From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 1 Aug 1994 14:18:02 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: zenrin This is by Brenda Tucker. Jerry, I appreciate your comments and hope others might keep their eyes open regarding Wesak's origin and maybe a large group could even solve this. Richard Ihle, I remember some of your work and was even able to mention an article you wrote for the AT containing your doubts about reincarnation during an introductory theosophy class. I've always enjoyed reading your thoughts and am glad to see your participation here. May I ask, since you aren't convinced of masters or reincarnation, what is it that attracted you to The Theosophical Society? In my own case, at first I only wanted to use the library, but then getting information seemed simpler for members. I really was just interested in living as THE YOGA SUTRAS described and came to realize that other members were also interested in this same spiritual way of living. Interest in the writers and various books and subjects developed through attending events at the Wheaton headquarters, which I lived near and I eventually became a member of the staff for which I am thankful and indebted to my dying days. Most of any organizational work I might attempt is to "keep the candle burning" so to speak out of gratitude for their taking me in. It really helped me to understand what being in touch with other theosophists could accomplish in terms of life energy. I hope that the network members will enjoy the following rendition of "The Zenrin" and if anyone is aware of any history concerning this popular Zen work, I'd love to hear about it. While alive be a dead man, thoroughly dead; And act as you will, and all is good. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 1 Aug 1994 09:29:29 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Cast of Characters- Masters Revealed It may be helpful to the discussion to provide everyone with the cast of characters at the front of The Masters Revealed. When I make references to the Masters, or generalize about them, they are based inductively on what facts I know about these individuals. When others read my comments in light of the way Theosophists have approached the subject in the past, they will likely think in terms of deductive statements based on CONCEPTS of Mastership. Hence, talking past one another. So I hope this helps communication: THE MASTERS PART 1, ADEPTS PRINCE PAVEL DOLGORUKII, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky's (HPB) great-grandfather, a prominent Rosicrucian Freemason in whose library she began her occult quest. PRINCE ALEKSANDR GOLITSYN, Russian occultist and Freemason who encouraged HPB to travel abroad in search of ancient wisdom. ALBERT RAWSON, American artist, author, explorer, HPB's travel companion in the 1850s; an influential early Theosophist. PAOLOS METAMON, Coptic magician with whom HPB and Rawson studied in Cairo, "Master Serapis Bey" of Theosophical lore. AGARDI METROVITCH, Hungarian opera singer, member of the radical Carbonari, HPB's travel companion in Eastern and Southern Europe during the 1860s. GIUSEPPE MAZZINI, prophet of Italian nationalism, mentor of HPB, Metrovitch and Sotheran. LOUIS MAXIMILIEN BIMSTEIN, Polish Kabbalist, son of a rabbi, associated with HPB in Cairo; later an occult teacher in Algerian under the name "Max Theon." JAMAL AD-DIN AL-AFGHANI, Persian political organizer, religious reformer, leader of subversive movements throughout the Muslim world, whose travels paralleled those of HPB for thirty years. JAMES SANUA, Egyptian playwright and journalist, exiled to Paris where he spent most of his life; disciple of Afghani. LYDIA PASHKOV, HPB's Russian friend, a fellow writer and explorer, closely linked to Sanua. OOTON LIATTO, Cypriot magician who visited HPB in New York and aided her literary career; "the Master Hilarion." MARIE, COUNTESS OF CAITHNESS, Parisian Spiritualist leader whose financial support was crucial to French Theosophy. SIR RICHARD BURTON, British explorer, linguist, writer, who was initiated into many occult traditions and became a Theosophist in his later years. ABDELKADER, Algerian emir exiled to Damascus, Sufi sheikh and Freemason, close friend of Burton. RAPHAEL BORG, British diplomat in Egypt, involved with Afghani in a Cairo Masonic lodge, in communication with Theosophical Society (TS) founders in the 1870s and 1880s. JAMES PEEBLES, American Spiritualist traveling lecturer who introduced TS founders to leaders of the Arya Samaj and Sinhalese Buddhism. CHARLES SOTHERAN, English immigrant to New York, journalist, Socialist, prominent Mason and Rosicrucian, lifelong associate of Rawson, founding member of the TS. MIKHAIL KATKOV, Moscow journalist, publisher of HPB's Russian writings, political conspirator with French support and interest in Indian revolution. PART 2: MAHATMAS SWAMI DAYANANDA SARASVATI, founder of the Arya Samaj, a Hindu reform organization with which the TS was briefly allied. SHYAMAJI KRISHNAVARMA, prominent Arya Samaj intellectual who went to Oxford and later became an extremist political leader. RANBIR SINGH, Maharaja of Kashmir, Vedanta scholar, sponsor of TS founders' travels to and in India, "Master Morya." SIRDAR THAKAR SINGH SANDHANWALIA, founder of the Singh Sabha, Punjabi ally of the TS, "Master Koot Hoomi." MAHARAJA HOLKAR OF INDORE, ruler of a central Indian state, in secret alliance with the TS before founders' departure from New York. BHAI GURMUKH SINGH, co-founder of the Singh Sabha and leading Punjabi Sikh intellectual. BABA KHEM SINGH BEDI, Sikh hereditary guru, "The Chohan," involved in anti-British conspiracies with Thakar Singh. SIRDAR DAYAL SINGH MAJITHIA, Punjabi Sikh philanthropist, journalist, political leader, "Master Djual Kul." SURENDRANATH BANERJEA, Bengali political reformer inspired by Mazzini, creator of the Indian Association, involved with Olcott in founding the Indian National Congress. SUMANGALA UNNANSE, High Priest of Sinhalese Buddhists, Honorary Vice-President of the TS. SARAT CHANDRA DAS, Bengali explorer of Tibet, expert on Buddhist literature, very friendly with Olcott. UGYEN GYATSO, Buddhist lama from Sikkim who accompied Das on his Tibetan journeys, "Ten-dub Ughien." SENGCHEN TULKU, Prime Minister of the Panchen Lama and host of Das's visit to Tashilhunpo monastery, executed after Das was revealed to be a British agent, "the Chohan Lama of Shigatse." SWAMI SANKARACHARYA OF MYSORE, greatly respected guru of Advaita Vedantists of South India, regarded as an initiate adept by both TS founders. (PART 3, SECRET MESSAGES, examines new evidence of HPB's political involvements.) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 1 Aug 1994 15:30:08 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Voltaire and Johnson This is by Brenda Tucker. Dear Paul, Wow, thanks for your latest note. That looks like it may have been a several years project. In reading recently about Voltaire, I came across some mention of the motives behind his work with recording history that might be of interest in comparing THE MASTERS REVEALED with other books we have read. For instance, Voltaire felt that history should be revealed within the context of philosophy. When he wrote a play, it was not to idealize the usually powerful, illustrious characters (quite often Kings and Popes) but to teach about frailty, to make sense of learning in the light of barbarism, to see if a lesson for all men could be taught. He felt, as a cynic might, that happiness is not the reward of the virtuous. His choices in regard to what he could include in his history (specifically 'Essai sur les moeurs' (Essay on Manners)) he could not limit to chronology of dynasties, battles, or "details like disputes over marriage contracts, genealogies and titles." (p. 34, VOLTAIRE by Haydn Mason, London:Hutchinson, 1975) "This is to be a history of peoples; kings will be of interest to the extent that they have improved the living conditions of their subjects. In short, Voltaire is writing a history of civilization." His conclusions regarding a "plan" for the world is that in the "heap of crimes, follies, and misfortunes, among which we have noticed a few virtues, a few happy times..." progress is achieved. (p. 36 IBID) In reviewing how far men make their own destiny, he views "moral causes - human institutions and motives - as more powerful than physical." (p.36) Since the climate of his day is one of Enlightenment expressing horror at the crimes of the Middle Ages, history is portrayed as tragedy. It's curious that in Voltaire's time the French language didn't even contain a word for civilization. Voltaire believed that it was the genius and action of a single man standing against the crowd that could produce greatness. Feudal institutions were ineffectual compared to government and religion. But a single man, compared to an organization, suffers much more terribly than the ordinary man in his quest for progress. Mason says, "It is the problem of the Enlightenment liberal, seeking to inaugurate a more civilized way of life but dealing with very imperfect institutions for accomplishing it, and wishing to believe that man's rationality is more truly human than his instincts." (p. 39 IBID) Voltaire has a "great man" theory, but not to be simplistic admits that much can be contributed to the man which is merely a conjecture of events. Because Voltaire is a historian, he insisted upon valid sources. The source could only be written, rarely oral. A written source if extra-literary was also rarely used. As a result, "his standard of accuracy in using sources is high," proved by Pomeau who checked sections of the Essai. (p. 46 IBID) Others have come to the same conclusion by checking his other writings. Hope this stimulates some thought, if not some comments. (Of course, not just from you, Paul. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 1 Aug 1994 15:45:08 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: zenrin2 This is by Brenda Tucker. Here's the rest of the Zenrin with a little * insert. While alive be a dead man, thoroughly dead; And act as you will, and all is good. *From of old there were not two paths; "Those who have arrived" all walked the same road. Nothing whatever is hidden; *From of old all is clear as daylight. The old pine-tree speaks divine wisdom; The secret bird manifests eternal truth. There is no place to seek the mind; It is like the footprints of the birds in the sky. Above, not a piece of tile to cover the head, Beneath, not an inch of earth to put one's foot on. The water before, and the water after, Now and forever flowing, follow each other. Sitting quietly, doing nothing, Spring comes, and the grass grows by itself. If you do not get it from yourself, Where will you go for it? If you wish to know the road up the mountain, You must ask the man who goes back and forth on it. Falling mist flies together with the wild ducks. The waters of Autumn are of one color with the sky. One word determines the whole world; One sword pacifies heaven and earth. If you don't believe, just look at September, look at October! The yellow leaves falling, falling, to fill both mountain and river. The wild geese do not intend to cast their reflection; The water has no mind to receive their image. Scoop up the water and the moon is in your hands; Hold the flowers and your clothes are scented with them. Mountains and rivers, the whole earth - All manifest forth the essence of being. The voice of the mountain torrent is from one great tongue; The lines of the hills, are they not the Pure Body of Buddha? In the vast inane there is no back or front. The path of the bird annihilates East and West. Day after day the sun rises in the East; Day after day it sets in the West. Ever onwards to where the waters have an end; Waiting motionless for when the white clouds shall arise. Wind subsiding, the flowers still fall; Bird crying, the mountain silence deepens. To save life it must be destroyed. When utterly destroyed, one dwells for the first time in Peace. Taking up one blade of grass, Use it as a sixteen-foot Golden Buddha. Heat does not wait for the sun, to be hot. Nor wind the moon, to be cool. Attachment. If you do not kill HIM, You will be killed by HIM. To be conscious of the original mind, the original nature - Just this is the great disease of Zen! Ride your horse along the edge of a sword; Hide yourself in the middle of the flames. Perceiving the sun in the midst of the rain; Ladling out clear water from the depths of the fire. Like a sword that cuts, but cannot cut itself; Like an eye that sees, but cannot see itself. You cannot get IT by taking thought; You cannot seek it by NOT taking thought. If you meet an enlightened man in the street, Do not greet him with WORDS, nor with silence. Meeting, they laugh and laugh - The forest grove, the many fallen leaves!!! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 1 Aug 1994 16:54:21 -0700 (PDT) From: eldon (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: zenren (reposted) This is by Brenda Tucker. Jerry, I appreciate your comments and hope others might keep their eyes open regarding Wesak's origin and maybe a large group could even solve this. Richard Ihle, I remember some of your work and was even able to mention an article you wrote for the AT containing your doubts about reincarnation during an introductory theosophy class. I've always enjoyed reading your thoughts and am glad to see your participation here. May I ask, since you aren't convinced of masters or reincarnation, what is it that attracted you to The Theosophical Society? In my own case, at first I only wanted to use the library, but then getting information seemed simpler for members. I really was just interested in living as THE YOGA SUTRAS described and came to realize that other members were also interested in this same spiritual way of living. Interest in the writers and various books and subjects developed through attending events at the Wheaton headquarters, which I lived near and I eventually became a member of the staff for which I am thankful and indebted to my dying days. Most of any organizational work I might attempt is to "keep the candle burning" so to speak out of gratitude for their taking me in. It really helped me to understand what being in touch with other theosophists could accomplish in terms of life energy. I hope that the network members will enjoy the following rendition of "The Zenrin" and if anyone is aware of any history concerning this popular Zen work, I'd love to hear about it. While alive be a dead man, thoroughly dead; And act as you will, and all is good. >From of old there were not two paths; "Those who have arrived" all walked the same road. Nothing whatever is hidden; x From of old all is clear as daylight. The old pine-tree speaks divine wisdom; The secret bird manifests eternal truth. There is no place to seek the mind; It is like the footprints of the birds in the sky. Above, not a piece of tile to cover the head, Beneath, not an inch of earth to put one's foot on. The water before, and the water after, Now and forever flowing, follow each other. Sitting quietly, doing nothing, Spring comes, and the grass grows by itself. If you do not get it from yourself, Where will you go for it? If you wish to know the road up the mountain, You must ask the man who goes back and forth on it. Falling mist flies together with the wild ducks. The waters of Autumn are of one color with the sky. One word determines the whole world; One sword pacifies heaven and earth. If you don't believe, just look at September, look at October! The yellow leaves falling, falling, to fill both mountain and river. The wild geese do not intend to cast their reflection; The water has no mind to receive their image. Scoop up the water and the moon is in your hands; Hold the flowers and your clothes are scented with them. Mountains and rivers, the whole earth - All manifest forth the essence of being. The voice of the mountain torrent is from one great tongue; The lines of the hills, are they not the Pure Body of Buddha? In the vast inane there is no back or front. The path of the bird annihilates East and West. Day after day the sun rises in the East; Day after day it sets in the West. Ever onwards to where the waters have an end; Waiting motionless for when the white clouds shall arise. Wind subsiding, the flowers still fall; Bird crying, the mountain silence deepens. To save life it must be destroyed. When utterly destroyed, one dwells for the first time in Peace. Taking up one blade of grass, Use it as a sixteen-foot Golden Buddha. Heat does not wait for the sun, to be hot. Nor wind the moon, to be cool. Attachment. If you do not kill HIM, You will be killed by HIM. To be conscious of the original mind, the original nature - Just this is the great disease of Zen! Ride your horse along the edge of a sword; Hide yourself in the middle of the flames. Perceiving the sun in the midst of the rain; Ladling out clear water from the depths of the fire. Like a sword that cuts, but cannot cut itself; Like an eye that sees, but cannot see itself. You cannot get IT by taking thought; You cannot seek it by NOT taking thought. If you meet an enlightened man in the street, Do not greet him with WORDS, nor with silence. Meeting, they laugh and laugh - The forest grove, the many fallen leaves!!! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 2 Aug 1994 13:04:39 -0400 From: vhc@philtap.tool.nl (Vic Hao Chin) Subject: Greetings Thanks, Eldon and Richard, for your messages. I am glad to join you in theos-l. We have recently published the chronological edition of the "Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett" with notes by Virginia Hanson, and with an appendix that includes all known letters of the Mahatmas to Sinnett and Hume. It is in hardbound and available from Wheaton. We are right now involved in inputting classic theosophical texts into disk form, starting with the Secret Doctrine. The latter is practically done and undergoing proofreading. But the text-search-and-retrieval software can't handle the graphics in the text. We would appreciate leads and suggestions on this. Warmest regards to all. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 2 Aug 1994 13:35:50 -0400 From: mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com (Michael W. Grenier) Subject: Re: Greetings > We are right now involved in inputting classic theosophical texts > into disk form, starting with the Secret Doctrine. The latter is > practically done and undergoing proofreading. But the > text-search-and-retrieval software can't handle the graphics in the > text. We would appreciate leads and suggestions on this. It appears that the new Microsoft Media Viewer toolkit will handle the graphics. Would it be possible to get a copy of the Secret Doctrine in electronic form (perferably in a word processing format such as Microsoft Word)? I'd like to run some tests with this thing. -Mike Grenier mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com ---- Michael W. Grenier mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com 612-456-7869 Unisys - Air Traffic Control From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 5 Aug 1994 19:46:14 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Psychomastery I Here is a question/comment not posted on theos-l but perhaps related to the recent discussion of Masters: "[Why do you] seem to sidestep the issue . . . and not state explicitly whether you believe or disbelieve [that Masters exist or have ever existed]?" Initially, I have to assume that the inquiry refers to either the "Founding Guides" of the TS., the "White Brotherhood," or something similar. I assume this because I think I have already emphasized my belief that even the slightest theosophical progress of an individual automatically moves him or her along on a continuum of "mastership" in the conduct of life. I mean, what would be the point of all this meditation, study, experiment, and reflection if it didn't have the power to change one's perspective about, approach to, or adeptness regarding things of this world? The improving ability to live more and more in accordance with the Big Picture is, at least in my opinion, the Path of Mastership. What else could it be? Consequently, if a person calls himself or herself a theosophist, I am usually willing, on faith, to accept and appreciate the mastership this term implies--even though the person may be quick to reject acceptance and appreciation of himself or herself in this way. Of what possible use would a reverse policy be--that is, starting out with the assumption that all the real masters live in Shambala or someplace and that therefore the person in front of one has no mastership whatever? After all, it seems to me that the world is already a harsh enough place for most theosophists: we probably don't need our own brother- and sister-theosophists treating us as though our struggles and learned lessons in life have gotten us absolutely nowhere as well. Thus, I suppose one reason I seem to "sidestep" the existence/non-existence issue (Masters in the White Brotherhood sense) is because there seem to be valid theosophists on both sides of the belief-axis. Another reason may be that I suspect that athropomophized god/godess-figures, angels, fairies, Masters, etc. may have a "psychological utility" which is even as important as the fact of their literal existences--especially if in their "realness" the Exhalted Ones remain remote from us. Unfortunately, because of "Friday night time constraints," further exposition of this latter possibility will have to wait for "Psychomastery II." Warm regards, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 5 Aug 1994 22:02:16 -0700 (PDT) From: eldon (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: The Natural Process of Spiritual Development This is by Eldon Tucker. (Some thoughts after reading Psychomastery I by Richard Ihle.) ---- The Natural Process of Spiritual Development I agree with the idea that our spiritual progress leads us gradually along the road leading to becoming Masters. But this is only part of the picture. The road to enlightenment has been described as a gradual one, and as a series of sudden realizations. The gradual and sudden schools are both true, and describe different aspects of the same process. Consider water. If heated, its temperature gradually rises, taking it eventually to the point of a radical change of state, as it boils and becomes steam. A caterpillar goes into a cocoon, and emerges as a butterfly. A chick cracks its egg shell, and emerges into the world, a creature quite different from the egg left behind. We grow old, slowly, day by day, the changes barely perceptible, but one day we die--quite a state change! In all these cases, we found a gradual process, once engaged and followed, leading to a dramatic, sudden change. After a period of approach, of ripening, of getting ready for a new phase of life, the change happens. The springtime bud, ripened in the warm sunshine, has opened and becomes a beautiful flower! This leads us to the idea of the Mahatma. After a period of spiritual ripening, over many lifetimes, the neophyte has reached the point of flowering, and undergoes Initiation, a considerable state change. He has become an entirely different creature, something more than the man that he was before. There is a new, different being. Every event in life happens in accord with Natural Law. Nothing is by change, by make-believe, by pretense. We can no more become a Mahatma by pretending to follow the Path, than we can become rich by pretending at money making, or by imagining winning the California Lottery. To do something, you have to *do it.* That is, do those things that really make it happen. Engage the process and you grow, change, and achieve results. Do whatever you like, pretend to yourself whatever you like, but you'll get nowhere. Knowledge is power, and without it we're at a considerable handicap. Much gratitude is due to HPB and her Teachers for their work to make the Teachings available to us, outside the circle of Chelaship. Otherwise we're on our own in a materialistic western society, in the midst of the Kali Yuga, the great dark age. The basic truth is that for every event in life, there is a natural process that can be engaged to bring it about. For anything that can be done, there is a process. Do it and it will happen. There are things we read about that cannot be done on earth at this time, because the physical plane conditions that we are subject to, here on Globe D, will not support those activities. But they can be done on the other Globes, or in future Rounds when the matter of our earth is more highly evolved and responsive to the effects of our consciousness. Try some spiritual practices that can be found in the theosophical Teachings. If you are doing something real, changes, real changes will happen in your life. If you are doing something unreal, something wrong, something not in accord with the laws and activities of Nature, then the results will not happen. And what brings results, real results? It is by changes in our consciousness, by broadening our outlook, by uplifting our vision, that we become more than we were. We become self-forgetful, we find ourselves engaged in grand thoughts of high philosophy and grand works in the world, rather than in the details of our personal lives, and in the self-identification with the personalities that we are burdened with. The changes in our consciousness are inner, not obvious from the outside. Externally, we may get worse as new turbulence in our outer lives arises, as all sorts of karmic troubles boil up to the surface. But our minds and hearts are elsewhere, in a grander space within, and the outer events do not really trouble us. We're busy doing something very real, wondrous, beautiful, and fascinating in its own way. And we are on the road, along the gradual path toward that special day when we become something more, something truly grand. It is said that a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. The landscape does change as we start walking, and we do find ourselves going places. There are people passing out maps. No one denies us the right to travel, and we do not need to travel blindly. We hear that what awaits is incredible beyond words, and it's there for the taking! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 Aug 1994 12:37:10 -0400 From: John Mead Subject: TS (emblem) T-shirts available Hi -- The Charlotte TS has T-shirts for sale with the society's emblem on it. The only color available is light-blue, in sizes L and XL. cost: $10/T-shirt Shipping and Handling: $2.50/T-Shirt (In U.S.; write for outside U.S.) Total: $12.50/T-shirt Checks to: Charlotte Theosophical Society address: attn: Fayma Nye 1917 Lombardy Circle Charlotte, NC 28203 funds go to Charlotte TS to help offset our general expenses. (newsletter, phone, ads, materials etc.) peace -- John E. Mead Charlotte TS From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 Aug 1994 14:19:02 -0400 From: vhc@philtap.tool.nl (Vic Hao Chin) Subject: Theosophical Education We have been asked by the General Council of the Theosophical Society to prepare a manual on "Theosophical Education" which is intended to be useful for groups or lodges which intend to put up theosophical schools, whether grade school or high school. So far as we know, there is none prepared in the past. The manual is intended to cover two parts: - theoretical : this will cover the philosophical foundations on what is called "theosophical education"; what makes an education system "theosophical"? - applied: this will cover actual techniques and approaches to teaching various subjects from a theosophical point of view; e.g. natural sciences, social sciences, ethics, physical education, arts, etc. As this work requires the cooperation of theosophical educators, we are interested in hearing from you on your suggestions on: - aspects of this issue - suggested names/addresses of theosophists whom we should write to for advice and contribution in terms of ideas/articles If there are relevant books/articles on this that we do not have, we would appreciate your referral. We shall pay for the cost of purchase or reproduction and mailing costs. Such a manual, if well done, will help immensely in guiding sections who have schools or are planning to put up one but who are not sure whether they are merely duplicating the efforts of others or truly contributing in a theosophical way. H.P.B. has stressed the importance of education but as a worldwide movement the Theosophical Society may not have done much yet in this direction. Responses may be sent either through theos-l or directly to vhc@philtap.tool.nl, or by mail to the following address: Theosophical Society in the Philippines 1 Iba St., Quezon City, Philippines Attention Vicente Hao Chin, Jr. Thank you. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 Aug 1994 18:45:54 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Psychomastery II As soon as God gets His promotion, there is no one left to talk to. The One doesn't do dialogue--except on a bad day when It has forgotten part of itSelf. . . . There have been many periods in my life when meditation and theosophy has left me overly smug, subtle, and sophisticated. I have too often believed I was sitting so high on Transcendental Mountain that I could distain those who seemed hopelessly tethered below by their story-level-religious explanations and ceremonies. Oh yes, no one knows me for a fool better than I do. . . . Take prayer for example. It now seems inconceivable to me that I ever had my doubts about the efficacy of prayer. I should have applied one of my own axioms to the subject: "Nothing that human beings do is ever completely right or completely wrong." If human beings are involved, expect to find at least one flaw and at least one virtue right in there, keeping them company. Furthermore, the things which human beings have been involved with the longest not only usually have the most serious type of flaw, but also the most substantial and powerful type of virtue. But then how could I have underestimated simple prayer? After all, so, so many people have been praying for so, so many years. Did I think that its continuing omnipresence in human history was merely the result of some wimpy virtue like "giving emotional comfort" to old ladies and sinking sailors? Yes I did, but now I don't. Now, I think that prayer has lasted so long because it is a proven and powerful way to get things, do stuff, and be what you want to be. But there is prayer and then there is theosophically assisted prayer. While I am convinced that all prayer works, I am also convinced that theosophy gives some important clues about how certain individuals, in certain Degrees of Self-realization, should best set about to pray. Not only can the system of Rounds, Root-Races, Sub-Races etc.--looked at in what is fast becoming my signature, "psychologically analogical," and only-a-little-bit-heterodox way, of course--make a contribution to the "Degree"-proper form and wording of a prayer ("I-am affirming" is praying, but at this point I would only recommend it to enemies whom I wanted to further ensnare in semi-Self delusion), but the honored old esoteric system can, I believe, also suggest a magical-practical way to work with "analog karma" as well. Simple really: Just say "thank you" for a circumstance which is not-yet-quite-reality. (I hate these occultists and their obfuscatingly dangling ways of sharing the important secrets, don't you?!) But say it to What/Whom? Even among theosophists, the One-Without-a-Second does not always seem like the most psychologically satisfying "Entity" to say "thank you"--or anything else--to. Jehovah would have remained the better choice--if only we could have kept Him at story-level. Alas, however, for many, meditation and theosophy has made God a little too "All-Pervading and Interpenetrating" for a good chat. Enter the Masters? Maybe yes; maybe no. As I said previously, I try to sidestep the issue of Their actual existence. What I don't try to sidestep, however, is the obvious fact that many individuals who have claimed a dynamic relationship with a Master have seemed to profit from it enormously--some, perhaps, even getting an Ultimate Promotion. . . . Warm regards, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 7 Aug 1994 16:55:56 -0400 From: bill@Zeus.itdc.edu Subject: A delurking introduction and other stuff ... Hi all, I've been lurking around on this list since May. Although I haven't seen it done on this list, several other mailing lists I belong to have been gently nudging the lurkers to introduce them- selves to the list's population to promote more and different in- teractions on the lists. So I thought I would take a moment (ac- tually, considering the length of one of my typical posts, several moments) of your time and introduce myself and talk about a couple of things that have been on my mind recently. I attended Miami University of Ohio back in the early 70's studying Engineering Technology and Systems Analysis but never graduated. 2 years in one degree program and 2 in another don't make for earning enough credits to convince anyone to give you that all-important piece of paper that says "you made it!" As my signature will tell you, my name is Bill Parrette (rhymes with barrette -- a hair clasp). I am a trainer based in Cincinnati Ohio who travels around quite a bit teaching about Unix, C, shell programming, Motif, and so on. I have been doing this for ten years and have two books published on related sub- jects through McGraw-Hill. Although I am a heavy Unix user, my home machine is a Mac IIvx. Without sounding like a personal ad, I am 6', 240 lbs, brown hair, hazel eyes, sparse beard and moustache (I *always* try to visualize what the various poster's look like on the mailing lists I belong to -- it makes things more personal (warm and fuz- zy) for me -- so in case anyone else has this "problem," I like to try and help). I used to play drums in a rock `n roll band, I am currently studying the work of Robert Monroe and his Hemi-Sync technology, and I am also trying to grasp the fundamentals of Theosophy. My favorite book of all time is Heinlein's _Stranger_in_a_Strange_Land_. I usually try to post things that make people think a little bit usually trying to use a dash of humor here and there (as my randomly generated signature usually shows). My introduction to theosophy was kinda' through the back door. After a minor out-of-body experience some six years ago, I start- ed researching this unusual phenomena by looking for books in every book store I entered into -- I am sort of a book-a-holic! I still remember the visit pretty clearly -- a small out-of-the way book store in a suburb of Minneapolis, MN. I was looking on, what at the time was still called, the occult bookshelf. There, almost invisible, wedged between several other, unrelated, larger books was this plain-looking, small book with a rather non- descript dark green, paper, dust-jacket entitled _The_Bodies_of_Man_ by Annie Bessant. I had no idea if it was related to my OOBE research or not, but it somehow seemed relat- ed. So, on a whim, I bought it, took it back to my hotel room, and read it. Inside the book was a small reply-card which I filled in and sent off to Wheaton. The literature that came back fascinated me. I didn't understand much of what was in the book, and I didn't understand much of what was said in the literature, but somehow it *felt right*. Since, I have been studying OOBE's I have been trying to pay a lot of attention to my intuition and my intuition told me here to join the TS. So, I did. So I have been a member of the Theosophical Society in America for about five years now. First a Member at Large, then when I found that a local study group was available, I became a member of the Cincinnati Study Center. Originally formed by Diana Saf- fron, the group was led for a long time by Nathan MacGregor. When Nathan left for Wheaton to work at headquarters he asked me to take over the reigns. Unfortunately, because I travel frequent- ly, and because the regulars tended to be more of what I would call "new-age addicts" and a very few actual TS members, when I tried to focus the group's attention on the study of Theosophical concepts and literature, the majority of the regulars lost in- terest and the group is currently disbanded. Anyway, this leaves me with a couple of questions. First, is it my imagination or has every theosophical mailing list message been coming through Theos-L? When I first signed up for the mailing list, it seems to me that there were supposed to be four of them: Theos-L: This lists serves the Universal Village of Theosophists. No topic is too profound, too insignifi- cant, too old, too new, or too used. Here we find our community of ideas and friends. Theos-News: This list is for the dissemination of News-items only. If you are a reclusive Hermit, you will love this list. No discussions Please. Just send announcements. News on Conferences, Lectures, (news) of Theosophists, (news) about Theosophists, and possi- bly a prayer, or meditation, or poem. Please send com- ments and responses elsewhere, or in private mail. Theos-Roots: This list is meant to (un)cover the Roots of Theosophy. History, Existant writings, or dis- cussions on distinctions and nuances of ideas and in- terpretations. As the old growth of the tree of life sends the sap to the new buds, here we savor these sources of wisdom. An inferrent branch of the Movement in evolution. Look within to see where you come from and where people have been. Theos-Buds: The Commencement of the Theosophical Movement. Evolution, Future trends, Movement, Growth, and even pruning. Here we discuss ideas within the em- mergent growth of the Theosophical Movement. The ef- ferent movement of the evolution of Theosophy. Here we discuss our misfourtune of living in interesting times. I don't know, maybe I haven't been reading the headers care- fully, but it seems to me that all of the theosophically related mail that I get has been coming through Theos-L. Is there any reason for this? Second, I always look at the membership statistics in every issue of The American Theosophist -- always hovering somewhere around 5000. It also seems to me that in one issue of The AT, the president at the time (I don't now remember if it was John or his predecessor) was bemoaning the fact that membership, although not declining, was not expanding the way that it could and that we should all try to find ways to let other people know about the ideas and philosophies behind theosophy to perhaps encourage the many like-minded people in the country to give it a try, join The Society, and see what it is all about. Well, after five years of frustration myself, I think I may have an answer for why membership hasn't taken off. Its a two- fold problem I think. First, since many of the concepts and phi- losophies have their roots in Indian and other Middle-Eastern religions and philosophies, there are many terms from those ori- ginal languages that are used by Theosophists on a daily basis. Second, to make matters worse, when an English word is used for a particular idea or concept, there is little if any *plain En- glish* definition of what is meant by the term. This has frus- trated me to no end in my study of the bodies of man -- especial- ly when an article I wrote comparing the theosophical idea of multiple bodies to the more American idea of an OOBE was turned down for publication by The Quest. And, when I gave the same ar- ticle to Joy Mills (on a visit to Krotona before she left for Australia) to see if she could tell me why it might have been re- fused, she complemented me on my depth of research but told me that I had a little more understanding to gain on the theosophi- cal concepts. Very frustrating! Any book written by any of the original theosophists has this problem. Whether it is H.P.B, Bessant, Ledbetter, Sinnet, anyone -- they all "speak" using concepts and words that assume a level of understanding by the reader. Where is this understanding sup- posed to come from? Where is the theosophical dictionary or en- cyclopedia that defines these concepts and philosophies in a way that an ordinary 20th-century American can understand. I thought this mailing list might help me but all of the contributors seem to have access to that "dictionary" that I can't find and so far this list, while it has certainly been interesting, has been frustrating for me as a "fifth-year beginner" trying to under- stand some of the things that are being talked about. Someone posted recently about putting together materials for theosophical-based primary- and secondary-level education. What about some materials for us "out-of-schoolers," people out in the work-force of America trying to earn a living for a family while at the same time trying to become more spiritually enlightened with theosophical concepts? I've read some of the current "edu- cational" material from The Society sometimes 3 and 4 times. I have tried to use that same material to get my local Study Center interested in studying real theosophy (which eventually disbanded the group) -- all the materials have the same problem! Just as a minor example. I believe it is H.P.B. and I believe it was in _The_Secret_Doctrine_ who uses the term "The First Cause." It sounds important, it sounds like it has to do with the beginning of everything, but exactly what is it? (If the other list members don't mind too much, this forum is the only mechanism I have for getting terms defined for my understanding. From the list description above: "No topic is too profound, *too insignificant*, too old, too new, or too used." So when I encounter a problem in understanding, I may post a request for definitions to the list. I hope this is okay.) Anyway, as you can tell, I can get a little verbose and long- winded -- perhaps caused by my vocation as an instructor and an intense desire to help people understand what I am trying to teach. I apologize for the length for those of you that stayed with me to the end. Thanks for "listening." I will appreciate any and all input you may have. May you all grok in fullness ... Bill-- |William A. (Bill) Parrette|4000 Executive Pk. Dr., #310| |bill@[Zeus.]itdc.edu |Cincinnati, OH 45241-4007 | |** I do not speak for ITDC--all opinions are my own ** | From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 7 Aug 1994 18:35:16 -0400 From: John Mead Subject: Re: A delurking introduction and other stuff ... Hi Bill -- Glad to see your intro. We started (way back) with intro's like you just gave. many of our's are buried in the archives... and many who have joined recently have not given an intro. we are glad to hear from you! > Anyway, this leaves me with a couple of questions. First, is > it my imagination or has every theosophical mailing list message > been coming through Theos-L? When I first signed up for the > mailing list, it seems to me that there were supposed to be four > of them: > quite true. There are four lists. Theos-L is the most active (by far). they are there for various reasons. Mostly to allow people who wish to discuss singular issues a place to go without cluttering up the bandwidth of Theos-L. This is currently not a problem. Feel free to use any of them as needed. > issue of The American Theosophist -- always hovering somewhere > around 5000. It also seems to me that in one issue of The AT, > the president at the time (I don't now remember if it was John or > his predecessor) was bemoaning the fact that membership, although > not declining, was not expanding the way that it could and that > we should all try to find ways to let other people know about the > ideas and philosophies behind theosophy to perhaps encourage the > many like-minded people in the country to give it a try, join The > Society, and see what it is all about. > > some stuff skipped .... > > .. when an article I wrote comparing the theosophical idea of > multiple bodies to the more American idea of an OOBE was turned > down for publication by The Quest. And, when I gave the same ar- > ticle to Joy Mills (on a visit to Krotona before she left for > Australia) to see if she could tell me why it might have been re- > fused, she complemented me on my depth of research but ... > You got it! Welcome to TS politics! I doubt that Quest would publish the "Secret Doctrine" if it arrived as a new book for print! Something to do with "Marketeering", no doubt. Don DeGracia has similar stories to tell (and Paul Johnson probably does too!). > Any book written by any of the original theosophists has this > problem. Whether it is H.P.B, Bessant, Ledbetter, Sinnet, anyone > -- they all "speak" using concepts and words that assume a level > of understanding by the reader. Where is this understanding sup- > posed to come from? Where is the theosophical dictionary or en- > ..... there are actually a few good books on the terms. Several published by Vedanta press. Also, there is a book "Sanskrit Keys to the Wisdom Religion" (Judith Tyberg) published by Point Loma. Also the Wheaton Study Guides (Theosophy part I and II; and Introduction to Esoteric Wisdom) can be a good source for fundamental thoughts and ideas! peace -- john e. m. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 7 Aug 1994 21:38:24 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: A Good Response Needed A few minutes ago, I started a response to another "off-theos-l" message; however, I soon found that I didn't quite know how to approach the subject involved. The message was concerned with my "overly noncommittal attitude" regarding the "Elder Brothers who founded the TS." Basically (after some overly generous praise for me--thanks), the comments suggested (in a nice way) that my recent postings "are at odds with what is regarded as a 'given' [by the membership--or most of the membership]." (I think, In other words, it is being asserted that membership in the TS really implies a straight-forward belief in the Elder Brothers, rather than any complicated form of fence-sitting like mine.) A few passages from John Algeo's recent writings in the AT were referenced; e.g.: "But esoterically, it is an organization started by some wise elders of our species, for their own purposes." Well, I can see what the problem is, but I don't have an answer for it. On the one hand, the president does seem to be writing (and the writing does have an "official-position" quality about it) as if a straight-forward acceptance of Elder Brothers (including ideas about "where _they_ want us to go") is a "given." On the other hand, the AT has published a goodly amount of my "somewhat-oblique-on-these-issues" material over the years, and I have never had the slightest hint that the TS was interested in censoring or rejecting anything because of my "non-given" views. Frankly, I don't know what the majority of the membership believes. Personally, however, I would go so far as to say that it does seem at least a little dangerous if our official plan for the Twenty-First-Century now includes becoming known as "the organization which believes in Elder Brothers." I would be interested in seeing what responses others in the electronic study group might want to give on this subject. Warm regards, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 8 Aug 1994 02:33:37 -0400 From: Donald DeGracia <72662.1335@compuserve.com> Subject: Masters and stuff Well, Hi everybody. I've been pretty quiet lately, but I couldn't resist responding to Richards comments about the Masters in light of John Algeo's statements in AT recently. Richard says: < I would go so far as to say that it does seem at least a little dangerous if our official plan for the Twenty-First-Century now includes becoming known as "the organization which believes in Elder Brothers."> I would basically agree with Richards sentiment here. In a culture such as ours that stresses vaules of individualism, the idea of "superior" humans, no matter how benevolent, just seems to cut accross the grain of Western values. Such a belief in Masters is predominately an Eastern invention, not a Western one. Here in the West we tend to think of those in power as inherently corrupt, and the political expereince of our nation gives much credence to this attitude. I start with this point in the context of "planning for the 21st century", for it seems kind of nieve to ignore our common societal values when formulating "official" theosophical positions. This is ironic in light of John Algeo's statement that "it is not enough to study in isolation or communicate with an elite coterie. We should be pragmatic and popular". Are we relly being "pragmatic and popular" when we ignore the common values of our times? Basically the choice is: do we keep the authoritarian idea of the Masters alive in the mythos and teachings of theosophy at an official level, or do we, as a Society, acknowledge the social fact of our Western culture with its ever growing emphasis on decentralization of authority and reliance on internal authority (as opposed to externally opposed authority)? For the image of the Masters as currently formulated and promulgated in Theosophy is one of external authority. These are people, again, in spite of the claim of their superiority, that are external to us as indivduals. If, instead, we think of the Master as our own inner conscience and higher potential, we are discussing a different matter altogether. However, the present view is one of the Masters as being external to us, as superior beings whom we should simply obey. Like it or not, those that don't mindlessly accept the idea of the Masters will inevitably see a hint of fascism in such a conception (especially when the Masters are construed as running things "for their own purposes."). Now, this is only one angle, and by no means the deepest or most significant. Another level this issue can be validly looked at on is the following: one must ask: just what is the psychology of a person that needs to believe in Masters? For, again, as currently formulated, the idea of the Masters can be construed, in somewhat Jungian terms, as basic "father figures". They are a patriarchal guiding force and we are the children whom shall learn their wisdom. However, in the actual pattern of life, do not our physical parent one day die, and we are left alone to face the world, supposedely as fully formed, mature and responsible adults? In other words, our physical parents do not guide us for our whole life - this is simply impossible - so why do we need to project this type of guidance on a cosmic level and posit a hiden and mysterious "parent force" of Masters, whom will guide us on spiritual levels? In actual fact, the human psyche progresses through a well defined series of growth. As children, the guidance of our elders is essential as we learn about the world and learn to give meaning and values to our experience. However, as we grow psychologically, we eventually outgrow the need to be told what to do, and who to be, and how to live by our elders. We make the transition from a learner to a teacher as we come on our own as indivudals. At this stage of psychological maturity, the idea is not to follow the rules of elders, but to have the wisdom to cooperate with other mature indivduals. And even this stage is transcended as we grow in wisdom and spirituality and learn to see God in all things. Such a progression of psychological growth is fully described in the Hindu conception of the four stages of life, and is restated in more modern terms by Jung himself. So, looking at the issue of the Masters within the context of this progression of human psychological growth, one can come to the following conclusion. The Masters, if formulated as some external, superior "father figure" will appeal to a mentality at a stage of psycholgical growth that requires such images to maintain itself. And thus, if this is the official platform of the TS, then such a platform will *select* for a certain type of person at a very specific stage of growth i.e. those who still need father images and images of guidance by their superiors for psycholgical secuirity. In other words, such individuals will be the future members of the TS (again, in the context of planning for the 21st century). So, from the perspective stated above, the question boils down to: what kind of people do we want the TS to appeal to in the 21st century? For we can forumulate the TS ideas to appeal to people at any stage in the progression of psycholgical growth and maturity. And there is another angle to this in that we must ask ourselves: where is our society as a whole at in this progression of psychological growth and maturity? Where is the average indivdual today in this progression? I would suggest that the average mentality of the people in our culture as a whole is considerabley beyond the stage of needing father figures as an essential component of their world-view. People of today are at the level of needing to define and explore who they are *on the inside*. This is not a new trend, it has been happening through the entire 20th century. Thus, I would suggest that, in sticking to the idea of the Masters as some mysterious hidden group of so-called superior indivduals who are outside of us, whom we cannot identify with personally other than as objects to be worshiped, that we will be ignoring the needs of society as a whole and instead be appealing to a mentality that is below the average in terms of their place in the progression of psycholgical growth and maturity. So, that's my two cents worth. Thanks for listening. Bye. Don From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 8 Aug 1994 09:49:18 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Masters and stuff Hi Gang-- I can see the pros and cons of both sides of this one. Don is, I think completely right about the psychological dangers of fixation on Masters. Every sort of paranoid delusion can be attached to the concept, and I for one would rather see us stay small than grow by attracting those who would otherwise fall into the embrace of Elizabeth Clare. We will probably promote psychological balance and health by deemphasizing the father-figure aspects of it. Richard, I don't think there's any kind of unanimity on the subject of Masters in this TS or any of the other groups. Even at the top, we have an international president who on the one hand is a Krishnamurti disciple, and therefore should reject the whole paraphernalia, yet who makes a worshipful appeal to the Masters in a recent piece in the AT. Lots of ambivalence from the top all the way down through the membership. On the other hand, any group is strengthened by a unifying mythos about its origins, and in the case of the TS there is abundant historical evidence that it really was secretly sponsored by a number of adepts in various traditions who wanted to promote the objectives proclaimed by the founders. The challenge-- how can we be strengthened by the knowledge that there really was a kind of sacred intervention in the course of history going on behind the scenes of the early TS, without getting all tied up in the need to have such intervention at every moment and in every detail of our lives and the world at large? Guess what I'm arguing for is a deistic approach. Not "there are no Masters" (atheism) or "there are Masters and they run the world" (theism) but "the Masters were here and started our movement but now they're gone and we need to get on with it using our own inner resources" (deism). From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 8 Aug 1994 11:02:05 -0400 From: mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com (Michael W. Grenier) Subject: Re:Masters and stuff > Basically the choice is: do we keep the authoritarian idea of the > Masters alive in the mythos and teachings of theosophy at an > official level, or do we, as a Society, acknowledge the social > fact of our Western culture with its ever growing emphasis on > decentralization of authority and reliance on internal authority > (as opposed to externally opposed authority)? Don, Forgive my political bent in this election year but I don't see an ever growing emphasis on decentralization of authority. From a geo-political view, I see the exact opposite. We now see federalization of crimes, health-care, education and most everything else. It seems that authority is moving out of the hands of individuals and into the hands of centralized federal authorities. Am I missing something? -Mike Grenier ---- Michael W. Grenier mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com 612-456-7869 Unisys - Air Traffic Control From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 8 Aug 1994 11:02:05 -0400 From: mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com (Michael W. Grenier) Subject: Re: Masters and stuff > Basically the choice is: do we keep the authoritarian idea of the > Masters alive in the mythos and teachings of theosophy at an > official level, or do we, as a Society, acknowledge the social > fact of our Western culture with its ever growing emphasis on > decentralization of authority and reliance on internal authority > (as opposed to externally opposed authority)? Don, Forgive my political bent in this election year but I don't see an ever growing emphasis on decentralization of authority. From a geo-political view, I see the exact opposite. We now see federalization of crimes, health-care, education and most everything else. It seems that authority is moving out of the hands of individuals and into the hands of centralized federal authorities. Am I missing something? -Mike Grenier Michael W. Grenier mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com 612-456-7869 Unisys - Air Traffic Control From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 8 Aug 1994 14:32:49 -0400 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: New to the list: theosophist in Austria Hi there theosophists and other readers of this list! My name is Paul Gillingwater. I've been a member of the TS (Adyar) for around 17 years, starting in New Zealand. I'm very pleased to discover the existence of this mailing list, and hope that submissions from outside of the USA won't be too annoying. :-) I work for the United Nations here in Vienna, Austria. There is a small group of UN staff called "the Esoteric Society", who study various new-age/occult and related themes, such as astrology, meditation, channeling, kaballah, tarot, etc. I've taught a few introductory theosophy classes there too, although I prefer to keep things low-key. One of my interests is computer networking. I'm planning at present to start a World-Wide-Web page dedicated to theosophy (not just the Adyar flavour, but rather anything directly derived from Blavatsky), and would welcome pointers to source materials in electronic form. I heard that there was work underway in the US to type all of the S.D. into ASCII form (for Braille publication), and was wondering if this material might be available? Anyway, enough about me. I've yet to receive my first message on this list, but perhaps I'll request some of the back issues. Enjoy the journey, Paul Gillingwater From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 8 Aug 1994 12:22:24 -0700 (PDT) From: eldon (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: elemental kingdoms This is by Brenda Tucker. I've had a few additional thoughts about some of the nuances concerning the other kingdoms of nature and how we might be dealing with them. First, babies hold a special place in our consciousness and can evoke feelings that are quite peculiar and reserved for them alone. Similarly, the thought elementals are like the babies of the globe, the feeling elementals would be the next group or the 7-14 year olds. The next kingdom might be difficult for some to grasp as it corresponds so well with the material physical plane. The etheric elementals would be the sometimes difficult teenage years. And here fully manifest on the physical plane, we are all adults. From dense material objects to humans, we exist side by side in "full" consciousness. An eternity of existing through forms! Secondly, while entertaining thoughts may be a worthwhile activity, there may be greater horizons. I'm led to believe, by theosophical teachings, that we also make use of energy from realms beyond the mind. My idea is that by calling forth these spiritual energies from the higher planes, where human beings have vehicles, we call forth blessings for humanity. Time spent exercising our right of contact with higher energies may be more conducive to results that enlighten and create harmony for mankind than the simple sending of thoughts and contributing to the general welfare of the thought world. The entire sum of seven kingdoms responding and participating to spiritual energy channelled through human beings! Thanks for listening. P.S. Does Richard Ihle, a teacher of teenage children, have a better feel for the etheric elementals than some of the rest of us? I can hardly imagine or describe their function. P.S.S. I just finished reading about 4 days of messages from theos-l and would like to add a brief comment regarding masters. (Don't worry, Bill, I'm sure someone will attempt "first cause" for you shortly. Maybe Eldon will.) My own attraction to the idea of masters is sort of a secondary notion regarding "the end to reincarnation." Human life seems to me to be inherently painful or sorrowful. Even without significant pain in one's own life, there is the emotional response of the sensitive humans to suffering in the world. An end to reincarnation may mean an end to pain and sorrow. My mother left Sunday morning and since I have been pampered for four weeks with first a mother-in-law and then a mother, I was not feeling too well about the prospect of being on my own with a husband and 4 year old. I remarked to my father on the phone that my mother did more than nurture me physically. When I was left without this nurturing for a prospective 2 months, I physically became sick - headachy, not wanting to get out of bed, achy. Well, in the middle of last night it suddenly came to me that I am fine independent, that I make use of a resource that is 10 times more effective and valuable to me than my mother and this is the energy of my own higher self. Rather than turning thoughts to a "father," I turn my energy to the constructive energy of love, forgiveness, purity - and all things spiritual in nature. The love flows forth from me as a violet color in several directions - to the medical center, to my husband's work, to my daughter, and on this occasion unusually enough to a small country. A friend of ours in the study center is taking a trip with a popular, well-read native of Sri Lanka to his home in Sri Lanka for an exchange of ideas as the friend and native are homeopathic M.D.s and familiar with Auryvedic medicine. The country is in a bit of unrest, so I hear. Can you imagine some of the difficulties involved in being a citizen of a small country, always playing second best to World Powers, and finding your own future stifled by not ever being too good at health care, education, or whatever the frontier? An entire small country of people seemed to fit into the scheme of blessing humanity as I felt it. Perhaps this was an onrush resulting from a month of inactivity. Having mothers there meant not excelling through my self initiatives. As soon as mothers had left, I returned my activity to the level it often operated at before, accessing higher energies through love for masters and calling to them for assistance in spreading around the forces here in the form world. The key is that is not a result of their activity, but an addition to their activity, and a supplement to a master's forgiveness and love which comes through only as much as I recognize my own heart as the heart behind the flow of blessings and love to earth. That's why "father" doesn't seem theosophical enough to me, perhaps it seems more Christian because we aren't taught self-reliance as deeply in Christianity. I prefer to see Father or elder as a human place in the scheme of things when dealing with younger kingdoms of nature. Have fun. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 8 Aug 1994 15:47:33 -0400 From: mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com (Michael W. Grenier) Subject: Re: New to the list: theosophist in Austria > One of my interests is computer networking. I'm planning at > present to start a World-Wide-Web page dedicated to theosophy > (not just the Adyar flavour, but rather anything directly derived > from Blavatsky), and would welcome pointers to source materials > in electronic form. Welcome! There is a WWW page at http://email.sp.paramax.com/theos/theos.html If you want to host it as well, let me know and I'll put the files on a ftp server. (which might be easier than loading each one directly) > I heard that there was work underway in the US to type all of the > S.D. into ASCII form (for Braille publication), and was > wondering if this material might be available? Vic Hao Chin (vhc@philtap.tool.nl) wrote on Aug 2nd: "We are right now involved in inputting classic theosophical texts into disk form, starting with the Secret Doctrine. The latter is practically done and undergoing proofreading." I'm looking forward to this as well. > Anyway, enough about me. I've yet to receive my first message on > this list, but perhaps I'll request some of the back issues. I think that Eldon Tucker as back issues available using anonymous ftp from ftp.netcom.com in the /pub/eldon/theos-l directory. -Mike Grenier ---- Michael W. Grenier mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com 612-456-7869 Unisys - Air Traffic Control From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 8 Aug 1994 16:31:19 -0400 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: Re: New to the list: theosophist in Austria mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com (Michael W. Grenier) writes: > Welcome! There is a WWW page at > http://email.sp.paramax.com/theos/theos.html Great, I'll check it out. Thanks! > If you want to host it as well, let me know and I'll put the > files on a ftp server. (which might be easier than loading > each one directly) Sounds great to me, although I have a Perl script which recursively follows links and grabs all the documents. But FTP might be easier, especially if you can tar the hierarchy and compress, gzip or PKZIP it. > I think that Eldon Tucker as back issues available using > anonymous ftp from ftp.netcom.com in the /pub/eldon/theos-l > directory. I'll have a look there too. The INDEX command to the mailing list seems to have a few interesting things. thanks! Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 8 Aug 1994 18:50:14 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: elemental kingdoms Brenda, I definitely like the way your mind works! When I saw that you were making a connection between "elementals" and a stage of human maturation, that clinched it for me--perhaps we're either going to be two of the multi-pioneers in the second wave of Theosophy or go down in flames together. Here, I am not suggesting that we agree on anything in particular, only that we both may be blessed/cursed with the inclination to take a look at established theosophical concepts and see if they are also useful when expressed in a more modern manner and/or applied to more practical or less-than-macrocosmic topics. I wrote an only partially horrible book, WISDOM TEACHING, about ten years ago in which I tried to open another lock on THE SECRET DOCTRINE with a "key" which showed that HPB's system of Rounds, Root Races, Sub Races etc. could also be looked at as an age-related system of "Psychomaturation." In this connection, your mention of the "7-14-year-olds" immediately caught my attention, because in the book I tried to rough-in an outline of development called the "Doctrine of Seven-Year Cycles." While WISDOM TEACHING was a major failure, I remain even more convinced about the validity of the psychological key, the septenary cycles, etc. When I run into things HPB wrote like (paraphrased) "characteristics of the next Round/cycle start appearing at the mid-point of the present Round/cycle" etc., it just seems oh-so-obvious to me that Piaget, Bruner, Kohlberg, and other developmental psychologists--and "transcendental psychologists" even more so--should put down what they are doing and pick up THE SECRET DOCTRINE in order to come up with the true sequential pattern--and more importantly, get an understanding of what the pattern is a pattern of : _Psyche_ in its original sense of "soul." Anyway, if you are interested, I'll send you a copy of WISDOM TEACHING--free of charge if you promise never to mention the rotten parts. . . . (I would need your address.) Warm regards, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 9 Aug 1994 10:11:43 -0400 From: mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com (Michael W. Grenier) Subject: Re: New to the list: theosophist in Austria >> If you want to host it as well, let me know and I'll put >> the files on a ftp server. (which might be easier than >> loading each one directly) > > Sounds great to me, although I have a Perl script which > recursively follows links and grabs all the documents. > But FTP might be easier, especially if you can tar the > hierarchy and compress, gzip or PKZIP it. OK, a compressed tar file containing all of the graphics and html files is on my PC (mwg.sp.paramax.com) via anonymous ftp in the theos directory as theos.tz. BTW, the WWW server was down for a little while last night so if it gave you problems, try again. -Mike ---- Michael W. Grenier mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com 612-456-7869 Unisys - Air Traffic Control From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 9 Aug 1994 21:12:01 -0400 From: Gerald Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: The Masters and Stuff The current discussion about the Masters is very interesting. Here are some of my thoughts on the subject: Richard - "I predict, here and now, that the Theosophy of the future will be much more personal and "can-do" in its orientation." If so, then I think Theosophy will make it. But so far, I have seen very little in the way of "can-do" activities from the TS's except maybe some very elementary meditations and prayers. Altruism is an ideal, and difficult for most students to embrace at the outset. Most can-do activities involve magic - which is a dirty word to most theosophists. I believe it was Dion Fortune (a theosophist turned magician) who said that theosophy was the theory for which magic was the practice. The societies will have to come up with more can-do things before new members will stay. I must applaud Adyar, though, for at least trying in this area. Richard - "Thus, it is not quite correct to say I am not "convinced of reincarnation or masters." I probably just remain unconvinced that anyone--including me--has articulated or will articulate reincarnation in the final way for all ages; similarly, because masterhood (adeptship) is a continuum of abilities/attributes rather than an all-or-nothing condition, I have never thought it was helpful to over-emphasize the subject--especially considering the generally prevailing "Them-and-us" attitude about it." I agree wholeheartedly with you on this. In fact, I have riled some members because of my insistance that we are all Adepts at various levels and that the notion that we must wait for a future lifetime is rediculous. G de Purucker wrote that every person with love in his/her heart is automatically a member of the Hierarachy of Compassion already. We are all treading the Path, albeit at different speeds. The "them-and-us" attitude is the result of a gross misunderstanding of Adepthood. Richard - "Another reason may be that I suspect that athropomophized god/godess-figures, angels, fairies, Masters, etc. may have a "psychological utility" which is even as important as the fact of their literal existences--especially if in their "realness" the Exhalted Ones remain remote from us." I have written in numerous places that it doesn't matter if gods/goddesses or Angels exist or not. Nor can it be 'proven' one way or the other. In a practical sense, however, magic and prayer work better if we believe that they exist. The "psychological utility" of deities should not be underestimated. In fact, HPB's works are filled with Hindu and Buddhist deities of all sorts, and I am saddened that theosophists speak only of Beness or Thatness, if even that. The Kumaras, Manus, and so on, are not living entities in our society. Although HPB implied that polytheism had more merit than monotheism, few theosophists seem to subscribe to it. If we believe in the higher Globes of our planetary chain, then the idea that these invisible worlds are governed and populated by intelligent deities of various names and hierarchical ranks, seems a natural fallout. Eldon - "This leads us to the idea of the Mahatma. After a period of spiritual ripening, over many lifetimes, the neophyte has reached the point of flowering, and undergoes Initiation, a considerable state change. He has become an entirely different creature, something more than the man that he was before. There is a new, different being. While I agree with you in principle, the Adept or Master actually undergoes a long series of initiations rather than just one. Adepthood is not a specific condition like pregnancy, for example, or any single state that you can point to. I like Richard's "continuum of abilites" as a definition of Adepthood. Richard - "There have been many periods in my life when meditation and theosophy has left me overly smug, subtle, and sophisticated. I have too often believed I was sitting so high on Transcendental Mountain that I could distain those who seemed hopelessly tethered below by their story-level-religious explanations and ceremonies." Don't we all? This is the fate of all zealots, including most religious fundamenatalists. It is also the fate of Adepts, so long as they carry their ego around. Richard - "Now, I think that prayer has lasted so long because it is a proven and powerful way to get things, do stuff, and be what you want to be." Absolutely. And, as you know, it matters not a wit who or what we pray to. Faith itself can move mountains. What we may have faith in, is rather relative, and although we may give it credit for the mountain's shift, yet it has little to do with it. The idea of "not my will but thine be done" is very powerful magic. Richard - "But say it to What/Whom? Even among theosophists, the One-Without-a-Second does not always seem like the most psychologically satisfying "Entity" to say "thank you"--or anything else--to. Jehovah would have remained the better choice--if only we could have kept Him at story-level. Alas, however, for many, meditation and theosophy has made God a little too "All-Pervading and Interpenetrating" for a good chat." Here you answer the question of why we have gods and goddeses in the first place. Thatness is simply too impersonal. Beness can't be counted on to be overly concerned with our daily health. HPB gave us gods and goddesses, but theosophists have thrown them all away. In a practical sense, we would do better to pray to a god than to an archetype. Of course, there is always the god within each of us, and most theosophists will acknowledge its existence, but few actually commune with it, and even fewer use it as their daily guide. Richard - "Enter the Masters?" Apparently, yes. Without gods or goddesses or saints, what else is there? But the true Master is the god/goddess deep within each of us. I like your assessment of the Masters. I think that they would too. Bill - "I have been studying OOBE's" Have you read Don's epistle on OOBE's yet? It is in the Theos-L library as well as in the New Age Forum on Compuserve. I highly recommend it. I would like to hear your opinion and/or comments. Bill - "many terms from those original languages that are used by Theosophists on a daily basis. Second, to make matters worse, when an English word is used for a particular idea or concept, there is little if any *plain English* definition of what is meant by the term." I have surfaced the problem of Theosophical language and termonolgy several times, without much success. I have yet to submit my new book {which among other things looks at termonology too) and so I may share your fate. Jerry H-E has said a lot about this problem as well, which is probably available from the Theos-L archives. Bill - "the term "The First Cause." It sounds important, it sounds like it has to do with the beginning of everything, but exactly what is it?" In essence, it is God. In our material world of cause and effect and time, if you want to trace through history long enough, as a theosophist, to find out the origins of creation (ie., as scientists have done with the Big Bang) then you will eventually reach the First Cause - the ultimate Source or Creator whose creation or effect is our physical world. Don - "Basically the choice is: do we keep the authoritarian idea of the Masters alive in the mythos and teachings of theosophy at an official level, or do we, as a Society, acknowledge the social fact of our Western culture with its ever growing emphasis on decentralization of authority and reliance on internal authority (as opposed to externally opposed authority)? For the image of the Masters as currently formulated and promulgated in Theosophy is one of external authority. These are people, again, in spite of the claim of their superiority, that are external to us as indivduals. If, instead, we think of the Master as our own inner conscience and higher potential, we are discussing a different matter altogether." I agree with Paul that the Masters have served their usefulness. Although we can think of the true Master as "our own inner conscience and higher potential" I think of it as more than that. It is our inner essence, our spiritual core, or true Self. Some call it a spark of divinity. Some call it the god within. Our inner conscience is one of its results. Many born-again Christians call it Jesus living in their hearts. Whatever we call it, we can commune directly with it and it serves nicely as a personal guide through most of life's difficulties. It certainly makes more practical sense to talk to it than to an Eastern guru or some self-proclaimed Adept. By the way, Don, I liked your response. Don - "I would suggest that the average mentality of the people in our culture as a whole is considerabley beyond the stage of needing father figures as an essential component of their world-view." You may be right. Humanity is currently in a position somewhat akin to adolescence. The terrible teens are a time of maturation where a child must become an adult and learn to think independently. Paul - "The challenge-- how can we be strengthened by the knowledge that there really was a kind of sacred intervention in the course of history going on behind the scenes of the early TS, without getting all tied up in the need to have such intervention at every moment and in every detail of our lives and the world at large?" Good question. I think that most of us would agree that this challenge must, in fact, be met. