From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 3 Oct 1994 01:02:03 -0400 From: jcoker@eis.calstate.edu (Jessica L. Coker) Subject: Comparing ideas Sun Oct 2 This is from Nancy To Jerry S: Thanks for your all your comments. Particularly your description of the Pratyeka Buddha I am curious about a comment you made about the Tibetan Buddhist vision of the 6 realms one could be reborn in. You wrote < HPB also describes these six realms, almost as if she believed in it.> I am trying to understand the TB idea of the after death bardos and the 6 realms. Do you remember where she wrote about it? I have all the indexes so can look it up if you can narrow it down to which books to look in. Thanks. Regarding the after death states, the Tib Bud have a very different perspective on them than we do -- theirs being that it is a powerful opportunity to reach enlightenment. Have you any thoughts that might bridge the two? Why might they be so different? I was also a little troubled by their idea of being reborn 49 days after death. As we all live on earth, but each find it a different world, I imagine experiences in the after death states may be too subjective to translate to the living . . . On a different note -- I too left the Christian Science Church. Their insistence that everything was good simply ignored and denied much of the universe. Thank you for the quote from the Sanatana Dharma regarding the measure used in Ethics. I have always felt that much of what is called evil today, might have been appropriate behavior when we were on the downward arc, and the habits we built then -- which were life affirming then, are so strong they are with us still, but are now life/spirit denying. In addition to the importance of motive, is the importance of time. The value of this perspective IMHO is that behavior and perspectives that are appropriate, positive, and good today, must constantly be reviewed in their future context, lest we miss the turn around point (the low point on the arc) and ignorantly do evil and blissfully imagine we do good. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 3 Oct 1994 22:35:49 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Ojai and LA Lodge This is by Eldon Tucker ---- Ojai Lecture Brenda and I attended the opening lecture to the Krotona School at Ojai. Houston Smith gave a talk on comparative religions. He made two interesting points that stand out in my mind that I would share. 1. Regarding Fundamentalism Despite its many bad qualities, there are some good aspects to it. One quality is a total conviction, a unshakable belief in the spiritual. This is something lacking in a more-liberal point of view. This conviction is needed to lead a truly-religious life. 2. Regarding Oral Versus Written Traditions When he takes someone on a tour of the University of California library system at Berkeley, there are hundreds of thousands of books, if not more. There's knowledge on almost anything if one can find it. But there's no sign that says "this is the way to what's important!" There's nothing to tell us where to go, where to find the books that are valuable to us to read. In a society where there's only an oral tradition, they have something special. People meet nightly around the campfire and the elders retell the important stories. There is always a selection of what is important. The unimportant stories are told less often, and disappear after time from society's memory. The important stories live on. Celebration of Los Angeles Lodge The Los Angeles branch of the T.S. [Adyar] is 100 years old this year. It was chartered June 8, 1894, as the "Harmony Lodge". It was the third oldest Adyar T.S. lodge, until the Canadian Section was expelled, along with the Toronto Lodge, founded in 1891. The lodge had a celebration dinner for its members, and Jerry Hejka-Ekins, a former President, attended, and give a short talk on the history of the first ten years of the Lodge. Jerry told a number of interesting stories that we may, hopefully, read about later on, when perhaps published by Theosophical History magazine. There were two interesting historic facts mentioned in the talk. (1) The "Judge Split" where the American Section parted from the Theosophical Society in 1895 was not intended to be a split. The American Section voted to be an autonomous section of the T.S. Col. Olcott refused to recognize the autonomy, and choose to interpret it as succession, and expelled the Section, the Lodges, and all the individual members. The Section, Lodges, and members did not quit or resign, they were expelled for daring to choose, at a national level, their independence from the central rule of Adyar. (This is different than the German split, later on, where R. Steiner and most of that Section intentionally quit the T.S. to form their own organization.) (2) The Los Angeles lodge was one of those thereby expelled. Unlike most of the expelled lodges, which immediately voted to remain with Judge's national organization, it remained neutral for a number of years. By the time that Katherine Tingley was closing all the Judge lodges in order to draw the entire support of her T.S. towards helping build the Point Loma community, the Los Angeles lodge had realigned itself with Adyar and was considered part of it again. There was a period of a few years during which the lodge was in limbo, being expelled from Adyar but not officially joining Judge's society. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 00:28:06 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Theosophists and Buddhism This is by Eldon Tucker Following are some interesting quotes from G. de Purucker, taken from "Fundamentals of the Esoteric Philosophy," 1st ed. ---- Theosophists and Buddhism [Buddhism is] "the most spiritual of all religions ... There is no exoteric doctrine belonging to the great *ancient* world-religions which is intrinsically false. The fact is that the exoteric teaching *is* the truth, but it needs a key in order to explain it; and without the key it actually can be, and usually is, misunderstood and misinterpreted, and degraded .." "Are we *Buddhists?* No. Not more so than we are *Christians,* except perhaps in this sense, that the religious philosophy of the Buddha-Sakyamuni is incomparably nearer to the Ancient Wisdom, The Esoteric Philosophy. Its main fault today is that its later teachers carried its doctrines too far along merely formal or exoteric lines; and yet with all that, and to this day, it remains the purest and holiest of the exoteric religions on earth, and its teachings even exoterically are true. They need but the esoteric key in interpretation of them. As a matter of fact, the same may be said of all the great ancient World-religions. Christianity, Brahmanism, and others, all have the same exoteric Wisdom behind the outward veil of the exoteric formal faith." (p. 190) [There are] "three grades of member of the Theosophical Movement. First, the members of the Theosophical Society, who are neither Theosophists nor Occultists necessarily, but who are those who so greatly admire our broad and universal platform, who are so much in sympathy with the ideal which Theosophy sets forth, that they have thrown in their low with us, and work with us. The second class comprises the Theosophists, that is to say, those who are more than mere members of the Theosophical Society; they are those who study the particular and certain doctrines which in our time have ben called Theosophical, and which represent the 'Eye- Doctrine,' ... the publication for the public weal of certain chosen and specified doctrines of Occultism, fit for public dissemination in our age. Lastly, the third class is ourselves, those who belong to our own hold Order, who have given themselves in a larger, in a deeper, and in a more heartful degree than the other two classes of us have done, to that sublime Wisdom." (p. 430) "We are the outmost rank or ring of that Buddhist Hierarchy of Compassion ... we may become faithful transmitters and manifestors of the divine streams from that supernal source. When we can transmit these in their native crystalline purity, when our minds become transmitters so limpid and clear, so high in their aspirations and so unadulterate in their natures that we can consciously receive and pass on these life-giving streams, the streams of understanding from the fountain of the Universal Life, then indeed we are saviors of men." (p. 536) "Occultism is the exposition of the essence of life, of the essence of being, and of the essence of living. Let us never confuse it with the so-called 'occult arts,' arts which are strictly forbidden to us as students of this School. The Brothers of the Shadow lead on their helpless victims with the occult arts, enticing them thereby, and their end is non- entity. But our Masters, our Teachers, have told us plainly: first learn discipline, first learn the Law. Then the powers which you may crave, you will crave only as spiritual powers, and only to give yourself and them to others. In the Path, our Path, the so-called 'occult arts' drop away even from the imagination, because their deluding enticements and their allurements are clearly seen." (p. 326) "As said to us so many times, the two paths lie always at our feet; at every step they diverge, one to the right and one to the left; and one single act may induce a habit, which will make a character, in time, by repetition; and that character is you or I, for it is the exercise of knowledge (or half- knowledge) and will." (p. 432) "It is for these reasons that our beloved Teacher" [Katherine Tingley] "has instructed me time and again to refer to the necessity of understanding clearly what we mean by morals, and that there is the utmost need for their practice by each one of us, by you and by me, every moment of our lives." (p. 432) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 02:44:35 -0400 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: Re: Ojai and LA Lodge eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) writes: > The Los Angeles branch of the T.S. [Adyar] is 100 > years old this year. It was chartered June 8, 1894, as > the "Harmony Lodge". It was the third oldest Adyar T.S. > lodge, until the Canadian Section was expelled, along > with the Toronto Lodge, founded in 1891. This isn't a competition, but for your information, two or three of the Adyar lodges in New Zealand had their individual centenaries in the past few years, e.g. Wellington lodge was founded in 1889. The New Zealand Section didn't come onto the scene until a few years later, but there are many lodges around the world which sprang into life soon after 1875, and have been in continuous existence since then. Paul Gillingwater From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 09:59:05 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: 1900 Letter Since the subject evoked no signs of interest, I will not be posting further material on it. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 15:40:07 -0400 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: clarification re L.A. Lodge Paul Gillingwater, PG> This isn't a competition, but for your information, two or > three of the Adyar lodges in New Zealand had their individual > centenaries in the past few years, e.g. Wellington lodge was > founded in 1889. The New Zealand Section didn't come onto the > scene until a few years later, but there are many lodges around > the world which sprang into life soon after 1875, and have been > in continuous existence since then. Just a note of clarification: I had specified that the Los Angeles Branch (Harmony Lodge) was one of the three oldest Lodges in *North America*. The oldest still active charter is the Minneapolis Lodge (1888), followed by Toronto Lodge (1891). The Canadian Section was recently expelled from the Adyar Society, and now exists as an independent Theosophical Society. This leaves the Minneapolis and Los Angeles Lodges. I am sure that older Lodges exist around the world, and I would be very interested in hearing about any historical information concerning them. As long as I'm making clarifications, the Los Angeles Lodge remained neutral for a period of time, after Olcott had canceled its Charter in 1895, but the Lodge was working in cooperation with the American Section (Adyar) under Alexander Fullerton by 1897. This was the year Katherine Tingley became "Leader" of The Theosophical Society, leaving E.T. Hargrove to leave and hold his own convention thus forming The (Hargrove) Theosophical Society. The Temple of the People was also formed that year. A lot of members abandoned the Theosophical Society in America (Judge), and returned to the Adyar Society after Judge's death in 1896, and there were further losses when K.T. became Leader in 1897. In 1904, K.T. closed the Lodges that remained Loyal to the Judge line. This is why there are so few nineteenth century charters in North America. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 19:08:52 -0400 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: 1900 Letter "K. Paul Johnson" writes: > 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 190 > (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 Please don't interpret lack of response for lack of interest in my case (although it's certainly understandable.) This is a letter in which I have had considerable interest for some years, and I had been looking for a copy of it - it's hard to come by. SO thanks for typing it in. I was taking some time to consider a response. My feeling is that it has the ring of truth, and it's advice is good. Probably Krishnamurti really popped the theosophical balloon "the theosophical Popery" referred to. Although maybe he went too far. Sometimes I wonder if he wasn't assigned this task... It's interesting because it seems to be the last published letter after HPB disappeared from the scene (someone correct me if I'm wrong.) Also it is apparently objective and does not support any one's position, which might have had some ego involvement. Therefore I would tend to think it to be genuine. > A psychic and pranayamist who has got confused by the vagaries > of the members. This first bit always confused me. The T.S. and its members are slowly > manufacturing a creed. I am afraid that this has happened. Although less so these days with the "demise" of CWL and co. But still, theosophy still serves the function of a religion to many of its members. Says a Thibetan proverb "credulity > breeds credulty and ends in hypocrisy." Don't know what this means. How few are they who > can know anything about us. Why is that? > creeds. We ask not for the worship of ourselves. This sounds genuine. The disciple > should in no way be fettered. Ah, the beauty of being aligned with the GWB, compared to the Brothers of the Dark Face, who would dictate every action! > love of power. Be not guided by emotion but learn to stand > alone. Be accurate and critical rather than credulous. Certain parts of the ts remain very devotional in character. Many of us would also like to believe in the fantastic and miraculous. However, the truth can actually sometimes be more unbelievable than the ordinary everyday world. The > mistakes of the past in the old religions must not be glossed > over with imaginary explanations. I rather suspect they might in part be talking about the Liberal Catholic church here. May be we are too accepting of some aspects of many traditional religions, which may have elements of superstition, or just be plain wrong. > must be few and simple and acceptable to all. No one has a > right to claim authority over a pupil or his conscience. There it is again - freedom of thought. WOnderful, isn't it? > must have admittance. The crest wave of intellectual > advancement must be taken hold of and guided into > spirituality. The ts has failed in this. > 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. A favourite part. Actually, I think it has been put down, by and large. Not least, by Krishnaji. > 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. Interesting. Maybe we shouldn't talk about Them at all. > cycle. The T.S. was meant to be the cornerstone of the future > religions of humanity. Interesting. This could come to pass, but not necessarily directly via the ts. I think people are starting to take those parts of religions which appeal to them (in industrialized Western countries, anyway), and leave the rest. The result could be a kind of universalization of religion, with certain themes in common with the ts remaining e.g. unity and brotherhoo. 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 Uh oh - a dig at the comasons, perhaps? > observance. The greatest of your trials is yet to come. We > watch over you but you must put forth all your strength. What might this be, I wonder... Krishnamurti perhaps? ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 23:40:29 -0400 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: After-Death States Nancy< I am curious about a comment you made about the Tibetan Buddhist vision of the 6 realms one could be reborn in. You wrote < HPB also describes these six realms, almost as if she believed in it.> I am trying to understand the TB idea of the after death bardos and the 6 realms. Do you remember here she wrote about it? I have all the indexes so can look it up if you can narrow it down to which books to look n. Thanks.> HPB gives the six "objective modes of existence" as Devas, Men, Asauras, Men in Hell, pretas, and animals, and she defines pretas as "devouring demons on earth." You can find this list on page 106 of THE INNER GROUP TEACHINGS. She also lists 7 esoteric modes on the same page. A good description of the six realms can be found in all three versions of the Tibetan Book of the Dead. See p 29 of the new version by Robert A.F. Thurman, for example. He has: hell, the "pretans" or hungry ghosts, humans, animals, asauras or titans, and the gods or devas. HPB mentions all of these throughout her writings, but gives us precious little detail. For the details, we must consult the Tibetans themselves. Here is a good account of these realms: "Do these realms actually exist externally? They may, in fact, exist beyond the range of the perception of our karmic vision... Looking at the world around us, and into our own minds, we can see that the six realms definitely do exist. They exist in the way we unconsciously allow our negative motions to project and crystallize entire realms around us, and to define the style, form, flavor, and context of our life in those realms. And they exist also inwardly as the different seeds and tendencies of the various negative emotions within our psycho- physical system, always ready to germinate and grow, depending on what influences them and how we choose to live." (Sogyul Rinpoche, THE TIBETAN BOOK OF LIVING AND DYING, pp 112-113) By the way, Sogyul Rinpoche's book (considered a New Age Best Seller) is outstanding, and if you haven't read it yet, I strongly recommend it. I apologize for my 'tongue in cheek' quip that "HPB also describes these six realms, almost as if she believed in it." Of course she believed it. Its just that almost no theosophical writer after her has written much about these realms. The story of how they fit into the Gupta Vidya Model, for example, is interesting, but beyond my ability to present here. Actually, the six realms of Buddhism make as much sense as the Lokas and Talas of Hinduism. One big difference between the theosophical view and the Tibetan view has to do with the fact that the Tibetans believe that we can go to any of these realms and that we do, in fact, go in and out of them depending on our karma. Even H.H. the Dali Lama states that we can enter the animal kingdom in a future life. This is transmigration, and HPB was definitely against it. Perhaps this is why theosophists have down- played the six kingdoms. Nancy Actually, the Tibetan teaching is in very good accord with the theosophical teaching concerning the after-death states. The teaching that death "is a powerful opportunity to reach enlightenment" is generally accepted in the yoga community (excluding hatha, or pure physical yoga), not just by Tibetans. In fact, G de P refers to this on page 807 of THE ESOTERIC TRADITION where he says that immediately following death, "the higher part of the Ego is then indrawn back and up into the Spiritual Monad." He then goes on to talk about Devachan, but Devachan only comes about because of the missed opportunity of the indrawing of the Ego into the Spiritual Monad. Here theosophy and Tibetan Buddhism use different words, but both are saying exactly the same thing. If we die while our consciousness is focused in our higher Ego (i.e., in Samadhi), then we will see the "Clear Light" of the Tibetans and reach enlightenment. I have carefully compared the Bardo Thodol with the theosophical teachings and have found a remarkable similarity. Nor am I the only one - see LETTERS TO A DYING FRIEND, by Anton Grosz, Quest Books. For various reasons, most theosophical writers and leaders have not emphasized the opportunity of death for spiritual advancement. I don't know of any, however, who have said that it wasn't true. As to the 49 days, remember that 49=7x7. The number is symbolic. Each "day" in the Bardo Thodol is simply a separate phase of the after- death state. But people, being what they are, wanted to know "yeah, but how long does it take?" So, as with all things written, the esoteric became the exoteric, and yes, some people have a literal interpretation of the Bardo Thodol. But the number of days was originally intended to be symbolic of the number of phases or stages that we all go through. Nancy < As we all live on earth, but each find it a different world, I imagine experiences in the after death states may be too subjective to translate to the living . . .> Yes. Imagine that you are in a pre-birth state with a good friend who is about to take birth on Earth. Your friend asks you, "What will life on Earth in a physical body be like?" How would you answer? No one answer is likely to cover all of the possibilities. The same is true with the after-death states. Nancy Yes. G de P outlines this very well. What is good and what is evil depends on our situation in both time and space. Hope that this helps some. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 23:42:33 -0400 From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: answer to Jerry S's 9-27-94 Hi, Jerry, You don't know how nice it is to be able to talk theosophese once more. It's been a good 5 years since I moved away from NJ, & longer since I was part of a study center there. There are no Theosophists in Syracuse that I know of. Plenty of interest in New Age matters, because of Syracuse U. We have a well stocked esoteric book store, & several health food stores. I wish we had a "Fresh Fields" supermarket as well. There's 1 near my son, Bob, in Va., & it's a joy. I don't care much for the Syracuse snow either, but I have family here, & had none anymore in NJ., so I decided to move up here. I love living at Summerfield. I feel very sheltered & very safe here .. so as long as the management doesn't change, I'm sticking to Syracuse. I've been to Aberdeen, but it was a very long time ago. I visited for a day or so in connection with working for Army Chemical Warfare in New York City. I wanted to comment on several things you brought up, & also ask you 2 questions. The comment concerns this business of "deliberately being ethical in order to accumulate better Karma, to have a better time in the next life." Further on you say "Theosophists are taught not to expect rewards for their actions." I agree with both, of course. My way of dealing with the latter is to do something, & then just go on to the next thing. But sometimes I wonder whether what I did was right, & sometimes I back track to find out what happened (& it's not always just to learn whether I did the right thing so I can do better next time.) I don't claim to be perfect. Being ethical, I think must come from within to be genuine. I think most of the motivation is connected with our ideal of Universal Bortherhood. You wouldn't deliberately hurt or pull one over on a respected & beloved fellow human being... also you just are ethical because it feels right. But I'm just now wondering whether as a way of becoming ethical from within, whether as a teaching method you couldn't start consciously imposing ethics on your thoughts & actions, with the motive of learning it, if it's something you felt you needed to improve on. I wonder whether after a while this would work out to your being ethical from within. But this method, if it works, would be for adult self-training. I'm not sure how I would teach a kid. By example, & by saying "listen I want you to do it this way... because". Do you think that's better than carrot & stick? How would you teac..... ? It's funny, your idea-picture of the beautiful lotus with its roots in the mud is different from mine. Each is valid. You think of the beautiful lotus as coming out of "the dirty mud". Never occurred to me that mud is dirty - which it is - I pictured it as messy but creative. Which brings me to a question. I think someone on the List wrote that Christian Scientists believe in always looking at the bright side. Theosophists do that too. Whenever someone is ill, people send healing,... you hear very little talk about their illness. CWL says it reinforces negative thought forms Serge King believes in blessing as much as possible ie saying & thinking nice things about others... like stroking. He gave 2 examples of when he couldn't think of anything nice to say. He said he blessed his lawyer's ability for getting his goat, & a desperation blessing was "when he exhales he nourishes Nature." I don't know. Sometimes you have to say & think untoward things. But it doesn't make anybody feel good. How do you feel about this? I'd really like to know because I'm very undecided. The other question I'd love to discuss is alternate health ways as against allopathic. What kinds of health care solutions have you found for yourself, & your family? I've been going to a homeopath & a chiropractor for a number of years now, even though my insurance pays for prescription drugs but not for homeopathic remedies. They'll pay for a chiropractor till September of each year, & not at all for the homeopath because he doesn't have the right credentials. I have a chronic conditions, which I thought was getting out of hand lately, so for the past week I've been trying something allopathic my regular MD prescribed. It is said to have very little side effects. So far, it hasn't been very helpful either. I'm really undecided about continuing it. I still believe the mystique about the powerful MD, because that's what I grew up with, even though several times now, I've found out that what the homeopath & the chiropractor do works just as well, sometimes better. To end with a quote from a cute cartoon I recently saw in a flyer from "Lotus" magazine. Him & her are sitting on the couch, watching TV., & the captions is:"It's 10 o'clock. Do you know where your mind is?" Best Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 11:13:29 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: 1900 letter Since Astrea posted a response, I will go ahead and give my own, with the DISCLAIMER!!!! that no one is expected to accept or believe anything I say, that this is a very rough draft, that I'm not out to convict anyone of anything, that I need to take a course in historical research...