a single work. This is precisely the type of > thing a literature student studies. There is nothing esoteric > about any book having multiple meanings. > > Perhaps the AAB books do say that their texts have seven > keys. It would be an interesting statement. Please send the quote > when you find it. As for TSD, I can say with reasonable > certainty that HPB did not claim seven keys to its interpretation > --the seven keys are applied to the SD, not TSD. But of course, > like every other complex work, there are countless levels of > interpretation to TSD. Every person who reads it will get a > different experience out of it, and that experience will be > different with every re-reading. There is nothing esoteric about > this. It is true with all good novels, philosophical works, > poems, and short stories. I owe you the quote from AAB, which I will have to research. > As I anticipated, you did not understand my answer. As > for H.P.B.'s statement, I'm of course will aware of what she says > on this subject. Since you had discussed the issue of HPB's > understanding in an earlier posting, I had guessed that if you > misunderstood me, you would raise it again in answer to my > statement. HPB's statement is also true and accurate, and yet is > not contradictory to mine. Obviously, you neither understand my > statement nor hers. I suggest that you carefully read the Bowen > article (also published as a pamphlet) usually entitled: "H.P. > Blavatsky on How to Study The Secret Doctrine" In this > pamphlet, HPB discusses in some detail the nature of "truth" and > about her "understanding" of TSD and the SD. I also suggest that > while reading it, you keep in the back of your mind the concept > of there being an infinitely gradated spectrum between the > extremes of "truth" and "TRUTH." If you are able to grasp the > meaning of what HPB is trying to say in this pamphlet, the above > apparent contradiction will make sense, and no longer be > contradictory. I would try to explain it myself, but past efforts > have shown that I don't do very well in communicating subtle > ideas to you. Where can I get this Bowen article? Fraternally, Arvind From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 23:25:35 -0500 From: Arvind Kumar Subject: Re: olcott on-line!! > > I wanted to welcome the OLCOTT library on-line!! > > also we have the Wheaton headquarters on-line... > > however, the full Wheaton presence will be active AFTER > > they get their full Internet wings! they will hear now, we > > will see later!! John, what is the e-mail address for the Wheaton headquarters? I got the e-mail address for the Olcott Library from the latest issue of AT and have just sent a query to see how it works! BTW, I find the AT much more useful now, with the addition of 'study aids' for the Quest and some wonderful articles on spiritual self-help. I wonder if there is a way to send e-mail to the editors of the Quest and /or the AT. Fraternally, Arvind From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 23:26:03 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: vnet listserver intermittent... Hi -- The Vnet system manager switched jobs which has put the vnet listserver in a low priority position. I'm going to try to get with the Vnet President this week to discuss some of these items. Please be patient. Peace -- John Mead p.s. some messages have been dumped, but I think I have them all. I'll try to resend them when stability returns. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 00:30:30 -0500 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: schools of knowledge This is by Brenda. Hi ya all! How did you enjoy the seminar at Krotona (if you were there)? Eldon went and had a good time. Here is a nice thought from TCF by AAB concerning the seven schools of knowledge mentioned in The Secret Doctrine. p. 285 TCF "These six schools are: a. The school of Logic ........ Proof of right perception. b. The atomic school .......... System of particulars. Elements. Alchemy and chemistry. c. The Sankhya school ......... System of numbers. The materialistic school. The theory of the seven states of matter or prakriti. d. The school of Yoga ........ Union. The rule of daily life. Mysticism. e. The school of Ceremonial religion.................... Ritual. Worship of the devas or Gods. f. The Vedanta school ......... Has to do with non-duality. Deals with the relation of Atma in man to the Logos. The Gnosis or hidden knowledge is the same as Atma Vidya, or Theosophy, and includes the other six." These seven are not given in any straightforward manner in THE SECRET DOCTRINE, but are found in Vol 12 COLLECTED WRITINGS, p. 343 footnote, listed similarly to AAB's list. THE SECRET DOCTRINE, Vol I, p. 168-9 has this related passage: "Of the four Vidyas~out of the seven branches of knowledge mentioned in the Puranas~namely, "Yajna-Vidya" (the performance of religious rites in order to produce certain results); "Maha-Vidya," the great (Magic) knowledge, now degenerated into Tantrika worship; "Guhya-Vidya," the science of Mantras and their true rhythm or chanting, of mystical incantations, etc.