From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 1 Sep 1994 09:33:21 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: England's justice This is by Brenda Tucker. Jerry H-E: Here is what H.P.B. had to say about the kind of justice available in England. "Women are to this day - in England, before the law at any rate - merely the goods and chattels of their husbands, and mere objects of lust but for only too many. Slanders-private or public-are rarely, if ever, save in cases of blackmail, directed against wealthy men; thus, the rich alone have a chance of being "reputed pure" as the prophet has it. But what of the poor man, of one who has no means of going to law for redress: in England, for instance, where justice is the most expensive thing in the Kingdom, and where it is sold in ounces, and paid in pounds-what of him? And what of one, who, besides being poor, is falsely accused, of what WHICH HE CAN NO MORE DISPROVE THAN HIS ENEMY CAN PROVE-with the handicap, moreover, against him, that while slander and bad reports require no proofs to be eagerly believed in by charitable Christians at large, he can no more disprove the charge-say, of having murdered his mother-in-law in a dream- than he can pay his "costs" in court? For, does not the smallest lawsuit generally equal three fires and a successful burglary? How is one so situated, to protect and vindicate himself? In the eyes of the whole world, save of his friends, he stands accused of everything his traducers can invent, and thus he remains at the mercy of any blackguard who owes him a grudge. And oh, the terrible helplessness, and the mental agony of the victim, especially in the lands of BLESSED freedom of speech and press, such as England and America! Do what he may, the slandered man will go down into his grave with a name left dragging in the mud of calumny; and the inheritance of his children will be the opprobrium attached to that name." CW Vol XII, p. 387-388. Elsewhere in my reading, H.P.B.'s selected spokesperson for Europe has said that Europeans will not ever strive for the ethics of the Eastern Initiates, that a European's temperament is too active, etc. Since you, Jerry, are always in such agreement with H.P.B., I'm sure that this is the same picture you meant to portray when referring to C.W.L.'s treatment. He wouldn't be treated fairly there either. Some additional background: The excerpt above by H.P.B. is in response to a prophecy which she found in the PURANAS which paints a very dismal portrait of the morals of a future society which she then likens to what was then presently occurring in Europe. I definitely think someone interested in History should follow the tradition of the Eastern Initiates and look for information that is etched in stone or in the stars, rather than rely on the printed word of today. The older your history is, the better it is and I'd like to write more on the stone and spirit, if I can formulate it, for next Monday. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 1 Sep 1994 10:34:36 -0400 From: Aki Korhonen Subject: Re: White Flag Hello Gerald, you wrote: > 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- ..(deleted text)... > 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. Your hopes were not in vain, I still think of your statement at your post, "A Problem with Ethics", at 18th of August. I have also asked some senior Theosophist of this question, but not yet have got an answer that would have put me on ease. Here is that part of your post: >Gerald> 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. ... Any ideas? Peace, aki. Oulu, Finland. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 1 Sep 1994 12:02:10 -0400 From: bill@Zeus.itdc.edu Subject: Re: Past lives, reincarnation, and so on. Lewis, Thanks for your reply. You wrote: > 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 is delayed. Our cosmic credit > balance. How do you feel about credit? ... Okay, I'll buy into this one for now. I've heard of the group karma idea before -- it seems reasonable. I'll have to do some thinking on it though before I get a real grokking. Credit? I think it is the bane of mankind. :-) But, boy, does Visa and MasterCard love the way my SO uses it. ;-) Karmic credit? Hhhmmmmm ... I dunno'. > ... 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'm glad that at least two other people in this incarnation agree with me. Now all I have to do is figure out why the men- tion of the term pushes that emotional button of mine! I used to love reading Richard Bach until I got to _One_ where he goes off about this "soul mate" thing about him and his wife (maybe it was _Bridge_Across_Forever_ -- maybe both). I still think that he has some interesting things to say but I haven't read him since. > 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. Now this one confuses me. When I had Joy Mills look over the paper (article) I wrote (mentioned here before), I got a very clear message from her (I thought). She told me that there were several different views on man's "constitution" and that Besant and Blavatsky were different on their "ideas." I was told that Blavatsky taught a 7-fold constitution while Besant promoted a 5-fold constitution. I even remember that during my research I had become confused by this. Before reading _Man_and_His_Bodies_ I was told/had read that there were 7 different bodies according to theosophical theory. Then while reading Besant's book, I thought I found only 5 mentioned. (Maybe 2 of the bodies she had subdivided, I don't know -- maybe that's how I justified it in my mind at the time.) Oh well ... Again, thanks for your response. I like it when people make me think -- I try to use it to learn. 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: Thu, 1 Sep 1994 14:30:43 -0400 From: bill@Zeus.itdc.edu Subject: Re: Past lives, reincarnation, and so on. Hi Jerry H-E, Eldon, Paul, and all: Recently, Jerry H-E wrote: > 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 ... Well, I cannot speak for all of the readers and posters in this very tiny segment of the net -- I can only speak for myself. But personally, I *do* have a real interest in theosophical teachings. I believe I have already described how I was drawn into join- ing the TS -- no need to recall it here. But I cannot believe that it was just a matter of chance. Jung would have called it (Oops, theres one of those "digested ideas of Jung." ;-) ) syn- chronicity, others might have said I was just using my intuition -- I don't know what to call it! All I can say is that "I'm here and I want to learn all that I can." I have a *very* strong feeling (or intuition) that I was drawn to the TS for a purpose. I just have to find out what it is. > 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. Well, as to not being well read, I guess I plead "guilty!" However, in my own defense, I'd also like to say it's not all my fault. A while back, I developed an interest in the psychology of C. G. Jung (and I believe that there are some tie-ins to theo- sophy there somewhere) and I started by trying to read him directly. Big mistake! I became quickly overwhelmed and resort- ed to reading "translations" of his ideas by other authors. I had a similar experience with Einstein recently as well. With regard to theosophy, until recently, whenever I asked a question of someone on some theosophical topic, I was almost al- ways replied to with "You need to read the _Secret_Doctrine_." Un- fortunately, reading Blavatsky directly, like Jung, is almost im- possible (for me). I don't want to get into the terminology is- sue again in all of the detail that I have previously, but (to me) this is one of the most frustrating of all issues. As a related side note (I believe I have already mentioned this possibility in a previous post), some of the people that en- counter theosophy do so from some type of "new-age" angle. I have some direct experience with this from my brief association with the now defunct Cincinnati Study Center. Some of these "new-agers" hear about the occult phenomena produced by Blavatsky and others and equate it with channeling, crystal-power, angels, shamanism and other things that they are familiar with. When they find out that theosophy is more than occult phenomena and that no theosophist currently in incarnation is producing these phenomena, (IMO) they lose interest. I don't know if this fits anyone that reads this list but I have seen it in action else- where. > 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. Again for me, personally, I find the things that you, Jerry H-E, Eldon, Brenda, and others post simply fascinating. I've really enjoyed recent posts about karma. And those posts about mans constitution -- this is my absolutely most favorite topic -- were absolutely wonderful. The arguments and disagreements I've seen here are certainly not supportive of the concept of the universal brotherhood of man, but isn't that one of the reasons for the list? ... to discuss and share opinions? With respect to my lack of posts to the list I can only say that with all of the obvious history and theosophical knowledge being posted I feel (as my favorite work of fiction would put it) that "I am only an egg" in these matters. It sometimes feels like I am out of my league. > I would think that posts directly concerning theosophical > teachings would be of prime interest to students of theosophy. This is *absolutely* true for me. That is why I was happy when I heard about this list. I want to learn about as much of the theosophical teachings as I can digest. And, since I am in front of a computer or terminal about 75% of my waking life, this forum seemed like the perfect opportunity. However, it sometimes feels like I am reading the _Secret_- Doctrine_ when I am reading posts from this list. I don't want to criticize -- I don't like doing that and it is not my intent here at all. But my one disappointment with the list is that I don't always understand everything that is being written. I somehow had this idea that, since I was going to be using the computer to discuss theosophy, I would be discussing it with oth- er people who use computers day-in and day-out like I do. And if they used computers that much then I would be able to communi- cate with them better than I could with non-computer theoso- phists. It seems to me, as an instructor of computer-related topics, that what is needed is an new educational initiative for theoso- phy. This initiative should start from the bottom and put to- gether a brand new set of educational materials, using modern educational techniques and methods, to help educate adults (primary- and secondary-based theosophical education is a com- pletely different matter and has at least started to be discussed here) in the fundamentals of theosophy. I have been in correspondence with John Algeo. He agrees that a theosophical glossary/dictionary is needed. I have been in- volved with training adults now for 10 years and I know the value of good educational materials -- materials that give information, provide the theory, and defines its terminology. And, because adults are the hardest learners to motivate, their educational materials have to be pretty -- containing charts, graphs, pic- tures, and the like -- and even somewhat entertaining. > 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. Wow! Did I miss something, or what? I can see where this would be a possibility -- based on what I said about "new-agers" previously, but it is something that I have *never* sensed myself here on this list. The only thing that I can add to this is that I have a *belief system* that says the occult phenomena, the Mas- ters, the bodies of man, and the like are real. But, as I have posted previously, these are currently only beliefs -- "ideas," to quote a previous post -- that I cannot turn into knowns until I have personal experience. Any student of any subject has one or more belief systems in place about the subject they are studying. The instructor can talk all day and all night about the subject and do nothing to change the beliefs that the student has. In most adults, it isn't until the student has actual personal experience in the subject matter -- things that they can verify with their senses (physical, astral, or others :-) ) -- that they can turn their belief-system into a knowing-system. Well, I've ranted way too long again. I hope my comments make some sense to someone. But no matter what, please don't get discouraged here. All conflicts aside, this is a wonderful forum for sharing ideas and *learning* about theosophy. 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 ** 513-733-4747 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 00:55:39 -0400 From: Gerald Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Some thoughts Eldon writes, To which I can only say, thank God! Lewis writes, This is kind of a cosmic karma. According to G de Purucker, there is physical karma, astral karma, mental karma, and so on. But I beieve that you are right, all karmas are basically modes of retoring balance. Eldon - I liked your Dark Night of the Soul essay very much. One very small point is G de Purucker says much the same thing. I agree that this *appears* to be true from the relative position of pilgrim-like monads such as ourselves, but I suspect that in the "big picture" it may be a false viewpoint. Let me elaborate. If our overall cycle begins outside of spacetime, and ends outside of spacetime, then to say we end "higher" than we began is rather meaningless - but within spacetime it is certainly true and probably even measurable. Aki writes, Thank you. I feel better. My intent apparently wasn't as clear as I had thought it was. I do not object to ethics per se, but rather to what I would call forced ethics. When we are forced, by peer pressure or religious pressure or whatever pressure, to follow strict behavioral guidelines, we open ourselves up to all kinds of trouble. My message is: We should be ethical because we *want* to be, not because we think we *should* be. Although I firmly believe this (and most psychologists would back me up) I have never heard other theosophists discuss it. In fact, most theosophical discussions of ethics are identical to what one would hear in church. And from the feedback I got on this net, few, if any, even follow what I am talking about. Eldon and Jerry H-E together concur that >What I miss, or feel is under represented in our discussion group, is clear, lucid essays on the theosophical philosophy.> John, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that exactly what you created Theos.buds and Theos.roots for? Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 01:26:53 -0400 From: Gerald Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Comments to Bill Bill I too have an interest in Jungian psychotherapy, and yes, it certainly does have tie-ins to theosophy. Reading Jung is a lot like reading Blavatsky. I love to do both, but I agree with you that it is not easy. The problem is that some of us are new, while others have been around for awhile. For myself, I have been studying theosophy for over 25 years, so I would rather not write lengthy essays on elementary stuff, nor do I any longer care to read much of it. But you younger folks can, and should, do so. I would suggest that you subscribe to Sunrise, the Pasadena TS publication, because it is directed especially to newer theosophists. Also, you would do well to read G de Purucker's Questions We All Ask, if it is still in print. These, and other books designed for beginners, should help you. You needn't jump into the SD right away. Do you have a copy of G de Purucker's Occult Glossary? This is interesting. My publisher at Llewellyn thinks that there is a connection between computers/high tech and magic, and has asked that we authors write about it. So far, except for a computer being very useful to me in my work, I have missed this connection (with the exception of a computerized Tarot program that I wrote in C and placed as shareware on Compuserve's New Age forum). You seem to think that there is/should be a connection between computers and theosophists/theosophy. Agreed. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 05:42:36 -0400 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: misc. replies Osmar, O>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. Sounds like you have a good group of enthused people. I hope Adyar listens to you. JHE> We have a very close friend in Bolivia who has a > theosophical center there. Her name is Dora Crespo. Have you > heard of her? O> No. Is she on the net? > > If not, give her address, please. I will get it to you. Jerry S. JS> 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. Looks like you might be reading between the lines. I was asking why you why the subject of ethics "pushes a button in you?" I asked "what the underlying issues are with you that you are so resistant to having people talk about ethics other than condemning the subject." I suggest that you re-read my post. JS> 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. How is discussing ethics forcing the subject on anyone? You discuss magic on this net. Using your argument, are we to understand that you are "forcing" magic yours and others throats? JS> 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. I see your point, but don't agree. I don't separate ethics from compassion and spiritual insight. Neither do the great spiritual works, as Brenda had pointed out in an earlier post. Perhaps you might want to write one that does. Bill, B> 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 > contemporary 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 theosophical notables seemed to have very > different "ideas." Interesting. We just had a three hour discussion on this very topic last night. What have you concluded? Lewis, L> "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? Keep on fighting those injustices Lewis! I agree--it is our duty to defend those unjustly attacked. But it helps to know for sure who has been justly and who has been unjustly attacked. Brenda, BT> Here is what H.P.B. had to say about the kind of justice > available in England. "Women are to this day - in England, > before the law at any rate - merely the goods and chattels of > their husbands, and mere objects of lust but for only too many. > Slanders-private or public-are rarely, if ever, save in cases > of blackmail, directed against wealthy men; thus, the rich > alone have a chance of being "reputed pure" as the prophet has > it.... [and lots more deleted]. Yes, women had a bad time of it in England in the 19th century, and it wasn't much better here either. But even in my own life time I have witnessed major changes in attitudes and in the justice system concerning woman. We have a long way to go, but at least we seem to be going in the right direction. BT> Since you, Jerry, are always in such agreement with H.P.B., > I'm sure that this is the same picture you meant to portray > when referring to C.W.L.'s treatment. He wouldn't be treated > fairly there either. I'm not sure what you are driving at here. But my guess is that it has to do with my mentioning that if C.W.L had made the same confessions in court that he made in the closed hearing among his friends, he would have been put in prison for a very long time. Well, Brenda, I not sure what this has to do with the treatment of women, but I think my statement was a fair one. It may be true that jail sentences for mistreating children are much lighter now (to the chagrin of many), but I don't think the courts have changed in the basic procedure of finding guilty those who admit to all the charges against them. As I said before, Mr. Leadbeater had admitted to all of the charges, and tried to convince the committee the his actions are condoned in the church. Well, recent news items and laws suits have shown that a lot of "hanky panky" has indeed gone on between young boys and Priests in the churches, and has been going on for generations, while people pretend that it wasn't happening. But I'm yet to hear of a Church publicly announcing that they condone these things. I don't buy it, and his committee of friends didn't buy it either. BT> Elsewhere in my reading, H.P.B.'s selected spokesperson for > Europe has said that Europeans will not ever strive for the > ethics of the Eastern Initiates, that a European's temperament > is too active, etc. I don't know about "H.P.B.'s selected spokesperson", but HPB speaking of the little treatises that make up her translation of Nor could they be all translated and given to a world too selfish and too much attached to objects of sense to be in any way prepared to receive such exalted ethics in the right spirit. For unless a man perseveres seriously in the pursuit of self-knowledge, he will never lend a willing ear to advice of this nature. (From the Preface). I don't know how you feel about it, but that statement hardly sounds like an endorsement of Western culture to me. Bill Parrette, BP> Well, I cannot speak for all of the readers and posters in > this very tiny segment of the net -- I can only speak for > myself. But personally, I *do* have a real interest in > theosophical teachings. Glad to hear it! BP> Well, as to not being well read, I guess I plead "guilty!" > However, in my own defense, I'd also like to say it's not all > my fault. A while back, I developed an interest in the > psychology of C. G. Jung (and I believe that there are some > tie-ins to theosophy there somewhere) and I started by trying > to read him directly. Big mistake! I became quickly > overwhelmed and resorted to reading "translations" of his ideas > by other authors. I had a similar experience with Einstein > recently as well. Jung's secretary, Anelia Jaffe, is a long time member of the Theosophical Society. Jung was also friends with the late Laurence Bendit, a Jungian psychiatrist and member of the T.S. Dr. Bendit told me that Jung was very interested in Theosophy, but didn't like most theosophists very much. When Jung discussed his ideas with Theosophists, said Bendit, most of them took a condescending attitude and told him that he could have saved himself a lot of trouble by just reading theosophical books and found the same thing. Bendit had some really interesting stories concerning his relationship with Jung, but I'll save those for later. I never tried Einstein's theories of relativity in the raw, but I don't think his essays are so bad. Are they? BP> With regard to theosophy, until recently, whenever I asked a > question of someone on some theosophical topic, I was almost > always replied to with "You need to read the _Secret > _Doctrine_." Unfortunately, reading Blavatsky directly, like > Jung, is almost impossible (for me). I don't want to get into > the terminology issue again in all of the detail that I have > previously, but (to me) this is one of the most frustrating of > all issues. I've been teaching ~The Secret Doctrine~ since 1972. One study group I started in 1980 is still going. How can I help you? As for terminology, just keep in mind that she eventually runs out of words and starts using them over again. I know it is tough to begin, but it gets easier with practice. BP> As a related side note (I believe I have already mentioned > this possibility in a previous post), some of the people that > encounter theosophy do so from some type of "new-age" angle. I > have some direct experience with this from my brief association > with the now defunct Cincinnati Study Center. Some of these > "new-agers" hear about the occult phenomena produced by > Blavatsky and others and equate it with channeling, > crystal-power, angels, shamanism and other things that they are > familiar with. When they find out that theosophy is more than > occult phenomena and that no theosophist currently in > incarnation is producing these phenomena, (IMO) they lose > interest. I don't know if this fits anyone that reads this > list but I have seen it in action else-where. Yes, it's par for the course. BP> Again for me, personally, I find the things that you, Jerry > H-E, Eldon, Brenda, and others post simply fascinating. I've > really enjoyed recent posts about karma. And those posts about > mans constitution -- this is my absolutely most favorite topic > -- were absolutely wonderful. Then, you might want to start a discussion on it and see where it goes. BP> The arguments and disagreements I've seen here are certainly > not supportive of the concept of the universal brotherhood of > man, but isn't that one of the reasons for the list? ... to > discuss and share opinions? Yes--to discuss and share opinions. But I don't think that for Universal Brotherhood to be a reality, we all have to agree on everything. BP> With respect to my lack of posts to the list I can only say > that with all of the obvious history and theosophical knowledge > being posted I feel (as my favorite work of fiction would put > it) that "I am only an egg" in these matters. It sometimes > feels like I am out of my league. I know of less than a dozen people in the entire world who really know theosophical history well. So don't feel left out-- you are really in the majority. It is a very specialized area. If you are interested in this field, however, I recommend that you start by subscribing to the journal, ~Theosophical History.~ It's a fascinating and quickly growing field. BP> However, it sometimes feels like I am reading the _Secret_- > Doctrine_ when I am reading posts from this list. I don't want > to criticize -- I don't like doing that and it is not my intent > here at all. But my one disappointment with the list is that I > don't always understand everything that is being written. I > somehow had this idea that, since I was going to be using the > computer to discuss theosophy, I would be discussing it with > other people who use computers day-in and day-out like I do. > And if they used computers that much then I would be able to > communicate with them better than I could with non-computer > theosophists. You might start a dialogue with someone. Or just ask questions. Also, there are several people with whom I dialogue with off theos-l. You are welcome to do that too. BP> It seems to me, as an instructor of computer-related topics, > that what is needed is an new educational initiative for > theosophy. This initiative should start from the bottom and > put together a brand new set of educational materials, using > modern educational techniques and methods, to help educate > adults (primary- and secondary-based theosophical education is > a completely different matter and has at least started to be > discussed here) in the fundamentals of theosophy. Absolutely! We've been experimenting with that for fifteen years. Back in 1990 when we produced a 72 minute introductory video on Theosophy with a 140 page video guide. We have had some very good feedback by those who have used it in study groups and Lodges. We tried to make it so that it would be equally useful to the Adyar, Pasadena and U.L.T. Societies. Wheaton and Pasadena Societies sell it, and U.L.T. is now interested in it. Since then, our ideas concerning theosophical education have radically changed, and we are experimenting with other teaching models and techniques that have been very successful. My wife teaches professionally, and I'm just entering the field. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 12:35:50 -0400 From: Aki Korhonen Subject: Re: Comments to Bill Hello Jerry you wrote, > This is interesting. My publisher at > Llewellyn thinks that there is a connection > between computers/high tech and magic, and > has asked that we authors write about it. So > far, except for a computer being very useful > to me in my work, I have missed this > connection (with the exception of a > computerized Tarot program that I wrote in C > and placed as shareware on Compuserve's New > Age forum). You seem to think that there > is/should be a connection between computers > and theosophists/theosophy. I have an impression that Rudolf Steiner has stated that all machines, so to include computers, are "Ahrimanic". Meaning, if I understand his dogma at all, that machines and their use is drawing spirit more and more to materia. And what has happened? People use most of their intellectual and spiritual capacity to enhance their material lives. Now we are even giving some of our thinking processes to the computers e.g. arithmethics. Peace. aki. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 12:54:46 -0400 From: JSANTUCCI@CCVAX.FULLERTON.EDU Subject: Re: Theosophical Education Victor Hao Chin requested information on Theosophical Education. It might interest you to know that Max Lawson wrote an M.A. thesis entitled "Theosophy and Education" for the University of Sydney, Master of Education program. Chapter one of that thesis was published in THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY IV/3 (July 1992): "Theosophy and Education". If there is time and room, I hope to publish "Theosophy, Education and Nationalism" Chapter 2 in a future issue. Otherwise, there is some interesting material in his other chapers, including chapters on Montessori, Steiner, CWL, and the Raja Yoga School. Another chapter details a cross survey of Theosophical Schools. Beside this, Don Shepherd is writing a thesis on Point Loma, of which he is also concentrating on the educational theory of KT. He has come up with some interesting material, which I hope to publish in a future issue. Hope this is of help. James Santucci, Editor, THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 13:10:38 -0400 From: Aki Korhonen Subject: Re: Kalevala Hello Lewis, Thank you very much for your interest to our national epoch. I would like to introduce some of it, more than likely. The problem now is, that I know a little to realise that it is not a light task to give a balanced, short view to it, and too little to do it well. Here is what first came to my mind, without any reference... About Kalevala, it is a collection of poems and it was collected around 1850's or so by a one man called ,"Elias L|nnrot", he dedicated most of his life to that task. In Finland we retained quite long an old skill of memorizing long sets of poems. You can compare this to ancient Greecks, Homeros's time and so on. Nowadays, modern people can't memorize even one poem or chapter, not mention say 30.000 poems. But in Finland we had a few of that kind of people at those times. I have heard that people lost their memorazing ability because the developement of their intellect. So, the Kalevala is a set of poems and in these poems are description of the origin of cosmos, its evolution, spells and some magic stories. In addition there are some stories of local heroes and their adventures. I have heard that these poems are in mantric-form, to say that they work like mantras. So if you read English, or some other language interpretation you miss this point. I have also heard that you can use seven keys to open the poems. According to these keys you can read many descriptions of initations, occult developement and procedures, origin of man, etc. I have heard some lectures on this subject, but my knowledge is so poor in this subject, that I don't try to give any examples. Now I skipped entirely the substance of Kalevala, its teachings and its worldview, ethics and philosophy. I check my "Key to the Kalevala", and if I found something interesting I post it. Please ask more, if you are interested. If you have some spesific questions, I can ask them from our "Kalevala"-specialists for you. Peace. aki. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 13:26:57 -0400 From: Aki Korhonen Subject: Re: Ethics:The 5 Commandments of Jesus. Hello Lewis you wrote: > "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? I don't dare to agree or disagree. This is a very difficult question. It is very easy to agree ethics on the abstract level but their application is always difficult. The Christianity and almost every religions have ample of bad examples of that. In both cases, not to defence or to drfence, you might get some karma, good or bad. I don't know. I would say, if I have to say anything, that this is about your personal choice, so you are the only person who can answer to it. Peace. aki. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 21:46:40 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Comments to Bill Parette etc. This is from Eldon Tucker ---- Bill Parette: We all have an interest that ties in with Theosophy, but take different approaches to it. Some of us may embrace it as a religious philosophy, and seek to make it a part of our lives. Others may consider it as an intellectual exercise, or an interesting historical or mythological phenomena to be observed and classified along with the product of Steiner, Bailey, Kirshnamurti, and others. Those of us who embrace Theosophy as real, and feel strongly attracted to it as a spiritual path, want to embrace it as an integral part of our lives. We do not analyze it from without, but take it fully into our lives and use it to take us to far-distant places within. There are many exoteric systems of thought popular in modern society. Some have been formulated by men of genius, men with some truly grand ideas. But they fall short in their efforts. The result of their works is uneven, lacking in areas, with blind-spots. This is because they have not gone to the Source, and received training, in some form, from those who know, the true Scholars of humanity. One such genius, who produced a religious-psychological system of thought, was C.G. Jung. He falls short, though, by making everything psycho-centric, in resolving everything in terms of the human personality. He could not break free of his Christian bias, and openly embrace even the basic doctrines of the Wisdom-Religion like reincarnation and karma. Those things that he could not allow himself to think about were related to in a mystical sense, and treated as unknowable or mysteries. Consider the idea of "synchronicity." It basically says that things tend to happen at the same time, things that should go together. These events may not have a physical-plane relationship, one to the other, where we can see some cause behind them, producing both events. There is an implied causal connection, but the idea is only timidly put forward as a "meaningful coincidence". Compare this to non-Christian ideas of karma, other planes of existence, and the interrelatedness of life leading to the cocreating of the world. There is a lot missing, even as compared to other exoteric philosophies in the world. But for people with a heavy Christian bias, the philosophy of Jung provides a step in the right direction, even if we'd call it but a small step. With "The Secret Doctrine," we have some of our most weighty materials to ponder. Does it need translation? It may depend upon the individual if introductory and intermediate works need be studied first. My introduction to Theosophy, as a teenager, involved reading most of Leadbeater's and Besant's books. At that time I found "The Secret Doctrine" a bit too difficult to understand. Later, I started studying the works of G. de Purucker, and found that I had a much deeper understanding of Theosophy. I now feel comfortable with "The Secret Doctrine," but personally find Teachings of equal depth in Purucker's books. (He picks some of the deeper points, and elaborates them, providing the reader with an easier access to some of the deeper Truths. This is different, though, from expressing in different words some of the simpler ideas to provide new students with yet another introduction to the Philosophy.) There are some people that seek after phenomena and powers. This comes from a desire for power, to control others, and for ego gratification. Their consciousness is still strongly centered in the personality, and the motivation is to strengthen that personality, to make it more powerful, to center the consciousness even stronger in it. This is the opposite of what we strive for, though, in treading the spiritual Path. We do not seek after powers. There is the saying: "Seek ye first the Kingdom of Heaven, and all will be added to Ye." We follow that approach. When the consciousness becomes firmly rooted in the spiritual, the motivation in life is to live for others, and the personal self is forgotten, the highest in us is able to come through. And when this happens, the circumstances in our lives change. Our personalities gradually reorganize along the lines of the higher influences, and we acquire those powers necessary to fulfill our lives *without seeking them.* The outer man exists to express the inner man. We nurture the flowering of the inner man, and the outer naturally, of its own accord, changes accordingly. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 3 Sep 1994 18:03:51 -0400 From: Frank Dyer <73632.105@compuserve.com> Subject: G. de Purucker Eldon, >> One such genius, who produced a religious-psychological system of thought, was C.G. Jung.<< I think you are being very charitable with Jung. Seems like every time I try to read his writings I get mired down in incomprehensible gobbledegook liberally sprinkled with pseudo-spiritual buzz words that people who have never been exposed to *real* esoteric systems latch onto as their "theosophy". >> Later, I started studying the works of G. de Purucker, and found that I had a much deeper understanding of Theosophy. I now feel comfortable with "The Secret Doctrine," but personally find Teachings of equal depth in Purucker's books.<< I find that the more I read by GdeP the greater the personal connection I feel to him and the more I understand the ethos of truly committed Theosophical work. GdeP is, IMHO, a seriously neglected figure in the American TS scene. I tend to agree with those who regard him as an Emmissary. There is some reason to believe that he entered physical incarnation in an unusual way that permitsgreater access to the resources of previous existences in a shorter time than the normal birth process. Do you have any information about de Purucker from personal contacts with Point Loma members? I would be interested in your thoughts about him as an Emmissary, or at least an individual who had achieved a significant degree of spiritual advancement. --Frank Dyer From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 3 Sep 1994 22:24:12 -0400 From: Altadena Classical Homeopathy Education Society Subject: replies from Nancy This is from Nancy, Sat 9/3 evening TO Lewis & Bill re discussion on personal & group karma Didn't HPB also say ALL karma is shared karma. If we are truly inter dependent beings, how can there be a mine and yours? TO Jerry S re ethics I agree that any path, call it ethical, spiritual or religious can be ego inflating (just look at all the religious wars around the globe). Perhaps our real search is for a humbling wholeness. When you say we should (yucky word) be ethical because we want to be, rather than because of a mental construct, I have a sense where you are trying to go, yet kama, being lower on our 7-fold model than manas, may not be the best one to choose. How can we tell if the desire is coming from buddhi or kama????? Additionally, living AS IF something were true, is a wonderful way to test a mental construct. For some people it might be a great deal better to live as if ethics were true, than to continue fumbling around hurting themselves and others with unskillful means. TO Bill and Jerry S. and Jerry HE re Jungian/theosophic perspectives I too resonate to the psychological interpretations that are current these days and have a real curiosity about how to explain the concepts of the subconscious, unconscious etc using the 7-fold model. Any thoughts? Nancy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 4 Sep 1994 04:42:52 -0400 From: astoper@s1.csuhayward.edu (Arnold Stoper) Subject: suspending email How do I go about suspending the theos-l transmissions? I am leaving town for a couple ow town for a couple of weeks, and fear that my mail system will be swamped swamped. Arnie Stoper From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 4 Sep 1994 12:14:48 -0400 From: John Mead Subject: Re: suspending email > How do I go about suspending the theos-l transmissions? I am > leaving town for a couple ow town for a couple of weeks, and fear > that my mail system will be swamped swamped. > > Arnie Stoper to temporarily halt deliveries: send the 1-line message to listserv@vnet.net set theos-l mail postpone and then to reinstate receival: send the 1-line to listserv@vnet.net set theos-l mail ack it should be that easy!! peace -- john mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 4 Sep 1994 12:27:29 -0400 From: John Mead Subject: new log files in archive the new log file tl9408.log (Theos-L Aug. 1994) is now in the Theos-L archives and vnet's ftp site. I want to thank eldon for cleaning the files up. I'm currently using his versions available on the ftp.netcom.com site. People without access to FTP can still receive these files with the listserv GET command: (sent as a message to listserv@vnet.net ) get theos-l tl9408.log also by sending the command: Help you will receive a brief list of available listserver commands. peace -- john mead p.s. the file name is TL9408.log (don't confuse the "l" with a "1" . the case - upper/lower - is unimportant) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 4 Sep 1994 20:50:13 -0400 From: Frank Dyer <73632.105@compuserve.com> Subject: Psychological Terms Nancy, Sorry, the first transmission was interrupted somewhere along the way. This is a re-send. PMJI, but this is a topic that holds a a particular fascination for me also. :-{)> >> I too resonate to the psychological interpretations that are current these days and have a real curiosity about how to explain the concepts of the subconscious, unconscious etc using the 7-fold model. Any thoughts?<< The id in psychoanalytic theory corresponds to kama-manas. The experiencing ego corresponds to lower manas without the kamic coloration. The observing ego corresponds roughly to higher manas. Beyond that conventional psychoanalytic theory does not go. No one in psychology uses the term "subconscious" to denote any specific technical concept. "Unconscious" corresponds to the term "automatic will" that sometimes appears in the yogic/vedantic literature. It refers to those mental processes that lie outside of our awareness when we are referring to the personal psyche and to processes of physical nature when referring to the Divine automatic will. It is of interst that one well known neuropsychological theory of consciousness states that we are not as "actively" ijnvolved in opur process of mentation as we would believe and that most if not all of the thinking that we do is performed outside of our awareness and merely presneted to consciousness as a finished product, with our experience of actively creating it just an illusion. This corresponds to the notion of the Witness found in the Vedantic literature that states that our core Divine Self is merely an observer of our personal mental processes. In general, there are many correspondences between psychological terms and those of Theosophy, but psychology, being interested only in the problems of the personal psyche, stops short of anything that would lead to the kind of comprehensive system that we find in the TS literature. Peace, Frank Dyer From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 4 Sep 1994 21:08:17 -0400 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: psychological theosophy Nancy N> TO Bill and Jerry S. and Jerry HE re Jungian/theosophic > perspectives > > I too resonate to the psychological interpretations that are > current these days and have a real curiosity about how to > explain the concepts of the subconscious, unconscious etc using > the 7-fold model. Any thoughts? I think the problem has partly to do with our getting lost in words, and partly to do with the obstacle that standard main line psychology is far more limited in its area of inquiry than the area covered by the seven principles. Another problem has to do with the depth of understanding of the audience to whom we would want to "explain" the concepts to concerning both the seven principles and of psychology. Putting aside the more fringe schools like "psychosynthesis" and the "third force" schools that are more heavily influenced by "new age" thinking than the other way around, psychology limits itself to considerations that correspond to kama-manas downward. Of course, we also have to keep in mind that HPB was writing in a pre-Freud era, therefore we can't expect her to use Freudian or Jungian jargon. However, we have recently run across a psychology text published in 1869 that turns out to be quite a revelation as to how consistent HPB's language was to the psychological jargon of her time. Further, we are also fortunate that the basic issues that "psychology" (or "mental philosophy" as they called it then) was concerned with in HPB's time are primarily the same as those issues that the psychoanalytic movement struggles with today. The major difference today is that psychology is now treated as a science, where in HPB's time it was treated as a philosophy. In her writings, HPB does use the words "consciousness," "unconscious," "memory," "reminiscence," "intellect," "sensation," "will" etc. all of which were used in pre-Freudian psychology and carry much the same overall meanings then as they do today. Therefore, I think we can look at HPB's teachings concerning psychological issues as just using a different philosophical models to explain the same ideas. I think the most important differences between HPB and the modern schools of psychoanalysis concerns the basic suppositions about the origin and nature of consciousness. For the main line modern schools, consciousness is still assumed to be a product of the brain, and current research leans towards the idea of it being molecular in origin. For HPB, consciousness as we experience it, is that which is impressed upon the physical brain, but consciousness in its broader sense goes beyond the molecular, though she did speak of molecular activity as being evidence of (physical) consciousness. HPB also defined fourteen basic fields of consciousness that are within our possibilities of experience. Each field has infinite subdivisions, thus we never return to exactly the same state of consciousness at any two instances in our life. An analogy that occurs to me is the river that flows by. Thus we can never step into the same water twice. As for "subconscious," Freud originally used the term "preconscious" (See Interpretation of Dreams: pub. in 1900), which not only predated Freud, but is still used in the French school (Lacan). However the difference between subconscious and preconscious has more to do with the shift in context between Freud's original and revised model. In Freud's early model, he was concerned with how the unconscious and preconscious process information. Here, Freud saw the preconscious connecting memories together logically and chronologically, thus implying (but never stated) a linguistic structure to the preconscious. His later theory Freud switched from the "conscious; preconscious; unconscious" model, to the "ego; Id; superego" model. Freud's "unconscious" is unstructured, but still holds personal memories that rise to the subconscious from time to time. HPB's use of the word "unconscious" is the same as Freud's only so far as it is defined as that which is not conscious. However Freud's model of the dynamics of the unconsciousness is much different from HPB's. That brings us to Jung, who subdivided the unconscious into a personal and collective unconscious. Within the collective unconsciousness are collective images from humanities past experiences. This idea seems to be identical to HPB's teaching, though for the term "collective unconsciousness" she used the term "collective consciousness" with the same meaning. However, HPB's use of the term "consciousness" here is much broader than Jung's and includes realms that Jung would call unconscious. As for HPB's seven fold model, the modern mainline psychoanalytic movement is primarily concerned with what HPB covers in kama-manas downward. This is because, as HPB pointed out; the ordinary person "has no experience of any state of consciousness other than that to which the physical senses link him." (SD II: 701). The higher states of consciousness that do not register on the brain, are the same as complete unconsciousness to us, and are ordinarily "experienced" in very deep sleep, but not remembered. Obviously just the few ideas here could expand into a whole book, but I hope that these few words will serve as food for thought anyway. Best, Jerry From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 4 Sep 1994 23:57:01 -0400 From: Gerald Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: To Nancy To Nancy. Yes! Humility *should* (there's that word again. sorry) always go with ethics. One of the problems that Betty and I have been having with our latest foster child (girl of 9) is that she has a borderline personality disorder (this is our diagnosis, actually you can't technically label this until a person is older). When she tries to help us, she is actually trying to dominate the situation. She doesn't ask if we want help, she just jumps in and does things without asking, usually the wrong things. We have been teaching her that *help* is only given when asked, and otherwise its just domination (i.e., forcing yourself on someone else). She uses ethical helping as a tool for her own gain but she is getting better. Its just one more example of how ethics can be dangerous. Probably the best way is to look for motive. Kama always seeks a reward, Buddhi doesn't need one. You just hit an important nail on the head. In magic/yoga you are taught to act AS IF the gods and goddesses are real. The results are better that way. When a magician/yogi advances to a certain point, he or she must take the Oath of the Abyss (or something similar) in which you swear to view every event that happens to you during your daily life for the next so-many days as a personal interaction with God AS IF He were personally directing your life for you. This has some awful implications, forcing us to adopt a whole new worldview, but it is necessary to advance to the next stage. Others have already commented on this one. I can only agree that psychology only goes so far. However, it does very well in describing human behaviors and the human mind. As for the 7-fold model, psychology looks mainly at the lower 3 or 4 planes, except perhaps for the Jungian which, IMHO, looks at the 5th as well. Psychology has a lot of models. I personally prefer Jungian. I would place his collective unconscious on the 5th plane (counting upwards; the first spiritual plane), the personal unconscious on the 4th, and the ego and shadow each having counterparts on the 3rd (manas) and 2nd (astral). Jung was one of the few great psychotherapists who accepted the spiritual or numinous element as a reality. His archetypes are simply our psychic counterparts of external deities - I believe in man as a microcosm, while Jung preferred to avoid or ignore the macrocosm. If you realize the limitations of psychology, it can be a very useful tool for you. Let me give you just one example of what I mean. Many theosophists (most everyone, for that matter) believe that a Master is one who has thrown out all of the bad elements of his kama-manas, and retained only the good. Many people think that a saint is such because their kama-manas has been purified, possibly through lifetimes of ethics. Jungian psychology, however, tells us that this is impossible. The ego and shadow are like two sides of a coin, and the ego can never eliminate the shadow or dark side. According to Jung, a saint is one who is consciously aware of their shadow, and who is able to balance the ego and shadow at all times. If we look at the esoteric tradition of the East, we will see that they too teach that good and evil are two sides of a duality, and that you cannot hold to one while eliminating the other. As long as we carry this human body around, we will have both an ego (light or good side) and a shadow (dark or bad side). The Path then, is not involved with trying to eliminate our *bad* characteristics, but rather turning inward and seeing ourselves for what we are, and accepting that, balancing that, and then acting toward others accordingly. In short, Jung comes close at times to echoing eastern ideas. Now, if you want to talk about buddhi or atma, then you will have to look somewhere other than psychology. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 5 Sep 1994 13:15:27 -0400 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: White Flag > >Gerald> 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... Motive is everything was once written by one of HPB's Masters. A point which has stuck with me many years. > ...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... While I agree these kind of thoughts do contain an element of selfishness, I wouldn't characterize them as "ego trips". That seems overly harsh. Besant, I think, suggested it was at least a step in the right direction and one shouldn't expect everyone to be perfectly unselfish in the beginning. Acting in self-interest is a part of natural law which motivates in the immature personal ego, but that same law slowly confinces us that acting unselfishly is even more in our own Self-interest--once we begin to percive we are all One. >...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. > ... > > > Any ideas? > > Peace, aki. > > Oulu, Finland. > Here's a few of mine. Lewisllucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 5 Sep 1994 14:01:32 -0400 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: "What's missing from our Talk" Bill wrote: > Well, I cannot speak for all of the readers and posters in > this very tiny segment of the net -- I can only speak for myself. > But personally, I *do* have a real interest in theosophical > teachings. > Me too. > I believe I have already described how I was drawn into join- > ing the TS -- no need to recall it here. But I cannot believe > that it was just a matter of chance. Jung would have called it > (Oops, theres one of those "digested ideas of Jung." ;-) ) syn- > chronicity, others might have said I was just using my intuition > -- I don't know what to call it! All I can say is that "I'm here > and I want to learn all that I can." I have a *very* strong > feeling (or intuition) that I was drawn to the TS for a purpose. > I just have to find out what it is. An idea that has haunted me most of my adult life is that there is something really important I "should" be doing, but I'm not. It sometimes depresses me that having been privileged to learn of the Ancient Wisdom, that I have done so little with it. I once had the thought that if I didn't do what I could to help spread these ideas in this life they would be much more difficult to come by in my next. Considering the billions of possible incarnations and how few of these ever have the opportunity to hear, read, etc. about these ideas, one must have some excellent karma to come in touch with it in the Kali Yuga. A tale I am fond of tells of a man on visit to his ancestors home in Scotland, Ireland, or Wales (I not sure which). While wandering across the moors he sees a light in the distance which he goes to investigate. It is an old crumbling tower. He climbs the stairs to find an old man tending a small fire. The old man looks up and says, "I have been expecting you." The man assures him he must be mistaken as he had no plans to come here other than a visit. The old man tells him a story of a time when the land was dotted with such towers, but now all but this one have gone out. But, as long as there is still one lit there is hope for mankind to find its way on the Path. As they spoke the fire had nearly died out and the young man looked around the room for some more wood to throw on the fire. Not seeing any he turned to the old man to warn him there was no more wood and the fire was nearly out, but the old man was gone. He was left to decide whether to tend the fire or leave. I view such groups as the T.S. as the towers of light for travelers (to use a Masonic term). Certainly the one I found in St. Petersburg, FL was one for me. If we cannot figure out how to light a few more fires in the world, imagine how difficult it might be to find one on your next trip here. Lewisllucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 5 Sep 1994 14:47:52 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: reply to bill and sarah This is by Brenda Tucker. This is not the post which I intended to do today. I'm putting off the study of the "spirit and stone" till next week. Bill, Something to remember when reading THE SECRET DOCTRINE is that definitions are not always going to help you. There is so much symbolism used in H.P.B.'s writing, and even if we understand her symbolic meaning of the term, get ready for this meaning to change again in her next reference to it. Kabalists may use a symbol in a slightly different manner than a Mason or an Alchemist. Also, it may help to remember that even in your studying you are trying to help others. Try to find the information that will benefit others and not just that which will fulfill a selfish desire. Also, remember the saying about how people shouldn't be judged on the answers they give, but on the questions they ask. Secondly, since you are testing your belief that karma is to teach you and are not interested in finding any connectedness from the past between you and "soul mates" or even friends, I have to say that this universal law doesn't really care what kind of comfort you get from incarnating with strangers again and again. What's the problem? Don't you have a girlfriend? At least, I hope you will admit that the facts about karma are not going to be altered by any desire you may have to exclude souls from reincarnating together. Sure, it's plenty uncomfortable to HAVE to be born with people that we are karmically tied to. I also would like to escape from this, but perhaps a little differently. Hopefully by getting rid of karma, we can rid ourselves of the necessity of reincarnation. I'll try to quote from H.P.B.'s writings to see if these can make any sense to you. H.P.B., CW, Vol XI, p. 144-145: "Karma thus, is simply ACTION, a concatenation of CAUSES and EFFECTS. That which adjusts each effect to its direct cause; that which guides invisibly and as unerringly these effects to choose, as the field of their operation, the RIGHT PERSON IN THE RIGHT PLACE, is what we call KARMIC LAW." ..... "Suffice it to say that Karma leads us to rebirth, and that rebirth generates new Karma while working off the old, Sanchita Karma. Both are indissolubly bound up, one in the other. Let us get rid of KARMA, if we would get rid of the miseries of rebirths or - REINCARNATION." H.P.B., CW, Vol XII, p. 385: "Thus, in truth, neither the blessings nor the curses of men can influence, let alone alter, the Karma of the nations and men which they have generated in their respective Pasts. But people are blind to this truth. They see the decrees of retributive sentences carried out in the marshalling of public events, but refuse, nevertheless, to comprehend their true causes. 