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 9 Aug 1994 21:33:57 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: The Adepts and the Original Teachings This is from Eldon Tucker. ---- The Adepts and the Original Teachings Theosophy is a religious philosophy. It consists of a well- defined body of Teachings. There are the core concepts of Theosophy that new students are taught. More advanced topics, though, are difficult to approach in a study class. There are many reasons why Theosophy seems confusing to new students. The terminology is different; a new vocabulary needs to be learned. There is a difference in the use of some terms and a difference in ideas between the writings of Blavatsky and Judge, and the writings of Besant, Leadbeater, and Bailey. And there is the nature of the subject matter itself, dealing with ideas that cannot be expressed by simply telling them, ideas that have to be evoked from within. No external measure exists to show, to the satisfaction of all, the extent of someone's theosophical insight. One saying goes: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit." I'm sure it happens. But also consider: "Where there's smoke, there's fire." And I'm convinced that there is definite knowledge to be had, that we have a real Wisdom Tradition which goes beyond the latest fad in thinking in any particular country. Politics enters our discussion, because we are surrounded with political thought, and can be affected. We need to be aware of the influences that would manipulate us, to account for their effects on us. Some may be well intentioned, "for our own good," but we should maintain our objectivity. A good example of this is the "politically correct" movement in the US, which would change every aspect of our lives, from employment, living conditions, dress, lifestyle activities, speech, and even thought. There are a growing number of taboos placed on our lives to externally change us into other peoples' ideas of a better way to live. Theosophy is a timeless philosophy; it is something derived from the work of countless generations of Adepts. It does not change as various ideas and approaches fall into disfavor, or come into style, in any particular country. What changes is its expression. What aspects of Theosophy that would be helpful or useful to the people of a country facing famine and death, for instance, would be different from those aspects helpful to a country that is wealthy, bored, and spiritually lifeless. There are two aspects to Theosophy as we find it in the Theosophical Movement. One is the special, esoteric, hidden side. This part deals with a spiritual practice that involves philosophical thought, leading to one of the Lesser Mysteries. The other is in public work, in adjusting whatever society we find ourselves in, changes to make things a bit better for all. This second aspect is like adding salt to a soup that is a bit too bland, an entirely different activity than studying the cook- books. One effort of the politically correct movement is to do away with any sense of individual differences, to consider any thought of being better than others as wrong, because it might adversely affect the self-esteem of those who are less intelligent, less successful, less able to learn. Applied to Theosophy, it leads to such questions as: How can you say that this person is more evolved than the other? Are not both people? Do not both have an equal right to live? Cannot both exist in the world? The problem with this comes with the assumption that to recognize individual differences is to devalue or to fail to appreciate those who are not the best, the winners, the leaders in intelligence and accomplishment. This is not true. A society recognizes and rewards those traits that it considers to be valuable. I hope that in the US we still recognize, appreciate, and reward individual achievement! A gifted child should be given training appropriate to the child's capacity to learn. We would not say that the child is smug, and disdains other children of lessor intelligence, unless the child happened to be socially maladjusted. And being socially maladjusted is a problem that any child may have, and not a unique problem directly resulting from being more intelligent than other children, nor from studying more advanced materials than other children. The same is true with a study of the theosphical Teachings. It is possible to be in a program for "spiritual gifted children" without feeling aloof, isolated, better than others. That feeling comes from a lack of spiritual rootedness in life. If Theosophy is approached as an intellectual game, apart from being a religious philosophy deeply rooted in life, then that feeling could arise and one may have to back off from Theosophy until his spiritual life is in order. Joesph Campbell has a well-known saying: "Follow your bliss," which means to undertake those activities that really stimulate and bring life to your inner nature. The study of Theosophy, as a particular practice, is not meant for everyone, and the 20 percent annual turnover we see in the T.S. in America illustrates this. Regarding the Masters, the original theosophical idea of them was that they were not directing things in the world. The idea of them as a "World Government" came in the Alice Bailey variant, and perhaps a bit in Leadbeater's writings, but was not part of the original presentation. They are not authority figures, no more than a university professor at Oxford would be an authority figure to someone living in another country and not going to school. There is no interaction, and even if you met one personally, what would you say? And what would it matter what the reply was? They are involved with activities appropriate to their station in life, including things that we could not follow, because of our lack of the appropriate training and background. In "The Mahatma Letters," it is said that up to the last and supreme initiation the Chela is left to his own device and counsel. And it could not be otherwise. We cannot learn to do things on our own initiative, and become spiritual forces for good in the world, if there is someone else giving us orders, someone telling us what to do at every step of the way. Some people may have an abnormal need for an authority figure. If it cannot be God or Christ telling them what to do in response to their prayers, it could be applied to Masters. But that is an abuse of the grand idea of what a Master is, and takes the idea out of the context of the theosophical Teachings. Someone with a lack of faith in our judicial system, seeing injustice in the world, may also need to believe in a higher form of justice. The doctrine of karma, as another grand idea of our philosophy, does not, though, arise from a compulsive need to believe in something better than what we find about us in the external world. Similarly, the idea of the astral light does not merely come from a need to believe in a higher form of reporting than we find in the news media, and the idea of an astral plane is not merely an escapist desire for a world where we can get away from the unpleasant, perhaps unchangeable, circumstances that we find ourselves caught in externally. Theosophy, as presented to us in the literature, is a body of doctrines of high philosophy. The core concepts make a useful cornerstone to any edifice of thought we may build for ourselves. The deeper Teachings could fuel our contemplation for many lifetimes to come! The nature of Theosophy may not be as apparent in the Adyar T.S., because of its more liberal approach to membership. You can disbelieve in any part of the philosophy, or reject it entirely, and still join. If you keep a low profile, or do not run for office, your membership is safe. In 1965 the National President was forced to resign. Lodges are sometimes dissolved. On occasion, a National Section, with its entire membership, is expelled, as was the Canadian Section, but a few years ago. (Someone once said to me that was "because they had gone over to Point Loma," but I suspect the reason was that too many people in that Section were Alice Bailey devotees?) I'm sure that such steps are not taken lightly, but steps are taken to control the general nature of the beliefs of the membership. Within the Adyar T.S., there are many factions of belief. There are some factions that I would find inconsistent with Theosophy. As members, we're free to believe whatever we choose, and there may be many lodges where not one person has a good idea of the basic philosophy, and we have "the blind leading the blind." The danger in this situation is that over time we will end with a T.S. that has entirely left Theosophy. It's different with the ULT, Pasadena, and Point Loma Theosophical Societies. They may be a bit rigid at times, but are generally true to the original Teachings, and there is a very good chance that someone coming to them to learn about Theosophy will at least come away with an intellectual grasp of the core concepts. I wish we could say the same of the Adyar T.S. I know that the Los Angeles Lodge is true to the original. I hope that it is not in too small a minority! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Aug 1994 00:09:23 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: The Adepts and the Origin... Eldon, I was reading along, liking your writing a lot as usual, and then I hit something which I think I need explained: "The nature of Theosophy may not be as apparent in the Adyar T.S., because of its more liberal approach to membership. You can disbelieve in any part of the philosophy, or reject it entirely, and still join. If you keep a low profile, or do not run for office, your membership is safe. In 1965 the National President was forced to resign. Lodges are sometimes dissolved. On occasion, a National Section, with its entire membership, is expelled, as was the Canadian Section, but a few years ago." I hope I am wrong, but this sort of gives me the eerie feeling that you may be suggesting that the TS also has a "darker side"--a side which I certainly had not realized. It would especially bother me if it were true that the only way that one can remain safe as a member is to have "a low profile and not run for office." Did you literally mean this? Is there an "Inner Group" which watches us or something? (Eldon, I'm really hoping you give one of your masterful explanations which can get the TS back on the side of the Good Fairies for me...) Warm regards, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Aug 1994 21:28:17 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: The Theosophical First Cause This is by Eldon Tucker ---- The Theosophical First Cause When we speak of a "first cause," we are usually think- ing of an idea out of western philosophy. The idea is that everything is started or caused by something else, but that there was some first impulse, some first cause which origin- ated all that followed. This is attributed to God creating the universe. And that creation is either an initial im- pulse, giving it a start, although it could as well be a continuous stream of creative energy allowing the continued existence of the universe. There are many ideas involved in this that we quickly move beyond in our theosophical studies. One is the idea of a personal God, a particular being, however grand, which is a Supreme Being and creator of all. Another is the idea of a Universe, however big, which can be called the totality of all that is. A clear distinction is made between the Totality, Tat, the Great Unknowable, and any particular world or universe with its hosts of creative intelligences collectively known as its Creator. The infinite is truly not-finite, and is not simply a finite thing that is biggest, best, most grand, or top-most among lesser finite things. To understand the workings of Nature, to follow in our philosophical thought the coming into being of a world, we have to limit ourselves to a particular world, and examine what happens with it. In "The Secret Doctrine," it is men- tioned that even the highest Dhyani-Chohans have not penetr- ated beyond our Solar System. So let us pick a world, and limit our inquiry, so that we can go on: the Earth Planetary Chain. This world comes into being in a greater world, the Solar System or Solar Chain. It is built out of the life energies and materials of a bigger, already-present world into which it is being born. It is not built out of nothing, but needs a bigger world to host its existence. The same is true, no matter how big the world or unive- rse that we may consider: that world needs an already-exis- ting parent, a still grander world, to host it, to give it a home for its existence. And its parent requires an even- vaster parent to host it. This progression goes on, to bigger and bigger realms, without end. It is an endless series, and could be considered a Golden Chain of Being. For our Earth Chain, picture it as out of existence, in Pralaya, and now wanting to manifest itself. The term used for individuals wanting rebirth is "Tanha." There is a similar feeling for the Earth Chain as well, a similar thirst for renewed existence. Picture black, empty space, inclusive of everything, without end or boundary or limit of any kind. It contains the vast potential of anything at all that can be. No matter how much of it we may contain in our consciousness, there are more, truly an unlimited supply of being-ness. Our ability to contain this Space is only limited by ourselves, limited by our ability to expand, to reach out, to embrace it. This Space is the Void or the womb of the unmanifest, the side of life in which we experience non-being. > From the point of view of our Earth, this Space could be called Parabrahman. The Earth itself, as its essential nature or Swabhava, its karmic storehouse and Monadic Es- sence that make it was it is, can be called Brahman. And Brahman could be pictured as an Egg, a great Cosmic Egg that exists in this Space, in the void. But the line of demarcation between Parabrahman and Brahman, the egg shell itself, is fuzzy, chaotic, nebular. There is a gradual fading out, rather than a clear-cut boundary between where Brahman ends and Parabrahman begins. In a sense, Brahman reaches out and embraces the farthest reaches of Parabrahman, but in a practical sense, there is a reach, an extent, a scope to what Brahman can include in its consciousness, before reaching the unknown. We also find that there is a part of us that cor- responds to Brahman and Parabrahman. We have the experience of Nirvana and Paranirvana. In Nirvana, we have left manife- station, and find ourselves in this same Void, this Space, and there is a distinction between our effective reach or scope, defining our Auric Egg, our Monadic Essence, our Swabhava, our storehouse of karma, and the totality of all that is. The Nirvana of a Buddha of Compassion is far vaster in reach than that of a Pratyeka Buddha; and its reach is even further than the nirvanic sleep of lesser beings. There is a scope to things, different with each Monad, with each being, even in this state of non-existence. The Cosmic Egg always exists, although in a sense it never exists, because it is completely unmanifest, and never directly descends into being, as life and form are taken on. There is a periodic hunger for existence, and at such times it sends a ray of its consciousness into manifestation. A seed arises in the Cosmic Egg, a dot appears in the circle, a laya-center is opened allowing entry into manifestation in a particular world. And a world starts to come into being. This Cosmic Seed could be called Brahma, the creative god of the world that is now starting to appear. Hosts of lesser beings flood into existence in and through Him, and we find a world in formation. The first period involves setting up the superstructure of the world, getting everyth- ing into place for the dramas that will follow. The stage set is constructed, and the props put into place, before the first Act is played. And then the drama of life begins. Unlike the chaotic boundary between Brahman and Para- brahman, the boundary between Brahma (the First Logos) and Brahman, is sharp, clear-cut, well defined. This is due to the clarity but also the limitation of manifest existence. Choices have been made and specific attributes have been taken on. Consider the attribute of color. Before a color is chosen, it is possible to be any and all colors, based upon our varying preferences. Pick a specific color, though, say orange, and there is quite a sharp distinction. The vast spectrum of possibilities has been manifest as orange. All the possibilities still exist in their own realm, but only orange is manifest. As we bring things forth in life, we make specific choices as every point along the way. Each choice brings something into manifestation. Another example comes from quantum physics. Give a single electron two paths to follow, but do not look which way it is going, and it will go both ways. It will act as a wave rather than a particle. The wave-like attribute has an analogy to the unmanifest state, to Brahman. The particle- like attribute's analogy is to the manifest state, to Brah- ma, and all that comes forth from it. Now observe which way the electron is going. See which of the two paths that it is following. It no longer acts as a wave; it acts as a particle. The electron now only follows one pathway. Our act of observation has made it manifest. Our consciousness interaction with it has brought it into manifestation. There is a similar self-conscious reflection done by Brahman, and in us as Monads, which brings us into manifestation, which allows us to project a ray of our consciousness into the worlds of being. It's important to note that when we speak of Brahma, which what we observe is not one being presiding over the creation of a world, like the Christian God, having a per- sonal interaction with every creature in creation. First, we are not created. We are provided an oppor- tunity to come into being, in and through the world, but preexist the world and are not forever tied to it. It is our parent, our host, our landlord, but not our creator in the Christian sense. Much like the Egg of Brahman, we have our Auric Egg, which transcends manifest existence, and there is a part of us which can be found in the still, dark, quiet place where time is not. There is a part of us rooted in the Unchangeable, in the Forever Perfect. We are rooted in the highest, and are not the lowly creatures of some minor deity. Secondly, Brahma is much like us in the sense that it is a being at its own level. Its self-conscious activities are with beings at its own scale of existence. It has only a vegetative sense of our existence. And it is the same with us and the life-atoms, the individual cells and atoms that make up our bodies. Our existence provides a world to host their lives, but we are engaged with beings of our own scale. We talk to other people, not to one-after-another of the hundreds of billions of cells in our bodies. What then, within our world, enacts the Laws of Nature? What forms the ruling creative spiritual intelligence that guides things? Not one being, a personal God, Brahma, but a collective host of spiritual beings. There is grade after grade of higher beings, from the Celestial Buddhas down through the lowest of the Dhyani-Chohans. And then within our Human Kingdom itself, there is the Hierarchy of Compas- sion, headed by the Human Buddhas, Sixth Rounders, down and through the noble-minded men and women of society. We all participate in both living and guiding the drama of life. Coming to what might be called a "First Cause," we are at the start of a new world period, a new Manvantara. The Dhyani-Chohans give the initial impulse that starts the existence. They set the keynote for the new period. The initial seed from which all will grow has been planted. The opening refrain that defines the theme of the melody to come has been played. Out of this keynote, and according to its basic theme, the Dhyani-Chohans formulate the architecture of the world, > from which lesser beings build from, and still lesser beings manifest as the materials used. First come the story- writers, then the actors, then the builders of the stage props. Even at the highest levels of participation in the creation of our world, we have collective hosts of intel- ligences. When we say "the Celestial Buddha," for instance, it is a collective name, not the title of a single godlike being. We first have the totality, Parabrahman. Within it is Brahman, the innermost nature of the great one, unmanifest and unseen, the Cosmic Egg. And within Brahman is formed the Seed, Brahma. A world is formed. And we are Brahma's life- atoms, rushing into existence in and through him, along with the other hosts of beings that inhabit our Earth Chain. This pattern of Parabrahman, Brahman, and Brahma could apply to any world or universe. It is a general pattern. Our experience of it is as Paranirvana, Nirvana, and Atma. Life works the same at any scale of being. Discover the key to one, and the others can be unlocked as well! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Aug 1994 23:13:37 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Freedom of Belief in the T.S. This is by Eldon Tucker. ---- My comments regarding the Adyar T.S. and the expulsion of members, lodges, and sometimes a National Section was intended to illustrate the point that there is some organizational attempt to regulate the nature of the membership. Apart from that point, nothing further need be said. Each situation where there resignations or expulsions is complex, and various interpretations can be made of their circumstances. We do not really need to go into any. Each theosophical organization has had its turbulent times. The Adyar T.S. is not exclusive in this regard. Take the example of the Pasadena T.S. There was a time after the death of G. de Purucker when most of the highest E.S. students, members of Purucker's Inner Group, were expelled or forced to resign, and lodges were closed world-wide. This was followed by all T.S. members having their memberships cancelled, and being required to sign a card accepting J.A. Long as the new head of the T.S. in order to stay members. The size of the membership was dramatically reduced, and a large Point Loma non-society was thereby created. Many examples from the different organizations can be mentioned. My only point, though, is that there are organizational attempts at keeping things going along certain lines, consistent with the outlook of the people running the organizations. Is there a dark side to the various theosophical groups? Yes and no. If your belief is consistent with that promoted in the organization, when it rids itself of dissident views, you may feel a sense of relief. (Of course, I might ask, should you feel relief at such an event?) But if you are one of those shown the door, you'd certainly feel that something dark was happening. Who is right? Of the different groups, the Adyar T.S. is the most liberal, and supports the widest range of differing philosophies and outlooks. You have to be fairly extreme in order to be considered "an outsider." It is rare to find a case when a lodge is shut down, because it is considered to have been taken over by people not into Theosophy, only interested in using its building or assets for their unrelated purposes. The views of Richard Ihle may show up in the national magazine, along side Leadbeater, Blavatsky, Hoeller, and Kubler Ross--quite a wide spectrum of outlook. I wouldn't worry about being too outspoken. There are no cups of Hemlock awaiting any Socrates whom may open his mouth one time too many. The question of the culture, climate, and beliefs fostered in any theosophical society is different, of course, than that of the nature of Theosophy itself, and its place in the world. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 08:21:39 -0400 From: bill@Zeus.itdc.edu Subject: Re: The Theosophical First Cause Hi all, It really was just an example for the point I was trying to make in my original post, but, WOW! ... > The Theosophical First Cause > > When we speak of a "first cause," we are usually think- > ing of an idea out of western philosophy. The idea is that > everything is started or caused by something else, but that > there was some first impulse, some first cause which origin- > ated all that followed ... This was excellent! I am still trying to grok it in fullness (and lest I be accused of doing the same thing I was complaining about in my post, let me define the word that I use *frequently* which is borrowed from a work of fiction by Robert A. Heinlein called _Stranger_in_a_Strange_Land_: grok (grak) vi., vt. [< Martian, to drink] 1. a) to merge, blend, intermarry, lose identity in group experience b) to become one with c) being identically equal 2. to understand something so thoroughly that you merge with it and it merges with you 3. the observer becomes part of the observed Eldon, you did an admirable job of defining this concept for me and I really appreciate it. Although there were still a few words that you used that I was unfamiliar with (don't know the definition of), I was impressed how well you were able to keep the article relatively self-contained. That is to say that many of the unfamiliar words were self defined in the article itself. Thank you, very, very much. Now, for the ultimate suggestion. There are a couple of post- ers to this list that I have read saying that they are "theosoph- ically published." If they believe they can write as clearly and eloquently as Eldon did on this topic, why don't you all combine your efforts and come up with a "theosophical encyclopedia" of some sort. There is *nothing* like this published anywhere that I am aware of. With no competition, I can't see how Quest books could possibly turn such a project down. I am currently involved with a non-fiction, technical writing project myself, but I would be willing to help in any way that I can with editing, proof- reading, and so on. What does everyone think about this idea? ... Any takers? ... A group effort from this list? I am really glad that nobody took my original post as a flame -- as a general rule, I don't like to do that. I am really glad that everyone (seemed) to take it in the spirit it was intended -- just an observation on my part as to one of the reasons *I* see that the membership of the TS hasn't been expanding. (Does John Algeo read this list?) I really appreciate the ability this list has given me (at least nobody told me I couldn't) to pick up my theosophical education without getting flamed for asking "sim- ple" questions. Thank you all. May you always grok in fullness. Bill-- |William A. (Bill) Parrette|4000 Executive Pk. Dr., #310 bill@[Zeus.]itdc.edu |Cincinnati, OH 45241-4007 513-733-4747 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 18:11:37 -0400 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: (see below) Subjects: Hello, Education, Psychological Theosophy, Cincinnati Study Center, Theos-xxx, Theosophical Terms, Glossaries, Masters, Censorship. I haven't been online for a while, so it seems that I've saved up a bag or two of two cent pieces to add to the pile: Hello: First hello and welcome to Bill Parrette. Perhaps we should all repeat a short intro. concerning ourselves from time to time for the benefit of those who recently come on line. Or perhaps John can make a special archive for such things. But it would have to be very-very user friendly for a new person to access. In order to save you from going back into the archives for my intro., I'll just say that I've been interested in occultism since 1957, and involved with Theosophy since 1963. My original interest was also sparked by psi phenomena, later astrology, then finally Theosophy proper. I'm affiliated with three Theosophical Societies: T.S. (Wheaton, Adyar); T.S. (Pasadena); and U.L.T. (Los Angeles). Presently I'm a grad. student at Calif. State. U. Stanislas, majoring in English Lit. I also teach writing to freshman students, and am very involved in seminars etc. concerning teaching and learning theory in the areas of rhetoric and Literature. My wife is a Professor at the same University and teaches Public Administration, Organizational development, Government and Ethics. Second: Hello to Richard Ihle. We have never met (that I know of) but I well remember your "Captain Theosophy" Articles in the A.T. some years ago. Third: Hello to Vic. I have come to hear a lot about you from our mutual friend Karen Elin. Education: Vic, I think you have been assigned a pretty sticky problem concerning theosophical education. Though my wife and I believe that we apply theosophical principles when we teach, yet these principles might have little meaning to others with different theosophical experiences. It all depends upon where one is coming from. Take for instance your prospective manual, which you say is intended to cover two parts: "theoretical" and "applied." The former is supposed to "cover the philosophical foundations of `theosophical education', while the latter covers "techniques and approaches" from a "theosophical point of view." Here is your rub: I would first do an exploration of what is really meant by "theosophical," and what is "a theosophical point of view?" I suspect that you will find that these terms are more important as political conveniences than as to having a very precise meaning. Further, if you explore these terms only from the parameters of the Adyar Theosophical Society, then your definitions will merely be a reflection of that Organization, and not be at all representative of The Theosophical Movement--unless, of course, you are making the assumption that they are synonymous--in which case, this project is, in my opinion, doomed to failure. Regarding your statement that "H.P.B. has stressed the importance of education but as a worldwide movement the Theosophical Society may not have done much yet in this direction." I think you will find an abundance of historical documentation showing that a tremendous amount of work was done during the time of H.P.B. and Olcott. They set up schools all over Sri Lanka and India. This work was continued under Annie Besant in the Adyar Society. In the Point Loma/Pasadena Society, theosophical schools were set up in San Diego, CA.; Havana Cuba; and in Sweden. All four Societies (Adyar; Point Loma; U.L.T.; and Halcyon) had years of experience with special groups set up for children and teens. They were usually called "Lotus groups," and in the case of U.L.T.; "Pathfinders." All of this also had its roots in the nineteenth century. So, though I would agree with you that little is done now, much was done in the beginning. But I think you are once again doomed to failure if you think that these past efforts can simply be revived. They belong in another time--and perhaps so does the Theosophical Society. Any teaching theory that is much more than fifteen years old is very out of date. Teaching theories that were the foundation of earlier efforts are fifty to over 100 years old. I think that even a casual perusal of theosophical history will show that the Adyar Society typically doesn't respond to a paradigm shift until at least twenty years after it has occurred. By the time the T.S. begins to respond, the world is already beginning a new one. Psychological Theosophy: I think it was Richard Ihle who made the plea a few weeks back concerning a psychological expression of Theosophy, as a way to attract more members. In theory, I think you have hit the nail on the head. I suspect that much of the popularity of the Arcane School (Bailey) was because of Roberto Assagioli. If the Theosophical Organizations had made that shift back in the 1970's when Assagioli and Jung were really "in," they would have picked up quite a coup. But today, this stuff is on the way out. Yet, the general public has learned to think psychologically, leaving the pre-psychological teachings from Blavatsky to Arundale, pretty incomprehensible. As Bill Parrette has pointed out, these teachings are simply not addressed in the language of modern times. To make things worse, I would be personally embarrassed to repeat many of the Theosophical notions promoted, say in the thirties, to a group of educated people today. Yet, that is the heritage our beloved Theosophical Organization clings to. Yet, another issue is at hand: Is our mission to change the Theosophical teachings to fit today's society, or to change the language they are expressed in? (For those reading this who assume that there are no theosophical teachings, my question will either have no meaning, or a meaning other than what I intend). I hope for the sake of serving the Theosophical movement, that the effort is toward the latter choice. The theosophical teachings have already been substantially changed, distorted and watered down over the last hundred years. But that is a problem that few are willing to own up to. Cincinnati Study Center: Bill Parrette's account of the Cincinnati Study Center members having no interest in theosophical concepts and literature strikes me as a rather familiar story. But what is behind such situations? I think it has a lot to do with the rather bizarre stance taken by the T.S. of proclaiming no dogma (which many interpret to mean that there are no teachings) on the one hand, and defining theosophy with narratives that are so vague that the impact at best evokes sentimentality, but typically lacks substance. Even members who claim to be knowledgeable as to theosophical teachings have been, in my experience, hopelessly confused. A typical example was a recent presentation I attended that was supposed to be on the teachings of T. Subba Row. The presentation had no sense of chronology and depended upon second and third hand sources. Diagrams were presented that were supposed to have represented Subba Row's teachings concerning the Solar Planes and Principles. I immediately recognized them as Leadbeater's (from ~Man Visible and Invisible~), but no one else did. The presenter had no idea that they were not Subba Row's. The primary source for the presentation was educational materials published by Wheaton, that had wrong or inaccurate information in almost every paragraph. We have our own study group here, which is not associated with any theosophical organization. We have learned the hard way that more constructive work can be done without having to put up with blanket rules that serves no one but the Organization's need to protect its own interests. It is small--only six members (but with as many more asking to join), yet the quality of the research and presentations are at graduate level. These students have no trouble distinguishing the difference between primary and secondary information. They also know how to sort out facts, and they didn't begin with the assumption that all theosophical writers are saying the same things--an assumption that is about as sustainable as the old Christian teaching that God has assured that all copies and translations of the Bible are the same. It's a nice ideal, but doesn't stand the test of critical examination. With Theosophy under the control of Organizations like T.S.A. who cannot (or will not) publish accurate manuals of teachings on the one hand, then publishes a magazine ~The Quest,~ that is marketed more towards the new age crowd, it is no wonder that less than five percent of the new members remain in the Society over five years. Those who actually figure things out usually don't stay. My own teacher is an example of that. She met Boris de Zirkoff (Editor of the Blavatsky collected writings) around the same time she had joined the T.S. De Zirkoff took her in as a student, and within six months she figured out enough to resign from the Lodge. But in her case, she maintained a membership at large solely out of respect for Wheaton's commitment to Publish the Collected Writings (which I believe to have been one of the most important contributions Wheaton has made since the beginning of its existence in 1895). As an educated guess, I would say that out of the 5000 members in T.S.A., there are probably less than 30 who have a tolerably accurate and comprehensive understanding of core theosophical teachings and history. Bill's comments that Theosophical terminology is too obscure is also quite relevant. The reason behind it is rather complicated. To give a very quick and dirty historical account of what happened, it went something like this: The earliest theosophical book was ~Isis Unveiled,~ published in 1877. According the Mahatma Letters, a decision wasn't yet made at that time to give teachings out to the general public, so the book contains more hints than actual teachings. Yet if you look at H.P.B.'s earliest article "A Few Questions to Hiraf ***" published in 1875, I think you will recognize via hindsight that the article touches upon every major teaching that she eventually gave out. Though it gives no details, the article leaves little doubt that she was familiar with these teachings from the very beginning. A.P. Sinnett and A.O. Hume began their correspondence with the Mahatma's in 1880, and began publishing these teachings in October 1881 in a series of articles for ~The Theosophist.~ Much of the terminology (such as races, rounds and globes) were coined by Sinnett during his correspondence with the Mahatmas. So there was a lot of confusion concerning what Sinnett and Hume meant by these new terms, and what they thought they understood in the correspondence. Sinnett and Hume then began the series, "Fragments of Occult Truth" in the Oct. 1881 issue of ~The Theosophist.~ It was a real mess. For instance, the term they used for "prana" was "jivatma." Over time, H.P.B. tried to straighten out the mistakes as best she could without embarrassing anyone. Hume, instead of putting the blame where it belonged, started accusing the Mahatmas of giving conflicting information. Eventually, Sinnett published ~Esoteric Buddhism~ in 1883, which was a great improvement over the original exposition, but still flawed. The most well known error in this book concerns the relationship of Mars and Mercury to our own planet. But there were others also. H.P.B. tried to get Sinnett to correct his mistakes in subsequent editions, but Sinnett felt that he understood the teachings better than H.P.B., and held fast. This may sound like an odd position for Sinnett to take, but keep in mind, that he believed that H.P.B. was sometime under the influence of "black magicians." By 1885, the Mahatma's gave up trying to deal with Sinnett and completely broke off correspondence with him, with the assurance that he would not be able to contact them through mediums. Sinnett, not to be dissuaded, found a medium whom he believed was channeling them. Sinnett's later books are based upon these seances. Things were further complicated by H.P.B. being forced out of Adyar in 1885 over the Coulomb conspiracy. Thus she lost control of ~The Theosophist~ to Olcott. It wasn't until 1887, when she began ~Lucifer~ in London, that she had a voice again. During that period between 1885 and 1887, Subba Row turned against her, and started doing his own thing. In 1886-87, he gave a series of lectures in Adyar that denounced the sevenfold principle scheme as "unscientific" and advocated the Vedanta five fold scheme. What needs to be stressed here, is that Subba Row had spent the previous five years in complete support of the Mahatma's and H.P.B.'s teachings, only to make a 180 degree turn in 1886. It wasn't until late in 1888, with the publication of ~The Secret Doctrine~ that H.P.B. was able to thoroughly deal with Subba Row's issues, and to correct the errors in ~Esoteric Buddhism.~ By that time, theosophical terminology as presented by Sinnett in ~Esoteric Buddhism~ had already become pretty standard, and one might say that H.P.B. was "stuck" with a lot of terminology she would not have used if the circumstances were different. That is why, for instance, we have funny terms like "races" which really have nothing to do with "races" as we commonly understand the term, but really connote "periods of evolution." Further, Sinnett had moved to England by that time, and was influential in the London Lodge, while Blavatsky was influential in the Blavatsky Lodge in the same city, there was, for a while, two sets of theosophical teachings, with different terminologies being generated from these Lodges: Those "mahatmic teachings" from A.P. Sinnett's medium, and those of H.P.B. Thus we inherited further conflicting terminology. With H.P.B.'s death in 1891, Annie Besant, a member of the T.S. for less than two years, was already gaining in influence, primarily because she was already well known as a socialist and atheist before joining the T.S., but also because she gained sole control over the E.S. and later claimed direct "spiritual successorship" to H.P.B. By 1893, she reissued ~The Secret Doctrine~ with a considerable number of changes, and in 1897, issued what she claimed to have been the promised "third volume" of that work. In reality, a considerable part of the material in that third volume was without doubt intended to have been included in the third volume, but a substantial part of it was previously published and, not intended for that purpose. After 1895, things began to go down hill very quickly. Annie Besant fell under the influence of C.W. Leadbeater, who was in turn deeply influenced by T. Subba Row and A.P. Sinnett. Besant began revising her earlier works to comply to Leadbeater's "clairvoyant revelations." Almost from the beginning, they began to revise the terminology, and to change many of the meanings. For instance, "astral body" an alternate term for "Linga Sarira" in H.P.B.'s terminology, became an alternate term for "Kama," in Besant and Leadbeater's terminology. Later, Besant renamed it "desire body," and confused it with "Kamarupa" while "Linga Sarira" was renamed "Etheric Double," but also redefined, so the two terms are not really synonymous, though Besant claims they are. By 1904, little was still recognizable. This brings up another point raised by Bill: "Where is the theosophical dictionary or encyclopedia that defines these concepts and philosophies in a way that an ordinary 20th-century American can understand." The simple answer is that it doesn't exist. Such a glossary would have to take into account the metamorphoses of the meaning of these terms over the past 100 years. Dr. Bendit had such a glossary published through Wheaton some years back, that was much better than most, but I don't think it is still in print. Someone is Australia is working on a "Theosophical Encyclopedia." Also, there is an earlier "Theosophic Encyclopedia" mss in the Pasadena society archives, compiled by the best minds of the Point Loma Community, that may yet see the light of day. Regarding Bill's question concerning the term: "First Cause," you picked a pretty abstruse concept to start with. I suppose you are already familiar with the Western philosophical schools source discussion on this, i.e. Aristotle's everything in existence had a preceding cause. But he also argued that there cannot be an infinite succession of causes, therefore there must be a first cause, i.e. a "causeless cause." Aristotle called this "causeless cause" the "unmoved mover." St. Thomas later stole Aristotle's argument and used it as proof of the existence of his Christian personal God. To put the idea in a more current context, you might ask yourself the question; what was the first cause behind the "big bang" of astronomical fame? If I were to suggest an answer, it would be: "laws of nature," or "necessity," or perhaps, from another context; "unity." Perhaps that is as close as we can hope to get to cracking that one, without getting into a lot of vague metaphysics. Since you are starting to read ~The Secret Doctrine,~ I would suggest that you linger on those three fundamental propositions found around pg. 16, and keep them in the back of your mind as you read the book. They are the real anchor to the whole book. Masters: Richard Ihle's "sitting on the fence" concerning the Masters intrigues me. Which Masters do you have trouble with Richard? The Masters as they presented themselves (and by H.P.B.) as over worked people dedicated to making the world better? Ordinary people (to the passer by) who don't get enough sleep; travel primarily by foot or horseback; one of whom liked to smoke water pipes, and both of whom had some pretty sexist ideas about women? The one's who were seen in the flesh and close up by dozens of people? These are the ones who made it a point to inform Sinnett that their judgements are not infallible, and that in this respect they are like ordinary people. Or do you have trouble with the later Masters presented by Leadbeater, who travel primarily via the "astral plane," and have perfect Victorian British mannerisms and values, even though they are Northern Indians. These are the ones whose wisdom is so vast, that we were told that dedicated members of the T.S. should be like soldiers, and follow these master's every request (given through Mr. Leadbeater) without question or delay. These are the Masters seen only by C.W. Leadbeater and Alice Bailey. The confusion is that both sets are named M. and K.H. Though Leadbeater and Bailey claim their Masters are the same ones H.P.B. knew, can they really be taking about the same people? Don Garcia's suggestion that Masters can be construed as "basic father figures,'" I think is an important consideration for those who are attracted to Leadbeater's view of the Masters. If we accept the first definition of Masters, however, we find that they were more concerned with people finding the "master" that dwells within each one of us, rather than having a flock of groupies waiting with bated breath for orders. Censorship: Richard comments that T.S. never showed any interest in "censoring or rejecting anything of my `non given' views." Perhaps you never expressed any views that they wished to censor. In truth, the Adyar Society has a long history of censorship. But if that isn't already obvious, then it wouldn't matter to you anyway. Peace, Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 00:39:52 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: (see below) Hello, Jerry. If in person you are as forceful as your writing, I think I would remember you (I don't). Conversely, I am merely one hundred sixty-five pounds of dry theosophical paper, so even my ex-wife is perfectly excused for not quite placing me any longer. (You see, it is not only in regard to the existence of Masters, but I sometimes also have a complicated "fence-sitting attitude" about myself as well. . . .) What follows is a response to this of yours: "Censorship: Richard comments that T.S. never showed any interest in 'censoring or rejecting anything of my "non-given" views.' Perhaps you never expressed any views that they wished to censor. In truth, the Adyar Society has a long history of censorship. But if that isn't already obvious, then it wouldn't matter to you anyway." Well, Jerry, I have two things sitting in the AT hopper which should tell us a little more about the existence/non-censorship in the TS: One is an article called "The Next Messenger" which starts out with the line: "I never wanted to be Blavatsky, but Koot-Humi would be okay." Following some of my usual exposition, I then reveal a new palm-leaf document upon which is written a previously unknown dialogue between HPB and K-H; naturally, I proceed to share the pair's words with the membership for the first time. If John, Bill, and the Advisory Board swallow hard and give the OK to this prodigy, it's going to be hard to ever convince me they are not living up to the highest standards of thought-freedom. The other, a minor test, is a book review of Ken Wilber's GRACE AND GRIT where I actually mention his bald head. If they publish this, we will know that the Powers That Be don't even censor simple bad taste. . . . Warm regards, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 08:38:55 -0400 From: bill@Zeus.itdc.edu Subject: Thanks to Jerry S. Jerry S, Thank you for your thoughts on my post. You wrote: > Have you read Don's epistle on OOBE's yet? It is in the Theos-L library as we ll as in the New > Age Forum on Compuserve. I highly recommend it. I would like to hear your op inion and/or > comments. Was the "epistle" posted on this list? I seem to remember something in my mailbox on OOBE's when I first signed on to this list. I remember thinking that it seemed *very* unusual based on my current "knowledge" of the T.S. -- its concepts and theories. I'll go back to the pseudo-FAQs that I got when I signed up to see how to get to the Theos-L library. > I have surfaced the problem of Theosophical language and termonolgy several times, without > much success. I have yet to submit my new book {which among other things look s at > termonology too) and so I may share your fate. Jerry H-E has said a lot about this problem as > well, which is probably available from the Theos-L archives. Well, being somewhat of a newbie to this list I didn't know if it had been discussed previously or not. The postings that I had seen from this list seemed to use the terms and phrases like The AT and The Quest do, so I just assumed that *everybody* here was "in the know" and I would just have to learn to live with it like I do with all theosophical literature. Somehow, I felt more com- fortable here among computer-literate theosophists broaching the "20th-century English" subject than I have to people in person -- I have met Joy Mills and several Krotonaians, I have talked briefly with John Algeo, and there have been several other theo- sophists from the "speaker's bureau" that came through the Cin- cinnati Study Center when it was active. I may not have worded my problem very well to them but generally the response was "read _The_Secret_Doctrine_." And regarding "the First Cause," > In essence, it is God. In our material world of cause and effect and time, if you want to trace > through history long enough, as a theosophist, to find out the origins of creation (ie., as scientists > have done with the Big Bang) then you will eventually reach the First Cause - the ultimate > Source or Creator whose creation or effect is our physical world. Thank you for your help on this one too. It gives me en- couragement to know that people on this list are truly theosophi- cally inclined. That is to say that they are willing to help others when a need arises. I now feel comfortable (i.e. I be- lieve that I won't get flamed) asking questions about basic con- cepts and terminology. Heck, I may even start studying again -- carrying around _Isis_..., The _S_D_, and other Blavatsky works. Now if I can only find room for it all in my travel bag with my notebook computer and 4 or 5 other reference books that I am us- ing for my technical writing project. :-) BTW, do you use an X terminal or something that has more than 80 characters per line to post with? I generally don't complain about "stuff," but I use (at the current time) a plain `ol 80- column ASCII terminal to read my mail and your last post (the one I quote here) has *many* lines longer than 80 characters in it. I have inserted newlines in the quotes form your post above to show you what it looks like on my terminal. When lines "wrap" like this it makes it difficult for me to read. I have been told by people who seem to know what they are talking about that a maximum 78-character line length is best. Could you please try to limit your line lengths? This brings up another very minor point that I would like to share with everyone on the list. As I said above, I generally don't like to complain about simple things as above (okay, okay, I'll admit it -- my "plain-English" post was a complaint ;-) ). Typically, on something like this, I would have e-mailed the per- son directly. However, the list-server's "From:" line shows the list's return address and my mailer looks at the "From:" line when I "r"eply to a message. It would have been extremely useful in this case and it would have taken a little less of the list's "bandwidth" if I had known the sender's e-mail address. Now I am not saying that everyone should strive to have a humongous, multi-line, randomly-generated, attempting-to-be-humorous signa- ture like mine, but could we all use some type of signature -- computer generated or hand-typed -- that at least has our person- al e-mail address in it? I, for one, would appreciate it. Again, Jerry, thanks a bunch for your help. I really appreci- ate your, and everyone else's, help in furthering my theosophical understanding. Never thirst ... Bill-- |William A. (Bill) Parrette|4000 Executive Pk. Dr., #310 |bill@[Zeus.]itdc.edu |Cincinnati, OH 45241-4007 513-733-4747 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 09:49:54 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Censorship? Not Quite I always enjoy Jerry H-E's posts and this one was no exception. As to the facts, I suppose there's no basis for disagreement. But as to values-- what the facts mean-- we may have the proverbial half empty vs. half full glass. I'll relate my experiences with Theosophical publishers briefly to illustrate my contention that they're not censors, although they may not be the epitome of intellectual freedom either. The Masters Revealed and Initiates of Theosophical Masters are both outgrowths of my self-published book In Search of the Masters, which was submitted in the late 80s to TUP, TPH and PLP. The ways they handled it and then the ways the various Theosophical journals reviewed it (or didn't) are instructive on the issue raised by Richard and Jerry. Because at the time my strongest ties were to the Pasadena TS, I offered the book for exclusive consideration first to Grace, then simultaneously to PLP and TPH. It was no doubt confusing to everyone that I kept expanding the manuscript as I was sending it out, making their evaluation process much more difficult. Anyhow, each of the three publishers considered the ms. for a year before rejecting it. PLP never formally did so despite repeated inquiries. Grace had Sally Dougherty do a reader's report, while Shirley Nicholson had John Algeo do one. Both were full of useful comments; Sally was more ruthless is discussing its literary shortcomings, which was very helpful, but avoided any discussion of content. John on the other hand was more positive about content and quality of writing, but judged its flaws irremediable. (The flaws he objected to were related to a tendency to overinterpret scanty evidence and force things into patterns without sufficient consideration of alternative interpretations. I took this very seriously and hope to have remedied it in the new books). The point of all this is the half full vs. half empty issue. If I compare the Theosophical societies against an ideal of how I think they ought to be, I can come up with some pretty negative judgments. Like-- they should have been much more encouraging of research of the quality I was doing, much less foot-dragging about prompt replies (although here I must give Shirley N. a gold star), much less fearful about publishing something that threatened received views etc. After I self-published, William Metzger assigned a review for the AT to Joy Mills, who I thought was very fair and open-minded. Emmett reprinted her review in the AT. No Pasadena or ULT publication ever acknowledged the book existed. Lots of other Adyar-related ones gave fairly positive reviews. The only really bad one was in the Canadian Theosophist, whose reviewer had obviously not read the book (he said I identified Morya as Mikhail Katkov, when Ranbir Singh, the person I really identify as Morya, appears less than halfway through the book.) And that's no longer and Adyar- affiliated journal. (Oh yeah-- then there's Mark J.) When I compare the Theosophical response to my work to the real world of other spiritual organizations, things are quite different. What would the Mormons have said to me if I'd found the golden plates, and they weren't what J. Smith claimed? What would the Christian Scientists have said if I showed up with Mrs. Eddy's secret diaries that revealed unwelcome truths about the origins of CS? Probably threats of lawsuits in either case and certainly not one second of serious consideration of publishing. Theosophical publishers, on the other hand, at least gave long and hard thought to my work, and gave me helpful evaluations of it. And after I went ahead and self-published, the Adyar Theosophists (not just here but around the world) were far more receptive and kind than I had hoped despite the unsettling quality of my findings. The one thing about which I COULD be really negative is that Sylvia Cranston's "biography" of HPB got full and enthusiastic support from all the organizations which rejected me in various ways. (I put biography in quotes because it's more of a compilation-- 50% or more of the text is not by Cranston-- and because it fails to provide a coherent narrative of HPB's life-- leaving out Yuri for example.) I leave it to others to compare The Masters Revealed to the Cranston bio, but will quote The Bloomsbury Review (March/April): "Johnson's approach is much less credulous and much more rigorous than Cranston's." The point is, I could say "this prove's they're all a bunch of censors out to promote a highly distorted version of history and suppress a sincere effort at looking objectively at it." But that would be wrong; everyone is going to be more sympathetic to something that confirms their biases than to something that confronts them-- human nature. No one has overtly tried to suppress my work, they've just refused to publish it. And ultimately it can only be good for my work to have Cranston's alternative so widely disseminated and so clearly available for comparison. Gotta run, I'm overdue somewhere. Namaste From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 13:09:44 -0400 From: vhc@philtap.tool.nl (Vic Hao Chin) Subject: Theosophical Encyclopedia I read the question of Bill proposing the preparation of a theosophical encyclopedia. There is such an effort now, being handled by a group of editors headed by Phil Harris of Australia, of which I am also involved. It is a laborious job, and perhaps a hundred letters have been sent all over the theosophical world asking for involvement and contribution. Contributed articles have come from many people, which include some of the most respected names in the theosophical world. A few hundred articles have already been finished in a relatively raw form, subject to much editing and re-editing in the months (or years) to come. Assistance and support to this project would be most welcome. Among the major areas that need experts are in the philosophical, historical and biographical categories. Articles should endeavor to be objective and well-balanced. They may also have to be re-edited to conform to the encyclope dia format. If there are volunteers among those who have access to theos-l, I will get in touch with Phil and perhaps we can identify areas or subjects which people can research and contribute to. This work will require years and many, many people. Will you help? Vic Hao Chin Jr. (vhc@philtap.tool.nl) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 13:25:12 -0400 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: Re: The Theosophical First Cause bill@Zeus.itdc.edu writes: > ... combine > your efforts and come up with a "theosophical encyclopedia" of > some sort. There is *nothing* like this published anywhere that > I am aware of. Something along these lines has been tried before, with mixed results.[1] In my opinion, theosophy is something that is dynamic, everchanging according to its field of expression yet based on principles with universal application. What may be "true" for one time and place becomes relatively less true elsewhere/when. > With no competition, I can't see how Quest books > could possibly turn such a project down. Who would buy it? Frankly, I feel there are *enough* theosophical books--at least, my bookshelves are FULL of them! :-) But consider--how can we "catch the crest-wave of intellectuals" in this new cycle? One approach may be to consider a form of electronic publishing. We're all already involved, through the use of e-mail (and before this, with the conference area on PeaceNet/EcoNet), so it's not too far off to consider publishing over the Internet, e.g. with World Wide Web. And the beauty of this is that once sufficient material has been gathered together, it's relatively easy and cost-effective to produce a CD-ROM. Furthermore, as ideas change, it's relatively easy to update material, e.g. to track the latest discoveries in science that tally with theosophical ideas. In my opinion, there are already more than enough expositions of theosophical ideas in printed form -- but perhaps it's time to establish a beach-head of theosophical thought in "Cyberspace", which is really just another manifestation of the divine mind through electronic media. > ... A group effort from this list? Synergy can be a wonderful tool. Let's discuss further. Peer review of [written] materials can improve the quality of our expression. References: [1] Basic Theosophy, Geoffrey Hodson [2] Theosophical Glossary, HPB [3] Man: Whence, How and Whither, CWL and AB [4] The Encylopaedia of Ancient and Forbidden Knowledge, Zolar From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 14:40:22 -0400 From: bill@Zeus.itdc.edu Subject: Re: Theosophical Encyclopedia Vic, This is a really weird feeling for me. On the one hand, I am really excited that such a project is underway. As I have al- ready said, it is a work -- *I* believe -- that is sorely needed. On the other hand, I take the news with a little trepidation -- specifically about: > ... Contributed articles have come from > many people, which include some of the most respected names in the theosoph- > ical world ... By its very nature, I believe, an encyclopedia is supposed to be a collection of articles that can be referenced and *under- stood* by the nonexperts who may be researching the field or, as in my case, just trying to understand the fundamentals. It seems to me that such a project would *have to be: > ... subject to much editing and re-editing ... to make it readable, understandable, and enjoyable to a person living in the modern 20th-century world. This is, after all, the "complaint" I was voicing (Oops, I forgot, I don't usually com- plain ;-) ). Are these editors going to attempt such a conver- sion? Will I be able to look up "First Cause," "Globes," "Ether- ic Body," and the like and get a plain-English (I assume it is being written in English) "translation" of theosophical concepts and terms described in 20th-century terminaology? > ... Assistance and support to this project would be most welcome ... BTW, was this project announced anywhere? ... The AT? ... The Quest? ... anywhere? I'll admit to being a little backed up on my reading of the journals I subscribe to, but I don't remember seeing this project, or any requests for assistance, being pub- lished anywhere else. > ... Among the > major areas that need experts are in the philosophical, historical and > biographical categories ... Is there any other, non-expert help needed? Is there a pro- jected publication date? Has a publisher even been lined up? As I said in my earlier post, I am currently working on a non- theosophical, technical writing project of my own (maybe more than one). But if I can find the time and if there is something a non-expert can do, I'd be willing. > This work will require years and many, many people. Will you help? Thanks for posting your note. It's good to hear that some- thing is being worked on. And I hope that some of the experts on this forum might find the time to contribute -- in modern 20th- century terms -- to keep the number of years to a minimum. Never thirst ... Bill-- |William A. (Bill) Parrette|4000 Executive Pk. Dr., #310 |bill@[Zeus.]itdc.edu |Cincinnati, OH 45241-4007 513-733-4747 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 16:37:52 -0400 From: bill@Zeus.itdc.edu Subject: A *long* OFF-TOPIC message of importance I hope everyone will forgive me for this very long off-topic post. It seemed important to me that, if this is true, as many people should know about it as possible. I'm not real fond of cross-posting something as long and off-topic as this ... it just seemed important. Thanks, Bill Parrette. Forwarded... Folks, If you haven't seen this and you are interested in using the Internet in the future you may find it of interest to read the following and to respond. Subject: Metered Usage of the Internet: JSN A very bad storm is brooding on the horizon. In the future, you might have to pay a charge for every E-mail message you send or receive, every Usenet article you read, every kilobyte of data you transfer with ftp, every hypertext link you follow with NCSA Mosaic or Gopher... Hopefully this frightens you as much as it does me. But it will happen, unless YOU do something about it. Please read the attached, fill out the requested info, and mail it back to mike@essential.org. It also wouldn't hurt to forward a copy of this to everyone you know on the Internet. Thanks for your support. Craig Smith, John on the other hand was more positive about > content and quality of writing, but judged its flaws >irremediable. (The > flaws he objected to were related to a tendency to > overinterpret scanty evidence and force things into patterns > without sufficient consideration of alternative > interpretations. I took this very seriously and hope to have > remedied it in the new books). Of course Algeo's (stated) objection was the same as Santucci and myself when we reviewed the book for publication through ~Theosophical History~ (though, unlike John, we didn't consider the "flaws" to have been "irremediable.") Santucci's issue was purely concerned with scholastic standards, and otherwise would loved to have published it. We didn't have a censorship issue with your work. So, that makes I.S.O.T.M. problematical as a test of censorship with T.P.H. However, it is interesting that John decided to invoke the scholarship issue as a reason for turning down your book, when T.P.H. is normally ridiculously loose on that issue. Doesn't that tell us something? PJ> The one thing about which I COULD be really negative is that > Sylvia Cranston's "biography" of HPB got full and enthusiastic > support from all the organizations which rejected me in various > ways. You are right of course, Cranston's biography is more of a compilation and less original writing (that was her intention), and got a much warmer acceptance. But the issue here is indeed acceptance. Cranston wrote a book about what most Theosophist's would like to believe about H.P.B., and you wrote a book about what most theosophist's don't want to believe. I don't need to tell you which reading audience is going to be less critical. The sad truth is that unpopular ideas require more documentation than popular ones. Based upon this truism, I think it was predictable that you got a better reception from non-theosophists who had no vested interest in the Masters, while Cranston scored better with Theosophists. That's politics. PJ> After I self-published, William Metzger > assigned a review for the AT to Joy Mills, who I thought was > very fair and open-minded. Emmett reprinted her review in the > AT. No Pasadena or ULT publication ever acknowledged the book > existed. See how things work out? When we produced our video and video guide ~The Perennial Wisdom,~ it was a much better technical production quality (i.e. lighting, directing, sound etc.) than anything produced by Wheaton at the time (not to mention the quality of the content). Yet it received no reviews nor acknowledgements through the A.T. However, T.U.P. began distributing it through their catalogue. Now, I understand, the Quest book shop in Wheaton is also selling it. We produced that video with the intent that it could be used by all of the Organizations. Therefore we were very careful not to make it sound like a publicity rap for any one of them. When we started showing the finished product around to representative members of the three Societies, the response was strange: A Point Loma person thought that the Video was slated towards U.L.T. A U.L.T. viewer told us that it was slanted towards Point Loma. Our Wheaton viewer thought that it was too "narrow." Bill Parrette, My views are not unique, but are commonly held among almost (if not everyone) who has done any real in depth research into theosophy. The difference is that I express these views. Others prefer to keep quiet and stay on the "good side" of everybody that they can. The obvious payoffs of keeping your mouth shut are having access to archival material in the Societies and sometimes to get published by them. Keeping one's mouth shut also lessens the risk of having slanderous stories circulated, for the purpose of lessening one's credibility. So my "outspokenness" comes at a great personal cost. The irony is, that: though I'm very critical of Adyar, I'm in a sense one of their most devoted members. I have been with them since 1963, and became a life member almost ten years ago. I wish nothing but the best for them in their misguided efforts to be a vehicle for the Theosophical Movement. Making available suppressed information is the only effective way I have found so far to help them to get on track to do what they are supposed to be doing. I would love to find an easier way. So one might say that I'm one of the best friends the Adyar Society can have, because of the opportunities I give them to see and learn from their mistakes. For example, we used to do historical slide presentations for prospective new members at our Lodge when we lived in Los Angeles. Our rationale was that a historical knowledge of theosophy is also necessary in order to have a balanced understanding of the subject. News of our activities caused a stir in Wheaton, and I received a letter from a former National President informing me that there is an "unwritten policy" against discussing theosophical history. Shortly after that, Wheaton produced a historical video, some of which tried to answer some of the issues we had raised in our own presentation. Now I have to laugh while reading the first sentence of Algeo's "Viewpoint" in the current A.T.: "When we look ahead to the future of Theosophy in the next century, we must also look back to the past--to the foundation of the Theosophical Society and the annunciation of modern Theosophy by H.P. Blavatsky." Its amazing how policies change. Peace Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 13 Aug 1994 12:36:47 -0400 From: "LEWIS LUCAS" Subject: Re: (see below) God, I love your irreverance! Reminds me so much of Blavatsky. Lewis From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 13 Aug 1994 12:51:37 -0400 From: "LEWIS LUCAS" Subject: Re: A delurking introduction and other stuff ... > > of understanding by the reader. Where is this > > understanding supposed to come from? Where is > > the theosophical dictionary or en- > > there are actually a few good books on the terms. Several > published by Vedanta press. Also, there is a book > "Sanskrit Keys to the Wisdom Religion" (Judith Tyberg) > published by Point Loma. > > Also the Wheaton Study Guides (Theosophy part I and II; > and Introduction to Esoteric Wisdom) can be a good > source for fundamental thoughts & ideas! > > peace -- > > john e. m. Another one is Blavatsky's Theosophical Glossary. Lewis From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 13 Aug 1994 13:06:21 -0400 From: vhc@philtap.tool.nl (Vic Hao Chin) Subject: Theosophical Education Hello, Jerry, and thank you for the valuable insights on theosophical education. We should take note of the points you raised. Despite the many dangers in such a quest, however, we should not be deterred from daring to pin down the essence of what is theosophical education. Surprisingly, after more than a century of theosophical scholarship and organizational experience, there does not seem to be a commonly accepted set of principles on theosophical education. Is Happy Valley (in Ojai) a theosophical school? Are the Krishnamurti schools theosophical schools? How about the Raja Yoga schools of K. Tingley? Or the schools set up by Olcott, Besant, and others in India and Sri Lanka? (I understand that there are 50 of them at present in India.) Is Montessori education a theosophical one? How do we decide which is what? How do we go about this? My thoughts are that: a. If there is some degree of consensus among theosophist-educators on a set of principles on theosophical education, then we should put them down in writing as an initial guideline to those who wish to start theosophical schools. b. If there is no consensus as yet, then we should initiate a worldwide discussion on what is theosophical education, based on individual and institutional experiences. In time, such discussion will precipitate into some recurrent themes and ideas, and these hopefully would become, for the time being, the principles of theosophical education. If they should change in time, then let them change. (If in the discussion we discover that there cannot be any set of principles that can properly be called theosophical, then at least we are better off knowing that there is none.) We plan to write people who have been involved in theosophical education and ask them their views on this. We would appreciate names and addresses of people whom you feel can contribute to the question of what is theosophical education. Best regards. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 13 Aug 1994 13:35:22 -0400 From: Gerald Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Censorship Richard. First of all, I want to express my appreciation for your fabulous sense of humor. I am usually in stitches when I read your articles. I am already on record as saying that a sense of humor is essential, and that too many writers have a somber air of deadly seriousness. Those who truly KNOW, should be able to laugh about it. Please, keep it up. Everyone. Lastly, I do not think that any of the TS's will expel members merely for their beliefs or interests. The only requirement for membership, that I know of, is a sincere belief in universal brotherhood. If a member is prejudice toward a sex or race, for example, then I can understand a TS expelling such a member. Paul Johnson gave us a good example. I can provide another. I joined the Pasadena TS in 1969. Since then, I became interested in magic. I have written 7 books (8th due out soon) and numerous pamphlets and articles on magic. Grace Knoche once asked me why I had such an interest - "Why magic?" she asked me. the Pasadena TS is very opposed to practicing magic because they feel it is too dangerous. I have, in effect, been given matches to children (and yes, I have consciously accepted the karmic burden of my books, as has Paul). So, if they wanted to expel members who publically went against their policies and convictions, then I should have been expelled years ago. Yet Pasadena, from Grace down, has never been anything but friendly and loving to me. (I suppose at some point, I will have to break down and confess the real reason why magic). Anyway, if any of the TS's really want to police their membership, they had better look to this Study Group, because we have absolutely no restrictions placed on what we say here. Unlike the TS's publications, there are no editors here. Some folks write about how great their TS is, and some write horror stories. It may be embarrassing for a TS leader to see dirty linen aired in public, but I for one am not influenced by any of it. I realize that all human organizations have their problems, personality conflicts being just one. Also, I am not an historian. I let Paul and Jerry tell us what they think really happened in theosophical history because, as historians, they are qualified to speak out. So you won't hear any history from me, except the little that I have personally experienced. As to personalities, I use the rule "by their fruits you shall know them." I don't especially care what Leadbeater was supposed to have said to so and so, or what his sexual preferences were, or that HPB is said to have smoked, used drugs, cussed, and traveled for weeks at a time across the continents in the company of several men. I prefer to read their works and judge them by that alone. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 13 Aug 1994 13:50:22 -0400 From: "LEWIS LUCAS" Subject: Re: A Good Response Needed I answer with some trepidation that my reponse is not a "good" one, but my opinion is that belief in the Masters is not considered a prerequisite of membership. That many would find the existence of an advanced group secretly engaged in influencing and directing people and events for the purpose of awakening humanity to its unrecognized (and for the most part latent) potential a concept which they could ascribe to does not surprise me. It is surprising to me that after even a cursory exploration of the concepts of theosophy members would still find such a notion improbable. The theosophy I have explored tells of an ordered universe full of purpose and meaning for each individual no matter how insignifcant one may feel in its vastness. One ruled by laws and justice with compassion. That there may be those far in advance of others willing to teach, provide direction and even protection within clearly defined laws of nature--which anyone can learn, does not seem proposterous to me. So many of us wander through life with no clue to our purpose of existence becoming jaded and cynical that life has anything to offer us but pain and suffering for no purpose! While members of the various groups may not agree on details, the broad outline of a scheme of evolution with the potential to improve each and every one of us guided and directed by our Elder Brothers seems far to noble an ideal to cast aside ligthly. Even one that might inspire some to commit themselves to working for it in some small way. Organization such as these are worth belonging to, supporting, and working in! Lewis From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 13 Aug 1994 16:53:54 -0400 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: education; values Vic: You have what could be a very exciting quest going here. I have always felt that education is the most important thing organizations working for the theosophical movement could be doing. Therefore I would suggest that you begin this discussion among theosophist-educators in *all* of the Organizations and make this a joint inter-theosophical-organizational project. I feel that the project is too important to be engineered and controlled by a single Theosophical organization. All of the Theosophical Organizations have practical experience in education and have much to contribute from the perspectives of their various theosophical traditions. I also would want to include the Anthroposophical Society's Waldorf schools also. Of all of the schools that have been set up for "theosophical education," they are best known for the practical application of theosophical principles. Returning to the original issue in my last post: I would like to see an open discussion generated here concerning what is "theosophical" and what is a "theosophical principle." To kick off such a discussion, I have the following observations: For education to be "theosophical" it would have to be characterized as being in harmony with nature. Therefore one would need to look into the issues concerning ethics, and work towards a system of universal ethics. The closer we come to developing and teaching a program of universal ethics, the more "theosophical" an educational system would be. Thus, I suggest that one example of a theosophical principle would be "universal ethics." Enough for now. Jerry S: JS> As to personalities, I use the rule "by their fruits you > shall know them." I don't especially care what Leadbeater was > supposed to have said to so and so, or what his sexual > preferences were, or that HPB is said to have smoked, used > drugs, cussed, and traveled for weeks at a time across the > continents in the company of several men. I prefer to read > their works and judge them by that alone. I both agree with and at the same time am a bit disturbed by your response here. Judging by your messages over the years on e-mail, I see you as a peaceful and tolerant person who would not want to bring harm upon anyone. Whether your neighbor is sleeping with a friend; is straight or gay, is into S & M, likes kinky sex etc., I think we both agree is a matter best left alone. Myself, I would consider these matters to be none of my business. However, if the victims of these sexual activities are 12 and 13 year old children, I become very concerned. I find it hard to believe that regardless of the "spiritual quality" of one's writings, you would still find them inspiring if you discovered that that same author was molesting your own children. This was exactly the situation of the parents who made a formal complaint against Leadbeater. When you write: "Leadbeater was supposed to have said so and so..." you make it sound like this is all a matter of repeated third hand information, with no bases in fact. On the contrary, Leadbeater's confessions were made at a formal meeting of inquiry, specifically convened for the purpose of looking into the allegations made against him by the children's parents. The assembly consisted of Col. Olcott and elected General Secretaries from the different sections. The proceedings were all taken down by a legal stenographer. There is a world of difference between information documented by a stenographer at an official meeting, and information picked up through the gossip mill. When Besant finally brought Leadbeater back into theosophical work through the E.S., she let the membership know that the charges against Leadbeater was; advising children concerning masturbation. This was still a shocking allegation for the time (but not as shocking as to what he actually confessed to). Though our views concerning masturbation have changed since that time, I don't believe the central issue has: Would you be comfortable with having a person outside of your family give sexual advice of any kind to your child, and then make the child swear not to tell you about that advice, or that they are even being advised? This was exactly the situation the parents of these "Leadbeater children" found themselves in. If I were a parent of one of those children, I think I would have reacted much the same as they did: except I might have also called in the police as well as complained to the T.S. If you are trying to tell us that you would have allowed such a thing to go on without interfering, then I feel for your children. Peace Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 13 Aug 1994 22:25:07 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Leadbeater is okay by me This is by Brenda Tucker. Jerry H-E, I object to your constant badgering of C.W. Leadbeater on the network. You refuse to let anyone even voice a positive comment without blurting out some history that you feel inclined to put value on. I am sure that I also don't measure up to your expectations of greatness. What we are saying is that the man had a voice in the theosophical movement and by his work has contributed to both our understanding and love for theosophy. We wish to be able to say so and to speak in reference to his writing without your "pulling slander out of your hat." This is just plain black magic as people are not allowed their freedom. It is our freedom in exchange for yours. I totally disagree with your and April's ideas regarding ethics. Ethics never made any sense to me whatsoever out of the context of its place in treading the path. Without the path, I am sure that I would never have become vegetarian, alcohol-free, etc. You seem to want to convince every- one of the value of ethics without really having a feel for the place of ethics in the scheme of things. Many lessons that we learn are more valuable to us in a sense beyond the realm of ethics. The path is beyond the realm of ethics. Your dogmatic clinging to ethics really turns me off and I see no place for it in theosophy. It reminds me of the dark ages and witch hunts and not at all of a liberal's view regarding what is becoming accomplished by any individual life and its intrinsic worth. I hope you don't mind my saying that I don't see anything wrong with what Leadbeater did, because I don't fully understand or profess to know what anyone else's (or my own for that matter) life is about. Please here me again. I don't see anything wrong with what Leadbeater did with his life and you can write (but please don't) hundreds of similar type messages and I never will. Won't you give up and go on to more meaningful topics. Please ease up on your personal views and give other people some freedom here. Don't you feel even a little bit unbrotherly? If not to Leadbeater, then to us? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 13 Aug 1994 20:36:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Eldon Tucker (eldon@netcom.com) Subject: Historic Forces that Affect our Lives This is from Eldon Tucker. It's important to be aware of history, lest it repeat itself. Consider the horrors of Nazi Germany. World War I was "the war to end all wars," yet we still had World War II. When things appear to get better in the world, it does not mean that human evil has come to any end, but rather that it is just in subsidence. We have to be ever-vigilant to see that prevent the reemergence of the dark side of human nature. In World War II, Theosophy had to go underground in Germany. Mary Linne and Emile Haerter had translated The Secret Doctrine into German. Their translation was burned and they were jailed. After the war, it was translated again. Following is a translation of an interesting letter from that time period: ---- Theosophical Society, "Branch Dresden" Dresden, July 31, 1937 Dear Member: We regret having to inform you that from this day on the Theosophical Society, Branch Dresden, has been dissolved by the Secret State Police (Gestapo), Berlin. This decree concurrently affects other similar associations as well. The planned excursion on August 1 can't therefore take place. All books which were lent from the Library *must be* rendered to me *immediately.* (Dr. A., Schnorrstr, 27 Eg.) The property of the T.S., Branch Dresden, will be confiscated in order to serve other charitable purposes. We also have to make you aware of it, that every attempt being made to continue with the Organization in one way or the other, respectively trying to establish a new organization, is liable to prosecution. Thanks to all members for their collaboration, best wishes and theosophical greetings, (signed) Liesel Wehlitz, Secretary ---- We live in turbulent times. Political or religious forces to repress the freedom of thought have arisen before in but a few years to grip a country. Even with computers, allowing the free interchange of ideas, the technology can be turned against freedom of thought. Encrypted messages could be made illegal, punishable by law, and the government could review and censor email, if it were so inclined. I'm not suggesting that this is necessarily on the horizon, but it could happen, and has happened quickly in the past. The Teachings which we are privileged to study are something that could easily become a target for suppression, as they have been suppressed at various times throughout the ages, forcing us to go underground, like the Masons or Rosicrucians did in the past. Let's feel grateful for the freedom that we have. We can profess a belief in Theosophy, and study and teach it openly. This is something that we cannot always take for granted. Life moves in unexpected ways, not always according to our expectations. And the forces that shape nations and change the face of the world are not only beyond our control, but often unpredictable as well. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 14 Aug 1994 04:45:04 -0400 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: freedom of expression Brenda, Well, it looks like your husband answered your objections concerning my right to express myself better than I could at the moment. I don't think I can "pull anything out of my hat" that pleads the case of freedom of expression (for everyone) better than that extraordinary letter he shared. As for your freedom of expression--thanks for exercising it. In brotherhood, Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 14 Aug 1994 16:40:24 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Secret Doctrine sloka This is by Brenda Tucker. In looking through THE SECRET DOCTRINE for ideas on Atma-Buddhi, I settled on Volume I, Stanza VI, Sloka 5, p. 191-192. It reads (minus H.P.B's parenthesis): "At the fourth the sons are told to create their images. One third refuses-Two obey. The curse is pronounced: They will be born in the fourth, suffer and cause suffering. This is the first war." For my purposes, rather than think that this refers to human egos, I prefer to think this relates to the elementals. In my last post, I chose to portray this group as children and the four materialized kingdoms as adults. Thereby, it was the astral and etheric elementals who created in their image. Since the mental elementals refused to create, they were born into vehicles. Definitely mental genetics! I don't know if I made myself clear or not in how I am portraying the astral. Partly because of what Jerry has so stubbornly said about astral being in H.P.B.'s mind a shadowy prototype of the physical and that upon which the physical body was built, I have chosen to limit by understanding of astral in a peculiar way for the purpose of presenting information here. In general, all reference to astral refers to human forms - elves, imps, fairies, gnomes, etc., being included. I have no acceptance of this information as he presents it other than for testing and evaluating further the subject of the elementals in this context. H.P.B.'s presentation of material for study is inextricably linked to cosmogenesis and anthropogenesis. Other people have attempted to open us to future possibilities for the revelation of atma and buddhi in our lives and activity as aspirants and chelas on the path of adeptship. There is a really fun book titled ENCYCLOPEDIA OF FAIRIES from our L.A. public library with stories and lore from Ireland. I'm sure you can recall the way in which the fairies could disappear into thin air when approached by humans and I often picture them in particular harmony with the plant kingdom and in relation to man's quest in providing healthy vegetables for the table. I'm not certain, but perhaps there was an abundance of thought towards this achievement which added to the inducement for fairy participation as I would imagine astral beings gather where man's thoughts are directed. The etheric elementals I am unclear regarding, but prefer something of an interpenetration (without massive separate existence) with the lower levels of the physical plane. H.P.B. comments: "And it so happens that we are in the Fourth Round at the middle point of which the perfect equilibrium between Spirit and Matter had to take place." As the Manasaputras had departed and man had fallen into generation by sex, in the fourth root race there are two simultaneous tasks for man: human intellectuality and responsibility for continuing the physical races. Two paths were needed at this point of "perfect equilibrium" - a physical or left hand path and spiritual-mental or right hand path, as H.P.B. mentions in the footnote to above referenced quote. What this means to me is that while the path is available through physical contact and endeavor, it is not until the path is taken inward and is stimulated from atma-buddhi that the right hand path is found. Through atma-buddhi man becomes a giver of life to all of the seven kingdoms in form existence. Thoughts especially become covered with will and love-wisdom and their sojourn as well as man's is a happy one. Says The Commentary (not H.P.B.'s own, but the one which came with the Stanzas): "The holy youths (the gods) refused to multiply and create species after their likeness, after their kind. They are not fit form [rupas] for us. They have to grow. They refuse to enter the chhayas [shadows or images] of their inferiors. Thus had selfish feeling prevailed from the beginning, even among the gods, and they fell under the eye of the Karmic Lipikas." While mind recently had been left by the Manasaputras to man's own inclinations, the thought world still probably retained much of the vibration of their previous habitation and H.P.B. likewise says in the above mentioned footnote, it was "...during the highest point of civilization and knowledge, as also of human intellectuality..." (that the two paths were begun.) I'm suggesting that "the holy youths (the gods)" refers to the mental elementals. Every time the commentary says "they," it refers to qualities of material existence (except in the last sentence regarding selfishness.) I wonder especially about the mention of the activity of "entering inferior shadows." Perhaps this could be an inner world activity of the thought elementals, involving their love of descent or involution as a method of progress, which if they had created as told in the material plane, would have been severely stifled just as their freedom of movement could have been. Why would they be classified as inferior though since the astral elementals are the next kingdom forward to the mental elementals? Perhaps H.P.B. was using the sense in our human understanding of inferior: emotions being inferior generally to thoughts. Since the thought elementals were previously existent within the minds of Manasaputras (beings further evolved than man) and the Manasaputras acted as an intermediary to man's progress, the elementals would have been quite satisfied with their lives as the Manasaputras (as I imagine them) are more responsive to Atma- Buddhi and can direct all seven kingdoms on earth simultaneously, justly, and with equanimity for the benefit of all. Before the Fall, generation of human and animal form took place through the will of the Creators. Thus, perhaps this is the reason that fairy children in today's time (Ireland, 1600s) are so rare. Their generation still takes place through the will of the Creators. Also, this might explain why mankind existed for long ages (500 years) in the Old Testament of The Bible - a carryover from the third and even fourth root races. Through the working of astral elementals, all in human (or near human) form, all material existence has inclination to human existence. And why not!? We're in a human based chain. Matter coagulates for that ultimate (in a chain of ultimates) purpose. It is possible to prefer this kingdom, and to see their enterprise in much of what we do, even to the extent of centering oneself astrally in much of one's relations with other people. The human being who lives without close contact to atma-buddhi, who daily wears away his or her unreplenished astral resources, practically void of reason and love for mankind as well as aspiration, is a type of an imp, dependent upon forces of nature for his or her daily life energy. To culminate this message, and of special importance in this context, H.P.B. says, "Spirit per se is an unconscious negative abstraction. (Eldon's infinite darkness in his essay on first cause.) Its purity is inherent, not acquired by merit;" In Kabalistic terms, "...no Spirit could belong to the divine hierarchy unless Ruah (Spirit) was united to Nephesh (living Soul)..." and in Eastern Esoteric teaching, "A Dhyani has to be an Atma-Buddhi; once the Buddhi-Manas breaks loose from its immortal Atman of which it (Buddhi) is the vehicle, Atman passes into non- being, which is absolute Being." Interpret this sentence by H.P.B. in a similar context. "Satan and his rebellious host would thus prove, when the meaning of the allegory is explained, to have refused to create physical man, only to become the direct Saviors and the Creators of "divine Man." Vol I p. 193 The mind is our most valuable resource. Look at the remaining five pages for further elucidation. The closest I can come to participating in this work of clothing thoughts in Atma-Buddhi is to bless this work before putting it on the network and to request that the masters or celestial hierarchies do the same. By not ever allowing it to appear simply as thought alone in my consciousness, but by seeing it as a threefold manifestation which rays out its influence to all life on earth in abundance and magnificence, we should be able to escape its negative downward tendency of involution and simultaneously result in a product which is not specifically of benefit to men singly, but only in their relation to the entire earth scheme. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 12:29:03 -0400 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: retreat THEOSOPHICAL RANCH RETREAT A second independent theosophical retreat is planned for September 17-18, 1994 at the Renner Ranch in Coulterville CA. Please contact me at this e-mail address if you are interested in attending. The 400 acre Ranch has accommodations for camping, or for just throwing a sleeping bag on the floor. Nearby hotels are also available. Activities include nature walks, good food, camp fire, music, singing, dancing, and maybe another pagan ceremony or two- -not to mention good old plain relaxing in the middle of California's historic gold country. There will also be theosophical presentations and discussions on whatever is happening at the time. Jerry Hejka-Ekins JHE@KOKO.CSUSTAN.EDU From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 12:33:50 -0400 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: Ethics Brenda, BT> I totally disagree with your and April's ideas regarding >ethics. Ethics never made any sense to me whatsoever out of the > context of its place in treading the path. Without the path, I > am sure that I would never have become vegetarian, > alcohol-free, etc. If the world was unified in your belief system regarding a divine hierarchy forming an inner government that "can direct all seven kingdoms on earth simultaneously, justly, and with equanimity for the benefit of all", then, of course your point that ethics make no sense would be well taken. After all, with such perfect justice ruling the world, we would have no need to make any ethical decisions at all. All we have to do is have the "Inner Government" tell us what to do. However, all of the world's major religions follow one or another code of ethics--some of them so lofty as to put the codes of many western religions to shame. There is also a growing number of individuals who have freed themselves from the bounds of religious superstition, but still value the codes of ethics inherent in all of them, and try to conduct their lives by these codes. H.P.B. tried to point out in the ~Key~ that many atheists live lives of greater purity and service than many devotees of this or that religion. BT> The path is beyond the realm of ethics. Your dogmatic > clinging to ethics really turns me off and I see no place for > it in theosophy. Wow! The light dawns! Since you see no place for ethics in Theosophy, it is now beginning to make perfect sense as to why you find "nothing wrong" with C.W.L.'s actions. If ethics has no place in Theosophy, then of course C.W.L., whom you believe to be the spokes-person for the Masters, and thus follows a "higher authority," is not beholden to, and is above being judged by any of our (might we say; inferior?) moral and ethical codes. Thus you can make with a clear conscience the following statement: BT> I hope you don't mind my saying that I don't see anything > wrong with what Leadbeater did, because I don't fully > understand or profess to know what anyone else's (or my own for > that matter) life is about. Brenda, you are scaring the Hell out of me! Please tell me that you don't really believe this. C.W.L. only claimed "occult" reasons, not "spiritual" ones for his actions. He did not explain what these "occult" reasons were. However, if H.P.B. is any authority, she stated unequivocally that "occult" practices concerning the sexual organs is used *only* in black magic. If you reject H.P.B.'s teachings on this matter, and believe that white magic can be accomplished by molesting children *against* their's and their parent's wishes, then our positions are so far apart, that I would be hard put to think of what to say to you next on this matter. Putting "occult" considerations aside, we *do* have verifiable experiences in the realms of this humble planet, by which we can make moral judgements. I have met with and talked to dozens of people in my lifetime who were psychologically screwed up as a result of being molested as children. My wife spent ten years as a family therapist and had to deal with situations like this every day. We have stories that would make your (well, maybe not yours) skin crawl. Believe me, this pathology is psychologically and spiritually destructive to both the victims and the victimizers. Thus I can't find any justification in the "occult" defense claimed by C.W.L., or any psychological data to excuse it either. I do, however, know something of the evils that molesting children creates here on the physical plane. Therefore, I cannot in good conscience allow such things to be excused, or even tolerated in the name of "occultism," "spirituality" or in any other name without protest. This is my position on the matter, and I feel it to be my duty to express it as often as necessary. In conclusion, I urge you to please search your own experiences on this subject, and see if you don't come to the same conclusions as we have. Jerry H.E. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 12:34:42 -0400 From: Gerald Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Universal Ethics Jerry H-E writes: "I would like to see an open discussion generated here concerning what is "theosophical" and what is a "theosophical principle." To kick off such a discussion, I have the following observations ... Thus, I suggest that one example of a theosophical principle would be "universal ethics." " Jerry, I'm not sure that I follow your drift here. By "theosophical" do you mean pertaining only to the modern theosophical movement started by HPB? As opposed to "theosophical principles" which never change? It seems to me that any "theosophical principles" you could mention would also be, de facto, theosophical. Could you perhaps give me some examples of what you mean? Also, I have trouble coming to grips with "universal ethics." Except perhaps for being civil, or actually having a sincere respect for others even while loathing their behaviors, what could possibly be universal about ethics? Personally, I find killing animals for "sport" to be unethical. Yet many otherwise ethical Christians (and others) do so every day without guilt. They rationalize it away (animals have no souls, or God gave man dominion over animals and so we can do as we will, etc). Even killing other people is usually considered OK in some circumstances such as self defense, when fighting for your country in a war, or in the line of duty of a police officer, and so on. In what way (if any?) do theosophists sometimes rationalize things away? Will love in one's heart make one ethical? What would you do for a loved one who is dying of cancer or aids and who begs you to please pull the plugs on their medical instruments, or who begs you to give them a bottle of sleeping pills so that they can end it all? What is the right, or loving, or ethical, thing to do in such a case? What do you tell the 13 year old girl in the ghetto who find herself pregnant and who wants to have an abortion? Which one of us can say which road is the most ethical? Is healing always the right path to take? Is death always wrong? Are reincarnation and karma theosophical principles? To me they are, but others may feel differently. Also, how do we define these terms, because theosophical literature contains many different meanings for most terms? When I say that I can overlook one's personal behaviors, see beyond their personalities, and still find spiritual/occult jewels hidden in their writings, I am not saying that I condone those behaviors, or that I would personally tolerate them. Let me give just one example. In my studies on magic, I have read just about everything that Aleister Crowley wrote, together with numerous books and articles on his life, as well as his own autobiography. Virtually every theosophist that I have talked to, has told me that Crowley was a black magician of the worst sort, and they wonder how I can quote from him in my own books. Now, Crowley did, in fact, practice with mind-altering drugs and sex of all kinds. He made numerous unkind statements about others, some of which have been called racist. He also hunted animals for sport and was proud of the fact. None of these things do I like, nor would I condone, nor would I do, nor suggest that others do. They are not theosophical nor do they match my own ethical standards. I would not, for example, have accompanied him on a hunting trip. Nor would I have had sex with him nor with anyone other than my wife for that matter. However, I do find that some of his writings are spiritually inspired, and I can tell that he did, in fact, cross the Abyss. His writings indicate that he KNEW. The "ethical" problem here, in a nutshell, is this: how can someone who does terrible things; things that our society, and probably all the worlds Bibles, say are unethical, cross the Abyss (ie., how can they have a mystical experience or otherwise gaze directly upon the spiritual planes and obtain gnosis?). This is a nasty prick in the finger of most theosophists who see ethics as the stepping stone to spirituality. Yet, HPB can also be accused of unethical (or at least unladylike) behaviors. In her case, most theosophists can make excuses. The truth of the matter is (in MHO) that ethics and ethical development *should* be the stepping stone to spiritual gnosis, but it doesn't *have* to be. Some folks can KNOW and yet maintain their own ethical system that somehow seems to work for them. Do we then throw out the baby with the bath water, so to speak, with such people? I prefer to let each person face their own karmic burden by themselves, while I worry about my own. But if I find a nugget or two of wisdom in their writings, then I will take that and try to benefit from it. There is also the question of good and evil. What is evil, and why do so many theosophists seem to fear it? For my part, I like the definition given to us by KH when he wrote, "Evil has no existence per se and is but the absence of good and exists but for him who is made its victim." (Mahatma Letter X). Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 12:35:42 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: censorship stc. According to Jerry Hejka-Ekins: > years by the Adyar Society. Olcott started this by publishing > his memoirs in ~The Theosophist~ after H.P.B. had died. Since he > had complete control over that journal, he could do anything he > wanted. But when he sent the series to the Countess Wachmeister > (she controlled the publishing house), for publication as the > first volume of ~Old Diary Leaves,~ she refused it, because > Olcott denigrated H.P.B. in the mss, making a lot of untrue and > misleading statements about her. Not to be deterred, Olcott > published O.D.L. through G.P. Putnam's Sons--an outside > publisher. Once Wachmeister was out of the way in 1900, the > series was finished through T.P.S. When the entire series (6 > vols.) was to be reprinted through Adyar in the early 70's, Boris > de Zirkoff's student put together a dossier documenting the > errors Olcott made concerning H.P.B., and provided them with > references and quotes from original documents giving the correct > information. She did this so that they would be able to add > editorial annotations to the work correcting mis-information. In > other words, she did their homework for them. She received a > reply telling her that their was no interest in this material, > and as we all know, the O.D.L. series was reprinted with no > annotations. I wonder how much this was due to reluctance to invest time and money in the correons rather than desire to suppress. AnoAnother question-- how much are the corrections relying on HPB alone in a he said/she said battle? > > I suggest that if you really want to test the censorship > issue, try a subject that Adyar cares about. Why don't you try > writing an article questioning Leadbeater's teachings? Or how > about a historical article on the political influence of the E.S. > on the T.S. under Besant and her successors? Articles being > critical of H.P.B. is old hat, perfectly acceptable, and has been > done for years in the name of "freedom of expression." > PJ> John on the other hand was more positive about > > content and quality of writing, but judged its flaws > >irremediable. (The > > flaws he objected to were related to a tendency to > > overinterpret scanty evidence and force things into patterns > > without sufficient consideration of alternative > > interpretations. I took this very seriously and hope to have > > remedied it in the new books). > Of course Algeo's (stated) objection was the same as > Santucci and myself when we reviewed the book for publication > through ~Theosophical History~ (though, unlike John, we didn't > consider the "flaws" to have been "irremediable.") Santucci's > issue was purely concerned with scholastic standards, and > otherwise would loved to have published it. We didn't have a > censorship issue with your work. So, that makes I.S.O.T.M. > problematical as a test of censorship with T.P.H. However, it is > interesting that John decided to invoke the scholarship issue as > a reason for turning down your book, when T.P.H. is normally > ridiculously loose on that issue. Doesn't that tell us > something? As I said to Lewis, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." So, sure, I'll be judged by a higher standard-- so much the better. TPH would have been held responsable by readers for my flaws to a higher standard than those of their other books because of its controversial nature. Also, and in Sally's defense as well, the manuscript sent to TPH was a much bigger mess than that seen by you and Jim, and the one sent to TUP by far the worst, sloppiest offall. Their complaints were entirely correct as far as I can see. Grace's main pt wasnot to be impatient,as as it would take years to do the job right. That too w tely valid. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 12:51:06 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Dealing with CWL Since I feel caught somewhere in the middle of the Brenda vs. Jerry discussion, it would be smarter to keep my head down, and not risk making both sides madder. But a sense of loyality to the theos-l dialectic is making me stick my neck out this far: If I thought the Adyar TS and its national sections were strongly pro-Leadbeater, I wouldn't belong to the Society. As a member who is a friend of Gregory Tillett and accepts his work as the best to date on CWL, I regret the reception his book received. But I can understand it. My reading is that CWL's intellectual, emotional and spiritual influence on the minds and hearts of members has been going steadily downward for 50 years and will continue to do so. A public repudiation of him by the TS would to some extent violate the freedom of thought of members who retain ties to him. But Brenda, you are wrong in my opinion to treat Jerry's public criticisms as violations of your personal freedom of thought. How can they possibly be? My reading of the Theosophical approach to CWL is that there is a core of loyalists who want to read his books and revere him; the majority of members is embarrassed by his life and teachings; a few want to publicly repudiate him; the leadership wants to minimize conflict concerning him. The whole issue of Krishnamurti's real status and relationship to the TS will continue to engage our thinking for a long time to come, and CWL is a key player in this story. So it all has to be hashed out eventually, but I'm willing to wait a long time rather than see us torn apart by the process starting now. I have a regret about the touchiness of the CWL issue that probably is quote opposite to your feelings, Jerry H-E. My sense is that Annie Besant really was one of the great world leaders of her time, and did approximately what HPB's Masters wanted to be done for India. Properly appreciating her accomplishments and virtues is made difficult, however, by the passions aroused by the CWL debate. Another controversy. While Jerry's position that HSO threw HPB overboard to some extent is true, I see Olcott in a much more positive light than his critics do. After all, he continued to have close, trusting relationships with a variety of distinguished Asian spiritual leaders well after HPB's death. Olcott was much more "in the loop" and proactive in Theosophical history than has been acknowledged by his critics. The extent of his accomplishments, like Besant's, makes him deserving of much greater honor than he has received. There are a lot more than two sides to this issue, and I hope that we can all accept that our dialectic (not just on theos-l but generally as new research and discussion emerges) will bring forth all sides until a more comprehensive understanding emerges. And that we can somehow keep loving one another through all the inevitable differences of opinion. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 14:41:57 -0400 From: t_msapos@qualcomm.com (Michael Sapos X3019) Subject: Re: retreat Hello, Do you have info that can be faxed (i.e. map, basic info) If so pls fax to: (619) 658-3200 If no can you e-mail me with brief directions. Thanks in advance, Michael Sapos Qualcomm Inc. Corporate Telecom Dept. 6455 Lusk Blvd. San Diego, CA 92121=20 Phone: (619)658-3019 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 21:20:26 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: gossip This is by Brenda. The freedom that I am discussing is the freedom to read and think pure thoughts. Probably most of what C.W.L. wrote, which is nearly all concerning the path of adeptship, is better and more easily cognized than what Jerry has been saying regarding this man's morals. I don't think that it is fair or just for anyone to have the right to "impose something wrong" on people's consciousnesses which has no relation to what they are doing and has no lesson to teach. What is it you are trying to accomplish by singly out one individual's supposed wrongdoing? Is this supposed to be a statement against and discouragement to celibacy? Are you trying to convey that this type of behavior lies in everyone's future? Do you realize that there are those who imitate "greatness" and could become prone to similar activities in their lives? Wouldn't this story be better left untold? I personally have very little interest in gossip and if I do not have first-hand involvement in a criminal or moral dilemma, I have no right to judge. These types of matters are better left to courts as well as to karma. Please don't impose wrongdoing on the people in this group. Thank you. Let me leave you with a beautiful decree. Oh, "Beloved Mighty I AM Presence" in the Great Central Sun! Forgive it, and in Thy Mercy blaze the Violet Consuming Flame through it! Take it out of the Universe swiftly, so it cannot touch any other part of Life; and let no more of anything exist that dishonors God or desecrates the Beauty that is within the Light, which is ever offering Itself through Love into my outer use and manifestation! P.S. I think Paul's first message today got cut off. Would you, Paul, like to resubmit it? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 23:35:39 -0400 From: IXCHEL@delphi.com Subject: ethics again... Hi all! Just thought I would mention that transiting Pluto has just recently stationed on the Sun of the TS horoscope. Some may not consider the Nov. 17, 1875 chart to be valid, however the current heated discussion concerning ethics, magic and sexual practices, curiously fits into 5th house (sex outside of the bonds of marriage and children) and Scorpio meanings. Consider the meanings of Pluto as well; transcendence vs. degeneration! I myself cannot understand how ethics can be divorced from the True Spiritual Way, as Spiritual Beings are always being described by their capacity to overcome the passions that more ordinary folks struggle with. I have yet to hear (although I might now) that K.H. or M. had strange sexual habits. I also recall hearing and reading that H.P.B. claimed that celebacy was an essen- tial practice for those most seriously climbing the ladder of Spiritual success. Anyway, I think there will always be contention in the ranks as long as there are so many planetary oppositions in the TS horoscope. Why not dissolve the old Society and start a new one? It's going to happen eventually anyway. Will HPB be remember- ed 2000 years from now? Will the Secret Doctrine be in all motel rooms??? Just thinking, Sarah... From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Aug 1994 00:47:13 -0400 From: Gerald Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: ethics Jerry, thanks for your response. Actually, a theosophical code of ethics for members (and leaders) in the various TS's seems to me would be a great idea. Most organizations have a code of ethics of some kind. Your statement about the need for ethics while treading the path is well taken, and is probably ranks as one of the hallmarks of theosophical teachings as opposed to other occult/magical organizations. As a theosophist, I share it as well. Lets all remember, though, that my ethical standards may not be equal to yours, or someone elses. Again, a good code of ethics for theosophists could go far to help bring about some conformity here. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Aug 1994 01:15:49 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: As a Younger Man As a younger man, I used to suffer greatly because it always seemed that even my best insights were being unfairly bettered in the minds of my audiences by even the worst insights of theosophists whose distant deaths had raised them up to new and holier levels of appreciation. The current discussion about Leadbeater etc., however, has taken me a long way toward seeing my error: I am now starting to realize that it has probably been I, and not the dead and famous, who has been enjoying the competitive advantage all along . . . since, after all, none can hide sins so well as the still-living and still-inconsiderable. . . Warm regards, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Aug 1994 03:22:46 -0400 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: ethics Brenda, BT> The freedom that I am discussing is the freedom to read and > think pure thoughts. If my writings cause you to think impure thoughts, then I suggest you not read them. I believe that I have made this suggestion to you before, but you ignored it. You have to learn to control your own thoughts. It is not practical to think that everything and everyone who happens to make you think an impure thought should be made to disappear. For instance, if tomatoes make you think impure thoughts, then don't buy them. When you visit the vegetable section in your market--ignore them. But don't expect the world to stop selling tomatoes because they might give you an impure thought. BT> I don't think that it is fair or just for anyone to have the > right to "impose something wrong" on people's consciousnesses > which has no relation to what they are doing and has no lesson > to teach. What is it you are trying to accomplish by singly > out one individual's supposed wrongdoing? Is this supposed to > be a statement against and discouragement to celibacy? Are you > trying to convey that this type of behavior lies in everyone's > future? Do you realize that there are those who imitate > "greatness" and could become prone to similar activities in > their lives? Wouldn't this story be better left untold? Based upon your comments and questions, and some others, I'm more convinced than ever that a good discussion concerning morals and ethics is really needed here. Ethical and moral behavior, and decision making has been basic to every religion and to the health of every civilization. It is basic to theosophy also. How can we have discussions on "the path" and "adeptship" when we can't even deal with basic ethical decision making? If you go back to my original discussion, you will find that the issue concerned moral discrimination. It was Jerry S. who raised Leadbeater as the example. I just responded using the example he gave. But I think his example was a good one. BT> I personally have very little interest in gossip and if I do > not have first-hand involvement in a criminal or moral dilemma, > I have no right to judge. These types of matters are better > left to courts as well as to karma. It is interesting how documented information that we don't want to hear is always called "gossip." But your quick and impassioned replies whenever the subject comes up proves that you really have a very deep interest in this so called "gossip." As for the "criminal or moral dilemma," you don't need to make any judgements. The people involved did that long ago and found C.W.L. guilty via his own admissions. BT> Please don't impose wrongdoing on the people in this group. The logic of this admonition escapes me. In what possible way am I imposing any "wrongdoing" on anybody? Do you believe, by any chance, that I'm advocating child molesting? If so, then you are very very misguided. Peace Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Aug 1994 07:39:55 -0700 (PDT) From: eldon (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: listen This is by Brenda. Jerry H-E, If you really don't understand why I'm making this request even after an explanation, would you please just do it because I asked you, too? As a special favor to me, I know you don't know why, just don't upload anything which would offend someone who is struggling with some past episode or event in their own lives by talking so offhandedly about someone else's shortcomings. Talk about your own. Just because I'm asking, couldn't you do this one little thing? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Aug 1994 13:00:24 -0400 From: John Mead Subject: new jungian psychology group I'm forwarding this news item per request of J. Hollwitz (jcholl@creighton.edu) peace john mead (jem@vnet.net) > A new electronic mailing list is available for people who are > intersted in Jungian analytical psychology. Subscription to > the list is free for anyone with Internet access. > > To sign up for this list, send a subscription message to: > > majordomo@creighton.edu > > The text of the message should read: > > subscribe jung-psyc > > Please note that this message requires your email address, and > not your name. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ note this is different from usual listservers - jem From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Aug 1994 13:04:53 -0400 From: John Mead Subject: International Conference at Creighton (ref: Jung) > AN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE > > ON > > JUNGIAN & ARCHETYPAL APPROACHES > > TO ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR > > Creighton University announces an international conference on > Jungian & archetypal approaches to organizational behavior, to be > held on the campus of Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, > U.S.A. from Oct. 13 to Oct. 17, 1994. > > The conference will feature papers and discussions on various > aspects of organizational operations from the perspective of > analytical and archetypal psychology. In addition, the conference > will host a featured address by Dr. Murray Stein of the C. G. > Jung Institute of Chicago. > Papers and presentations at the conference will treat such topics > as workplace shadow; the matriarchal workplace; organizational > Jungian analysis; chaos theory and archetypal theory; case studies > of Jungian analytical interventions; typology; and related topics. > Registration details will be announced in coming weeks (and will be > posted to the jung-psyc subscription list). Conference > registration is estimated to be approximately $100 U.S. Hotel > accommodations will cost between $75 and $80 U.S. per night. > Contrary to popular perceptions, Omaha is a picturesque city on the > shores of the Missouri River with a wide variety of cultural and > recreational resources. (The present author can testify to the > ease of a vegetarian lifestyle in the nation's leading meat > market.) > Further information is available from John Hollwitz (EMAIL: > jcholl@creighton.edu; (402)280-2532. > This conference is sponsored by Creighton University College and > the A. N. Jacobson Chair in communications. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Aug 1994 13:25:51 -0400 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: ghosts Brenda, BT> If you really don't understand why I'm making this request > even after an explanation, would you please just do it because > I asked you, too? As a special favor to me, I know you don't > know why, just don't upload anything which would offend someone > who is struggling with some past episode or event in their own > lives by talking so offhandedly about someone else's > shortcomings. Talk about your own. > > Just because I'm asking, couldn't you do this one little thing? I understand now. We all have past episodes in our lives and in our childhood that we struggle with. I call them "ghosts," and it is a very rare person who doesn't have them. But we always think that we are the only one, because no one ever talks about them. Until they are made to go away, they bring a lot of unhappiness in our lives. There are several techniques to get rid of them, but it takes a bit of dedication. I like to call the process "self purification." The bottom line in my experience is to get into a place where one can squarely face the ghosts. It can be a scary process at first, but well worth the peace it brings. We know a theosophist couple near you. They are very good and receptive licensed therapists, who might be of help to you in this process. If not, they should be able to give you some referrals to someone more suitable for your specific needs: Ron and Lisa Galbavy So. Kern Co. Office in W. Santa Monica 1506 10th St. #413 310-395-8353 Best, Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Aug 1994 14:09:55 -0400 From: mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com (Michael W. Grenier) Subject: Re: listen > ... just don't upload anything which would offend someone who is > struggling with some past episode or event in their own lives by > talking so offhandedly about someone else's shortcomings. Brenda, Its very hard to know what might offend someone whom we have never met. When discussing ethics, I believe it is very important to know whether a particular set of ethics is valid by seeing if the proponent of that set can follow them. Thus, we may find that a certain teacher was not be able to follow his or her own teachings, either because they are bad teachings or because of some other fault. It is important to discover the reason. For instance, in Theosophy we say that there is no higher religion than the truth. Therefore TRUTH is an important aspect of our ethical teachings. If we find that a theosophical teacher does not tell the truth in his/her day to day dealings, I believe that teacher's other teachings also becomes suspect. Ethics is more than a code of speach. It is a code of ACTION. It is a lifestyle that we choose (or at least can strongly influence in a given life). Ideally, ones actions, instructions, and speach in general should agree. We must all TRY to be ideal. -Mike Grenier ---- Michael W. Grenier mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com 612-456-7869 Unisys - Air Traffic Control From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 05:05:47 -0400 From: Aki Korhonen Subject: Bad Omen in China Hello, I got this message from CND. Since there is lot of changes in China, I wonder if you can interpretate this somehow, in a larger context, though this has a slight tone of rumour in it. Peace, Bliss, aki. Oulu, Finland. [AFPEW, 08/12/94] HONG KONG -- Residents in southern China's Hunan province claim to have spotted a bird with nine heads in a mountainous area, and authorities are investigating the reports, a newspaper said here Friday. The Wen Wei Po daily said the bird -- mentioned in records from the Song dynasty (960-1279) -- was reportedly seen on several occasions by some 30 people, and was said to resemble a turtle dove. The bird, said to live on cloud-shrouded peaks of the Huping mountains, was described by a militiaman named Zhang Shenyun as having eight smaller heads around a larger one, with each bearing a complete set of beak, ears and eyes. Legend has it that appearances of the bird are bad omens, and no one has dared to try to catch the strange creature, the newspaper said. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 10:47:16 -0400 From: mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com (Michael W. Grenier) Subject: Re: UNSUBSCRIBE THEOS-L To unsubscribe, you send the message to listserv@char.vnet.net and put the commands in the body of the message, not in the subject. Let me know if you have any problems. I hope the recent discussions havn't turned you away - if so I'm sorry. -Mike Grenier ---- Michael W. Grenier mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com 612-456-7869 Unisys - Air Traffic Control From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 10:48:14 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: My cutoff post Brenda mentions my post on CWL was cut off. But I forget where to put the dot in the get listproc940815 to call it up to see what got posted. Can someone enlighten me, also, on the email address of listserv? Thanks From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 11:03:01 -0400 From: John Mead Subject: Re: My cutoff post > Brenda mentions my post on CWL was cut off. But I forget where > to put the dot in the get listproc940815 to call it up to see > what got posted. Can someone enlighten me, also, on the email > address of listserv? > > Thanks listserv@vnet.net you would retrieve the file with the message text of: get listproc theos-l.940815 peace -- john mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 11:18:04 -0400 From: John Mead Subject: various disgruntled people Hi -- we have lost a few people over the last few days due to the discussion (I *think*). I wanted to point out that theos-l *is* a very general list (rather a free-for-all discussion, ala Internet Libertarian philosophy). I'll take this oppurtunity to "plug" theos-roots and the others. They are less general and are supposedly meant to supply people who get "turned-off" by theos-l another place to go. (as well as any other reason to "limit" e-mail traffic) Perhaps they may offer constructive alternatives. Feel free to use them. if you signoff theos-L, you may want to stay on the others (especially theos-news). peace -- john mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 11:48:27 -0400 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: Re: Universal Ethics Gerald Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> writes: [Re Crowley] > .... However, I do find that some of his writings are spiritually > inspired, and I can tell that he did, in fact, cross th Abyss. His > writings indicate that he KNEW. Most theosophists probably haven't read much Crowley. He was certainly a fascinating character, but with some rather unfortunate flaws of character. This, of course, does not preclude spiritual experiences of various kinds, and evidence suggests that Crowley was a competent magician in the Golden Dawn tradition, which is quite different from the Eastern-influenced mainstream theosophy. How do you equate Crowley's idea of the A.'.A.'. with the GWB? Do you feel that Crowley's tradition was influenced by Those known to the TS? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 12:03:54 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: History and Controversy First, to Brenda-- yes, my entire post did get through. Second, re JEM's conclusion that people are resigning from theos-l in protest at controversial discussion. I hope this is untrue. It would be interesting to see a list of "what ought not be discussed here because it makes me uncomfortable." If we all came up with some, we'd have dozens of hot spots to avoid. HPB said that free and fearless discussion, within certain limits, is the keynote of theosophical communication. I would suggest that the limits are not those of WHAT is discussed, but HOW-- with mutual respect. Probably, though, we can agree that a statute of limitations on how long things remain "too hot to handle" makes some sense. A century is long enough for passions to cool some; thus rehashing the Hodgson report in the 80s, and maybe the existence of the Masters now. Next up according to this hypothesis should be the Judge case. We may not live long enough to see people rationally discuss Leadbeater. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 12:46:50 -0400 From: John Mead Subject: Re: History and Controversy > > First, to Brenda-- yes, my entire post did get through. > Second, re JEM's conclusion that people are resigning from > theos-l in protest at controversial discussion. I hope this is > untrue. It would be interesting to see a list of "what ought > not be discussed here because it makes me uncomfortable." I would strongly suggest that such a list never be formed. peace -- john mead p.s the drop outs can measure on one hand... I wouldn't worry about it. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 13:01:48 -0400 From: mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com (Michael W. Grenier) Subject: Re: History and Controversy >Next up according to this >hypothesis should be the Judge case. We may not live long >enough to see people rationally discuss Leadbeater. Actually, I'm very interested in the Judge case. If people are afraid to discuss it here, perhaps someone could send me via personal email a little history of what caused the the break with TS. A history of the formation of Point Loma would be useful too. I personally hold Judge in the highest esteem and would like to learn more. -Mike Grenier ---- Michael W. Grenier mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com 612-456-7869 Unisys - Air Traffic Control From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 13:44:48 -0400 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: History and Controversy "K. Paul Johnson" writes: > Second, re JEM's conclusion that people are resigning from > theos-l in protest at controversial discussion. I hope this is > untrue. It would be interesting to see a list of "what ought I am new to the list, and was quite interested (not repelled) to see Leadbeater discussed. I haven't read the book "Elder Brother" but am familiar with the charges levelled against him, with some justification probably. When I was in Adyar at the beginning of the year, I was interested to see that there was no mention of CWL at all (except "Leadbeater chambers" still bears the same name and his photograph), even though Besant is very much respected and even idolized by many of the Indian people. And of course Krishnamurti is quoted all the time. I actually thought this was a bit hypocritical, given the influence CWL had on the society, and his books are still very influencial in some quarters. Why not come out and say: "Well, we thought he did a good job for a while, but now we're a bit embarrassed by these allegations and don't want to talk about it?" I suppose this would encourage people to talk about it too much. But I don't really like these "codes of silence." It makes the thing not talked about loom rather larger than it would otherwise. My personal view is that he cracked under the considerable strain of chelaship. I think many of his books are good and very clearly written. Some of you might have seen a video made by some Australians who attended the Wesak festival in remote Tibet, which was exactly as he had described it - although the "politically correct" had, I understand, already started ommitting his sketches of the festival from "The Masters and the Path" as being too fanciful. But anyway, I thought it showed that at least some of his visions were accurate. It may be that his imagination got a bit carried away sometimes - it's notoriously hard to remain objective when very astral phenomena and other subjective states. As we know (or should know) the process of chelaship brings out all the latent tendancies in the personality. That, combined with an unusual influx of energy can cause sexual and other abherrations. I can think of a few Kundalini yogis who have gone off the deep-end as well. So anyway, I think we should be compassionate for CWL, for who knows what we would do under comparable circumstances. Doesn't HPB comment in one of her essays on "practical occultism" or "chelaship" that a large number of the members of her inner group cracked under the strain, one way or another - suicide, madness, crime, immorality etc. I don't think we should ignore the good work CWL did do - but acknowledge his failings as the same time. ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 14:27:45 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: History and Controversy To Mike-- I tried your email address, but my mail bounced. Not that my comments were so controversial. So here goes: 1. The Judge case is really the outgrowth of conflict between Olcott and HPB, in my opinion. After HPB left Adyar she and Olcott had little mutual respect, each feeling betrayed by the other for different reasons. HPB's attitude toward HSO was picked up by those close to her, including Besant and Judge. 2. After HPB's death, Judge produced Mahatma letters to Besant and gradually persuaded her to side with him against Olcott, whose resignation was demanded and obtained in 1892 (I think) but later withdrawn. 3. Although warned that Olcott was planning to kill her, Annie disregarded this, went to India, was taken all over the country and introduced to many religious and political leaders. The list of people HSO introduced her to has many interesting links to those in my book The Masters Revealed. Therefore I strongly suspect Olcott told Besant a large part of the historical truth about the Masters, corroborating this with other witnesses. She then lost faith in Judge's role as mouthpiece of the Mahatmas, perhaps lost some faith in HPB as well, and became completely reconciled to Olcott. 4. Because she felt that Judge's Mahatma transmissions were fraudulent, and told Olcott so, a "trial" was held on this charge which collapsed in confusion when the accused pointed out that to proceed would be to violate the TS's policy that belief in the Masters was non-binding. To prove Judge's transmissions fake, they would have to assume that the Masters were real in the first place. 5. But the collapse of this effort to stop Judge was not the end of the affair. Before long, "at Master's direction," he deposed Annie as co-head of the ES. This lead to her doing the same in reverse, followed by the declaration of autonomy by the American section. Which reverberated into a worldwide schism. Although for years I adhered to the pro-Judge view of these developments, my recent research has convinced me that Olcott knew more about the Masters, and knew more of them personally, than anyone other than HPB. After her death, he continued to enjoy the confidence of those who survived, or their descendants or former colleagues. Reading the itinerary of his trip with Annie makes it clear that part of his goal was to convince her of this; it appears that he succeeded. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 14:56:57 -0400 From: bill@Zeus.itdc.edu Subject: Re: History and Controversy Hi all, Astrea writes: > ... I don't think > we should ignore the good work CWL did do - but acknowledge his > failings as the same time. I don't have a good handle on all the history -- mostly just what I have read here. But this really does make sense. It ap- pears that he did have some good things to contribute to theoso- phy even though he had some failings in other areas. Just my $0.02 worth -- the quote seemed worth repeating. May you all grok in fullness ... Bill-- ...who never puts off until tomorrow what he can avoid altogether. |William A. (Bill) Parrette|4000 Executive Pk. Dr., #310| ,;`( )42, ) ~ | |bill@[Zeus.]itdc.edu |Cincinnati, OH 45241-4007 | // //---'--; | |** I do not speak for ITDC--all opinions are my own ** | ' \ | ^ | From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 12:01:02 +0300 (EDT) From: Aki Korhonen Subject: Bad Omen in China Hello, I got this message from CND. Since there is lot of changes in China, I wonder if you can interpretate this somehow, in a larger context, though this has a slight tone of rumour in it. Peace, Bliss, aki. Oulu, Finland. [AFPEW, 08/12/94] HONG KONG -- Residents in southern China's Hunan province claim to have spotted a bird with nine heads in a mountainous area, and authorities are investigating the reports, a newspaper said here Friday. The Wen Wei Po daily said the bird -- mentioned in records from the Song dynasty (960-1279) -- was reportedly seen on several occasions by some 30 people, and was said to resemble a turtle dove. The bird, said to live on cloud-shrouded peaks of the Huping mountains, was described by a militiaman named Zhang Shenyun as having eight smaller heads around a larger one, with each bearing a complete set of beak, ears and eyes. Legend has it that appearances of the bird are bad omens, and no one has dared to try to catch the strange creature, the newspaper said. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 23:52:46 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Besant brainstorm Hi folks-- I've just had a brainstorm which impels me to do some research and writing fast, and am hoping someone can help. My new book Initiates of the Theosophical Masters is being copyedited at the moment by SUNY Press. But when copyedited ms. comes back I am free to add new text for free. After it gets typeset, the window of opportunity closes. The brainstorm is that I need to include a section on Annie Besant's first (1893-94) journey through India with Olcott in the last section on "The Great White Sisterhood." Just read relevant portions of ODL, finding plenty of evidence that HSO was deliberately taking AB to all the places and meeting all the people still living who/which had played major parts in his relations with the Masters. While I leave out AB's later career, this phase of her life is unquestionably initiatory in the sense of fitting it with the rest of the book. So I have 3-4 weeks to write another 10-15 pages on this to incorporate into the ms. All I have is ODL and Nethercot. Will call E. Trumpler to ask for advice. So here's where I need help: CAN ANYONE PROVIDE REFERENCES TO SOURCES IN WHICH ANNIE DESCRIBES THIS JOURNEY IN HER OWN WORDS? Thanks. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 00:36:02 -0400 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: Judge case etc. Mike Grenier, Actually the Judge case is pretty complicated, and there is a tremendous amount of mis-information concerning it, including what the thing was about in the first place. The reasons for this seem to be several: First, since the issues were complicated by so many side issues, people became confused as to what the whole thing was about. Second, actual documents that do clarify the issues are now very scarce, and very few people have seen them. Third: The issue is still so hot, that it is hard to find old-time members who are not completely polarized one way or the other, regardless of evidence. Part of this is because, the case also touches upon some *very hot* side issues, such as: the validity of successorship; the veracity of both Besant and Judge; and the validity of the existence of the E.S. after HPB's death. Further, important documents that would prove or disprove Olcott's and Besant's charges against him, are in the Adyar archives, and never have been published. But more on this later. Basically the "Judge Case" is about a controversy that eventuated into splitting the Theosophical Society into two Organizations. This much everyone agrees on. Beyond this basic statement, it very quickly gets harder to find areas of agreement. Because of the so many strongly held opinions (mostly held by members who are completely unacquainted with the available documents), I will limit my remarks to facts that I can easily document. When I express an opinion, I think you will be able to clearly discern it in my text. I will also try to give my rationale for these opinions. One of the most important documents concerning the Judge Case is an 87 page document written and published very early very early in 1895 by Annie Besant. The pamphlet spells how Besant's complaint against Judge, and was diestributed to the entire membership of the Theosophical Society. This pamphlet is entitled: ~The Case Against W.Q. Judge.~ In the first 22 pages of this pamphlet, Besant gives her account as to how she was originally in support of Judge, and finally determined that he was trying to take over the Theosophical Society through issuing bogus Mahatma Letters. One of the ironic aspects of her story is that aside from the "evidence" she had accumulated, she also claimed that her suspicions were confirmed through a visitation of a Mahatma (p. 13). Now if one has faith in Besant, then that is pretty conclusive evidence right here. But on the other hand, the issue appears to me to become Judge's Mahatmic authority verses Besant's. It is no wonder that the publication of this document polarized the T.S. into loyalty towards one leader against the other. The second part of the pamphlet is divided into sections, giving Besant's statement prepared for the Judicial committee; her charges; evidence against Judge; and statements made by others. On the whole it looks like a pretty impressive document, but I wonder how many members made up their minds on the issues based upon the thickness of the pamphlet rather than making a careful study of it. According to her pamphlet, the charges Besant leveled against Judge, are as follows: 1. Untruthfulness, in now claiming uninterrupted teaching from and communication with the Masters, from 1875 to the present time, in flagrant contradiction with his own letters in which he states that he had no such communications, and asks certain persons to try and obtain communications for him. 2. Untruthfulness, in denying that he has sent any letters or messages purporting to be from the Masters, whereas he has sent such by telegram, and enclosed in letters from himself, to Annie Besant and others. 3. Deception practiced towards H.S. Olcott with regard to the Rosicrucian Jewel of H.P.B. 4. Lack of straightforwardness re alleged Lodge messages supposed to be from a Master, which seal was not His. 5. The sending of messages, orders and letters as if sent and written by Masters, such messages, etc., being proved to be non-genuine by: a. Error in matter of fact. b. Threat based on mistake. c. Triviality Further the probability being against their genuineness and in favor of their being written by W.Q. Judge from: a. Their occurring only in letters from W/Q/ Judge or in letters that had been within his reach. b. The limitation of the knowledge displayed in them to that possessed by W.Q. Judge. c. The personal advantage to himself, directly in some cases, and indirectly generally as being the only person through whom such written messages were received. Further the possibility of such imitation of known scripts by him is shown by imitations done by him to prove the ease of such imitations. (Case: 25-26) My own reading of the pamphlet, shows that the weight of evidence against Judge depends upon Besant's version of she heard and experienced; what she claimed the Master told her; and upon her excerpts of letters from Judge. If I were to try to be an impartial judge in this case, I would balance Besant's authority of the Master she invokes against the authority of the Master that she claims that Judge invoked. Therefore the score for the first round would be zero to zero. As for Besant's account of her experiences with Judge, I would want to balance that against all of the historical documentation I could find on the matter, and against Judge's own statements in a 29 page document he published in answer to Besant's 87 page document. Judges reply is entitled: ~Reply by William Q. Judge to Charges of Misuse of Mahatma's Names and Handwritings.~ Such an undertaking would probably take at least six months of undivided research on my part--something I have never had the time to do. However, there are a couple of matters in Besant's account that disturb me very deeply. The first is her public answer to Judge's complaint that he was not given copies of the evidence against him. She counters that he was shown the evidence, and that "He made no complaint at the time that he was hurried in his inspection", but admits that she would not provide copies for him: "As to copies, no duty lies on me to supply Mr. Judge with copies, still less with copies of long letters on various subjects, in which perhaps only a few sentences are cogent to the charges made; I have not the time to make copies, nor am I inclined to undertake the cost of having them transcribed; if Mr Judge chooses to appoint a trustworthy copyist, such a person can come and make copies of all the documents used and not used." (Case: 9) Now my understanding of the rules of evidence, is that the plaintiff is legally obligated to furnish copies of documents to the defendant. Perhaps the Brits have a different rule. Are there any lawyers reading this who can answer that one? In any case, it strikes me as an unfair advantage that Judge wasn't permitted copies of the evidence, which he could used to prepare his defense. Her attitude on this matter become ever more bizarre when we find published in the "Supplement to The Theosophist" a letter by Besant requesting Olcott to furnish her with the above said documents to be used at a "Special Convention of the European Section T.S." She goes on to explain that "there is a general demand for the production of these papers for the information and guidance of Members." It seems strange that Besant could request the "production" of documents to plead her case to the European Section, but felt no obligation to produce these documents for the benefit of the person she was accusing (Supplement: p. xx, vol. 16, No. 7, Apr. 1895). The other matter that bothers me deeply, is that Besant devoted several pages in her introductory letter to accusing Judge of trying to take actions to assure that he succeeds Olcott to the Presidency (Besant admits that Judge's successorship was assumed by the membership anyway). This charge, though probably true, is not included among the six formal charges against him. Yet, it is pretty clear in my reading of her introductory letter, that Judge's successorship to the Presidency was Besant's primary concern. Further, She quotes a letter from Chakravarti stating that Olcott had asked her to become President of the T.S. If this were true, why wasn't she able to quote Olcott making this declaration? Returning to the formal charges against Judge, and the weight of the evidence that Besant provides, most of the evidence is made up of excerpts of letters from Judge mostly to her and Olcott, and Besant's account of what who said to whom. In examining the excerpts from the letters, I'm left with a desire to want to see the whole letters to see the excerpts in context. The excerpts themselves tend to be ambiguous. For instance, under her first charge that Judge had no communication with the Masters, she extracts a sentence from a letter from Judge to Damodar (Aug. 5, 1880), who was writing Judge concerning his experiences with the Masters. Judge write: "Without doubt many of the brothers are daily in your vicinity; how I wish I could share them with you." (Case: 37). Now Besant presents this quote as proof that Judge was not in touch with the Masters at that time. I agree that one could interpret this quote in this way. But I can also just as easily interpret this quote to be a wish on Judge's part to be in India with Damodar and share in all of the action that was going on there. This interpretation, I think, is not only just as valid, but also consistent with other letters that he wrote around this time. But I leave you to read the evidence for yourself, and see if you are convinced. The other major aspect of the Judge Case concerns the splitting of the T.S.: Once again there is a lot of mis- information concerning this. First of all, to say that Judge split the T.S. is technically incorrect: Judge, had been arguing with Olcott for some time that the same autonomy given to the early Lodges should also be given to the sections. Olcott was against this, but during the 1895 American Convention, the membership overwhelmingly voted autonomy, and elected Judge President for life. Keep in mind that "autonomy" within the T.S. is not the same as creating another Society. Olcott's response to the news of the American Section's autonomy can be found in the Supplement to the Aug. 1895 as a declaration of "autonomy," Olcott declared it an act of "succession," and declared null and void the original charter Olcott had issued for the Section in 1886. He also annulled the charters of all of the Lodges that went along with Judge. Therefore, it was Olcott, not Judge who split the Society. Regarding the unpublished documents I mentioned in the beginning, that would throw more light on the case: 1. The Mahatma letters that Judge was supposed to have forged would have been in Besant's and Olcott's possession. They have never been published, though every other extant Mahatma letter that we know of has. I think publication of these "letters" in their entirety is not too much to ask in the name of fairness. 2. Judge's side of the Judge-Olcott correspondence is in the Adyar archives. They have been seen by several people I know and knew. Considering that fact that Olcott's charges--that Judge was trying to take the Presidency away from him--are based upon this correspondence, in the name of fairness, I think they should be published in their entirety. 3. Olcott's side of the Judge-Olcott correspondence is in the Pasadena Archives. Since Judge made no charges against Olcott based upon his correspondence, their publication is of less importance in light of the Judge Case. However, if Judge's side would be published by Adyar, then Olcott's side should also be published in the name of helping to get a complete picture of item 2. I find it curious that Adyar never published the "evidence" they have against Judge. It certainly doesn't seem to be a matter of scruples. In 1931, ~The Theosophist~ published a series of letters from Judge to Olcott, dated around 1882-83. Though they have no bearing on the "Judge case" they do not show Judge in his best light, as Judge this series was written during the lowest time in Judges life. During 1882-83, his son had died, he was estranged from his methodist wife, who did not approve of theosophy. He was along in the U.S., with no support from India to continue the T.S. in America. The text of these letters show that he was pretty desperate for that support. Anyway, in the December 1931 issue of ~The Theosophist~ the series of letters were ended with this editorial note: We suspend the further publication of the letters of W.Q. Judge with this letter which records his arrival in Bombay, whence he passed on to the Societies Headquarters at Adyar. The letters were published with two objects: first, to give new matter to the historians of the Theosophical Society and Movement, who are many; second to show how futile is the attempt made by some Theosophical Organizations to dethrone Colonel Olcott form his rightful place by the side of H.P. Blavatsky and put in his place W.Q. Judge. It is true that in 1893 wide divergences of views took place between H.S. Olcott and W.Q. Judge, and that their friendship was broken completely when Mr. Judge seceded form the Society in 1895 and organized the "Theosophical Society in America". That Society then claimed that it was the original Parent Society, and that it had never left the United States. The letters already published show that a warm friendship existed between the two, and the expressions of gratitude in some of the letters from the younger towards the elder reveal how deep was that attachment on both sides. Nor was there the slightest sign that Mr. Judge ever doubted in any manner Colonel Olcott's position as the leader and his, W.Q. Judge's, as loyal assistant. My observation is that Besant, who was editor of ~The Theosophist~ when this series ran, had the opportunity to prove the points she makes in this editorial by publishing the correspondence that is relevant to the issue she is addressing-- i.e. the Judge Case. Why didn't she? To sum up, I submit my humble opinion, based upon the available evidence, that the underlying issue had more to do with who would control the T.S., than whether or not Judge forged Mahatma letters. If interest in this discussion continues, I will try to find time to discuss in more detail Besant's six accusations against Judge, and other documents germane to the Case. Astrea, A> When I was in Adyar at the beginning of the year, I was > interested to see that there was no mention of CWL at all > (except "Leadbeater chambers" still bears the same name and his > photograph), even though Besant is very much respected and even > idolized by many of the Indian people. And of course > Krishnamurti is quoted all the time. A friend upon returning from Adyar once told me that he had observed there that the official policy concerning Leadbeater was "that he doesn't exist, and there is nothing wrong with him in the first place." Thank you for your experiences, which seems to confirm my friend's. > My personal view is that he cracked under the considerable > strain of chelaship. I think many of his books are good and > very clearly written. Some of you might have seen a video made > by some Australians who attended the Wesak festival in remote > Tibet, which was exactly as he had described it - although the > "politically correct" had, I understand, already started > omitting his sketches of the festival from "The Masters and > the Path" as being too fanciful. Interesting view you have concerning C.W.L.--I think it is probable. Damodar seems to have been the only probationary chela that was finally accepted. Concerning the video, I would very much like to see it. Is it for sale? Where might I be able to obtain this video? Who would have the background information on this group? Can it be substantiated that this is a group has been meeting at least before 1908?--which is about the time Leadbeater first shared his "vision." Or is it possible, that this ceremony was set up in imitation of the one portrayed by Leadbeater? > Doesn't HPB comment in one of her essays on "practical > occultism" or "chelaship" that a large number of the members > of her inner group cracked under the strain, one way or > another- suicide, madness, crime, immorality etc. I don't > think we should ignore the good work CWL did do - but > acknowledge his failings as the same time. Yes HPB said things to that effect in a lot of places. Yes, I agree, we should throw away anything of value in C.W.L.'s writings. On the other hand, we also need to evaluate it in light of his dark side. For instance, I had a recent conversation with someone who just finished reading ~The Elder Brother.~ She made the comment, that she found it hard to accept anything that CWL taught concerning invisible planes etc., considering that fact that he couldn't tell the truth concerning his age, number of people in his family, his profession, his father's profession etc. I think this is also a reasonable position. Paul Johnson, Thanks for your interesting contribution concerning the Judge case. There are a couple of points you made, that I would appreciate clarification: PJ> After HPB's death, Judge produced Mahatma letters to Besant > and gradually persuaded her to side with him against Olcott, > whose resignation was demanded and obtained in 1892 (I think) > but later withdrawn. Olcott submitted his resignation early in 1892, and withdrew it later that year. As you know, his reason concerned fear that a sexual scandal concerning him would get out. Some recommended that he resign, but this is the first I heard that it was demanded. What's your source? PJ> Although warned that Olcott was planning to kill her, Annie > disregarded this,... What is your source for this? Richard Ihle, I tried to send a message to your box, and it was returned with the message "Deferred: bad file number." Did you receive it anyway? Please let me know. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 05:45:15 -0400 From: Aki Korhonen Subject: Levels of Morality and Ethics. Ethics and morality. Ethics and morality are related to our worldview. When we look at ourselves in relation to the world, we notice that outside of us is the physical world with its inhabitants and things. When we look to other direction, inwards, we notice that we have a subjective, inner world. We can call it our mind. In our mind we think, sense, feel emotions, suffer and feel joy. When we further examine our mind, we notice that it is subjective, we can't directly feel other's mind, nor can they ours. The outer world seem to be pretty objective and stabile, but when we analyse it further, we may notice that our view of it is always related to our viewpoint. If we change our position, our view about the world changes. Also no other person can look the world exactly same way as us. So we can say, that the physical world is objective, but our perception of it is only partially objective. So we get: 1. Physical world. 2. The subjective world of mind. When we analyse our mind's contents we may notice, that some ideas and thoughts seem to be more general than the others. Our thoughts in our mind can also refer to different levels, or kinds of things, e.g. physical phenomenon, concepts, feelings, thoughts. .. We may notice that some of our thoughts are so general that they are objective, in a way that every other thinking being are bound to end to same conclusions. An easy example of this kind of general, objective ideas, is mathematics. It is natural to think, that mathematics exist without our thinking of it, as a kind of independent world. I call this kind of immaterial, yet objective existence "objective world" or "world of ideas". Anyway, it differs radically of our subjective thoughts. Our feelings don't exist outside of our mind. Analogically I believe, that there exists others similarily objective phenomenon. So we get 1. Physical world-matter 2. mind- soul 3. Objective world- spirit When we speak about morality or ethics, we easily confuse these different levels of our subjective worldview. When we examine the sciences related to these worlds we have natural science to world1, psychology to mind level, and philosophy to objective world. Morality or ethics related to physical world is law, the law that can applied at courts, etc. Morality related to mind's level is subjective. It is the code of selfishness. It can be the good for ourselves, or the good for some group of people - but thi s is only extension of our self. Anyway, it is always kind of one-sided. Real morality starts, by my opinion, when we can reach the objective thinking- spiritual level. The morality of this level can be called karma. Also, if you think in objective terms, there is no certain cases, or certain individuals, also there is no good or bad, everything is eternally balanced. The disharmony appears when we interpret these things at physical and subjective levels. Our Atma, and everybody's Atma is always at peace, I think. The way to preach about morality is best done by explaining general rules. The application of those is always done at our subjective level, individually. It depends of our situation, and it is strictly personal. By my opinion, to others we can only say general things, but we can't take up concrete examples, because those cases are always subjective and case related. And - we really don't know the others' minds contents. My favourite story about morality goes like this: At far East there was a little village in which lived a Guru. The Guru had a favourite disciple. One day when the disciple was out of the village, the Guru left the village and told the people, that those may not in any case reveal where his has gone, even not to his favourite disciple. The villagers promised so, and the Guru left. The disciple returned and started to inquiry villagers where the Guru has gone. Village people didn't tell, even if the disciple threatened to curse the village, if they wouldn't tell. They didn't, so he cursed the village and the neighbourhood. Soon thin gs started to go bad; there was no rain, people starved and died to diseases and famine. This lasted for many years. Then the Guru returned, saw what has happened and removed the curse. Then the disciple realised what he has done, and regret very much. He pleaded for mercy and forgiveness and felt very sorry and lousy. The Guru replied:" Don't worry, these villagers were bad people and they deserved punishment. In your heart you knew this, that is why you cursed them." The point in this story is, that how we really can know which is right at the end? I can't see that there is an other way to act, but to always do what we feel right. Peace, Bliss, aki. Oulu, Finland. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 06:56:26 -0400 From: Aki Korhonen Subject: Re: History and Controversy On Wed, 17 Aug 1994, Michael W. Grenier wrote: > >Next up according to this > >hypothesis should be the Judge case. We may not live long > >enough to see people rationally discuss Leadbeater. > > Actually, I'm very interested in the Judge case. If people > are afraid to discuss it here, perhaps someone could send me > via personal email a little history of what caused the > the break with TS. A history of the formation of Point Loma > would be useful too. > > I personally hold Judge in the highest esteem and would like > to learn more. > > -Mike Grenier > ---- Yes, me too. (...to learn more) I live in Finland, in a periferia of the Globe. I have only recently joined the Theosophical Society, Adyar, section, and I'm quite un-aware what is the burden of history in TS. But I would prefer that we would concentrate to work in union, instead of digging up past misunderstandings. Anyway, I'm of the new generation, who hasn't been living of those past times, so maybe I'm missing something. If us, the theosophists, can't work together and tolerate each others, how we can speak about the Universal Brotherhood of all Mankind? For my sympathy to a group or another these discussions have not affected at all, I take those things as something which maybe has happened maybe not. Now we have more urgent matters to deal with, I think. Peace. Bliss. aki. Oulu, Finland. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 10:13:55 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Name Game IHLE, Jerry (and all), rhymes with SMILE. By the way, what rhymes with HEJKA-EKINS? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 10:15:02 -0400 From: mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com (Michael W. Grenier) Subject: Re: Judge case etc. > Actually the Judge case is pretty complicated ... Wow! Thanks for the effort you put into this. I need to take some time and understand it. -Mike ---- Michael W. Grenier mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com 612-456-7869 Unisys - Air Traffic Control From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 13:50:52 -0400 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: Re: History and Controversy Aki Korhonen writes: > If us, the theosophists, can't work together and tolerate each > others, how we can speak about the Universal Brotherhood of > all Mankind? May I recommend that you try to obtain copies of the Theosophical History Journal. This excellent publication, started in the UK but now (I hear) continuing in the USA, offers a forum for professional and amateur researchers to share sometimes controversial aspects of the history of the theosophical movements. I am particularly grateful to them for publishing the full text of the last letter by a Mahatma to Annie Besant -- one which I am sure neither AB nor Judge would ever have dared to forge! (I'm not intending to imply that either of them did this at all.) Paul Gillingwater From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 13:51:43 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Judge case etc. Jerry, My source for both stories you ask about is the first chapter of Nethercot's second Besant bio-- The Last Five Lives. He says Judge wrote Annie Mahatma letters warning her that Olcott would have her killed, and also that Judge and Annie teamed up to get rid of HSO before she changed sides. As to a demand, that's my own interpolation and has no basis other than my guess. They had some goods on him, and, well (this doesn't make either B or J look good) the result appears to have been blackmail. But as you no doubt know, Nethercot isn't very rigorous about his sources, and therefore further research is indicated. Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 14:24:14 -0400 From: Gerald Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Response to Paul Paul: Yes, Crowley was influenced, to some extent, by the TS, through Wynn Westcott, one of the three founders of the Golden Dawn and also a member of HPB's inner circle. Mathers, another G.D. founder and leader initiated Crowley into the higher degrees, and he (Mathers) stated that he had met HPB and admired her. I know that Israel Regardie, who published the secret G.D. material and who was Crowley's personal secretary for a time, liked and admired HPB, because he told me so shortly before he died. Crowley never met HPB but openly admired her. However, he had an interesting misunderstanding of her Buddhism. As you may know, Crowley wrote a lengthy commentary to her Voice of the Silence in which he belittled and criticized her knowledge of Buddhism. Crowley himself had been instructed in Buddhism by his good friend, George Cecil Jones, who eventually left the G.D. and England, and became a Buddhist monk. However, Jones was a Theravadin or Hinayana Buddhist. HPB wrote almost solely from the viewpoint of the Mahayana Buddhist, of which very little was known in her day. It was not until D.T. Suzuki and other Mahayana Buddhists (mostly Zen) began to write, and to translate into English, that the Mahayana became better known. Of course, a lot of credit here must also go to Evans-Wentz who practically single-handedly brought Tibetan Buddhism to the West (I say "practically" because Alexandra David-Neel and a few others also helped). And. as you know, Evans-Wentz was a theosophist. Anyway, Crowley's attacks seem to me to be soley based on his misunderstanding of the Mahayana teachings. To Crowley, all Buddhism was Buddhism. But from my perspective, understanding both the Hinayana and Mahayana (these terms were invented by the Mahayana Buddhists, by the way), both Crowley and HPB are correct in what they wrote. Apparently Crowley was never made aware of his misunderstanding. Anyway, this one work of his is, to my knowledge, the only material Crolwey ever wrote that is just plain wrong - and I think that it was the result of his confusing the Mahayana and Hinayana teachings. Jerry S From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 14:24:59 -0400 From: Gerald Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: A Problem with Ethics I have a problem with all of this talk about ethics. In fact, I have a problem with ethics per se. I have tried to discuss this many times. Apparently I have not yet been successful. So, I will try one more time, and then I will shut up about it. Most Christians are taught to be ethical. In fact, church attendance and ethics are quite sufficient to get most Christians into heaven. The problem that I have with ethics is motive. Most Christians (and I shouldn't really pick on Christians, because it is true across the board) are ethical because they believe that this will get them into heaven. In other words, ethics are a means to an end, and this end involves the inflation of ego. Theosophists are not supposed to be interested in inflating the ego, but rather the opposite. As a theosophist, has the thought ever come to you that by being more ethical you will move toward spirituality? The thought often sounds something like this: "If I am ethical, I will tread the path, I will become enlightened, I will increase my good karma, I will further my spiritual evolution." Has it? If so, then please tell me the difference between the theosophist and the Christian. Are not both on similar ego trips? Even the tiny little thought that by helping someone, I will lessen my karmic burden and thus my next life will be better, is an ego trip. And yet I hear this kind of stuff in theosophical literature all the time. I submit that it matters very little whether we seek to enter heaven or seek a better future life on Earth - both ideas are egoistic. The problem that I have with ethics, is that it is all too easy to use ethics as a means to further inflate the ego, which for most of us is already quite large enough. Ok. So what is the alternative? I am not suggesting that we throw out ethics, or subscribe to DO WHAT THOU WILT (a Crowley law) or even AN' IT HURT NONE, DO WHAT THOU WILT (a Wicca law which is only a little better, simply because you can't do very much in this life without inadvertently hurting someone somewhere in the process). What I am suggesting is that we emphasize compassion and concern for the welfare of others, together with respect for all living beings. If we do this, then ethics will be a natural fallout, and will tend to take care of itself. In fact, every occult and magical organization that I am aware of teaches the importance of compassion. The ego cannot pass safely through the Ring-Pass- Not that separates form from formlessness. Thus in order to perceive the spiritual formless realms, we must eliminate the human ego. Compassion for others is a good technique to use for deflating the ego. Not ethics. Helping others is a good thing. But inflating the ego is not. If we can fill ourselves with compassion, then we will help others simply because we cannot do anything else, and not because it is the "right" thing to do, or because it will give us good karma or will eliminate some of our past bad karma. One's motive is as important, if not more important, than one's action. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 15:36:21 -0400 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: WESAK jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) writes: > A friend upon returning from Adyar once told me that he had > observed there that the official policy concerning Leadbeater was > "that he doesn't exist, and there is nothing wrong with him in > the first place." Thank you for your experiences, which seems to > confirm my friend's. I like it! A witty way of describing things there. :-) > Concerning the video, I would very much like to see it. Is > it for sale? Where might I be able to obtain this video? I saw it in New Zealand. You could contact the Headquarters in Auckland, and maybe someone could help you there. It was shown at a Convention, so it should be well known. If you don't have the address let me know and I can supply it. > Who would have the background information on this group? Its best to see the video. It's just a group of Australians who wanted to see some Buddhist festivals. They went to Thailand (I think - I wasn't really concentrating on this part) where they met a monk who invited them to a Wesak celebration in Tibet which is not usefully open to westerners. The monk seemed to be a very ordinary, humble monk, but after escorting them to the desolate spot for the celebration, he was revealed to be one of the senior lamas, in full regalia etc. It was of "home video" quality ie not professionally made, and undoubtedly genuine, in my opinion. > Can it be > substantiated that this is a group has been meeting at least > before 1908?--which is about the time Leadbeater first shared his > "vision." I don't think so, although it was clearly a well-established tradition. It doesn't really touch on that point. Why should it? The Aussies had never heard of CWL or the TS. > Or is it possible, that this ceremony was set up in > imitation of the one portrayed by Leadbeater? Extremely unlikely that hundreds if not thousands of tibetans and other asian people would make an arduous pilgrammage in subzero conditions to an extremely remote location, and then enact a beautiful and elaborate ceremony just to imitate CWL. I doubt most could read English anyway. > light of his dark side. For instance, I had a recent > conversation with someone who just finished reading ~The Elder > Brother.~ She made the comment, that she found it hard to accept > anything that CWL taught concerning invisible planes etc., > considering that fact that he couldn't tell the truth concerning > his age, number of people in his family, his profession, his > father's profession etc. I think this is also a reasonable > position. I can see the point. But still I judge the value of the writing on its own merits, and how I feel about it. I feel there is quite a lot of truth in much of his writing - but not all. Some was quite fanciful and probably the result of an over-active imagination. ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 15:37:19 -0400 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: History and Controversy Aki Korhonen writes: > joined the Theosophical Society, Adyar, section, and I'm quite > un-aware what is the burden of history in TS. But I would > prefer that we would concentrate to work in union, instead > of digging up past misunderstandings. Anyway, I'm of the new > generation, who hasn't been living of those past times, so > maybe I'm missing something. I find it very interesting. I don't think an interest in TS history need divide us. We should realize that we will probably never know the whole truth. The most important thing is what we are doing with our own lives. But we should be aware of the karma of the organization to which we belong, and the various thought currents which are still affecting it. ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 00:53:13 -0400 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: ethics, history Paul Johnson, PJ> My source for both stories you ask about is the first chapter > of Nethercot's second Besant bio-- The Last Five Lives. He > says Judge wrote Annie Mahatma letters warning her that Olcott > would have her killed, and also that Judge and Annie teamed up > to get rid of HSO before she changed sides. As to a demand, > that's my own interpolation and has no basis other than my > guess. They had some goods on him, and, well (this doesn't > make either B or J look good) the result appears to have been > blackmail. But as you no doubt know, Nethercot isn't very > rigorous about his sources, and therefore further research is > indicated. Not only is Nethercot very rigorous about his sources, but he uses a lot of secondary ones without checking them against primary sources. It is a shame because there is a lot of good information in his biography too, but it is also full of errors of fact. Nethercot's source for the murder plot seems to come from Gertrude Marvin William's ~The Passionate Pilgrim A Life of Annie Besant~, as he does name this book as one of the sources for this chapter. Unfortunately Williams is even far less "rigorous" about sources than Nethercot. Regarding the murder plot, She writes: "The story is that he [Judge] cabled her [Besant] peremptorily not to go, and forwarded a warning from the Mahatmas that there was a plot to poison her and put her out of the way." (p. 208). By beginning the sentence with "The story is," it is pretty plain that Williams was just repeating hearsay. If such a document exists or existed, I would think that Besant would not have hesitated to use it in her charges against Judge. It sure would have made a stronger case for her than she had in the other documents she used. If such a document ever existed, it would be in the Adyar Archives. No one that I know who has been in those archives has ever mentioned seeing such a thing. The reason why I asked for a source for this is because plotting to commit first degree murder is a very serious charge to lay on Olcott. The suggestion that Judge forged a Mahatma letter saying that Olcott was plotting such a thing, is also a pretty serious charge, that if substantiated, would completely destroy Judge's credibility--at least for me. I think readers of our messages deserve to know the source so that they have a way of "weighing" the evidence. I suggest that in the future, when we share historical information on this net, we try to distinguish between: Information from source documents; Information from secondary sources; information from oral history; our own conclusions; our own speculations; conclusions of other; speculations of others. Richard Ihle, Hejka-Ekins doesn't rhyme with anything that I know of. But phonetically one would say: hay-ka-e-kins. Its the "j" that throws everybody except the Swedes and Rumanians, and probably the Fins. Aki, Further to Paul Gillingwater's message, you can subscribe to Dr. James A. Santucci Dept. of Religious Studies California State University Fullerton Fullerton CA. 92634-9480 Subscription is $14.00 in U.S., Canada and Mexico; $16.00 foreign, or $24.00 foreign if you want it airmail. The beauty of this journal is that it is independent, and not sponsored by any Theosophical Organization. Mike Grener, MG> Wow! Thanks for the effort you put into this. I need > to take some time and understand it. I'm please to do it. Please don't hesitate to ask questions. Aki, A> I live in Finland, in a periferia of the Globe. I have only > recently joined the Theosophical Society, Adyar, section, and > I'm quite un-aware what is the burden of history in TS. But I > would prefer that we would concentrate to work in union, > instead of digging up past misunderstandings. Anyway, I'm of > the new generation, who hasn't been living of those past times, > so maybe I'm missing something. > > If us, the theosophists, can't work together and tolerate each > others, how we can speak about the Universal Brotherhood of all > Mankind? > > For my sympathy to a group or another these discussions have > not affected at all, I take those things as something which > maybe has happened maybe not. Now we have more urgent matters > to deal with, I think. Peace. Bliss. When I first joined the T.S. over thirty years ago, I felt exactly the same way. How can we talk about Brotherhood when we can't get along with each other? After all it seems so easy-- lets pretend that the world started when the sun rose this morning--no past to think about--and start concentrating on the present, and just do the work! Sadly, reality is never as easy as our ideals. The sad truth is that mistakes were made and covered over. People were led to believe what was not so, and learned to speak against those who followed other authorities, who also made mistakes that were covered over. Thus--speaking frankly--we have been lied to, and to many members depend upon authorities to tell them what the truth is. The bottom line is, in MHO, that we will be able to work together towards brotherhood when we start being our own authority and stop blindly following chosen theosophical leaders out of the belief that they are in some way spiritually superior. We have to learn to put self-autonomy over loyalty to spiritual leaders. This was the original message in the early Theosophical Society, and repeated by Krishnamurti in 1930. But by the turn of the century, it was already becoming obscured in the Adyar Society. From another perspective, the controversies are much more than "past misunderstandings." They tell us about the true nature of respected people in the T.M.--including the nature of the Masters. They tell us who, if anybody, has any so called "occult authority." They tell us about the direction the founders had in mind for the Theosophical Society, and the directions their successors had in mind. Without a clear idea of what those directions are, how are we to determine how to best serve the Theosophical Movement?--By putting our faith in the leaders of our chosen theosophical organization? If we do, then to a greater or lessor degree, we have given over our right to figure things out for ourself to someone who would be more than happy to do your thinking for us. For a very significant number of followers who prefer not to think, this is a very good alternative--but its not for me. To put it still in another way: we are told that The Theosophical Society is an "educational organization." The literature is supposed to teach us about occult things, not normally taught elesewhere. If we join the E.S., we are supposed to have taken a step towards the Spiritual Path that will lead towards Adeptship, and eventually to Mastership. We are supposed to be under the direction of a person who is supposed to be a direct mouthpiece of the Masters themselves. For myself, when I made a choice to dedicate my life towards the ideals of theosophy, and to put my faith into those methods and teachings of the founders, and to find applications to them, I first wanted to know about what I was getting in to. I started asking questions, and didn't stop. I don't take anyone as final authority on anything. Therefore, I sort out these answers for myself, using whatever resources I could find. As a result, I have accumulated a theosophical library of many thousands of volumes, and five filing cabinets full of documents. In my quest, I have come up with very different answers than those our leaders would have us believe, or even assume. I have been told by more than one person that I could save myself a lot of trouble by trusting my "spiritual intuition." But it quickly became obvious that "spiritual intuition" to them means, that the ideas strike a "harmonious response." My experience is that depending on this kind of "spiritual intuition" is madness. For me, what I understand to be "spiritual intuition" (which is very different from their understanding) comes only after I have done a lot of hard mental discrimination. Their is an old axiom: "Man builds himself." If we let others do our discriminating for us, I believe we are making a big mistake. I hope this makes sense. Oh yes, and by the way--that library I accumulated, is available for the use of anyone seeking answers. A> The point in this story is, that how we really can know which > is right at the end? > > I can't see that there is an other way to act, but to > always do what we feel right. There are two schools of philosophy concerning this (teleological,and the deontological), and most people use both, depending upon the circumstances. The villagers in your story used the deontological method. That is they acted out of principle. The principle here was, "obedience to the Guru." If they had chosen the teleogical method--"what would have been the best thing to do considering the circumstances?", they probably would have decided that it was more important to save lives and prevent misery. The Guru's satement upon his return, that they were "evil" and deserved what they get, has a deep truth. The decision *they* made sealed their own fate, which was an "evil" one in so far as it caused the lives and created misery of their fellow villagers. "Evil is as evil does" might be a moral to your story. There was a study done by F. Kohlberg some years ago that analyses the ways that people make moral and ethical decisions. It is a very enlightening study, and shows that these decisions depend upon values. Later, when I have more time, I will present that material--or perhaps someone else might want to do this. My answer to your question "...how can we really know what is right in the end?" If we always knew this we probably wouldn't be here. But I believe that it is our duty to TRY to make right decisions, and to learn all that we can about making better ones. Jerry S., JS> The problem that I have with ethics is motive. Most > Christians (and I shouldn't really pick on Christians, because > it is true across the board) are ethical because they believe > that this will get them into heaven. In other words, ethics > are a means to an end, and this end involves the inflation of > ego. Yes, some people practice ethics for this reason. Others practice ethics in order to "do the right thing." Different people are just in different places. JS> The problem that I have with ethics, is that it is all too > easy to use ethics as a means to further inflate the ego, which > for most of us is already quite large enough. My experience is that practicing ethics isn't always very easy. Sometimes I have to make desisions are not to my personal benefit, and/or forces me to swallow my pride and take a less selfish perspective. JS> What I am suggesting is that we emphasize compassion and > concern for the welfare of others, together with respect for > all living beings. If we do this, then ethics will be a > natural fallout, and will tend to take care of itself. Sounds good to me. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 03:15:30 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: A Problem with Ethics Jerry S, You bring up some excellent and thought-provoking points on ethics. I cannot find a thing to disagree with, really, but one might also want to consider it from this angle: Instead of just one "ego," (which gets "inflated" or goes on "ego trips"etc.), think of an individual having myriads of "sites" for potential "ego-formations." NeoTheo (copr. 8-18-94, R. Ihle) calls them "semi-Selves" because in reality they are just the True Self (Undifferentiated Consciousness) getting itSelf "contaminated" at various points along the Spirit-Matter "Circular-Interpenetrating-Continuum" (_Prakriti_, "Stuff") thus giving rise to all the conditions of differentiated consciousness (egoic delusions), many of the lower ones, at least, we are well familiar with. Still with me? (Yes? You masochist. . . .) Anyway, it is the Self which provides the _AM_ ("Aum. . ."--get it?) for these semi-Selves; what embrangles It provides the differentiating _I_ (the combination producing "I am"--the sense of separative ego). Now, a human incarnation gives the Self many ways to become deluded about Its essential nature. While potential semi-Selves are perhaps countless (although only one is center stage at a time--they form-dissolve-reform etc.), theosophists over the ages have tried, for convenience sake, to categorize them according to the general type of consciousness they involve. Big doctrinal fights can really start up here, of course, because while perhaps even a preponderance of these systems are septenary in structure, not all of them are, and there are certainly enough differences to get an argument going. NeoTheo (a.k.a. R. Ihle) believes it is time for more simplicity in Theosophy, so its system is built around the Kabalistic axiom as presented by HPB (SECRET DOCTRINE, I, p.132): "The Breath becomes a stone; the stone, a plant; the plant an animal; the animal, a man; the man, a spirit; and the spirit, a god." (I usually say "angel" instead of "spirit," and I sometimes say "Pure Spirit" instead of "a god" or "God"--since the reason that Pure Spirit and Undifferentiated Consciousness are able to "make the connection" in the first place is that they are of the same ultra-rarified nature which makes them "interpenetrable" and virtually indistinguishable--Atma-Buddhi, not even a hair's breadth away from the One at this point.) Thus, there are six types of consciousness a theosophist can get to know a little about and one (god) which is probably better left to the God to explain: Animating, Physical, Desire-Feeling, Desire-Mental, Mental, Spirit-Mental, and _______. Let's take two examples of a semi-Self coming into being: one at the Physical level of consciousness, and one relating to ethics (thought I was just wandering with all this, didn't you?) which forms at the Desire-Mental level. In NeoTheo, as I recently told a bedridden person, a headache is not just a headache; it is also a semi-Self (I AM the pain). Now, at this low level of consciousness, the Physical, it is unlikely that a person will be completely deluded that he or she really IS a headache. Here, the Self usually does not "transform" totally into semi-Self, but a "unalloyed portion" remains as Silent Watcher, Witness, or "Once-Removed-Vantage." Hence, we have the reason human suffering is generally worse than animal suffering: A lizard may totally be the pain it is experiencing, but a human not only has the pain but also simultaneously watches himself or herself in the pain as well--much more agonizing in terms of consciousness, wouldn't you agree? Anyway, take, in the next example, a semi-Self forming at the Desire-Mental Level. While at the Mental level, we may have the I-am-what-I-know-to-be-true type of egoic delusion, at the preceding level we have the Self dissolving into a I-am-what-I-want-to-be-true semi-Self. What to watch for in suspicious "champions of ethics" is the amount of reasoning, logic, philosophical system-building etc. they have to bring in for support. Someone in Spirit-Mental consciousness might have exactly the same "ethics," but it would not be because of an elaborate structure; rather, it would just be a simple matter of doing/not doing certain things because they are/are not consistent with the Spiritual nature of the consciousness being utilized to form the semi-Self. If the only thing holding you back from teaching little boys to masturbate is a lot of good and bad thinking, well then. . . . The really interesting thing, however,--and the reason that some ethics-type people can get annoying--is that not everyone who has a semi-Self forming at the Desire-Mental level has enough basic Self-realization to keep a Once-Removed-Vantage while they are indulging it. (This gets harder at the Mental level, harder yet and more metaphysically complex at the Spirit-Mental, and who knows what at the Pure Spirit level.) Meditation, which further develops Self's ability to realize itSelf, is thus critical for the advancing ability to "keep one looking over one's own shoulder" as one moves upward in the realms of consciousness, so to speak. . . . Warm regards, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 03:30:43 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Correction for Last Posting The line should read thus: "Self provides the _I_; what embrangles It provides the differentiating _AM_. . . ." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 09:22:21 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: ethics, history I just reread ODL on the Judge case and HSO is the original (?) source of the story. It'll take me a while digging through the poorly indexed book to find his version; will do ASAP. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 12:25:48 -0400 From: "LEWIS LUCAS" Subject: Re: ethics again... Sarah wrote: > > ladder of Spiritual success. Anyway, I think there will > always be contention in the ranks as long as there are > so many planetary oppositions in the TS horoscope. Why > not dissolve the old Society and start a new one? It's > going to happen eventually anyway. Will HPB be remember- > ed 2000 years from now? Will the Secret Doctrine be in > all motel rooms??? > An early astrology teacher of mine brought the class several charts and asked us to try interpreting them. Most will filled with "bad" aspects...oppositions, squares, badly afflicted planets, etc. We quickly surmized this must be the charts of some of histories worst criminals and were surprised that several were actually revered saints, philosophers, philanthropist, etc. Here point and mine here is that "The wise man rules his stars, the fool is ruled by them." To put it in another way I recall an article by then President Jimmy Carter on the topic of his religious views vs his obligations as a President. The interview thought there must be conflicts between his professed Born Again Christian beliefs and his actual choices as President. He used an anology of the action of the pushing and pulling on the wheels by the old steam locomotives. It was this pushing and pulling that moved the engine down the track. Yes, there may always be a lot of back and forth in the TS as indicated by the configurations you site, but they may be the dynamic which moves the organization along. Lewis From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 15:16:45 -0400 From: bill@Zeus.itdc.edu Subject: Re: ethics again... Hi all, Sarah wrote: [ ... snip ... ] > ... Will the Secret Doctrine be in > all motel rooms??? ... Actually (with a sly grin on my face), the Mormons are start- ing to do it -- I found a copy of The Book of Mormon in a drawer during my last stay in a hotel. Maybe (with a sly wink) we should consider it too! But don't forget, the reader will un- doubtable need a theosophical dictionary too (trying unsuccess- fully to stop laughing). I hope the humor is appreciated -- it just seemed like a wonderfully intriguing concept. Imagine the unsuspecting busi- ness man, settling down into his hotel room, opening a drawer and finding _The_Holy_Bible_, _The_Book_of_Mormon_, and _The_Secret_Doctrine_! Which do you think he would pick up and look at? The idea just made me smile. ;-) Bill-- |William A. (Bill) Parrette|4000 Executive Pk. Dr., #310 |bill@[Zeus.]itdc.edu |Cincinnati, OH 45241-4007 513-733-4747 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 15:17:35 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Nethercot on Judge I have gone through 2 volumes of ODL looking for references to the letter in which AB was warned of an assassination plot. Found nothing, but going back to Nethercot there are some clues which suggest that he had more than Marvin Williams to base his account on: Judge was determined to keep the Colonel and Annie apart as long as he possibly could. She therefore received a Mahatma letter by post, warning her that if she went to India Olcott was planning to poison her, and suggesting that she come to America instead, since there were important matters to be discussed there, including a charge of sexual immorality against Olcott. (p. 29) Nethercot lists his secondary sources for the chapter, but since he worked at Adyar during his research it leaves open the possibility of actually seeing the letter. Perhaps if he is still living he could answer the question. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 17:11:06 -0400 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: ethics again... bill@Zeus.itdc.edu writes: > I hope the humor is appreciated -- it just seemed like a > wonderfully intriguing concept. Imagine the unsuspecting busi- > ness man, settling down into his hotel room, opening a drawer > and finding _The_Holy_Bible_, _The_Book_of_Mormon_, and > _The_Secret_Doctrine_! Which do you think he would pick up and > look at? > > The idea just made me smile. ;-) This might also make you smile. I was in Ulaan Bataar in the Republic on business a couple of years ago, and was staying in one of their State guest houses. I had taken a copy of HPB's abridged SD to while away those long Mongolian nights (there's nothing much to do there, unless you drink Airak ;-) I decided to tuck it away in the small cabinet beside the bed, like a time-bomb, waiting for the right person to find it. (I am not making this up - as Dave Barry says) Saw a nice and little-known original Roerich while I was there too - the King of Shamballah riding out over some yurts on the steppe, reflecting a tale which was being told below to a circle of listeners. ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 17:47:42 -0400 From: "LEWIS LUCAS" Subject: Re: A Problem with Ethics Richard writes: > headache; it is also a semi-Self (I AM the pain). Now, at this low > level of consciousness, the Physical, it is unlikely that > a person will be completely deluded that he or she really IS a > headache. Here, the Self usually does not "transform" totally > into semi-Self, but a "unalloyed portion" remains as Silent > Watcher, Witness, or "Once-Removed-Vantage." Hence, we have the > reason human suffering is generally worse than animal > suffering: A lizard may totally be the pain it is experiencing, > but a human not only has the pain but also simultaneously watches > himself or herself in the pain as well--much more agonizing > in terms of consciousness, wouldn't you agree? Interesting point and one of many reason for vegetarianism I suspect. The karma of inflicting such pain must be terrible. Lewis From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 19:26:52 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: Re: ethics again... Lewis, I thought your two illustrations were extremely apt and good. I had not thought of it before you said so, but perhaps all the internal strife, tension etc. really has been a reason that the TS has kept going so long. Now, I have an astrological question for you (or anyone): Is there any significator (transiting planet or something) which operates in a regular, seven-year fashion (hits a natal position or something every seven years)? If there is, could there be anything associated with it which would cause its effects to be noticed at the mid-point of its cycle? (I am just trying to collect a little "collateral material," if I can, for something called "Psychomaturation and the Doctrine of Seven-Year Cycles." --Another big seller for me, I'm sure. . . .) Thanks again, Lewis, for the illustrative stories. Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 23:18:43 -0400 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: re "Nethercot on Judge" Paul, PJ>I have gone through 2 volumes of ODL looking for references to > the letter in which AB was warned of an assassination plot. > Found nothing, but going back to Nethercot there are some clues > which suggest that he had more than Marvin Williams to base his > account on: If you find it in ~Old Diary Leaves,~ I'll be real impressed. The only other possible, though highly unlikely source documents that Nethercot mentions to be sources of information for this chapter is ~Lucifer~ and ~The Theosophist~ for Jan.-Apr. 1894. Since the "evidence" Besant had against Judge would not be made known to the members for another year, it would be ridiculous to expect to find it published here. PJ> Judge was determined to keep the Colonel and Annie apart as > long as he possibly could. She therefore received a Mahatma > letter by post, warning her that if she went to India Olcott > was planning to poison her, and suggesting that she come to > America instead, since there were important matters to be > discussed there, including a charge of sexual immorality > against Olcott. (p. 29) Obviously Nethercot is working on the assumption that Judge forged these Mahatma Letters in the first place. Such a charge has never been proven, nor does Nethercot attempt to prove it in his book. IMHO, to begin with the assumption that Judge forged these letters, condemns him to be a fraud before the evidence is ever examined. Whether or not the Mahatma letters coming through Judge were forged by him is still a matter of very hot debate, and would require a very long and detailed discussion on the methods of transmission of Mahatma letters, before we could even begin to explore such an accusation. Further, Nethercot is assuming Judge's motivation based upon his assumption that Judge forged these letters. To come to a conclusion based upon an assumption that is based upon another assumption is in my opinion, damn poor scholarship. Let's stick to the evidence. PJ> Nethercot lists his secondary sources for the chapter, but > since he worked at Adyar during his research it leaves open the > possibility of actually seeing the letter. Perhaps if he is > still living he could answer the question. He already answered that question in the same book you are quoting from. Speaking about his trip to Adyar: "Some of the things which earlier references in Theosophical publications said were there, like H.P.B.'s famous occult teacups, were missing. Mrs. Bernier said she knew nothing of their whereabouts. Perhaps they have been moved to the archives. Unfortunately, however, access to the archives was denied me. No one seemed to know anything, either, about the diary which Mrs. Besant kept or about the clipping service which she subscribed to. One can only speculate on the other disclosures that might have been made in this book if its author could have inspected these things." (p. 456 fn.). Namaste, Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 08:54:00 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Re: ethics again... Actually this isn't on ethics but astrology. Saturn's cycle and the progressed moon both hit angles every seven years in relation to natal positions. I dunno about the midpoints, do you, Lewis? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 09:22:55 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: ethics again... I would be enthralled and delighted with longer installments of Mongolian and South Indian travelogue, plus whatever other material along these lines is dictated to you from Shambhala. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 10:33:42 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Explain This Please I have a sorta weird personal "occult phenomenon" I don't understand and am asking for interpretations or advice. It has to do with past-life overlay of my present consciousness. Here's the story. I've been in Germany once, in France four times, and in several other countries where I've encountered French and German people. Instinctively, I fear the German people, trust the French, feel uncomfortable in German cities or countryside, but right at home in France. But more striking is a visceral reaction of comfort and pleasure when hearing French spoken, and feeling frightened, angry and hostile at the sound of German. There are no present-life connections with German or French people that explain this, and no heavy childhood programming I can remember. My brother does not share this, and my parents' generation was really more anti-Japanese in sentiment during the war. Hearing German tourists in Uxmal, Yucatan of all places, I was overwhelmed with this visceral sense of "why are these people here ruining my experience?" Yet immediately felt ashamed of these rushes of hatred for innocent people. On a one to one basis I am fine with German people speaking English. It's hearing them speak German that pushes some button. My explanation for this is that in my most recent life I was French and lived through the occupation. But this flies in the face of HPB's preachments about 1500 year intervals between lives (which in itself doesn't bother me) and falls into the category of unhealthy ways of thinking. I mean, to excuse your personal weirdness as being caused by imagined past lives is a pretty dangerous road to follow far. During a year or so in 91 when I recorded dreams there were lots about going back to France but none that I recall on other places repeatedly. What does anyone think? Should I try to heal this past whatever-it-is or just drop the subject? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 12:26:33 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: Explain This Please Paul, A true theosophist is not defined by beliefs; rather, by what questions he or she thinks it is possible to get an answer to. You're a true one, Paul. Regards, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 14:05:27 -0400 From: IXCHEL@delphi.com Subject: astrological ethics To Lewis Lucas, You quote: "The wise man rules his stars, the fool is ruled by them." If this be true, then there are many fools among the Theosophists. In most cases the foolishness is a controversy over the whereabouts of the REAL Theosophical teachings and who is the REAL teacher to be respected. Many Theosophists have a pre- ference as far as a teacher or teachings go, and some change camps over a period of time. The oppositions in the T.S. scope reveal this tendency to form factions one against the other. We need only look back a few days ago to see the "pushing and pulling" going on here on theos-l. Planetary oppositions are an impetus for AWARENESS of different perspectives, however in the case of an ELECTIONAL or EVENT horoscope it is the Moon and her aspects that indicate the possibility of longevity. Although some astrologers note that the predominance of fixed signs keep the Society in exis- tence and that the dynamic of the planetary opposition holds things together, I submit that these factors alone have little power without the constant involve- ment of a Moon, which in the case of the T.S. is far from "void of course." Take a look-- at the time chosen to launch the Theosophical Society, the Moon makes a major aspect with every planet before it leaves the sign it occupies. This is quite remarkable! I know an astrologer that charges $1000 to set up election horo- scopes. She informed me that the more aspects the Moon makes the better. In the T.S. case, the five squares that the Moon makes reveal the propensity toward inner turmoil and struggle for transformation. The oppositions bring the conflicts into the light of day. The Moon representing the emotional rapport with existential circumstances is the glue which keeps the Society bound together. The Society will draw those of strong emotional passions. When the time comes to modify the emotional charge behind Theosophical thought we will perhaps see a new order and horoscope for it's participants. The T.S. horoscope as it stands now is a reflection of its present needs. Why assume these needs will always remain the same? Doesn't Theosophy teach us the evolution of things? Concerning midpoints: Planets vibrate and have frequency patterns. The inter- sections of these waves are the midpoints or standing waves. They become emphasized with a third "body" occupying that midpoint between the two frequencies. This can either be a natal planet, a transit station, or progressed planet. It is the vibratory rate and it's combined or complex structure which indicates the intel- legence opting for expression. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 15:44:28 -0400 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: past lives/ethics Paul, PJ> My explanation for this is that in my most recent life I was > French and lived through the occupation. But this flies in the > face of HPB's preachments about 1500 year intervals between > lives (which in itself doesn't bother me) and falls into the > category of unhealthy ways of thinking. I mean, to excuse your > personal weirdness as being caused by imagined past lives is a > pretty dangerous road to follow far. During a year or so in 91 > when I recorded dreams there were lots about going back to > France but none that I recall on other places repeatedly. My understanding of the original theosophical teachings concerning periods between incarnations is that under "normal" circumstances, a person spends about 100 years out of physical incarnation for every year in incarnation. The Mahatmas mentioned that the world average life span in the 1880's was about 15 years, therefore we get the 1500 years figure (15 X 100). If you consider the number of people who die in childhood from disease, starvation, infanticide, war, etc., the 15 year average is not only credible, but probably hasn't much improved in the last 100 years. Remember, the Western Europe first world countries (which also have poverty etc.) make up hardly 10% of the population on this planet. Now further explanations in the Mahatma Letters reveal a lot of exceptions to this 100 years to 1 ratio. Among them are suicide, murder, death in warfare, and accidental death (e.g. being run over by a car). Death through the above circumstances, and others, changes the ratio dramatically, and a person can be back in a very short time--even almost immediately. My own belief is (which I think is very consistent with HPB and Mahatma teachings) is that the world is full of people who died in the last two world wars, and other wars too. For whatever it is worth to you, I believe (for reasons that wouldn't be productive to go into now) that I was also killed in warfare. But not only in my last, but over several successive lifetimes, and because of that, my past periods between incarnations have all been very short. PJ> What does anyone think? Should I try to heal this past > whatever-it-is or just drop the subject? I think that the more that we can face and understand about ourselves, the better off we are. To everyone who has written in saying that ethics doesn't belong in theosophy etc.: Now that I have gotten over my initial shock concerning some of these responses--allow me to make an observation or two of my own. One of the big attractions of theosophy in the early days of the T.S. was the fact that it offered an ethical code that was not attached to any religion. I'm frankly very disturbed to find so many responses from members of the T.S., who now want to reject ethics. I see this as more evidence of the further eroding of what theosophy once was--though I'm sure some of you will respond that it is an improvement. Some of you historians might recall that Damodar wrote against the promulgation of theosophical teachings until people were first taught ethics. Considering the present circumstances, I'm beginning to really regret that his suggestion was not carried out. Ethics, like everything else, has to be learned. We aren't born with this knowledge, nor do we passively learn very much about it through living our day to day lives. For the benefit of those who don't believe that ethics was ever a part of theosophy, please consider the following passage: He who does not practice altruism; he who is not prepared to share his last morsel with a weaker or poorer than himself; he who neglects to help his brother man, or whatever race, nation, or creed, whenever and wherever he meets suffering, and who turns a deaf ear to the cry of human misery; he who hears an innocent person slandered, whether a brother theosophist or not, and does not undertake his defence as he would undertake his own--is no theosophist (CW: VIII, 171) Peace, Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 16:13:28 -0400 From: bill@Zeus.itdc.edu Subject: Re: Explain This Please Hi all, With all of the "interesting discussions" going on here re- cently I find myself thinking about one of the three objects. You know the one ... the one about " ... forming a Universal Brotherhood of Man ... " ;-) Anyway, in all seriousness, a part of one of K. Paul Johnson's posts caught my interest recently. > ... > My explanation for this is that in my most recent life I was > French and lived through the occupation. But this flies in the > face of HPB's preachments about 1500 year intervals between > lives ... As I said in my introduction post, along with theosophy I study the work of Robert Monroe. Now Monroe is not theosoph- ically-oriented by any stretch of the imagination but he has been doing some research during his out-of-body experiences (which is what he is fairly famous for) about what happens to a person's consciousness (their being?) after the death experience. In fact, he has recently written a fascinating book about the results of some of this research called _Ultimate_Journey_. The only reason that I bring Monroe up here is that I have no- ticed *a lot* of similarities between some of Monroe's findings and some of theosophy's teachings (what I understand of it without a theosophical dictionary ;-) ) about the bodies of man. Even though _The_Quest_ wouldn't publish my article on this sub- ject, there might be enough similarity to justify a book compar- ing the two. Maybe I can attempt such a project when I'm done with my current writing project. Anyway, Monroe doesn't mention any time limit between incar- nations at all. It seems that those that are in the beginning phases of their cycles through the Earth experience sort of just get back in line and wait their turn for their next Earth experi- ence that best suits their karma. Those that are a little more advanced sort of take a rest between cycles and think about what they want to do next before heading in for their next Earth ex- perience. As another example, my wife has a friend who had an interest- ing experience that sort of causes one to wonder about that 1500 year period also. It seems that this woman had a dream that she was lying in a grassy field underneath a tree. As hard as she tried though, she couldn't get up. She tried yelling to get someones attention and found she couldn't speak either. Then she saw a small oriental child approaching her cautiously. She tried to get the child's attention to help her but still couldn't move. The child slowly leaned over her and appeared to be looking in her face when he grabbed something, turned, and ran away. She then felt herself rising up into the sky and the dream ended. Not so long ago this woman made an appointment with a new doc- tor. Upon meeting the doctor for the first time she found him to be of oriental (Korean?) descent. Upon meeting the doctor, and looking at his eyes, she had the strangest feeling that she had met him before. But he assured her that they hadn't. On the way home she remembered the dream and came to the conclusion that they were the eyes of the small child in that dream. On their next meeting she related the dream to the doctor at which point he became very silent, said very little else, and quickly ended the appointment. My wife's friend says that the doctor told her the following a little later. It seems that as a young child the doctor was wondering through a field one day when he cam upon several dead soldiers. He came up to one of the soldier's bodies and saw a chocolate bar sticking out of a pocket. The doctor leaned over the body, quickly grabbed the chocolate bar, jumped up, and ran away. The doctor even told her that, at the time, he felt so bad about what he had done that he never even ate the candy and just threw it away. Now when I heard this story, I guess I assumed the Korean war. The Korean war wasn't all that long ago. And, since this woman is in her mid thirties, she was born into this incarnation in the mid fifties, she didn't have to wait very long at all. Certainly not 1500 years. > ... (which in itself doesn't bother me) and falls into the > category of unhealthy ways of thinking. I mean, to excuse your > personal weirdness as being caused by imagined past lives is a > pretty dangerous road to follow far ... I am sorta' of the mind that there is no "personal weirdness." If you take the concept of karma (where's that theosophical dic- tionary ... it's gotta' be here somewhere ... , , ... I can't find it! Arrrrgg ... :-) ) into ac- count, you are born into that situation that will provide you with the best possibility of having those experiences that you require to help you along the path that is best suited to your personal growth -- even to the point of giving you any "personal weirdness" that will help. > ... During a year or so in 91 > when I recorded dreams there were lots about going back to > France but none that I recall on other places repeatedly ... I just wanted to say here that I have my own "personal weird- ness" about the importance of dreams. I kept a dream journal for a while too and, although I haven't gotten anything useful out of the dreams yet, I keep the journal around. This is just in case I get out of my "lazy" mode and want to start recording again and also in the hope that during some later re-reading, I will gain some useful insight from them. Just my $0.02 worth. > ... > What does anyone think? Should I try to heal this past > whatever-it-is or just drop the subject? There are those people that would suggest that you try to heal your past problems. There are those people that would suggest that you try to learn something from those past experiences so that you can use them to grow in this incarnation. Whatever you do I don't think you should ignore the feelings and do nothing -- I don't think you should "just drop the subject." Try to find some way to make some use of it and do something positive in this lifetime. I really thought this was going to be a short one. I think I should take a "concise writing" class. Oh well. It was just some thoughts I wanted to pass on to everyone. May you always grok in fullness ... Bill-- ...who has heard death defined as "to stop sinning suddenly." |William A. (Bill) Parrette|4000 Executive Pk. Dr., #310 |bill@[Zeus.]itdc.edu |Cincinnati, OH 45241-4007 513-733-4747 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 Aug 1994 00:38:40 -0400 From: Gerald Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Semi-Selves Richard, I like your Semi-Selves. They sound like the Tibetan doctrine of a "collection of others" that Alexandra David-Neel writes about. I quoted from her a while ago in a Quest letter in response to a Quest article about a collection of selve within each of us. Eldon has pointed out that Buddhists teach a "flow" or "stream" while theosophy teaches/emphasizes monads. Are your Semi-Selves monads or streams? Your idea warrents further devlopment. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 Aug 1994 01:21:32 -0400 From: Aki Korhonen Subject: Re: Semi-Selves On Sun, 21 Aug 1994, Gerald Schueler wrote: > Richard, I like your Semi-Selves. They sound like the Tibetan > doctrine of a "collection of others" that Alexandra David-Neel > writes about. I quoted from her a while ago in a Quest letter > in response to a Quest article about a collection of selves > within each of us. Eldon has pointed out that Buddhists teach > a "flow" or "stream" while theosophy teaches/emphasizes > monads. Are your Semi-Selves monads or streams? Your idea > warrents further devlopment. Jerry S. Does these "semi-selves" and "collection of others" have similarities to Ouspensky's "false personalities"? Peace, aki. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 Aug 1994 03:14:16 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: To Gaze on the Truly Grand This is by Eldon Tucker. ---- To Gaze on the Truly Grand When we discuss Theosophy, we should look at the content of our discussions. Consider what we talk about. It shows both our personal interests and our relationship to the Philosophy. Do we keep Theosophy at a distance, and poke holes in it from some particular point of view, or do we embrace, practice, and experience it? Consider someone who starts with the assumption that Theosophy is not true, or may contain serious flaws, inter- blended with occasional gems of truth. That person will not talk about Theosophy and the world in terms of the Teachings. He will use another system of thought, suitable to his personal temperament, and analyze Theosophy from that foreign perspective. One such approach has to do with history, and I will talk about it this time. In a later message I'll write about another external approaches to look upon Theosophy. If you have a strong interest in history, you may treat Theosophy as a subject for historical analysis. You would use the particular rules from that scholastic pursuit. You would seek to uncover the actual personalities and circumstances in the lives of key theosophical personages. This approach has its limits. Not everything that happens leaves behind a trail of historic documents. You are like a police detective, trying to reconstruct the event of a crime from clues left behind at the crime scene. The more that the subject matter has to do with the Mysteries, the more likely there will be no traces to uncover. Theosophy deals with a side to life that goes far beyond things that leave a trace on the physical plane. Take a photograph of a man sitting at his desk, reading a book. That event of reading the book is a historic fact, and is now documented. Not documented, though, is his state of consciousness. He could be idly daydreaming, in a lowly kamalokic state of awareness, or deep in lofty though that is almost nirvanic in scope. You might later find a record of a conversation where that man says that he was only thinking about his mortgage. But was he? The event itself was one of consciousness. Even his statement about it is secondhand evidence. By knowing about his life, you might arrive at a conclusion based upon all the evidence brought together. But that conclusion is probabilistic, and not conclusive. It is materialism, in the guise of an academic pursuit of truth, which says that nothing is real, and nothing happens, unless is subject to historical documentation. There is a value to history, and we can make assumptions and generalizations about historic personages. But when we make those assumptions, we believe those people to be like us, and that the generalizations can be applied to them. We are saying that a typical person, under these circumstances, must have thought, felt, and intended such-and-such. We can use our knowledge of psychology and human nature to infer what is going on inside a person. But what if that person is insane? The connection is broken between external actions and what is going on inside the person. On the other end of the spectrum, the truly great geniuses have often been mistaken for being insane, or loony, because we do not have the education or intelligence to follow them. We cannot make sense of their reasoning and vision of life, and blame them rather than ourselves. We say that they are confused, deluded, impractical, stupid, when it is truly the reverse. In "The Mahatma Letters," it is said that we can come to the Masters or settle for crumbs. And that their secrets, is told to us in plain language, would be perceived as insane gibberish! We cannot follow it because we are not ready for learning much of what the Masters know. Consider reincarnation and karma, and look at the fact that over many lifetimes we learn and grow wiser, more intelligent, more compassionate to others. It is reasonable to assume that there are some people very far ahead of us. The Masters have stated that special circumstances are necessary to convey what they know. They have said that they simply cannot write things down. And we are told that an appropriate degree of readiness is needed in the pupil before some of their knowledge can be imparted. I do not think that if we heard some of their ideas that we'd find them sounding like gibberish. I think that we'd have many huh's, where we hear something but do not get the point. Something would be said and we just would not get the meaning of it. We'd be thinking: "So what? What is the point in that statement?" Now what if you do not believe in reincarnation and karma? What if you do not believe that there are Mahatmas, individuals very far ahead of us in their spiritual and intellectual development? Then you would reject all this and instead look for where Blavatsky had deluded herself into thinking there were such people. The philosophy, as a consistent whole, would start to unravel in your mind and you'd find yourself numbered among the "non-believers." If you believe in Theosophy, you use it as a tool to analyze and interpret things in the world. You treat it both as a spiritual path, a practice of Jnana Yoga, and as preparatory studies to admission, when the time was right, into the Lessor Mysteries. Taking Theosophy as true, you'd say things like "In terms of Theosophy this thing is seen as ..." The other approach is to treat Theosophy as a subject for critical scrutiny. From another system of though, you might say: "Theosophy is an example of a myth arising out of the collective unconscious." Or you might say: "Theosophy is a primitive first attempt to bring Buddhism into western society, superseded by direct translations of Tibetan Works." Many other examples could be given. Take a third-party system of thought, some religion, philosophy, or western academic discipline, and apply it to analyze Theosophy in the terms of that discipline. What do you have? You end with a caricature of the Grand Teachings seen through the eyes of people outside the Stream. But is not modern science so wonderful? It gives us computers, space shuttles, penicillin, eyeglasses, printed books--countless things that enrich our material existence. But what is missing from our lives? And what more is there that it has not yet provided? There is a lot more in store in our future than the pittance that has appeared in the last few thousand years in the west. We hear repeatedly in our literature that we must live the life to know the Truth. And that living of the life is not merely a pious observation of some arbitrary rules of behavior in our external personal lives. We need a sense of Belief to pervade our lives, a Belief that colors our consciousness, that flavors our experience of the events of life. It is not possible to get far in Theosophy as a practice, as a discipline, as an approach to the Mysteries, unless we dive in. We need to give it our unqualified dedication. Treat it as a Zen Koan of unimaginable proportion. It has answers and there are processes in our inner nature that can be engaged. (See the first two of Purucker's 12 E.S. books, published by PLP.) When learning to type, you first have to learn the position of each individual letter on the keyboard. You think of each finger as you type a certain letter, and go through various drills to become proficient. This is alike to the early study of theosophical literature that we undertake. There is a time, though, when we stop thinking about individual letters, and just about the words and sentences that we are typing. We have gone to a new level of experience. We are doing something different now. We have reached a higher level of experience. The same is possible in the study of Theosophy. There is a point where it is possible to get a feeling of the thought- current of the Teachings. And more, it becomes possible to come in touch with the ideas directly. It is possible to have original ideas about the Teachings that are not just logical conclusions working out from things that we've read, but are new, original, fresh. There is a source of knowledge and wisdom that is behind the printed page. It is real, tangible, and approachable. It is a non-physical thing, and just as real as any part of Theosophy. How is Theosophy to be proven? To someone outside, it may remain unprovable, because the proof is in personal experience, and that experience requires real changes in the life of the student. To someone who lives the life, that proof is unnecessary. The reality of the experiences in his life is understood. Is it necessary for people truly into Theosophy to engage the critics in verbal battle, to tear down their false gods and expose errors in their logic? No. What is necessary is to show the appropriate love, honor, and respect for the grand spiritual treasures that we are blessed with. The proper attitude toward the critics is not in shouting back at them. The proper attitude is admitting into our lives things of the Spirit. These things are so incredibly beautiful and profound, that we simply have no choice but to do something, be it ever so humble, to give expression to them in the outer world. To not try, to gaze on the Truly Grand and do nothing, is the greatest shame imaginable. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 Aug 1994 09:49:03 -0400 From: DaRatMan@aol.com Subject: Greater Shame On Sunday, August 21, Eldon Tucker wrote: >The proper attitude is admitting into our lives things > of the Spirit. These things are so incredibly beautiful > and profound, that we simply have no choice but to > do something, be it ever so humble, to give > expression to them in the outer world. To not try, > to gaze on the Truly Grand and do nothing, is the > greatest shame imaginable. I can imagine Greater Shame ... to pretend that one has gazed on the Truly Grand and eloquently expressed the Lie for the purposes of exalting oneself and misleading others. Those of us out here lurking in the darkness are drawn to the Light. But some of the Brighter Beings we encounter possess Light without Warmth. They take our time, twist our thoughts, steal our children, breed with our mates. And our Hearts are frozen. We know that Beautiful Truth has a few Ugly Sisters and Brothers. We weren't really looking for them and now that we're bumping into them in the dark, we're not sure how intimate we should become before the Dawn. Somebody light another Candle, please. Talk Crazy. Reveal your Mystery. Give me some Heat. Daniel Hampson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 Aug 1994 13:28:42 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: Semi-Selves Jerry, Thanks for showing interest in this subject. Noticing the way I now capitalize "semi-Self" might be helpful in understanding the concept and realizing its overarching importance. (I wrote a whole book where I screwed up and presented it as "semi-self" throughout.) In a way, we are talking about the Great Divide between the theosophical and the material-scientific point of view. The latter generally sees consciousness as something which appears at a certain point in animal evolution; the former, that It ("Self," "Undifferentiated Consciousness," _Atma_) pre-exists (along with _Prakriti_ which also appeared at the "First Division") everything except the One. Because Self has no qualities other than "I-ness," It must depend upon Its "interaction" with the Prakriti or "Cosmological Stuff" (including not only physical matter, but everything from prana up through Spirit) for differentiation. These "places of contamination" ("I-delusions") appearing at a certain point in human evolution allow the comparisons necessary for the Self to more fully realize Its own Nature. I like the term "semi-Self," since even the most egregious egoic monsters get their consciousness component and sense of "I" from the Self. I must confess, Jerry, that my eyes used to glaze over when I would see discussions of the topics involved here. Things changed, I suppose, after many years of meditation when I started to see them not as distant abstractions only, but rather--in their "microcosmic application"--as just about the most "close to home" and practical things theosophy has to offer. The moment-to-moment ability to see what semi-Selves you are dealing with--in others and in yourself--certainly must be a fundamental adept power, and its importance probably cannot be over-estimated. The Self is a terrible thing to waste completely in semi-Self. . . . Anyway, while I am not much of a scholar, I would not be surprised that one could find the same point of view in many traditions, especially when they are understood esoterically. Gurdjieff definitely comes to mind here. Perhaps, however, one might be well advised not to "study" the subject in the usual manner; but rather, just familiarize oneself with the general outline a little and "put it on the back burner" until personal meditative practice suddenly and easily makes perfect sense out of the "Divine Jumble." High regard for you, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 Aug 1994 13:58:45 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Self-Imposed Darkness Daniel Hampson has some interesting comments that need a reply. > I can imagine Greater Shame ... to pretend that one has > gazed on the Truly Grand When any of us start to speak of the theosophical teachings, we quickly come to things that are not provable, and often nearly-impossible to express in words. Some theosophical groups like the ULT limit study and inquire to quoting from selected theosophical texts, and you are not even permitted to give you name as a lecturer, but rather say "this student." Articles are not allowed to be signed. This is in the name of "impersonality," but really allow a lot of personality to creep into theosophical expressions, since the person is unknown and you cannot factor out his or her temperament. > and eloquently expressed the Lie Do we breath air? If someone holds their breath, is it a big lie to talk about full lungs and fresh air? The matter of personal experience of the spiritual depends upon how readily accessible it is to everyone. A belief that it is far-removed from life will lead to considering a first-person discussion of the spiritual in relation to Theosophy as grand-standing. But is this form of expression boasting? You need to see who signed the article and then use what you know of that person to decide. > for the purposes of exalting oneself If one is operating from that sort of motivation, then one is not really in touch with Theosophy as a religious philosophy, but rather just playing intellectual games. > and misleading others. Since much of Theosophy goes beyond what can be easily communicated with the written word, it's hard not to mislead, regardless of what one writes. The only way to remain safe is not to think about it, not to have an original idea, but simply to find authoritative quotes to talk about any particular subject. But to parrot the words of another without understanding them can mislead as well. > Those of us out here lurking in the darkness are drawn > to the Light. The darkness is self-imposed. The light is not something so vast, so far-removed from life that only one in ten million can embrace it. The biggest barrier is disbelief in its living presence, in its accessibility. > But some of the Brighter Beings we encounter possess > Light without Warmth. They take our time, twist > our thoughts, steal our children, breed with our mates. > And our Hearts are frozen. Our Hearts are neither warmed nor frozen because someone else "did it to me." We open our Hearts to external influences, and have made them what they are today. We are self-responsible, and all is the result of past or present karma. There are no bogey men bringing darkness and evil into our lives that we did not invite into our lives. > We know that Beautiful Truth has a few Ugly Sisters and > Brothers. We weren't really looking for them and now that > we're bumping into them in the dark, we're not sure how > intimate we should become before the Dawn. If this is in reference to the vast spectrum of discussion in "theos-l", then it's true. There's a vast range of ideas, some Theosophical, some quasi-theosophical, and some just idle speculation. We each have to sift through it all and pick out whatever we find of value in it. > Somebody light another Candle, please. Talk Crazy. > Reveal your Mystery. Give me some Heat. The best way to engender further discussion along a certain line is to write something in that vein yourself. The type, nature, and quality of our communications will both elicit responses in kind, as well as a certain degree of static from those it does not sit well with. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 Aug 1994 19:12:58 -0400 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: re: "To Gaze on the Truly Grand" Eldon's well done essay pointing out the dangers of history has many important points well worth emphasizing: among them, that a historian can't know everything, and more importantly; the teachings of theosophy go beyond the considerations of history. The industrialist Henry Ford once defined history as a "pack of lies," while the philosopher George Santana warned that those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it. Ironically, both statements are true, and each definition suggests its own lessons. As Eldon had pointed out, in a sense, the more esoteric events leave "less clues" for the historian to go on. If one reads a variety of histories written by those involved in the movement and compare them to those written by historians who are not personally involved (Nethercot for instance), I think that we all would agree that those on the outside put events together in a different way than those historians who are on the inside. Outsiders usually start out with a priori rejection of the Masters and of the validity of phenomena, and thus seek other explanations for these difficult issues--such as fraud. Histories written by those on the inside are not without problems either. They are often characterized by hidden agendas to show their tradition, and their leaders to be more valid than those of other traditions. No theosophical organization has managed to escape this pitfall. As Eldon says, "there is value to history." It would be a mistake to throw the baby out with the bath water. ~Isis Unveiled,~ ~The Secret Doctrine,~ and most of HPB's other writings are very concerned with history. A considerable portion of ~Isis Unveiled~ is dedicated to writing about Christianity as a historical movement, showing how the original message was finally entombed and all but completely destroyed in the Organizational hierarchy that we call churches. One of her arguments here is that message of Jesus was distorted beyond recognition. Obviously, HPB is trying to tell (or warn us of something?) us something here. ~The Secret Doctrine~ also opens with an historical overview of the ancient Theosophical Movement, showing how the teachings come into the light under certain historical periods and disappeared in others, depending upon the values and governments of the time. Yet, I feel that it would be a mistake to confuse history with theosophy. The latter is an ocean of wisdom, which, for its devotees is the fountain of life. The former is a tool, which when correctly used, can further reveal to us the beauty of the Theosophical Movement, and warn us of its dangers when wrongly used. When history is unwisely applied, it can turn our fountain into a polluted mud-hole. Our own theosophical study group in Turlock, has been meeting for over a year now. We have never assigned books on the history of the modern theosophical movement, nor is history often discussed, unless needed to clarify a particular point of teaching. We are a very small group of six people in a town of 45,000. To make matters worse, Turlock, until recently, was in the Guinness Book of World records as having the most Churches per capita than any other town in the country. In other words, this is an extremely provincial, conservative place that is blatantly anti anything that is not expressly Christian. Even greek mythology is not permitted to be taught in the public schools, "because it threatens our culture." There are many very conservative sects of Christianity here that forbid their children an education beyond the eighth grade. Yet, we found six people interested in studying theosophy. At a recent meeting, these six reported a total of fifteen others who have heard about what we are doing (we don't advertise nor evengelize), and are asking to join. I think part of our success is because our focus is on the teachings in *all* of their aspects, and, because we are completely independent of any theosophical organization, we are relatively free from having to waste precious energy countering the karma of these organizations. As I had mentioned, theosophical history itself is not an issue that we discuss in our group, however, we cannot avoid using a historical reference for what we study. Remember, that those early nineteenth century theosophists, first reading HPB's writings as they appeared, had no need to look at them in a historical context, because they were already living in it. Today, those articles are over a hundred years old, and have to be looked at in the context which they were written. To do that, one needs a sense of history. There is one more area where history has value, and that area is germane to what several of us have tried to do here on this net: As I mentioned earlier, histories written under the auspices of the various Theosophical Organizations clearly show a hidden agenda to prove their tradition of theosophy to be the true one. In doing this, they have written critically of theosophical leaders "not on their side" and glowingly of those who are. If this were just limited to an internal infighting among Theosophical Organizations, then we could just ignore it, and do more productive work. Unfortunately, the hearsay, slanders and mis-information published in these books and pamphlets are being picked up by a growing number of historians not connected with the theosophical movement, who are now presenting these old slanders to the general public through academic presses that have a far wider distribution to the general public than our little theosophical organizations have ever had. In a very real sense, these Organizations are reaping the karma of seeds they had sown sixty, eighty and more years ago. If the directives in HPB's Preliminary Memorandum still hold true, then it is the duty of *every* person who knows of hearsay being spread to stand up in protest to it. If, on the other hand, what is being said is true, then we can meet it with silence. Therefore, I believe that it is the responsibility of students of theosophy who also have a historical background, to be very careful about the source, evidence and documentation of any historical information that is broadcast, either through this net or anywhere else. As HPB had pointed out, we are karmically responsible for all information that we give out, and we are karmically responsible for the results which that information may bring. On the other hand, it is also our karmic responsibility to protest the spreading of hearsay, yet face up to what turns out to be so. As the observations of Henry Ford and George Santana suggest, history is a bouble edged sword. Used in one way, it can destroy; used in another it can shed further light on the Theosophical Movement and the teachings associated with it. It is the historians that potentially are the greatest threat in this manner, and also have an equal potential for good. It depends upon the wisdom they use in welding this sword. We are all learning. On another note--or perhaps germane to the above: Upon some reflection, I feel that I owe a deeply felt public apology to Paul Johnson for my overly zealous attitude in my recent debate with him concerning Judge. I sense that I have crossed that very subtile line that separates the debators from the issues. Though such an attitude is applauded in other contexts, such as in the half dozen 20-30 pg. critical research essays that I have to mill out each year in my grad. program, I don't feel that it was appropriate for me to exercise these literary techniques here, and is counter productive to what Paul and I were trying to accomplish. I regret the results that may have come out of my lack of fore-thought. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 Aug 1994 23:26:17 -0400 From: Gerald Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Thoughts on Morals Jerry H-J is upset about the ethical standards of the younger generation of theosophists. Although I am in the older generation (TS member for 25+ years), I disagree. First of all, I have yet to hear anyone advocate unethical behaviors. Jerry, thanks for the quote, but rest easy, everyone agrees that a theosophist should be ethical. The disagreements only come into play when we try to define ethics. Our forefathers (from the Piscean Age) saw the world as black or white. Everything was either good or bad. Every person wore either a white hat or a black hat. Ethics was defined in terms of Thou Shalt Nots. Today we are entering the Aquarian Age and people are now realizing that the world has shades of grey in it. In fact, there is precious little of purely white or black in today's world and virtually everyone now wears a grey hat. I see this as an evolutionary improvement. So how do we define ethics today? Perhaps the definition given in the Sanatana-Dharma (An Advanced Text-Book of Hindu Religion and Ethics, published by Adyar) is still pertinent: "...the measure used in Ethics at the present stage of evolution, by which the rightness or wrongness of an action is decided, is the tendency of the action to promote or to hinder Union." (p 265) Also on the same page is "...the object of morality is to bring about happiness by establishing harmonious relations." While noone is likely to argue with this definition, who wants to set themselves up as a judge of whether someone's particular action tends towards Union or not? While I like the definition, I feel that monitoring or measuring its efficacy would be impossible. If by ethics we mean establishing a code or set of regulations, of Thou Shalt Nots, then I am against ethics. I wrote the following short article some time ago. It was published by a European magical group (can't recall the name) a few years ago and I trust they won't mind my reprinting it here. MORALS AND MORAL DEVELOPMENT. The Path from Amorality, to Morality and Immorality, and Back Again. Morals are terribly important for any progress along the spiritual path. Theosophy teaches that morals are absolute requirements. H.P. Blavatsky goes so far as to say, "The basis of morality and virtue are weak so long as morality and the course of virtue is not shown to be the necessary means for soul development, spiritual immortality." (C.W. Vol XIII, p 3576). Thus moral development is essential for the immortality of our souls. Lets take a quick look at morals and how they are developed. I will use two modern psychology texts as aids: 1. Philip Zimbardo, (1988), Psychology and Life, 12th Edition, (Glenview IL: Scott, Foresman and Co.). For simplicity, I will call this reference PAL. 2. Grace J, Craig, (1989), Human Development, 5th Edition, (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall). For simplicity, I will call this reference HD. First, a brief definition: "Morality is a system of beliefs, values, and underlying judgments about the rightness or wrongness of acts." (PAL p 87) Morality has to do with a sense of right and wrong, and with what psychologists call the conscience. Piaget, a famous cognitive psychologist, defined morality as "an individual's respect for the rules of social order and his sense of justice," where justice is "a concern for reciprocity and equality among individuals." According to Piaget, moral sense develops in two stages as follows: (1) The moral realism stage is where all rules are obeyed without distinction. There is no weight given in this first stage to intent. (2) The moral relativism stage is where rules are created and agreed to cooperatively by individuals. In this second stage, rules can change - there is no absolute right or wrong. The entire concept of moral development must concern itself with child development and how morality is acquired during the developing stages of life. "There is considerable debate as to how children acquire morality. Social learning theorists believe that children learn it by being rewarded or punished for various kinds of behavior and by modeling. Psychodynamic psychologists believe it develops as a defense against anxiety over the loss of love and approval. Cognitive theorists believe that, like intellectual development, morality develops in progressive, age-related stages." (HD p 352) There are three main schools of thought concerning moral development in modern psychology: social learning, psychodynamic, and cognitive. Social learning theorists are concerned with behaviors and suggest that moral development is primarily a matter of reward and punishment. Children model the behavior of adults, and learn morals through rewards and punishments, a well-documented process called operant conditioning. Psychodynamic theorists are concerned with emotions and suggest that moral development comes about by unconsciously avoiding the disapproval of others. Freud was a psychodynamic theorist: "Freud argued that most people behave morally most of the time because of the inhibiting effects of their consciences or the guilt they feel when they do something wrong." (PAL p 87) Cognitive theorists are concerned with thinking and they suggest that moral development has definable stages that everyone goes through to some degree. Lawrence Kohlberg presented six stages of moral development which, although criticized by some, is accepted today as a useful model. "According to Kohlberg's original formulation, people can fit into one of the six stages or moral development. Since then, he has theorized that an even higher moral stage (stage 7) exists, although it is rarely found." (PAL p 88) Because of its importance, lets briefly look at Kohlberg's Model of Moral Development: LEVEL 1. Stage 1. Punishment and obedience. Rules are obeyed to avoid punishment. Stage 2. Naive instrumental hedonism. Rules are obeyed to obtain rewards and to have favors returned. LEVEL 2. Stage 3. "Good-boy" morality of maintaining good relations and the approval of others. Rules are obeyed to avoid disapproval or dislike by others. Stage 4. Authority-maintaining morality. Rules are obeyed to avoid censure by legitimate authorities and to avoid guilt. LEVEL 3. Stage 5. Morality of contract, of individual rights, and of democratically accepted law. Rules are obeyed for social or community welfare. Stage 6. Morality of individual principles of consciousness. Rules are obeyed in order to abide by universal ethical principles. Kohlberg has been criticized by other psychologists including women for various reasons (Kohlberg's study subjects, for example, were males), and Kohlberg himself has reviewed his findings and has acknowledged the importance of some of his critics' arguments. But his six stages still remain as an important psychological model for moral development. One of his critics is Carol Gilligan: "Gilligan argues that there are essentially two methods of moral reasoning. One is based on concepts of justice and the other on caring for others. These methods can be sexually differentiated. The justice perspective is characteristics of male thinking, while caring for others is common to women's moral reasoning. Men focus on rights and think in highly individualistic terms, according to Gilligan. Women, by contrast, see moral issues in terms of human relationships and concerns for the need of both sides in a moral dilemma. However, Gilligan notes, some women make moral judgments from a justice perspective and some men from a caring one. It results from the socialization process. As a consequence of their predispositions, however, men tend to base their judgments on abstract moral principles and women generally on human needs in concrete situations ... Gilligan argues that Kohlberg's stages theory needs to include the female perspective along with the male's." (HD p 354-355) With the above discussion in mind, it would appear that the doctrine of karma, of universe justice, was first taught by a man. Virtually all psychologists agree that babies are amoral - neither moral nor immoral. They cannot understand people's responsibilities to each other. Various stages of moral development are entered as we grow. But it is well known that children are egocentric - they see the whole world as wrapped around themselves and are unable to view life from another's perspective. The egocentric character of the child matures in early middle childhood. This allows the child to see another's point of view and to develop friendships. We can summarize moral development according to modern psychology as being somewhat indecisive, although Kohlberg's six stages are widely accepted as a general model. Basically, morals are the result of our developing from an initial state of amorality to obtaining a conscience - a sense of right and wrong. How this development occurs is debatable, but it is generally accepted that morals have to do with acquiring a sense of right and wrong. Virtually all psychologists agree also that morality is culture-dependent, and what is right in one culture may be wrong in another culture. Right and wrong are relative, rather than absolute, terms. Now lets look at a more occult or esoteric view of morality. One of the best descriptions of morality from the viewpoint of Adepthood or the spiritual path, was given by W.Y. Evans-Wentz in the excellent introduction to his classic 'The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation' (London: Oxford University Press). In his introduction to the life of the great Tibetan magician and saint, Milarepa, Evans-Wentz says that evil "is that which impedes self-realization." This is a very enlightened Buddhist viewpoint, and has important ramifications in other areas. The idea is that anything which impedes spiritual progress is evil or wrong, while anything which hastens or assists spiritual progress is good. He writes, "Good and Evil are the two-forked trunk of the Tree of Life, sprung from a single Seed. Each fork alike has its support in the root- system of the One Tree. The same flows to and nourishes both forks equally. Or Good and Evil may be viewed as being like twins, offspring of one Father-Mother." (p 55) And again, "Good and Evil, when viewed exoterically, are a duality, neither member of which is conceivable or capable of mentally existing independently of the other. Being thus inseparable, Good and Evil, when viewed esoterically, are intrinsically a unity." (p 56) Here Evans-Wentz (who, I believe, was a theosophist) presents us with an extremely difficult concept to grasp - the dual nature of good and evil, right and wrong. We all want to hold tightly to the good and somehow cast out the evil - embody only goodness, and avoid evil. This desire comes to us at a very early stage in our lives, when we are praised for being good and punished for being bad. It is reinforced through our lives by repetition. Whether this is done by our parents, our care-givers, or whoever, we all try, most of the time, to be good and not to be bad (albeit for different motivations). We try to hold onto one side of a duality, and throw away the other side. As we well know, this never really happens. Our struggle is never successful. Life is neither black nor white - it is various shades of grey. An Adept or enlightened person, who finally grasps the meaning of the duality of good and evil, reverts to the childlike state of amorality. As far as morality is concerned, such a person becomes as a child again. Most people, including theosophists, have a hard time accepting this - they would prefer to think that the Adept is all goodness and light having thoroughly conquered evil. The truth is difficult to come to grips with - evil cannot ever be conquered or cast out. Wrongness is as permanent, in this world, as rightness. Morality, in the sense of right and wrong, is entirely an exoteric concept. The esoteric teachings of morality is a "bitter pill" for many to swallow in some ways, because although true, it is a terribly easy concept to take advantage of, and to abuse. Therefore, it is a very dangerous concept to try and teach. I realize this, even as I write these words, but I still feel strongly that they must be said (as I am sure, Evens- Wentz did also). First of all, only by understanding that the spiritual pathway is one of a reversion to amorality, rather than from immorality to morality, can we hope to understand the outlandish actions of some historical figures such as Madame Blavatsky herself. Evens-Wentz presented the esoteric view to lay the background for understanding the immoral-appearing actions of the Great Guru, Padma Sambhava. Because most people either cannot understand the esoteric concept, or refuse to accept it, such historical figures are usually cast as rogues and/or charlatans. We should not behave in such a way as to gain personal awards. Many people go to church every week, not because they enjoy it or feel benefitted by it, but rather because they hope such actions will assist to get them into heaven, or because they desire the approval of friends and neighbors. Theosophists, by and large, would discourage such an attitude. One should attend church to help others in the community, or because one simply wants to learn, rather than for personal gain or social status. But to act in this way, to be good simply because being good is the right thing to do, requires a separation from one's past as well as a new self-image. We learn right and wrong at a very early age, and society encourages its development. We cannot do good simply because such actions are expressive of our spiritual natures, unless we first develop an enlightened self- image and then cut ourselves off from the moral sense that society has instilled into us. We must see ourselves as being spiritual, and then dissociate ourselves from the moralistic schemas that are imprinted in the way that we look at ourselves and at our world. Such a task is not easy - it is the task of an Adept, and when accomplished, the Adept will act without any sense of right or wrong, without any desire for reward, in short, without karma. To do this, the Adept overcomes, in a sense, his social sense of right and wrong - and thus transcends the society in which he or she was born and raised. The Adept becomes universal. Society, in turn, sees at least some of the Adept's actions as antisocial, and thus dangerous. The true Adept is often a danger to society, or at least some significant part of it. The Sermon on the Mount, for example, could be viewed as a call to Hippies and malcontents, and after all, Jesus was killed solely because his teachings presented a danger to his society. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 01:33:07 -0400 From: Altadena Classical Homeopathy Education Society Subject: Various Sun. p.m. This is from Nancy Paul - We got the book from SUNY!!! Loved Jocelyn's introduction. We have a few folks queuing up to read it. Congratulations. & Thanks. Jerry S. - Would you mind resending your article to me via e-mail as I lost the last part of it when I copied it to disk. I agree with your point that we cannot side with GOODNESS and against BADNESS BUT MUST EVER BE WILLING TO EMBRACE WHOLENESS. Regarding Crowley, One of my correspondence course students has been studying Crowley in jail and is quite taken with him and insists he teaches many of the same principles as HPB. He has read Crowley's commentary on the Voice, but not the original book by HPB. I tried to get a copy of Crowley's commentary but the only place I could find it published was in a very expensive book called Gems from the Equinox I think. Do you know of any other place this was published? Pamphlet? Magazine? Etc. I wish to be better informed. Along the lines of ethics, morality, amorality etc. etc. I am concerned about how easy it is to feel special and beyond the need for ethical guidelines. Malraux (spelling?) was talking about artists but could have been writing about spiritual seekers when he wrote that A great artist will give free rein to his instincts but only after he has mastered them. Maybe our discussion on ethics could profit from a discussion of about mastering our habits/instincts etc. Nancy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 09:58:23 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: re: "To Gaze on the Truly Grand" In response to Jerry H-E: I didn't see anything in your comments about Judge that remotely requires an apology. But accept it in the spirit given, and thank you. In response to Eldon: It's hard to know how to respond when one doesn't know how personally to take a commentary. Is it paranoid of me to think that you are warning people against taking my work seriously because (without having seen the new book) you conclude that it lacks all appreciation of the spiritual dimension of Theosophy? There's an either/or ultimatum implied in your post that I don't accept. Your dichotomy is basically between the good old Jungian poles of thinking and feeling, sensation and intuition. To recap these. Sensation and intuition are modes of perception, alternate ways of taking in information. Thinking and feeling are modes of judgment, alternate ways of evaluating the information we take in. Sensation is all the information taken in through the five senses; intuition is perception without the senses. That doesn't make intuition eerie or otherworldly; any understanding of a mathematical concept is intuitive, ditto any scientific concept, philosophical, religious, whatever. Sensation is concrete, intuition is abstract. Good historical work has to draw equally on both, neither presenting undigested, unexplained "facts" indiscriminately nor applying a priori concepts to the facts with such force as to overwhelm the evidence with biased interpretation. Thinking evaluates information on the basis of objective analysis; feeling evaluates information on the basis of subjective appreciation. Again, both are necessary. Without feeling, a historical writer can convey no reason for being interested in the topic in the first place; without thinking, the writer cannot provide analysis that is equally useful to all readers regardless of their feelings on the matter at hand. Basically what I get from your post is an assertion that subjective appreciation of Theosophy (or feeling about it) is somehow higher, nobler, more valuable than objective analysis of it (thinking about it.) But IMHO thinking and feeling, intuition and sensation are like wings of a bird, that ideally are equally balanced. Before getting too involved in your feelings about my book before reading it, I'd ask you to read it with an open mind (not full of assumptions about the spiritual inferiority of the author), absorb it at a thinking level, THEN run all the new information against your feeling function and express the results. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 12:27:52 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: education, etc. This is by Brenda Tucker. Vic Hao Chin: I know of no other place where I am able to write so easily to a real President of The Theosophical Society in answer to his request for ideas. Even when there are printed briefs in our national magazine, it just doesn't have the ease of responding nor the selectiveness of responding. If I answer a similar message in "The American Theosophist," I am among a group of 5000 potential respondees. Here I can be one out of 70 or so subscribers who may submit educational ideas to you at the rate of one or two a week. I just wanted you to know how honored I am to be able to correspond with you on such a personal basis. I received a letter in the mail from Barbara Jordan, a democratic national leader. She is fundraising as well as promoting an educational project called TEACHING TOLERANCE. TEACHING TOLERANCE is the name of an educational journal published twice a year and mailed free to teachers. (Are you a teacher?) This journal contains "practical, teacher-tested ideas to promote understanding and tolerance---and a comprehensive "how to get" guide..." The project is also producing video-and-text teaching kits. The first in the series is called "America's Civil Rights Movement." This is also available free to schools. Five other video kits are being planned covering history and ways to build understanding and respect in violent communities. Teachers and schools receive the materials free. (probably just in the U.S.) Newsweek said the project is a "winner among programs providing moral education 1990's style." Barbara Jordan called it a move to "curb racial tensions and mounting hate crimes." The sponsor of the project is an Alabama lawyer and his Southern Poverty Law Center, which has been committed to civil rights since its founding in 1971. They have fought and won lawsuits which have bankrupted powerful Klan groups and brought White Aryan Resistance (violent hate) groups to justice. They are active in seeking the arrests of neo-Nazi Skinheads with sinister plans. The judgements which the Law Center wins will prevent groups from ever again becoming threats to churches and civil rights leaders. While they are able through legal means to cripple hate groups, many hate crimes are committed by ordinary citizens, especially young people. The TEACHING TOLERANCE program is aimed at curbing these losses to society. While I'm not suggesting that theosophists are in particular need of programs promoting non-violence and tolerance, I am suggesting that the school could have an outreach into the community similar to what this group is attempting. If you can't get the materials free, you could receive a complimentary copy of the magazine for a $20 donation. I particularly like that the project is called "TEACHING" TOLERANCE and not "Learning" Tolerance. Can theosophists become teachers of humanity? The address (if you'd care to write for more information) is: Southern Poverty Law Center Teaching Tolerance P.O. Box 548 Montgomery, AL 36177-9621 Do you have a race problem in the Philippines? Bill Parrette: Besant and Leadbeater's idea, found in THE LIVES OF ALCYONE, is that most souls are found in one of two groups which tend to incarnate in cycles of one life in each subrace (1000 year intervals) or a few successive lives in one subrace (700 year intervals). There is also some crossover between groups, but it doesn't seem like people would be much good without their pals and loved ones (and enemies) from previous lives, although he says at some point in the egos development it becomes easier for friends to separate to accomplish some goal. (If you are really unsettled about Leadbeater, try to picture what it must have been like for followers of Jesus in the early days who understood his teachings and admired him and had to deal with those who insisted Jesus was a convicted criminal.) John Algeo has written a book on reincarnation and although I haven't read it, I was fortunate enough to attend a lecture he gave on the book's contents at Olcott. At that time he gave many instances of people having foreknowledge of things, people, stories, which led to a confirmation of the reality of the thing, sometimes in a far off place. How could this person have such detailed memories of things if he hadn't actually lived there? One explanation other than reincarnation is that he acquired knowledge through a form of mental telepathy. If the experience you told about your wife's friend were my experience, I wouldn't even assume that I was the dead soldier with the candy bar. I would instead mark it up to an intuition regarding someone I was to meet in the future, my dreamworld or thoughts being impressed by the strength of the incident in the future someone's consciousness as perhaps karma drew us together. There are so many different types of yogic powers as described in the fourth book of THE YOGA SUTRAS, that many of these other powers, rather than knowledge of past lives, could be responsible for the experience. I believe John Algeo has written at least one book since his book of reincarnation stores and I wonder if Elizabeth Trumpler would mind supplying us with a list of his books. Maybe some of the people on theos-l would like to study one. Jerry S. and Richard I.: I found a quote in THE SECRET DOCTRINE about the monad which you might like to hear. The Monad "remains at all times, save in the Nirvanic state, under whatever conditions, or whatever external forms." and according to Leibnitz, "repeating an Eastern teaching, so the Monad has, during the cycle of its incarnations, to reflect in itself every ROOT-FORM of each kingdom." p.186, Vol II. Meditation on this idea may produce an idea of a semi-Self. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 21:45:19 -0400 From: Gerald Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Self/I-ness Aki. I am not familiar with Ouspensky's "false personalities" but Gurdjieff certainly taught about the Buddhist "collection of others." Kathleen Riordan Speeth writes, "According to Gurdjieff each adult has many selves, each of which uses the word "I" to describe itself. At one moment one "I" is present and at another there is a different "I" who may or may not be in sympathy with the previous "I." This "I" may not even know the other "I" exists for between "I's" there are often relatively impenetrable defenses called 'buffers.' Clusters of "I's" make us subpersonalities that are related by association." (The Gurdjieff Work, p 32) When these "buffers" are very strong, we have multiple personalities. For most of us, however, the buffers are quite weak. But they are there nonetheless. In this way, our personalities are not really monadic (the monadic human "I" is a mayavic illusion) but rather, in psychological terms, they take on the nature of "complexes." Richard. Yes, the capitalization clearly separates the lower human self, or personality, from the higher reincarnating self, or individuality, from the spiritual Self or inner god. Exactly. The I defines itself on every plane according to its relationships with the Not-I. Thats why the occult technique of asking yourself "Who am I?" is so important. KNOW THYSELF is not a trivial exercise, if done properly. Great! Theosophical teachings come to us first as abstractions or theoretical ideas. Only after we learn to put them into our daily life do they become "microcosmic applications." However, the teaching about semi-Selves has yet to become mainstream in theosophical arenas. I think that most theosophists still think in terms of having a single monadic self that looks out at a multifaceted world. An evoltutionary stage must be reached before one realizes that the self is also multifaceted. And yes, I agree that the Adept can see into the semi-Self of another person and determine which I is currently operative and which I's lurk undetected in the background. The Self wastes/expresses itself completedly in semi-Self for a time, and then returns to itSelf pretty much unchanged (indeed, how could the infinite and eternal be imagined to change for any reason?). I personally consider the notion that the Self progresses by means of its Self-expressions in semi-Selves to be mayavic. Thus I reject the spiral and hold to the circle. However, all those who prefer to spiral are free to do so. < Perhaps, however, one might be well advised not to "study" the subject in the usual manner; but rather, just familiarize oneself with the general outline a little and "put it on the back burner" until personal meditative practice suddenly and easily makes perfect sense out of the "Divine Jumble."> Exactly. I wholehearted agree with this. Actually, I first came upon this interesting technique through James A. Long, past Leader of the Pasadena TS. It works pretty well. Jerry S. Here is an article that I wrote some time ago. I think it is on PeaceNet (?), but many of you don't use PeaceNet, so I will repeat it here: THE INDIVIDUALITY PARADOX Everyone has a self. Everyone is a unique individual, separate and distinct from everyone else. Yet the personality or self that we identify with on a daily basis is not a permanent thing. Its reality is an illusion. The ability of the self to be both real and unreal is the individuality paradox. Buddhism teaches that the ego is an illusion (which has led to some authorities calling it nihilism). Western Magic has never claimed that the ego does not exist, nor does it emphasize the concept of Maya, or cosmic illusion, to the degree Buddhism does. Most of us in the West believe in doctrine of swabhava, of individual uniqueness, while Buddhism denies it. Is there an ego or personal self? Is there a soul? Does some part of us survive the death of our physical body? Do we retain individuality after each round of birth-death? First, lets take a look at how Mahayana Buddhism views this physical world: "The Blessed One replied: It is because the ignorant cling to names, signs and ideas; as their minds move along these channels they feed on multiplicities of objects and fall into the notion of an ego-soul and what belongs to it; they make discriminations of good and bad among appearances and cling to the agreeable. As they thus cling there is a reversion to ignorance, and karma born of greed, anger and folly, is accumulated. As the accumulation of karma goes on they become imprisoned in a cocoon of discrimination and are thenceforth unable to free themselves from the round of birth and death."(1) Here it is very clear that Buddhists view the ego-soul as a "notion." The late Zen writer, Alan Watts, calls the ego a "social fiction" because it has no reality at all, but society needs it, and so society has created it and we all pretend that it is real. Lets take another look at what Buddha said: "A bodily form, a feeling, a perception, a mental formation, a consciousness, that is permanent and persistent, eternal and not subject to change, such a thing the wise men in this world do not recognize; and I also say, there is no such thing."(2) Now we are seeing a little better description of what is meant by ego - it is not something permanent but rather constantly changing. Even consciousness per se, is changing and not permanent. The rather popular idea that we have a permanent Ego or Self somewhere behind our physical body (which is obviously changing, and not permanent) is also not true according to this view. In fact, everything in the entire manifested universe is unreal as noted below: "As stars, a fault of vision, as a lamp, A mock show, dew drops, or a bubble, A dream, a lightening flash, or cloud, So should one view what is conditioned."(3) The key word in the above quote is 'conditioned.' This has to do with the Buddhist teaching of Suchness. Suchness is the thing-in-itself rather than a collection of parts. For example, take a car. A car has no Suchness, no car-ness. A car is a collection of parts put together in a certain way. If we remove a door, do we still have a car? Probably, but what if we keep removing parts? After a while the car will turn into a heap of parts. There is no 'car,' but only parts put together in a certain way, which we name 'car' and think of as a 'car' and use as a 'car,' but the truth is that there is no 'car' there at all. According to Buddhism, the same is true with the physical body and human ego, or personality. While we are all willing to agree with the physical body, which we observe falling to pieces after death, we are not so willing to agree with the ego - the I or 'me' that wants so desperately to survive the death of the gross body. The notion of a surviving soul is almost universal, and Buddhism is one of the few religions that teach that the soul has no Suchness; no reality to it at all. To the question, 'Does the ego survive death?' a Buddhist will answer, 'Does the fist survive when you open your hand?' Now let's take a look at the idea of swabhava. According to the famous Zen teacher, D.T. Suzuki: "The term "sabhava" (self-essence or noumenon) is sometimes used by the Mahayanists in place of atman, and they would say that all dharmas have no self-essence ... which is to say, that all things in their phenomenal aspect are devoid of individual selves, that it is only due to our ignorance that we believe in the thingness of things, whereas there is no such thing as svabhava or atman or noumenon which resides in them."(4) The key phrase in the above quote is "thingness of things." There is no thingness of things (which is to say, no Suchness), except in our own ignorance. What does western occultism say about this? According to the theosophist, G. de Purucker, "What makes a rose bring forth a rose always and not thistles, or daisies, or pansies? The answer is very simple; very profound, however. It is because of its Swabhava, the essential nature in and of the seed ... Swabhava, in short, may be called the essential Individuality of any monad ..."(5) And again: "The urge behind evolution is not external to, but lies in germ or seed within, the evolving entity itself; both the urge and the seed arising out of one thing, and this is its swabhava, the selfhood or essential characteristic of the Self ... As every swabhava has its original source in the core of its constantly evolving monad, so every individual monad has its own swabhavic spiritual magnetism, its individuality."(6) Here the key word is 'monad.' Buddhism calls swabhava (sometimes spelled sabhava, or svabhava) an illusion born from ignorance. G de Purucker calls it the essential individuality of any monad. Buddhism doesn't use the term monad, so it is difficult to say how a Mahayana Buddhist would consider the idea of monads and monadic essence. But now we have introduced a new concept; the individuality. This concept was strengthened by H.P. Blavatsky who wrote: "If twelve people are smoking together, the smoke of their cigarettes may mingle, but the molecules of the smoke from each have an affinity with each other, and they remain distinct, for ever and ever, no matter how the whole mass may interblend. So a drop of water, though it fall into the ocean retains its individuality. It has become a drop with a life of its own, like a man, and cannot be annihilated."(7) One is likely to ask how a drop falling into the ocean can possibly retain its individuality? Obviously the physical drop of water is no longer an individual drop of water - nor is it possible to ever put the atoms back into place exactly to regain the lost drop. However, she does not speak of the physical smoke or the physical water - but of its monadic essence. The theosophical concept of individuality (which H.P.B. clearly made distinct from the ego or personality) is closely tied to the doctrine of monads. To return to the idea of the ego being an illusion, H.P.B. said, "... without an "I" no seeing or feelings would be possible."(8) This idea was also expressed by Carl Jung who wrote, "I cannot imagine a conscious mental state that does not refer to a subject, that is, to an ego. The ego may be depotentiated - divested, for instance, of its awareness of the body - but so long as there is awareness of something, there must be somebody who is aware ... The fact that the East can dispose so easily of the ego seems to point to a mind that is not to be identified with our 'mind.'"(9) The ego cannot conceive of an egoless consciousness. The human mind cannot conceive of a state of consciousness without a subject to be aware of it. Consciousness is always subjective. However, Yoga and other schools have clearly demonstrated that the ego can in fact be transcended - that consciousness goes right on after the human mind has stopped thinking, but on another plane. Carl Jung was on the right track when he says that the East's egoless 'mind' is probably not our everyday human mind. Behind the ego lies the Ego, behind the personality lies the Individuality, behind the soul lies the Soul, and behind the human lies the divine. Western magic and occultism says that subjective consciousness always has a corresponding objective environment - the two being opposite poles of a duality, so that we can not have one without the other. The individuality paradox, that is, that the ego seems real and yet has no reality to it at all, is resolved by postulating a series of seven or ten or twelve cosmic planes, on which we express ourselves with both a subject and object that correspond to each plane. On each plane we have a sense of identity, and a vehicle for that sense of identity to function within. On the physical plane, for example, we have a human ego which functions in a physical body. On each plane, the subjective self is as 'real' as its vehicle. On the physical plane the ego is as real as the physical body. Both are a collection of parts, and therefore have no Suchness. The Buddhist's swabhava is that which causes the sense of identity on each plane. Obviously it is closely associated with Maya, the cosmic principle that creates the manifested worlds as if they had independent existence - an illusion because such independent existence does not exist; on each plane, each objective world is wholly dependent on its subjective observers. The Buddhist view of One Mind can also be inferred from the western occult teaching of monads. According to this doctrine, everything on each plane of the manifested universe is built up of monads, indivisible consciousness centers.(10) At the highest point of the manifested cosmic planes, lies a Ring-Pass-Not. Below this Ring monads have an individuality. As they drop below the Ring from divinity and enter time and space, they take on swabhava and as they descend the planes through manifestation and expression, their sense of personal identity becomes stronger, and their sense of separation becomes more acute. On the other hand, after eons of self-expression, these monads rise through the planes and cross the Ring-Pass-Not to return to divinity. When they do so they leave time and space. Lets consider two such monads, very different in their expressions on the planes, but when they rise above the Ring, their difference disappears. Their "monadic essence" is identical. The inherent essence of any two monads is identical (this is one of the basic assumptions of the monad doctrine). Below the Ring, it is time and space which separate the two and give the illusion of difference. One is 'here' while the other is 'there.' One is 'now' while the other is 'then,' and so on. The continuum of spacetime makes it impossible for two things to be at the same place at exactly the same time (this is a law of the cosmic planes of manifestation below the Ring). However, when the two monads rise above the Ring, and thus leave spacetime, this law no longer holds. The two monads, with identical essence, exist in the exact same space and at the exact same time. Where then is the difference? It can not be determined by an outside observer. The separate minds of the monads thus join the One Mind. The Two become the One. It is no longer possible to tell if individuality is intact or not, because such a concept no longer applies. The above is obviously a simplistic overview of a very complex subject. However, it should be enough to hint at answers to the individuality paradox. What does modern psychology have to say? According to psychologists, the ego or personality has specific levels of development. Lets briefly discuss one leveling scheme, that developed by Jane Loevinger.