~it is only the last one, "Atma-Vidya," or the true Spiritual and Divine wisdom, which can throw absolute and final light upon the teachings of the three first named. Without the help of Atma-Vidya, the other three remain no better than surface sciences, geometrical magnitudes having length and breadth, but no thickness. They are like the soul, limbs, and mind of a sleeping man: capable of mechanical motions, of chaotic dreams and even sleep-walking, of producing visible effects, but stimulated by instinctual not intellectual causes, least of all by fully conscious spiritual impulses. A good deal can be given out and explained from the three first-named sciences. But unless the key to their teachings is furnished by Atma-Vidya, they will remain for ever like the fragments of a mangled text-book, like the adumbrations of great truths, dimly perceived by the most spiritual, but distorted out of all proportion by those who would nail every shadow to the wall." And on p. 278-79 Vol I, "This is the view of every one of the six great schools of Indian philosophy~the six principles of that unit body of WISDOM of which the "gnosis," the hidden knowledge, is the seventh. The writer hopes that, superficially handled as may be the comments on the Seven Stanzas, enough has been given in this cosmogonic portion of the work to show Archaic teachings to be more scientific (in the modern sense of the word) on their very face, than any other ancient Scriptures left to be regarded and judged on their exoteric aspect. Since, however, as confessed before, this work withholds far more than it gives out, the student is invited to use his own intuitions. Our chief care is to elucidate that which has already been given out, and, to our regret, very incorrectly at times; to supplement the knowledge hinted at~whenever and wherever possible~by additional matter; and to bulwark our doctrines against the too strong attacks of modern Sectarianism, and more especially against those of our latter-day Materialism, very often miscalled Science, whereas, in reality, the words " Scientists " and " Sciolists " ought alone to bear the responsibility for the many illogical theories offered to the world. In its great ignorance, the public, while blindly accepting everything that emanates from " authorities," and feeling it to be its duty to regard every dictum coming from a man of Science as a proven fact~the public, we say, is taught to scoff at anything brought forward from " heathen " sources. Therefore, as materialistic Scientists can be fought solely with their own weapons~those of controversy and argument~an Addendum is added to every Book contrasting our respective views and showing how even great authorities may often err. We believe that this can be done effectually by showing the weak points of our opponents, and by proving their too frequent sophisms~made to pass for scientific dicta~to be incorrect. We hold to Hermes and his " Wisdom"~in its universal character; they~to Aristotle as against intuition and the experience of the ages, fancying that Truth is the exclusive property of the Western world. Hence the disagreement. As Hermes says, "Knowledge differs much from sense; for sense is of things that surmount it, but Knowledge (gyi) is the end of sense"~i.e., of the illusion of our physical brain and its intellect; thus emphasizing the contrast between the laboriously acquired knowledge of the senses and mind (manas), and the intuitive omniscience of the Spiritual divine Soul~Buddhi." Just short and sweet this time. If you're not familiar with the COLLECTED WRITINGS, AAB does expand (or is it extend) on what's there. I think the Vidya collection is just the odd numbered schools. What does anyone else think? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 01:55:09 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: AAB\HPB Arvind AK>I saw your name (alongwith that of Nancy and John Coker) >mentioned in the American Theosophist that I was reading >over the weekend. This was in connection with some meeting >planned for March 26 to discuss the past and the future of >the theosophical movement. How was it? Any conclusions >or action items? It was a networking conference put on by Krotona, marking the tenth anniversary of the original conference under that theme that I organized in 1984. It went pretty well. All of the speakers stayed with the theme and spirit of the conference save one. I think the talk that got the most positive comment was Nancy Coker's. Nobody realized that she has such a powerful stage presence. In spite of everything, I think the spirit of fraternalization between the theosophical organizations is still alive and well. AK>I am having a similar scenario unfold at my end due to some >organizational changes which have resulted in a much >heavier than ususal workload for me. It was great when we >could exchange a couple of messages a week but I am afraid >I'll have to limit my time on the network as well, which is >quite all right. We have reached a stage where I think (a)I have >learnt a fair bit from you and about you, and benefited greatly >from it, and (b) I need to study a number of references, not to >mention TCF itself, and above all, all of the works by HPB! >I am going to try to put in as much effort as possible into >the study of these materials so I can contribute better to our >discussion eventually. Fair enough. I'm still studying too. JHE>> Then I am to understand that you don't believe that >> Leadbeater's teachings are used anywhere in AAB's writings. >> Our investigations over the last six months did show evidence >> that Leadbeater's teachings were combined with AAB's. >> However, if this was a misreading, and Leadbeater's teachings >> are not part of AAB's, then I agree that there is no reason to >> scrutinize Leadbeater. However, if it turns out that AAB did >> incorporate