From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 03:20:14 -0500 From: Olcott Library Subject: Re: Alexandra West On Tue, 31 Jan 1995 uscap9m9@ibmmail.com wrote: > > of our rare archives. Other archives at the Pasadena T.S. > and Wheaton are under lock and key, like the Boris de > Zirkoff collection at Wheaton, which even Dara Eklund is no > longer allowed to see. I would like to challenge both > Wheaton and Pasadena to throw open their actives to copying > by Alexandria West [AW]. > > Why do theosophical centers keep their archives secret? > While the author of the above statement has made a partial retraction, saying he/she has been informed that Dara Eklund would be permitted to see the Boris de Zirkoff Collection, which is located in the Archives Room at Olcott-- he or she (who are you anyway?) is making totally unfounded accusations. Theosophical centers are not the only institutions who keep their archives under lock and key! This is standard practice for the purpose of preserving the valuable, often fragile, materials housed in archives. The reason is not secrecy but safety. I have been the Librarian at Olcott for almost two years. The Archives are located physically in the Olcott Library, but yes, the room is locked. This is primarily for security reasons, and this is customary in all institutions with which I have dealt or where I have worked. Any serious researcher may apply to Dr. John Algeo for access to the Archives at Olcott, and in the time I have been here, permission has been granted many times, as long as application is made well ahead of time, so that the materials wanted can be located. We keep careful records of all persons who use the Archives, and the list is long. The second reason for restricting access to the archives is that we do not have an archivist at Olcott-- someone who is able to find the materials and to keep them organized. At some time in the future, we hope to be able to afford such a position. Even photocopying valuable documents can be harmful to them. It should be done only by someone who has the skill and the experience. Anyone who has been to the British Museum Library to see the original Mahatma Letters can tell you that this is quite an undertaking. This is not because they don't want anyone to see them, but because they want to preserve these documents from damage and loss. They allow you to look at the big scrapbooks in which the letters are mounted, and all the while they watch you closely. (I tried to photograph one of the letters and was almost thrown out!) I really wish people would get their information directly from us at Olcott, instead of making wild statements based on hearsay and rumors. BTW I wonder why people refer to the Olcott headquarters as "Wheaton"? Just because we are located in the town of Wheaton? Most of Wheaton has nothing to do with the TS. Certainly the City of Wheaton has no say over the use of our archives or library or whatever! Peace. Elisabeth Trumpler Head Librarian Olcott Library & Research Center From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 05:10:20 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: editing books Eldon, I'll be in Florida on Business for the next five days, but will pick up on responses when I return. ET>In reading your postings last week, I can see that we basically agree regarding the preparation of old theosophical books for republication. The only point of difference might be where we handle obsolete words. I'd replace them, judiciously; other people might include the definition in square brackets or a footnote. I can't think of any obsolete words in Blavatsky, Judge etc. Any words that I have needed to look up were always in a good dictionary. Perhaps a word might have shifted meaning. For instance "gay" has taken on new meaning since HPB's time, but I think most people still understand the older meaning without an editor resorting to substituting the word or putting it in square brackets. Besides a good dictionary would account for the changes of meaning. If editorial interference were necessary, I would opt for the square brackets in a footnote. ET>In my comments to Liesel where I mention that I'd leave alone books with a few exceptions, my "few exceptions" refers to the "left alone," e.g. to slight corrections as I've discussed elsewhere. My "few exceptions" was not intended to imply that we leave most books alone, and revise but a selected few titles. I understand. I was just asking for examples. ET>I'm sorry if I've upset you with my last comments about what you've said regarding editing books. I realize that you're not for intentionally making or keeping books hard to read simply because you've studied them the hard way, an attitude which you aptly characterize as "puritanical crap." You may have been too quick to defend yourself, though, when feeling unjustly criticized, rather than asking me: What do you mean by this? No apology necessary. I wasn't upset. Apparently, sometimes my posts have a way of suggesting that I'm upset when I'm not at all. This has happened before. Any suggestions? I took your "hard way" the way you meant it, that I "studied them the hard way", and expect others to do the same. My personal standards are too high for myself to put up with most of the time, causing anxiety and ulcers. I wouldn't wish them on anybody :-). ET>When you make a strong statement that, as a general rule, the works of dead authors should be left untouched, you're making an evaluation of right or wrong, an ethical judgment. The question is the ethical treatment of works of authors, now dead and unable to review and approve any proposed changes to their works. Yes, one is making an ethical judgement. Is it ethical for someone to intentionally (or even unintentionally) misrepresent your intellectual property after you are dead. ET>There are a number of changes that could be make to a book, when reprinting it. Each change needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and a separate value judgment made, with some supporting justification. With ethics, we don't just have an absolute black-and-white rule which says "always this way," but rather have a careful weighing of the pros and cons of an individual situation, with the balance tipping towards the greater common good. We also have standards of scholarship to consider. Those standards were established to protect the author from misrepresentation. ET>What are some example changes that might be made to books, when reprinted? First, a facsimile edition needs to be preserved, regardless of other editions, for historical and scholarly research. Good. ET>The books could be computerized and retypeset. The quotes could be typographical set apart from the body text, and perhaps even set apart with a different color on a computerized book. Spellings could be corrected to American English (changing "colour" to "color" may affect the feeling of a poem, but not a block of prose). OK, but why bother. "colour" tells me that the author is probably British. Why disguise that? ET>Sanskrit and other foreign terms could be given standardized spellings, accents, and hyphens. Standardization of Sanskrit is fine, if it helps the reader to find the word elsewhere. ET> Original page markers could be inserted (e.g. a bold "[20]" where the end of the original page 20). Obsolete terms could be corrected or definitions annotated. And corrective annotations could be brought in from later works to explain or correct the materials (e.g. in "Esoteric Buddhism" we could add as annotations HPB's corrections in subsequent years). Fine, as needed. ET>Taking out materials that are considered offensive, illogical, or stupid by today's standards, to sanitize an author's works (like taking racist comments out of CWL's or Jinarajadasa's works). Now we come to a question of motive. Perhaps the readers might consider CWL's or CJ's racist remarks relevant to their evaluation of these writers. Why disguise their racist attitudes? To make them appear that they are not? Is that being honest with the reader? Same for illogical or stupid remarks. Why not leave them in for the reader to evaluate. The job of the editor is *not* to determine what the reader should or should not see. That is censorship. ET>How do we distinguish what are good from what are bad changes to books? Good changes make the literature more readable, more lucid; they remove unnecessary roadblocks to a reader's comprehension of the literary work. Bad changes repress or alter the contents of a book, to make it say something different, because of some political agenda or desire to sanitize objectionable contents. Right on! Paul, PJ> As I recall the passage from Jerry S. about not having read any Theosophical classics was in response to Dan Caldwell's request for people to post their recommended reading lists, or rather in response to someone's response. As to dates??? maybe around Christmas. Dan might recall. Yes, I recall the context--just missed the joke. Maybe Dan will find it. Thanks. Ken O'Neill, Thanks for the report on Prophet. Do you have a reading list for us? Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 09:26:47 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Alexandria West (additional note) I agree entirely that opening of archives is a desirable goal and hope that this is agreed upon by all. Perhaps the most disappointing moment of my theosophical life was being denied access to HSO's diaries at Adyar with a flagrantly deceptive explanation. But in the case of Wheaton, I think the restrictions are temporary, due to security concerns and limited staff resources. Researchers ARE allowed access with the requirement that a staff member be present while they are in the archives. This is hearsay, but I recall years back that it was reported that Joy Mills had proposed a mutual sharing of archival resources re: the Judge case, but was turned down. Best wishes for your Alexandria project! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 09:27:57 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: CUT Book An OCLC search revealed this to be a special issue of the serial Syzygy. Therefore I doubt that it would be readily accessible through ILL. But with plenty of academic libraries in the area, I reckon I'll find it on a trip to Duke, Chapel Hill, etc. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 11:21:40 -0500 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Regarding Libraries Regarding Libraries -- Eldon Tucker Elisabeth Trumpler: It was me... Over the past few years I've heard a number of stories, some first-hand, regarding researchers being denied access to the archives of theosophical organizations. Now that I stop and reflect upon what I've heard, the Olcott Library was not mentioned in this context. As head librarian, you're certainly in a position to make a statement about your policy, and I'm glad to hear that the materials are open to researchers. Let's consider what I've said, your response, and the general situation. With my message, I make mention of a new theosophical research and library organization. I mention how Point Loma Publications is allowing it to copy its rare archives, and challenge the other theosophical groups to open their archives to the general public. The important issue hear is permanent public access to the materials. The various theosophical organizations are political organizations. Depending upon their current leadership, there may be a policy of openness, like with John Algeo with the American Section, but it may not always be this way. I'm not sure that the past history of the various theosophical groups shows that this openness has always existed. With a change of leadership, some time in the future, there's always the risk that the openness could end. This is where independent, neutral research