(11) Psychologists are in agreement that we are all born without an ego - without a sense of self-identity distinguishable from our environment. As we grow, our ego grows and develops. Loevinger has developed a cognitive theory of ego/personality development that includes seven stages: 1. Presocial. This is the infancy stage where the infant is fully dependent on care-givers for their identity. The pre- social is the ego prior to socialization. 2. Impulsive. Young children at this stage begin to assume a separate identity. This stage is characterized by self- gratification and by filling personal needs. Actions are judged good or bad solely on whether they are rewarded or punished. A child's view of life at this stage is egocentric and concrete. The impulsive stage is characterized by self-centeredness and impulsive behavior. Although an early stage in ego development, Loevinger found children, adolescents, and even a few adults in this stage. 3. Self-protective. Also called the "delta" stage because of its transitional nature. In this stage one has a fear of being caught, and attempts are made to evade blame by blaming others. The ego at this stage is ruled by self-interest, and one will do almost anything to satisfy their selfish desires. Relationships with others center around control, domination, deception, and getting into trouble. Rules are usually obeyed only to avoid punishment. Many young children are at this stage. Adolescents and adults who are "stuck" in this stage are usually opportunistic and manipulative. 4. Conformist. The fourth stage is reached by most people either during childhood or early adolescence. The ego in this stage judges itself by external things - by possessions, status, reputation, and appearance. Feelings are shallow, and inner emotions are usually unconscious. Rules are obeyed because they are rules, and obeying the law is seen as "the right thing to do." The ego at this stage tries to avoid disapproval and shame is felt when censured. 5. Conscientious. This, and the following stages, require a degree of reflective thinking. Here the ego has discovered that "the right way" may be relative to the context. They begin to judge themselves by inner rules, not necessarily the rules of their peers or authority figures. The ego at this stage is capable of self-criticism. This stage is usually reached during adolescence and is characterized by the development of a conscience with self-imposed standards. 6. Autonomous. To reach this sixth stage, one must be able to tolerate paradoxical relationships. At the autonomous stage, we have a greater awareness of the inner conflicts between our personal needs and our ideals and between differing perceptions of the same events. The ego can tolerate and respect other people's viewpoints, solutions to life's problems, choices of friends, decisions about work, and so on. Instead of condemning others, the ego can now sit back and allow others to make their own decisions. This stage is characterized by the ability to cope with inner conflicts and to respect the autonomy of others. 7. Integrated. The integrated stage is only reached when the ego is able to fully respect and reconcile conflicting demands within itself and with/between others. Not only are differences tolerated, but they are valued. This stage, the highest documented by Loevinger, is characterized by the ability to integrate understanding of self with understanding of others. It is reached only during adulthood, and according to Loevinger, only 1 percent of all adults will reach this stage. In addition to the theory, Loevinger devised a series of test questions that will measure a person's level of ego development. Although Loevinger's work remains a theory, recent studies have demonstrated its value. For example, researchers have found that delinquents score in lower stages significantly more often than nondelinquent adolescents. The idea that the human ego is not inherent at birth, but is socially developed over time as we grow, is not a new discovery. It is another way of describing the "social fiction" of Alan Watts. This is a Buddhist teaching. The ego is created by society, and is not a thing-in-itself. The human personality is not a real object that lives after death and is reborn because the spirit takes on a new personality/ego with each reincarnation. Most psychologists are leaning toward the Buddhist idea that the ego is a process rather than a thing. This idea would seem to resolve the personality paradox. Footnotes: 1. THE LANKAVATARA SUTRA in Dwight Goddard (Ed.), A BUDDHIST BIBLE (Boston: Beacon, 1970) p 282. 2. From the Pali Samyutta-Nikata, in Dwight Goddard (Ed.), A BUDDHIST BIBLE (Boston: Beacon, 1970) p 38. 3. The Diamond Sutra, trans by Edward Conze, in BUDDHIST WISDOM BOOKS, (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1966) p 68. 4. D.T. Suzuki, OUTLINES OF MAHAYANA BUDDHISM, (New York: Schocken, 1967) pp 170-171. 5. G. de Purucker, OCCULT GLOSSARY, (Pasadena: Theosophical University Press, 1972) p 166. 6. G. de Purucker, FOUNTAIN-SOURCE OF OCCULTISM, (Pasadena: Theosophical University Press, 1942) p 198. 7. H.P. Blavatsky, THE INNER GROUP TEACHINGS OF H.P.BLAVATSKY, (San Diego: Point Loma Pub, 1985) pp 84- 85. 8. Ibid., p 76. 9. Carl Jung's Psychological Commentary in W.Y. Evans-Wentz, THE TIBETAN BOOK OF THE GREAT LIBERATION, (London: Oxford University Press, 1968) p xxxix. 10. See Gerald Schueler, ENOCHIAN PHYSICS, (St. Paul: Llewellyn, 1988) pp 47-52. 11. Jane Loevinger, Ego Development: Conceptions and Theories, (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1976). From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 23:40:12 -0400 From: Gerald Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: A response to Nancy A Response to Nancy: I will try, but I am very inexperienced with Internet. The only address I have is the one at the beginning of your message and it doesn't mention Internet. I use Wincim on Compuserve, which has a message reply button. If it doesn't work let me know and I'll put it out onto Theos-L again. True. Crowley considered HPB to be a very high initiate (of course, he considered himself a step higher! In fact, he self- proclaimed his entry to the 10th, and highest, degree). Having studied both for years, I can say that the real difference between Crowley and Blavatsky is one of tone and emphasis (which in occult terminology is referred to as the current - a theosophical current as opposed to a draconian or thelemic current) rather than substance. HPB wanted to give the world a new religion and emphasized universal brotherhood. Crowley wanted to give the world a new magical schema that would be used and bear fruit only by the few who were ready for such teaching. Thus HPB's writings tend to emphasize compassion while AC's writings tend to emphasize the will and how to use it effectively. Both claimed to be messengers from the Lodge (i.e., the great spiritual organization whose chief headquarters is located on the Causal Plane directly beneath the Abyss) and both claimed to have started a new era (HPB began the Age of Aquarius while AC began the Age of Horus). Both were very opposed to Christianity and taught that it must die before their new age could truly begin (indications are that Christianity is, in fact, dying, but is not out for the count just yet). Actually, Crowley's doctrine or body of teachings is very much in line with those of the Golden Dawn, into which he had been initiated and whose founders knew and respected HPB. He had a lot of personality conflicts with both the GD and the TSs - the root of this being that he found no-one in either camp who truly KNEW (i.e., no-one who had, in fact, crossed the Abyss) and thus he felt that they were, to some extent, all charlatans. While this was probably true for the GD, except for its founders whom AC respected, it was probably not a fair accusation to lay at the TS's whose leaders have never made any personal claims to GNOSIS as such, but rather have put that onus on the founding Masters. Anyway, the atmosphere or tone behind/between the lines of HPB's and AC's writings are quite different owing to their respective currents - in short, their messages are similar but their styles differ in order to appeal to their respectively intended audiences. Personally, I can bask in the currents of both, and enjoy. But I am not recommending that you read Crowley. Afraid not. The only place that I have it myself is in the Gems that you speak of. Gems cost me about $40 some 20 years ago, which was a lot of money for me in those days (come to think of it, now that I have retired, it is still a lot of money for me). It was published in hard binding by Llewellyn, but has long been out of print. It may be available as a separate pamphlet from one of the many small 93 Publishing groups that exist around the country, but I don't know. Here you hit the nail on the other side of its coin, so to speak. Everything is double-edged. Some people (probably most) are so wrapped up in being ethical that they can't progress past it, while others think that they have, when they really haven't (and even one of these is too many). The thought that "I no longer need to be ethical" is just as insidious and just as mischievous as the thought that "I will be ethical and will thereby improve my karma for the future." Both thoughts are devilish and both lead to ego inflation. The true Adept would doubtless answer either thought by the rebuke "Get thee behind me Satan," or something to that effect. A great artist will give free rein to his instincts but only after he has mastered them.> I agree. Of course, once the instincts have been well and truly mastered, giving them free rein no longer amounts to much, but I agree with the intent of your quote - that instincts are OK as long as they don't overwhelm you and you are still in conscious control. These absolutely must be mastered. Probably introspection and quite meditation are useful techniques. Also, forcing yourself to be nice to others (a technique) is one step toward someday being spontaneously compassionate (our goal). Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 23:50:02 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: What's Missing from Our Talk This is from Eldon Tucker. ---- Paul Johnson: I should first mention that when I was writing regarding history, I did not particularly have your book in mind. My intent in writing was not to challenge a book which I haven't read. It's easy to forget at times that we're "talking apples and oranges." There's more than one worldview being discussed, and I don't see us engaging each other in battle to tear to shreds all opposing views and have ours stand alone, a lonely victor in some bitter battle of words. On the other hand, I have observed an important worldview not being properly voiced on "theos-l". For me, it is an sincerely-held view, one I consider truth. I feel responsible to give voice to that view, to see that it also is heard. I also believe in proper courtesy and respect in the free exchange of ideas. Character attacks are wrong, as would be the heartless mockery of someone else's beliefs. I can co- exist with others expressing their beliefs, even if I cannot agree with them. Following, I will revisit some of the points that I made in my note on history, in slightly-different language. ---- Theosophy is a well-defined system of thought, a partial expression of the accumulated wisdom of the ages. It is relatively timeless, as contrasted with the popular thought of any particular nation. It can only be communicated to the student when the student has reached the appropriate state of readiness, through the necessary spiritual, intellectual, and moral development. There is much to it that is very real, much that goes beyond what can be read in the literature solely through intellectual study. Use of reason and the mind are important, but insufficient by themselves. In addition, the spiritual faculty of buddhi is needed. The mind is directed towards a higher appreciation of life, rather than on intellectual puzzles, devoid of spiritual content. Problems of philosophy are taken on, life is studied and understood, the inner nature of things is contemplated. This higher faculty of understanding is unprovable except by personal experience. The necessary development must be attained before the experience can be had. For someone lacking this experience, there is but the assertion, however humble, by others talking of this faculty. A good deal of what we read about in Theosophy is the same: only provable by the necessary personal experience. Some early theosophical writers had a strong preference for Christianity, and slanted the Teachings in that direction. This went so far that some became Priests or Bishops and they became heavily involved in church activities. Some critics called their writings Neo-Theosophy, because there was such a slant put on the Teachings. I find the same true with Jungian Psychology and Tibetan Buddhism, where people with strong interests in these subjects put a slant on the Teachings in yet another direction. If the subjects are drawn upon for illustration, for analogy, for amplification of the Philosophy, it's fine. But when the other systems of thought are accepted prima facia as true, and uncritically incorporated alongside the tenants of Theosophy, I'm concerned that we end up with yet another brand of Neo- Theosophy. I do not agree with the Jungian typology, with his four psychological types, nor the psychological model woven about them. They represent one of many ways to classify individual temperaments, including the astrological signs, the seven rays, etc. Jung's psycho-cosmology goes too far in translating everything into terms of the human personality and its particular point of view. That's all I want to say of it for now, because I don't want to get into an extensive critique. What I miss, or feel is under represented in our discussion group, is clear, lucid essays on the theosophical philosophy. I miss writings that clearly state the concepts of Theosophy in its own terms, writings that come from a belief that Theosophy is literally, actually, really true. I sense doubt in Theosophy, distrust of it, a cynical attitude that it's a sham, that it's a work of imagination, that it's just a fairy tale. My concern, and this is for Theosophy in western society, is that it is well on the way to becoming an exoteric philosophy, an empty wine bottle that has lost its valuable contents. There is something very real, and it is behind the words that we read. It is a legitimate gateway to the Mysteries of old. And soon, perhaps in a few decades, it may be lost to the world. When that happens, the value to the words will have changed. The thought-current behind them will no longer run as strong. The power of the words as an invocation to our Higher Natures will have faded. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 23:50:44 -0400 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: re "thoughts on morals" etc. Jerry S., JS> Jerry H-J is upset about the ethical > standards of the younger generation of > theosophists. I'm afraid that you have lost me here my friend. Where did I ever express any concern about the ethical standards of the younger generation of theosophists? JS> First of all, I have yet to hear > anyone advocate unethical behaviors. Jerry, > thanks for the quote, but rest easy, everyone > agrees that a theosophist should be ethical. I haven't heard anyone advocating unethical behavior either. Are you implying that I have accused anyone of doing this? JS> The disagreements only come into play when we > try to define ethics. All the more reason why it would be a good topic to discuss. Jerry, I don't know where you got the statements that you are debating--perhaps you have confused my posts with someone else's. I found that the best way to avoid mis-quoting someone is to copy their exact statements ahead of my own responses, as I have done above. If you go back to my original posts on this subject, you will find that, in response to Vic's invitation for discussion concerning theosophical education, I had suggested that we have a forum of discussion on the concept of "ethics" and "universal ethics," a term that I intentionally left un-defined. In a later post, I had also suggested that someone might post a summary of Kohlberg's and Gilligan's researches on the subject, as I didn't have the time to do this, and I feel that their research is important background to be aware of, before beginning this discussion. Thank you for coming forward and posting these summaries. The following is by April Hejka-Ekins: The question of ethics in relationship to Theosophy has been raised on the network. A stimulating conversation can result if we dialogue with one another, rather than pontificating. Instead let us share our ideas and experience and, where appropriate, agree to respectfully disagree in an atmosphere of open inquiry. I wish to begin my part of the dialogue with 4 points. First, if spiritual growth is the process of realizing the fundamental unity of all life, then I believe leading an ethical life as essential to reaching that state. From my experience as an instructor of ethics, I view the term from two dimensions: developing the moral judgment to discern right from wrong and exercising the strength of character to put those judgments into practice. Second, the writings of Blavatsky, Judge, and the Mahatmas themselves are totally imbued with ethics as the foundation for earnest students of the Ancient Wisdom. From my studies I believe to be a Theosophist means struggling to live an ethical life of self-responsibility, justice, and compassion, while constantly striving for Truth. Third, due to our own egotistic nature, it is easy to dispense with ethics as merely either "being nice to people" or "adhering our own moral code" that supersedes the conforming standards of society. I believe one way we often delude ourselves is in thinking that because "we are on the Path," that we have become virtuous and can go on to the more important work; i.e.,investigation of occult practices. Fourth, in my experience leading an ethical life requires honest self-scrutiny and an ongoing humility, since we are each filled with flaws. Perhaps a fruitful conversation would be to discuss ethical problems we have faced and how a Theosophical perspective can be helpful in coping with them. April Hejka-Ekins Nancy Coker, I showed your post to April, and we are both all for your idea. I think April might like to work with you on this one, as it is also a deep interest of hers. You might give her a ring. I also might have an idea or two, and will post them email, but off of theos-l. As for astrology, why don't you bring up some horoscopes that interest you, and I'll do the same. If nothing else, we can find a corner, be our own group, and ponder over them. But I'll bet that there will be several others interested in this too. I know Roger will want to join in. If you have a chart maker program disk that works on a Mac, perhaps you might want to bring a copy of this up too. Lee has a computer there now. Tell John that I bought the drum. It is Egyptian--made in Alexandria. The guy who sold it to me also gave me a tape of Egyptian music and is teaching me some simple beats and a little about the culture. He wants me to come by when ever I have time and jam with him. I'm pretty excited. kisses Jerry From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 01:57:45 -0400 From: Aki Korhonen Subject: Re: Self/I-ness Hello, Jerry, you wrote... > I am not familiar with Ouspensky's "false personalities" but > Gurdjieff certainly taught about the Buddhist "collection of others." > Kathleen Riordan Speeth writes, > "According to Gurdjieff each adult has many selves, > each of which uses the word "I" to describe itself. > At one moment one "I" is present and at another > there is a different "I" who may or may not be in > sympathy with the previous "I." This "I" may not > even know the other "I" exists for between "I's" > there are often relatively impenetrable defenses > called 'buffers.' Clusters of "I's" make us > subpersonalities that are related by association." > (The Gurdjieff Work, p 32) > > When these "buffers" are very strong, we have multiple > personalities. For most of us, however, the buffers are quite weak. > But they are there nonetheless. In this way, our personalities are > not really monadic (the monadic human "I" is a mayavic illusion) > but rather, in psychological terms, they take on the nature of > "complexes." What I find one of the Ouspensky's strongest argument against personality, is his notion of its changeability. It is quite easy notice how we change by days, hours and even in minutes. >However, she does not speak of the physical smoke or the physical >water - but of its monadic essence. The theosophical concept of >individuality (which H.P.B. clearly made distinct from the ego or >personality) is closely tied to the doctrine of monads. To return to >the idea of the ego being an illusion, H.P.B. said, > "... without an "I" no seeing or feelings would be > possible."(8) >This idea was also expressed by Carl Jung who wrote, > "I cannot imagine a conscious mental state that does > not refer to a subject, that is, to an ego. The ego > may be depotentiated - divested, for instance, of its > awareness of the body - but so long as there is > awareness of something, there must be somebody > who is aware ... The fact that the East can dispose > so easily of the ego seems to point to a mind that is > not to be identified with our 'mind.'"(9) This reminds me of the Buddhist meditation of realising "Self". In it a meditator uses subject-object, a knower-known principle, and he/she is leaded to eliminate everything that he/she can perceive as not the knower; Everything you can perceive, internally or externally, is not you. Like, " I can perceive this body, so I'm not this body(, since to perceive it I must be outside of it). I can perceive my thoughts, so there must be someone to perceive them, so I'm not these thoughts..., etc. Two assumptions of "I": 1. The monad, or the primordial individuality, "Ego", "Self", "I" is indestructible. If it is indestructible then it must be eternal. If it is eternal, it can't have the beginning or the end. If it don't have the beginning or the end it is always present. 2. The awareness, seeing and feeling, etc., is possible because there is the "I", who is aware. Sri Ramana Maharshi has asked: " Where were you, when you were in deep sleep?". Our normal personality, ego and consciousness, we lose every day. So the consciousness we normally feel, can't be the true "I", which is always present. Maharshi's advise to self-realisation is to always ask "Who am I", suggesting that we should find the "I", which is always present. H.B.P. has said, that when we are awake, our "Self" is a captive, and our body or personality is the guard. When we dream, the captive is partially released; he/she can walk on the prison yard, and the guard is aware of its movements. When we are in deep sleep, the prisoner is running free and the guard is not able to see it. Rudolf Steiner says, that in normal beings, to be conscious, the "Self" and astral body must be connected to etheric - and physical body. When we dream, the "Self" and astral body are only partially connected to etheric body. At deep sleep "Self" and astral body are detached. This goes well with H.B.P. R.S. continues, that the unconsciousness of the "Self" or Soul is only because it has not developed its structure fit for independent consciousness, that is why physical body is needed. > The ego cannot conceive of an egoless consciousness. The >human mind cannot conceive of a state of consciousness without a >subject to be aware of it. Consciousness is always subjective. I feel this very essential, we can't operate, but on our subjective consciousness, or I can't. But the contents of our consciousness can be subjective, physical-world-objective or spiritually objective. Or we can lose the contents of our consciousness completely, like in deep sleep. >However, Yoga and other schools have clearly demonstrated that >the ego can in fact be transcended - that consciousness goes right >on after the human mind has stopped thinking, but on another >plane. Carl Jung was on the right track when he says that the East's >egoless 'mind' is probably not our everyday human mind. Behind >the ego lies the Ego, behind the personality lies the Individuality, >behind the soul lies the Soul, and behind the human lies the divine. To C.G.Jung: When and how, did you ever lost your Soul, Individuality and Divinity? Peace, aki. Oulu, Finland. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 12:02:38 -0400 From: "LEWIS LUCAS" Subject: Travelogue Paul wrote: > I would be enthralled and delighted with longer installments of > Mongolian and South Indian travelogue, plus whatever other > material along these lines is dictated to you from Shambhala. Me too! Lewis From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 12:21:23 -0400 From: "LEWIS LUCAS" Subject: Re: Explain This Please Paul wrote: > > My explanation for this is that in my most recent life I was > French and lived through the occupation. But this flies in the > face of HPB's preachments about 1500 year intervals between > lives (which in itself doesn't bother me) and falls into the > category of unhealthy ways of thinking. I mean, to excuse your > personal weirdness as being caused by imagined past lives is a > pretty dangerous road to follow far. During a year or so in 91 > when I recorded dreams there were lots about going back to > France but none that I recall on other places repeatedly. > I thought HPB said that was a "general" rule and that there were many variables. One could be the shortening of a life by war. Another the karmic reward for sacraficing oneself at an early age may warrant an early rebirth in more favorable circumstances. It doesn't seem "unhealthy" to me to want to understand oneself. "Man know thyself," is an important occult axiom. I read with much interest the works of Brian Weiss, a psychotherapist, who inadvertently stubbled upon past life experiences in a patient while trying to help her, and discovered its currative effects. If you accept the notion of an ordered universe with laws that operate in a benign manner then what better explanations could you hope to discover than those your intution has already lead you to? Lewis From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 12:53:54 -0400 From: "LEWIS LUCAS" Subject: 7 year cycle Richard wrote: > Now, I have an astrological question for you (or anyone): > > Is there any significator (transiting planet or something) which > operates in a regular, seven-year fashion (hits a natal position or > something every seven years)? If there is, could there be anything > associated with it which would cause its effects to be noticed at the > mid-point of its cycle? Saturn has approx. a 28 year cycle which is often divided into 4 periods of seven denoting the points in its cycle when it reaches the squares (90 degrees from its original position), the opposition at 180 and the conjunction or return. This cycle has been related to the old 7 years of bad luck/good luck. The rise and fall of Saturn as it moves around the natal chart from nadir (the bottom of the chart, 4th house) to the midheaven (the top of the chart, 10th house) is often used in predicative astrology to indicate the "fate" of the client in his worldly affairs. There is another system in astrology which specifically refers to "midpoints" and is based on the midpoint between two planets. It is said to be very accurate for pridictive astrology and is based on the 90 and 45 degree angles. These aspects are said to be "difficult" so tend to indicated significant events in a life. We don't usually pay much attention to our good fortune (karma).:) I hesitate to say much more. My ignorance being so near the surface! Thank you for your kind words. Lewis From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 14:40:33 -0400 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: Travelogue "LEWIS LUCAS" writes: > Paul wrote: > > > I would be enthralled and delighted with longer installments of > > Mongolian and South Indian travelogue, plus whatever other > > material along these lines is dictated to you from Shambhala. > > Me too! > Lewis May be, if time permits. We could also add: a visit to the Rakocsi family castle in Sarospatok, the templar temple in London, Mt Nebo in Jordon and numerous other obscure, but interesting places. But I'm not sure how far this would advance our discussion of theosophy. ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 15:09:22 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Travelogue According to Astrea: > May be, if time permits. We could also add: a visit to the Rakocsi > family castle in Sarospatok, the templar temple in London, Mt Nebo in > Jordon and numerous other obscure, but interesting places. > But I'm not sure how far this would advance our discussion of > theosophy. To me, a contemporary account of any place important in HPB's life helps me ground her teachings and theosophical history in a sense of the flow of life and makes it all more immediate. Mongolia certainly qualifies as Theosophically relevant by this criterion, as do other places you've been. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 17:50:06 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: What's Missing from Our Talk According to Eldon B. Tucker: (Everything up to this point I take no exception to--PJ) > What I miss, or feel is under represented in our > discussion group, is clear, lucid essays on the theosophical > philosophy. I miss writings that clearly state the concepts of > Theosophy in its own terms, writings that come from a belief > that Theosophy is literally, actually, really true. "A belief that Theosophy is literally, actually really true" doesn't seem to correspond with your emphasis on buddhi, which perceives not the literal and actual but the real that transcends appearances. Moreover, to me this has the ring of orthodoxy in Theosophy, something HPB called "neither possible nor desirable." > I sense doubt in Theosophy, distrust of it, a cynical > attitude that it's a sham, that it's a work of imagination, > that it's just a fairy tale. Here I can only speak for myself, but suspect that I am the prime example of this tendency in your eyes. It is ABSOLUTELY NOT Theosophy as the ancient, timeless wisdom, the Gnosis, the Gupta-Vidya, the Perennial Philosophy that is EVER described, discussed, approached in this (doubting, cynical, distrustful) manner you describe-- by me or anyone else on this newsgroup. Any individual person's formulation of Theosophy, on the other hand, is completely susceptible to being viewed in this light. What is doubted, distrusted, suspected of being a sham, imaginary, a fairy tale, is various efforts to claim an authoritative knowledge of this Theosophy. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 22:40:14 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Closeness of Gupta Vida to Ordinary Life This is by Eldon Tucker ---- Paul Johnson: We have some more agreement, like on the importance of that aspect of mind that goes beyond appearances to the Real behind outer things. And we agree that there is an ancient, timeless wisdom. Our disagreement again comes back to having two different worldviews. I do not agree that the way the world is, the way that life works, the way that the universe is setup, is as you see it. (I hold a different worldview.) In talking about the deeper side of the Theosophical Philosophy, the part that goes beyond the spoken word and is behind our books, I see something closer to life, easier to attain, simpler and more reachable. You seem to believe in a vast gap between the ordinary knowable and the esoteric. That polarizes it into black and white, Divine and Profane, Beyond Words and Exoteric. I see a spectrum of shades of grey, a spectrum of levels of knowledge. When I speak of using a form of Knowing that goes beyond the ordinary thinking, I am speaking of only the next of many levels. Theosophy is a vast ocean with all depths available. I feel that the belief in a vast gap between ordinary knowledge and the first stage of Gupta Vida is the biggest barrier to trying to attain that knowledge. That gap, I would say, is small. It involves use of the intuition-mind, of buddhi-manas, and is far easier to cross than the practice of OOBE, giving up smoking, etc. To discuss crossing that *small* gap is not outrageous, it's not like claiming to be a Master or Christ. It in no way brings with it the right to claim to be an authority. The discussion of higher grades of knowledge is not a personal formulation of supreme Truth, and should not be condemned as a sham. The denial that such knowledge is readily available to those who would live the life is the true sham. The rules for living the life are simple, and spelled out in many different ways in the different religions and philosophies of the world. They all start with a solid groundwork of ethics, morals, and a total emphasis on service for others. I see the Teachings of Theosophy, as presented by Blavatsky and her Masters, as a presentation of the next grade or two of Gupta Vida--not of Ultimate Truth. But what they present is superior to what a uninitiated man, however genius, would come up on his own. What they present is rooted in deeper knowledge which they did not say. The Theosophical Teachings are based around certain core concepts, which can be used as seed ideas about which deeper insights into life can be found. We learn a lot by their study, but learn still more when we are able to articulate them and share them with others. My hope is to mine them for the riches they contain and continually refine my skills in their exposition. Regardless of the type of writing that we may attempt, there are certain shortcomings. For writing about history, one must take care to portray the real drama, the real inner life behind what was happening, and not to give a dead husk that is only true in a literal sense. In writing about matters of religious philosophy, one must take care to not sound like preaching, like pontificating, like sermonizing. I think, though, that with continued practice that we get better at the writing, and our communications improve. Let's keep up the good work. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 02:56:58 -0400 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: re: "What's missing from our Talk" Monday, Eldon wrote to Paul: ET> What I miss, or feel is under represented in our > discussion group, is clear, lucid essays on the theosophical > philosophy. I miss writings that clearly state the concepts of > Theosophy in its own terms, writings that come from a belief > that Theosophy is literally, actually, really true. One would think that discussions on the Theosophical philosophy would be the prime topic on a theosophical net. Yet, I must agree with Eldon, I have also seen very little of this. Yes, I see lots of little essays of digested ideas of Jung, Gurdjieff, Rudhyar, etc., more often than not, with no particular reference to the core theosophical teachings (whether they be theosophical or neo-theosophical). These essays, are very nice also, and I am not putting them down. They also have a place here. But, they are not the same as solid discussions of core Theosophical teachings. But I wonder how much real interest there is in Theosophical teachings among the users of this net. Eldon is the only one who has consistently written essays on this subject, and they are usually met with criticism--not criticism of his grasp of the teachings (which is a very good one), but criticism of the fact that he has beliefs concerning this subject in the first place. It is not only Eldon's expositions that are ignored or criticized for being written, but other's also, including several of my own on this subject. I wonder, if the reluctance to discuss theosophical teachings is because most people in the Theosophical Society are not really that well read in the theosophical writings, and really have deeper interests elsewhere. If there is a genuine interest in Theosophical teachings, then why don't we have more posts concerning them? Those familiar with the literature can be resources to direct others who are less familiar to sources where they can find more information. I would think that posts directly concerning theosophical teachings would be of prime interest to students of theosophy. Even my suggestion (spurred by Vic's invitation to discuss aspects of theosophical education) that we discuss ethics in terms of theosophical education was met with accusations that I was suggesting that younger theosophists are immoral. Something very strange is going on here. ET> I sense doubt in Theosophy, distrust of it, a cynical > attitude that it's a sham, that it's a work of imagination, > that it's just a fairy tale. I also sense this same doubt. What is even more disturbing, is that when it is directly expressed, it is usually done by those who have demonstrated very little in depth knowledge of what those teaching are that they doubt. ET> My concern, and this is for Theosophy in western society, > is that it is well on the way to becoming an exoteric > philosophy, an empty wine bottle that has lost its valuable > contents. There is something very real, and it is behind the > words that we read. It is a legitimate gateway to the > Mysteries of old. And soon, perhaps in a few decades, it may > be lost to the world. When that happens, the value to the > words will have changed. The thought-current behind them will > no longer run as strong. The power of the words as an > invocation to our Higher Natures will have faded. If there is anything to theosophical prophesies, we have until the end of the century to get our act together in this world, or reap a lot of stored up karma. Considering the state of the Theosophical Movement, if we pull through, it won't be because of the Theosophical Organizations. ET> Some early theosophical writers had a strong preference > for Christianity, and slanted the Teachings in that direction. > This went so far that some became Priests or Bishops and they > became heavily involved in church activities. Some critics > called their writings Neo-Theosophy, because there was such a > slant put on the Teachings. Just a historical word of clarification here: The earliest use of the term "neo-theosophy" was used by F.T. Brooks around 1912 in a book called ~Neo Theosophy Exposed,~ which was part two of his first book: ~The Theosophical Society and its Esoteric Bogeydom." Brooks was an early theosophist and J. Nehru's teacher. Brook's criticisms revolved around the handling of the Leadbeater scandal, Krishnamurti's promotion to being the vehicle for the Matreya, and radical new teachings in the E.S., channeled through C.W. Leadbeater, that contradicted the old ones. Around 1924, Margaret Thomas published a book called parts: Part one compares Blavatsky's teachings to those of Besant and Leadbeater's by directly quoting each on various subjects and putting them in parallel columns, so that the thoughtful reader could easily discern the differences and contradictions. Part two publishes documents concerning the Leadbeater scandal, and part three publishes documents concerning the Judge case. Therefore, the objections were not so much because of the Christian interests displayed by the new leadership, but because of the shift of the Theosophical Society from a very influential philosophical movement to a cult, whose main interest at the time was in the full emergence of the Matreya through Krishnamurti. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 02:57:53 -0400 From: Aki Korhonen Subject: The bad omen in China. I'm horrified of these news, as a human in general, but more because I feel close friendship with Chinese. When I got the "Bad Omen in China" news item, I thought it was about something more general or subtle.aki. [CND, 08/22/94] Landslides and flooding triggered by typhoon Fred have killed more than 700 people in Zhejiang province, according to an AP report Tuesday. Meanwhile, some other provinces are suffering from a severe drought. In Anhui and Jiangsu provinces, the rain shortfall was the worst since 1934, China Daily reported Monday. About 40 million acres of crop land have been affected throughout the nation. (Ming Zhang, Chuck Lin) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 10:27:17 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Closeness of Gupta Vida to Ordinary Life According to Eldon B. Tucker: > We have some more agreement, like on the importance of > that aspect of mind that goes beyond appearances to the Real > behind outer things. And we agree that there is an ancient, > timeless wisdom. > Our disagreement again comes back to having two different > worldviews. I do not agree that the way the world is, the way > that life works, the way that the universe is setup, is as you > see it. (I hold a different worldview.) No comprendo. What have I conveyed about a belief on "the way the world is...life works..the universe is set up"? It seems you're drawing inferences from specific comments I make on particular subjects, and deducing some overall worldview. This is hazardous when a person with a propensity to interpret the world in terms of a single elaborately organized system communicates with someone who doesn't, or not to the same degree. I try not to be attached to any beliefs about such things, and keep learning new ways of approaching these questions. But for the record, my fundamental worldview integrates astrology, Theosophy, and bits and pieces of many other systems. Just because I throw in Jung or Gurdjieff to illustrate a point here and there doesn't mean that I am attached to their systems of thought in the way that you are (seem to be) attached to the Blavatskian system. It may be that our worldviews are not different so much as that we differ on the value and reliability of ANY worldview. IMHO they're all fingers pointing at the moon. In other words, given a list of 100 doctrinal statements taken from HPB's teachings, in a true/false test we might agree on the majority of items. But if the choices were 1) absolutely true 2) probably true 3) possibly true 4) probably not true and 5) absolutely not true, I bet I'd come out with a whole lot more 2s,3s,and 4s than you would. > In talking about the deeper side of the Theosophical > Philosophy, the part that goes beyond the spoken word and is > behind our books, I see something closer to life, easier to > attain, simpler and more reachable. > You seem to believe in a vast gap between the ordinary > knowable and the esoteric. ?? I don't. Belief in such a gap seems more characteristic of those who view the Masters in highly idealized ways than those who regard them as in most ways ordinary human beings who communicated with the Founders mainly in ordinary ways. I guess maybe the gap that I believe in more than you is summed up by Lao-Tzu-- "He who says, does not know. He who knows, does not say." Thus, a gap between what can be taught and what can be known. > The discussion of higher grades of knowledge is not a > personal formulation of supreme Truth, and should not be > condemned as a sham. The denial that such knowledge is readily > available to those who would live the life is the true sham. I get the feeling that you are projecting issues from some other conversation with someone else, or extrapolating from views I've expressed to views I have never expressed or held. I don't regard as sham the discussion of higher degrees of knowledge or their availability. All I said or implied (or meant to) was that taking someone else's formulation of such higher degrees of knowledge as gospel exposes one to the danger of being taken in by shams. > Regardless of the type of writing that we may attempt, > there are certain shortcomings. For writing about history, one > must take care to portray the real drama, the real inner life > behind what was happening, and not to give a dead husk that is > only true in a literal sense. Agreed. While adhering to the necessary scholarly conventions, I strove to accomplish just what you are describing. How successfully is for others to judge. In writing about matters of > religious philosophy, one must take care to not sound like > preaching, like pontificating, like sermonizing. I think, > though, that with continued practice that we get better at the > writing, and our communications improve. Let's keep up the > good work. Agreed again. > The most difficult thing for me in conversation with you (and in his latest post Jerry H-E) on these issues is the sense that one little thing I say can push buttons that unleash resentment that is felt at a wide range of people and issues. Made harder by the fact that your statements combine generalities about "those who don't understand...." with clues that make it sound like I'm your prime example. Having once been a true believer, I can reach into my own memory for a sense of the collective grievances that are felt by a segment of the theosophical world. First, resentment at Theosophists in general for not knowing the teachings of HPB well enough. Second, resentment at many people in the course of Theosophical history for distracting attention from those source teachings. Third, resentment specifically at the Adyar TS for "going astray" and worshipping other gods. Fourth, resentment at the world in general for not properly appreciating HPB and her teachings. I know those themes, I've felt those feelings, and therefore I have some experiential basis for suspecting what is happening. When I am irreverent to one small piece of Theosophical orthodoxy, it provokes this whole complex of resentment. But hey-- we're on the same side, trying to carry over HPB's effort into the next century and to be true to her inspiration. No spiritual teacher in history has been clearer about the need to remain free from orthodoxy and preserve a spiritual nucleus based on diversity of views and affiliations. So let's keep trying to understand one another. Namaste From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 10:42:42 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: re: "What's missing from our Talk" According to Jerry Hejka-Ekins: > But I wonder how much real interest there is in Theosophical > teachings among the users of this net. Eldon is the only one who > has consistently written essays on this subject, and they are > usually met with criticism--not criticism of his grasp of the > teachings (which is a very good one), but criticism of the fact > that he has beliefs concerning this subject in the first place. This generalization doesn't ring true to me. I don't recall anyone criticizing on this basis. Any criticism I have expressed (and it's only been once or twice) has been at the "I'm enlightened, you're benighted" attitude conveyed toward those who don't share the beliefs. > It is not only Eldon's expositions that are ignored or > criticized for being written, but other's also, including several > of my own on this subject. ??? > I wonder, if the reluctance to discuss theosophical > teachings is because most people in the Theosophical Society are > not really that well read in the theosophical writings, and > really have deeper interests elsewhere. Maybe because Theosophists in general are drawn to novelty, and therefore less likely to discuss familiar teachings than unfamiliar. Or at least unfamiliar angles on the familiar. > > ET> I sense doubt in Theosophy, distrust of it, a cynical > > attitude that it's a sham, that it's a work of imagination, > > that it's just a fairy tale. > > I also sense this same doubt. What is even more disturbing, > is that when it is directly expressed, it is usually done by > those who have demonstrated very little in depth knowledge of > what those teaching are that they doubt. This accusation seems very unfair. You are smearing a lot of people with this wide brush, and we don't even know who we are. Somewhere out here are a bunch of ignorant infidel Theosophists. Since you don't name names, I'll be their self-appointed spokesman. Let's ask folks: anyone out there who doubts and distrusts Theosophy, regards it cynically as a sham, a work of imagination, a fairy tale, please raise your hand. (By posting) If, as I suspect, there is ABSOLUTELY NO ONE who has this attitude, what does this say about y'all's propensity toward doctrinal witch-hunting? I want to ask a favor. In future, when condemning PEOPLE will you please not treat them as ABSTRACTIONS? It isn't some vague metaphysical entity that's under attack in your comments; it's people, and they have the right to be challenged directly and individually rather than left wondering "do they mean me? What are they referring to exactly?" In short, I think it's passive-aggressive to attack people this way, and it pisses me off. A lot. It evades responsibility for the attack, and leaves room for plausible deniability when anyone in particular says "are you talking about me?" This orthodox vs. heterodox argument can be fruitful to both sides if we approach it properly. Generalizing about the villains is not a fruitful approach. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 11:53:55 -0400 From: "LEWIS LUCAS" Subject: CWL After reading posts on this list for the past few weeks about CWL and the "historical facts" surrounding the allegations against him I saw a movie called "Man without a face" starring Mel Gibson. Has anyone else seen it? The coorelation was striking for me and reminded me of how easily our words and actions can be misconstrued. Lewis From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 13:19:17 -0400 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: Travelogue "K. Paul Johnson" writes: > To me, a contemporary account of any place important in HPB's > life helps me ground her teachings and theosophical history in > a sense of the flow of life and makes it all more immediate. > Mongolia certainly qualifies as Theosophically relevant by this > criterion, as do other places you've been. I didn't get as far as the Gobi desert, only Ulan Bataar and environs for a month. I don't think HPB went to Mongolia, did she? OK, I'll see what I can do, but don't hold your breath! ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 14:16:36 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Travelogue The story about her Mongolian trip is in Isis, Vol. II, I think. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 15:14:00 -0400 From: Gerald Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Some responses & thoughts Jerry H-E. I do not want to reject ethics, Jerry. Rather, I simply want us to be aware of the relativity inherent in them. Any code of ethics that you want to define would be tenuous and subjective, at best. Probably the best known ethical code is the Ten Commandments, and just look at how folks have interpreted those to suit themselves. You sometimes have to be a Philadelphia Lawyer to determine if you actually broke one or not. Let me give you just two quick examples of what I mean. First: I remember this like it was yesterday, but it happened when I was a child. Friends of my parents would visit us on weekends, and in the summer they would all go out fishing or crabbing in the Chesapeak Bay (in those days, crabs were plentiful and easy to catch). These friends were all Catholic. One Sunday they were arguing about church. They didn't go to church because they had gone crabbing instead, and didn't get back in time. My own parents had fallen away from the church by then, and were Episcople at the time, so church attendance wasn't such a big thing with them. But to miss church for a good Catholic was a sin. I still recall the arguement that ended the discussion. One of the men had checked with his priest beforehand, and had found out that the rule to attend church is waived if you are at sea, so many miles (I can't recall the exact number, but it was only one or two, I think) from land. This fellow then proceeded to point out that they had, in fact, just crossed over this magical line during the day, and thus were free from sin. This rationalization made everyone happy, and they turned the discussion around to how good the crabs tasted. Another case: A good friend of mine was a preacher's son, and he like to hunt animals. I asked him one day, "As a good Christian, how can you kill animals - doesn't a commandment say Thou Shalt not Kill?" "Oh," he replied, "that only applies to people. In Genesis, God gave man dominion over the Earth, to do whatever he wants to with it. So if I choose to kill anmials, it is OK with God." My point is that no matter how well- intended a rule may be, we can almost always break it and rationalize our actions away. The damaging result of this kind of stuff is an over-inflated ego. Nancy. Liber LXXI is 100+ pages. Paul, Right on, Paul! Aki. Thanks for your mention of Sri Ramana Maharshi. He was a big inspiration for me during my young and impressionable developing years. By the way, it is not surprising that Steiner's ideas dovetail with HPB's, since he left the TS to form his own Anthroposophy, which IMHO is but a Christianized version of theosophy. Eldon. I not only agree with Eldon, but I am more than just concerned; I am afraid that it is already mostly fossilized. Here we have a real problem for the future of theosophy. HPB warned us about it, and I credit the TS's for doing what they can to prevent it, but human nature being the way that it is, fossilization or crystallization of spiritual truth is almost as sure as the sun rising tomorrow. HPB told us that there is an exoteric theosophy and an esoteric theosophy. The esoteric theosophy cannot be put into words; it is a living spirit. Those who KNOW have put into words what they could, but as soon as esoteric theosophy is put into words it becomes exoteric theosophy. Paul's comment, quoted above, is absolutely true - all of our theosophic literature is exoteric. Lets consider a symbolic schema, or metaphor, for a moment. Lets look at the old Zen teaching of the wise sage who points his finger at the moon and all of his devoted students look closely at the finger while missing the moon completely. Of course, the finger represents Zen and the moon is symbolic for the Light of Truth, or Buddhahood. In our case, lets consider the finger to be exoteric theosophy and the moon to be esoteric theosophy. Now, when I read today's theosophical literature, including what can be found on this network, I see a whole lot of discussion about the finger - it is carefully measured, it is compared to other fingers, its historical milieu and cultural development are elaborated upon, its angle and the bend of its knuckles are discussed, its nail is scrutinized, and yes, even a few warts that have grown on it are looked at and analytically dissected. Now, all of this is important and necessary, but where is the voice that reminds us that it is, after all, but a finger that is pointing to something beyond itself? It would seem that few of us today have gazed directly at the moon or even have faith, or an intuitive feel, that the moon really exists. Like the Zen Master's students, we seem to be too wrapped up in the finger (someone, please tell me that I am wrong here!). One of the problems, of course, is that the moon itself is so devilishly difficult to detect. One must climb to the tip of the finger, stand erect, and then dive head-first outward/downward into what looks very much like vast empty space. The student must leap from the finger tip to the moon. To realize that the finger is a pointer and to then use the intuition to see the moon is a good start, but the view will be distorted. One must shift one's consciousness through the intervening spaces, the lower atmosphere as it were, in order to look at the moon without any distortion. A successful leap results in a KNOWER. Failure has at least three possibilities: (1) Nothing happens, and one is no better or worse than before, (2) One loses one's balance, confounds the planes, and becomes cognitively dissociated to some degree (ie., madness, where one's semi-Selves are running amuck), or (3) One falls kersplat on the bottom of the Abyss (ie., death) and must perforce resume the nobel attempt in another life. For most of us, the dangers of such a blind leap outweigh the benefits. The question for the future of theosophy then becomes, Where are the KNOWERS? And, of course, this question poses even more difficulties, because it sets the stage for the admittance of self-proclaimed gurus and masters of all sorts. Only one who KNOWS can tell if another has seen the moon or whether they are still looking at the finger. The difference between a good discussion of the finger and one of the moon is a hair's breath, and yet all the difference in the world. Anyway, I want to thank Eldon for the warning because I think that it is pertinent, and should be carefully considered by all of us. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 15:44:35 -0400 From: IXCHEL@delphi.com Subject: more ethics To Jerry H-E, Approximately one month ago I wrote a message to you on the topic of the seven priniples that theosophy teaches. I was responding to your group in California who were doing talks on the subject from an historical perspective. Although my last note to you went unanswered, I am attempting once again to bring up the subject. The reason I am do- ing so is because I believe that the subject of ethics is closely tied to the seven principles and that to discuss them here would answer some requests for more discussion on basic theosophical philosophy. I believe that a good understanding of the meaning of these principles in relationship to the indivi- dual treading The Path, will add depth to the mean- ing of theosophy itself. Our consciousness goes through many changes in direct relationship to these principles which are too often explained solely in in- tellectual terms. As April H-E mentioned yesterday, it would be useful if we could explore, though discus- sion, a more "real" experience. I suggest, if anyone is interested, to start with a definition of those princi- ples. Thereafter, a more broad investigation of each prin- ciple in turn, and then, how this relates to other theoso- phical thought and how this manifests itself in our real life experiences. For example: What exactly is meant by the Kama Rupa, and how does one's sexual be- havior interelate with this principle? And so on, as each principle is discussed. I would greatly appreciate having various people on the network define these prin- ciples. And I would especially be interested in an update on the events taking place in your group currently in- volved in research on this subject. Thank you...........Sarah. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 00:49:32 -0400 From: Aki Korhonen Subject: Ethics:The 5 Commandments of Jesus. Hello Gerald, you wrote: > I do not want to reject ethics, Jerry. Rather, I simply want us > to be aware of the relativity inherent in them. Any code of > ethics that you want to define would be tenuous and subjective, > at best. Probably the best known ethical code is the Ten > Commandments, and just look at how folks have interpreted those > to suit themselves. You sometimes have to be a Philadelphia > Lawyer to determine if?... I want to state that, 10 commandments are not moral commands in their form, they are rather in a same form than the normal secular laws; for example, in most countries the killing of an other human being is illegal. I think, that in philosophy, or in eth ics, we are more concerned about internal values, consciousness, morality, etc. 10 commandments may be quite universal and easy to apply, but better in ethical sense is, by my opinion, the Mountain Preach, and its 5 Commandments that Jesus spoke of. (I don't know the English, proper Biblical phrases, so I use my own translation from Finnish. You can check Matt. 6-7) 1. Do never get angry. 2. Be pure in your thoughts. 3. Don't take oaths. 4. Don't resist bad. 5. Love your enemies. Modern Christianity has rejected these commandments quite well, I think it is because they are so individual, that if people would follow them, the society would have difficulties in ruling them. Here in Finland we had a Theosophist, Pekka Ervast (1875-1934 ), who regarded these commandments very theosophical, and wrote a few books of their application. Peace, Love, aki. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 05:32:08 -0400 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: ethics;CWL;kama etc. Paul Johnson >> ET> I sense doubt in Theosophy, distrust of it, a cynical > > > attitude that it's a sham, that it's a work of imagination, > > > that it's just a fairy tale. > > JHE>> I also sense this same doubt. What is even more > > disturbing, > > is that when it is directly expressed, it is usually done by > > those who have demonstrated very little in depth knowledge of > > what those teaching are that they doubt. PJ> This accusation seems very unfair. You are smearing a lot of > people with this wide brush, and we don't even know who we > are. Somewhere out here are a bunch of ignorant infidel > Theosophists. I had no one in mind, but was expressing a general impression based upon reading a years worth of e-mail. Frankly names are not important, and if others have a different impression, then that is fine too. The whole point that I was making in that message, was that I was in support of Eldon's desire to see more discussion on theosophical teachings. PJ>I want to ask a favor. In future, when condemning PEOPLE will > you please not treat them as ABSTRACTIONS? It isn't some vague > metaphysical entity that's under attack in your comments; it's > people, and they have the right to be challenged directly and > individually rather than left wondering "do they mean me? What > are they referring to exactly?" I'll put this criticism with another criticism I received recently that I shouldn't directly challenge any individuals at all. I think there is something to both criticisms, and each have their place. One the other hand, there are situations where it is appropriate to not directly challenge, and situations where it is appropriate to do so. In this case, I did not directly challenge anyone, because I was trying to express an idea, and saw nothing to be gained by criticizing anyone. PJ>In short, I think it's passive-aggressive to attack people > this way, and it pisses me off. A lot. It evades > responsibility for the attack, and leaves room for plausible > deniability when anyone in particular says "are you talking > about me?" I understand how one might take this as passive aggressive, but passive aggressiveness requires a target. I assure you that I had no target. Just stating an impression, same as Eldon did. If push comes to shove, and I have to find an example to explain the bases of my impression--I will give you one: When I first came on the net, several individuals (I don't remember, nor do I care who they were), were posing the argument that there are no "theosophical teachings" therefore "everything is theosophy." Thus, logically, theosophy is nothing. It was these kind of comments that formed my general impression that I expressed. PJ> This orthodox vs. heterodox argument can be fruitful to both > sides if we approach it properly. Generalizing about the > villains is not a fruitful approach. My issue here has nothing to do with "orthodox/heterodox." I think that issue more concerns the discussion between you and Eldon. I already had that debate with Eldon some six months ago. Now, I'm trying to express an opinion on a different issue, that has nothing to do with you. PJ> The most difficult thing for me in conversation with you (and > in his latest post Jerry H-E) on these issues is the sense that > one little thing I say can push buttons that unleash resentment > that is felt at a wide range of people and issues. Once again, none of my comments were in any way related to anything you have posted, nor were they aimed towards you in any way. I assure you, that if you post anything I disagree with, I will be right there with a response unmistakably directed to you. It really isn't my style to covertly debate people, or to "passive-aggressively" attack them. I think it should be obvious to anyone following my comments over any length of time, that I'm too out front for that. I have always been very direct in my criticisms of other's ideas when I disagree. I would think that you, of all people, would have no doubts about that by now. On the other hand, perhaps the mis-understanding comes from my making comments in the middle of the debate between you and Eldon. I see how one might get the impression that I am somehow entering the debate or taking sides. I was not doing either one. I had my own agenda. Lewis, L> After reading posts on this list for the past few weeks about > CWL and the "historical facts" surrounding the allegations > against him I saw a movie called "Man without a face" starring > Mel Gibson. > > Has anyone else seen it? The coorelation was striking for me > and reminded me of how easily our words and actions can be > misconstrued. Would you mind expanding on this? As for you use of the term "allegations." against C.W.L., that may be a poor choice of words, since he admitted to all of the allegations (plus a lot more) in a formal hearing made up of people who (until he confessed) supported him. There was also a legal stenographer present who recorded the proceedings. I see the correlation between the movie and the Leadbeater scandal, as far as both issues concerned taking advantage of children. But beyond that, I'm not sure what you mean. For instance, in the movie; Mel Gibson was "tried" by a group of people who had already assumed his guilt, and Gibson never "confessed" any guilt. Mr. Leadbeater on the other hand, was tried by a group of people who all knew him personally, thought very highly of him, were very supportive (with the exception of only one person), and did not believe him capable of doing any wrong. That is why they were so deeply shocked when CWL not only admitted to doing all that he was accused of, but admitted to much more. By putting quotes around the words "historical facts" I take it that you question the historicity of what I have mentioned. Which "historical fact" do you question? Sarah, I always answer within a day or two. If it goes longer then that, it is either because I missed the post, or perhaps I forgot about it. In this case it must be the former, because I can't imagine passing up an opportunity to talk about theosophical teachings. S> I am attempting once > again to bring up the subject. The reason I am do- > ing so is because I believe that the subject of > ethics is closely tied to the seven principles and > that to discuss them here would answer some requests > for more discussion on basic theosophical philosophy. Yes that sounds like a good approach. S> I believe that a good understanding of the meaning > of these principles in relationship to the indivi- > dual treading The Path, will add depth to the mean- > ing of theosophy itself. I agree S> Our consciousness goes > through many changes in direct relationship to these > principles which are too often explained solely in in- > tellectual terms. I think that in order to discuss the principles in relationship to consciousness, we will also need to look at the subprinciples also. But it is the principles that are more often discussed in terns of spiritual development. S> As April H-E mentioned yesterday, > it would be useful if we could explore, though discus- > sion, a more "real" experience. I suggest, if anyone is > interested, to start with a definition of those princi- > ples. Thereafter, a more broad investigation of each prin- > ciple in turn, and then, how this relates to other theoso- > phical thought and how this manifests itself in our > real life experiences. For example: What exactly is > meant by the Kama Rupa, and how does one's sexual be- > havior interelate with this principle? And so on, as each > principle is discussed. I would greatly appreciate > having various people on the network define these prin- > ciples. And I would especially be interested in an update > on the events taking place in your group currently in- > volved in research on this subject. I think April had more in mind that people share personal experiences where they had to make difficult ethical decisions-- which is something I would also like to see done, but the environments seems a bit hostile for that kind of self disclosure at the moment. On the other hand, your idea also sounds good, and I'll try to kick things off with your suggested question: HPB's schema of seven principles that I will use are as follows: Auric Egg Buddhi Manas Lower Manas Kama Prana Linga Sarira [Stula Sarira] First of all "Kama Rupa" is a problematical term, that we might translate as "desire form." It is a term inherited from has no form of its own, but is integrated cell by cell in the physical form and cannot be separated from it during life. "Kama Rupa," however, is manas ensouled in kama, when it goes through the second death in kama loka, until the higher triad re-absorbs what it can and passes into devachan. In other words, the term "kama rupa" is more properly used when speaking of after death conditions. The term "kama" is the better term for the principle. Kama, then, is the vehicle of the animal instincts and passions. It is prana that wakens the kamic germs to life, making all desires vital and living. The focus of kama dwells in the physical brain and is concerned with all of the sense organs of the physical body. Therefore, kama is concerned with desires arising from all of the organs including the sexual. Kama operates directly through the linga sarira, which is the seat of physical senses. When we start looking at this in terms of consciousness, we might first consider that kama also ensouls manas (partially), and gives us our center of consciousness (which is in kama, for most people most of the time) an awareness of being aware. In other words, self consciousness only begins between kama and manas. We must keep in mind that the center of our will, and of our consciousness, for 99% of the people, 99% of the time is in kama (illuminated by manas)--i.e. lower, or kama manas. According to HPB, consciousness of the human being, even that of the highest adept, does not go beyond the prakritic (physical) plane of the solar planes. For most of humanity, then, our consciousness is limited to the two lowest subplanes of the solar prakritic planes, e.g. 1. the prakritic subplane of the prakritic, and 2. the astral subplane of the prakritic. Within these, HPB defines fourteen basic fields of consciousness, which, of course, could each be divided infinitely. (I realize that this is vastly different than Leadbeater's teachings, but I will leave it to others to present his system) This leaves four primary fields of consciousness directly concerned with kama: 1. Objective-prakritic-kama-pranic consciousness: HPB calls this "physiological-emotional consciousness" and is concerned with a general life consciousness common to all things, even a stone (which she considers to be "living."). This level concerns the basic instinct to stay alive. i.e. self-preservation 2. Objective-prakritic-kama-manasic consciousness: HPB calls this "Passional-emotional consciousness." This is an instinctual consciousness, common in animal as well as in humans. It concerns a desire for freedom. 3. Astral-prakritic-kama-pranic consciousness. On this plane people see terrible visions. People in delirium of high fever are on this consciousness. The drunk seeing "pink elephants" is on this plane. 