CWL's teachings, then we will have to bring him up >> again. AK>I definitely see a few areas where Leadbeater's teaching seems >to jive with AAB's (e.g. terminology for man's constitution or >vehicles, the description of the Wesak festival in The Masters >and the Path matches AAB's description) but I have no idea >whether AAB incorporated CWL's teachings (or vice-versa) or what > exactly lies behind this 'slight overlap' of their teachings. The Wesak festival is without doubt uniquely Leadbeater's, and was clearly part of Leadbeater's E.S. teachings long before it was published in ~Masters and the Path~. The inconsistencies I was trying to raise between Leadbeater and Blavatsky concerning the seven principles is also a result of Leadbeater changing the teachings. These are not "overlaps" but the direct adoption of Leadbeater teachings. They are not H.P.B.'s and they contradict her teachings. So I guess that means that Leadbeater still needs to be a subject for scrutiny. How important is the Wesak Festival in the AAB teachings? JHE>> I would have to see specific examples of the new >> "fundamental truths" that you believe AAB gave out in order >> for me to follow and make an evaluation of your statement. A >> specific example of AAB's teaching that is an "extension" and >> a specific example of G.deP.'s teaching that is an >> "expansion," showing how each differs from HPB's teaching on >> the same subject would help me a lot. AK> Just by looking at the titles of AAB books, you can see that > she has written entire books on topics on which HPB perhaps > wrote a few paragraphs or a chapter or two. I have no time to > write down the teachings of AAB here but as examples, you can > refer to the rules given in a treatise on white magic or A > Treatise on the Seven Rays etc. Each one of AAB's books > extends 'theosophic' material or ideas hinted at by HPB (or > perhaps not even hinted by HPB but rather altogether new > material presented by AAB for the first time in this cycle of > humanity's progress). Being a literature major, I was taught not to judge a book by its title. The title of the book doesn't assure me that the contents of the book is consistent with the title, nor does it tell me if AAB's teachings on the subjects suggested by the titles are consistent with HPB's. Too bad--if the covers did tell us these things, our job would be very easy. I remember reading the "rules" that you are referring to some years ago. Which of HPB's teachings are they suppose to be "extensions" of? AK>I am not very familiar with G.deP.'s works but it is my > understanding that his main contribution to the theosophical > movement was to expand on, and/or simplify HPB's teachings. Is > that not your understanding? No. I don't think he "simplified" her teachings--though he lectured on many of them, explaining them in different words. By "extend" I understand you to mean introducing new teachings not in HPB's writings, but perhaps hinted at. I think that would be a fair assessment of GdeP's works. For instance his teachings concerning the twelve globes, inner rounds, the initiatory cycles, and teachings concerning the nature of the historical Jesus are not found in Blavatsky. He also gives solutions to several riddles found in HPB's writings and in the Mahatma Letters. So, based upon your definition, I would say that GdeP "extends" as well as "expands" upon HPB's writings. Like AAB, whether these "extensions" are correct is another question. But we are not investigating Purucker here. JHE>> I don't have one. In the scientific method, a >> hypothesis is a "guess" that is put forth to explain a >> particular phenomena. A hypothesis is made *after* the data is >> collected. Since we are still collecting data, a hypothesis >> is inappropriate. Therefore any "hypothesis" at this point of >> our investigation is really just a mis-named presumption. As >> we look at the "phenomena" (i.e. HPB's and AAB's writings) and >> make note of consistencies and/or inconsistencies, then we can >> formulate hypothesis to explain them. In other words, as far >> as I'm concerned, we haven't collected the evidence yet upon >> which to form a hypothesis--therefore, I don't have one. AK> I think that it is very hard to work without a hypothesis! > Your intentions are no doubt very noble (and you claim to be > able to study both AAB and HPB objectively, in a dispassionate > manner). But I have seen your reactions on this network which > lead me to believe that you have difficulty in accepting AAB > teaching. I am not blaming you, but rather just pointing out > what I have observed about you. I think it will be better to > work with a hypothesis because of our backgrounds. As I stated above, one makes a hypothesis *after* the data is collected. This is my understanding of the scientific method. Please correct me if I misunderstand the scientific method. I don't think I do. The Sciences were my best subjects in undergrad studies. As for "accepting AAB teaching," that would not be appropriate for me to accept or reject it. When you present an AAB teaching, I ask: where does it come from?; how does it relate to HPB's teachings? These are exactly the same questions I would have to ask for the purpose of this investigation regardless of my feelings about AAB teachings. As I have stated many times before, I'm not interested in accepting or rejecting AAB's teachings. Therefore rather than forming a hypothesis without data, I think we should stick with the original course of