facilities have their value. I'm glad, again, to hear that my call to open up the Olcott Library is unnecessary. It is too much to hope that the same statement could be made by Pasadena, the ULT, and Adyar? The issue of open access to research materials is certainly an important one, as I'm sure you'd agree. Is it an issue that is entirely unnecessary, for the various theosophical groups? Is the status quo at the various groups in support of complete openness? If a scholar, for instance, called the Pasadena T.S. and wanted to see all of the Judge letters, would he granted access? Or do we need to understand why, at times, the openness is not present, and raise it as a concern? Your balanced response is appreciated. I understand that the official position of any organization, regardless of how open their archives are, is that they are restricted for reasons of safety of the materials and not secrecy. When groups keep materials from the general public, they may not come out and say that they are doing such a thing. You make it clear, though, that the Olcott Library is open, and that openness should stand as an example for the other theosophical libraries and archives. It is good to "air out" what we hear and are led to believe. Information, once out in the open, can be subject to correction. What is really bad are things privately said that never see the light of day, and can't be challenged and corrected. On "theos-l", we have a free marketplace of theosophical ideas. There will be times, for any of us, when we read something that strikes close to home, and we feel a strong reaction. I'd say that "total unfounded accusations" and "wild statements based on hearsay and rumor" show your quite natural reaction. You see something incorrect and want to set the record straight. I think that the record has been set straight regarding the Olcott Library. The issue of openness among the theosophical groups, and the need for free access to information, is a weighty one, and must be continually be raised, lest our T.S.'s end up, one day, merely as metaphysical churches, with a carefully scripted belief system and "true" version of history. ---- Regarding the use of "Wheaton" to refer to the HQ of the American Section of the T.S. [Adyar]: it's quite standard to do. Since joining the T.S. in August 1965, and subsequently living in different parts of the country, I've heard "Wheaton" used much more often than other names like "Olcott." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 11:40:35 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Elizabeth Clare Prophet To Ken O'Neill-- Welcome aboard theos-l. I can tell already that you have vast reserves of information to share, and it's enlightening stuff. There are questions I have been saving up for someone with a background in Buddhist history and literature, but I don't want to inundate you. For starters, I'd like to know what your thoughts are on the sources of Voice of the Silence and the Stanzas of Dzyan. FYI my own tentative suggestion (especially re the former) is that Olcott's friends Sarat Chandra Das and Ugyen Gyatso returned from Shigatse in 1882 with over 200 Tibetan manuscripts; references in HPB's writings suggest that she was in correspondence with their main contact there, the Sengchen Tulku who was in charge of the library at Tashilhunpo; other references suggest that some of her sources came from that library. Therefore, the Voice may well be in that category. Your thoughts inspired by these texts would interest us all, I reckon. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 17:20:44 -0500 From: KONEIL@pimacc.pima.edu Subject: Re: Elizabeth Clare Prophet Sorry to say that I don't know the texts that you refer to; will have to get my hands on them. I've been intrigued by the whole matter of the Great White Brotherhood. To date the attempts to come to grips with its origins do not take into account what is blatantly obvious to me: the bodhisattva sangha. Your reference to some 200 Tibetan manuscripts is VERY interesting. In Blavatsky's day very little credence was given to Tibetan Buddhism; by and large the early strata of Anglo-German Buddhology was prejudiced against Tibetan Buddhism, perhaps finding reinforcement of Victorian Puritanism in Theravada. One suspects the erotic aspects of Tibetan iconography furhter colored perceptions. Today we know Tibet, as well as China, Korea and Japan share in a common mythological, symbolic, and soteriological tradition concerning becoming a bodhisattva in this very life; furthermore, the vajrayana of the Far East is far older than traditions extant in Tibet. Those traditions of what I've named "Bodhisattva Buddhism" speak of the Bodhisattva Sangha - the assembly of persons of varying stages and degrees of maturing illumination. Quite frankly, I find the Great White Brotherhood to be identical to the Bodhisattva Sangha - and readily available to the Western mind and heart. I'd thus be interested to know what mms were brought from the Tibetan frontier, and shall have to read the works you've mentioned. Ignorantly yours. Ken O'Neill From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 17:23:06 -0500 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: Re: Alexandra West Olcott Library writes: > Anyone who has been to the British Museum Library to see the original > Mahatma Letters can tell you that this is quite an undertaking. > This is I went there with my wife, and we were granted immediate access without any formalities or identification. They didn't seem to keep a close eye on us, but did request us to wear gloves, and of course we treated the documents with respect. It's certainly worth anyone doing--the letters have a tremendous aura of authenticity. I have also visited Adyar, and have seen the archives. As far as I can tell, they don't deny access to serious students and researchers. Even non-members such as John Cooper