4. Astral-prakritic-kama-manasic consciousness. This is the source of images that tempt people into acts of lust, vice and crime of passion of every type, if people become weak enough to fall prey to them. The images arise from kama loka. Keep in mind, that these terms correspond to the principles, but, say "manasic consciousness" is not the same as the principle "manas." For instance, in terms of consciousness, normal consciousness (where most people normally function) is the objective-prakritic-manasic-consciousness. But in terms of principles, this and all of the other levels of consciousness that were are aware of are centered in kama-manas, because this in the level where we are self-conscious. When we move to far away from this, we don't retain the experiences in memory. Thus, in deep sleep, we are said to be unconscious, only because we have no memory of our experiences at this level. HPB gives these seven states of consciousness in this context as: 1. Waking 2. Waking-dreaming 3. Natural sleeping 4. Trance sleep 5. Psychic 6. Super-psychic 7. Spiritual As far as an update on the group: We had a meeting tonight, and a member reported on the seven principles according to C.W. Leadbeater. Sunday, we plan to meet with the Oakland group. We alternate visits with them. It is their turn to see us this time. One of the Oakland members will do a presentation on Alice Bailey. We have another retreat planned for Sept. 17th in Coulterville. One of our members has a 400 acre ranch up there. We continue to meet weekly, each in turn giving reports on what we had been researching, asking and answering questions, and exchanging information. Everyone is really into it. I think you had met Brett Forray. He has recently moved up here and has joined our group. I hope this is what you had in mind. Jerry Schuler, JS> I do not want to reject ethics, Jerry. Rather, I simply want > us to be aware of the relativity inherent in them. Any code of > ethics that you want to define would be tenuous and subjective, > at best. Probably the best known ethical code is the Ten > Commandments, and just look at how folks have interpreted those > to suit themselves. You sometimes have to be a Philadelphia > Lawyer to determine if you actually broke one or not. Where do you find that I ever suggested that we define a code of ethics? My suggestion was that we discuss ethics, not define a code. One approach to it would be April's suggestion, that we offer for discussion situations in our lives where we had to make a difficult ethical decision--how we saw the situation, and the consequences of that decision. Another (more intellectual) approach might be to discuss ethical systems used by one culture and how it serves them, and what are its limitations. Another might be to discuss the ethical decision making process itself etc. As to the stories you offered, I'm afraid I don't get the connection. I see these stories as being about some people who were trying to relieve their guilt by rationalizing some religious regulations. What do these stories have to do with ethics? Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 18:15:03 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Continued Discussion With Paul This is by Eldon Tucker ---- Paul Johnson: When you say "let's keep trying to understand one another," I agree. There are a number of substantive issues coming up in our discussion, and it is good to periodically air our views. The process is almost like a spring cleaning, where we go over all the stuff we've got, decide what's still of value to us, and throw away things we no longer need, making room for more to come into our homes. We both have to be careful not to draw too many inferences from specific comments. When we do so, though, it is find to write about them. The only way to know what someone else means is to give them feedback--"I hear you as saying this ..."--and allow them the chance to clarify miscommunications--"No, what I really meant to say was ...". I don't particularly feel any of the resentment that you mention. When stuck in bad traffic, and with no way out, there is no use in feeling anger at the other drivers or the situation. There are situations that are beyond our control. We can decry them, and talk about what is wrong, on occasion, but it would be a waste of energy to become upset. An important aspect of discrimination is the ability to distinguish between situations in life which we can control, and those beyond our control, to leave the former alone, and devote our energies to the latter. In a discussion, one argument that may be given to support a position is to mention one's personal experiences, and the knowledge and wisdom that has come from them. When you mention your having once been a "true believer," but now having moved on, you are making such an argument. Gerald Schueler makes a similar appeal to personal experience when he describes his out-of-the- body adventures. We all use this argument at times. For myself, I was a "true believer," as a teenager, then in my late 20's through late 30's "wandered from the fold," and become a "prodigal son" or renewed "true believer" in my late 30's, through the present. You might argue that you were a true believer, but now know better, but can understand where I am coming from by remembering what you felt at the time. I could make the same argument: I was a true skeptic, having moved on, but then found a renewed belief, and can remember and understand what you now feel. Where are we left with this line of reasoning? It all comes back to personal experience and viewpoint. And we agree that it is not good to rely on someone else's formulation of higher degrees of knowledge. I'd find value in certain peoples' formulations, as hints, as suggestions, as establishing the correct atmosphere where I can get in touch with the appropriate thought-current. What we read should not be taken as gospel, as literally true in the dead-letter sense. I find the "finger pointing at the moon" example inappropriate. It might better refer to the type of contemplation in Zen training where one is trying to sense one's rootedness in the Unknowable, one's inner God or connection with the Highest. It involves sensing Beingness, rather than a more ordinary training in knowledge and spiritual wisdom. There is an impassable gulf between the finger and the moon, no intermediate steps or grades between the physical representation and the heavenly, nearly-absolute thing being referred to. I do not see the choice in viewing the theosophical doctrines as being either the "finger" or the "moon". The Wisdom- Religion is true, and a higher form of knowledge, than that found in the exoteric religions and philosophies of the world. The theosophical literature is part of one gateway to the Mystery Teachings. It is one method, one means, to approach the Esoteric. It is not exclusive, but it is a stage closer to Truth than is available otherwise to the general public. Rather than using the "finger pointing at the moon" analogy to depict the place of the Teachings in our society, I'd use the "journey of a thousand miles." There are a near-endless series of steps to be taken, in the desired direction, in order to reach our destination. Each step takes us closer. To reach that destination, we must, though, go in the right direction. We may take different routes that in the short-run have our paths diverging, but in the long-run we move in the same direction and our paths are one. I find the doctrines we are taught to be the first of many steps in the direction of the Mysteries. There are many steps to be taken, steps in a particular direction, steps involving deepening study. The "finger" points to the next "finger" as its goal, which itself points to yet another "finger," closer still to the goal. Each step alone the way must be taken by the person on the journey. No one else can walk the way for us. If it were easy to write out all that there is for us to study and learn, the highest human minds, like Buddha, would have certainly done so. It is not possible to write down higher and still higher knowledge, and to impart Wisdom in written word. In our theosophical studies, we are quickly faced with a Koan-like situation, where we have to "jump off" and use a different faculty of knowing. This involves using the mind in a different way. The typical way of using the mind is analogous to the sense of touch. The other way of using it corresponds to the sense of sight, and brings with it a different way for acquisition of knowledge. I use the term "knowledge" at this point, rather than "wisdom," because knowledge doesn't become wisdom until is becomes an integral part of our lives. In speaking of the theosophical philosophy, I'd describe it as a single elaborately organized system. But in its study, we keep our minds open, and continually reevaluate and reconsider what we have learned. We are always seeking to learn new ways to approach questions, but we find that as we progress, the Core Concepts go from arbitrary platitudes to acquire increasing depth and meaning. New levels of understanding are found to our doctrines as our former ideas become relatively-exoteric, replaced by deeper insights, the new esoteric (to us) understandings. I agree that the Masters are not idealized Victorian Gentlemen, with near-divine insight and unerring prophesy and wisdom. On the other hand, I believe that there are a series of steps of spiritual and intellectual development beyond the ordinary stage of mankind. There are Chelas, Masters, still higher people, leading up to the highest of humanity, the Buddhas, then beyond, into the Dhyani-Chohans and yet higher. It may be a matter of personal preference as to which step along this endless scale of development, as to which class of people or beings we designate "Mahatmas." That choice does not, though, preclude or deny yet higher and wiser beings, eventually at such a stage where physical existence is no longer desirable or even possible. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 14:56:39 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Theosophical Invisibility Recent comments about the current state of the Theosophical movement and its prospects for surviving as an influence in the future bring to mind a striking fact that recently came to light in my research. This involves comparing Theosophy to Baha'i. There are many points of similarity. Both emerged in the mid and late 19th century, stress brotherhood among all religions, aim for a future world in which prejudices of race, caste, sex and creed are overcome, have their largest number of members in India but their richest and most influential membership in the US. Both even are headquartered in America in Chicago suburbs with names starting with W. The doctrinal contrasts are equally striking, but are beside the point of this post, although they are addressed in the forthcoming book. It also finds some common historic roots for both movements. But the main contrast is in terms of success. In 1906 there were twice as many Theosophists in America as Baha'is-- ca. 4500 vs. 2200. Now, there are 100,000 Baha'is in America while we languish at the same level we were at 90 years ago. Worldwide there are 5 million or so Baha'is to our 25 or 30 thousand. So at some level Baha'i has been vastly more successful than Theosophy. Its members are in more countries, its books in more languages, etc. etc. But here's the contrast. Looking at OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) for all books in any language on the subject of Theosophy, we find 3100+. On Baha'i, 900+. This includes multiple editions of the same book, or translations thereof, so in each case the number is inflated. There are about 225 books on the subject of HPB listed, 55 or so on Baha'u'llah. Now who's more successful? By my reckoning, on a per capita basis Theosophists have been 356 times as influential as Baha'is. Look at the last 100 pages of Cranston's HPB, and you find an astounding record of Theosophy's cultural influence. Baha'is can point to nothing like that. What's the point of all this? Darned if I know, but it means something. I'd suggest that some worry may be healthy and productive, but let's not get too gloomy about the future of the Theosophical impulse. Remember that it continues to reverberate in many many ways that are long since detached from any conscious relationship to Theosophy. This is an occult movement in more than one sense. Not only does it focus on heretofore secret teachings, about subjects which are inaccessible to "ordinary" consciousness, derived from unknown sources. It also ACTS in an occult manner, as a hidden impulse which affects many people who are unaware of any such influence. My main message here is one of hope. The evolutionary impetus that was embodied by HPB has not died, because it cannot. It may transform itself into so many diverse manifestations that we cannot recognize it; that would be our loss. Eldon and Jerry H-E are right about the need to preserve and promote understanding of HPB's teachings. At the same time, I would suggest that lack of spectacular progress on that front should not discourage us. I'll close with a quote I chose for the epigraph of The Masters Revealed: "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?" (Master Morya, Mahatma Letters, pp. 271-2.) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 04:04:58 -0400 From: OSMAR DE CARVALHO Subject: Brazilian Research The NDC/SP, Cultural Department Nucleus of the Brazilian T.S. in the State of Sao Paulo, has made a research with the members of T.S. in Brazil. We mailed questionnaires for all the members and received answers of about 10% of the 1200 associates. The questionnaire intended to draw a profile of the average brazilian theosophist, his opinions on cultural and organizational issues, and his impressions about some new activities we have in plan. We believe it may help to conduce the cultural and political actions in our country. The final results are listed below: A) Age 18/25: 7,41% \ | 22,22% 25/35: 14,81% / 35/45: 23,46% \ \ | 58,03% | 45/60: 34,57% / | 77,78% | 60+ : 19,75% / B) School graduation: (Brazilian standards) University Graduate: 77,38% Secondary:19,05% Primary: 3,57% C) Civil State: Married: 44,05% Single: 44,05% Widow: 5,95% Divorced: 5,95% D) What themes would you like to be covered by theosophical publications? (multiple choice) 1- Esoteric Philosophy - 65,59% 12- Hermetism - 40,86% Occult Sciences - 65,59% Western Occultism - 40,86% 2- Mistery Schools - 60,22% Vegetarianism - 40,86% 3- Ethics - 51,61% 13- Neurolinguistics - 39,78% 4- Alternative Medicine - 49,46% 14- Cabala - 38,71% 5- Buddhism - 48,39% 15- Science - 36,56% 6- T.S. History - 47,31% 16- Philosophy - 36,56% 7- Christianity - 46,24% 15- Magic - 35,48% 8- Ecology - 45,48% 16- Psychology - 34,41% 9- Oriental Philosophy - 45,16% 17- Masonry - 33,33% Holism - 45,16% 18- Occultist Novel - 24,73% 10 Yoga - 43,01% 19- Xamanism - 21,51% 11- Education - 41,94% Clairvoyant Research - 41,94% Eastern Religions - 41,94% E)- Did you believe that a introductory course by mail would benefit the brazilian T.S.? YES: 91,11% NO : 8,89% F)- Would you sign a periodical whose objective would be to divulge the opinions and researches of brazilian T.S. members: YES: 85% NO : 15% G) Would you participate of a effort whose main objective is the interchange of ideas among brazilian T.S. members? YES: 84,15% NO : 15,85% H) Are you favorable to professional T.S. activities? YES: 39,29% NO : 60,71% I) Are you favorable to the realization of a plebiscite in the T.S. in occasions of statutory changes relative to the members representational system, patrimony issues and right and duty of the members? YES: 89% NO : 11% J) In your opinion, what is the best representational system for the members of the Theosophical Society? Direct : 60,47% Indirect: 39,53% (Forgive the errors of english formulation) Hugs from Brazil! Osmar *|) osmardc@bra000.canal-vip.onsp.br From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 10:05:17 -0400 From: mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com (Michael W. Grenier) Subject: Re: Continued Discussion With Paul >This is by Eldon Tucker >The only way to know what someone else means is >to give them feedback--"I hear you as saying this ..."--and allow >them the chance to clarify miscommunications--"No, what I really >meant to say was ...". OK > An important aspect of >discrimination is the ability to distinguish between situations >in life which we can control, and those beyond our control, to >leave the former alone, and devote our energies to the latter. Did you really mean this? I assume you meant that we should devote our energies to things we can influence. -Mike Grenier ---- Michael W. Grenier mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com 612-456-7869 Unisys - Air Traffic Control From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 12:40:34 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Continued Discussion With Paul I enjoyed this post very much, have no disagreement, but a couple of thoughts: According to Eldon B. Tucker: > We both have to be careful not to draw too many inferences > from specific comments. When we do so, though, it is find to > write about them. The only way to know what someone else means is > to give them feedback--"I hear you as saying this ..."--and allow > them the chance to clarify miscommunications--"No, what I really > meant to say was ...". This is made more necessary by our having different past histories of encounters with Theosophists of various orientations. When you say something that reminds me of person a, I tend to react to the whole complex of attitudes I've seen at close range in that person, instead of to just what you say. And presumably vice versa is true, for example when you class me as a skeptic-- which may well imply a lot of attitudes that I really don't share with those who welcome the classification. > You might argue that you were a true believer, but now know > better, but can understand where I am coming from by remembering > what you felt at the time. I could make the same argument: I was > a true skeptic, having moved on, but then found a renewed belief, > and can remember and understand what you now feel. > Where are we left with this line of reasoning? It all comes > back to personal experience and viewpoint. There is a certain value to this process as long as one is careful not to take it too far. And to present it for validation or correction rather than just saying "I know where you're coming from and nothing you can say will convince me otherwise." Wherever one is at the moment is just a passing stage in the evolution of one's understanding. I may well follow suit with your return to belief; at least I look forward to being able to read HPB for enlightenment at leisure rather than for historical evidence under deadlines. This presumably will reawaken some of my feeling-orientation to Theosophy. What I hope I never return to, though, is the smugness of "mine's better than yours" which is so pervasive among Theosophical fundamentalists, including myself during the period I was most active in a local group. Having been at the receiving end of the hostility this can generate to any new ideas, maybe I've had enough karmic backlash to be cured for this lifetime. > Rather than using the "finger pointing at the moon" analogy > to depict the place of the Teachings in our society, I'd use the > "journey of a thousand miles." There are a near-endless series of > steps to be taken, in the desired direction, in order to reach Exactly so, and well stated. But there's a paradox here. HPB claimed that images were reversed in the astral light, which echoes the kabbalistic idea that alternating planes were somehow reverse to those above and below them (help me Jerry S. on this one). Also the Zen story about the mountain being real, then illusory, then real again. So it really doesn't seem to me that we go forward in a straight line, but rather around and around in a spiral, during which at any given time we are going "in the opposite direction" from where we were a half-cycle ago (viewed two-dimensionally) and yet going in the same direction in terms of the third dimension of height. (Plane to plane if you will). So when you talk about going the "right direction" this can be tricky and hard to discern. And it's especially tricky to see one's fellow Theosophists as going in the wrong direction, just because their direction appears opposite from ours. I like Lewis's analogy of the train and the TS chart. This movement is destined to always have forceful wills going in opposite directions, and yet the tension among all those wills somehow moves it all upward. Or CAN do so. We appear to be at opposite sides of the spiral, seeing Theosophy from very different angles. Yet I think we are both moving upward at the same time, not taking our current point of view as the ultimate. I respect and admire those Theosophists whose views are more orthodox than mine when they are going forward, always modifying their understanding, willing to entertain alternative views. What is destructive to the movement is when we become frozen in our positions, unwilling to budge, sure that the adversary is a tool of the Dark Forces while we are on the side of the Masters. My sense is that this fixedness is more common among non-Adyar Theosophists than among Adyar members. But there are narrow-minded bigots in the Adyar society just as there are open-minded explorers in the Pasadena, ULT and Point Loma contingents. Maybe we can agree to look on our divergences, not in the light of "he's headed in the wrong direction" but rather "what I perceive may counterbalance what he perceives" and "what I do to act on my perceptions may seem opposed to what he does to act on his, but both may advance the movement." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 18:19:32 -0400 From: IXCHEL@delphi.com Subject: Principle questions To Jerry H-E, Thank you for such a full and quick response to my last post to you. You say you will use HPBs schema as follows: Auric egg Buddhi Manas Lower Manas Kama Prana Linga Sarira Can you give a reference to this particular list? Is this from The Inner Group Teachings? Why is the list on p.632, vol. 2 of The Secret Doctrine show these seven principles with different names? I am referring to the (Esoteric) Indian list. As you express it, it appears that each principle inter penetrates with the others, yet there seems to be some purpose in the order with which they are described. If Linga Sarira is considered the 1st principle, perhaps I should have asked about that one instead of focusing on Kama which appears on your list as number 3. However, what do you mean by, ? What do you mean by the word focus? How does the Linga Sarira make the connection to the physical body? What is the Stula Sarira? Is that the Sanskrit name for physical body or is there another name for that? Where is the "screen" or name of the principle where the images appear that we see when we close our eyes? Is that what you mean by the focus of kama? Please explain further. You say Would I be correct then to say that kama must be regulated in order to keep it in balance so that desire in general which includes sexual desire does not express itself in harmful or unethical ways. You say Would it be correct to say that kama IS animal instinct, or does the word vehicle refer to something like veins which carry the blood through the body? The veins being kama, and animal instinct separate from it? There are more questions I have on your last post, however, I will try not to ask them all at once. I realize that some of these questions may seem to be elementary, but I am fairly new to the teachings of Theosophy as it is expressed by H.P.Blavatsky. Thank you again for your time.............Sarah. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 18:35:19 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Ego This is by Brenda Tucker. The answer to the question of the seven principles is difficult for someone like me to express because it involves either the repeating of someone's teachings and access to their writings or a first-hand knowledge of the subject. I would never present the seven principles without including atma. H.P.B. has referred to something similar to the list which Jerry gave as the four aspects and three principles. It is found in the fifth volume of THE SECRET DOCTRINE, which I have loaned to my parents. It is of interest to me that you feel this would help us to appreciate man's condition in the existing world. One meditation form which I found helpful when I first started meditating describes a visualization exercise in this manner: a physical body connected by a silver cord to a transparent mental body. From the navel of the transparent body a golden cord rises where floats your third body-cloudy and smoky-and embedded in this third body lies a fourth golden body, radiant like the sun. Similarly deep, deep in the center of the brain there lies a golden egg. Three bodies, two cords, and an egg embedded in the highest (and lowest) body. If you add all of this you get six principles. (And if we add any more cords, we're going to start hearing music.) My own present understanding of the subject is limited by the fact that I can objectively know only the three ranges of impressions which the personality is immersed in: forms or physical, feelings, and thoughts. If we divide the first or physical into two, which I will explain in a moment, and we also divide the thought realm into three: perception, concept-making, and consciousness, this also provides us with six. If we take a very special feeling that we all have, namely love, we could add another principle and have seven. Even so, it is the mind which must branch forth into a hidden realm where men rarely penetrate in waking consciousness. So all in all, a three-fold mind with the third principle of mind being a two-fold consciousness, and a two-fold physical body with feelings makes seven. The most difficult of the principles to describe are those which lead into realms which are largely darkness for the personality in incarnation, a world of darkness existing before the physical and a world of darkness existing beyond the mental. In describing these difficult to penetrate realms, we have to look to teachers who can tell us what to look for. It's interesting to me that the seven kingdoms of nature can be taught in explanation of how the human ego was developed. Prior to any physical existence as a mineral, it is possible that we lived through cycles of incarnation as etheric elementals, astral elementals, and mental elementals. As these are on a downward cycle and observable only to a few clairvoyants, their study has been largely inhibited. But we can be thankful that clairvoyants have been able to recognize and have begun to study a vast untapped area of knowledge. Likewise, beyond our mind, life is a mystery. It seems the only areas open to our constant perusal are the physical, astral, and mental. Although I disagree with the Hejka-Ekins about where to attempt a study of theosophy and will try to show where others have never attempted what they are attempting (to interest us in discovering our own ethical nature), I know you must ultimately decide for yourself which is more correct. I would like to use an article by Chogyam Trungpa, entitled "The Development of the Ego." It appears in a book called ENTERING THE STREAM, and as I have mentioned earlier, this is the companion reader to the film LITTLE BUDDHA, Boston: Shambhala, 1993. Trungpa says that speculations which take the form of advanced ideas and descriptions of spiritual experiences only exploit the weaker aspects of human nature. They feed our expectations and desires to see and hear something colorful, something extraordinary. "If we begin our study with these dreams of extraordinary, "enlightening" and dramatic experiences, then we will build up our expectations and preconceptions so that later, when we are actually working on the path, our minds will be occupied largely with what will be rather than with what IS. It is destructive and not fair to people to play on their weaknesses, their expectations and dreams, rather than to present the realistic starting point of what they are..." Trungpa's article then proceeds to describe the five skandhas or five heaps, which are given as form, feeling, perception, concept, and consciousness. You may see a relationship here to the seven principles which you asked about. You may also see many further relationships as he (and I) continue. He describes the mind initially and before the creation of ego (I suppose an infant stage or animal stage or possibly even mental elemental) as being open, free, and spacious and says that intelligence (vidya in Sanskrit) is connected with this space (space which is like a great room to dance around in), which is what we are. We are one with the space. As a result of our becoming too active in this space, which inspires us to dance around, we became self-conscious, conscious that we are the being dancing in the space. At this point space is no longer space, but becomes solid. (You may think of etheric elementals and their theoretical life.) The spaciousness is a solid, separate thing. A duality arises and rather than being completely one with the space there is now "space and I." This is the birth of form. Trungpa says that at this point we black out and when we next view solidified space, we are overwhelmed by it and lost in it. There is a blackout and then an awakening. Now the space is no longer openness, there is no more openness and freedom, so we ignore it and by doing this we meet avidya (Sanskrit for ignorance). So through development (perhaps related to the elemental kingdoms) we become dissatisfied just to dance in space, but want a partner. Space becomes our partner, but to make it so we have had to solidify it and ignore its flowing, open quality. And this is the culmination of the first skandha. Trungpa says the skandha of ignorance-form has three different aspects or stages: 1) an open field which is what we are, perhaps heaven and earth 2) we identify ourselves as someone who notices all of this-a grain of sand-and this is the birth of our ignorance, and 3) "self-observing ignorance," watching oneself, seeing where one goes as a grain of sand and not just seeing your surroundings. The next skandha is a defense mechanism to protect our ignorance. Feeling is our reaching out to describe a situation as either seductive, threatening, or neutral. The next mechanism and skandha is perception-impulse. Our fascination with our own creation makes us want to relate to it, explore it. It's curious how these two mechanisms work together. When we receive the information they provide, we make judgements, we react. Perception brings us more information and feeling helps us respond with either hatred, desire, or stupidity. The fourth skandha of concept, is finally enough of a defense to really protect our ignorance and guarantee our security, partly because it isn't so automatic. With ignorance, we name and categorize, and labelling things or events leads to "good," "bad," "beautiful," and "ugly" concepts, etc. Ego has become heavier and heavier, stronger and stronger. Trungpa writes, "We begin to experience intellectual speculation, confirming or interpreting ourselves, putting ourselves into logical, interpretive situations. The basic nature of intellect is quite logical. Obviously there will be the tendency to work for a positive condition: to confirm our experience, to interpret weakness into strength, to fabricate a logic of security, to confirm our ignorance." Finally the primordial intelligence operates in such a manner that there is no ego at all; there is no such thing as "I am." What we have instead is an accumulation of stuff, a brilliant work of art we call "I am." "I" is the label which unifies the "stuff" into a disorganized whole or ego. I'm sure you've been waiting to see what happens when consciousness or the fifth skandha appears on the scene. What happens, according to Trungpa, is the creation of six LOKAS which are realms containing hallucinations and wandering minds. A man struggling to escape ignorance still but frustrated, creates a deva loka, an asura loka, human realm, animal realm, hungry ghost loka, and finally the hell loka. Again in Trungpa's words, "When we speak of "hallucination" or "dream," it means that we attach values to things and events which they do not necessarily have. We have definite opinions about the way things are and should be. This is projection: we project our version of things onto what is there. Thus we become completely immersed in a world of our own creation, a world of conflicting values and opinions. Hallucination, in this sense, is a misinterpretation of things and events, reading into the phenomenal world meanings which it does not have." This is why I believe the Buddha is so correct by not starting with ethics. His first noble truth is that there is suffering. Second, there is a cause of suffering. Third, there is way to end suffering. Fourth, that way is the Eightfold Path where we find Buddhist ethics. Neither do THE YOGA SUTRAS, begin or end with ethics. They are found in the Second Book, before which a very dismal picture is painted in Book One. It is not until the end of the Sutras, Book Four that we find a description of "Isolated Unity" and a state of bliss becomes possible. In Book Three of course we hear descriptions of the yogic powers. I don't agree with a study of ethics in itself because I don't feel that there will ever be a proper understanding of the conditions of our existence in that study. When we understand where we came from and who we are we can understand where it is we are going. There is a dark side to the nature of man because our senses don't reveal to us existence in the inner realms and what life forms are present there. We only have our speculation and our clairvoyants' testimonies. After purification, it is my opinion that the soul powers will manifest. I don't know how this type of situation manifests, but I am hoping that life will reveal all of this in time, and until then there is plenty of work which we can do that encourages and stimulates our higher senses. Also, we should maintain the avoidance of anything destructive to the cognition of this higher self. Those who have studied theosophy and know some of the literature may maintain that the work continues even after the goal is reached because there are those who have attained such levels of consciousness but that they would choose to forfeit their reward to continue helping humanity. While it is simple to refer to the elementals as the dark side of man, it may also be relatively true that the higher egoic realms also could be categorized as such. Until we develop senses in our higher self, it may continue as an unreachable area of investigation and one veiled in darkness but perceivable through the teachings of others who have gone ahead. So with darkness behind us and darkness ahead we again look at seven principles as containing a porthole into these realms, but mostly they are vehicles which we can knowingly categorize, such as a two-fold physical (dense and etheric, etheric/prana, whatever) and three-fold mental body (perceptual, conceptual, and conscious) whose highest aspect is also dual and leads into man's egoic nature. That highest aspect is consciousness and it is stimulated by love, hence the buddhic or atma-buddhi-manas egoic nature. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 22:21:24 -0400 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: re: "principle questions" Sarah, S> You say you will use HPBs schema as follows: > > Auric egg > Buddhi > Manas > Lower Manas > Kama > Prana > Linga Sarira > > Can you give a reference to this particular list? > Is this from The Inner Group Teachings? Why is the > list on p.632, vol. 2 of The Secret Doctrine > show these seven principles with different names? I > am referring to the (Esoteric) Indian list. HPB listed the principles in different ways to illustrate different points. I didn't copy the above list from anywhere, but compiled it in this order, because it seemed the best one to address your questions. However, Diagram I of the E.S. Instructions I (CW XII, facing pg. 524), is almost identical to my list, except that it uses the term "kama rupa" instead of kama. The list on p. 632 of the S.D. follows after the one given in ~Esoteric Buddhism~, published in 1883. By the time HPB published the S.D., in 1888, Sinnett's listing had already become a "standard" among students, and HPB was sort of "stuck" with it. Sinnett's schema is correct as far as it goes, but veils some teachings and reveals others. S> As you express it, it appears that each principle > inter penetrates with the others, yet there seems to be > some purpose in the order with which they are described. > If Linga Sarira is considered the 1st principle, perhaps > I should have asked about that one instead of focusing > on Kama which appears on your list as number 3. It depends upon your focus. HPB changed the order and names of principles in order to focus on certain aspects of this study. Sometimes she listed them from the most spiritual to the most physical (deductively); or from the most physical to the most spiritual (inductively). In diagram II of E.S. Instructions I (CW XII, facing p. 532), she lists "kama-rupa" first. This is an anthropocentric view, because psychologically speaking, kama-rupa is the most important principle. Therefore, I thought your choice was very appropriate. S> However, what do you mean by, in the physical brain>? What do you mean by the word > focus? Though the physical brain is guided by the manasaputras, it is much too gross of an organ for them, so it is the lower manas (kama-manas) that actually works through the physical brain. For all but a small minority on this planet, the focus of kama-manas is kama--in other words, our thinking is driven by our feelings-- thus the focus of kama is in the physical brain. For fifth rounders (our next evolutionary step), who have shifted over to manas--then the focus would be on manas. But these people are very rare. How does the Linga Sarira make the connection to the physical body? The linga sarira is the model upon which the physical body is built, and forms the body for the first seven years. After that, the body forms the linga sarira. Therefore every organ in the body has a correspondence in the linga sarira. The centers of sensation (e.g. seeing, smelling, touching, hearing) are called "indriyas" and are located in the linga sarira. Sensations are transmitted to these indriyas through physical molecules. S> What is the Stula Sarira? Is that > the Sanskrit name for physical body or is there another > name for that? Yes, the stula sarira is the term HPB uses for physical body. S> Where is the "screen" or name of the > principle where the images appear that we see when we > close our eyes? Is that what you mean by the focus of > kama? Please explain further. I'm not following you here. Please elaborate and quote where you are drawing this question from. S> You say all the organs including the sexual.> Would I be > correct then to say that kama must be regulated in > order to keep it in balance so that desire in general > which includes sexual desire does not express itself > in harmful or unethical ways. The physical body operates out of habit. If we are in the habit of going to bed and getting up at a certain hour, then we get thrown off if we suddenly change that habit. Chelas in training live a pretty rigorously routine life, and they also work on their thoughts and feelings. We have to take responsibility for our thoughts (kama-manas), feelings (kama) and actions (physical). They are not beyond our control, and we have to learn to be their masters. S> You say and passions.> Would it be correct to say that kama > IS animal instinct, or does the word vehicle refer > to something like veins which carry the blood through > the body? The veins being kama, and animal instinct > separate from it? The source of "instinct" is really atma. If I said "instincts" it was a bad choice of terms (a result of trying to compose at two in the morning). "Animal desires" or "passions" is a better choice of terms. Yes, vehicle is just that, something that holds something else. Thus kama is the vehicle of animal desires. In the same sense, the physical body is really the vehicle for all of the other principles, but in this case, it is not itself a principle. Osmar, I was very pleased to see that your Brazilian survey showed that out of the 19 topics named that should be covered by theosophical publications, ethics came in third. You made my day! We have a very close friend in Bolivia who has a theosophical center there. Her name is Dora Crespo. Have you heard of her? Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 27 Aug 1994 02:35:42 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Big Implications Perhaps Paul has asked me what I thought the implications his book THE MASTERS REVEALED might have for Theosophy. Big, big implications, I believe. Perhaps even bigger than he might now realize. The current discussion of *Kama Rupa* (I would put quotation marks around it as Jerry H-E did, but I don't quite dare) and the "Principles" (but I seem to be daring here, aren't I?) might lead, twisting and turning, toward a point in this regard. I agree with Jerry that Kama Rupa is a "problematical term." If one jumps--and I do mean *jumps*--around THE SECRET DOCTRINE and a few other places, one can get some sort of meaning for it. It is probably safest, however, to discuss what one has come up with in relation to other terms, especially abstract, which people also have to have done considerable jumping around to approximate the meanings for. . . . It gets considerably more dangerous when one starts linking up theosophical terms and concepts with the concrete and more familiar. Jerry takes a risk when he talks about Kama Rupa's being "integrated cell by cell"; HPB takes even more of a risk in III, p.580: "The Kama Rupa eventually breaks up and goes into animals. All red-blooded animals come from man. The cold-blooded are from the matter of the past. The blood is the Kama Rupa." Now, both Jerry and HPB seem to be speaking from some sort of "authority." (For the purposes of what follows, I have to assume that Jerry is not totally relying on HPB's authority, but also has some authority of his own based on his developed personal understandings of how things should be defined and put together etc.) However, at this point in historical Theosophy there is a fundamental difference between Jerry and HPB: the former, as far as I know, is not claiming that any part of what he says (or how he interprets source material) is a direct/indirect supernatural dispensation from a Master . . . while the latter did say she had such Guidance. So Jerry has a distinct disadvantage right from the starting blocks. If one thinks, for example, there is problem in the way Jerry associates *Atma* and "instincts," one just shrugs and moves on. On the other hand, if one thinks that one is seeing some inconsistency, for example, in the various ways HPB talks about Principles, one is much more likely to put the blame on one's own inadequacies rather than hers. After all, the Truth is there; she brought It to us; our job is just to understand what we can and mutely worship what we cannot. Enter K. Paul Johnson's book. I don't want to go into it in detail until more people have had a chance to read it, but the more I think about it, the more I suspect that THE MASTERS REVEALED may be one of the major shapers of theosophical things to come. For one thing, I think it may somewhat modify the overly obsequious way many people approach HPB. For another, I think it may result in a clear shift in the way members start using their *t*'s (I have shared this in various places previously): *theosophy*: the basic epistemological dictionary definition, "valid knowledge derived by mystical insight." *Theosophy*: "specific Teachings derived from HPB and a few others." *t(T)heosophy*: "theosophy informed and assisted by Theosophy." I think Paul's book is going to be good for t(T)heosophy. By making a very, very strong case that Koot-Hoomi and Morya can be historically identified as actual human beings, he is, in my opinion, going to cause a lot of people to get up off their knees for the purpose of getting a better view of things. How Kama Rupa will fare from the vantage of full-standing-posture is not for me to say. One thing the "Spook" definitely has going for it is that HPB talked about it; therefore, it would be an uphill battle for anyone who says that there is no validity whatever to the concept . . . for realistically speaking, of course, we all know, Masters or absence of Masters, no one is ever likely to come out onto an even playing field with HPB... Warm regards, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 27 Aug 1994 14:03:25 -0400 From: IXCHEL@delphi.com Subject: principles again To Brenda, Hello and thank you for your thoughts on the principles. You bring up the topic of meditation which to me is a very important aspect of The Path or Way, as I believe it's true function is used as a tool to actually reach beyond the realms of objective impressions you state as being . You also bring up the topic of elementals. Can you give me your definition of the term *elementals* and explain how it is related to the seven principles more direct- ly. I'm not so sure as you are, about a vast difference be- tween Jerry H-E's idea of ethics and yours. I can see your point that of themselves standardized morals or ethics limit one's understanding in the process of limiting one's behavior when it is used as a discipline for spiritual development. Semantics might have some- thing to do with the problem of not recognizing that in your posts, Jerry H-E's and yours, there is an inescap- able foundation of beliefs which I, "right or wrong", see as a personal set of ethics. For example: If you say you do not believe in something someone else thinks or be- lieves, isn't that an ethical "judgment". Are you not saying that to follow in the way of his thinking may be wrong and lead to suffering? Because of these ideas which you express, I am led to believe that it is the suffer free life style arising from our own self-disci- pline which you advocate as opposed to the ethics of others which in turn are correct for them for as long as it is necessary for them to hold such beliefs. The point Chogyam Trungpa makes about the misleading glamour of spiritual speculation is of great value to those embarking upon their Way. I have noticed over the years how easy it is for individuals to be taken in by this one of the first and biggest stumbling stones on what is in reality a very rocky road to enlightenment. I very much enjoyed reading of the five skandhas as defined by Trungpa. I think he was a good (truth) story teller. I especially appreciate his bringing to the attention the excuse/justification making mechanism of the "heavy" ego and the absurd and too common propensity of it to outright lie. You say and give your reasons. You say Would you please elaborate and give me a definition of *purification* as you understand it? You use terms such as: avoidance of anything destructive. Could you define by examples what you mean by *destructive*. Your concluding statements expressing the seven principles as a means or vehicles to further awareness, was not only insightful but poetic as well...........Thanks....Sarah. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 27 Aug 1994 20:40:58 -0400 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Ethics:The 5 Commandments of Jesus. Aki wrote: > 4. Don't resist bad. This one is a little puzzeling. Could you explain? Lewisllucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 27 Aug 1994 21:46:42 -0400 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: ethics;CWL;kama etc. Jerry wrote: > since he admitted to all of the allegations (plus a lot > more) in a formal hearing made up of people who (until he > confessed) supported him. There was also a legal stenographer > present who recorded the proceedings. > I see the correlation between the movie and the Leadbeater > scandal, as far as both issues concerned taking advantage of > children. But beyond that, I'm not sure what you mean. For > instance, in the movie; Mel Gibson was "tried" by a group of > people who had already assumed his guilt, and Gibson never > "confessed" any guilt. Mr. Leadbeater on the other hand, was > tried by a group of people who all knew him personally, thought > very highly of him, were very supportive (with the exception of > only one person), and did not believe him capable of doing any > wrong. That is why they were so deeply shocked when CWL not only > admitted to doing all that he was accused of, but admitted to > much more. > By putting quotes around the words "historical facts" I take > it that you question the historicity of what I have mentioned. > Which "historical fact" do you question? Didn't the teacher admit guilt to save the boy in question further inquiries? Perhaps CWL did the same. Another similarity I thought was the teacher in the movie was feared and misunderstood by the towns people who were supicious of him because of his burned face. I can imagine CWL, who was clairvoyant, was someone consider "unusual" or strange. The movie illustrates how someone can be misunderstood and judged harshly by others because of circumstances and events which seem to be one thing, but may in fact be another. History is constantly being rewritten. I only heard last week that the events which we all witnessed in Russia are already being changed to suit the current mood of the country. The coup leaders have been d declared innocent and that they were only trying to protect their country! Noone can truly know anothers motives. It has often been suggested that we not judge others to harshly for this reason. If I must judge CWL then I must do so based on what I know of him. What I know of him is from reading many of his books. Books which changed my life for the better and left me with a deep feeling of gratitude and appreciation for his contributions and still inspire me to work to help spread these ideas. This brings me to another point I have often wanted to make while reading comments on this list about the authority of one writer vs another. I think it was in the preface to "Man, How, Whince and Wither" that Annie Besant and CWL stated that they were "early" students of theosophy and their writings should be studied as their reports on their experiments. I think it was also CWL who made the point that one should always consider the latest work because it was only natural that the students who came along later would build on the past making corrections and adding to the body of information. This seems very sensible to me. I can't help but wonder if HPB wouldn't be a little taken aback by the attitude that her work was superior to others. She constantly questioned her own work and relied on others to help correct her mistakes. Lewisllucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 27 Aug 1994 22:01:43 -0400 From: IXCHEL@delphi.com Subject: more on principles To Jerry H-E, Thank you again for your answers and thoughts. I see images when I close my eyes. What is the principle which gives them life? What principle is vital in this matter. (no pun intended). The images appear in the mind. Can one say that the mind is manas and that it has a reflective quality like a mirror? Then I put words together with the pictures and call them thoughts. If I can forget the words the pictures disappear. If I forget the images/pictures the words disappear. If I have the power to forget words/thoughts/images then I could say I have control over my thinking. If I don't think or imagine, I do not feel, and thus I cannot take action. Action follows feeling, as you have pointed out an order in Sanskrit partly: thoughts (kama-manas), feelings (kama), actions (physical). It would then be important to have a way to learn and practice thought and emotion- al control. Control in the sense of being able to forget and remember at will. I would like to have theosophical terms or Sanskrit words to correspond to this process I have described. Would you elaborate on the process that the Chela undergoes in order to achieve mastery? What principles are involved throughout their development? Will you explain it also in terms of where we are in rounds, races, etc.? If I react to stress with the feeling of anger, that feeling makes me think aggressive and negative thoughts. Then I say and do things that I will regret when the emotion is past. If I do not allow circumstances to control my feelings, and I remain calm, I could say that I have mastery over my environment. What would be the principle that I would be manifesting if I could do this? Would you say that I have compassion as I am not prone to upset over the faults and short- comings of others? If so, which of the higher princi- ples is active at this time? Or is compassion an attribute of adepts only, or could an ordinary individual display a higher principle if they developed the capacity of non-emotional response. Or would they then no longer be considered an ordinary person. Are we climbing the ladder of principles through the rounds, races, etc.? We are in the fourth round and fifth race; what principles have center stage at this time? I realize that you have given some of the answers to these questions in your previous post, however, the repetition will drive the message in, especially if it is the same answer but in response to a new question. Thanks for your patience. Yes I know Brett, but not real well. Please give him my regards. I met you and April once in Los Angeles. Brett was there. Thank you also for the update on your group...........................Sarah. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 27 Aug 1994 22:02:22 -0400 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Continued Discussion With Paul Eldon wrote: > > > Rather than using the "finger pointing at the moon" analogy > > to depict the place of the Teachings in our society, I'd use the > > "journey of a thousand miles." There are a near-endless series of > > steps to be taken, in the desired direction, in order to reach I see your point too, but still think the previous analogy has its own value. Paul wrote: > Exactly so, and well stated. But there's a paradox here. > HPB claimed that images were reversed in the astral > light, which echoes the kabbalistic idea that alternating > planes were somehow reverse to those above and below them (help > me Jerry S. on this one). Also the Zen story about the > mountain being real, then illusory, then real again. So it > really doesn't seem to me that we go forward in a straight > line, but rather around and around in a spiral, during which at > any given time we are going "in the opposite direction" from > where we were a half-cycle ago (viewed two-dimensionally) and > yet going in the same direction in terms of the third dimension > of height. (Plane to plane if you will). > This point in your discussion raises one in my mind. Have either of you ever heard of the notion that "heaven is as near as our elbow" or some such thing as that? I remember a discussion with Bing Escudero once about meditation and I think he made the point to me that as one practices meditation we stretch ourselves, using the analogy of a finger inside a ballon which is being pulled tighter and tighter until finally the finger "suddenly" burts through the membrane of the ballon. Progress from one state of consciousness to another is a slow step-by- step process, but the transition is sudden. It takes alot of effort to pull the ballon tight enought to poke our finger through it. > So when you talk about going the "right direction" this can be > tricky and hard to discern. And it's especially tricky to see I think HPB lamented the fate of so many of us setting sail on the ocean of occultism without the benefit of compass or rudder...very "tricky".:) Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 27 Aug 1994 23:02:37 -0400 From: Gerald Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Ethics, for the last time! Jerry H-E writes: Either Jerry is pulling my leg here, or perhaps Jerry doesn't know what ethics are, or perhaps we are defining ethics differently. I don't know which (?) But, just in case Jerry is serious, and really doesn't know what ethics are, or is defining them in some kind of theosophical way that I am unaware of, let me quote from my Webster's New World Dictionary: Ethics are "the study of standards of conduct and moral judgement," and "the system or code of morals of a particular person, religion, group, profession, etc." Ethic is "a system of moral standards or values." Morality is "moral quality or character, rightness or wrongness, as of an action" and "the character of being in accord with the principles or standards of right conduct," and "principles of right and wrong in conduct; ethics." Also, "a particular system of such principles." So the definition of the word ethics involves the word morals, and vice versa. The two are thus closely related. Both are defined as a "system of standards" and both relate to codes. Both are linked to the concept of action or conduct, in short, both relate to observable behaviors and to codes of right/wrong action. I suppose that I should point out that the dualistic concepts of right and wrong are inherent in both words. In a previous posting, I offered two short examples that came to me rather quickly, that demonstrate the silliness of ethics (which is the sole purpose of all my postings on this subject in the first place). If Jerry can't see how "religious regulations" and ethics are related, then this posting probably won't help either. Sorry Jerry. Besides, I already promised earlier that I would say no more on this subject. Sorry folks. I apologize, but here I am once again. Now, I positively promise that this will be the last time (unless, of course, I have to provide some further definitions from my trusty dictionary - but that only!). After this, anyone who still cares to worry over ethics and concern themselves with good or bad conduct or the gosh-awful dangers of immorality or amorality, please feel free to do so, without further observations on my part. Meanwhile, thank you very much for letting me have my say. We minority groups (I think I know when I am out-voted) need to get out viewpoints heard once and again. So, thanks for at least listening. As human beings, we think, feel, and act. In psychology, this is called the TFA firing order, and most psychologists will run tests to determine the firing order of their clients (Do they act first and then think about it later? Do they think first? Do they think at all? Do they act from their feelings? etc). The A or 'action' relates to observable behaviors, which is to say, our actions on the physical plane in our physical bodies. Every society sets up rules of behavior or laws that we must live with. If we obey these laws, we are good citizens. We get a gold star in the form of a clear conscience. If we disobey these laws, we are bad citizens and we must be punished. We get a black star. If nothing else, this will be in the form of a guilty conscience. The need for such laws, or codes of behavior, is obvious for any civilized society (although it is unfortunate that criminals only come into being when laws are passed). Religion sets up similar laws. These are moral codes of behaviors that address our spirit as well as our body, and they run parallel with the legal laws of the land, often as an extension of them. Infractions of these moral laws do not send up to jail, but do charge us with having committed a sin, and we have visions of God posting a black mark in his Book of Life next to our name (or something similar, depending upon your religions preference). From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 28 Aug 1994 00:56:33 -0400 From: Aki Korhonen Subject: Re: Ethics:The 5 Commandments of Jesus. Hello Lewis, You asked about the meaning of not to resist evil. This statement's origin is from Bible, Matt. 5:38-42. (my translation from Finnish) You have heard: " Eye for eye, tooth for tooth. But I say to you: don't oppose evil. If somebody hit you on your right cheek, turn your other cheek too, and if somebody wants your shirt, give him/her your coat also. And if somebody force you to walk a mile, walk two miles with him/her. Give to those, who demand from you, don't turn your back to those who want a loan from you. To me, this is also a bit unclear, so I quote from Pekka Ervasti's book: " The Secret School of Jesus". ( I think it is not translated in English, its original name is "Jeesuksen salakoulu".) The old "Eye for eye" is what people normally do, and our laws are built on that principle; when you commit a crime, you get punished. This has also a aspect of revenge, P.E. says that when we start occult disciple we should not have desire for revenge. He writes that when we submit and don't resist bad people and things, we are preparing to conquer it. We learn not think things as "bad", and we learn to see the good in bad. Then we are in a position that we are capable of winning it. He also writes, that we, who call ourselves "theosophists", and believe that a human is a re-incarnating being and that the law of karma directs everything, understand that misfortune that comes us is not "bad", even it may appear so. It is actually good, since it is just because of our previous deeds. When this "bad" comes to us, we may pay our "karmic" debt, and get rid of it. The consequence is not bad, the bad was our previous deed that caused it to come us. The consequence of the evil deed is not bad, but it is good, since it frees us from our previous bad deed and it gives us a teaching. Why Jesus gives us this kind of advice? P.E. says, that the occult meaning in this commandment is, that if we follow this advice, we learn to see how beings are directed by karmic laws by different hierarchies and we understand why incarnations are needed. This leads to acquiring a re-incarnation memory. Peace, aki. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 28 Aug 1994 12:24:15 -0400 From: IXCHEL@delphi.com Subject: My two sense...... To Jerry S. I find it amusing and ironical that while giving ethics and morals (society's version of right and wrong) so little value, you on the other hand, depend so dearly upon the meanings of words given to us by the institution we call the common dictionary. Are you not being selective about which outer groups you give al- legiance to, when it is convenient for you to do so. This may be your Achilles' heel... Jerry S says: <(unless, of course, I have to provide some further definitions from my trusty dictionary - but that only!)> Has Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, explained or corrected their use of the term American Language yet? I wasn't aware that there was an American Language. Could those who YOU have trust in possibly be wrong? If whole societies of religions and governments can be WRONG in their inclination to provide rules and laws, why cannot the compilers of Webster's Dictionary be WRONG in their attempt to solidify the meanings of society's vocabulary? Actually, according to the editors of the WD, they have no intention of put- ing words or people in strait jackets. Here is a quote from their foreword: "This dictionary was not to create the impression that it was authoritarian, laying down the law about usage; it was to play, rather, the role of a friendly guide, pointing out the safe, well traveled roads." I'm sure there is more to ethics/morals than what scholars, specialists and editorial persons reveal to us within the space of an inch. At this point of the operation it might be interesting to call in one of our own specialists, April H-E, who claims to be a teacher of ethics and is a Theosophist. I'm hoping that she will give us a more lengthy definition of these controversial words; ethics, morals, so we can rally around something with more substance. Jerry says: Actually Jerry S, there are some individuals, perhaps not you, that do have to worry over ethics, and do have to concern themselves with right and wrong. Just look at the Menendez boys for an extreme example of those who could have benefited from a sensitivity to regu- lating codes of ethics/morals, which in reality should be seen in their true role as the "friendly guide to the safe, well traveled road." In conclusion, consider this thought, that not all feelings of restraint are inflicted upon us from without; from religious indoctri- nating taboos and socially agreed upon laws. We do have an inner voice/conscience ready like Jiminy Cricket to guide us in a friendly manner toward that safe and well traveled road........................Sarah. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 28 Aug 1994 17:09:39 -0400 From: DaRatMan@aol.com Subject: Self-Imposed Lightness This is a follow-up by Daniel Hampson to Eldon's "Self-Imposed Darkness"... >The best way to engender further discussion along >a certain line is to write something in that vein > yourself. The type, nature, and quality of our i > communications will both elicit responses in kind, >i as well as a certain degree of static from those it > does not sit well with. And from "What's Missing from Our Talk"... > I sense doubt in Theosophy, distrust of it, a cynical > attitude that it's a sham, that it's a work of > imagination, that it's just a fairy tale. As I attempted to say in my "Greater Shame" post, my own distrust in Theosophy comes from the history of Theosophists themselves accusing each other of various degrees of deceit and other questionable acts. Much like numerous other groups. I do not have any personal knowledge nor belief one way or another regarding any truth of Reincarnation or Karma. But of the Light, I am sure. The Voice I have heard. I experienced OOBE's before I ever knew of such things. I know the difference between dreams and visions. The more I study, the more sordid and less trustworthy Theosophy becomes. I came to the organization as a seeker of some specific information that would explain my personal experiences. I was warmed by the nature of the people and information at the Quest Book Shop in Wheaton. I attended some workshops at Olcott. I met John Algeo. His comments and the Newsletter, in general, seem to have a different slant or tone than what I read here. And I find it unusual that in the ten months I've subscribed to theos-l not one message has been posted by him. Joy Mills' "100 Years of Theosophy" was helpful (although it seems to have been heavily fumigated). I originally thought the word "theosophy" was just a combined study of theology and philosophy. I didn't know it was Blavatsky's church. I assumed HPB was a sinister occult troll, and presumed she was marketed that way to appeal to similar spirits. Perhaps CWL was a member of NAMBL or the Rene Guyon Society, whose Karma it was to infiltrate theosophists and get even for some previous incarnation. Whatever the case, I haven't seen any images of either that would convey a sense of impending warmth, much less jovial international fellowship. The stuff they've written (or not written) is not fun to read nor do they seem to be stepping stones on the path I thought I was on. It's new to me. Perhaps I'll get used to it. But at the moment, it's too clumsy and complex to be believable, like so much other religious and cultish literature. Perhaps they are all secretly joined together and called the Grand Tautological Society. The whole thing could be quite humorous to those who believe that the arts of deceit are honorable social & scientific skills. I'm here because I simply want answers to my questions. And I want to share my knowledge in hopes that it will help someone else find what they seek. You're more believable than Blavatsky, Eldon. So carry her torch if you like. But we all have a piece of the puzzle to bring to the World. I don't have the time nor the inclination to read all the same books you've read, any more than you would have to read mine. But I have time to hear what YOU have received from the Light and in turn I'll share what I've received. At what point of "initiation" are we permitted to do that? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 28 Aug 1994 17:24:47 -0400 From: Gerald Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Some responses Eldon writes that my analogy of the finger pointing to the moon should really be a finger pointing to another finger, which points to another finger, and so on. Thats a better analogy. I was trying to keep things simple. He also writes that "there are a near-endless series of steps to be taken, in the desired direction" all of which imply an endless series of initiations and learning experiences. I agree with this, of course. In my earlier analogy, this series was implied in the act of climbing out to the tip of the finger. My point (and I think that Eldon missed it) is that at some place along the Path, we will each find ourselves learning and growing no longer. At some point in everyone's spiritual growth we will reach a stagnation level called by Christian mystics, The Dark Night of the Soul. This point, this very difficult time in our progress, will make us or break us, so to speak. I suppose that some may bypass this event, but for most of us it will occur. In my analogy, this point is when we have climbed to the tip of the finger, which is to say, when we are mentally saturated with facts and data, and our mind tires of its games, and we have visions in our heads of being like the proverbial dog that chases its own tail until it finally wearies of the stupidity of what it is doing and comes to a waiting stop. Now, I agree with Eldon that this point is a long way off for most of us. There is a lot of theosophical material waiting for us to read and ponder and the Path seems endless. But if we are honest with ourselves, we will acknowledge that stagnation point when, and if, it does come (and, of course, it may not come in this life). We will be tempted to drift aimlessly along. Often, we will have worn such deep grooves into our mind, as HPB has it, that we will harden ourselves with the notion that we now know all there is to know. Without a Teacher at this point, most of us will drift along, without any new knowledge, without the thrill of a new idea, without the wonder of a new intuitive insight. This is when we must jump into the void, or shift our consciousness to the moon, as it were. I suppose that the occult laws that work for us here also work for organizations, so I suspect that the TS's are open to their Dark Nights of the Soul as well. Paul writes, Yes, Paul, she says that both objects and numbers are reversed - see E.S. Instructions III (CW, Vol XII, p 613). Your insight amazes me sometimes :-). You are exactly right about going in the opposite directions. During the Arc of Ascent (where we are now) we are traveling in the opposite direction that we traveled during the Arc of Descent. Also, there are circles within circles, spirals within spirals, spirals within circles, and circles within spirals. Waking (astral to physical) is the opposite direction from sleeping (physical to astral), and birth is opposite to death, and so on. And no, we do not progress/evolve in a straight line. Anyone who thinks so is being terribly naive (IMHO). Just look at our dreams, or our life, as examples. Every day of our lives is not necessarily better or more spiritual than the last. Our dreams do not necessarily improve each night. The Zen story of the mountains is also applicable to theosophists. When we come into theosophy we see mountains as mountains, the physical world is an independent physical world. Then we learn about invisible worlds and planes, subtle stages and stages of matter and of being. The physical world is then seen in a new light; it is a reflection or expression of the six planes above/beyond it. Then we progress, hopefully, to the viewpoint of the Initiate (one who has seen the moon and KNOWS is not yet an Adept, but rather an Initiate, or Chela) when the physical is seen as the physical - but not exactly as before (it is seen to be dependent rather than independent, for example). The story, I think, illustrates a spiral rather than a circle. Paul also writes, I hope that everyone will agree with this. Richard writes, You may be right Richard, but as I recall, HPB always admitted that her Masters were human flesh and blood men. However, she also said that there were Nirmanakayas lurking around the astral. These are, in short, disembodied Masters, who remain in our atmosphere in order to guide and help us. This idea (although not with the term Nirmanakaya, which is used in the Mahayana in another sense) is Buddhist, but it can be found in other areas as well (the Saints of Christianity, for one). While it is true, the teaching itself opens up a whole can of worms, because anyone can now write stuff and claim it was channeled by a Nirmanakaya (Alice Bailey comes to mind, as one of the better ones). Anyway, it is very likely that HBP communicated with both embodied and disembodied Masters, so I can't really see where Paul's book will change much (but then again, I don't have a proper devotee attitude to them anyway, I suppose, so what do I know?). Jerry H-E writes, This touches on the "firing order" that I mentioned in my last posting. A person's firing order (TFA, AFT, FTA, and so on) will largely determine a person's ethical behavior. You are right Jerry, few seem to think first. Brenda writes, < H.P.B. has referred to something similar to the list which Jerry gave as the four aspects and three principles. It is found in the fifth volume of THE SECRET DOCTRINE, which I have loaned to my parents.