pursuing the question: How does the teachings of HPB and AAB compare? If you want a hypothesis, perhaps we have enough information to form the hypothesis that AAB borrowed from Leadbeater's E.S. teachings. I'm ready to pursue this hypothesis if you are. JHE>> Yes I follow you. You are saying that what I call your >> challenge, i.e. that there is no conflict between the >> teachings of AAB and HPB, is really your "hypothesis." From >> the stand point of scientific methodology, it follows then >> that you are pursuing this investigation to prove your >> "hypothesis." The reason why I didn't follow you before is >> because in the beginning of this enquiry, I pains takingly >> laid down what I hoped we would accomplish and stressed that >> we put aside any preconceptions. Obviously, your hypothesis >> (since we haven't collected any meaningful amount of data) is >> by definition a preconception. The problem is that your >> preconception makes this investigation problematical. While >> I'm exploring the subject with you, based upon the question: >> how do HPB and AAB compare?; your preconception obligates you >> to concentrate your energy towards defending against any data >> that may contradict your so called "hypothesis." Thank you >> for clarifying this, because it explains your constant >> declarations, and your almost sacerdotal tone of defense >> against anything that has come up that may have been evidence >> showing any possible incongruencies between AAB and HPB's >> writings. AK> Yes, that is me, and you have correctly diagnosed the > problem! Objective evaluation of the two sets of teachings I > believe I cannot attempt because of lack of knowledge of other > systems of thought (e.g. Vedanta), hence my preference for an > approach involving a hypothesis that I can relate to. If the investigation requires getting information on other systems of thought (e.g. Vedanta), there are ample resources to supply the needed info. Your suggested approach reminds me of the Medieval philosophers who used to set up arguments, based upon Aristotelian logic, to prove the existence of God. They would begin with the hypothesis that God exists, then proceed to logically build their evidence upon the original hypothesis until it is "proven." "St. Anselm's island" is a very famous example of this method. In modern philosophy classes they call this method "circular thinking," and is rejected as being fallacious. It proves nothing but the biases of the inquirer. I don't see what can be accomplished by proceeding this way. Regarding the Bowen article, I will mail you a copy. Fraternally Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 19:06:26 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: GASSHO v1n3 is now available (fwd) forwarded for general info... john mead > > ---| --- ---| ---| | | |---| > | | | | | | | | | > | -- |---| |--- |--- |---| | | > | | | | | | | | | | > ---- | | |--- |--- | | |---| > > GASSHO > Electronic Journal of DharmaNet International > and the Global Online Sangha > > Volume 1, Number 3 ISSN 1072-2971 March/April 1994 >======================================================================= > >Editor-in-Chief: Barry Kapke dharma@netcom.com or > Fidonet: 1:125/33.0 >Copy Editor: John Bullitt john.bullitt@metta.ci.net >Production Staff: David Savage @lchance.sat.tx.us >Board of Advisors: Robert Aitken Roshi Amaro Bhikkhu > Carl Bielefeldt Bhikkhu Bodhi > Thubten Chodron T. Matthew Ciolek > Roger Corless Rev. Karuna Dharma > Christina Feldman Gangcen Tulku Rinpoche > Maha Ghosananda Joseph Goldstein > Joan Halifax Ayya Khema > Anne C. Klein Jack Kornfield > Jacqueline Mandell Ken McLeod > Andrew Olendzki Charles S. Prebish > Alan Senauke Thanissaro Bhikkhu > Christopher Titmuss others to be announced > > =================================================================== >GASSHO is a Buddhist newsletter, published by DharmaNet International, >P.O. Box 4951, Berkeley, CA 94704-4951, a not-for-profit organization. > =================================================================== > > Table of Contents: > >{1} EDITORIAL: Message from the Editor >{2} NEWS BRIEFS: Nobel Peace Prize Nominees; Dalai Lama to Receive > Freedom Medal; Pali Tipitaka CD-ROM >{3} DHARMANET NEWS: How to Access DEFA; Internet <=> DharmaNet > Wormhole; INSIGHT Mailing List; DharmaBase >{4} NEW RESOURCES: BUDSIR; Dialing for Dharma; alt.* Newcomers; > DharmaDebateHall MOO >{5} CONFERENCE NEWS: Envisioning Tibet (Australia) >{6} LETTERS: Say NO!; Bring Out the Best; GASSHO Format >{7} DIALOGUE: The Second Precept: Generosity (Thich Nhat Hanh) >{8} ARTICLE: A Slice of Life in My Virtual Community (Howard > Rheingold) >{9} ARTICLE: Computer Networks and the Emergence of Global Civil > Society (Howard H. Frederick) >{10} PRACTICE: Questions and Answers (Ajahn Chah) >{11} CALENDAR: March - May 1994 >{12} REVIEWS: Buddhism After Patriarchy >{13} RESOURCES: ANU Social Sciences Information Services (T.M. Ciolek) >{14} SANGHA: FPMT Centers (World) >{15} ANNOUNCEMENTS >{16} A PARTING THOUGHT >{17} ABOUT GASSHO > >======================================================================= > How to Get Electronic Copies of GASSHO: >======================================================================= > >Internet users may receive GASSHO by electronic subscription in >Mailing List format. Send an email message to: dharma@netcom.com >asking to subscribe to GASSHO. This is *not* a Listserv. > >Back issues are available by anonymous ftp to the Dharma