are welcome, but people should have some idea what they're looking for so as not to waste time. The caveats you made regarding the care of materials applies especially at Adyar, due to the climate and the paper used in the early part of this century. They have a laminating machine, but when I was there no-one knew how to operate it. Paul Gillingwater From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 17:24:33 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: 4 functions Following up Keith's idea of applying Jungian personality theory to the TS, here are some pros and cons of what I imagine to be the general Theosophical personality type (which just happens to coincide with mine and his): 1. Introversion. It seems to require a certain inner-directedness to end up in something as obscure as the TS. In general, Theosophists have rich inner lives and not much drive to attach to the group compared to types attached to mainstream religions or most "cults." Paradoxically, though, the TS itself is extroverted in that it's more interested in the world outside than in its own identity. (This is mainly true of Adyar, e.g. the publications). Whereas extroverts who don't have such inner resources seem to be attracted to groups that are more self-referential. For example the ratio of Baha'i discourse that is explicitly about Baha'i is about 95%; for Theosophists the ratio is probably more like 45%. As a consequence, we tend to attract a small minority of seekers, most people needing something more oriented to their needs for belonging. And most members are at-large, meaning we have relatively little interaction. But the quality of our interaction is perhaps correspondingly more meaningful than that found in many other groups. 2. Thinking types with inferior Feeling: On the plus side, most religious groups provide far less intellectual stimulation than found in the TS. Our educational model makes for a relatively information-dense collective life. On the other hand, if Feeling is inferior and unconscious, this means that emotional issues aren't dealt with healthily, but rather are suppressed. Then they poison discourse which purports to be intellectual but in fact is often derailed by unacknowledged Feeling. 3. Intuitive types with undeveloped Sensation: Our books would be totally uninteresting to a Sensation type, one would think. Just to follow HPB's arguments requires a strongly intuitive mind. Theosophy offers a body of literature that wonderfully stimulates the capacity to view the universe in terms of grand meanings. But perhaps we are so far out on the intuitive limb that we don't connect very well with the needs of those who want practical, hands-on, how-to. Conclusion-- in each of the above cases, Theosophy as a movement tends to appeal to a minority. E.g. something like 70% of Americans are extroverts. Feeling and Sensation also seem more common as dominant functions at least in our culture. So it's as if we are triply condemned to being small and obscure. But is that all bad? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 17:36:17 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: TSA; Midsouth Fed. Annual meeting 4/7-9/95 NEWS: The Annual MidSouth Federation meeting of the TSA will be held the weekend of April 7-8-9, 1995 at the Lake Junaluska Assembly (Terrace Hotel) in Waynesville, NC To make reservations at the Terrace Hotel, call: 800-222-4930 and ask for the reservations desk. Tell the clerk that you are with the Theosophical Society meetings. no news (yet) as to the program schedule. for more info, contact jem@vnet.net From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 17:54:28 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Alexandra West According to Paul Gillingwater: > > I have also visited Adyar, and have seen the archives. As far as > I can tell, they don't deny access to serious students and > researchers. Even non-members such as John Cooper are welcome, > but people should have some idea what they're looking for so as > not to waste time. The caveats you My experience conflicts with this assessment. In 1990 I went to Adyar to do research on Theosophical history. I wrote to Dorothy A. asking her to inform Radha I was coming (having been told that's how one proceeds). Although I'll never know what she wrote, it has been reported to me that she regarded my research and writing as dangerous. Anyhow, three other researchers NONE OF THEM TS MEMBERS were welcomed into the archives during my stay. But Radha denied me access by sending word that it would be impossible "because there was no archivist on duty." FYI I joined the society in 1978. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 18:37:48 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re Buddhism & Experience Ken, thank you for your kind thoughts and information regarding Buddhism. I like your phrase "the gnostic foundation of core buddhism" because some have suggested that theosophy also has a gnostic core. I take it here that "gnostic foundation" refers to encouraging the student to partake of direct experience, or gnosis, rather than simple reliance upon doctrine, although that too is important. Thanks also for the mention of Cleary's book. I have several of his works and like him very much (his new translation of The Secret of the Golden Flower is especially good). I will keep an eye out for it at my local bookstores. I also like your reference to "gnostic heresy" which is the bane of Christianity in this country. On this net, we are all trying to advise and consult, and no one is saying that they are "conduits" to God, that I know of. But you are right, direct experience of the spiritual realms tends to give a person an inflated ego to the point where they sometimes become self-made gurus before they are ready. This is the very reason that HPB warns us to develop compassion first. Of course, H.H. stresses the need for compassion as well.. I think that we all agree on the importance of both the guru, or some authoritative body or source of knowledge from which we draw inspiration and guidance, and gnosis - which is putting the theory into practice through a direct experience of the Teachings. By the way, could you shed any light on the doctrine of Buddhalands and Mount Meru as taught in Buddhist scripture versus the cosmic planes and Globes of theosophy and the Sephiorth of the Qabalah? Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 20:24:02 -0500 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"@vnet.net Subject: Drama and The Cure - to JHE Responding to Jerry Hejka-Evans' post of 27 Jan 95. I'm sorry that so much time has gone by, but I've had a pile-up of commitments over the last few days. Something you're obviously very familiar with yourself! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 07:56:07 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re to Ken Ken, sorry to butt into your conversation, but you asked some interesting questions and provided some interesting topics of discussion. Ken: "I've been intrigued by the whole matter of the Great White Brotherhood. To date the attempts to come to grips with its origins do not take into account what is blatantly obvious to me: the bodhisattva sangha." Actually, if you read G. de Purucker, he describes the bodhisattva sanga in some detail and compares it with what he calls the Hierarchy of Compassion. In an esoteric sense, this Hierarchy includes virually everyone who has an honest concern for others, and so the bodhisattva is only one player in this Hierarchy. The bodhisattva sanga would likely equate to a branch or division of it. The Great White Brotherhood is the Source, focal point, or 'headquarters' of the Hierarchy of Compassion, and according to HPB (I believe, but can't recall the exact reference right now) it is located on the fourth cosmic plane (which I would call the causal plane) just below the Abyss - the highest (in the sense of the most spiritual) region in our universe accessible to the human mind. She also locates at this point the Silent Watcher (I am pretty sure this is in THE INNER GROUP TEACHINGS) who is apparently the Hierarch of the Hierarchy of Compassion. Of course, all of this stuff is exoteric (i.e., in so many words) while what is *really* going on is esoteric and beyond words to describe properly. In words, it sound suspiciously like some kind of government organization spying on us for our own good. Ken: " In Blavatsky's day very little credence was given to Tibetan Buddhism" Sadly True. Probably the single best writer in English on the subject was Alexandra David-Neel, who actually lived in Tibet for several years and adopted a son there. BTW, her books are still being read and appreciated today. It was not until Evans-Wentz wrote his 4 books on Tibetan subjects that the West began a real appreciation - and he was a theosophist. Ken: "One suspects the erotic aspects of Tibetan iconography furhter colored perceptions." They still do, Ken. They still do. Ken: "Today we know Tibet, as well as China, Korea and Japan share in a common mythological, symbolic, and soteriological tradition concerning becoming a bodhisattva in this very life" I am happy to hear you say this. Until now, I think I have been the only one on this net who has consistently said this. Ken, most theosophists today do not think that this is possible, and I have been the brunt of a lot of flames (some kindly, and some not) over this issue. Theosophists seem to think that you need seven or more lifetimes from this one in order to become a bodhisattva. This issue is apparently one of the differences between Tibetan Buddhism and theosophy. While I am a theosophist and not a Tibetan Buddhist, I still agree with Tibetan Buddhism on the possibility of being a bodhisattva in this lifetime. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 15:06:33 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Eastern monarchies (fwd) This email from a friend at U. Mich. might interest y'all. Has anyone else heard of this article?> > > Paul: > > I just got my Journal of the American Academy of Religion issue, > Fall 1994; it has an article in it by Mark Bevir on Madame > Blavatsky and the Occult Tradition. It didn't actually strike me > as all that substantive, but I thought you'd be interested in the > citation. > > cheers Juan > Or heard of Mark Bevir? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 20:24:26 -0500 From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: RE: Regarding Chaos Keith wrote (among other things): > To Eldon and Jerry: I think we are all talking about much the > same thing, but in different "vocabularies", semantic or logical > systems. > > The complex (to me) mathematics Eldon is using to talk about > evolution and transformation is the most accepted "hard" science > attempt at a GUT, a grand unified theory that would explain it > all. Einstein really wanted to do this. Maybe we will live to > see it, but I couldn't read it. Eldon might have to explain the > upcoming equations. :) But these hard (in more ways than > one) mathematics are still trying to get to the occult side in a > very modern manner. I must agree and (in a friendly manner) disagree. Thanks to Eldon for the recent brief, whirlwind tour of Chaos theory (which, as I think he pointed out, is really only a "theory" as that word is used in the popular press...its really more of collection of different perspectives, usually expressed in mathematical language [and, in fact, many of the most profound insights can really *only* be expressed mathematically...they just don't translate into english...any better than, as HPB pointed out, many truths expressed in sanscrit do]. Anyway, I think that sometimes we are "talking about the same thing", but sometimes not. I do not think we can simply assume that there is some