> Brenda, this quote from HPB is also found in CW, Vol XII, page 613. When applied to the physical plane, the three aspects are solids, liquids, and gases, and these are said to be "based on four principles." By the way, I really like your visualization exercise. Thanks for sharing it. Brenda also says, < The most difficult of the principles to describe are those which lead into realms which are largely darkness for the personality in incarnation, a world of darkness existing before the physical and a world of darkness existing beyond the mental.> Exactly. It is like describing a peach to someone who has never tasted a peach. The funny thing is, even when our consciousness goes beyond these limits, it has a hard time trying to share its experiences there with the human personality. In other words, the personality/ego has a difficult time understanding not only what someone else says, but what our own higher Self says as well. HPB points this out, and says that while we often have experiences on the causal plane, while in deep dreamless sleep, we cannot recall those experiences when we wake, but rather they seem as a coma or blank nothingness. Brenda, I liked your discussion using teachings from Trungpa Rinpoche, who wrote a lot of good material about Tibetan Buddhism. I expect Jerry H-E to complain, though. It has recently surfaced that Rinpoche drank a lot, and was a womanizer, having had sex with many of his female students. Terribly unethical, you know. (see No Right, No Wrong, an interview with Pema Chodron, in Tricycle, Fall 93, pp 16-24. This is a fascinating article in which she says, "Trungpa Rinpoche was a provocative person. In 'Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism' he says that the job of the spiritual friend is to insult the student, and thats the kind of guy he was. If things got too smooth, he'd create chaos." Sounds a bit like HPB, doesn't it? ) Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 28 Aug 1994 20:43:49 -0400 From: IXCHEL@delphi.com Subject: to Aki, Lewis, and Frank To Aki and Lewis, Another angle at the "do not resist evil" is that in modern language one could say: Do not react to pro- vocation with angry emotion. I believe that the say- ings in the bible only penetrate the surface of what was being discussed at the time. Another reference to this interaction between our behavior and outer in- justice can be found in the I Ching, Hex. 33, Retreat. The Image states: "Mountain under heaven: the image of RETREAT. Thus the superior man keeps the inferior man at a distance, Not angrily but with reserve. The mountain rises up under heaven, but owing to its nature it finally comes to a stop. Heaven on the other hand retreats upward before it into the distance and remains out of reach. This symbolizes the behavior of the superior man toward a climbing inferior; he re- treats into his own thoughts as the inferior man comes forward. He does not hate him, for hatred is a form of subjective involvement by which we are bound to the hated object. The superior man shows strength (heaven) in that he brings the inferior man to a standstill (mountain) by his dignified reserve." I believe this passage gives just a little more explain- ation to the profound idea to "not resist evil." To Frank, Frank says: In my last post I was mainly seeking theosophical terms for what I was describing. However, I see this holograph- ic "reflection" I speak of, as having life upon a "screen" regardless of the origin of the picture/image. Like a store front window, you can look in and see the objects of the inner store/world, and you can see re- flected on the window an image of yourself and the outer environment, all at the same time. The Tibetan Book of the Dead describes monstrous holographic images as "representatives" of past and karmic thoughts, which we have accumulated over time. The "Voice" encourages us to not be frighten, but to acknowledge them as our own creations. By accepting responsibility for these "ghosts" we can then turn our attention toward the Light. Pretty symbolic if you ask me.............. Thanks for joining in with me and I will look into The Candle of Vision......................Sarah From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1994 09:59:06 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: Some responses Jerry S., I liked the "finger-pointing-at-the-moon analogies, both yours and Eldon's. My third-grade teacher had a good one too, which, in slightly modified form, has kept me on track in theosophy: "Remember, when you point your finger, three other fingers are [should be] pointing back at you. Regarding MASTERS REVEALED etc., you write: <"HPB always admitted that her Masters were human flesh and blood men. However, she also said that there were Nirmanakayas lurking around the astral. . . . Anyway, it is very likely that HBP communicated with both embodied and disembodied Masters so I can't really see where Paul's book will change much. . . .> I would have to agree that the book won't be so significant if, after all if Paul's superfine work to try to identify Morya and Koot-humi as actual, historical, "flesh-and-blood men, Theosophists immediately start saying that M and K-H really weren't the Ones who really gave HPB the important Guidance anyway. Yes, Paul is going to be very angry when he finds out he's got to start tracking down the *Fully* Disembodied Ones now as well. . . . (I'm pretty sure though, Jerry, this was not actually your attitude or intention in the post.) Warm regards, Richard Ihle p.s. The book, $16.95+, can be ordered from CUP Services, (800) 666-2211 (The book is great, I'm not kidding--and I wouldn't be saying this just for the 15% he is giving me. . . .) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1994 10:07:15 -0400 From: Aki Korhonen Subject: Re: Don't resist evil, reply to Sarah. Hello Sarah, you wrote... > Another angle at the "do not resist evil" is that in > modern language one could say: Do not react to pro- > vocation with angry emotion. I believe that the say- > ings in the bible only penetrate the surface of what > was being discussed at the time. Another reference to > this interaction between our behavior and outer in- > justice can be found in the I Ching, Hex. 33, Retreat. > The Image states: > "Mountain under heaven: the image of RETREAT. > Thus the superior man keeps the inferior man > at a distance, > Not angrily but with reserve. > > The mountain rises up under heaven, but owing to its > nature it finally comes to a stop. Heaven on the other > hand retreats upward before it into the distance and > remains out of reach. This symbolizes the behavior of > the superior man toward a climbing inferior; he re- > treats into his own thoughts as the inferior man comes > forward. He does not hate him, for hatred is a form of > subjective involvement by which we are bound to the > hated object. The superior man shows strength (heaven) > in that he brings the inferior man to a standstill > (mountain) by his dignified reserve." I'm sorry, I can't agree with you in this matter. You are right in your examples, but they don't illustrate the same point I was referring to. Do not get angry is the first of Jesus's new advice. It is different from "not to resist evil". Secondly, inferior man is not necessary evil. Evil is a principle that things and beings manifest. It has nothing to do of inferior and superior, it depends how you take it, sometimes evil may appear superior. And thirdly Jesus advice us, not to detach from evil, but the contrary, face it and to assimilate it, I think. One aspect in "not to resist evil" is that the evil is the consequence, its cause in the first place was our bad deeds. This is karma's simplified version. But I feel that this "not to resist evil" has something inside. Because it is so much against our normal logic and behaviour. I have heard that modern institutionalised christianity regard these commandments good, but impractical, unfit for our time. I found it amusing, they say that they are followers of the Christ, but they don't take his more difficult teachings seriously. Usually they remember that a man is a ruler of all earth, animals, nature, etc. by the justification from God. But I agree with you, that the Bible is far from being accurate. I think it is because of the fact, that is has been re-written, modified and translated by unenlightened people. But if somebody who have the patience to dig deeper into its esoteric meanings, may find something. I don't know. My experience is mainly second hand biblical knowledge, based on some theosophist explanations. Kind of instant Bible-insight. It is same with our national epoch "Kalevala", I can't find any deeper meanings without theosophical explanations from our theosophical researchers. Peace. aki. Oulu, Finland. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1994 10:09:47 -0400 From: Aki Korhonen Subject: Ethics and ignorance I think that Gautama Buddha's statement: " The ignorance is the worst sin." Can be understood as a ethical advice. What is the opposite of ignorance? Knowledge and understanding. I interpret it so, that if people would know and understand what are the consequences of their deeds, they would not commit a bad ones. I believe, that a true morality is based on such things, as understanding. The normal way of ethics is, that we are given a certain set of rules but not explanation why it is essential to be moral. Nowaday's people won't take such advice seriously, and they are right. Knowing can be of two kinds. The first way is normal intellectual way. We know something by rationalising, and we may even comprehend the matter, speak of it, etc. The second way is that we know something by experience. The best knowing is, if we have both. It is no much good, if have some experience, but don't comprehend them. Many times people understand why some ethical rules are necessary, but they don't have experiences related to it. So they don't know by their own experience what follows, if they cross the advice and what if they live by it. So they forget about it. I think, that if we are un-ethic or unmoral, life and karma hits us in some way. If we lack the theory, we don't know what and why we are hit. Then the correct ethical rules are in place. The best way to judge a moral advice, is to put it into practice. To actually test it. From your experience you notice, if it is a good or a bad one. If it works or not. Peace. aki. Oulu, Finland. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1994 10:11:31 -0400 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: principles;ethics Sarah, S> I see images when I close my eyes. What is the principle > which gives them life? What principle is vital in this > matter. (no pun intended). Kama-manas. I'm assuming you are not taking about the lightshows that one gets when one closes their eyes. That, of course, is physical. What we see astrally has a life of its own, but we attract these images according to our habits of thinking. We perceive these images by exercising an "astral consciousness," through the Kama-manasic principle. S> The images appear in the mind. > Can one say that the mind is manas and that it has a > reflective quality like a mirror? The mind (as we experience and think of it) is kama-manas. Manas is described as having a reflective quality "like a mirror", but even the Mahatmas never claimed to be conscious on this level, as a normal day to day consciousness. Being conscious in Manas is only done in deep meditation. Even KH talked of having likes, dislikes, preferences etc. The difference between HPB's Mahatmas and us has more to do with the states of consciousness they can reach, than with the day to day state of consciousness. Though, even here there is a difference, by virtue of their training. S> Then I put words > together with the pictures and call them thoughts. If I > can forget the words the pictures disappear. If I forget > the images/pictures the words disappear. If I have the > power to forget words/thoughts/images then I could say > I have control over my thinking. If I don't think or > imagine, I do not feel, and thus I cannot take action. > Action follows feeling, as you have pointed out an order > in Sanskrit partly: thoughts (kama-manas), feelings > (kama), actions (physical). It would then be important > to have a way to learn and practice thought and emotion- > al control. Control in the sense of being able to forget > and remember at will. If I understand you correctly, you are describing the "thinking" process of what I call a "psychic personality." One characteristic of this type is that they think in pictures. Another characteristic I have found (for whatever it is worth) is that they have an easier time grasping geometry and trigonometry than algebra. The trick isn't "forgetting" but "focusing", and being free of what one remembers. S> I would like to have theosophical > terms or Sanskrit words to correspond to this process I > have described. Go through ~The Voice of the Silence~, particularly in the first section, with this process in mind. It's all there, but slightly veiled--but I think you will see it easily enough. S> Would you elaborate on the process that > the Chela undergoes in order to achieve mastery? What > principles are involved throughout their development? In the Eastern tradition that HPB draws from, the chela goes though a period of training based upon the paramitas. The chela must learn to live and practice a very lofty set of ethical standards. These standards were partially presented in ~The Voice of the Silence.~ When ready, they are entrusted with teachings, then finally with training and preparation for initiation. You might take a look at HPB's article "Practical Occultism" (CW IX, 155-62) where she discusses some of this in detail. All of the principles are involved in their development. S> Will you explain it also in terms of where we are in > rounds, races, etc.? We are just past the half way point of evolution. In theosophical jargon: fourth round, fifth root race. The fifth root race started about five million years ago. This is the beginning of the journey up the luminous arc, when we will start loosing people. Rounds and races is a very difficult doctrine to grasp, mainly because it is not linear, and requires a different way of thinking. The only written exposition I have ever seen on this subject that is correct and reasonably complete is the one done by Adam Warcup. > If I react to stress with the feeling of anger, that > feeling makes me think aggressive and negative thoughts. > Then I say and do things that I will regret when the > emotion is past. If I do not allow circumstances to > control my feelings, and I remain calm, I could say > that I have mastery over my environment. What would > be the principle that I would be manifesting if I > could do this? There are meditation techniques designed to train a person to do just this. One is still in kama-manas, but gaining control over kama. S> Would you say that I have compassion > as I am not prone to upset over the faults and short- > comings of others? At least patience and understanding. S> If so, which of the higher princi- > ples is active at this time? Compassion is an attribute of buddhi. You would still be in kama-manas, but could, metaphorically speaking, have a ray of buddhi illuminating kama-manas. S> Or is compassion an > attribute of adepts only, or could an ordinary > individual display a higher principle if they > developed the capacity of non-emotional response. I don't know if "non emotional response" fits here. Depends upon what you mean. Everyone, except such people like full blown sociopaths are capable of compassion. S> Are we climbing the ladder of > principles through the rounds, races, etc.? Yes. > We are > in the fourth round and fifth race; what principles > have center stage at this time? The manasic subprinciple of kama. S> I realize that you have given some of the answers > to these questions in your previous post, however, > the repetition will drive the message in, especially > if it is the same answer but in response to a new > question. Thanks for your patience. Delighted to do it. > Yes I know Brett, but not real well. Please give him > my regards. I met you and April once in Los Angeles. > Brett was there. Thank you also for the update on > your group We had another meeting tonight, and I remembered you to Brett. A local authority on Alice Bailey did a presentation for us. We questioned him for three hours. Lewis, JHE>> since he admitted to all of the allegations (plus a lot >> more) in a formal hearing made up of people who (until he >> confessed) supported him. There was also a legal stenographer >> present who recorded the proceedings. >> I see the correlation between the movie and the Leadbeater >> scandal, as far as both issues concerned taking advantage of >> children. But beyond that, I'm not sure what you mean. For >> instance, in the movie; Mel Gibson was "tried" by a group of >> people who had already assumed his guilt, and Gibson never >> "confessed" any guilt. Mr. Leadbeater on the other hand, was >> tried by a group of people who all knew him personally, >> thought very highly of him, were very supportive (with the >> exception of only one person), and did not believe him capable >> of doing any wrong. That is why they were so deeply shocked >> when CWL not only admitted to doing all that he was accused >> of, but admitted to much more. >> By putting quotes around the words "historical facts" I >> take it that you question the historicity of what I have >> mentioned. Which "historical fact" do you question? L> Didn't the teacher admit guilt to save the boy in question > further inquiries? Perhaps CWL did the same. I didn't catch the movie that way. I thought he just agreed to stop seeing the boy, but didn't admit guilt. I don't see any reason to believe that CWL admitted guilt to save the boys of further inquires. Actually CWL's motivation for his admissions seem pretty transparent (though, as you say, we can't know for sure). He was in a room of supportive friends, who believed him to be of high occult status. When he made the admissions, he was unrepentant, and tried to argue that he had "occult reasons" for his actions, and made an allusion to some church practices. No one bought his argument, nor would they accept that any church would condone the practices that he admitted to. The more questions he answered, and the more he explained, the worse he looked. By the time he finished, every single person was solidly in favor of getting him out of the T.S., and as far away from it as fast as possible. But when it came to deciding upon an action, the room was divided over whether to accept his resignation or expel him. Olcott decided to accept his resignation and to not allow the members to know the reasons, for fear of causing a public scandal and embarrassment to the T.S. CWL offered to compose a letter of resignation and explanation to be published, but Olcott didn't feel that to be appropriate. L> Another similarity I thought was the teacher in the movie was > feared and misunderstood by the towns people who were suspicious > of him because of his burned face. I can imagine CWL, who was > clairvoyant, was someone consider "unusual" or strange. I don't think that fits the case with CWL. Rather than being feared, he was very much admired and respected by every person on that committee except one. L> The movie illustrates how someone can be misunderstood and > judged harshly by others because of circumstances and events > which seem to be one thing, but may in fact be another. For Mel yes. For Charles, I can't see it. CWL confirmed the circumstances and events to be what the witnesses reported. As for his "occult reason," he never raised that argument again. When the membership, years later, did become aware of some of the charges, he actually had the nerve to deny everything he had originally admitted. L> History is constantly being rewritten. I only heard last week > that the events which we all witnessed in Russia are already > being changed to suit the current mood of the country. The coup > leaders have been d declared innocent and that they were only > trying to protect their country! No doubt CWL also tried to "rewrite" history when he changed his story years later. However, he could not change the transcript that recorded what he said in the first place. L> Noone can truly know anothers motives. It has often been > suggested that we not judge others to harshly for this reason. > If I must judge CWL then I must do so based on what I know of > him. What I know of him is from reading many of his books. > Books which changed my life for the better and left me with a > deep feeling of gratitude and appreciation for his > contributions and still inspire me to work to help spread these > ideas. Motives aside, his actions are clearly wrong, even in light of today's more liberal laws and values. If he had made those admissions in a court of law, they would have put him behind bars for the rest of his life--which is probably why he never returned to Britain. But if we to consider motives, whatever they were, they won't undo the damage he did through his actions. If CWL inspires you to be a better person, then that is great. L> This brings me to another point I have often wanted to make > while reading comments on this list about the authority of one > writer vs another. I think it was in the preface to "Man, How, > Whince and Wither" that Annie Besant and CWL stated that they > were "early" students of theosophy and their writings should be > studied as their reports on their experiments. I think it was > also CWL who made the point that one should always consider the > latest work because it was only natural that the students who > came along later would build on the past making corrections and > adding to the body of information. > > This seems very sensible to me. I can't help but wonder if HPB > wouldn't be a little taken aback by the attitude that her work > was superior to others. Have you ever compared current editions of CWL's works to the original ones? If you haven't, your are in for a shock. Every new edition is a little thinner than the last, as they take out teachings that no longer hold up to what we know. For instance, the last edition of ~The Inner Life~ had 50 plus pages of CWL's description of the Martian people and their cities edited out. Someone once remarked to me that soon there will be nothing left to edit. In the first issue of ~The Theosophist~ HPB stated her editorial policy to be to publish what a person has to say in its entirety. In other words, an author should stand or fall on his own merits, and not be supported by the apologetic red pencil of the editor. Though HPB never claimed infallibility, and she wasn't, her teachings seem to have stood the test of time far better than CWL's. L> She constantly questioned her own work > and relied on others to help correct her mistakes. Can you give me an example or two? Jerry S., JS> Either Jerry is pulling my leg here, or perhaps Jerry doesn't > know what ethics are, or perhaps we are defining ethics > differently. I don't know which (?) But, just in case Jerry > is serious, and really doesn't know what ethics are, or is > defining them in some kind of theosophical way that I am > unaware of, let me quote from my Webster's New World > Dictionary:... If you look back to my initial suggestion and following discussion of the same, you will find that I did offer a definition of ethics, that is not inclusive of things like church regulations of how far from the shore a fisherman has to be before he is exempt from attending church. One again, I feel that I'm being challenged on straw man arguments that I never made in the first place. I don't know your motivation for this, but it is becoming evident that the subject of ethics really pushes a button in you. I would be interested in knowing what the underlying issues are with you, that you are so resistant to having people talk about ethics in a manner other than condemning the subject. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1994 10:12:32 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: answers to some questions This is by Brenda Tucker. Hello, everyone. Sarah, I think destruction is all that we are trying to rid our lives us, and purification is the effort to rid our lives of all destruction. I also think elementals could be a dangerous topic, so all I wish to say about them is that they are involving. Jerry S., People love to be moved up and thoughts love to be moved down. In the light of this you haven't loved people, but you have loved thoughts, by your little-minded story about Trungpa Trungpa. (However, if what Paul says about direction is true, then perhaps that isn't really down to a thought. In which case you haven't loved thoughts either.) I can't answer people any more fully, because my brain wants to switch direction. None of this is even my direction. I'm trying to study theosophy with people by saying what I think theosophy is, and it's a lot of things to a lot of different people. Thanks for sharing. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1994 10:13:10 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: one more comment This is by Brenda Tucker. Lewis, I love your post, so maybe it's safe to say "I love you," too. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1994 10:44:22 -0400 From: bill@Zeus.itdc.edu Subject: Past lives, reincarnation, and so on. Brenda, Thanks for your reply to my post. In addition to some remarks I would like to make on your comments to me, I also wanted to re- ply to this: > I know of no other place where I am able to write so easily to a real > President of The Theosophical Society in answer to his request for > ideas. Even when there are printed briefs in our national magazine, > it just doesn't have the ease of responding nor the selectiveness of > responding ... I just wanted you to know how > honored I am to be able to correspond with you on such a personal > basis. I believe John Algeo has an e-mail address too. You may want to contact him about it if you want to feel the same type of honor in the American section. And I am sure he would get any message you sent to theos@netcom.com which is found on the letterhead from Wheaton now. Now, with respect to your responses to my post: > Besant and Leadbeater's idea, ... I'm glad that you used the term "idea." With the recent spate of dialog on the pros and cons on Leadbeater, as well as my finding that Besant's theory of the bodies of man does not match with Blavatsky's "ideas" (one of the reasons my article was rejected according to Joy Mills), I am starting to think that some of the theosophical "ideas" are just that -- ideas. And like any "idea," the student uses it as a starting point for their own be- lief system until they can turn the belief into a known through personal experience. > There is also some crossover between groups, but it doesn't seem > like people would be much good without their pals and loved ones > (and enemies) from previous lives, although he says at some point > in the egos development it becomes easier for friends to separate > to accomplish some goal ... Is this Leadbeater's theory of karma? Did he believe that karmic "dues" must be paid to some specific soul or monad? (My theosophical education may be showing its (very) rough and rusty edges here. ;-) ) Or is this "idea" a general idea without a specific person-of-origin? One of the belief systems that I subscribe to (based on my theosophical and other studies), one that I am trying to turn into a known for myself, is that karma is a personal thing with few (if any) additional attachments. To me karma is related to the idea that we incarnate into the earth life system to learn one or more lessons. These lessons are personal lessons that are intended to promote our personal growth. The personal growth is intended to be our gifts that we bring when we return to the source. I wasn't aware (without my theosophical dictionary or glossary ;-) ) that my karma was *directly* tied to anyone else -- physi- cal, monadic, or otherwise. Do I really have to have my "pals and loved ones (and enemies)" around me in my next life to learn my spiritual lessons? Wouldn't it be just as beneficial if I in- carnated into *any* situation which has a good chance of provid- ing me the lessons I need to learn? ... regardless of which monads may or may not be incarnate at the same time? I don't know. I'm just asking. BTW, the term " ... loved ones ... " that you used previously kinda' pressed ... well, maybe just touched on ... well, perhaps just brushed by ... one of my emotional buttons. The context that it was used in reminded me of the term that a lot of new age-oriented romantics use when describing the feeling that they have finally found that one special person that they are supposed to spend the rest of eternity with: soul-mate. I don't know what theosophy might have to say about the concept but the whole idea of a special *one* really rubs me the wrong way. With 5.5 billion souls or monads currently incarnate in this earth life system, the "idea" that there is one and *only one* other for me to spend eternity with is just plain silly. And the "idea," for some unknown reason, tends to start to make me angry. Undoubtably this is some karmic issue that *I* have to deal with. > ... (If you > are really unsettled about Leadbeater ... Personally, I am not "unsettled" about Leadbeater at all. I haven't read a lot of his work -- just one or two things -- but I have nothing in particular against him. In fact, all of the dia- log back and forth on the issue came as a bit of a surprise to me. I didn't know that there were people in the TS or elsewhere that had such strong feelings on the issues. The thing that I *am* trying to work over in my personal belief systems is the difference between Blavatsky's theories and teachings and those of Annie Besant. Since Leadbeater was a con- temporary of Besant, I guess that crosses over to his theories as well. I don't have all of the details that I would like to have but the differences are something that I have spent a little time mulling over on more than one occasion. In particular (again), my special interest is in the theories of the bodies of man -- their constitution, purpose, and usage. And these two theosoph- ical notables seemed to have very different "ideas." > ... John Algeo has written a book on reincarnation and although > I haven't read it, I was fortunate enough to attend a lecture he > gave on the book's contents at Olcott ... Thanks for the tip. I have met John and corresponded with him recently. I am impressed with the man in a variety of ways and believe that he has the potential for doing some good things for the Society. If nothing else, I like some of the recent (albiet minor) changes to the American Theosophist. So I would probably enjoy reading things he may have written. > .. One explanation other than reincarnation is that he acquired > knowledge through a form of mental telepathy. If the experience > you told about your wife's friend were my experience, I wouldn't > even assume that I was the dead soldier with the candy bar. I > would instead mark it up to an intuition regarding someone I was > to meet in the future, my dreamworld or thoughts being impressed > by the strength of the incident in the future someone's > consciousness as perhaps karma drew us together ... Hmmmmmm ... interesting thoughts, I'll think about this. I'm sure that my telling of the story lost things in the translation. If you had heard her tell the story and knew something more of my belief systems, you might understand where I might not be in to- tal agreement with you on this one. However, it is an interest- ing "idea" and does deserve some additional thoughts on my part ... Hmmmmmm. Again, Brenda, thank you very much for your thoughts. I always appreciate it when someone takes the time to think over and reply (in a thoughtful manner) to something I've talked about or posted. May you always grok in fullness ... Bill-- |William A. (Bill) Parrette|4000 Executive Pk. Dr., #310 |bill@[Zeus.]itdc.edu |Cincinnati, OH 45241-4007 |** I do not speak for ITDC--all opinions are my own ** 513-733-4747 ----------------------+------------------+ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1994 11:59:55 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: Some responses Jerry S., I liked the "finger-pointing-at-the-moon" analogies, both yours and Eldon's. My third-grade teacher had a good one too, which, in slightly modified form, has kept me on track in theosophy: "Remember, when you point your finger, three other fingers are [should be] pointing back at you." Regarding MASTERS REVEALED etc., you write: <"HPB always admitted that her Masters were human flesh and blood men. However, she also said that there were Nirmanakayas lurking around the astral. . . . Anyway, it is very likely that HBP communicated with both embodied and disembodied Masters so I can't really see where Paul's book will change much. . . ."> I would have to agree that the book won't be so significant if, after all Paul's superfine work to try to identify Morya and Koot-Humi as actual, historical, "flesh-and-blood" men, Theosophists suddenly start saying that M and K-H really weren't the Ones who really gave HPB the important Guidance anyway. Yes, Paul is going to be *very* angry when he finds out he's got to start tracking down the *Fully* Disembodied Ones now as well. . . . (I'm pretty sure though, Jerry, that your post was merely a just-in-passing remark and that you did not intend all this.) Warm regards, Richard Ihle p.s. The book, $16.95+, can be ordered from CUP Services, (800) 666-2211 (The book is great, I'm not kidding--and I wouldn't be just saying this for the 15% he is giving me, either. . . .) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1994 18:59:48 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Comments on Cycles This is by Eldon Tucker. ---- Jerry S. & Paul J.: When we deal with anything that is cyclic, we find a start, a growth reaching a zenith, then a decline and eventual disappearance. We see that in a day, with dawn, high noon, then sunset. The year has Spring, Summer, and Autumn. A lifetime has birth, maturity, and death. (There is also a turning point in the silence, in the darkness, respectively the midnight, Winter, and reemergence of Tanha and renewed thirst for existence.) A cycle repeats itself, then happens again, and happens yet again. It never ends, unless the thing undergoing the cycle dies. There will always be the cycle of day and night as long as there is our physical globe, spinning on its axis. Consider a clock. The second hand moves from 12 to 1, 2, and sweeps around the clock's face, eventually coming back to the 12 again. It has descended to the 6, then reascended to the 12. At one point in time, it was descending; at another point in time it was ascending. Someone might argue that it is quite arbitrary which way it is going. But is this so? Each time that we go through a cycle of life, it is not the same thing. We are not the same people. The universe itself is not the same. The cycle itself has repeated, but we are something more, with each time through it. Each day we wake up and have our regular routine, there is something more to us that before. There are two ways to view the growth, the progress that happens each time that we repeat a cycle. One is regarding "wheels within wheels." Consider the analogy of a clock. As the second hand spins around, the minute hand is slowly moving forward, in its own direction, regardless of the upward or downward motion of the second hand. And the hour hand is moving, in its own direction, even more slowly. Even slower than the hands, the calendar itself is moving, at an almost- imperceptible pace. This shows relative degrees of reality, relative degrees of closeness to the absolute direction to the sweep of life. Looking at one level, the subordinate levels are Maya, illusion, ephemeral changes on the surface of things. Looking up to a higher level, we see a "purpose in life," a higher reality. Each cycle that we may thing of--that of a day, a lifetime, an manvantaric evolution--is but a passing phase of yet a bigger cycle. And there is no top-most cycle. Each cycle, no matter how grand, is rooted in yet a vaster cycle of yet more unimaginable proportion. This is an example of a Golden Tree of Life. All this is one way to view cycles. Another way to view them is more related to Chaos. Consider the birth of an being. That would be its first iteration, its first cycle of exis- tence in this particular lifetime. Everyone starts off nearly the same, but with continued interations, based upon slight differences in the initial impulse given to life, vast differences between individuals emerge. The iterations are not reversible, and with the increasing complexity of personality and attributes that one takes on with repeated differentiation of his consciousness in personal existence, soon it is no longer possible to maintain a unified consciousness. The life energies start to break down, the coherent whole of the individual starts to fragment, and death eventually ensues. (An partial analogy to this can be watched with a Julia Set, using a fractal-generating computer program like "fra- ctint." Everything starts off as a circle with the first iteration, but quickly takes on individual shapes in a few iterations. And after a while many break apart and rapidly dissolve into an infinite cloud of dust (a Cantor Set).) Under this view to the cyclic nature of things, each cycle is started completely anew. There is an increasing complexity to manifest life, as myriad choices are made and one becomes more differentiated as a personality. Eventually the complexity becomes too much to sustain and death is required. This is followed, after a period of rest and assimilation, with another attempt at life in the world. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1994 19:01:29 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Ethics is a Part of Life This is by Eldon Tucker ---- Ethics is A Part of Life Ethics, like other aspects of life, is inter-woven with the rest of the Philosophy. It cannot be considered apart from the other grand ideas and ideals, anymore than reincarnation and karma could be. We can learn more about it when examining it in conjunction with the other Teachings. Consider the doctrine of karma. We have our individual karma, made by our personal choices in life. We are self-made and control our individual destinies. Yet there is also group karma. There is, for instance, national karma, in which we share because of our birth into a particular country, and our long-standing relationships with the others incarnating in that nation at the present time. In a similar way, we could say that there is individual ethics, and national ethics. There is the sense of right and wrong, the knowledge of good and evil, the awareness of the benefit or harm, to ourselves and others, by our actions. We make for ourselves certain rules of behavior, certain stan- dards of conduct that we try to live by. These rules are based upon the type of person that we want to be (or see ourselves as), and upon our experience of other people and the society that we live in. We know when we've done something good or wrong. The term for that awareness is "conscience," and we all have it, to some degree. Taking a look at the larger picture, we are each in- dividuals in a particular society. We are taught to obey the laws of the land that we live in, to live in harmony with others, to peacefully coexist with others. We are further told to not just coexist, but to live for their benefit, to think of their benefit on an equal basis with our own, to truly care about their needs to. The Golden Rule, to do unto others what we'd have them do unto us is taken literally: we accept their needs and lives as equally important with our own. Now considering the *needs* of others does not mean working to satisfy their desires, which may be self-destruc- tive. We consider the *needs* of others on an equal basis with our own, and the balance is never tipped in our direction if the greater good would have otherwise. And it is the same with our society. We may, at great cost to ourselves, seek to fulfill the needs of society, by opposing its current struc- ture, by refusing to satisfy its current desires. When we truly care for others, we want the best for them. We do not use them as tools to achieve our own end. We consider each situation on its own merits, looking at the overall good. There is no self-conscious awareness of oursel- ves as individuals, apart from the rest, fighting for our own benefit at the cost of others. This forgetting of self, this transcending of the personal sense of separateness, we find as called "self-forgetfulness" in our literature, and it is an important quality of spiritual consciousness that is a special treasure. In Zen, we are trained to lose ourselves in the situat- ion, to become so completely absorbed in what we are doing that we momentarily forget the sense of self and do things in perfect enjoyment. This enjoyment comes from the momentary liberation from the sense of personal self. This sense of personal self is a painful burden. Carrying it with us, it is like going through life wearing a pair of too-small shoes, shoes that hurt our feet to put on, and hurt even more when we walk on them. It is indeed a blissful sensation to take them off! The personality does not go away, as we progress, but it becomes responsive to the spiritual will. As we progress, our awareness shifts deeper within, and the personality, rather than being the central focus of our awareness, instead becomes another means to give expression to ourselves. It does not go away; it does not even necessarily become a thing of beauty or a model of psychological health. Rather, the personality loses its function at that part of our inner nature which we pay attention to and identify with, replaced by something deeper within. When we define ethics in terms of a system of moral conduct, considering it at the level of society, imposing rules of interaction upon its citizens, we are considering Group Ethics (analogous to Group Karma). Considering our individual choice to belong to that society, our individual choice as to how to interact with other individuals, and our individual choice as to how to live our own life, we are con- sidering Personal Ethics (analogous to Personal Karma). With ethics itself, what do we have? There are certain rules of conduct, certain general principles, like "do not kill others," or "do not cheat on college tests." Each rule has valid reasons for its formulation, based upon wanting to balance individual freedom with the rights of others to remain free from harm. The balance attempts to achieve the greatest common good for all. Looking at any particular rule, giving it our closest scrutiny, we find that it needs qualification when applied to any particular situation. When we say, for instance, "do not kill others," we might qualify it to say "unless they are about to kill your family and there is no other possibly way to stop them." There is a difference, then, between the general rule and its particular application to any situation. This difference can be found with any type of analysis, any time of awareness, any time of consciousness. There is the general formulation, based upon the cumulative experience of the past, the essence of previous experiences. And there is the specific ap- plication, based upon the particular needs of the present, the complexity of the situation before us. The storehouse of our past experiences, the generalized knowledge of the workings of live and the right way for us to live it, is found in our Higher Natures. The personality represents the specific way that we have brought it out in the present lifetime. The personality suffers for all the choices that we have made in this life, all the compromises necessary to get by in life, and it is quite glad to achieve liberation from the bondage of physical existence by the type we reach the death of the physical body. I would consider the ethical consciousness, the ethical awareness as arising out of our connectedness with others. This awareness can only be possible because we are all interrelated, in our inner natures. We all participate in the process of cocreating the world. The world would not be the same were any one of us not to exist! And that interaction helps define both the world and ourselves. We know and sense the natures of each and every other being in existence through that cooperative effort. And that connection is in Buddhi, in our buddhic principle of consciousness. It is more deeply- rooted, more fundamental than the separate sense of personal self, which comes with Manas. And it is but one removed from a sense of Identity with all life, a sense of the universal Self which we realize in our highest principle, Atman. When we consider past theosophical personages, we have to take care in our judgments of them. If someone is dead, and no longer able to help or harm others, it is not necessary to warn anyone to stay away from him. If that person had both a good and an evil side to their personalities, we can still benefit from the good, and downplay the evil. (This does not mean the suppression of historical information about key individuals in the Theosophical Move- ment. It means keeping things in the right context. I could joke and suggest a rating system: "EH" for explicit history and "IP" for idealized philosophy, so that readers may prescreen materials before actually reading them.) Apart from a historic study, the personal problems of past personages is not important. What is important is their philosophical differences. Their ideas must stand or fall on their own, based upon consistency with the Esoteric Philo- sophy. Any individual thought and writing stands the risk of error. Compare the writings of each person to those of Blavatsky, the Mahatmas, and what grand truths that we can derive from the great exoteric philosophies and religions of the world. Does it arise out of the same source? This comparison can be difficult, impossible for many. Until an individual has reached a certain point, comes in touch with the theosophical thought-current, and is capable of individual thought along these lines, the selection of ideas seems arbitrary. Until one has awakened his Inner Thinker, or rather come into active relationship with it, one is a follower and believer or non-believer. Until then, there is no apparent reason for choosing one writer over another, for choosing one religion, philosophy, system of belief over the next. After that relationship is established, one can choose, and knows, to a degree, how to mine the "gold" from the common ore. The search for ethics is the same as the search for knowledge. One set of rules of conduct seems no better than the rest, until one has come in touch with one's inner Rule Maker, and starts to see the right and wrong in everything in a fresh, original way, through direct insight rather than the recollection of rules imposed from without. This Rule Maker is Buddhi, and its active participation in life brings a new type of consciousness to the moment-to-moment situation, as we give it our complete emotional, mental, and *moral* attention. When we speak of highly advanced individuals going from moral to "amoral" consciousness, it is comparable to in- dividual and national karma. Until we take self-responsibility for our lives, we have personal karma, but are also strongly influenced by the sweep of national events, by external society, by group karma. Also as to ethics: until we take self-responsibility for our lives, we have personal ethics, but are also strongly influenced by the national values, by external society, by group ethics. What are we striving for? To be able to look within and know, to feel ourselves firmly rooted in a spiritual universe rooted in compassion, to truly see and understand what is right and live accordingly. What prevents us from doing so? The disbelief that it is impossible to achieve, or so far- removed from life as to be unachievable until some far-distant future lifetime. But both are not true! We are so close to the spiritual, to the higher side of things, that we have it now. We just do not let ourselves see it! It is said that the Kingdom of God is on earth already, but we see it not. Well, the Spiritual Nature is with us, an integral part of the fabric of our conscious, and *we know it not.* How do we *not* know it? By not giving it our self- consciousness, by allowing it to be unselfconscious, by the denial of our attention and awareness. It is true that it takes time, there is a process that must be undergone to make it an outwardly manifest part of our lives. We must go from point A to point B, and from B to C, and so on, following a natural process of self-unfoldment. But that which is to be unfolded is already there! It is not waiting to be created, only waiting its turn to be manifest in the world as an integral part of our lives! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 14:56:09 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Note to Daniel Hampton This is by Eldon Tucker. ---- Daniel Hampton: In your last posting I read two things that you are looking for: answers for the mind and warmth for the heart. The process of inner growth is described in different ways. On one hand, it is said that the growth must come from with. On the other hand, we have the analogy of fire, where it is much easier to get started from someone else's fire than to start a flame from nothing. The first view says that you initiate the changes from within. The second view suggests that the changes can much more quickly be engendered from others, from people that already have the qualities you seek after. If you want to become a great musician, do you buy a piano, read books on music, and practice on your own? Or do you take lessons from accomplished pianists, and possibly enroll in some great musical school like Juliard and learn from the best musical minds that our society has to offer? The bigger question regards the Mysteries. If you want to learn about the occult truths, the hidden knowledge that is not publicly available, knowledge that deals with other planes of existence, the nature of consciousness, and the mysteries of our inner growth, what do you do? Read a book and practice on your own? Or seek out others to "help light your fire?" It is fairly easy to find churches or fraternal societies that provide lots of warmth and personal love. The feeling is often limited, though, to fellow members. It's more often "we love and care about ourselves" than "we care about our fellow man as much as for ourselves." I would say that we take our love with us, that the love originates from our feeling of connectedness with others. The type of love that originates from caring for someone because he has been so nice, so unselfish, so generous with you, though, is a ephemeral, a surface, a non-lasting type of love. The deeper kind of love is not passionate, not romantic, not resulting from a pleasurable give-and-take with another. The deeper love is based upon truly caring for the other as much as for yourself, because seeing that person as equal in the deepest possible sense. It is more a sense of "family" love, a kind that is always there, throughout good and bad, that is rock-solid because coming from deep within, rather than tied to passing moods and fancies. It is possible to find and become rooted in this deeper love, and to make it an integral part of our lives. And then we are nourished, and do not need to seek out fraternal organizations because of our neediness. We seek out things that interest and engage us, things that allow us to *express* what is within, rather than things that fulfill our needs, things that satisfy a sense of hunger or neediness in life. When we say that Theosophy is a religious philosophy, that means that it properly has both a religious and a philosophical side. The religious side deals with deeply-felt spiritual needs, and addresses our place in life, our feeling of belonging and purpose and rootedness in the Mystery of Being. Theosophy has a religious side, but does not provide an organized religion. There are no priests, no creed, no code of behavior, no list of ethical rules to adhere to. We are provided with the raw materials that a religion is made of, but not given a completely-formed religion to join. We have either a "do it yourself" religion, or use some of the religious materials to modify and enhance our existing religion. When we speak of the philosophical side to Theosophy, we are dealing with pure philosophy. The word literally means "the love of wisdom." And we are seeking wisdom out of a genuine love of it for its own sake, as well as for the benefit that it has in our lives and the lives of others that we are able to share it with. A wise man--someone truly wise and not just a pretender--is happy with life, for there is understanding, peace, and purpose, and he sees and appreciates it. There are beauties to life that we remain blind to, for our lack of Wisdom, and no one but ourselves keeps us from beholding them. An approach to wisdom is to first attain knowledge, then to incorporate it into our lives. This is where we most often fall short. We gather ideas, information, theories about things, but never make them part of our experience. Reading a book on dieting does not lose us any weight, unless we try to apply the concepts learned. Studying the theory of music does not make us accomplished pianists; it is the application of that theory in daily practice, that makes it truly real. And the same is true with the theosophical philosophy. The ideas are but theories, without any impact on our lives, without the actual application, the daily practice, that makes them living realities for us. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 14:58:04 -0400 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Kalavala Aki wrote: >...It is same with our national epoch "Kalevala"... I am not familiar with this work. I would be interested to hear more of it and it's theosophical interpretations. Lewisllucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 14:59:34 -0400 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Past lives, reincarnation, and so on. Bill wrote: > Is this Leadbeater's theory of karma? Did he believe that karmic > "dues" must be paid to some specific soul or monad? (My > theosophical education may be showing its (very) rough and rusty > edges here. ;-) ) Or is this "idea" a general idea without a > specific person-of-origin? Bill, I have an "idea" to share along this line. I can't say exactly how I got this idea other than from reading books on theosohpy, including CWL's. It is that karma comes in more than one variety. Yes, there is personal karma. I think HPB argued it was only just that we right our wrongs rather than some appointed scapegoat (Jesus). Another I have heard of is group karma, which is the result of being members of different groups acting in concert, giving our support to different governments, organizations, countries, etc. I have also heard tell of karma--which by the way I understand to be a very impartial law of nature working to restore the perfect harmony which existed in the lake of the universe before we all started splashing around in it--which is delayed. Our cosmic credit balance. How do you feel about credit? > One of the belief systems that I subscribe to (based on my > theosophical and other studies), one that I am trying to turn > into a known for myself, is that karma is a personal thing with > few (if any) additional attachments. To me karma is related to > the idea that we incarnate into the earth life system to learn > one or more lessons. These lessons are personal lessons that are > intended to promote our personal growth. The personal growth is > intended to be our gifts that we bring when we return to the > source. > > I wasn't aware (without my theosophical dictionary or glossary > ;-) ) that my karma was *directly* tied to anyone else -- physi- > cal, monadic, or otherwise. Do I really have to have my "pals > and loved ones (and enemies)" around me in my next life to learn > my spiritual lessons? Wouldn't it be just as beneficial if I in- > carnated into *any* situation which has a good chance of provid- > ing me the lessons I need to learn? ... regardless of which > monads may or may not be incarnate at the same time? I don't > know. I'm just asking. I see your point and think you are probably right much can be handled this way. However, I also think love and hate are strong ties which may need to be worked out on more "personal" level. You seem to be arguing for more personal in one place, but more universal here. So maybe you can see the need for both. Yes? >BTW, the term " ... loved ones ... " that you used previously >kinda' pressed ... well, maybe just touched on ... well, perhaps >just brushed by ... one of my emotional buttons. The context >that it was used in reminded me of the term that a lot of new >age-oriented romantics use when describing the feeling that they >have finally found that one special person that they are supposed >to spend the rest of eternity with: soul-mate. I don't know what >theosophy might have to say about the concept but the whole idea >of a special *one* really rubs me the wrong way. With 5.5 bil- >lion souls or monads currently incarnate in this earth life sys- >tem, the "idea" that there is one and *only one* other for me to >spend eternity with is just plain silly. And the "idea," for >some unknown reason, tends to start to make me angry. Undoubt- >ably this is some karmic issue that *I* have to deal with. > I am with you all the way on this one. I remember Dora Kunz once saying that this idea of soulmates was nonsense to her, as was well as the idea of guardian angels. I think she was more of a universalist on this one and me too. > > ... (If you > > are really unsettled about Leadbeater ... > > Personally, I am not "unsettled" about Leadbeater at all. I >haven't read a lot of his work -- just one or two things -- but I >have nothing in particular against him. In fact, all of the dia- >log back and forth on the issue came as a bit of a surprise to >me. I didn't know that there were people in the TS or elsewhere >that had such strong feelings on the issues. > > The thing that I *am* trying to work over in my personal be- >lief systems is the difference between Blavatsky's theories and >teachings and those of Annie Besant. Since Leadbeater was a con- >temporary of Besant, I guess that crosses over to his theories as >well. I don't have all of the details that I would like to have >but the differences are something that I have spent a little time >mulling over on more than one occasion. In particular (again), >my special interest is in the theories of the bodies of man -- >their constitution, purpose, and usage. And these two theosoph- >ical notables seemed to have very different "ideas." > How so. I don't see the big deal here. Both taught a septenary constitution and ascribed certain functions to those seven bodies. Wether you count from the top or the bottom or subdivide functions in one place or another doesn't change the value and importance of eithers "ideas". Sometimes it seems to me we argue about the trees and lose site of the beauty of the forest we are in and the path through it which they both we trying desparetly to point out to us. > > Bill-- Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 15:04:13 -0400 From: Gerald Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: White Flag Well, what can I say? I tried to present my views on ethics, and got condemnation from all sides (it reminds me of the time I co- authored an essay on sex for Ralph Nurrey's THEOSOPHICAL NETWORK, which gleaned similar results). Sarah read somewhere that I think ethics are "wrong" - which is close to 180 degrees from what I thought I was saying. Jerry H-E read between my lines that I am downright hostile toward the notion of ethics; perhaps not 180 degrees away, but pretty close. Maybe the problem is in the language itself. Well, whether so or no, I will leave my dictionary safely on the shelf, if only for Sarah's sake. On the one hand, I got some folk's juices stirred; a worthy endeavor all by itself. On the other hand, disappointment has set in because not one single person apparently understood my drift (I was really hoping for at least one). I find it interesting that theosophists deplore anyone forcing the development of psychic abilities, and yet extoll the virtues of forcing ethics down their own and other's throats. What seemed to me to be such an obvious notion - that by cultivating compassion and spiritual insight, we can let both psychic abilities and ethics come into our lives quite naturally whereas when either is forced, grave physical and psychological dangers can arise - got lost in the desire to see ghosts where none existed. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 15:08:26 -0400 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: ethics There is a Laguna/Acoma story that "white men" were created by an evil magician in a contest of such magicians to see who could create the most heinous deed. This is the spell the most wicked of the magicians told: Caves across the ocean in caves of dark hills white skin people like the belly of a fish covered with hair. Then they grow away from the earth then they grow away from the sun then they grow away from the plants and animals. They see no life When they look they see only objects. The world is a dead thing for them the trees and rivers are not alive. The deer and bear are objects They see no life. They fear They fear the world They destroy what they fear. They fear themselves. The Wind will blow them across the ocean thousands of them in giant boats swarming like larva out of a crushed ant hill. They will carry objects which can shoot death faster than the eye can see. They will fill the things they fear all the animals the people will starve. They will poison the water they will spin the water away and there will be drought the people will starve. They will fear what they find They will fear the people They kill what they fear. Entire villages will be wiped out They will slaughter whole tribes. Corpses for us Blood for us Killing killing killing killing. And those they do not kill will die anyway at the destruction they see at the loss at the loss of the children the loss will destroy the rest. Stolen rivers and mountains the stolen land will eat their hearts and jerk their mouths from the Mother, The people will starve. They will bring terrible diseases the people have never known. Entire tribes will die out covered with festered sores shitting blood vomiting blood. Corpses for our work Set in motion now set in motion by our witchery set in motion to work for us. They will take this world from ocean to ocean they will turn on each other they will destroy each other Up here in these hills they will find the rocks, rocks with veins of green yellow and black. They will lay the final pattern with these rocks they will lay it across the world and explode everything. Set in motion now set in motion To destroy To kill Objects to work for us objects to act for us Performing the witchery for suffering for torment for the stillborn the deformed the sterile the dead Whirling Whirling Whirling Whirling set into motion now set into motion. So the other witches said "Okay you win; you take the prize, but what you said just now- it isn't so funny It doesn't sound so good. We are doing okay without it we can get along without that kind of thing. Take it back. Call that story back." But the witch just shook its head at the others in their stinking animal skins, fur and feathers. It's already turned loose. It's already coming. It can't be called back. (Retold by Leslie Marmon Silko, in ~Storyteller.~) Aki, A> I think that Gautama Buddha's statement: "The ignorance is the > worst sin." Can be understood as a ethical advice. What is the > opposite of ignorance? Knowledge and understanding. I interpret > it so, that if people would know and understand what are the > consequences of their deeds, they would not commit a bad ones. > I believe, that a true morality is based on such things, as > understanding. Yes, right on! That is why it is important for people to learn to think about their ethical system, and examine one's values that are behind them. The reason why Buddhism is so highly spoken of in the Mahatma Letters is because it is basically an ethical religion. The concern of the core Buddhists teachings is not salvation, but to teach good people to take responsibility for themselves and to live more ethical lives. A> The normal way of ethics is, that we are given a certain set > of rules but not explanation why it is essential to be moral. > Nowaday's people won't take such advice seriously, and they are > right. Those are ethical precepts. Typically people use them or ignore them according to what suits their convenience. This behavior is called "situational ethics." For instance, "though stealing is wrong, it is OK for me to steal from this company because they underpay me anyway. So they really owe it to me." Or, it is OK to cheat on her, because what she doesn't know won't hurt her." etc. The real practice of ethics is not the mindless following of rules, or of the rationalizing of them to get what one wants. It is learning to reason at a level where one balances the issues of self-responsibility with one's responsibility to others. Kohlberg's research suggests that most people don't know how to do that yet. They are more inclined to either go by rules (legalistic), or by what they can get away with (situational ethics). Fortunately, however, ethical thinking can be learned. Eldon, I like your philosophical connection of ethics to karma. In a sense, it is karma that creates ethical standards that become encoded in laws. ET> The search for ethics is the same as the search for > knowledge. One set of rules of conduct seems no better than > the rest, until one has come in touch with one's inner Rule > Maker, and starts to see the right and wrong in everything in > a fresh, original way, through direct insight rather than the > recollection of rules imposed from without. This Rule Maker is > Buddhi, and its active participation in life brings a new type > of consciousness to the moment-to-moment situation, as we give > it our complete emotional, mental, and *moral* attention. Yes! Kohlberg calls this "post conventional" thinking. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 15:10:05 -0400 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Ethics:The 5 Commandments of Jesus. "I see!" cried the blind man. Thank you. It is a bit clearer. I guess my nature is to fight injustices, so assumed that was being discouraged. However, if I understood you, it is only so if it is your own karma you are fightining. It being perfectly acceptible to take up someone elses defense, as suggested in the Golden Stairs ...a valiant defense for those who are unjustly attacked.. Would you agree with that? Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 16:04:10 -0400 From: "Leonard E. Cole" <71664.3642@compuserve.com> Subject: Kalevala Lewis Lucas - I'm sure Aki will fill you in more completely on this subject, but for starters take a look at: BLAVATSKY: COLLECTED WRITINGS, Vol. X, First Edition, 1964, pp. 143-148, "The National Epic of Finland (Review)." or Lucifer, Vol. III, No. 14, October, 1888, pp. 149-152. leonard cole From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 14:53:39 -0400 From: OSMAR DE CARVALHO Subject: Survey and Dora Crespo > Osmar, > I was very pleased to see that your Brazilian survey showed > that out of the 19 topics named that should be covered by > theosophical publications, ethics came in third. You made my > day! I believe "ethics" is "in" because right here we have a strong movement of revaluation of the T.S. activities and methods, mainly toward the members. Last week, in our lodge we made a panel abouth diferent ethical perspectives, including professional, religious and theosophic. Whith the survey questionnaire we included a "manifest", whose main objective was to set the minds of the new theosophists generation to the perspectives of the T.S. work in the next century. > We have a very close friend in Bolivia who has a > theosophical center there. Her name is Dora Crespo. Have you > heard of her? No. Is she on the net? If not, give her address, please. Namaste. Osmar *|) osmardc@bra000.canal-vip.onsp.br ___ GLASHwave/QWK v2.12 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 21:16:44 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: The Dark Night of the Soul This is by Eldon Tucker ---- Gerald Schueler: Regarding the Path that is before us, we have considered different ways to model it, different ways of describing it in words. Ultimately, it can only be appreciated in doing it, in personal experience. Words are needed, thought, to talk about the processes, and some model or models must be built to use as a description. One model describes the Path, the road to Enlightenment, as a gradual, almost-continuous process of growth and unfol- ding. Another model describes the process as sudden, abrupt, dramatic. We have the Gradual School and the Sudden School, two differing schools of thought, both attempting to describe the very same thing: the unfolding of our inner God. A more-advanced way of considering the process combines both approaches. We say that there is always growth, that it progresses gradually, continuously, with every instant of time. The little green shoot has broken through the ground, and poking its way into the light, grows bigger with each passing day in the sunlight. To accept that this is happening, though, requires a degree of Faith, a belief that something is really happening. Living a certain way, we effect changes in our lives. But those changes take time to appear. The results of our actions may take time to show up in the outer world. Even so, we can be aware *within ourselves* that the changes are happening, because we experience the changes in our consciousness far sooner than they appear in the body, the attributes of personality, or the circumstances of the outer world. In addition to the gradual growth that we experience, there are also sudden, abrupt changes that may happen in our lives. We may undergo radical transformations, when the time is right, and become entirely different people. Our physical appearance may not be any different, but inside, in our personalities, we may undergo dramatic changes. This can be as dramatic as ice melting into water, a caterpillar becoming a butterfly, or the transition of physical death. We have reached the point, in our gradual growth, where no further progress is possible without completely transforming oursel- ves. And this transformation of our inner natures is called Initiation. When we approach the point where such a transformation is necessary, where we can no longer proceed in life the way things were before, we approach a point of stagnation. Things no longer seem to work for us. What we previously held dear to our hearts is now felt to be valueless. We have come to a point of transition, a place in our lives where we have to undergo a radical state change, a transformation of our being, or die. This does not necessarily mean physical death, but inner death, certainly, a loss of the inner inspiration, of the inner connectedness with our higher natures, a spiritual death. We have a paradox here, for we must die to our past, to what we were before, in order to live, in order to move on in life as the new being that we were meant to be. We have these transitions, these minor deaths, these passages throughout our lives. Some are minor changes, other are major, making us into new personalities, different people than before. But on a vast scale, considering our spiritual evolution over tremendous periods of time, there are Major Transitions. When we approach readiness for one of these Initiations, we face a "Dark Night of the Soul," a period where we feel completely abandoned by life. All our live energies have departed from the old ways, and we have to die in a big way, to completely leave our old selves behind, in order to make the transition, to undergo the transformation, to undertake the Initiation and move forward in life. There is another side to this "Dark Night of the Soul," something less obvious, of a more esoteric nature. It regards a special stage of the Initiation process itself, where the Initiant is facing his trail, apparently abandoned by his Higher Self, and forced to become, to a degree, that Higher Self himself. We are forced to completely stand alone, without even the aid of our higher Monads, and undergo the trials and evoke certain grand qualities from ourselves. We learn to become a source, ourselves, as Human Monads, of what we have come to receive as influences from our Spiritual Monads, and have moved one step closer to the day when we will have become Spiritual Monads ourselves.