'Oh,' they cry out, 'it is the immorality and untruthful nature of Mr. A that has caused this new public scandal. It is a calamity brought through the hypocrisy of A, on B, and C, and D, and thus, through them, it is affecting a whole nation! We righteous men had nought to do with all this. Ergo, our plain duty is now to vilify A, agreeably to our pharisaical social code, to express our holy horror of him, and wash our hands of the rest.' ....... But don't you know, that the building of a nest by a swallow, the tumbling of a dirt-grimed urchin down the back stair, or the chaff of your nursery maid with the butcher's boy, may alter the face of nations, as much as can the downfall of a Napoleon? Yea, verily so; for the links within links and the concatenations of this Nidanic Universe are past our understanding. "Every transgression in the private life of a mortal, is, according to Occult philosophy, a double-edged sword in the hand of Karma; one for the transgressor, the other for the family, nation, sometimes even for the race, that produced him. If its one sharp edge cuts him badly, its other edge may, at a future day, chop into mincemeat those morally responsible for the sins of their children and citizens. One Cain-nation is made to bite the dust, while its slaughtered Abel-sister resurrects in glory....." H.P.B., THE SECRET DOCTRINE, Vol I, p. 639: ".....and man is a free agent during his stay on earth. He cannot escape his RULING Destiny, but he has the choice of two paths that lead him in that direction, and he can reach the goal of misery-if such is decreed to him-either in the snowy white robes of the Martyr, or in the soiled garments of a volunteer in the iniquitous course; for, there are EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL CONDITIONS which affect the determination of our will upon our actions, and it is in our power to follow either of the two. Those who believe in KARMA have to believe in DESTINY, which, from birth to death, every man is weaving thread by thread around himself, as a spider does his cobweb; and this destiny is guided....." Don't forget that karma is the law of retribution as well as Karma-Nemesis. H.P.B., SD, Vol I, p. 305: "It is not the Wave which drowns a man, but the PERSONAL action of the wretch, who goes deliberately and places himself under the IMPERSONAL action of the laws that govern the Ocean's motion. Karma creates nothing, nor does it design. It is man who plans and creates causes, and Karmic law adjusts the effects; which adjustment is not an act, but universal harmony, tending ever to resume its original position, like a bough, which, bent down too forcibly, rebounds with corresponding vigor. If it happen to dislocate the arm that tried to bend it out of its natural position, shall we say that it is the bough which broke our arm, or that our own folly has brought us to grief?" H.P.B., CW, XII, p. 651: "Every human being is surrounded by his own emotional and passional as well as psychovital atmosphere, which is really a portion of the lower layers of his auric egg. Now this atmosphere is alive and vibrating with varying intensities, has its own psycho-auric individuality or vibrational frequency. It becomes obvious therefore that the ray-point, which likewise possesses its own frequency, is drawn more or less on the line of magnetic attraction to the atmosphere of the parent or parents whose vibrational frequency is most sympathetic to its own and with whom its karmic affinities are strongest. To round out the picture, I might add that both hate and intense psychic dislike-each of which is a kind of inverted love-sometimes produce strong psychoauric attractions, thus explaining the pathetic situation of parent and child who repel each other." Bill, maybe the idea which you are especially attracted to is the "heresy of separateness," described by H.P.B., CW Vol XII, p. 407: "Eastern Philosophy-occult or exoteric-does not admit of an "I" separate from the Universe, objective or subjective, material or spiritual- otherwise than as a temporary illusion during the cycle of our incarnations. It is this regrettable ILLUSION, the "heresy of separateness" or personality, the idea that our "I" is distinct in eternity from the Universal Ego, that has to be conquered and destroyed as the root of selfishness and all evil, before we can get rid of rebirths and reach Nirvana. One last comment: Since I mentioned a quote by H.P.B. regarding the monad whose external forms remain at all times except upon entering Nirvana, you might like to see a further explanation of this thought since it can get confusing. Also, this is something to try to remember in studying. Each time you make a realization or find some truth, leave room for it to change or grow with further study. H.P.B., CW, Vol XII, p. 58: "The 'Spiritual Monad' is eternal because uncreate, but its 'Individual persistence'-in human form and bodies on this terrestrial chain or during the life-cycle, lasts only 'one manvantara.' This does not prevent the same Spiritual Monad starting at the end of Mahapralaya (the Grand Age of Rest) into another and more perfect 'life-cycle with the fruit of the accumulated experiences of all the personalities the 'individual' Ego (manas) had informed." Well, enough said. Sarah, Who is Frank? Is this someone who wrote to you e-mail? Can you give me the date on which he posted? I found some information you might like to read. Jerry H-E recommended some reading in Collected Writings Vol XII. If you can get your hands on this volume, it really explains "astral body" and much more. Read "Psychic and Noetic Action" and the second half of "E.S. Instruction No. III." I think what you are experiencing can be used in a very good manner as the following selections describe. I'm hoping that everyone can really be encouraged by what follows. (Jerry H-E, the picture you portray is such a slow-moving one.) These quotes can also supply you with some terms (but I warn you, nobody uses them much, so you may still have to explain them): H.P.B., CW, Vol XII, p.406-7: "Our 'memory' is but a general agent, and its 'tablets,' with their indelible impressions, but a figure of speech: the 'brain tablets' serve only as a upadhi or a vahan (basis, or vehicle) for reflecting at a given moment the memory of one or another thing. The records of past events, of every minutest action, and of passing thoughts, in fact, are really impressed on the imperishable waves of the ASTRAL LIGHT, around us and everywhere, not in the brain alone; and these mental pictures, images, and sounds, pass from these waves via the consciousness of the personal Ego or Mind (the lower Manas) so to say, of our brain, whence they are delivered by the psychic to the sensuous consciousness." ibid, p. 367: "Now, although the former (Higher Ego) is the vehicle of all knowledge of the past, the present, and the future, and although it is from this fountainhead that its "double" catches occasional glimpses of that which is beyond the senses of man, and transmits them to certain brain cells (unknown to science in their functions), thus making of man a SEER, a soothsayer, and a prophet; yet the memory of bygone events-especially of the earth, earthy-has its seat in the Personal Ego alone. No memory of a purely daily-life function, of a physical, egotistical, or of a lower mental nature-such as e.g., eating and drinking, enjoying personal sensual pleasures, transacting business to the detriment of one's neighbor, etc. etc., has aught to do with the "Higher" Mind or Ego. Nor has it any direct dealings on the physical plane with either our brain or our heart- for these two are the organs of a power higher than the Personality-but only with our passional organs, such as the liver, the stomach, the spleen, etc. Thus it only stands to reason that the memory of such-like events must be first awakened in that organ which was the first to induce the action remembered afterwards, and conveyed it to our "sense-thought," which is entirely distinct from the "supersensuous" thought. It is only the higher forms of the latter, the superconscious mental experiences, that can correlate with the cerebral and cardiac centres. The memories of physical and selfish (or personal) deeds, on the other hand, together with the mental experiences of a terrestrial nature, and of earthly biological functions, can, of necessity, only be correlated with the molecular constitution of various Kamic organs, and the "dynamical association" of the elements of nervous system in each particular organ." ibid, p. 370: "...if what is called "association of ideas" has much to do with the awakening of memory, the mutual interaction and consistent interrelation between the personal "Mind-Entity" and the organs of the human body have far more so. A hungry stomach evokes the vision of a past banquet, because its action is reflected and repeated in the personal mind. But even before the memory of the personal Self radiates the vision from the tablets wherein are stored the experiences of one's daily life-even to the minutest details- the memory of the stomach has already evoked the same." ibid, p. 368: "Responding to the touch of both a physical and a metaphysical Force, the impulse given by the psychic (or psycho-molecular) Force will act from without within. For, as our body is the covering of the inner "principles," soul, mind, life, etc., so the molecule or the cell is the body in which dwell its "principles," the (to our senses and comprehension) immaterial atoms which compose that cell. The cell's activity and behavior are determined by its being propelled either inwardly or outwardly, by the noetic or the psychic Force, the former having no relation to the physical cells proper. Therefore, while the latter act under the unavoidable law of the conservation and correlation of physical energy, the atoms-being psycho-spiritual, not physical units-act under laws of their own,...... Every human organ and each cell in the latter has a keyboard of its own, like that of a piano, only that it registers and emits sensations instead of sounds. Every key contains the potentiality of good or bad, of producing harmony or disharmony. This depends on the impulse given and the combinations produced; on the force of the touch of the artist at work, a "double-faced Unity," indeed. And it is the action of this or the other "Face" of the Unity that determines the nature and the dynamical character of the manifested phenomena as a resulting action, and this whether they be physical or mental. For the whole life of man is guided by this double-faced Entity. If the impulse comes from the "Wisdom above," the Force applied being noetic or spiritual, the results will be actions worthy of the divine propeller; if from the "terrestrial, devilish wisdom" (psychic power), man's activities will be selfish, based solely on the exigencies of his physical, hence animal, nature." ibid, p.371: "This leads us to see the difference between the pure noetic and the terrestrial psychic visions of seership and mediumship. The former can be obtained by one of two means; (a) on the condition of paralysing at will the memory and the instinctual, independent action of all the material organs and even cells in the body of flesh, an act which, once that the light of the Higher Ego has consumed and subjected for ever the passional nature of the personal, lower Ego, is easy, but requires an adept; and (b) of being a reincarnation of one, who, in a previous birth, had attained through extreme purity of life and efforts in the right direction almost to a YOGI state of holiness and saintship. There is also a third possibility of reaching in mystic visions the plane of the higher Manas; but it is only occasional and does not depend on the will of the Seer, but on the extreme weakness and exhaustion of the material body through illness and suffering...... In all other cases of abnormal seership, of so-called clairaudience, clairvoyance and trances, it is simply-mediumship." ibid, p. 374: "Blessed is he who has acquainted himself with the dual powers at work in the ASTRAL Light; thrice blessed he who has learned to discern the Noetic from the Psychic action of the "Double-Faced" God in him, and who knows the potency of his own Spirit-or "Soul Dynamics." I know it seems as if I've put the whole article here, but there's more and it is truly fascinating. Thank you for helping me to do this reading. I spoke with the Roger and Elaine Gemme, board director and wife in California, and she told me something interesting I thought I might pass on. Her parents donated the San Antonio Branch property. I'm not sure about her maiden name, so I don't know what name you should ask about, but Joyce probably knows who Elaine Gemme's parents are. Elaine's daughter was also expecting twins "any time" about a week ago when we spoke. Are being born under a grand trine, as you know. I never liked Mars in Cancer much. My Mars is trine Saturn, so I have some similarity to the Jupiter, Saturn, Mars trine only my Saturn wasn't in Pisces, it was in Scorpio. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 5 Sep 1994 15:34:01 -0400 From: "Frank J. Dyer" <73632.105@compuserve.com> Subject: Unselfishness To Lewis, Aki, and Others, Re Lewis's comments on unselfishness, I recommend I.K. Taimni's discussion of this topic. It appears in either Self-Development or Man, God, and the Universe. Essentially he says that true unselfishness corresponds to the Vedantic (or Kashmir Shaivism) notion of nishkama karma, i.e. performing actions (karma) with no trace of personal desire (kama) as motive. Dr. Taimni views this as a *capacity* to be developed at a rather high level of spiritual attainment, and clearly not something that we can choose to do at will. If at our (well, for most of us ;-{)>) present stage of development we feel that we have performed some action completely altruistically, we are probably deluding ourselves. BTW, this can cause a greqat deal of trouble if we aren't careful. I once had a patient, a very religiously devout man, who tried to live a completely unselfish, saintly life. Needless to say, he was repeatedly frustrated in this endeavor, and he eventually became so frustrated by his "failure" that he gave it up as a bad job and embezzled a huge sum of money. Obviously, there were other complex motives at work, but the disappointment over not being able to live a saintly life was indeed an important factor supporting the criminal behavior. His karma was nicht nishkama! Peace, Frank From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 5 Sep 1994 18:22:53 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: The Seven Principles This is by Eldon Tucker ---- Clothed in the Seven Principles The question is sometimes posed: What purpose is there to gradual evolution if we can leave behind space-time and be perfect? Why go on, through the grind of evolution, if it all comes to the same end, to homogenous, unmanifest perfection? If we just end up where we've started, why go through the process in the first place? We are taught that the process of evolution does produce results, there is something that is attained, even when manifestation is left behind at the close of some great Manvantara. There is self-consciousness, the aroma or essence of the wisdom acquired through the process of evolution. This self-consciousness is akin to the lighting of a fire, it is an insight, an awareness, a sensitivity to the vastness of life. As part of our spiritual practice, we are taught to become unselfconscious, to forget our personal selves. This involves the gradual raising of the seat of our awareness from the personal self, from the lower human Ego, to the higher Self within. We learn to forget the fact that we are such-and-such a person--perhaps overweight, with a big nose, fond of pizza, wanting a better job. We come to dwell in grand, universal thoughts and sentiments. We learn to live for others, rather than for ourselves, and our awareness shifts from our personal needs to the bigger needs of humanity in general. The spark of self-consciousness, imprisoned in the personality, is gradually freed. It is enabled to rise one step higher within our constitution, one step closer to our inner source, one step towards liberation. This is the treasure of existence, the prize that we are seeking to claim through our evolutionary journey. We must nurture this spark, and take it with it, upward and inward. By the time that we have brought it back to the threshold of Nirvana, it is not merely a spark, but a fire of unimaginable proportion. We first awaken the higher principles, and bring them into activity in our outer lives: Higher Manas, Buddhi- Manas, Buddhi, Atma-Buddha, Atma, then Auric Egg-Atma. There are many steps of opening them, many flowerings of our inner natures that await us. After the initial awakenings, the principles grow to full strength and maturity. They become positively enflamed with the radiance of our inner spirituality. Manas becomes Manas-enflamed, Manas-Taijas, Buddhi becomes Buddhi- enflamed, Buddhi-Taijas, etc. As the Manvantara approaches its close, and the vast period of evolution prepares to end, we leave behind our attributes of existence, our Skandhas, and withdraw the flame inward, into the unmanifest. We take it with us. But what is the unmanifest? Where is it? How is it part of us? There are levels to it as well, levels that are a logical necessity arising out of the relation of the Unknowable to the manifest universe, of the relation of That, Tat, the Ultimate Mystery, to This, Idam, the Outward, Apparent Nature of Things. This relationship fits in neatly with the tenfold or twelvefold principles of being, the fabric of consciousness. Consider first the manifest universe. We begin with a sense of Being, a sense that existence is happening, a sense that life is starting again. There is no separateness, no sense of me-and-him, all is One. This is the consciousness of the first principle of manifest consciousness: Atman. Even with this, though, there is a slight flavor to things, derived from the essential nature of the great Being who plays host to the world to be, the Being whose embodiment allows for the creation of the new world or universe. Picture a fish tank. Even if the fish tank is uninhabited, it has its own unique shape, and there is a certain unique color and flavor to its water, which is different than any other tank. This is the Dharmakaya vesture, where there is absolutely no sense of there being more than one person, one individual, one Self to all that is. Even with but the Atmic principle, thought, there is something more than just the darkness of the unmanifest. There has been added the sense of Being, the sense of an essential nature, the sense of connectedness to that plane on which the world is in formation. The second step in taking on concrete existence, in further differentiating our consciousness, comes with Buddhi. With this principle, we being to manifest individual differences in our awareness and perception. We see ourselves as composed of a karmic web, as consisting of a bundle of relationships with others. This is the level of consciousness where there first is a sense of cocreation, of jointly participating in the creation of the world to be. We see ourselves as not just being in relation to others, but as *being those relationships.* At this level, we have taken on our body of causes, our Karanopadhi, our bundle of living relationships with others. These relationships, which compose a dynamic interplay between us and others, define the karmic give and take between us and them. Karma is not some exterior force, not some outside agency making sure that we are punished for being bad. It is rather the living, dynamic bonds of life between us and others that makes us (and them) what we are. And it is through these living bonds that we cocreate the world to be. The third step is to separate ourselves from these bonds of relationship, to perceive ourselves as apart from them. We take on a sense of personal selfhood in Manas. With higher Manas, which gravitates upwards, we have a higher Self. With lower Manas, gravitating downwards, we have the lower self. With this further separation off from the unmanifest, from the unity of life, we now have a sense of Ego, a sense that we are a different being from the others in the world. It should be noted that we are talking about our coming into being, about our taking on of the fabric of consciousness in a particular world or universe. We are talking about coming into manifestation, as individuals, on a particular plane, on a particular Globe. This does not deal with the entirety of us. It involves looking at how we take on manifest existence; but it does not address the imperishable, timeless, perfect nature of our innermost core, something rooted in the Grand Unknowable. This rootedness is not dependent upon our being in existence, nor being out of existence. It is unchanging and independent of anything we may do, or anywhere we may be. Having taken on the sense of Ego, with Manas, we now have taken on a sense of selfhood. We have taken on that kind of experience in the world. We are aware of ourselves existing, as separate individuals, with our own personal natures, in a particular world. This sense of selfhood, though, does not necessarily imply the fire of self- consciousness. That light of consciousness, that radiance, must work its way through the principles, over vast evolutionary time periods. That principle where it resides is the one that we call our "seat of consciousness." And we are always at work seeking to shift it upward and inward. Now that we have a sense of personal selfhood, we are getting closer to the point where we are ready to engage in activity. The next stage, with Kama, is the desire to do things. We need to care about activity. There needs to be meaning and purpose to our existence. We need to have particular things to care about, things to do in life. These things could be ignoble, if Kama takes on that direction, or they could be acts of heroic compassion, if Kama is directed at the highest. Without Kama to ensnare us in outer existence, we would remain in Manas, in a sense of contented personal selfhood, disinterested in outer life. (It is in just this very state, that we pass through the other Globes, when dead, as we live out our Devachan in the bosom of the Spiritual Monad.) Having taken on Kama, and truly caring to do things, what do we need next? Life-energies, the power or force or ability to take on motion, to engage in activity, to change. This is Prana, and before we take it on, we are in a *static* state, where we desire to do things, but do not have the capability to take on motion, to change ourselves and the outside world, to live out what we would do. We draw on the surrounding life energies of the world, Jiva, and what we are able to contain and direct become our personal life energies, our Prana, and we are able now to not only *want* things, but also to *effect changes* on them. To this point, we have been dealing with consciousness, with life energies, with our experience of things. This is the life side. But to actually do things, we need to engage the form side of things as well. And with the next principle, the Astral or Linga-Sharira, we take on *sense perception.* We see, touch, taste, and smell. We take on sensory perception of the outer world. We come into relationship with others in terms of form, the mirror opposite of Buddhi, where we come into relationship with others in terms of life. At this stage, we have all our principles, minus but the physical body. Were we fully consciousness in this state, we could see and observe everything happening in the world--and change things as well, via Prana--but there was no living, organic, physical body anchoring us as being in a particular place, acting as our proxy in the world. One must be a Bodhisattva to function in this state, even the Mahatmas have physical bodies. But apart from this state, it is possible to exist in a temporary, mind-created form, of semi-physical nature, somewhat more material than the state of pure perception of the Nirmanakaya. This mind-created form is the Mayavi-Rupa, and Masters and advanced Chelas are able to exist apart from their physical bodies in such forms. The last principle, as mentioned, is the Sthula-Sharira or physical body. This principle is the lowest that we go in materiality, the lowest of the sevenfold or tenfold principles. With it, we reach the ultimate state of concreteness, where we take on a specific locality, and take on a form as the proxy and channel for our consciousness. (There *is* one lower state, in the twelvefold scheme, which is related to avitchi or hell-consciousness, but it's a bit too complicated to get into in this discussion.) To this point, we have been discussing the coming into manifest existence, through the process of clothing ourselves in the seven principles. We take on the fabric of consciousness, from the storehouse of the world or universe in which we would exist. We gather our Shandkas or bundles of attributes, and engaged in the process of life in that arena of existence. What about the rest of us? What about the part of us that is unmanifest, that goes beyond existence, that dwells in the Silence behind outward things? I try a few words on that topic in a later posting. (I'm already up to four pages!) That part of us consists of the higher of the *ten* or *twelve* principles, that make up the totality of us, as Monads. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1994 22:38:52 -0400 From: Frank Dyer <73632.105@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: reply to bill and sarah >>Sarah, Who is Frank? Is this someone who wrote to you e-mail? Can you give me the date on which he posted?<< Frank Dyer--I am a member at large of the American Section (Adyar TS). I have been posting to this list for the past week or so, but in using the reply command of my CIS navigator I forgot that this did not automatically automatically result in a public post the way it does in a CIS forum. Mea culpa. But I've been getting some decent posts through lately, so I think I'm getting the hang of interfacing with a Net BB. I am *really* enjoying the discussions on this list, saving and rereading them. I hope that I can contribute something of value to other list members from the point of view of one who has not had extensive personal involvement with other TS members but has been practicing Theosophy for a number of years. BTW, my article on virtual reality and Theosophical concepts was featured prominently in The Quest a couple of years ago. Peace, Frank Dyer From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 00:59:32 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Itchy Trigger Finger I've got an itchy trigger finger. It gets itchy when most other people use terms like *kama-manas,* *manas,* and *Buddhi-manas.* Like every theosophist worth his or her salt, I naturally feel that the true and exact proprietary interest in their meanings lies with me. The finger, therefore, itches to shoot-and-correct, shoot-and-correct, shoot-and-correct. I don't shoot-and-correct much anymore, however. Most of my ammunition, alas, has had to be used up in the attempt to semi-dispatch my own earlier writings--in trying to shoot-and-correct my former shootings-and-correctings, so to speak. Indeed, though, I still have a definite amount of bad conscience about the facile flock of clay pigeons I have sent flying around to land, unbroken, who-knows-where. I worry that some new aspirant will actually believe everything I have said--not only long ago, but even the uncorrected five minutes previous. I have personally wasted way-too much time in my life by taking pseudo-theosophists seriously; I don't want to be even a triffling time-waster for the sincere searchers who come after me. Thus, I decided many years ago that I would try to put theosophical insights into plain English as best I could. For example, instead of *kama-manas,* I just say "desire-mental" and then go on to try to explain myself with additional post-sanskrit language. This has at least three advantages: 1) non-Theosophical students have a better chance of understanding what I am driving at, 2) I, myself, have a better chance of knowing what I am talking about, since I have to put it in my own words, and 3) if it later turns out I am in serious need of correction, I can dump everything and not have my mistakes lying around to further corrupt the existing Theosophical terminology as used by HPB and a few others. [I just now read Eldon's fine last post; I think I will have to include him in the "few others" since my finger didn't get itchy at all.] Not that *kama-manas* etc. were left in all-that-good-a-shape by the Lead Mare to begin with, of course. Perhaps in the end, that will prove to be HPB's inimitable genius: that she left behind a divine jumble which certain individuals, generation after generation, are able to intuit the Truth somewhere within, but that no one has a prayer of really understanding merely by approaching it as a scholar. Meditation: Insofar as your Ancient terminology is Wisdom, it will drop you off at the starting place for actual apprehension. . . . Warm regards, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 01:16:23 -0400 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: altruism; THE SECRET DOCTRINE Lewis wrote: LL> An idea that has haunted me most of my adult life is that > there is something really important I "should" be doing, but > I'm not. It sometimes depresses me that having been privileged > to learn of the Ancient Wisdom, that I have done so little with > it. I've had the same feelings. Boris de Zirkoff (HPB's last living blood relative; for whatever that is worth) once told me that all we have to do is put out the thought, with sincere desire to do some service, and opportunities will come. I was very impressed by that advice, and personal experience has proven to me that he was right. Brenda wrote: BT> Something to remember when reading THE SECRET DOCTRINE is > that definitions are not always going to help you. There is so > much symbolism used in H.P.B.'s writing, and even if we > understand her symbolic meaning of the term, get ready for this > meaning to change again in her next reference to it. I'm sure you didn't quite mean what you wrote here. Certainly each time HPB returns to a term, she gives further information that lends more depth of meaning, but the earlier meaning is still valid as far as it goes. If the definitions were to "change" each time she used a term, the book would be an impossible code with no key to decipher it. This of course is not the case. ~The Secret Doctrine~ is accessible to anyone of average intelligence who is willing to put the effort into its study. What makes ~The Secret Doctrine~ so "secret" is not the symbolism, or even the definitions, but the fact that few are willing to put the required effort into its study. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 19:05:58 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: The Highest Triad This is by Eldon Tucker ---- The Highest Triad There is more to us than exists at any moment of time. There is a part that transcends existence. That part of us watches over us, it is our Mother. It also reaches inward and upward to embrace the Unknowable. We are not talking about a "body" or "bodies". There are no forms or specific attributes, since it is beyond existing, beyond manifestation. But there is *consciousness.* We are conscious of the aspects to life that these *non-existing* parts of ourselves represent. These different aspects of consciousness compliment those of our manifest existence, our lower seven principles. They are our Highest Triad, our uppermost three principles, making us as ten-principled beings. Let us first consider what it means to be beyond existence. There is no awareness of existing. We have nothing to think about, nothing to want to do, no one else to interact with, not even a sense of Self, a sense of *being* a particular person with various attributes and characteristics. There is just *nothing*, no-thing, a sense of completeness and fulfillment. What is left to us? It depends upon how deeply we still go within, how far-removed we take ourselves from the existing world that we have left. We are considering a deep state of consciousness, an aspect of our awareness of life that transcends any trace of our manifestation. We have nearly left this plane in its entirety. We are beyond the body, senses, life-energies, desires, thoughts, karmic web, and sense of being. Having left that all behind, what is left of us in our inner natures? This question directs our attention to our inmost essence. It is an entirely different question than what type of person would we be, should we clothe ourselves in body, senses, life-energies, desire for activity, thought, etc., appropriate to another plane of existence (higher Globe). We are not talking about taking on the fabric of consciousness on another theater of life, another plane or Globe. Instead, we are talking about our inmost part, that which reaches beyond the outer man and goes to the core, rooted in Divinity. In the tenfold scheme, there is a Highest Triad, three higher principles higher than Atman. I've not seen names applied to them. My choice would be the Auric Egg for the 8th, Swabhava for the 9th, and Paramatman for the 10th. Each principle unfolds from the previous one, as a scroll would be unwound. Each represents a further degree of coming into existence. There are degrees of unfoldment to these three principles, those of the Highest Triad, as well. Let us work our way upwards, from that which we know, or have some idea of, towards the Unknowable Mystery. Let's see how far we can get before we can go no further. What is it to us that endures, that persists whether we exist at a particular time or not? It is our karmic treasure, our storehouse of experience, our seeds that await their appropriate time to sprout forth in life. This storehouse of experience, which envelopes us, overshadows us, and contains us in our entirely, is the Auric Egg. It is that part of us that endures, that lasts "beyond the grave," when the world has gone into Pralaya and our seven principles are no more. It endures even the Mahapralaya, and carries seeds from the previous great Mahamanvantara. The Auric Egg is our personal "Brahman," which stays out of existence, but overshadows our creative Self, our Atman, which would be our personal "Brahma". With this, the 8th principle, we are in a part of our awareness that endures the dissolution of outer existence. This part of us is our totality, as it changes from one moment to the next in time. It overshadows existence, but stays out of things. It is us, everything that we have made ourselves to be, at this precise moment in time. It participates in time, but stays one step removed from space, gazing down upon space but staying just outside, just beyond the qualities of dimension and form. How can we go higher than this? How can we pass deeper within, beyond even the Auric Egg? Consider the question: What is higher than that which is temporal, which changes in time? It is the timeless. And what in us is timeless, is forever the same? It would be that part of us that is uniquely, distinctly ourselves, apart from anything we have or will ever do. That part of us is our truly essential natures, our own unique characteristics, in an ultimate sense. And that could be called: Swabhava. How does this 9th principle overshadow, guide, and inform the 8th, acting as its parent? By acting as the ever-present, ever-enduring Ideal. Our true nature and purpose in existence, our Ideal that we are always seeking to fulfill, our meaning and purpose and unique contribution to Life is this principle. And this principle, as with the others, is not something added to us. It is not external baggage that we take with us. It is a quality of consciousness, a certain experience to life, be it ever so far-removed from what we choose to give our attention to. In Swabhava, we are aware of our true natures, and this awareness is just as real as that of any other of the principles. And this awareness, as the 9th principle overshadows the 8th, drives us through time, it impels the growth and direction that the Auric Egg takes on, and the resulting periodic dives into manifest existence. With the Auric Egg, we have stepped beyond existence, and are out of space. And with Swabhava, we have stepped beyond the transitory, and are out of time. How could we possibly go further, deeper within? By simply *going beyond*. That is, there is a part to us that is so absolutely perfect, so fulfilled, and so close to the Unknowable, that it is beyond relationship to the lower principles. It does not gaze downward, being too complete, too perfect, too unmoving in the Silence to need to participate in anything. It is "beyond ourselves," our Paramatman, and as far as we can go, in consciousness. It is the "personal" experience of the Unknowable, and the highest part of our inner natures, of our innermost core. It is beyond all pairs of opposites, all forms of conditioned existence, all sense of time or space, and all awareness of any particular thing. It is perfect Oblivion, if such a term can be used in a positive sense. This takes us to the top of the tenfold scheme, the ten principles of the fabric of our consciousness. What about the twelvefold scheme? There is one higher principle, an 11th, as well as one lower, an 0th (before the first, the physical body, counting from the bottom). What do these principles consist of, given that we have come, upwards, to the highest we can experience, or downwards, to physical forms, a container of consciousness, with no intrinsic consciousness, but simply a sense of limitation? Looking upwards, we have That, Tat, the Unknowable Mystery itself. We cannot contain it in our consciousness, but are rooted in it. It is our highest principle of consciousness, but we cannot, paradoxically, be conscious of it. It is simply the Ultimate Mystery of Life. Looking downwards, we have Idam, This, the Mystery of the root nature of manifest existence. It is built up from lower and lower types of matter, each based upon yet lower and more fundamental types of materials. It is truly bottomless, and represents the nether pole of That. In our consciousness, were we to experience it, it would be the mirror-opposite of Nirvana, an Avitchi Nirvana, an unmanifest state of pure hell- like oblivion. It is Oblivion in the worst possible sense, if unconditionally embraced. Do we really have, then, a dualistic scheme, with two opposing forces battling constantly for the souls of the creatures in the universe? No. Tat (or That) lies behind and within all. And the seen universe, or universes in their totality, Idam (or This), the Boundless All, is but a dancing shadow on the wall, a ephemeral reflection of its glory. The Unknowable goes beyond all the various aspects of existence. It is beyond being or non-being, manifest or unmanifest existence. It is beyond time and the eternal quest to satisfy one's Ideal Nature. It is beyond absolute personal perfection, out of conditioned relation to space and time. It is beyond any sense of personal consciousness, because it is truly Infinite, not-finite, and cannot be contained in a finite consciousness, in whatever state. The highest that we can approach it is in our 10th principles, our going beyond any sense of personal limitations, even that of being ourselves, that of our Swabhava or Unique Natures. Our 10th principle is too perfect to need to be in relation to the lower ones, which still, somehow, mysteriously, come forth out of it. The 11th is beyond perfection, and how or in what way it relates to the 10th is as unknowable as it is itself. With our Paramatman, we can go no further. We have reached the top, the ultimate, as far as consciousness is possible. Beyond it is simply: Mystery. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 19:29:35 -0400 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Karma > This is from Nancy, Sat 9/3 evening > > TO Lewis & Bill re discussion on personal & group karma > > Didn't HPB also say ALL karma is shared karma. If we are truly > interdependent beings, how can there be a mine and yours? > You are right, I think it is all shared just not evenly. If you accept the idea of a benign universe wouldn't it make sense that the stronger/older/wiser would carry a heavier load? Doesn't the parent shield the child, as much as possible, until it reaches adulthood and assumes the burden of responsibility? "Mine" and "yours" are our share. Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 19:45:31 -0400 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Unselfishness Frank wrote: > .... If at our (well, for most of us ;-{)>) present stage of > development we feel that we have performed some action completely > altruistically, we are probably deluding ourselves. Yes, I would agree! The operative word being "completely". Dora Kunz has often said that spiritual growth/progress comes from making choices. In one of the letters from the Masters there is a reference to the same idea, that if he told us exactly what to do and we did it. We would only get the karma of dutiful obedience, while the greater good flowing from those actions would return to the originator. My point is I think we can and must "try" to live unselfishly and learn from our failures. > BTW, this can cause a greqat deal of trouble if we aren't > careful. I once had a patient, a very religiously devout man, > who tried to live a completely unselfish, saintly life. Needless > to say, he was repeatedly frustrated in this endeavor, and he > eventually became so frustrated by his "failure" that he gave it > up as a bad job and embezzled a huge sum of money. Obviously, > there were other complex motives at work, but the disappointment > over not being able to live a saintly life was indeed an > important factor supporting the criminal behavior. His karma was > nicht nishkama! My first thought was of the biblical injunction of Christ to be either hot or cold, but not lukewarm. Isn't there a notion that the greatest sinners make the greatest saints? Another thought I had was that no effort is ever wasted in a universe that is ruled by law. The masters were said to be very conscientious of the use of occult powers because every use made possible the counterforce. Your patient may have thought he failed, but is effort was what I understand to be important and not its results. Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 14:38:02 -0400 From: Aki Korhonen Subject: Why sports are harmful Hello Osmar, and the others. Why Sports are harmful: 1. Competition Sports differs from other physical exercise mainly because there is always competition related to it. This competition aspect makes a lot of difference. Some people say that it is natural to compete and it is a good thing. I don't agree. They are right, that it is very natural to compete, etc. In fact our society runs because of competitive attitude. So, at material level you get results by adopting this attitude. From spiritual view it is extremely harmful. When you compete, your "would be brothers" became your "enemies". Many times this kind of "competitions" starts as a play, but very easy it changes to real combat. For example, in martial arts if you have a competitive attitude; first it is just a play, you try to be a little better than your opponent, you succeed to deliver a good, not very hard punch. The other one is a little hurt, but more is his/her pride hurt. Then she/he tries to get even and hit you maybe a little harder... then it is no longer fun, and you may even hurt each others or lost your friendship. 2. Expanding your ego/personality in others expense. In sports you try to be better than the others, this is purely selfish. There is no other reason to it. Why we should be better in some game than the others? The team-games are only expansion of "I" to "we". In our society it is not nice to say "I am the best, you are nothing". In a team it is accepted and even admirable to say "We are the best, the others stink." If this happens inside one nation, the other teams may control you a little, since they hear what you are saying, etc. But when this happens at the national level, it is really bad. We may say: "The Finns are the best at the ice hockey", "We Finns are so good, the Swedish are soft and lousy". This kind of behaviour is regarded as patriotic and good inside of a nation. This attitude is very dangerous and it leads sooner or later to the war. 3. Sports inflate ego. When you try to win some competition and finally after sacrificing everything, succeed, you strengthen your personality, which should be conquered not honoured. 4. What good has ever came up from sports? 5. Sport events are regarded as "News". This is incredible. Sensible people regard these sport-"news" as really as a news that are worth spreading! This is so outrageous that I almost lose my temper. 6. Team sports and patriotism. The team sports are especially harmful spiritually. You might think that you learn to be social, etc., but what really happens, is that your personality slips millions of years backward to group-consciousness or group-soul. And the social skills are, that you learn to win the other team together. Go to the army, there you learn that better. A nation is a big team, in which group-soul-people, skilled in team-sports make war as a team, to other similar nations, - this is patriotism. 7. Harmful physical effects. Various injuries, use of drugs, doping, etc. 8. The worst of all: Sports steal your time. Sports steal your time, the time that you should use better. The time is the most valuable of our physical possessions. When we waste it to practise sports or to watch sports, we miss our golden opportunity to grow spiritually and to gain really something eternal. 9. In sports you are rewarded outwardly. What you get from sports? You get some medals and the other people say: "you are the best". This is external. You may not get any internal satisfaction. Compare this e.g. to meditation. Nobody says that you are so good at it. But if you are, you get the reward from inside and nobody can give it to you as a medal. No competition, instant reward. Any ideas? Peace, aki. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 16:32:01 -0400 From: Kent@gatezone.com (Kent) Subject: Re: Why sports are harmful aki wrote about sports being harmful. Hi, my name is Kent Livingston. I haven't posted to this list before. K. Paul Johnson introduced me to it a month or so ago and I enjoy the dialogues. I'm not a Theosophists but of course their are many aspects of Theosophy that I feel aligned with. I have been working with the spiritual exercises model in Eckankar for a little more than twenty years. (hope this doesn't disqualify me from participating...you're certainly welcome in alt.religion.eckankar or the various Eckankar lists) I was motivated to post because of aki's sports post. There are a lot of good points in it. I found myself feeling and thinking that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. I would not have come to Earth if my purpose, as a spiritual being, was to be in a meditative or inwardly directed state all the time. Granted there are lots of reasons to come here ;-). And lots of ways to be here. There are lots of points aki makes about the absurdity of sports that I agree with, particularly the way it often seems to take up half the news broadcasts. However I think there is something in the absurdity of it that is persistent through the ages. Something about "homo ludens" I think that is the term? That playfulness has turned into big business or become distorted in some urban.ritualistic.little league is just extreme behavior. In my experience I test myself in many ways. Sometimes consciously and often not. I watch kids do this too. As a spiritual being I've tested myself in many lifetimes and the process continues in the present one. Is the end goal to be totally turned within and not to engage in "testing behavior" or is it something else? Perhaps to keep deepening my realization of the diverse wonders of the manifested as well as the unmanifested universes. I should add here that I do not play any sports now. Participated as a kid and teenager a little. And only rarely would you find me watching sports live or on television. However I think they have a positive place in our lives. | | kent@gatezone.com | Kent Livingston From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 20:46:36 -0400 From: Altadena Classical Homeopathy Education Society Subject: honoring the gods and our unconscious . . . . . TO FRANK Thanks Frank. Let's go into the process of mentation as it applies to speaking, as speech seems quite magical to me. Rarely do I have any sense of which word is going to come out, though I may have an overall sense of the topic or direction. This seems to concur with the idea that much is happening outside of active awareness. If I am tired, words come out backwards, mixed-up, etc., so some part of this awareness/ thinking/speaking system must be involved with the physical sense of well being. I'm unfamiliar with the WITNESS in Vedantic literature (what comes to mind is the novel DUNE) but I'm curious to know more -- do you relate it to the observing ego/higher manas? What kind of practice do you have that you have patients? TO JERRY HE I'm impressed Jer. Thanks for the input. Would you agree with Jer S that the archetypes Jung talks about reside in the Astral? Do you think they have cultural/racial connections with us, and that there may have been different archetypes that say, the Atlanteans were in touch with? Or What? Adam Warcup described the unconscious as all the memories and possibly all our potentials which at any given time, does not have the light of consciousness shining on it. Consciousness arises, so to speak, and illumines certain aspects of our nature, those still un-illumined are unconscious. He thought that it was just habit that kept certain things in the unconscious. Any reactions? TO JERRY S I don't have any trouble with the idea of living as if all events are contacts with/messages from the gods/esses. That's a little like my approach to Astrology -- everything is symbolic, even the gods/etc. One has to invite all the gods, all the planets in to dinner -- can't leave out, trade, or disinvite any of them. Kind of like the old Greco/Roman idea of giving an offering at each of the temples as one passes. Seeing below the surface, to the inner meanings is a constant exercise in perceiving symbolically. As the Universe doesn't speak English, guess we'll have to learn the U's language. Why, though, does it have to be a Personal Direction from the god-realms? I'm more comfortable with being a nameless cell in the web. I agree with your statement about the need for getting conscious of who we are and dropping this good/bad judgmental stuff. Doesn't GdeP also say not to get caught up in being good? The value of the 7-fold model IMHO is that we now have a way to understand inclusiveness. IMHO the more inclusive anything is, the more spiritual it is. Nancy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 23:04:34 -0400 From: Frank <73632.105@compuserve.com> Subject: Sports--NOT Aki, >> 2. Expanding your ego/personality in others expense. In sports you try to be better than the others, this is purely selfish. There is no other reason to it. Why we should be better in some game than the others? The team-games are only expansion of "I" to "we".<< But consider this: Master Cheng Man Ching, when asked for the secret of his fantastic success as a tai chi player, replied that it was simply the eradication of all ego feeling while he was sparring with opponents. >> 5. Sport events are regarded as "News". This is incredible. Sensible people regard these sport-"news" as really as a news that are worth spreading! This is so outrageous that I almost lose my temper.<< If you should visit the United States in the near future, do yourself a favor and avoid television news programs. Our present ratio is about 35% hard news, 35% fluff and 30% SPORTS. I fear you would suffer a loss of temper that would set you back five incarnations! I agree with you that competitive sports are not of any value from a spiritual perspective. BTW, P.D. Ouspensky says the same thing. However, I do not think that they are totally without value. Einstein once wrote to Freud asking him what could be done about the problem of human aggression. Freud replied that this was a rather hopeless issue, because aggression was a primary human drive. Freud did state, though, that viewing competitive sports did provide a vicarious discharge of aggression for the masses, thus siphoning off some of the aggression that would otherwise be expressed directly in behavior toward others. Freud felt that this was pretty much the best that we could hope for in terms of containing the masses. (HMMM, wonder if more heads are being cracked now that the U.S. is in the midst of a baseball strike???!!!) >>We may say: "The Finns are the best at the ice hockey", "We Finns are so good, the Swedish are soft and lousy".<< I never knew that about the Swedes. ;-{)> Peace, Frank From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 23:07:57 -0400 From: Frank <73632.105@compuserve.com> Subject: The Word Machine Nancy, >> Thanks Frank. Let's go into the process of mentation as it applies to speaking, as speech seems quite magical to me. Rarely do I have any sense of which word is going to come out, though I may have an overall sense of the topic or direction. This seems to concur with the idea that much is happening outside of active awareness. If I am tired, words come out backwards, mixed-up, etc., so some part of this awareness/ thinking/speaking system must be involved with the physical sense of well being. I'm unfamiliar with the WITNESS in Vedantic literature (what comes to mind is the novel DUNE) but I'm curious to know more -- do you relate it to the observing ego/higher manas? What kind of practice do you have that you have patients?