single meta-truth that mathematics is expressing in one language and mysticism/Theosophy expresses in another...though this assumption seems to lay unquestioned beneath the entire recent Tao-of-Physics genre of literature on the market these days. Some, or even many of the "connections" being made between mysticism and science may be false ones. (And Eldon's point about Chaos is a good one...in Chaos "theory", the word "chaos" absolutely does *not* mean *random*...and in fact is really a highly mathematically specified sort of order...but when this translates into the popular press...it is given the connotations of "chaos" as it is used politically...as disorder, randomness, confusion...and is thus placed on a line with itself at one end and "order" on the other). It is from within the theosophical worldview that science is approaching the "occult side in a very modern manner", but from the scientific perspective...all science has *ever* done is to reveal the "occult", if one takes "occult" to simply mean "hidden". The very definition of a "scientific discovery" is that it is a fact or principle of nature that had been unknown until the discovery. The problem I suspect we get into in many of our discussions about truth, inner states, theosophical & kabbalistic terminology (for instance) and etc., is that english is really such a mind-bogglingly imprecise and sloppy way to communicate. Sanscrit, I suspect (not being a sanscrit speaker) is apparently very sophisticated in its ability to express and convey internal truths. Science, in its own way, using the language of mathematics, is also capable of great precision. English, as I belive Crowley once pointed out, was invented by a bunch of people who mostly wanted to sell cheese with as few misunderstandings as possible, and hence leaves a great deal to be desired when it comes to the expression of inner reality. Sanscrit may have several thousand words...allowing the most minute nuances to be expressed...that would all have to be translated into the single english word "God". It was actually this conversation on the list that brought to light within me a curious sensation I had never really noticed. I am currently engaged in the application of complexity theory to global economic systems, and generally when I am asked by friends who come over unexpectedly just what the hell it *is* that I'm doing, I am utterly at a loss to explain it...that is, it is relatively easy to understand global capital flows within the complexity paradigm (and some of the chaos concepts Eldon spoke about apply...the globe does have strange attractors of sorts around which huge flows of crystallized prana, i.e., money, cycle) and to think about/express these understandings with the differential equations from fluid dynamics, but an *enormous* sense of frustration builds in trying to tell non-math friends about it....and I recently realized that the frustration is a sensation almost identical to the one that I experience upon attempting to put spiritual experiences and meditative insights into words. And this is the reason why I would be cautious about simply assuming that a GUT from physics is really the same as a GUT of an occult tradition, with only the difference of choice of language of expression. As a for instance, I have seen some talk of the probability matrices of quantum physics discussed on this list...but there are huge distinctions that are not being made, and that can *only* be made with math. The quantum level itself is considered *completely deterministic*, it is only at the point where a *measurement* is made, i.e., when a result is translated into the non-quantum (classical) realm...called "collapsing the wavefunction"...that probability equations become relevant. It is not possible to grasp the actual existance of the quantum level without an understanding of complex numbers, and to go further and attempt to discuss the means by which the ratios of complex numbers that describe "superposition" (a quantum-level particle such as a photon that as a single thing "exists" in several different states, or even different places, at once) manifest as the probability functions describing the actual place or state the particle will appear in *when measured* is just not something the english language can handle. To be specific, if quantum mechanics were to state a "truth" at its current stage of development, it would _not_ be that the universe is composed of an infinite number of probability functions, but rather that our _perception_ of the universe is _limited_ to the extent that at best it can appear as an infinite number of probability functions...two very different things. Point is, pure occult science, at its highest point, _may_ be able to be translated into pure math (i.e., they may be reaching the same insights) and vice-versa, or maybe not....but I suspect that so long as we are having the discussion in english, we cannot even know if we are talking about anything close to the same thing.....imagine, for instance, a republican explaining the Contract with America, a historian explaining the civil war, and a molecular biologist explaining the double-helix...all forced to talk in the barks and woofs of the canine kingdom...not only would none of them feel like they had even vaguely expressed themselves...the use of the limited language might give them all the impression that they were at talking about the same subject...and if the assumption was there, they might even reach a point where they believed that they had *reached an agreement*. Likewise, three people talking about the *identical thing* might, because of the different styles of barking, reach the conclusion that they lacked any agreement at whatsoever and be ready to go for one another's throats because of what each was perceiving as an attack by another. Perhaps America, in its short history, has generated some heavy karma...which we pay