(fill in the blank). Now-- the authenticity of this letter has not been widely discussed to my knowledge. Leslie Price, in reprinting it, pointed out that there was something here to offend everyone: the Judge lineage Theosophists because AB shouldn't have gotten ANY letters from KH, the Adyar Theosophists because it criticizes everything not only that was going on at the time but that would be happening for the next 30 years in the TS, the deniers of KH's existence because the letter appeared years after HPB's death, etc. I think the authenticity of the letter is closely connected to the issue of the correctness of Olcott's views of the Masters and their relation with the TS. After the Hodgson report, HPB blamed Olcott for wanting to distance himself from publicity about the Masters. In a letter in her handwriting, but signed KH (apparently notes from an astral conversation), HPB wrote "the Society has liberated itself from our grasp and influence" due to Olcott's policy which saved the body of the TS but "allowed through sheer fear, to [sic] its soul to escape, and it is now a soulless corpse, a machine run so far well enough, but which will fall to pieces when he is gone" since "it is no longer a brotherhood, nor a body over the face of which broods the Spirit from beyond the Great Range." Not only in the ULT, Pasadena and Point Loma factions but even in the Adyar TS, the view that Olcott had wronged HPB and misled the TS has been accepted. This may be partly due to a letter he received on board the Shannon in August 1888 en route to London. This was the year the ES was created, and Olcott was totally opposed to this development, as well as to other actions by HPB which he saw as interference in the TS. In this letter KH warned HSO that his "revolt...against her infallibility-- as you once thought it-- has gone too far and you have been unjust to her...with occult matters she has everything to do (underlined). We have NOT abandoned her; she is OUR DIRECT AGENT. I warn you against permitting your suspicions and resentments against "her many follies" to bias your intuitive loyalty to her." In Jinarajadasa's commentary on this letter, he defends the ES and explains that the letter sufficed to modify the Colonel's opposition to it. He adds that "it was not, however, till 1908 that the T.S. fully regained its original position, with the Masters of the Wisdom as once more the `First Section' of the Society." (All these quotes are in Letters from the Masters of the Wisdom, First Series). So the gist of these two letters is that HPB was right and Olcott wrong in virtually everything related to the Masters and the TS after the Hodgson report. Moreover, according to Jinarajadasa, it will not until 1908, the year Leadbeater was invited back into the TS, that the Masters received their proper acclaim and were placed back into the forefront of Theosophical propaganda. This looks like HPB, KH, Annie, Leadbeater and Jinarajadasa all ganging up on Olcott for wanting to deemphasize the Masters. And he has indeed pretty much been the odd man out in terms of posthumous esteem. But throwing a wrench into this wonderful consensus is the 1900 letter, which echoes virtually point for point the policy that Olcott had been defending ever since HPB's death. In his 1892 annual address, the President-Founder said "I do especially protest against and denounce a tendency which is growing among us to lay the foundations of a new idolatry...I protest against the first giving way to the temptation to elevate either them, their agents, or any other living or dead personage to the divine status, or their teachings to that of infallible doctrine. Not one word was ever spoken, transmitted, or written to me by the Masters that warranted such a course, nay, that did not inculcate the very opposite. I have been taught to lean upon myself along, to look to my Higher Self...so long as you keep me in office, I shall proclaim this as the basis, the only basis and the palladium of the Society. I am led to make the above remarks by what I have seen going on of late..." ODL IV:427-8 Later in the same volume, Olcott writes that although the danger of creating a Blavatskyite sect had been averted, "let no one suppose that this vicious tendency towards hero-worship has been rooted out from our natures, for a new idol is being fashioned in the form of that dear, unselfish modest woman, Annie Besant." In volume V, he comments of Annie, "My praise of her is not tinged with blind impartiality. She is religious fervor and devotion personified, the ideal female devotee who in time evolves into the saint and martyr...H.P.B. and I had none of this love of worship in our constitutions...A more consistently religious woman I never met, nor one whose life is a more joyful self-sacrifice."(V:152-3) This is most of the background material I have collected for a discussion of the 1900 letter. That discussion will continue in a second post. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 12:39:02 -0400 From: mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com (Michael W. Grenier) Subject: Re: 1900 Letter Random thoughts: I find the letter to be fascinating. The following points, especially: 1. Ask him [those seeking entrance] not what he believes. 2. The essence of the higher thoughts of the members in their collectivity must guide all action in the T.S. and E.S. 3. It is the collective aspect of many such thoughts that can give the correct note of action. It is difficult for me to understand how one group first discerns what the collective higher thoughts are and then use them to guide all action with it developing into a creed. How do you collect the higher thoughts of the members without asking for their beliefs? (assuming one believes in one's thoughts) This goes back to the previous issues that we have discussed concerning how the society decides which books are appropiate for publication. Somehow, we must to some common beliefs as a society - perhaps, though, it is the process that counts and not the final beliefs. Still - is not the Secret Doctrine a document which discribes a set of beliefs? Or is it the Society's position that the Secret Doctrine represents the view of only one member? - yet I doubt that it would publish much in the way of opposing viewpoints. -Mike Grenier ---- Michael W. Grenier mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com 612-456-7869 Unisys - Air Traffic Control From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 12:41:55 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: 1900 letter The 1900 letter from KH was written in the margins of a letter to Besant from B. W. Mantri, an inquirer into Theosophy who lived in Bombay. Besant was in London at the time; the KH annotations to the Mantri letter were either a) made in Bombay before it was mailed b) added en route through some process normal or paranormal or c) added in London before Besant opened the letter. Mantri expressed confusion about the Society's tenets; thus KH's first remark commenting on him. What are the logical possibilities about its authorship? As far as I can see they are fourfold: 1) Someone deliberately perpetrating a fraud to deceive Besant, 2) KH directly precipitating his message onto the Mantri letter 3) A person believing himself to be in telepathic communication with KH conspiring with Mantri or someone else to present the Master's message in an impressive manner 4) Besant herself perpetrating a fraud. Of these, the last seems least likely; she would not have been inclined to participate in such a scheme in light of the highly unflattering comments about herself. If the second is true, it shows that Olcott's general attitude, so different from those of HPB, Besant, Leadbeater and many others, was at this point endorsed by the Master. In cases 1 and 3, the most likely suspect is the person whose own views were being promoted under the guise of Mahatmic intervention-- Olcott, acting alone or through confederates. If it were Olcott, I think option 3 more likely than 1. Having known KH, and occasionally believing himself in telepathic contact with adepts, Olcott would not have been likely to perpetrate an all-out fraud in the Master's name. All this is so speculative that I think it best left out of the book. I welcome other possibilities for consideration. If the message is genuine, does it necessarily imply that the two quoted in the earlier post-- KH to HPB, and KH to Olcott aboard the Shannon-- were fraudulent? No. In the intervening 12-14 years, circumstances may have changed sufficiently to cause KH to change his view-- HPB's death being of course the biggest change. As for comments on the text of the letter. The Tibetan proverb suggests to me that once people start believing "any old thing," their foolishness expands exponentially until it becomes inevitable that cynical deceivers take advantage of them. Quite applicable as a prophecy. What were the deluding influences? Leadbeater had been AB's closest advisor for six years at this time, and seems the only possible target of many of the warnings. Point by point, they refer not only to the direction in which he was guiding Annie at the time but the entire future course of their relationship, right up to the Krishnamurti debacle. Interestingly, if folks had heeded Olcott in 1892 the whole business could have been avoided. And if they had heeded this letter, ditto. As for leaving behind predilections for particular religions, this may well apply to Annie's championing of Hinduism. The LCC connection was many years in the future, but on the other hand KH did warn that "the greatest of your trials is yet to come." This letter is altogether one of the most fascinating mysteries of Theosophical history. I have to be careful to present it as such, and keep my tentative interpretations in the background. Any comments on what might be said about the letter are once again solicited. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 16:15:59 -0400 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: 1900 letter "K. Paul Johnson" writes: > The 1900 letter from KH was written in the margins of a letter > to Besant from B. W. Mantri, an inquirer into Theosophy who > lived in Bombay. Besant was in London at the time; the KH Thanks for your commentary on the letter. I, for one, found it very interesting. One of the many mysteries of the T.S. I might have some further comments to make later. I should say that I never completely close my mind to any possibility when matters such as this come up. There are often many ambiguities, and one can only really adopt "working hypotheses." There is always the possibility of fraud, but there is also always the possibility that the message was genuine. ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 23:50:05 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Lost Souls and Spiritual Evil This is by Eldon Tucker Lost Souls and Spiritual Evil [Consisting entirely of quotations from G. de Purucker, "Fundamentals of the Esoteric Philosophy," 1st ed.] "... if ... our thoughts are running downwards, and we wear away the ... 'golden thread' which binds us to our Higher Nature, ... at last the final rupture ... comes, and the soul becomes the 'lost soul' ..." (167- 68) "There are two classes of this kind of soul ... first ... those ... who through native weaknesses of soul and from lack of spiritual attraction upwards, go to pieces after a certain interval of time ..." "The monad of such a soul, meanwhile, there being nothing, no 'aroma' of aspiration or yearning upwards .. in due course of time 'reincarnates' again; and the 'lost soul' episode is like a blank page in its 'book of Lives.'" "Now the second class, and the worse by far, are those in which the soul is vitally strong. They are those who are *spiritually* evil, ... beings of spiritual wickedness and iniquity. One may wonder how it can come to pass that a being which has ruptured the Golden Thread can still have spiritual qualities or parts. That is one of the dark and solemn mysteries ..." (169) "Now, through many, many lives of spiritual evil- doing, these beings who have eventuated as 'lost souls' have built up through the intensity of their will a bank account, so to speak, of certain forces of nature, impulses of evil, of pure matter, running hot and strong. And while I say 'hot' I do not mean in the ordinary emotional sense, as when one speaks of the 'heat of passion'. All such passion is dead. Nay. But running hot like the fires of hell: revenge, hatred, and antagonism to anything that is highly good or nobly beautiful, and all such things. These impulses hare exist, and they have a spiritual source, for *they are degraded spiritual energies,* spirit fallen and crystallized into matter, so to speak. ... These beings can (and do), under certain conditions, go far lower: they enter the Lower Path, and go still farther down: and if the evil be strong enough in certain rare cases, their terrible destiny is what our Teachers have called an avichi-nirvana ... aeons of unspeakable misery, self- imposed, until final dissolution ensues,--and Nature knows them no more." (169) "... *Avichi* is a generalized term for places of evil realizations, but not of 'punishment' in the Christian sense; where the will for evil, and the unsatisfied evil longings for pure selfishness, find their chance for expansion--and final extinction of the entity itself." (169) "... There is no such nightmare as 'eternal suffering'. Those human beings who have forfeited their divine birthright, go to pieces, they lose their *personal entity;*" (184) "... Even spiritual evil exists; and there are high agents of 'spiritual wickedness', of which the Christian Apostle Paul has spoken, forming the opposite agencies to the high agents of good. The latter ones, agents of spiritual wickedness, are called by us the 'Brothers of the Shadow', and the others are called by us the 'Brothers of the Light'. The Brothers of the Shadow work in and with matter, for material and selfish purposes. The Brothers of the Light work in and with Nature for spirit, for impersonal purposes. They contrast one with another." "These two bodies represent two fundamental Paths in Nature, the one the Right-Hand Path, the other the Left, and are so called in the Ancient Occultism. The Sanskrit name for one, the 'Left-Hand Path', is *Pratyeka-Yana.* *Yana* means 'Path' or 'Road', and also 'Vehicle'; and we can translate *Pratyeka* in this connection by the paraphrase 'every one for himself'. Our first Teacher, H.P. Blavatsky, as you will well remember, has spoken of the Pratyeka-Buddhas, high and in one sense holy beings indeed, but craving spiritual wisdom, spiritual enlightenment, for themselves alone, selfishly, in indifference to the sorrow and pain of the world, yet so pure withal that they are actually Buddhas of a kind." "The other body follow the Path which in Sanskrit is called *Amrita-Yana,* the Immortal Vehicle or Path of Immortality." "The one, the former, is the path of the personality; the other, the latter, is the path of the individuality; the one is the path of matter; the other is the path of spirit; the one leads downward, the other Path loses itself in the ineffable glories of conscious immortality in 'eternity.'" (156) "We spoke ... of there being two classes of 'lost souls'. That is quite correct. But we must also point out that there are likewise two sub-divisions, in the second of these two classes, and these two sub-divisions of the second class are those who fully merit the old Christian term 'workers of spiritual iniquity'. The first sub-division comprise those who are commonly called conscious sorcerers; and the second comprise the same type of beings but include those who have reached such a point of inner power, yea, of *evil* spiritual strength, that they are able even to defeat Nature's call to dissolution for the entire term of the Manvantara. They merit truly the old mystic saying, 'workers of spiritual evil.'" (185-86) "The first sub-division comprises those who are annihilated when this globe goes into its 'obscuration'; but to the second subdivision belong they who are almost human incarnations of what the Tibetans called the *Lhamayin;* or sometimes they may even be overshadowed by the *Mamo-Chohans,* which preside at the Pralayas. The last, however, are not exactly 'devils' or evil entities, but rather beings whose destiny it is for the time in view to carry on the work of destruction, of desolation. As regards the higher spiritual sorcerers and workers of evil, the second sub-division, their final destiny is truly terrible, for there awaits them at the close of the Manvantara the *avichi-nirvana,* the absolute contrast and nether pole of the Nirvana of spirit; and then a Manvantara of unparalleled misery. They are the polar opposites of the Dhyan-Chohans. Final and utter annihilation is their end. Nature is bi-polar; and as is the action, so is the reaction." (186) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 23:52:02 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Step Out of the Dark This is by Eldon Tucker ---- Step Out of the Dark When the subject changes to evil, sorcerers, the Dark Brotherhood, and such things, do we feel a dreadful chill? Is there an uneasy feeling that something dark and fearful is waiting for us, once we've paid it some attention? This should *not* be the case! Should we dwell on evil and those working for it? No. But should we seek to understand it and it's place in the scheme of things? Yes, that's useful. The importance of good is realized by its contrast with the bad. We further appreciate the path of Holiness when we know where the path of selfishness leads us. Someone may have horrible dreams, nightmares, and even be afraid of the dark. I even knew one man, years ago, a member of the Salt Lake T.S. Study Center, whom was continually in fear of dark forces; he felt under constant psychic attack. Why does this happen? We need to learn to face evil, and not tremble in fear and flee from it, nor respond to it with anger, viewing the situation as good forces fighting bad forces. All sense of fear and the threatening nature of evil goes when we are rooted in *good* spirituality. Should we be afraid? Absolutely not! When we establish ourselves as firmly rooted in the spiritual, evil has no hold over us, and runs from us. Being rooted in the Spiritual, we manifest the Natural Order and our very nature hastens the predestined dissolution of evil beings, their Fear and horrid Fate! There is no sense of using the light to battle the darkness; rather, we *become* the light and the shadows disappear (hide from our sight). The disappearance of evil does not result from the denial of a dark side to life, repressing it into our unconscious. There is not an equally-valid evil side of consciousness that thereby becomes the qualities of our alter-ego, the shadow. Evil disappears as we become firmly rooted in the incorruptible, in the immortal, in the impersonal. We attain a wholeness that is not based upon embracing good and evil equally, and being indifferent to them. The wholeness means that we are clear to manifest the spiritual nature, and are firmly rooted in the One Life. We have attained a clarity of mind where we are unbiased by the structure and inclinations of our current personality. This loss of *bias* allows us to respond freshly to any situation in life. Unbiased and rooted in the highest, we see what is good and right to do. This is not a denial of evil in the world, nor of the results of the actions of evil people. And it is not painting everything in a stark black-and-white good-and- bad character. There are a multitude of shades of gray, and often no clear-cut right way to make a decision. Often, our only distinguishing factor in making a decision a particular way comes from our motivation. How do we distinguish the corruptible from the incorruptible? How do we tell the mortal from the immortal? How do we separate the personal from the impersonal? We might ask ourselves how we experience the situation. What is the viewpoint, the perspective, the perceived action and actor? Is the greatest good foremost in our consciousness, or is the emphasis on a greater sense of a separate self, a sense of us versus them, a sense of us versus the rest of the world? Is there a sense of rightness, fairness, and general principles at play, or just a sense of greed and personal acquisition? When we make decisions based upon the greater good, unbiased by self-interest, this does not, though, mean that we automatically choose to "do for others." Sometimes the greatest good is in our favor. The sense of impersonality comes from a lack of *bias* in the evaluation, in the clarity of vision, and not from the resulting decision. The greatest good, for instance, may be to kill plants for food, even though they might not wish to give up their lives. There are different ways that life appears, depending upon one's state of consciousness. Life is the same, and remains unchanged, although the apparent nature of things changes, as for instance, one shifts consciousness from ordinary waking consciousness to the Devachanic or Nirvanic experience. The same is true of the dualism of good versus evil. This duality appears as part of one's experience until one has become firmly, unshakably rooted in the *good* spiritual. This rootedness, this certainty, brings an experience of life where the evil side of things drops away. A psychologist might attempt to describe this "rootedness" as being possessed by an archetype. He might say that there is a weak and helpless person, with a puny personality, desperately clinging to something external as a crutch, as a substitute for his own personal maturity and strength. This idea might be voiced, but it is often a cry of "sour grapes" by psychologists unwilling or unable to move beyond the realm of the personality and embrace the Higher. We are required to rely on our personal strength. The need for self-direction and independence is greater as we approach the Path. But the basis of awareness is from a clear insight into the overall good, upon the real impact of our actions, a clear and penetrating ethical or buddhic consciousness. This rootedness is a natural thing, a solidarity with life, a conscious identification, relatedness, and awareness of our identity with the universal One Life. Although open to much criticism, Christian Fundamentalism is superior to skeptical science in this respect, because of the conviction in the reality of the spiritual and one's firm relationship to it. This is attained for them at the great price of rigidity of mind and lose of Reason and spiritual insight. That price, though, is not a natural consequence of identification with the Root. Science, on the other hand, has flexibility of mind and open inquiry into things, but pays the price of a loss of fundamental spirituality. The common believer in western science has lost the non-dualistic consciousness, and lives in a universe where both good and evil do battle, where they both exist, and there is no ultimate standard rising out of life itself. This viewpoint causes a gnawing doubt, an uncertainty, a skepticism, out of a self-imposed isolation from the awareness of the higher principles, Atma-Buddhi. There is a great sense of loneliness, of being alone in a big, empty, dark universe of Maya. The experience, though, is but one stage of development. We must take this self-imposed limitation to our awareness, this Ring-Pass-Not, and step beyond it into the light of universality. Life and the universe itself is a cooperative venture. We co-create it, in interaction with the rest of living things. Each of us, as Monads, projects a ray into matter and adds our own splash to the pond. In our experience of life, we may take our material existence too seriously, and forget our essential source. We may lose a sense of our rootedness in the One Life and experience the dualism of good and evil as battling forces. We don't, though, have to forget; and we can remember the essential unity and *good* spirituality that pervades and guides all things. Evil is like a mayavic, illusory shadow cast by an imperfect light, without a substantial nature of its own, and destined to destruction as the light perfects itself and becomes all-pervading. That happens as we become rooted in the incorruptible, and the corruptible about us becomes subject to dissolution. Let's pass through this Ring-Pass-Not and rebecome rooted in the Highest! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 6 Oct 1994 18:12:41 -0400 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Responses to Liesel Responses to Liesel's last posting: Liesel Actually, none of us are claiming to be perfect. Your method of dealing with ethics seems fine to me. Being ethical without thought for reward is a goal. It is something that we should be striving to reach. I doubt that any of us are there yet. Liesel Exactly my own feeling. This idea has been around for a very long time. For example, Bruno Borchert, writing about Gnostic mysticism says, "It was claimed that whoever had reached the Self, did the right thing automatically. Moral instruction was unnecessary." (MYSTICISM: ITS HISTORY AND CHALLENGE, 1994, Weiser, p 137. Thus the Gnostics too, taught that ethics should come from within - they should, eventually, be spontaneous and without thought for reward. I hear a lot about ethics and morals from theosophists, but very little on this important point (which, to me, is the big difference between theosophy and the world's religions). Liesel Exactly. We must all take the first step - we must develop ethics in our thinking throughout our everyday life. Then we take the second step, and try to be spontaneous about it. Really, all we need to do to go from step 1 to step 2 is to honestly question our motives. Most religious folks never get to step 2. In fact, most don't even know it exists. Hindus and Buddhists, or example, think it just fine to do good deeds in order to accumulate personal merit or good karma for themselves. Christians think that it is OK to do good deeds to get into heaven. The fact that what they are doing inflates their ego and is goal/reward seeking is OK with most people. However, most Adepts or Saints of virtually all religions have said at one time or another that we should not seek personal rewards for our ethical behavior. Theosophy also says this, but a lot of theosophists seem to be mystified about step 2. I can understand this from newcomers - those just beginning their theosophical studies. Older theosophists should know better. Again, I am not saying that anyone should already be at step 2 - only that it should be a goal to work toward. Liesel This is an extremely good question. My wife and I have wrestled with this one too. Her answer is the carrot and the stick. She says that Christianity makes it easier to teach children, because the reward/punishment approach works well with most children. Without a reward/punishment system of some kind, teaching children is very difficult. I tried the "by example" approach with my own children, but I am not sure how well that actually worked. The "golden rule" approach only works on children that are sensitive to others, and who already like themselves. For example, my foster daughter has very low self- esteem and almost no respect for authority or for adults. To tell her that she can do unto others as she would do to herself would be to invite disaster. But the "carrot and stick" approach doesn't do well with her either, and for the same reason. So we are teaching her about "consequences" of one's actions. Her behaviors have consequences and those things that she likes can be taken away, while those things she doesn't like can be given (a reward/punishment system by another name which seems to work, probably because it is not so obvious). At the same time, we are working to build up her self-esteem. I am of the opinion that my wife is probably right, a reward/punishment system or something close to it, is probably essential for children. Liesel Nancy wrote that Christian Scientists believe in always looking at the bright side. She is right. Christian Scientists believe that if your thinking is "right" (this is something equivalent to the right-thinking of Buddha's Eightfold Path) you will not experience anything "evil" or "wrong" or unpleasant. For example, if you are driving down the highway with a Christian Scientist, you may see an accident where someone is laying along the road, possibly in need of help. A Christian Scientist wouldn't see it (unless, of course, their thinking wasn't right). They believe firmly that all of the unpleasant aspects of life are an illusion (in this sense, I would say that a Christian Scientist is the modern equivalent of a would-be Pratyeka Buddha). They seek to raise their consciousness to a level where such things simply don't come into their experience (and I know from my own experience, that this is entirely possible, at least up to a point). Don't get me wrong here, they are very nice people. I was one for over 10 years and all of my family are strong members (I am now the family black sheep, for leaving the fold, so to speak. Mrs Eddy spoke as unpleasantly about theosophy, as HPB spoke about Christian Science.). My mother, father, and sister have been (my parents are now deceased) or are readers and church officials. My mother and sister were "trained" by taking what they call "class." Now taking "class" to a Christian Scientist is equivalent to a theosophist being in the esoteric section or ES. It gives them rank and status within the church community. It also, unfortunately, inflates their egos. This is probably one reason why the Pasadena TS abolished its ES, thus putting everyone back on an even level. When CWL says that right thinking reinforces thought forms, he is correct. There is no doubt in my mind about the power of positive (or negative) thinking, especially where physical health is concerned. But the Christian Science approach (which I call a magical approach) doesn't take karma into account at all. Healing must somehow account for one's karma. I agree with the idea that we should be loving and thoughtful toward others. But, once it dawns on us that universal brotherhood is a spiritual fact waiting for physical expression - we are our brothers keepers - then thinking positive about others is spontaneous and natural. Liesel Yes. This is because none of us are fully functional Adepts yet. We are all seekers. We are all treading the Path, and hopefully we will reach a point someday when we will no longer think "untoward things." Do you know where these "untoward" thoughts are coming to us from? They come from the Dark Brotherhood. As long as we are human beings, these thoughts will enter our minds. But, we can (and one day we will be able to) rebuke them and send them off without letting them feed on us or affect our actions. Liesel This is another good question. I have been told to look into acupuncture and other exotic things for my knees. I have RA in my joints. My left knee was swelled so bad I had to use a cane to get around. Several doctors looked at it (two said "ooohh, that looks baaad!" which didn't help me any). I quit using Christian Science (which does work, by the way, but at a price I was no longer willing to pay). I also refuse to use magic, for the same reason. Instead, I have decided to sit back and watch my karma play itself out. To a large extent, my problem revolves around the stress that I got at work. I retired last April, and my knee has already shrunk back to normal size (which is medically impossible, but it happened anyway and I have xrays to prove it). The arthritis is still effecting my muscles, though, so I still use a cane sometimes. But all considered, I am a lot better now simply by removing a lot of stress in my life. My family generally uses medical science. Hope this helps, Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 02:54:56 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: 1900 Letter According to Michael W. Grenier: > > It is difficult for me to understand how one group first > discerns what the collective higher thoughts are and then > use them to guide all action with it developing into a creed. As I read it, KH isn't advising coming up with some static view of what the members' thoughts are and then devising a master plan based upon that. Rather, at any given point in time, the action chosen should be based on the members' higher thoughts. (How many members would have voted to expel the Canadian Section?) In other words, maximize democracy in the TS and regularly solicit member opinion on initiatives taken. To some extent the Adyar TS is pseudo-democratic (not the American Section insofar as I have observed it but the international organization); other Theosophical bodies don't even pretend to value democratic methods. The general Theosophical approach is trickle-down rather than grassroots in terms of how members relate to leadership. The author of the letter was saying it was time to change that 94 years ago. > > How do you collect the higher thoughts of the members without > asking for their beliefs? (assuming one believes in one's > thoughts) > Ask him not what he believes was in reference to entry into the TS or ES. I don't think the writer means that members shouldn't be asked what they believe about TS policies and procedures or plans-- but rather that they should. > Still - is not the Secret Doctrine a document which discribes > a set of beliefs? Or is it the Society's position that the Secret > Doctrine represents the view of only one member? - yet I doubt that > it would publish much in the way of opposing viewpoints. Actually, Annie Besant and A. P. Sinnett published contradictions of the SD in the early 20th century regarding the Mars/Mercury controversy. I don't regard the SD as a document promoting beliefs (although it clearly has this effect on some) but one promoting inquiry. Certainly TPH doesn't seem to impose any doctrinal litmus test on its authors as far as I can see. The diversity of their list is one thing that makes me proud to be a member of the TS-- it shows a commitment to publishing alternative (if not opposing) viewpoints. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 02:55:37 -0400 From: MURRAY@sss.co.nz Subject: The 1900 letter, and Belief Written by Murray Stentiford Astrea writes (5 October 1994): >[Re K. Paul Johnson] > ..... >Please don't interpret lack of response for lack of interest in my case >(although it's certainly understandable.) This is a letter in which I >have had considerable interest for some years, and I had been looking >for a copy of it - it's hard to come by. SO thanks for typing it in. >I was taking some time to consider a response. > >My feeling is that it has the ring of truth, and it's advice is good. >Probably Krishnamurti really popped the theosophical balloon "the >theosophical Popery" referred to. Although maybe he went too far. >Sometimes I wonder if he wasn't assigned this task... It's interesting >because it seems to be the last published letter after HPB disappeared >from the scene (someone correct me if I'm wrong.) Also it is > apparently objective and does not support any one's position, which > might have had some ego involvement. Therefore I would tend to think > it to be genuine. I agree with these thoughts. (I would have replied earlier but didn't have the time then.) The "theosophical Popery" may also have to do with the fascination with "comparative spiritual advancement", ie who had attained which initiation, that seemed to reach near-fetish proportions over the next couple of decades. > Says a Thibetan proverb "credulity >> breeds credulty and ends in hypocrisy." > >Don't know what this means. I imagine it means that if you start believing things without applying reasonable checks, you will be open to believing more and more such things until your mind is filled with stuff that is not really an expression of your own inner nature, and not consistent with itself. This fits in with "Be accurate and critical rather than credulous." a bit later in the letter. > How few are they who >> can know anything about us. > >Why is that? Two ways this would be true are 1) The physical scarcity of information on the Adepts, especially at that point in history, and 2) The evolutionary gap between Them and the vast majority of humanity. Intellectual or conceptual knowing can be but a pointer to the vast reach, the sheer light of Their consciousness. >The >> mistakes of the past in the old religions must not be glossed >> over with imaginary explanations. > >I rather suspect they might in part be talking about the Liberal >Catholic church here. May be we are too accepting of some aspects of >many traditional religions, which may have elements of superstition, or >just be plain wrong. Yes, and I think these mistakes include excessive personification of spiritual powers or beings, inability to see the worth of religion in other cultures, seeing as evil or best doomed to hell the members of other religions, .... in other words the narrow vision, territoriality, power play and violence that have characterised the later life of many of the world's religions. But then, is religion the only arena of these forces? >> must have admittance. The crest wave of intellectual >> advancement must be taken hold of and guided into >> spirituality. > >The ts has failed in this. I don't fully agree. Certainly, the TS is still not well known to, and therefore cannot directly influence, most parts of the academic and social world, but I believe the TS has nevertheless played a pioneering role in the introduction of Eastern and esoteric thought to the Western world. I can't help thinking of the Irish poets (Yeats etc) and the story that Einstein used to keep the Secret Doctrine on his desk. (IS that story true, by the way?) There are significant ways in which the "crest wave of intellectual advancement" is moving towards spirituality today. Just think of Fritjof Capra and the growing number of theoretical physicists who find striking correspondences between mystical insights and the scientific view of ultimate physical reality. Then there is the Gaia theory - a case of the wisdom of the heart ensouling verifiable scientific concepts. >> The T.S. was meant to be the cornerstone of the future >> religions of humanity. > >Interesting. This could come to pass, but not necessarily directly via >the ts. I think people are starting to take those parts of religions >which appeal to them (in industrialized Western countries, anyway), and >leave the rest. The result could be a kind of universalization of >religion, with certain themes in common with the ts remaining e.g. >unity and brotherhoo. I think this is happening in a big way. While it may not look like a cornerstone at the moment, the T.S. has an important role to play, in offering pointers and support to the growing number of people who are looking around for answers, whose intuition is fuelling such things as the conservation movement and the rejection of the old thought-forms of religion. > 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 > > Uh oh - a dig at the comasons, perhaps? Probably, but not just them, I'd say. Note that it's the predilections that must be left aside. I see, in fact, value in ceremony and ritual if it is approached as an opportunity for meditative and creative work, in a way that is not too different from a musical or theatrical performance, especially in providing an expression or channel for energies of a higher nature. A living symbol. All cultures have them; words, stories, dances, music, art, carving, and the trick for the aspiring theosophist is to be able to get into them, and be able to get out again. If we can experience them vividly without getting stuck, it will help us to be examples and promoters of the unity of humankind. Mike Grenier writes: >2. The essence of the higher thoughts of the members in > their collectivity must guide all action in the > T.S. and E.S. > >3. It is the collective aspect of many such thoughts that > can give the correct note of action. > >It is difficult for me to understand how one group first >discerns what the collective higher thoughts are and then >use them to guide all action with it developing into a creed. > >How do you collect the higher thoughts of the members without >asking for their beliefs? (assuming one believes in one's >thoughts) The descent into creed is a slippery slope that virtually no religion or culture in the world has escaped. The T.S. has this wonderful brief to avoid creed, but the underlying human propensity keeps on pulling us in that direction. That accepted, though, I do see examples of where the the higher thoughts or impulses of people in a group result in something greater and more true to the heart of things than the individuals alone could have come up with. The word "essence" is important, here. To me, it emphasises synthesis over analysis, a viewpoint beyond one's usual limited circle of concern. I find that the act of gathering together in goodwill, seeking a higher awareness or whatever, can potently guide people's thinking. "Higher thoughts" means something different from "belief" if you take belief to mean an intellectual view that is held with or without supporting evidence. Often the higher thoughts in a group emerge without beliefs being asked-for. The problem is partly with language, I think. "Thought" can mean several things, as can "belief". >Still - is not the Secret Doctrine a document which discribes >a set of beliefs? Or is it the Society's position that the Secret >Doctrine represents the view of only one member? - yet I doubt that >it would publish much in the way of opposing viewpoints. As far as I can tell, much of the S.D. was written as observations or as quotes from other works, via H.P.B's seership. Much of it would also have been her own belief too, of course, but it was never her intention that it be offered to members as a set of beliefs to BELIEVE (or else...!). The Society has published some opposing viewpoints - the world view of C.W. Leadbeater has a system of planes of nature differing quite markedly in some ways from that in the S.D., for example. Certainly the T.S. defends the right of independent opinion, of honest studentship, but then ever-present human nature keeps on sneaking in and making reality differ from intention. So what's new?! > - perhaps, >though, it is the process that counts and not the final beliefs. Yes, I think there's a lot in that. It's probably best to see beliefs as an ever-changing image or model of reality. I read somewhere that Annie Besant said she would hate to come back in 300 years and find her old writings being taught as the dogma of the day! - Murray Stentiford murray@sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 8 Oct 1994 08:16:27 -0400 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: 1-900-MASTERS Just found this gem in Glamour Magazine-- how appropriate! (No I don't usually read it, but it had a report on the sex survey) MASTER YOUR POSSIBILITIES On the latest version of Psychic Friends Network, Dionne Warwick personally introduced the Masters. She calls these Master Psychics the Cream of the Crop. And with good reason. Their training, track record and years of experience have catapulted them above the very best in their field. [Oxymoronic?] You may be concerned about finding love or reviving your relationship. Perhaps work-- or the state of your finances is bothering you. Maybe you're just not as happy as you should be. Whatever it is, don't go it alone. Let your psychic friends provide you with the psychic guidance we all need from time to time. Then Master your possibilities! Call today and talk with the nation's most highly-qualified, multi-dimensional psychics-- on the all new Master/Psychic Line! 1 (900- 903-1254 at the cost of just $3.99/min. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 8 Oct 1994 14:03:00 -0400 From: John Tullis Subject: The following is a long posting. I posted a brief statement on Monday, 09/26/94 concerning the "Dark Brotherhood" and asked 3 questions. The 3 questions were: >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? I include pieces of responses that were made to this posting, related to these questions. I posted the questions based on the discussion revolving about whether one of the early letters between the organization founders could have been a forgery, or if it was genuine, then was it misinterpreted, etc. I don't wish to reopen that discussion because it appears to be well covered. Most people who responded only focused on question "a". Please, anyone who responded, don't get upset that I am only including parts of your postings. I am doing this because part of your postings were not directly related to responding to the above questions, and to keep this long posting from being REALLY long. The questions and responses follow: a) Existance of the "Dark Brotherhood" (e.g., does it exist). >From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) >They exist and are active still. I wouldn't recommend that you >pay the much attention.... >From: "K. Paul Johnson" >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.... >From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) >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... >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."... >From: "Lewis Lucas" >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. >From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) >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. >From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> >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)....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.... >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. >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. >From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) [again] >Lost Souls and Spiritual Evil [Consisting entirely >of quotations from G. de Purucker, "Fundamentals of the >"... Even spiritual evil exists; and there are high >agents of 'spiritual wickedness', of which the Christian >Apostle Paul has spoken, forming the opposite agencies >to the high agents of good. The latter ones, agents of >spiritual wickedness, are called by us the 'Brothers of >the Shadow', and the others are called by us the >'Brothers of the Light'. The Brothers of the Shadow work >in and with matter, for material and selfish purposes. >The Brothers of the Light work in and with Nature for >spirit, for impersonal purposes. They contrast one with >another." >Esoteric Philosophy," 1st ed.] b) Whether or not they could have contributed to the early problems of the organization >From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) >There are several references to this in Mahatma Letters, which is well >worth careful study in my opinion. >From: "K. Paul Johnson" >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. >From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) >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.... c) Whether or not they in fact did so? >From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) >This can only be conjecture. >From: "K. Paul Johnson" >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. >From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) >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. OK. Regarding the 3 questions again, the consensus seems to be: a) Does the "Dark Brotherhood" exist. Yes. >b) Whether or not they could have contributed to the early problems >of the organization Yes. >c) Whether or not they in fact did so? Maybe. Now I would like to throw my ideas into the net. 1st - I agree that some society members may run around seeing "black sorcerers" under every bush. I have noticed that not absolutely everyone who is involved in the Theosophical societies/study groups is what I might call wholey mentally and emotionally balanced. Now, this is my opinion. Feel free to disregard it...nay, to jump up and down on it. :-) I observe the following facts: 1) The Nazis were quite effective at organization. They committed much that I consider evil, the leaders were deeply involved in the occult, and they managed to hang together long enough to do a lot of damage. 2) The old KGB was very effective at infiltrating organizations and placing forged documents where they would be found and believed to be genuine, inserting moles into government and intelligence agency structures of their opponents, feeding "disinformation" to the media, destabilizing government and other organizational structures. Many of their actions were "evil", again in my opinion. (I hope we don't get into a long discussion on what is evil, since I suspect that most of us agree on it. I also am not claiming here that the KGB is or was the only intelligence apparatus that pursued these methods.) Therefore, I argue the following (my opinion): 1) That we should not be so quick to reject the concept of organized evil. I don't think that just because the dark path is ultimately one of selfishness (and please lets not get into a discussion on the meaning of selfishness, please please) that that means that active members and agents of the "Dark Brotherhood", consciously or unconsciously, cannot act in an organized manner to achieve specific ends. 2) That it is clearly possible that some of the confusion, backbiting, and quarreling between the various founders and their followers could have been deliberately provoked. 3) The more successful an organization is for "Light", the more pressure will be placed on that organization to discredit it, break it up, damage it, and destroy it. Some pressure is done through apparently reputable people publishing "debunking" reports. Some will be done by publishing negative reports about organizational leaders. Some will be done by attacking the organization financially. Some will be done by infiltrating the organization and quietly disrupting it from the inside. 4) Most attacks are not coordinated from any single agency. However, just as today intelligence agencies infiltrate organizations all the time (the FBI specializes in this), it is just possible that SOME disruption of the early society may have been due to various early intelligence agencies. Of course, this IS purely speculation. All we do know is that British intelligence suspected HPB of being a Russian spy. Finally, I think that most damage done by the DB to the Theosophical Society is done by influencing people through their lower natures. But I also think that it is organized. I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories. But I do think that an organization that works for Light attracts attention, and gets "attacked" more than, say, a business organization. = John Tullis = = Phone 312 507 3905 = = jtullis@apg.andersen.com = From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 8 Oct 1994 19:07:46 -0400 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: "Dark Forces" John Tullis, Glad to see your interesting feed back. I'm taking you up on your invitation to comment upon it: JT> 1) The Nazis were quite effective at organization. They > committed much that I consider evil, the leaders were deeply > involved in the occult, and they managed to hang together long > enough to do a lot of damage. Yes, quite a few books and magazine articles have been devoted to this. Surely the swastika and the double headed bird are powerful symbols. So was also the praxites, which was eliminated from the back of our Mercury dimes, thanks to Mussolini's appropriation of this beautiful symbol. In my view, the manipulation of symbols by governments is an occult practice, whether the government is fully aware of their power or not. But keep in mind, that all governments manipulate symbols. It comes down to motivation and intent. Yes, I would agree that the Nazis' killing off some twenty million people is a good indication of evil intent--to put it mildly. JT> 2) The old KGB was very effective at infiltrating > organizations and placing forged documents where they would be > found and believed to be genuine, inserting moles into > government and intelligence agency structures of their > opponents, feeding "disinformation" to the media, destablising > government and other organizational structures. Many of > their actions were "evil", again in my opinion. (I hope we > don't get into a long discussion on what is evil, since I > suspect that most of us agree on it. I also am not claiming > here that the KGB is or was the only intelligence apparatus > that pursued these methods.) Yes, but as you seem to hint, our own CIA gets bad press from time to time for the same tricks. JT> Therefore, I argue the following (my opinion): > 1) That we should not be so quick to reject the concept of > organized evil. I don't think that just because the dark path > is ultimately one of selfishness (and please lets not get into > a discussion on the meaning of selfishness, please please) that > that means that active members and agents of the "Dark > Brotherhood", consciously or unconsciously, cannot act in an > organized manner to achieve specific ends. Agreed. As I mentioned in my earlier post, the Mahatmas use the term "Brothers of the left hand path." To me, it is both suggestive of the Mahatma's acknowledgement that even these people are still "brothers", and that they work in a brotherhood. Personally, I distinguish the concept of the maverick "black magician" from the collectivity of forces leading to the polarity of matter. JT> 2) That it is clearly possible that some of the confusion, > backbiting, and quarreling between the various founders and > their followers could have been deliberately provoked. This is where I become uncomfortable. It was this idea that motivated my earlier comments concerning the conspiracy paranoia. It may be very true that all of this "backbiting and quarreling" may have been "deliberately provoked", but if these founders didn't have the capacity within themselves for backbiting and quarreling in the first place, they could not have been so "provoked." Another thing that comes to mind concerns HPB's warnings to probationers in the E.S. Once the probationer makes those pledges, the worst and the best within them begins to come out. She didn't blame this phenomena upon interference from "dark forces", but just stated it as an occult fact. Theosophical history shows example after example of people who came into contact with the Masters, and/or HPB, and went off into outrageous behavior. They got onto some