<< Dan Goleman, science writer for the New York Times, made exactly the point you do re language. He too views this process as a magical one in which the speaker has only a rough notion of what direction the talk is taking and somehow it comes out making sense with good grammar, accurate vocabulary, etc. (most times) Also read Annie Besant's comments on the same topic (I think in her London Lectures). The actual processing takes place in brain areas that are not directly connected to our conscious awareness. In other words, we are not actively, in full awareness, participating in the task of selecting words and arranging them. We *are* to some extent, but not anywhere near the extent that we think we are. In fact the premises on which our verbalizations are based may have little to do with what we think are the premises behind them. For example, in the experiments I mentioned with patients with the connective tissue between brain hemispheres severed, subjecs were given an experimental task in which information was fed to only one brain hemisphere (I won't bore list members with the details; just trust me that this can be accomplished when the wiring is clipped). Subjects were then asked to indicate *nonverbally* which was the correct choice from a series of objects exposed to the *nonverbal* brain hemisphere. They were able to point to the correct one; but when they were then asked to explain their choice, the poor verbal hemisphere was presented with a dilemma, as it had no idea why the hand controlled by the nonverbal hemisphere pointed to the target object. So what did the verbal hemisphere do to explain the choice? It *made up* a reason that was completely unrelated to the actual basis for the choice. This effect was consistently demonstrated across subjects. IOW, the little verbal/conscious part of the brain has access to only a fraction of the brain's activity and, even in normals, often does not have a clue as to what the real state of affairs is. It responds to this dilemma by simply making up something that has logical consistency and sounds good. And it thinks that it is actively, consciously, purposely, and logically constructing these explanations. We do this all the time every day of our lives. This is the purpose of our little "word machine" (Robert Ornstein's term), to insure consistency. Not accuracy or validity---merely consistency so that we think our minds are working in a nice logical linear fashion. I do not relate the Witness to the observing ego, which is an aspect of the personal psyche. My understanding of the Witness is that it is Atman. I am a psychologist and the patient I mentioned was in psychotherapy with me. He came to me after he had embezzeled the money, gotten caught, and done some jail time. Lewis, My point in discussing this particular patient was that he was overreaching, i.e., trying to live at a level of development that he had not achieved. The danger for him was that he atacked himself for not living up to this unrealistically strict spiritual ideal and just crashed. It is the same type of illogiocal thinking that causes alcoholics to resume heavy drinking after having a minor relapse. They then think that they absolutely cannot regulate their drinking, that it's all hopeless, etc. and just give up and go back to exactly where they were before. You cannot progress if you get perfectionistic with yourself and then beat yourself up for "failing" what was from the start an impossible task. Peace, Frank From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 7 Sep 1994 01:01:38 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Various Comments This is by Eldon Tucker ---- There is quite a lot going on. It's almost impossible to keep up with all that is being written about on 'theos-l'. Here are a few stray comments. ---- Frank Dyer: Over the years, I've had a chance to talk with a number of G. de Purucker's students. I've also had a chance to see some private archival materials on his life. I have to say, frankly, that I don't recall a lot of detail of what I've come across. My appreciation of Purucker is not, though, due to what anyone has said of him, nor of any historic documents I may have seen. I value him for his role as Teacher, in helping me approach Theosophy. You might ask: How could I consider him as a Teacher when I never met him in person? I'd say: Because his writings, and the results of his life, led me to the Teachings, and I feel that I own him a great debt. Regarding psychology, I'd consider it the "physiology" of the personality, with a different sort of creature in each culture, each subrace. As to unselfishness, to describe it as action with no trace of personal desire may be misleading. This idea seems to come from the approach that would reduce the personality to a cipher in order to attain the spiritual. That may be the wrong way. I'd consider the active flowering of the personality to continue with the growth of spirituality, not to wither away. It is the sense of being centered in the personality, the *focusing* of the seat of consciousness in the personality, that is the problem. Personal desire is an element of the activity of the personality, be it for good or bad. The change with growing spirituality is that the personality is no longer center-stage; it is no longer the prime motivator; it no longer is that part of us that we identify with as being ourselves. But it still exists, as a part of our constitution, and is used to give expression to the life within. ---- Nancy: It's nice to see a word or two from you, to know that you're still around. I assume that because of your busy activity in prison work, you have no time to write much yourself. How about sharing (with permission, if required) some of the gems of what you've written in your prison work? With the exception of Gerald Schueler, I don't see lots of postings of Pasadena T.S. members. I hope there isn't some restriction about publicly writing about Theosophy, some requirement that you not present in a public forum the deeper Teachings. ---- Lewis: I agree that it is not necessarily an ego trip to seek the good, to better ourselves, when certainly we are rewarded for the effort. Even if our motivations at first are impure, mixed, somewhat selfish, as we spiritualize ourselves, we make it easier to operate from higher motivations. Regarding the burden of karma, it is only seen as a burden when viewed as *exterior to ourselves.* When we see that we are not separate from our relationships with others, and that those relationships are the very definition of karmic connections with them, then the sense of *burden* falls away. What we feel is what we've made ourselves into, and we cannot help in changing those close to us, those we are connected to in life, when we change ourselves. All life is interconnected, and those connections are our bonds of karma. But "bonds" is a misleading term, since we are not tied to something. It is more like a vast web of life, a karmic web, which by our day- to-day activities we continue to weave the fabric of manifest life. ---- Bill: I don't think that it was right, when you asked a theosophical question, for someone to simply tell you to "read The Secret Doctrine." That is an evasive answer, that shows the person unready or unable to explain in clear language an answer to your question. Something can always be said, something appropriate to the type of question you may ask. The question of seven or five "bodies" is misleading, when applied to the principles of consciousness. The principles are not "bodies," but rather aspects or facets of consciousness itself. Breaking apart the white light of consciousness, we find the spectrum of colors that are the principles. Wherever we exist, as fully conscious and fully manifest beings, we have all seven (or ten or twelve) principles. This could be on any plane, globe, or planetary chain--anywhere that we can come into existence. Regarding group karma, we may need to describe who or what a group is, before we can say that it is an entity capable of having karma of its own. A loose definition of group karma might be a collective *influence.* Some great being may project a ray of consciousness, the effects of which are felt by a group of people. These people have this influence in common, and because of it are members of a group. The karma they share with each other and with the group's originator would be "group karma." These people, though, participate in the group; they are not caused by it. Their participation is by choice, by allowing themselves to come under that particular ray of consciousness. That relationship is self-chosen, originated at some point in the past, and will someday end; it is not eternal. ---- Gerald Schueler: You're right about the need for humility. Humility, though, does not arise by focusing in the personality, and choosing to do things that humble oneself. It is not from some artificial act of personal piety. Rather, humility comes from forgetting oneself, from no longer giving an excessive sense of importance to one's personality, from putting the higher truths and things of beauty before petty interests, and having a genuine concern for the needs of others *on an equal and unbiased basis with one's own needs.* The sense of personal pride is no longer an obstacle to living life; a wounded ego loses its power to motivate action; the love of the True and the Beautiful replace one's personal needs as the most interesting subjects of our attention. True humility comes comes from taking the power from the personal sense of importance, from ego gratification, and turning it over to a practical love of the Highest in life. In psychological terms, the shadow is the personal energies that are unable to be directly lived out in the personal self. Because of being a particular person with certain interests, certain qualities, of a certain moral character, we can live out certain parts of ourself, and deny, ignore, or suppress other parts of ourselves. These other parts of ourselves, as they complement and oppose our official personality, can be treated as a inner psychological rival, the shadow. But the shadow is not a being in its own right, and it is not to be lived out by direct actions. Its energies are tapped and given expression in symbolic acts; where it to be lived out in more literal fashion we would quickly come to a breakdown of the personality with all sorts of attendant problems. What is it in theosophical terms? It is the lower part of the unlived out life energies, which once set in motion, need to be dealt with in some manner or another. If we can deal with these energies while still alive, we are shortening our kamaloka. We cannot avoid dealing with them; if not in life, then in the after-death we must face and come to grips with our darker, unfulfilled energies. The same is also true of the higher energies, normally finding their fruition in devachan. These higher energies could be worked out, in part, while we are still alive, if we can do something to give them expression, either directly or through symbolic or magical acts. ---- Richard Ihle One aspect of genius is a prolific output, never looking back, but always going forward with ever-better creations, ever-better contributions to the beauty, intelligence, and happiness of the world. We can never go back and reclaim what we have done, any more than we can undo karma, once made. But we can engender new causes, that have equal power in fashioning the future. As long as you continue to do your best to bring light to the minds of men, you cannot go wrong. Discretion may be necessary at times--some things must be spoken of with care, if shared at all. But we are bound to share, to express in the world, the grand truths that we behold, or risk facing inner death. Our inner nature will only awaken to those truths, those beauties, those grand visions of life that we willingly live out or share with others. It is as thought we provide a circuit, in our lives, for the higher energies to flow into the outer world. Unblocked and free- flowing, we express more, and are thereby entitled to behold even more. When we shut our mouths, and start to keep to ourselves what we have found, we start to lose it; it spoils and goes sour on us; we die inwardly. Don't be shy about moving forward, and sharing the Philosophy, with due discretion and discrimination, of course, in the manner of expression. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 7 Sep 1994 01:22:13 -0400 From: Aki Korhonen Subject: Re: honoring the gods and our unconscious . . . . . Hello Nancy, and the others. You wrote: > TO JERRY HE > > I'm impressed Jer. Thanks for the input. Would you agree with > Jer S that the archetypes Jung talks about reside in the Astral? > Do you think they have cultural/racial connections with us, and > that there may have been different archetypes that say, the > Atlanteans were in touch with? Or What? I think that Jung's archetypes resemble Plato's ideas, and Plato's ideas would be, by my opinion, more on the mental level, to say; accessible by thoughts - not by feelings or senses. Aristotele, Plato's diciple, drew Plato's ideas more on physical and astral level, and mixed his 'form' and 'idea', I think. I think, that Plato had various hierarchies of Ideas, some of them, to use theosophical terms, are on mental-, some on causal-, buddhic-, etc. levels. Peace. aki. Oulu, Finland. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 7 Sep 1994 08:39:39 -0400 From: Aki Korhonen Subject: Re: Sports. Hello, Kent, welcome to the list on my behalf. You wrote: > There are lots of points aki makes about the absurdity of sports > that I agree with, particularly the way it often seems to take up > half the news broadcasts. However I think there is something in > the absurdity of it that is persistent through the ages. > Something about "homo ludens" I think that is the term? That > playfulness has turned into big business or become distorted in > some urban.ritualistic.little league is just extreme > behavior. I agree, business is just the one big motive, why people commit sport activities. Athletes are doing commercial entertainment. So they are like actors. To be an actor is well and OK. But the plays they play are not so good. About the sport-news, I agree even more, I touched this point in my earlier post about mass-media, I'm not sure if you were then at the list. Also Lewis, commented this thing in his post about sports. The main point in the sports-news, is the distortion of the concept of the news. > In my experience I test myself in many ways. Sometimes > consciously and often not. I watch kids do this too. As a > spiritual being I've tested myself in many lifetimes and the > process continues in the present one. Is the end goal to be > totally turned within and not to engage in "testing behavior" or > is it something else? Perhaps to keep deepening my realization of > the diverse wonders of the manifested as well as the unmanifested > universes. Here your testing is totally different of "testing"-aspect in sports. Since in sports the other people, meters, seconds, etc. test you. But I think in your case you are the one who does the testing, so it is not the other peoples valuation of you, but rather how you self think, you match your spiritual standards? Peace, aki. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 7 Sep 1994 09:11:07 -0400 From: Aki Korhonen Subject: Re: Sports--NOT Hello Frank, and the others. You wrote: > But consider this: Master Cheng Man Ching, when asked for the > secret of his fantastic success as a tai chi player, replied that > it was simply the eradication of all ego feeling while he was > sparring with opponents. Yes you are right, this is just the opposite of what happens in sports. The Asian martial arts and systems such as Yoga are far from sports. The only common thing is, that they deal with physical body and movements. The motive is different. If you ask what is a Tai Chi master's goal, you probably get long list of various philosophical and spiritual reasons and also some health reasons, try the same question to some athlete coach and see the difference. I want to stress my definition of word "sports". I take that word in a meaning: "A Physical exercise to which people commit with competitive attitude." It is mainly the competition, the urge to compete, win, to be better, which is the real drive and motive behind most of "sports". Without these motives we would not have these myriad's of sports. So, by my view, sports is a contaminated word because of it s use. To speak of other physical exercise, we have words such as "dance", etc. I don't find a good, single English word for these activities, but, "Physical exercise". > If you should visit the United States in the near future, do > yourself a favor and avoid television news programs. Our present > ratio is about 35% hard news, 35% fluff and 30% SPORTS. I fear > you would suffer a loss of temper that would set you back five > incarnations! I'm sure that would happen. But since I know that, I don't watch television, I also try to avoid any kind of mass-media for various reasons. I sent earlier a post about mass-media, I think you were not on the list then. > a primary human drive. Freud did state, though, that viewing > competitive sports did provide a vicarious discharge of > aggression for the masses, thus siphoning off some of the > aggression that would otherwise be expressed directly in behavior > toward others. Freud felt that this was pretty much the best > that we could hope for in terms of containing the masses. Aggression is one of those animal-qualities in us that is a remnant of the past. Our task is now to get rid of that, and some other bad qualities. Common sense says, at least to me, that if we practise some skill, we get better at it, not to get rid of it . So when you practise aggression at sports, it increases your aggressiveness. It creates aggressiveness, not makes it less. This can be noticed, by simply observing sport audience and the atheletes in action. Peace, aki. Oulu. Finland. P.S. I'm sorry Lewis and Frank, in my previous post I meant Frank's not Lewis's comment of sport news. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 7 Sep 1994 09:27:00 -0400 From: Aki Korhonen Subject: Motives of sports. Hello all. When I have discussed with people about sports, they often point out, that sports have good physical effects. I can't deny that there are those. Again it is the motive what counts. Many "sports", if you really compete, are not fun. It is hard job. So why millions of young people commit various sport. Because of physical fitness and well being? I doubt. If I analyse the usual motives behind "sports", I find 3. main categories of motives: 1. Fame, Name, Glory, Urge to show up, to be something, to be better. 2. Money. 3. Leisure, killing time. 4. Physical fitness. (Mostly desire to "look good", etc.) I'm not against physical exercise, I'm against "sports". Sports should be as a play, as children play, if they are not misguided by elder people. Sports should be for fun and recuperation, self-discovering, etc. If you ask what is the motive, and philosophy, why people should commit sports, e.g. some coach or a member of some sport committee, I bet you don't get any sensible answers, at least you won't get any spiritual reasons. So by "sports" we get physical results. But how about spiritual damage and spiritual goals? I also compare physical development to other capabilities, e.g. mental ability. A naive analogy: "Mental wit and sharpness, logic, etc. is desirable. So we want to enhance it. Thinking and discussing is a good way to improve it. So why not set up insult-contests, a competition who is the best at making worst and most humiliating arguments, who is the most witty." At this context this analogy is absurd, but this is just what people do in sports in a name of physical fitness. Please don't get offended. This is not against you. I agree many of your arguments, to which I now did not answer, and there is many (maybe some) aspects in sports, which are good. They appear usually when we reject this competitive attitude, and then I would not use word "sport" any more. I myself practice quite a lot of physical exercise, mainly Tai Chi, (or Taiji in Pinyin) and soft martial arts, such as Aikido, occasional hanggliding is the ultimate fun for me, (also some spiritual points, I want to believe). Playfulness and Bliss to all competitive beings. Peace. aki From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 8 Sep 1994 12:17:51 -0400 From: bill@Zeus.itdc.edu Subject: Away from the list for a while Hi all, I am going to be out of town for the next four weeks. I will try to keep up with the list-mail on weekends if I can. I know I owe several people a response from previous threads and messages -- I'll try to get to them on the weekends too. If anyone wants to try to get together and discuss list topics, this is my current travel schedule: 09/12-15/1994 Plymouth/Minneapolis, MN Teaching Motif Programming 09/19-23/1994 Upton/Long Island, NY Teaching Motif Programming 09/26-30/1994 Raleigh/Durham, NC Teaching C Programming 10/02-05/1994 Atlanta, GA Attending Training Conference Of course, since change is the only constant in the universe, this schedule is tentative. I'll be back to regular reading and posting in four weeks (I hope!?!). "See" you soon! May you 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, 8 Sep 1994 14:00:00 -0400 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: archetypes Nancy NC> Would you agree with Jer S that the archetypes Jung talks > about reside in the Astral? Do you think they have > cultural/racial connections with us, and that there may > have been different archetypes that say, the Atlanteans were > in touch with? Or What? I need to go back to Jerry S,'s post to get an idea of how he was using the word "astral." The meaning of this word was pretty broad in Medieval times, more specific in HPB's usage, and problematical in later neo-theosophical literature. Based upon what I have read of Jerry's posts over the years, my guess is that he has own definition for the term, based upon other writers but adapted to his own ideas. Anyway, I can't find where he says that archetypes "reside in the astral" so I'll have to respond to what info you gave. If by "astral," Jerry means either linga sarira or kama, then I disagree. If by "astral" he is referring to the planetary "astral" (Anima Mundi), then I think this is basically correct, but needs clarification. Regarding Atlantian Archetypes; I would imagine that the images of the Atlantians had cultural variations of expression just like ours, but less so. But, HPB does suggest that the archetypal images of today can be traced back to Atlantian times. I did find the following post by Jerry S.: JS> As for the 7-fold model, psychology > looks mainly at the lower 3 or 4 planes, > except perhaps for the Jungian which, IMHO, > looks at the 5th as well. Psychology has a > lot of models. I personally prefer Jungian. > I would place his collective unconscious on > the 5th plane (counting upwards; the first > spiritual plane), the personal unconscious on > the 4th, and the ego and shadow each having > counterparts on the 3rd (manas) and 2nd > (astral). Unless Jerry S. defines what he means by "planes," specifies which seven-fold model he has in mind, and defines these "planes" (or makes reference to a published definition, if he is not using his own), I would be unable to comment. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 8 Sep 1994 18:56:34 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: The Prize Goes Unclaimed This is by Eldon Tucker ---- The Prize Goes Unclaimed As we take Theosophy and bring it into the activities of our daily lives, our personal interests come strongly into play. Those things we like to do determine how we live out the Teachings, how we bring them into the world and influence the people and surrounding environment. If our interests are in art and music, we give it a theosophical touch. If we are strongly involved in interpersonal work, perhaps as psychologist or social worker, we use our new-found wisdom to fashion new techniques of helping others, and to enrich the content of our interaction with them. And if we are school teachers, we may pose good questions, leading the children to think in the right direction, and work to continually train them to keep open minds and continually reconsider what they thought they knew and took for granted. We need to make a distinction, though, between our personal interests, based upon the personalities we have fashioned for ourselves in this particular lifetime, and the actual content and nature of the Teachings themselves. What is given us is quite distinct from how we may give personal expression to it. If we don't carefully make this distinction, we lose sight of the true Gupta Vidya, the Wisdom-Religion. When we take our personal interests, and project them onto Theosophy itself, we no longer gaze directly on its face, but instead look at an idealized mask of our own personality. A simple description of Theosophy is that it is a gateway to the Mysteries, a semi-veiled exposition of introductory Mystery teachings. The wondrous part of it is that it is just that: semi-veiled, leaving open the possibly of entry into the outer court without a key. The outer door has been left ajar, rather than shut and locked. We may step inside if we dare. It is easy to confuse our personal interests with the right way to do things. We may assume that since we do so much good in the world that everyone should follow our lead and do the same sort of work. We forget that any form of service to others, any form of contribution to the well-being and betterment of humanity is quite personalized, and must be self-devised. Forgetting that, we become short-sighted and start picturing others, with different interests and activities, as apathetic, as non-caring, as wasting their time in "unreal" pursuits. We have erred in seeing things through the narrow perspective of our personalities, rather than opening up and gazing upon the big picture. Consider the socially-oriented person. This man or woman may care deeply about how others feel, and have an interest and aptitude in helping them solve personal problems. There may be a talent in providing psychological assistance to troubled people. Such a person, taking too narrow a view of things, might call on others to "get real" and start doing things to help people, doing "real" things. But what are real things? How are the others, with other involvements, not also making a contribution? Tolerance is important. Not just tolerance for different views and ideas about things, but tolerance for different approaches to making valid contributions to the good of others, different approaches to giving outward expression to the highest in life. It is different, though, when we approach the Teachings, when we approach the Path. Although the means that we employ to engage the Process may vary, that which we approach is one and the same thing. The Treasure that we approach is the same, even if the means of sharing it varies widely by individual temperament. As students who would enter the Stream, we see that our study of the Mysteries is a *real* activity, something leading to inner transformation and very real changes in others and the world. First we attain the treasures, and the means of sharing them will naturally follow. Hard work making the nicest of wine bottles is fruitless, a waste of time, should the bottles remain empty, because we have neglected wine- making itself. Going after the wine, we find an approach that challenges our highest natures, the highest parts of us accessible at this point in evolution: the spiritual-intellectual. This is what we train in, Buddhi-Manas, and it opens up a new part of ourselves that was not present before. There are many ways to confuse the making of wine bottles with the going after the wine. One is found in the assertion that in the dynamics of the personality is the only real basis of growth, leading to transformation of self and society. Another is that the wisdom to be shared comes from psychism, from the fruits of a quest for phenomena and powers. A third is in an even-more material quest: to provide food, shelter, and physical health to the helpless and incapable of society. In all cases, we become preoccupied in too low a part of our natures in our search for Wisdom. These can all be ways to personally share what we have found. They are but empty wine bottles, though, if they are uninspired activities, activities lacking the inspiration of a rich inner nature, aglow with an awakening spirituality and wisdom. An awakened spiritual- intellectual nature provides the wine to fill these bottles we may fashion, bottles of whatever shape. We can have a moderately healthy life and not be preoccupied with body building. We can have some naturally- unfolding occult powers without being drawing into a craving for power and phenomena. We can have reasonable psychological health, without an obsession with psychological well-being. And we can have a reasonably active intellect, with challenging things to read, study, and talk about. All the various parts of our nature can be active and healthy. And the next step is the higher Human Nature, the spiritual- intellectual, the inspired-mind nature. This is what we nurture, what we would have flower in our lives. It provides the wine that gives the contents and value to our outer lives. This part of us is "where the action is," and we seek to make it the seat of our consciousness. It is the part that we train in, that the Wisdom-Religion promotes in its followers. And it is a faculty that is there, ready to be tapped, waiting for us to make it a part of our lives. There are great Treasures to be found in our philosophy. They provide a beckoning gateway to the Mysteries. There is just the smallest step to take, a small step beyond the books in the right direction. And taking that step is the most important thing that we should be doing. The outer activities in our lives will naturally follow. Let's embrace the Mysteries and live for the Highest. Until this step is taken, Theosophy may seem to be a mass of philosophical theory and speculation, with but bits and pieces of eastern thought worthy of sharing with western thought. But that is only while we keep our eyes shut! And we don't have to; our eyes can open any time we choose! I'm reminded of a shy teenage boy, sitting beside a girl he would date. He has only to ask her out and she'll happily say "Yes!" But he burdens himself with doubts and lets fear and uncertainty hold his tongue silent. The easy words are not spoken and the prize goes unclaimed. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 8 Sep 1994 20:36:02 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Globes, Planes, and Principles (repost) This is by Eldon Tucker (I'm reposting it since it's been a day since I posted it and a copy hasn't come back to me yet. Mail that I've posted earlier today has already returned. Somehow this posting got lost...) ---- Globes, Planes, and Principles A discussion of the principles of consciousness-- including the physical body, senses, feelings, desires, thoughts, and so forth--is incomplete unless it proceeds to mention the Monads. In early theosophical literature, the Monads, or rather Egos or centers of consciousness, were spoken of in association with the principles. The spiritual Ego was associated with Buddhi, the human Ego with Manas, the animal life-nature, nephesh, with Kama-Prana. There were many more associations. Yet another type of association made with the principles was with the planes of consciousness, where our plane was associated with the physical, the next with the astral, the following with the mental, and so forth. A third type of association was made with the Globes or worlds on which we can exist, where a particular Globe is on such-and-such a plane, and because of being on that plane is associated with the corresponding principle of consciousness. When we talk about principles, planes, and Globes, we are talking about three quite different things. They are interrelated, but are not the same thing. Let's try to untangle our understanding of them a bit. Regardless of whatever world we may come into existence on, we have consciousness. That consciousness can be understood as being composed of certain basic elements, certain essential parts. The principles represent those parts, those ingredients that go into making a fully-manifest being. By understanding the principles, how they work, and how they relate to each other, we understand the general pattern of the workings of consciousness, and understand the magical process by which the unseen is made manifest. Apart from the understanding of the workings of consciousness, we may consider *where* we are coming into being. There are definite localities where existence may happen. These places are the "bodies" of great beings. By existing, and having bodies, they play host to us, they provide the worlds on which we may come into manifest existence. These worlds, for us, are the Globes of our planetary chain. (We call it a "chain" because each it linked to the next in sequence; we pass from the first one to the second, from that to the third, and continue to the last one, where we start over again. It is a "planetary" chain because it is composed of planets in space, although the only visible planet in our chain is the earth.) When we come into birth, when we take on manifest existence in one of these worlds, on one of the Globes of our chain, we clothe ourselves in the principles of consciousness. If we clothe ourselves in all the principles, through and including the physical form, we are fully-manifest. If we but partially clothe ourselves in the principles, we may not participate in the activities of life on that world, we stay somewhat out of existence. The principles are different than these globes. They should not be pictured as being concrete, tangible, physical objects of the substance of some other, higher world. A thought, for instance, is not literally a rock or pencil on some higher world; a thought is a way of experiencing life. Regardless of how high a world we may manifest on, the capacity of thought is part of the full experience of life. Using a term like "mental body" is misleading, since thought is not physical substance of some higher world, and our capacity of thought is not itself but a physical body on that higher world. There is both a life and a form side to each of the principles. Each principle has its associated element. But this "substance" is the stuff that Skandhas are made of. To draw an analogy to quantum physics: we are talking about the wave-like and particle-like attributes of mind, where the life-side is the wave-like quality and the form-side is the particle-like quality. "Substance" is the tangible nature, the crystallized side of thought, as contrasted to its fluidic nature. When we come into existence in a world, we could say that we take on thought, mental activity, if we sufficiently awaken our consciousness and go that far into coming into existence; e.g., if we clothe ourselves in Atman, Buddhi, and Manas. No "bodies" are involved, though, until we reach the physical, the Sthula-Sharira, or some substitute like the Mayavi-Rupa or Nirmanakaya, depending upon our evolutionary status. Having now made a distinction between the principles and the Globes or places of existence, we now need to further distinguish the planes of consciousness from them. Consciousness is an experience we have of living life; it is not dependent on locality. We may have any consciousness throughout a wide spectrum of possibilities, and yet be in the physical body. We could be alive and awake and yet range in our experience from the horror of Avitchi through Kamalokic desire, ordinary waking consciousness, Devachanic spiritual dream experiences, to near-Nirvanic beatitude. A plane of consciousness is measured by the range or extent of its effects. The "plane" could be compared to a magnetic field. Its extent is as far as any object over which it can exert some force. A plane is not an abstract, mathematical concept--not any more so than the Laws of Nature. Each is caused by the actions of higher beings. The planes of consciousness that we are able to experience on the earth could be compared to the "background radiation" of the great Being whose life enables the earth to exist. The qualities of consciousness of that Being are organized along the same lines as ours; e.g. His Atman, Buddhi, Manas, and so forth. We find, therefore, that the planes we experience, while on the earth chain, correspond to principles. There are, though, no planes in an abstract, mathematical sense. (This holds true for anything that we may consider in life: There are no absolute rules, laws, structures to life; everything is from the action of living beings.) But when we leave our physical earth behind, our body asleep or entranced, and go on to other worlds, don't we travel to other planes? Not really. The qualities of consciousness that those other planes represent can be experienced just as well in this world as in the next. We are not going to other planes, but rather to other globes, other *places of existence.* The other globes are non-physical in the sense that they are of different matter than our earth, globe D, is composed of. And they could be subject to different physical "laws of nature," based upon the behavior of the elemental and mineral kingdoms on those other globes. But when we say that the other globes are on other planes, we are really referring to the fact that each globe has its own keynote consciousness, centered in one of the principles. One globe is centered in Prana, another in Kama, yet another in Kama-Manas. Because of this association, a particular principle governs "how nature works" on a globe, and we could say, in a loose sense, that a globe was "on that plane," that it was on the plane associated with that particular principle. How could we describe all this? We are "on a plane" when we experience the corresponding consciousness, regardless of what world, what globe we may be on at the time. We find it easiest to experience a particular plane when on the globe on which that quality of consciousness predominates. The globes, and not the planes, are the places that we visit, when "out of the body." The globes are limited in number, and visited sequentially; we should not think of a "fourth dimension" with an infinite number of places to visit in our out-of-the-body experiences. We do not literally have "bodies" for each quality of consciousness, except in a metaphorical sense, in reference to the living bundle of attributes and qualities that we acquire and carry with us; "bodies" in reference to "physical" forms are created for our use on any globe we would exist on. This takes us to where the Monads enter the picture. In our constitution are various centers of consciousness, somewhat associated with the various principles, but each with its own sense of identity. We may focus in one center or the next. We have the Divine Monad or Ego, then the Spiritual, the Higher Human, the Human, the Animal, and so on. All these centers of consciousness within us are entities in their own right, yet paradoxically they also are all but facets of ourselves. We are currently centered in the lower Human Ego, but one day, as our evolution progresses, we will operate out of a higher center within. These centers in us, these Egos, as the Globes relate to us in our totality, might be compared to the Globes, as they relate to the planetary chain in its entirety--both are the different centers of consciousness, associated with different principles, in which the life- energies of a being operate. The early terminology of Theosophy was tangled, and I'm not sure that simply using English terms for the Sanskrit would help pull out the hidden meanings. I've found that Purucker's writings help considerably in sorting things out. The most important thing to do is to not crystallize in our thinking, to continually strive to break the molds of mind, to always think things afresh and breathe new life into them. There is always something new to learn, even on the simplest of truths, the most basic of our doctrines, if we'd just keep looking. The core concepts of Theosophy are deep Koans offering much to the hungry mind! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1994 00:37:19 -0400 From: John Mead Subject: alias addresses Hi -- I am currently managing all Listserver activities at Vnet (basically for a free account in return). If you have need for multiple addresses with the Theos-xxx discussions lists I can set them up now as aliases within the List's scope. peace -- john mead p.s. If this message confuses you --- please ignore it. it probably does not apply to your circumstance. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1994 00:41:04 -0400 From: JCOKER@EIS.CALSTATE.EDU Subject: (none) Thursday afternoon. From Nancy. THANKS LEWIS, I really like what you wrote about karma: If you accept the idea of a benign universe wouldn't it make sense that the stronger/older/wiser would carry a heavier load? Doesn't the parent shield the child, as much as possible, until it reaches adulthood and assumes the burden of responsibility? "Mine" and "yours" are our share. To my way of thinking, your illustration also complements the idea that consciously choosing a spiritual path "speeds up karma" (materialistic phrase tho it is, it DOES convey). Spiritual practices must be one of the ways we signal the U we're ready for a heavier load. There is a sacrificial aspect to this that also appeals to me, tho it comes dangerously close to the "Jesus died for our sins" syndrome. It seems valid to me, that we CAN help others by our compassion and willingness to consciously share the load. Re: your suggestion that maybe being bad is better than being lukewarm or mediocre, I offer this story I read in SUNRISE: One day a Hasid came to Rabbi Wolf and complained about some people who were in the habit of playing at cards all night long. "Good," said the rabbi. "All people want to serve God but many don't know how. Those people learn to keep awake and stick to their activity. Once they have reached a high degree of perfec- tion in this, all they have to do is 'turn-around' -- and what great servants of God they will make!" TO FRANK I've read about the phenomenon that occurs after the brain stem is cut (they do this for epileptics sometimes I believe.) I read Goleman's book, Vital Lies, Simple Truths, years ago...had no idea who he was but loved his perspective. Following along your thought that the verbal part of the brain "makes up something that has logical consistency and sounds good" it seems to me that we do that a lot. We are constantly receiving intuitive, emotional, and psychic information which is outside our arena of awareness. We then rationalize AFTER THE FACT in order to make sense of the information. For example, I feel bad because ... or I called you today because... or I just thought I'd buy this because ... and try to logically explain away (and so don't try to notice) the immense amount of non-rational info we receive. We live in an organic non-linear Universe but my rational mind keeps wanting to make logical and sequential sense of it, so I/we are often too willing to explain away the magic. Re the Witness as Atman. I understand Atman to be a universal principle. What do you think about it being the Atman of Manas? TO ELDON Thanks for the hello. No, I'm not restricted in any way about what I post on the Net, but I am rather shy to jump in with all you heavy thinkers lurking about. I'm not comfortable with the idea of posting articles -- I feel pompous giving my opinion gratuitously. Besides, I always have more questions than answers. For example, I enjoyed your paragraph on the Shadow, and you may be right that it is not a >being in its own right yet what I have noticed is that deep disease processes also seem to act very much like beings, they move around and actively avoid being expelled. Do you suppose there is some inbetween state that looks and acts like an entity, but isn't? Nancy. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1994 01:00:00 -0400 From: John Mead Subject: alias address (con'd) hi -- problems with subscribed address versus sending addesses... I can add "aliases" which will allow you to send from multiple addresses on the Internet. If you will usually send from "this" one please let me know, and I'll add it as an alternate!! peace -- john mead p.s. your message has not gone out due to the fact that we require "members" (people who have "subscribed") to be the senders of any mail. You can subscribe with multiple addresses, or have me set up alias addresses for you. p.s. if this is confusing --- please let me know. I can explain it better if neccessary! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1994 13:17:41 -0400 From: Altadena Classical Homeopathy Education Society Subject: reply to Aki TO AKI Thanks for your comments. I almost don't know enough about Plato to reply intelligently, but here goes . . . You suggest that some of Plato's ideas would reside on the mental and/or buddhic level. I've only a small sense of Plato, but my impression was that he idealized the realm of the intellect. As soon as the concept of ideals enters a discussion, I think of buddhi. Despite the fact that he talked about (I think) what he called the World of Forms, the descriptions were abstractions -- like chairness or motherness. So I agree about the buddhic realm. But so many of them also have such strong emotional ties, maybe it is the buddhi of kama?? If archetypes reside in the emotional or mental or intuitive fabric of the U, they could be contactable by any/all races, perhaps even by any kingdom that had any aspects kama, manas or buddhi active. Just a thought. And if you don't mind a further comment, You write, >Aggression is one of those animal-qualities in us that > is a remnant of the past. Our task is now to get rid of > that, and some other bad qualities. I imagine aggression is an aspect of Universal energy that expresses through us either intelligently or unskillfully. I would think it could be a neutral force, but maybe not. Take care. Nancy **************************************************** >People are like stained glass windows. >They sparkle and shine when the sun is out, >but when the darkness sets in, their true beauty is revealed only if >there is a light from within. Elisabeth Kubler Ross ***************************************************** From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1994 18:00:00 -0700 From: JSANTUCCI@CCVAX.FULLERTON.EDU Subject: Re: History and Controversy This is from Jim Santucci, Editor of THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY Thank you for the endorsement of TH. Leslie Price started the journal in London in 1985 and I have taken over in 1990. At the moment we are on volume V, number 3 (July 1994). If you are interested, we are publishing a series of letters by HPB to WQJudge that were just released from the Andover-Harvard Library. Other articles include Joscelyn Godwin's series "The Hidden Hand": including topics on The Brother- hood of Light and The Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor, "HPB's Influence in Literature," Paul Johnson's"Theosophical Influence in Baha'i History" "Brother Twelve: The Incredible Story of Canada's False Prophet", "Theosophy and Nationalism," John Cooper's "The Esoteric School Within the Hargrove Theosophical Society," and much more. We welcome historical articles, so if you are interested, you may write me at the Dept. of Religious Studies, California State University, Fullerton, CA 92634, or e-mail me. I am reading the communications with interest, and will put my 2 cents in if I think I can contribute anything worthwhile. Best wishes to all. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 10 Sep 1994 16:32:27 -0400 From: "Ronald A. Banister" <70402.2301@compuserve.com> Subject: Soul Mates The term soul mates does'nt mean much to me either. It is my belief that each of us is an extension of a soul that is neither male or female. It is complete within itself, except for lack of experience and lack of consequent virtues based on that experience. By experiencing everything each soul moves toward perfection and towards higher states of being. The uniqueness of each soul's journey is intimately related to karma. Karma may dictate that the personalities of two souls must interact repeatedly. Sometimes the karma is very pleasant (from the point of view of the personality). So pleasant that the two personalities may feel incomplete without the other, feel like "soul mates". However, they are still two "wholes" not two "halves". Ron Banister From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 11 Sep 1994 19:24:25 -0400 From: Frank <73632.105@compuserve.com> Subject: Mental Consistency Maya Nancy, Following along your thought that the verbal part of the brain "makes up something that has logical consistency and sounds good" it seems to me that we do that a lot. > We are constantly receiving intuitive, emotional, and psychic > information which is outside our arena of awareness. We then > rationalize AFTER THE FACT in order to make sense of the > information. For example, I feel bad because ... or I called > you today because... or I just thought I'd buy this because ... > and try to logically explain away (and so don't try to notice) > the immense amount of non-rational info we receive. We live in > an organic non-linear Universe but my rational mind keeps wanting > to make logical and sequential sense of it, so I/we are often > too willing to explain away the magic. Gurdjieff refers to this phenomenon as "lying", i.e. the tendency of human beings to draw conclusions about events and the world at large on the basis of manifestly insufficient evidence and to convince ourselves that we actually do understand these things. I would only add that not only do we try to explain the "immense amount of non-rational info we receive" but especially the internal contradictions within our own psychic apparatus, as we must appear to ourselves to be rational, self-consistent mental beings exercising perfect voluntary control over our thought processes at all times. > Re the Witness as Atman. I understand Atman to be a universal > principle. What do you think about it being the Atman of > Manas? My understanding is that the Witness refers to Atman, which as you correctly point out, is a universal principle, equivalent to Brahman. Hence Marcus Aurelius's often quoted statement "The mystic is the spy of God". Peace, Frank From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 18:55:06 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Emanation and Evolution This is by Eldon Tucker Two terms that we read about in Theosophy are "evolution" and "emanation." They are sometimes used as though they mean the same thing. At other times they are shown to have different meanings. What is the difference between them? The word "emanation" refers to the bringing forth of that which already exists within. An example is found in our childhood: we emanate some of our talents, our skills that we have acquired in previous lifetimes. We bring forth some facets of the Reimbodying Ego, some of our personal treasury of experience. Someone with considerable musical experience, may be a prodigy, and write concerts long before adulthood. Another person may never have an ear for music. What is the difference? One has acquired musical skills through many lifetimes of training and effort. These talents are retained in the Reimbodying Ego, although they do not show up in the personality unless they are emanated in this life. The totality of ourselves, what we have made over countless previous existences, is carried in our Auric Egg. It is unmanifest. It consists of karmic seeds, of latent potential for action. It is ourselves, what we have made ourselves into being, our entire nature--both seen and unseen--as of this moment in time. At each moment, with increasing experience, we, as personalities, grow. And the Auric Egg also grows, and the envelope of the outer bounds of our consciousness expands. The particular personality of any lifetime can only contain a portion of the totality of ourselves. Only part of it may be emanated into manifest existence. When such a part of ourselves is being emanated, we may feel that we are learning new things, but we are not. We are remembering things that we already knew, and carry in a deeper part of ourselves. Emanated talents, emanated capabilities come forth easily, quickly, and almost without effort. It is a form of recapitulation, a recovery of territory previously covered. There are other things in life that we cannot do. They are simply too hard. We have no latent talents in a particular direction, and can seem to evoke nothing from within to readily learn and grow in the new direction. This is where evolution begins. When we have nothing more to emanate, and face the slow, hard work of embracing in our consciousness that which it has never contained before, we are undertaking new evolution. With evolution, we are not dealing with the recapitulation of previously-acquired faculties. We have nothing in our karmic treasury to draw upon. There are no contents of our Auric Egg of that nature. Instead, we are exploring new territory. We are embracing the unknown, and it is not easy work. Emanation comes easily; we can readily be many different people in different lifetimes, because only a portion of our totality comes out in any lifetime. Evolution, though, is slow, because we have no previous experience to draw upon. Evolution and emanation can be the same thing, in a sense. When we are actually evolving, the new consciousness arises simultaneously in our karmic treasury, the Auric Egg, and in our outer, manifest personal self. Since it happens at the same time, we cannot say that it happened first in the Auric Egg, and then was emanated, nor can we can that it happened first in the personality, and then was stored in the Auric Egg as the resultant karmic seed. Rather, emanation and evolution are one and the same at the moment of new evolution. With increased evolution, the Auric Egg is growing, expanding in size, embracing more of the unknown. Projecting itself into the manifest world, with increased emanation, it gives expression to more of the totality of itself. The ray of consciousness that it, the Monad, projects into matter, widens, becomes brighter, shows more of its light. With increased emanation, then, the manifest Self grows, expands in size, and embraces more of the contents of its parent. Consider a little girl getting ready to draw. She gets out her crayons, paper, and drawings being worked on (gathers the Skandhas or attributes of previous manifest existence). Drawings are selected to continue work on (emanation of previously- developed talents). And she starts drawing (new evolution which surpasses previously visited territories). The Auric Egg is beyond manifest existence. It grows with each cycle of evolution. Is it not immortal? No. Since it is ever-changing, and thereby subject to conditioned time, it has a beginning and an end. What is its lifetime? That of a Mahamanvantara, the duration of a Life of Brahma. The Auric Egg, like the other principles, could be considered dual in nature. There is a part that is material, form-like, looking-down in nature. There is another part that is energic, wave-like, looking-up in nature. It is the lower or material side of the Auric Egg which is subject to periodic dissolution. But when or how could this happen: the dissolution of something that does not exist? The answer has to do with the fact that the Auric Egg participates in the sense of time. The lower part of the Auric Egg looks down upon manifest existence. It participated in conditioned time, time that is measured, cut-up, relative to the changing nature of a world. That world has its periodic manvantaras (periods of existence) and pralayas (periods of dissolution or non-existence). The down- looking Auric Egg participates in this. It changes with the flow of life in the world that it looks upon, but never directly participates in. With complete dissolution of that world, its death or Mahapralaya, the world completely ceases to exist. The Auric Egg participates in the waking and sleeping of that world, its manvantaras and pralayas of lesser nature, but with the death of the world, there is no longer anything to participate in. The world is gone, for an indeterminable period of time, and the lower nature of the Auric Egg also dies. The upper-looking portion of the Auric Egg still persists, that aspect of its nature that has always gazed upon the Timeless, and remained untouched by the temporal events of the manifest world. This part of the Auric Egg also participates in time, but it participates in unconditioned time, time not in relation to conditioned or manifest things. The higher part of the Auric Egg is immortal because it clings to Timelessness. Besides the growth of the Auric Egg, evolution, and besides the pouring forth of the Auric Egg into manifest life, known as emanation, we have a third aspect of the experience of consciousness: creation. The consciousness of the moment is the creative consciousness. It consists of that portion of our personal selves, the sumtotal of our emanation, that we are aware of at this very moment. Consider the mind. Within its contents, we carry with us a considerable amount of learning and memories. What are we thinking of at this moment? Certainly not all that we know. There are certain ideas that take center stage, that get the spotlight, that are the leaders at this moment in time. That spotlight which we cast upon those ideas is the creative consciousness. How conscious we are at this moment depends upon how bright that spotlight is. And how broad our outlook, how vast and sweeping our awareness depends upon how wide the beam of that spotlight, upon how much it illumines. We train, in meditative practice, to both brighten and broaden that beam of light, which in a sense is our "inner eye," when taken as a metaphor (rather than considered as extended-sensory perception or psychical faculties). We have, then, three degrees of the unfolding of consciousness. The awareness of the moment, creation, comes first. Then the limits of what we have made ourselves into in this lifetime, emanation, second. And finally the limits of all our previous existences, our outer bounds of experience, evolution. Were we in a near-perfect world, the three would be one and the same: the consciousness of the moment would bring in the totality of the personality and the personality would contain the totality of previous evolutionary experience. Life is not perfect, though, and our world is far from being completely responsive to the life within. But we continue to grow in the right direction, and in later Rounds, and in still later days of Brahma, we'll find life becoming more expressive. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 03:19:37 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: nonverbal language; involution This is by Brenda Tucker. (Spirit and stone will have to wait again.) Dear Nancy and Frank: I'm enjoying your discussion of verbal and nonverbal brain areas. The experiment which Frank referred to is in his post dated 9/5/94. > ....patients with the connective tissue between brain hemispheres > severed, subjects were given an experimental task in which > information was fed to only one brain hemisphere Subjects were > then asked to indicate *nonverbally* which was the correct choice > from a series of objects exposed to the *nonverbal* brain > hemisphere. They were able to point to the correct one; but when > they were then asked to explain their choice, the poor verbal > hemisphere was presented with a dilemma, as it had no idea why > the hand controlled by the nonverbal hemisphere pointed to the > target object. So what did the verbal hemisphere do to explain > the choice? It *made up* a reason that was completely unrelated > to the actual basis for the choice. This effect was consistently > demonstrated across subjects. >IOW, the little verbal/conscious part of the brain has access to >only a fraction of the brain's activity and, even in normals, >often does not have a clue as to what the real state of affairs >is. It responds to this dilemma by simply making up something >that has logical consistency and sounds good. And it thinks that >it is actively, consciously, purposely, and logically >constructing these explanations. We do this all the time every >day of our lives. This is the purpose of our little "word >machine" (Robert Ornstein's term), to insure consistency. Not >accuracy or validity---merely consistency so that we think our >minds are working in a nice logical linear fashion. So then people remarked on how much this is really lying by their definition of the word. May I refer you to THE SECRET DOCTRINE, Vol 1, Part II, I-Symbolism and Ideographs, p. 308-9, where H.P.B. quotes J. Ralston Skinner, author of KEY TO THE HEBREW-EGYPTIAN MYSTERY IN THE SOURCE OF MEASURES. Skinner speaks of an ancient language which is lost today. "The peculiarity of this language was that it could be contained in another, concealed and not to be perceived, save through the help of special instruction... the designed scope of which could be determinatively helped out by parables; while also it could be set forth separately, independently, and variously, by pictures.... To clear up an ambiguity as to the term language: Primarily the word means the expression of ideas by human speech; but, secondarily, it may mean the expression of ideas by any other instrumentality. This old language is so composed in the Hebrew text, that by the use of the written characters, which uttered shall be the language first-defined, a distinctly separated series of ideas may be intentionally communicated, other than those ideas expressed by the reading of the sound-signs." It sounds to me as if the Hebrew text can be read in two ways, verbally and pictorially. He adds that the secondary, ancient language "sets forth under a veil, series of ideas" both sensible things in pictures AND things real, though without sensible existence. For example, the number 9 or a revolution of the moon (apart from the moon itself) though these things have no substance. "This idea-language may consist of symbols restricted to arbitrary terms and signs, having a very limited range of conceptions, and quite valueless, or it may be a reading of nature in some of her manifestations of a value almost immeasurable, as regards human civilization. A picture of something natural may give rise to ideas of co-ordinating subject matter, radiating out in various and even opposing directions, like the spokes of a wheel, and producing natural realities in departments very foreign to the apparent tendency of the reading of the first or starting picture. Notion may give rise to connected notion, but if it does, then, however apparently incongruous, all resulting ideas must spring from the original picture and be harmonically connected, or related the one with the other. Thus with a pictured idea radical enough, the imagination of the cosmos itself, even in its details of construction, might result." He finishes by suggesting "....in the history of the human race there happened, from causes which at present at any rate we cannot trace, a lapse or loss from an original perfect language and a perfect system of science-shall we say perfect because they were of divine origin and importation?" My suggestion is that there isn't anyone trying to decipher the verbal language as we now have it, because our language is not a pictorial one. Hebrew may have been dually formed however and did or does allow for a radial expansion of meaning. H.P.B. really expresses pleasure with this work and connects it to one of the keys to the universal mystery-lanugage. She also says that Volume Two is an attempt to explain the chief symbols and emblems and that here may lie a key to the past, embedded in the prehistoric language of symbolism. ------------ I may have jokingly in the past referred to the three elemental kingdoms as three stages of childhood and been speaking offhandedly about these life forms. I am being completely speculative in discovering their impact on man and would like to apologize for the lack of any real knowledge of the subject. I really have only questions and am trying to expand my knowledge by analogy, etc. Our study group is now reading HIERARCHIES AND THE DOCTRINE OF EMANATIONS by G. de Purucker and Purucker connects emanation to evolution, without including any real reference to involution. In terms of what is written in THE KABALA, emanations and evolution both encompass life from the mineral kingdom to the human kingdom. I suppose this is the sensible thing to do as the elementals still lie beyond our realm of consciousness but may be of distinct value in describing the UNCONSCIOUS. I am still keenly interested in involution and would like to try to convey the subject as we studied it yesterday. Evolution is the exertion of an inner life, spirit or soul, upon matter. Minerals, plants, animals, and human beings are said to evolve while in physical existence because they are learning to respond to the soul energy within. Elementals however have no physical plane existence as we know it and are not being influenced to develop according to an inner guiding principle. Instead elementals are drawing energy around them through some form of magnetic attraction. Until they are able to complexify enough to maintain a physical form their directed influence is from without, even if we are speaking of their without as being an influence generated by the other four kingdoms of nature or perhaps higher beings of which we are largely unaware. It is curious that Purucker states that mankind also goes through a stage of involution when he dies. Instead of the soul influencing what man does on earth, the soul attracts to it the various experiences and capacities, as well as whatever can be said to make up the various parts of man's terrestrial nature. The soul receives these energies in a transmuted form and dwells for a time in a restful state surrounded by new as well as old attainments. If this is true, it really cannot be said that children are involving and I really never meant to convey this idea except rather jokingly. For are they drawing to them and around them denser and denser matter. No, it would be rarer and rarer matter if at all. Are they under an influence of the soul? Yes, they are for they are developing characteristics, both those which they have had in the past and those which they are newly attempting to acquire. I do feel like I'm studying this topic alone, so if I make mistakes I should have to correct them myself and apologize for erroneous thinking. It is a dark area, but a little light may go a long way. Secondly, I know I was speaking of thoughts as pressuring man in a sense as well as being pressured by him. What I don't understand is why both good and bad thoughts materialize. What is the law concerning a thought's readiness to be drawn into material existence through mankind's actions? Shouldn't a thought have to fulfill certain basic characteristics before it is allowed expression physically? Shouldn't it have to be beautiful, useful, even perfect? If thoughts do go through a refining process in each being is there a point when it has become more than potential, but actual? Does this point differ depending on the level of soul development which you have attained? First there is the action of the thought upon the physical man. Second there is the action of the thought on its own plane, changes to itself and to the thoughts surrounding it, which may be entirely stimulated from without (the other kingdoms, especially or exclusively man). Simply by making a thought manifest we may be helping it to attain its goal in evolution, but shouldn't we be more careful judges of when a thought is qualified to be expressed through our physical actions and not allow any ugly or sinful actions to result just for their benefit? Doesn't theosophy help us to do this? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 15:13:06 -0700 (PDT) From: eldon (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: The Secret Doctrine - A Wisdom Tradition This is by Eldon Tucker Following is a discussion about the nature of Theosophy, based upon a quote from "The Secret Doctrine," I, 272-3. ---- > The Secret Doctrine is the accumulated Wisdom of the Ages, and its cosmogony alone is the most stupendous and elaborate system ... < Here we see that we are talking about "the accumulated Wisdom of the Ages". We have a reference to Wisdom rather than knowledge, which indicates that this is something more than just facts and information. Wisdom is applied knowledge, knowledge that has become part of one's life. This indicates both a school of learning and of spiritual training. > But such is the mysterious power of Occult symbolism, that the facts which have actually occupied countless generations of initiated seers and prophets to marshal, to set down and explain, in the bewildering series of evolutionary progress, are all recorded on a few pages of geometrical signs and glyphs. < This language is Senzar, and is not known to the modern world. It may predate the spoken word. Senzar is a symbolic language. The implication is that the Wisdom-Religion is based upon an oral rather than written tradition, with the pages of symbols being the basis for discussion. This is similar to the core concepts of Theosophy: we have certain basic ideas, with their corresponding terms, behind which is hid a goldmine of spiritual treasures. The "countless generations" cover a tremendous time period. This goes back to the incarnation of the Manasaputras in the mid Third Root Race, when the fire of mind was given to man by the Dhyani-Chohans. A special revelation of spiritual truths was given to mankind at that time, and safeguarded since then by the elect of humanity. > The flashing gaze of those seers has penetrated into the very kernel of matter, and recorded the soul of things there, where an ordinary profane, however learned, would have perceived but the external work of form. < The seers have seen beyond the outer world of forms to the reality behind things. This does not particularly refer to other worlds, other planes of existence. The "flashing gaze" is one of penetrating wisdom, of insight, not of psychical sight, a mere extension to the physical senses. It means the power of spiritual understanding, applied to the physical and psychical senses. > But modern science believes not in the "soul of things," and hence will reject the whole system of ancient cosmogony. < Modern science limits itself to the observable facts of physical phenomena. Any system of thought that gives first importance and highest reality to life, rather than to outer forms, will be rejected by materialistic science. > It is useless to say that the system in question is no fancy of one or several isolated individuals. That it is the uninterrupted record covering thousands of generations of Seers whose respective experiences were made to test and to verify the traditions passed orally by one early race to another, ... < Theosophy is not the invention of a few individuals. It is based upon an unbroken tradition, wherein Seers have tested and personally verified the Teachings. It is an oral tradition, because it is based upon that which goes beyond words. It can only be passed down from one generation to the next by the spiritual training of each successive generation. Each Seer must learn the Wisdom Tradition through personal experience and training. Without this process of continual learning and then teaching new generations, the Wisdom would be lost. > of the teachings of higher and exalted beings, who watched over the childhood of Humanity. < The Teachings were initially given to humanity by the Dhyani- Chohans about 18 1/2 million years ago, and have been kept alive since then. Some of those Dhyani-Chohans have subsequently remained behind on earth as well, and are sometimes referred to as the Sons of Will and Yoga. They watched over the childhood of humanity until that time, when, in passing on the fire of mind to mankind, referred to as the incarnation of the Manasaputras, they withdrew from active involvement in the affairs of our Kingdom. > That for long ages, the "Wise Men" of the Fifth Race, of the stock saved and rescued from the last cataclysm and shifting of continents, had passed their lives *in learning, not teaching.* < This is how the Seers pass down the Tradition from one generation to the next. They are, in fact, like us: students of Theosophy. But the spiritual, intellectual, and moral training they undergo far surpasses anything we'd ever dream of! In this statement we have a clue regarding what the Mahatmas do with most of their time. > How did they do so? It is answered: by checking, testing, and verifying in every department of nature the traditions of old by the independent visions of great adepts; i.e., men who have developed and perfected their physical, mental, psychic, and spiritual organizations to the utmost possible degree. < We are taught to do that too. Take nothing on faith, but think it through afresh, not only the first time, but every time that it comes to mind. Test ideas in life. Verify and make part of life each Teaching. Develop and perfect the entire nature, from the physical up to the highest within. Notice, thought, that "checking, testing, and verifying" is different then idle speculation. It does not mean think, feel, and do anything that one likes, without regard for the great traditions of the past. The meaning is the opposite of that: to completely embrace those traditions, but breathe live into them, rather than take them as an empty facade. > No vision of one adept was accepted till it was checked and confirmed by the visions--so obtained as to stand as independent evidence--of other adepts, and by centuries of experiences. < It was quite possible to go beyond the Known, but those experiences were not collectively accepted until independently verified by the personal experience of other adepts over centuries of time. The Wisdom-Religion grows, but at a slow, careful pace. How many of us have that sort of patience? How do we fit into this picture? We play a role in western society that corresponds in a small way to that the Mahatmas do for humanity in general. The Dhyani-Chohans have imparted a certain body of Wisdom to mankind, and the Mahatmas keep it alive as a living tradition. On a much smaller scale, the Mahatmas have imparted some of the theosophical Teachings to western society, and we are responsible to keep it alive as a living tradition. Even with what we are learning, it involves a living tradition, something that cannot be simply captured in books. The books are but the outer crust; there is much that comes from treating them as a Koan and "going further." It is possible to progress on one's own, but such an approach is slower, harder, and more limited. The quickest approach to the Wisdom-Religion is to share it, to pass it on. And this involves both the giving of selected jewels of thought to those behind us, as well as passing on the Teachings intact to the next generation of Theosophists. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 01:25:54 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Brain and Memory The discussion about experiments with the brain (which I only saw the end of, alas) reminds me of a report on NPR not long ago. The experimenters had subjects who had gone through traumatic experiences, and interviewed them about it while the subjects were under the influence of a drug which "paralyzes" one side of the brain. (This can't be quite right, as the consequences would be disastrous, but must refer to some sort of localized suppression of function.) I heard a man who had been in a serious car crash. When his right brain was suppressed, and they asked him how he felt at the time of the crash, he said "I felt silly. I was so embarrassed to have done something so stupid." When the left brain was suppressed he answered the same question with "I was terrified. I didn't know if I was alive or dead." What this implies is that the hemispheres correspond to what Gurdjieff calls "essence" and "false personality." That is, the embarrassed feelings were socially acquired and not innate, whereas the terror was vice versa. For what it's worth. Also, a comment on Eldon's material on emanation as related to the emergence of character traits in the course of a life. Astrology makes a distinction between levels of talent or ability. A trine signifies something that is fully operational, a solidly earned trait. A sextile on the other hand indicates a possibility which can be developed, a talent which can be expressed, but not something so deeply rooted in the personality as to emerge without favorable conditions. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 18 Sep 1994 11:29:34 -0400 From: Aki Korhonen Subject: I'm going to army-service. Hello all. In Finland we have an obligatory army-service. I have took all the possible excuses until now. I'm so old that I really have to go now, since I'm 29 years old. Instead of taking military-service I go to the "sivilian-service". My etchical decision is not to participitate any military actions. My service lasts 13 months, after one month preliminary course I will move to an art-school. I work as an computer-support-person there. I think, I enjoy it. At the first month I probably can't access to Internet daily, so don't be disappointed if you try to communicate with me with no visible results. I think that at least at weekends I check my e-mail. The art-school where I go, is well equipped and connected to Internet. I keep my old e-mail address. I start all this at Monday... Peace. aki. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 18 Sep 1994 22:16:34 -0400 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: Post Modern Retreat News Our second Post Modern Theosophical Retreat held at the Renner Ranch in Coulterville CA. just came to an end. Weekend activities included a Zen drumming workshop led by John Coker; a presentation on esoteric astrology by Roger Gemme; A pagan ceremony led by Elaine Gemme; a discussion group on psychology and theosophy and on death and dying led by Nancy Coker; and a full moon meditation led by David Kestin. Between the discussions and presentations we enjoyed lots of good home cooking prepared by Tammy Gianini and Danielle Giesbrecht; nature walks, a swim at the local pond, an all night drumming and musical instruments jam, and lots of casual talk, hugs and good old fraternalization. All of this was overseen and approved of by the horses, Donkeys, goats, dogs and llama; as well as the plentiful indigenous wildlife that permanently resides at the ranch. As we have mentioned before, these retreats are sponsored by independent theosophical students and are *not* connected with any theosophical organization. Our next Post Modern retreat is planned for April 1995. Anyone interested in attending these retreats may post a request to be on the mailing list to the above address. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 16:54:42 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Mid-Atlantic TS Mtg. Although I would have liked to make it to Coulterville this weekend, we had a memorable event here in the east. The 11th Mid-Atlantic TS Gathering was held at Hector Feliciano's farm in rural Maryland. Fernando de Torrijos, Board member for the Northeast District, gave an introductory report, then later guided a discussion period-- topic, the 3 Objects of the TS. The vegetarian feast was one of the best I recall at a TS event, but the really striking part of the afternoon was the guest speaker, His Excellency Gurugai (sp?), Ambassador of Sri Lanka to the US. He gave a talk of about 25-30 minutes on Olcott and the TS in Sri Lanka; very informative, enthusiastic, stimulating. He answered questions with great charm and grace. But apart from the talk and the q & a, the man had a powerful spiritual presence, a radiant magnetism, that made me at least feel that I was actually in contact with something of the spiritual force that brought the founders to Ceylon in 1880. I hope someone took notes of his talk and will write a report of it. Altogether the most memorable event at a TS gathering I recall ever-- and I've been to plenty. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 23:13:56 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: stone and spirit This is by Brenda Tucker. Nancy, I enjoyed E. Kubler-Ross's quote about the beauty of the stained glass and thought you might enjoy a "stained glass" quote from THE SECRET DOCTRINE, v. 1, p.238 (Stanza VII, Sloka 5(a)) by Shelley in Adonais (1821) lii, 462-3: "Life, like a dome of many-coloured glass, Stains the white radiance of Eternity." To all, One idea found in THE SECRET DOCTRINE is that "man" is called symbolically a stone. (This is found near the table of elements in Vol. II, p. 627.) Trees (or plants) refer to Initiates, Vol II p. 494-6, or trees with serpents in them to "animal man." (Vol II p. 98) Animals were sacred to the Egyptians, who used animal heads on human forms to represent their Gods. Vol I, p. 355 "All the birds and animals now held "unclean" in the Bible had been the symbols of the Deity in days of old. It was because they were too sacred that a mask of uncleanness was placed over them, in order to preserve them from destruction. The brazen serpent was not a bit more poetical than the goose or swan, if symbols are to be accepted a la lettre." In reference to what H.P.B. means when she says "atom," see p. 410-412 in Vol XII Collected Writings. "Physical Science, it seems, gives the name of "atoms" to that which we regard as particles or molecules. With us "atoms" are the inner principles and the intelligent, spiritual guides of the cells and particles they inform. This may be unscientific, but it is a fact in nature. Leibnitz's atoms "are the molecules of modern Science..." p.630, Vol I, SD FIVE YEARS OF THEOSOPHY is a collection of essays from THE THEOSOPHIST, and H.P.B. quotes from one of these articles, "About the Mineral Monad" on p. 176, Vol I SD. It is written by herself. "There are SEVEN kingdoms. The first group comprises three degrees of elementals or nascent centres of forces-from the first stage of differentiation of [from] Mulaprakriti [or rather Pradhana, primordial homogenous matter] to its third degree-i.e., from full unconsciousness to semi-perception; the second or higher group embraces the kingdoms from vegetable to man; the mineral kingdom thus forming the central or turning point in the degrees of the 'Monadic Essence' considered as an Evoluting Energy." and on p. 177-178: "In short, as the spiritual Monad is One, Universal, Boundless and Impartite, whose rays, nevertheless, form what we, in our ignorance, call the "Individual Monads" of men, so the Mineral Monad-being at the opposite point of the circle-is also One- and from it proceed the countless physical atoms, which Science is beginning to regard as individualized." Continuing, "The 'Monadic Essence' begins to imperceptibly differentiate [towards individual consciousness] in the vegetable kingdom. As the monads are uncompounded things, as correctly defined by Leibnitz, it is the spiritual essence which vivifies them in their degrees of differentiation which constitutes properly the monad-not the atomic aggregation that is only the VEHICLE and the substance through which thrill the lower and the higher degrees of intelligences." (Same article.) While the atom and the cell or molecule appear to be relatively close to each other in proximity, they are worlds apart in terms of function. The atom is the ensouling life of matter and would appear to reincarnate through motion. The atom has a seven-fold constitution, with its gross or dense body being either a cell or molecule. SD, Vol I, p. 632: "...the atoms, or material molecules, which are informed in their turn by their APPERCEPTIVE monads, just as every cell in a human body is so informed. There are shoals of such INFORMED atoms which, in their turn, inform the molecules; an infinitude of monads, or Elementals proper, and countless spiritual Forces-Monadless, for they are pure incorporealities, except under certain laws, when they assume a form-not NECESSARILY HUMAN." SD, Vol I, p. 179: "Leibnitz conceived of the Monads as elementary and indestructible units endowed with the power OF GIVING AND RECEIVING with respect to other units, and thus of determining all spiritual and physical phenomena. It is he who invented the term apperception, which together with nerve (not perception, but rather) sensation, expresses the state of the Monadic consciousness through all the Kingdoms up to Man. Thus it may be wrong on strictly metaphysical lines to call Atma- Buddhi a MONAD, since in the materialistic view it is dual and therefore compound. But as Matter is Spirit, and vice versa; and since the Universe and the Deity which informs it are unthinkable apart from each other, so in the case of Atma-Buddhi." All of the four states of matter: fire, air, water, and earth are solvents. They were developed in order by Round, so that the first Round consisted of "Devourers" which differentiated fire-atoms which then became life germs and so on. These lives worked on the matter and structure of the globe until it became a formless, bright sphere, disintegrating and differentiating germs of other lives in the Elements. (In comparison to the effect of aerobes on the chemical structure of organisms, transforming and generating various substances in the process.) fn. p. 262, Vol I: "It might be supposed that these "fiery lives" and the microbes of science are identical. This is not true. The "fiery lives" are the seventh and the highest subdivision of the plane of matter, and correspond in the individual with the One Life of the Universe, though only on that Plane. The microbes of science are the first and lowest sub-division on the second plane-that of material prana (or life)." There are lots of additional references regarding the "infinite divisibility of" the atom, but H.P.B. also remarks on the countless lives which haven't been seen with microscopes. I hope some of you may find these definitions and comments of interest. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 23:14:35 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: The Experience of the Spiritual This is by Eldon Tucker. ---- The Experience of the Spiritual It is said that it is much easier to begin training in the Mysteries as a youth. One advantage of an early start is that there is considerable energy for growth and exploration of life in the early years, while the quota of life, of prana, is full, before becoming exhausted in the excesses of later life. A greater advantage, though, is that there is much that does not need to be unlearned. The knowledge of our western, materialistic civilization is both a blessing and a curse. It informs us; it gives us power over material things; it has a great deal of truth to it. Yet with regard to things of the spiritual side of life, it has huge blind spots, huge gaps that it won't recognize. When we study a subject, we try to tie in what we already know with what we are studying. This is a helpful approach as long as what we know is true, and the connections that we are making with the new learning expand our knowledge. It is much harder to study a subject when we are required to give up what we think that we know! This is the case with much we may have picked up in popular thought, as well as perhaps some of our ideas finding their origin in the popular New Age literature. Consider the spiritual consciousness. What is it? Where does it appear in our lives? Is it something real, permanent, lasting, or something delusional, a product of self-deception? Does it just come from a happy feeling, or is there something more substantive, more real and lasting to it? Like any form of consciousness, it can be experienced as transitory, as something that comes in flashes, or lasts for a period of time, then is gone. This experience of it is the precursor, though, to its permanence. There is a real, solid, permanent nature to the spiritual-intellectual that can become a continuous experience throughout life, in much the same way as thinking and feeling and sense perception are continuous experiences of life in the world. Although it can become a permanent faculty of consciousness, when the appropriate principles of conscious take an active role in our life, it is not guaranteed, and could be lost at some future time. Especially in the early stages of spiritual progress, the connection is tenuous, and can be broken at times. It is possible to lost one's higher faculties. Once lost, they might leave us feeling that our previous state of awareness was unreal, as a beautiful or bad dream, but unreal. We might look at legitimate cases of self-delusion in others, and wonder if we too had not been deluded. Since we need to view things as moving forward, always for the better, we might not want to think of the situation as having lost a great treasure. But it is true, there are spiritual treasures that can be both won and lost. There are grand prizes awaiting us. And we cannot take for granted an automatic right to what we have already attained; we can lost what we have if we do not use it rightly. Outer society tends to punish dissent. Those who go against the established order are opposed, suppressed, and sometimes expelled. This is true of all organized bodies. A church may use the threat of damnation to scare its followers into keeping in line (keeping their eyes down and their minds closed). An established body of psychologists may use the threat of mental illness or insanity to restrict our thoughts and behavior, lest we dare leave normalcy behind. Scientific bodies may use the threat of banishment, the cutting off of research funds, refusal to publish papers, and other forms of shunning to expel heretics. Political groups can use prisons, oppression, and the imposition of economic hardship to keep citizens in line. Why should we feel in danger of banishment, in danger of arousing the opposition of the established order of things? We shouldn't, unless undertaking a certain lifestyle of active opposition to the status quo. It is possible to become holy, wise, and spiritual, and to improve our lives and the lives of those about us without taking on the outer world head-on. It really depends upon our particular goal in live. Sometimes we may feel the need to step into the public spotlight and say "this is wrong!" and take an active opposition to things in the world. Othertimes we may keep a lower profile, and quietly help people in a unrecognized, almost-unnoticed manner. When we are in love, life is different. Everything is seen and experienced in a new, different way. In a black depression, the world darkens, and our lives are again turned around. There are many qualities of consciousness. Some are dark, negative, and destructive in nature. Others are ennobling, uplifting, and worthy of being sought after. In order to experience a quality of consciousness, we first have to have it within ourselves. We need to have the seeds of a black depression, and an inner life that nurtures them, in order for them to sprout forth when outer circumstances push us in the right way. The outer, though, is an expression of what is within, and not the cause. To approach the spiritual, we look within. We change ourselves and the outer circumstances will adjust themselves of their own accord, as past karmic responsibilities are worked out and we are freed to outwardly change in ways true to our new inner natures. Inner changes do not automatically come by doing the reverse, by piously adopting an outer lifestyle that is untrue to what we feel in our hearts and minds. We accomplish little when we grow our hair long, give up material possessions, and try to become wandering holy men. We still must effect changes to our inner natures, changes that never required us to leave behind our former homes and families. It is not necessary to visit Tibet, to live in a beautiful desert retreat-center, to fine-tune the purity of our physical bodies with an exacting diet, nor to faithfully meditate from 3 to 7 am for the balance of our lives! All these things are nice, and helpful in their own way, but do not represent our taking significant steps in the direction of the spiritual. What, then, is the spiritual consciousness? How would we describe it? Granted, it cannot be conveyed by merely talking about it, but we certainly can say something. There is a feeling of being rooted in the spiritual, in a loving embrace by the totality of life. This feeling could be compared to the secure, firm grip of the parachute straps that hold, envelop, and raise us high above all, and that otherwise save us from guaranteed death. This "holding up" is done by our higher natures, on a continual basis, with or without our awareness and recognition. The biggest change in our lives is a new, firm grasp of an inner reality, an inner change rather than any particular outer event. We appreciate and experience life differently, and we just wake up, one morning, and notice that things in life are different. This change in our lives comes quietly, gently, and it is rare for it to come with violent, traumatic, explosive outer circumstances. It is more akin to the gentle process of waking up in the morning, rather than the painful process of childbirth. We open our eyes to live in a different way, and the world is a different place. It is possible, depending upon how we present ourselves to others, that we might be mistaken for fanatics, zealots, cultists. They might believe we need to be deprogrammed, brought back to normal, and taken out of our "delusional" state. Were that to happen, we would find our previous state as odd. Having lost something, unable to recreate it within our consciousness, we may picture it is unworthy in some way. But this is "sour grapes," and we would have lost something of incredible value. Someone else, outside the experience, might describe it in psychological terms, and use such words as "inflation," from Jungian psychology. The state might be described as one of being possessed by an archetype, a form of psychological intoxication, a drunkenness on the numinosity of archetypal materials that never belonged in the personal consciousness. This is psychological materialism, where nothing is real unless it is interpreted in terms of the human personality, and is yet another thing to unlearn, before getting at the reality of the spiritual nature. It is true that the personality can become deformed in various ways if we try to do things from it that are inappropriate for the personality. It is not true that we must limit ourselves to only do things that are appropriate activities for the personality. Rather, we are learning to shift our center of consciousness to the individuality, above the personality, a higher center of consciousness. The personality, looking upwards, experiences a sense of magic, of numinosity. Looking downward, the personality experiences a sense of temptation, of being drawn into corruption and self- destruction. The personality can grow in one direction or the other. But when we seek the spiritual, we're not talking about staying in the personality, and growing it. Instead, we're talking about leaving the personality, and not having it as the seat of our consciousness anymore. It functions, it exists as an form of our self- expression, but we have become something deeper within. When we have become rooted in the spiritual, and awakened our spiritual-intellectual natures, we don't take public opinion serious anymore. We are not dependent on external validation, nor need a guru or Theosophical Society or admiring peers to feel that we have something real. (This is not to say that we don't need Teachers, but that is an entirely different topic!) We know with certainty that there is a spiritual reality behind life, because we have a firm sense of its presence and participation in our lives. How do we experience this presence? It is as an undertone, a background quality to everything that happens, to everything that we experience. It starts when we open our eyes in the morning, and lasts until they shut at night. There are no dark, depressed moments where we question it, because it is not a delusion, a pretense, a facade that we have built up. This presence is a real, a solid quality of our lives, not something that we "are trying to do." Consider an angry, explosive person. Little things that happen during the day can tap into his reservoir of anger and bring him to erupt in rage. This anger is a content of his personality, a background quality that he carries with him, thought it may not find itself expressed in everything that he does. It colors his consciousness and makes the world seem to him to be a certain kind of place. The spiritual is likewise a possible content of consciousness. It can be alive and active, a quality that readily rises to express itself in the actions of our day-to-day lives. Now consider a devotional person, someone with considerable Bhakti energy. In his foreground consciousness there may come periods of intense feeling with incredible energy. But these waves of devotion are expensive; they drain his life energies, and he finds himself exhausted. He is left tired; the feelings quiet down and go away; their effects can even disappear from the activities of daily life until the next time for devotions. This energy of love that he carries with himself can remain, slightly-submerged, but still coloring his life. We may be able to tell, to *feel* his devotional energy when we meet him. As he carries this quality with him, it is continually experienced as "background consciousness," as compared to the "foreground consciousness" of what he is doing at this particular moment in time. The background consciousness is the higher side, and consists of the active talents, capabilities, types of awareness that we have acquired and built up in this lifetime. This is the results of our emanation of innate abilities from previous lives, from our karmic treasury. We go through life with this as a form of experience, of awareness, of enjoyment of life, in addition to that experience of the ephemeral, moment-to-moment activities of the foreground consciousness. The foreground consciousness is the more ephemeral. It relates to the mayavic changes of physical life, the extremely tiny portion of ourselves that finds expression in the very lowest realm, the physical. The background consciousness is a deeper part of ourselves, that part of our natures that includes the totality of ourselves in this lifetime. The background consciousness is the "unmanifest" portion of the personality, that part of it that watches in the silence and out of which our activities spontaneously arise. When our spiritual-intellectual natures are awakened, there is a presence that hovers about us, deep in the silence, acting almost as a "background deity." There is a sense of anticipation, excitement, unfulfilled promise to it. (Picture a child's feeling the night before Christmas!) This feeling comes from our being in touch with, from our having awakened a type of consciousness in ourselves that goes beyond what is possible to express. We have awakened in ourselves something too grand to come out in Fifth Race Humanity, on Globe D Earth, at this time in our evolution. Outer circumstances do not permit its expression in the moment-to-moment experience of life. It cannot yet reach physical plane expression. But it can still be experienced in the background consciousness; it still can be richly enjoyed in the silence. There is a sense of anticipation to this spiritual faculty. We will enjoy it in its own place, on its own terms, in the after-death experiences. There are some experiences that are simply too high, too grand--simply meant to be waited for, to be experienced in their own realms. The spiritual nature comes out in life as a living presence in life. We know and feel it. It surrounds us. It enfills us. It makes the world an entirely different place for us. We do not need to periodically long for it, to send out waves of desire, of Bhakti, of aspiration to attain it. It is here. It is part of us. We have it as a rock-solid part of our experience of life. Our higher principles are awake and active, and provide us with an enriched personal life. When the highest in our constitution is active, it does not come out in passion, in intensity of thought, feeling, or action, but rather is felt for what it is, *in its own right.* It is appreciated as an additional quality behind all the rest, a quality that adds its own unique contribution to our total experience. It is not the clearest of psychical sight, the sweetest of feelings, the holiest of aspiration or desires, nor the highest of reason and intellectual thought. It is just different, but important and enriching in its own right. What is it? It's there, part of our natures. Embrace it and just know. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 22:51:37 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Join the T.S.? Should we Join a T.S.? by Eldon Tucker In the last century, a membership organization like the Theosophical Society was appreciated. Having membership in it was considered a matter of personal pride. One was a Fellow of the Theosophical Society [F.T.S.]. In belonging, there was a sense of commitment to something bigger than oneself. There was also a feeling that one had joined the outer ranks of the spiritual hierarchy, that one had made a karmic link to the work of the Masters. This century the attitude towards membership organizations has changed. Joining is considered old- fashioned, and there is a general rebellion against any apparent form of external control over our lives. There is a feeling that we can connect with the general work of Nature, with the Theosophical Movement, apart from any theosophical organization. Part of this sense of independence is due to the western temperament, based upon a rugged individualism. This is the temperament that the Protestant reformation arose out of. It drove us to cross the Atlantic and colonize the Americas. And it is now explained by the "dawn of the age of Aquarius." In this era, some people will not attend a theosophical event, without the assurance that "this event is *not* sponsored by any theosophical organization." Are we really that afraid of thought control, of being told want to think and do, of being approached and asked to join someone's group? All the major theosophical groups publicly state that there are no required beliefs, just open-mindedness and a brotherly tolerance of others. Why is there a problem with joining? Partly, there is a fear of formalizing a sense of commitment. The same is true of the institution of marriage: many people will live together, rather than get married, in order to leave half-formulated the nature of their relationship, rather than give it a specific structure and have to live with that structure. How many of us, when we want to get a magazine, buy it regularly at a newsstand, rather than subscribe? The subscription is a "membership" with the magazine, which requires us to give up our monthly freedom to take it or leave it. When we get a library card, we are "members" of the library. In accepting permanent employment, we become employee "members" of a company. Where is the problem with joining? When we join a group, we give a formal acknowledgment of our sympathy and support. We also accept the group's rules, and follow its structure for doing things. If the structure is good, we all benefit from it. A board meeting, for instance, following Robert's Rules of Order runs much smoother, and allows for much more to be accomplished than one without any structure. When we have a conference, like the networking ones held at Ojai, there are people in charge. With or without a membership and formal organization, there still are people running things, still a selection and governing process. When this is not above-board, it can go underground. A clique of friends takes power and outsiders are excluded. Those in charge of the conference will turn away inappropriate people and define the program according to their sense of what is reasonable and on theme. There is an exercise of power and authority, even if self-conferred and not arrived at by formal means. An organization only has power over people to the extent that they confer it. When the structure of the organization is disregarded, it may be controlled by people and operate according to a hidden power structure. Consider the Far Horizons Theosophical Camp. A few years ago its Board of Directors was opposed by the Camp Manager, whom was able, over a period of about a year, to retain control of the camp and its funds, and to oust the Board, despite the fact that the Board had fired the Manager. What does all this mean? We can have organizations that are oppressive, and act as security blankets to those unable to think for themselves. We can have others that are shams, a pretense at being a certain way, organizations run in a secret manner. And we can have non-organization organizations, those run by a clique, a social circle of friends and acquaintances, where again the control and structure is not formally acknowledged. What is best? How about simple, plain, uncomplicated organizations, with few restrictions on membership, no attempt at controlling people, and a structure designed to encourage the study and promotion of the Higher Philosophy? How about Theosophical Societies? Why not join? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 22:53:48 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Treasures Behind the Gate Treasures Behind the Gate by Eldon Tucker There are many ways in which Theosophy, the Wisdom- Religion, is adapting to western society. The Teachings are blending into popular thought and thereby creating various flavors of Neo-Theosophy. These adaptations of the core philosophy blend in with established belief systems, enriching them. But the central philosophy stands, apart from any particular variant. One adaptation has adopted Christianity, and incorporates many beliefs from Christian thought. This approach may also include Jungian psychology, which has a strong Christian bias. This approach would have us becoming priests, going to church, taking the sacrament, believing in angels and fairies, and looking for a return of the Christ. Another adaptation has adopted Buddhism, and incorporates many beliefs from Buddhist though. This approach gives considerable status to anyone having learned Sanskrit or Tibetan. It accepts Tibetan scriptures as authoritative, rather than being the works of an exoteric religion. It would have us seeking for extant works of eastern religions as the basis for the Teachings. Again, exoteric religions are being embraced as authoritative. A third adaptation is based upon Animism. It is centered about the love and celebration of Mother Nature. Goddesses are talked about. Nature walks become religious observances. The multitudes of living creatures about us are looked to for guidance: they are used to help us escape the burden of our false, but sincere beliefs, that prevent us from otherwise seeing the Real and True. These adaptations have the useful effect of changing public thought. They give a new direction to religious, philosophical, and scientific thought. As we participate in them, we assist in the effort to uplift humanity. It is a good form of public work. But there is much more to be had. Those of us feeling a need for more can find it. The core concepts of Theosophy, untainted by the public adaptations, provide us with a starting point. The only limit as to how far we may go with them is ourselves, a self-defined limit based upon our individual capacity. The heart of the Teachings are rooted in the Mysteries. It does not consist of ideas or rules of behavior that change with passing trends. The Teachings that are available to Generation X (a nickname for the current generation in the United States) are the same as those available to the generation of Blavatsky's time, or even to those of Plato's time, or the time when the pyramids or stonehenge were built. These Teachings are a divine gift from a higher Kingdom of Nature than humanity, from the Dhyani-Chohans, and the Mahatmas preserve it to this day. And the Teachings are build up about certain core concepts, many of which we have been given, and are free to study and contemplate. When talking of these things to someone educated in the west, some self-censorship may be necessary, so that the person does not reject the whole philosophy out of hand as seeming nonsense. If even higher Teachings were told, they might seem to be "insane gibberish," simply because there would be so much that needed to be unlearned. We are told that the effort of the modern Theosophical Movement is to attract the attention of the highest minds of western civilization. It might be asked: what for? If popular thought is influenced in the right direction, the work is being done. Until someone has reached the appropriate stage of inner readiness, it means nothing to simply tell him some of the higher truths. When he is ready, that person needs no coaxing to seek out the higher life. Where, then, lies our responsibility? First, we can assist the work of karma, being agents for the good karma of those whom are ready for the philosophy. We can assist by making the philosophy readily available. This does not mean advertising it, making it well-known to all, presenting it with an in- your-face assertiveness to others. No. It means having books, groups, centers, libraries, organizations, classes, and all the other ways and means of allowing someone to come and learn and grow. Having these places is almost enough by itself, for a person when ready will "stumble" upon us when the time is right. This does not preclude advertising, but just in a form that does not draw lots of attention to itself. Second, we can be serious about it ourselves. It is a Wisdom-Religion. That means there *is* a religion there, but one based upon Wisdom, not upon mere profession of belief. A religious practice is required, but one that is self-devised. We are expected to not just play with the ideas, but start taking the first steps, without any external coaxing, and undertake the initial growth through self-initiation. We must begin an inner ripening, and become a light unto the world. The world is brightened by the dawn of our own inner light. Until we approach the Gate, and pass through it, we stand outside. We go to theosophical meetings and see a crowd of average people with an above-average number of personal problems. We see common people thinking they are somehow special. We hear a strange-sounding philosophy taught and argued about by people whom poorly understand it and hotly disagree with it at times. What are we to think? This is all the smoke outside the Gate. Have a peek inside. There are treasures inside. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 15:17:26 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Olcott/Judge To follow up the discussion of a source for the story that Judge warned Besant not to go to India, because Olcott was allegedly planning to murder her by poison. I ran into Herb Lubitz at the Mid-Atlantic Gathering, and he said he was currently reading Vol. 4 of Old Diary Leaves. Without my even bringing up the story, he mentioned it and said he had read it in that volume. Since Annie was of course alive when the story was published, first in the Theosophist and then in ODL, she would have been able to correct it if she had wanted to. Thus-- it seems credible. Will look for the specific passage. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 20:04:34 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Festive Gatherings This is by Eldon Tucker ---- Festive Gatherings It was encouraging to read about the recent post- modern theosophical retreat. With Zen drumming, esoteric astrology, pagan ceremonies, psychological discussion groups, and full-moon meditations, it covers a broad spectrum of New Age interests. Missing, fortunately, were channeling, hypnotic past-life regression, and psychic readings. It was the best of New Age interests, in a peaceful setting, packaged for the enjoyment of theosophists. Such activities are good. They rekindle an enthusiasm for life. It is possible for someone to come away with a renewed dedication to enrich his life and the lives of others. Dormant religious feelings can be reawakened. Other than the sponsorship--under the banner of Theosophical Anarchists: No Theosophical Society Shalt Rule Me!--the mix of activities is similar to other gatherings. Look at the program at Far Horizons Theosophical Camp. How about the Annual Convention and Program at Wheaton, for the American Section of the Adyar T.S.? Consider the mix of programs at the theosophical center that John Drais has in the Southern California desert. While the type of the program is the same, the people running them are different. The sponsors may vary from a controlling membership organization, to a group of friends. Regardless of who is in charge, and how the decisions are made, the programs end up resembling each other. In our modern society, we lack real social festivals, ones with religious overtones. Something is missing from our lives that these festivals fulfill. They are enjoyable, personally-enriching, and fill a certain psychological need we have to feel ourselves as part of a loving tribe. (There's a sense of participation in a National Subrace, but only a weak sense of participating in lesser subraces, like the Tribal, and we miss those more family-like groups to belong to.) One thing missing from the description of the Post- Modern Retreat, was any talk of the theosophical Teachings, either in direct study, discussion, or dramatic enactment. Most theosophical gatherings give some time to higher things, rather than just social activities with spiritual overtones. Was there anything at the retreat that gave it a distinctive character, something that made it stand above any New Age Retreat? The fact that the people participating were Theosophists is not enough--not anymore than were Theosophists to hold a church service and say that it was something more than other church services because *they* were doing it. Do we to believe that there was nothing to the Philosophy, that the Teachings are an useless appendage, and are no longer of value? I hope not! In ancient times, during the Sacred Seasons, I suspect that while great things where happening behind closed temple doors, there were public celebrations of life, festivals celebrating the spiritual nature of things and the wonders of the human psyche. Behind closed doors, there may be trails going on, where life- or-death struggles were undergone. People died. Others went mad. Outside, in the parks and gathering grounds, people celebrated. Life is wonderful! There was a feeling of brotherhood, of love, a renewed sense of the excitement for life that we find in very-young children. Feeling a lack of such celebrations in our western society, we naturally want to bring them back, and enjoy them again. Something is missing from our lives, and we want it again. But we have something more. The core concepts of Theosophy are the seed thoughts about which the Mystery Teachings grow. For those of us willing to take additional steps at this time, we may find that the Temple Doors are ajar--and not locked--and we may take our first steps inside. There is something more than the festive celebration of life and we can have it. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 20:01:59 -0400 From: Subject: cancel temp. cancel theos-l paddy plasto From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 05:41:53 -0400 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: re: Olcott/Judge; Festive Gatherings Concerning Paul Johnson's post of Sept. 21, quoted below: PJ> To follow up the discussion of a source for the story that > Judge warned Besant not to go to India, because Olcott was > allegedly planning to murder her by poison. > > I ran into Herb Lubitz at the Mid-Atlantic Gathering, and he > said he was currently reading Vol. 4 of Old Diary Leaves. > Without my even bringing up the story, he mentioned it and said > he had read it in that volume. Since Annie was of course alive > when the story was published, first in the Theosophist and then > in ODL, she would have been able to correct it if she had > wanted to. Thus-- it seems credible. > > Will look for the specific passage. So far the named sources for this story have come from Nethercot's ~Last Four Lives of Annie Besant~, who stated the story as a fact, but specified no source, and Gertrude William's earlier book, ~Passionate Pilgrim.~ Williams gives the same story (also without stating a source), but labels it as gossip. Now we have Paul telling us that his friend, Herb Lubitz, told him that he had read it in volume four of O.D.L. Based upon this third hand information, we are to believe that the story once again "seems credible." When (if) Paul finds the actual citation in ODL (and/or ~The Theosophist~), then I for one, will be in a position to examine the documentation and determine the credibility of the evidence for myself. Until such documentation is found and substantiated, I for one, am not willing to give credence to Nethercot's and Paul's accusation. We have enough mis-information and dis-information floating around about T.S. History without adding to it. Let's work to sift the gossip from documentation before making judgements. Eldon Tucker's post concerning the recent Post Modern Theosophical conference contains food for thought. If he had actually attended the conference, his comments may have been quite different. I'm not sure of the tone intended by Eldon to label the sponsors as "Theosophical Anarchists," but they might take it in the spirit of B.P. Wadia's position that anarchy is the most spiritual of all activities. Eldon's comment that the mix of activities are similar to other gatherings has a lot of truth to it, but not entirely so. John Coker's Zen approach to drumming my have been permitted at, say, Far Horizons or perhaps even Krotona under restricted circumstances. But which Theosophical center would have permitted them to continue their jam session until after two in the morning? Certainly not at Far Horizons with a 10 p.m. curfew, let alone Krotona. Elaine Gemme's "pagan ceremony" had already been officially forbidden at Krotona. Full Moon meditations are also not allowed at Krotona, and I have never seen one publicly held at Headquarters in Wheaton, though Brenda Tucker did mention some time ago that they were unofficially held by young residents and tolerated by the regular staff during her stay there. Eldon suggests that any talk of theosophical teachings was missing from the description of the retreat. This is true, though I would offer my observation that I heard far more theosophy and theosophical teachings discussed at this retreat then I had heard at any event at Far Horizons or at Wheaton that I remember attending over the past thirty years. It is true that no one gave a presentation on "Globes and Rounds," or the "Seven Principles," or "Root Races" etc. This is because, unlike typical conferences and retreats, the program is determined by those attending. No one was interested in giving, hearing or participating in activities concerning those subjects. Perhaps at a later conference enough may become interested in those subjects. However, the lack of presentations on formal teachings doesn't mean that Theosophy was missing. Roger Gemme's Esoteric Astrology presentation was based upon his reading of ~The Secret Doctrine.~ The discussion group on "psychology and theosophy" grappled with many of the same questions concerning the seven principles raised and discussed on this net. I thought Nancy led a very fruitful discussion that unveiled a variety of views concerning the relationship of the seven principles to psychology, as well as other aspects of this subject. Some in attendance might argue that David Kestin's Full Moon Meditation was the most theosophical event. The interest was there, and some people had the opportunity to learn about Full Moon Meditations for the first time. Since this sponsoring group of "anarchists" and participants are more interested in exploring ideas than censoring them, "theosophy" from all viewpoints are explored according to interest. Eldon expresses the concern that the retreat activities may have reflected the attitude that "there was nothing to the Philosophy, that the Teachings are an useless appendage, and are no longer of value." If this were the case, I for one, would not associate myself with these "anarchists." Eldon asks if there was anything at the retreat that made it stand above any New Age Retreat. I would say that there were two major differences: 1. The program was created by the participants, not by the sponsors. Typically, New Age and theosophical gatherings are highly commercial events, where the presentations are determined by the organizers. 2. The central focus was on theosophy. Almost all of the participants were at least familiar, if not possessing a sophisticated knowledge of theosophical teachings. They were interested in exploring theosophical teachings in contexts other than those normally presented at typical theosophical gatherings. Theosophy wasn't missing at this conference, it was just explored in contexts other than the traditional ones. Perhaps others on this net who had attended might add their impressions. In another post, Eldon writes: ET> We can have organizations > that are oppressive, and act as security blankets to > those unable to think for themselves. We can have others > that are shams, a pretense at being a certain way, > organizations run in a secret manner. And we can have > non-organization organizations, those run by a clique, a > social circle of friends and acquaintances, where again > the control and structure is not formally acknowledged. > What is best? How about simple, plain, uncomplicated > organizations, with few restrictions on membership, no > attempt at controlling people, and a structure designed > to encourage the study and promotion of the Higher > Philosophy? How about Theosophical Societies? Why not > join? If Eldon had participated in the last two Post-Modern Conferences, he would have discovered another type of "organization" not mentioned above. It is one where decisions are truly made democratically. Everyone has equal say. There is no unacknowledged "control and structure." There is *no* membership, therefore no restrictions on membership. Presently, the participants in this "organization" are banded together by a common interest in the "promotion of the Higher Philosophy." If, in the future, individual interests become to diverse, there will be no organizational structure to hold the participants together beyond their time of creative productivity. The Participants will simply disperse--hopefully into other creative endeavors. Theosophical Societies are a different kind of Organization, and have their advantages and disadvantages too. Why does one have to choose one over the other? Personally I'm affiliated with three Theosophical Organizations, as well as associated with the Post-Modern group. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 19:21:16 -0400 From: jcoker@eis.calstate.edu (Jessica L. Coker) Subject: reply to Eldon To Eldon Tucker From jt coker Re Your posting on the recent `post modern' gathering and your intolerance of any approach to theosophy which isn't the one you, PERSONALLY, take. Dear Eldon, You prattle on like a little old lady protesting loudly about protecting her virtue - a virtue in which no one, other than herself, is any longer interested. Jesus, Eldon! Lighten up, man! Do you have some Mahatmic commission to protect the purity of THE FAITH from heathen and infidels - or are you merely a self appointed inquisitor? Why is it theosophy attracts so many people who insist on an exclusively doctrinaire, if not downright dogmatic approach? And why do they INVARIABLY insist that everyone else interested in theosophy has to manifest their interest in the same old tired, mono-culturally biased, intellectual manner? Is there something inherently wrong with an expression of theosophy that you don't personally care to take part in? Who appointed you God, anyway? Your snide, belittling tone and remarks are obvious and when you strip away the rhetoric and arrive at the meaning of your posting, your insistence that the approach you take to exploring and expressing theosophy is the single intelligent, viable, RIGHT approach in the whole known universe speaks quite loudly. Isn't that a bit narrow? Seems there might even be a touch of hubris in there, somewhere. There are a number of theosophists who feel that the method you pursue, of running up and down your mental scales and touching each intellectual fetish every time you go by it is rather silly and, at the least, spiritually counter productive. Nowhere have I heard these people putting you down for `running scales' instead of `playing music' - if I can be permitted the metaphor. Why do you insist that those who wish to `play music', rather than `run scales' with their notes are wrong. You don't have to listen to the music, if you don't care to. And we don't have to listen to you constantly `running scales', if we choose not to. Do we have to start bad-mouthing YOUR approach to get you to back off and act like a real person who is searching for truth instead of some kind of theosophic Pope and holder of the REAL TRUTH? Let's hope not. Too much of modern theosophic history has been taken up with just that kind of counter-productive bullshit. Can we PLEASE raise the level of discourse on the topic of theosophic behavior? It is obvious to the most casual of observers of your behavior on the Net that you are a `true believer' - seems you might even have used that phrase about yourself in one posting. That's fine, and nobody is putting you down for that. You feel that theosophy is a belief system and behave accordingly. There are others who feel, with at least as much intellectual rigor as you can muster, that theosophy is a spiritual path, rather than just a belief system. Which is true? Ah, if we take that approach we'll get caught in the old Western habit of the `Aristotelian excluded middle', won't we? This is not an `either/or' situation. (MOST situations aren't. Life isn't that mechanical, it tends more to a rather messy organicity.) Both things are true - depending on who is doing it. For you, theosophy is a belief system. Fine. Keep it that way and grow as much as you can within that system. Can you and your systemic limitations allow others the freedom to practice theosophy in the way they find most meaningful? Isn't that what you want for yourself? Why can't you let others have the same `slack'? Like most intellectuals (definition - intellectual: a person who feels that what they think has something to do with an objective reality, rather than merely their own mental and emotional processes) - like most intellectuals you read about something and feel that you KNOW THE THING ITSELF. You weren't even AT the gathering and yet you didn't bother to question what went on - you simply started dumping on it. Jesus, Eldon! Grow up! If it had been reported that, beginning with the first fundamental proposition from the S.D. and working outward, a group had conceived and performed an extended piece of improvised chamber music that demonstrated the viability of fundamental theosophic principles in musical form (analogous to, say, some of Scriabin's work) you would probably be thrilled. You would assume, following your unexamined late 19th and early 20th century American bourgeois cultural assumptions, that it was in the cultural manner of Mozart, or some other European or European-derived musician. Well, what if the cultural assumptions were different? What if the cultural assumptions were native to the Indian sub-continent (as your revered Mahatmas are)? If the piece was based primarily on rhythmic expression, rather than harmonic or melodic expression would you see it as `non-theosophic'? Jerry used the phrase "Zen drumming" and you IMMEDIATELY AND WITHOUT QUESTION felt that you KNEW what he was talking about and could criticize and comment intelligently. For those of us who actually EXPERIENCED what went on at the gathering (compared to those of you who weren't there and had formed some kind of twisted intellectual/emotional interpretation of what happened as a threat to your belief system) your comments were not only not intelligent, they were laughably ridiculous. That you might infect others with YOUR VERSION OF REALITY is a bit disturbing, though. Give us a break, Eldon! YOUR PERSONAL AND/OR CULTURAL PREFERENCES ARE NOT THE END ALL AND BE ALL OF EXISTENCE, THEOSOPHIC OR OTHERWISE. Why do you have such a difficult time accepting differences? Why do you insist that YOUR PERSONAL PREFERENCE IS ULTIMATELY RIGHT FOR EVERYONE? It's just this kind of bullshit that has kept the theosophic movement small, insular, exclusive, and of such limited use in and to the world. Sure, you feel that you, and others with preferences analogous to yours, hold the only piece of the `true cross' and the rest of us, at best, are `children' who are `playing' at theosophy while you, mighty, spiritually advanced being that you are, can lock yourself in your insulated thought processes and brave the dangers of TRUE initiation while you hide from the give and take, the very messy process, of life itself. Give it up, guy! THERE IS NO ONE TRUE WAY - yours or anybody else's. (And if you DO finally achieve some initiatory experience or spiritual enlightenment then your words and behavior will surely indicate it. Until then, you're just one among many of us, my friend.) Many of those who attended the recent gathering have their theosophic doctrinal skills so well honed that they no longer need to fetishistically touch and recite every one of them every time that particular principle is applicable. Rather than having to constantly restate the articles of faith, those articles were taken as `givens' - the ground of being, if you will - and we proceeded from there to apply them to many of the areas of daily life (art, psychology, meditation, death & dying, etc., etc., etc.) that we as a group found (and MANY, MANY non-theosophists find) important. This was NOT a gathering of theosophic beginners, nor was it a gathering of upholders of a theosophic belief system who could do nothing more creative than `tell their theosophic beads' for the entire time they were there. Not wanting a pre-digested, carefully defined party line as to the meaning of theosophy and life, the group eschewed sponsorship by an established Society. Seems it was the right thing to do, wasn't it? You aren't even a factotum of an established Society and LOOK WHAT YOU DID. There WERE a number of differences of opinion on the interpretation of some specific theosophic doctrines, to be sure. But they were dealt with in a spirit of acceptance of the other person's OBLIGATION to find meaning in life in whatever way suited them best. In other words, OPENNESS. Some things some people thought were `theosophy' others thought weren't. That led to some GREAT exchanges in which all parties grew in understanding and the ability to accept divergent points of view. That this private gathering should so upset you is quite interesting and, if one looks closely, quite indicative - of WHAT, each of us will have to decide on our own, won't we? I feel that Jerry Ekins' posting of the notice was a mistake. To make doctrinal reactionaries aware of such an event is to insure that their doctrinal knees will jerk. It might be best to simply let word spread among friends quietly, that way we wouldn't have to deal with the unwarranted crap people like you automatically dump on whatever they don't understand and/or disagree with. One of the advantages of electronic communications is that one can easily ignore boors without seeming to be too rude. This is my usual procedure when you post one of your doctrinal diatribes. A NUMBER of other Net users have said they do the same. On this one I was asked by a third party to reply to you. I do NOT wish you to change your mode of theosophic exploration and expression. Far from it. The more approaches we can have to that which we all love so much, the healthier the Movement will be. I only ask that you not insist on the primacy of your approach and stop judging all others by criteria which you feel comfortable applying to your own life and search. If that which is spiritual is, by theosophic definition, that which is the most inclusive, then I leave you with that yardstick by which to judge your behavior on the Net. Sincerely, jt coker From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 17:40:00 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: re: Olcott/Judge; Festive Gatherings According to Jerry Hejka-Ekins: > > Concerning Paul Johnson's post of Sept. 21, quoted below: > Now we have Paul telling us that his friend, Herb Lubitz, told > him that he had read it in volume four of O.D.L. Based upon this > third hand information, we are to believe that the story once > again "seems credible." Give me a break. I said nothing about what "you" are to believe. All I said was that the story seemed credible to me, and that I would pursue the lead. Why are you being so adversarial about this? All I did was post a work-in-progress news flash. You seem to be very resistant to believing something bad about Judge, while quite ready to believe bad things about Olcott and Besant. When (if) Paul finds the actual citation > in ODL (and/or ~The Theosophist~), then I for one, will be in a > position to examine the documentation and determine the > credibility of the evidence for myself. Until such documentation > is found and substantiated, I for one, am not willing to give > credence to Nethercot's and Paul's accusation. Paul's accusation? Why call it that? All I am doing is repeating from a source, and you know well that the story appears in more than one. Better to call it "Nethercot's and Williams's (and perhaps Olcott's and Besant's) accusation." What is "giving credence" anyway? Of course I don't expect you to believe it without the citation, which is the reason I looked for it. But you might at least acknowledge the possibility that Nethercot and Williams didn't just invent the story-- which you seem reluctant to do unless forced to. Therefore, why is it not just as fair for me to turn the tables and say "until evidence is found and substantiated to prove that Nethercot and or Williams invented the story, I for one refuse to give credence to Jerry's accusation?" You are accusing them of just a serious a misdeed as they attribute to Judge. It's quite bizarre to me to think that such a weird story would have been made up out of whole cloth. We have enough > mis-information and dis-information floating around about T.S. > History without adding to it. To repeat something is not to add to it. Again, unfair. Let's work to sift the gossip from > documentation before making judgements. Exactly what I said I was going to do. "Seems credible" is no more a judgment that "not willing to give credence" is. Why are you blaming me for something that you yourself are doing? We all have some kind of opinion/judgment on the Judge case, and we all know that it is based on inadequate evidence. Your guess is as good as mine. Please be generous enough to admit the same. You say "let's work," but where's the "us"? Why put the burden of looking for evidence entirely on me? Your attitude seems to be "my mind is made up, and I have no interest in examining the matter. If you want me to think about changing my mind, you must do all the work." Dismissing Williams and Nethercot as "gossip" is rather high-handed. The overall quality of Nethercot's books suggests that his scholarly standards deserve more respect than that. Well I did find the citation, but it's rather elliptical. I left it at home but will post it when I can bring it to work. Olcott says that Judge used bogus Mahatma letters to dissuade Annie from going to India after she had already agreed to do so, and adds that the manner in which he dissuaded her "is now a matter of history." Which means that the missing details must appear in another contemporary source, probably the Theosophist. Which I don't expect to have access to any time soon. I do expect to see Michael Gomes in Chicago at AAR, and know that he has studied the case. Perhaps he can shed some light. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 23:30:28 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: reply to Eldon To pursue the musical analogy a bit further-- The ways in which we are attached to our own interpretations/approaches to Theosophy might be parallel to preferring some instruments to others. "Only a piano can incorporate the full range of human emotions"-- "only a violin can capture the yearning of the heart"-- "only a flute can...blah, blah, blah." Which is counterproductive, and completely successful in preventing us from realizing all the things that only a full symphony orchestra can do. Yeah, I know, it's a mono-culturally biased metaphor, but it seems to apply. IMHO a horrifying proportion of the things people say about "spirituality" can be pretty accurately boiled down to "mine's better than yours." I'm far from immune. But I think it's helpful to occasionally ask ourselves if that is really all we're saying, and if so, are we any better than a kindergartner fighting over who has the best lunchbox. Namaste From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 00:31:47 -0400 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Join the T.S.? Eldon, I joined because I wanted to give my support, small that was, to an organization who stood for such fine ideals. Over the years I have known people who declined to join or joined and dropped out. One of those who declined to join had been a monk for a short time and once told me the experience left him very leary of joining anything ever again. Yet, he was one of the most regular attendees to our meetings and always made interesting contributions to the group discussions. I think years later he did finally join. A couple of people who dropped out complained the organization hadn't lived up to its professed objects. I read some years ago and can't recall where it was now (Mahatma letter's I think) that what an organization accomplished was not nearly as important as what it's intentions were. That sounded so compassionate and chairtable to me, that motive was more important than results. It is results which are always considered so important in our culture. We judge our politicians by their immediate results. I have witnesed for myself over the years the value of participating in a group. One can read and study and meditate alone with much good, but anyone who has worked on a problem with the help of a group of people has probably discovered we can often accomplish more together than as individuals. CWL suggested that it was easy to profess a brotherliness for others, but the real test was in the lodge where many very dissimilar personalities would gives us the opportunity to practice that brotherliness. He saw the local lodge/study group like a lab where this expierment could be worked on. I have met a lot people through this organization that I am proud to know and call my brother and some feel the same about me. It is my source of true companionship and a family to me. Finding another member is like finding a long lost brother and I can't wait to find out what he has been up to. What has he learned? What is he interested in? What good books has he read lately? How is his spiritual practices going? Lewisllucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 00:48:57 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: A Touch of Humor This is by Eldon Tucker ---- Jerry H-E: I just went back to my dictionary and find that anarchism is "the theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished." Your mention of one of the good points of the conference, that it was done by the participants rather than the organizers points in this direction. I should have put a smiley face next to "anarchists" in my earlier posting so as to not arouse anyone's anger. I'm not sure that you have come up with an new organization type. What you describe sounds like what happens when friends hang out together. It is also similar to what I've seen a graduate class in management back in 1973. The different ways that people can relate to each other are as old as humanity itself. Approaches seem new to us if we're unfamiliar with them, but do you really think that you're on to something really new? I also concede that since I wasn't at the conference, there's much to it that I don't know about. The fact of the conference itself, and the issues that it raises, are legitimate subjects for discussion. You mention that Theosophy was present, talked about, and explored in an open, uncensored manner. That's great. But this brings us to some basic questions. There are many similarities between the conference and other New Age gatherings. What is it that makes your conference particularly theosophical? What is Theosophy and where does it fit into the picture? Is there anything at all that can be found in your conference that is not found elsewhere? If so, what is it? Or if not, what call it "theosophical?" As I puzzle over these questions, I may attempt an answer at them. Later, should I grow in wisdom, my answers may be different. It is obvious that, since I was not there, I cannot answer to the particular experiences of people at this conference. But I have the right to ask "where's the meat?" in such a conference, because that question directly approaches basic beliefs that our worldviews are based upon, very serious questions. (As a side note: "where's the meat?" is probably not the best phrase for a vegetarian to use...) I agree with you that pagan ceremonies should not be banned, nor should conference attenders find themselves censored. All viewpoints should be explored, *even those that question your fundamental beliefs.* I might describe a scheme where such a gathering is compared to a festive gathering outside the Temple, and a contemplation of the Philosophy is the most-direct approach (similar to the Neo-Platonic approach). You might believe in a different scheme where the approach I'd describe is not considered more direct, and feel that what you value has been belittled. Certainly that is not my intent. When I read about the conference, though, I feel that a statement is implicitly being made about what Theosophy is and where it can be found, a statement that I feel that must be questioned. J.T. Coker and 3rd Party: I may have hit a raw nerve in my last posting. As I just mentioned with Jerry, I should have probably used a smiley face when I said "anarchists." It is always threatening to hear your basic beliefs questioned. When I find this happening, I am encouraged to write positively about my dissenting views, rather than blast the bearer of views that I don't like. As anyone in this electronic discussion forum, I'm entitled to write about my views as though they were true. I doubt that anything can be said without some disagreement. The beauty of the group is that there is truly *no censorship.* When you disagree, you are free to write an alternate view, without some editor picking and choosing the postings. Because of the lack of censorship, we see a wider range of views represented. Some people have not lasted long on "theos-l", because they cannot agree with some of the postings. They prefer to read magazines and associate with people of like mind, and do not enjoy the challenge of clearly explaining their views on an on-going basis. One person may drop out upon reading something "anti-Leadbeater." Another, with a ULT-background, may drop out upon reading something "pro-Leadbeater." It's a no-win situation if one wants to cling to his intolerance. Those that stay on either have some tolerance for views that fundamentally disagree with their own, or simply won't read or look at things by writers they've decided espouse "bad views." Your description of the retreat as a "private gathering" about which word should be spread "privately among friends" paints a different picture of the conference than the one I get from Jerry's postings. I hope that the intent is not to limit the conference to those of your variant of Theosophy, and exclude participation by those of other variants, which you may find espousing something that sounds like "boorish bullshit, arising out of overbearing pride, that must be censored lest it might infect others with its awful version of reality." Don't you think that we'd all benefit more from you participation in the group, if you would write about the wonders and values of the approaches you find grand? It's much better than warning others to watch their words, to find fault with them for speaking bullshit that keeps the Theosophical Movement small. There's a lot to write about and study with Theosophy. I don't understand how some of us become bored with the basic Teachings, and find them tiring to revisit. I find that there is always something more to even the most basic doctrines, when I try yet again to explain them. And our discussion group gives us a wonderful opportunity to write about nearly everything. Some people, like Arvind, last Fall, were drawn into many long hours each week, finding much value in the participation. I should state for the record that I'm not upset at the conference, and that I'm not angry in response to your posting. I consider you to have misread my feelings behind the posting, and my intent, and were responding to that misperception. I do thing, as a matter of policy, that it's best not to respond when angry at something, since then it's the anger speaking. If I was upset, I'd wait a few days before replying to you. You tell me to "lighten up." Ok. I'll try, but I don't feel myself as being intentionally harsh. I'm feel that it's important to write about the things that I do. Granted, some may not like what I write about. That's true, though, when any of us write: some will not like it. Look at your last posting and decide if you too need to lighten up a little? A humorous touch goes a lot farther than an angry blast! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 03:15:18 -0400 From: astoper@s1.csuhayward.edu (Arnold Stoper) Subject: From Jim Anderson To Everybody Virtually all this year, I haven't been communicating. The reasons are complex, not readily explainable, and I can't see a basic change in the situation, though one may come. Not communicating and not monitoring. At the present moment, however, I'm in a concentrated push to try to catch up at least for the present moment. Catch up and do a bit of talking. To Arvind I was touched by your February 2, '94 message to me, paying me a compliment on my contributions and wanting more. In belated response, I ask that you contact John Mead and see if my paper, SEX AND SPIRITUALITY is in the theos-l archive. It was sent last Christmas Eve but something was bungled somewhere and John said he didn't get it until about a month later. Even then, there appears to have been some transmission problem at one or the other end - something about having to break the paper up into arbitrary parts or something like that as I recall. I'd like to know what you think of that paper. (If anyone else on the net is interested, fine.) You will find in that writing my views on a number of subjects - not just on sex and spirituality - and as the paper unfolds, you will also get what I think is an interesting portrait of the members of the Oakland TS in action, struggling with the subject and with various tributaries and tangents. With an eye to the aforesaid transmission problems, note this: The paper is preceded by a one-page message to John which contains an abstract or short summary of the writing. Be sure you get that, which is page one. The paper then runs from page two through page fifty-eight. Page two through page thirty-two consists of the long Preface to the paper proper; page thirty-three through page fifty-eight is the paper proper. That is the form in which that writing should be transmitted and read. If a transmission in that form is not possible, please ask John to hold off, contact me, and do nothing until he hears from me. To Jerry Hejka-Ekins; and secondarily to Arvind In my push to catch up, as in earlier days, I'm fascinated by the dialogue between you and AK. Many, many times I have been confronted with the basic problem you face in Arvind - namely, someone who enthusiastically lands in theosophy via post-Blavatsky theosophy, and thereby necessarily gets things backwards in crucial ways. As I write, I've recently reached the heartening place where Arvind says he thinks the best way to go is to get thoroughly grounded in HPB first, then look at who came after. Your mostly patient persistence and largely admirable clarity of expression are to be awarded palms with respect to the prospective turnaround. On the other hand, though I am more inclined toward your perspective on things than toward Arvind's, I find that you are too often argumentative and unwarrantedly condescending. You appreciate your abilities a bit too much, and thereby do Arvind wrong. For example, after lecturing AK at length on his misreading your feelings when he says you are irritated, you say in the very next paragraph or so that you are indeed irritated by the very things he cites as causing you irritation. This is not good, not right. Arvind's humble apologies for misreading you are misplaced, for he didn't misread you, as your own words quickly reveal. Your intimidating him into admitting that he misread you is, on his side, an example of politeness doing injustice to right, and on your side, ego successfully clothing with right that which is wrong. Both of you should be on guard against letting this dynamic continue in any form. Now a few brief comments on what I've so far found in catching up on the dialogue (I'm still back in May somewhere.) (1) As for HPB not understanding what her teachers taught her and what she taught the public by way of her teachers, there is a sizeable correct middle ground between your two technically correct but misleading extremes. You say she understood everything (one extreme) except for an occasional mathematical this or phrase that (the other extreme.) Not so. She remarks on this matter many times. I think one instance is found in Letter CXXXIV of The Mahatma Letters where, in the midst of relaying to APS a communication from M via herself, she says, "Explain this to Mr. Sinnett ( I CAN'T) ..." Your good comments on the temporary nature of some of her knowledge (e.g. with foreign languages) apply in middle-ground part to a good deal of what her teachers taught her. Yes, generally, she understood everything, so to speak, but her specific lack of understanding of particular things she spoke and wrote occupied a position intermediate between everything and the occasional minor detail. (2 - maybe applying not to anything you said but to someone else - can't recall) Amusing (also not amusing) this self-righteous orthodoxy stating that anyone who claims occult status shows thereby the lack of that status. Take note, Jesus, M, KH, others - your saying who and what you are condemns you. Take note, theosophists - discrimination is the thing, not the big blanket. (3) Tillett's discrepancies re CWL are CWL lies? You assert specific discrepancies (birth certificate, siblings, etc.) but don't show how those discrepancies become lies. My perspective on Leadbeater is closely akin to yours, but so far in my catching up, your assertion that the man was a liar is by no means established by the discrepancies you indicate. A number of things besides lies can account for discrepancies. Maybe CWL was indeed a pathological liar - I don't know - but your charge is much too strong for the weak support you offer for it. (4) Why that casual, parenthetical throwing out that the letters from KH to CWL are thought by many to be forgeries? Many think that The Mahatma Letters are forgeries. (5) Where do Krishnamurti, Van Hook, and the other two you name accuse Leadbeater of ruining their lives? (6) Argumentative, posturing nonsense saying you don't care what AK believes so long as what he believes is harmless. What belief (belief system) is harmless? What's fun for the boys is death for the frogs, goes the wise saying. And so it goes in the spiritual realm also. Granted, you have a lot of age-old company in the nonsense - a natural magnet, a sweet-sounding trap. Discrimination is the thing, not the false light. To "K. Paul Johnson" Let's call this a preliminary assessment of you and your work. Firstly, we think alike in being more interested in personal histories than in abstractions. For my part, the heart of this preference is the realization that specific personal and historical details about the life of a great spiritual figure will demonstrate the "abstract" glory of that life more than anything else. You seem to have a different basis for the preference. I would call your basis a certain historiolatry plus a certain aggressive use of the notion of "warts and all" to disguise a leaning toward "warts above all." Regarding that unfavorable review of one of your books which you showed us and trashed, Brenda Tucker's remarks were generous and on the right track. In my opinion, the review was also on the right track. Theosophists who know me will not assign me a back seat when it comes to airing personal and historical details not liked by theosophical orthodoxy. But I sense a very great difference between the animating spirit of my doings and the animating spirit of yours. When it comes to an historical approach to theosophy, you strike me as a wide-eyed convert full of the distorting excesses of overly-enthusiastic conversion. Your effort to fit HPB and her teachers into "known history" is, to say the least, procrustean. You and I are alike in deploring the muscular aversion of theosophical orthodoxy to less-than-lovely personal and historical details about great theosophical figures, but I think it is fair to say that, unlike myself, you use the knowledge of that aversion as a weapon. You use the knowledge as a shield to insulate yourself from criticism not proceeding along lines you dictate. You wielded the weapon - recklessly - against the book reviewer, and Brenda was right to point out the recklessness. (I think it was Brenda who remarked on the silly attack on the reviewer's spelling.) The excesses of your attitude are no better illustrated than in the fact of your showing us the book review on your own initiative while calling it the worst review ever of your work and attacking it recklessly. You seem to be on a mission, and it doesn't appear to be a good one. As I said, let's call this a preliminary assessment of you and your work. I'm always interested when I see that a transmission from you is coming. As I said, you and I have some important foundational stuff in common. Let's see where all this leads. To Jerry Hejka-Ekins and Brenda Tucker Some twenty-three years ago, I read two books on Jewish mysticism. One man, a rabbi, wrote both of them. The reading was a deep and delightful learning experience. As the years passed, the special place in my heart for those books increased in richness. Some thirteen years ago, I was dramatically reunited with a dear college friend. She is a brilliant and very trustworthy person. I visited her at her home. There, she told me a terrible story about a mutual friend of ours from our university days. This mutual friend had had a very great, creative, turning-some-corners influence upon my life. She (the mutual friend) had her own very special place in my heart. The terrible story was that she had had an affair with a man who had cruelly abused her. The abuse was psychological, sexual, and I think I was told it was physical in ways other than sexual. My memory is hazy about the details, but my memory is all too good about the nature of the details. The terrible experience drove my dear friend who had nourished me so quite literally out of her mind. The man was the author of those two books on Jewish mysticism. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 03:36:32 -0400 From: astoper@s1.csuhayward.edu (Arnold Stoper) Subject: from Jim Anderson (part 2) To Paul I stand foursquare with you in your replies to the hankerings of Eldon and Jerry after party-line theosophical expatiation on the net. As it is, the net is a great, freewheeling free-for-all; theosophy on one of its highest mountaintops if you ask me. The party line - various party lines - get their proverbial two pennies in with marked frequency, and the whole mix of elements, if you ask me, is just right. (Don't get me wrong - by "party line" I mean both the real thing and caricatures of the real thing.) Yes, yes, I give you a high-five re the not-naming-names witch-hunting tendency mainly in Eldon and Brenda but also (surprisingly) to some extent in Jerry. Jerry - your defense here is well-taken. Paul, you say, "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 a flow of life and makes it all more immediate." For the moment, I'll consider my long and memorable months at Adyar and at Simla in 1965 and 1966 as not very "contemporary", but let me know. Also, the way things move these days, 1985 is probably old hat too. Anyhow, I travelled all over Tibet in the spring and summer of 1985, completely on my own, without guides. Several stays in the "big cities" of Lhasa, Shigatse, and Gyantse, but mostly I was out on that different planet which is the Tibetan wilds. I assume you know about Sakkya-Jong in The Mahatma Letters. It's in the Index, and if you go where the Index indicates, you find KH thusly: "I now come from. To you the name will remain meaningless. Repeat it before the 'Old Lady' and - observe the result." I lived four days in the village of Sakya. (I'll use just one k, as seems usual. Tibetans pronounce it Sadj - ya.) The excellent New York Times Atlas map of Tibet names a Sakya-Jong as a mountain pass near Sakya. (I think "jong" means mountain pass or something like that.) From the Sakya guest house where I stayed, you can see a path going between two rounded, modest-sized mountains. Maybe that is the Sakya-Jong of the New York Times map; maybe it is KH's and HPB's Sakkya-Jong. The Sakya guest house is directly across the street from Sakya Monastery. As you may know, Sakya Monastery is the place where, in 1275, religious and civil functions were first fused in Tibet, by the then emperor of China, the Mongol, Kublai Khan, as a way of solidifying Chinese control over Tibet. My experience was that Tibetans regard Sakya Monastery, not one or another of the more famous ones near Lhasa, as THE monastery. They let you know that as if letting you in on an inside thing. In March 1985 I spent a day travelling across Mongolia on the Trans-Siberian Railroad. The train stopped a half-hour in Ulaan Bataar, so I had thirty minutes to walk around that place. Curious that ASTREA says he (she?) spent a month in "Ulan Bataar and environs" but "didn't get as far as the Gobi desert." Suggests that ASTREA got to the capital by air and not overland. Overland via Siberia, one finds Ulaan Bataar plopped down in the middle of the Gobi Desert. Ages since I read Isis; must follow up your note that an HPB trip to Mongolia can be found therein. I think it's in the HPB Letters to APS where HPB says that most of the members of the trans-Himalayan Brotherhood are (as I recall the description) pure-blooded Mongolian Buddhists. Immensely enjoyed your comparison of theosophy and Baha'i. I've visited both W Chicago suburb headquarters, and have spent much time with Baha'is across the country. (As you may know, Wheaton is also a great hotbed of evangelical Protestantism.) I suggest another comparison: Maybe Baha'i stands to Babism as Something To Succeed Theosophy stands to theosophy. In both cases, a short-term forerunner complete in itself followed by the big enchilada. If my memory serves, Olcott had this idea about theosophy. I'll tie my suggested comparison to another suggested comparison: 19th-century spiritualism stands to theosophy as 20th-century UFOs stand to UFOs Identified. Interesting, your spiralling cycles talk to Eldon. I demur.(( "... 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). ... Maybe we can agree to look at 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.'")) Since my "preliminary assessment of you and your work", I've been quite moved and charmed by you, as is probably evident in my remarks since the preliminary assessment. Now that assessment returns, modified, but basically unchanged. Your spiralling cycles finesse good and bad directions the way Brenda finesses ethics. Her move makes room for her, let us say "bad" acceptance of "bad" CWL; your move connects with what my preliminary assessment called the mission you seem to be on which doesn't appear to be a good one. You eviscerate and dress up the important realization that everything has its place. Yes, everything has its place, including wrong directions and other bad stuff. I'll conclude this paragraph with HPB talking to APS in The Mahatma Letters, p.463 of the 1975 TUP Facsimile Edition: "M. means here that they have no right or even power to go against the natural or that work which is prescribed to each class of beings or existing things by the law of nature. The Brothers, for instance could life but they could not death, not even for themselves. They can to a degree palliate evil and relieve suffering; they could not destroy evil. No more can the Dhyan Chohans impede the work of the Mamo Chohans, for Law is , , etc., as that of the former is Light, knowledge and creation. The Dhyan Chohans answer to , Divine Wisdom and Life in blissful knowledge, and the Ma-mos are the personification in nature of , Jehovah and other invented monsters with Ignorance at their tail)." (continued in part 3) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 03:53:18 -0400 From: astoper@s1.csuhayward.edu (Arnold Stoper) Subject: from Jim Anderson (part 3) To Eldon, Daniel Hampson (Eldon says Hampton; it's been appearing as Hampson. Hampton? Hampson?) and Everybody Many months ago, Eldon, I suggested that you quiet down, listen more, talk less. I suggest the same today. You have much of value to say, but you are much too taken with the sound of your voice, and the lofty manner of your offerings is much too often belied by things you say of dubious or less value. Case in point - the following pontificating to Daniel regarding his heartfelt and moving report on encounters with, let us say, false prophets: "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 (correct spelling, Juilliard - JA) 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 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?'" As to music, my profession is music, and perhaps I know more than you do about supreme self-taught musicians who took few or no lessons and who enrolled with nobody or hardly anybody. Case in point - Paul McCartney. He can't read music, and is one of the very greatest and most creative musicians of this or any time. Irving Berlin, much the same story. George Gershwin, a dazzling example. Wagner took a few scraggly lessons over a few scraggly months then set out on his own. You picked a bad category for your sermon, displaying your great ignorance (or ignoring), torpedoing your sermon. As for the Mysteries, you fared no better. Listen to KH on James Lindsay, The Mahatma Letters, page 27, TUP 1975 Facsimile Edition: "He asks what hope he may have? I say - . For he has that within himself that so very few possess: an exhaustless source of magnetic fluid which, if he only had the time, he could call out in torrents and need no other master than himself. His own powers would do the work and his own great experience be a sure guide for him." One of the very greatest, most beautiful, and most important passages in all of theosophical literature. If you feel inclined to jump on the "so very few", don't jump. Are you sure you always know who it is who stands before you? By the way, a letter that should have been included in The Mahatma Letters is a deeply affecting one written by James Lindsay. KH's remarks are at least in part a response to it. The Lindsay letter, the original, is with the originals of The Mahatma Letters in the British Museum. I studied all those originals - the mahatmas, Lindsay, HPB, etc. - during my visit to London in 1986. Cool it, friend. There is much pruning, softening, and quickening among your needs. To Aki Korhonen, Lewis Lucas, Leonard Cole, and Everybody The exchanges about the Kalevala turned me on. As Leonard knows, I spent the summer of 1990 in Finland. There, I learned things about the Kalevala I hadn't known before. I've never read more than brief summaries of the work, but I can see that it is certainly one of the more fascinating national epics to cross my attention. For one thing, it seems to show the coming of Christianity, the passing of Christianity, and the post-Christian return to the native spiritual genius. I had eye-opening discussions about the Kalevala at the Finnish Literature Society in Helsinki. I was told that what one really wants to get into is not so much the Kalevala itself, the worthy literary achievement of Elias Lonnrot, but the raw folk poetry Lonnrot drew on to create the Kalevala. One of the ladies at the Finnish Literature Society told me that the Kalevala is a nice story to curl up with in bed before you go to sleep, but if you're really serious, get into the unpolished native poetry which served as the basis for Lonnrot's nice story. Most of my Finland stay was in Kaustinen, the little village which hosts one of the world's great annual summer music festivals. Near Kaustinen is a most extraordinary place called Pauanne. (Pronunciation - Pow uh nuh - accent on first syllable.) It's hidden away in forest and low-rolling hills. Very hard to describe. "Theme park" does it great injustice, but that gives you a rough idea. It is one man's vision, one man's work with his own hands. It is a tribute to the Kalevala, particularly to that key idea in the Kalevala, "the return of Vainamoinen"; the return, it seems to me, of the pre-Christian spirituality. Along with the friend from Kaustinen who took me to Pauanne, I was given a personal tour of the incredible buildings by the man who conceived and built them. No one else was present. Unforgettable. Pauanne was not completed when I was there, so I was lucky to see some of the work-in-progress, the nuts and bolts explained to me by the creator. I recommend as strongly as I can, that anyone seriously interested in the Kalevala try to get to Finland, talk with the ladies at the Finnish Literature Society, and pay a visit to Pauanne. By the way, Aki, you are right about Rudolf Steiner's view of machines. Generally, he did see them as "Ahrimanic", materialistically detrimental to spirit. On the other hand, at least in one writing (can't recall its title), he put forward what seemed to me a different idea. As I remember it, it said that sometime in the future a machine would be so finely tuned to a particular person that only that person could operate it. Something like that was the subject of considerable discussion by HPB and others in the early days of theosophy - John Worrell Keely of Philadelphia and a motor he had invented which would run only when it was in contact with his personal vibrations. To Everybody My catch-up push runs to and concludes on September 3, the last date of downloading as of this present day, September 16. All best. Jim Anderson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 09:58:12 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: ODL re Poison As it turns out, the elliptical passage I found day before yesterday is eclipsed by a very straightforward one found last night. It's in volume IV, pp. 523-4: ..Mr. Walter R. Old, of the London working staff, arrived and joined out Headquarters organization. Almost immediately there was an interchange of confidences between us, which for the first time opened my eyes to the treacherous policy that Mr. Judge had been following up with regard to the Society and myself in the matter of his relations with the Masters. I cannot tell how shocked I was to discover his lack of principle, and to find that my previously more or less vague suspicions fell far short of the reality. Without making any pretensions to exceptional goodness, I certainly never did anything to warrant him in making, in a forged letter, my own Teacher and adored Guru seem to say that, if Mrs. Besant should carry out her intention of visiting India, she might run the risk of my poisoning her! Let any of my honorable colleagues picture to themselves how they would feel if such cruel and baseless imputations were made against their character. Elsewhere in Vol. IV, I can't find it at the moment, HSO says that Old didn't just "exchange confidences" but also presented documents to back up his charges. These presumably remain in the archives at Adyar. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 09:58:52 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Response to Jim A. Hi Jim-- You make up for your long silence by your long post. Dunno how soon you are likely to read this, so I will be brief. Re your preliminary assessment. You are bound to have a distorted view of my "mission" if you measure it by my defensive responses to a series of attacks I have received as a result of it. Like most people, I'm at my best when acting upon inspiration from my own higher self (or what have you) and the encouragement of sympathetic helpers-- and at my worst when facing unrelenting rejection for having done so. If you read The Masters Revealed, I doubt very much that you will find confirmation of your accusation of "aggressive use of the notion of `warts and all' to disguise a leaning toward `warts above all.'" No one who has read the book sees it as other than predominantly positive in its evaluation of HPB, the Masters, Theosophy. That's not to say that what you perceive in the posts isn't there; but it's reactive to posts of the "warts are nonexistent" train of thought. (Or rather-- "don't tell me about warts, and if you do, you are evil.") As to Procrustean efforts, again-- check out the book. About the Mark Jaqua review, my calling it the "worst ever" was entirely accurate-- it was the most negative ever. I didn't make a silly criticism of spelling errors, I marked them with [sic]. As for being on a mission that isn't good, a possibility you raise more than once, what can one possibly say to this? Judge on the basis of the books, PLEASE. Then reread the Jaqua piece and my reply, and ask yourself if you might be straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. Re spiral progress. That's my own experience; nothing has been wasted in my various changes of orientation, although they have been apparent reversals of direction. I was making no effort to justify what you seem to think I was (which isn't clear)-- just to try to offer Eldon an alternative to his linear thinking on the subject. After all, the universality of cycles is supposed to be one of our fundamental principles. Please share more of your travel experiences as you are able. The high point of my journeys (almost literally) was a trip to Jammu, following the footsteps of Olcott, Damodar and W.T. Brown to the court of Maharaja Ranbir Singh. Hence any tales of Himalayan journeys arouse my keenest interest. Namaste From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 12:56:03 -0400 From: John Mead Subject: A fwded message from Liesel Deutsch (who subscribed today) Hi -- I wanted to welcome Liesel to the discussion list. She had contacted me many months ago about joining the theosophy discussions. I was able to locate a local Internet provider for her. However, it took awhile for to get the right equipment together. I congratulate Liesel on her tenacity!! again, welcome! John Mead p.s. this is a message she forwarded to me to post (a day or so ago). However, I waited until she had subscribed to send it out. > From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" I've been puzzling about something to do with absolutes & relatives. TS often talks about Truth and Reality, and I do agree there must be such things as Absolute Truth and Absolute Reality. But I've been into Kahuna a la Serge King for the past year, & Kahunas think absolutes aren't of much practical use for healing, and for everyday relating. For example, Theosophists live by theosophical truths, & I, for one, find that reincarnation, is a great motivator. You do whatever you can in this life, for the benefit of future lives, yours & others'. But there are others who shrink from the thought that they might have to live life all over again, and that's their Truth. To the Kahunas reality is wherever you happen to be focused, whatever you're focusing on just now. You're reading what I typed into the computer, so that's our respective reality at that moment. When you're in the process of dying, I think that's your reality for that moment, colored by whatever you think awaits you on the other side. Kahunas think Truth is whatever works for you, as long as it's ethical. If to you Communion is a blessing, then to receive Communion is a blessing. It's your Truth. If you believe in Voodoo, and believe that you've been hexed, to become unhexed, you have to do something within that belief system, within your Truth. Even "Thou shalt not kill" is, I think, more of an agreement among human beings than it is an Absolute. And then, not all human beings really believe in the sacredness of human life, let alone Life. The tenet surely doesn't apply to animals at this stage, even though we hope it will some day. I don't know whether this makes any sense to you. I'd love to bat it around some, because I'm puzzling over it. I'm looking forward to hearing from you, Liesel. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 12:58:29 -0400 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: from Jim Anderson (part 2) astoper@s1.csuhayward.edu (Arnold Stoper) writes: > half-hour in Ulaan Bataar, so I had thirty minutes to walk around > that place. Curious that ASTREA says he (she?) spent a month in > "Ulan Bataar and environs but "didn't get as far as the Gobi > desert." Suggests that ASTREA got to the capital by air and not > overland. Overland via Siberia, one finds Ulaan Bataar plopped > down in the middle of the Gobi Desert. Ages since I read Isis; > must Yes, that's right. I flew in from Bejing. ASTREA (it's a "she") From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 24 Sep 1994 02:26:58 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Two Types of Approach This is by Eldon Tucker ---- Two Types of Approach I have a few more comments to J.T. Coker, and will reply to the more recent postings tomorrow. I agree that art, psychology, meditation, death and dying, and other such topics are important and deserve serious consideration. We all have our personal approach to the spiritual. A wide variety of interests and activities enrich and fulfill our lives. We both call Theosophy a spiritual path. I would say that the Teachings themselves are the Key and the approach to the Mysteries, the heart of the Path. You might talk of doctrinal skills that one hones then uses in the give and take, the messy processes of life itself. We differ in the importance we attach to thought itself, apart from interpersonal interactions. When the Philosophy is continually looked at with fresh eyes, we find something more each time. It is not an intellectual fetish, nor silly and spiritually counter-productive. To review, reconsider, and re-express the Teachings is not an empty exercise. We can learn something more each time. When we start viewing them as "the same old stuff" and get bored, it is because we've reached a plateau in our thinking, where we can go no further without breaking the old molds of mind and move on. I certainly don't want to be considered a theosophical pope, nor the sole holder of real truth. And I don't think that I could pull it off however hard I might try, were I so inclined. We all have the right, though, to firmly believe in what we say, and not hesitate to say "this is true" about things we believe in. We agree that individual differences should be accepted. Can you accept a style of communication that has religious overtones, and may therefore at times *sound like* preaching? If I want to consider Theosophy as a religious philosophy, that is my way. Intolerance of other approaches is to be avoided. But intolerance is to suppress, restrict, banish, and condemn those approaches. It is agreed that there is no one true way, and that different opinions on doctrines should be handled in openness. Someone with a more conservative view should not be described as an uptight spinster--not any more than some with a more liberal view being described as a rebellious, destructive, reckless teenager. Characterizations of others that magnify their supposed weaknesses are harmful and only bring more evil into the world. Characterizations that magnify the good qualities of others encourage them to be even better. Some of the Teachings are nearly-impossible to convey merely by written or spoken word. They must be self-originated, and an element of personal experience necessary as well. I would say it is possible to know them in a special way, by personal experience, and that doing so is much easier than you might think. Saying that one does so is not a great claim, but is easier to do than, say, for a smoker to give up smoking. Someone else may believe this is not so, and that I have mislead myself to think so. They have a right to say that I'm wrong. I have an equal right to say that my views are simply the truth, and not a mere opinion, if that's how I see it. Who is right? When you say that I seek to impose my personal approach on others, and don't allow them any slack, you're not accepting an important distinction that I make. There is the approach that each of us takes in fashioning our personal spiritual lives. That is one type of approach. With it, I agree in the need for accepting differences. But also there is the approach to *something more,* to the Mysteries. For this approach, I'd consider the theosophical Teachings playing an important role. We can talk about the common good, and accept others on an equal basis. Their self-chosen paths can be respected. But this does not mean that what is good for Masters, Chelas, and people at various pre-Chela stages are the same as what is good for the general populace. It is not arrogant and judgmental to see a scale of evolution with one step leading to the next, a natural progression, and to look up to future steps before us. It is not right to say that we may only talk about what is for the common good, and that we must keep as esoteric anything not meant for all. There is more to Theosophy than a common religion or school of psychology for the masses. I do not wanting to impose any personal preference regarding art, music, science, psychology, nor lifestyle. Talking about the way to the Mysteries does not belittle some people and flatter others. We can study and discuss this way without having to make personal claims to spiritual greatness. We can talk about the way to the Olympics without judging anyone's personal fitness plan. Our agreement is on the unique nature of our individual searching for the spiritual. We part company, perhaps, when I go on to express the view that there is also a special path for the few, a path that is awakened through our spiritual-intellectual natures, Buddhi-Manas, and go on to say what I think that path consists of. You're free to say that there is no such special path, or differ in your depiction of it. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 24 Sep 1994 07:40:48 -0400 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: poison letter; postmodern conf.; misc. Paul Johnson PJ> Give me a break. I said nothing about what "you" are to > believe. All I said was that the story seemed credible to me, > and that I would pursue the lead. That is not what you wrote: PJ> Since Annie was of course alive > when the story was published, first in the Theosophist and > then in ODL, she would have been able to correct it if she had > wanted to. Thus-- it seems credible." > > Will look for the specific passage. If you had indeed written that the story "seemed credible to me.", I would have understood you to be referring to yourself, and would not have bothered to respond to your post in the first place. PJ> Why are you being so adversarial about this? All I did was > post a work-in-progress news flash. My reason for being so "adversarial" is because I believe it to be irresponsible for researchers to repeat unsubstantiated information as fact. You had done just that in your first post, when you repeated Nethercot's unsubstantiated statement concerning a "poison" letter as fact. In your second post, after I had presented contradictory information, you again attributed credibility to the story because a friend told you that he read about it in ODL. As I said, if you had written that your friend's comment led you to conclude that the story seems creditable *to you*, I would not have commented. But you did not write that. You wrote that the story "seems credible." PJ> You seem to be very resistant to believing something bad > about Judge, while quite ready to believe bad things about > Olcott and Besant. You are wrong about that. If you make a statement and substantiate it about Judge, Olcott or Besant, I will judge it on the weight of the evidence. These people were human beings, warts and all. If you have source evidence concerning Judge that is unfavorable to him, then it should be posted. It should come out so that we can look at it. Same for Olcott and Besant. PJ> Paul's accusation? Why call it that? All I am doing > is repeating from a source, and you know well that the story > appears in more than one. Better to call it "Nethercot's and > Williams's (and perhaps Olcott's and Besant's) accusation." I call it "Paul's accusation" because you cited it from Nethercot (a secondary source) as a fact, without bothering to determine his source for the story. Williams, as I had already pointed out, cites the story as gossip. > What is "giving credence" anyway? Of course I don't expect > you to believe it without the citation, which is the reason I > looked for it. "Giving credence" is giving credibility to a story based upon *source documentation*, not secondary information. Perhaps you need to take a course in research methodology. PJ> But you might at least acknowledge the > possibility that Nethercot and Williams didn't just invent the > story-- which you seem reluctant to do unless forced to. Wrong again. I never denied the possibility that Nethercot and Williams based the story upon something. In fact, I figured that it was likely. I only asked that you find and examine the source of that story before repeating it. PJ> Therefore, why is it not just as fair for me to turn the > tables and say "until evidence is found and substantiated > to prove that Nethercot and or Williams invented the story, I > for one refuse to give credence to Jerry's accusation?" You > are accusing them of just a serious a misdeed as they attribute > to Judge. Wrong again! Nethercot repeated the story as fact. Williams repeated the story as gossip. Neither one gave a source for their information. The lack of citations and the contradictory presentation of the story as fact in one case and gossip in another is enough to IMHO make a reasonable person question the story. My "accusation" or rather criticism is towards you for posting the story from a secondary source as fact, when another equally credible secondary source cites the story as gossip. I'm saying that this is not responsible scholarship for a historical researcher, especially one who is now published in an academic press. Presently, I'm systematically going through academic papers that discuss theosophical history, and find major and utterly stupid factual errors on almost every page. For instance, one I was looking at yesterday informs me that Annie Besant became President of the T.S. upon HPB's death in 1891. These errors come from slipshod work and reliance on secondary sources. There is no excuse for this kind of sloppiness. But it slips into academic publications and is picked up and repeated by other academic publications. As HPB said "Error runs down an inclined plane." Come on Paul, let's be responsible and not contribute to the abundance of shit that is already out there. PJ> "Seems credible" is no more a judgment that "not willing to > give credence" is. Why are you blaming me for something that > you yourself are doing? Wong again. I'm blaming you for giving credibility to secondary sources that contradict each other. I stated that I'm not willing to give credence to such secondary and contradictory information. I want to look at the source of their information and draw my own conclusions. PJ> We all have some kind of opinion/judgment on the Judge case, > and we all know that it is based on inadequate evidence. Your > guess is as good as mine. Please be generous enough to admit > the same. My whole point. I try not to form judgements on inadequate evidence. That is why I was critical of you for presenting the poison letter story as a fact, and citing a secondary source who neglects to give a primary one. PJ> You say "let's work," but where's the "us"? Why put > the burden of looking for evidence entirely on me? Your > attitude seems to be "my mind is made up, and I have no > interest in examining the matter. If you want me to think > about changing my mind, you must do all the work." Wrong again! I provided the Williams Quote, not you. I pointed out the inconsistency. You insisted that Nethercot got the evidence for his story from the Adyar archives, thus putting the burden on me to check that out. I came up with the evidence from Nethercot's own statement that he never was permitted to see the Adyar archives. You then insisted that it was in ODL. Well Paul, I have ten novels to read in 13 weeks, two papers and a bibliography to write, plus a class to teach, so I'll be damn if I'm going to page through Olcott's six volumes of poorly indexed memoirs just because you decided that "it must be in ODL." No, I did the research for your last two quesses, so I figure that it is your turn to substantiate your own speculations. Now you say that you have a friend who found it for you. The rest should be easy, all you have to do now is post the reference, so that we can look at it. PJ> Dismissing Williams and Nethercot as "gossip" is rather > high-handed. Wrong again! Williams herself dismissed the story as gossip. As for Nethercot, I only questioned his source. If his source was Williams, then it becomes gossip too. If his source was ODL, then it may still be gossip. We'll see. PJ> The overall quality of Nethercot's books suggests > that his scholarly standards deserve more respect than that. That's your opinion. The first rule in scholarship is to cite your sources. The second rule is to stick to primary sources whenever possible. Nethercot does neither. He only gives a general statement at the beginning of each section as to his sources, without citing specific sources for specific information. Further, his sources are often as not secondary. His work is nowhere near "scholarly standards." PJ> Well I did find the citation, but it's rather elliptical. I > left it at home but will post it when I can bring it to work. > Olcott says that Judge used bogus Mahatma letters to dissuade > Annie from going to India after she had already agreed to do > so, and adds that the manner in which he dissuaded her "is now > a matter of history." Which means that the missing details > must appear in another contemporary source, probably the > Theosophist. Which I don't expect to have access to any time > soon. Olcott is probably alluding to Edmund Garrett's series, published in the ~Review of Reviews~ and reprinted in ~Isis Very Much Unveiled Being the Story of the Great Mahatma Hoax.~ (1894), not ~The Theosophist.~ Though Garrett presents the evidence against Judge (he got copies of the evidence against Judge from Old), he also dismisses the poisoning incident as gossip. So that won't help you either. In a latter message Paul cites the passage in question from ODL: PJ> As it turns out, the elliptical passage I found day before > yesterday is eclipsed by a very straightforward one found last > night. It's in volume IV, pp. 523-4: > >..Mr. Walter R. Old, of the London working staff, arrived and > joined out Headquarters organization. Almost immediately there > was an interchange of confidences between us, which for the > first time opened my eyes to the treacherous policy that Mr. > Judge had been following up with regard to the Society and > myself in the matter of his relations with the Masters. I > cannot tell how shocked I was to discover his lack of > principle, and to find that my previously more or less vague > suspicions fell far short of the reality. Without making any > pretensions to exceptional goodness, I certainly never did > anything to warrant him in making, in a forged letter, my own > Teacher and adored Guru seem to say that, if Mrs. Besant should > carry out her intention of visiting India, she might run the > risk of my poisoning her! Let any of my honorable colleagues > picture to themselves how they would feel if such cruel and > baseless imputations were made against their character. > > Elsewhere in Vol. IV, I can't find it at the moment, HSO says > that Old didn't just "exchange confidences" but also presented > documents to back up his charges. These presumably remain in > the archives at Adyar. Now I am becoming more impressed. Three possibilities come to mind for this citation: 1. Olcott is citing a "Mahatma letter" shown to him by Old, that warned Besant that Olcott plans to poison her. 2. Olcott is repeating the same gossip that was extant at the time, and believes it to be true. 3. Such a *genuine* Mahatma letter exists that really warned Besant of such a thing. Considering the evidence offered by Garrett, I'm inclined to discount the third alternative, that such a genuine Mahatma letter exists as described. But that doesn't prove that Judge's Mahatma letters were or were not genuine. If you can find a passage in Olcott's memoirs (you say it exists) that Old showed Olcott a letter that warns Besant that Olcott intends to poison her, then you will have presented a very strong argument that Judge forged such a letter, thus substantiating the first alternative. However, we must keep in mind Garrett's 1894 account, which is also based upon both Old's testimony and copies of the same documents that Olcott was shown. I quote from Garrett's account below: During the very next month Mrs. Besant, then preparing for her trip to India, received a cablegram from the vice- president in America to this effect:-- You are desired not to go to India remain where you are grave danger Olcott await further particulars by an early mail. At Avenue-road this mysterious telegram was at first read in the sense, "Grave danger to Olcott." The president was just then due at Tokyo, and there was a report of an earthquake thereabouts. For a while there was a great flutter over this convincing case of Mahatmic prescience. When, however, the "early mail" arrived with Mr. Judges explanatory letter, quite a different complexion was put on the telegram. After reading this letter, and one from the inevitable Mahatma which Mr. Judge enclosed, the conclusion of the Inner Group was that the "grave danger" against which the Master warned Mrs. Besant was "from Olcott." The Tibetan founder of the society, in short, warned Mrs. Besant against imperilling her safety in the neighborhood of its president! The Mahatma had declared war on Colonel Olcott. This was the first shot in the campaign. But what could this danger from Colonel Olcott be? Mr. Judge and his Mahatma left that darkly vague. Some of their friends in England dotted the i's and crossed the t's for them. It is hardly credible, but the suggestion was nothing less preposterous than that Colonel Olcott intended to ~poison~ Mrs. Besant!.... Positively, the only material which these ladies and gentlemen had to work on was an innocent conversation of the Colonel's with a friend on the subject of poisons, Indian and other, which took place at a date when Mrs. Besant was not yet even a member of the society! The "evidence"--save the mark--was such as ordinary non-Theosophical folk would not give even a dog a bad name on. But Mahatmas and their friends are different, and Mr. Judge's Mahatma was well served. For this trivial episode buzzed about from mouth to mouth in connexion with the sinister hints of "Mahatma M," sufficed to make this monstrous charge against their president currently believed at Avenue-road, for some weeks at least, by the very inmost and governing circle of his colleagues, with Mrs. Besant at their head! A belief once discarded, it is easy to deny that it ever existed. But this particular belief, or half-belief, showed itself in action. Mrs. Besant deferred her visit to India, and to impatient Indian disciples wrote that "Master had forbidden her to come," and "till that order was countermanded" she would not budge (pp 45-46). ----------------- Thus Garrett reproduces the letter that started the "poisoning" controversy. But it is also clear that "poison" is not even mentioned in this "Mahatmic" communication. Rather, it was inferred by members of the inner group, and that even Besant bought into this inference! Therefore Garrett shows that the poison letter story is gossip, and Besant and Olcott bought into it. Unless you can find evidence that a letter ever existed that specifically warned Besant that Olcott planned to poison her, Garrett's account will have to remain the most plausible one, and I will have to go with it. Eldon Tucker, ET> I'm not sure that you have come up with an new > organization type. What you describe sounds like what happens > when friends hang out together. It is also similar to what > I've seen a graduate class in management back in 1973. The > different ways that people can relate to each other are as old > as humanity itself. Approaches seem new to us if we're > unfamiliar with them, but do you really think that you're on > to something really new? No. I don't claim to have come up with a new organization type. We are pursuing post-modern principles. They have been around for thirty years under that name, and no doubt, for millennia under other names. It's not new, but an alternative to the approaches used by the Theosophical Organizations. ET> When I read about the conference, though, I feel > that a statement is implicitly being made about what Theosophy > is and where it can be found, a statement that I feel that > must be questioned. How was this statement "implicitly being made"? Can you give an example of a conference announcement where this is not so? Jim Anderson, JA> As I write, I've recently reached the heartening place where > Arvind says he thinks the best way to go is to get thoroughly > grounded in HPB first, then look at who came after. Your mostly > patient persistence and largely admirable clarity of expression > are to be awarded palms with respect to the prospective > turnaround. Thank you. You made my day. However, Arvind later signed off the net, saying that he found another "guru" that does not require study or reading, but only devotion--thus he declared that he no longer is interested in either Bailey or Blavatsky. JA> On the other hand, though I am more inclined toward your > perspective on things than toward Arvind's, I find that you are > too often argumentative and unwarrantedly condescending. Thank you for your perspective. > You appreciate your abilities a bit too much, and thereby do > Arvind wrong. For example, after lecturing AK at length on his > misreading your feelings when he says you are irritated, you > say in the very next paragraph or so that you are indeed > irritated by the very things he cites as causing you > irritation. This is not good, not right. Arvind's humble > apologies for misreading you are misplaced, for he didn't > misread you, as your own words quickly reveal. Your > intimidating him into admitting that he misread you is, on his > side, an example of politeness doing injustice to right, and on > your side, ego successfully clothing with right that which is > wrong. Both of you should be on guard against letting this > dynamic continue in any form. I'm afraid that you had misread the communication. I told Arvind that I was irritated for his mis-quoting me to someone else on the net, in a message not sent to me. It is one thing to mis-read someone, and is quite understandable. It is quite another thing to repeat that mis-representation to others, especially when he was already told that he had misread me. JA> Now a few brief comments on what I've so far found in > catching up on the dialogue (I'm still back in May somewhere.) > (1) As for HPB not understanding what her teachers taught her > and what she taught the public by way of her teachers, there is > a sizeable correct middle ground between your two technically > correct but misleading extremes. You say she understood > everything (one extreme) except for an occasional mathematical > this or phrase that (the other extreme.) Not so. She remarks > on this matter many times. I think one instance is found in > Letter CXXXIV of The Mahatma Letters where, in the midst of > relaying to APS a communication from M via herself, she says, > "Explain this to Mr. Sinnett ( I CAN'T) ..." When I archived the dialogue between Arvind and I, it took up over a million bits of space on a disk, so I hope you understand when I say that I can't spare the time to find, retrieve and review six month old posts. However, I will try to respond to what I can from memory. As I recall, this dialogue involved several people. I don't recall who raised the issue in the first place. It wasn't me, and may not have been Arvind. Anyway, I don't recall writing that HPB understood "everything," but do recall giving an example from her correspondence with Ralston Skinner that she did not understand mathematics. There are many such examples. For instance she once asked Mead to translate some Greek for her. In another letter to Sinnett, she admitted her ignorance of physiology. HPB's limitations are quite evident. On the other hand, there are extraordinary things in her writings that seem to go beyond her limitations. Anyway, your remark that I said she "understood everything except for an occasional mathematical this or phrase that..." doesn't fit my understanding of her. I think the issue is far more complicated then this. JA> (2 - maybe applying not to anything you said but to someone > else - can't recall) Amusing (also not amusing) this > self-righteous orthodoxy stating that anyone who claims occult > status shows thereby the lack of that status. Take note, Jesus, > M, KH, others - your saying who and what you are condemns you. > Take note, theosophists - discrimination is the thing, not the > big blanket. You are probably thinking of mine, or someone else's citation of HPB's warning to this effect. She warned that anyone claiming to be in touch with the Mahatmas is not. JA> (3) Tillett's discrepancies re CWL are CWL lies? You assert > specific discrepancies (birth certificate, siblings, etc.) but > don't show how those discrepancies become lies. My perspective > on Leadbeater is closely akin to yours, but so far in my > catching up, your assertion that the man was a liar is by no > means established by the discrepancies you indicate. A number > of things besides lies can account for discrepancies. Maybe CWL > was indeed a pathological liar - I don't know - but your charge > is much too strong for the weak support you offer for it. O.K., if C.W.L.'s claim to be born in 1847 when he was actually born in 1856, and his claim to have a brother who was killed by Indians in So. America when he in reality had no brother etc., are not lies, what would you prefer to call them? JA> (4) Why that casual, parenthetical throwing out that the > letters from KH to CWL are thought by many to be forgeries? > Many think that The Mahatma Letters are forgeries. I may have mentioned that many think the KH letters to CWL are forgeries, but I have never stated that to be my position. JA> (5) Where do Krishnamurti, Van Hook, and the other two you > name accuse Leadbeater of ruining their lives? Krishnamurti used to occasionally refer to CWL as "that evil man", but I don't believe I ever stated that CWL "ruined his life." Hubert Van Hook didn't like CWL, but I never stated that he ruined his life either. The Knothe and Dennis boys were victims of and deeply affected by the 1906 scandal. I know a woman in Los Angeles who met the Knothe boy as an old man, and says he was still very bitter about CWL and the TS. Can't say about the Dennis boy, but children who go through that kind of trauma are affected for their entire lives, says our latest psychological wisdom on the subject. Kollerstrom, whom Mrs. Martin witnessed CWL to be masturbating, grew up to be a psychiatrist then became an alcoholic. How much of this had to do with CWL I can't say, but it is pretty clear that he was a very troubled person. > (6) Argumentative, posturing nonsense saying you don't care > what AK believes so long as what he believes is harmless. > What belief (belief system) is harmless? What's fun for the > boys is death for the frogs, goes the wise saying. And so it > goes in the spiritual realm also. Granted, you have a lot of > age-old company in the nonsense - a natural magnet, a > sweet-sounding trap. Discrimination is the thing, not the false > light. What the devil are you talking about? Discrimination has been one of my major bottom line themes in all of my theosophical discussions. But I also don't care what others believe. It is their business, just as long as it doesn't abridge the freedom of others. Who am I to tell people what they should believe? I don't understand your problem with this. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 23:31:47 -0400 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Mid-Atlantic TS Mtg. WOW! They got the Sri Lanka ambassador to the US! That should have been news worthy at least within the T.S.. I would expect to see something more on this in the AT or QUEST magazines, but wouldn't be surprised if it was never mentioned. The T.S. is not very good on P.R. ops. Lewisllucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 25 Sep 1994 01:57:26 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Various Comments This is by Eldon Tucker. ---- Lewis L: I had the same feeling about being in the T.S. when I first was a member, living in Salt Lake City in 1968, in a time and place where there were few people of like mind to associate with. The different theosophical groups have a life of their own, and some people feel a kinship with them. Others will have nothing to do with organizations. Those of us that benefit from the association continue to belong. Those that do not benefit quit and move on... Paul J: When I describe some aspect of the Philosophy, and state it clearly, without hesitation, as though I am convinced it were true, I look forward to other clearly, persuasive statements of Philosophy. The best reply, as I see it, is a lucid statement of an alternate view, with new insights into the subject. It is an evasion of the issue to simply discount a description you might not like as a biased personal interpretation. Don't discount everything by putting it into the realm of opinions, where we need only need find some fault with the writer and we can then happily ignore the challenge of his words. It is productive to answer the challenge posed by a statement of someone's understanding of Theosophy with an equally lucid counter-statement. A series of unique essays by different of us interested in a particular topic, each with its own points of value, would be great to have! Jim Anderson: Your spelling corrections are noted. Analogies are like statistics: when used with care, they reveal hidden information, but they can also be used to mislead and misrepresent the truth, as we can see in any political campaign. You bring up the important issue of the need for a Teacher. I would say that one is needed at times. It's true that there are some exceptional musicians that were self-taught. They were the exception, though, not the general rule. Some people know something so very well that they can "remember" it in a new lifetime little, if any external help. This does not prove that they, or any of us, initially acquired musical abilities without the help of others. My description regarding "lighting someone's fire" has to do with new evolution, with new learning entirely beyond the experience of the person. It does not regard the recollection of things known in previous lifetimes. I do believe that an initial "spark" or stimulus is required, from others, to get us going in some entirely new area of life. This is much more so with regards to the spiritual path. I won't try to explain this right now, I don't want to write another essay tonight... It's a bit judgmental to describe some of my comments as a "sermon displaying great ignorance." The type of materials that we put out on "theos-l" are not "finished product" in the same sense as a book or magazine article. They are not checked and double- checked, given to others for critical review and reaction, and shown to friends expert in the fields we may touch upon, whom can act as technical advisors. Please don't have too high an expectation of the finished nature of what you might read. I don't really mean to say that you'll have us afraid to comment on music, nor to use musical metaphors in our writings, for fear that you'll pick holes in what we say and shoot us down! (I'm being humorous now.) Regarding travels, I was also in Tibet in October 1985, for about 10 days, on an organized trip. Working in the computer field, I was limited to the amount of vacation allowed by my employer. While a college student in 1972, I visited many Theosophists in Germany, Holland, and England. With a letter from Elsie Benjamin, whom I also met on that trip, I was also able to see and hold in my hands the Mahatma Letters. (At that time they were in binders, with the sides of the pages attached to the book, but where the reader handled the actual paper of the letters.) I must say, though, that I feel closer to a special place when I am writing, at times, than I did visiting Tibet. My explanation is that we at times contemplate the spiritual, but we gaze upon it in the most direct, immediate way when it is being lived out through us. When we are actively engaged in giving tangible expression to the spiritual, we learn and grow ourselves. Sitting to write with the intent to share with others, I find that really learn a lot myself at the same time. There's something more to the writing when I know that it is not just intended for myself, that it is meant for others, even if but few may benefit from my words... My final comment might be: Don't say "Eldon write less," say "Jim write more. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 25 Sep 1994 19:40:06 -0400 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Response to Liesel Liesel. Welcome to the Net. Your message was interesting and needs a response of sorts. You will doubtless get all kinds of feedback on this. So I may as well as a few words as well. I agree that Absolutes are impractical. I cannot imagine how one would go about using them in healings, except in the Christian Science sense of "knowing the truth" about a particular situation. I was raised in Christian Science, and they do, in fact, use absolutes a lot. However, one of the reasons that I left it for theosophy is that Christian Science tends to be a bit too dualistic. Relative and Absolute are two poles of a duality. Like any other duality, you cannot have one without the other, and you cannot eliminate one without the other. I would also be very careful of your phrase "theosophical truths." We have already pretty well determined, here on Theos-L, that one theosophist's truth is not necessarily another's theosophist's truth. The only valid theosophical truth that I am aware of is universal brotherhood - which *is* a truth that we, as theosophists, are trying to put into practice in our daily lives. Yes, reincarnation is a "great motivator." But again, we must be careful here. We must ask ourselves if our motivations are selfish or altruistic. Personally, I don't like the idea of reincarnation. The notion of coming back again and going through another childhood and adolescence sends cold chills of despair through my spine. All I can say about reincarnation is: thank God for Lethe, the River of Forgetfulness. The idea that reality is wherever you are currently focused is not limited to the kahunas. This has been taught, in one form or another, through the ages. I personally agree with it. Reality is relative to the observer. I have always had an intuitive feel that when we die, we will take our personal reality with us. This is certainly true enough when we go to sleep. Jerry S From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 09:47:51 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: poison letter; postmodern conf.; misc. According to Jerry Hejka-Ekins: > > PJ> Give me a break. I said nothing about what "you" are to > > believe. All I said was that the story seemed credible to me, > > and that I would pursue the lead. > > That is not what you wrote: > > PJ> Since Annie was of course alive > > when the story was published, first in the Theosophist and > > then in ODL, she would have been able to correct it if she had > > wanted to. Thus-- it seems credible." > > > > Will look for the specific passage. > > If you had indeed written that the story "seemed credible to > me.", I would have understood you to be referring to yourself, > and would not have bothered to respond to your post in the first > place. Things don't "seem" in a void. I don't think that your distinction holds water. There is an implicit "to me" in any statement contructed like the one above. Especially when followed by a statement (again with no personal pronoun) like the one also above. I didn't say "I will look for the specific passage." Do you therefore accuse me of dictating that EVERYONE will look for the specific passage? Again, give me a break. If I say "it seems that you are being unnecessarily confrontational about this" common sense dictates that it seems thus to the person saying so-- me. > My reason for being so "adversarial" is because I believe it > to be irresponsible for researchers to repeat unsubstantiated > information as fact. You had done just that in your first post, > when you repeated Nethercot's unsubstantiated statement > concerning a "poison" letter as fact. In your second post, after > I had presented contradictory information, you again attributed > credibility to the story because a friend told you that he read > about it in ODL. Your rather confident prediction that it was nowhere to be found in ODL had misled me into abandoning that line of inquiry after a rather cursory look through Vol. 5 where most of the Judge case material is. Herb's comment inspired me to resume the search. It's not that the story was credible because of what Herb said; it was that IF he was right, and Besant let it go unchallenged while published twice during her lifetime,THAT made it seem more credible. > determine his source for the story. Williams, as I had already > pointed out, cites the story as gossip. I missed this point the first time around, sorry. > > "Giving credence" is giving credibility to a story based > upon *source documentation*, not secondary information. Perhaps > you need to take a course in research methodology. Perhaps you should drop the ad hominem stuff. > Wrong again! I provided the Williams Quote, not you. You mentioned it, but providing the direct quote is something I don't recall, and must have missed. > pointed out the inconsistency. You insisted SUGGESTED that Nethercot got > Considering the evidence offered by Garrett, I'm inclined to > discount the third alternative, that such a genuine Mahatma > letter exists as described. But that doesn't prove that Judge's > Mahatma letters were or were not genuine. If you can find a > passage in Olcott's memoirs (you say it exists) that Old showed > Olcott a letter that warns Besant that Olcott intends to poison > her, then you will have presented a very strong argument that > Judge forged such a letter, thus substantiating the first > alternative. The passage isn't that specific. It only says that Old, Olcott and some others met to go over a set of papers which were crucial evidence on the Judge case. > However, we must keep in mind Garrett's 1894 account, which > is also based upon both Old's testimony and copies of the same > documents that Olcott was shown. I quote from Garrett's account > below: > > During the very next month Mrs. Besant, then preparing > for her trip to India, received a cablegram from the vice- > president in America to this effect:-- > > You are desired not to go to India remain where you are > grave danger Olcott await further particulars by an > early mail. > > When, however, the "early mail" arrived with Mr. Judges > explanatory letter, quite a different complexion was put on > the telegram. After reading this letter, and one from the > inevitable Mahatma which Mr. Judge enclosed, the conclusion > of the Inner Group was that the "grave danger" against which > the Master warned Mrs. Besant was "from Olcott." The > Tibetan founder of the society, in short, warned Mrs. Besant > against imperilling her safety in the neighborhood of its > president! > The Mahatma had declared war on Colonel Olcott. > This was the first shot in the campaign. > But what could this danger from Colonel Olcott be? Mr. > Judge and his Mahatma left that darkly vague. Some of their > friends in England dotted the i's and crossed the t's for > them. It is hardly credible, but the suggestion was nothing > less preposterous than that Colonel Olcott intended to > ~poison~ Mrs. Besant!.... > showed itself in action. Mrs. Besant deferred her visit to > India, and to impatient Indian disciples wrote that "Master > had forbidden her to come," and "till that order was > countermanded" she would not budge (pp 45-46). > Therefore Garrett shows that the poison letter story is > gossip, and Besant and Olcott bought into it. Unless you can > find evidence that a letter ever existed that specifically warned > Besant that Olcott planned to poison her, Garrett's account will > have to remain the most plausible one, and I will have to go with > it. Thank you for providing this; I had already concluded that until Radha throws open the archive doors (12th of Never, Hell Freezes Over, etc.) that Garrett, which I don't have, would be the best source. Which now I can use thanks to your providing it. However, I have been informed that M. Gomes knows some things which may relate to this. Whether he will tell any of them is another matter. Thanks particularly because this will be duly noted in my section on the affair. Your interpretation seems (TO ME!!!) particularly likely since Olcott, after all, only says that Judge's Mahatma letter made it SEEM as if M. were threatening the possibility of poison. He doesn't make it more definite, which suggests that the letter itself wasn't. What I will say in the book, and to you here, is that the specifics of the threat are far less relevant to my inquiry that the fact that it was made. Which means either that M, through Judge, was genuinely warning Besant to stay away from Olcott, or that Judge was producing fraudulent letters to dissuade Annie from going to India (look at the power struggle of the time for clues as to why) or-- maybe-- that the letter wasn't a genuine Mahatma letter but also not deliberate fraud-- self-deluded mediumship. The latter seems somewhat less credible than option 2, because of the self-serving implications of Annie's believing it and thus remaining more allied to Judge and less to Olcott. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 09:48:47 -0400 From: John Tullis Subject: Re: poison letter; postmodern conf.; misc. One question I have about the above contraversy and other disputes and schisms among the early members and founders; as well as just the overall affect is: The "Dark Brotherhood". It is clear that all of the early members, including HPB, believed that there was in fact a Dark Brotherhood opposing the "Brotherhood of Compassion", or White Brotherhood - of which some of the "Masters" (2) were the sponsors for the Theosophical Society initially through HPB. It appears to me that: 1) If such an organization exists, and it seems that not only did the founders believe it exists but the Secret Doctrine implies that it is necessary that it exist (part of the Light/Dark, Good/Evil polarity), then some of the difficulties, "forged letters", etc. could have been originated from members of such an organization. After all, modern intelligence agencies do this kind of thing all the time to discredit one another and cause problems for one another - the KGB has a premier "disinformation unit" that specializes in things like this. 2) I seem to remember, but can't look it up right now, that HPB did warn against exactly such tactics - the "Red Caps", etc. So - do any of you who have studied this for a while have any comments or ideas relating the a) Existance of the "Dark Brotherhood" b) Whether or not they could have contributed to the early problems of the organization c) Whether or not they in fact did so? Thanks. = John Tullis A5A = = Project Manager = = Andersen Consulting = = 69 W. Washington = = Chicago, IL 60602 = = Phone 312 507 3905 = = Fax 312 507 8666 = = jtullis@apg.andersen.com = From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 12:58:01 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Questions of Motive Hello Everyone. This post is several things in one, but mostly a plea for help and advice. Before getting to that there will be some complaining and maybe self-pity, but I hope to lighten up on those elements as much as possible. The problem, briefly stated, is this: I don't have a clue as to how to deal with the kinds of attacks I have received on my alleged motive for my research and writing. And they are bound to multiply in the next few months as the book is disseminated. Immediate cause for distress is a conversation Saturday at a Theosophical meeting in Va. Beach. Ron Banister was the speaker, leading a lively discussion of subtle bodies in Theosophical teaching, with a group of 20-25 people. (Quite enjoyable, information, worthwhile.) I came with two friends; five or ten people old friends I hadn't seen in years were there and I very much wanted to hug, visit, celebrate publication (most of them had held my hand through the initial research years ago). But there was only about 15 minutes after the meeting before we had to leave because one of my friends had to be somewhere. The entire period was taken up by an interrogation, gradually becoming an inquisition, by one lady I had never seen before. And the whole gist of it was to demand that I defend my motives against an attack that was only gradually made clear. She started out asking "what was your basic motive, apart from making money, in beginning to write this book?" To which I replied, "Money was the last thing on my mind." She gave a knowing look to the lady beside her at this point, as if to say "now we know he's a liar." (For the record, my income for In Search of the Masters totals about $3700, my expenses, including travel, postage, supplies, printing, etc., $9100. Not counting $15000 in lost income for the period in which most of the writing and travel took place, or more than $4000 in taxes for selling my house and not buying a more expensive one, etc. etc. Maximum income I can expect from the SUNY books is about $2500 each; thus financially my writing career has been a disaster.) But I said nothing about this, and replied "I didn't set out to write a book, but just a series of articles on various aspects of HPB's life-- which gradually coalesced into book form." Then she said, "But what motivated your interest in the subject?" My answer, "The same thing that motivated my becoming a Theosophist 16 years ago-- a sense that HPB was the most profoundly mysterious figure in religious history I had ever encountered, and an urge to solve some of the puzzles she poses." Next question: "is your approach more biographical, historical, spiritual...?" Answer: "I'm a librarian, not a trained historian, and my leisure reading taste tends to biographical works, so..." Question: "So you intend this as leisure reading?" Answer "Lord, No!" Question, "How would you deal with living subjects about whom you were writing such demeaning things?" (RUSH OF ANXIETY) "Demeaning!? I don't consider my treatment of any of these figures demeaning." Question-- "but your approach is negative." Answer-- "Not at all. My thoughts and feelings about HPB, the Masters and Theosophy are overwhelmingly positive. But perhaps I can be positive about a reality somewhat more mundane that what Theosophists have believed." I don't recall what she said next, but I said "Are you asking me what I would say to HPB if I could meet her?" "Yes." "That I have spent years of my life trying to understand her, that to the extent this has succeeded, I intend it as a gift to her; to the extent that I have misunderstood, I apologize, and hope that others may profit..." Well, I may be leaving out lots, but essentially this was the end; the lady left with her friend asking "are you going to buy the book?" to which she replied quite emphatically "NO!" So I had been engaged in a game of "defend your sorry heretical ass" with someone who rejected everything I said, apparently due to some preconceived ideas about the book, my motives, etc. She "won" by exiting the interaction just as convinced as before that she wouldn't read the wicked book. The cost was that I lost all opportunity to engage in positive interaction with the other folks around, or to sell any books to those who might have wanted them. But more importantly, the cost was a plunge into despair about people's proclivity for imagining evil motives for my work and demanding that I defend myself, only to reject whatever I can say in self- defense. What are my conscious motives? To find the truth about HPB's Masters to the extent of my ability, to share this information with others for the progress of knowledge, to rehabilitate her and Theosophy's reputation among people who have long assumed the Masters to be nonexistent. What are my unconscious ones? I don't know; if I did they wouldn't be unconscious. What motives have been attributed to my work? 1) Jean Overton Fuller has written that it is part of an Islamic takeover plot determined to align Theosophy with Muslim rather than Buddhist influences, and later that this plot is allied to the Gurdjieff movement. (I have never been affiliated with either Islam or Gurdjieff, nor had contacts with leaders in either movement.) 2) A prominent figure in Theosophical publishing has suggested that my work is inspired by the Dark Brotherhood, although to what end I don't know. (What can one say to this?) 3) Richard Robb wrote to me that my motive was personal aggrandizement, the building of an academic reputation, and not service to the Theosophical movement. (Small-town public librarians don't get academic reputations no matter how much they write; SUNY Press has nary a word about who Paul Johnson is in either the books or the publicity). 4) Mark Jaqua writes that my writing is motivated by a desire to use trickery and deception in order to promote a crackpot theory, so as to mislead the unwary. 5) Jim Anderson suggests darkly that I am on a mission which is "not good" (therefore evil?) and that I am out to reduce HPB and the Masters to the confines of "known history." Readers of The Masters Revealed will find that it explicitly states that it is intended to be a beginning, not an exhaustive explanation, and that HPB's spiritual motivations can never be reduced to the historical circumstances in which she expressed them. 6) Recently, on the strength of two missing, but implicit (IMHO) words, "to me," Jerry Hejka-Ekins rakes me over the coals as someone who is attempting to add to the burden of misinformation and disinformation by coercing people to believe rumors on the basis of third-hand reports. OK-- enough complaining. There's plenty more where that came from. The point of this post isn't "why are these people attributing such evil motives to me" but "what can I say in response, and how can I not be devastated by such attacks?" Jim A. says I insulate myself from criticism. Well I have plenty of burn scars to show how little insulation there is. You can't spend 16 years in a movement, half of which is devoted to research and writing of material that you intend to be constructive and enlightening, and then get attacked in this way, without being hurt. Maybe you can; I can't. I spent the rest of the weekend worrying about the conversation with that woman; woke up the next morning worrying about it. Same with Fuller, Jaqua, Robb, etc. Because these people always put me in a no-win situation. Anything you can say to try to prove that your motives aren't evil is taken by them either to 1) prove that you're lying about your evil motives or 2) prove that you are an unconscious instrument of evil forces. They always walk away having "won," because you can never dissuade them from their view of you. If, like Greg Tillett, I could just say "Theosophists are a bunch of ninnies, who cares?" that would be a solution. But since the majority of Theosophists have treated me very well, and I care very much about the movement, this solution won't work. When attacks are made on the books directly, on the basis of the quality of writing, production, logic, research, etc., this is fine. Fair or unfair, such criticism is to be expected, and I welcome it. But when the attacks become personal, it seems as if the real motive is to distract attention from any of the normal concerns about the books by focusing on some imaginary qualities of the author. So there are two questions I ask you. First, what can one say in response to this line of attack? I haven't a clue; I'm just as shocked and vulnerable and defenseless the tenth time it happens as I was the first. Second, how can one avoid being thrown off balance, into emotional pain, despair, etc. by such attacks? It is beginning to seem ridiculous to be subject to such pain on a repeated basis. Ordinarily, a Theosophical or Gurdjieffian therapeutic approach would be to rise above the emotional level to a mental or spiritual perspective, and thus "see above the fog." Problem is, these attacks are on my mental and spiritual being as well as on my emotions, and somehow that creates a vortex from which I cannot extricate myself without considerable time and effort. Any effort at self-defense seems doomed to attract only more attack (i.e. the generally hard-hearted response here to my outrage at Jaqua's accusations) perhaps the answer is to take a vow of silence in regard to any such questions of motive in the future. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 15:31:30 -0400 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: Re: poison letter; postmodern conf.; misc. John Tullis writes: > So - do any of you who have studied this for a while have any comments > or ideas relating to > a) the Existance of the "Dark Brotherhood" They exist and are active still. I wouldn't recommend that you pay them much attention. One of their "selling points" is that they take a much more personal interest in the occult, rather than moral, development of their pupils than the Brotherhood appear to, but it's not attention I'd recommend. > b) Whether or not they could have contributed to the early problems > of the organization There are several references to this in Mahatma Letters, which is well worth careful study in my opinion. > c) Whether or not they in fact did so? This can only be conjecture. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 17:14:27 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Dark Brotherhood On the question of possible "Dark Brotherhood" intervention in TS history, to disrupt and paralyze it-- yes and no. First, the same caveat about the "Dark Brotherhood" that I would make about the "Great White Brotherhood." To see them as organizations with titles, officers and such is to materialize a spiritual concept and thus to make a travesty of what HPB intended (IMHO). In her teaching, the Mahatmas are exemplars of a future state of human evolution, having attained levels of wisdom, love, and power that we will all reach in the distant future. As such, they are harbingers, a vanguard, way-showers WHO BY THEIR INHERENT NATURE are uplifting forces inspiring progressive development. No need for fancy titles or hierarchical organizations or meetings in hidden places. Do Jupiter and Saturn have meetings and titles in order to figure out how to cooperate in the solar system? The higher the degree of spiritual evolution, the more such trappings are left behind. Therefore, by analogy one can identify the Dark Brotherhood as exemplars of past states of human evolution who exemplify primitive conditions of consciousness that we should be moving away from. As such, BY THEIR INHERENT NATURE they drag down the progressive evolutionary flow of human history, thwart the enlightening, liberating movements of their time, etc. Again, no need for organizations, titles, meetings, etc. Of course, the idea of power is also part of the concept of the dark brotherhood, but selfish power that is anti-social in nature. In today's world one might nominate Khomeini, Falwell, Zhirinovsky as all beings who somehow draw on collective energy but use their power in an anti-evolutionary direction. Now, in this abstract definition, one can look at TS history in a broader way. To say that the TS was aided by the GWB means that it was inspired and encouraged by beings who were far in the evolutionary vanguard. To say that it was disrupted by the DB means that it was opposed and thwarted by the anti-progressive forces of the time. For example, there was a Brahmin takeover of the TS of sorts, after which the anti-caste platform of the Society was quietly relegated to a back seat. Or, in Steiner's case, a Christocentric, German-speaking cultural chauvinistic trend that spun off a large chunk of the Society's membership, energy, etc. And so on through TS history-- a steady progressive movement, aided by "forces of light" but constantly disrupted by anti-progressive forces seeking to undermine that movement. I apologize for naming names above, and my suggestions are only that, but the general principle of progressive vs. regressive energies is, I think, the healthiest guide to examining this question without getting into paranoid weirdness. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 19:19:33 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: When Our Memory Fails Us This is by Eldon Tucker. ---- When Our Memory Fails Us There was an interesting article on memory in NEWSWEEK, Sept. 26, 1994, entitled "You Must Remember This." Memory is considered both fallible and malleable. Our memory can fail us. And we can remember events that we've only heard about, but never experienced. A memory is stored in many pieces. The components, including images, sounds, feelings, are all saved in association with similar memory pieces. When we recall a memory, there is a function of consciousness that draws the pieces of memory together into a cohesive whole. When that function of consciousness fails us, and pieces are assembled incorrectly, we can remember things that never happened. How do we tell when we've recalled a true memory? There is no structural difference between the memory of an actual event and a false memory. What we do is save the source of the memory. When a memory is recalled, we also recall that it was from something we read, from a dream, or from an actual event in our lives. This aspect of labeling memories enables us to discriminate between physical-plane "reality" and so-called non-real events. The problem is that the frst aspect of a memory to fail is its origin. When we strongly imagine something enough, and then forget where the memory came from, we may have made ourselves a false memory. The term for this forgetting of the source of memories, and the subsequent creation of false memories, is "source amnesia." Because of source amnesia, it is possible to create memories from suggestions. A suggestion leaves a trace in our memories. The memory is tagged as a suggestion and linked with others. Under stress and over time the fact that it was only a suggestion fades. We later recall it as a real memory, perhaps embellished with other newly-associated contents of our memory. The creation of false memories is hastened under severe emotional stress, which overcomes internal checks on plausibility. We can see this in our own experience, when we've had a rift with someone we've known for years. The anger and feeling of betrayal colors our perception of the person. If we're not careful, as we think of that person our anger will bring us to "rewrite history" and see previous experiences with him in a darker, less kindly light. There are a number of implications to this process of memory in regards to our theosophical studies, and to various topics we consider. One relates to our memories of the materials we study in the theosophical literature. When we forget the source of an idea, if it is closely tied to our theosophical thinking, we may create a false memory of having read it in a book by our favorite authors. This source amnesia for the ideas that we read help explains how opinion is formed. Our opinion draws upon ideas we've encountered from many sources. We forget the sources, embracing selected ideas as our own, and formulate our own personal beliefs. We find with Theosophy, though, that there is much more to the source of our ideas than some previous physical-plane event, remembered or not. There are other planes of existence, and other forms of interaction with people than the outer, physical events of our lives. We can exchange thoughts directly, without use of the spoken word. We can pick up thoughts and images from the astral light, either as impressed on physical objects or directly. (Like going to the scene of a crime and "picking up" from the objects there a "memory" of what had happened.) And we can get in touch with various thought-currents, which act as non-physical channels of learning. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 20:15:40 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: Questions of Motive Paul, The answer, of course, is that you did not write the book in question. It was just the work of a previous incarnation. You do not have currently, nor ever had, any connection to the book. All you have is your immediate incarnation. That which now flows from a stranger's book and seeks you out is merely good and bad karma. You were not around when the book was written. You exist only in the absolute present. There is no past in the absolute present. Therefore, the challenging woman does not exist now. Good thing; she sounded like a bitch. . . . Warm regards, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 00:11:47 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Note to Paul Johnson (resend) This is by Eldon Tucker ---- Paul Johnson: Don't be too discouraged. Whenever you do anything out of the norm, you'll find critics. The more exceptional the thing you do, the stronger the opposition aroused. It's a natural psychological thing, and people don't really mean to inflict harm. What we have is projection. Someone does not know you personally, nor know your motivations. They put themselves in your place, and say "If I were Paul, writing this book, why would I, Paul, be doing thing." Their responses reveal more about themselves than about you. Most of us do this unaware. We assume we know why other people are acting a certain way, why they are doing what they are. The assumption can prove false, but how many of us are big enough to admit it, when pointed out to us? I experience the same thing at times. J.T. Coker attributes certain motives to my comments regarding the recent conference, and gives me a scolding. I may be told that I'm writing because I consider myself somehow superior, far above others, etc. The same thing happens with me: someone filling in the blank, answering the question of "why?" with their own assumptions. Jerry H-E may be questioned as to why he writes about Leadbeater. From his viewpoint he could be acting out of intellectual honesty (my assumption), but others could "fill in the blank" with their own assumptions, perhaps less complementary. How do we know why he writes as he does? We ask him. And the same with you or I. Ask the person themselves and they will tell you why they are doing something. We all tend to do this, sometimes unaware. Consider your reaction to my article on the value and place of history. I had picked some points from various postings and used them as a basis on an essay. I had no thought of attaching you in some way when writing. My approach has been to write on the Philosophy, using bits and pieces of things that come up as suggestions of things to write about. You felt I was singling you out, but I wasn't. Others may consider me as subtly attacking people, not daring to name names, etc. All that is their *assumption,* to which I would say "not true." Someone might say: "That's not all there is to a person, there's the unconscious too." But it's not really fair to play psychoanalyst, to impose our interpretation of unconscious motivations on another. That's really only appropriate with someone we know personally, and done in confidence. It's not something to guess at in a public forum. (At least on living people, people subject to being hurt, and respond in anger.) Richard Ihle makes a good point with his humor. The past is dead, long live the future! The karma of negativity between us and others exists until we break the reactive cycle of anger and counter-anger, and respond to anger with good will. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 00:13:48 -0400 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: The Soldier and the Humpback We have been discussing the mind, and whether or not the human mind can take us, step by step, up the thorny Path of spirituality. I want to share with you (at least with those who are willing to read this. No shame, however, if choose to delete it) a particularly good article by Aleister Crowley on the subject. It shows his sense of humor and demonstrates his intuitive understanding. I am not endorsing AC or his magic, nor am I suggesting that some theosophists could do well to read him. But this one article is quite good insofaras it addresses the logic and reason of the human mind. I downloaded it from Compuserve's New Age Forum. Enjoy. Jerry S. THE SOLDIER AND THE HUNCHBACK: ! AND ? "Expect seven misfortunes from the cripple, and forty-two from the one-eyed man; but when the hunchback comes, say 'Allah our aid.'" ARAB PROVERB I INQUIRY. Let us inquire in the first place: What is Scepticism? The word means looking, questioning, investigating. One must pass by contemptuously the Christian liar's gloss which interprets "sceptic" as "mocker"; though in a sense it is true for him, since to inquire into Christianity is assuredly to mock at it; but I am concerned to intensify the etymological connotation in several respects. First, I do not regard mere incredulity as necessary to the idea, though credulity is incompatible with it. Incredulity implies a prejudice in favour of a negative conclusion; and the true sceptic should be perfectly unbiassed. Second, I exclude "vital scepticism." What's the good of anyfink? expects (as we used to learn about "nonne?") the answer, "Why nuffink!" and again is prejudiced. Indolence is no virtue in a questioner. Eagerness, intentness, concentration, vigilance --- all these I include in the connotation of "sceptic." Such questioning as has been called "vital scepticism" is but a device to avoid true questioning, and therefore its very antithesis, the devil disguised as an angel of light. [Or "vice versa", friend, if you are a Satanist; 'tis a matter of words --- words --- words. You may write "x" for "y" in your equations, so long as you consistently write "y" for "x". They remain unchanged --- and unsolved. Is not all our "knowledge" an example of this fallacy of writing one unknown for another, and then crowing like Peter's cock?] I picture the true sceptic as a man eager and alert, his deep eyes glittering like sharp swords, his hands tense with effort as he asks, "What does it matter?" I picture the false sceptic as a dude or popinjay, yawning, with dull eyes, his muscles limp, his purpose in asking the question but the expression of his slackness and stupidity. This true sceptic is indeed the man of science; as Wells' "Moreau" tells us. He has devised some means of answering his first question, and its answer is another question. It is difficult to conceive of any question, indeed, whose answer does not imply a thousand further questions. So simple an inquiry as "Why is sugar sweet?" involves an infinity of chemical researches, each leading ultimately to the blank wall --- what is matter? and an infinity of physiological researches, each (similarly) leading to the blank wall --- what is mind? Even so, the relation between the two ideas is unthinkable; causality is itself unthinkable; it depends, for one thing, upon experience --- and what, in God's name, is experience? Experience is impossible without memory. What is memory? The mortar of the temple of the ego, whose bricks are the impressions. And the ego? The sum of our experience, may be. (I doubt it!) Anyhow, we have got values of "y" and "z" for "x", and the values of "x" and "z" for "y" --- all our equations are indeterminate; all our knowledge is relative, even in a narrower sense than is usually implied by the statement. Under the whip of the clown God, our performing donkeys the philosophers and men of science run round and round in the ring; they have amusing tricks: they are cleverly trained; but they get nowhere. I don't seem to be getting anywhere myself. II A fresh attempt. Let us look into the simplest and most certain of all possible statements. "Thought exists", or if you will, "Cogitatur". Descartes supposed himself to have touched bed-rock with his "Cogito, ergo Sum." Huxley pointed out the complex nature of this proposition, and that it was an enthymeme with the premiss "Omnes sunt, qui cogitant" suppressed. He reduced it to "Cogito;" or, to avoid the assumption of an ego, "Cogitatur." Examining more closely this statement, we may still cavil at its form. We cannot translate it into English without the use of the verb to be, so, that, after all, existence is implied. Nor do we readily conceive that contemptuous silence is sufficient answer of the further query, "By whom is it thought?" The Buddhist may find it easy to image an act without an agent; I am not so clever. It may be possible for a sane man; but I should like to know more about his mind before I gave a final opinion. But apart from purely formal objections, we may still inquire: Is this "Cogitatur" true? Yes; reply the sages; for to deny it implies thought; "Negatur" is only a sub-section of "Cogitatur". This involves, however, an axiom that the part is of the same nature as the whole; or (at the very least) an axiom that "A" is "A". Now, I do not wish to deny that "A" is "A", or may occasionally be "A". But certainly "A is A" is a very different statement to our original "Cogitatur". The proof of "Cogitatur", in short, rests not upon itself but upon the validity of our logic; and if by logic we mean (as we should mean) the Code of the Laws of Thought, the irritating sceptic will have many more remarks to make: for it now appears that the proof that "thought exists" depends upon the truth of that which is thought, to say no more. We have taken "Cogitatur", to try and avoid the use of "esse;" but "A is A" involves that very idea, and the proof is fatally flawed. "Cogitatur" depends on "Est;" and there's no avoiding it. III Shall we get on any better if we investigate this "Est" --- Something is --- Existence is --- AHYH AShR AHYH? What is Existence? The question is so fundamental that it finds no answer. The most profound meditation only leads to an exasperating sense of impotence. There is, it seems, no simple rational idea in the mind which corresponds to the word. It is easy of course to drown the question in definitions, leading us to further complexity --- but "Existence is the gift of Divine Providence," "Existence is the opposite of Non-Existence," do not help us much! The plain "Existence is Existence" of the Hebrews goes farther. It is the most sceptical of statements, in spite of its form. Existence is just existence, and there's no more to be said about it; don't worry! Ah, but there is more to be said about it! Though we search ourselves for a thought to match the word, and fail, yet we have Berkeley's perfectly convincing argument that (so far as we know it) existence must mean "thinking existence" or "spiritual existence". Here then we find our "Est" to imply "Cogitatur;" and Berkeley's arguments are "irrefragable, yet fail to produce conviction" (Hume) because the "Cogitatur;" as we have shown, implies "Est". Neither of these ideas is simple; each involves the other. Is the division between them in our brain a proof of the total incapacity of that organ, or is there some flaw in our logic? For all depends upon our logic; not upon the simple identity "A is A" only, but upon its whole structure from the question of simple propositions, enormously difficult from the moment when it occurred to the detestable genius that invented "existential import" to consider the matter, to that further complexity and contradiction, the syllogism. IV "Thought is" appears then (in the worst case possible, denial) as the conclusion of the premisses: There is denial of thought. (All) Denial of thought is thought. Even formally, 'tis a clumsy monster. Essentially, it seems to involve a great deal beyond our original statement. We compass heaven and earth to make one syllogism; and when we have made it, it is tenfold more the child of mystery than ourselves. We cannot here discuss the whole problem of the validity (the surface-question of the logical validity) of the syllogism; though one may throw out the hint that the doctrine of distributed middle seems to assume a knowledge of a Calculus of Infinites which is certainly beyond my own poor attainments, and hardly impregnable to the simple reflection that all mathematics is conventional, and not essential; relative, and not absolute. We go deeper and deeper, then, it seems, from the One into the Many. Our primary proposition depends no longer upon itself, but upon the whole complex being of man, poor, disputing, muddle-headed man! Man with all his limitations and ignorance; man --- man! V We are of course no happier when we examine the Many, separately or together. They converge and diverge, each fresh hill-top of knowledge disclosing a vast land unexplored; each gain of power in our telescopes opening out new galaxies; each improvement in our microscopes showing us life minuter and more incomprehensible. A mystery of the mighty spaces between molecules; a mystery of the ether-cushions that fend off the stars from collision! A mystery of the fullness of things; a mystery of the emptiness of things! Yet, as we go, there grows a sense, an instinct, a premonition --- what shall I call it? --- that Being is One, and Thought is One, and Law is One --- until we ask What is that One? Then again we spin words --- words --- words. And we have got no single question answered in any ultimate sense. What is the moon made of? Science replies "Green Cheese." For our one moon we have now two ideas: "Greenness," and "Cheese." "Greenness" depends on the sunlight, and the eye, and a thousand other things. "Cheese" depends on bacteria and fermentation and the nature of the cow. "Deeper, even deeper, into the mire of things!" Shall we cut the Gordian knot? shall we say "There is God"? What, in the devil's name, is God? If (with Moses) we picture Him as an old man showing us His back parts, who shall blame us? The great Question --- "any" question is the great question --- does indeed treat us thus cavalierly, the disenchanted Sceptic is too prone to think! Well, shall we define Him as a loving Father, as a jealous priest, as a gleam of light upon the holy Ark? What does it matter? All these images are of wood and stone, the wood and stone of our own stupid brains! The Fatherhood of God is but a human type; the idea of a human father conjoined with the idea of immensity. Two for One again! No combination of thoughts can be greater than the thinking brain itself; all we can think of God or say of Him, so long as our words really represent thoughts, is less than the whole brain which thinks, and orders speech. Very good; shall we proceed by denying Him all thinkable qualities, as do the heathen? All we obtain is mere negation of thought. Either He is unknowable, or He is less than we are. Then, too, that which is unknowable is unknown; and "God" or "There is God" as an answer to our question becomes as meaningless as any other. Who are we, then? We are Spencerian Agnostics, poor silly, damned Spencerian Agnostics! And there is an end of the matter. VI It is surely time that we began to question the validity of some of our data. So far our scepticism has not only knocked to pieces our tower of thought, but rooted up the foundation-stone and ground it into finer and more poisonous powder than that into which Moses ground the calf. These golden Elohim! Our calf-heads that brought us not out of Egypt, but into a darkness deeper and more tangible than any darkness of the double Empire of Asar. Hume put his little ? to Berkeley's God-!; Buddha his ? to the Vedic Atman-! --- and neither Hume nor Buddha was baulked of his reward. Ourselves may put ? to our own ? since we have found no ! to put it to; and wouldn't it be jolly if our own second ? suddenly straightened its back and threw its chest out and marched off as !? Suppose then we accept our scepticism as having destroyed our knowledge root and branch --- is there no limit to its action? Does it not in a sense stultify itself? Having destroyed logic by logic --- if Satan cast out Satan, how shall his kingdom stand? Let us stand on the Mount, Saviours of the World that we are, and answer "Get thee behind me Satan!" though refraining from quoting texts or giving reasons. Oho! says somebody; is Aleister Crowley here? --- Samson blinded and bound, grinding corn for the Philistines! Not at all, dear boy! We shall put all the questions that we can put --- but we may find a tower built upon a rock, against which the winds beat in vain. Not what Christians call faith, be sure! But what (possibly) the forgers of the Epistles --- those eminent mystics! --- meant by faith. What I call Samadhi --- and as "faith without works is dead," so, good friends, Samadhi is all humbug unless the practitioner shows the glint of its gold in his work in the world. If your mystic becomes Dante, well; if Tennyson, a fig for his trances! But how does this tower of Samadhi stand the assault of Question- time? Is not the idea of Samadhi just as dependent on all the other ideas --- man, time, being, thought, logic? If I seek to explain Samadhi by analogy, am I not often found talking as if we knew all about Evolution, and Mathematics, and History? Complex and unscientific studies, mere straws before the blast of our hunchback friend! Well, one of the buttresses is just the small matter of common sense. The other day I was with Dorothy, and, as I foolishly imagined, very cosy: for her sandwiches are celebrated. It was surely bad taste on the part of Father Bernard Vaughan, and Dr. Torrey, and Ananda Metteyya, and Mr. G. W. Foote, and Captain Fuller, and the ghost of Immanuel Kant, and Mr. Bernard Shaw, and young Neuburg, to intrude. But intrude they did; and talk! I never heard anything like it. Every one with his own point of view; but all agreed that Dorothy was non-existent, or if existent, a most awful specimen, that her buns were stale, and her tea stewed; "ergo," that I was having a very poor time of it. Talk! Good God! But Dorothy kept on quietly and took no notice; and in the end I forgot about them. Thinking it over soberly, I see now that very likely they were quite right: I can't prove it either way. But as a mere practical man, I intend taking the steamer --- for my sins I am in Gibraltar --- back to Dorothy at the earliest possible moment. Sandwiches of bun and German sausage may be vulgar and even imaginary --- it's the taste I like. And the more I munch, the more complacent I feel, until I go so far as to offer my critics a bite. This sounds in a way like the "Interior Certainly" of the common or garden Christian; but there are differences. The Christian insists on notorious lies being accepted as an essential part of his (more usually her) system; I, on the contrary, ask for facts, for observation. Under Scepticism, true, one is just as much a house of cards as the other; but only in the philosophical sense. Practically, Science is true; and Faith is foolish. Practically, 3 x 1 = 3 is the truth; and 3 x 1 = 1 is a lie; though, sceptically, both statements may be false or unintelligible. Practically, Franklin's method of obtaining fire from heaven is better than that of Prometheus or Elijah. I am now writing by the light that Franklin's discovery enabled men to use. Practically, "I concentrated my mind upon a white radiant triangle in whose centre was a shining eye, for 22 minutes and 10 seconds, my attention wandering 45 times" is a scientific and valuable statement. "I prayed fervently to the Lord for the space of many days" means anything or nothing. Anybody who cares to do so may imitate my experiment and compare his result with mine. In the latter case one would always be wondering what "fervently" meant and who "the Lord" was, and how many days made "many." My claim, too, is more modest than the Christian's. He (usually she) knows more about my future than is altogether pleasant; I claim nothing absolute from my Samadhi --- I know only too well the worthlessness of single-handed observations, even on so simple a matter as a boiling-point determination! --- and as for his (usually her) future, I content myself with mere common sense about the probable end of a fool. So that after all I keep my scepticism intact --- and I keep my Samadhi intact. The one balances the other; I care nothing for the vulgar brawling of these two varlets of my mind! VII If, however, you would really like to know what might be said on the soldierly side of the question, I shall endeavour to oblige. It is necessary if a question is to be intelligibly put that the querent should be on the same plane as the quesited. Answer is impossible if you ask: Are round squares triangular? or Is butter virtuous? or How many ounces go to the shilling? for the "questions" are not really questions at all. So if you ask me Is Samadhi real? I reply: First, I pray you, establish a connection between the terms. What do you mean by Samadhi? There is a physiological (or pathological; never mind now!) state which I call Samadhi; and that state is as real --- in relation to man --- as sleep, or intoxication, or death. Philosophically, we may doubt the existence of all of these; but we have no grounds for discriminating between them --- the Academic Scepticism is a wholesale firm, I hope! --- and practically, I challenge you to draw valid distinctions. All these are states of the consciousness of man; and if you seek to destroy one, all fall together. VIII I must, at the risk of appearing to digress, insist upon this distinction between philosophical and practical points of view, or (in Qabalistic language) between Kether and Malkuth. In private conversation I find it hard --- almost impossible --- to get people to understand what seems to me so very simple a point. I shall try to make it exceptionally clear. A boot is an Illusion. A hat is an illusion. "Therefore," a boot is a hat. So argue my friends, not distributing the middle term. But this argue I. All boots are illusions. All hats are illusions. "Therefore" (though it is not a syllogism), all boots and hats are illusions. I add: To the man in Kether no illusions matter. "Therefore:" To the man in Kether neither boots nor hats matter. In fact, the man in Kether is out of all relation to these boots and hats. You, they say, claim to be a man in Kether (I don't). Why then, do you not wear boots on your head and hats on your feet? I can only answer that I the man in Kether ('tis but an argument) am out of all relation as much with feet and heads as with boots and hats. But why should I (from my exalted pinnacle) stoop down and worry the headed and footed gentleman in Malkuth, who after all doesn't exist for me, by these drastic alterations in his toilet? There is no distinction whatever; I might easily put the boots on his shoulders, with his head on one foot and the hat on the other. In short, why not be a clean-living Irish gentleman, even if you do have insane ideas about the universe? Very good, say my friends, unabashed, then why not stick to that? Why glorify Spanish gipsies when you have married a clergyman's daughter? Why go about proclaiming that you can get as good fun for eighteenpence as usually costs men a career? Ah! let me introduce you to the man in Tiphereth; that is, the man who is trying to raise his consciousness from Malkuth to Kether. This Tiphereth man is in a devil of a hole! He knows theoretically all about the Kether point of view (or thinks he does) and practically all about the Malkuth point of view. Consequently he goes about contradicting Malkuth; he refuses to allow Malkuth to obsess his thought. He keeps on crying out that there is no difference between a goat and a God, in the hope of hypnotising himself (as it were) into that perception of their identity, which is his (partial and incorrect) idea of how things look from Kether. This man performs great magic; very strong medicine. He does really find gold on the midden and skeletons in pretty girls. In Abiegnus the Sacred Mountain of the Rosicrucians the Postulant finds but a coffin in the central shrine; yet that coffin contains Christian Rosencreutz who is dead and is alive for evermore and hath the keys of Hell and of Death. Ay! your Tiphereth man, child of Mercy and Justice, looks deeper than the skin! But he seems a ridiculous object enough both to the Malkuth man and to the Kether man. Still, he's the most interesting man there is; and we all must pass through that stage before we get our heads really clear, the Kether- vision above the Clouds that encircle the mountain Abiegnus. IX Running and returning, like the Cherubim, we may now resume our attempt to drill our hunchback friend into a presentable soldier. The digression will not have been all digression, either; for it will have thrown a deal of light on the question of the limitations of scepticism. We have questioned the Malkuth point of view; it appears absurd, be it agreed. But the Tiphereth position is unshaken; Tiphereth needs no telling that Malkuth is absurd. When we turn our artillery against Tiphereth, that too crumbles; but Kether frowns above us. Attack Kether, and it falls; but the Yetziratic Malkuth is still there .... until we reach Kether of Atziluth and the Infinite Light, and Space, and Nothing. So then we retire up the path, fighting rear-guard actions; at every moment a soldier is slain by a hunchback; but as we retire there is always a soldier just by us. Until the end. The end? Buddha thought the supply of hunchbacks infinite; but why should not the soldiers themselves be infinite in number? However that may be, here is the point; it takes a moment for a hunchback to kill his man, and the farther we get from our base the longer it takes. You may crumble to ashes the dream-world of a boy, as it were, between your fingers; but before you can bring the physical universe tumbling about a man's ears he requires to drill his hunchbacks so devilish well that they are terribly like soldiers themselves. And a question capable of shaking the consciousness of Samadhi could, I imagine, give long odds to one of Frederick's grenadiers. It is useless to attack the mystic by asking him if he is quite sure Samadhi is good for his poor health; 'tis like asking the huntsman to be very careful, please, not to hurt the fox. The ultimate Question, the one that really knocks Samadhi to pieces, is such a stupendous Idea that it is far more of a ! than all previous !'s whatever, for all its ? form. And the name of that Question is Nibbana. Take this matter of the soul. When Mr. Judas McCabbage asks the Man in the Street why he believes in a soul, the Man stammers out that he has always heard so; naturally McCabbage has no difficulty in proving to him by biological methods that he has no soul; and with a sunny smile each passes on his way. But McCabbage is wasted on the philosopher whose belief in a soul rests on introspection; we must have heavier metal; Hume will serve our turn, may be. But Hume in his turn becomes perfectly futile, pitted against the Hindu mystic, who is in constant intense enjoyment of his new-found Atman. It takes a Buddha-gun to knock "his" castle down. Now the ideas of McCabbage are banal and dull; those of Hume are live and virile; there is a joy in them greater than the joy of the Man in the Street. So too the Buddha-thought, Anatta, is a more splendid conception than the philosopher's Dutch-doll-like Ego, or the rational artillery of Hume. This weapon, too, that has destroyed our lesser, our illusionary universes, ever revealing one more real, shall we not wield it with divine ecstasy? Shall we not, too, perceive the inter-dependence of the Questions and the Answers, the necessary connection of the one with the other, so that (just as 0 x Infinity is an indefinite) we destroy the absolutism of either ? or ! by their alternation and balance, until in our series ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ... ! ? ! ? ... we care nothing as to which may prove the final term, any single term being so negligible a quantity in relation to the vastness of the series? Is it not a series of geometrical progression, with a factor positive and incalculably vast? In the light of the whole process, then, we perceive that there is no absolute value in the swing of the pendulum, thought its shaft lengthen, its rate grow slower, and its sweep wider at every swing. What should interest us is the consideration of the Point from which it hangs, motionless at the height of things! We are unfavourably placed to observe this, desperately clinging as we are to the bob of the pendulum, sick with our senseless swinging to and fro in the abyss! We must climb up the shaft to reach that point --- but --- wait one moment! How obscure and subtle has our simile become! Can we attach any true meaning to the phrase? I doubt it, seeing what we have taken for the limits of the swing. True, it may be that at the end the swing is always 360 Degree so that the !-point and the ?-point coincide; but that is not the same thing as having no swing at all, unless we make kinematics identical with statics. What is to be done? How shall such mysteries be uttered? Is this how it is that the true Path of the Wise is said to lie in a totally different plane from all his advance in the path of Knowledge, and of Trance? We have already been obliged to take the Fourth Dimension to illustrate (if not explain) the nature of Samadhi. Ah, say the adepts, Samadhi is not the end, but the beginning. You must regard Samadhi as the normal state of mind which enables you to begin your researches, just as waking is the state from which you rise to Samadhi, sleep the state from which you rose to waking. And only from Sammasamadhi --- continuous trance of the right kind --- can you rise up as it were on tiptoe and peer through the clouds unto the mountains. Now of course it is really awfully decent of the adepts to take all that trouble over us, and to put it so nicely and clearly. All we have to do, you see, is to acquire Sammasamadhi, and then rise on tiptoe. Just so! But there are the other adepts. Hard at him! Little brother, he says, let us rather consider that as the pendulum swings more and more slowly every time, it must ultimately stop, as soon as the shaft is of infinite length. Good! then it isn't a pendulum at all but a Mahalingam --- The Mahalingam of Shiva ("Namo Shivaya namaha Aum!") which is all I ever thought it was; all you have to do is to keep swinging hard --- I know it's hook-swinging! --- and you get there in the End. Why trouble to swing? First, because you are bound to swing, whether you like it or not; second, because your attention is thereby distracted from those lumbar muscles in which the hook is so very firmly fixed; third, because after all it's a ripping good game; fourth, because you want to get on, and even to seem to progress is better than standing still. A treadmill is admittedly good exercise. True, the question, "Why become an Arahat?" should precede, "How become an Arahat?" but an unbiassed man will easily cancel the first question with "Why not?" --- the How is not so easy to get rid of. Then, from the standpoint of the Arahat himself, perhaps this "Why did I become an Arahat?" and "How did I become an Arahat?" have but a single solution! In any case, we are wasting our time --- we are as ridiculous with our Arahats as Herod the Tetrarch with his peacocks! We pose Life with the question Why? and the first answer is: To obtain the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel. To attach meaning to this statement we must obtain that Knowledge and Conversation: and when we have done that, we may proceed to the next Question. It is no good asking it now. "There are purse-proud, penniless ones who stand at the door of the tavern, and revile the guests." We attach little importance to the Reverend Out-at-Elbows, thundering in Bareboards Chapel that the rich man gets no enjoyment from his wealth. Good, then. Let us obtain the volume entitled "The Book of the Sacred Magick of Abramelin the Mage"; or the magical writings of that holy illuminated Man of God, Captain Fuller, and carry out fully their instructions. And only when we have succeeded, when we have put a colossal ! against our vital ? need we inquire whether after all the soldier is not going to develop spinal curvature. Let us take the first step; let us sing: "I do not ask to see The distant path; one step's enough for me." But (you will doubtless say) I pith your ? itself with another ?: Why question life at all? Why not remain "a clean-living Irish gentleman" content with his handicap, and contemptuous of card and pencil? Is not the Buddha's goad "Everything is sorrow" little better than a currish whine? What do I care for old age, disease, and death? I'm a man, and a Celt at that. I spit on your snivelling Hindu prince, emasculate with debauchery in the first place, and asceticism in the second. A weak, dirty, paltry cur, sir, your Gautama! Yes, I think I have no answer to that. The sudden apprehension of some vital catastrophe may have been the exciting cause of my conscious devotion to the attainment of Adeptship --- but surely the capacity was there, inborn. Mere despair and desire can do little; anyway, the first impulse of fear was the passing spasm of an hour; the magnetism of the path itself was the true lure. It is as foolish to ask me "Why do you adept?" as to ask God "Why do you pardon?" "C'est son metier." I am not so foolish as to think that my doctrine can ever gain the ear of the world. I expect that ten centuries hence the "nominal Crowleians" will be as pestilent and numerous a body as the "nominal Christians" are to-day; for (at present) I have been able to devise no mechanism for excluding them. Rather, perhaps, should I seek to find them a niche in the shrine, just as Hinduism provides alike for those capable of the Upanishads and those whose intelligence hardly reaches to the Tantras. In short, one must abandon the reality of religion for a sham, so that the religion may be universal enough for those few who are capable of its reality to nestle to its breast, and nurse their nature on its starry milk. But we anticipate! My message is then twofold; to the greasy "bourgeois" I preach discontent; I shock him, I stagger him, I cut away earth from under his feet, I turn him upside down, I give him hashish and make him run amok, I twitch his buttocks with the red-hot tongs of my Sadistic fancy -- until he feels uncomfortable. But to the man who is already as uneasy as St. Lawrence on his silver grill, who feels the spirit stir in him, even as a woman feels, and sickens at, the first leap of the babe in her womb, to him I bring the splendid vision, the perfume and the glory, the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel. And to whosoever hath attained that height will I put a further Question, announce a further Glory. It is my misfortune and not my fault that I am bound to deliver this elementary Message. "Man has two sides; one to face the world with, One to show a woman when he loves her." We must pardon Browning his bawdy jest; for his truth is ower true! But it is your own fault if you are the world instead of the beloved; and only see of me what Moses saw of God! It is disgusting to have to spend one's life jetting dirt in the face of the British public in the hope that in washing it they may wash off the acrid grease of their commercialism, the saline streaks of their hypocritical tears, the putrid perspiration of their morality, the dribbling slobber of their sentimentality and their religion. And they don't wash it! ... But let us take a less unpleasing metaphor, the whip! As some schoolboy poet repeatedly wrote, his rimes as poor as Edwin Arnold, his metre as erratic and as good as Francis Thompson, his good sense and frank indecency a match for Browning! "Can't be helped; must be done --- So ..." Nay! 'tis a bad, bad rime. And only after the scourge that smites shall come the rod that consoles, if I may borrow a somewhat daring simile from Abdullah Haji of Shiraz and the twenty-third Psalm. Well, I would much prefer to spend my life at the rod; it is wearisome and loathsome to be constantly flogging the tough hide of Britons, whom after all I love. "Whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son that He receiveth." I shall really be glad if a few of you will get it over, and come and sit on daddy's knee! The first step is the hardest; make a start, and I will soon set the hunchback lion and the soldier unicorn fighting for your crown. And they shall lie down together at the end, equally glad, equally weary; while sole and sublime that crown of thine (brother!) shall glitter in the frosty Void of the abyss, its twelve stars filling that silence and solitude with a music and a motion that are more silent and more still than they; thou shalt sit throned on the Invisible, thine eyes fixed upon That which we call Nothing, because it is beyond Everything attainable by thought, or trance, thy right hand gripping the azure rod of Light, thy left hand clasped upon the scarlet scourge of Death; thy body girdled with a snake more brilliant than the sun, its name Eternity; thy mouth curved moonlike in a smile, in the invisible kiss of Nuit, our Lady of the Starry Abodes; thy body's electric flesh stilled by sheer might to a movement closed upon itself in the controlled fury of Her love --- nay, beyond all these Images art thou (little brother!) who art passed from I and Thou, and He unto That which hath no Name, no Image. ... Little brother, give me thy hand; for the first step is hard. ALEISTER CROWLEY. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 03:43:50 -0400 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: Black Adepts; poison letter John Tullis, JT> So - do any of you who have studied this for a while have any > comments or ideas relating the > a) Existance of the "Dark Brotherhood" > b) Whether or not they could have contributed to the early > problems of the organization > c) Whether or not they in fact did so? Beyond the citation of passages in HPB's writings and in the Mahatma letters mentioning the existence of "Brothers of the left hand path", where can we go with this? The idea of conspiring black magicians is a perfect for fantasy novels, and even for embellishments in not so fictional ones. The "Dark brotherhood conspiracy" archetype appears in numerous forms. We have stories of secret Government vaults filled with designs for perpetual motion machines; the sinister influence of the Tri-Lateral Commission; the fear of communists hidden under every stone used to power the John Birch Society and through the Senitorial Committee for Unamerican Activities, careers of innocent people were destroyed. More recently, we learn that AIDS is really the product of secret germ warfare went awry. Even individuals in the Theosophical Organizations couldn't resist finding "black magicians" in every corner. Anyone in the theosophical organizations who disagrees with the "party line" are considered by some to be "agents of the dark forces." Paul Johnson and myself have both been given that dubious honor, and so have a long list of others: Those dubbed "Black Magicians" by "neo-theosophists" include: Victor Endersby; George Cardinal Legros; Tom Redfern; H.N. Stokes; T.H. Martin; and the list goes on. Some "Back to Blavatsky theosophists" have their own list, which includes C.W. Leadbeater, Annie Besant and more lately Stephan Hoeller. In short, anyone who too loudly questions a statis quo (regardless of which one) runs the risk of being classified as an "agent of the dark forces" by one group or another. I think it is about time that we stop this nonsense. The alleged work of the "dark forces" may be quite real, but they leave no paper trail (or any other kind of trail for that matter) by which we can document them. But on the other hands, as Paul Johnson pointed out, we can show incident after incident where the force of the T.S. was fragmented again and again. The first incident was in 1885 with the Coulomb conspiracy. It eventuated in HPB's forced leaving of Adyar, and her having to endure the SPR Report. HPB called this incident a "test" which everyone seemed to have failed. As she said of Olcott; He saved the body of the organization but lost its soul. After that things went down hill. I don't think you need "dark forces" to explain the fragmentation of the TS. Plain stupidity, ignorance and greed for power seems to cover all bases very well. As for conspiracy theories, I don't buy them because it is easy to make them up, yet impossible to prove. However, a woman I had studied theosophy with for eighteen years did offer an interesting (but unprovable) idea. She suggested that since the Mahatmas say that the "dark forces" can only exert equal energy to counter the good they have done, these "Brothers of the left hand path" would have to thwart the TM in the most efficient way possible. She suggested that all they had to do was spread confusion concerning the teachings. Well, whether we can credit "dark forces" or not, it is clear that the teachings have progressively become more confused through the banterings of this or that "clairvouant," "channel" or "messenger" over the last century. The theory appeals to me. It's the best one I've heard, but is no more provable than the others. Paul Johnson, JHE >If you had indeed written that the story "seemed credible to > me.", I would have understood you to be referring to yourself, > and would not have bothered to respond to your post in the > first place. PJ> Things don't "seem" in a void. I don't think that your > distinction holds water. There is an implicit "to me" in any > statement constructed like the one above. Especially when > followed by a statement (again with no personal pronoun) like > the one also above. I didn't say "I will look for the specific > passage." Do you therefore accuse me of dictating that > EVERYONE will look for the specific passage? Again, give me a > break. If I say "it seems that you are being unnecessarily > confrontational about this" common sense dictates that it seems > thus to the person saying so-- me. You are playing with words. There is what you meant, what you wrote, and what I inferred. What you meant and what I inferred are equally valid interpretations of what you wrote. My inferences, (or any one else's for that matter) don't come in a "void." They are based upon our whole history of interchange. Your last postings were intent upon showing Judge guilty in this poison letter incident. I offered evidence that raised questions to your conclusions, and you responded by speculating upon further evidence that if it exists, would support your original premise. When you came back with your third hand information and declared that you original premise "seems credible" again, I had every reason to infer that you were re-asserting it without backing it up with no more evidence than a third hand report. Even in today's message from you, you explain: PJ> Herb's comment inspired me to resume the search. It's not > that the story was credible because of what Herb said; it was > that IF he was right, and Besant let it go unchallenged while > published twice during her lifetime, THAT made it seem more > credible. Whether you add the words "to me" or not, does not change my reading that you are attributing credibility to the story based upon your speculative evidence. That is what bothers me. If you had softened your statement with the words "to me," It would have taken the focus off of the speculative evidence you were using as a back up. PJ> Thank you for providing this; I had already concluded that > until Radha throws open the archive doors (12th of Never, Hell > Freezes Over, etc.) that Garrett, which I don't have, would be > the best source. Which now I can use thanks to your providing > it. How can you possibly write on the Judge case without access to such a basic, vital and primary document as this? That's almost like researching the holocaust without taking Hitler into account. I can think of a half dozen people (all of whom you know) who would have provided you a copy of this document if only you had asked. PJ> However, I have been informed that M. Gomes knows some things > which may relate to this. Whether he will tell any of them is > another matter. And if Michael Gomes tells you that he has no information that can help your case, are you going to conclude that he is hiding information from you? PJ> What I will say in the book, and to you here, is that the > specifics of the threat are far less relevant to my inquiry > that the fact that it was made. No evidence has been shown that such a "threat" was ever made. Garrett, reporduces the text of the letter and shows that the words "poison" or "poisoning" do not appear, and to infer this from the text was really far a out thing for them to do. With all of the evidence to the contrary, how in the world can you conclude that a "threat" was ever made? PJ> Which means either that M, > through Judge, was genuinely warning Besant to stay away from > Olcott, or that Judge was producing fraudulent letters to > dissuade Annie from going to India (look at the power struggle > of the time for clues as to why) or-- maybe-- that the letter > wasn't a genuine Mahatma letter but also not deliberate fraud-- > self-deluded mediumship. The latter seems somewhat less > credible than option 2, because of the self-serving > implications of Annie's believing it and thus remaining more > allied to Judge and less to Olcott. The only thing that has so far been documented in this discussion is that Besant received letters asking her not to go to India. Whether the letters are genuine, fraudulent, talks of poison etc. is all speculation on your part that goes far beyond the evidence. Concerning your posting on motives, though you have not accused me of such, I wish to make a clear statement that I have never questioned nor attacked your motives. I have always assumed that your motivations are sincere and benevolent. I have only questioned the methodology you use for drawing conclusions. As you stated in this post, you are "a librarian, not a trained historian". At the risk of being asked again to drop the "ad hominem stuff", I suggest that you need to examine your methodology, and get some training as a historian, as long as you are going to do historical research and write about it. I hope that this message clarifies things so that we can get back to productive work. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 10:13:42 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Note to Paul Johnson (resend) Thanks, Eldon, this was a healing message for me to hear (read). Reminds me of a line heard at a library conference from a speaker who was talking about the dangers of being the first library to invest in a new automation system: "the early Christians get the best lions." The more innovative and potentially disruptive to established interests a thing is, the more outrage will be generated by it. I just have to stand back and say to myself "that's not me they're reacting to, it's their imagination." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 10:33:04 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Black Adepts; poison letter According to Jerry Hejka-Ekins: > > You are playing with words. There is what you meant, what > you wrote, and what I inferred. What you meant and what I > inferred are equally valid interpretations of what you wrote. HMMM. What I meant, I KNOW. What you inferred, you INTERPRETED from an ambiguous phrase. There's an important difference here. And a message for me as well as you (which Eldon recently pointed out.) Before rushing to punish someone for what you interpret him/her as having meant, it is best to make sure that your interpretation is correct. This would save a lot of wasted energy and hurt feelings. I will try to remember this in future and not shoot from the hip as I feel you have done. My > inferences, (or any one else's for that matter) don't come in a > "void." They are based upon our whole history of interchange. > Your last postings were intent upon showing Judge guilty in this > poison letter incident. This is a reading of motive (intention) that is absolutely wrong. I'm by no means intent of showing Judge guilty; I was intent on showing that HSO did indeed refer to the poison question. My focus in what I am writing is Olcott's motives for arranging such an elaborate journey through India with Besant. The Judge case will receive a paragraph or two as background for the main part of the section, an account of the trip. I offered evidence that raised questions > to your conclusions, and you responded by speculating upon > further evidence that if it exists, would support your original > premise. When you came back with your third hand information and > declared that you original premise "seems credible" again, I had > every reason to infer that you were re-asserting it without > backing it up with no more evidence than a third hand report. Despite the fact that I explicitly stated that I was pursuing a specific lead about where the passage in question could be found? Again, shooting from the hip on the basis of a misinterpretation of my motives. > > How can you possibly write on the Judge case without access > to such a basic, vital and primary document as this? That's > almost like researching the holocaust without taking Hitler into > account. I can think of a half dozen people (all of whom you > know) who would have provided you a copy of this document if only > you had asked. As stated, I did not set out to write "on the Judge case." I am writing on Besant's journey through India. The Judge case came in as background material. After reading Nethercot, I realized I needed to find more on the "poison letter" issue and started looking through ODL. You dissuaded me from thinking I would find anything there; Herb revivified the search. When I found what HSO wrote, THEN I realized that it pointed to yet another source I needed-- Garrett. As a librarian, the first course of action that occurred to me was to get it on ILL, not survey my friends to find out who might have it. > > > And if Michael Gomes tells you that he has no information > that can help your case, STOP treating me like a prosecutor out to convict Judge! My intent is to shed some light on the circumstances of Annie's journey. What Annie and HSO interpreted the Judge/Morya communications to mean is far more important to that question than whether they were right. Thanks to you, and Herb, that part of the investigation is pretty well complete. are you going to conclude that he is > hiding information from you? This is a gratuitous attack on my psychological state-- an accusation of paranoia. Which I may have in some cases but not regarding Gomes. I was told by a friend that MG had reported finding evidence in the Adyar archives that was damaging to Judge, but refused to elaborate. Therefore, I thought he might choose to withhold material because he was planning to publish it himself in some future work. He doesn't owe it to me to share his findings, although he has already been quite generous. If he says he has no information that can help me, I'll believe him. But what I expected was that he would just decline to reveal the alleged discoveries. > > PJ> What I will say in the book, and to you here, is that the > > specifics of the threat are far less relevant to my inquiry > > that the fact that it was made. > > No evidence has been shown that such a "threat" was ever > made. But Jerry, you just provided the evidence! A telegram threatening "grave danger" followed by a letter from Judge and another allegedly from M., making it even clearer that both were warning Annie not to go to India because of some unspecified harm that might befall her. I call that a threat-- it was certainly effective in changing her behavior on the basis of evoking fear. Garrett, reporduces the text of the letter and shows that > the words "poison" or "poisoning" do not appear, and to infer > this from the text was really far a out thing for them to do. > With all of the evidence to the contrary, how in the world can > you conclude that a "threat" was ever made? Because > you provided the evidence. > > PJ> Which means either that M, > > through Judge, was genuinely warning Besant to stay away from > > Olcott, or that Judge was producing fraudulent letters to > > dissuade Annie from going to India (look at the power struggle > > of the time for clues as to why) or-- maybe-- that the letter > > wasn't a genuine Mahatma letter but also not deliberate fraud-- > > self-deluded mediumship. The latter seems somewhat less > > credible than option 2, because of the self-serving > > implications of Annie's believing it and thus remaining more > > allied to Judge and less to Olcott. > > The only thing that has so far been documented in this > discussion is that Besant received letters asking her not to go > to India. Whether the letters are genuine, fraudulent, talks of > poison etc. is all speculation on your part that goes far beyond > the evidence. > All I did above was sketch 3 logical possibilities and suggest that one of the three seemed more likely than another. Speculation, yes, but clearly such. "Seems somewhat less credible" sounds speculative as all get-out to me. But to avoid your buzz saw in the future you can be damn sure I'll NEVER leave out those two crucial words "to me." > I hope that this message clarifies things so that we can get > back to productive work. Agreed. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 13:48:41 -0400 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: poison letter; postmodern conf.; misc. John Tullis, One point on this subject which stuck with me over the years has to do with the notion that those on the "left hand path" are said to be intensely selfish. Such selfishness and egotism makes the possibility of cooperation between them impossible, so to suggest there is a "brotherhood" or organization is a contridiction. I vaguely recall reading in the TS literature something to this effect, and the suggestion that even though there may be some temporary alliances formed for a specific purpose that none would last long given the characteristics of the participants. Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 18:53:48 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: On the Importance of Religious Thought This is by Eldon Tucker ---- On the Importance of Religious Thought There are complaints at times against preaching and sermonizing, against writings that sound like we are putting ourselves above others. Is this really what is happening? Is this our intent? (I say "we" and "our" because I'm not putting myself into an exclusive class in this regard.) In western writings, we are used to being provided information, but there is a hard-and-fast dividing line between science and philosophy, on one hand, and religion on the other. It is considered poor science to allow anything religious to creep into scientific writings. It is considered biased philosophy, under some form of thought control, if the religious enters into play. All this is because our primary source of religion is from organized western religions. The truly-religious has been misrepresented to us, and we want nothing to do with it. This bias is even to be found in our theosophical studies. We may want to hear of reincarnation and karma, and look at it from the scientific standpoint of its mechanism, the actual timings, the workings of karma in the events of personal life, etc. From the philosophical standpoint, we may seek to understand how it works in a more direct and generalized manner. But when an religious element enters the discussion, we recall Baptist sermons and our feathers are ruffled! How dare someone tell us what is right, or what to do! We learn in Theosophy, though, that the religious side is an important part of life, and cannot be divorced from the rest. And the religious side has no more to do with what we find in western churches than the deeper philosophy has to do with popular thought. It goes far deeper. It is an inseparable part of our learning. We even have, as an alternate name for Theosophy, the Wisdom-Religion. What is involved in adding the religious side to our studies? First, ethics, a sense of right-and-wrong, a deeply-felt appreciation for the affect of our lives on others, becomes inseparable from how we think about and view things. No one should find it objectionable when we incorporating this in our writings. Each of us, writing from his understanding, may say "this is good, this is right, this is what we should do," just as much as "this is true, this is the way things work, this is the best description." We can make statements of right and wrong just as much as we can of philosophical truth. When I positively state an idea, no one is forced to accept it. The same is true of a positively stated value or ethic--again, no one is forced to accept it just because it has been stated. The reaction against words like "should" is really against organized western religion, and not Religion itself, nor the religious consciousness. But we need to be careful lest our reaction blind us to what is good and valid. Writing of Theosophy without ethical content is incomplete, if not wrong (my ethical judgment). We need more *flexible* religious thought, not the banishment of all sense of religion. Let's go for wholeness in our understanding of the Philosophy, rather than continue to react to things in western society that we don't like! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 18:59:41 -0400 From: jcoker@eis.calstate.edu (Jessica L. Coker) Subject: 1995 TUP Catalog The 1995 Theosophical University Press Catalog will be mailed soon. If you would like to receive one and are not currently on our mailing list, reply by e-mail to jcoker@eis.calstate.edu and we'll be sure to add your name and address. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 19:18:40 -0400 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: re "poison letter." Paul Johnson, JHE> You are playing with words. There is what you meant, what > you wrote, and what I inferred. What you meant and what I > inferred are equally valid interpretations of what you wrote. PJ> HMMM. What I meant, I KNOW. What you inferred, you > INTERPRETED from an ambiguous phrase. As a matter of fact, there has been for years an intense debate in literary circles as to whether the writer of a text really "knows" what they have written, and if the "interpretation" does not have, in many ways more validity than what the writer might "believe" he meant. I'm just pointing this out as a matter of background, and not as the point of my argument. The fact that you admit that you wrote an "ambiguous phrase", means that it is open to more than one interpretation. Since I'm not telepathically plugged into you, I can only interpret the phrase according to the context before me. That my interpretation was not the same as the meaning that you intended doesn't change anything. I doubt if anybody has ever written anything that is read with *exactly* the same meaning as the writer *thinks* was intended anyway. In other words, writing is an imperfect mode of communication. We have to put up with what we perceive to be misreadings or our writings and try to correct them, as you are doing here. But this isn't really the point of my argument either. The bottom line is that your "ambiguous" phrase led me to the interpretation that you were trying to attribute credibility to your hypothesis without the evidence. Since I had read it that way, I was confident that others had read it that way too. Therefore I felt it my obligation to answer it. PJ> There's an important > difference here. And a message for me as well as you (which > Eldon recently pointed out.) Before rushing to punish someone > for what you interpret him/her as having meant, it is best to > make sure that your interpretation is correct. This would save > a lot of wasted energy and hurt feelings. I will try to > remember this in future and not shoot from the hip as I feel > you have done. I'm sorry that you feel "punished." Given the problems that I have raised above, how can one be expected to query every statement to assure that they have the author's intended meaning? Once a statement is published, it is there for everyone to read, whether it be right, wrong, intended or unintended. The responsibility is with the writer to assure that what he writes, reflects as unambiguously as possible what he intends to communicate. It is not the not the reader's responsibility to do this for him, nor would it even be possible. Once the statement is published, then the damage is already done. If there is a mis-reading, then, of course, the author has every right to correct it. JHE> MY > inferences, (or any one else's for that matter) don't come in a > "void." They are based upon our whole history of interchange. > Your last postings were intent upon showing Judge guilty in > this poison letter incident. PJ> This is a reading of motive (intention) that is absolutely > wrong. I'm by no means intent of showing Judge guilty; I was > intent on showing that HSO did indeed refer to the poison > question. Thank you for your clarification. Once again, until you clarify your intent, I can only go by what I infer in your writing. You chose to post a passage from Nethercot repeating the poison letter story as historical fact, without appending any explanation that you were only "showing" that Olcott had "referred to the poison question." How can you honestly expect me or anyone else to read that post in any other way then that you were posting evidence that Judge way guilty of writing this letter? It is pretty obvious that this was Nethercot's intent when he wrote the passage in the first place. Frankly, your quoting of that passage *without* such a statement of clarification, was at best, a very indirect and misleading way of getting your intent across, and I would be very surprised if anybody got it. PJ> My focus in what I am writing is Olcott's motives > for arranging such an elaborate journey through India with > Besant. The Judge case will receive a paragraph or two as > background for the main part of the section, an account of the > trip. Thank you for making this clarification too. By the way, how can you write about anyone's motives--let alone Olcott's concerning this visit? If I were the President of a world organization receiving as a guest, one of the most important members in another section, who is visiting the Headquarters for the first time, I think that I would also roll out the red carpet. I would also give her a grand tour, and make sure that my guest made contact with everyone of importance connected with the Organization. Sounds like good management to me. I think that it is quite ironic that you have lately complained so extensively on this net about people misreading your motives, while at the same time you are engaged in writing a work where you will discuss Olcott's motives. JHE> How can you possibly write on the Judge case without access > to such a basic, vital and primary document as this? That's > almost like researching the holocaust without taking Hitler > into account. I can think of a half dozen people (all of whom > you know) who would have provided you a copy of this document > if only you had asked. PJ> As stated, I did not set out to write "on the Judge case." I > am writing on Besant's journey through India. The Judge case > came in as background material. Nevertheless, whether researching your thesis or background to it, how can you do this research without source materials? PJ> After reading Nethercot, I realized I needed to find more on > the "poison letter" issue and started looking through ODL. You > dissuaded me from thinking I would find anything there; Herb > revivified the search. Yes, I recall writing that if you found it in ODL, I would be "real impressed." And I was. My gosh, paging through all those memoirs for a passage on a poisoned letter is real impressive. But I was also "impressed" in another way. I really didn't expect Olcott to sink so low as to bring that one up again, especially since it was never part of the formal charges against Judge in the first place. Its only original use was to slander him through the gossip vine--an effective tool of character assassination that remains in tact to this day. On the other hand, I shouldn't have been so "impressed." It was Olcott's pattern to wait until people were dead and then publicly rip them apart. Safer that way, I guess. As for my off remark that resulted in "dissuading" you from looking further in ODL, I'm sorry that you gave me so much power, yet I afraid that I can't take responsibility for your decision either. But, why were you looking for this in Olcott's memoirs in the first place? Why didn't you go to the source materials generated from the Judge case itself? Once again, I don't understand why you research secondary materials when you should be searching the primary ones? PJ> When I > found what HSO wrote, THEN I realized that it pointed to yet > another source I needed-- Garrett. As a librarian, the first > course of action that occurred to me was to get it on ILL, not > survey my friends to find out who might have it. Then why didn't you do that in the first place? Garrett is the primary source, not ODL. How could that not have been obvious to you? JHE> And if Michael Gomes tells you that he has no information > that can help your case, are you going to conclude that he is > hiding information from you? PJ> This is a gratuitous attack on my psychological state-- an > accusation of paranoia. Which I may have in some cases but not > regarding Gomes. Interesting interpretation of my question, but not my intent. My question is a fair one considering that fact that you yourself wrote that Gomes might not tell you. PJ> I was told by a friend that MG had reported finding > evidence in the Adyar archives that was damaging to Judge, but > refused to elaborate. Therefore, I thought he might choose to > withhold material because he was planning to publish it himself > in some future work. He doesn't owe it to me to share his > findings, although he has already been quite generous. If he > says he has no information that can help me, I'll believe him. > But what I expected was that he would just decline to reveal > the alleged discoveries. I think this is a fair answer. Thank you. As for what you were told, I'm familiar with what you are talking about, but you didn't get it quite right. Gomes has information that could be "used" against Judge by someone intent upon proving his guilt. That doesn't mean that the information itself "proves" anything against Judge. Information can be used to put people in a bad light or a good one, depending upon how it is used. PJ> No evidence has been shown that such a "threat" was ever > made. PJ> But Jerry, you just provided the evidence! A telegram > threatening "grave danger" followed by a letter from Judge and > another allegedly from M., making it even clearer that both > were warning Annie not to go to India because of some > unspecified harm that might befall her. I call that a threat-- > it was certainly effective in changing her behavior on the > basis of evoking fear. Now it is my turn to point out a mis-reading on your part. My statement that no evidence has been shown of such a "threat" was in the context of the Poisoned letter. By "threat" I was talking about the alleged threat of "grave danger" that Olcott planned to poison Besant. In my reading, the main point that Garrett was trying to get across in the passage I reproduced for you, was that the inferrence of poisoning came from *outside* of the text. If you just wanted documentation of letters trying to dissuade Annie from going to India, you didn't have to go to Garrett for that. That fact is well documented in the original charges. Read on to my next statement, and you will see the context you missed in the preceding one: JHE> Garrett, reproduces the text of the letter and shows that > the words "poison" or "poisoning" do not appear, and to infer > this from the text was really a far out thing for them to do. > With all of the evidence to the contrary, how in the world can > you conclude that a "threat" was ever made? > PJ> Which means either that M, >> through Judge, was genuinely warning Besant to stay away from >> Olcott, or that Judge was producing fraudulent letters to >> dissuade Annie from going to India (look at the power >> struggle of the time for clues as to why) or-- maybe-- that >> the letter wasn't a genuine Mahatma letter but also not >> deliberate fraud-- self-deluded mediumship. The latter seems >> somewhat less credible than option 2, because of the >> self-serving implications of Annie's believing it and thus >> remaining more allied to Judge and less to Olcott. JHE> The only thing that has so far been documented in this > discussion is that Besant received letters asking her not to go > to India. Whether the letters are genuine, fraudulent, talks > of poison etc. is all speculation on your part that goes far > beyond the evidence. PJ> All I did above was sketch 3 logical possibilities and > suggest that one of the three seemed more likely than another. > Speculation, yes, but clearly such. "Seems somewhat less > credible" sounds speculative as all get-out to me. But to > avoid your buzz saw in the future you can be damn sure I'll > NEVER leave out those two crucial words "to me." My expectation is that when a one writes speculations, in order to be productive to the dialogue, they be limited to the evidence at hand. This reminds me of a Lodge meeting in 1976, when I was reporting on the findings of the Viking Landers, which had photographed the Martian surface in high and low orbit as well as from the ground. They found no canals, cities or Martians, as described in Leadbeater's fifty page account in his book, ~The Inner Life~ (This account is now expurgated from the latest edition). Thus I concluded that the photographs threw doubt upon Leadbeater's description. A member of the Lodge sagely replied that the evidence does not throw any doubt upon Leadbeater's account at all, because the Martians simply didn't want us to photograph them. Therefore they created a "mayavi" for the camera, to make it appear that the planet was uninhabited. His answer was indeed a "logical possibility" but it is also what I call speculating beyond the evidence. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 18:58:02 -0400 From: jcoker@eis.calstate.edu (Jessica L. Coker) Subject: responding to smirking muckrakers Tues 9/27 from Nancy To Paul J. I've long been very interested in your ideas and historical sleuthing. Did we ever tell you about the game Questions that we found in the play, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead? We used to play it all the time, and taught it to our daughter. It has helped me immensley. The rules are 1) no statements, 2) no guttural utterances (you can change this one if you like) and 3) no non sequitors. Next nosey, hostile questioner that gets in your face -- play quetions with them. Why do you ask that? you volley. Then they will tell you more than you want to know. Whatever gave you such an odd notion, you parry. What happened to free and fearless investigation? you counter. Etc. Etc. Being in the public notice makes you a thing, not a real person, I assume, so people can abstract you and write about or to you as if you weren't real. Did you reply to Jaqua, Robb etal? I guess now you know our real secrets -- we are all more sinners than saints. Seems like there is a principle of wholeness that suggests that the more we try to act like saints, the more we may really be sinning. Is that why the Middle Way is so valuable? Take care\ Nancy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 18:55:37 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Is There A Brotherhood of Evil? This is by Eldon Tucker ---- Is There A Brotherhood of Evil? John Tullis, Paul G., Paul J: There is also discussion of the path of evil in "Fundamentals of the Esoteric Philosophy" by G. de Purucker. The dark path is described in terms of degrees of failure in evolution. It starts with normal, unawakened people, called "soul-less" because they do not have spirituality awakened in their lives, to "lost souls" where an entire lifetime is wasted, and onwards, through progressively worse degrees of failure ending with destruction of one's inner nature, and a form of hell after our evolution on earth is complete (being "ground over" in an Avitchi Nirvana and then having to restart evolution). In "The Mahatma Letters," there is mention of the Mamo-Chohans, whom rule over the Pralayas or outer periods of death and decay. (We're safely gone from the scene, having departed into Nirvana upon destruction of the earth.) One aspect of organized "evil" involves other planetary chains. We can experience hell-like worlds, places of suffering, since our Earth Chain is not on the lowest plane. There are other planetary chains yet on lower planes. To have an experience on one of these chains would seem hell-like. To visit the highest globes of one of these chains would be an Nirvana of pure hell, as compared to the relatively lofty consciousness we have on the globes of the Earth. Purucker goes to considerable lengths to distinguish the spiritual-material polarity from good and evil. He explains how it is possible to be material, and yet good, or how it is possible to become spiritually evil. A simple way to describe spiritual evil is what happens if one awakens his higher faculties and yet remains focused in a strong sense of personality. The sense of personality and separateness is raised into the higher principles, along with a "not caring" that takes on monstrous proportions. Instead of the sweet coolness of good spirituality, there is the killing, icy coldness. There is a vast penetration into the secrets of nature. Personal powers and dominion over nature and other people becomes the prime motivator, rather than selflessness and a dedication of life for others. Hatred is left behind as a waste of energy. Like J.R. Ewing on "Dallas," one may be likable, but deadly if one gets in his way. There is absolutely no thought of others, the sense of personality and individual separateness reigns supreme. What does this sort of path end with? Personal destruction. The duration of one's existence depends upon how deep in one's spiritual nature that the evil has crept. (Picture a cavity; if it gets too deep, a root canal is necessary.) An totally evil person may have but a wasted lifetime. An evil person with some occult powers may be able to hold off the after-death states for a period of time, but meets with dissolution as the "second death" is faced and the good part of Manas (for him--nothing) separates from the Kamarupa. Still more evil, someone may be able to persist even longer. The longest that one exists, though, is to the Pralaya, at which death ensues, since the evil person cannot persist after the dissolution of the inner worlds on which he clings to existence. (What about the Mamo- Chohans ruling at the Pralayas? Another story...) It is wrong to picture an hierarchy of good, and another of evil, both of equal status and power, both battling for control of the direction of the world. There is but one order, and that is good. The apparently organized forces of evil are failures in life, those failing in the process of evolving into matter in order to acquire self-consciousness and to raise that treasure back into the spirit. That process is failing for them, and if totally failed, just means that it must be started anew. The failures may band together, in some loose-knit manner, but because of the nature of their consciousness, they cannot trust each other nor be depended upon to support any organized structure, unless it is in their self interest. Any cooperation not based upon self-benefit would have to be out of fear. If stronger individuals can control weaker ones, the weaker ones, although untrustworthy and treacherous, will do what they are told, until their boss turns his back... I would not use the term "Dark Brotherhood," because that implies some sense of brotherliness, at least among fellow members, and any sense of that type of consciousness is lost early on in their development of evil. Another important aspect of good and evil, of spiritual success and failure, regards the major turning points in cycles. At the turning point when the push into material existence ends and the return to the spiritual begins, like at the middle of the Fourth Round, there is a point of failure. Some do not make the turn, but go lower. It is not a happy fate. Purucker mentions it in passing, but does not go into much detail. Should we be concerned with any of this? Not really. But what if we aren't perfect? Certainly we all have various personal flaws, and make mistakes and are evil at times. True. But it is not 100 percent purity that makes us good, it is the strength of the pull towards the higher. The stronger the sense of a draw to higher things, the safer we are from the corruptible, the more we raise ourselves into the incorruptible. Picture a good compass. It is good because it is free- moving. It can be bumped but always wants to return to true North. It has a strong desire to be oriented in that direction. Were it not free-moving, and therefore responsive to being knocked off the true, it could also not be free to continually adjust as the compass changes direction. What makes the compass good is the persistence in returning to North, the strength that the pull of the North is felt. Someone evil may no longer respond to the call of the North, but do everything according to his own agenda. We cannot be mislead, though. When the pull of the spiritual is a compelling force in our lives, we are safe from any bump that life may throw our way. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 23:45:43 -0400 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Responses to Liesel Liesel. True. (Unfortunately.) Sometimes we have to ask ourselves if our right hand is related to our left hand. It is related, but it is also separate. Subject: Dark Brothers Some members of the net have been having a jolly good time talking about the Dark Brothers and the Dark Brotherhood. I would like to jump in, and say a few words of my own on the subject. John Tullis The "Dark Brotherhood", call it what you will, does exist. It opposes the "White Brotherhood," is just as powerful, and will live just as long - relative only to Globe D of our planetary chain (where matter and spirit are so carefully balanced). Jerry H-J Agreed, insofar as you use the words "conspiring" and "conspiracy." I do not believe that there is any real conspiracy or collusion between individual black magicians. But then again, I do not believe that "black magicians" have anything to do with the Dark Brotherhood. Lewis < One point on this subject which stuck with me over the years has to do with the notion that those on the "left hand path" are said to be intensely selfish. Such selfishness and egotism makes the possibility of cooperation between them impossible, so to suggest there is a "brotherhood" or organization is a contridiction.> First, permit me to clear up a typical misperception. Those on "the left hand path" have nothing, specifically, to do with the Dark Brotherhood. The "left-hand path" refers to the tantric path of sexual magic where a woman (karmamudra) sits to the left of the male tantrica. In certain tantric rites, a male tantrica would have a woman sit to his right - without sexual union. The "left-hand path" was considered a perversion of the "pure" tantricism by the purist (spelled puritan) faithful. The phrase refers, in general today, to any and all practitioners of sexual magic which envolves a physical partner. Period. If you want to consider this "evil," then OK, but it has nothing to do with egotism or selfishness or the lose of one's "soul." I agree that the whole idea of a conspiracy or organization of any kind between people who are exceedingly egotistical and selfish is a contradiction. But those kind of people refer more to black magicians than to the Dark brothers of the Dark Brotherhood. Eldon Eldon, I see some of G de P in your message, but some of what you say seems off-the-wall to me. To reach spirituality with a sense of personality makes you at best a god or goddess and at worse a Titan, not a member of the Dark Brotherhood. Tibetan Buddhism views six segments of living beings all tied together in this universe, and two of these are the gods and the titans (jealous gods). HPB also describes these six realms, almost as if she believed in it. Why in the world should having a "strong personality" automatically make one to be "not caring?" I also find your term "good spirituality" rather naive and confusing. What, would you suppose, is "bad spirituality?" Are we to have good gods and bad gods? Or good demons and bad demons? I could be wrong, but I think you are confusing the Pratyeka- Buddhists with the Dark Brotherhood. Eldon Here again, I think you are confusing the Pratyeka- Buddhists with the Dark Brotherhood. Eldon While early theosophical literature talks about the possible loss of one's "soul" and a wasted life, I would submit that this is pure theory, and that in practice the number of "totally evil" persons is quite small and not worth scaring young children about. I would also submit that a "good" person "with some occult powers may be able to hold off the after-death states for a period of time," as well. The magical techniques used for this have nothing to do with one's goodness or one's evilness, but rather with one's motive. The idea that an "evil" person "meets with dissolution as the "second death" is faced and the good part of Manas (for him--nothing) separates from the Kamarupa" is interesting. Could you provide a source for this idea? I thought that those who faced "nothing" after death were those atheists who simply didn't believe in any afterlife (Am I wrong here? Does the nothingness of the atheist also imply a "wasted life?" When is any life "wasted?"). I can envision a situation where an "evil" person dies, and then sees his entire life flash by him, and perceives the wrong that he/she has done to others, and feels intense regret, sorrow, and remorse, and then eventually returns to life to try and make amends. Eldon I have to disagree with you on this one. I believe that the polar opposites of good and evil do, in fact, exist. Both good and evil battle for control of the direction of the world, and both have equal status and power. The notion that only good exists is simplistic dualism (I must say though, that it sure would be nice if this were the case). This idea is probably the singlemost reason why I left the Christian Science church. Christian Science too wants to believe that you can hold on to the good and throw away the evil. I wish everyone with this idea a lot of luck. Eldon Agreed, as I noted above for Jerry H-J. The Dark Brotherhood, as I see it: I think a lot of folks misinterpret the idea of the Pratyeka Buddha as well as the Dark Brotherhood. They are not the same thing. In Mahatma Letter IX, KH calls the "Brothers of the Shadow" or Dark Brothers, "the Sorcerers," "the Elementary Spooks," and "our most potential Enemies." In Letter XLIX, KH mentions "the Red Capped Brothers of the Shadow" suggesting that the Dark Brotherhood referred to the Red Caps of Tibet. If we read all of the Letters, as well as what HPB has to say, it seems to me that they meant the Dark Brotherhood to be the polar or dualistic opposite to the White Brotherhood. If we consider the White Brotherhood to be good, then the Dark Brotherhood must be evil. The Sanatana-Dharma (An Advanced Textbook of Hindu Religion and Ethics) says that "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) By this we can say that whatever tries to help us progrss upward through the Arc of Ascent is "good" and whatever tries to pull us downward along the Arc of Descent (which G de P calls the Shadowy Arc) is "evil." By this measure, you can tell those who are in the Brotherhood of Compassion and those who are in the Dark Brotherhood. Most members of both groups who are incarnating, are totally unconscious of their membership. The Pratyeka-Buddha is another story. This is the Arhat of Hinayana Buddhism. However, we have to remember that the term Hinayana (lower vehicle) is a Mahayana term, meant to be somewhat disrespectful. The Pratyeka-Buddha is one who fully sees the maya and illusiveness of the world. He views the world as a mental projection, and unreal. Other people are also unreal mental projections, phantasms, ghosts. The Pratyeka- Buddha is not really selfish in the sense that we think of the word. Once you recognize that all aggragates are unreal (one of Gotama's last teachings) then why have compassion over an illusion? Once you understand that life is a dream, why deliberately fall back asleep in order to have more dreams of helping people? In other words, they lack compassion simply because they fail to see anyone to have compassion for. And, technically they are correct - all of us needy people are ourselves illusions, asleep to the truth of things. I am not saying that this view is "right" but simply trying to point out that they are not selfish in the same way that we normally think of the term. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 29 Sep 1994 20:02:18 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: States of Matter (continued) This is by Eldon Tucker This continues a posting from yesterday on states of matter. Any scientific corrections and/or enhancements to what I'm writing about would be appreciated. The subject is relatively new to me. It may take several iterations using the key of analogy before I can really tap into the symbolic significance of the subject. ---- States of Matter (Continued) The Bose condensation is considered the lowest possible energy state for matter. For all practical purposes, it could be called absolute zero, since there is no physics beyond it. In the experiments, a hydrogen vapor is being used. Extremely-light atoms like hydrogen are more susceptible to quantum uncertainty, and because of their small mass they can be "spread out" with less prodding, and overlap their neighbors at a higher temperature. At a very low temperature, a particle has a precise velocity (zero), so its position becomes highly uncertain, wavelike, and blurred, and the particle with bump into fellow particles after a while. As they overlap, a change happens. They learn that others are there, and want to come together and act together as one. The properties of matter in this state are unknown, and could spontaneously change from one instance to the next. The temperatures achieved are about 100 microkelvin, as compared to the record of 1 microkelvin. (It's not *the* coldest spot in the universe, as I mentioned yesterday, but one of the coldest.) Atoms, which would move 1000 feet/second at room temperature, now move at 1/2 inch/second. The atoms are herded together by laser beams, much like opposing fire hoses trained on a soccer ball. This is assisted by a magnetic field that gets stronger near the edge of the vapor, pushing stray atoms back to the center. In one to two seconds the vapor is chilled, with the atoms packed tightly enough to reflect laser light. A vague greenish haze appears, and builds into a distinct spherical cloud. The density of the Bose condensate is higher than ordinary vapor with more atoms to scatter light, so when the condensation happens, the scientists expect to see a bright, shiny ball right in the middle of the cloud. We see that matter changes its character as it is heated up, or cooled down. At certain temperatures it undergoes a state change, and acquires certain properties. At extremely high temperatures it may irreversibly break down (like if water is broken down into two gasses there is no guarantee those gasses will come together again to form water when they are cooled down again). At lower, cooler temperatures, matter slows down and becomes more orderly (like when volatile gasses liquefy, becoming wet and sedentary). The cooling causes matter to congeal, condense, settle, and get sedate. Depending upon the type of matter, there is a different sensitivity to temperature. At room temperature, oxygen is a gas, water is liquid, copper is solid. At a higher temperature, water boils and becomes a gas. Still higher, copper melts and becomes a liquid. At a cooler temperature, water freezes, becoming solid. Still cooler, oxygen becomes a liquid. Each type of matter has its own temperature, its own level of heat (energy) that causes it to change states. Speculation: What if there are other kinds of matter, with their own characteristics, including widely-different temperature sensitivities? How would this show up to us? Could such matter only physically appear in the heart of a sun or in the coldest of intergalactic space? There are two types of particles. One is called fermions. This includes protons, electrons, and other ordinary particles. They have a half-integer "spin". A new type of particles, called bosons, have spin in units of whole integers. Fermions stay out of each other's orbits; they stand apart. This property gives atoms their structure. Bosoms are drawn together; they have a social property that allows for clumping together in unlimited numbers. This sociability allows for large numbers of light particles, for instance, to congregate in the same place. Atoms are composed of fermions, and are themselves fermions (individualists) or bosons (collectivists) depending upon the sum of the total spins of their particles. (Having an even number of fermions makes them a fermion; an odd number makes them a boson.) Hydrogen atoms, for instance, are bosons, since they have two fermions, a single-proton nucleus and a single electron, giving a total spin of 1/2 + 1/2 = 1. Speculation: In terms of cycles, when we are 1/2 way through, we are at the most-material point, the point of greatest separateness. At this point, our "cyclic spin" is X + 1/2 Manvantaras. Are we most like fermions at this point? The plasma state has matter in a disordered mixture, electrically charged, and which glows under the right conditions. Question: Do all molecules break apart into their component atoms, when heated, before reaching the plasma state? At the top of the energy scale, protons are split apart into quarks. Then we have quark matter, a sea of disconnected quarks that are so weird that their properties are not known. Early theosophical literature was written at a time when the basic building block of matter was the "atom", which had for ages been considered indivisible. Metaphysical analogies were built up using "atom" as corresponding to the Monad, the basic unit of individual identity. Should we now use "quark" instead of "atom" in our writings? Question: Any ideas on speculation on this point? As solids are further cooled, they reach the next state: superconductivity and superfluity. In this state atomic particles move in step, taking on almost magical properties. Electricity flows without resistance. Liquids flow up and out of bottles, or flow down through the bottom of ceramic containers. There is an unnatural orderliness, as groups of particles move as one. Speculation: As we "cool down" the desires and mind, do we reach an analogous state of clarity, as our thoughts and feelings move in step, taking on almost magical properties? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 30 Sep 1994 14:17:33 -0400 From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: black brotherhood & magicians I'm new in this group, but let me try my 2cents worth. Your discussion has set me to thinking as to what my own beliefs are re good & evil. I most often just try to see the plus side, to work darn hard on my own character traits, those which I find undesirable, & to ignore what I consider evil in others. (unless they get into my hair too much, in which case I give them a biting piece of my mind.). For one thing, I go along with the idea that thinking & talking about evil things like black magicians & black brotherhoods reinforces undesirable thought forms. Reading all that e-mail has made me feel that maybe I'm evil too, & I bet it has given you/all the same feeling too at times.. (When you stop to really think about it, you realize that you're not. We're human with favorable & unfavorable traits, as Jerry Schueler stated) Thinking/talking about negative things has that effect, because, as Serge King taught us, the Unconscious doesn't differentiate between Myself & Other. Say something negative, either about yourself or someone else, & the Unconscious reacts negatively. Say something nice either way & the Unconscious tends to become more genial with pleasure. So, with that in mind, I don't watch hardly any cops & robbers etc. stories on TV. The news brings enough horrible happenings to suit me. When I want to relax, I watch sitcoms, or concerts. So how should I deal with the ideas of "good" & "evil", & black magicians? I imagine most of the subscribers of the Theos-L network grew up under the very strict Puritan-American guilt trip which emphasizes being a lowly sinner, born in evil. I grew up with the same ethic in Germany. Nowadays, we're trying to deal with a world full of violence, both physical & mental. In my life, I've been influenced enough by Buddhism to talk about "ignorance" instead of "sin". If people do the wrong thing because they don't know any better, at least they can learn to change their ways, at some time. So if I hear of kids toting guns to school, I try to do something to help change them, with the altruistic (Ithink) assumption that not killing each other is less injurious to their health. I might, for one thing, take the easiest way & send them thoughts/feelings of peace & harmony. If I could, I'd take part in an activity which would teach them to settle things by means other than fists & guns. Groups who think along those lines are springing up all over these days. I try not to think of these as evil kids. "Hate the deed, but love the doer." MLKing. I don't know whether anyone can change a black magician. Someone like that, Serge taught us, gets at you through your fears, so I'd try not to be afraid. To me, these are all positive rules to live by, but somewhere inside me there's still a vestige of the negative ethics I was brought up with. Now about people more advanced in Wisdom vs. black magicians. From "Isis Unveiled" V.I,p.218 ...."from first to last, from Pythagoras down to Eliphas Levi, from highest to humblest, everyone teaches that the magical power is never possessed by those addicted to vicious indulgences. Only the pure in heart 'see God' or exercise divine gifts - only such can heal the ills of the body, and allow themselves, with relative security, to be guided by the 'invisible powers'.... 'magic has nothing supernal in it'; it is a science, & even the power of 'casting out devils' was a branch of it, of which the Initiates made a special study. 'That skill which expels demons out of human bodies, is a science useful & sanative to men' says Josephus." If you should be meandering through AB's "Path of Discipleship", I think you can get the idea that one must be ethically pretty solid before one is initiated into the more advanced esoteric wisdom. That's always helped me when I've thought of black magicians. Serge told us that he'd met any number of them when he served in Africa. And again, he told us that they rule by fear. As for instance, if one of them wanted to cast a spell, he/she makes sure the "victim" would know about what he was doing and then the victim would get scared, & do all the damage to himself. How different were the qualities I noted upon meeting Serge (there were 70 of us at that workshop) He's a very loving person, very much at ease, & unafraid. He taught us the rudiments of what he knows, a philosophy & techniques based on establishing harmony & peace. He also told us there was a group of Hunas working together around where he lives. I've met 2 more people like him. They were both Theosophists. Both have, in different ways, had a very positive influence on my life. Soooo I'd rather talk about them any old time, than those old looking but not being black magician. Besides, I never knowingly came across one of them. >From CWL, "Inner Life", 4th ed. '67, V.I, p.127 ff "There is no hierarchy of evil. There are black magicians certainly, but the black magician is usually merely a single solitary entity. He is working for himself, as a separate entity, and for his own ends. You can not have a hierarchy of people who distrust one another. (Jerry H-E said that in one of his letters) In the White Brotherhood every member trusts the others; but you cannot have trust with the dark people, because their interest is built upon self.... "Matter is not evil. Spirit & matter are equal. Matter is not in opposition to spirit. We find matter troublesome because of the bodies we have to use; but we are here in order to learn what without the physical life could not be conveyed to us. The physical plane experiences give a definiteness & precision to our consciousness & powers which we could never acquire on any plane, unless we had spent the necessary time on this. But why do people bother about evil? There is plenty of good in the world, and it is better to think of that, for your thought strengthens that of which you think. To think & talk so much about black magicians unquestionably attracts their attention to you, and the results are often exceedingly undesirable." To end with a vague quote from Hoeller's Ojai lectures on Alchemy. The black period along the path to the Philosopher's Stone is a difficult one, but it's a very creative time. Hoeller at one point states that "black" often has a negative connotation for us, and mentions in passing that at times the connotation is racially biased. I guess that's why we talk about "African- Americans" today. I don't know what kind of bias it is to talk negatively about Stephan Hoeller. Well, that's my contribution. For what it's worth. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 30 Sep 1994 17:09:09 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: 1900 Letter It has recently struck me that in my work in progress I need to include, and comment on, the letter from K.H. received by Annie Besant in 1900. (Allegedly from K.H., one might add, as many Theosophists reject its authenticity and many non-Theosophists reject ALL alleged K.H. letters). I will post it here, and ask for any comments about what you all make of it. Later will provide my own thoughts. But at the moment they are pretty undeveloped. Here it is: A psychic and pranayamist who has got confused by the vagaries of the members. The T.S. and its members are slowly manufacturing a creed. Says a Thibetan proverb "credulity breeds credulty and ends in hypocrisy." How few are they who can know anything about us. Are we to be propitiated and made idols of. Is the worship of a new Trinity made up of the Blessed M. Upasika and yourself to take the place of exploded creeds. We ask not for the worship of ourselves. The disciple should in no way be fettered. Beware of an Esoteric Popery. The intense desire to see Upasika reincarnate at once has raised a misleading Mayavic ideation. Upasika has useful work to do on higher planes and cannot come again so soon. The T.S. must safely be ushered into the new century. You have for some time been under deluding influences. Shun pride, vanity and love of power. Be not guided by emotion but learn to stand alone. Be accurate and critical rather than credulous. The mistakes of the past in the old religions must not be glossed over with imaginary explanations. The E.S.T. must be reformed so as to be unsectarian and creedless as the T.S. The rules must be few and simple and acceptable to all. No one has a right to claim authority over a pupil or his conscience. Ask him not what he believes. All who are sincere and pure minded must have admittance. The crest wave of intellectual advancement must be taken hold of and guided into spirituality. It cannot be forced into beliefs and emotional worship. The essence of the higher thoughts of the members in their collectivity must guide all action in the T.S. and E.S. We never try to subject to ourselves the will of another. At favourable times we let loose elevating influences which strike various persons in various ways. It is the collective aspect of many such thoughts that can give the correct note of action. We show no favours. The best corrective of error is an honest and open-minded examination of all facts subjective and objective. Misleading secrecy has given the death blow to numerous organizations. The cant about "Masters" must be silently but firmly put down. Let the devotion and service be to that Supreme Spirit alone of which one is a part. Namelessly and silently we work and the continual references to ourselves and the repetition of our names raises up a confused aura that hinders our work. You will have to leave a good deal of your emotions and credulity before you become a safe guide among the influences that will commence to work in the new cycle. The T.S. was meant to be the cornerstone of the future religions of humanity. To accomplish this object those who lead must leave aside their weak predilections for the forms and ceremonies of any particular creed and show themselves to be true Theosophists both in inner thoughts and outward observance. The greatest of your trials is yet to come. We watch over you but you must put forth all your strength. K.H. About a quarter of this was suppressed when the letter was published in the 1930s. The entire letter was published only in 1987, first by the Eclectic Theosophist and then by Theosophical History. In about 3 days I will come back with some thoughts on this and hopefully others will by then have already done so. One comment, though-- IMHO whether or not it is "legitimate" in terms of being precipitated by the real K.H., this letter is absolutely authentic good advice. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 30 Sep 1994 18:57:26 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Concerning the Dark Brotherhood, Etc. This is by Eldon Tucker ---- Concerning The Dark Brotherhood, Etc. Jerry Schueler: I'm willing to keep an open mind on the topic until we further explore it, and I can read and think more about it myself. It is not a topic that I've given much thought to in the past. I may even dig up a few quotes in a subsequent posting on the topic. Regarding the Left-Hand Path: Your description of the term "Left-Hand Path" as coming from tantricism may be most accurate in terms of its origin, as a reference to the practice of sexual magic with a physical partner. I don't think this is how the term is used in theosophical literature. The early theosophical writers had to coin their own terminology, borrowing from what they had at hand. Some of their terms could have been better chosen, like "races". The terms were sometimes given *new* meanings. It would be misleading to read theosophical books and apply popular meanings to the terms, when it is clear by their usage that they refer to something different. The theosophical terms are used to refer to more- than-one thing, and it is necessary to understand the context of writing in order to pick out the proper meaning. This is both because of a lack of a rich language to draw upon for terms, as well as a way to veil esoteric truths from all but those with the eyes to see what is there. When we read a book, we don't understand its contents until we know the meanings intended for the words used. Here's an example that I've come across. Following is a quote showing the usage of "Left-Hand Path" in a different sense than sexual magic: "Of course we cannot crush out of our being the sense of selfhood, nor is that desirable; but in the lowest aspect it takes upon itself the forms of all selfishness, until the being of the man who follows the 'left-hand path', as they call it, or the path downwards, ends in what the early Christians-- stealing from the Greeks--called Tartarus, the place of disintegration." (G. de Purucker, Fundamentals, 1st ed, p. 32) Regarding Lost Souls We all have days that are a total waste, where nothing was accomplished at all. There is the possibility of lifetimes like this too. But when we speak of accomplishing nothing at all, it means that the higher principles were entirely dormant in that lifetime, that there was not the slightest essence or aroma of the higher to be extracted from the dross of personal existence. The experience of the lifetime was real. It happened. It exists in eternity. But in terms of the process of evolution, and in terms of the purpose of existence, nothing was gained. The life was spent entirely centered in the personality, with every higher sentiment excluded. There was nothing of value to retain from the life. From the standpoint of the higher, spiritual nature, it was a time where he "blacked out," and there are no memories to retain. Pratyeka-Buddhas They have not gone against the order of things. Their link with their higher natures has not been broken. Like the rest of us, they have been impelled to evolve into matter in the search of the Treasure of Self-Consciousness. Along the way, though, they've become "tired", and want out for a while. By prematurely attaining Nirvana, before completing their human evolution, they have postponed their final, true liberation, which results from the completion of material evolution. They will have to resume their human evolution, either when humanity catches up with them, perhaps in the Sixth Round, or in the next "school year" (Planetary Manvantara). I see two balancing forces in life. First might be called Divine Tanha, the primordial urge to seek material existence in order to acquire further Self- Consciousness. The second involves the seeking of liberation from material existence, the desire to return to the perfection and peace that resides in the core of our being. The first is the energy that drives our personal *evolution.* The second the energy driving our personal *involution.* The dynamic tension between these two forces allows us to function appropriately in life, be we manifest and active in the world, or unmanifest and in the inactivity of a personal Liberation from outer life. For the Pratyeka-Buddhas, the sense of Divine Tanha has weakened, and a craving for a premature Liberation or Nirvana is engendered. Eventually the proper balance of the two forces is reestablished, and the Pratyeka-Buddha resumes his evolution in the Human Kingdom. In the ultimate sense, the Nirvanic state is as "not real" as material existence. They are both cyclic experiences. You cannot have a sense of liberation without a contrasting sense of something to be liberated from. The ultimate Reality is to be found in yet a higher consciousness than the Nirvanic, one that is untouched by the changing nature of our experiences from moment-to-moment in time, one that transcends the duality of manifest and unmanifest life. I'd use "not important" rather than "not real" to describe the Pratyeka-Buddha's feelings about other sentient beings in material worlds, still suffering. The feeling might be more like "this activity is not worth bothering with" because of an intense longing for the other activity, for Nirvanic bliss. When we speak of a Bodhisattva postponing his Nirvana, and staying behind to help sentient beings achieve their liberation, we need to carefully think about what it means. A Monad has projected itself, a Ray of its consciousness, into a material world for the purpose of acquiring additional Self-Consciousness. It is there engaged in that task. That effort is self-initiated, and not done for him from outside, not done for him by others. We are not trying to hurry and get everyone back into Nirvana as quickly as possible, as though our manifest existence were a transitory evil that must be overcome for the commencement of real life! There is a purpose for life, and we must get to work to accomplish it. Fulfilling our purpose in life represents the highest good for ourselves and others. We have taken on material existence in order to acquire a special type of consciousness. Our experiences in life allow us to "harvest" this consciousness. Let's not rush out of the Autumnal fields, leaving the crops behind, unharvested, in order to more-quickly relax at home, in front of a warm fireplace. Now how does the Bodhisattva fit in with all this? He can't "harvest" new consciousness for us. But in continuing to live, in continuing to exist, his "karmic web" affects all of us. He provides for us the opportunity to interact with someone experienced in the harvest, someone successful with his spiritual involution, someone who knows the sublime value of raising our consciousness deep within and bridging the deepest sleep of all, the transition from Being into Non-Being, from manifest into unmanifest. Although we cannot do things for other people, we affect them by our interactions with them, and by our very existence. To enter Nirvana means we stop animating our "karmic web" and our unique contribution to the world is no longer felt, for a time, until we come into existence again and animate it again. Dark Brotherhood vs White Brotherhood Before we discuss this much, I'd like to ask a few questions. How deeply-rooted do you consider this duality? Would it be all the way to the WB rooted in Parabrahman, and the DB in Mulaprakriti, with a dualistic Boundless All, one side good and the other evil? (I find it hard to agree with such a fundamental dualism.) Do you see the WB as having sway over subplanes 1 to 4, and the DB over subplanes 4 to 7? Do you consider only Globe D as the place of overlapping influence? Do you consider DB as the *effect* on us of the WB of a lower world, or as a truly evil hierarchy? Where would I go to read more about the equal and opposing status of the DB? I'd like to hear what you have to say, and read a bit more, before writing a lot on the subject. Relative Status of Black Magicians, and Regarding the Nature of Good and Evil Spirituality Will discuss in a later message.