Electronic >Files Archive at FTP.NETCOM.COM (192.100.81.100). Change directory to >/pub/dharma/Gassho/Gassho-01-mar94/ > >gass0103.zip Compressed version of GASSHO v1n3 (Mar/Apr 94) >gass0103.nws Uncompressed, full-text version of GASSHO v1n3 >readme.1st DharmaNet electronic distribution agreement > >The first edition is available in /pub/dharma/Gassho/Gassho-01-nov93/ >The second edition is in /pub/dharma/Gassho/Gassho-01-jan94/ > >If you have difficulty ftp-ing files from the Dharma Electronic Files >Archive (DEFA) at FTP.NETCOM.COM, remember that capitalization and >spelling counts. > >GASSHO is also archived at the Electronic Buddhist Archives at >coombs.anu.edu.au and is available by ftp, gopher, or WWW. > >Additionally, these files may be retrieved via "ftpmail" for those >without "anonymous ftp" capability. Send an e-mail message addressed >to "ftpmail@metta.ci.net". In the message body put "GET GASS0103.ZIP" >(current edition) or "GET GASS0101.ZIP" (first edition) or "GET >ALLFILES.LST" (list of all available files). The file will be returned >to you as uuencoded e-mail. > >Back issues are also available for dial-up download from DharmaNet >File Distribution Network (DFN) Sites listed below. To become a DFN >site, please contact Barry Kapke at BODY DHARMA ONLINE. > >Quarto Mundista BBS, Olympia WA 206-786-9629 Fidonet: 1:352/333 >I CAN! BBS, Chicago IL 312-736-7434 Fidonet: 1:115/738 >The Magic Bus, Royal Oak MI 313-544-3653 Fidonet: 1:120/418 >Access to Insight, Barre MA 508-433-5847 Fidonet: 1:322/750 >BODY DHARMA ONLINE, Berkeley CA 510-836-4717 Fidonet: 1:125/33 >DangFool, Waverly Hall GA 706-582-3238 Fidonet: 1:3613/8 >Mysteria, Tujunga CA 818-353-8891 Fidonet: 1:102/943 >The Electric Fox, Memphis TN 901-327-1008 Fidonet: 1:123/10 >Converse, Raunds UK 44-933-460744 Fidonet: 2:2504/209 >DoJo, Lindfield NSW, AUSTRALIA 61-2-416-3547 Fidonet: 3:711/918 > >GASSHO may also be received through the Fidonet "filebone" by >subscribing to the file area, DN_NEWS. Note: not all filebone hubs >carry the DharmaNet File Distribution Network areas. Please see the >weekly Fidonet file, FILEBONE.NA, for more information. The DharmaNet >file areas are also available via satellite feed through Planet >Connect. >======================================================================= >[end] > > ... All modern thought is permeated by the idea of thinking the > unthinkable. > -MICHEL FOUCAULT > >-- >Buddhist - via FidoNet node 1:125/1 >UUCP: ...!uunet!kumr!shelter!33!Buddhist >INTERNET: Buddhist@f33.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 21:08:46 -0500 From: jcoker@eis.calstate.edu (Jessica L. Coker) Subject: message from Paddy Plasto in Australia This is from Paddy: At present I am writing a University paper. The question is this: Can the phenomenon of religious experience be understood through the type of you are engaged in in this course? In other words, can we learn about religious experience through empirically and rationally guided inquiry, or is religious experience the type of thing that simply can't be examined through these methods? In answering this question you may wish to raise the issues of the privacy of religious experience, the ono-cognitive nature of nature of religious experience and reductionism. You might also wish to distinguish the rational from the empirical approaches. The texts: William James ...The Varieties of Religious Experience and Huston Smith ...The Religions of Man Paddy asks if anyone would be interested in shedding some light on this question. She has been having trouble getting her messages through. I have quickly retyped her message -- mistakes are mine. Question is hers. Nice to see you all on Saturday Thanks for the compliment, Jerry. Kisses. Nancy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 04:01:31 -0500 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Cycles are Not Mechanical There are a lot of truths hiding behind the doctrine of cycles. Like working with a Zen koan, the doctrine requires insights that short-circuit or defeat the apparent roadblocks to understanding that we find, when we try to understand the information that we have been given. The information on cycles was not just presented like a crossword puzzle, an intellectual game devised to allow us to sharpen our wits while passing time. We are not presented with a simple game, where we only need to place together the stray quotes, the bits and pieces of reference to cycles and their time periods, as found through our theosophical literature. Our goal is not to see whom is best at presenting a set of consolidated tables or diagrams, from authoritative literature, revealing the secrets of Theosophy! When we stop trying to solve the puzzle, and instead approach an understanding of the nature of cycles by the use of common sense, we get closer to our answer. We need to understand what a cycle is by using the core concepts of Theosophy, and seeing how cycles fit in with the theosophical scheme of things. What we are given in our literature is fragmentary, and at times possibly a blind. The intent seems to provide us with a puzzle, but not one of the gathering and organization of numerical information and time periods, even though there is historic importance to such work. No, the intent is to provide some blinds, and the challenge is to break through them and arrive at a real appreciation of cycles, as a dynamic part of the process of life, and not a game in some arbitrary system of numerology. Some of the