real ego trips and created more damage than good. I think it is an important warning for all of us. As I mentioned before--stupidity, ignorance and greed for power, cover these problems very well. They are underlying motivations that we can detect. If "provocation" from the "dark forces" lie behind that, it is less easy to judge. However, even if it were so, I don't feel that this circumstance relieves the founders from responsibility for their actions. JT> 3) The more successful an organization is for "Light", the > more pressure will be placed on that organization to discredit > it, break it up, damage it, and destroy it. Some pressure is > done through apparently reputable people publishing "debunking" > reports. Some will be done by publishing negative reports about > organizational leaders. Some will be done by attacking the > organization financially. Some will be done by infiltrating > the organization and quietly disrupting it from the inside. Agreed. However, this is also a very dangerous double edge sword. There are also people who recognize the "evil" within an organization, and try to expose it. This is true in all organizations, "esoteric" or "exoteric." In exoteric organizations, when certain principled people discover corruption within an organization and try to expose it, they are labeled "whistle blowers." You may have seen the movies "Serpico" and "Marie," which are docudrama of two such famous cases. A recent study on whistle blowers, however, shows that the typical fate of a whistle blower, is that they lose their job, are blacklisted and their whole lives are ruined, even when the corruption is exposed. Corruption is inherent within organizations, whether the motivations be money, power or ego. Those who try to expose hypocrisy, lies, and corruption within an organization are almost invariably labeled as a threat by both those in power and the uninformed workers for the organization. So yes, there may be "evil people" consciously or unconsciously working for the "dark forces" to destroy "spiritual" organizations, but don't confuse them with the more common "trouble makers" who are working out of principle, in their attempt to expose an exorcise the "evils" that are already within the organizations. The people are rarely recognized for what they are trying to do, and are almost invariably considered enemies, even by the very people (the majority) who would benefit the most by their efforts. JT> 4) Most attacks are not coordinated from any single agency. > However, just as today intelligence agencies infiltrate > organizations all the time (the FBI specializes in this), it is > just possible that SOME disruption of the early society may > have been due to various early intelligence agencies. > Of course, this IS purely speculation. All we do know is that > British intelligence suspected HPB of being a Russian spy. Yes--purely speculation. JT> Finally, I think that most damage done by the DB to the > Theosophical Society is done by influencing people through > their lower natures. But I also think that it is organized. I > don't subscribe to conspiracy theories. But I do think that an > organization that works for Light attracts attention, and gets > "attacked" more than, say, a business organization. I wish I could get my wife to post some of her findings concerning government and corporate corruption. She teaches courses on this, as well as having researched and published quite a lot. But, she doesn't think very highly of e-mail as a form of communication, so it is hard for me to find a reason for her to want to do so. Her research, however, makes it quite clear that corruption in government and business is so ingrown into the system that little can be done about it. From what I have observed, corruption in spiritual organizations run so close to the same patterns found in business and government, that I would be hard put to make a distinction between them. Of course, in non profit organizations, the motivation is not usually money, but that is the only distinction that I can think of off hand. Motivations of power, and self aggrandizement are common to both. However, I still don't find any unanswered riddles that require the "DB" to account for them. People muck things up just fine on their own. If the "DB" was involved in the early (or even present) movement, to destroy it, they didn't have to do very much. Most of the work was done for them. By the way, this subject is very germane to why I felt that a discussion on ethics would have been so productive on theos-l. One of the reasons why corruption is so successful is because most people benefit from it in one way or another. The negative side, is that it is very much like a cancer in that it eats out and destroys the vitality of an organization. Ethics are so often applied situationally--that is, personal advantage so often weighs heavily in ethical decision making. A common scenario might run like this: Why should I rat on my boss who is stealing from the company? Exposing him will almost certainly ruin my own career, even if I was believed. Further, what he is doing is so commonly done, that little good would be accomplished by exposing him anyway. Better to mind my own business. Or many theosophists I have known would rationalize, "better to stay out of it and leave it to his own karma." Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 8 Oct 1994 22:49:23 -0400 From: "Ronald A. Banister" <70402.2301@compuserve.com> Subject: Narada Falls On Mount Rainier near Seattle there is a falls called Narada Falls. The sign near it starts out: NARADA WAS THEIR GURU In 1893,a branch of the Theosophical Society of Tacoma named this 241 foot fall after their guru, Narada. I would like to know more about this theosophical connection. Any information would be appreciated. Thanks, Ron Banister From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 9 Oct 1994 11:05:53 -0400 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Brotherhood of the Shadow John Tullis writes: > 4) Most attacks are not coordinated from any single agency. However, > just as today intelligence agencies infiltrate organizations all the > time (the FBI specializes in this), it is just possible that SOME > disruption of the early society may have been due to various early > intelligence agencies. Of course, this IS purely speculation. > All we do know is that British intelligence suspected HPB of being > a Russian spy. I was interested to learn that Aleister Crowley (aka "Uncle Al")worked for the Nazis during WWII, mainly disseminating disinformation amongst the British, I think. I can probably find some more info on this if anyone is interested. I have also noticed some strange thought forms around the United Nations, most of which are generated by people who work there. But I wonder if some were purposefully put there by you-know-who to obstruct the work of this organization. (I am generally not clairvoyant, but can sense atmospheres and thoughts quite well.) These thought forms mainly perpetuate confusion and clouded thinking, as well as cynicism and despair. The way to deal with this is to try to cultivate a "positive" charge in ones own emotions and will, which prevents one absorbing these things, and also helps clear the air a bit for others. My other thought is that it probably wouldn't be too difficult to find out more about the GBB, and their modus operandi, but it encourages them too much if you take too much of an interest in them.... > Finally, I think that most damage done by the DB to the Theosophical > Society is done by influencing people through their lower natures. But This really would not be difficult to do, even for an occultist with mediocre abilities. > But I do think that an organization that works for Light attracts > attention, and gets "attacked" more than, say, a business > organization. This is probably true. One aspect which hasn't been discussed is that I think some sort of accommodation has been reached between the GWB and the GBB, whereby they coexist within their own "spheres of influence." There is some evidence in the Mahatma letters, and other sources, that the Masters may allow the forces of darkness to test their chelas, to see what they are made of, so to speak. I guess if the Dugpas are successful, they get to keep the spoils. If not, the GWB knows they have someone whom they can rely on. There may be some recruitment in the opposite direction as well. I think I read a novel by Dion Fortune about how a disciple of darkness was won back to the light through the love of a woman - only fiction, but demonstrates the point. ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 9 Oct 1994 18:03:40 -0400 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Narada T.S.; Crowley Ron Banister, Regarding your request for more information on Narada falls, the following appeared in ~The Theosophical Forum~ (Covina CA.), June, 1947, p. 352: The Beautiful Narada Falls, at the lower end of Paradise Valley on the slopes of famed Mt. Rainier (Mt. Tacoma) in Rainier National Park, received its name from the old "Narada T.S." of Tacoma Washington. Mr. George Sheffield, a pioneer member of the Narada Lodge back in the nineties, who sent us the photograph of our illustration, writes the following reminiscence: In July 1893, a party consisting of members of Narada Lodge with a mountain guide, went down from the trail of that time to where we could hear the noise of the falls, saw them and carved Narada in the bark of a nearby tree. All the old timers around the mountain said we were the first among either white people or Indians, probably, ever to see the Falls. The name was accepted by the Government. Narada Falls is still one of the big attractions of The Mountain. It is right on the highway to Paradise Valley, quite a large area nearly halfway up the mountain, where the snow goes off in the summer. The Government has a hotel there and a ski resort for winter tourists. The Falls are at the lower end of the valley, plainly visible from the highway, and thousands pass that way each day during the summer. Mt. Rainer is 75 miles from Tacoma. It is 15,000 feet high, and snow-covered all year round. I do not know why the Lodge took the name of Narada (one of the Seven Rishis--See ~The Secret Doctrine~, Vol. 1, pages 48-49, 275, 323, 502, 566, 584.) The Lodge was organized in 1888 or 9. Its charter members included W.E. Copeland, a Unitarian minister, Judge Frank Reid, J.H. Scotford, E.O. Schwageral, Mrs. E.L. Sawyer, and others. The last new members were George and Fanny L. Sheffield who joined in 1889, received certificate of membership from H.P.B. and W.Q.J., September, 1890. The Lodge was very successful, had around 75 members, rented its own exclusive hall, had its regular public meetings with good attendance, library open every afternoon, Lotus Circle and the usual round of social and dramatic attractions. Mr. Judge started the Lotus Circle which was very successful. Many of the children who attended it are now influential citizens of a character of whom the world has too few. --George Sheffield. Astrea, A> I was interested to learn that Aleister Crowley (aka "Uncle > Al")worked for the Nazis during WWII, mainly disseminating > disinformation amongst the British, I think. I can probably > find some more info on this if anyone is interested. Yes; please tell us more. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 9 Oct 1994 19:57:03 -0400 From: Kent@gatezone.com (Kent) Subject: Re: Brotherhood of the Shadow ASTREA writes: <> Do you think this is this just another one of the rumors about Uncle Al or is there more to the story? <> May be "only fiction" but Dion Fortune has some wonderful things to say in her "fiction" Particularly "The Sea Priestess", and "Moon Magic." Quite an amazing woman. As I understand it she escaped the fate of the Golden Dawn and was able to establish her own "contacts." Kent | kent@gatezone.com | communications hub in the 612 area | | Kent Livingston | Internet Mail * NewsGroups * People! | From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 20:40:26 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Two Types of Evil This is by Eldon Tucker ---- Two Types of Evil There are two kinds of evil in life, each with its own related problems. One kind is self-conscious evil, the other is unconscious evil. Both can become a part of our lives, bringing harm to us and darkening life for others as well. With the self-conscious evil, we are aware of what we do. We have some consciousness of what is right and wrong, and still choose the wrong. There is a sense of choice, an act of will, and the resulting karmic consequences that arise from adulthood and moral responsibility. With the unconscious evil, we are changed in ways that catch us unaware. Things happen in our lives that we are not paying attention to. Our thoughts, feelings, and actions are redirected. We come under confusion. We are led, a little bit at a time, in a direction that is wrong for us, and we don't see it happening. Consider what happens when someone overeats for a couple of years and puts on weight. There was not a conscious choice to get fat; there's a shock and "I didn't mean to do this!" when he finally realizes what has happened. While the weight is being put on, a Maya, a veil is put over his perception that prevents him from seeing what he is doing. A second example is when little things become magnified out of proportion. Someone says something thoughtless. The other person reacts in anger. The back- and-forth exchange escalates until there is a deeply- felt hatred. There was never an intention at the start to create such a hatred. It came about almost taking the two people by surprise. Another example is the Theosophical Network. It started out with good intentions, with about half-a- dozen people heading up the TN Committee and working for it. Over a few years there continued to be fragmentation and loss of interest until it was down to a single individual, subsequently losing interest and folding it into his new magazine. It could have grown and continued to do useful work, but instead the forces of dissolution overtook it and it came to an early demise. (I was one of the initial people working on it, and saw this happen. Sometime I'll have to tell some stories about it. These stories could be considered "historic documents" since they would be first-hand accounts.) It has been argued that the fragmentation of the original Theosophical Society was for the good, rather than the result of calculated opposition to it. The fragments were able to specialize and appeal to different segments of the "seekers market", drawing people from different walks of life into contact with the Outer Mysteries. I'd suspect that there was a mix of good and bad in what happened. A final example of unconscious evil is where one comes under thought control of some cult. One's thinking is subtly changed, one is given conditioning to behave a certain way, and exterior forces have been used to mold one's personality according to the cult leader's preferred pattern for life. This is the opposite of what the Mahatmas ask of their Chelas, whom are left to their own device and council up to the last and supreme Initiation. During this conditioning, one does not see it happening; there are other people, exterior forces, acting upon one changing one in ways that are not the result of self-directed will. We practice this upon others when we manipulate them. We do it when forcing our will on others, despite their wishes. The practice is called interfering in others' karma, and it is generally considered wrong. To the extent that another person can tell right from wrong, and is an adult, the power of choice should remain theirs, and they should not be coerced into actions that are not self-chosen. In a sense, this second type of evil is evil done unto us. We open ourselves up to it and are harmed. With greater clarity of consciousness we can avoid this kind of evil. With increased clarity, we take greater control of our lives, and have a more responsible role in the world. More of our actions are self-initiated, and we can become a greater force for good--or for evil--in the world. Aware of what we are doing, we make choices with moral responsibility, and the good or evil that we do becomes an attribute of ours, it becomes part of our Skandhas, and qualified who and what we are. As choices are made from the perspective of the personality, we acquire personal karma, and add to ourselves additional good or bad qualities. When the inner faculties awaken, and the higher nature comes into play, our choices and the resulting consequences become more far-reaching. We get into the realm of good or evil spirituality. At our present stage, though, we deal primarily with personal choices for the good, and with the influences of others upon us. Those influences, unconscious evil, are not obvious like horrifying dreams, like a feeling of dread in the dark, nor the shock and horror felt upon seeing first-hand the violence and bloodshed in the world. No. The influences are subtle, overtaking us unaware. We may be able to stop and look and realize what has happened to us, or what we have done while unaware. "Did I really say that?" might be thought. Or we might deny that what we did really was all that bad, and not want to think of it. Denial happens. We look the other way. We allow things to happen about us while trying to fool ourselves so we don't have to take moral responsibility for what is going on. Unconsciousness is chosen, rather than clarity of mind and moral responsibility. And in this state, we can be influenced for the evil, we invite it into our lives and are harmed. This is not to say that all unconscious influences are evil. There are both good and evil influences in the world. But when we approach the Path, we stir a deeper part of our natures, and we start to stand out. Both greater influences for good and for evil are directed our way. And we are at greater risk of being harmed or unwittingly doing harm to others. With the inner awakening that we have started, we have a responsibility to take greater conscious control of our lives, and be much more moral than before. We need an increased sense of good and evil, and an increased vigilance against the subtle influences that would bias, distort, and redirect our minds and hearts. The penetrating insight of Buddhi is needed, and without it we could easily be lost. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 21:01:18 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: The Ultimate is Not Bipolar This is by Eldon Tucker ---- The Ultimate is Not Bipolar In considering the idea of a Dark Brotherhood, we can further understand it when contrasted with the White Brotherhood, with the Hierarchy of Compassion. By drawing comparisons, we can see what it can and cannot be. A basic theosophical concept is the doctrine of emanation. The highest and most divine does not directly govern the material world. There are a number of intermediate stages or grades. We have the planes, one above the other, each influenced by the next higher one, and influencing the one below it. We also have classes of beings, each higher than the next, each both receiving support from higher classes and offering support to lower classes of beings. With the Hierarchy of Compassion, we have ordinary good people, then pre-Chelas, Chelas, Mahatmas, Bodhisattvas, Human Buddhas, then still higher, the Dhyani-Chohans, known collectively as Celestial Bodhisattvas, Celestial Buddhas, and still higher. For a particular world or universe, there is a highest class of beings, but that class is in relationship with the lowest of yet a higher world. There *exists* no ultimate Highest, the progression upwards is endless. This entire upward chain is ultimately rooted in the Boundless All, in the Grand Mystery, in That or *Tat*. It is the basis for all that is. A universe comes into being by the unfolding, by the emanation of various classes of beings out of a higher world; the universe goes from the unmanifest to the manifest, arising out of this Golden Chain, this line of Compassion or connectedness of Life, this Guruparampara. How again does a universe arise? It flows forth from a Laya-Center allowing passage downwards from higher universes. It comes forth from on high. A universe never arises from the reverse process, from what would be the equivalent of a toilet overflowing, from the welling up of darkness from below, flowing out from lower worlds. It is a false symmetry to assume that since there is light and life and compassion and intelligence emanated from above, showing forth into our world and raising it, that there would be darkness and death and hatred and stupidity emanated from below, overflowing into our world from below and degrading it. There is not a bipolar Boundless All, with mirror opposite to the Golden Chain, with endless series of darker and yet darker hierarchies, rooted in Ultimate Evil. (Mulaprakriti, for instance, is not the dark opposite of Parabrahman, not the ultimate darkness of matter as contrasted with the ultimate light of spirit. Mulaprakriti is the first veil of Parabrahman, it is Pradhana or Brahman. There are a number of different terms for the first emanation from the Highest of a world, but they refer to an unfolding of the Highest, not a counter unfolding from a Lowest.) There is evil, there are somewhat organized groups of evil beings, and not just human, but of the same grade as Dhyani-Chohans as well, called the Mamo- Chohans. It's hard to say how high this evil might go. I have yet to hear of a "Logos of Darkness" or yet higher a "Dark Star" as the polar opposite to our Parent Star, the home of our Divine Monad. We have two classes of good and evil men, and of good and evil Chohans. The first class are "free agents", individuals of an exceptional nature, more advanced than common folk, with an exceptional talent and inclination for good or evil. The second class are "team players", individuals participating in some form of organization or Hierarchy. The first class are self-centered in the sense of being preoccupied with individual experiences, and disinterested in the world. They are eventually drawn to a solitary nirvana or avichi (as a Pratyeka Buddha or the dark equivalent of one). The second class are interested in others, in nature and participation in life. They cooperate with the natural forces of life, either with forces of creation and life, or forces of destruction and death. Because of this cooperation, they end up in close cooperation with each other as well, and naturally tend to organize. This tendency to organize is not because there is some arbitrarily imposed requirement to join some organization. It is rather because of the law of karma, and of affinities, wherein we draw to ourselves others of like nature, responsive to our life energies. In a sense, in life, we *exteriorize* the contents of our consciousness, populating our surroundings with appropriate beings; in another sense, we draw to ourselves others that share in the same experiences of life that we do. There is an intent, a purpose to life. It is to fulfill Tanha, the thirst for material existence. And that desire arises out of a need to further awaken Self- Consciousness, to become more *real*, more consciously inclusive, more aware of the dual mystery of Oneness yet a multitude of Others. We come into being, acquire material forms through material evolution, and eventually reach an appropriate state of concreteness where we satisfy that urge to "get real." That enhanced sense of reality is raised, through further evolution, until it is reabsorbed in our divine nature, in our Monad, and becomes a permanent part of us. The whole purpose and basis for anything existing is to further this process. There is not a mirror- opposite source, of ultimate evil, of anti-Monads, bringing about material existence out of a need to become more self-conscious agents of evil, to "raise" a sense of corruption back into their natures. This is a false symmetry, that of a bipolar cosmology, with two sources: ultimate good and ultimate evil. It is wrong. There is one source, the good. The evil that we see about us cooperates in the process of good. It performs the work of destruction of old forms so that new ones can be built. It does the work of teaching, at times, in fulfilling the role of "enemies." We learn much more from opponents that sincerely wish us ill, and approach us with genuine malice, because our higher natures are more directly challenged to live out the good. How long does evil exist? How long can corrupt individuals and organizations, broken off from the light and love and compassion of life, persist? Depending upon how advanced an individual or group, to the end of some appropriate cycle of existence, be it a lifetime, a Subrace, or some greater time period, some Manvantara. The corrupt center of consciousness in one can only exist until the dissolution of the world in which it resides, after which it experiences an avichi, a hell- like existence, on some lower world, before returning to its place in the normal evolutionary scheme at the next cycle of its world. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 22:15:41 -0400 From: "Ronald A. Banister" <70402.2301@compuserve.com> Subject: Narada Falls & TS Jerry, Thanks for your prompt response. I really appreciate it. Besides a theosophical/historical interest, I had a personal reason for wanting to know more about Narada Falls. Almost a decade ago I proposed to my wife by that falls. She also enjoyed your response. Thanks again, Ron Banister From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 15 Oct 1994 14:54:57 -0400 From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: 2 quotes, and 3 thoughts on EBTucker's of 10-5 the quotes Larry King quoting Yogi Berra "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." Stephen Hawkings, a physicist, I think astro-, who has Lou Gehrig's disease, is physically completely helpless & can only communicate by a computer-simulated voice. An interviewer asked him how it felt to be so isolated. - "I suppose my life can hardly be described as usual, but I feel it is normal in spirit." To Eldon B. Tucker re "Step out of The Dark" 1. "We further appreciate the path of Holiness, when we know where the path of selfishness leads us." Yeah, I guess so... regretfully. Most of us aren't to the point yet where holiness just comes out of us *naturally*. We need a carrot & a stick. 2. I've been taught that it's effective to respond to someone evil with either Love or anger. Can anyone else comment? 3."All sense of fear and the threatening nature of evil goes when we are rooted in *good* spirituality." In my small experience the *good* spirituality which doesn't fear evil consists of a mix of limitless Love, great self-assuredness, & lots of know how. I'm off to a weddin'! Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 16 Oct 1994 17:13:37 -0400 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: Evil, anger and love. Liesel, L> 2. I've been taught that it's effective to respond to someone > evil with either Love or anger. Can anyone else comment? That's been a bugaboo for me. If I respond with anger, then I'm off center and vulnerable to repercussions. My being off balance gives them an opportunity to do more damage. If it is a situation made by a collectivity of people--e.g. being the victim of slander where the person doing the slandering remains anonymous, while others do the damage for the perpetuator, then anger is at best fruitless, and at worst, adds negative energy to an already negative situation. On the other hand, responding to a person or situation of an evil nature with "love" is an art that I find difficult to master. I can respond with understanding (when I understand), or with compassion (when I feel that it is called for), but love (I don't mean a sentementality here, but a love that comes from wisdom), only in those exceptional situations when understanding and compassion is possible. I think that to respond to evil with "love" requires a person to do the following, and in this order: be very centered; be completely understanding of the situation from all points of view; be very compassionate to one's enemy (ies); and be completely detached from any personal gain that may come from the resolution of the conflict. I've done it before but it ain't easy, even under ideal circumstances. But it seems that this is a problem that stays with us for a long time into our spiritual development. Even K.H. admitted to Sinnett that he was "annoyed" with Hume. If a Mahatma can get annoyed, where does that leave us? I think one thing that is aggravating about responding to "evil" people is that truth is not enough. One can confront behavior and meet with denial. One can protest slander, and defend oneself, only to find people who read the fact that you protested as further proof of your alleged guilt. In psychological parlance these are called "crazy making situations." There seems to be no answer, you just have to roll with the punches. Politics seems to be the favorite arena for this kind of evil. Many well meaning and sincere people have been eliminated from the political arena by contenders manipulating public perceptions to undermine their opponents. Remember George Bush convincing the public that Michael Dukakis was a "wimp"? Of course the public knew that Bush wasn't a wimp, when he draped himself in an American Flag. I'm not condemning or defending either politician, but only pointing out that elections are rarely won or lost on the issues, but rather on theatrics. A careful reading of theosophical history reveals more than one crazy making situation under which H.P.B. had to suffer. The Coulomb conspiracy is a prime example. When Olcott barred H.P.B. from suing the Coulombs for slander, and Subba Row threatened to resign if HPB continued to protest the accusations, this left a clear field for the S.P.R. to take advantage of HPB for not suing the Coulomb's in the first place. Since silence is taken as consent, the Coulomb testimony that HPB used them as confederates to fake phenomena appeared all the more credible to the SPR Committee. I can imagine HPB spending many nights banging her head against the wall over this no win situation. Now, more than a century later, suspicion still hangs over HPB. I guess in situations like these, you just try to "love." What else is there? Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 14:40:10 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: On Holiness This is by Eldon Tucker Liesel: When you mention that "Most of us aren't to the point yet where holiness just comes out of us *naturally*" you got me thinking about what holiness is. Following are some thoughts on it. ---- On Holiness When we hear of "holiness," there are a number of negative associations. These come from our media, and from a general misunderstanding of what holiness is. Lacking an experience of it, or failing to properly identify the holy experiences in our lives, we may fall prey to the misinformation about what it is, and react negatively to mention of it. The holy does not happen merely on Sunday mornings when we visit some grand church, and listen uncomfortably to someone preach at us to be good according to the Bible, as we wait anxiously for the closing hymn and stare at the stained glass windows. The holy is not something that we experience by going on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem or Tibet and visiting places where special things are said to have happened. And the holy is not something that is only seen upon visiting a guru, something reserved for special people only, something that is to be observed but not experienced. Spotless purity is not required. It is not necessary to rigidly follow someone's arbitrary rules for goodness. Say that we want to do something that is wrong, according to our beliefs. If we are motivated to be good out of a sense of guilt, or a sense of "carrot and stick," we may find ourselves blocking out what we think is the good, to not think of it so that we can enjoy our guilty pleasure. We might say "I'd don't want to think of that good stuff right now, it'll spoil my fun." The *real* spiritual, and the holy does not have to be blocked out, even when we do things that may seem wrong at the time. When we feel that we have to block out our sense of the good for a while, in order to enjoy some activity, we're blocking out *an artificial mental construct.* The genuine, holy spiritual does not "spoil" anything that we do. It contains a sense of compassion, patience, and understanding that accepts the good and the bad in us. With holiness, we have a feeling of the sacred, a specialness, a natural excitement regarding life that is alike that had by a newborn babe. Again, picture the feeling of being in love: there is a sense of anticipation regarding the next time that we meet our beloved. We perceive the inner divinity as a tangible presence, and not merely an intellectual abstraction. The impurity, dross, imperfection, and mistake- making is all part of the nature of life, and not a barrier to this presence. We have a sense of the wonder and magic of our teenage years, a great time of exploration. This feeling is now from inner exploration. We have an inner teacher to learn from, a living presence that is experienced as part of our personal lives. This teacher is a source of learning, and it has come from an established *inner relationship*--not from having an external membership in any particular church, lodge, or theosophical society. The holy is a sense of the spiritual-divine within ourselves. It is totally unrelated to astral projection, psychical powers, or the occult. It represents the awakening of an inner faculty of consciousness, and not extended powers of sensory perception nor extended control over the forces of nature. The divine represents our highest nature. We feel a sense of it being missing from life. This leads to a desire to return to a feeling of wholeness, of completion, which arises from a reunion with that divine nature. The passionate feeling of needing this quality back in our lives manifests itself as devotion, as Bakti, as worship, as an intense feeling of longing for the return to the pure, unconditioned perfection that we left behind ages ago. We are not denied this perfection, though, even when alive and manifest here on this sad, imperfect, physical world of limitation and suffering. This perfection comes from adding the divine to our lives. It is not necessary to subtract away the entire manifest, imperfect, outer part of ourselves, the ray from the Monad, in order to enjoy our essential nature, in order to dwell again in the divine. We can achieve the same by *addition,* by allowing a clear sense of the quality and type of consciousness that the Monad has, the divine or holy consciousness, to participate as an integral part of life. It is possible to achieve wholeness in life, as well as wholeness in "absolute death" or nirvana. The periodic nature of manifestation and withdrawal into the silence, of Manvantara and Pralaya, of life and death, is ultimately illusory. There is an ultimate sense of perfection that transcends both states, an underlying sense of completeness that does not depend upon us being out of life, upon us not-existing, in order to be experienced. It is the truly divine, the naturally holy, and it *is a part of life.* It is only our choice to exclude it by our mental constructs, by false but sincere beliefs, that keeps us from enjoying it. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 22:01:02 -0400 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Internet Access & Unix I just wanted to tell everyone that I am now on the Internet besides Compuserve. I joined our local library system's computer. My new address is bs0012@epfl2.epflbalto.org This is a second address, as I am still on Compuserve, so there is no need to change my address for theos-l. But I can now use FPT, gopher, and Telenet. In fact, I recently FTP'd a few files from theos-l, just to try it out. I was awed by the amount of material there (you just don't see it through email). However, I am having a few problems with the local computer as it is Unix, and I don't speak Unix very well. I discovered that I could list files using LS (why isn't it LF?), and change directories using CD (same as DOS), but that is about all I can do. Anyone know how to delete a file in Unix? (I have tried del, delete, remove, erase, begone, dryup, and goaway, but nothing works). On the plus side, I did manage to figure out Kermit, so I can download the files back to my home PC, print them on my printer, and read them. The question is, how do I now get them off my directory on the Unix computer? I think I could use a crash course in Unix. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 01:21:33 -0400 From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: RE: Internet Access & Unix Jerry S. wrote: > However, I am having a few problems with the local computer as > it is Unix, and I don't speak Unix very well. I discovered that > I could list files using LS (why isn't it LF?), and change > directories using CD (same as DOS), but that is about all I can > do. Anyone know how to delete a file in Unix? (I have tried del, > delete, remove, erase, begone, dryup, and goaway, but nothing > works). On the plus side, I did manage to figure out Kermit, so > I can download the files back to my home PC, print them on my > printer, and read them. The question is, how do I now get them > off my directory on the Unix computer? I think I could use a > crash course in Unix. I was going to reply to him, but thought others might find the short reply helpful. My apologies if this clutters your mailbox [though I might humorously add that if there is anything on the planet more occult the the Stanzas of Dyzan, it is the Unix operating system ... so perhaps this posting isn't too inappropriate]. A short, introductory summary of useful Unix commands. [Note: Most should work, however, Unix is a general name for what has turned into a group of programs containing numerous editions and adaptations, so while there are generally universal commands, not everything works on every "Unix"]. Remember too, that (as opposed to DOS or VAX/VMS), upper & lower case MATTERS on Unix. ls ........... List Files cd ........... Change Directory pwd ........... prints name of current directory mv ........... moves files cp ........... copies files mkdir ......... makes a directory rmdir ......... removes a directory rm ........... removes files (Jerry; simply typing rm Jer.txt will delete the file Jer.txt) In addition, re: Kermit. Kermit is not part of Unix, but is the Communications software your mainframe's system operator has apparently chosen to use (which is odd ... its a bit antiquated). Briefly, I'll assume your local (home PC) computer runs MS-DOS (since you mention familiarity with DOS commands)... To upload (i.e., to transfer files from your PC word processer program to your mainframe in preparation to mail), use one of the following two methods: 1. Send-Receive Method: At the mainframe prompt (which may be % or $ or unix:) do the following... $ kermit |hit Return| Kermit-32> receive filename.ext |hit Return| |simultaneously hit the "Ctrl" key and the "]" key, then hit "c"| Kermit-MS> send drive:\filename.ext |hit Return| Kermit-MS> connect |hit Return| Kermit-32> exit |hit Return| $ 2. Server Mode Method: $ kermit |hit Return| Kermit-32> server |hit Return| Ctrl-] c (as in previous example) Kermit-MS> send drive:\filename.ext |hit Return| Kermit-MS> finish |hit Return| Kermit-MS> connect |hit Return| Kermit-32> exit $ A couple final notes...whenever the prompt says "Kermit-32" (or some other number & etc) it means keystroke commands are effecting the Kermit on the mainframe... when the prompt is "Kermit-MS" it means your keyboard is talking to your PC. Hope this stuff provided the assistance required to give you a jump start. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 21 Oct 1994 16:04:06 -0400 From: JSANTUCCI@CCVAX.FULLERTON.EDU Subject: Group Karma This is Jim Santucci I have a question that is puzzling me. Does anyone have information on the origins of the concept of group karma (race, family, nation, etc.). In my readings, there is no reference--at least no overt reference--to the concept in Buddhism although Reichenberg in his book, Karma, states that Theravade alludes to it. I am of the opinion that it is strictly a Theosophical concept. Does that mean that it first arises in the writings of HPB or does it come from elsewhere. I have not had the time to check the Collected writings or the Letters from the Mahatmas, so any help you can give would be most appreciated. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 21 Oct 1994 19:18:10 -0400 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re Group karma Jim Santucci In THE TIBETAN BOOK OF THE LIVING AND DYING by Sogyal Rinpoche, he writes "There are many kinds of karma: international karma national karma, the karma of a city, and individual karma. All are intricaetly interrelated, and only understood in theor full complexity by an enlightened being." p 92 Although his book is new (1992) I think that he is speaking of a long-standing Tibetan viewpoint here. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 00:15:14 -0400 From: Chris Moyer Subject: Re: Re Group karma That city Karma sounds kind of familiar - Sodom and Gomorrah. Chris Moyer From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 08:22:33 -0400 From: bill@Zeus.itdc.edu Subject: Re: Internet Access & Unix Hi Jerry, I apologize for editing your quote here (your lines were a little too long) but you wrote: > ... However, I am having a few problems with the local computer as > it is Unix, and I don't speak Unix very well. I discovered that I > could list files using LS (why isn't it LF?), and change directories > using CD (same as DOS), but that is about all I can do. Anyone know > how to delete a file in Unix? (I have tried del, delete, remove, > erase, begone, dryup, and goaway, but nothing works) ... ... I > think I could use crash course in Unix. As you have already been replied to, there really isn't much more that I can add. I simply couldn't resist the chance to "toot my own horn" here though. I teach a course on Unix funda- mentals which is based on my 1991 McGraw-Hill book: _Unix_for_Ap- plication_Developers_. As intimidating as the title may sound it really is just a "fundamentals of Unix" book (BTW, the book con- tains two great chapters on vi -- sure to become your favorite VIsual text editor of all time! ;-) ). As to the command names: ls stands for LiSt files just like rm stands for ReMove files and cp stands for CoPy files and mv stands for MoVe files and so on and so on ... But please beware the rm command! There are *NO* _Norton_Utilities_ for Unix -- once you remove a file, it's gone! If you are using the Korn or C Shells you might alias the rm command to do an rm -i ... an in- teractive remove that prompts you before it removes each file. Now there has to be something theosophically relevant here somewhere or I'm bound to get flamed. Hmmmmm ..., let's see ... Reading the _Unix_Programmer's_Manual_ is just as difficult as reading _The_Secret_Doctrine_ ... no, that won't do, uhhhhh ... discussing the structure or "layers" of the Unix system software is similar to discussing the bodies of man ... no, that's not quite it either, ... the Unix directory hierarchy is similar to ... oh, forget it! I'm sorry for taking up the bandwidth. 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: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 14:35:30 -0400 From: "WILLAM ALLEN" Subject: Mondrian I'm not sure which of the theosophy lists I should be posting this question to--since I've seen posts only from theos-l, I'm sending it here. For years I've been telling my art history students that the Dutch painter Mondrian was a Theosophist and attempting to explain aspects of his work in terms of what I knew about Theosophy. I'm sure that what I've told them is pretty superficial. Does anybody know of a work or works that deal with theosophy and Mondrian or, more generally, Theosophy and modern art generally? Thanks. William Allen wallen@aztec.astate.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 19:52:22 -0400 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: Re: Mondrian "WILLAM ALLEN" writes: > Does anybody know of a > work or works that deal with theosophy and Mondrian or, more > generally, Theosophy and modern art generally? Sylvia Cranston's biography of HPB has several pages with brief indications of theosophical influence on Kandinsky, Mondrian, Klee and Gaugin (among the artists), plus various musicians. Nikolai Roerich is also mentioned, who was so grateful to HPB's legacy to the world that he gave a painting which still hangs in the museum at Adyar. I remember also seeing a catalogue for an exhibition on art & Theosophy, with much more research, but can't remember more detail. The catalogue is in the library at the Naarden Theosophical Centre in Holland. Hope this helps, Paul Gillingwater From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 20:39:51 -0400 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: UNIX Thanks to Bill and John. I appreciate the help. UNIX is not intuitive, at least for me. I got a book on it from the local library and I can understand Greek better (I think I can even understand HPB better). Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 21:36:13 -0400 From: MURRAY@sss.co.nz Subject: Theosophy and Art William Allen of wallen@aztec.astate.edu asks: > Does anybody know of a > work or works that deal with theosophy and Mondrian or, more > generally, Theosophy and modern art generally? There are a couple of books by Jinarajadasa that relate to art, though not necessarily to modern art as such. They are "Art and the Emotions" " Art as Will and Idea" The anthroposophical movement founded by Rudolph Steiner after he branched off from the TS seems to have given more of a place in its thoughts to art than the TS has. I have very limited knowledge of the Steiner world, but the way they combine artistic awareness with education and architecture seems very positive to me. More peripheral to your question, perhaps, is the clairvoyant work done by Geoffrey Hodson on music forms which are perceptions on the subtler planes of the effects of music and musical sound. The visual sense is strongly involved, and it could be interesting to follow up the way the senses spill over into each other in ordinary awareness, in some people more than others. This has a scientific name which eludes me at the moment. Anyway, Geoffrey wrote in his book "The Science of Seership" that at the mental level of perception, colour, sound and form are one. "Mental" is used in its theosophical sense, here. GH's two books on this are "Music Forms" "Clairvoyant Investigations" I can tell you more about this work if you're interested, as I had a bit to do with GH when he did some of it. Another fairly peripheral idea but one that's important in theosophy and many ancient spiritual traditions is the creative power of sound in producing form in nature. Sound, of course, meant in a subtle sense, ie an energy with some sort of vibratory quality. The music forms thing implies that physical sound has an inner creative power, through the existence of correspondences. This is part of the power behind mantras, too. I recall GH saying in the "Music Forms" book that music can lead the listener to a sympathetic resonance with the composer, even to the egoic level. I believe this can happen in the visual arts no less. This sheds an interesting light on the nature of communication in art. George Arundale's book "Nirvana" has something in it about the radiation given off by books, at the subtle levels; a radiation that corresponded to the nature and quality of the subject matter. I can't remember now, but I wouldn't be surprised if he said the same sort of thing about works of art. Finally, have you seen CW Leadbeater's book "Thoughtforms"? Its colour pictures of thought forms make you wonder how a thought produces form and, correspondingly, how a form might produce thought. Interesting .... Hope this helps. Murray Stentiford murray@sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 22:11:26 -0400 From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: To: Jim Santucci Re: group karma Went scouting through a couple of my books, & found on general principle that HPB and AB talk about group karma, & Lama Govinda & Arthur Avalon do not. Today, I'm just going to write down book names & page #'s for you. If you need quotes, please let me know, & I'll copy them off for you. There was nothing in "Isis Unveiled". SD (I have the 1977 facsimile edition from Pasadena) V.II p. 411 Talks about the Atlanteans. The gist of it "by turning the holy mystery of procreation into animal gratification; Hence the law of Karma 'bruised the heel' of the Atlantean race." p. 446 large sweep of future evolution of the 6th race. "Key" British edition, apparently not changed since 1889 p. 46-7, p.202 ff AB "Karma", Adyar 1979, Section on "Collective Karma", p.75ff. "Ancient Wisdom", Adyar, 1959 p. 274, p. 292 ff. Hope that helps. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 08:44:02 -0400 From: bill@Zeus.itdc.edu Subject: Unix and Theosophy Jerry S. wrote: > Thanks to Bill and John. I appreciate the help. UNIX is not > intuitive, at least for me. I got a book on it from the local > library and I can understand Greek better (I think I can even > understand HPB better). I felt compelled to write here -- I'm not quite sure why. I appreciate the thanks (that is one of the reasons that I have been a "teacher" for the last 10 years), you're welcome. The note just got me to thinking about all that whining I did a while back regarding theosophical terminology and a new initia- tive in theosophical education. Some 15 years ago, I remember being in Jerry's "shoes." Unix looked like Greek to me but I had to learn it. The advantage I had in learning Unix that I can't seem to find in theosophy is that I had a reference manual that I could use to find out "how things worked." (As a side note, most Unix reference manuals are almost just as "Greek-ish" which is one of the reasons I decided to write my own book on Unix -- to try to explain it in English). When I ran into problems, there were usually human "mentors" that I could go to for additional help. _The_Secret_Doctrine_ is not a theosophical reference manual, nor is any other book that I have been able to find, IMO. But this forum -- the theos-l mailing list -- I hope will continue to provide me with theosophical "mentors" that I can go to for addi- tional help. IMNSHO, it was *much* easier to learn Unix. Once you get into it, it is very logical, consistent, and regular within itself. Perhaps my problem is that I have been trying to learn theosophi- cal concepts like I learned Unix. Perhaps it just can't be done that way. Just some random thoughts ... may you all grok in fullness. Bill-- ...who had Mole problems and called Avogardo at 6.02 x 10^23. 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: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 13:01:33 -0400 From: JSANTUCCI@CCVAX.FULLERTON.EDU Subject: Re: Mondrian Dear Mr. Allen: There is an art historian in the Netherlands who is an expert in this area: Marty Bax. A number of articles have been written in Dutch that might be of help. If you don't read Dutch, you can write to Miss Bax direct. I will not include the address assuming that you may know her. If not, let me know and I will give you her address. James Santucci From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 04:04:10 -0400 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: Mondrian William Allen WA> For years I've been telling my art history students that the > Dutch painter Mondrian was a Theosophist and attempting to > explain aspects of his work in terms of what I knew about > Theosophy. I'm sure that what I've told them is pretty > superficial. Does anybody know of a work or works that deal > with theosophy and Mondrian or, more generally, Theosophy and > modern art generally? By far the best book I have seen on the subject was ~The Spiritual in Art: Abstract Painting 1890-1985~. It was published for a show done that year (1985) at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. It is over 400 pages of reproductions and scholarly articles showing the influence of Occult and symbolist movements of all types upon art. Discussion of Theosophical influence on Mondrian is in: "Annunciation of the New Mysticism: Dutch Symbolism and Early Abstraction." Carel Blotkamp. This article not only discusses Mondrian's relationship to Theosophy, but details art expositions done by Theosophists in the Netherlands and Belgium early in the century. Other articles touch upon Kandansky and his Theosophical Connections. I also have a copy of the work that Paul Gillingwater is thinking of, but can't find it at the moment. It isn't as informative as the first book I mentioned, but is also well worth while. It has some wonderful reproductions not found in the Los Angeles exposition. If you are unable to locate the Los Angeles book, I will be happy to make a copy of Blotkamp's article for you. By the way, Paul Klee also had theosophical interests. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 17:33:07 -0400 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Birth Announcement It's a boy! Geoffrey Glenn Tucker, born Wednesday, October 26, 1994 to Eldon and Brenda Tucker, at Woodland Hills, California. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 19:18:48 -0400 From: Arthur Patterson Subject: Re: Can we talk about this theosophy stuff? On Thu, 27 Oct 1994, Todd Robert Maas wrote: > I don't know you but I am curious about why you deconverted from the > Christian faith. Give me your story then we can talk. I am very > interested and I think we can accomplish things. My name is Todd > Maas. > address is maatod@bethel.edu Hi Todd & Other on Theosophy Listserv, Here is a very abbreviated version of my story of the past few years. It gives you a bit of a clue about me. I hope it helps. I am really looking forward to hearing about theosophy and its emphasis. If anyone could connect some of the things I have been through from the Theosophical vantage point that might be a good place to begin. Thanks in Advance. I thought it would be clarifying if I were to write a bit of a personal introduction to myself, for those I have only recently met on the Net or on compuserve. When people speak about things that matter to them it is easy to misinterpret due to a lack of background. In a way, this intro is to confess my weak spots as well as to reveal some of the strengths I may have to offer a discussion. Recently I have been through some huge changes in my life. I have experienced a kind of "deconversion" experience; from being a minister in an exclusive faith system called evangelicalism. Here is a bit of the story of how I moved from that position. I am not interested in judgemental responses but would be open, either through e-mail or posting, to discuss the psychodynamic that lead to my change of faith. I have was an ordained pastor in an evangelical denomination called the Mennonite Brethren for the past seventeen years. As time went on my theology changed from a literal faith in the Bible to an experience-based understanding, which still appreciates the authority of God's revelation in the experiences of his people as recorded in the Bible, but adds to that an interfaith, or as Matthew Fox puts it a deep ecumenism, as well. I planted a church that promoted an attitude to the inner life and the world that was significantly out of step with our denominational emphasis. We experimented with many forms of being church and were influenced by: dream interpretation, tarot, Progoff Journaling, the Ennaegramm, as well as liturgical renewal, dance, and a critical appreciation of Scripture. Foremost of the influences on this group, and in my thinking, was the work of C.G. Jung. The sort of people that came to our church, which was then called Cornerstone, were seekers, sometimes refugees, from fundamentalism. Over the years, many of these people who were bitter toward religious pietistic experience gained afresh a new appreciation of the Mystery of God and the Soul. We grew, developed workshops, and taught critical thought in an accessible way for lay people. In the denomination, I was personally held in suspicion and many felt that I had intimidated the more conservative elements through introducing what some thought to be a radical liberalism. Nevertheless, the Mennonite Brethren also appreciated the fact that our church tackled questions that the institutional church left unturned such as homosexuality, dialogue with other religions, the place of the church in confronting mental illness. In short, for many years, we were respected and held in suspicion at the same time. The denomination withdrew or stripped me of my ordination without personal discussion or interaction. The community regathered herself and I still am continuing with my teaching, writing and counselling. As you can imagine, I struggle with this fearing that being outside of the accountability structure we will indeed degenerate into a "cult". But Watershed has built into itself some self critique and freedom which we are hoping will not allow any individual to dominate another. We also acknowledge that this is not the only place were a person can grow and it is not necessarily the right place for everyone. My "defrocking", the shadow over my career, in the end turned out to be my liberation. Through its disgrace I have received the grace to be truthful. In the Christian Scriptures this is called spiritual boldness. The early Christian movement learned boldness as it disassociated itself from the need to please the religious collective. In the end, I thank God for the gold of the shadow found in a renewal of honesty and boldness. Currently I am personally exploring a number of paths in order to find a spiritual orientation. These include: Neo-Paganism (Druidism); Anthroposophy, Theosophy, Celtic Studies, Tarot Traditions, Gurdjieff, and esoteric Christianity. My wife, Bev Patterson, and myself have developed a line of Solstice greeting cards that utilize the images from the tarot. I also teach tarot courses and edit a newsletter called Tarot Traditions. Tarot is for us a path of growth not a path of divination or fortune- telling. I have published two articles this year. One on Charles Dicken's Christmas Carol, which is published in the Dec.94 Dicken's Quarterly, and another - recently published article, on the traumatic events of childhood in Sept\Oct. 94, New Frontier magazine called "Catch Us If You Can". I am starting to feel like I am filling out a job application but as I said I wanted to show you were I am coming from in case as I assume your path is very different from mine. Happy cyber- talking! Now to the discussions. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 23:03:38 -0400 From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: to: Jerry Schueler, Re: Yours of 10-6 Sorry it's taken me this long to answer your message. I printed it out, & put it away in a folder to answer & then forgot I had started that folder. Jerry "Christian Scientists believe that if your thinking is 'right'you will not experience anything 'evil' or 'wrong' or unpleasant." you go on to give the example that if there's a car accident along the road, a Christian Scientist would not "see" it. That's exactly what I don't know how to handle. They all say that the vibes that will affect you from outside yourself are the ones that resonate to the ones inside yourself. And from that point of view the Christina Scientists are right. You think only positive, good vibes. But to me they're not altogether right, & not to you either. I try to be very upbeat, but if I'm walking down the street with someone & they're about to step into some doggie doo, I yell "hey, look out!", even though to a Frenchman, such a stepping into means "good luck". I think I'm keeping the other person from having to waste time taking the mess off their shoe. If I see a situation I think I can help, I tend to look at it, & try to help, even if it's acknowledging that not all is well in this best of all possible worlds. It isn't. We haven't as yet all evolved into Buddhahood. I think not trying to help is selfish. (which I am sometimes. I might be too tired, or just don't want to be bothered, or a person might annoy me) But in seeing that they need help, I guess I'm attracting negative vibes. I was going to say "I don't know how to deal with that," but while I'm writing you, I'm getting ideas. Maybe you can get rid of them afterwards by using Serge's technique of thinking/meditating "harmonize", or doing what the TT people do after they've tried to remove negative vibes from someone. They shake their hands to throw them off. I don't know too well what Pratyeka Buddha stands for. But from your description I don't think I agree with them, for the simple reason that I believe that the universe is 1 interdependent whole, & what happens to 1, affects all. All this doesn't make me think that Christian Scientists aren't nice people. Everyone is entitled to their belief system. I just don't agree with theirs, if that's what it is. I was interested in reading that your arthritis got better when you removed yourself from the stressful situation at work. That fits in with Serge King. According to him, many illnesses are caused by stress. He says they're caused when the natural rhythm of the muscles, which is stress, relax, stress, relax, doesn't occur. When you're stressed out, the muscles can't renew themselves properly, & this eventually causes illness. Does that help you better understand your arthritis? Serge also believes that positive or negative thinking is a great influence on health. He says that all medication is placebo, and that it works because you conscious or unconscious believes it's going to work. That isn't so different from Christian Science either, I think. He was trying to teach us to heal. He also told us to use whatever works, as long as it's ethical. What works often depends on the person's belief system. Your belief is that "untoward things" come from the "dark brotherhood". My belief is that they somehow come from my own unconscious. Having said that, I don't think there is that much difference between us 2. You externalize, & I internalize. You believe that there's a "dark brotherhood" out there, & that idea helps you to deal with them. I'm not sure that there's anything out there, but there's something, & I try to arrange things within myself to deal with whatever is out there, or in here. I'm talking now about personal things. I'm not sure I know very well how to deal with earthquakes or wars or oppression of a whole group. Come to think of it, Serge taught us the rudiments of a way to try to ameliorate things like that too. He called it grokking. But I'm not really skilled enough at it to be effective. Besides, it takes a group effort to try to combat these. Also his technique needs to be done with empathy & love towards the phenomenon you're trying to ameliorate. That's very diffcult. We tried it on an earthquake that was building up in Japan. It was like wow! Quite an experience. Maybe this whole message is an example of how one can try to heal things by seeing something negative and trying to change it. Hope you find it interesting & of some use. You must forgive me for talking about Serge King a lot. I attended one of his workshops in August of '93, and was really quite smitten by all the possibilities he presented to the 70 of us, in 5 short days. I didn't absorb everything then, but brought home audio tapes of the lectures. I've played those several times over. Please write back when you feel like it. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 23:04:20 -0400 From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: to: Jerry Hejka-Ekins, re: yours of 10-16 Hi, Jerry, You're right, for sure. I wasn't thinking. "If I respond with anger, then I'm off center and vulnerable to repercussions." I tried to think back to what I had been taught, because I didn't have a teacher who'd give me a bum steer. It wasn't anger. It was firmness. That would work, for instance, against a bully, if you put your foot down. Does that make more sense? If you've been able to respond "to a person or situation of an evil nature .... out of being very centered, with complete understanding of the situation,... be(ing) very compassionate.... & be(ing) very detached", you're a better man than I'm a woman. I tend to get angry & rattled. My hat's off to you. Let's me see if I can do better,even if it's not easy. I don't want to comment on all your examples, because I agree with them, & that would be repetitious. I just want to cite one prime example of evil I find hard to deal with, as do many other people. Maybe you, or someone of our group has found a good way of dealing with the personnage of Hitler, to me the epitome (accent on pits) of an evil man. I was born an American, but in Germany, & all my ancestors were German Jews. Being Americans, my family left early on, before most of the unpleasantness began, but I heard & read a lot about incidents during the holocaust. The word "forgiveness" wasn't in my vocabulary until Harry Van Gelder taught me what it was about 10 years ago. So I can understand by now that, except for a small core of crazies & ne'er to do wells, most Germans were bullied into joining the Nazi Party. I know of several individual cases of adults as well as children who had to become Nazis, or else get beaten up, austracized, interrogated endlessly, loose their jobs, get dragged to concentration camps, tortured, killed. The whole works ... I've forgiven them long ago. Some of them did heroic deeds underground, which only threatened to be dangerous, whereas open defiance meant certain disaster without accomplishing anything. Once the Nazis got a strangle hold on Germany, it was very dificult for a German to dislodge them. And while they were getting the stranglehold, most people didn't quite realize what was happening, or didn't care. The only excuse for forgiveness towards Hitler that I've come up with so far, is that he was mentally ill. I usually have sympathy for mentally ill people, but I still believe that psychopathic killers should be locked up where they can't do any harm. This psychopath managed to decimate 2 whole ethnic groups the Jews & the Gypsies, plus cause a lot of other havoc around Europe. It's 50, 60 years ago and I still can't believe that one human being can do that to another, even though it's still being done today on a smaller scale in various parts of the world. How does one handle this constructively? Come to think of it. I have another ethical question concerning the Nazi regime, and other unjust governments (in my eyes). When is it ethical not to obey the law? Or is it ever? Even if your life is at stake. For instance I have a Jewish cusin, who was still a German citizen just before WWII, living in New York City, when he got a draft notice to report to the German Army. And again, there was a German law that said that anyone emigrating could take all his possessions, but only $10.- in cash. My people emigrated during the Great Depression ... no jobs to be had, especially if you didn't speak English very well. What to do. They were inventive. One of my cusins hollowed out an old broom's handle, & stuffed money in large denominations into it. It got over here with the rest of his household goods. One of my uncles built a secet compartment into his car to smuggle money into Switzerland. He just missed getting summarily shot at the border. But he crossed over safely & stored his money away in a Swiss safe deposit box. Very illegal, but he & his family lived on that money for years, after they emigrated. I understand that illegal acts like that were also the rule in Iron curtain countries. I suppose wherever laws are so oppressive that people live in discomfort & fear. Probably in China too. Well, when is it ethical to disobey unjust laws, & who's to decide what's unjust? Do you, or anyone have any theosophical answers to these questions? I'd sure like to know them, even if they're only tentative. Thanks for listening, & writing Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 23:39:10 -0400 From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: To: Eldon B. Tucker Hello and how do you do to little Geoffrey Glenn. May his life be one great cornucopia. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 00:31:17 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: Birth Announcement Congratulations, Brenda and Eldon! Knowing you two, little Geoffrey will probably be saying something profound on-line in a month or two. I am very happy for you both. Warm best wishes, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 01:24:23 -0400 From: Andrew Rooke Subject: Theosophy and modern art Just a short addendum to the interesting discussion on this subject. California artist Wynne Wolff researched the subject of spirituality and modern art extensively in the late 80s. He lectured on the subject at the Theosophical Library centre at Altadena and produced a booklet and slide set entitled "Philartsophy". I understand that he was working on a video and book on this subject which may be available now. We have the original booklet and slide set in our library in Melbourne, Australia, however, US residents should contact John Van Mater Snr Librarian of the Theosophical University Library in Pasadena for information on this project and contact with Wynne Wolff. With good wishes to all, Andrew Rooke - TS(Pasadena) Australia From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 04:33:40 -0400 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: birth; ethics Eldon, Congratulations. Hope mom is doing well too. Love to the four of you. Liesel, L> The only excuse for forgiveness towards Hitler that I've come > up with so far, is that he was mentally ill. I usually have > sympathy for mentally ill people, but I still believe that > psychopathic killers should be locked up where they can't do > any harm. This psychopath managed to decimate 2 whole ethnic > groups the Jews & the Gypsies, plus cause a lot of other havoc > around Europe. It's 50, 60 years ago and I still can't believe > that one human being can do that to another, even though it's > still being done today on a smaller scale in various parts of > the world. How does one handle this constructively? If we can give Hitler credit for anything, it is that his career has given us a lot to think about. I don't think that I've ever had an in depth discussion on karma, for instance, without the subject of the holocaust coming up. In fact we just finished a three hour discussion on it tonight (and three more hours last week) in context with H.P.B.'s teachings concerning distributive and retributive karma. One thing that I read in de Purucker some years ago (but it didn't come up tonight), was the idea of "men of destiny"--the Napoleons, Stalins and Hitlers of the world that appear and come into leadership, carrying out wide spread destruction. Purucker argues that these people appear to carry out the collective karma of the people. Personally, I find the argument convincing. Anti semitism was widespread in Europe, and had been a tradition going back for centuries. Considering the over all anti semitic sentiment of most of the European nations (as opposed to the higher morality of individuals), I think Hitler was given pretty much carte blanche to give a "final solution" to the "Jew and Gypsy problem." What I'm suggesting is that leaders arise out of the collective desires and attitudes of the people. Though Hitler gave the orders, I feel that the western world as a whole has a share in the shame of what happened. I'm also including the United States. There is a lot more that I could say on this point, but I'm sure you know WWII history at least as well as I, so you can fill in the blanks. We've already forgotten the misery brought on by Genghis Kahn and Julius Caesar; Napoleon, almost so, and Stalin will also be forgotten soon. Thanks to the dedicated work of people like Simon Wiesenthal and others, Hitler will be remembered for a very long time. Maybe his memory is what we need in order to finally create a genuine world peace. Hitler is still remembered in France. They don't need a Simon Wiesenthal to remind them. I was over there two or three years ago and spent a month in Vannes in Brittany. I remember seeing photographs in store windows that were taken during the occupation. While in Paris, I visited a lovely church (eglise) in the Latin quarter, one of the most beautiful I had even seen. But all of those beautiful stained glass windows that you find in the great cathedrals like in Chartes or Notre Dame de Paris, were all missing and had been replaced with stained glass windows with a modern looking regular geometric design. The originals had been blown out by German bombs. There was a sign near the apse saying that the windows had been replaced by the German people as a gesture of apology and an offering of friendship. I felt a very deep sadness. While in Vannes, I attended a language school, and my fellow students and I used to meet in the afternoons at a Cafe near the port in the old section (Vannes was a medieval trading port, and its walls and architecture are still in tact). The students came from all over the world. We had one other American, some from Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, and a German. While I was there that summer, Russia was falling apart, Germany was reuniting and the Russian coup was eminent. When the subject drifted to politics (a favorite subject in Europe), and the re- unity of Germany, I asked our German friend if he believed that Germany would take this as an opportunity to rise again as a world military power. He shook his head in the affirmative. We all sat in silence. L> Come to think of it. I have another ethical question > concerning the Nazi regime, and other unjust governments (in my > eyes). When is it ethical not to obey the law? Or is it ever? > Even if your life is at stake. For instance I have a Jewish > cusin, who was still a German citizen just before WWII, living > in New York City, when he got a draft notice to report to the > German Army. And again, there was a German law that said that > anyone emigrating could take all his possessions, but only > $10.- in cash. My people emigrated during the Great Depression > ... no jobs to be had, especially if you didn't speak English > very well. What to do. They were inventive. One of my cusins > hollowed out an old broom's handle, & stuffed money in large > denominations into it. It got over here with the rest of his > household goods. One of my uncles built a secet compartment > into his car to smuggle money into Switzerland. He just missed > getting summarily shot at the border. But he crossed over > safely & stored his money away in a Swiss safe deposit box. > Very illegal, but he & his family lived on that money for > years, after they emigrated. I understand that illegal acts > like that were also the rule in Iron curtain countries. I > suppose wherever laws are so oppressive that people live in > discomfort & fear. Probably in China too. Well, when is it > ethical to disobey unjust laws, & who's to decide what's > unjust? Of course, different people reason from different ethical standpoints, and some from none at all, but I would like to offer my answer. I think it is ethical to disobey unjust laws whenever a higher good is being served. Those people who operated the underground railroads almost 150 years ago were clearly acting illegally, but I think for the greater good. So were those heros who worked to save Jewish lives. Schindler, of course comes to mind. Though, I might have an obligation to obey the laws, I believe that I also have an obligation to break them when a higher morality is at stake. Your cousins were working in the interest of the welfare of their families. If I had been in their situation, I hope that I would have acted as bravely. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 07:39:48 -0400 From: "DE-HIWI" Subject: search -all wsde09@wsfg1.wiso.uni-erlangen.de From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 08:01:37 -0400 From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: To: Arthur Patterson Re: This theosophy stufff Hi, Reverend, Welcome to our network. I'm pretty new to it myself, but I've been a Theosophist for a very long time. To begin with, Theosophists belong to all the religions of the world, usually to the mystical branch. We say that Theosophy is part of the ancient Wisdom Tradition. Some of our spiritual ancestors are Orpheus, Plato, Pythagoras, the ancient Egyptians, Jesus, The Buddha, Abraham, the Tibetans, the Medieval Mystics, the Alchemists. Think the best thing I can do for you for starters is to give you 2 ministers to look up, & to tell you about 2 Theosophical libraries, where you can read up or do research on anything religious, including, I'm sure, Matthew Fox, and things New Age, esoteric & mystical. You're in California, I take it. I'm looking at the back cover of Stephan Hoeller's latest book, "Freedom". He's a Gnostic minister. He's a Theosophist. He's also big on Jung. According to the blurp, he lives in Hollywood, teaches comparative religons at the College of Oriental Studies in LA, and is director of the Gnostic Society of LA. There is an offspring of the Theosophical Society called the Liberal Catholic Church. There are a number of such churches around the US. The one I know about is in New York City. The Minister is Ed Abdill, who's also past National Board Member, & past President of the New York Theosophical Society (Adyar), and he also ran the large NY Quest Book Store for a number of years. I don't know his e-mail address, even though bits to buttons he has one, since his wife, Mary works as a computer consultant. You can write to him c /o The New York Theosophical Society, 242 E 53 Street, New York, NY 10022. If you are near LA, the library at The Krotona Institute, 46 Krotona Hill, Ojai Ca. 93032 may be accessible to you. I don't know under what conditions they lend out books because I get mine from the Olcott Library, which is housed in the headquarters of the Theosophical Society in America (Adyar), Box 270, Wheaton Ill., 60189. e-mail address Olcott@dupagels.lib.il.us. They mail-loan many of their books. If I remember correctly, it costs $35.