From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 18:28:47 -0500 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Theosophical Libraries Hi Elizabeth, I am curious which library software package you purchased. Lewisllucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 14:57:10 -0500 From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: DNA Buddhi Hello all: After seeing Bernardo Bertoluci's film, "The Little Buddha", I wondered what Buddhists and theosophists thought about it. For myself I was pleasently surprised at the freewheeling retelling of the historical or mythic-historical life of Gautauma Buddha also know as Siddharta. The film is a glorious spectacle. The past is all in golds and reds of a warm fire and the present is in cold blues as if photographed through an ice cube. Some have complained that the present day search yield not THE buddha but a buddha. I thought this was the strenght not the weakness of the film for it point to the possibility that we are all Buddha, we just have woke up yet to who we really are. The three children represent three different reincarnating aspect of the buddha, body mind and emotions. The fact that one of them is a girl is a real hoot! Who would ever guess a girl, or a white male for that fact, could be the Buddha (I'm being sarcastic, of course). The really exciting thing is that the film points to the possibilty that we don't reincarnate intact everytime, but we kind of get mixed up and recycled through the system in very complicated ways. That is my mind is reincarnated over there, my emotions over there and my physical attributes over there. You get the idea. I think this is what is really meant by all the focus on the seven levels and that many have chosen to blind this under pages and pages of well you know . . . An obvious support for this 'mixed bag" karma can be found in the modern revelations of genetics. Few theosophists care to tread over this minefield (those that due risk being labeled Nazi's or worse I fear). But John Algeo in the current "American Theosophist" dares bring up this controversial subject that won't go away and is likely to come more and more to the forefront. In brief, it strikes me as likely that my genetics has alot to do with my karma and can provide clues as to how we are really the whole human race reincarnated, but with just some traits dominant this time (accented) and some traits recessive this time (stopped down). Any geneticist out there???? Anyway the idea that I am not a specific reincarnation, but share in the total human karma is at once deflating (I'm really nothing special) and inspiring (I really am a lot more that I think). What did you think about the movie? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 15:17:15 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: DNA Buddhi Haven't seen the movie, but I agree completely with the suggestion that we rework our conception of the reincarnating ego. The heresy of separateness is after all the big illusion, right? And what's more separative than the idea that we're a single unit that retains its separate identity for eons? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 09:29:03 -0500 From: euser Subject: Martin to Jerry H-E and Murray JERRY H-E: I'm waiting for Murray to respond to my proposal to tell something about his research with Hodson. Meanwhile, we can start some discussion on Sacred Geometry and some of your and my discoveries and understanding of this field. Lots of topics enter my mind, like dividing and synthesizing principles, polygons, Sacred Roots, and their associated figures, motion, Geometric&Harmonic means ; Gordon Plummer's work, etc. What do you think? MURRAY: Did you read my proposal to you in my last mail? Martin Euser From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 21:13:54 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: geometry Martin Euser, ME> I'm waiting for Murray to respond to my proposal to tell something about his research with Hodson. Meanwhile, we can start some discussion on Sacred Geometry and some of your and my discoveries and understanding of this field. Lots of topics enter my mind, like dividing and synthesizing principles, polygons, Sacred Roots, and their associated figures, motion, Geometric&Harmonic means; Gordon Plummer's work, etc. What do you think? Yes this sounds good to me. The only problem right now is that I'm buried under four papers that I have to get out--so all I can do now is give some thoughts from the top of my head that may stimulate further discussion.... I understand geometry to be a symbolic language that is a key to the understanding of the ancient mysteries. H.P.B. talks about the "Geometric key" as being one of her seven. Ultimately, it is this key that I'm most interested in exploring. I see meaning in geometry being derived from symbolism attributed to shapes and solids (circle; triangle; square; cube; dodecahedron; tetrahedron etc.); the numerical relationship between them; number sequences derived from them (Fibonacci's series; Kepler's ratios of planetary distances etc.); and the analogical application of those principles (pythagorean triangle, tetraktys etc.). Aside from Pythagoras as a major source for the occultism of Geometry, I also see it used in Plato. Greek and Roman architecture also used occult geometric principles in architecture that was imitated in the European cathedrals. One of the most important source books that I know of in this area is Vitruvius' ~Ten Books on Architecture~ probably written during the time of Augustus. Two papers that I'm presently writing are partially concerned with W.B. Yeats' and Maud Gonne's Celtic symbolism. They were very interested in Celtic designs and were working with MacGregor Mathers on bringing together the designs, colors and ceremonies into a symbolic whole. When I'm a little further along, I may have some interesting tidbits about this also. Who knows, they may have stumbled onto an original insight or two. Jerry Hejka-Ekins ps, I don't think I got your proposal. jhe From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 00:31:08 -0500 From: MURRAY@sss.co.nz Subject: Murray to Martin To Martin Euser: At last I'm back on the air again. A lot of commitments have come up over the last couple of weeks and filled the available time slots for me to write to the list. Yes, I got your test mail of 28th November. Good to know that e-mail works in that direction at least. I made some enquiries in NZ to find why your e-mail address gets rejected when I try to send to it, but was blocked by the same lack of time before I could get anything definite to work on. Regarding your proposal of 28 November, I'll be happy to tell you about background etc, but it's going to have to be spread out over time, somewhat. I have to go, now. Frustration !.... Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 00:46:20 -0500 From: OSMAR DE CARVALHO Subject: Little Buddha KP> What did you think about the movie? I appreciated the film a lot! KP> After seeing Bernardo Bertoluci's film, "The Little Buddha", I wondered what Buddhists and theosophists thought about it. For myself I was pleasently surprised at the freewheeling retelling of the historical or mythic-historical life of Gautauma Buddha also know as Siddharta. Bertolucci's picture is a great evangelical buddhist film, and I was overwhelmed with its delighting details. One of my serious pastime is doing film interpretation from both "physiological" and theosophical point of views. KP> The film is a glorious spectacle. The past is all in golds and reds of a warm fire and the present is in cold blues as if photographed through an ice cube. Some have complained that the present day search yield not THE buddha but a buddha. I thought this was the strength not the weakness of the film for it point to the possibility that we are all Buddha, we just have woke up yet to who we really are. The screenplay did a very good transposition from the buddha myth to our day experiences, maintaining the mythic message. In the buddha gospel his father is a warrior, representing the physical aspect, and his mother meaning the "manasic" principle. The Sidharta prince stands for the budhic or spiritual consciousness. Few days after Sidharta is born his mother dies, which means the death or decreasing of the manas aspect. The family as a whole stands for the complex system of subtle bodies we have to evolve. In Bertolucci's transposition to our day, once more he show us a family where the "little buddha", reincarnation of a Lama, has an architect father (physical, builder of the forms) with a math teacher (manas) as his mother. His house is placed above one hill, having a landscape to the sea waters (astral). In Sidharta history, the buddha is jailed in his fathers "castles". Sidharta marries with a beautiful lady (astral), which means his first contacts with reality. In the modern history, the little buddha is cared by a servant called "Maria", another allusion to his contacts with the lower dimensions. The color details are very important too. The "blue" of the modern days part represents the "manas" aspect. The "golden" of the Buddha history stands for the spiritual myth. The boy history is a current reincarnation one, the Buddha history indicates the descending powers of our spirit. The analogy principle is applied in its fullness here. One scene I loved, from a symbolic point of view, was that when we see the boy and his mom in the bathroom of his Seattle house. The mother (manas) "reads" the Buddha gospel history (knowledge) meanwhile the boy stands in the bathtub. In a given moment the little buddha says "Mom... Bye!" and dives in the water (astral). To me, this scene means that mind must to "awaken" the buddhic principle, and his first contact will be no with the analytic dimension of our beings, the "reality slayer", but with our emotions and sensibility. In the decisive moments, like the Sidharta history, the little Buddha is cared by his father (the physical personality), not by his mother (manas). The father don't believes in the reincarnation principle, and spends his time in the physical existence. At the end, a crisis leads the father to bet in his son spirituality, traveling to the distant monastery with the helping of the monks. To me this stands for the retrieving of the world affairs, to the practice of meditation and self-observation that leads to the reality of our beings. KP> The three children represent three different reincarnating aspect of the buddha, body mind and emotions. The fact that one of them is a girl is a real hoot! Who would ever guess a girl, or a white male for that fact, could be the Buddha (I'm being sarcastic, of course). This point annoyed me very much. I don't understood it at once, and my theosophical background were unable to tell me what hell was that reincarnation in three distinct bodies. The days passed by, and I arrived the conclusion the history was very coherent from the symbolic perspective. The lower manasic, emotional and the physical aspects of our beings are really three distinct entities, and yet the literal characters of the film was very shocking, in the symbolic level things worked very well. The little Buddha's "initiation", and remembering of his past life, was such a kind of a "coordination" of its aspects; to gather the separated elements of itself in the "monastery" (a spiritual life), really were all he ought to accomplish. Many others interpretations could be done from other points of view, and I would like to hear the yours. Shanti! *|) osmardc@bra000.canal-vip.onsp.br osmar.carvalho%sti@ibase.org.br From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 00:09:13 -0500 From: MURRAY@sss.co.nz Subject: Help on the 3 Objects I am preparing a workshop for the annual Convention of the T.S. in New Zealand, early in January 1995, on the Three Objects of the Society, and the dynamic behind their outward form. This will include a look at the history of their development in the early days of the T.S. Could somebody please post references to some good books or articles on this history, or specifically on the intentions behind the present wording. Comments and contributions would be welcome too, of course. If this has already been discussed on the list, could someone please say approximately when, so that I can access the appropriate archive. Murray Stentiford murray@sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 16:46:29 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Solar Temple The Winter 1995 issue of Gnosis includes a dossier of documents from the Solar Temple, the cult which carried out a mass suicide in October in Switzerland and Canada. It turns out that their beliefs are uncomfortable close to some Theosophical teachings. Here's a quote from the document "Transit to the Future": Neither the races nor human Evolution are the fruit of chance. They are ruled by an Occult Brotherhood made up of 33 Masters (The Elder Brothers of the Rose+Cross), as well as a few Adepts gathered in small and discreet brotherhoods. Having completed their human evolution, their entity uses borrowed bodies to manifest in this world and to accomplish the Divine Purpose. Beyond time and spice, these high-ranking Initiates always recognize and find each other in order to organize mutations, modify the structure of Nature, transform brute Matter so that the Consciousness of the kingdoms evolves harmoniously toward higher levels of being. Although their membership in this Brotherhood remained secret, by their presence, their influence, and their action, they have marked the great shifts of Evolution.(p. 92) I would suggest that this kind of thinking about Masters, prevalent outside the TS as well as in it, is fundamentally dangerous because inherently unhealthy. Delusions of grandeur, persecution, reference, influence-- the whole Pandora's box of paranoid symptoms-- seem to follow in the wake of any such conception of Elder Brethren. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 03:53:09 -0500 From: OSMAR DE CARVALHO Subject: Little Buddha KP> What did you think about the movie? I appreciated the film a lot! KP> After seeing Bernardo Bertoluci's film, "The Little Buddha", I wondered what Buddhists and theosophists thought about it. For myself I was pleasently surprised at the freewheeling retelling of the historical or mythic-historical life of Gautauma Buddha also know as Siddharta. Bertolucci's picture is a great evangelical buddhist film, and I was overwhelmed with its delighting details. One of my serious pastime is doing film interpretation from both "physiological" and theosophical point of views. KP> The film is a glorious spectacle. The past is all in golds and reds of a warm fire and the present is in cold blues as if photographed through an ice cube. Some have complained that the present day search yield not THE buddha but a buddha. I thought this was the strength not the weakness of the film for it point to the possibility that we are all Buddha, we just have woke up yet to who we really are. The screenplay did a very good transposition from the buddha myth to our day experiences, maintaining the mythic message. In the buddha gospel his father is a warrior, representing the physical aspect, and his mother meaning the "manasic" principle. The Sidharta prince stands for the budhic or spiritual consciousness. Few days after Sidharta is born his mother dies, which means the death or decreasing of the manas aspect. The family as a whole stands for the complex system of subtle bodies we have to evolve. In Bertolucci's transposition to our day, once more he show us a family where the "little buddha", reincarnation of a Lama, has an architect father (physical, builder of the forms) with a math teacher (manas) as his mother. His house is placed above one hill, having a landscape to the sea waters (astral). In Sidharta history, the buddha is jailed in his fathers "castles". Sidharta marries with a beautiful lady (astral), which means his first contacts with reality. In the modern history, the little buddha is cared by a servant called "Maria", another allusion to his contacts with the lower dimensions. The color details are very important too. The "blue" of the modern days part represents the "manas" aspect. The "golden" of the Buddha history stands for the spiritual myth. The boy history is a current reincarnation one, the Buddha history indicates the descending powers of our spirit. The analogy principle is applied in its fullness here. One scene I loved, from a symbolic point of view, was that when we see the boy and his mom in the bathroom of his Seattle house. The mother (manas) "reads" the Buddha gospel history (knowledge) meanwhile the boy stands in the bathtub. In a given moment the little buddha says "Mom... Bye!" and dives in the water (astral). To me, this scene means that mind must to "awaken" the buddhic principle, and his first contact will be no with the analytic dimension of our beings, the "reality slayer", but with our emotions and sensibility. In the decisive moments, like the Sidharta history, the little Buddha is cared by his father (the physical personality), not by his mother (manas). The father don't believes in the reincarnation principle, and spends his time in the physical existence. At the end, a crisis leads the father to bet in his son spirituality, traveling to the distant monastery with the helping of the monks. To me this stands for the retrieving of the world affairs, to the practice of meditation and self-observation that leads to the reality of our beings. KP> The three children represent three different reincarnating aspect of the buddha, body mind and emotions. The fact that one of them is a girl is a real hoot! Who would ever guess a girl, or a white male for that fact, could be the Buddha (I'm being sarcastic, of course). This point annoyed me very much. I don't understood it at once, and my theosophical background were unable to tell me what hell was that reincarnation in three distinct bodies. The days passed by, and I arrived the conclusion the history was very coherent from the symbolic perspective. The lower manasic, emotional and the physical aspects of our beings are really three distinct entities, and yet the literal characters of the film was very shocking, in the symbolic level things worked very well. The little Buddha's "initiation", and remembering of his past life, was such a kind of a "coordination" of its aspects; to gather the separated elements of itself in the "monastery" (a spiritual life), really were all he ought to accomplish. Many others interpretations could be done from other points of view, and I would like to hear the yours. Shanti! *|) osmardc@bra000.canal-vip.onsp.br osmar.carvalho%sti@ibase.org.br From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 15:09:42 -0500 From: "WILLAM ALLEN" Subject: ALL: Initial IIC Announcement (fwd) The following may be of interest to some theos-l readers. William > Date sent: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 10:35:00 -0800 > From: "J. Shawn Landres" <6500land@UCSBUXA.UCSB.EDU> > Subject: ALL: Initial IIC Announcement (fwd) > To: recipients of list ARIL-L I N T E R N E T I N T E R F A I T H C O N S O R T I U M An ad hoc association of online networkers, listowners, system developers, writers, poets, scholars, academics, and caring human beings interested in spirituality, the search for truth, and the spiritual welfare of the human race AN INVITATION We live in an era of cultural transition, as traditional boundaries are blurring or collapsing. These boundaries can include the geographical borders between nations, the conceptual boundaries between academic disciplines and sciences, and the psychological borders between various once-independent cultural traditions. In this context of transition, the emerging global environment of the Internet provides a medium for projects which transcend these dissolving borders, and through which new forms of unity can emerge. The Internet offers powerful new options for those persons concerned with the human future and interested in addressing the problems of cultural fragmentation. One area of human inquiry that is undergoing intense transition is religion. The spiritual instincts of millions of people are being shaped by these transforming forces, and the "search for truth", once confined within cultural and geographical borders, is now subjected to the widest sort of input, derived from diverse cultures from all over the world. During this period of transition, the human community faces dangerous new dilemmas, and is presented with highly desirable new opportunities. The "balkanization" of culture is a real threat, as ethnic and cultural groups attempt to defend themselves against change, and the blurring of their own traditions. Ethnic cleansing is as dangerous today as it was 50 years ago. But our new global environment of high-speed communications, as informed by a vast outpouring of new ideas and philosophic insights, stands in powerful opposition to these fragmenting and dangerous forces. Today, given our new insights, and our new media, cultural groups that may differ significantly can find ways to come together, to meet with one another, and identify their common ground. In such a context, those who prefer to retain their traditional identities must be respected, and those who wish to reach for a new and transformed identity, informed by diverse global sources, must have that opportunity. Individuals and cultures, regardless of their differences, can and must learn to live together in constructive ways. At the core of this learning process, as the undertaking that can most clearly identify the common ground of all human culture, is the process of interfaith dialogue. Through respectful interaction, representatives of highly diverse traditions must find ways to come together to make friends and become comfortable with differences, and to celebrate and empower what they have in common. The Internet Interfaith Consortium is a loosely organized general association of friends and acquaintances, working together to promote an improved quality of dialogue on intercultural issues across the Internet. Membership in this organization implies very little commitment. There are no by-laws, no rules, no structures, nothing to agree to -- except the general proposition that cooperative communication on intercultural issues is useful and illuminating, and ought to be promoted wherever possible. Members of this organization share no common religion, no common spiritual or ethical or moral agenda, no one single approach to philosophy or politics or networking or spirituality. Instead, what is shared is a general sense of respect for "the other", with whom we desire to be friends and from whom we desire to learn -- and a general instinct that by working cooperatively, we can jointly build a substantial pool of highly illuminating philosophic, spiritual and scientific insights, that can assist both individuals and entire cultures as we all jointly undergo the cultural transitions of our time. Thus, it is emphasized from the beginning that the IIC is not a "coalition" (a single unit welded together from diverse elements), but rather simply an "association". Members of the IIC "associate" with one another. We do not necessarily agree on anything but the advantages of dialogue, open communication, and mutual respect. And we are convinced that by thus associating together, and employing the new and emerging high-powered tools of the Internet, we can develop a valuable and illuminating library of ideas, insights, and connections, from which we all can draw, each in our own way. You are invited to join the IIC, and share with us in this unfolding adventure. Please let us know of your interest, and perhaps join one of our mailing lists if you can. We look forward to your input and your friendship, as the spirituality of our global culture continues to evolve. - Bruce Schuman origin@rain.org, facilitator The Internet Interfaith Consortium To join the IIC mailing list: The IIC mailing list is operated as a "topic" on the BITNET-type INTERREL@vm.temple.edu mailing list. To subscribe to INTERREL, send the command (one line message with no subject) SUB INTERREL Your Name (inserting your name) to LISTSERV@vm.temple.edu To join the IIC mailing list, add a second line to your subscription command so that it takes the form SUB INTERREL Your Name SET INTERREL TOPICS= IIC Internet Interfaith Consortium Initial Founding Members: Dr. Len Swidler, Listowner INTERREL@ and VATICAN2@vm.temple.edu Dr. Gary Mann, Listowner THEOLOGOS@ and THEOSCI@alpha.augustana.edu Dr. Ermel Stepp, Listowner MERTON-L@byrd.mu.wvnet.edu Dr. Andrew Wilson, Editor _WORLD SCRIPTURE_ Dr. "Zos Imos", Listowner HERMETICA Dr. Ingrid Shafer, Professor of Philosophy and Religion, USAO Antony Dugdale, Listowner DIFTX-L@ and ISTHMUS@yalevm.cis.yale.edu Bruce Schuman, Listowner BRIDGE-L@ucsbvm.ucsb.edu IIC web-site: http://rain.org/~origin/iic.html _World Scripture_ Web-site: http://rain.org/~origin/ws.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 17:02:20 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: Dr Hoeller to visit Charlotte NC this January 14-15 NEWS -- Charlotte NC and area Dr. Stephen Hoeller will be in Charlotte NC this January 14-15, as a guest of the Charlotte TS Study Group. The schedule is: Saturday Jan. 14 11:30am Charlotte TS pot-luck Lunch. Discussion and Lecture topic is still open. (this meeting is for TS members and students of theosophy) 7:30pm Gnostic Eucharist (Open to Public) Unitarian Universalist Church of Charlotte 234 N. Sharon Amity Road The Eucharist service will be proceeded with some introductory remarks and explanations. There will be a Q&A session after the service. Sunday Jan. 15 10:30am UU Church (Guest Lecture - Open to Public) Sermon: C.G.Jung and Gnostic Christianity Unitarian Universalist Church of Charlotte 234 N. Sharon Amity Road coffee afterwards (sermon feedback Q&A) TS Table with Books and Literature display Send Inquiries to john mead: jem@vnet.net or Charlotte TS: 704-543-6559 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 09:57:38 -0500 From: "Judy A Cilcain" Subject: Re: Dr Hoeller to visit Charlotte NC this January 14-15 <7:30pm Gnostic Eucharist (Open to Public) > Unitarian Universalist Church of Charlotte > 234 N. Sharon Amity Road > > The Eucharist service will be proceeded with some introductory > remarks and explanations. There will be a Q&A session > after the service. > John: This sounds intriguing. I wasn't aware that the UUC had a eucharist service. I'd like to know more. Judy Judy A. Cilcain Office of the Vice President for Arts, Sciences, and Engineering University of Minnesota 12 Morrill Hall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 612, 626-0362 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 11:40:15 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: Re: Dr Hoeller to visit Charlotte NC this January 14-15 > > <7:30pm Gnostic Eucharist (Open to Public) > > Unitarian Universalist Church of Charlotte > > 234 N. Sharon Amity Road > > > > The Eucharist service will be proceeded with some introductory > > remarks and explanations. There will be a Q&A session > > after the service. > > > John: > > This sounds intriguing. I wasn't aware that the UUC had > a eucharist service. I'd like to know more. > > Judy > > Judy A. Cilcain > Office of the Vice President for Arts, Sciences, and Engineering > University of Minnesota > 12 Morrill Hall > Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 > 612, 626-0362 > The UU church allows people to affiliate with sub-groups if they choose. Hence our local UU Christian Fellowship (UUCF) has separate severices of their own desires. Likewise our local CUUPS affiliate (coven of UU Pagans) has their meetings of their desire too (at equinox, etc). The UU church *itself* has no dogma at all. The Gnostic Eucharist was pretty much my idea, as an attempt to get draw local CUUPS, UUCF, Charlotte TS, and Charlotte Friends of Jung, all together. It seems to (potentially) interest alot of people. we'll see :-) Dr Hoeller is going to send a list of items needed for the Eucharist. This may turn into a Charlotte-TS scavenger hunt :-) I was glad when he (Hoeller) seemed receptive to the idea. peace - john mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 13:19:54 -0500 From: euser Subject: To ALL: considering public access Theos-L TO *ALL*: This month I started to put a FAQ about spiritual resources on the Internet in the talk.religion.newage newsgroup. I did not mention the Theos-l mailing list. My question to _all_ participants is if they have an objection to me doing so the next time. This means that we should ask ourselves the questions: what is the purpose of this list; do we consider this list to be a private/closed one; do we want to help interested individuals to understand Theosophy by giving them access to this list and answering their questions? Another possibility is mentioning the existence of this list without stating its name and giving a possibility to subscribe to Theos-l by request to, say, John Mead. Yet another possibility is creating a separate list for the 'outside' public, participated in by some of us. Please let me know what you think about this. Personally, I feel that some kind of access to a Theosophical list would be useful. Many other groups already have open access to their lists. Martin Euser From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 13:21:10 -0500 From: euser Subject: Martin to Osmar TO OSMAR DE CARVALHO: I read your post about the little Buddha. Your comment about reincarnation as not being a thing of separate entities, is logical and is substantiated by Theosophy. GdP remarks that our life-atoms are distributed widely (after our death) among humanity (millions of human beings, he says in Studies of Occult Philosophy). We could involve other kingdoms of nature in this process. An important remark is the following: we _know_ that everything in nature is connected in some way. All share in the essence of Being. This all has to do with the seventh jewel of wisdom: Atma-Vidya. We are like leaves on a huge tree, sharing the marrow or sap of this tree. In the processes of life, exchange and circulations of life-atoms is a crucial factor. This includes the psychological level of course. All is change and exchange of elements. A wonderful picture indeed. Martin Euser From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 13:36:16 -0500 From: euser Subject: To Jerry H-E;geometry : from Martin E To JERRY H-E: >I understand geometry to be a symbolical language that is a key to the understanding of ancient mysteries. Yes, I agree with that. Some say that Sacred Geometry is also involved with understanding the conceiled Forms behind the manifest forms. That reminds me of Gordon Plummer. His models of nature could prove useful. > ..numerical relationship between shapes and solids We *know* that the Logoi express transcendent forms in concrete forms, i.e. there is a transition from transcendent relations to certain _proportional_ relations, expressed as ratio's of whole number's. I did a little bit of research into this field and derived some formulae which make this process a little bit more understandable. But these are fragments of a greater whole. It requires a lot of intuition and research to develop this further. Note that Plato and Pythagoras mention this proportionality in the works of the Demiurgos. I was already rereading Plato's Timaeus. That fits nicely into this kind of study. > Greek and Roman architecture used occult geometric principles Yes, and so did the Egyptians! I studied the famous book of Ralston Skinner: 'The Source of Measures', which is quite enlightening regarding these occult principles, although very incomplete of course. But it gives an interesting glance beyond the veil.. Blavatsky often mentions Skinner in the SD. BTW the Jews used their Kabalah to encode some of their arcane knowledge into the Talmud, especially in Genesis. Skinner decodes a lot of this knowledge, showing it to conform to the Egyptian proportions used in building the Great Pyramid (Gizeh). I know the name of Vitruvius, but didn't study his work. Can you give me the details regarding Publisher, etc.? I'm not an advanced student of Sacred Geometry, but I have discovered some interesting stuff, which I want to share with others. Maybe we can enlighten each other a bit on this field! So, Jerry, I'm interested in the ideas of Vitruvius and others. Also, I want to study the Tetraktys on a more fundamental level. I also understand you did some discoveries of your own. That would be great to compare with my own findings. P.S. My proposal to Murray was included a mail or two ago to this list. I asked him to tell something about the background of his research with Hodson on crystals, etc. As you know, Murray agrees to do so, bit by bit. Martin Euser From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 13:38:12 -0500 From: euser Subject: Martin to William Allen To WILLIAM ALLEN: Thanks for drawing our attention to the IIC mailing list. I will subscribe to it and give it a try. Regards, Martin Euser From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 13:53:18 -0500 From: "WILLAM ALLEN" Subject: Re: To ALL: considering public access Theos-L Martin, I'm a newcomer to theos-l and mostly a fly on the wall. I forget how I first heard about the list, but I am delighted that I heard about it. I had some vague ideas about what theosophy is, but nothing that would "qualify" me as a theosophist. I am learning (reading a lot of the archived posts--I ftp'd them) and am grateful for the opportunity. I guess what I'm saying is that I may well be the kind of person you are asking about; I say let us in! Best wishes, William From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 14:36:10 -0500 From: mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com (Michael W. Grenier) Subject: Re: To ALL: considering public access Theos-L >This month I started to put a FAQ about spiritual resources >on the Internet in the talk.religion.newage newsgroup. >I did not mention the Theos-l mailing list. In the past, I had made some annoucements in that newgroup concerning the existance of THEOS-L (though not recently). In addition, the Theos Help File posted to ftp.cica.indiana.edu and it mirror sites also refer to the existance of this list. The Introduction to Theosophy presentation on WWW also welcomes others to this list (http://email.sp.paramax.com/theos/theos.html) > Personally, I feel that some kind of access to a Theosophical > list would be useful. Many other groups already have open access > to their lists. I agree. -Mike Grenier mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com ---- Michael W. Grenier mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com 612-456-7869 Unisys - Air Traffic Control From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 14:52:26 -0500 From: Arthur Patterson Subject: Re: To ALL: considering public access Theos-L Martin and Others, Like Allen I came to the theos-l with no idea of Theosophy or very little. Being on the list has motivated me to wander through Blavatsky, Steiner, and become familiar with new terminologies and concepts. The most important by product is the contact and interaction with those who have been in the TS for a long time and have so much to offer. While I understand the advantages of being a relatively closed group I also see that I would never have found my way to this group or perhaps to Theosophy as a philosophy were I not allowed lurking privileges. Thanks to all just for being there and letting me be there too. Arthur Patterson Winnipeg, MB Canada R3E 1Y5 1-204-774-5301 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 15:36:14 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: List access Hi -- a few comments as to the current list status: > from Martin: > This month I started to put a FAQ about spiritual resources > on the Internet in the talk.religion.newage newsgroup. > I did not mention the Theos-l mailing list. We have had *some* prior exposure on the news-groups, with no ill effect. Also I have notified some groups (e.g. Mystics Guide to the Internet) of our existence. I do not see anything wrong with public exposure in (appropriate) places. > Personally, I feel that some kind of access to a Theosophical > list would be useful. Many other groups already have open access > to their lists. We have open access to the list (it is not private), in that anyone can subscribe through the Listserv address. The only *closure*, or limitation, is that people can not send messages to our list UNLESS they are subscribed. We occassionally get BULK mailings from programs which query listservers and send mail to all of the known lists at that node (then they move to another node etc.). You have not seen these attempts *since* the sender-programs do not subscribe first. It seems that list terrorists aren't too interested in Theosophy. Some lists I'm on (most notably the UU discussion list) do get *attacked* regularly. Attacks on the UU list usually are simply very rude e-mail, attacking (with vulgar language etc.) the fundamental positions of many people on the list. When this happens (on most lists) they are asked to leave or be civil. Unreasonable offenders are dealt with by adding there address/name to the .ignore file for that list. It is not really a problem, but it can be disturbing -- especially to sensitive people. I do not see any reason to hide the list's existence. But, I would not want to *over-advertise* it either. (no need to wave red flags in front of bulls :-) I say -- go ahead and post as you deem reasonable. We can deal with any problems (if any!!). peace -- john mead p.s. by the way -- i plan to get our archives up to date this week. This will include the essay by Martin (euser), and the Nov. log files. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 19:22:47 -0500 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: DNA Buddhi Hi John, Just saw the movie last night and found it inspiring. I was especially taken by the old monks instruction to the children to: Always be compassionate and do not hurt any living thing; To gain knowledge; and To try to pass some of what you learn on to others before you leave! Wouldn't these make some great "family values" for parents to teach their kids. Our community is suffering through another attempt by those professing to be concerned about such values railing against the public library director for refusing to remove a book they object to..."Women on top" by Nancy Friday a popluar fiction writer who talks about women's sexual fantasies. Lewis From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 19:38:14 -0500 From: The Skeptic Subject: Re: To ALL: considering public access Theos-L I would object to theosophy being lumped with newage religions. Aditya Mishra Phone/FAX 305-746-0442 (Please leave message) email: z900672a@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us (Please excuse for the extra long address) Prodigy: TVDS96A From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 19:53:11 -0500 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Masters a "dangerous delusion" Paul wrote: > > I would suggest that this kind of thinking about Masters, > prevalent outside the TS as well as in it, is fundamentally > dangerous because inherently unhealthy. Delusions of grandeur, > persecution, reference, influence-- the whole Pandora's box of > paranoid symptoms-- seem to follow in the wake of any such > conception of Elder Brethren. > That seems like a rather paranoid statement to me. While I must confess ignorance to your reference to "delusions of reference", I think I follow you on the others. Let me suggest that it is healthy to be able to accept a notion that there may be others who have done more, seen more, and know more than ourselves. To suggest otherwise seems to me to be rather egotistical. Lewisllucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 20:08:27 -0500 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: To ALL: considering public access Theos-L Martin, I am for "contact"! We spend way to much time talking to ourselves. Now that we have gained some knowledge it is our duty to pass it along. As stated in one of the Mahatma letters, the silence of ages was not broken for the benefit a few of Western Europe's (or America's) intellectuals, but for the masses. However, I would vote for a public list and a members list. I have been associated with both lodges/branches/study centers that made no allowances for one or the other and those that did. I found that those that did had more to offer to both the public and its members, and so were more vital and effective. Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 20:23:13 -0500 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Welcome "fly-on-the-wall" William, Hey! you're in! Hope to hear more from you. Lewisllucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 20:24:23 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Masters a "dangerous delusion" According to Lewis Lucas: > > Paul wrote: > > > > I would suggest that this kind of thinking about Masters, > > prevalent outside the TS as well as in it, is fundamentally > > dangerous because inherently unhealthy. Delusions of grandeur, > > persecution, reference, influence-- the whole Pandora's box of > > paranoid symptoms-- seem to follow in the wake of any such > > conception of Elder Brethren. > > > > That seems like a rather paranoid statement to me. While I must > confess ignorance to your reference to "delusions of reference", I > think I follow you on the others. Delusions of reference are those in which one presumes falsely that words or events refer to topics of interest to the paranoid person. For example, I knew someone who had been delusional to the extent of transcribing Johnny Carson's monologues from the Tonight Show and then "decoding" them to get messages about her secret role in anti-Communist undercover work. Finding weird messages in the Bible is a widespread example of this form of delusion. > > Let me suggest that it is healthy to be able to accept a > notion that there may be others who have done more, seen more, and > know more than ourselves. To suggest otherwise seems to me to be > rather egotistical. I never "suggested otherwise" than this. Of course there may be (and ARE) others who have done more, seen more, and know more than ourselves. And on planes other than those we know. What I see as unhealthy is the attribution of absolute control of the world to an organized group of supermen called the Great White Brotherhood who choose a select few with whom to share their secrets. This "secret rulers of the world" stuff is inherently paranoid; not the ideal of Masters per se. I not only accept that ideal, but hope I have proven that in the case of HPB it is exemplified by several dozen remarkable adept figures from whom she learned. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 20:24:58 -0500 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: To ALL: considering public access Theos-L Arthur, I am glad to hear "outsiders" are on the list and would encourage you to share your point-of-view with us. We all have our blind spots in our reasoning, but maybe together we can describe this elephant we call theosophy! Lewisllucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 20:39:57 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Masters not the issue In response to Lewis's criticism, let me make it clear that I called a particular way of thinking about Masters unhealthy. This is not at all to say that any belief in the ideal is harmful. I accept that ideal as Lewis defined it-- those who have done and seen more and therefore know more than we. This is central to many religious traditions. But what the Solar Temple believed was that there is an organization made up of a small number of superhuman individuals who are in absolute control of everything that happens on earth; moreover that only a select few humans are granted any knowledge of these secret rulers of the world, called the Great White Brotherhood. And, of course, that only those few persons are really of much value in the overall scheme of things. This way of thinking about Masters is fundamentally opposed to the teachings of Blavatsky and Olcott. I think they would agree that it is inherently paranoid and dangerous. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 23:15:31 -0500 From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: To:ALL - considering public access to Theos-l I'm for giving public access. They'll get our rules with the access, & then we'll ask anyone who gets unpleasant to leave. I can stand a few swear words. I've gotten worse on my answering machine. Most of the people who inquire will be rather interested in who we are, so the bunch of us can do a bit of a PR job. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 00:26:44 -0500 From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: More DNA Buddhi Thanks for the comments! If one examines the work an life of Bertolucci, one can see how an espescially gifted and concerned and passionate (compassionate) man might approach the story of Siddharta with new and fresh insights for the general public. I believe the film stands alone as a work of art apart from the Buddhist and spiritual elements. But the film is all the more powerful and meaningful to me and other theosophists because of these themes. Bertolucci was born in a welthy family not unlike Siddharta. He dabbled in poetry before settling on film as his life's work. As many of his generation, he embraced not Buddhism, but socialism in response to the special suffering of our modern world. I problem isn't so much hunger and death (though those certainly still exist) but what to do with all our wealth. The romantic socialists (Fabians?) I like to call them see a return to a golden age through the magic of socialism. I say magic, because we all know it hasn't really worked. Later, Bertolucci became somewhat of a decadent dreamer and nihilist. Can anybody (who saw it) forget the power "The Conformist" had on our imaginations in the seventies? Most people are most familiar with "The Last Emporer". The story of the somewhat humorous, very pathetic rise and fall of the last emperor of China. Echoes (or foreshadowings?) of the reincarnation of Buddha (the divine king) and Bertolucci's own life reverberate through this film. And now we have "The Little Buddha". Bertolucci has added a special patina of modernity to the oft told tale that makes it accessible to the modern angst in a very interesting way. How else could we make the story really modern, but to bring a certain "political correctness" to the three-fold reincarnation. A brilliant stroke! Yet not an orthodox one. The possiblity that we reincarnate in very unexpected or untaught ways must have caught Bertolucci's imagination for I believe the film's message goes beyone symbolism to a real outsider's (I presume) that the queen of Egypt doesn't keep reincarnating in one person out a time, but is spread through the genes and the history of the whole human race including every peasant. Maybe this is the only way moderns can begin to approach the depth of the reincarnation dogma. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 00:27:32 -0500 From: MURRAY@sss.co.nz Subject: Hodson research books and a quote - 2nd try Martin Euser, You said you would try to find some Hodson books in your post of 28 Nov 94. The following titles are the nearest of his to your interests that I know of: Music Forms The first book on the subject, on work done in the 1930s. Clairvoyant Investigations About half of it is on the music form research I helped him with round about 1978. The rest is on New Zealand devas etc. The Science of Seership Contains a number of pieces in different subject areas, some of them exploring the potential of clairvoyance for scientific research, and some on diagnosis of disease. Must have been written in the 20s or 30s. The publishers, Rider of London, haven't put a date in the book. Original version is out of print. Some Experiments in Four Dimensional Vision. Co-authored by Alexander Horne. Published by Rider in 1933. Describes and discusses some observations of elementary shapes. Original version is out of print. I have copies of all these, so can answer simple queries if you can't get a copy. I'd like to reproduce a piece from Hodson's Four Dimensional Vision book, as it is very relevant to this kind of investigation. This is the chapter headed "Remarks by Geoffrey Hodson": After reading Mr Horne's reports of, and comments upon, our mutual researches into the fourth dimension, I feel that both an apology and an explanation are due for the obvious limitations on my clairvoyant faculty. I must admit that I found the work very trying and difficult, in spite of Mr Horne's most sympathetic treatment of the investigations. Accuracy in clairvoyant research into geometrical problems demands the ability to exclude all irrelevant phenomena. No non-clairvoyant can possibly appreciate this difficulty. In the first place, as soon as clairvoyant sight is "turned on," one becomes aware of extremely potent discharges of energy from the earth itself, from every object in the room, from one's own body and that of one's colleagues, as well as from the object itself. At first these numerous streams of energy are extremely confusing, and the clairvoyant must in some way develop the technique of self-insulation, both mentally and physically, from their effects. Again, every atom of these emanations and of all solid substances (and therefore of the object under investigation) contains consciousness as well as energy, and all objects display visibly their whole history to clairvoyant sight. This too has to be excluded in such research as that described in this book. Another difficulty with which the investigator has to contend is the fact of interplane correspondences which further confuse the investigator and render absolute accuracy extremely difficult to obtain. This universe appears to be constructed on numerical principles, which diagrammatically can be likened to the notes and octaves of the keyboard of a piano. The dense physical world - with its notes of solid, liquid, gaseous and four etheric states - corresponds to the lowest octave. The next world (the emotional) is an octave higher; the nemtal, higher still; whilst beyond that are four other planes, each subdivided into seven. All of these planes occupy the same actual location and interpenetrate each other. On the whole, however, interference is prevented by the difference in frequency and density between the planes, but there are certain interior correspondences which operate, apparently on the principle of harmonics, by means of which phenomena and states of consciousness appropriate to one plane may osmose into another. Thus it appeared that one of the subplanes of the emotional is in direct correspondence with the plane of abstract mind, so that an object which, with a slightly lower order of vision, appears concrete and limited in time, space, and dimension respectively, may to a slightly higher order of vision appear in terms of abstract existence outside of those limitations. The visions of the "U" and cross shapes associated with the physical cube are, I believe, explainable by means of these interplane relationships. With regard to the fourth dimension itself, I must admit that I cannot claim ever to have brought clearly into my brain-consciousness a true conception of this added dimension or direction in space. It appears that when the consciousness is translated from one plane to another, privation occurs, so that the realization of that higher condition is lost, though the memory of it may be brought over, translated into terms of the lower. This limitation may be partly overcome by self-training, but I have not yet succeeded in rising above certain apparently inevitable limitations. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 09:50:18 -0500 From: "WILLAM ALLEN" Subject: Thanks > William, > > Hey! you're in! Hope to hear more from you. > > Lewisllucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu Thanks very much. wa From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 15:53:07 -0500 From: euser Subject: Martin to Osmar de carvalho TO OSMAR DE CARVALHO: I read your post about the little Buddha. Your comment about reincarnation as not being a thing of separate entities, is logical and is substantiated by Theosophy. GdP remarks that our life-atoms are distributed widely (after our death) among humanity (millions of human beings, he says in Studies of Occult Philosophy). We could involve other kingdoms of nature in this process. An important remark is the following: we _know_ that everything in nature is connected in some way. All share in the essence of Being. This all has to do with the seventh jewel of wisdom: Atma-Vidya. We are like leaves on a huge tree, sharing the marrow or sap of this tree. In the processes of life, exchange and circulations of life-atoms is a crucial factor. This includes the psychological level of course. All is change and exchange of elements. A wonderful picture indeed. Martin Euser From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 18:31:43 -0500 From: ddd@hss.caltech.edu (Doreen Domb) Subject: GREETINGS Just want to say hello & Solstice Greetings to some old friends and many more new ones! I've just come on board, and I'm looking forward to some stimulating moments - both to receive and to bestow. Admittedly, I also welcome this forum as refuge from the everyday mundaneness with which I sometimes find difficult to deal. Theosophical mundaneness happens, too -- you say?! Depends on the motive & the source -no? Anyway, for anyone interested, a bit about me: I've been involved with Theosophy, the Movement, etc., since 1985. Have been a member of the L.A. Center for Theosophic Studies, am on the TBAB (Theosophical Book Assoc. for Blind) board, hang out a good deal & learn with/from some notorious Pasadena entities, participate in and help to organize local conferences, assist on the ECLECTIC THEOSOPHIST. Also, I write: articles of theosophical & other related (and not) subjects, poetry, book reviews, the occasional song, and whatever happens next. I look forward to exchanging our thoughts! And I extend a mighty THANK YOU to John Mead for explaining the workings of theos-l to an uninformed (or perhaps unconscious?) beginner of the Internet. Thank you & Take care......... - Doreen Domb From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 1994 00:19:44 -0500 From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: More DNA Buddhi Thanks for the comments! If one examines the work an life of Bertolucci, one can see how an espescially gifted and concerned and passionate (compassionate) man might approach the story of Siddharta with new and fresh insights for the general public. I believe the film stands alone as a work of art apart from the Buddhist and spiritual elements. But the film is all the more powerful and meaningful to me and other theosophists because of these themes. Bertolucci was born in a welthy family not unlike Siddharta. He dabbled in poetry before settling on film as his life's work. As many of his generation, he embraced not Buddhism, but socialism in response to the special suffering of our modern world. I problem isn't so much hunger and death (though those certainly still exist) but what to do with all our wealth. The romantic socialists (Fabians?) I like to call them see a return to a golden age through the magic of socialism. I say magic, because we all know it hasn't really worked. Later, Bertolucci became somewhat of a decadent dreamer and nihilist. Can anybody (who saw it) forget the power "The Conformist" had on our imaginations in the seventies? Most people are most familiar with "The Last Emporer". The story of the somewhat humorous, very pathetic rise and fall of the last emperor of China. Echoes (or foreshadowings?) of the reincarnation of Buddha (the divine king) and Bertolucci's own life reverberate through this film. And now we have "The Little Buddha". Bertolucci has added a special patina of modernity to the oft told tale that makes it accessible to the modern angst in a very interesting way. How else could we make the story really modern, but to bring a certain "political correctness" to the three-fold reincarnation. A brilliant stroke! Yet not an orthodox one. The possiblity that we reincarnate in very unexpected or untaught ways must have caught Bertolucci's imagination for I believe the film's message goes beyone symbolism to a real outsider's (I presume) that the queen of Egypt doesn't keep reincarnating in one person out a time, but is spread through the genes and the history of the whole human race including every peasant. Maybe this is the only way moderns can begin to approach the depth of the reincarnation dogma. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 1994 11:19:30 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: Archives updated Hi - The archives have been updated to include the following files: tl9411.log -- theos-l log file for Nov. 1994 tn9411.log -- theos-news log file for Nov. 1994 (no log files for theos-buds or theos-roots were needed; no activity) essay and articles: meuser01.txt "The Thinking Faculty of Man" by Martin Euser meuser02.txt "The Seven Jewels of Wisdom" by Martin Euser to retrive the above send commands to listserv@vnet.net like: get theos-l filename where filename is replaced by TL9411.log, or meuser01.txt, etc. These are also available at ftp site on vnet.net in the directory pub/theos-l peace - john mead jem@vnet.net From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 1994 16:19:52 -0500 From: MURRAY@sss.co.nz Subject: Hodson research books and a quote Martin Euser, You said you would try to find some Hodson books in your post of 28 Nov 94. The following titles are the nearest of his to your interests that I know of: Music Forms The first book on the subject, on work done in the 1930s. Clairvoyant Investigations About half of it is on the music form research I helped him with round about 1978. The rest is on New Zealand devas etc. The Science of Seership Contains a number of pieces in different subject areas, some of them exploring the potential of clairvoyance for scientific research, and some on diagnosis of disease. Must have been written in the 20s or 30s. The publishers, Rider of London, haven't put a date in the book. Original version is out of print. Some Experiments in Four Dimensional Vision. Co-authored by Alexander Horne. Published by Rider in 1933. Describes and discusses some observations of elementary shapes. Original version is out of print. I have copies of all these, so can answer simple queries if you can't get a copy. I'd like to reproduce a piece from Hodson's Four Dimensional Vision book, as it is very relevant to this kind of investigation. This is the chapter headed "Remarks by Geoffrey Hodson": After reading Mr Horne's reports of, and comments upon, our mutual researches into the fourth dimension, I feel that both an apology and an explanation are due for the obvious limitations on my clairvoyant faculty. I must admit that I found the work very trying and difficult, in spite of Mr Horne's most sympathetic treatment of the investigations. Accuracy in clairvoyant research into geometrical problems demands the ability to exclude all irrelevant phenomena. No non-clairvoyant can possibly appreciate this difficulty. In the first place, as soon as clairvoyant sight is "turned on," one becomes aware of extremely potent discharges of energy from the earth itself, from every object in the room, from one's own body and that of one's colleagues, as well as from the object itself. At first these numerous streams of energy are extremely confusing, and the clairvoyant must in some way develop the technique of self-insulation, both mentally and physically, from their effects. Again, every atom of these emanations and of all solid substances (and therefore of the object under investigation) contains consciousness as well as energy, and all objects display visibly their whole history to clairvoyant sight. This too has to be excluded in such research as that described in this book. Another difficulty with which the investigator has to contend is the fact of interplane correspondences which further confuse the investigator and render absolute accuracy extremely difficult to obtain. This universe appears to be constructed on numerical principles, which diagrammatically can be likened to the notes and octaves of the keyboard of a piano. The dense physical world - with its notes of solid, liquid, gaseous and four etheric states - corresponds to the lowest octave. The next world (the emotional) is an octave higher; the nemtal, higher still; whilst beyond that are four other planes, each subdivided into seven. All of these planes occupy the same actual location and interpenetrate each other. On the whole, however, interference is prevented by the difference in frequency and density between the planes, but there are certain interior correspondences which operate, apparently on the principle of harmonics, by means of which phenomena and states of consciousness appropriate to one plane may osmose into another. Thus it appeared that one of the subplanes of the emotional is in direct correspondence with the plane of abstract mind, so that an object which, with a slightly lower order of vision, appears concrete and limited in time, space, and dimension respectively, may to a slightly higher order of vision appear in terms of abstract existence outside of those limitations. The visions of the "U" and cross shapes associated with the physical cube are, I believe, explainable by means of these interplane relationships. With regard to the fourth dimension itself, I must admit that I cannot claim ever to have brought clearly into my brain-consciousness a true conception of this added dimension or direction in space. It appears that when the consciousness is translated from one plane to another, privation occurs, so that the realization of that higher condition is lost, though the memory of it may be brought over, translated into terms of the lower. This limitation may be partly overcome by self-training, but I have not yet succeeded in rising above certain apparently inevitable limitations. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 11 Dec 1994 03:09:37 -0500 From: Felix Hofmann Subject: : FTP address ? Hello, I'm junew to this list and I have seen references to 'archives' of this list available via FTP. What is the FTP address and subdirectory location. Is an 'anonymous' logon ok or do I need logon info aswell? Thanks in advance. felix PS. on the topic of opening up this list.. I agree with the idea of advertising in 'appropriate places'. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 11 Dec 1994 12:04:27 -0500 From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: change of address As of next Mon. or Tues., as soon as I can get some technical support to stop my AOL program from running around in concentric circles, my address will be LieselFD@aol.com I hope AOL is worth it. It took the better part of 2 hours to install it. The program got stuck at several junctures, & I had to back track. This is definitely my new address. I got all signed in. The problem is reaching the menu, because I went off the menu, & then the screen insists on signing me in again. So maybe it didn't take. Anyway, I can't get technical assistance till Mon. Aloha & Shalom Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 21:20:13 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: welcome Doreen Domb Welcome to the cyber world of Internet! Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 14:46:05 -0500 From: Arthur Patterson Subject: Steiner and Christmas I realize that I have not completed my Silence musing but I did have some thoughts on Christmas that I wanted to share with the listserv. I hope I am not out of line putting a brief Christmas missive concerning a kind of different variety of theosophist on line. I especially want to be sensitive to those of other faiths, who could read this as advocating for Christianity. It is not. I hopefully am suggesting a way of consciousness which is more universal than the Christian way. Let me know whether my thoughts are clear. Please indulge the formatting problems while I learn my new system. There may be the occassional distraction S and R for apostrophe and =3D20 at the end of some of the paragraphs. I am working on it. Light's Winter Wrapping To be quite frank, I ordered Rudolf Steiner's The Christmas Festival in the Changing Course of Time., because I was having a difficulty contemplating how to enter the spirit of Christmas this year. I was hoping that Steiner would bring a bit more than the standard fare by way of interpreting Christmas, and he has! The first problem I encountered was the weather. It may seem ridiculous but because it was unseasonably warm for a few weeks in November my rhythms were knocked silly. It was as if my internal weather receptors were tell me that I was approaching spring. Standing outside wearing a sweater in Winnipeg, in November, is very rare. You will not be surprised when I relate the startling effect when I found, in the Steiner meditation, a reference to the psycho-spiritual effect of winter. Into deepest night-enveloped darkness has the physical sunlight descended during autumn. More outer darkness has come about. Long have the nights become, shortened are the days. We stay at home much of the time. During other seasons we go outside, to the fields, where we would feel the golden rays of the morning sun coming to meet us, where we could work with our hands during the long days of summer. But now we sit inside much of the time, we must feel much , much darkness around us, and we must often see , as we look through the windows, how the earth is being covered with its winter garment. Even thought this was a 'mock' peasant response of yester-year something in this description moved me. I am not rural and do not work outside, nor do am I entirely cognizant of the changing seasons but I do experience subtle shifts of consciousness during winter that parallel Steiner's description. Winter is a saturnalian time of introspection, re-evaluation, winter's icy wrap reminds me of my love of life in contrast to the seasonal death around me. The frozen tree branches make me think of the time wh en sap ran through those trees resulting in a budding and blossoming that was the tree's goal. I feel that when I see my frozen self in winter I am reminded of my aliveness, my freshness of spring feelings that contrast the long Winnipeg wait... until spr ing. It is not that Winter is not beautiful, it is but it is sometimes a melancholy beauty. Winter's comfort blanket had not yet arrived so I had not enough time to set my inner clock for its arrival. The snow has arrived now. As I look out the window an d see the light dancing on my lawn I am reminded that the time has come to move inside in search of another light in the midst of Winter's darkness. Steiner is correct that in the coming of Winter there is a potential to be connected to times and seasons. I am not so sure that he is correct when he says that modern humankind is beyond the grace of those intuitions. Our disinclination to be cyclical pe ople like our forbearers is not a sign of evolutionary development, rather is a sign of our forgetfulness and the numbness overindulged senses. Seasonal subtleness is hard to see when we are on the run to the next meeting. Steiner's meditation reminded me of a former time in my life, when the seasons were more clearly differentiated. When I was a minister, I found that the Church Yearly Calendar was a perpetual reminder of the cycle of time. Beneath the explicit dogma and references to the life of the Christ lay a pagan penchant for time and its rhythms. It was as if the Church could not find it in its human heart to ignore the eternal rhythms, as the apostle Paul suggested, when he saw cyclic worship as a reversion to a unredeemed path, "how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to enslave yourself all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years!" Gal.4:9,10 A few short years after this the Church herself had to acknowledge the human need for seasonal rhythm. Being a modern person, I am out of rhythm because I am not participating in the calendar whether that calendar is ideologically Christian or pagan makes little difference. Thanks to Steiners reminder, my intuitions are heightened to the times and seasons. They, in turn, link me to the idea of waiting for the light. In response, I plan that part of my New Years reflection will be on a more concerted effort to record and exp lore ways to have the seasons be part of my life this year. I plan to combine the Celtic Year with the Christian year in order to pay homage to the human inheritance of rhythm. This year I find myself not only out of step with the time but also estranged from the significance of Christmas. No longer to do I look to any historical manger scene to the provide spiritual sustenance, and yet, I cannot look away from the incarnation. What occurred in this "myth-come-true" life of a Galilean peasant whic= h has formed the consciousness of Western spirituality? Steiner calls this event," the most powerful impulse in the evolution of humankind". In the Christ event are the seeds of a new spiritual approach that is as much a new anthropology as it is a theology. The recognition of this has given me the idea that Steiner's spiritual science, called Anthroposophy, may be the creative blending of the se formerly separate disciplines. Such a blending of theology and anthropology would result in a new mood for doing spiritual research. Steiner describes the practical and emotional effects of the realization of the Christ Event, " Through the celebration of this festival the souls used to blossom fort= h with hope-filled joy, with the hope-borne certainty, and with awareness of belonging to a spiritual Being. Who descended from Spiritual heights, and united Himself with the earth, so that every human soul of good will may share in His powers. Such moods and feelings can awaken in us too, if we consider what can be born in our own soul when our innermost wellspring is so well attuned to what is sacred, so purified through spiritual knowledge, that this wellspring can take in the holy mystery of the Christ impulse." What happened in Christ is a promise for what can happen for all humankind. Humanity can feel and perceive a different realm of consciousness, which is not know directly through the senses, but, is a gift from the new nature. Steiner reminds us that we ca n be supported in this belief, filled with the joy of it, and the assurance of it, when we look at the life of Christ and his attunement with the Source of spirit. Our old Adamic nature is not unredeemable; it is caught up in a new creation, in a new Ada m and that Adam incognito came in the form of Jesus Christ. But not exclusively so - humanity is called to celebrate and participate in this New Being. Christmas is the celebration of the physical manifestation of the spiritual which will eventually lead back to the spiritual manifestation of the physical, when we have developed the eyes to see. Steiner declares this to be the essential message of Christmas whatever the outward forms. Whether peasant or modern, perhaps even post-modern, we can participate - if we are reminded. Steiner says that we become desensitized to Christmas, and its messa ge, through a materialism that blurs our vision. He spoke of being detracted by electric trains trundling between the evergreen trees, and the madness of compulsive gift giving. While he speaks of the future being one of flight in balloons, I cannot help but be overwhelmed by the possibilities of omniscience within the seconds it takes to make the keystroke Control X. We need again to allow ourselves to be wrapped in winter in order to retell the story of our "return".= Our foreparents were in touch with the spirit of ascent and descent in the new creation through nature which touched their feelings. The primary way for this to occur was in theatrics and fine arts. Steiner is critical of the modern attempt to imitate th e pageantry of the past through mechanistic training; instead he exhorts us to become heart-felt in our spiritual aesthetic. To wed our morality and character to the pursuit of this Christmas affect. The receptive mood was created in the simplest manner then and now. Drama, particularly household drama, is part of the evocation of the spirit. I can not help but to recall the play The Cricket on the Hearth which our community put on last Christmas. Dickens the founder of the modern feeling for Christmas certainly is a contemporary version of Steiners Star Singers or Christmas performers. Reading and preparing for this play by our group enabled us to catch the spirit of descent and ascent which this year seemed at least from my vantage point slightly lac king. I am more than impressed with Steiners refusal to become cynical due to our temptation toward materialism and the struggle to conjure the same spirit of Christmas our forefathers did. He rightly debunks the feigned return to nostalgia, Only an enemy of evolution would want to drag what was great in one time over into other times. Each period of time has its own special mission. In each period we must learn how to enliven it in ever new ways what should enter the souls and hearts of hu manity. Some of the old ways of evocation remain relevant, like the tree and the pageant but what of new ways? Steiner gives us a hint by declaring the new manger is our everyday work, and that Christmas is the time when we are to evaluation the spiritual work do ne in the name of the rise of consciousness throughout the year. So I am left to ponder the nature of our collective rebirth by seeing my own face reflected in the infant in the manger - this Christmas can I see even mirrored vaguely the face of Christ m y own human work, my struggle to love, to care and perceive the life of the Spirit? Under the Mercy, Arthur Patterson Winnipeg, MB Canada R3E 1Y5 1-204-774-5301 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 15:03:41 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: Waldorf schools - NO computers allowed! ?? Hi -- I have an e-mail friend I play GO with in Germany. during various discussions he mentioned that the Waldorf schools there are in the press (often) being criticized about refusing to teach the young students anything about computers (computers are NOT allowed in the classroom). I have read a few Steiner books, but I fail to see why computers would be banned. any ideas? peace - john mead jem@vnet.net From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 15:29:25 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: theos@netcom.com address problems Hi -- I've been asked to let people know that the TSA Wheaton address (theos@netcom.com) is having problems. until further notice, use ruben@netcom.com for e-mail letters intended for TSA headquarters. peace -- john mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 15:35:52 -0500 From: Arthur Patterson Subject: Christmas Text resent I received my own mail back and I was disgusted by the hierogylphics of computerese. I am trying a different setting so if you had the patience to read the last post i commend you. Here is another try. Sorry To be quite frank, I ordered Rudolf Steiner's The Christmas Festival in the Changing Course of Time. because I was having a difficulty contemplating how to enter the spirit of Christmas this year. I was hoping that Steiner would bring a bit more than t he standard fare by way of interpreting Christmas, and he has! The first problem I encountered was the weather. It may seem ridiculous but because it was unseasonably warm for a few weeks in November my rhythms were knocked silly. It was as if my internal weather receptors were tell me that I was approaching spring. Standing outside wearing a sweater in Winnipeg, in November, is very rare. You will not be surprised when I relate the startling effect when I found, in the Steiner meditation, a reference to the psycho-spiritual effect of winter. Into deepest night-enveloped darkness has the physical sunlight descended during autumn. More outer darkness has come about. Long have the nights become, shortened are the days. We stay at home much of the time. During other seasons we go outside, to the fields, where we would feel the golden rays of the morning sun coming to meet us, where we could work with our hands during the long days of summer. But now we sit inside much of the time, we must feel much , much darkness around us, and we must often see , as we look through the windows, how the earth is being covered with its winter garment. 4 Even thought this was a "mock" peasant response of yester-year somethin= g in this description moved me. I am not rural and do not work outside, nor do am I entirely cognizant of the changing seasons but I do experience subtle shifts of consciousness during winter that parallel Steiner's description. Winter is a saturnalian time of introspection, re-evaluation, winter's icy wrap reminds me of my love of life in contrast to the seasonal death around me. The frozen tree branches make me think of the time wh en sap ran through those trees resulting in a budding and blossoming that was the tree's goal. I feel that when I see my frozen self in winter I am reminded of my aliveness, my freshness of spring feelings that contrast the long Winnipeg wait... until spr ing. It is not that Winter is not beautiful, it is but it is sometimes a melancholy beauty. Winter's comfort blanket had not yet arrived so I ha= d not enough time to set my inner clock for its arrival. The snow has arrived now. As I look out the window an d see the light dancing on my lawn I am reminded that the time has come to move inside in search of another light in the midst of Winter's darkness. Steiner is correct that in the coming of Winter there is a potential to be connected to times and seasons. I am not so sure that he is correct when he says that modern humankind is beyond the grace of those intuitions. Our disinclination to be cyclical pe ople like our forbearers is not a sign of evolutionary development, rather is a sign of our forgetfulness and the numbness overindulged senses. Seasonal subtleness is hard to see when we are on the run to the next meeting. Steiner's meditation reminded me of a former time in my life, when the seasons were more clearly differentiated. When I was a minister, I found that the Church Yearly Calendar was a perpetual reminder of the cycle of time. Beneath the explicit dogma and references to the life of the Christ lay a pagan penchant for time and its rhythms. It was as if the Church could not find it in its human heart to ignore the eternal rhythms, as the apostle Paul suggested, when he saw cyclic worship as a reversion to a unredeemed path, "how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to enslave yourself all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years!" Gal.4:9,10 = A few short years after this the Church herself had to acknowledge the human need for seasonal rhythm. Being a modern person, I am out of rhythm because I am not participating in the calendar whether that calendar is ideologically Christian or pagan makes little difference. Thanks to Steiners reminder, my intuitions are heightened to the times and seasons. They, in turn, link me to the idea of waiting for the light. In response, I plan that part of my New Years reflection will be on a more concerted effort to record and exp lore ways to have the seasons be part of my life this year. I plan to combine the Celtic Year with the Christian year in order to pay homage to the human inheritance of rhythm. This year I find myself not only out of step with the time but also estranged from the significance of Christmas. No longer to do I look to any historical manger scene to the provide spiritual sustenance, and yet, I cannot look away from the incarnation. What occurred in this "myth-come-true" life of a Galilean peasant whic= h has formed the consciousness of Western spirituality? Steiner calls this event," the most powerful impulse in the evolution of humankind". In the Christ event are the seeds of a new spiritual approach that is as much a new anthropology as it is a theology. The recognition of this has given me the idea that Steiner's spiritual science, called Anthroposophy, may be the creative blending of the se formerly separate disciplines. Such a blending of theology and anthropology would result in a new mood for doing spiritual research. Steiner describes the practical and emotional effects of the realization of the Christ Event, " Through the celebration of this festival the souls used to blossom fort= h with hope-filled joy, with the hope-borne certainty, and with awareness of belonging to a spiritual Being. Who descended from Spiritual heights, and united Himself with the earth, so that every human soul of good will may share in His powers. Such moods and feelings can awaken in us too, if we consider what can be born in our own soul when our innermost wellspring is so well attuned to what is sacred, so purified through spiritual knowledge, that this wellspring can take in the holy mystery of the Christ impulse." What happened in Christ is a promise for what can happen for all humankind. Humanity can feel and perceive a different realm of consciousness, which is not know directly through the senses, but, is a gift from the new nature. Steiner reminds us that we ca n be supported in this belief, filled with the joy of it, and the assurance of it, when we look at the life of Christ and his attunement with the Source of spirit. Our old Adamic nature is not unredeemable; it is caught up in a new creation, in a new Ada m and that Adam incognito came in the form of Jesus Christ. But not exclusively so - humanity is called to celebrate and participate in this New Being. Christmas is the celebration of the physical manifestation of the spiritual which will eventually lead back to the spiritual manifestation of the physical, when we have developed the eyes to see. Steiner declares this to be the essential message of Christmas whatever the outward forms. Whether peasant or modern, perhaps even post-modern, we can participate - if we are reminded. Steiner says that we become desensitized to Christmas, and its messa ge, through a materialism that blurs our vision. He spoke of being detracted by electric trains trundling between the evergreen trees, and the madness of compulsive gift giving. While he speaks of the future being one of flight in balloons, I cannot help but be overwhelmed by the possibilities of omniscience within the seconds it takes to make the keystroke Control X. We need again to allow ourselves to be wrapped in winter in order to retell the story of our "return". Our foreparents were in touch with the spirit of ascent and descent in the new creation through nature which touched their feelings. The primary way for this to occur was in theatrics and fine arts. Steiner is critical of the modern attempt to imitate th e pageantry of the past through mechanistic training; instead he exhorts us to become heart-felt in our spiritual aesthetic. To wed our morality and character to the pursuit of this Christmas affect. The receptive mood was created in the simplest manner then and now. Drama, particularly household drama, is part of the evocation of the spirit. I can not help but to recall the play The Cricket on the Hearth which our community put on last Christmas. Dickens the founder of the modern feeling for Christmas certainly is a contemporary version of Steiners Star Singers or Christmas performers. Reading and preparing for this play by our group enabled us to catch the spirit of descent and ascent which this year seemed at least from my vantage point slightly lac king. I am more than impressed with Steiners refusal to become cynical due to our temptation toward materialism and the struggle to conjure the same spirit of Christmas our forefathers did. He rightly debunks the feigned return to nostalgia, Only an enemy of evolution would want to drag what was great in one time over into other times. Each period of time has its own special mission. In each period we must learn how to enliven it in ever new ways what should enter the souls and hearts of hu manity. Some of the old ways of evocation remain relevant, like the tree and the pageant but what of new ways? Steiner gives us a hint by declaring the new manger is our everyday work, and that Christmas is the time when we are to evaluation the spiritual work do ne in the name of the rise of consciousness throughout the year. So I am left to ponder the nature of our collective rebirth by seeing my own face reflected in the infant in the manger - this Christmas can I see even mirrored vaguely the face of Christ m y own human work, my struggle to love, to care and perceive the life of the Spirit? Under the Mercy, Arthur Patterson Winnipeg, MB Canada R3E 1Y5 1-204-774-5301 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 15:40:35 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: theos@netcom.com address problems Hi -- I've been asked to let people know that the TSA Wheaton address (theos@netcom.com) is having problems. until further notice, use ruben@netcom.com for e-mail letters intended for TSA headquarters. peace -- john mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 10:58:11 -0500 From: "William Allen" Subject: Please help Off subject? Depends on how you define the subject. Good chance to help. Best wishes, William > Date sent: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 09:37:56 MST > From: Jack Barclay > Subject: Re: ho ho ho (fwd) > To: Multiple recipients of list HERB > Let's have some internet Christmas spirit. Put your e-mail to humanitarian use. See below. On Wed, 14 Dec 1994 09:27:50 -0700 (MST) you said: > >If you have time, please read this message. > >Subject: ho ho ho > > Want to do a kind thing for some hungry kids this holiday season? > If not, press delete now. If you have a heart and a minute, read > on. > > Sun Microsystems is donating $0.10 to a food bank each time an > Internet user sends an email msg to any (or all) of the three > addresses below: > > santa@north.pole.org > elves@north.pole.org > rudolph@north.pole.org > > Doesn't matter what the msg contains; it could be an empty msg, > full of invisible holiday spirit. Pick your favorite and send > email there a few times. If *everyone* on the net were to BCC > all three addresses with every msg they posted to a list for one > day, the counter would top out almost instantly, so this is like > a weird and wonderful test of Mass Human Kindness. > > You can do your part to help big fat international corporations > make good on their Promises of donations to charities. It only > takes 250,000 msgs to reach the $25,000 Sun promised to donate to > a Bay Area food bank for homeless families. Other corporations > are donating to selected causes, including a banking firm in > Washington DC that will donate up to $5,000 to the Chesapeake > Wildlife Heritage (only 50,000 msgs...li'l baby birdies...furry > baby rabbits... c'MON now! :) > > Other corporations are participating too: any firms wishing to > add matching funds should contact Luther Brown at > Advanced Systems magazine (pg 22). Who knows, someday you might > see companies all across the globe donating part of their obscene > profits to children's charities in Sarajevo, San Francisco, > Manila, Mogadishu, Bombay, Moscow, Port-au-Prince, Bucharest, > Shanghai, Rio de Janeiro... everywhere Santa stops in. > > Remember: any user can send multiple msgs, so please be counted > at least _once_, OK? There are not many such opportunities to > directly affect something with your computer, and it doesn't take > the Compassion of Siddhartha to see what's good about putting > food in the mouths of little children with no home, wherever they > are. > >tim stone From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 11:14:53 -0500 From: mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com (Michael W. Grenier) Subject: Re: Please help >>Sun Microsystems is donating $0.10 to a food bank each time an >>Internet user sends an email msg to any (or all) of the three >>addresses below: >> >> santa@north.pole.org >> elves@north.pole.org >> rudolph@north.pole.org >> >>Doesn't matter what the msg contains; it could be an empty msg, >>full of invisible holiday spirit. Pick your favorite and send >>email there a few times. If *everyone* on the net were to BCC >>all three addresses with every msg they posted to a list for one >>day, the counter would top out almost instantly, so this is like >>a weird and wonderful test of Mass Human >> >>Kindness. Gee, from a UNIX prompt I can: while : do mail santa@north.pole.org Subject: Counting the votes So far I counted seven in favour and one against naming Theos-l in my FAQ. I conclude that I can give it a try. BTW, 'lumping Theosophy together with newage' is not my intention. Rather, I want to present an alternative to seeking people. We'll see how it works out. Martin. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 16:36:23 -0500 From: Arthur Patterson Subject: All: Checking In All: I have noticed a certain lack of discussion on the Listserv lately and am wondering if all the hardware and software changes I am going through has blocked me from the normaly interesting discussion. I sent a Steiner piece that I genuinely would like to get some feedback on if possible. Maybe its just the busy Christmas Season but hey I miss the interaction. Lately I have been readind Rudolf Steiner and Silence. I don't understand a lot of what I am reading but it is sending me in directions I have never travelled before. Some of the directions I am very sceptical of such as the idea of Mahatmas - I read Gnosis magazine as Paul Johnson suggested and I got worried about this idea. It brings me back to wanting to see the whole theosophical paradigm as symbolic and psychological I am afraid of getting caught in a literal brotherhood who tell me to do things and believe things that are harmful to myself and others. Any thoughts on those fears or the Christmas piece would be helpful. Under the Mercy, Arthur Patterson Winnipeg, MB Canada R3E 1Y5 1-204-774-5301 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 16:38:16 -0500 From: MURRAY@sss.co.nz Subject: Re: Counting the votes I'm generally in favour of Theos-l being named in Martin Euser's FAQ. People usually qualify themselves or exclude themselves by the degree of interest they have. If somebody wants to send us a flamer, well I guess it's a good test of what we're on about. Murray Stentiford From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 17:24:16 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: All: Checking In Dear Art-- Theos-l really has been slow lately; don't know why. Anyhow, I don't recall recommending Gnosis. Was it my own piece on the Mahatmas you were referring to? I think you have every reason to fear falling into the clutches of paranoiacs if you were actually to contact a group claiming to be in touch with the Masters today. To the extent that any spiritual organization believes this of itself, beware. But no Theosophical group makes such claims any more, so you can hang out among us without getting sucked into the kind of weirdness that reigns among E.C. Prophet's followers. Sorry I didn't respond to your Steiner posting. He just leaves me cold. In closing I might point out that Theosophy as taught by HPB really is genuinely derived from the teachings of spiritual Masters she knew in various places around the world. There wouldn't be counterfeit gold unless there were also the real thing. If you want to explore this topic further, I'm up for it. Regards-- Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 17:25:45 -0500 From: MURRAY@sss.co.nz Subject: Re: All: Checking In Arthur, I got your Steiner piece yesterday, twice. That's OK. So it reached New Zealand. I've noticed some quiet periods too. Didn't know whether it was everybody getting on with their lives or beavering away on the next list offering, or just messages being stored up in the list server or anywhere else. I'm certainly feeling pressure on time, to do with the Christmas lead-up. Plus I generally write my pieces at work. There's reasonable leeway for me to do this, most of the time. Of the many thoughts raised by your Steiner piece, one stands out as especially relevant to me at the moment - that of our daily work being the manger for the infant Christ within us. Sometimes it feels more like a crucible, with a lot of melting down! But it's a reality and a nice connection of an old metaphor with our lives today. I appreciate your fear of "getting caught in a literal brotherhood who tell me to do things and believe things that are harmful to myself and others". It's something I very much don't much want to get into either. The T.S. is fairly unusual in its support of individual quest and avoidance of dogmatism or things-you-must-believe-to-belong, but despite this, there is the ever-present human tendency to coalesce, mentally and socially, and to lose sight of the essence and get stuck on the forms it is expressed in. So I'd say it's a healthy reaction you're experiencing, and one that will innately protect from imbalance, both individually and as a group. Murray Stentiford From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 17:59:03 -0500 From: MURRAY@sss.co.nz Subject: I'd love a reply too. (Re info. on the 3 Objects) I'd really appreciate it if somebody could give me a reference or two on the origin of, and intentions behind, the Three Objects of the T.S. See my posting "Help on the 3 Objects" of 6th December for the original query. This will help me with putting together a workshop for T.S. in N.Z's Convention this January. Murray Stentiford murray@sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 19:12:15 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: I'd love a reply too. (Re info. on the 3 Objects) Dear Murray-- I was hoping that someone with a better citation would provide it. But I do recall that the Theosophical Forum, published in Covina, CA, had an article in the late 1940s entitled "Our objectives" tracing them historically. I think there was originally just one-- to collect and diffuse a knowledge of the laws governing the universe-- but don't recall the details of the evolution. I remember that de Zirkoff points to an April 1878 article about Sikhs as being the first time HPB used the phrase "brotherhood of humanity." Maybe someone in Pasadena will read this and provide a better citation? Cheers Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 21:25:13 -0500 From: "William Allen" Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems - Was Please help Valori (and list), I am truly sorry to have been pulled in by this and to have had a part in pulling others of you in. I tried extracting the message that was attached to your post, but my extractor gave me jibberish. I'll assume that it was to the effect that we had been hoodwinked. So much for trusting in the season. Sorry, again. William > Date sent: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 14:08:08 -0700 > Send reply to: Gardens & Gardening > > From: Valori Herrman > Subject: Sun Microsystems - Was Please help > Originally to: gardens@ukcc.uky.edu > To: Multiple recipients of list GARDENS > > I saw the message about Sun making charitable donations for each > message sent to Santa, the elves or Rudolph. Thought it was a > great idea. But then my cynical side kicked in, so I e-mailed my > brother, who happens to work for Sun, just to see what strings > were attached or what fine print wasn't listed. He sent me the > following message, which was just released by their PR/Marketing > (whatever) department. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 00:36:20 -0500 From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: STILL MORE BUDDHI I remebered reading something some years back by the former international president C. Rajandasa (this maybe wrong, I'm no scholar). I wish I had that volume. I remebered he talked about the ideas I echoed and rechoed through my mind while watching the film, "The Little Buddha." He was using the somewhat early information available at the time (1920's) concerning how genetics points to the way we are THE ONE LIFE, but merely stopped down like a mighty organ, playing at a fraction of its power. He talked about the various kingdoms: animal, vegetable, man, devas and how they might be related His ideas fit it exactly with Blavatsky and others, but he seemed more comfortable with making peace with science rather than attacking it as "unspiritual". This seems to be the mode today. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 00:37:09 -0500 From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: No Dna Buddhi I'm a little dissappointed that no one has yet taken me to the woodshed. THere is no DNA Buddhi in the sense that one can escape karma through some lucky incarnation as the little buddha or even the president of the theosophical society. One's karma is very private and painful. I know that, but still I remember C. Jarandasa (sic) I can't remember the spelling,talk about these issues. To get to the point, wouldn't it be wonderful if the next incarnation I was the Buddha, but unless I develop my Buddhi, how can that be???? We are all potential Buddha's but it takes a lot of incarnations to develp the Buddhi. Am I wrong? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 11:25:24 -0500 From: Arthur Patterson Subject: Mahatmas? Paul and Others, I would very much like to continue the discussion on Mahatmas and such. I am looking forward to reading Paul's work on them from a historical point of view. Here is how I understand it from a very beginning vantage point with virtually no reading on them. But I have scanned Olcott a little and Liesel has made mention of the teachers. I can understand historical teachers who "incarnate" the collective wisdom of humankind which we in turn personify. That is what I would like to believe. It suites me.But I am not all that committed to reinforcing my ignorance so I am open to listening to other possibilities. What suits me is undoubtedly not necessarily the truth. So what do you consider the nature of these advanced beings. Buddha, Christ and Mohammed were they chelas? What gets to me is when some esoterics make chelas and teachers into space creatures and sci-fi constructions that they in turn give allegiance to without any boundaries of tradition. We love to project our need for power on things beyond us, both, so we can give our power away and at the same time feel powerful connecting to it - without responsibility. To Paul: No problem about not responding to Steiner. I think that what I said is not necessarily Steinerian or Anthroposophical. I was "using" Steiner to clarify my own thoughts of Light's Winter Wrapping. Steiner does confuse me even though right now I am a bit attracted to him. What I see is that he is sometimes as intellectually cold as he leaves you. Sometimes he does seem too heady and sort of fixated on perception. Seeing a few light hues around objects can be explained in many ways. In the sixties some of us would say Wow Colors.. Man... So what? There are auras but what about them do they lead us to tolerance of each other or to loving actions if so tell me about them but if not - well why not just forget it- after all it is not a contest to see who is more esoterically perceptive is it? That is my critique. What I do appreciate is the emphasis on feeling and gothean epistemology which leads to a relationship to the physical and spiritual universe. I also am more familiar with the Christian concepts in Steiner although I need to explore further. Murray: Thank you for your encouragement, and acknowledgement that my hermenuetics of suspicion can sometimes be a safeguard against gullibility. I only hope that I can be truely open when I need to be. I like anyone am afraid of the magnitude of the universe and the limited nature of human consciousness. I once told a Christian friend that i in a way envied his certainty. I compared our levels of certainty to a wall and a thin onions skin. Mine was the onion skin. I am agnostic in many ways but I am hoping for reality. Under the Mercy, Arthur Patterson Winnipeg, MB Canada R3E 1Y5 1-204-774-5301 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 13:20:54 -0500 From: ddd@hss.caltech.edu (Doreen Domb) Subject: Re: Response to ARTHUR PATTERSON To Arthur Patterson and Any Concerned: I can partially echo Murray Stentiford's reply to you, Arthur, regarding the freedom to think for oneself, which true Theosophy - I feel - supports, rather than getting bogged down in what others think we ought to think and do. Let's be realistic, however, in recognizing that theosophists are no more exempt from fundamentalism than any other human being who supports a particular belief system. We acknowledge time and again how wonderful it is that (original source) Theosophy is ensconced in no dogma or rules to follow. The embracing of brotherhood and the basic understanding of the three fundamental principles are sufficient as a springboard to go on with one's own individual quest. And it is one's choice to further explore and implement the aforementioned. Therefore, I guess I was a little distressed to hear a theosophist expressing fears about being at the mercy of Masters, or the like, telling us how to be "good" theosophists. We are under no obligation to accept everything we come across "theosophically" (there are many times when we have to decide, each of us, what is "theosophical" and what is not), and reasonably intelligent and ethical human beings - I believe - have the capacity to utilize their COMMON SENSE (remember that HPB stressed the use of common sense [I believe that's out of THE KEY, if my memory's working). It's remembering that we possess common sense that seems to be a problem! Why do the seemingly simple things give us so much trouble? Certainly, there are some aspects of the teachings that I don't accept - because they don't ring true with me. There are other aspects that I don't understand and am still working on. The bottom line - I believe - is a relative and subjective one: To try and trust your intelligence and your intuition to see the whole picture. Goodness knows it's far from easy. We think that we crave freedom, yet we get in our own way when the opportunity arises. I know I do that to myself one too many times! There seems to be various controversies as to whether the Mahatmas really existed, etc. I probably believe that they did/do, but that's not the important thing. The principles and teachings are what matter most, in addition to how we understand them, and how effectively we can work them into our daily lives. It is a wonderful freedom to be able to carry on - for example - one's original or basic belief (e.g., Jewish, Buddhist, Christian, etc.), while integrating a theosophical worldview within it. There is nothing one needs to give up or compromise, but one certainly can refine, enhance and/or broaden one's worldview. And occasionally, we will have to deal with individuals and/or organizations that tell us what's what and what's not, an activity that is as far removed from Theosophy as one can get. I am no lofty being who knows it all - I've got such a long, long way to go. Earthly life can be a bummer sometimes, but isn't it so marvelous that we have the timeless Ancient Wisdom to strengthen our foundation and keep us going! I would like to compassionately suggest that you try to follow your own heart and intuition, with some intelligence thrown in for good measure. From time to time, there will be entities out there who continue to trash each other and give each other a hard time because they may feel thay have the one true answer. It's hard to get past our own individual garbage sometimes, but acknowledging that is an important first step. It seems to be the human condition til we really can begin to raise our consciousness out of our personalities and center it with greater and greater frequency within our divine selves, and most important, operate increasingly from that higher self in our daily lives. I don't understand why we human beings produce or allow this kind of fear to be injected into our theosophical (and other portions of) life. We have enough to deal with, just getting through each day on earth. Here's to onward and upward ETHICAL evolution. Merry Solstice to all!! - Doreen Domb From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 13:54:12 -0500 From: "William Allen" Subject: Response to DOREEN DOMB I was pleased to read Doreen's post; it helped me put in perspective something I've been thinking about recently--the possibility that there are "theosophists" out there who don't know they are theosophists. I sometimes have this feeling when I'm talking to somebody--in their voice, in what they say, in the feeling that they leave--that leaves me wondering if they might be the kind of seeker that I associate with Theosophy. I mentioned to Arthur Patterson the other day (in a private post) that I had been reading Edward Bach's book _Heal Thyself_ and continually thinking to myself that this man was a theosophist (this is the Bach of the Bach Flower Essences). I'm sure Bach knew about theosophy; I've no idea if he considered himself one. Somehow it doesn't matter. Best wishes, William From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 14:24:04 -0500 From: ddd@hss.caltech.edu (Doreen Domb) Subject: Re: Mahatmas? TO ARTHUR I just saw your latest note to Murray, regarding " I once told a Christian friend that i in a way envied his certainty." I have a story to tell, something I probably never will forget for the rest of my life. Some years ago at another job, we were interviewing for a person to work in one of the biology labs on campus. One of the interviewees arrived in a wheelchair with a friend to help him. While the physically disabled individual was being interviewed, his friend waited for him in my office, and we got to talking, He had a book with him on some aspect of Christianity (can't remember the book), and we had this wonderful discussion involving his Christian point-of-view and on my theosophical point-of-view. It was a nonthreatening and stimulating exchange and I remember thinking how glad I was that neither one of us got bent out of shape, but clearly respected each other's views. While I was explaining to him about the theosophical concept of not acknowledging an anthropomorphic divinity and how we must take responsibility for our thoughts and actions, he became visibly distressed. He genuinely felt that my outlook on life was so hopeless because of not "putting it in God's hands," so to speak. Hopeless was the description he used, utterly hopeless. But he wasn't the least bit condescending or superior-acting towards me. He sincerely felt sorry for me because of of my life's outlook. And you know, I believe I knew what he was basically feeling, I could see how someone would find my view - for example - as one of hopelessness, if one were totally encapsulated in a particular belief system, without even giving a thought to exploring, much less acknowleding, other systems for analogies and comparisons. (I vividly remember my Orthodox Jewish upbringing!) I continued to think about what he said afterwards, and thinking that perhaps, in a sense, those of us who embrace theosophy and the like, live life in a more "difficult" manner, because while we don't "transfer" our responsibilities to an outside entity, still we may acknowledge this "crutch" (as I call it) as a means of comfort and relief - sometimes quite profoundly so - for so many out there. I would imagine that many people, just believing that you have no wrongs to right (sins) because that was taken of long before your current incarnation, would make each day perhaps a little more appealing, a chance to take advantage of a hopeful opportunity, or a convenient excuse to not do anything positively productive that day. What we believe directly influences our thoughts and behaviors, consciously or unconsciously. Anyway, I really believe I understood why he felt things were so hopeless regarding my views. I also believe ours takes a lot more work! I won't forget the sadness in his eyes and the compassion I thought I saw there. It was a neat experience! - Doreen From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 14:54:47 -0500 From: ddd@hss.caltech.edu (Doreen Domb) Subject: Re: Response to WILLIAM ALLEN That is so right on, William! I think Bach is/was one of the few out there whom I - in my limited human understanding - would consider a genuine Theosophist. Aren't his writings marvelous! I've been studying the Bach Flower Essences for some time. There are a number of books out there, but there is one I have called the "Collected Writings of Edward Bach" (paper-blue cover) that supposedly encompasses everything he ever wrote or lectured on. Don't remember the author offhand, but if you're interested, I can look it up at home and get back with you on it. Samuel Hahnemann also comes to mind, the founder of Homeopathy. Sometimes I think the "best" Theosophists are the ones who don't know they are or who've never even heard of Theosophy. Maybe that's a negative thing to say, but it's crossed my mind too many times to not say here. No offense intended to anyone. Take care -- Doreen From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 15:11:03 -0500 From: Arthur Patterson Subject: On the Story of Dialogue and Understanding Doreen, Incredible story. It is awe inspiring to witness the faith of others even though we don't share the specific we nonetheless coparticipants in the human experience. The love that the indiviudal showed to you was genuine. That is what is so terribily hard when you are in dialogue. Often the other person doesn't understand that you have compassion on them but can receive it because the belief system won't allow them. Sometimes I think that there is another level of reality where we are talking with each other and our souls speak the language of unity. Where love is genuinely shared. In this other dimension there is no ideology, in fact no words, just understanding and unification. Well at least that is my hope. Under the Mercy, Arthur Patterson Winnipeg, MB Canada R3E 1Y5 1-204-774-5301 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 15:28:54 -0500 From: "William Allen" Subject: "Not Knowing" and Bach Doreen, No, I don't think you are being critical of anyone. Ah, sophomore lit was a long time ago...was it Prufock who was astounded to discover he had been speaking prose? Anyway, as I understand it, theosophy (as a spiritual attitude, a quest, a sensitivity) predates the word by thousands of years. I think that's orthodox (a word that perhaps should not be used in the company of theosophy). I'm not certain that in the beginning was the word; I think that in the beginning was the silence and that is the hardest thing for me to try to fathom, not to mention "get at." Being one who is not much versed in the writings that are so often mentioned here--and I am sorry that I am not versed in them, don't get me wrong--I still find my most "theosophic moments" in silence or among plants. Yes, I suspect that there are various paths and, as Bach would tell us concerning illness, there is no such thing as a common cure. It all depends on the individual. Yes, I'd like to have the reference on the collected Bach. Thanks. Best wishes, William From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 15:45:16 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Mahatmas & the TS Just a stray thought in response to Arthur's concerns about the psychological impact of the ideal of the Masters. Perhaps the Theosophical movement is a very good place to make a reasoned approach to this ideal. Since every kind of goofiness has manifested itself at one time or another in this realm, I think we have a body of experience which can be invaluable in sorting out the sane from the nutty. Having descended collectively into madness (I speak here mostly of CWL and the Krishnamurti messiah craze, but not exclusively) the movement has emerged sadder but wiser. In any offshoot of Theosophy, you'd find people still in the grips of bizarre beliefs about the Masters. But within any Theosophical group, you'll find people who by and large are convinced that HPB didn't invent the Masters, but also who recognize that much of what has been said about them has been malarkey. That seems like a healthy perspective from which to explore spirituality. Modern Theosophical history illumines not just the question of Master/chela relationships but the whole gamut of issues about authority vs. individual conscience. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 20:53:44 -0500 From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: answer to KP Johnson & A Patterson Re: your posts of 12-16 To K. Paul Johnson: I happen to be part of the "collective madness", as you choose to call it, concerning CWL. One of his pupils, Dora Kunz, was our President for years, and did an outstanding job. I assure you, there was absolutely no madness, unless you want to call our great outpouring of love towards her madness. People are just as impressed with her as they were, no doubt, with CWL. And rightly so, she's a most remarkable woman, he was a most remarkable man. Dora spent most of her working life (she's now in her high eighties, at least, & still working) using her talents wherever she could, as for instance to help diagnose illnesses. She also dreamt up a healing system called "Therapeutic Touch", which she & Dolores Krieger of NYU then promulgated, and which is used today by a great number of health professionals all over this country. I happen to owe my life to another pupil of CWL, to whom I went, half dead, in desperation, 11 or 12 years ago. I'm still alive & very active, thanks to him. So I'll thank you to keep a civil tongue in your head about CWL. The rules of the network are to talk to each other civilly. I suppose that goes for "about each other" as well. When you talk about Krishnamurti as being regarded as a new Messiah, I think it's only fair to add that Krishnamurti saw this & dissolved his organization (I've forgotten what it was called) because he thought that there would be no advantage in people regarding him as the founder of a new religion. He didn't believe in such a thing doing anyone any good. To Art Patterson - re "auras & Wow Colors ... Man, so what". Well, just let me tell you ... for 1 thing, auras can be used to diagnose, if you're well trained to look at them properly (as I'm not). Serge King uses auras as a spring board to send healing. I don't know what else they can be used for, but they're not necessarily a toy. I've never read Steiner, but maybe his vision of auras wasn't very well developed, if it gave you the impession that they're a pretty toy. They're much more important than that. Aloha Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 17 Dec 1994 06:46:17 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: Masters; 3 objects Murray, You might contact Dr. Santucci at Cal State Fullerton, or just e-mail him for a copy. As I recall, he did an academic paper a few years ago tracing the development of the three objects. It wasn't complete--more could have been done, but I believe it is the most complete account published. The paper should greatly assist you in your research. You might also look around the December 1878 period when H.P.B. wanted to reformulate the T.S. around the World Brotherhood idea. As I recall, she was having problems with getting Olcott to go along with the scheme. Alice Cleather touches on this in her historical account too. Arthur Patterson, Belief in the Masters is not required for membership in any of the Theosophical Organizations. I've known members with all kinds of ideas about them. Some members idealize them into mythical and magical beings. Others speak of them as metaphors, or psychological projections. My own research on the subject leads me to believe that Blavatsky's "Masters" were historical figures, now long dead. By their own statements, they were far more human than many theosophists hold them to be. For instance, these Masters make it quite clear in their letters that their primary mode of transportation was horseback--not astral projection. Their own accounts also make it clear that they ate, slept, and one even smoked a pipe--i.e. they were not disincarnate beings. Though their letters exhibit a great deal of learning, they were not omniscient. As for Gautama the Buddha, HPB's teachers expressed a very high regard for him. For Mohammed, they had a lessor regard. Jesus, as a historical figure, they had a high regard for him too. I feel that the "Master" that is within each of us is far more relevant to our lives than HPB's teachers. Her teachers were her teachers. Our only connection with them is though our involvement with the theosophical movement. Otherwise, they belong to the past, they did their job and they are gone. What good would it do us to freeze them in time and "worship" some people whom we know little about? There may very well be others like them in the world today, but unless we are part of that action, I believe our energy is better spent concentrating on the needed spiritual work that is right in front of our noses. Sorry about the short message. I'm still writing papers. In haste, Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 17 Dec 1994 09:50:12 -0500 From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: The Masters To: Jerry H-E I like what you wrote to Art Patterson re the Masters. It's fair, & you give cognisance to all points of view. I don't particularly agree with your point of view, but recognize it as being valid & reasonable. I was wondering why you weren't writing on the network. Now I know. You're busy with papers. Better you than me. (I could use the money, but not the work. To me, that's a good trade off.) Aloha Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 17 Dec 1994 10:33:07 -0500 From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: PS to Jerry H-E's Masters Come to think of it, you've got a good point there: "I believe our energy is better spent on the needed spiritual work that is right in front of our noses." Never occurred to me, but now that you've said it, I agree. Aloha Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1994 12:15:10 -0500 From: Arthur Patterson Subject: Masters: Following or Mimicking Jerry and Others, Jerry Wrote: Belief in the Masters is not required for membership in any of the Theosophical Organizations. I've known members with all kinds of ideas about them. Some members idealize them into mythical and magical beings. Others speak of them as metaphors, or psychological projections. My own research on the subject leads me to believe that Blavatsky's "Masters" were historical figures, now long dead. By their own statements, they were far more human than many theosophists hold them to be. For instance, these Masters make it quite clear in their letters that their primary mode of transportation was horseback--not astral projection. Their own accounts also make it clear that they ate, slept, and one even smoked a pipe--i.e. they were not disincarnate beings. Though their letters exhibit a great deal of learning, they were not omniscient. Art: Jerry I really do appreciate this possibility of actual historic teacher who were encountered by Blavatsky and others. There people could then be considered living receptacle of ancient traditions. Jerry: As for Gautama the Buddha, HPB's teachers expressed a very high regard for him. For Mohammed, they had a lessor regard. Jesus, as a historical figure, they had a high regard for him too. Art: This is interesting that they made differentiations here. I wonder if Buddha was regarded more favorably because the Masters were Eastern and that Mohammed may have been considered somewhat alien in make up to their world. Jesus, as Yeshuah ben Joseph, is not really a founder of a new religion but merely an individual who stressed a need for a new consciousness of freedom toward God as Parent. Christ on the other hand is something altogether different than that. I suppose that the Masters had a different understanding of the Christ - more logos oriented? Jerry: I feel that the "Master" that is within each of us is far more relevant to our lives than HPB's teachers. Her teachers were her teachers. Our only connection with them is though our involvement with the theosophical movement. Otherwise, they belong to the past, they did their job and they are gone. What good would it do us to freeze them in time and "worship" some people whom we know little about? Art: Indeed but Blavatsky must have become somewhat canonical in her own way. I ran into this dilemma in my Christian walk as well. People would gravitate to someone, even Jesus, who had made the authentic steps in their life and then try to imitate it. C Carl Jung said that this distances you from your "inner teacher". He mentioned that he wanted to follow Christ not imitate him. What he meant was that imitation is to replicate in a literal form the life of a mentor to follow means the much deeper aspect of trying to find your dynamic equivalent to find your own hypothesis and live it as the one you admire did. To be Christ-like, Buddha-like is not mimicry but to find our own relationship to the Source and follow that to the end. In another post I would like to discuss with the group the question of how to we each discern inner authority. Jerry: There may very well be others like them in the world today, but unless we are part of that action, I believe our energy is better spent concentrating on the needed spiritual work that is right in front of our noses. Art: Even if there are Teachers, we still must strive with our own dilemmas and life in the microcosm. I really get irritated by those who are so esoteric that there is a cold other worldly glint in their eyes. The fruit of spirituality is compassion or it is nothing, a sounding gong. Under the Mercy, Arthur Patterson Winnipeg, MB Canada R3E 1Y5 1-204-774-5301 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1994 13:55:58 -0500 From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: RE: Masters: Following or Mimicking >Jerry and Others, >Jerry Wrote: > Belief in the Masters is not required for membership in any of > the Theosophical Organizations. I've known members with all > kinds of ideas about them. Some members idealize them into > mythical and magical beings. Others speak of them as metaphors, > or psychological projections. My own research on the subject > leads me to believe that Blavatsky's "Masters" were historical > figures, now long dead. By their own statements, they were far > more human than many theosophists hold them to be. For instance, > these Masters make it quite clear in their letters that their > primary mode of transportation was horseback--not astral > projection. Their own accounts also make it clear that they ate, > slept, and one even smoked a pipe--i.e. they were not > disincarnate beings. Though their letters exhibit a great deal > of learning, they were not omniscient. In one of the Mahatma Letters (which I don't currently have time to find) I believe it is K.H. that talks about the masters as physical beings, and seems to indicate that only a small fraction of the *spiritual entity* that is what a "master" actually is can ever actualize through the physical human form...that they were *both* incarnate and discarnate at once. Indeed, this makes some sense. Perhaps the clearest sign of someone genuinely travelling the path is a greatly intensified or enlarged energy system. Perhaps past a certain point in development a human energy system simply becomes too large to even be able to fit within the human personality configuration... and becomes then a "master"...no longer needing a human personality for its own development, but at times perhaps generating one through which part of that large energy system is capable of introducing itself into the realm of human affairs. > Jerry: I feel that the "Master" that is within each of us is far > more relevant to our lives than HPB's teachers. Her teachers > were her teachers. Our only connection with them is though our > involvement with the theosophical movement. Otherwise, they > belong to the past, they did their job and they are gone. What > good would it do us to freeze them in time and "worship" some > people whom we know little about? Two things. First, I'm curious...how have you concluded that there is a "master" within each of us? Is it perhaps possible that what really exists in each of us is the *seed* of what may someday become a master? Its a rather large question, because its answer constitutes the fundamental intent of one's path. If one believes a full-blown master is already in existance somewhere within one's energy field (regardless of how deeply unconscious) then the process called "spiritual growth" would then entail discovering the mechanisms by which the lower personality structure might be hooked up or integrated into that "master within". If, however, even that inner trans-incarnational being is but a seed, in some still dormant, in some germinate, and in some growing quickly towards maturity, then the path would be one of discovering, during the course of any incarnation, what sort of nutrition that growing being needs, and choosing mate, job-for-service, living style & etc. that best delivered the nutrition. Second...is our only connection through the TS? I suspect those huge energy systems called "masters" are virtually continuously at work, and have probably inspired or overshadowed countless organizations and movements over time, and still do so today. In the old TS writings we catch nothing but a glimpse, from a very particular angle of vision, of their work...nothing but a few hints...and the TS is fast becoming a crystallized, stagnent form as the original energy impulse that drove it is now almost at an end, and those involved become almost obsessed with *structure* (the inevitable shift from the life-side to the form-side that humans seem unable to resist doing with virtually any spiritual impulse unleased into our kingdom). I agree that the particular presentation/pesonality of those masters as written of in the TS writings are dead and in the past...but I also suspect that almost any human who reaches the point of unleashing the entire energy, skills and talents of their being towards utterly selfless service almost cannot help but be drawn, by spiritual affinity, into some larger current generated by the masters...if the old TS writings say nothing else, they do seem to indicate that while the masters don't give a damn about selfish desires to "see them" or "work with them" existing in personality structures, they almost continually look for people who are really willing to do the work....to work as hard for humanity as a whole as most work for the the sake of personality desires. > Jerry: There may very well be others like them in the world > today, but unless we are part of that action, I believe our > energy is better spent concentrating on the needed spiritual work > that is right in front of our noses. YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is probably exactly what *they* would say. Season's Greetings to all... With love, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1994 16:33:43 -0500 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: HPB on the Masters Following are some quotes from "The Key to Theosophy", Chapter XIV, on "The 'Theosophical Mahatmas,'" verbatim edition, 1946, Theosophical University Press. I'll write my own thoughts in a later posting. ---- Eldon Tucker Q Some say they are "Spirits," or some other kind of supernatural beings, ... [or] "myths." A ... neither ... they are *living men,* born as we are born, and doomed to die like every other mortal. Q ... it is rumored that some of them are a thousand years old ... A [No.] ... the more we try to set people right, the more absurd do the inventions become. Q ... do they outlive the ordinary age of men? A ... Some Adepts do exceed, by a good deal, what you would call the ordinary age ... Q ... why do you call them "Masters"? A ... because they are our teachers; and because from them we have derived all the Theosophical truths, however inadequately some of us may have expressed, and others understood them. They are men of great learning, whom we term Initiates, and still greater holiness of life. They are not ascetics in the ordinary sense, though they certainly remain apart from the turmoil and strife of your western world. Q But is it not selfish thus to isolate themselves? A Where is the selfishness? ... the world is neither ready to recognize them nor to profit by their teaching ... Besides, they isolate themselves only from the West. In their own country they go about as publicly as other people do. Q Don't you ascribe to them supernatural powers? A ... The powers which they exercise are simply the development of potencies lying latent in every man ... Q Is it true that these men *inspire* some of your writers? .. A Some have. There are passages entire dictated by them and *verbatim,* but in most cases they only inspire the ideas and leave the literary form to the writers. Q ... How can they do it? A ... there exists as much interaction between one mind and another, no matter at what distance, as between one body and another in closest contact ... When two minds are sympathetically related ... there is nothing which will prevent the transmission of thoughts ... Q ... have the Adepts thus inspired or dictated to many of your Theosophists? A ... to very few. Such operations require special conditions. An unscrupulous but skilled Adept of the Black Brotherhood ("Brothers of the Shadow," and Dugpas, we call them) has far less difficulties to labor under. For, having no laws of the Spiritual kind to trammel his actions, such a Dugpa "sorcerer" will most unceremoniously obtain control over any mind, and subject it entirely to his evil powers. But our Masters will never do that. They have no right, except by falling into Black Magic, to obtain full mastery over anyone's immortal Ego, and can therefore act only on the physical and psychic nature of the subject, leaving thereby the free will of the latter wholly undisturbed. Hence, unless a person has been brought into psychic relationship with the Masters, and is assisted by virtue of his full faith in, and devotion to, his Teachers, the latter, whenever transmitting their thoughts to one with whom these conditions are not fulfilled, experience great difficulties in penetrating into the cloudy chaos of that person's sphere ... Q ... [There are men who have] laughed at the very mention of Witchcraft and Sorcery. A ... knowing as we do of the existence of good and holy Adepts, believe as thoroughly in the existence of bad and unholy Adepts, or--*Dugpas.* Q But if the Masters exist, why don't they come out before all men and refute once for all the many charges ... that *they* do not exist, and that she has invented them. A ... To say that she has invented the Masters comes to this: She must have invented every bit of philosophy that has ever been given out in Theosophical literature ... personally she treats the whole matter with contempt, while the Mahatmas simply laugh at it. Q The S.P.R. now denies completely the existence of the Mahatmas ... A ... she almost prefers that people should not believe in the Masters. She declares openly that she would rather people should seriously think that the only Mahatmaland is the grey matter of her brain ... than that their names and grand ideal should be so infamously desecrated as they are at present. At first she used to protest indignantly against any doubts as to their existence. Now she never goes out of her way to prove or disprove it. Let people think what they like. Q But, of course, these Masters *do* exist? A We affirm *they do.* Nevertheless, this does not help much ... Q But if you have such wise and good men to guide the Society, how is it that so many mistakes have been made? A The Masters do *not* guide the Society, not even the Founders; and no one has ever asserted that they did: they only watch over, and protect it ... The Masters look at the future, not at the present, and every mistake is so much more accumulated wisdom for days to come. Q ... many of your Theosophical writers claim to have been inspired by these Masters ... A ... the burden of proof rests with them .. some ... have *lied* or were hallucinated when boasting of such inspiration; others were truly inspired by great Adepts. Q [How about "The Secret Doctrine"?] A ... she gives out the doctrines that she has learned from the Masters, but claims no inspiration whatever for what she has lately written. As for our best Theosophists, they would also in this case far rather that the names of the Masters had never been mixed up with our books in any way. With few exceptions, most of such works are not only imperfect, but positively erroneous and misleading. Great are the desecrations to which the names of two of the Masters have been subjected ... Many and heavy are the sins of those who advanced these claims ... every earnest Theosophist regrets today, from the bottom of his heart, that these sacred names and things have ever been mentioned before the public ... Q The names certainly do occur very frequently ... A We Theosophists were, unfortunately, the first to talk of these things, to make the fact of the existence in the East of "Adepts" and "Masters" and Occult knowledge known; now, that the Karma ... has fallen ... The cycle of "Adepts," used as a sledge-hammers to break the theosophical heads with, began ... we can only suffer in the hope that our indiscretions may have made it a little easier for others to find the way to these Masters, whose names are now everywhere taken in vain ... From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 00:32:50 -0500 From: MURRAY@sss.co.nz Subject: 3 Objects responses Paul Johnson: Many thanks for your reply of 15th December or thereabouts. Jerry Hejka-Ekins: Thanks indeed for the pointers on this subject. I shall try to follow them up. Murray Stentiford From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 05:43:03 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: Mahatmas JRC, JRC> In one of the Mahatma Letters (which I don't currently have time to find) I believe it is K.H. that talks about the masters as physical beings, and seems to indicate that only a small fraction of the *spiritual entity* that is what a "master" actually is can ever actualize through the physical human form...that they were *both* incarnate and discarnate at once. Yes, they say that the spiritual state that we associate with mahatmaship is not a part of their every day consciousness-- if we are thinking of the same letter. JRC> Two things. First, I'm curious...how have you concluded that there is a "master" within each of us? Is it perhaps possible that what really exists in each of us is the *seed* of what may someday become a master? I was using the term metaphorically. I was referring to our "Higher Self." JRC> Second...is our only connection through the TS? I suspect those huge energy systems called "masters" are virtually continuously at work, and have probably inspired or overshadowed countless organizations and movements over time, and still do so today. I agree, however, I was writing from the point of view that everyone on this net is somehow connected to a T.S., either formally or informally. I can't assume that we are all connected to any other organizations that might have been inspired by the Masters. Arthur Patterson, AP> Jerry I really do appreciate this possibility of actual historic teacher who were encountered by Blavatsky and others. There people could then be considered living receptacle of ancient traditions. Perhaps you will meet one. AP> This is interesting that they made differentiations here. I wonder if Buddha was regarded more favorably because the Masters were Eastern and that Mohammed may have been considered somewhat alien in make up to their world. They lived in Northern India, so Islam was very familiar to them. Yet I'm sure they had personal preferences. They teach however, that Gautama Buddha was the most spiritual person to incarnate in the last three thousand years. AP> Jesus, as Yeshuah ben Joseph, is not really a founder of a new religion but merely an individual who stressed a need for a new consciousness of freedom toward God as Parent. Christ on the other hand is something altogether different than that. I suppose that the Masters had a different understanding of the Christ - more logos oriented? Their historical Jesus seems to have been Yeshuah ben Pandera, the "love child" of a Roman soldier. Yet he was an initiate, and a great teacher. Christianity seems to be more the product of Paul than of Jesus. Christ, theosophically, is a principle, equivalent to Atma-Buddhi. It was a Greek title given to Jesus by early followers. But Blavatsky argues that the title originally given to this great teacher was "Crestos", not "Christos." Blavatsky makes a distinction between the historical Jesus, the Biblical Jesus and the theological Jesus. She find them to be very different concepts. AP> Indeed but Blavatsky must have become somewhat canonical in her own way. I ran into this dilemma in my Christian walk as well. People would gravitate to someone, even Jesus, who had made the authentic steps in their life and then try to imitate it. I think Eldon's post is a good representation of HPB's attitude towards the Masters, and how she wanted them to be regarded. In spite of her warnings, many theosophists have done exactly what you had seen happen in your "Christian walk." JP> To be Christ-like, Buddha-like is not mimicry but to find our own relationship to the Source and follow that to the end. I agree. AP> Even if there are Teachers, we still must strive with our own dilemmas and life in the microcosm. I really get irritated by those who are so esoteric that there is a cold other worldly glint in their eyes. The fruit of spirituality is compassion or it is nothing, a sounding gong. Right on! Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 09:29:50 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: answer to KP Johnson & A Patterson Dear Liesl-- I think you are being quite unfair in taking personal offense at my characterization of a period of history which you were no part of (were you?). The reference was specifically to the period when the TS became publicly associated, much to its detriment, with a collective obsession that K. was the World Teacher as defined by CWL. Yes, he did the right thing and put an end to it, thereby saving the TS, in my opinion. But how does that absolve those who were responsible for promoting this obsession in the first place? CWL's clairvoyance led him to conclude that K. was destined to play the role he later rejected, and his alleged communications with the Masters encouraged him in this belief, which was relentlessly promoted in the TS by him, Besant, Arundale, et al. If Art has feelings of discomfort with the concept of the Masters, it behooves us to admit that it has been abused in the past in our society. Whether CWL's pupils are capable of being effective healers or Theosophical leaders is quite irrelevant to the question of whether or not the Krishnamurti business was a most unfortunate period of collective madness. I would be interested in any effort at reasoned defense of CWL's role in it. But what we have seen in the past on this net suggests to me that his admirers, when faced with legitimate criticism of him, react not by reasoned argument, but with hostility and insistence that his critics have no right to discuss him at all. Whatever guidelines you wish to propose as to defining "a civil tongue" will receive my respectful consideration. But an effort to stifle open discussion by personal hostility and intimidation will not. Sincerely Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 10:27:34 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Astrological Reflections Dear Baha'is, Theosophists, and friends, Having posted a brief interpretation of Baha'u'llah's natal chart to Baha'is, and earlier one of HPB's chart to Theosophists, I decided to cross-post this set of reflections on the two. They were exact contemporaries, traveled in some of the same places, and both saw their role as the reconciliation of conflicting religions through a renewal of genuine spirituality. It is fair to say that Baha'i and Theosophy both see themselves as agents of harmony and cyclical change. Ignoring everything in the two charts except for the Sun/Moon polarities-- which are the most "personal" elements-- makes it easier to focus simply on how the personalities of these individuals would be likely to color the movements they founded. The outer planet aspects are rather similar, but would be too complex and possibly boring to discuss here. Simply comparing the outlook of a Scorpio Sun/Capricorn Moon to that of a Leo Sun/Libra Moon says a lot about the differences between Baha'i and Theosophy. Henceforth, the former (Baha'u'llah) will be referred to as S/C and the latter, HPB, as L/L. An S/C who is attempting to define a spiritual movement toward international and inter-religious reconciliation will have predictable strengths and weaknesses. On the plus side, he will be able to build solid and functional institutions, and will have a profound understanding of how to weld people together in unity. On the minus side, he will be much too concerned with rules and regulations, believing that there is no such thing as too much control, and having little respect for freedom and spontaneity. An L/L attempting to do the same thing will, on the plus side, have a very wide range of interests and contacts, a strong sense of individualism, an ability to influence people through charisma and charm. On the minus side, there will be more breadth than depth to her relationships, and a love of attention that produces excessive flamboyance and exaggeration. Bringing this down to cases, one can argue that Baha'u'llah was too tradition-bound, too narrowly focused, to build a movement that could effectively embrace the entire range of human spirituality. But he was powerfully effective in creating a sense of unified commitment to building a community among those who did respond to his message. On the other hand, HPB was broad-minded enough to create a much more universal synthesis; more intellectually daring, better informed, and much more respectful of individual freedom. But she was not at all a builder of community, evoking rather shallow commitments from people who were more impressed by her own knowledge and charisma than by any sense that the TS was a solid foundation on which to work together toward unanimous goals. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 12:23:18 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Osmar-- pls. rd. Dear Osmar-- I accidentally deleted your message so have to answer here. Called SUNY Press, and they checked for a Brazilian distributor or even one anywhere in SA. No luck. So you can order the book from their US distributor, CUP Services, P.O. Box 6525, Ithaca, NY 14851. Add $4 shipping for the first copy, $1 each for additional ones. The paperback is $16.95. Don't know the price of the next one or the exact date. You could place a phone order on a credit card through 607-277-2211 but I bet the call would cost as much as the book. Hope you enjoy the book. Solstice blessings Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 12:51:22 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: TSA (Wheaton) back online at old address Hi -- The TSA national (Wheaton) e-mail address is back online now at theos@netcom.com All TSA bussiness correspondence should now be sent to that address. peace -- john mead jem@vnet.net From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 15:23:10 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: the Masters TO: K. Paul Johnson RE: Yours of 12-19 Dear Paul, My taking personal offense is due to that I'm really sick & tired of hearing about this 60+ -year old can of worms you opened up for the 10 millionth time now. Sorry if you think that's unfair. I think it's unfair to bring up this same garbage time & again, ad nauseatum. I'm also tired of having others rip down CWL and Krishnamurti, both of whom I, and many others, admire a lot. I wouldn't dream of making disparaging remarks about St. Francis to a Catholic, just for example, no matter what my personal opinion of St. Francis might be. I think I can expect the same common courtesy from others regarding my holy men. I think that trying to argue now about events of the 1920ies & '30ies & even further back is like trying to argue now about whether, the day before yesterday, when we were standing at the corner of Main and Broad, was the traffic light red, or was it green. I.e. it's a rather futile argument, because who really knows. It was red & green, & one of us saw it when it was red, & the other one saw it when it was green, or maybe each of us saw a little bit of both, but who really knows ... it happened the day before yesterday.. You're going to insist that you're right, & I'm going to insists that I'm right. Do you suppose it would help any, if we went back to the corner of Main & Broad, & yelled at each other "Yes it is", "no it isn't" until the cows come home? One of the tenets of our Society is the Buddha's "Be ye lamps unto yourselves". I think both CWL and Krishnamurti believed in this, and taught it. When it was not being done, they tried to rectify. I think that's something much more valuable & positive to pass on to Arthur Patterson, than just the sensationalism of that for a time there was a collective madness. There was, but it was dealt with. There are or were Masters. Different people regard them very differently. They too were of the opinion that we should "work out our own salvation with diligence." and that includes, very evidently how we think about them. As we used to sing in the Cub Scouts: "This little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine...." Shanti Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 16:20:48 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: the Masters Dear Liesel-- Maybe we're approaching agreement. The last thing I wanted to do was disparage Krishnamurti. Although the Sloss book reveals some unsavory personal details, I don't think that there's a thing that K. ever wrote or said publicly that I can disagree with. He intervened in a decisive and exemplary way in TS history. Gradually, we have gotten back on the right track as a result. The point of my post to Art wasn't to dredge up old antagonisms, but to suggest that the TS has grown up since those times and is no longer so likely to harbor unhealthy approaches to the Masters. About CWL, I think it interesting that in one of Mary Lutyens's books, she says that Krishna would rarely discuss him, but did once respond to a question by saying fiercely "Leadbeater was evil." But in Pupul Jayakar's biography, she says that when Krishna was welcomed back to Headquarters after Radha was elected, he stood before CWL's portrait for a long time, and finally said "Peace." If Krishna could forgive having been dragged through such a weird youth, then in that moment a certain amount of negative karma was perhaps absorbed/resolved. As HPB said, our Western minds were just not ready to deal in a mature way with the concept of Masters, and she regretted having brought the idea to such widespread notoriety. What I wonder is if society at large is any more capable now than it was a century ago to do so. The Solar Temple case, CUT, etc. suggest not. Since it was our karma as a movement to open Pandora's box, I feel that we have some karmic responsibility to speak out for a sane and balanced approach to the topic. This is what I hope I have done in my books. Fraternally Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 17:47:32 -0500 From: Olcott Library Subject: Re: TSA (Wheaton) back online at old address On Mon, 19 Dec 1994, John Mead wrote: > Hi -- > > The TSA national (Wheaton) e-mail address is back online now > at theos@netcom.com > > All TSA bussiness correspondence should now be sent to that address. > Please remember that the Olcott Library (which is a part of TSA Wheaton) has its own e-mail address, so I would like to add to John's statement: "except library business." Address library correspondence to: olcott@dupagels.lib.il.us We accept questions, requests for materials to borrow, and renewals. Elisabeth Trumpler Head Librarian From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 18:21:43 -0500 From: MURRAY@sss.co.nz Subject: Limitations and Connections This is to Arthur, with reference to Doreen as well: Arthur writes: > Thank you for your encouragement, and acknowledgement that my > hermenuetics of suspicion can sometimes be a safeguard against > gullibility. I only hope that I can be truely open when I need to be. Me, too. This is where the inner faculty of discrimination can play a part. > I like anyone am afraid of the magnitude of the universe and the > limited nature of human consciousness. The limitation of human consciousness has been borne in on me very intensely at certain times in my life, such as after my first wife died. My mind seemed such a small dark place, then. The comfort offered by theosophical teachings on life after death etc was tempered by the realisation that, for me, at the intellectual level, they were mostly second-hand knowledge. I wasn't going to sink my intellectual integrity by denying this, even though it was painful. I don't feel the same way now because time has worked a magic of letting go, and trusting, to some extent. The universe has this amazing depth and richness on any scale you look, from the speck of dust to the galaxy. Staggering, and you're part of it. So my little conscious mind still feels little, but somehow there's a sense that the rest of "me" is connected outwards in a sea of light. > I once told a Christian friend that i in a way envied his > certainty. I compared our levels of certainty to a wall and a > thin onions skin. Mine was the onion skin. Some of my contacts with self-declared Christians have been interesting warm discussions, and others have been rather bruising, head-butting exercises. Educational, in retrospect. Some kinds of certainty are like an eggshell. Breaking out of the egg is scary and full of uncertainty, but it's the prelude to a whole new phase of life. And there's probably a series of eggshells that we break out of, one by one. I have Doreen's piece in mind, here, too. She wrote: > ... He had a book with him on some aspect of Christianity (can't > remember the book), and we had this wonderful discussion > involving his Christian point-of-view and on my theosophical > point-of-view. It was a nonthreatening and stimulating exchange > and I remember thinking how glad I was that neither one of us got > bent out of shape, but clearly respected each other's views. > > While I was explaining to him about the theosophical concept of > not acknowledging an anthropomorphic divinity and how we must > take responsibility for our thoughts and actions, he became > visibly distressed. He genuinely felt that my outlook on life > was so hopeless because of not "putting it in God's hands," so to > speak. Hopeless was the description he used, utterly hopeless. I believe you can relate the two views here, something like this: The ideal theosophist, or sky-walker, or anything else you want to call them, combines self-determination with trust and a deep sense of grounding in the divine. So they take responsibility AND put things in God's hands at the same time. No wonder it sounds confusing on the face of it. The neat trick is to do them each in the right area of life, in the right way. The phrase "a personal God" was probably in the back of the Christian's mind, conflicting with the "no anthopomorphic divinity" idea. The word "personal" means one bunch of things to a Christian, and a pretty different bunch to a theosophist. The gap can be bridged with to some extent by the idea that the universal ground of being includes and supports every manifestation of being-hood we can experience. There is also the concept of the Logos, the manifested creative principle/being/process/energy/what else can we call it? So we have a relationship to this, even though it is nothing like as limited as an individual human being. Christian's often emphasise the reality of their relationship to God. There are other areas where the best you can do is agree to differ. With an anatomy of divinity more complex than most, we have a challenge to communicate it, at the best of times! Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 18:29:15 -0500 From: Olcott Library Subject: Re: Waldorf schools - NO computers allowed! ?? On Wed, 14 Dec 1994, John Mead wrote: > > I have an e-mail friend I play GO with in Germany. during various > discussions he mentioned that the Waldorf schools there are > in the press (often) being criticized about refusing to teach > the young students anything about computers (computers are NOT > allowed in the classroom). > > I have read a few Steiner books, but I fail to see why > computers would be banned. > any ideas? I have a son in Germany who with his wife and children is heavily involved with Waldorf education. Several of their children attend or have attended Waldorf preschool and regular school. They do indeed not use computers or any kind of "high tech" (or even "low tech") in their schools. The emphasis is on "experiencing" what they learn through drawing, acting, music, eurhythmy and such things. I wasn't aware that computers are "banned" but when my son was visiting with us last summer with his 11 year-old son, I let the boy play a computer game that is really quite challenging (The Incredible Machine). The youngster quickly mastered it and was instantly hooked to the computer for hours at a time. Observing this, my son told me he's glad that his children are not "exposed to computers in their formative years" because of the addictive potential... Needless to say, there's no TV in my son's home either. I leave you all to draw your conclusions, and I am not willing to argue any pros and cons. (I see both sides, and I consider myself somewhat of a "hacker.") Peace, Elisabeth Trumpler From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 11:58:54 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: AAR One month ago tomorrow the American Academy of Religion seminar on Theosophy and Theosophic Thought was held in Chicago. My apologies for not reporting on it sooner, and to Jerry H-E for not sending handouts as promised. Warning-- if you ever travel a long distance on Amtrak, allow more than a 5 hour margin of error! The seminar started at 3:45, and that is when my train, due in at 11:25, got to Chicago. After running through the city streets to my hotel, checking in, taking the shuttle, etc., and finally getting to the Hilton where it was held, I had missed half the meeting. And it took most of the other half to get my body and mind out of overdrive. Thus, it is all a blur in my memory. A few points might be of interest, though. It was very well attended, about fifty people spilling out of the seminar room into an anteroom. Among well-known FTS present were John and Adele Algeo, Tony Lysy, William Metzger, and Robert Ellwood. When I arrived the two scholars from France, Antoine Faivre and Jean-Pierre Laurant, had finished their presentations, and James Santucci was almost done reading another in absentia. (Hope I recall correctly). James Burnell Robinson of the U. of Northern Iowa was the "responder." Frankly I don't find the standard AAR seminar format very edifying-- many ten-minute summaries of papers, no questions or discussion, one official responder. Even if I hadn't been physically and mentally frazzled, it would have been a blur. The second half included presentations by Michael Gomes on 19th century Theosophical literature, Marva Selvidge (sp.?) on Anna Kingsford and William Maitland, and Joscelyn Godwin on the Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor. J. Patrick Deveney was the responder. After the presentations was a business meeting, where a future anthology of scholarly articles was discussed. It seemed most of the topics were already assigned, with different people covering different periods and subjects. A second such anthology (it was called something else) was possibly in the works. Most satisfying to me was the chance to mingle informally afterwards, first in the seminar room and then over dinner. Among non-FTS people of note present were the Director and Sales Manager of SUNY Press, the daughter of Elizabeth Clare Prophet, the Director of Research for the Baha'i National Center, and Arthur Versluis, author of Theosophia (Lindisfarne 1994). Sorry this is so sketchy, but if anyone has questions I'll try to answer. One definitely was left with the impression that we were off to a roaring start. It would be interesting to know what theos-l folks think about the advantages and disadvantages of the fact that academic study of Theosophy is/will be overwhelmingly dominated by non-Theosophists. It doesn't bother me at all, since I'm more used to being attacked from my "right" (believers) than from my "left" (nonbelievers). In closing, I'd like to deny for the record a weird rumor about me that I was told was circulating in the TS. This is that I had at one time had visions of the Masters, but later concluded that these were illusory, and out of frustration/disappointment I wrote my books to destroy the concept. Anyone who has known me for the last several years knows that this is a fabrication from start to finish. No visions, no disappointment, no destructive motive. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 10:00:05 -0500 From: MURRAY@sss.co.nz Subject: Non-theosophist academic study of theosophy Paul Johnson in his AAR piece wrote: > It would be interesting to know > what theos-l folks think about the advantages and disadvantages > of the fact that academic study of Theosophy is/will be > overwhelmingly dominated by non-Theosophists. It doesn't > bother me at all, since I'm more used to being attacked from my > "right" (believers) than from my "left" (nonbelievers). I see mostly advantages in this. The academics will serve as a bridge to a wider audience, far more than the efforts of members alone could achieve. They will also have resources for research and publication. It is, after all, free publicity. It won't all be good, of course, since the TS as a group of human beings has its own share of failings and weirdnesses but, in the end, people have to see that the value of our offering far outweighs the newsworthiness of our human failings. There's a tendency to dismiss or devalue things said by members of any organisation as being biased pro, and to be more open to things said by non-members as being objective. This works against TS members when trying to spread theosophy or even just achieve name recognition. People remember Beethoven mostly for his music, not for the fact that he lied and cheated sometimes. That may yet happen to Blavatsky, especially in view of the amount of false accusation against her. Murray Stentiford From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 10:01:16 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: K. Paul Johnson's posts of 12-19 Hi, Paul, I sat down to write you a long response this AM. But AOL is kind of slow & still mysterious, & somehow, just as I rushed to go online & send you the whole post I'd written, rushing so I could get downstairs to meet my friend Lorna on time, I pushed a wrong button, & the whole thing self-destructed, pow, righ out of the system. Besides that, this evening, Chouchou the cat is sleeping peacefully on what _she_ believes is _our_ bed, on one of my nightshirts, whereas this AM she was visiting me on my computer desk, & her tail was gracefully wagging over my keyboard, which made typing & thinking a little difficult. She was beeing cheated out of her usual morning walk cum attention, so I humored her. Meantime, my friend, Lorna took me along to a nice Xmas dinner at our Senior Center, where we also listened to Xmas carols & Greensleeves & etc. on a dulcimer. Enchanting music. In 1 word I feel lots more like Christmas this PM. OK let's see, if we can come to an agreement. One of the reasons why I wanted to join the theos network, was to help come to agreements between theosophical factions. In January, I hope to host a new friend, a ULT member, who's coming to look in on our incipient study center, if that's what it'll turn out to be. Brotherhood, it's wonderful, (if we can make it work)! I think we've already agreed as far as Kirhsnamurti is concerned, so let's get down to CWL. I reread the passage in your post which made me see red, and to tell the truth, it's very mild in comparison to others. But it does contain a slur. You happen to have been in the right place at the right moment, and you did manage to open a real can of worms. My most potent argument for CWL comes from your post of 12-20 in which you reported on the seminar on Theosophy & Thesophical Thought, which you attended in Chicago. I'm going to quote your last paragraph: "In closing, I'd like to deny for the record a weird rumor about me that I was told was circulating in the TS. This is that I had at one time had visions of the Masters, but later concluded that these were illusory, and out of frustration/disappointment I wrote my book to destroy the concept. Anyone who has known me for the last several years knows that this is a fabrication from start to finish. No visions, no disappointments, no destructive motive." Someone, in good or in bad faith, told a story about you. You disclaim. Maybe the people who know you well will believe you when you say that the story is not true. But those many who don't know you will believe whatever they want to believe, & you can stand there until you're blue in the face & say "this is a fabrication", some of them are going to insist on that it isn't. And you have absolutely no defense against this. Saying it's a lie isn't going to convince anyone who thinks that the statement is a true reflection of what happened. As time passes, some of them are going to write about it, saying that the story is false, & some of them are going to write that the story is true. Later generations will read it, & accept one of the versions as the gospel truth. Nothing you, or your grandchildren will say is going to convince anyone either way.... Well, that's exactly what's been happening with CWL. We who love & revere him, those of us who had personal contact with him, and those of us who respect his writings think what is being said about him is a pack of vicious lies. CWL couldn't defend himself anymore than you can, & chose instead to ignore what was being said, & just go about his work, & his daily life. We who believe in him can't defend him any better than he himself could, for the same reason. All you can do is have a shouting match, the way I described it yesterday. "I'm right" ,"No I'm right". Can you understand now where we're coming from? Does it now make sense to you why you don't get many answers from us? Answers are futile, because those who love CWL already know the answers, & those who think he was gawdawful won't be convinced by any answers, which they won't accept as proofs, because they know they're lies. Who really knows very exactly what happened over 60 years ago? Why can't we just let all this garbage lie? I sure hope that when I die people will remember at least some of the positive things I did, and not just talk very unforgivingly about the mistakes they think I made. I believe with CWL, and with Serge King, that it's more salubrious to think & say good things about people. Serge showed us during a demonstration with people from our workshop group that positive thoughts & words, "blessings" he called them, strengthen you, & those to whom they're addressed, whereas negative words, criticisms, make you & those who hear them weaker. We really watched it work. From this, I realized how critical I'd been, & I've tried to change myself around. You'd be surprised what a difference it makes in the way people react to you. Now I'm running my mouth, but this is what CWL taught, & it would be nice, if it were now also applied to his memory. 