cycles and time periods that we have been given may seem arbitrary. Some may even overlap (like the subraces, where one starts at the midpoint of the previous one). And there may be an immense variability in times to complete a cycle (like the different lengths of time for the different Root Races). All this points to a challenge in contemplation and not simply an intellectual puzzle to sort out for the fun of it. The key to cycles is not in getting the right numbers. There are important numbers in mathematics and nature, like certain irrational constants like pi, epsilon, the Golden Mean, and other numbers recently discovered related to non-linear dynamics and chaos. These numbers may be perfect in the realm of pure mathematics, but are only approximated in actual life. Consider the shape of a perfect circle, then consider how it can be represented on a computer screen. Depending upon the resolution of the screen, the circle varies in how well it is approximated, but there is no screen with mathematical perfect resolution, with an infinite number of dots to draw the circle with. We are always left with an imperfection, an approximation, in life, when we seek to express something in the manifest world. Consider this difference between the ideal and the actual, the vision and the crudely-molded clay that seeks to express it. It is this world, the world of clay, the manifest side of life, the realm of approximation and of giving expression, in which we find ourselves. It is this world in which cycles exist and our understanding of cycles comes from understanding how they are in the world, not from understanding how they are in an ideal, unmanifest state. The key to the mystery of cycles is not in learning so-called magic numbers, in learning of special moments to do things where we have greater power to effect changes in the world. There are such times, but they pertain to aspects of astrology and magic that are not publicly revealed, because they have power and could be considered a form of knowledge that is part of the occult arts. The teaching of cycles was not done in a manner to encourage that sort of knowledge. It was rather done to teach an important core concept, an important root idea that is central to the theosophical philosophy. This idea is not one that can simply be told~even when there is an attempt like now to write about it. There are certain significant insights, though, that can be obtained by puzzling over what has been given us, if we are successful in our contemplative studies. We hear in The Mahatma Letters that the number of lives or periods of existence are fixed, and must be lived out. But that could be a succession of qualities to be experienced in our evolution, an ordinal sequence, with one after the other, but not necessarily of fixed length or progressing like clockwork. In life, we follow process, we live in accord with established law. We eat food, for instance, and then digest it. Each of us is individual and does it in his own way, but all are subject to the laws of the world that we exist in, including the established pattern of human existence that we live under. Our world too follows cycles in an individual way, but is subject to the laws of a greater world or universe. A cycle, then, is the act of living through a natural process, natural in the sense of Mother Nature for the greater world that ours exists in. Cycles are the rhythms of life, and eventually come to an end. They are not like the gears of a clock, always in synchronization with greater and lesser cycles, working together like a fixed, mechanical timepiece. They may come into harmony, and synchronize with each other, with timings tending to fall together among those of beings that are in close association with one another, and not synchronize with those of other beings. When we look at cycles, we are trying to understand the nature and personality and characteristics of a world or universe that is engaged in some form of activity. What that world is doing is experienced by us, its inhabitants, as a particular cycle of experience. Cycles do not necessarily get better over time, or are experienced in higher ways~they may completely go away and be replaced by other cycles of completely different type and nature and timing. Consider a child. As he grows up, there may be periods of play at the park. At an older age, the child may ride his bike a lot. And still older, the child may devote much time to reading books. To the child's lifeatoms, these activities are cycles of experience. And looking at the different things that the child done, we see qualitatively different activities. Old activities, old cycles stop to make room for newer ones, but are replaced, not transformed into the newer activities. We experience life in the context of great cycles that affect us. And we may see the cycles that affect us also come and go, and that they are not all active at any single time. Some cycles may, for the present, be continuous, like a heartbeat of a living being, coming one right after the other. There is a living, dynamic nature to them, and they appear to be ceaseless for the duration of our manvantara. Other cycles come for a few periods, and then stop, or are intermittent in occurrence, where it is not possible to predict when the cycle will next occur, like how often someone may read a book. Still others come once, and are never repeated in our existence, like the birth process, from conception through one's first breath. A cycle