- per an. to join it as a non-member. It also costs $37.50 to be a Member-at-Large of the Theosophical Society (Adyar). If you join, you have access to the Olcott Library without charge, and you also get "Quest" magazine, a super quarterly, and the "American Theosophist", which is sort of an in-house publication. So, have your pick, if you're interested. To give you an idea as to books you could borrow from the libraries which I would think would interest a minister, I looked up "Religion" in the latest Quest Book catalogue of the Theosophical Publishing House, which is also at Box 270 etc. (They have 800 numbers, but I don't know whether the East Coast numbers work from the West Coast). You can borrow these from the Library, or buy them from the Theosophical Publishing House, if they're of enough interest to own. You can also just ask the TPH for their catalogue, no charge. There are 4 volumes of "Hidden Wisdom in The Holy Bible" by Geoffrey Hodson. That's one of our classics. Some of it has also been put on audio tape. "Angels & Mortals: Their Co-Creative Power", "Celebrate The Solstice", "Christianity" & "Esoteric Christianity" both by Annie Besant, our second President, and a whiz. "Gospels as A Mandala of Wisdom", "Reincarnation for The Christian" Quincy Howe Jr., "Reincarnation in Christianity", "Hymn of Jesus", "Jung & The Lost Gospels","A Rebirth for Christianity", "Rehearsal for Christmas" (a 1-act play), "The Science of The Sacraments" (The sacraments of the Liberal Catholic Church) Charles Ledbeater, its founder, "The Transcendent Unity of Religions" Fritjof Schuon, "Jesus Christ, Sun of God". Those are only books published by us. The Olcott Library has thousands of others. Let me just give you the titles of the subdivisions of their holdings from their Annotated Book List of 1990: Arts & Music, Astrology, Comparative Religion, Consciousness (which is spirit etc.), Death & Dying, Life after Death, Health & Healing, History of The Theosophical Movement, Karma, Meditation, Myths & Symbols, Parapsychology, Precognition & Retrocognition, Religions of The World & the Wisdom Tradition, Science & The Wisdom Tradition, The Secret Doctrine, Spiritual & Other Biographies, Theosophy, Yoga. If you contact them, I think you'll find the staff most helpful. They've been to me. I hope this will be of help to you, while you network your way into a more sure footing for your church. I would like to say just 1 more thing, before I quit writing for today. You sure don't sound to me like you're going to "degenerate into a cult" any time soon. You say "Watershed has built into itself some self-critique & freedom which we are hoping will not allow any individual to dominate another. We also acknowledge that this is not the only place where a person can grow & it is not necessarily the right place for everyone." Doesn't sound like a cult to me. We try to work along similar directions. We have a doctrine, starting from our founder, HB Blavatsky's "Secret Doctrine". She was an early leader, who still counts for much in the Society. But she believed with the Buddha that the thing to do was to "work out your own salvation with diligence." And that's what we try to do. We each try to develop along our own Path. The only prerequisite for joining the Theosophical Society is that you must believe in the Brotherhood of Man. All the other facets of our doctrine must be examined by the individual, weighed, and then either adapted of rejected. No 2 Theosophists think exactly alike. We're not a cult either. Best of luck to you. Others on theos-l will fill you in on other theosophical details. If you have more questions, please feel free... (Mrs.) Liesel Deutsch From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 08:19:34 -0400 From: Arthur Patterson Subject: Re: Can we talk about this theosophy stuff? On Thu, 27 Oct 1994, Todd Robert Maas wrote: > Sorry, Arthur I don't have time to respond now I will get in > touch in a few days when I can process your story. I don't want > to lead you on with where I am at. I am a devote Christian. I > would like to explore this information along with you, but more > as an observer and how these other beliefs effect my beliefs. I > don't want to argue about anything we can discuss certain truths > about the subject matter. I see this more as two people > searching for truth not one view against the other. I hope that > we can gain a friendship even if we don't see eye to eye. If at > anytime my letters become threatening you can cut off > communication. I will honor that if you would. My story is that > I am in college and I will graduate with a youth ministry degree. > I could use some insight into the pitfalls of ministry. I hope > you understand my agenda in this whole thing. If this is O.K. > throw some questions out and lets find some answers. Thanks Todd for your response and I would love to discuss the questions of theosophy. I have a particular style that makes me apply my theoretics so I use my personal experience to do so. You could say I have a hermeneutic of experience. This may be what is the difference between esoteric and exoteric Christianity. One relies on a word based interpretation of life sometimes knowingly or unknowingly coupled with experience; whereas the other uses experience sometimes coupled with word. I am assuming that you have discussed these issues at Bethel. I know many people who have attended there and especially during the great inerrancy of Scripture debates of the mid 70's. IMHO, ministry is an interesting place to grow your spirituality there are great advantages and disadvantages. In time I am sure we may discuss these but one thing that strikes me. You are answering me from a Theosophical list is that not a bit irregular for a "Baptist"? well some variety of evanglical. To me that is refreshing since Theosophy is a philosophy of toleration. But look out my new friend toleration is not plentiful in the Evanglical world, it can be had in Seminary and institutions of higher learning but in the pews and Church conferences and boards it is a rarity. I don't know if they warn you that "exploration" of other forms for the truth that may be found in them is not encouraged generally. For many you explore to construct an apologetic so that people can be "saved". What might happen to you is that you get converted to some wierd esoteric principle thus poluting the pure uncontaminated interpretation of Scripture that the particular denomination espouses. In effect, exploration can lead to your conversion and growth. If you are a minister and therefore in a postition where you must uphold the tradition you are more accountable than most to be orthodox, look out it might box you in. Well that should kick things off to a rousing start. Like you I have no intention of offense just being honest about where I am on the pilgrimage so far. I don't know whether the list is interested the struggle of Christians integrating Theosophical thought. So I will send to the list inviting response from all. You are free to kick us onto e-mail if the discussion is too tedious. Arthur Paul Patterson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 08:38:18 -0400 From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: To: Jerry H-E, Re: ethics Thanks, Jerry for your prompt answer. It was very healing. You see the thing from a broader viewpoint, and, of course other tyrants killed millions, & we've forgotten, I'd forgotten to include them in. I just recently read about the Celts fighting many bloody battles against the Romans, before & after Ceasar conquered Gallia Omnia. That's another one to add, & I guess the Tibetans are as well. Your idea of Hitler being a product of the collective Karma, or antisemitism prevalent at the time helps put things into perspective. Serge would stand there & try to "harmonize", or relieve the tension. You also make me feel better about my relatives who broke the unjust German laws. I hadn't thought of the Underground Railroad, nor of the sit-ins. Your comments make me understand better my own motives, and ameliorate where I'm coming from. I'm not sure I agree with you, though, about the function of Simon Wiesenthal. I hope you're right in that his creating reminders for the whole world of the horror that accompanied holocaust will help create world peace. There are still the Chinese, and the Sadam Husseins, who could care less. But another strain is also that one needs not to reopen that trauma for oneself time after time, repeating & repeating the same thought forms, as some Jews tend to do, but rather, one needs to forget, at least partially, and go on from there. It's now 50, 60 years into the past, and it's time to let the wounds heal as best one can. I think I myself have struck a better balance between the 2 than most other people, but you've helped me along with your remarks. Thanks. And the theosophical question is how much of what we've done in the past do we have to remember in order not to be stuck in a circular Karma path, but instead to learn from our past mistakes & move ahead , evolve. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 12:29:32 -0400 From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: PS Re: ethics, to Jerry Hejka - Ekins On my way to our bus committee meeting - our in house bus & its driver are overworked, & no one is getting to their MD appointments on time - I thought of an exception to what you wrote & I agree with "I think it is ethical to disobey an unjust law whenever higher good is being served." I thought of a possible exception, & need to play devil's advocate. Does one go so far as to sanction killing someone? We Theosophists don't believe in killing anything. I can think of an example where I would, & one where I wouldn't. I don't think that the pro-life man was justified in killing the MD who performed abortions, on the grounds that one killing doesn't justify another, if you decide to classify abortion as killing. But my husband, who's dead now, before WWII, belonged to the moderate Jewish Underground, the Haganah, in Palestine. The fathers of the same terrorists who are active now were active then. They sneaked into defenseless Jewish farm settlements during the night, & killed people. (Just as an aside, all the land the Jews owned & cultivated at that time had been bought as real estate from Arabs). At the time, the British were in charge, but they did nothing to stop this. So the Jews formed a self defense force. They worked at regular jobs during the day, & policed at risk territories at night. Fredi told me he'd never killed anyone, but I didn't quite believed him. I also think that killing in self defense is justified as a last resort. If I ever had to do it, I would feel very guilty afterwards anyway, about having taken another person's life. But it's an iffy question. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 08:48:53 -0400 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: holdermans; hitler Arthur Patterson, I was stunned to read your post of 10/27. We live in Turlock, a major center for the Holdermans, who broke away from the Mennonites because they considered them to liberal. I have two friends from this group who experienced much the same shunning as you did. They were not given the benefit of an explanation--they were just told to set themselves right with God. No doubt you are in touch with how deeply hurt they were to be suddenly pushed away from the very community of people they grew up in. One is married to a theosophist who belongs to our group. The other is still going through the pain of separation. I plan to give them copies of your post the next time of see them. It seems that you have already done quite a bit of exploring outside of your tradition. With Theosophy, you have discovered the historical beginning of the promulgation of many of those ideas you have already discovered in other philosophies, so I'm sure that you will find a lot that is already familiar. I feel that the most central book--that reaches to the heart of what the theosophical movement is about, is ~The Voice of the Silence~ by H.P. Blavatsky. I would be very interested in your response to the work. On the other hand, theosophy means a lot of things to a lot of people, and there are many "Theosophical Societies" in this world, each with very different traditions. The only link they all have in common is Blavatsky. In this country there are four main organizations, plus a lot of independent students who are associated with none of them. Good luck on your search. Needless to say, I already feel a connection to your experiences, because of those of my two friends here. If you need any information or resources, I'm more than glad to help. I have a background of over 30 years in theosophy, and a special interest in the core teachings of theosophy and in theosophical history. Liesel, You are quite right of course, that the Saddam Hussians and the Chinese could care less about Wiesenthal. However, I was thinking about the message he has for the Americans and Europeans who were more karmically involved with Hitler's political theatre. As for Hussain, Bush likened him to Hitler. Good ol' George might have been a bit dramatic, and his politics to obvious for my comfort--yet I think he was essentially right. Like Hitler, Hussain showed his colors when he did his genocidal blood bath but with the Kurds. It looks like we have another psychopathic leader to deal with. I wish I had an answer. But more to your point, concerning Wiesenthal reopening the trauma, I agree this is a problem--yet it is a trauma because we have not yet come to terms with it. Certainly many Jews who experienced living in those death camps never came to terms with that experience, and perhaps never will in this life time. I grew up in Los Angeles in a Jewish community, and though not myself a Jew, my environment put me very much in touch with what they have to deal with. I also think the Zionist training that some of the children I know went through was very cruel, and was spawned by the unbalanced thinking that came as a natural result of the cruelty experienced by their parents. My feeling is that the work that Wiesenthal is doing is a type of healing for him, and also for many Jews. As for forgetting--or how much to forget--I agree that we need to heal, but I don't think that the healing process involves forgetting. It sounds too close to repressing to me. Instead, we need to come to terms with our own experiences concerning the past. Repressed ghosts never go away. We have to make friends with our ghosts (or thought forms)--get to know them--eventually they become a better part of us. I don't mean to come off glib about this. I've had a lot to deal with on this matter myself, and I'm still trying to work with a lot of ghosts in my own past. On the bright side, most of the people living in this world are too young to remember John Kennedy, let alone Hitler. Hitler and Kennedy are just facts in a history book for them. They are already removed from those eras. When Wiesenthal speaks, these children hear something quite different than what we hear, who were born before, during or shortly after the war. I think that one of the wisest sayings I've heard comes from the philosopher George Santana, who said that those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. I feel that Wiesenthal is providing a service to those two young to remember, to help them not to forget and repeat the mistakes of their forbearers. Spielberg also when he made ~Schiendler's List.~ I felt no need whatsoever to see that movie, and wouldn't have seen it, except for the insistence of my wife. When I did see the movie, I saw nothing that I hadn't already seen in the old movietone newsreels or heard about from those who were there. But take a group of 15-20 year olds to see that movie, and as likely as not, it has to be explained to them, lest they mistake it for fiction. To give another example about generations forgetting: I teach writing to freshman students at the University here. The students have to read four or five short pieces per week and write expository essays concerning them. One of the pieces assigned to them is a story about a young black girl in the sixties who leaves her upper middle class home to live in the ghetto in an attempt to find her identity. She adopts an African name, and decorates her apartment with African art, and regrets that her skin is not darker than it is. Now remember, I'm teaching very racially mixed classes, and always have at least two black students, whom I hope would enlighten the other students about the civil rights movements in the sixties. But even my twenty year old black students don't have a clue! I have to explain "Brown vs the Board of Education", "N.A.A.C.P.", "S.N.C.C.", "Black Muslims", "Black pride"--at least Martin Luther King rings a bell for most of the students, but only because there is a holiday named after him. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 22:44:37 -0400 From: Arthur Patterson Subject: Re: holdermans; hitler Hi Jerry, Here is my response to your letter. I enjoyed thinking about what you had written and am grateful to you for your offer of resourcing. I hope the formating is not a problem, I downloaded and wrote the response. Jerry 1>I was stunned to read your post of 10/27. We live in Turlock, a major center for the Holdermans, who broke away from the Mennonites because they considered them to liberal. I have two friends from this group who experienced much the same shunning as you did. They were not given the benefit of an explanation--they were just told to set themselves right with God. Arthur 1> This tendency to desire more and more purity is part and parcel of the sectarian perspective. I see it in many groups that seek to live a more disciplined or higher life than the collective. The early Anabaptists from which the Mennonite, Hutterites and Halderman come were differentiating themselves from the more lax Lutherans and Calvinist. Their emphasis on discipleship and suffering got them into a denial of the world situation. Little did many Mennonites realize that they created a "new world" with its lower instinctual legalism. This has harmed many who are unaware of the difficulty of breaking out of the earth bound perspectives. It is extremely difficult to break the habits even though you may change your ideology. There are legalistic New agers, dare I imagine Theosophists?, legalistic Liberals as well as legalistic Fundamentalists. Because we share the same propensity toward demanding conforming and being intolerant I think it important to find the roots of dogmatism in something larger, perhaps more spiritual than any given ideology. Jerry 2> No doubt you are in touch with how deeply hurt they were to be suddenly pushed away from the very community of people they grew up in. One is married to a theosophist who belongs to our group. The other is still going through the pain of separation. Art 2> Yes, it is terrible to be ostracized and judged. I was talking to an anthropology professor who I haven't connected with and he had some interesting perspectives on self identity. He told me that you are who you belong to. I know there is more to it that that but this is helpful in looking at any form of separation. When I separated from my job as a minister my identity so changed over a few years that I had to symbolize it. I do so by using the name Arthur instead of Paul now. I was Paul and still am to my older friends but I use Arthur on the net and when I write. It follows the practise of renaming given in the Christian Scriptures and indicates "new birth". I am certain of the continuity between the identities but I know that to move forward I need to make some symbolic changes. Its not as radical as it may sound since my first name was Arthur but my parents called me Paul. The symbol indicates the the separation is deep. Jerry 3> I plan to give them copies of your post the next time of see them. Art 3> Please do and if they want to correspond my snail mail address is: Arthur Paul Patterson 694 Victor Street Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada, R3E 1Y5 Jerry 4> It seems that you have already done quite a bit of exploring outside of your tradition. With Theosophy, you have discovered the historical beginning of the promulgation of many of those ideas you have already discovered in other philosophies, so I'm sure that you will find a lot that is already familiar. Art 4> Indeed. I am however at the very beginning of my formal Theosophical search. Some people have suggest that I start with Steiner because he is more Western as opposed to HPB. Let me know what you think. What I understand from what you say is that Theosophy has to do with the roots of human spirituality. The grand over arching schemata so to speak. I hope that it is true. I need some work at intergration. I have deep doubts that it is because I have hear claims to ultimacy before and am slightly suspicious but I am also open to testing. Unlike my former conversions I am not going to swallow things without passing them through what I have already tested to be experientially sustaining. So I follow a hermeneutic of experience with a dose of suspicion. Jerry, I wanted to ask about "history". Are we talking about "heilsgeschite", salvation history here or is there a literal group of Mahatmas or a literal civilization of Atlaneans? In my studies I have found that symbolist interpretation helps me more than historial critical or literal ones. For instance the evangelical believes in Creation in seven days with a talking snake to boot. I believe the Creation account is a polemic response to other competing religious mythologies and not a scientific account of what happened. This of course demands that the meaning of Creation be addressed at the deeper level. The meaning would be that there is a sovereign God called YHWH who is not in competition and creates in peacefulness. etc... I could go on but won't... You do see however what I mean is HPB to be taken literally or symbolically? Jerry 5>I feel that the most central book--that reaches to the heart of what the theosophical movement is about, is ~The Voice of the Silence~ by H.P. Blavatsky. I would be very interested in your response to the work. Art 5> I went out directy and bought this book. I started reading it and find it very eastern but not unfamiliar. Being a novice I am unfamiliar with the Tibetian, Hindu terms but when I read in the index I am familiar with concepts that seem parallel in some of the traditions I have looked into. What I would like to do if anyone is interest is to read very small snippets of this book. And then translate them into the familiar concepts and interact with each other on the list. I will post something on say the first few sentences on the Fragment and then have those who know much more than I comment on my response, make their own more informed comments and continue in that manner. Does this seem possible on the listserv, Jerry? Perhaps there is a better way of doing this but let me know. Jerry 6> On the other hand, theosophy means a lot of things to a lot of people, and there are many "Theosophical Societies" in this world, each with very different traditions. The only link they all have in common is Blavatsky. In this country there are four main organizations, plus a lot of independent students who are associated with none of them. Good luck on your search. Needless to say, I already feel a connection to your experiences, because of those of my two friends here. If you need any information or resources, I'm more than glad to help. I have a background of over 30 years in theosophy, and a special interest in the core teachings of theosophy and in theosophical history. Art 6> Thank you for your offer of resources I hope I have not been too over eager in my pursuit of understanding Theosophist thought. My suspicions are things I want to overcome - its the way I am beginning to learn now. Under the Mercy, Arthur Paul Patterson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1994 01:04:13 -0400 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Liesel - a brief comment. Liesel, thanks for your nice note. You asked to write if I care to on your comments, and actually there is one small matter that I would like to clear up, because if I leave it, it would imply that I agree, and I dont. So here goes: Liesel writes I am of the belief that what is inside is mirrored on the outside, and vice versa. We are all microcosms of the macrocosmic universe and can only experience outside, what is already inside us. The "Darkness" as well as the "Light" are two sides of the same substance which is both outside and inside all of us. I appologise for giving you the wrong idea about my beliefs. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1994 04:39:40 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: theosophy Arthur, Arthur 1> This tendency to desire more and more purity is part and parcel of the sectarian perspective. I see it in many groups that seek to live a more disciplined or higher life than the collective. The early Anabaptists from which the Mennonite, Hutterites and Halderman come were differentiating themselves from the more lax Lutherans and Calvinist. Their emphasis on discipleship and suffering got them into a denial of the world situation. Little did many Mennonites realize that they created a "new world" with its lower instinctual legalism. This has harmed many who are unaware of the difficulty of breaking out of the earth bound perspectives. It is extremely difficult to break the habits even though you may change your ideology. There are legalistic New agers, dare I imagine Theosophists?, legalistic Liberals as well as legalistic Fundamentalists. Because we share the same propensity toward demanding conforming and being intolerant I think it important to find the roots of dogmatism in something larger, perhaps more spiritual than any given ideology. Jerry 1> I see what you mean. A friend once jokingly told me that I would probably be shot if I stumbled into the Halderman community down here. But the insulation is quite evident. Those on the outside cannot even dine with those on the inside. It reminds me of the Brahmans, who don't eat in the presence of the lower casts. Yes, I've known a lot of theosophists who are pretty insulated too. I think you have the key here. The insulated theosophists I've known are also into discipleship, and maybe a type of suffering too. It seems to be the pitfall of organizations. You get too holed up in them, and loose touch with the rest of the world. As for intolerance, my experience is that theosophists tend to be quite tolerant towards others, but not so tolerant toward each other. I agree that one needs to look to something larger than any given ideology, but in practice it seems to be tricky. Even when we escape the ideologies, we can still get caught up in the one we create for ourselves. Art 4> Indeed. I am however at the very beginning of my formal Theosophical search. Some people have suggest that I start with Steiner because he is more Western as opposed to HPB. Let me know what you think. Jerry> You'll be attracted to whoever you will be attracted to. I like Blavatsky, but her expression is not Christian. Actually it is really not representative of any other religion either. She tried to be universal, though she primarily draws from Sanskrit for terminology. Steiner is very Christian, so you might find a more familiar vernacular with him. I do like Steiner's Organization's practical application of his teachings-- such as biodynamic gardening, eurythmy, and educational theories. The only caution I have, is don't make the assumption that all theosophical writers are saying the same thing. Treat each one as an individual with their own point of view. I have met so many students of theosophy who assume that all of these writers are the receiver of some common "divine revelation", and try to force obviously contradictory statements into complementary ones. Discrimination is important, otherwise you'll end up with a confused mess. Art4> What I understand from what you say is that Theosophy has to do with the roots of human spirituality. The grand over arching schemata so to speak. I hope that it is true. I need some work at intergration. I have deep doubts that it is because I have hear claims to ultimacy before and am slightly suspicious but I am also open to testing. Unlike my former conversions I am not going to swallow things without passing them through what I have already tested to be experientially sustaining. So I follow a hermeneutic of experience with a dose of suspicion. Jerry> Yes, I believe theosophy does have to do with the "roots of human spirituality," as you say--at least the core teachings do. But, on the other hand, how can "spiritual truths" written in a book be any more than *relative* truths? To know spiritual truths requires spiritual perception. The ~Voice of the Silence~, which was "dedicated to the few", was written for those who desire to go beyond relative truths. Yet, I don't think you will find anything in the ~Voice~ that you can't find in Christianity, Buddhism, or any other major religion, but I see that as an argument in favor of the value of the book. I understand your suspicions. It won't take you long to figure out that students of theosophy are no better that anyone else (I hope no one objects to my saying so). Blavatsky made a distinction between a theosophist and a student of theosophy. She said that a true theosophist lives a life of pure altruism. Blavatsky also mentioned once that she had met about six theosophists in her life time. She never said whether or not any of them were also members of the Theosophical Society. She did write that the Catholic Priest, Damien was a theosophist, however. What I feel is unique about the theosophical movement (regardless of what form it takes) is its universality. Art> Jerry, I wanted to ask about "history". Are we talking about "heilsgeschite", salvation history here or is there a literal group of Mahatmas or a literal civilization of Atlaneans? In my studies I have found that symbolist interpretation helps me more than historial critical or literal ones. For instance the evangelical believes in Creation in seven days with a talking snake to boot. I believe the Creation account is a polemic response to other competing religious mythologies and not a scientific account of what happened. This of course demands that the meaning of Creation be addressed at the deeper level. The meaning would be that there is a sovereign God called YHWH who is not in competition and creates in peacefulness. etc... I could go on but won't... You do see however what I mean is HPB to be taken literally or symbolically? Jerry> Blavatsky spoke of literal Mahatmas. By that she met historical physical beings. Though these Mahatmas may have been spiritually enlightened, they were still just people. Their primary mode of transportation in those days was by horseback. Today, they probably would drive cars, or at least take the bus. I'm making this distinction because of the common belief in "Ascended Masters" that speak through people, and live on some "astral plane." This is all a later invention, and did not come from H.P.B. There are a lot of people around who claim to "channel" the same Mahatmas that H.P.B. knew. Blavatsky's Mahatmas on the other hand, were quite human, and a lot of people other than H.P.B. also knew them in the flesh, and testified so. H.P.B.'s Mahatmas didn't speak through people, but wrote letters. For instance, their correspondence with A.P. Sinnett, an early Theosophist, is in the British Museum, available to be seen by any researcher. As for "Atlantis": H.P.B.'s idea of Atlantis is also quite different from the current popular thought. Atlantis to H.P.B., was not "the eighth continent" but represented a period in our physical evolution when people where more animal than human. The Atlantian period, according to H.P.B., came to an end about one million years ago. Plato's Atlantis, she claims, was a small Island that sank around 10,000 B.C. Yet, she writes about the mythologies as having symbolic meaning, but with a drop of history in them also. Witness the finding of Troy, for instance. She would agree with you that religious mythologies are not a "scientific account of what happened" as you say. But she would also say that encoded within the mythologies are deep truths, and sometimes even scientific ones. Embedded within her teachings is a method for decoding those mythologies. As for God, H.P.B. did not believe in a personal God. She was a pantheist of sorts, and yet taught that "a god" dwells within each of us. This really doesn't contradict because she postulates the identity of every soul with the oversoul. Further, though she claimed that all of the great religions possess great spiritual truths, she also says that their modern expressions have a lot of superstition in them. But when I mentioned "history", I was thinking about the history of the various theosophical organizations and the many esoteric societies that spun off of them. I'm also interested in intellectual history--that is the source of ideas and how they are changed. Art 5> I went out directy and bought this book. I started reading it and find it very eastern but not unfamiliar. Being a novice I am unfamiliar with the Tibetian, Hindu terms but when I read in the index I am familiar with concepts that seem parallel in some of the traditions I have looked into. Jerry> Yes. Art> What I would like to do if anyone is interest is to read very small snippets of this book. And then translate them into the familiar concepts and interact with each other on the list. I will post something on say the first few sentences on the Fragment and then have those who know much more than I comment on my response, make their own more informed comments and continue in that manner. Does this seem possible on the listserv, Jerry? Perhaps there is a better way of doing this but let me know. Jerry> Sounds good to me. However, if you get ten people to take you up on this, you will probably get at least ten viewpoints for each "snippet." Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1994 12:23:16 -0500 From: euser Subject: Study/research on religion-science synthesis Hi everyone, A couple of days ago I subscribed to this list, thanks to Paul Gillingwater. I wonder if there are any Theosophists in this forum who study the relationships between Science and Theosophy from the angles H.P.B. mentioned (Sacred Geometry, Kabbalah, Astrology, Physiology, Chemistry, Hierarchies, etc.) This has my special interest (being a scientist and psychologist) and this will be a necessary part of the evolution of Theosophy too, I think. Besides that I write some articles for the Newsnet, presenting Theosophy as a practical philosophy of life. Please let me know if you are working or studying on a kind of synthesis between religion/science/Theosophy. Maybe we can share some ideas! Martin Euser xs4all The Netherlands E-mail: euser@xs4all.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1994 20:56:54 -0500 From: Chris Moyer Subject: Re: Study/research on religion-science synthesis I'm not working the marriage of science and theosophy myself, but a woman named Barbara Brennan is. She is a healer, somewhat in the tradition of Reiki, and she's written an outstanding book called Hands of Light - A Guide to Healing Through the Human Energy Field. In the early chapters, she quotes several studies validating the Human Energy Field and the whole idea of etheric, mental, physical bodies. It's an awesome read. Chris Moyer Chicago From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1994 21:32:21 -0500 From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: To: AP Patterson, Re: This Theosophy stuff The Reverend Arthur wrote "...Look out, my new friend toleration is not plentiful in the Evangelical world....... If you are a minister and therefore in a position where you must uphold the tradition you are more accountable than most to be orthodox, look out it might box you in." First off, I think this is a problem in other religions as well. People get used to doing things one way over the years & centuries, resist change, & get "boxed in." The Buddhists say that change is the one thing in life that one can count on, and theosophists believe this as well. I think that if one can't at least try to live with this idea in mind, one tends to stagnate, be "boxed in" again, I guess. I try to associate myself with people & organizations which are dynamic, instead of stagnant. I'm looking to grow, & to evolve, & that to me is much more interesting & fulfilling than standing still. I try to live "in the Now", using yesterday only for the lesson it contains for use today, or for trying to create a better tomorrow. That's the theosophical way. Don't cling. I'm especially aware of this mode of thinking, because I'm a senior citizen, & most of my age group gets wrapped up reminiscing about "the good old days". They also try to keep on doing things the way they've always been used to doing them, whether they've been improved upon in the last 20 years or not. Here I am, bragging, but I also notice that it's become more difficult with age to change my ways, & some of them I can't change anymore at all. That's what you've run into with your church, I think. You're younger & more plyable, & looking for new & better ways, & they want to stick to the "old tried & true" & worn out. It's an old battle you're caught in, and you're fighting it with much courage. Just keep on going. You'll make it. I started out life being Jewish. Jews have the same quarrels between the traditional Orthodox and the Reformed, who also try to preserve tradition, but modify it to fit in with the times. I've known several Moslems, & the same dichotomy exists among them. There are people with immoveable minds all over. My yardstick in trying to find a compatible church or denomination has, for a long time, been an article called "Doctrine & Dogma", which Shirley Nicholson wrote for the October '83 "American Theosophist." I've quoted it often. I'm going to copy part of it here for you, in the hope that it will be of some help. The first paragraph is an introduction to theosophy. The rest contains the crux of the matter. "....volumes have been written to explicate the doctrines of theosophy. Though they are very broad, they are still definite and specific. The fact that they have been expressed in various ways throughout history does not make them any less explicit. The oneness of all life, the law of cycles, the unity of the individual soul with the Oversoul, man's pilgrimage through many lifetimes - these are among the universal principles stressed by HPB. They are understood in various degrees of depth by different members. "In addition to required belief, dogma has connotations which relate to how a doctrine is understood. Fritjof Schuon, reknowned authority in the study of religions, equates dogmatism with the purely theoretical understanding of an idea. If a spiritual idea is stated in a particular way, given a certain form, and this is repeated without a deep understanding of its inner significance, this he would say is dogma. There results a 'sort of confusion of the idea with the form in which it is clothed,' and then 'paralysis of this form [comes about] by attributing to it an absoluteness. ' Giving form to a genuine intuition does not constitute dogmatism for Schuon, but after the form is given, the idea should then 'rejoin the formless and total truth' from which it sprang. Symbols which express religious truth have deep inner meaning, but dogmatism misses 'the inward or implicit illimitabilty of the symbol.' Nor can a dogmatic view recognize the 'inward connection' between two apparently contradictory truths, though true insight 'can make of them complementary aspects of one & the same truth'. "According to Schuon, in true esotericism a dogma is no longer limited and dogmatic, 'once it is understood in the light of its inherent truth, which is of a universal order.' But he claims that even metaphysical truth can be turned into dogma when not properly understood. In other words, we can make truth into dogma by repeating it verbally without true understanding. "... to come to understand [theosophy's] principles for ourselves & begin to bring them into our experience, not merely to rely on the authority of others.... we can touch the reality behind theosophical teaching & keep alive 'the vitality which living truth alone can bring' This will lead to varied & creative expressions of the ancient truths...." I think what Shirley wrote in this last paragraph concerning theosophy applies to any religious principles. Hope this is able to help you clarify where you want to go. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1994 23:15:23 -0500 From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: Theosophy, 10-30 interchange between Jerry H-E & Art Hope you don't mind if I put in a few phrases here & there. If you 2 guys would rather talk to each other, please inform, & I'll butt outsky. Art "Their emphasis on discipleship and suffering got them into a denial of the world situation". Jerry ".... insulated theosophists... are also into discipleship..." Seems to me, you're talking about the old conflict between spirit & matter. As you have, Jerry, I've also come across far out Theosophists; but I thought that actually our belief is that in all manifestation spirit & matter exist together, not always in the same proportions, but together; that they work with each other, in tandem. Also, one tries to achieve a more spiritual path not only for a beautiful hereafter, but also to achieve a more fulfilling life in this body, for oneself & for others. Speaking of suffering, it took me a very long time to find out that meditating was suppposed to be a joyful experience. I was so tangled up in German ideas that I thought all religious quests were realized through suffering. Jerry "Even when we escape the ideologies, we can still get caught up in the one we create for ourselves". Yeah. It's very hard to see that your truth may not fit somebody else, especially if yours really works for you, & you believe it wholeheartedly, and you think it'll be just as good for the other person. (I hope no one objects to my saying that either.) Art ""I understand from what you say .. that Theosophy has to do with the roots of human spirituality.... I have deep doubts that it is because I have heard claims to ultimacy before ..." Our proofs of that this is so is that one can find ancient traditions all over the world which agree with our belief system. I mentioned a few to you in my first reply. There are also the Native Americans & some of the ancient South Americans. When I read about these things, I was amazed that this could be so. There were not communication satellites, no e-mail then. But... no doubt, you will finally choose the belief system which fits in with your personality & your experience. If it turns out not to be theosophy, I think knowing about theosophy will at least be a big help to you in finding which way you'd like to go. I myself have been studying theosophical books & teachings for a good 30 years now. I was very much at sea before. The more I studied, the more I found an anchor. It works for me. It hasn't failed me yet. But that's me. That's Jerry... everyone on Theos-l. You have to test theosophical principles for yourself, & adopt whatever makes sense to you and works for you, in whatever form it does. It is there in Christian form, or translatable into Christian concepts, which is probably what's best suited to you. Art "Creation In 7 Days" - I think either Geoffrey Hodson or Lawrence Bendit wrote a symbolical interpretation of Adam & Eve. Blavatsky, I think did as well. If you care to look around, there are other creation myths available. Are we going on with "The Voice...."? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 08:23:07 -0500 From: Arthur Patterson Subject: Re: Theosophy, 10-30 interchange between Jerry H-E & Art On Sun, 30 Oct 1994, Liesel F. Deutsch wrote: > Hope you don't mind if I put in a few phrases here & there. If > you 2 guys would rather talk to each other, please inform, & I'll > butt outsky. Of course your more than welcome. I need all the insight I can get when it comes to understanding this new and intricate path. > Art "Their emphasis on discipleship and suffering got them into a > denial of the world situation". > > Jerry ".... insulated theosophists... are also into > discipleship..." Seems to me, you're talking about the old > conflict between spirit & matter. The problem that the Protestant sectarian groups, at least, had was that the spirit was so important to them that the body and its embodiment were denied in the name of mortification of the flesh. This is the putting to death of the flesh. This concept however does seem to come up in some of the material in the Voice. I will be writing about that later but for now I see that in Blavatsky there appears to be a rejection of the life of the senses in preference to a life of the spirit. I understand the value of this since embodiment can and has lead to a sort of entombment- ie prison house of the soul idea. But there is something about this emphasis, where found in the East or in Gnoticism, that refuses to honor actual existence and see nature as sacramental. Like I said I will try to spell this out later. > As you have, Jerry, I've also come across far out Theosophists; > but I thought that actually our belief is that in all > manifestation spirit & matter exist together, not always in the > same proportions, but together; that they work with each other, > in tandem. That sounds right to me. > Also, one tries to achieve a more spiritual path not only for a > beautiful hereafter, but also to achieve a more fulfilling life > in this body, for oneself & for others. Speaking of suffering, > it took me a very long time to find out that meditating was > suppposed to be a joyful experience. I was so tangled up in > German ideas that I thought all religious quests were realized > through suffering. You brought up something very interesting and controversial in relating your spirituality to your cultural group. Perhaps it is part of the collective unconscious of the German people to stress sacrifice. The Mennonites and many Anabaptist groups come from German, Dutch and Russian Stock so perhaps there is a link. I say this with due regard for German people but I wonder if the imposition of Christianity upon them in their early history resulted in a collective repression of their Wotan roots which emerges in the sacrificial ideas, of discipline, warriorship and "self-reliance". This would account in part for some of the embodiment of the sort of spirituality that I see in Germanic Groups. This is not intended as racist or prejudice just an observation so I do mean no offense. > Jerry "Even when we escape the ideologies, we can still get > caught up in the one we create for ourselves". Yeah. It's very > hard to see that your truth may not fit somebody else, especially > if yours really works for you, & you believe it wholeheartedly, > and you think it'll be just as good for the other person. (I > hope no one objects to my saying that either.) You display to me a sort of convictional relativity that I really appreciate. It is hard not to take our convictions and subtly impose them on other. I don't believe it is good to soft peddle what has brought spiritual life to us but it may not be what others need or gravitate to. I experience this because I am a sort of "out there " kind of person. It is a challenging balance to keep, conviction and relativity. > Art ""I understand from what you say .. that Theosophy has to do > with the roots of human spirituality.... I have deep doubts that > it is because I have heard claims to ultimacy before ..." > > Our proofs of that this is so is that one can find ancient > traditions all over the world which agree with our belief system. There are many ways of accounting for the spread of a spirituality. Joseph Campbell boils them down to dispersion or migration or the collective unconsciousness that links all people right now, at least today, I favor the fact that we as human beings have the same archetypal structure built into the physiciality of our psyche and that we fill those potentiality creating patterns with cultural artifacts. If this theory is so then it is not surprizing that Blavatsky found a common thread. C. G. Jung has been the most helpful to me in understanding this. Perhaps Blavatsky is looking at the same phenomonen with a different set of metaphors. Perhaps this is too psychologizing or reductionistic, I would like to hear what others think about this. I mentioned a few > to you in my first reply. There are also the Native Americans & > some of the ancient South Americans. When I read about these > things, I was amazed that this could be so. There were not > communication satellites, no e-mail then. > But... no doubt, you will finally choose the belief system which > fits in with your personality & your experience. If it turns out > not to be theosophy, I think knowing about theosophy will at > least be a big help to you in finding which way you'd like to go. Undoutably even in these fresh beginning days of reading and struggling with BHP I have been challenge to rethink or reconfigure my beliefs. Thank you for your input in doing this. I myself have been studying theosophical > books & teachings for a good 30 years now. I was very much at > sea before. The more I studied, the more I found an anchor. It > works for me. It hasn't failed me yet. But that's me. That's > Jerry... everyone on Theos-l. You have to test theosophical > principles for yourself, & adopt whatever makes sense to you and > works for you, in whatever form it does. It is there in > Christian form, or translatable into Christian concepts, which is > probably what's best suited to you. I'm sure going to try to experiential test Theosophical thought and its relevance to me, Liesel. > Art "Creation In 7 Days" - I think either Geoffrey Hodson or > Lawrence Bendit wrote a symbolical interpretation of Adam & Eve. > Blavatsky, I think did as well. If you care to look around, > there are other creation myths available. I have studied many creation myths, the point I was making is that Creation is not really about Creation but about explaining the way things are cosmologically. > Are we going on with "The Voice...."? You bet but I have another letter to answer from you I think. Just some more personal data to put into your equation of who this Arthur guy is. I am fourty-two years old. I have two sons one natural his name is Sean and is twelve, the other is a three year old my wife's child who lives with us. He's excited about going out as a cow for halloween. Sean on the other hand is an avid reader of fantasy and is interested in druidism and celtic culture. Next week I am teaching a course in symbolism using the Western Esoteric Tradition as a base through astrology and tarot. Wierd but interesting. Thanks for your letter, Liesel and it is good getting to know the people on Theo-l. Under the Mercy, Arthur Paul Patterson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 10:42:11 -0500 From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: To: AP Patterson, Re: This Theosophy stuff The Reverend Arthur wrote Art 1>"...Look out, my new friend toleration is not plentiful in the Evangelical world....... If you are a minister and therefore in a position where you must uphold the tradition you are more accountable than most to be orthodox, look out it might box you in." Liesel 1> First off, I think this is a problem in other religions as well. People get used to doing things one way over the years & centuries, resist change, & get "boxed in." The Buddhists say that change is the one thing in life that one can count on, and theosophists believe this as well. I think that if one can't at least try to live with this idea in mind, one tends to stagnate, be "boxed in" again, I guess. I try to associate myself with people & organizations which are dynamic, instead of stagnant. I'm looking to grow, & to evolve, & that to me is much more interesting & fulfilling than standing still. I try to live "in the Now", using yesterday only for the lesson it contains for use today, or for trying to create a better tomorrow. That's the theosophical way. Don't cling. I'm especially aware of this mode of thinking, because I'm a senior citizen, & most of my age group gets wrapped up reminiscing about "the good old days". They also try to keep on doing things the way they've always been used to doing them, whether they've been improved upon in the last 20 years or not. Here I am, bragging, but I also notice that it's become more difficult with age to change my ways, & some of them I can't change anymore at all. That's what you've run into with your church, I think. You're younger & more plyable, & looking for new & better ways, & they want to stick to the "old tried & true" & worn out. It's an old battle you're caught in, and you're fighting it with much courage. Just keep on going. You'll make it. Art 2> Thanks for the encouragement Liesel. On the other hand, I have been kicked out of the church for expanding beyond the limits of consenus. Now I am counselling and teaching, writing and doing workshops in a variety of areas including Jungian studies and Western Esoteric work. There is a lot of hurt and pain involved in "excommunication" but it does say more about them than it does me, in many ways. The struggles I am having now is connection to a greater Traditionthan just my own ideas about things. This is where theosophy looks like a possible option. Liesel 2>I started out life being Jewish. Jews have the same quarrels between the traditional Orthodox and the Reformed, who also try to preserve tradition, but modify it to fit in with the times. I've known several Moslems, & the same dichotomy exists among them. There are people with immoveable minds all over. My yardstick in trying to find a compatible church or denomination has, for a long time, been an article called "Doctrine & Dogma", which Shirley Nicholson wrote for the October '83 "American Theosophist." I've quoted it often. I'm going to copy part of it here for you, in the hope that it will be of some help. The first paragraph is an introduction to theosophy. The rest contains the crux of the matter. "....volumes have been written to explicate the doctrines of theosophy. Though they are very broad, they are still definite and specific. The fact that they have been expressed in various ways throughout history does not make them any less explicit. The oneness of all life, the law of cycles, the unity of the individual soul with the Oversoul, man's pilgrimage through many lifetimes - these are among the universal principles stressed by HPB. They are understood in various degrees of depth by different members. In addition to required belief, dogma has connotations which relate to how a doctrine is understood. Fritjof Schuon, reknowned authority in the study of religions, equates dogmatism with the purely theoretical understanding of an idea. If a spiritual idea is stated in a particular way, given a certain form, and this is repeated without a deep understanding of its inner significance, this he would say is dogma. There results a 'sort of confusion of the idea with the form in which it is clothed,' and then 'paralysis of this form [comes about] by attributing to it an absoluteness. ' Giving form to a genuine intuition does not constitute dogmatism for Schuon, but after the form is given, the idea should then 'rejoin the formless and total truth' from which it sprang. Symbols which express religious truth have deep inner meaning, but dogmatism misses 'the inward or implicit illimitabilty of the symbol.' Nor can a dogmatic view recognize the 'inward connection' between two apparently contradictory truths, though true insight 'can make of them complementary aspects of one & the same truth'. Art 3> Carl Jung says that dogma insulates us from religious experience and in doing so inoculates us from true spiritual experience. A living experience is quite different from rote recitation of belief. "According to Schuon, in true esotericism a dogma is no longer limited and dogmatic, 'once it is understood in the light of its inherent truth, which is of a universal order.' But he claims that even metaphysical truth can be turned into dogma when not properly understood. In other words, we can make truth into dogma by repeating it verbally without true understanding. Art 4> This is why I am striving to develop a theology or hermeneutic of exper- ience rather than a hermeneutic of words. Word are metaphors for direct exper- ience and as such can not be relied on to carry us. "... to come to understand [theosophy's] principles for ourselves & begin to bring them into our experience, not merely to rely on the authority of others.... we can touch the reality behind theosophical teaching & keep alive 'the vitality which living truth alone can bring' This will lead to varied & creative expressions of the ancient truths...." Liesel 3> I think what Shirley wrote in this last paragraph concerning theosophy applies to any religious principles. Hope this is able to help you clarify where you want to go. Liesel Art 5> Yes it did help, Liesel. One question that came up in the above is the doctrine of reincarnation. Does a theosophist attempt to connect with themselves with their past incarnation? Just interested because I have some strange premonitions about who or what I a may have been if past lives are indeed true. Of course, I tend to be a bit sceptical here since I think all dogma is metaphor Look forward to further posting. I am not sure of the protocol of Theo-l but I assume any one can respond to what I have written and is welcome to do so. Under the Mercy, Arthur Paul Patterson