2 more items to touch on, before I wind up. I'm puzzled by that you tell me that you think our movement opened up a Pandora's box. What box are you thinking of? I don't agree with the way you picture history. To me, history & historians aren't infallible, no matter how thorough their research. The best example of that is a book on Black History, vs. a book usually considered to be American History. Both cover the same eras & events in America, & each tells the story from quite a different angle. Another example I've just recently come across: "American Heritage" magazine, gave a 16 page synopsis of the history of American immigration. The writer's point of view is quite different from that in a book, on the same subject, which I lent to my son & can't quote verbatim, but I think it's called "A different Mirror" & the author is a Ronald T -- something (he's a Japanese American, college professor - historian). Seems to me that everyone, including historians & scientists, view whatever their attention is on through their own personal lens. I'm looking forward to getting some feedback from you on this. Shanti & Aloha Liesel & Chouchou Makia From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 10:01:58 -0500 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Comments About the Masters DISCLAIMER: Following is a general discussion of the Masters. It's presented as some of my ideas on the subject, and not intended to be authoritative; I won't attempt to "prove" it with quotes. Please excuse my manner of expression if it comes across as a bit too positive. I don't feel it is necessary to hide behind calling everything a "theory" because various things I say may be disagreed with. ---- Eldon Tucker When we look upon the Masters, we find ordinary men, not non-physical, supernatural beings. They are real people, not merely a myth symbolic of the potential of our inner spiritual potential. They generally travel by ordinary means, and do not use occult powers except as a last resort. The Masters may have a longer lifespan than we do, but not dramatically so. Normally, they are not exceptional in consciousness and power; it is only when they paralyze their ordinary human ego and step aside from it that they temporarily become something more than normal, Fourth Round men. How can we know about such men? Through a combination of common sense and a certain theosophic insight. We don't necessarily have to meet one in person and take down notes as he explains what they are about. (How this theosophic insight works is entirely another subject!) They travel and work among us, mostly undetected. When functioning in their higher aspect, and the ordinary human ego is put aside, they can function as their true selves, Fifth Rounders. In this mode, they are able to function on the other Globes of our Planetary Chain. The Masters are not like Christian angels, Greek gods, Spiritualist guides, or Hindu Devas. They are embodied *men*, not non-physical entities. These special people are called Masters because they are proficient, skillful, experienced in spiritual and spiritual- intellectual living. They are accomplished in higher things. This is as contrasted to what we are or could be: Initiates, people whom are newcomers, unskilled, beginners in the higher life. The Masters are skilled in a penetrating insight into life, both visible and invisible, and into a spontaneous holiness that is fresh, original, and individualized. A Master could have any outward profession of faith, or outwardly claim to be an agnostic or atheist--the outward beliefs subscribed to make little difference to his inner life. The esoteric truths that he studies are common to those studied throughout the world; there is a Wisdom Tradition that is ageless, as old as mankind, and that is what he studies. In some eras, there is knowledge of the existence of the Masters. Othertimes they are unknown to the public. They do not want their existence to ever be proved beyond question. Their knowledge is always concealed--not to keep it secret, but rather because it is just not possible to communicate it until the student reaches a certain stage of readiness, a certain ripeness of mind and heart, and makes him receptive to the Teachings. If told plainly, their studies would seem "insane gibberish" to the uninitiated. The Masters sometimes have Messengers or Teachers, public representatives that work openly in the world. Among the existing theosophical organizations, there are various claims to direct contract or inspiration from the Masters, including by the Pasadena T.S. and other Point Loma offshoots, the U.L.T. E.S., and the Adyar E.S. There is, though, no exclusive franchise to any organization or group of Theosophists to do their work in any territory in the world. They work in and through any group that is true to the theosophical spirit and working unselfishly for humanity. There may have been various purposes to the theosophical groups over the years. The basic purpose of the T.S. was to disseminate some fundamentals of the Esoteric Philosophy, and counteract the materialism of the 1800's. It was not to be a training ground for future Chelas. But we can't simply say that the T.S. was founded for a certain purpose and let that be the final word on the matter. At any point of time there is always the question: Given the various theosophical groups and their current memberships, what good work can be done through them? There is no use for the Masters to run organizations that sell "initiations," offer public training programs, teach special occult or meditative techniques, or offer correspondence courses for a fee. They do not run groups that claim esoteric credit for solving the world's problems. They do not have public membership organizations that we can join by filling out applications and paying dues. There are a number of misconceptions (from the Point Loma point of view) regarding the Masters, some taught in theosophical textbooks in some of the theosophical societies! For instance: * They do not have specific work to do according to "the seven rays". * There is no "Deva Kingdom" as a parallel but different path of evolution that bypasses the Human Kingdom, for the Masters to interact with. * The Masters do not regularly visit Chelas in "astral bodies" and sometimes become visible to the amazement on onlookers. * The Masters have not graduated from the Human Kingdom, nor are even the Buddhas themselves close to graduation. * They learn and acquire wisdom on any plane of existence through personal experience *with penetrating insight,* not through psychical sight or an extension of the senses, not through "clairvoyance." * Their biggest requirement of pupils is to give up false but sincerely-held beliefs, not of outer piety of vegetarianism, non-smoking, non-drinking, etc. * They are against organized religion as a substitute for a personal religious life. * They do not delegate any special authority or power to direct others to the head of any Theosophical Society or associated Esoteric Society. The Mahatmas protect and overlook things in the world. They safeguard things. They are spiritual and occult environmentalists. Part of the work is to insure safe settings for the various cultures and subraces to flourish. And they preserve the Wisdom Tradition, a Treasure of Knowledge that the Dhyani-Chohans gave to mankind in the distance past. Their protective and safeguarding role is sometimes described as the Guardian Wall. They are not part of any "world government". They don't give orders or command subordinates. It is incorrect to have an organization chart, showing Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, Maha- Chohans, Mahatmas, et al, holding various offices in some spiritual government. Rather, they participate in their own niche in an overall spiritual ecology, with each live at its own level functioning and contributing to the whole in its own unique way. Each step along the Path brings us up a level, and each level is occupied by a class of individuals. There are Pre-Chelas, Chelas, Masters, Bodhisattvas, and Buddhas. While it is true that there are fewer individuals as we go to the higher steps on the ladder, we never reach a position where there is a position that can only be filled by a single individual. Each class interacts with, but *does not rule* the lower classes. The Mahatmas are real men. They have ordinary limitations and possible shortcomings. After them come the Bodhisattvas, then the Buddhas. Even as Buddhas, we are still in the Human Kingdom. It is not physically possible to graduate from the Human Kingdom at this time, in the Fourth Round. The Mahatmas are Fifth Rounders. The Bodhisattvas and Buddhas are Sixth Rounders. And conditions simply do not exist at this time for us to complete our Seventh-Round evolution and graduate. While it is true that the Mahatmas are flesh-and-blood men, they are somewhat free of the requirement of continual rebirth. And at a later stage as Sixth Rounders it is possible to function with full sense perception, minus the organic physical body; it is possible to function as Nirmanakayas and to exist in mind-created (yet not concretely physical) forms called Mayavi-Rupas. The Masters that we read about, including K.H. and M., are all probably dead, and reincarnated by now. To think of them by name, to meditate on their pictures, to wish to be in touch with them is both a waste of time and probably won't attract their attention wherever and whomever they are now. They don't want to be worshipped. There is no value to the goal to yearn to become a student of a Master, to have a personal Master, as a end in itself. When the student is ready the Teacher appears. It is by inner readiness that we get a Teacher, and that Teacher most often is the karmic situations awakened in our outer lives, and not a person we come into contact with. Should we want to be in touch with them? No. Why? To brag to others about it? To ask them what to do with our lives? To seek solace in signs and wonders? To provide learning experiences that our own karma can't bring us in outer life? Certainly not! All this is exactly the stuff that will guarantee we'll never see or hear from one! The Masters don't want to make pets of would-be Chelas. The Masters have different schools or methods of training. Each suits a certain temperament. We are told to not mix schools or methods. The study of Theosophy is related to one such school. It is not exclusive for that school nor its only approach. But as a School of the Mysteries, it requires a deep "buy in" where it becomes a rock-solid part of our lives, if it is to really work for us. It should be as intense as the desire to breathe: Picture how much we miss air when our heads are under water! Individual initiative is a key element of their training. They do not tell their students what to do, because it would deny the students the experience of self-initiative, and deny the students the karma and merit of the good deeds. They consider 2/3 of the world's evil as coming from organized religions, and the other 1/3 from selfishness. And they have stated that false but sincere beliefs are a bigger barrier to coming to them (in thought, learning, development) than drinking or other physical failings. In temperament, the Mahatmas are cool, and not emotionally passionate. They are more spiritual and saintly than we are, but not pious in the traditional religious sense. Most are highly developed intellectually; most have a highly- developed manasic principle. They are mind-centered and thoughtful in ways that we simply cannot appreciate. As Fourth Rounders, we simply function differently, with desire or Kama being the seat of our consciousness. What do we do with the idea of the Masters? Just accept them for their place in the scheme of things. They are just our fellow men who co-exist with us in the drama of life, with their own karmic ties and personal responsibilities. Like elder brothers, they are both our kin, yet older, more experienced, and wiser. We can appreciate them and learn from what they have done. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 10:02:43 -0500 From: MURRAY@sss.co.nz Subject: Hodson 1978 research Here is some introductory information on the Geoffrey Hodson work I was involved with around 1978, as promised to Martin Euser. ---------------------------------------------- Geoffrey Hodson had a strong desire to apply his seership to subject areas such as medical diagnosis, archaeology and music, as well as more "theosophical" subjects like the deva kingdom, because he wished to indicate the potential of clairvoyant research in these areas, and hoped that others would continue this kind of work. Hodson often asked people who had some academic or generally-accepted type of knowledge in those fields, to propose questions before or during his actual observations. One reason for this was that there was invariably a wide range of phenomena and aspects to observe at every point along the way, and he wanted to address questions that would be significant to the outer world of knowledge, as much as possible. He asked me to help because I have university degrees in science, specialising in physics, and am a musician with experience in several fields. Being a member of the TS helped establish a basic rapport for him to work within, too. The way I helped him in the music research, was to play musical pieces and individual notes for observation, organise other musicians to sing and play, and pose various questions during observation. I was present throughout. The music research is published in somewhat condensed form in the book Clairvoyant Investigations by G.H., available through any bookstore holding theosophical books. The sessions were recorded in short hand, without a tape recorder. I also helped Hodson with a series of observation sessions in the so-called Occult Chemistry field, using a clairvoyant faculty of magnification like a super microscope to observe from molecules down to subatomic particles. This work was proposed by the late Dr E. Lester Smith of England, to test some hypotheses that were intended to reconcile the O.C. observations of CW Leadbeater and Annie Besant, with atomic structure as understood in the last quarter of the 20th century. In this work, I prepared crystal samples of the 3 isomers of di-hydroxy benzene which Lester Smith hoped would yield information to distinguish between candidate theories. I tape recorded each session and, again, asked questions at various points in the proceedings. Initial rough transcriptions of these tapes were subsequently made, and the work of converting them into accurate transcriptions is partly done. The di-hydroxy benzenes are better known by the names hydroquinone, resorcinol and and hydrocatechol, if my memory serves me correctly. My original notes were somewhat buried in a sea of boxes during our recent house shift and will become more accessible as we unpack and get a study built. I cannot really say whether any evidence significant to Lester Smith's concerns was contained in Hodson's findings because my briefing was deliberately vague, to preserve a double blind aspect. This also made it very difficult to direct Hodson to the desired scale of magnification and type of perceptual object, or for him to know exactly what to look for. The information field was simply vast and we didn't have an adequate road map for the job. Hodson certainly had many interesting and amazing perceptions throughout this work, however. The sad thing is that Lester Smith has passed away now, having only ever received a summary of the findings from me. Major trauma and commitments over the years interfered with getting the transcripts finished, even though I farmed part of the work out to others. Geoffrey did most of the O.C. research in bed, sitting up. This helped to conserve energy for the process - not unreasonably, seeing he was nearly 90 at the time. The music work was done in the lounge at his home or elsewhere. This kind of work was clearly a great drain on his energy. Often, after half an hour or so, he would get a bit of a headache and need to stop for a gentle head massage from his wife, Sandra. He would start by chanting the word Om several times, fairly softly most of the time, to get the kundalini going and tune into the universal life. You could feel the air get kind of electric at this time. Occasionally, during observation, he would say it again, apparently to sustain or increase the energy available for the work. I must confess to having passed through a period of considerable doubt at one time during the work with him. He was quite used to this, however, and said that a crisis of confidence invariably arose in his collaborators on the physical plane, at some stage of their work with him. For me, it was one thing to know about these things from reading about them in books, but another to be with the real person, the real process, whatever it was - the difference between third-hand knowledge and second-hand knowledge, in a way, needing a bit of mental readjustment. I am comfortable with clairvoyants now, having worked through that stuff then. That doesn't mean I've turned off a careful, scrutinizing attitude, though; not at all. On this, it is interesting that one day, during a rest between observations, Geoffrey said "In this game, you have to be more of a materialist than the materialists!" He was saying here, and the rest of the conversation, that the would-be seer has to check everything, dig below the surface as far as possible, identify and reject all wishful thinking, and rely on observation only, yet be always open to correction when new evidence came along. Yes, a lot of materialists would flunk that test. So, to conclude this piece, I hope that between myself and another TS member in New Zealand, the transcripts can be completed in the next year or so. We have already been trying, without much success, over the last couple of years. They'll probably be about 50 pages in length. Murray Stentiford murray@sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 11:29:40 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Comments About the Masters It may be helpful to point out that Eldon's post is an excellent summary of the way the Masters are portrayed in the Mahatma letters. While no Theosophical book is meant as authoritative, I do think it fair to say that these letters are fundamental to understanding the relationship between HPB and her teachers. Although I may have some reservations about certain points in these teachings, I congratulate Eldon on providing such a clear and succinct summary of the crucial points. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 12:27:24 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: In Search of Agreement Dear Liesel and friends, A book I read recently on conflict in relationships posits a process that I think I see a lot on the net. "Spin-outs" and "spin-ins." What the author is talking about is mainly married couples in conflict, but it applies generally. A spin-out is an argument in which A says something that pushes buttons of anger or hopelessness in person B, who responds with something that alienates A, who retorts with a comment that further infuriates B, etc. Arguments definitely, in my observation, go through stages where everything each person says just makes things worse, like going down a spiral staircase. Spin-ins are resolution conversations in which people gradually get closer by a step-by-step process based on finding points of agreement. Whenever disputes occur on theos-l or other groups, I tend to more inclined than some to pour fuel on the flames at first, rather than stifle the conflict. But I also want to come out of it still friends, and having learned something in the process. Nothing is more capable of producing spin-outs than discussions of CWL. I hope I can talk about them without causing another one. Our fragmentation as a movement is due to a series of spin-out disputes, and maybe the resolution of our disputes can be facilitated by the spin-in model. Basically I see three sources of problems in discussion of CWL. First, and most sensitive with your ULT friend, is strong feelings people have about the contradictions between his teachings and HPB's. These are numerous, touch on many points central to the philosophy, and tend not to be discussed objectively by any parties to the dispute. The archetypal ULT or Pasadena person will dismiss any points of variance between CWL and HPB by assuming that of course she is always right and therefore he is wrong whenever he varies from her. My view is that it is certainly hypothetically possible for him to be right and for her to be wrong, and therefore there is something unfair in attitudes toward him in certain quarters. On the other hand, the approach of CWL's partisans (as far as I have observed) is to paper over the cracks, dismissing the obvious and crucial divergences as either nonexistent or miniscule. To my view, this is spin-out #1. It is infuriating to ULT and Pasadena types to see/hear Adyar folks ignore/deny/sweep under the carpet divergences that they know exist. It is equally infuriating to CWL's admirers to see his detractors make a priori assumptions that he must be wrong whenever he conflicts with their party line. I'd rather see healthy dialogue on this than avoidance; don't know that there's a single other person who feels this way. Spin-out #2 is on the issue of accusations against CWL from pubescent boys on the issue of masturbation and actual sexual contact. The facts are that CWL admitted not just advising masturbation, but giving "indicative action" involving touch, and that some boys accused him of fullfledged sexual contact with them. In America in 1906 and Australia in 1922, this provoked huge scandals that produced large volumes of documentary evidence. CWL's partisans say that he was unjustly accused; this may be possible to some extent, but even what he admitted to the TS investigating committee was enough to send him to prison. CWL's admirers have generally treated this issue as "garbage" that should be censored. I would just point out recent disclosures in the Catholic Church to suggest that this problem is very widespread, and religious organizations' ability to deny/ignore obvious evidence is also well established. Here, what is infuriating to many in the movement is the pervasive silence and refusal to even discuss the issue rationally on the part of CWL's admirers. I cannot state strongly enough that Gregory Tillett is not a diabolical attacker of Theosophy. He started his research with a favorable inclination, was well treated by John Coats during his research in Adyar, and states his conclusions without rancor or sensationalism. The fact that no Adyar-affiliated journal reviewed his book speaks poorly for our intellectual honesty and freedom. The fact that both Dora and Radha made vague allusions in print to an unnamed book making unspecified false allegations was more disturbing than if they had just remained silent. Here I would say the anti-CWL side of the spin-out is a common attitude among them is that if indeed he was guilty, that this proves the entire Adyar TS a lost cause, dominated by the Dark Brotherhood, completely evil. This seems to be changing at last, however. Which leads to the third point. Apart from the actual facts pro or con CWL, the attitudes and behavior of each side tend to further alienate the other. CWL's critics are seen by his admirers as people who want to constantly drag his name through the mud, humiliate the TS, prevent forward movement to a harmonious environment in which all views are respected. But his admirers are seen by his critics as enemies of intellectual freedom who try to shout down evidence that they cannot factually debate, who resort to emotional abuse rather than reasoned discussion in order to intimidate their opponents, and want to defend their hero at any cost. Well, here all I can say in hopes of forestalling attacks all around is that I'm willing to wait. On the one hand, this issue must be calmly and objectively addressed by Theosophists if we are to move forward in the next century unfettered by buried trauma. On the other hand, there's no point in someone like me trying to promote that process when both sides are still more inclined to shouting matches than fraternal conduct. My own interest in Theosophical history is almost entirely focused on the nineteenth century, so it won't frustrate my personal agenda if I don't live to see CWL discussed rationally. But I hope it will happen sooner rather than later. Dunno where you get that idea that I think historians are infallible, so I'll let than one pass as a straw man. About the Pandora's box reference, I'll close by quoting HPB very imperfectly, since I don't have the CWs at hand. She said "now every bogus or swindling society claims to be directed by `Masters', some of them supposed to be far higher than ours. Had we not rushed into notoriety publishing all we knew and heard, this desecration would never have occurred. But it is useless to lament over what is done, and we can only hope that in spite of our mistakes, we have made it possible for some to approach the real Masters more closely." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 16:25:38 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: In Search of Agreement One thing I forgot to say. Probably less than a quarter of the Theosophists admire and respect CWL, and probably less than a quarter loathe and despise him. I think that over half of us are caught in the crossfire, and count myself in that category. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 12:07:16 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: addendum to CWL of 12-21 I wrote a sentence at the end of the 3rd paragraph that didn't come out the way I meant it to, so I'd like to amend it. I wrote "There is no collective belief of the Theosophical Society." and I should have continued the sentence with "which every Theosophist must adhere to." There is Theosophical doctrine, but its interpretation & adoption is left to the individual Theosophist. These individual Theosophists include such notables as Judge, DePurucker, Leadbeater & a number of others. Part of the dynamism of our movement is that Theosophy can be interpreted anew by each new member, rather than stagnate in the same, worn out old dicta. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 12:23:27 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: CWL (fwded by jem) hi - the listserver crashed briefly this morning. In cleaning things up I found this message which was not delivered (I think). Hence I'm forwarding it. jem (from Liesel D.) Dear Paul, I really want to tell you that I haven't communicated with any of my Leadbeater friends lately.I also have no idea who of them is on this net. I want it to be very clearly understood that this is a correspondence between you & me, & whoever happens to be tuning in to this network. (They're probably tuning us both out, because who wants to read all this nonesense.) I'm part of the CWL contigent, for sure, but I'm writing these things to you, they're not coming from a group of some friends I don't know about. In the middle of your post you say "I'd rather see healthy dialogue on this than avoidance." You for sure aren't avoiding anything in what you wrote, but I for one wouldn't call it a "healthy" dialogue. That's only my opinion ...others may differ. About the contradictions between HPB & CWL's teachings. I really don't know what they are,. not having studied the matter, but I'll take your word for it that they exist. If they've been creating differences between various TS factions, then I think it's about time that these differences be bridged. I don't think we can accomplish that by shouting accusations at each other, but maybe if we observed what I know under the name of "The Freedom of the Society", we'd get somewhere. I understand "The Freedom of The Society" to mean that every Theosophist is entitled to his/her opinion, is entitled to espouse those phases of Theosophy which he/she deems to be right & fitting for him/her, which make sense to him/her. The only exception to that is the belief in Universal Brotherhood. We're all to believe in that, and I'd really be interested in finding out what your own concept of Universal Brotherhood is.. Other than Brotherhood, everyone is free to believe that part of our heritage which sounds right to him/her, and _no one else has the right to tell him or her what he/she must believe_. From that very tolerant point of view, Theosophists are free to believe that HPB was right, or that CWL was right, or whatever mixture of the 2 each person decides on. It is the individual's belief system, that is to be respected. There is no collective belief of the Theosophical Society. One member does not impose his/her beliefs on another member, nor one group on another group. I bet ULT, Pasadena, & Adyar could do that, if we all tried a little harder. On to your second point ...masturbation ... a biiig boogey man at the turn of the century, when the incident happened. At that time people thought masturbating was a very evil thing to do, and so they said that Leadbeater was a very evil man to advocate such a dirty thing . Right? Lots of people said that; lots of people wrote about it. Right? Riiiight. Well, let me tell you about something I learned recently in my American Women's History class, At that era.people also thought that male nocturnal emissions were an illness, & men had themselves castrated to stop having nocturnal emissions. That's just 1 example of what people believed back then. We learned of others. Knowing how skewed was that era's perception of sex matters, just imagine what kind of credence one can give to the "large volumes of documentary evidence" you mention that was piled up against CWL. When you come right down to it, if _I_ were taking care of a group of prepubescent boys today, and I saw that they were having sexual problems I'd tell them to do the same thing ... masturbate. If present day pubescent boys were taught to do this, there wouldn't be so many 14 year old mothers running around with kids they don't know how to take care of. And that would most probably decrease the violence these kids often express lateron, because of their poor upbringing. Matter of fact, I once asked a competent present-day psychologist about masturbation & was told it was completely harmless. . I don't want to say too much about Gregory Tillett. I once bought his book, started to read it, & made the book store give me back my money. The only thing I still remember reading is that Tillett was very annoyed because no one from the ES would talk to him while he was researching. And since it was apparently his belief that ESers knew at least part of the story, & since he had no access to that part, how do you figure that he was able to tell the whole story ? Now we come to your belief that Adyar is dominated by the dark brotherhood. Mamma mi! You're free to believe in any boogey man your imagination desires. That's your problem. I hope you don't mind if I don't take it for real from my side. I will close by quoting you again "...the attitudes & behavior of each side tend to further alienate the other. " After what you just sent me, please be so kind as to tell me whether you think you are alienating, or whether you are you furthering "spins-ins'" to use your nomenclature ... "in which people gradually get closer by a step by step process based on finding points of agreement." Tell me, K Paul Johnson, what is it you're trying to accomplish? Universal Brotherhood? I think I've wasted enough time on this useless back & forth with you, so I probably won't answer any future communications from you on this subject. I'll do what CWL did. Go about my business, & never mind all this fruitless banter. With all the sisterliness I can muster, since I'm not yet a Bodhisattva, and with a Hindu invocation "Holy Cow"! Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 14:31:14 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: CWL (fwded by jem) > (from Liesel D.) > > In the middle of your post you say "I'd rather see healthy > dialogue on this than avoidance." You for sure aren't avoiding > anything in what you wrote, but I for one wouldn't call it a > "healthy" dialogue. That's only my opinion ...others may differ. Healthy by my definition means open, honest, and respectful of one another's integrity. > right, or whatever mixture of the 2 each person decides on. It > is the individual's belief system, that is to be respected. > There is no collective belief of the Theosophical Society. One > member does not impose his/her beliefs on another member, nor one > group on another group. I bet ULT, Pasadena, & Adyar could do > that, if we all tried a little harder. Much progress has been made in recent years. > upbringing. Matter of fact, I once asked a competent present-day > psychologist about masturbation & was told it was completely > harmless. Of course it is. But an adult male in a role of spiritual advisor teaching it by "indicative action" involving physical contact is not. > had no access to that part, how do you figure that he was able to > tell the whole story ? Never figured that; but he studied more evidence than anyone else ever has on the subject. > Now we come to your belief that Adyar is dominated by the dark > brotherhood. Where in the world do you get such an idea? I believe no such thing, and have inveighed against the very idea of the DB. I said some people have taken this position! I deplore it! It's totally reprehensible, and symptomatic of twisted thinking in the anti-CWL camp, which is exactly the context in which I presented it. > Mamma mi! You're free to believe in any boogey man your > imagination desires. That's your problem. I hope you don't mind > if I don't take it for real from my side. And now you are getting abusive on the basis of a bizarre and totally baseless misreading. Shame! > points of agreement." Tell me, K Paul Johnson, what is it you're > trying to accomplish? Universal Brotherhood? I was trying to accomplish an open and mutually respectful exchange with the person I thought you were. I'm deeply disappointed and offended by what you are revealing yourself to be in this message. > I think I've wasted enough time on this useless back & forth with > you, so I probably won't answer any future communications from > you on this subject. OK. If you wanted to hurt someone, congratulations. Hope you're satisfied. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 15:43:10 -0500 From: Deodars@aol.com Subject: Re: The Three Objects The following is from Alan Donant I took up Paul's suggestion regarding the three objects. Following is the article he mentioned for the benefit of those without access to The Theosophical Forum. The article *Our Directives* was writen by Grace F. Knoche and published in October, 1947. Our Directives A STUDY OF THE EVOLUTION OF THE "OBJECTS OF THE T.S." -- FROM 1875 TO 1891 INSPIRED by the conviction that the Theosophical Society was the inevitable outgrowth of the spiritual demands of the century, its Founders valiantly strove, without concealment or equivocation, to "arrest the attention of the highest minds" in all fields of thought: science, philosophy, religion, literature, psychical and spiritualistic research, as well as Oriental philosophy. Starting with one broadly inclusive purpose, the infant society declared: The objects of the society are, to collect and diffuse a knowledge of the laws which govern the universe.1 Within two years, H. P. Blavatsky had published Isis Unveiled, startling the Western world with its "striking peculiarities, its audacity, its versatility, and the prodigious variety of subjects which it notices and handles," as the New York Herald aptly commented in 1877, further describing it as "one of the remarkable productions of the century." By the winter of 1878 a sufficiently wide crack in the moldy ma- terialism of religious and scientific thought had been rent by the Theosophical Society (not least of which was due to the widespread acclaim of Isis) to enable the work in America to be left under the protective care of William Q. Judge, then Counsel to the Society, and soon to be elected Secretary of the Western Division, with General Abner W. Doubleday being appointed "President ad interim." En route to India, H. P. B. and Colonel Olcott stopped in London to visit the British Theosophical Society (later the London Lodge), which included C. C. Massey, Rev. Stainton Moses, and the eminent biologist Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace, arriving in Bombay on February 16, 1879. Despite unprecedented opposition from both governmental and missionary fronts, President Olcott delivered a public address on March 23, at the Frarnji Cowasji Hall, Bombay, "before a large and enthusiastic audience which thronged the spacious Hall," the occasion marking also a reorganization of the Society's officers with new By-laws (or Constitution), the original one-inclusive objective being amplified under Section viii into seven "plans" as follows: (a)--To keep alive in man his belief that he has a soul, and the Universe a God. (b)--To oppose and counteract bigotry in every form, whether as an intolerant religious sectarianism or belief in miracles or anything super- natural. (c)--To gather for the Society's library and put into written form correct information upon the various ancient philosophies, traditions, and legends, and, as the Council shall decide it permissible, disseminate the same in such practicable ways as the translation and publication of original works of value, and extracts from and commentaries upon the same, or the oral instructions of persons learned in their respective departments. (d)--To seek to obtain knowledge of all the laws of Nature, and aid in diffusing it, thus to encourage the study of those laws least understood by modern people, and so termed the Occult Sciences. Popular supersti- tion and folk-lore, however fantastical, when sifted may lead to the dis- covery of long lost but important secrets of Nature. The Society, there- fore, aims to pursue this line of inquiry in the hope to widen the field of scientific and philosophical observation. (e)--To promote a feeling of brotherhood among nations; and assist in the international exchange of useful arts and products, by advice, infor- mation, and co-operation with all worthy individuals and associations; provided, however, that no benefit or percentage shall be taken by the Society for its corporate services. (f)--To promote in every practicable way, in countries where needed, the spread of non-sectarian Western education. (g)--Finally, and chiefly, to encourage and assist individual Fellows in self-improvement, intellectual, moral and spiritual.2 The official title of the Society was here, apparently for the first time, announced as "The Theosophical Society or *Universal Brother- hood*" (*italics* ours), the fourth Rule or By-law itself opening with the words: "The Society being a Universal Brotherhood . . ."-- eloquent testimony that at last the original plan as conceived by Masters (vide Mahatma Letters, pp. 9, 17, 23-4, 252) could be publicly set forth as our basic spiritual directive for the next hundred- year cycle. On December 17, 1879, at the palace of H. H. the Maharajah of Vizianagram, Benares, the General Council of the Society met to revise again its By-laws, which after ratification at Bombay on February 26 and 28, 1880, were circulated among the now rapidly spreading T. S., whose centers ranged from Paris to Egypt, Budapest to Ceylon, Odessa, Corfu and Manila to London and the U. S. A.-- to say nothing of active branches in several parts of India. Here again we note the pointing up of the Brotherhood idea, Rule I now setting the keynote: "The Theosophical Society is formed upon the basis of a Universal Brotherhood of Humanity." The alterations adopted in the seven "plans" were slight, but not unimportant: (a) and (b)--changes or additions indicated by *italics*-- (a)--"To keep alive in man *his spiritual intuitions.*" (b)--"To oppose and counteract--*after due investigation and proof of its irrational nature*-- bigotry in every form," (continue as before). Though unaltered in wording, the reversal in order of plans (c) and (e) placing (e) third, gives a subtle but persistent emphasis on the directive of promoting "a feeling of brotherhood among nations." (d) and (f) remain; while (g) receives stress by enlargement: (g)--Finally, and chiefly, to encourage and assist individual Fellows in self-improvement, intellectual, moral, and spiritual. But no Fellow shall put to his selfish use any knowledge communicated to him by any member of the First Section; violation of this rule being punished by ex- pulsion. And, before any such knowledge can be imparted, the person shall bind himself by a solemn oath not to use it to selfish purposes, nor to reveal it, except with the permission of the teacher.3 At this period Active Fellows of the T. S. were considered as fall- ing into three natural divisions, though no formalized classification was publicly set forth until the opening meeting at Bombay, or March 23, 1879.4 The General Council met again in February, 1881, and again revamped the Rules of the Society, this time the seven "plans" being condensed into four: First--To form the nucleus of a Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, the obvious philanthropic value of which must be beyond dispute, while the esoteric significance of a union formed on that plan, is conceived by the Founders, for reasons derived from a study of Oriental Philosophy, to be of great importance. Second--To study Aryan literature, religion and science, which the Founders believe to contain certain valuable truths and philosophical views, of which the Western world knows nothing. Third--To vindicate the importance of this inquiry and correct mis- representations with which it has been clouded. Fourth--To explore the hidden mysteries of Nature, and the latent powers of Man, on which the Founders believe that Oriental Philosophy is in a position to throw light.5 It is of significant interest to note that the Three Sections into which Active Fellows of the T. S. are divided is mentioned here again in the Rules, but this time casually, Rule X stating that the "adminis- tration of the two superior Sections need not be dealt with at present in a code of rules laid before the public"--this withdrawal from public notice presaging the establishment seven years later of a formal Esoteric Section in October, 1888. In succeeding By-laws reference to the higher Sections is entirely omitted. The final streamlining into the THREE OBJECTS used subsequent- ly by the T. S. (with minor alterations) took place at the sixth anni- versary nominally scheduled for November 17, 1881, but due to the extensive travels in India of the Founders not celebrated until January 12,1882, when the General Council announced its "Primary Objects" as follows: First--To form the nucleus of a Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, without distinction of race, creed or colour. Second--To promote the study of Aryan and other Eastern litera- ture, religions and sciences and vindicate its importance.6 Third--To investigate the hidden mysteries of Nature and the Psychi- cal powers latent in man.7 No further change was made in subsequent annual meetings until December, 1886, when the Third Object was slightly modified, including an interesting insert, making it read: A third object, pursued by a portion of the members of the Society, is to investigate unexplained laws of nature and the psychical powers of man. The form of the Objects continued without change until the General Council meeting of December, 1888, 8 when minor but sug- gestive alterations appear in the 1st and 3rd Objects as follows: First: the inclusion of "sex, caste," so that the last phrase reads: "without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste or color"--a far- sighted addition in view of the later Suffragette activities in the West- ern hemisphere, and the abolition of 'untouchability' in the Eastern; Third: while remaining textually identic since 1886, has the following paragraph added in brackets: [The Fellows interested in this third object now form a distinct pri- vate division of the Society under the direction of the Corresponding Secretary] 9 H. P. B., sole head of the E. S. then one year old. Organizational- ly separate from the T. S., the Esoteric Section, nevertheless, was its vital heart, its raison d'etre. This extra paragraph, however, did not appear more than this once, being cancelled in session of the General Council at Adyar, Madras, on December 27, 1890, the last annual meeting of the T. S. before the passing of H. P. B. The succeeding fifty odd years has seen a number of verbal changes in the Objects; but the spirit of the original directives has remained: the dissemination of Truth, strengthened by insistence upon the formation of at least a nucleus of a Universal Fraternity described by K.H. (M.L., p. 17) as the "only secure foundation for universal morality . . . the aspiration of the true adept." --G.F.K. 1. Chapter II of the By-laws of the Theosophical Society, published with the "Preamble," October 30, 1875. See September 1947 issue of THE THEO- SOPHICAL FORUM for text of Preamble. 2. "Principles, Rules, and By-Laws," pages ii-iii, of "The Theosophical So- ciety or Universal Brotherhood," issued at Bombay, 1879. 3. "Revised Rules of the Society," 1880, Bombay, page 9. 4. The following appears on page v of the "Rules of the Society," issued March 23, 1879, and is quoted here for historic purposes: "Of these, the highest is the First Section--composed exclusively of initiates in Esoteric Science and Philosophy, who take a deep interest in the Society's affairs and instruct the President-Founder how best to regulate them, but whom none but such as they voluntarily communicate with have the right to know. "The Second Section embraces such Theosophists as have proved by their fidelity, zeal, and courage, their devotion to the Society, who have become able to regard all men as equally their brothers irrespective of caste, colour, race, or creed; and who are ready to defend the life or honour of a brother Theosophist even at the risk of their own lives. "The Third is the Section of probationers. All new Fellows are on probation until their purpose to remain in the Society has become fixed, their usefulness shown, and their ability to conquer evil habits and unwarrantable prejudices demonstrated. " 5. "Rules of the Theosophical Society together with an explanation of its Objects and Principles," as revised at Bombay, February 17, 1881, p. 3, issued by Damodar K. Mavalankar, as Joint Recording Secretary (for the Eastern Division, William Q. Judge being Recording Secretary for the Western Division, of the General Council). 6. In 1885 the phrase "and vindicate its importance" was dropped; the follow- ing words being added in the statement of the Objects, Dec. 27, 1890: and to demonstrate their importance to Humanity." 7. "Report of the Proceedings of a Public Meeting . . . of the Theosophical Society," Bombay, 12th January, 1882, page 5. 8. In The Key to Theosophy, ch. iii, published in 1889, H. P. B. significantly slants this third object by adding the word "spiritual," making it read: "To investigate the hidden mysteries of Nature under every aspect possible, and the psychic and *spiritual* powers latent in man especially (*italics* ours) 9. The Theosophist, Supplement, January 1889, p. 54. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 15:13:00 -0500 From: Arthur_PattersonA@mbnet.mb.ca (Arthur Patterson) Subject: Just Checkin I was wondering if my comments on Authority and the Masters made it to the list? As my son says "two sleeps til Christmas." Thanks for Being There, Arthur Patterson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 15:48:42 -0500 From: "Ronald A. Banister" <70402.2301@compuserve.com> Subject: CWL & Masters Paul, Thanks for your detailed email of 12-21 on CWL. I've been listening to these discussions for some time. Your email was the first time I've seen the details spelled out. Last weekend Cathy and I flew to Hot Springs, Arkansas for my father's 90th birthday. Took your book "The Masters Revealed" along. (Seems like I only read books while on trips.) Congratulations on writing an unbiased historical account on the external side the early days. The only other unbiased book that I have read is "Krishnamurti" by Lutyens. I have a friend who teaches at a local collage who once wrote a paper on Gandhi's relationship with TS. Has anything been written recently (last 20 years) on this subject? Ron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 16:11:25 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Phobic Reactions In trying to understand recent events, I have derived some help from the Merck Manual description of phobic reactions. Here are excerpts: ..characterized by the presence of irrational or exaggerated fears of objects, situations, or bodily functions not inherently dangerous or the appropriate source of the anxiety. Anxiety, both acute and chronic, is a prominent feature, but unlike the free-floating anxiety of anxiety neurosis, it is bound to and associated with exposure to specific environmental stimuli... psychologic mechanisms (projection, displacement) focus the anxiety on specific external objects or situations, which then come to represent the underlying, original source of the anxiety. The shifting and binding of the anxiety to the external secondary symbol enable the individual to utilize the further defensive maneuver of avoidance of the object in order to control arousal of the painful anxiety... The very thought of the phobic object is sufficient to induce anxiety, and as the patient comes closer in reality to the phobic stimulus, the anxiety mounts to an intensity reaching panic. As a result, the patient protects himself from experiencing the anxiety by avoiding the phobic stimulus... From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 16:29:16 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: discussions Liesel and Paul, Please forgive this intrusion into your dialogue. I believe that this discussion touches upon many vital points that are important to the health and well being of those physical embodiments of the Theosophical Movement, that we call Theosophical Organizations. As an historian, I feel that some of the points the two of you have raised require further comment. I hope that both of you will continue with this dialogue, as it seems to be central to Liesel's expressed hope and, I believe, Paul's unexpressed one, that we "come to agreements between theosophical factions." However, Coming to "agreements" means continued dialogue, even when it feels uncomfortable and threatening to do so. Every accusation deserves an answer, even if it had been answered a thousand times before. If the accuser turn a deaf ear to your answer, that is OK too. At least you have fulfilled your obligation not to allow what you believe to be a false accusation to go unanswered. One observation I would like to make concerns the different ways that one can approach theosophical study. Liesel touched upon this issue, but I would like to restate it according to my own experience: Some years ago, we had a guest stay with us from a Northern California Study Group. I remember questioning her in some depth concerning the methodologies and activities she used in the study of theosophy. She told me that they read Blavatsky, Leadbeater, Jinarajadasa, Sri Ram, Bailey, Steiner, Krishnamurti etc. etc., and discussed them. I asked how the group handles contradictions between these writers. She replied that they talk about the contradictions until they are resolved. In other words, she was coming form the assumption that all of these writers are writing from a common revelation, therefore the possibility of any real contradictions in the teachings would be unthinkable. Any contradiction is only an illusion created by the ignorance of the student. In our study group, we also read Blavatsky, Leadbeater, Besant, Bailey etc. etc. but we neither assume a common revelation, nor do we reject the possibility of its existence. Therefore, we ask very different questions--such as: How does the word-choice of this author compare with that author? Though this author is using the same term as that author, do they really have the same understanding of this term? This author has come up with new information; so what is the probable source of it? How does this teaching fit with earlier teachings by the same author, and by earlier authors? In short, the difference between our group and hers, is one of taking the teachings on faith, as opposed to approaching them with discrimination. Like theosophical study, I think history can also be approached in different ways. We can approach it on the faith that our leaders are above reproach, or with discrimination. Or we can take a position anywhere between these views. But we have to remain aware of how our own attitudes can color what we think we know. Or as Liesel says, we view through our "personal lens." Liesel is right when she suggests that we cannot know everything about the past, but this doesn't mean that the past is unknowable--or that we can't come to a reasonable understanding of it. It is also true that the same history can be seen from different perspectives. Indeed, a standard textbook on American History can be very different from one written through a minority view point. Both accounts can be equally factual yet represent different views of the same events. But I don't believe that just because history can be seen from more than view point lessens it value. I think an intellectually honest reader is enriched by a multiplicity of historical views. Such a person has the opportunity to critically examine the facts, take the merits of the viewpoints into consideration, and come away with a more thorough understanding of the event than before. But minority views can only be effectively expressed in a atmosphere of openness created by those who represent the majority views. For instance, that American history textbook presenting minority views in our public schools would have been unthinkable in 1950. But we as a society have grown. Unfortunately, our growth has only come after a hundred years of racial oppression, riots and bloodshed. But now we are beginning to enter a new era of what Paul calls "healthy dialogue." Isn't it about time that the Theosophical Society adopts this method also? Liesel's point is very well taken that the Leadbeater issue has been discussed for sixty years and that we have considerable polarization on this issue. Much the same can be said for the Judge case, the Coulomb conspiracy the Krishnamurti issue, and much more. But it isn't that people won't stop talking about these controversies that is the problem. The failure occurs when the different sides of these controversies stop *listening* to each other. I have to agree with Paul's view that healthy dialogue means "...open, honest, and respectful of one another's integrity." But I would add that a healthy dialogue that is open and honest, cannot at the same time avoid discussing anything that the other party might not agree with, or would prefer not to hear. Forcing ~honesty~ to lie with we are to have any hope of coming to agreements between theosophical factions, it will have to be done through "healthy dialogue." Other methods have been tried, as theosophical historians well know. In the past, members have been expelled, a Lodge charter pulled, information suppressed and "politically correct" histories written to silence opposing view points--but none of these things have silenced the controversies. On the contrary, they have probably contributed to assuring their continuing survival. Now that this is off of my mind, I can go back to writing papers. Happy holidays. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 20:37:58 -0500 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"@vnet.net Subject: Murray absent, and thanks To all and sundry: I shall be away from the computer terminal I use to receive and send THEOS-L e-mail, from Christmas weekend to 16th January 1995, on vacation from work. However, I might drop in and check the e-mail once or twice in that period. To Alan Donant: Many thanks for posting the article by Grace Knoche on the Three Objects. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 20:52:55 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: tO:Jerry H-E, discussions Dear Jerry, I'm glad you raised your voice about this debate re CWL.. It is one of reason, & I was waiting for someone reasonable to say something.You urge Paul & me to continue the "dialogue", until we come to a resolution. Well, all my cards, except one, are on the table, and that one I'll put down in a moment. I've said everything I know and feet about CWL. I've been carrying on this "discourse" because I wanted others on theos-l to know how I feel about him, because I think I have a very valid point of view ... maybe not the only point of view, but a valid one. I will not discuss the matter any further with Paul, because I think he's playing dirty pool. A propos of nothing, he now prints this quote about phobic reactions, & it's not the first thing of this type he's come up with. If he expects an answer from me. Tough!. As for the rest of you, if you were following this hoping for a resolution, I'm sorry... I took some pains in presenting what I thought were resolutions as we went along, & I wasn't taken up on any of them. It's taken time from me that I'd rather be spending on something else. The one thing I still know about CWL, & haven't addressed, concerns the question of whether he touched little boys. When I first heard about that, I asked someone who knew CWL well, not just a passing aquaintance, whether that was true. And the answer I got back was a resounding "absolutely not." That person has never told me a lie, so I believe them. For me, that's where the matter rests. It apparently doesn't for some others. Well then, just suppose he did these things. Why should CWL be maligned, for a supposed fault, when FDR is considered a great President, and he had a girl friend, and so did another great President, JFK, There are other leaders of humanity who had failings. Human beings do have faults. It goes with the territory. CWL left us a rich legacy of spiritually beautiful & informative books, plus the work of his pupils which has greatly enriched the world, plus the Liberal Catholic Church, plus I won't burn any incense except the one from the TPH which I understand is made from his formula. I like it. Leadbeater has given us a legacy to be very proud of. I myself have not only gained by reading his books, I've gained immeasurably through my relationships of one sort or another with 3 people who built up their own work with his teachings as a base. I'm proud of CWL, & grateful for what I've learned from him, directly & indirectly. I simply do not understand why he has to be continually maligned? The man's been dead for 60 years. I think it's about time to let him rest in peace? Why can't we all agree on that? I'll end with season's greetings to everyone Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 24 Dec 1994 06:05:47 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: dialogue Liesel, Well, I guess it is going to take a little longer than I thought to get those papers done. I'm sorry to hear that you are unwilling to continue the discussion with Paul. I can understand your position, I also find it difficult to answer a person, once I feel that I have been abused. However, I've known Paul for some years (I don't always agree with him either), and at the same time, learned a bit about you over the last few months. Thus, as a third party reading this dialogue, I got the impression that you both were pushing each other's buttons. Perhaps each not realizing it, but pushing each other's buttons just the same. As for Paul's last message, I'm not absolutely sure what he meant by it. It does appear to be an attack on you. On the other hand, we might be misreading it. Perhaps he will explain. You say that you feel you have a valid view point concerning CWL. I think you do too. CWL's influence indeed seems to have enhanced the lives of a lot of people. Also, as you say, even if CWL had human failing, so did FDR and JFK, yet they accomplished worthwhile things. We have to balance one against the other. On the other hand, I believe that Paul has a valid point too. Unfortunately, he did not give the source for his statement concerning CWL allegedly "touching little boys," But I happen to know the source, and since the accusation was made, the source should be given. The statement was made by CWL himself at the 1906 London inquiry, in the presence of Col. Olcott, about ten witnesses and a court stenographer. The original stenographic record is in the Adyar archives. I have been told by several people that there is also a copy of it at Krotona. Further, I have seen and read a copy of this document. Personally, I think that CWL's testimony gave a clear picture of his activities concerning the children. He had ample opportunity to explain his actions and his reasons for them--and he did so. Yet the comments and questions from those present (who were initially CWL's supporters) clearly indicates that the entire committee was deeply shocked--not by the masturbation issue (his testimony went far beyond that)--but by other issues that concerned "touching." This committee's primary concern after accepting CWL's resignation, was how they were going to keep Mr Leadbeater's activities from becoming known among the membership and turning into a major public scandal, thus destroying the credibility of the Theosophical Society. Therefore (under HSO's orders), the revelations disclosed at this official inquiry were never published in the theosophical journals. Instead, Mrs. Besant publicly (and in her E.S. messages) always spoke of the issue as concerning Mr. Leadbeater "giving advice" concerning masturbation. This was only partly true. Mr. Leadbeater's testimony clearly revealed that much more was involved. Now that I have volunteered this information, you may not feel so glad that I raised my voice. My point for bringing this up is to show that this "debate" does indeed have two sides, and both of them have to be fairly accounted for. I personally feel that there is a lot more that remains to be said on *both* sides of this issue. I think that the truth of the CWL issue is (as you suggested) somewhere in the center of the two extremes of his being a saint on the one hand, or an "agent of the black forces" on the other. But finding that truth, is going to take some very steady and rational discussion. This controversy has come up several times before on the net. So has the Judge case and other controversies. No doubt they will come up again and again, just as they have done so since their inception. Burying these issues doesn't work. They won't stay buried. I believe the reason why CWL, WQJ and others cannot "rest in peace" is because of the polarization of the living on these issues. The only way to bring about a resolution to these controversies, is for the members and officers of these Theosophical organizations who are (emotionally or otherwise) vested in these issues, to be willing to sit down and talk these controversies out to the very end. Further, each side must be prepared to not only talk, but to do a lot of listening. Personally, I hope to live to see a resolution. But at the moment the odds don't look good. You mentioned that you have (had?) a friend who was a long time acquaintance of CWL, who gave a "resounding `absolutely not'" to your question of "touching." Since you did not reveal his/her name, you leave your readers at a disadvantage. How can we evaluate the testimony of an anonymous witness? Perhaps this person has indisputable evidence. Since you brought the matter up, and that you find this person's testimony conclusive, I believe you owe it to CWL's memory to offer this evidence in his defense. Well, it looks like even my cat, Loki has decided to go to bed, so I guess I should take his hint and follow suit. Happy Holidays Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 24 Dec 1994 09:59:29 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Christmas, 1994 "May the Beauty which lies within, Shine out through your mind And body. May the love in your heart, Radiate out in all directions. May the being which is you, Function through you, affecting All around you, inspiring Everyone by the Beauty there. These are expressions of the Self." Dr. Harry V.G. from "Inner Peace through The Process of Knowing" BUILDING ANGELS "Hail. devic hosts who build! Come to our aid; Help this new birth Into the world of men. "Strengthen the mother in her pain; And send your graceous angels To attend the bed of birth, And usher in the dawn Of this new life. Give to the coming child The blessing of our Lord. "Hail devic hosts who build! Come to our aid; Help this new birth into the world of men, That the divinity within may be set free." Geoffrey Hodson from "The Brotherhood of Angels & of Men" ANGELIC COOPERATION It is perhaps on the Christian religion that we find the best example of this .. type of mantra, as those who know anything of the Services of the Church will realize. The greatest of them all is 'Hoc Corpus est Meum', 'This is My Body'; for the Chirst Himself has made a covenant with His Church that wheneve r that call is uttered, whenever those words are pronounced in any language by one of his duly ordained Priests, he will respond thereto. But this power is given ... only to those who are prepared by another mantra of the same type to receive it ....... "The power which, with these words, he gave to his disciples just before he left them has been handed down with the same words in an unbroken chain for nigh 2000 years, and constitutes what is called the Apostolic Succession. Whenever a priest wo has been duly ordained in that Succession pronounces with intention those other words 'This is My Body', a certain wonderful change is thereby brought about in the bread over which he speaks them, so that though its outward appearance remains the same its higher principles or counterparts are superseded by the very life of the Christ himself, so that it becomes just as truly his vehicle as was the body which he wore in Palestine." Bishop Charles W. Leadbeater from "The Masters & The Path" Yesterday I got a Christmas card from my church. it says: "It's a boy!" Shanti, Shalom & Aloha Liesel & Chouhou From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 24 Dec 1994 11:00:31 -0500 From: Arthur Patterson Subject: Authority & Controversy To All I sent this message for the third time going back to another program to do so. The disappearance seems providential. Many of the questions that I have been wanting to understand have been addressed in the discussion on CWL and the excellent resources on the Masters that have come thought our group member. A beginner thanks you. I am hoping that the reflection below will at least in terms of paradigms for establishing authority. In historic Christian terms the model I am proposing is presented by John Wesley , but I think it is not limited to Christian authority issues. I would really appreciate your response to the ideas of Authority as Binding in the areas of Personal Experience, Revelation, Tradition, and Culture. If anyone could apply this model to the CWL issues I would be grateful, it would illuminate both the theory and the practicality of the model. Subject: Mahatmas & the TS Paul: Having descended collectively into madness (I speak here mostly of CWL and the Krishnamurti messiah craze, but not exclusively) the movement has emerged sadder but wiser. Art: I am familiar only with the name and a bit of the biography of Krishnamurti. He himself seems to have denounced any claims to messiahship. Who is CWL? I am not familiar with these initials. Regardless of the details messianic movements point to deep need in people what were the current needs that were being projected onto these leaders and what did it say about group involved? Art: Excuse the ignorant question but did Blavatsky believe in Masters? Did she think it important to obey them or to consult them in decision making? Was there a means of doing so that was recommended? Are there parallels between seeking the guidance and direction of the masters to seeking the guidance of the "saints"? Or are the Masters like angelic beings? One of my greatest problems is sorting out the metaphysics of these questions. Are we speaking in metaphorical language, or is there some referent t hat is beyond the mythic construct? Art : The question of Authority, I would imagine is central to the understanding of Masters, and goes in my opinion to the very heart of the issue. Authority, in my estimate, is a quasi-religious term which, if I remember some Latin, means "to bind to"; i t is similar to the word religion. What, who or how I bind myself to something is a spiritual matter. In my life I find that authority tends to come in four forms: Revelation (the Scriptures or Priordial writings), Tradition (the Enlightment of Interpreto rs), Experience (direct personal) and Cultural (society's questions and issues). The way that these components are arranged is very important to what I bind myself to. If, for instance, I tend to bind myself to Culture then the political agendas become foremost in my mind and I am sensitized to the external historical issue in my sett ing. The questions come from here must be addressed cultures concerns cry out for response and that is authorative in the Cultural sense. If on the other hand, I am concerned with direct experience then my own inner development takes precedence and I bind myself to that. For instance a vision or a dream my become a determining influence in life's decisions. The dream or vision may become the filter through which all of live is view and that would certainly be authorativie in the experiential sense. I have first hand experiencial knowledge of how dreams and visions have given me the personal "authority" to take certain steps in leaving my past religious perspective and other such decisions. In experiential authority it is not mere the idea of my own attitu des or thoughts but the idea that a transcending and living reality working on me. When I choose not to bind myself to either culture or to personal direct experience I often seek out traditions on which to rely for interpretation. So instead of being autonomously self reliant I may appeal to the great traditions of Christianity, Celtic Spirituality, Western Mystery Tradition , Theosophical thought etc. A Canadian song- writer, Bruce Cockburn, puts this well - he says the we are given courage when "we walk in the steps of a thousand generations." Powerful and authoratative image that one. Lastly, binding oneself to revelation is close to tradition but usually it is relying on the mediated text that is considered divine revelation: Koran, The Bible, Torah etc. I have wondered if the Secret Doctrine is in the Tradition or the Revelation cate gory. It is interesting that for an ex-preacher this is the authority I am concerned with most. Trite appeals to Scripture or a Divine Teaching can easily reduce living situations and lead to dogmatism. To bind yourself to the divine word may appear laudable but I fear it more than the other authorities since there seems to be little principle of critique. After all what can you say against a "Divine Revelation". I have been viewing the disaggreement between Liesel and Paul from the vantage point of binding authority. If I could be so bold as to suggest, with no intention of fueling the flames, that the arguement appears to be about the difference of appealing to direct experience on one hand and to the Tradition on the other. I appreciate both approaches tradition and experience. Of course, I may be talking nonesense since I understand virtually nothing of either the experience or the tradition. But it just makes sense of what I am reading from my beginner's mind perspective. Under the Mercy, Arthur Patterson Winnipeg, MB Canada R3E 1Y5 1-204-774-5301 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 24 Dec 1994 12:16:39 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Jerry H-E of 12-24 Hi, Jerry, You need to do your papers. I need to bake some apples before they get soft. Well, anyway.... I didn't know that CWL had a formal hearing. You say "He had ample opportunity to explain his actions & his reasons for them --and he did so." What reasons did he give? There must've been some rational reasons. You see, it makes absolutely no sense to me that whatever he did was an uncontrollable compulsion. He was a strong healer, & if he'd had that kind of an aberration, he could have healed himself of it, or, if not, one of his older pupils could have done it for him. That's again a statement a person will either believe, because they've seen such things happen, or they won't have seen such things, & therefore won't believe it. Shamanism is just now coming into its own a little better. Till very recently, shamans needed to semi-hide. That included CWL. I'm not at liberty to tell you who said "absolutely not." A confidence is a confidence. OK, now let's talk about resolutions. You say that all TS's would profit by resolving these matters. Well, I still stand by my last paragraph of yesterday. Let's let CWL rest in peace after 60 years. If there's anything else that needs to be discussed about him to create harmony among us, I'm not even Lodge President any more. I'm only a lowly Member-at-Large. Let the leaders, let someone else. I've had my say. Other people can build on what I've suggested. Besides, It seems that after you've cleared this with one person or group, along comes another, and there's the same garbage all over again. As I said at the beginning of this I'm very tired of hearing about it. It seems so useless. What's the point of going over the same thing, over & over again? It's like the Karma of a person who makes the same mistake over & over again, because they don't see what they're doing wrong, & can't resolve it. Like a woman who picks a 2d husband with the same faults as the first one whom she divorced. Let's get on with it, let's fix up our Karma, using whatever tools we have, including those our erstwhile leaders - of all persuasions - left us. Let's heal ourselves _now_; so that we'll be more capable of helping to heal the spirit of the world today. That's what really needs doing. We need to get a handle on things as they concern us now, so that we can better do our share in healing today's world. We have a lot of knowledge to contribute towards this. Let's get done with the infighting & get on with trying to heal the world. If to heal the TS we ned to settle the matter of CWL, I think we've lanced the boil. Now let it heal. Let's get on with it, not get stuck in the mud. Shalom, Peace, Pax Vobiscum, Shanti, Namaste in whatever language it hits everyone's best vibes, Harmonize our fields!, heal!. If after all this there's something that must out about WQJudge, (thank God I don't even know anything about him except his name) I'm not of the opinion that you have to drag someone through the mud first, or sling accusations back & forth to get to an agreement that's good for all the TS's. Maybe whoever tackles that one can do it more gracefully, & with a bit more compassion ... or even empathy. Do we have anyone on Theos-l who's studied conflict resolution? I think using people with those skills would be more helpful than people who read Merck on abnormal psych? I've been taught that it works better to accentuate the positive, by both CWL, and Serge Kahili King, the Aloha King. Tomorrow I'm definitely not debating Theosophy or any of its subtopics, not even HPB. I'll be out for Lunch all Christmas Day, vegetarian or other. ciao Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 24 Dec 1994 16:36:19 -0500 From: euser Subject: To K.Paul & Liesel; a suggestion Hello K.Paul and Liesel, Besides wishing you a merry X-mas, I thought it a good suggestion to point out that we better spend our energy on useful things, like writing letters to persons who state their views in newspapers, magazines, on radio and t.v., etc. in order to sow the seeds of thought of Theosophy on a wider scale. This will prove quite effective in the long run, the more so if many Theosophists participate in these kind of activities. I'm happy that we have a small group in Holland doing so. It's quite stimulating and keeps you involved in the great process of reshaping the mental atmosphere on this planet. Happy New Year to all subscribers of this list. Martin Euser From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 24 Dec 1994 23:27:49 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: to Martin Euser Hi, Martin, I'm with you. " ... we better spend our energy on useful things..." I'm hoping that digging around the past like that will help defuse the Leadbeater mythology a little, that's why I got into it. But it's time to move on to something more productive. Thanks for your post. Have a good one. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 25 Dec 1994 04:03:15 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: Merry Christmas to all From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 25 Dec 1994 13:30:34 -0500 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Open Letter to Leisel This is an open letter to Leisel and future newcomers to Theos-l. The following is a hierarchical ranking of people one should NEVER get into a serious on-line dispute with: 1. Benda Tucker. Articulate, super-smart, normally quiescent but able to tap into awesome emotional resources when aroused. 2. K. Paul Johnson. Probably the highest I.Q. on Theos-l. Vast erudition on the subjects which interest him; can grind opponents down with impeccable logic and well-designed arguments. 3. Jerry Helka-Elkins. Can surprise you with all the things he knows; indefatigable writer; impresssive will-to-win; natural aptitude for non-stop "grading" the contributions of others. (Would be ranked #1 on this list were it not for his recent self-curbing of the ad hominem technique.) 4. Eldon Tucker. No opponents can reach him. 5. Richard Ihle. Used to be funny; may be funny again someday and therefore dangerous. Best wishes to all for the holidays. Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 25 Dec 1994 19:52:13 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Open Letter to Leisel Dear Richard Ihle, I hope you don't mind if I don't agree with your asessment of everybody.. L I E S E L From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 25 Dec 1994 21:21:49 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: PS to Richard Ihle What I meant is that I don't think what Paul wrote is a sign of great intelligence. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 25 Dec 1994 21:52:54 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: quote from Joy Williams, pagan I thought you'd enjoy reading this both poetic & succinct writing. Joy is on the Interrel net. "In my religion, we regard all things and all beings, including ourselves, as Divine, and it is my theory that the Internet is part of Gaia's evolving consciousness as a living organism." (There's been a discussion on the interrel net re the separation of science, art & religion, or how they might be welded together.) "Science is 'study', a way to understand the sacred things around and within us. Religion is the "relink" to get connected with the sacred and to give purpose and direction to our lives, or if nothing else, if NOTHING else, to give a sense of community, which is necessary for the human animal's evolution. Art is to express this understanding, for the most part..... "To me, Science explains the process of the sacred, Art is the expression of theSacred, and Religion is the "why" of the Sacred. The Sacred to me is not any less that way if a scientist explains it to me! A scientist may explain to me the reason why rain comes in metereological, climactic and Earth cylce dynamics, but that does not make it any less sacred to me when I see a Native tribe dance a rain dance, thanking the Earth for its sacred blessing, nor does it seem any less sacred to see a magnificent painting showing the wild power and abandon of a rainstorm." Joy calls herself Dancing Hummingbird, Scion in the Church of All World "The Garrulous Grok Flok" aka the pagan church. Her e-mail address, in case anyone wishes to communicate with her is dhummer@netcom.com Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 26 Dec 1994 00:36:40 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: Masters and the Authority issue -- fwded by jem from art patterson -- fwded by jem (net glitched somehow) Paul: Having descended collectively into madness (I speak here mostly of CWL and the Krishnamurti messiah craze, but not exclusively) the movement has emergedsadder but wiser. Art: I am familiar only with the name and a bit of the biography of Krishnamurti. He himself seems to have denounced any claims to messiahship. Who is CWL? I am not familiar with these initials. Regardless of the details messianic movements point to deep need in people what were the current needs that were being projected onto these leaders and what did it say about group involved? Art: Excuse the ignorant question but did Blavatsky believe in Masters? Did she think it important to obey them or to consult them in decision making? Was there a means of doing so that was recommended? Are there parallels between seeking the guidance and direction of the masters to seeking the guidance of the "saints"? Or are the Masters like angelic beings? One of my greatest problems is sorting out the metaphysics of these questions. Are we speaking in metaphorical language, or is there some referent that is beyond the mythic construct? Art : The question of Authority, I would imagine is central to the understanding of Masters, and goes in my opinion to the very heart of the issue. Authority, in my estimate, is a quasi-religious term which, if I remember some Latin, means "to bind to"; it is similar to the word religion. What, who or how I bind myself to something is a spiritual matter. In my life I find that authority tends to come in four forms: Revelation (the Scriptures or Priordial writings), Tradition (the Enlightment of Interpretors), Experience (direct personal) and Cultural (society's questions and issues). The way that these components are arranged is very important to what I bind myself to. If, for instance, I tend to bind myself to Culture then the political agendas become foremost in my mind and I am sensitized to the external historical issue in my setting. The questions come from here must be addressed cultures concerns cry out for response and that is authorative in the Cultural sense. If on the other hand, I am concerned with direct experience then my own inner development takes precedence and I bind myself to that. For instance a vision or a dream my become a determining influence in life's decisions. The dream or vision may become the filter through which all of live is view and that would certainly be authorativie in the experiential sense. I have first hand experiencial knowledge of how dreams and visions have given me the personal "authority" to take certain steps in leaving my past religious perspective and other such decisions. In experiential authority it is not mere the idea of my own attitudes or thoughts but the idea that a transcending and living reality working on me. When I choose not to bind myself to either culture or to personal direct experience I often seek out traditions on which to rely for interpretation. So instead of being autonomously self reliant I may appeal to the great traditions of Christianity, Celtic Spirituality, Western Mystery Tradition , Theosophical thought etc. A Canadian song- writer, Bruce Cockburn, puts this well - he says the we are given courage when "we walk in the steps of a thousand generations." Powerful and authoratative image that one. Lastly, binding oneself to revelation is close to tradition but usually it is relying on the mediated text that is considered divine revelation: Koran, The Bible, Torah etc. I have wondered if the Secret Doctrine is in the Tradition or the Revelation category. It is interesting that for an ex-preacher this is the authority I am concerned with most. Trite appeals to Scripture or a Divine Teaching can easily reduce living situations and lead to dogmatism. To bind yourself to the divine word may appear laudable but I fear it more than the other authorities since there seems to be little principle of critique. After all what can you say against a "Divine Revelation". I have been viewing the disaggreement between Liesel and Paul from the vantage point of binding authority. If I could be so bold as to suggest, with no intention of fueling the flames, that the arguement appears to be about the difference of appealing to direct experience on one hand and to the Tradition on the other. I appreciate both approaches tradition and experience. Of course I may be talking nonesense since I understand virtually nothing of either the experience or the tradition. But it just makes sense of what I am reading from my beginner's mind perspective. Under the Mercy, Art. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 26 Dec 1994 05:27:50 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: Discussions Liesel, The reason why I bothered to speak up in your dialogue with Paul is because you stated that: "One of the reasons why I wanted to join the theos network, was to help come to agreements between theosophical factions." Anyone interested in doing this has my complete attention. However, after following your dialogue with Paul, and with my experience with you, I'm left to wonder what you meant by the above statement. How do you propose to help bring agreements between theosophical factions? Regarding my involvement in this matter, I saw CWL as a good test case for "coming to agreements"--not for the purpose of bringing agreement concerning CWL's guilt or innocence, the polarization is too deep and there seems to be no bases for communication on that issue. The reason for the deep polarization, I believe, is because the issue is just a veil for much deeper and more threatening ones. Therefore, I had hoped that a dialogue would continue in spite of the polarization. I had hoped that parties would continue to explore the issues, not for the purpose of convincing others of the truth of their viewpoint, but to come to a deeper understanding as to how others can hold a contrary view. In other words, to discover a bases of communication where none seemed to exist. Universal brotherhood is not going to come through everyone adopting your's or mine or someone else's point of view. It will come when we all become universal enough to listen to and truly understand everyone else. Only then, will all of the "bogey men" go away and leave the Theosophical Society to do its important work. You asked about conflict resolution--if anyone on theos-l has studied it. My wife has studied, practiced and taught it, so I acted upon your implied suggestion and asked her about it. She tells me that the bottom line is for people to learn to listen to each other. This is the only way I know of for us to "fix up our karma" as you say. You say that you are just a member at large--that "the leaders" should take up this issue. What makes you think they are any more capable than anyone else? The leaders did take up this issue sixty years ago and made a big mess out of it. Besides, the problem affects everybody, so everybody should be involved. What would you suggest? Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 26 Dec 1994 09:22:17 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: The Aloha Spirit My small study group, which I'm hoping will eventually become a TS study center, decided to have a Serge Kahili King evening a few weeks ago. For the occasion Aloha International, Serge's organization in Kapaa, Hi. sent me some copies of his little pink pamphlet called "The Aloha Spirit". I found the ideas he presents useful to try to live by, and in tune with Theosophy, so I thought I'd share part of the pamphlet with the theos-l net, in the hope that some of you might also find it useful. (I think I should add that I'm still learning how to use Serge's ideas. I'm no Deva yet. That, however, does not detract from Serge's teaching) "The ALOHA SPIRIT is a well-known reference to the attitude of friendly acceptance for which the Hawaiian Islands are so famous. However, it also refers to a powerful way to resolve any problem, accomplish any goal, and also to achieve any state of mind or body that you desire. "In the Hawaiian language, ALOHA stands for much more than just 'hello' or 'good-bye' or 'love'. Its deeper meaning is 'the joyful (oha) sharing(alo) of life energy (ha) in the present (alo)' "As you share this energy you become attuned to the Divine Power that the Hawaiians call mana. And the LOVING USE of this incredible Power is the secret for attaining true health, happiness, prosperity, and success. "The way to tune into this Power & have it work for you is so simple that you might be tempted to pass it off as being too easy to be true. Please don't let yourself be fooled by appearances. "This is the most powerful technique in the world, and although it is extremely simple it may not prove easy, because you must remember to do it and you have to do it a lot.It is a secret which has been given to humanity over & over again, and here it is once more in another form. the secret is this: "BLESS EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING THAT REPRESENTS WHAT YOU WANT! "That''s all there is to it. "Anything that simple, however, does need some explanantion. "To bless something means to give recognition or emphasis to a positive quality, characteristic or condition, with the intent that what is recognized or emphasized will increase, endure or come into being. "Blessing is effective in changing your life or getting what you want for 3 reasons: "First of all, the positive focus of your mind stirs up the positive creativce force of the Power. "Secondly, it moves your own energy outward, allowing more of the Power to come through you. "Thirdly, when you bless for the benefit of others instead of directly for yourself you tend to bypass any subconscious fears about what you want for yourself, and also the very focus on the blessing acts to increase the same good in your life. "What is so beautiful about this process is that the blessing you do for others helps them as well as you. Blessing may be done with imagery, touch, but the most usual & easy way to do it is with words. The main kinds of verbal blessing are: "ADMIRATION - This is the giving of compliments or praise to something good that you notice. eg 'what a nice sun set; I like that dress; you're so much fun.' "AFFIRMATION - This is a specific statement of blessing for increase or endurance. eg ' I bless the beauty of this tree; blessed be the health of your body.' "APPRECIATION - this is an expression of gratitude that something good exists or has happened eg 'Thank you, God, for helping me; I give thanks to the rain for nourishing this land' "ANTICIPATION this is blessing for the future. eg, ' We're going to have a great picnic; I bless your increased income; Thank you for my perfect mate; I wish you a happy journey;May the wind be always at your back. "In order to gain the most benefit from blessing, you will have to give up or cut way down on the one thing that negates it: _cursing_ "This doesn't meant swearing or saying 'bad' words. it refers to the opposite of blessing, namely criticizing instead of admiring; doubting instead of affirming; blaming instead of appreciating; and worrying instead of anticipating withn trust." This is about half the pamphlet. Anyone who would like the entire thing, or a number of them can get in touch with Aloha International, Box 599, Kapaa, Hi. 96746. A donation would be nice, but the pamphlets are sent regardless. It's Christmas, & this closing quote fits in: "God bless us, everyone" Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 26 Dec 1994 13:36:22 -0500 From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: RE: Discussions Jerry wrote: >Liesel, > The reason why I bothered to speak up in your dialogue with >Paul is because you stated that: "One of the reasons why I wanted >to join the theos network, was to help come to agreements between >theosophical factions." Anyone interested in doing this has my >complete attention. However, after following your dialogue with >Paul, and with my experience with you, I'm left to wonder what >you meant by the above statement. How do you propose to help >bring agreements between theosophical factions? I haven't spoken much on this list...but joined it for much the same reason. After having belonged to the ATS out of Wheaton for probably around a decade now, and having fallen in love with its *ideals*, I found the practice of them was perhaps a tad lacking...the factionalization and wrangling about what seemed to me to be insignificant personality issues was forming anything but a "Universal Brotherhood". I thought the freedom of the INTERNET, where perhaps members from the different factions might be able to engage discussion of theosophical ideas free of affiliation, might provide a better forum for theosophical discussion. > Regarding my involvement in this matter, I saw CWL as a good test > case for "coming to agreements"--not for the purpose of bringing > agreement concerning CWL's guilt or innocence, the polarization > is too deep and there seems to be no bases for communication on > that issue. The reason for the deep polarization, I believe, is > because the issue is just a veil for much deeper and more > threatening ones. Therefore, I had hoped that a dialogue would > continue in spite of the polarization. I had hoped that parties > would continue to explore the issues, not for the purpose of > convincing others of the truth of their viewpoint, but to come to > a deeper understanding as to how others can hold a contrary view. > In other words, to discover a bases of communication where none > seemed to exist. Universal brotherhood is not going to come > through everyone adopting your's or mine or someone else's point > of view. It will come when we all become universal enough to > listen to and truly understand everyone else. Only then, will > all of the "bogey men" go away and leave the Theosophical Society > to do its important work. Yes! Yes! Yes! Universal Brotherhood is *not* the absence of conflict, nor the unification of viewpoints...rather it lies in achieving the proper attitude towards conflict and differences of thought. This, I think, in practice could be called the paradox of the seeker...when one makes the inward decision to follow the path, and begins doing both the physical and mental disciplines required by such a decision, it almost invariably produces a great stregthening of the entire personality structure. Thoughts become far more powerful and focussed, and the core individuality of the person states itself with greater and greater clarity. It makes conflict far more, rather than less likely. And it is in this that I think Theosophy has something to say to the 21st century: With population growing exponentially, and Universal Brotherhood (by whatever name the sentiment is called) coming to be no longer a nice thought, but rather almost a *requirement* for our species, Theosophy _could_ be a place where the models of Brotherhood are worked out...the vast majority of models of Universal Brotherhood that have been tried up to now (including Communism) have, in practice, meant harmony through the voluntary submission or involuntary subjegation of some people at the expense of others...in which the final image of the harmony was either the dissolution of all into a collective mush, or some sort of dictatorship (whether relatively benevolent or not). The MISSION that I believe HPB handed to Theosophists is perhaps the most difficult...and increasingly essential...problem posed to modern humanity: How does a group of people who are all strong...i.e., none able to be dominated by others and none willing to simply swallow their perspectives for the sake of a _false_ harmony...how can such a group create a Universal Brotherhood? When I first came to Theosophy, and in the years since then, this has always seemed to be the potential light within it. The occultism and minute details of esoteric ideation seemed quite secondary (I had met and been trained by what Theosophy calls the Angelic kingdom before I even heard of Theosophy...and the experiential touching of the inner realms renders most books about them kind of uninteresting)...but the more I thought about the First Object, meditated on it, attempted to grasp its root...the more I understood why HPB kept emphasizing it, kept trying (with only partial success) to keep members focussed on that rather than on starting yet another small and isolated occult brotherhood obsessed with the study of the minute distinctions between philosophical ideas (as many members then, and now, wish to do). In fact, I believe the patterns of relationship required to form a genuine Universal Brotherhood in which everyone feels fully empowered (that is, not at the expense of some; not premised upon supression) literally *do not yet exist*. We, Theosophists, at our highest and most brilliant point of development, could become one of those very few groups that discover and articulate those patterns...and at this point in humanity's history no organization could hand to humanity any greater gift. When I think of this possibility, I begin to understand what HPB poured her whole life into...begin to understand why the Masters put such a relatively large amount of their very rare and scarce energy into the TS. I certainly do not claim to know what such a thing as true Universal Brotherhood looks like, but I have, after a decade of meditation on that one concept, concluded that its manifestation lies in patterns of relationship...thousands of groups and philosophies have a notion of the *idea*, and there are countless books written full of wonderful sentiments about "loving" one another, treating one another with respect and dignity & etc. Literally hundreds of millions of people mouth pithy little aphorisms...but the whole thing falls apart at the level of interpersonal relationships. To discover how to have those wonderful ideas penetrate that layer of human living where a few people engage one another on a topic about which there is great disagreement...is (IMO) to most fully engage the task embedded in the First Object...and it takes the full courage of the first ray, the enormity of the understanding of the second ray, and the clarity of intellect of the third ray to even undertake such a project. Yes, Jerry, I agree with you completely...the issue at hand is far greater than CWL (and frankly, I personally couldn't care less about the personality quirks of him or anyone else)...it is the very core of Theosophy. > You asked about conflict resolution--if anyone on theos-l >has studied it. My wife has studied, practiced and taught it, so >I acted upon your implied suggestion and asked her about it. She >tells me that the bottom line is for people to learn to listen to >each other. This is the only way I know of for us to "fix up our >karma" as you say. Again, Yes! Yes! Yes! I have worked in the same realm...even written about it...and as I understand the process, what has happened re: the CWL discussion, has been very *good*, but is only halfway done...first step is to allow all of the bottled up stuff full expression...then to intend to drive the discussion deeper, to stay _engaged_ in spite of the enormity of differences. A tactic I developed in groups where two or three members were really going at things was to ask both to spend one hour, only one hour, as the *pupil* of the other. Each person then had an hour in the teacher role, and each an hour in the pupil role. Further, the "teacher" could choose *any topic they wished* to teach...and usually it wound up having nothing to do with the conflict at hand (curiously enough). The teacher has to try to be the perfect teacher, to really attempt to convey his/her ideas clearly. The pupil has to genuinely engage that role...to (for the moment) see the teacher as worthy of respect and put all their effort into understanding the topic of the teacher. After this is done, both then again engage the topic of dispute...and invariably (if both *genuinely* engaged the teacher/pupil roles) the entire tenor of the dispute altered...and in fact the most suprising solutions often wind up arising. Even more than that, an extremely deep level of friendship often comes about between the people. This works among people that have no spiritual orientation...among Theosophists there is something far more powerful that provides additional aid: the fact that we are Brothers and Sisters on the Path...the most powerful bond that can exist between humans because it transcends individual lives and personality structures. > You say that you are just a member at large--that "the >leaders" should take up this issue. What makes you think they >are any more capable than anyone else? The leaders did take up >this issue sixty years ago and made a big mess out of it. >Besides, the problem affects everybody, so everybody should be >involved. What would you suggest? Yes! Yes! Yes! The present leadership (at least of the ATS) is composed of a small cotiere that is currently exerting, through bylaws, publications, and a wealth of other means a deep and exclusive control over Theosophy (or at least attempting to). They are, for the most part, fully into conflict avoidance...and the *last* thing they are likely to do is to take up something as contentious as the CWL dispute. If Theosophy survives and flourishes in the 21st century it will be in spite of, not because of the current "elected" leadership. The probationary path is composed of the form side of life, and often becomes nothing but abstract intellectualism...the path itself engages the life side...and takes far more courage. The whole being becomes engaged...powerful emotions are unleashed...every aspect of the personality structure engages in a battle with the spiritual impulses, and any comfort zone within the person's life is dissolved. The CWL discussion, with all its surface appearance of discord, is, if the participants can stay engaged, far closer to true Theosophy than anything the ATS has approached in years. It is Alive. Blake, I think, somewhere described the inner kingdom as "a democracy of Kings"...a curious sentiment because it seems to describe so fully the relationships between the Masters. All of them that are glimpsed in Theosophical writings are fully powerful beings...but a harmony exists between them that flows from a much larger, common purpose. My own image of universal harmony is not one of dissolution into one common set of ideas (the "oatmeal" form of unity so common nowadays), but rather that of a galaxy of fully shinig stars...each radiating its fullest light...none needing submission to any other, but each knowing where it belongs and all revolving in harmony within a much larger, almost inconceivable pattern. Sorry, fellow Theosophists, for such a long post, but it stirred something inside of me. L and P, I deeply admire the courage of both of you, and really hope you can continue the discussion. You have allowed us to watch as you both had deep pain and unruly emotions invoked, and you have allowed us to see you reaching deeper and deeper into that pain and anger and anxiety...and I can almost feel both of you wondering if you can go beyond it, rise above it. The ancient Greeks thought that courage was the first of the virtues...that without it no other virtues were really possible...and I hope you will both stay engaged in the discussion, and allow the rest of us the priviledge of watching a demonstration of the very core of Theosophy: Two powerful people who seem to have irreconcilable differences, but still deeply desire to travel the path and arrive at Universal Brotherhood. With love, and respect beyond my ability to articulate, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 26 Dec 1994 14:38:38 -0500 From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Hello Everyone, I have just rejoined Theos-l after being off the network for about a year. I have just read during the last 2 days a number of different messages concerning C.W. Leadbeater, etc. It seems that some of the members of the Theos-l Network have little knowledge of the history of the Theosophical Movement and of C.W. Leadbeater. Below I list a few books that carefully read will give Theosophical students a basic understanding and overview of the history of the Theosophical Movement: (1) ANCIENT WISDOM REVIVED: A HISTORY OF THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT by Bruce F. Campbell. 1980. (2) THEOSOPHY: A MODERN REVIVAL OF ANCIENT WISDOM by Alvin Boyd Kuhn. 1930. Reprint, 1992. (3) THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT 1875-1950. 1951. (4) HPB: THE EXTRAORDINARY LIFE & INFLUENCE OF HELENA BLAVATSKY, FOUNDER OF THE MODERN THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT. by Sylvia Cranston. 1993. The next 3 items are biographies of C.W. Leadbeater, Annie Besant and Jiddu Krishnamurti: (5) THE ELDER BROTHER: A BIOGRAPHY OF CHARLES WEBSTER LEADBEATER. by Gregory Tillett. 1982. (6a) THE FIRST FIVE LIVES OF ANNIE BESANT. by Arthur H. Nethercot. 1960. (6b) THE LAST FOUR LIVES OF ANNIE BESANT. by Arthur H. Nethercot. 1963. (7) KRISHNAMURTI: THE YEARS OF AWAKENING. by Mary Lutyens. 1975. This is an account of Krishnamurti's first 33 years. And I will add one more title compiled and edited by myself. It was ust reviewed in the November, 1994 issue of "The Theosophist" (Adyar, Madras, India): (8) THE OCCULT WORLD OF MADAME BLAVATSKY: REMINISCENCES AND IMPRESSIONS BY THOSE WHO KNEW HER. 1991. And for an overview of the Theosophical Society (Adyar), one should read (9) A SHORT HISTORY OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY compiled by Josephine Ransom. 1938. Reprint, 1989. And last but not least an overview of the history of the Point Loma T.S. is as follows: (10) CALIFORNIA UTOPIA: POINT LOMA 1897-1942 by Emmett A. Greenwalt. 1955. Revised edition, 1978. I could add several more titles but will stop with these. I believe that all current day students of Theosophy should carefully read and study these titles listed above. We need to educate ourselves on the basic histories of the various Theosophical societies and be informed on some of the basic biographies of famous Theosophists. I might add that one should not read these works and accept what is said without thinking about and trying to ask relevant questions as to sources, etc. etc. I forgot one title which I think is essential reading for all students of Theosophy and of Blavatsky: (11) MADAME BLAVATSKY; THE WOMAN BEHIND THE MYTH. by Marion Meade. 1980. This is what I would call a "hostile" biography of H.P. Blavatsky. The work is well-written and should be required reading for all serious Blavatsky students. I use it constantly in my own historical research. There are many errors in this work but Meade quotes many sources that are not mentioned in other biographies of H.P.B. The biography of C.W. Leadbeater by Gregory Tillett is essential reading for students of Theosophy. Wheather the book is tototally accurate or not and students will have to carefully read it in order to determine that, it is a sourcebook for information on Mr. Leadbeater's life. Students of Theosophy need to rise above their own views on a subject and be willing to look at other viewpoints. I encourage all students to read material that is totally contradictory of their own belief system. For example, Prometheus Press of Buffalo, New York will be issuing in the next year a book on reincarnation by Dr. Paul Edwards (editor of the 1966 8 volume ENCYLCOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY). Dr. Edwards tries to debunk the belief in reincarnation and attempts to show that Dr. Ian Stevenson's reincarnation research is "flawed", etc. MUST READING for all students of Theosophy! Let me end this message with a quote from the Master Morya to Franz Hartmann. I believe all students of Theosophy would do well to ponder on this advice and try to live it: "In such a great work as this [Theosophical] Movement no one should expect to find his associates all congenial, intuitive, prudent or courageous. One of the first proofs of self-mastery is when one shows that he can be kind and forbearing and genial with companions of the most dissimilar characters and temperaments. One of the strongest signs of retrogression [is] when one shows that he expects others to like what he likes and act as he acts. You know whom of you the cap fits. . . .You are too many here. With more or less bits of too much self-personlity. . . ." (quoted from H.P.B.'s COLLECTED WRITINGS, Vol. VIII, p. 450.) Daniel H. Caldwell P.O. Box 1844 Tucson, Arizona 85702 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 26 Dec 1994 21:51:58 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: reply to Jerry H-e's of 12-26 Hi, Jerry, As we used to say in the old country "How did all that spinach land on my roof? Cows don't know how to fly!" I sure did want to help come to an agreement between theosophical factions. But it was my idea to contribute something as a member of a group, not as a spearhead, warding off pot shots. I envision someone who's a diplomat in that job, which my son is, which your wife April must be, if she's teaching conflict resolution, but which I'm not, for sure. I guess you're right ... our leaders of yesteryear did make a mess of it, (but I think it was around 80 years ago, around 1910, CWL passed over about 60 years ago). You did say "our leaders then", because I know one of our leaders today, John Algeo, who is eminently qualified both by personality and experience to bring about a rapprochement of the factions. I don't know any of the others. Having said that, I can see that a grass roots level discourse can bring something positive to this situation, for our leaders to work with lateron. I need to make some conditions, before I'll commit myself to taking part in any further discourse Jerry, I'd like you to explain to me, addressed to my personal e-mail address, so we don't again set sparks flying, off the theos-l net, what you mean when you say "... the issue (of CWL) is just a veil for much deeper & more threatening ones." I need to have an idea of what we're getting into, before I'll agree to take part in it. Also, I don't see any reason why this has to be a dialogue between 2 people, when the whole 3 societies, plus maybe the splinter groups,are involved. There must be members of all factions on the Theos-l net. I'd like for them to chime in, if they would. I'm not interested in having a monopoly on our part of the internet. We need to devise some ground rules as to how we're going to conduct this thing, so it doesn't get hysterical & out of hand as the CWL thing between Paul & me did. If emotions are high on the subject, the discussion still needs to be done in a reasonably calm atmosphere, because if we shout at each other, all we'll communicate is that the other person is angry, or a fiery opponent, but we won't in the least hear what they're saying. I think I had some very good arguments for CWL, but I think Paul was too angry to be able to listen to them. I didn't get too upset about what he said about CWL, because I'd heard most of it before. I did see red when he started to attack me personally. The atmosphere wasn't conducive to coming to an agreement, although, goodness knows I tried a couple of times. I was thinking that April would be a good one to make up some ground rules, if she would, & if she has it in her to be fair to all sides, which I imagine she does, being a good teacher, even though she has her own opinions, I would think she'd make a good arbitrator, if she would. I want to conclude the CWL matter, & start the ball rolling on future possible conciliations, by saying my piece about one of the very first characteristics to be developed by a Theosophist entering the Path, Viraga, non-attachment. The meaning of that gave me trouble for a long time, until I dreamt up for myself that it must mean "don't cling". Don't cling to positive events & people in your life, don't cling to the negative ones either. Experience them, & move on. It takes a long long time, I think more than 1 life time, to be able to do that well. Holding a grudge is a particular vicious kind of clinging, I find, & we Theosophists are really good with holding grudges against each other ... clinging ... witness l'affaire Leadbeater of almost a century ago. Holding a grudge for a whole century, imagine what havoc that can do to your system! Well, it has! I was brought up holding grudges all the time. I didn't know anything else. Until Harry on one occasion asked me to forgive him. My Teacher, my Authority Figure asked me to forgive him! Unheard of! I was flabbergasted. But from then on I learned to forgive. I'm not perfect at it yet, but I'm on my way. Serge King teaches a small routine to use to forgive someone. I use it at times. (The old Hawaiians had their own version of conflict resolution. Serge teaches it on Kauai. He told us a little about it. Anyone who couln't come to some sort of an agreement at the end -they didn't have to become bosom pals- had to leave the island.) Here's the routine: In your mind acknowledge the other person's mistake ... (whether they know about it or not. You're dealing with your own attitude here.) Change your thoughts & behavior towards that person, & decide to forgive them. Change your "should rules" about that person (what you expect of them.) They "shouldn't" anything, just because you think they should. Expect less of them. Give the other person permission to have done what they did, or be the way they are. (That doesn't mean that you have to like it.) Say out loud "........ I forgive you completely. & it doesn't matter anymore." I'll start the ball rolling. Here goes: Paul, I forgive you completely & it doesn't matter anymore. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 27 Dec 1994 02:36:23 -0500 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Some reasons for the conflict This is by Eldon Tucker ---- Richard Ihle: I can appreciate the humor in your posting regarding people not to pick an argument with. I'm not sure if being on the list or being left off is the highest honor. With both Brenda (my wife) and I on the list, I suppose that we should beware of each other! Paul Johnson & Liesel D.: The open nature of our discussions invites conflict. There's simply too much that we all have to say, and not all of it is in agreement! I've had a number of conflicts with others on theos-l myself, and have tried to respond as if the other person wasn't angry. It was only a few months ago that Paul and had an interchange over the nature and place of history in Theosophy. The more ideas and viewpoints that we express, the greater the likelihood that someone will take offense and respond with some ill-advised words. We need a free marketplace of theosophical ideas, where the better ideas tend to win out, and where the challenge is to be clearer, more lucid, more compelling in our writings. This approach is far better than trying to sway the minds and hearts of people by discrediting their heros. I can appreciate the different sides to the current discussion. As a teenager, I read all Leadbeater's writings, became vegetarian, joined the Adyar E.S. at 17, and wanted to grow up like him. I even got books on the fourth dimension, and thought about and drew various geometric figures trying to understand it, because CLW had written that to do so helped with developing psychic sight. But later in life, I started to read Purucker and changed to embrace the Point Loma version of Theosophy. I've also had exposure to statistics and empirical research methods, and at one point in the early 70's did a survey that detailed the differences in views between Point Loma and Adyar views on Theosophy. From my standpoint, the basic source of the conflict is not in Leadbeater's character, but in the reliability of his psychical investigations, and the philosophy that he taught. In "How Theosophy Came to Me," Leadbeater explains that he came to Theosophy through reading books of Sinnett. Those books contained various errors that Blavatsky later corrected in "The Secret Doctrine." Leadbeater thought he saw the things that he read and expected to see, even though what he read turned out later to be wrong. Leadbeater was assisted in his writings. His personal secretary, Ernest Wood, helped with book preparation. Wood wrote, for instance, the three books "Talks on the Path of Occultism" from lecture notes of CWL's and Annie Besant's. CLW wrote books on Theosophy that strongly depended upon his psychical observations. He liked to call his experiences the result of "positive clairvoyance", as something good and better than what most people experience; I'd tend to disagree that there was any difference. Leadbeater's associates like George Arundale, and followers like Jinarajadasa, read his books, accepted what he said, and either repeated their interpretation of the ideas, or did their own psychical experimentation. Again they saw what they expected to see. A school of thought has arisen, and it's not quite like the original Theosophy that we can read about in "The Mahatma Letters." People of like belief associated together, had similar psychic experiences, and provided each other with external validation of their beliefs. My experience with Leadbeater's writings was that after I read them, there was nothing left to do. I could try to become psychic like him, or start reading something else. I almost got started on Alice Bailey's books--fortunately I met Lina Psaltis and Ken Small and got introduced to Purucker instead. Purucker's writings are special, but I won't try to go into why at this time. There are perhaps several dozen areas where we could discuss philosophical differences. Some concern places we'll never see or go to, like Mars and Mercury. Others concern basic approaches to the Path. Like in Zen Buddhism, we are taught to shut down psychic experiences as an early important step of spiritual training, and to instead to awaken the "mind's eye." And Leadbeater's version of the astral plane looks more like the Spiritualist's than what we'd read about in the early theosophical literature. I would find the most fruitful discussions about Leadbeater dealing with basic differences of philosophy, and not worry too much--except in purely-historic discussions-- about the particular flaws of character that he or other theosophical writers may have had. When we find something that brings color to our faces, and brings up our pulse rate, and makes us fighting mad, we'd come to something that touches us in a fundamental way. True, there are other ways to be deeply touched, but regardless of the way, we have discovered something that is important to us and we need to deal with. It's important to wait long enough so that when we respond, it's us talking, and not our anger that speaks. We've found an important area to spend our useful energy on, and we should put it to its best use. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 27 Dec 1994 06:34:09 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: discussions Liesel, LD> But it was my idea to contribute something as a member of a group, not as a spearhead, warding off pot shots. I envision someone who's a diplomat in that job, which my son is, which your wife April must be, if she's teaching conflict resolution, but which I'm not, for sure. I think that if a dialogue got started, others would contribute, and we would each be one voice among many. As for April, I would have to ask her if she wants to be a part of it. What would you propose her to do? LD> ...I can see that a grass roots level discourse can bring something positive to this situation, for our leaders to work with lateron. Yes, perhaps so. I have an Aunt many years ago who told me that leaders are only the product of the people who elect them-- we get what we deserve. So, any positive steps we take, makes positive steps possible for the "leaders." LD> I need to make some conditions, before I'll commit myself to taking part in any further discourse Jerry, I'd like you to explain to me, addressed to my personal e-mail address, so we don't again set sparks flying, off the theos-l net, what you mean when you say "... the issue (of CWL) is just a veil for much deeper & more threatening ones." I need to have an idea of what we're getting into, before I'll agree to take part in it. I don't understand why my personal evaluation of the significance of the Leadbeater case should be so important as to become a condition as to whether or not you would participate in an exchange of ideas. It sounds to me like you are suggesting that you are not willing to participate "in any further discourse" with people who hold the "wrong" opinions. Please clairify. LD> Also, I don't see any reason why this has to be a dialogue between 2 people, when the whole 3 societies, plus maybe the splinter groups,are involved. Members of the three Societies are on this net. Also I never thought about it as being a dialogue between two people. Usually two people start a discussion and other chime in. You and Paul stated a discussion, and I chimed in, then it became three. Also several others have made comments since then. As for the other Societies, I think that the alienation between members in the Adyar Society alone is more than enough to keep us busy. Let's tend to our backyard, and maybe we'll inspire the neighborhood. LD> There must be members of all factions on the Theos-l net. I'd like for them to chime in, if they would. I'm not interested in having a monopoly on our part of the internet. If no one from the other societies chime in, you still have me. I'm an associate of U.L.T. as well as a member of the Adyar and Pasadena Societies. I have actively participated in and have given talks in all three Societies. I've led Secret Doctrine classes in both the Adyar Society and U.L.T., and published an article on ~The Secret Doctrine~ for ~Sunrise~, the Pasadena Society magazine. Though I don't believe that anyone can speak for an organization, I feel that my experiences with the three Organizations gives me a broader bases of experience than most people. Further, my wife and I organized the first networking conference in Krotona in 1984. There, for the first time in Krotona's history, we had leaders from five theosophical organizations sharing the same platform. See, it can be done. LD> We need to devise some ground rules as to how we're going to conduct this thing, so it doesn't get hysterical & out of hand as the CWL thing between Paul & me did. If emotions are high on the subject, the discussion still needs to be done in a reasonably calm atmosphere, because if we shout at each other, all we'll communicate is that the other person is angry, or a fiery opponent, but we won't in the least hear what they're saying. No doubt people will get angry--that goes with the subject matter--and that is precisely why the subject is important to discuss. There is no way to force anyone to act in a certain way. The only thing one can do is make a personal commitment to monitor oneself, and stay with it, even if others get out of hand. LD> I think I had some very good arguments for CWL, but I think Paul was too angry to be able to listen to them. My guess is that Paul would probably say the same about you. If Paul was too angry to listen to you, then perhaps you needed to look at how you were delivering the message, and find a way to deliver it so that he can better hear it. Communicating is one of the most difficult skills for human beings to learn. The responsibilities always go both ways. LD> Serge King teaches a small routine to use to forgive someone. I use it at times. (The old Hawaiians had their own version of conflict resolution. Serge teaches it on Kauai. He told us a little about it. Anyone who couln't come to some sort of an agreement at the end -they didn't have to become bosom pals- had to leave the island.) Along with Serge King's advice, I think Eldon's suggestion also has value: ET> When we find something that brings color to our faces, and brings up our pulse rate, and makes us fighting mad, we'd come to something that touches us in a fundamental way. True, there are other ways to be deeply touched, but regardless of the way, we have discovered something that is important to us and we need to deal with. It's important to wait long enough so that when we respond, it's us talking, and not our anger that speaks. We've found an important area to spend our useful energy on, and we should put it to its best use. Well, this message was my break from a long day of writing papers. Time for bed. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 27 Dec 1994 08:31:10 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: CWL & Masters Dear Ron, Glad you enjoyed TMR. The best source to my knowledge on Gandhi and the TS is the Cranston bio of HPB (just out in paper) which, if I remember correctly, establishes that he actually joined the Blavatsky lodge in London. Whether or not this is so, he did meet HPB and was influenced toward an appreciation of Hinduism. Cheers Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 27 Dec 1994 09:57:10 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Proposed Ground Rules Having been gone for four days, I expected to find a series of messages about the mess I left behind on theos-l. First things first-- of course I forgive you Liesel, and it doesn't matter any more. Except that it does matter in that as Heraclitus says "the way up is the way down" meaning in this case that it is a good idea to figure out how to avoid such imbroglios in the future. Thus, there is a need to be explicit about what is being forgiven, and what I hope won't happen again. My lengthy post entitled "In Search of Agreement" was exactly that. The intention was to summarize the controversy raging around CWL from the perspectives of both sides, making it clear that I viewed both as unbalanced. This would, I hope, serve as a diagnosis of the problem preparatory to discussing ways to move forward towards resolution. This was taken by Liesel as a partisan attack on CWL, with my summary of the extreme anti-CWL position taken as my own view. That inspired personal hostility expressed in her response in several passages. I had observed this before in the initial "keep a civil tongue in your head" rebuke of my allusion to the Krishnamurti messiah craze inspired by CWL and others. And had risen above it with a conciliatory response the first time. "Not taking it personally" the second and third time was beyond my capacity, for which I apologize. What I forgive, (and apologize for reciprocating) but want us to agree not to do again, is the descent into personal hostility. Basically, what I get from Liesel's repeated hostility is the message "because you say things I don't like to hear, you're an evil person and I hate you and you deserve to be hurt." (And even-- you're not intelligent.) This is especially hard to take when you are in the process of attempting to reach out to someone. Storming out the door, slamming it, and saying "I'm cutting off all communication with you" really does give the impression of "blaming the messenger." Thus my post on phobic reactions. It conveyed both an accusation and an implicit message of forgiveness. What it meant was, the fact that CWL actually confessed to the behavior that has always been dismissed by his fans as `vicious lies' is so intensely painful to contemplate, that the distaste for the thought is transferred to the stimulus that inspired it. In this case, to me for bringing it up. It hurts to be hated, and especially as a result of trying to improve communication and approach understanding. But what I was trying to say in that post was that the hate I was feeling from Liesel was displaced from another object-- the thought of CWL's possible guilt-- and that in avoiding communication with me she was avoiding that thought. Having been hated by a few HPB partisans for bringing up the dread possibility that the truth about the Masters isn't quite as she presented it, I should by now be able to keep smiling through expressions of personal hostility. But in fact, caring as much about Theosophy as I do, I am quite vulnerable to such expressions. Which some of you on theos-l have helped me deal with before-- thanks Eldon, Richard, Ron. What I vow to try ever harder to do is not identify as the target of anyone's wrath, and to remember that what they are attacking is their own understanding of me-- which I can only help correct by remaining unhurt and calm. The ground rules I propose to prevent future spinouts is that all discussion of history, doctrines, whatever, be completely free and open, with an agreement that no one try to stifle other people's communication. It's OK for one person to say to another "I don't want to go into this any further." But it isn't OK for me to say "person A and person B, stop communicating about subject C because it bothers me." Groundrule number two should be that disagreement on facts, theories, values, or anything else can be expressed with complete openness, but with respect for the other's right to disagree. Finally, no substantive disagreement should give rise to disparaging personal remarks, exclamations, etc., as this undermines the raison d'etre of the list. Discussion? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 27 Dec 1994 09:57:59 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: your mail Dear Daniel-- Welcome back to theos-l. I arrived right after your departure. Something I've been meaning to check with you about, but keep forgetting, is whether or not you received a complimentary copy of The Masters Revealed from the publisher. I know your name and address is on the list I gave them for the sequel, but have lost my original list. If you didn't get one, I'll send you a copy unless you don't want it. Looking forward to your participation-- Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 27 Dec 1994 10:13:58 -0500 From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: A Survey I am trying to compile a list of suggested reading for the inquirer interested in Theosophy and for the beginning student of Theosophy. I am appealing to all members of the Theos-l Network to give me your input on the following questions. NOTE: Books recommended should still be in print. You can post your message on the Theos-l Network or send your message to my E-Mail address listed at the beginning of my message. I would gratefully appreciate everybody's input. Thanks. (1) What 12 titles would you recommend an inquirer of Theosophy to read and study? (2) What titles by H.P.B. would you suggest that a new student to Theosophy should read first? (3) If you were exiled to a deserted, isolated island for the rest of your life, what 12 Theosophical titles would you be sure to take with you? (4) What is the best introductory biography on H.P.B.? (5) What is the best introductory book on Theosophy? (6) Should a new student to Theosophy read ISIS UNVEILED, THE SECRET DOCTRINE AND THE MAHATMA LETTERS? Or should he/she read other simpler, introductory books first and then later read I.U, S.D. and M.L.? Reasons? (7) Can you recommend one or two good, reliable commentaries on H.P.B.'s SECRET DOCTRINE? (8) If you had the chance to open a book store, what 12 Theosophical works would sure to be on your shelves? If you have comments on any of these questions in addition to the simple listing of the titles, please feel free to give them. I look forward to your replies! Once again thanks for participating in this survey. Daniel Daniel H. Caldwell P.O. Box 1844 Tucson, Arizona 85702 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 27 Dec 1994 11:12:05 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: A Survey According to MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU: > (1) What 12 titles would you recommend an inquirer of Theosophy > to read and study? The Key to Theosophy, The Voice of the Silence, An Abridgment of the S.D., Old Diary Leaves Vol. 1, Ancient Wisdom Revived, beyond this it would depend on the inquirer. (Is that cheating?) > (2) What titles by H.P.B. would you suggest that a new student > to Theosophy should read first? The Key, the Voice. > (3) If you were exiled to a deserted, isolated island for the > rest of your life, what 12 Theosophical titles would you be sure > to take with you? Isis, SD, Caves & Jungles, Old Dairy Leaves, HPB (Cranston), Collected Writings vols. Miscellaneous (XIV?) and the one with the E.S. papers (XIII?), Dialogues of G. de P., Light on the Path, Voice of the Silence, The Theosophical Enlightenment, The Elder Brother. > (4) What is the best introductory biography on H.P.B.? How many > are in print? Cranston wins by default. > (5) What is the best introductory book on Theosophy? Depends on the reader. The Key, Ellwood's Theosophy, Purucker's Fundamentals of the Esoteric Philosophy are contenders. > (6) Should a new student to Theosophy read ISIS UNVEILED, THE > SECRET DOCTRINE AND THE MAHATMA LETTERS? Or should he/she read > other simpler, introductory books first and then later read I.U, > S.D. and M.L.? Reasons? Definitely the Abridged SD before the full one. Few will absorb much of the latter without a background of several other books. The MLs only after reading some history of the period, maybe Campbell. > (7) Can you recommend one or two good, reliable commentaries on > H.P.B.'s SECRET DOCTRINE? Fundamentals of the Esoteric Philosophy. > (8) If you had the chance to open a book store, what 12 > Theosophical works would sure to be on your shelves? Same as 3, except replace the CW volumes with guess who's books from SUNY Press. > If you have comments on any of these questions in addition to the > simple listing of the titles, please feel free to give them. I > look forward to your replies! Once again thanks for participating > in this survey. Yes-- 12 is too many! Ask people for 5 or 6 and you'll probably get better response. Good luck! > Daniel > > Daniel H. Caldwell > P.O. Box 1844 > Tucson, Arizona 85702 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 27 Dec 1994 12:57:26 -0500 From: euser Subject: RMartin to Arthur; 'authority issue' Arthur, I remember reading some questions of yours about 'authority' of H.P. Blavatsky and the Masters. This issue is very simple: they _never_ claimed such 'authority', as is easily verified by reading Blavatsky on this. How could they? They _never_ intended to found a new religion and they wish us to think for ourselves. Martin Euser euser@xs4all.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 27 Dec 1994 13:29:24 -0500 From: ah430@lafn.org (Dara Eklund) Subject: Je Tsong-khapa's birthday Over 600 years ago a great Adept was born in Eastern Tibet. Much of Central Asia followed and now follows his teachings. In 1994 his birthday is celebrated today, Dec. 27. Je Rinpoche, as the Tibetans call him, reached, as did Buddha, the highest adeptship possible on this planet, so say THE MAHATMA LETTERS. Theosophy teaches that he was an incarnation of Gautama Buddha. Since my wife Dara and I, Nicholas, are new subscribers we are not quite up to speed on whatever sturm and drang is going on now, but Je Rinpoche has a great deal to say on "patience sweet which naught can ruffle". Here is a droplet from his cloud of Dharma: "Patience is the best ornament of real heroes, A supreme self-mortification to overcome delusions, The Garuda bird to destroy the snake of anger, Armor to protect one from the arrows of criticism. Knowing this, in every way familiarize yourself With the armor of patience supreme." There are at least two components needed to make a kindly society. One of them is the ever-popular, be loving, think lovingly, speak & write lovingly; for everyone to radiate love. This is the element most emphasized in today's culture. But the other half is not so popular. The ability to forbear, to absorb anger, hate & other negatives -- to put up with all the bile and vileness that comes our way -- that needs to be practiced much more by one and all, don't you think? Je Tsongkhapa is one of many excellent guides on how to do this. Nicholas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 27 Dec 1994 13:46:18 -0500 From: Arthur_PattersonA@mbnet.mb.ca (Arthur Patterson) Subject: Re: RMartin to Arthur; 'authority issue' At 12:56 PM 12/27/94, euser wrote: >Arthur, > >I remember reading some questions of yours about 'authority' >of H.P. Blavatsky and the Masters. It was not just the issue of Blavasky or the Masters sense of their own authority but what we bind ourselves to. How to determine personal authority. If you would be kind enought to re-read the authority post I sent you, you would see the question of authority in the context I wanted to discuss it. I would like to get your feedback after you reveiw it if you have time. >How could they? They _never_ intended to found a new religion >and they wish us to think for ourselves. The establishment of personal authority is not a question of religion in the strictest sense, unless you consider religio to bind as linked to auctoratus to bind. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 27 Dec 1994 15:04:11 -0500 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: brotherhood redefined This is by Brenda Tucker. Dear John, I hope you don't mind my taking the liberty to write to you. I have read your articles in The American Theosophist (or I think it was called Quest then) and think you were really able to stir up many theosophists into thinking through several of your ideas. I enjoyed your recent post, but don't particularly enjoy the network anymore since the discussions concerning Leadbeater's morals. I think his decisions are personal and private and I have nothing but esteem for the man. I was drawn to write to you upon hearing that you had been taught by devas. I think most intelligent people would propose to question you about this, but I feel that it is too intruding and that you should say what you feel is appropriate to the level of understanding in the group which you are addressing. However, I would especially like to question you further regarding my own thoughts on the subject and to hear your comments about my developing an opinion of the "truth of the subject." As an example, I have a four year old daughter who had a friend visit her a few days ago. The two of them asked to use my daughter's bottle of fingernail polish and as I was busy with my infant, I asked them to wait until I could help them, but they would not and went ahead and tried to paint their nails, even refusing to sit at the kitchen table when I requested it. After the young friend went home, when I was moving around the house, I noticed a smear of this paint on the marble in the bathroom and could "hear" or "sense" the thought from Stephanie, Galina's friend, that "she had made what they call at her house 'a nice mess'" because it was easy to clean up and hadn't ruined anything. I thought that was swell so I didn't react in my usual manner of disgust or irritation. The next time I encountered more of the paint it was on the glass top of my vanity in my room and this produced the same thought, "another nice mess from Galina and Stephanie." I had hoped that was all and that they really were careful with the polish, but suspected at the same time that there may be more. This morning I again caught sight of a spot of polish (or so it appears) on a bedroom quilt near the baby's changing table. As this playtime of theirs had taken place over a week ago, it had been several days that I had not noticed the 'damage' and was surprised to catch again the sound of Stephanie telling her mother, "they had used fingernail polish at Galina's house" implying that it should be all right for her mother to allow her to use it without any help. I think it's a little peculiar that the damage appeared when the thought occurred regarding Stephanie's independence in the matter and am at awe about the beauty of these two friends' relationship and the deva that may be at work between them. I feel that it is the deva which is delivering the "sound" of the friend's thought, which is certainly intertwined with her experience at home with the girl's mother, who is also becoming a friend of mine. Since brotherhood had been written about on the network, I took down my book of that title from the Agni Yoga Society and opened it to a dog eared page I had marked YEARS before. The message is of interest to this topic of devas so I would like to repeat it here. 255. Besides, people do not wish to observe how the process of thinking is dependent upon changes in surroundings. Such observations can make manifest many physical reactions, and along with this they may reveal that among visible influences others are continually to be perceived, invisible yet extremely powerful. Whoever is ready for fraternal labor must know how to watch himself. 252. Quite a few people think that Brotherhood does not exist at all. 241. In brotherhoods it is advised that mutual ridicule and defamation be avoided. Even in complex circumstances it is possible to find positive factors, and by such stones it is less dangerous to cross the stream. Abuse, like a thistle, grows rapidly, and with it there is no advance. Frequently, words are employed which call forth emanations not at all good. Each word impresses a glyph upon the aura. Man must take the responsibility for his own engenderments. Filth is unfitting in any brotherhood. 242.... People do not like to acknowledge, voluntarily or otherwise, how often a grain of dissension ruins the best combinations. Man can be likened to a magnet, yet even a magnet may become demagnetized if it be put in disadvantageous surroundings. Thus, one should accustom oneself to watching over the small grains. Unity cannot flourish if grit has been spilled on each wheel. 251. Threat and violence are not of Our domain. Compassion and warning will be the province of Brotherhood. One would have to be of a cruel nature to take a warning for a threat. People judge according to them- selves....the evil see evil, whereas the good see good. The same truth carries through in all branches of knowledge. Only very keen eyes distinguish where is reality and where the mirage of a casual mood. 256.... It has been said that the web of the Most High consists of sparks; consequently, if one discerns even a single spark it will already be a big attainment. But in such experiments it is possible to achieve success only through mutual trust. Valuable information can be brought even by children, country folk, and various workers in whom even a single spark with which they have come in contact has caught hold. Very often people actually preserve some memories but are ashamed to talk about them. Such hiding places must be approached solicitously. They will not be revealed to an arrogant interrogator or to a hurrying passer-by. Moreover, earthly law prohibits touching upon what is professed to be sacred. Physicians frequently call such confessions madness. So, what I believe I am asking, is first, do you believe that a deva can be an intermediary for human communication? Second, do they enjoy the finest detail, preferring to build intricate form? Third, have you ever thought of brotherhood as the Agni Yoga book quoted above describes it, thoughts lying alongside each other in the accomplishment of some noble work? "The basis of Brotherhood is trust in work." BROTHERHOOD, #258, p. 133. One last thing regarding my esteem for Leadbeater, caution has always been advised as a virtue, as brotherhood has been attacked by ignoble forces before and is not immune to decay, but requires defense and protection. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 27 Dec 1994 17:43:39 -0500 From: "Ronald A. Banister" <70402.2301@compuserve.com> Subject: E.G. White Paul, I forgot to mention, while I was reading your book on the plane, an earnest young lady next to me asked what the book was about. Difficult to explain to a perfect stranger. At one point she asked me if I was a Mason. At the end of the trip she gave me a copy of "The Great Controversy" by Ellen G. White (1827-1915). I have never heard of the author, but she must have been important in her time, since almost 20 million of her books were printed. Can you or anyone else out there comment on this woman and her writings? Thanks, Ron Banister From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 27 Dec 1994 21:19:58 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Quick comments. Some general comments: Daniel - Nice list of books. Thanks. I have been a theosophist for over 25 years and have not read any of those you list. Should I start now? Or will this just confuse me? Paul - Thanks for your "in serarch of agreement." I think I know how you feel, having been flamed a few times myself. You are right - don't take it personally. Richard - I fell out of my chair laughing at your message (so yes, you are still very funny). I am wondering, though, about where on your list I must be; apparently I am a pussycat! Eldon - Your "some reasons for the conflict" almost made me fall out of my chair too, but not from laughter. I couldn't agree with you more. I really enjoyed your comments. I hope everyone reads them and takes them to heart. CWL - Yes. They are picking on you again. Sorry chum, but you started it yourself, and really have no one but yourself to blame. Tsk tsk. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 27 Dec 1994 22:04:46 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: authority; poll;jrc Art Patterson, Regarding your post of 12/24 concerning authority and controversy--I'll see what I can do to correctly read your question and to made an intelligible reply. CWL is C.W. Leadbeater. The only extensive biography on him is Tillet's ~The Elder Brother~ ($12.00 through me--I'm a book dealer). It was edited from a much longer doctoral dissertation. Though the book is carefully researched and painfully accurate in its presentation of documentation, it is considered "biased" by theosophists who are devoted to CWL. Though I'm yet to find anyone who can specify any errors of fact. What follows is a very brief sketch to give you an idea of his place in theosophical history: Charles Webster Leadbeater (1857-1934) was originally a cleric in the Low Anglican church in London and was also very interested in Spiritualism. After reading A.P. Sinnett's ~The Occult World~, (which gives an account of Sinnett's meeting and correspondence with HPB's Masters), Leadbeater contacted Sinnett and joined the London Lodge of the Theosophical Society in 1882. In 1895, he did some clairvoyant research with Annie Besant and published a series of articles entitled "Occult Chemistry", which is a clairvoyant analysis of the elements. This series brought him a great deal of attention. His ~Man Visible and Invisible~ published in 1904, brought him further attention and renown as a clairvoyant. Further articles he published discussed the former lives of members, bringing him further popularity. From 1895 until 1906, CWL toured the world on and off as a theosophical speaker, and was very well received everywhere he went. In 1906, while in Chicago, he accepted some young boys into his care for "occult training." When the parents discovered the nature of this "training", they sought to have CWL expelled. (Information concerning the charges has already been discussed, so I won't repeat it here). Because he was a member of the British Section, and not the American, CWL was recalled to London, where H.S. Olcott, the International President, along with General Secretaries and other officials of the Society examined the evidence and heard CWL's testimony. CWL offered his resignation at that meeting, and never rejoined the Theosophical Society. In 1907, Olcott died, and Annie Besant became the second International President. In 1908, Besant announced her intention to continue working with CWL through the Esoteric Section. Her announcement set off major protest from those who present at the 1906 inquiry, and resignations. In 1910, C.W. Leadbeater found the fifteen year old Jeddu Krishnamurti, who was promoted as the "Maitreya" (i.e. defined here as the embodiment of the spirit that had previously incarnated on this earth as Gautama the Buddha and as Jesus the Christ). This revelation caused further resignations--the most significant being almost the entire German section leaving the Theosophical Society in 1912. This section became the Anthroposophical Society, under Rudolf Steiner. In 1930, Krishnamurti dissolved the Order of the Star, resigned from the Theosophical Society, and renounced his "messiahship." Annie Besant died in 1933, apparently still believing in Krishnamurti's status. C.W. Leadbeater died in 1934. AP> Excuse the ignorant question but did Blavatsky believe in Masters? Yes. AP> Did she think it important to obey them or to consult them in decision making? For herself, yes. But that was between her and the Masters. It affected no one else. AP> Are there parallels between seeking the guidance and direction of the masters to seeking the guidance of the "saints"? Perhaps in todays Esoteric Section as reformed under Besant and Leadbeater in 1908, such a parallel may be drawn. But not during HPB's lifetime (1831-1891)--even in the Esoteric Section. HPB taught seeking guidance from the higher self--i.e. the god within you--not from the Masters. AP> Or are the Masters like angelic beings? The Masters described themselves as human--with physical bodies. That is also how HPB viewed them. Under Leadbeater and Besant, beginning in 1908, that view has changed considerably. Many present day theosophists of the Adyar Society see the Masters as something much akin to "angelic beings." AP> One of my greatest problems is sorting out the metaphysics of these questions. Are we speaking in metaphorical language, or is there some referent that is beyond the mythic construct? Good luck. It depends upon the "brand" of theosophy you are examining. But I think in all cases, there is a "referent." AP> The question of Authority, I would imagine is central to the understanding of Masters, and goes in my opinion to the very heart of the issue. Once again, it depends upon the brand of theosophy. AP> Authority, in my estimate, is a quasi-religious term which, if I remember some Latin, means "to bind to"; it is similar to the word religion. What, who or how I bind myself to something is a spiritual matter. In my life I find that authority tends to come in four forms: Revelation (the Scriptures or Priordial writings), Tradition (the Enlightenment of Interpretors), Experience (direct personal) and Cultural (society's questions and issues). There was a very important theosophical pamphlet published in 1930 that addresses precisely this issue. If interested, I will send you a copy. Authority from revelation began in 1908 under Besant and leadbeater. The Priordial writings in this case, were Besant and Leadbeater's writings, under the authority of the Masters. Authority through Tradition, Experience and Cultural predominated before 1908. I think HPB encouraged a balance of the three, with personal experience being the highest authority (if I understand your distinctions correctly). Rather than "faith," she talked about "certitude," and "discrimination." AP> I have wondered if the Secret Doctrine is in the Tradition or the Revelation category. There may be individuals who regard it as revelation, but HPB very explicitly warned against this. AP> I have been viewing the disagreement between Liesel and Paul from the vantage point of binding authority. If I could be so bold as to suggest, with no intention of fueling the flames, that the argument appears to be about the difference of appealing to direct experience on one hand and to the Tradition on the other. I appreciate both approaches tradition and experience. Of course, I may be talking nonsense since I understand virtually nothing of either the experience or the tradition. But it just makes sense of what I am reading from my beginner's mind perspective. I see it this way too. The nature of your questions concerning Theosophy have changed significantly recently. I suggest that you would do very well at this point to read ~The Key to Theosophy.~ I recommend the T.U.P. edition. JRC, Thanks for your post. I hope we hear more from you. Dan Caldwell, Welcome back on the net. My two cents worth below: DC> I am trying to compile a list of suggested reading for the inquirer interested in Theosophy and for the beginning student of Theosophy.... DC>(1) What 12 titles would you recommend an inquirer of Theosophy to read and study? It depends upon their interests, approach, and how they process information. I have recommended different first books to different people: ~The Voice of the Silence~, ~Key to Theosophy~, and even ~The Secret Doctrine;~ also ~The Ocean of Theosophy~ are among my typical selections. At the risk of sounding self serving, some people have also found our video to be a good introduction. DC> (2) What titles by H.P.B. would you suggest that a new student to Theosophy should read first? For our introductory study groups, we created our own material and special methods for teaching it. Not all of it is HPB material however. The first HPB article we have been using is an abridged version of "What is Truth." But it has problems, has required extensive annotations, and I'm looking for an alternative. Before we created our own manual, we used at different times, ~The Key~, ~The Ocean~, and sometimes selections from the ~Collected Works~ of Judge and/or HPB. I don't think the text is as important as the method of teaching and the competence of the presenters/group leaders/teachers etc. DC> (3) If you were exiled to a deserted, isolated island for the rest of your life, what 12 Theosophical titles would you be sure to take with you? The ~S.D.~, the ~Collected Works~ (Am I cheating?), the collected works, ~Ocean~, G.deP.'s E.S. materials (~Fountain Source~, ~Dialogues~), ~Fundamentals~ (both), ~Mahatma Letters.~ DC>(4) What is the best introductory biography on H.P.B.? Cranston. But your ~Occult World of Madame Blavatsky~, though not a biography, is very important, and should be mentioned more often. DC>(5) What is the best introductory book on Theosophy? Depends upon the inquirer. DC> (6) Should a new student to Theosophy read ISIS UNVEILED, THE SECRET DOCTRINE AND THE MAHATMA LETTERS? Or should he/she read other simpler, introductory books first and then later read I.U, S.D. and M.L.? Reasons? I've known inquirers who got through the ~S.D.~ with no problems, and others who have been studying for years and still don't get it. I try to assess the level of the student and make recommendations from there. DC> (7) Can you recommend one or two good, reliable commentaries on H.P.B.'s SECRET DOCTRINE? I don't like any of them. Too often I find people using them as a crutch, and never get around to studying the ~S.D~ through their own brain. DC> (8) If you had the chance to open a book store, what 12 Theosophical works would sure to be on your shelves? Since I have a book store, I can speak from experience. The first twelve would be the same list as in question three. They may not be the hottest sellers, but I'm not in it for the money anyway. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 27 Dec 1994 23:19:40 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: answer to Discussions, Jerry H-E Hi, Jerry, First let me clear up one thing quickly, because we're talking past each other. At 1 point in your post you said something that I understood to mean that l'affaire CWL was a pimple on something much deeper & fundamental concerning the split in the TS's. That's what I wanted you to clarify off the net. As far as catching mud slung at the ghost of CWL, I'm done with that game. As Martin Euser said, (I don't remember the exact words, but the gist, I do) why don't we get into something more productive? What would I propose April to do. Make up a format for us to operate out of. Ideas for it are already on the net from various people, as quoted below, I may have missed some of them. The only thing I know about the workings of conflict resolution comes from reading, years ago, the grand daddy of all conflict resolution books, "Getting to Yes". That's not state of the art today, I'm sure. I think at least a format would be a great contribution on the part of April. If after that, she'll consent to being arbitrator, others agreeing to it, I think that'd be good too, and maybe with the mechanisms we'll put in place, we'll hardly ever need one. . Here are some ideas for the format, which I picked up from today's posts: John Crocker writes before he had his people tackle the controversial subject, he had them relate to each other in another way.Each one had a set period of time to teach the other something, and then to learn something from the other. Maybe that would ease the tension, if we took a week or 2 to talk about each other's spare time activities, or you about Loki & me about Chouchou, & all the other cat fanciers about their cats, & dogs, & horses & etc. Just relaxed talking about other concerns. Chouchou is being raised on a Theosophical model, which is my pride & joy, ie I treat her as an entity with Spirit, intelligence, & will. Then with the tension eased, maybe we could talk to each other, with "mutual trust" (Brenda Tucker's words) & empathy. We could do that for a few weeks, & then go back to relaxed talk. Brenda also talked about Brotherhood. That's our big ideal. Let's discuss & try to find ways of making that ideal a reality. John Crocker said it's never been done. He posed the question succinctly "How does a group of people who are all strong ... ie., none able to be dominated by others and none willing to simply swallow their perspectives for the sake of a _false_ harmony ... how can such a group create a Universal Brotherhood?" Let's see if we can establish a such a model amongst ourselves. That'd be worth discussing back & forth. What qualities would it take? And what mode of communication? How would we handle disagreements, while being respectful of each other's integrity? Jerry, you talk about the inevitablity of angry flair-ups. I suppose you're right. But I've been taught that anger is destructive, (if anyone has ever loo ked at "Thought Forms", the picture of a thougth form of anger is very graphic.... these fiery, sharplly pointed darts being propelled out from a muddy thought form in all directions ... doesn't take much imagination to say "ouch!" Real or fancy, I wouldn't want to chance having one of those flying at me, if I could help it.) We're all trying to construct bridges. Well, Dora says emotions are a force that can be channeled. When she gets angry at something, she thinks of the Love she has for her grandchild, & then she turns that Love towards the person she's angry at. Or maybe we could think of a silly phrase, & when someone starts to blast off, someone else will say 1,2,3, etc to 10 & the silly word. Something that would make us all giggle. Anything like that to defuse. You don't suppress, you transmute. Let's also, incorporate Nicholas Eklund's poem & comments in honor of Je Tsong -khapa's birthday today, 12-27 Eldon Tucker talks about there being a conflict in the philosphy taught by CWL. That would be a valid topic for discussion to me. I don't even know where the conflicts are, but I'd like to find out. I'm just as curious as my Chouchou. I'm not so sure that we can profitably discuss CWL's psychic investi gations, unless some of us are real well trained psychics who can compare what he writes about with their own first hand investigations. Anyone who isn't psychic, I think, would just be guessing. I know I would. I've seen a few good psychics in action, & I've guessed at how it's done; Serge King, tried to teach us the rudiments of some of the techniques last year, but I can't really do them well. To quote Eldon again "We are taught to shut down psychic experiences as an early important step of spiritual training, and to instead awaken 'The mind's eye' ". Exactly what I've been taught by my Theosophical teachers. It's not a toy. & one needs to develop a lot of other qualities first before psychism can become useful. Jerry you say "... the alienation between members in the Adyar Society alone is more than enough to keep us busy". If that could be done in a way that'll help the factions, ok, but I'm afraid that this one'll land up being another mud slinging fest. On 2d thought, I have a sneaking suspicion (not based on anything I know, but on a hunch) that John Algeo is busy behind the scenes mending fences. I'd be inclined to leave that one alone for now, at least for another year or 2 & see first what develops. John hasn't been President for very long, & already Wheaton has changed much for the better. Towards the end you refer to the interchange between Paul & me. I'm not planning on saying very much about it anymore. As far as I'm concerned, the matter is concluded. I thought I was putting up conciliatory peace flags here & there, but never got any response. I just now reread Paul's post entitled "in Search of Agreement". Apparently, he very honestly thought he was presenting the 2 sides fairly. Well, just let me tell you that not one iota of my side is represented in it. What he wrote is biased & one-sided. He's weighing his side against his side. What's the use? Time to feed Chouchou. Ciao Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 27 Dec 1994 23:41:53 -0500 From: "Ronald A. Banister" <70402.2301@compuserve.com> Subject: Hierarchical Ranking Richard, Just read your email to newcomers on who not to dispute with. Your still funny! Thanks, Ron Banister From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 08:23:22 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: quote from a pamphlet "Charles Webster Leadbeater "A Biography "By Hugh Shearman "The St. Albans Press 1980 "Printed in India "At the Vasanta Press, The Theosophical Society "ADYAR, Madras 600020 p. 22 ff. CENTRE OF CONTROVERSY "In 1906 Leadbeater's pioneering in another field caused him to become the centre of a sharp controversy in America. He had given private advice on the sex problems of youth to several boys committed to his educational care. By modern standards the advice he gave seems harmless and cannot be construed as motivated by any sinister intention. Indeed it was more conservative and much less permissive than the advice given today in many books on the subject. Complaints about what he had confidentially advised grew rapidly into EXAGGERATED AND QUITE UNEVIDENTIAL ALLEGATIONS of immoral conduct. Leadbeater denied anything that he felt to be untrue but refused to be drawn into controversy or in any sense put on trial. Until the allegations were refuted and dismissed by others, he withdrew from the Theosophical Society and devoted himself to clairvoyant research in Europe. "In 1909, invited by Mrs. Besant, who was now President of the Theosophical Society, to resume his membership in the Society, he did so, and settled at Adyar. Echoes and reactions from the controversy of 1906 recurred at several periods in his later life, accompanied each time by much personal abuse and ABSENCE OF ADVERSE EVIDENCE. The cause of this trouble was probably not only the ignorance and the many superstitions prevalent at that time about sex "(see PS by LFD) " but also the reaction of other people to a personality much more dominant than Leadbeater himself possibly realised, for he could be quite curtly autocratic in taking his own course in life. "It was at Adyar in 1909 that Leadbeater picked out, as a child of remarkable qualities the young Jiddu Krishnamurti. Mrs. Besant at once took an interest in the boy and, concurring with Leadbeater's impression of him, made arrangements for his education. She later announced that the world was moving towards one of those cyclic events when a new religion and a new culture come into being. She said that, if he proved fit for it, Krishnamurti would be the "vehicle" through which the "World Teacher", the Master of the new revelation of spiritual truth, would speak to the world. She did not say that Krishnamurti was that Teacher. Whether Krishnamurti's subsequent career was overshadowed and used by a World Teacher and, if so, to what extent, will remain matters for debate, EVEN IF THE DEBATE DOES NOT SEEM TO BE A PROFITABLE ONE; but his career was certainly a justification of Leadbeater's early and immediate recognition of Krishnamurti's excpetional qualities." PS by Liesel FD - Here are few things I learned in my "American Women's History" course 2 years ago about sexual concepts in those days. As already mentioned in a previous post, nocturnal emissions were considered an illness, for which the cure was castration. Menses were also considered an illness. Some women stayed in bed for their duration. There was a fetish called Modesty. All women were thought to be modest by nature. Their modesty was thought to be part of their charm, & it was to be protected at all cost. Gynecoligists blushed in embarrassment when they discussed female gynecology amongst themselves. Because of this concept of Modesty, female gynecological business was conducted by touch, with the woman draped modestly under a blanket ... that includes bringing babies into the world. Previously, at medical school, the gynecologists had learned about female anatomy from charts, such as they were. There was an MD in Buffalo NY, a Dr. James White, who had what he thought was a corking good idea. He paid an indigent woman to allow his medical students to be present when he delivered her baby, while she was modestly draped under the then customary blanket. The medical students said that they'd learned from the experience, & applauded Dr. White... not so the rest of his society. His very bold & unheard of act caused quite a furor, & ended with James White, MD, innovator, getting drummed out of the American Medical Society. No further comment is needed from me. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 08:53:51 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: E.G. White Ellen G. White was the prophetess who picked up the pieces after the expected coming of Christ failed to materialize for the Adventists in 1844. She led the Seventh-day branch of the movement, which is going strong, having quadrupled its membership in the last 25 years to 8 million. But it has been conclusively demonstrated that she plagiarized much of her writing. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 09:52:00 -0500 From: "William Allen" Subject: Liesel's note, question In Liesel's note of yesterday I found the following: > To quote Eldon again "We are taught to shut down psychic > experiences as an early important step of spiritual training, > and to instead awaken 'The mind's eye' ". Exactly what I've > been taught by my Theosophical teachers. It's not a toy. & one > needs to develop a lot of other qualities first before psychism > can become useful. I wonder if Eldon or Liesel (or anybody else) could elaborate on those statements. Specifically, I wonder 1. how one "shuts down" psychic experiences, and 2. about the difference between psychic "seeing" and seeing with "the mind's eye" Thanks for any help you can offer. Best wishes, William From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 10:21:24 -0500 From: "William Allen" Subject: absorbing (?) anger Nicholas and Dara, First, thank you for your lovely post of yesterday. How wonderful to see such an attitude expressed in the midst of some rather nasty stuff over the last few days. Second, I think this is may be merely a matter of symantics, so perhaps not very important. When you remark of "the other half" of making a kindly society, you say that one must learn to "absorb anger, hate & other negatives...." I wonder if "absorb" is the right word? I'm asking because I spent several years as a university administrator and spent quite a lot of my time trying to subdue and arbitrate differences--often rather ugly ones. As I reflect on those years, I think that I did absorb the anger, hate, etc. of others. To some extent this worked (from the administrative point of view--getting people to go on with what the institution regarded as their proper and important work). But, I think that absorbing those negatives made me ill--ill enough that I had to get out of administrative work. Perhaps if one is a truly developed leader then one has powers within to neutralize the absorbed negatives. For myself, however, I now realize that what I should have been striving for was to repel them. I'm not sure any of this makes sense. But, would the ability "to repel anger, hate & other negatives" change the meaning of what you said? Again, thanks. Best wishes, William From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 14:41:45 -0500 From: ah430@lafn.org (Dara Eklund) Subject: Patience Sweet As William put it: >I think this is may be merely a matter of symantics, so >perhaps not very important. When you remark of "the other half" of >making a kindly society, you say that one must learn to "absorb >anger, hate & other negatives...." > >I wonder if "absorb" is the right word? I'm asking because I spent >several years as a university administrator and spent quite a lot of >my time trying to subdue and arbitrate differences--often rather ugly >ones. As I reflect on those years, I think that I did absorb the >anger, hate, etc. of others. To some extent this worked (from the >administrative point of view--getting people to go on with what the >institution regarded as their proper and important work). But, I >think that absorbing those negatives made me ill--ill enough that I >had to get out of administrative work. Perhaps if one is a truly >developed leader then one has powers within to neutralize the >absorbed negatives. For myself, however, I now realize that what I >should have been striving for was to repel them. > >I'm not sure any of this makes sense. But, would the ability "to >repel anger, hate & other negatives" change the meaning of what you >said? Yes it would William. No, "absorb" is not the best word. Perhaps "accept", "abide" or "endure" would be better. But to strive to "repel" ugliness would only make things worse, in the long run of many lifetimes. Excepting people who regularly or constantly are faced with anger, violence etc. the attitude of endurance will work to the benefit of society. Yes, that means the individual will suffer some "slings and arrows"; but what was the first Noble Truth of Buddha? The nature of incarnation *is suffering* and quite unsatisfactory. This is such a vast area. Briefly then, Theosophy and Buddhism both teach that the prime evil is selfishness or a sense of separateness. Thus our normal attitude to the negatives is already one of repulsion. How many on this net can stomach even the written (not to mention verbal or personal) "through a glass darkly" barks and snarls with equanimity, much less embrace them? But as Je Rinpoche said, patience is the supreme *armor*. Paradoxically, if one's attitude is truly accepting, even welcoming of life's horrors, that stance, in itself, is protective and soothing. Of course the foundation of this bearing must be built up lovingly, carefully and wisely. Which is what the words mean "*in every way familiarize yourself* with the armor of patience supreme". Hope this is not too abstract William, I know it is too compressed. Best, Nicholas Weeks From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 06:34:04 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: discussions; re theosophical novitiate Liesel, LD> First let me clear up one thing quickly, because we're talking past each other. At 1 point in your post you said something that I understood to mean that l'affaire CWL was a pimple on something much deeper & fundamental concerning the split in the TS's. That's what I wanted you to clarify off the net. That isn't quite what I meant. I offered the opinion that the Leadbeater affair has become a veil obscuring much deeper dynamics that cripples the effectiveness of the TS (and indirectly all TS's) in performing their intended role in the world. Why do you want a clarification off the net, as opposed to one the net? LD> As far as catching mud slung at the ghost of CWL, I'm done with that game. Your subsequent quote from Hugh Sherman's pamphlet suggests that you are not. LD> As Martin Euser said, (I don't remember the exact words, but the gist, I do) why don't we get into something more productive? In principle how could anyone not agree with Martin on this? However it is very easy for Martin to make this remark, considering that he is involved with Dutch Point Loma tradition theosophy, where Leadbeater had no direct historical role. Leadbeater is primarily the Adyar Society's karma--for better or worse, and the controversy doesn't go away no matter how members and leaders protest against it being raised. To say that we should "get into something more productive" is a lot like telling an obsessive compulsive that if he stops taking a bath twelve times a day, he will be cured of his compulsion. LD> What would I propose April to do. Make up a format for us to operate out of.... I gave a copy of your last post to April. Stand by... LD> John Crocker writes before he had his people tackle the controversial subject, he had them relate to each other in another way. I never received that post. Would you kindly relay it to me? LD> Eldon Tucker talks about there being a conflict in the philosophy taught by CWL. That would be a valid topic for discussion to me. I don't even know where the conflicts are, but I'd like to find out. I'm just as curious as my Chouchou. That is a very tedious subject. Margaret Thomas did a study on that in 1924--it is an 87 page mss. A more recent one was done by Ray Morgan, which is available. I have about a half dozen original twenty page mss here exploring different aspects of the subject. The problem is that to discuss the teachings of say, HPB compared to the teachings of CWL, requires that one has a thorough knowledge of each of the teachings. The only people I know of on this net (beside myself) who have taken the trouble to do any extensive comparative studies is Eldon Tucker and Daniel Caldwell. There may be others of course, but my point is that such a dialogue would have to be carried by those with a background in the different schools, and it would take extensive explaining to communicate the points of contention to the rest of the readers. My guess is that your curiosity and Chouchou's may quickly turn to boredom on that one. LD> I'm not so sure that we can profitably discuss CWL's psychic investigations, unless some of us are real well trained psychics who can compare what he writes about with their own first hand investigations. If one wanted to discuss them, one could compare his "scientific" observations to what is currently known in science. It might also be interesting to compare his clairvoyant observations to others--for instance, Andrew Jackson Davis. LD> Jerry you say "... the alienation between members in the Adyar Society alone is more than enough to keep us busy". If that could be done in a way that'll help the factions, ok, but I'm afraid that this one'll land up being another mud slinging fest. Life is a risk too. LD> Towards the end you refer to the interchange between Paul & me. I'm not planning on saying very much about it anymore. As far as I'm concerned, the matter is concluded. I thought I was putting up conciliatory peace flags here & there, but never got any response. Last message I saw from Paul on the matter, he explained that he had been out of town for four days. That message sounded pretty conciliatory to me. LD> I just now reread Paul's post entitled "in Search of Agreement". Apparently, he very honestly thought he was presenting the 2 sides fairly. Well, just let me tell you that not one iota of my side is represented in it. What he wrote is biased & one-sided. He's weighing his side against his side. What's the use? If I were you, perceiving that Paul may have "very honestly thought he was presenting the 2 sides fairly", I would take it as a positive sign that he was trying to bring about a conciliation, and try to work with that. I'm not trying to take a superior position here. I blew up at Paul a few months ago on the net myself, so I know what it is about. However, I also regret not handling the situation better. For whatever it is worth, I think the best communicator on this net is Art Patterson. Read his posts, and note that he always begins by acknowledging what his correspondent says, and stays very close to his own experiences when communicating his ideas. I'm not suggesting that he be imitated, we all have to write from what comes out of ourselves, in order for it to bu authentic, but I think we all can pick up some good tips from Art's modeling. Good communication is a skill. We learn, we screw up, and hopefully we learn by our mistakes. Arthur Patterson, AP> Thank you for your very interesting and informative response to my posting. I am struggling a bit with where to start reading. I have been reading in Steiner but after being the Steiner new group for a month or so, I realized that the material they were interested in seemed totally irrelevant to me. For instance, things like how long until the next reincarnation of individuals seems too speculative for me. My interests lie in working toward an organizing center for my various interests in spirituality. Anthroposophy has its own direction--in many ways very different from Theosophy. Personally I find their practical applications very much worth looking at--such as Eurythmy, Biodynamic gardening and the Waldorf schools. What did they decide on for the reincarnation question? AP> My background is in Christian history and spirituality but I have been deeply informed Jungian and symbolist thought as well. I have made a spiritual transition, whereby, I no longer consider myself a "Christian" at least not in the sense of exoteric understanding. Surprising, I suppose, since I was a minister for seventeen years. I appreciate gnostic thought even though I am not too familiar with it. My academic background is a Masters Degree in English Literature and the study of Spirituality. My interest in exploring Theosophy is along the line of connecting to a larger paradigm that will allow me to explore all spiritualities with freedom. Presently I teach courses in such diverse subjects as The Use of Tarot Images in Western Mystery Tradition, Dante's Divine Comedy as a Means of Personal Growth, Jung and the Shadow Side of God. Sounds like we are kindred souls in many ways. I will be finishing my course work in the Spring for a Masters Degree in English Literature, and already planning the thesis stage. Though religion was a taboo subject in my childhood, and I knew nothing of the concept, that void brought me into a study of comparative religion and philosophies all through my adult life. I think Theosophy already allows the freedom to explore all spiritualities--the only limitations are those we put on ourselves. I used to read Jung about 30 years ago, but was a bit young to really appreciate him, but I learned the basics. The background helped in doing Jungian criticism in the English program. Currently I've been splitting my head open for the last two years studying Jacques Lacan. He is Neo-Freud, but very different from Freud. I don't feel that I've mastered his ideas well enough to evaluate him yet, but his influence has already contributed to a major paradigm shift in society--for the better, I think. I used to do Tarot and Astrology in the sixties and seventies. Very rusty now. AP> I thought this might give you a clue as to where I am coming from. My question is how to select a strand Theosophy. I enjoy the perspectives I read in Quest magazine. I am not interested in dogmatics of any sort and I guess I appreciate good theory as a basis of right action. I am naturally inquisitive and like to see what is at the root of thoughts and not just the surface. I call my approach a Hermeneutic of Suspicion. Not in a cynical sense but in a methodological one. If there was a program available at this University, I probably would have majored in intellectual history. Perhaps I'm projecting, but I feel that you are coming from much the same spirit--"what is the source of that idea?"; "how has that ideas changed?"; who was influential upon whom?" HPB's writings are in this spirit, and that is probably how I came to appreciate this approach. You might try Preston's ~Abridgement of The Secret Doctrine~ and see how it feels. It's only a quarter the size of the original, and I think representative of the whole. AP> I have no idea as to whether I am a "Theosophist". I do agree with the three objects as listed in the pamphlets. My access to getting materials in limited. I see no Theosophical Group here in Winnipeg. I was thinking of joining the Wheaton Group and they say they take memberships from Canadians. What you said about Adyar does sort of concerns me however. I also detected a bit of legalism in the emphasis on ES and vegetarianism. I have spent years embroiled in sectarian Christian politics and while I expect that Theosophical organizations are human enough to have their own weakness, I anticipate a slightly different approach - more tolerant I hope. Do me and yourself a favor and write a letter introducing yourself, your background, your interests, and mention my name to: Ted Davy 2307 Sovereign Crescent S.W. Calgary, Alta. T3C 2M3 He is a very, very, very dear friend and is the former General Secretary of the Canadian Theosophical Society. He may know people in your area. If not, he is still a very valuable person for you to know, and I think the most knowledgable person in Canada. Trust me on that one. Theosophical organizations have their warts and politics just like to Churches--there is no getting away from it. The problem is that people join perfectly good organizations and ruin them (just kidding--or maybe half kidding). Anyway, there are four major theosophical organizations to look into before making a decision. There is also a pretty good group of us who work outside of the bounds of the organizations, though we may or may not hold memberships in them. AP> If you have any information on how these aspects of authority were used please send it my way. It isn't that I have this huge authority issue in a psychological sense, although that is never far from any of us, it is just that I think the idea of taking full responsibility to what you bind yourself to is central to spiritual growth. I'll send you a copy of that pamphlet. I think it will go a long way to giving you a lot of insight as to what is behind the recent discussions. Please e-mail me your address. AP> I would like to get a hold of this book, as well as others. You mentioned you deal in books is there any possibility of me ordering through you? I am interested in Ellwood's book on Theosophy and Paul Johnsons Masters book, especially if that book can be found in soft cover as he suggests it can. In any case, if you can send The Key... or tell me where I can order from I would much appreciate your help. Yes, I try to carry everything in Theosophy. I'll e-mail you the prices for the books you mentioned. Nicholas, Dara, Welcome to Internet. Yes I'm familiar with the Yeats interview in the ~Irish Theosophist~. But keep me in mind, I'm sure you have found things I missed. Glad you're on. We need a knowledgeable resource on Buddhism. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 10:55:05 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: Theosophy Exploring To Jerry Hejka-Ekins, Jerry Writes: Anthroposophy has its own direction--in many ways very different from Theosophy. Personally I find their practical applications very much worth looking at--such as Eurythmy, Biodynamic gardening and the Waldorf schools. What did they decide on for the reincarnation question? Art : I found it interesting that while they focussed on the practical in their litertature I experienced the group as far more "heady" than theos-l. They didn't decide about who comes back after how long as long as I was on the group. Perhaps I should have stuck around. Regardless, Steiner's approach to perception does interest me tremendously. He has a sort of in depth perception which strikes at the roots of reality. I also liked his staged approach just learning to listen or to see what is infront of you and differentiating the differences between qualities of perception. (Section Snipped for brevity) Art: Common Interests - undoubtably. Where are you studying? I find it interesting that I ended up being interested in academic stuff since I dropped out of school in grade 10. Of course, I returned as an adult but I never thought I would take up studies with such zeal. I am not too institutionally oriented but I enjoyed my time there. Now I am much more content being self taught, and tutored by those I encounter, again. Jerry: Perhaps I'm projecting, but I feel that you are coming from much the same spirit--"what is the source of that idea?"; "how has that ideas changed?"; who was influential upon whom?" HPB's writings are in this spirit, and that is probably how I came to appreciate this approach. You might try Preston's ~Abridgement of The Secret Doctrine~ and see how it feels. It's only a quarter the size of the original, and I think representative of the whole. Art: Beside the fact that we live and learn through projection of one form or another, I want to affirm your comment that we have similar interests and intellectual desires. I am sure that many Theosophists hold the need to explore an over- arching non-dogmatic perspective that gives the structure needed for intereligious or interspiritual appreciation. Text snipped. Art: I will write to your Canadian Contact. Thanks alot. AP> If you have any information on how these aspects of authority were used please send it my way. It isn't that I have this huge authority issue in a psychological sense, although that is never far from any of us, it is just that I think the idea of taking full responsibility to what you bind yourself to is central to spiritual growth. I'll send you a copy of that pamphlet. I think it will go a long way to giving you a lot of insight as to what is behind the recent discussions. Please e-mail me your address. My snail mail address is Arthur Paul Patterson 694 Victor Street, Winnipeg, MB R3E 1Y5 Canada Question: I am not sure that I am not transgressing Netiquette, I don't mean to pry, but I would like to hear something about some of the members. A newcomer comes on, spends a great deal of time introducing themselves, but they don't have a clue as to who is on the other side. If any one wants to briefly answer some of a novice's inquirys, with absolutely no pressure to do so, could you tell me: Name or Net Handle: 1. What brought you to Theosophy in the first place? 2. What variety of Theosophy do you tend to affliate with? 3. What geographic area do you hail from? 4. What are your areas of interests? 5. What do you feel is the most helpful about participating in the Theos -l Listserv? If the questions seem boorish or invasive in anyway please do not answer them, I do respect your autonomy- this is only for those who genuinely want to answer. Toward Consciousness, Arthur Paul Patterson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 11:26:23 -0500 From: "William Allen" Subject: psychic development Liesel, Please, whatever I said that gave you the idea that you are not a favored correspondent, accept my apology. I did not mean to imply anything of the sort. If it has to do with my remark on "nastiness," on the net, that was an ill-considered phrase and I retract it. Quite honestly, I'm enough of a novice to not know who CWL was and not to care. I simply deleted those discussions as being over my head. Your explanation of psychic development was clear and appreciated. I feel pretty sure that all of us have from time to time experiences that we might class as psychic. The quote in your post yesterday made such experiences sound like stumbling blocks and I was particularly interested to know how one might shut them off. I suspected that one couldn't. What you said today makes good sense: Some people do have psychic experiences, and so they have them. We object to "sitting for development" ... to forcing psychic development, because we think that isn't the best thing to do. (We also try to steer clear of seances. If you'd like an explanation of that, please ask me) We encourage people to concentrate instead on developing character & wisdom first. That's clearly stated. Thank you. Best wishes, William From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 11:45:24 -0500 From: "William Allen" Subject: Re: Patience Sweet Nicholas, Thanks for your follow-up. I must confess that it left me somewhat puzzled and distraught. Intellectually I can grasp and accept what you say: > Briefly then, Theosophy and Buddhism both teach that the prime > evil is selfishness or a sense of separateness. Thus our normal > attitude to the negatives is already one of repulsion. How many > on this net can stomach even the written (not to mention verbal > or personal) "through a glass darkly" barks and snarls with > equanimity, much less embrace them? But as Je Rinpoche said, > patience is the supreme *armor*. Paradoxically, if one's > attitude is truly accepting, even welcoming of life's horrors, > that stance, in itself, is protective and soothing. Of course > the foundation of this bearing must be built up lovingly, > carefully and wisely. Which is what the words mean "*in every > way familiarize yourself* with the armor of patience supreme". This morning (after a fitful night), I can verbalize my distress. What is the middle path? For those for whom Je Rinpoche's admonition is an unattainable goal at the moment (today, the next year??), what is the solution? What is the middle path? "The foundation...must be built up lovingly, carefully and wisely." As I look at the world and as I look within I fear that what I see as the functioning middle path for dealing with suffering is drugs, alcohol, abusive behavior, depression. What would Je Rinpoche say to the vast unhappy masses who as yet are unprepared to put on the "armor of patience supreme?" Best, William From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 12:52:24 -0500 From: bill@Zeus.itdc.edu Subject: A theosophical survey (was: Theosophy exploring) Hi all, Arthur Paul Patterson writes: > ... mean to pry, but I would like to hear something about some > of the members. A newcomer comes on, spends a great deal of time > introducing themselves, but they don't have a clue as to who is > on the other side. If any one wants to briefly answer some of a > novice's inquirys, with absolutely no pressure to do so, could > you tell me: I'll admit that it seems a little "weird" in this forum -- as scholarly and spiritually oriented as many of the posts feel (all flames aside :-) ). But this is a common practice on a couple of the other mailing lists I belong to. Someone posts a survey with several questions designed to help others learn more about the posters on the list and most of the regular posters reply to help everyone know them a little better. It usually allows for an easy "delurking" tool for some of the lurking newbies too. I always enjoy participating in these surveys and I hope no- body takes offense -- I really think that they provide a useful service (but only about twice a year ;-) ). So here are my responses: > Name or Net Handle: bill William A. Parrette. > 1. What brought you to Theosophy in the first place? From my introductory post back in August of this year: "My introduction to theosophy was kinda' through the back door. After a minor out-of-body experience some six years ago, I start- ed researching this unusual phenomena by looking for books in every book store I entered into -- I am sort of a book-a-holic! I still remember the visit pretty clearly -- a small out-of-the way book store in a suburb of Minneapolis, MN. I was looking on, what at the time was still called, the occult bookshelf. There, almost invisible, wedged between several other, unrelated, larger books was this plain-looking, small book with a rather non- descript dark green, paper, dust-jacket entitled _The_Bodies_- of_Man_ by Annie Besant. I had no idea if it was related to my OOBE research or not, but it somehow seemed related. So, on a whim, I bought it, took it back to my hotel room, and read it. "Inside the book was a small reply-card which I filled in and sent off to Wheaton. The literature that came back fascinated me. I didn't understand much of what was in the book, and I didn't understand much of what was said in the literature, but somehow it *felt right*. Since I have been studying OOBE's I have been trying to pay a lot of attention to my intuition and my intuition told me here to join the TS. So, I did." > 2. What variety of Theosophy do you tend to affliate with? Well, to be quite honest, until recently I didn't know that there were different "varieties" of theosophy. Of course, I had heard of the different "sections" and had assumed that things like the "Pasadena group," the "Point Loma group," and others that I had heard of were just different "sections." Now I'm made to understand (mostly through reading this list) that there is a Blavatsky-style of theosophy and a Besant/Leadbetter-style of theosophy. If I had to "pin it down," I guess that I resonate more with the Blavatsky-style as a member of the American "section" through Wheaton. As soon as my employment situation stabilizes, I am go- ing to attempt to try to revitalize the Cincinnati study-center which will probably "center" around this "variety" of theosophy too. > 3. What geographic area do you hail from? I was born in Los Angeles, CA. in 1953; raised through the pre-teen years in West Covina, CA (I'm told near theosophical in- terests in Covina?); moved to Oxford, OH in 1965 where I attended junior-high school, high school and Miami University studying en- gineering technology and systems analysis; currently living near Cincinnati, OH (once a theosophical hotbed as the origin of the American "section") working as a Unix-oriented trainer and writer. > 4. What are your areas of interests? The bodies of man and the different "planes" they exist on. Trying to remember activities in these other planes or "reality systems" so as to turn current belief systems into "knowing sys- tems." Passing any new knowledge gained (somewhat altruistical- ly) onto others who are "searching." > 5. What do you feel is the most helpful about participating in > the Theos -l Listserv? For me, the absolutely most helpful and wonderful thing about participating in this forum is the access it gives me to others. There are many others on this list who have reached a personal level of understanding on theosophical topics that, to this day, still confuse me. The second best thing about this list is the discussion. I don't like "heated" debates but some of the back-and-forth dis- cussions that I have seen on a variety of topics here is truly educational. And, as I have said before, education is one of the key needs in theosophy. > If the questions seem boorish or invasive in anyway please do not > answer them, I do respect your autonomy- this is only for those > who genuinely want to answer. I always enjoy a good survey -- rarely boorish, seldom in- vasive. I hope some of the more regular posters will respond so that we can all learn a little more about each other. I think these things are fun. I know that I haven't been contributing regularly and for that I apologize. There were several open issues with a couple of regulars here that I had to put on an indefinite hold while I resolve some employment issues -- I'm looking for a new job in computer training/publishing that won't require me to move to a new physical location. It's all I can do to keep up with the mail for four mailing lists and a monthly digest while I am job hunting. Anyways ... I hope a few others will contribute to the sur- vey. And, as always, may you all grok in fullness ... Bill-- ...who has heard death defined as "to stop sinning suddenly." |William A. (Bill) Parrette|4000 Executive Pk. Dr., #310 |bill@[Zeus.]itdc.edu |Cincinnati, OH 45241-4007 +------------------- 513-733-4747 ---------------------- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 14:40:35 -0500 From: Arthur_PattersonA@mbnet.mb.ca (Arthur Patterson) Subject: Re: Theosophy Exploring Since I asked for the information, I thought even though I have talked about my interests to do it on the survery. So one more time! >Name or Net Handle: Arthur Paul Patterson, this is my actual name but I have used my middle name up until about six months ago. My name Arthur is the name I write under and is my net name. I have had such big changes to my life that I decided a name change was in order. >1. What brought you to Theosophy in the first place? Actually it was the need I feel to have an over arching and non-dogmatic perspective from which to stand as I attempt to forge my spiritual path. I was once called a Theosophist in a deriding way by a very conservative Christian. I didn't know what it was then but now I see they might be considerably correct. And I am beginning to see that they were complimenting me unawares. >2. What variety of Theosophy do you tend to affliate with? I have no idea. But I have been reading in Blavatsky ( and the huge bibliography of her by Sylvia Cranston) and Rudolf Steiner. >3. What geographic area do you hail from? I live two block from where I was born. And I love love living in Winnipeg Manitoba Canada despite the horrific winters. I spent four years in Vancouver and while on a physical level I found it wonderful I missed the ruggedness of our up and down weather. >4. What are your areas of interests? I love Charles Dickens and have just published a piece on Ebeneezer Scrooge in the Dicken's Quarterly. My most profound spiritual influence outside of Christianity is C.G. Jung. My wife and I counsel and teach at a small educational group in Winnipeg called Watershed. I am interested in all things Celtic. I have a step son 3 years old called Erik and my son Sean is an avid advocate of the Druid path even at 12 years old. We have great times talking interreligiously. He wants me to take the my Irish Celtic background more serious and I want him not to judge all Christians by the cover of fundamental literalism. We have great talks. > 5. What do you feel is the most helpful about participating in > the Theos -l Listserv? Even though we have gone through some quarrels I find the quality of the people on Theos-l to be excellent. I have seen compassion, passion, widom and a lot of knowledge. I actually am beginning to strike up friendships with some of these net partners, this for me is central. Secondly, it is a better resource than even private research because I get to see how Theosophy is translated into life and flesh and blood. Toward Consciousness, Arthur Paul Patterson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 15:11:31 -0500 From: ah430@lafn.org (Dara Eklund) Subject: Re: Patience Sweet William to Nicholas: >Thanks for your follow-up. I must confess that it left me somewhat >puzzled and distraught. Intellectually I can grasp and accept what >you say: > >> Briefly then, Theosophy and Buddhism both teach that the prime evil >> is selfishness or a sense of separateness. Thus our normal >> attitude to the negatives is already one of repulsion. How many on >> this net can stomach even the written (not to mention verbal or >> personal) "through a glass darkly" barks and snarls with >> equanimity, much less embrace them? But as Je Rinpoche said, >> patience is the supreme *armor*. Paradoxically, if one's attitude >> is truly accepting, even welcoming of life's horrors, that stance, >> in itself, is protective and soothing. Of course the foundation of >> this bearing must be built up lovingly, carefully and wisely. >> Which is what the words mean "*in every way familiarize yourself* >> with the armor of patience supreme". > >This morning (after a fitful night), I can verbalize my distress. >What is the middle path? For those for whom Je Rinpoche's admonition >is an unattainable goal at the moment (today, the next year??), what >is the solution? What is the middle path? "The foundation...must be >built up lovingly, carefully and wisely." As I look at the world and >as I look within I fear that what I see as the functioning middle >path for dealing with suffering is drugs, alcohol, abusive behavior, >depression. What would Je Rinpoche say to the vast unhappy masses >who as yet are unprepared to put on the "armor of patience supreme?" William, Sorry those clumsy words upset you. But fear not; Theosophy & Buddhism are ancient & reliable ways to replace suffering with firstly, forbearance, then contentment and finally Love-Wisdom or Theo-sophia. The middle path is simply starting from where you are, after saturating yourself, by steady pondering, with the goal, the stages of the path, and you true nature. The extremes to be avoided are -- giving up before starting and thinking this path is a broad & easy one. Being a bookish chap myself, I find scriptures very helpful. Consider these two by the Dalai Lama. 1) THE PATH TO ENLIGHTENMENT, Snow Lion pubs. and 2) THE WAY TO FREEDOM, HarperSanFrancisco. The latter is simple yet comprehensive. As for something helpful right now -- does it make sense to you that whatever the solution is -- it lies within each of our hearts? That is one of the bedrock premises of Theosophy. Our true nature is divine. The compassion you feel for this drugged & depressed world is an expression the your noble, true Self. There are many ways to express more fully what we are, but your discovery and opening of such doors is something I would be of little help in. So William -- there are no quick fixes, for individuals or society, but there are practical, longterm solutions available. Best, Nicholas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 15:12:14 -0500 From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Theosophy and Buddhism I have just received a letter from a reader of my book THE OCCULT WORLD OF MADAME BLAVATSKY. His questions deal more with Theosophy as a teaching than From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 15:43:35 -0500 From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: Dark night of the year, dark night of the soul We have just past the winter solstice and we are all in for a lot of dark cold nights. Of course most ar our reaction are personal. I enjoyed the message about Steiner's winter solstice festival. However it is a time of death and rebirth on many planes. The trees are shedding their limbs. Families are no doubt very different after the CHristmas dinner, I hope for the better. Any many "sacred" ideas and instituitions will die and be reborn. However, some reflections are in order about dying to an old style of liberalism that money from the government can solve everything. We are going to have to face a scaling down are restructuring of the "glorious" social prgrams that were supoosed to feed the poor people's soul and spirit. Does anybody really believe that dropping a five year old child from a project because he wouldn't steal candy is an isolated incident and we need more "midnight basketball"???? What can theosophy really offer to these very say problems, that we hear about everday? I suggest we relook very closely at KARMA. If we a reaping bad karma we shouldn't blame the conservatives and fundamentalists, but "come let us reason together on some real solutions" instead of having an us versus them battle of words. As far a political correctness goes, what does it matter if young children are dying in the street from gang warfare. My grandmother was found bludgeoned to death in her front door. She had absolutely no money or assets. They didn't even bother to steal her weddeing ring, if drug money was the motive. If it hasn't happened to you yet, it will! This is the law of karma. Compassion should be tempered with rationality, role modeling, and expectation that a person receiveing food stamps, free housing, free lunches, free medical care ad nauseum, also has a responsibility to spread compassion and not just bring their relatives over for a free handout. Do you think I would recieve free housing, free schooling., sood stamps and most of all "afffirmative action" if I were in Mexico, Japan, or Iran. If this sound a little dark, it is! I don't have the answer, but we better get with the program that Karma is a two way street. What I do to you, you do to me. Hopefully it is with love and spiritual growth as the goal.. But how many crack houses do you think have spiritual study groups?. By the way I work everyday, all day with emmigrants from Viet Nam and the Hispanic Countries and I love every minute of it. BUT THAT IS WHY I KNOW THE PROBELMS! Hapy new year to all! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 15:46:48 -0500 From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Theosophy and Buddhism My cat just knocked me off the Internet. Sorry for incomplete first message! I have just received a letter from a reader of my book THE OCCULT WORLD OF MADAME BLAVATSKY. His questions deal more with Theosophy as a teaching than with the life of HPB. But I thought I would post some of his questions as they are interesting and I will send him my replies plus any other replies I receive. I believe that the Theos-l Net Community might find the questions and any replies of some interest. (1) What is the relationship between Theosophy and Buddhism? (2) Why study Theosophy and its interpretation of Buddhism when the seeker nowadays has access to genuine Buddhist traditions and also has access to many Buddhist teachers? (3) A Buddhist lama personally told me that Theosophy does not give a valid presentation of Buddhism or of Tibetan Buddhism. He said that Madam Blavatsky even distorted some of the teachings of Tib. Buddh. Why read Blvatsky's distortions when one can encounter geniune Budd. teachings by various Buddhists teachers? (4) Isn't it true that Theosophy is more dependent on Hinduism for its teach- than on Buddhism? (5) My limited understanding of Buddh. is that the Buddha taught the doctrine of anatta "no soul" yet Theosophy talks about all kinds of souls, etc. Isn't there a definite conflict between the two systems of thought on this issue of "soul"? Mme B. talks about "Atman" in the Key but I thought it was a fundamental teachings of Buddhism (especially the Southern School) that there was no-"Atman." I'm confused. He has two more questions but they relate to HPB's personal life so I will leave those out. Daniel Daniel H. Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 18:32:31 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: theosophical novitiate? To Jerry H-E I thought I'd made clear in my first request to you why I wanted to know from you off net what you had in mind, but maybe with all this cloud of angry emotion in the ether things are not coming across too clearly. I was concerned with not starting another destructive angry conflagration. I'm still concerned about it, since I can't see that it would lead to any constructive purposes. That's why I wanted to know from you off the net what you had in mind. Before there was another whole embroglio on our network. OK? I had said that I was "done with that game". Sorry, the Hugh Sherman quote, & my history lesson at the end of it, were a slight going back on my promise. I felt that after you e-mailed your CWL biography, I needed to e-mail one representing our side. JH-E "... the controversy (concerning CWL) doesn't go away no matter how members & leaders protest against it being raised." It doesn't go away, because people other than Adyar members insist on continually beating a dead Leadbeater. If other people want to continue holding a grudge, as I said before, that's to their detriment, that's their business. Only leave us out of it. We've long since gone on from there, as anyone can see. We're prospering. We're prolific writers, & we have more members that any other TS. The latest jewel in our crown ... "The Quest"magazine. I've been in touch with Wheaton since 1963, & I never even heard of a CWL controversy, not in any book, not at any workshop, not in any AT, not at any Convention, until I accidentally came across Tillet's book in our local esoteric bookstore 2 or 3 years ago. The controversy is not in Adyar. We've forgotten about the controversy & we've gone on from there, and we're doing just fine. The controversy is outside, from people who, as I said before, don't know beans about Viraga. If they did, they'd agree with me that it's now time, after almost 100 years to let go ... to forgive, forget & move on to something more dynamic. Or to tell it in Serge King's Kahuna terms: You're always in the present. In the present you can change your memory of the past (because that's all you have, your memory as it appears to you now, in the present) to something more to your liking, or more to your well-being, or to a more mature interpretation. You can see a possible future, and again, you can make changes in the present, anticipating what changes these may cause in the future. But all action is taken now. The past & the future are perceived now. To me, hacking around on CWL is a destructive memory, & I think it would be good for all of us if we could change it, now, & now end the unfavorable Karma which accrues from it TO ALL OF US.. Following Serge's system, I've suggested that it would be better all around, not just for Adyar, GRUDGES HURT THE GRUDGEE TOO, that we change the memory to something like "It happened eons ago, the man died a long time ago, let's forgive & forget. (according to Serge & MLKing "forgiving" is not "condoning"). If that could be done, it would improve the Karma of all TS's. Amama ua noa lele wale acuala. (Amen) About taking apart Adyar's differences. I said I thought fences were being mended. Are you that angry that you're not reading what I write? You say "Life is a risk too". I've taken many a risk in my life, life threatening ones at that. I will take risks, if there's a possibility that it might lead to worthwhile ends. Is it really your opinion that discussing Adyar would be constructive? Back to Paul's conciliatory message. Serge's technique for forgiveness, which in its long form is as old as the Hawaiian Kahuna culture, includes thinking differently about the matter under contention, trying a different tack. Paul quoted the forigiving formula, but then went right back to the old histrionics. They've caught nothing but dissention for 90 years. I was trying to get us to try a different tack, & I don't think that's misplaced. It didn't work for 90 years. Let's try something different! You say you had an altercation with Paul, & you "regret not handling the situation better." Same goes for me. I thought I was trying to stop him, but each message that came back got worse & went deeper into more nastiness. Maybe I didn't communicate well, & if so, I wish you'd let me know where I could have done better. With that I bid you a fond adieu. I hope April is giving a lot of thought to what role she can play in bringing us all together into 1 ethereal Brotherhood, & I hope Loki is sleeping as soundly as Chou chou. She's perched on a soft back pillow of my couch, one of her favorite snoring spots. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 20:47:10 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: add-1 theos. novitiate? Dear Jerry, _NB_ I have some very unflatterring opinions of ULT and also of Point Loma. I wouldn't dream of airing them, because I consider it deleterious. I think it's much more conducive to rapprochement, to find points of agreement. Yours most sincerely Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 22:29:32 -0500 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"@vnet.net Subject: CWL, confict and relationships Coming into work today, I found nearly 40 postings to catch up with on the list, when I'd only been away a few days! First, with regard to CW Leadbeater, more than one person has said in essence "Why don't we leave this all behind us where it belongs?" I don't believe we can put it all behind us yet because there's too much unfinished business here. There's too much conflict or sense of conflict that still has to be worked out. Sure, let's get on with the other aspects of our work but, if we don't deal with this, it will continue to be destructive, especially when newcomers to the TS encounter the controversial material on CWL and want to know what really happened. If TS members can't handle these questions comfortably and from a position of strength, it will be a negative for the newcomers. The best way to handle this situation is to be prepared, by having looked at the issues for and against, and worked out our attitudes and responses beforehand. This means being informed, for a start. Like many others, I used to read a lot of CWL in my first few years of belonging to the TS. and have a lot of admiration for him and his work. I now read other writers, but not because I heard any bad press about him. Without prejudice to CWL, we need to keep in mind that "falls", as they are sometimes called, are an ever-present hazard along the spiritual way. And what are we told to do if we fall? It is to get up, dust ourselves off, and carry on. Even if it happens 10,000 times. It's the determination to continue that counts, they say. And if we see somebody else fall, what are we supposed to do? Is it not to help them to get up and be ever-mindful of the best within them? Is that not a way we can express love, and help them along? We can do these things across the bridge of time to those who went before us, as part of our attitude towards them. It may be hard to forgive each other in conflicts on a discussion list but it's often harder to forgive our leaders! This is something I've observed over the years in the TS and beyond, towards leaders of all sorts. It is not beyond us to hold the greatest respect and love for somebody and be aware at the same time of their failings. In any case, we weren't there, so our knowledge is necessarily second hand and very partial. The joys of maya (appearance or illusion, if you're wondering). Incidentally, regarding the idea that CWL gave rise to other seers who saw similar things (I'm paraphrasing here), Geoffrey Hodson who in one of his 1920s books expressed a very high regard for Charles Leadbeater, didn't always see the same things as Leadbeater, when applying his own clairvoyance to the Occult Chemistry field. Some things he did see the same, like the oxygen spiral, but it was very apparent that he was making his own observations and taking his own path into the territory, often seeing very different aspects of the field. Another little offering from GH is that, when the question arose of Krishnamurti's declining to be vehicle of the World Teacher as proposed by CWL and Annie Besant, Hodson just said to me "It was heartbreaking for all concerned." Now, regarding the way people have interacted on this discussion list regarding the CWL question, there have been a lot of good and helpful ideas, but I especially liked this part of JRC's post of 26 December 94:- > We, Theosophists, at our highest and most brilliant point of > development, could become one of those very few groups that > discover and articulate those patterns...and at this point in > humanity's history no organization could hand to humanity any > greater gift. When I think of this possibility, I begin to > understand what HPB poured her whole life into...begin to > understand why the Masters put such a relatively large amount of > their very rare and scarce energy into the TS. I certainly do > not claim to know what such a thing as true Universal Brotherhood > looks like, but I have, after a decade of meditation on that one > concept, concluded that its manifestation lies in patterns of > relationship...thousands of groups and philosophies have a notion > of the *idea*, and there are countless books written full of > wonderful sentiments about "loving" one another, treating one > another with respect and dignity & etc. Literally hundreds of > millions of people mouth pithy little aphorisms...but the whole > thing falls apart at the level of interpersonal relationships. > To discover how to have those wonderful ideas penetrate that > layer of human living where a few people engage one another on a > topic about which there is great disagreement...is (IMO) to most > fully engage the task embedded in the First Object...and it takes > the full courage of the first ray, the enormity of the > understanding of the second ray, and the clarity of intellect of > the third ray to even undertake such a project. To my mind, relationships are indeed the stuff of the body of humanity that the Masters care so passionately about. Humanity seems to me a bit like the brain of a new-born child (using the current ideas of neurophysiology) with all the nerve cells there, but not many interconnections, or not many strong ones, between them. So let's hang in there, and work through this "stuff"! Grow those connections!! Murray Stentiford murray@sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 22:28:11 -0500 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"@vnet.net Subject: More thoughts on Authority Arthur Patterson writes: > I would really appreciate your response to the ideas of Authority > as Binding in the areas of Personal Experience, Revelation, > Tradition, and Culture. If anyone could apply this model to the > CWL issues I would be grateful, it would illuminate both the > theory and the practicality of the model. ..... > > In my life I find that authority tends to come in four forms: > Revelation (the Scriptures or Priordial writings), Tradition (the > Enlightment of Interpreto rs), Experience (direct personal) and > Cultural (society's questions and issues). For some unauthoritative thoughts on this issue, how about the following? I'll be rather curt in my writing style to save time. Authority needs to be recognized or "received", as well as "transmitted". There is an element of assent in this recognition whether conscious or unconscious. This involves choice, ie there is an aspect of will. For the Revelation, Tradition and Cultural forms, recognition depends on an insight in the receiver, corresponding in some way to the insight(s) of the transmitter. Without this, it is blind belief or acceptance. The relative emphasis amongst the four types is again a matter of choice, whether it is made consciously or unconsciously, so it too involves a will aspect. Sometimes, the choice is to take the path of least resistance and just go along with the belief systems of the people around us. This is closely related to the concept of Power in groups. With the authority issue, the relevant group often extends far back in time. There's an analysis of the different types of power in groups which I don't remember fully at the moment, but these types include power based on knowledge, and power based on line authority (as in management or the army). Again, power often has to accepted, to be effective. In other words, we have a significant role to play in any Binding associated with authority, as receivers, in addition to the role of the transmitter. This transmitting/receiving concept is part of nature's economics of energy, related to polarity throughout the whole manifestated universe, since the receiver is often a transmitter, in turn. I feel that all four types of authority have their place and importance. What we have to do, is choose carefully which ones we give our assent to, and how we do that. We need to weigh everything carefully against our best insights, and suspend judgement wisely on what we can't verify. Not always an easy job for us humans! There's a heirarchy of depth of insight that comes in here, too. Some of us, at certain times, see or know deeper and better than others. So some revelations and traditions etc are worth more than others. It's really tricky ground to sort out the relative values. Without getting into details, this all applies to the CWL issues. Murray Stentiford From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 00:09:42 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: TO: Murray & Art Murray, Thank you for your 2 posts. They are a pleasure to read as always. You always have something interesting to add that makes a lot of sense. I like your explanation to Art re authority. It's solid & elucidating. As to your "CWL, conflict, & relationships" I'm with you all the way. I could say more to try to prove to you that CWL was innocent, but I think the standpoint you take is satisfactory. Thanks for your input. Art If you like Celtic things, I have a set of tapes of Yves Marcel, MD, Theosophist, Breton, Frenchman. The Bretons are Celts. When I first heard him speak, I thought he had an Irish brogue. He talks about Druids, Breton lore, Irish lore etc. Did you know that your wisdom resides in your pinkie? If you'd like to borrow my set, please let me know. If you want to buy a set, I think you have the address of The Krotona Institute in Ojai Ca. That's where he gave the lectures. He's delightful. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 01:07:18 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: PS TO: Murray & Art I think I better say what I meant with "I know", or there'll be another whole altercation. It's not new ; I said this before, a few days ago, and it doesn't depend on any witnesses.. My statement was dug in with other material. Leadbeater was a very powerful healer. If he'd had any aberration to start with, he could have healed himself of it, or if he couldn't have been able to do it alone, he could have instructed one of his older pupils to help him, if the pupil didn't already know how to do it. There was no reason for CWL to have any kind of aberration. I think that communication is loud & clear. Isn't it? Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 03:43:19 -0500 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: discussions LD> I thought I'd made clear in my first request to you why I wanted to know from you off net what you had in mind, but maybe with all this cloud of angry emotion in the ether things are not coming across too clearly. I was concerned with not starting another destructive angry conflagration. I'm still concerned about it, since I can't see that it would lead to any constructive purposes. That's why I wanted to know from you off the net what you had in mind. Before there was another whole embroglio on our network. OK? I had nothing in mind, and if I was not confused, I would not have asked for a clarification. I only expressed the opinion that the CWL scandal hides deeper issues. I never had any intention to explicate this any further on theos-l because I've been waiting for about a year for someone else to bring it up. So far no one has. I made allusions to what I have in mind several times over the past year, and no one has picked up on it. That suggests to me that I would be wasting time to go into it. However, these "deeper issues" that I have in mind are likely to come out if there was an extended discussion (not "angry conflagration"). If this comes out during such a discussion, I think it would be a positive major step towards the resolution of the whole thing. It is not the information that is so important, but the process. I'm sorry if this sounds mysterious, but I don't think it would be constructive to go into it on or off the net at this time. However, to rest your mind a little, if you are thinking that I'm alluding to more scandals or other deep dark secrets--I'm not. It has nothing to do with that. LD> I had said that I was "done with that game". Sorry, the Hugh Sherman quote, & my history lesson at the end of it, were a slight going back on my promise. I felt that after you e-mailed your CWL biography, I needed to e-mail one representing our side. Excuse me while I feel a little put down. My post to Art was just to give him some background so that he could better follow the discussion, not to promote one side or another. I tried to word that post very carefully so that it was factual (i.e. supportable by documents), fair and brief. If your post was sent to be an expression of your understanding and belief on the issue, then that is fine. But if your post is intended to "correct" any "errors" that I had written, then I will be obliged to answer your post. Please clarify. LD> JH-E "... the controversy (concerning CWL) doesn't go away no matter how members & leaders protest against it being raised." It doesn't go away, because people other than Adyar members insist on continually beating a dead Leadbeater. If other people want to continue holding a grudge, as I said before, that's to their detriment, that's their business. Only leave us out of it. We've long since gone on from there, as anyone can see. We're prospering. We're prolific writers, & we have more members that any other TS. The latest jewel in our crown ... "The Quest"magazine. I've been in touch with Wheaton since 1963, & I never even heard of a CWL controversy, not in any book, not at any workshop, not in any AT, not at any Convention, until I accidentally came across Tillet's book in our local esoteric bookstore 2 or 3 years ago. The controversy is not in Adyar. We've forgotten about the controversy & we've gone on from there, and we're doing just fine. The controversy is outside, from people who, as I said before, don't know beans about Viraga. If they did, they'd agree with me that it's now time, after almost 100 years to let go ... to forgive, forget & move on to something more dynamic. I'm afraid that you have been grievously mis-informed. But before I explain why, let me first present my credentials in order to establish my credibility in what I have to say: I also have been a member of the Wheaton T.S. since July 1963, and presently I'm a life member. I have Henry Smith's signature on my certificate. I knew Henry Smith, and Jim Perkins. I also know many of the same people you do. Dora Kunz worked with us and was very supportive of our efforts in creating the networking movement. I know the Abdill's and the Sellons. I remember Fritz Kunz and attended his Theosophy and Science workshop that he took around the country in the sixties. I know John Algeo from the time that he was new in the Theosophical Society, and I personally know every major player in the Wheaton hierarchy, including Willamay Pym and Joy Mills. On the other side of the hierarchy, I also knew very well the Laytons, Ann Green, and even Anita Wild. I also know Serge King and used to invite him to give public lectures at the Los Angeles Lodge once or twice a year. I have held several offices in Los Angeles Lodge, including President; I was active at Far Horizons Camp for twenty years, and had been President of the Southern California Federation for several years and edited a newsletter for them, and spent thirty years doing the obligatory public lectures on Theosophy for Los Angeles Lodge and the other Lodges in the Los Angeles area, Northern California, Krotona, and occasionally in other states, including a conference in New York that you attended. I have been an associate of ULT for over ten years, and have contributed to this organization, doing lectures, classes and helping with outings. My daughter attended Theosophy School there, and April also taught Theosophy School. I still maintain contact with them. I know the major people in this organization also, but the names probably won't mean much to you. I am a member of the Theosophical Society (Point Loma tradition) for less than ten years. I have contributed to their magazine (Sunrise) and lectured for them. I also know well those members. I participated in organizing the inter-theosophical conference hosted by the Point Loma (Pasadena) T.S. in 1991, the Independent inter-theosophical conference in 1988 (Culver city), the inter-theosophical conference in New York city (1986), the inter-theosophical student's conference in Toronto Canada (1986). My wife and I organized the first inter-theosophical networking conference in 1984, held at Krotona. This started a world wide networking movement, that still persists--is openly supported by the Pasadena (Point Loma) T.S., though no official statements of support have ever been made by the Wheaton Society. I was also one of the original organizing members of the Board that started Rick Nurrie's Networking Newspaper. Over the last 30 years we have spent many thousands of dollars from our personal funds, and many thousands of hours for the promotion of theosophy. We produced a professional video with a 140 page video guide introducing theosophy, that is sold in the Quest bookshop in Wheaton as well as sold through the Pasadena (Point Loma) Theosophical Society. The video cost many thousands of dollars to produce. Also over most of those thirty years, I have not only actively studied theosophy as presented by the Wheaton society, but theosophy as presented through ULT and Pasadena. There is a difference. I am familiar with the differences in the traditions both in terms of the teachings as well as the history. Have I convinced you that I might know what I am talking about, if I speak of the Adyar Society or of the others? Has my track record convinced you of my commitment to networking? If not, what more do you need? Now to answer your arguments: LD> It doesn't go away, because people other than Adyar members insist on continually beating a dead Leadbeater. Who are these people? It is true that the Pasadena Society once published anti Leadbeater material, but not a single word has been published against him since 1930. I'm willing to bet on that. I know the Leader and the workers in the Pasadena Society personally, and believe me, they have other things to think about than Leadbeater. As for ULT, I know of nothing that has been published that is negative about CWL since 1950. Can you find anything? So that is over forty years in once case, and over sixty years in the other. Don't you think it is about time to stop being angry at them for something that they did forty and sixty years ago and no longer do? On the other hand, I know of many individuals who speak against CWL. They are not speaking for this or that organization, but only express their own beliefs, just as you do--only theirs are different. But you can't fault the Organizations for having members who think for themselves. Some of these people who speak against CWL are independents (hold no membership in any theosophical organization), some are ULT, some are Pasadena, and some are Adyar members. Personally, I know more individuals in the Adyar Society who speak out against CWL, then in all the others put together. LD> If other people want to continue holding a grudge, as I said before, that's to their detriment, that's their business. Only leave us out of it. We've long since gone on from there, as anyone can see. We're prospering. We're prolific writers, & we have more members that any other TS. The latest jewel in our crown ... "The Quest"magazine. Who is holding a grudge here, in light of the above? Yes, I see that we are busy publishing magazines and "prospering", but if we have really "gone on," then why do the old controversies keep coming back to haunt us? LD> I've been in touch with Wheaton since 1963, & I never even heard of a CWL controversy, not in any book, not at any workshop, not in any AT, not at any Convention, until I accidentally came across Tillet's book in our local esoteric bookstore 2 or 3 years ago. The controversy is not in Adyar. I learned about the CWL controversy the first year I joined. I was told about it by Adyar members who had many years in the TS. One of those individuals was Stephan Hoeller. It is as you say--you don't hear about it in the AT or at Convention. Do you know of any organization that likes to talk about their controversies? Does the Roman Catholic Church like to talk about the inquisition? Do the fundamentalists like to talk about Jimmey Baker? Lets have some perspective on this. Please. LD> I accidentally came across Tillet's book in our local esoteric bookstore 2 or 3 years ago. The controversy is not in Adyar. Yes, Tillett's book was published by Routledge Kegan Paul, a major commercial publisher with no theosophical connections whatsoever. Tillet is an independent--no ties to any Theosophical Organization that I know of. Even if he was, it is clear that he wasn't acting in any official capacity. Tillet researched this book for a doctoral dissertation at Macquarie University. In the course of his research, he gained access to every relevant document. He even had complete access to the Adyar archives through John Coates who was International President at the time. His research includes not only documents but many oral histories. His documentation meets the highest academic standards, and he was awarded a Ph.D. for his research. Show me one single statement in that book that is not supported by the documentation. I can't. I know of no one who has yet done so. Can you? His committee was satisfied that he did his research and handled it in a balanced way, and awarded him a Ph.D. for it. The book is not at all controversial outside of the Adyar Society. It is accepted as good research. So, if the "controversy is not in Adyar," then where is it? LD> We've forgotten about the controversy & we've gone on from there, and we're doing just fine. The controversy is outside, from people who, as I said before, don't know beans about Viraga. If they did, they'd agree with me that it's now time, after almost 100 years to let go ... to forgive, forget & move on to something more dynamic. If we've forgotten about it, then why does it keep coming up? I understand what you are saying--that you knew nothing about the controversy until the Tillett book appeared. Personally, I find it incredible that you were a member of the Adyar Society for over twenty years without hearing about the Leadbeater controversy. Especially since you were "in touch" since 1963. The Leadbeater case and the Judge case were both very germane issues in concerning the controversy surrounding Henry Smith. You might recall, he was forced to step down from the Presidency. I can understand the CWL controversy being mentioned and you ignoring it. But it not being mentioned at all.... I realize that most members are not historically minded, and have no interest in these things. But even non historically minded members usually become aware that the TS has controversies sooner or later. Do you really believe that Tillett, after all of those years of research and interviews, knows *nothing* about the subject that he wrote his book on? LD> About taking apart Adyar's differences. I said I thought fences were being mended. Are you that angry that you're not reading what I write? No. I don't feel angry at all, nor was I angry in my last communication. But I don't follow you here either. What you feel that I mis-read? Please clarify. LD> You say "Life is a risk too". I've taken many a risk in my life, life threatening ones at that. I will take risks, if there's a possibility that it might lead to worthwhile ends. Is it really your opinion that discussing Adyar would be constructive? If done in a spirit of coming to an understanding, and not out of the motivation to prove you are right and everyone else wrong. LD> Back to Paul's conciliatory message. Serge's technique for forgiveness, which in its long form is as old as the Hawaiian Kahuna culture, includes thinking differently about the matter under contention, trying a different tack. Paul quoted the forgiving formula, but then went right back to the old histrionics. They've caught nothing but dissention for 90 years. I was trying to get us to try a different tack, & I don't think that's misplaced. It didn't work for 90 years. Let's try something different! Communication starts with accepting people from where they are at. LD> You say you had an altercation with Paul, & you "regret not handling the situation better." Same goes for me. I thought I was trying to stop him, but each message that came back got worse & went deeper into more nastiness. Maybe I didn't communicate well, & if so, I wish you'd let me know where I could have done better. Yes the discussion escalated into an argument. That was my experience too. However, I know that I could have stopped the escalation. You could have also. That is where we erred. I was trying to get a point across, and Paul wasn't hearing it (or at least didn't acknowledge hearing it) so I got more aggressive. I believe you were doing the same thing. What we forgot is that sometimes a whisper is better heard than a shout. That is the cost of being off center. LD> With that I bid you a fond adieu. I hope April is giving a lot of thought to what role she can play in bringing us all together into 1 ethereal Brotherhood, & I hope Loki is sleeping as soundly as Chou chou. She's perched on a soft back pillow of my couch, one of her favorite snoring spots. April is thinking about it, but is trying to meet deadlines too. I'll let you know. Thank you for the John Crocker post. I did see it after all, but I didn't connect the "JRC" signature with John Crocker. Yes I was very impressed with the message too. I hope to hear more from him. Now that we have gone through the sensitive part of our discussion, I'll follow your suggestion and share something pleasant about Loki. Loki is an orange tabby born about Sept. 21, we reckon. That means that he is now about 12 weeks old. April found him abandoned in a box in a vacant lot while taking a morning walk. The kitty was about five days old, filthy dirty, and his sibling was already dead. That was about seven in the morning. I was asleep when April brought him in the house, and the crying of the kitten woke me up, so I came into the kitchen and found April giving the kitty sugar water with an eyedropper. Since I'm home more than April, it became my job to bottle feed him every four hours, and massage his rear. Kittys can't go poddy by themselves when they are that young. The mother massages them there with her tongue. I used a soft cloth. Over the next two weeks, I gave him a bath, and put antibiotics down his throat because he was on the edge of pneumonia. Also his eyes were infected and he was infested with ear mites. Needless to say. We have developed a relationship and he regards me as his mother and loves to nuzzle under my beard looking for a teat. Next time, I tell you how Loki got his name. Best Jerry From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 12:10:41 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: W.Parrette & Proj.Outreach TO; BILL PARRETTE I'm sending you a whole bunch of happy, prosperous thought forms, to help you with your job search. Liesel RE; DICK SLUSSER'S PROJECT OUTREACH Dick, who edits the "High Country Theosophist", initiated Project Outreach several years ago. It's a _non-denominational_ Theosophical project to be in contact & support a Third World Theosophical Study Center. The support consists of TS advice & sending books, so they can make up their own minds about things that interest them. Dick has a list of groups waiting. If anyone wants to participate, he can be contacted at High Country Theosophist 140 S. 33 St. Boulder, Colo. 80303 As a coda to this, the "HIgh Country Theosophist" is also worthwhile subscribing to. It costs $7.50 a year. Dick also has a list of gratis 3rd world subscribers. My own part in Project Outreach began a little over 2 years ago. I'm in touch with a Center in Africa, & with 1 in Russia. The Africans have been a Center for some 12 years now. I'm doing ok with them, because Wheaton has been donating some of their overstocked books, which are usually earmarked to go to people behind bars who request them. All I'm paying for Africa is the postage, which runs to $10.- & per month (I have been sending packages to both groups monthly). As an extra, I've just renewed the subscription to "Quest" for both groups. They all enjoy "The Quest", & asked for a renewed subscription. I could use some help with the Russian group, or rather books especially for its President, a young family man with a little girl. From what Dick published in 1 "High Country T" & which doesn't come from my source at all, is that any Theosophists under Communism, went to their President's house 1 by 1 and what was taught was learned by heart. Some of them landed up in prison & etc. I don't know how my contact managed. Over time, I found out that he, was a Jungian psychologist, who was doing group therapy. I have no idea as to how he learned about Jung at all, nor how he used him in his practice. Jung was Verboten under the Communists. Jungian purpose is to develop self actualizing individuals, people who are mature enough to think & act for themselves etc., something contrary to what Communism demanded of its comrades. Before my contact dared tell me this, he had asked me & I had sent him a whole set of Assagioli's writings, (who was an Italian TS member, a pupil of Freud, invented psycho-synthesis rather than analysis), a book on mandala drawing, & one on music therapy, among others. After he told me, I've been concentrating on the works of Jung. With his last letter, he sent me a new wish list. I'm putting all this on theos-l because I'll go broke if I don't get some help with the Russians, or rather, I'm going to have to stop. I'm a retiree, & I just don't have $40.- , $50.- per month to spend on even a very worthwhile project. I think it's very worthwhile. He's teaching his patients to become thinking, independent human beings, who can use their brain power & their guts to make their country go in a democratic direction., in whatever field their activities lie. He's teaching a number of Russians to become more democratic and less automatonic. I can afford the postage, which comes to $10.- +. I'm hoping that some of you will send me either some books (they can be well preserved used) from his wish list, or some money so I can buy them gradually, & send them gradually. Here is what he asked me for in his last letter: These are books not yet available in Russia. His English is good enough to understand the books. (The Theosophical classics are available in Russian, so there's no need to mail those.) Jung, "Collected Works" V. 9 ( I & II), V. 12,13,14 Edward C. Whitmont "The Symbolic Quest" Carol S. Pearson "Awakening The Hero Within" Charles Breaux "Journey into Consciousness" Edward F. Edinger "Anatomy of The Psyche" Deldon Anne McNeely "Touching: Body Therapy & Depth" Psychology" Christine Downing (ed) "Mirrors of the Self" Robert A. Johnson "Inner Work" Stephan Kaplan-Willis "Dreamworking" Dora Kalff "Sandplay" It's a versatile list, showing that he's trying to tackle his problem people from lots of different directions, which I think shows initiative & imagination on his part. None of these books are familiar to me. Someone familiar with psycho-therapy might find that some of the titles are dated, & that something more up-to-date & improved upon is available. I'd also mail reasonable facsimiles by other authors, if someone would like to donate them. I think the knowledge is more important than the author. Hoping to get some help from some of you. I'll acknowledge donations. If you send money, I'll let you know back what it was spent on. Liesel My address is Liesel F. Deutsch Box 275 Syracuse NY 13205 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 12:55:16 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Not Repeating the Past New Year inspires thoughts of the future and the past, and at the moment I focus these thoughts on the world of Theosophists. There are two statements that I think are both perfectly true, but which have usually in the past been regarded as mutually exclusive. 1) Our history is filled with inspiring examples of dedicated, unselfish individuals devoting their lives to the spiritual liberation and enlightenment of humanity; we would do well to follow their example. 2. Our history is filled with appalling examples of the same vices that are found in any religious movement: authoritarianism, credulity, dogmatism, hatred...; therefore we should be mindful of these and strive to avoid their pitfalls. Recent events have evoked a memory from 1978. I had joined the TS (Adyar) through the mail after reading many books but meeting no members. That summer I drove to Lake Geneva to the annual summer school. It was a real hum-dinger. There was a lady who looked like HPB and claimed to be her reincarnation; she and a coterie of friends were having revelations about who was the Countess, etc. in the present. There was a couple from Connecticut receiving mail from the Space Brothers who apparently wanted to supplant the Masters in the esteem of Theosophists. There was a bunch of hippies from Texas disrupting meetings with shouts and general weirdness; they knew that the Masters were right there in Lake Geneva and would initiate people if only the Theosophists recognized their chosen messengers, the hippies. Although I met many fine people, the atmosphere was so bizarre that I left early, telling the registrar that I would withdraw from the TS as I dreaded getting drawn into the group karma, which appeared to be quite strange. Well, that resolution faded as soon as I realized there just wasn't any other subject that interested me as much as Theosophy, no matter how contentious and chaotic its religious culture. First joining the ULT, then the Pasadena TS, and finally rejoining Adyar (all in a few years) I discovered that first impressions were not always reliable. Most Theosophists are neither UFO contactees, self-proclaimed reincarnations of celebrities, or alleged special agents of the Masters. Many of them have become my good friends. Still, 16 years later I wonder about there being a group karma that outweighs our good intentions as individuals at times. How can Theosophists embody the virtues of their leaders while avoiding the repetition of mistakes from the past? The simplest, pat answer is by knowing about history, and this indeed would help. But something more is required, since even those of us who know about history can seem doomed to repeat it. One clue may be found in the natal chart of the TS drawn for the November 17 date. Uranus in Leo in the second house is opposed by Mars and Saturn, conjunct in Aquarius in the eighth. This indicates a complex that seems to keep inspiring problems. The Uranus position suggests a group in which individual freedom is paramount; one's personal values are held to be the ultimate arbiter. This means that every new Theosophist has in some sense the invitation to "re-vision" the whole and come up with a unique reinterpretation. But on the other hand, in the eighth house of collective values and unconscious controls, there is an unfortunate conjunction of Mars and Saturn in Aquarius. Mars/Saturn conjoined and opposing Uranus indicates that unconscious collective forces will try to stifle or attack every new initiative that appears. Mars/Saturn makes for frustration in which the urge to action is continually challenged by fear of failure and security in the status quo. The three planets in such difficult aspect suggest that there will be constant struggle between progressive individualism and unconscious group fears and conflicts. Repeated crises erupt when these planets are stimulated by transits or progression. There's a lot more to be seen in the TS natal chart than that, but as a starting point it seems worthwhile to ask ourselves how to step outside the circle of repetition. What is our group karma, positive and negative? How might becoming more conscious of this help make the movement more united and effective? What can I do in 1995 toward this goal? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 15:11:13 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: TV/Buddha Last night there was a marvellous documentary on PBS entitled Legendary Journeys: in the Footsteps of Buddha. The Australian filmmakers starts in Nepal and visits the major pilgrimage points for Buddhists there and in India-- Varanasi, Patna, Sarnath, Bodh Gaya. This should be repeated during the next few days. Check local listings. The Bodh Gaya part was especially interesting to me because of the Theosophical role in making it what it now is, a world center for Buddhist pilgrimage. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 17:05:10 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: RE: discussions Dear Jerry, I don't think we're going to solve anything by getting into another confrontation, you & me. They haven't worked for 90 years, nor was anything accomplished by the late (may it rest in peace) confrontation between Paul & myself. I'm looking - have been looking - for a different way to come to an agreement. It's necessary to take a different tack, not slug it out. I remember that much about the workings of conflict resolution, or maybe Serge refreshed my memory at the workshop last year. (He's improved his delivery over the years, don't you think?) During these last procedings I've been throwing out a few lines re trying out different ways, but, so far, no takers. Maybe my suggestions aren't acceptable to the others. Maybe someone else can come up with a better rational, sensible way to go, that all of us can agree to ... Maybe John Crocker, or Murray, or Art, who, I think might be doing this kind of thing in his everyday work, or Eldon, or April, or you. .. someone on this net must have some feasible ideas about how to settle this amicably without scratching each other's eyes out. You say "communication starts with accepting people from where they're at". Well, that's where I'm at. I'm looking for another way, besides each hacking at the other, to come to a mutually acceptable agreement about these matters. & that's where I'm at; that's where I'll communicate from. Not from another confrontation which only wastes time & energy. I have neither to spare for more lessons in futility. I don't think you do either. "Let's not, & say we did." Shall we? I guess for our lighter side, we've chosen cats. One of my favorite subjects. After the touching way you nursed Loki as a very tiny kitten, you must love her very much. They're such cute, soft little fuzz balls. Aren't they fun to watch when they frolick, run as fast as they can, turn summer saults, chase little bugs, or get all tangled up in a ball of wool? They're a trip + 1/2. On the other side, it seems that Californians are no less charitable in disposing of their unwanted kittens than are New Yorkers. One of my son, Dave's, clients found Chouchou in a ditch mid July a year ago. She was about 6 weeks old, pure white, with pink ears & nose, and a white & orange striped tail. She had 2 infections around her throat choking her. One was full of maggots. The people who found her didn't want her, but left her with Dave who's a vet, & nursed her back to health. Besides sometimes caring for stray cats & dogs, (they must have a good 30 of them running around the grounds of their back country farm house/clinic), they also try to heal wildlife that people bring in. I remember 1 owl with a healed a broken wing. Upon being set free she came flying back for some meat every evening at 6 to the same upstairs window. She was beautiful. To see an owl that close by! Anyway, I'd just gotten over grieving for my 1st cat, Mysty, & we decided on frisky Chouchou as a replacement. I got her at about 12 weeks. At first she was a real hellion. I guess she was happy to be freed from her kennel. She banged around on the beads of my room divider all night, threw over my Christmas tree, & bit whenever you tried to touch her. I was on the verge, several times, of telling Dave to take her back. 1 1/2 years later now she's all pleasure. She lets you pick her up for a few minutes when you tell her "Come here, I want to give you a hug". She's very obedient for a cat, and not because I hit her. I don't believe in that. She lets you know when she doesn't like something (I think she should), but she doesn't bite anymore. Her favorite toy is a spit ball, a wrinkled up slip of scrap paper or cough drop wrapper. She can dribble that as good as any soccer or hockey player. Also stop the spit ball with her paw, when it comes her way. She also enjoys chasing the reflection the sun makes on my warch, when I throw it against the wall or carpet. She knows that it somehow comes from the watch, (she sniffs at it) . & that we're playing a game. She usually sleeps a few feet away from where I happen to be, but she also accepts that I leave her at times. Before I go, she gets the blessing Serge taught us to give, to keep people & things safe in our absence. She loves to watch TV, and she thinks the apartment belongs to her. I keep on telling her, "yes, as long as I pay the rent." but I don't think she quite believes me. I wouldn't trade her for anything. Bet you wouldn't trade yours either. Shanti Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 18:17:44 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: to:Paul - not rep. the past Your questions at the end are well put. Do you have any feasible answers? Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 00:03:32 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Buddism vs Theosophy Daniel posts 5 good questions. I couldn't help jotting down my own answers: (1) What is the relationship between Theosophy and Buddhism? Actually, rather little, except that both HPB and HSO took vows and became Buddhists. HPB suggests that she was taught esoteric Buddhism in Tibet. But the language of Tibetan Buddhism was difficult at that time, and she had to translate as best she could. However, HPB was probably the very first person to teach the Mahayana doctrine to the West. Until her works, nost folks in the West knew only Hinayana. Probably the best discussion of this can be found by G de Purucker, in his Dialogues. (2) Why study Theosophy and its interpretation of Buddhism when the seeker nowadays has access to genuine Buddhist traditions and also has access to many Buddhist teachers? A very good question. If you want real Buddhism, I would suggest Snow Lion Publications or Dharma Books rather than TS material, which is at best confusing for folks today. H.H. the Dali Lama has some excellent books in print, if anyone wants the real true basics of Tibetan Buddhism. However, theosophists do not really want authentic Buddhism for the simple reason that few are Buddhists, nor do most want to become Buddhists (I fall into this category myself, though I love to read Buddhist texts and have great respect for the Mahayana). There is, however, a strong parallel between esoteric (i.e., what you find in the "higher" teachings, such as those found in Alexandra David-Neel's 'Secret Oral Teachings in Tibetan Buddhist Sects', one of my personal favorites) of the Mahayana and theosophy. Also, theosophy follows the path of the Bodhisattva (probably the chief difference between the two Buddhist factions); thus most theosophists disagree with the Hinayana (Theravadin) teachings. (3) A Buddhist lama personally told me that Theosophy does not give a valid presentation of Buddhism or of Tibetan Buddhism. He said that Madam Blavatsky even distorted some of the teachings of Tib. Buddh. Why read Blvatsky's distortions when one can encounter geniune Budd. teachings by various Buddhists teachers? Good questions. The lama is correct. The reasons are as I have stated in no. 2. One distortion, for example, is HPB's disapproval of sexual magic. If you read much Tibetan Buddhism, you will come across the term "action seal" or karmamudra (H.H. the Dali Lama, in accord with 'real' Tibetan Buddhism approves of this, though I doubt that he has ever practiced it). To put it bluntly, this is a person of the opposite sex who is to become your sex partner in the traditional yum-yab position - objective: development of bliss. While I personally approve of this in theory, I have never practiced it. I regard it as being a little too dangerous (the name itself suggests this - 'karma-mudra.' I suppose that this is also why HPB gave it so many bad raps. Her definition of nirmanakaya is also different (I personally prefer hers). (4) Isn't it true that Theosophy is more dependent on Hinduism for its teach- than on Buddhism? I don't think so. As I said, HPB and Olcott both prefered Buddhism to Hinduism. Theosophy attempts to combine all religions in what it perceives to be the fundamental truth behind each of them. (5) My limited understanding of Buddh. is that the Buddha taught the doctrine of anatta "no soul" yet Theosophy talks about all kinds of souls, etc. Isn't there a definite conflict between the two systems of thought on this issue of "soul"? Mme B. talks about "Atman" in the Key but I thought it was a fundamental teachings of Buddhism (especially the Southern School) that there was no-"Atman." I'm confused. Here is another very good question. If you can get some of the past dialogues from this theos-l, you will find where Eldon Tucker answers this question very well. There are two modes of viewing the world: as monads or as streams. Theosophy takes the monad approach while Buddhism takes the stream approach. I also prefer the stream approach. I think that the monad theory is misleading as often stated (i.e., exoterically) because actually all monads but the divine grow and evolve, and thus change over time, and thus are really streams. Many theosophist have the idea that even the divine monad evolves. Since it is outside of spacetime (evolution is a progress of some kind over time) I prefer to think of our union with it as a return home having completed a large circle. The monad doctrine lead early theosophist into the idea of group souls; a term which implies a lack of individuality but rather a collective individuality rather like insects. G de P suggests that animals have group souls while humans do not (I think ?). I personally think that all living beings have one group soul, humans included, but that we somehow retain individuality in it - the oneness and lack of any sense of personal self experienced by all the world's mystics, for example. Anyway, the idea that animals have no personality can be challenged by anyone who has lived with a pet. All living beings have an individual personality, but this changes over time and so is really a stream and thus has no suchness or think-in-itself-ness to it at all. So theosophists and Buddhists are both right, but approach the idea from different angles. Hope this helps. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 12:15:56 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: CWL FAQ for archives Hi - due to: 1) CWL stuff always surfacing here (every few months) 2) the current activity has somewhat subsided (all sides must have made their main points by now ?). I have considered that it might be a good idea to copy the last month's activity on CWL and place it in a CWL FAQ (Frequently asked questions) in the archives. Hence, when the issue comes up again, we can refer the individual to the FAQ and suggest that if they have further questions they can *then* ask the question in Theos-Roots (preferably?) or Theos-L or even send e-mail directly to an individual (a co-author of the CWL FAQ e.g.). I think it may keep the rehashing of old stuff down some on the list. remember (to keep this document fair) the CWL FAQ can be changed as either party (side?) discovers a need to clarify and add to their position/points etc. before archiving a CWL FAQ we can announce the document available for review a week or two before the update occurs so all can have a chance to review it. (If the document is a problem... well, -- we can open up a discussion on it in Theos-Roots (?), and save THOSE comments). comments ? peace - john mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 12:17:07 -0500 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Psychic Powers and "The Mind's Eye" Psychic Powers and "The Mind's Eye" -- by Eldon Tucker ---- We are told, as beginners on the Path, to shut down the psychic and instead develop "the mind's eye." What does this mean? How do we practice this in our lives? First we need to define the term "psychic." Like many terms, it can mean different things to different people. "Psychic" refers to extensions of the physical senses, to extra-sensory perception, to seeing and interacting with physical things from afar, or with things in the astral light or other planes of existence. In terms of our seven principles or basic ingredients of consciousness, it refers to an extension of the sixth principle, of the astral or Linga-Sharira. It does not refer to the power to make things happen (Prana), to fashion things (Kama), to understand (Manas), to relate to (Buddhi), or to exist (Atma). This basic ingredient of consciousness, that of sense perception, is essential to participating in the activities of life on any plane of existence; it is essential to being a fully-manifest being on a particular plane. Consider Zen Buddhism. In Zazen, we practice alertness, mindfulness, a dynamic type of consciousness. This is the opposite of the passivity necessary for psychic development. Meditation is done with the eyes open, where the outer world is taken into the practice. We are aware of what is happening about us, but do not pay it lasting, persistent attention; someone shouts, we hear it, then we let go and it is forgotten. Psychic impressions are not cultivated, they are ignored. If they intrude upon meditation, they are ignored like an unwelcome guest at the door. No special attention is given them; nothing is done to exercise, develop, or encourage their appearance in our lives. We are at a far deeper, a far more serious task, but not something somber, serious, and heavy-hearted. The approach to the spiritual is dynamic, inspired, with a sense of wonder and magic that we once felt as little children, and profoundly enriching. The training is to focus our full consciousness upon our experience of life here on this world, on physical plane Globe-D existence. We practice the awakening of our higher faculties *of consciousness* through our existing personal self. The goal is to unify our spiritual natures with the outer selves, to bring to consciousness and give self-expression to the deeper aspects of ourselves. This is the opposite of seeking the ability to disconnect from outer life, practicing tuning out the world, deadening reaction to others, going into trances, and trying to astral project or get out of the Globe-D self. We learn to shut down the senses, or rather to quiet them, but not totally shut them off. They are intrinsically mayavic, delusive, misleading, and we must disassociate from them, but at the same time put them under our control. This control comes from being seated in our spiritual-intellectual nature, with it connected to and expressive through the senses. The lack of a controlling connection between the inner and outer man is what we try to overcome. We work to unify the higher faculties with the waking consciousness, rather than escape the outer world to 'vacation' elsewhere. Say we have some psychic faculties, some paranormal senses or experiences. What should we do about them? The general rule, which is what the theosophical answer to the question would be is: downgrade the importance of them in our lives, come to feel them as unimportant and remove any sense of ego-gratification from having and using them, and even do things to grossen our physical nature if they play too dominate a role in our lives. To downplay the role of psychic abilities in our lives, we can avoid activities or practices that cultivate them. Passivity of mind should be avoided. If we have extremely intrusive psychic experiences, we might need to do things like eat meat, if we're vegetarians, to grossen our physical natures, and to intentionally not remember dreams. Granted, there are special karmic circumstances where a few individuals may have psychic abilities that need to be put to use in their lives, but these are exceptions to the general rule and not what is good for people in general. The senses that we have are different that in the distant past. And they will change in the future. What senses we have is a part of the evolutionary setup of life in the Human Kingdom, and what we have now is what is appropriate to our human experience at this time. Other senses, or extensions of the existing senses are dormant at this time. The search for the spiritual is really in a different direction than the psychic. There is an entirely different set of experiences awaiting us in life, completely independent of things like reading auras, seeing thought-forms, or astral projection. The barriers we naturally find in our personality to psychic senses are part of the Guardian Wall, a protective barrier put up for us to foster our spiritual evolution. Like an infant in a playpen, wanting to get out, we may not always understand that it's for our own good! Our senses are basically reined in to the physical world so that we won't be preoccupied with them, but devote our energies to developing wisdom, compassion, insight, and even higher aspects of our natures. Extension of our senses beyond the physical world do not bring us higher consciousness. A dog, if able to see things in the astral light, is no closer to understanding calculus, to having a developed Manas. We are after the development of higher faculties of experiencing life. There is an element of escapism in the desire to go to other planes. It is the same as in the science fiction literature. In science fiction, we want to go to other worlds with bigger and more powerful spaceships. Somehow, the going to these other places make us more "evolved". In the metaphysical realm, the same escapism is found in the desire to go to other planes, with bigger and stronger magical powers. But this does not make us any more evolved; we are still the same people, with the same limited ability to experience life, just doing different things than before. What we need is an inner transformation to make us different! Sense perceptions are different than the higher faculties; they are different than wisdom or knowing things. We seek to *really* learn from our Inner Teachers, to awaken the "mind's eye." What is it? It is a poetic metaphor for the ability to know that corresponds to the sense of sight, as opposed to the normal learning by what would correspond to a sense of touch. We can have a different kind of "personal experience," wherein we learn by experience things by gazing upon them from afar, rather than by going to them and "touching" them in some outward situation. Just as there are faculties of consciousness that sets us apart from the animals, there are yet others that set the gods apart from us. These faculties have nothing to do with what you can see, touch, taste, hear, or smell; they are entirely different ways of experiencing things. Just as an animal might not appreciate the complex, subtle distinctions in an intellectual debate, we might not appreciate the complex, subtle distinctions in terms of some yet unawakened faculties within us. The whole approach to the spiritual, then, is *to look for something different within*. It is not bigger or better of what we already are, although that too is important. It is rather the discovery of the truly unknown and the making it a living part of our lives! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 12:45:46 -0500 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Regarding the Devas Regarding the Devas -- by Eldon Tucker ---- There are a number of books published by the Adyar Theosophical Society on Devas, angels, fairies, nature spirits, and similar beings. Some books contain detailed color paintings, depicting them. How do they fit in the theosophical scheme of things? The term "deva" is Sanskrit, and means god. The script that Sanskrit is written in, for instance, is devanagri, the language of the gods. Devas are associated with the powers inherent in nature. In Theosophy, there is no such thing as inert matter, or as blind force. Everything is alive, all action is the result of living beings. Even the forces of mother nature, that shape and fashion the sea, land, and sky, are the product of lives. We see about us the results of both visible and invisible beings, all playing their part in the drama of life. Living beings are grouped into major classes called the Kingdoms. We give the Kingdoms names based upon what we know of them here, on our physical earth. On other planes (on the other globes of our planetary chain) they may appear quite different. The Kingdoms with visible bodies on our earth are the Mineral, the Plant, the Animal, and the Human. Higher than the Human, but no longer visible, are the three Kingdoms of the Dhyani-Chohans. At the other end of the evolutionary scale, lower than the Mineral, are the three Kingdoms of the Elementals, also invisible on our world except for their effects. (It should be noted that the Kingdoms contain Monads, eternal Spirits, in a certain stage of spiritual evolution. The Kingdoms are not the forms or bodies that their members inhabit. A Mineral Monad, for instance, is a Monad undergoing a certain stage of growth, and is not limited or defined by a crystal, a pocket of limestone, or some other collection of material substance. Mineral Monads are at the first stage of physical representation, and may have difficulty maintaining a well-defined physical form.) Some theosophical writers have suggested, mistakenly, that there is a dual track to evolution. They describe an alternate evolutionary path that bypasses physical existence and where Monads go through a Deva Kingdom instead of the Human Kingdom. Every Monad needs to evolve through the Human Kingdom. The progression through the Kingdoms represents a progressive unfolding of self-conscious faculties, and there is not a single step that can be bypassed, missed, or taken out of order. What, then, are the Devas? While a few references to Devas in Eastern literature may mean the Dhyani- Chohans, most often we mean the Elementals, we mean Monads in the Elemental Kingdoms. The Devas are pre-physical. They look down upon the world from a higher vantage point. They act as guardians. Their action of conscious observation creates the physical, material basis of our world. The Devas or Elementals create the substance side of nature. They have no shape or form of their own, but copy and borrow forms; they are apprentices to having forms to represent themselves. Even the Mineral Kingdom needs their will to exist, their desire or drive towards physicality, in order to take on forms and lead an embodied existence. Each Kingdom draws upon the lower ones for its upadhi or basis of existence. Consider the Human Kingdom. The thing that distinguishes us from the animals is the human Ego or consciousness. Both we and the animals have an animal nature and consciousness. The animals are lacking a human Ego; they are Animal Monads in the Animal Kingdom. To get into the Human Kingdom they need an association with a Human Monad. With such an association, they are Animal Monads in the Human Kingdom, and at the end of the current cycle of evolution (Planetary Manvantara) they will graduate into Human Monads. Each of us has an animal nature, which is really an Animal Monad which we use as the vehicle for our human consciousness; were we not in association with them, our animal natures would be Animal Monads in the Animal Kingdom. At some distant time in the future, we will be enfilled with gods. Each of us with be in relationship with his inner divinity. At that time, we will be Human Monads in a Dhyani-Chohanic Kingdom. Looking back in time, materiality arose out of the Elemental Kingdoms. The matter or substance of our world arose as Elementals in the Mineral Kingdom. And there are Elementals in the Plant, Animal, and Human Kingdoms as well. For us, as humans, how do we relate to the Elementals? They are involved with the basis for material existence. The Elementals create the dynamic tension that allows for the separation of spirit and matter. They give expression to the contents of our consciousness. The highest Elementals or Devas are grandly wise, being of the nature of pure spirit. The intermediary are of a nature that we can understand and relate to. The lowest are hostile and an evil influence on us, being of the nature of the most gross of matter, the dregs of material existence. Devas are not created at some point of time. They are Monads that happen to be in the Elemental Kingdoms. As Monads, they are eternal, which means not only endless, but also beginningless as well. Consider an Elemental of thought. When we create a new thought, and fashion it out of the generic "thought substance", we have created a thought-form. That form provides the "body" for a manasic Elemental, for an Elemental associated with Manas. The Elemental was not created out of nothing at that point; it was reembodied. The Devas populate all the elements of nature, on all the different planes. They help provide the basis for the physical world. And they animate, they give life and motion to images in the astral light as well. When we speak of an occultist as gaining power over the forces of nature, we refer to his invoking and controlling great Elementals, Elementals of tremendous power. It's important to mention that when we consider the big picture of life, the grand sweep of evolution, we are not necessarily "higher" than the Elementals. So when we speak of the Devas as being the same as the Elementals, we have not necessarily demoted them to a lower place in the scheme of things. Spiritual evolution is cyclic. There are big cycles, and yet bigger ones. The entire evolution of the Monad into matter and back to spirit, through the Kingdoms from the lowest Elemental to the highest Dhyani-Chohan, is a cycle of evolution. Each step along the way is measured by a Planetary Manvantara. Each such step fills a time period of one Day of Brahma. The entire sweep of evolution depicted, then, is a week, or ten days in Brahma's life. But there are 36,000 days in the Life of Brahma. There certainly are not 36,000 Kingdoms to evolve through! It is clear that we cycle through the Kingdoms, again and again, and learn something more with each such dip into matter. From the standpoint of our repeated evolution into matter, it is arrogant to feel superior to the Elementals or Devas. Certain Elemental Monads may be far older, far wiser, far more evolved than we are, having had many more evolutions into matter than we have had! Picture a young boy, a recent rebirth of a old, wise soul, someone of high spiritual evolution. Compare him to an old but foolish man, someone not so evolved. The boy is physically younger, but in his inner nature he is far wiser, far older, far more evolved. The same may be true of some Monads in lower Kingdoms of Nature. They may be far wiser, far older, far more evolved than most. Who is to say? All our fellow Monads, of whatever Kingdom, deserve our respect and appreciation. We are coplayers in the eternal game of existence. Let's appreciate all our fellow players. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 18:51:23 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: CWL FAQ for archives Dear John, Thanks for your suggestion. It suits me just fine. Then this whole garbage won't be rehashed & rebroadcast another time. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 18:52:02 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Psychic Powers and "The M... Eldon, I like your very thorough & well put together post re: psychic powers. There's one thing I don't agree with, although I don't know a better answer. You advise to suppress any psychic powers one may have, & I've been taught never to suppress anything, because it then tends to come out somewhere, somehow, in an uncontrollable, disagreeable manner. I was taught to deal with things in another way than to suppress, but not being psychic myself, I've never asked anyone, or tried to read up on what you do if you have them. They must be dealt with in some way, because, as you say, our aim is to develop our connection to the High Self. Best to you, Brenda & the baby, Happy New Year Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 22:37:47 -0500 From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: A Proposal It seems to me that a number of people on Theos-l are not really interested in Theosophical history. That's fine! But are there others on the net who are interested in pursuing serious discussion and even investigation of various historical "incidents", etc. in Theosophical history? If so, maybe John Mead would be willing to open up another forum called something like Theos-hist. In this forum members would resolve to put their emotions and hysterics aside and would pursue various intensive discussions/investigation into various aspects of Theosophical history. The focus would be on reasoning, examining evidence, analysis of source documents, etc. The forum would be the Internet equivalent of the hardcopy "Theosophical Journal." Criticisms would be directed towards an individual's theory and NOT against his/her personality. An example: (Excuse me Paul for using you as an example) When Paul Johnson published his book IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS a few years ago, Paul was subjected to alot of personal criticism. He was even accused of being a "Jesuit" or under the influence of "dugpas." The focus of criticism should have been Paul's theories as found in his book. His theories, his research are fair game for criticism. Of course, since Paul "created" his brain children (the various theories, etc), he might feel that to attack and criticize his "theories" is to personally attack him. But I hope everyone can see the distinction. I believe Paul does. Another example: My friend, Dr. David Christopher Lane, has written a book exposing the "fraud" of Eckankar (founded by Paul Twitchell). Over the last decade or so, he has been vilified by members of said organization. Darwin Gross (former Master of said group) even claimed that David Lane was an instrument or tool of Kal [Satan or the Devil]. His thesis and research has never been shown to be faulty or wrong. Is anybody interested in such an Internet "Theosophical History"? Historical research and investigation into Theosophical History is not necessarily a Theosophical activity. Maybe even the Masters of HPB could care less about such research, etc. Even if that was the case, I believe serious research in Theosophical history is a vital necessity and needs to be encouraged. Can we leave our emotions and "cherished" opinions aside, and open our minds to new "insights"? Be willing to listen and carefully consider "evidence", "theories", etc. that are contradictory to our own beliefs? Each one of us might learn something! And maybe even some of our beliefs might have to be discarded or radically modified. Growth is sometimes painful! One of my best friends believes Madame Blavatsky was a fraud, her Masters are figments of her imagination, and Theosophy is worthless. But in detailed discussions, etc. with my friend I have learned a great deal, especially about historical research, etc. These discussions (also involving ongoing research) over a period of 10 years have been quite helpful to me. People need to learn how to listen....really listen and be willing to explore in depth, in detail "ideas", "theories", etc. Of course, some Theosophists may pooh-pooh all of this as "intellectual", Manas only activity, but the world is a big place. "One persons's food is another person's poison." and vice versa. I've rambled on too long. I'd like to heard other people's opinions on the possibility of having a Theosophical History Forum on Internet. Can it be done John Mead? Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 23:48:37 -0500 From: ah430@lafn.org (Dara Eklund) Subject: Devas and Elementals Dear Eldon: I enjoyed your discussion of elementals and devas, emphasizing the necessity to skip no kingdom in our evolutionary spiral. H.P.B. warned about worshipping the Devas, or becoming too intimate with them. It brought back a memory from my childhood, when my brother and I used to feel we could see elementals sitting on the bus stop benches as we drove along. We visualized them in the form of little elves, etc. Later, I thought they were the little bubble-like spheres you could see floating in the air. However, if we told our mother that the elementals hid something we had lost, she would always caution: "Don't blame the elementals!" Speaking of bubbles: HAPPY CIVIC NEW YEAR, Best to all peregrinating entities, Dara