could be considered the experience of a natural process, from start to finish, in a living being. It does not have to repeat itself immediately. It does not have to be continuous. And the time to complete it can be relatively fixed and continuous (like the 24 hours in a day) to highly variable and discontinuous (like the length of a particular lifetime). The period of activity, of manifestation, in a cycle is the part that would be called the manvantara. And the period of inactivity, of non-manifestation, would be called an obscuration or a pralaya. For an individual, only a portion of the storehouse of karma is experienced in any particular lifetime. Some cycles in his life become manifest or manvantaric, and others stay unmanifest, in obscuration or pralaya. A cycle would be in obscuration if it was a type of activity that the person has learned in this lifetime, has done, and could readily to again if he choose to do so. The cycle would be in pralaya if it was of something that the individual was karmically capable of, something done in past lifetimes, but never learned and taken up in this lifetime. The individual does not have existing, manifest skills or experience in the activity. Consider the skill of riding a bicycle. If learned in this lifetime, but not done for many years, it would represent a cycle that has entered a period of extended obscuration. But then consider the skill of playing a flute. The individual may have a karmic seed, an innate talent for it, but if he has never actually taken the time to learn to do so in this lifetime, it would represent a cycle that entered pralaya at the end of some previous lifetime, and has not yet emerged again into manifestation. Or consider the cycle of writing an article. We might write three in quick succession, then have many months before the next one. The periods of obscuration vary based upon other cycles that come into play, crowding out the article-writing cycle for a time. And when we die, the article-writing cycle enters its pralaya, until we have another life in which we learn to write articles. Let us always keep in mind that we exist in an organic, living Boundless All, transcending all concept of size, composed of countless co-dependent beings, a vast unfantomable ocean of life. It is only limited by our ability to conceive of it. The best and highest that we can think of it is but our own face, projected outward and upward, an magnification of our own best qualities. There is always more to it, and it is a life! We are not dealing with a mechanical clock or a tin solder. Let's try to see it as fully, as clearly as we may, by applying the thinnest of veils to how we would mask it in our thoughts. Our cycles of existence are not the product of rigid mechanics, and we must take care not to too rigidly picture how they work, or we will make the truth more difficult to conceive. Let us open our minds for the grand Teachings that can be found in our books. The intellect will only take us so far, before we find ourselves faced with the appearance of arbitrary assertions, even contradictions. These only appear to be so, and the real meaning of the Teachings is there, waiting for us to realize it in our contemplation. Look, use Buddhi-Manas, and behold! We have a lot of treasures in our humble books, and should feel privileged to live in a period of history where we can own and read such literature! -- Eldon Tucker (eldon@netcom.com) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 14:26:57 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Gomes address Can anyone send me Michael Gomes's address? He sent me a book with a note but I threw away the envelope without realizing his return address wasn't on the note. I need tto thank him. Sorry for the mess on the line-- there's something wrong with my connection. Thanks in advance. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 17:01:46 -0500 From: Arvind Kumar Subject: Re: schools of knowledge > Just short and sweet this time. If you're not familiar with the > COLLECTED WRITINGS, AAB does expand (or is it extend) on what's > there. I think the Vidya collection is just the odd numbered > schools. What does anyone else think? > Hi Brenda, I enjoyed reading your message on schools of knowledge. I particularly like your effort to 'synthesise' by taking what both AAB and HPB have written and trying to put it together. That is what I have been hoping more people will do. I'll hope that as you read more of TCF, you'll write more messages of this type. Regarding the Vidya collection, why do you suppose that it refers to only the odd numbered schools? Vidya is a Sanskrit word which means 'Education' and probably applies to all schools (unless I am missing the point somehow). Fraternally, Arvind From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 17:42:51 -0500 From: Arvind Kumar Subject: AAB\HPB Greetings Jerry H-E, > The Wesak festival is without doubt uniquely Leadbeater's, > and was clearly part of Leadbeater's E.S. teachings long before > it was published in ~Masters and the Path~. The inconsistencies > I was trying to raise between Leadbeater and Blavatsky concerning > the seven principles is also a result of Leadbeater changing the > teachings. These are not "overlaps" but the direct adoption of > Leadbeater teachings. They are not H.P.B.'s and they contradict > her teachings. So I guess that means that Leadbeater still needs > to be a subject for scrutiny. How important is the Wesak > Festival in the AAB teachings? The Wesak festival (the full moon of Taurus) alongwith the Easter(Aries) and the Gemini full moons constitue the three major full moon festivals in the AAB teaching. Many of DK's messages are on occasions of full moons; some of the most important ones I think are those given on the Wesak festivals. Do you believe that the day or the time of the full moon has any special significance? Is there anything in HPB's writings about this? There is a booklet published by Lucis on the Wesak festival detailing what happens on that occasion in a valley in Tibet. It appears like a beautiful description of something that I have NEVER experienced (but which AAB indicates ALL disciples who have progressed beyond a certain degree experience). I just assume that I have not reached that degree of evolvement as yet, that is why I have never experienced that 'subjective condition' so far. It is this description in the booklet (authored by AAB) that seems to agree with what I found in the Masters and the Path. I have no way of knowing whether the description of what happens at Wesak is true or not! What is your opinion? > Being a literature major, I was taught not to judge a book > by its title. The title of the book doesn't assure me that the > contents of the book is consistent with the title, nor does it > tell me if AAB's teachings on the subjects suggested by the > titles are consistent with HPB's. Too bad--if the covers did > tell us these things, our job would be very easy. > > I remember reading the "rules" that you are referring to > some years ago. Which of HPB's teachings are they suppose to be > "extensions" of? I think the original thread here related to why AAB teachings donot relate to HPB's teachings on a 1:1 basis. The explanation is that AAB's theosophical teachings extend (or go beyond) what HPB gave out so there is no 1:1 relationship. For example, if HPB did not say anything about the periods of the full moon, one could assume that this was something new that AAB introduced. Same thing about the rules in TWM (they may not match anything given out by HPB). > No. I don't think he "simplified" her teachings--though he > lectured on many of them, explaining them in different words. By > "extend" I understand you to mean introducing new teachings not > in HPB's writings, but perhaps hinted at. I think that would be > a fair assessment of GdeP's works. For instance his teachings > concerning the twelve globes, inner rounds, the initiatory > cycles, and teachings concerning the nature of the historical > Jesus are not found in Blavatsky. He also gives solutions to > several riddles found in HPB's writings and in the Mahatma > Letters. So, based upon your definition, I would say that GdeP > "extends" as well as "expands" upon HPB's writings. Like AAB, > whether these "extensions" are correct is another question. But > we are not investigating Purucker here. That is useful material on GdeP that you have mentioned above. Do you see that on 'expansions' we can relate the AAB or GdeP material back to HPB but on 'extensions' we cannot (we can only speculate on whether these extensions are 'compatible' or not). > As I stated above, one makes a hypothesis *after* the data > is collected. This is my understanding of the scientific method. > Please correct me if I misunderstand the scientific method. I > don't think I do. The Sciences were my best subjects in > undergrad studies. As for "accepting AAB teaching," that would > not be appropriate for me to accept or reject it. When you > present an AAB teaching, I ask: where does it come from?; how > does it relate to HPB's teachings? These are exactly the same > questions I would have to ask for the purpose of this > investigation regardless of my feelings about AAB teachings. As > I have stated many times before, I'm not interested in accepting > or rejecting AAB's teachings. Therefore rather than forming a > hypothesis without data, I think we should stick with the > original course of pursuing the question: How does the teachings > of HPB and AAB compare? If you want a hypothesis, perhaps we > have enough information to form the hypothesis that AAB borrowed > from Leadbeater's E.S. teachings. I'm ready to pursue this > hypothesis if you are. Let us put what the traditional science says about hypothesis aside and just discuss what we wish to accomplish. What I feel qualified to discuss is a relative simple question like: "Are AAB teachings compatible with HPB teachings?" Your explanation above seems to agree with what I also wish to accomplish. The reason that I bring up this question again and again (which irritates you) is because I have a habit of keeping the 'objective' in view (in this case the objective happens to be to ensure compatibility of HPB and AAB teaching). May be I should refrain from making any statement about the conclusions that I draw from this discussion since we can draw our own (perhaps different) conclusions from the data gathered or material discussed. > Regarding the Bowen article, I will mail you a copy. Thanks. These days I have been reading APSinnett's Esoteric Buddhism and enjoying every bit. BTW, you said that HPB indicates that Devachan is a 'place of gods' and she is at odds with Buddhism in this. Deva in Sanskrit means 'god' so Devachan in Sanskrit probably means a 'place where gods live' in its literal translation. Is that not a satisfactory explanation for HPB's statements on Devachan? I have not read them so far. Fraternally, Arvind