off by continually being condemned to communicate in english....a language that is magnificent in its ability to express gossip and scandel...and utterly lacking in its ability to clearly and precisely express the most meaningful and potent truths in either the objective/scientific or subjective/spiritual realms. Sorry for the long-winded babble, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 07:07:55 -0500 From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@compuserve.com> Subject: Art, Theosophy & Related Courses Greetings Murray Stentiford and others who are interested. You ask about the range of activities at our branch (Miami & South Florida Branch of TSA) so I am posting this to THEOS-L in case others are also interested. This is an old branch founded in 1919. We moved the branch from an old declining Miami neighborhood to a suburban commercial location in 1993 & opened a Quest bookstore at the new location. To bring traffic we decided to establish study groups and courses using whatever expertise branch members had in accordance with the second and third declared objects of the TS We take these objects as guidance for what we do. In addition to Secret Doctrine study which had gone on for some time, we developed a wide range of related studies. This has resulted in a more than tripling of our branch membership in less than 2 years from under 30 to over 100, with lots of new and talented people. Here is a current list of courses, study groups and workshops being offered. Courses tend to be limited in duration but these categories are interchangeable. Astrology weekly ongoing Bhagavad Gita bi-weekly ongoing Beach Walk & Walking Meditation monthly ongoing Paul Brunton bi-weekly ongoing Edgar Cayce Material (Search for God texts) weekly ongoing Celestine Prophecy 9 Insights Group weekly 10 sessions Dream Workshop weekly ongoing Enneagram of Personality Types weekly 2 sessions, repeating Esoterica (a free ranging discussion) weekly ongoing Gurdjieff Introductory Course weekly 5 sessions, repeating Gurdjieff Ongoing Group weekly ongoing Healing - Group Healing bi-weekly ongoing Healing - "How to" Workshop monthly ongoing Huna Healing (the work of Max Freedom Long) weekly 5 sessions, repeating Introduction to Your Spiritual Self (discovering psychic abilities) weekly 5 sessions, repeating Krishnamurti bi-weekly ongoing Meditation Hour weekly ongoing Meditation Introduction and Instruction weekly ongoing Metaphysical Movies (Videos) - viewing and discussion monthly ongoing Poetry Workshop weekly ongoing Speakers Forum (guest speakers) weekly ongoing Star Trek - viewing & discussion of selected metaphysical episodes bi-weekly ongoing Tarot bi-weekly ongoing Theosophy: Basic Introductory Workshop weekly 15 sessions, repeating Theosophy: The Key to Theosophy weekly ongoing Theosophy: Its Mystical, Magical History weekly ongoing Theosophy: The Secret Doctrine bi-weekly ongoing Theosophy: The Spiritual Path (members only) bi-weekly ongoing Transmission Meditation (Benjamin Creme teaching) bi-weekly ongoing Urantia Book bi-weekly ongoing Workshop Monthly - (different subject each month) monthly ongoing Every group is led by a facilitator who is a TS member because we do not want the branch to become a hired hall for people with private agendas. We like to think that the facilitators are knowledgeable in their subjects. Some are really experts. We do invite guest speakers to our weekly speakers forum. Some groups have been ongoing for over a year. Others start up and then end for lack of interest or because the facilitator discontinues it. Discontinued groups have included: Buddhism Mahatma Letters - 10 weekly sessions Qaballah Seth (Jane Roberts material) The schedule is updated every 2 months so changes are continual. In our March-April calendar we will likely add a group studying Science & Spirituality, a course on Wilhelm Reich and possibly an Art Study group from the idea we picked up from Doreen Domb off of this THEOS-L. So we are continually looking for good new ideas and glad to share what we do here. We do not charge anything for any of these offerings but suggest that people put money in the basket. Most do. All groups are open to the public with the exception of one theosophy members only group. Hope this gives some of you good ideas and we'd appreciate any that you can offer. A personal note to Murray Stentiford: Carol and Stanley Hurd are members of this branch. They say "hello" & will write to you and also mail our printed program and calendar of activities. Carol is our bookstore manager. Having a wonderful time. Wish I were here. Sy Ginsburg snail mail to: The Theosophical Society in Miami & South Florida 831 S.E. 9th Street Deerfield Beach, FL 33441 Tel: 305-420-0908 Fax: 305-463-8989 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 09:30:43 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Art, Theosophy & Related Courses First things first-- Glad to see you here, Sy. I hope you like the 4th Way stuff in my forthcoming book. Your branch certainly gives the rest of the American Section plenty to think about in terms of how to reach the public. Some folks here will be dubious about things like Creme and Urantia, but handled the right way I see no problem with it. One question: why "members only" for the Theosophy-- a Spiritual Path group? I have a problem with the fact that the ES requires a couple years' membership, and that a large number of TS members never make it past the first year. Probably a lot of the dropouts feel that they never really connected with a spiritual path through the TS. So: what are the costs and benefits of "members only" approaches to the things we hold most sacred? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 12:03:28 -0500 From: KONEIL@pimacc.pima.edu Subject: Buddhalands,Saint-Martin, etc Jerry Schueler asked: "By the way, could you shed any light on the doctrine of Buddhalands and Mount Meru as taught in Buddhist scripture versus the cosmic planes and Globes of theosophy and the Sephiorth of the Qabalah?" My goodness, you're asking for a dissertation project!!! I'll restrict my response just to my understanding of buddhalands (buddharealms) and Mount Meru, the axis mundi. Ever see a buddhist altar? Adrian Snodgrass' published dissertation is one of the best kept secrets in the field. An Australian architect (and perennial- ist), he took a PhD later in life. His background adds a dimension all too frequently missing in Buddhist studies; he knows the stuff from the inside. His book begins with the original buddhist axis mundi or world center mountain, the stupa. When Shakyamuni passed through transmission, his cremains were equally distributed to the eight great sites associated with his buddha career; each location was site of a stupa, an immense dirt mount. According to Basham, stupa in time came to be a derogatory Hindu term meaning a Buddhist rubbish heap! From the stupa came the Tibetan chorten and the Far Eastern pagoda - all symoblically standing for the abiding place of the essence of illumination. Buddhist altars - the kind of butsudan Manley Hall had in his office at PRS - are minature versions of the stupa/axis mundi/buddhaverse. They are the center of the enlightened world and aim to center the world of temples and households were they abide. The key to buddharealms actually lies in the moment one becomes a bodhisattva. Perhaps you're familiar with the work and tradition of Louis Claude de Saint- Martin (I'm also a Martinist Free Initiator). S-M differed with others of his time concerning the meaning of l'initiation. He was entirely an esoterist; his position was that initiation meant the moment of gnosis, not rituals conferring some dramatization of initiation. Of course, ritual is very important and we should not discount it. Nevertheless, Louis-Claude came to repudiate any ritual initiation on the grounds that they were misleading and misinformative: that gnosis alone initiates one into understanding the mysteries of light. Becoming a bodhisattva is very much the same. I notice the Tibetan traditions do mass bodhisattva initiations. Such practices are good, but Louis-Claude, we must remember that a public ceremony is most likely not the moment of sudden awakening that constitutes real bodhicitta (still unimaginatively translated as "thought of enlightenment" giving the wrong impression it is an act of cognition); I like the SinoChinese equivalent bodaishin better: awakening/ awake/awakened heart. In the moment wisdom/compassion of all enlightened beings is experience; understanding is born. One sees through the obscuring complexes of illusion/delusion, right into the heart of emptiness; thus unburdened, love, compassion and lust for enlightenment is born of the heart. One literally wishs to drag the whole world along, delivering all from suffering and sorrow rooted in illusionary lives. We say a purvapranidhana arises at that moment, a hongan. In one's experience and insight, a vow or dedication arises from the heart. One is committed to becoming fully awake, to transmuting the passions to live a life of enlightened passion (no repression of the monkish sort here). That bodhisattva vow includes enlightening the whole world. So, you as Jerry Bodhisattva make it your business to create an enlightened world - and as you get good at it, becoming a real professional bodhisattva in this and all the lives you will ever live, your vow propells you - at times in spite of that self interest we know to be rooted in ignorance. Like all buddhas, you will develop a buddhaland - you will become a master teacher of esoteric spirituality. You will reveal the BIG SECRET - that there is no secret! Now, a pantheon (really a henotheism) of buddhas and bodhisattvas were invented as the continuing revelation of bodhisattva buddhism. Good gnostic traditions do not limit themselves to texts written down a thousand or more years ago; they keep renewing with the changing world, inventing new scriptures as time goes on (I'm the author of the Santa Claus Sutra and the Santa Claus Samadhi Sutra - and am still looking for a publisher). One danger with regard to buddhism (and all esoterica) is making a symbol into a concrete, literal thing. Buddhalands are especially subject to this. Their real meaning is symbolic, and refers to you yourself! All the buddhas and bodhisattvas are characterizations, personifications (masks) of how enlightening beings - persons of awakening - live and act and talk and think in this or any world. Here's another point that may interest you. Who are Buddhist texts addressed to? Answer: sentient (not just human) beings of the world systems of the ten directions. The whole bloody universe. Remarkable for a world view akin to our own at a time when our Western ancestors were still in the Flat Earth Society. Note, however, that we're not talking buddhalands. Any world system is a potential buddhaland. Lands are transformed as well as hearts. The notion of group karma is nested here, as is the esoteric notion the French call an egregoire - a collective though projection. Hope I haven't bored you too much with a little bodhisattva buddhism along with some Louis-Claude. A bientot and gassho, Ken O'Neill, Kyoshi White Lotus Society Tucson, Arizona From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 17:48:51 -0500 From: ah430@lafn.org (Dara Eklund) Subject: Rights, Duties, Privileges Theos-roots may not be designed for posting old, obscure theosophical writings, but it seems like a good idea. Under the above title, Henry Travers Edge, a personal disciple of HPB, wrote the following article. -- Nicholas On August 4, 1789, a large and unruly Parliament of excited men sat in a hall at Versailles. It was the National Assembly of revolutionary France, and it was framing a new constitution for the country. But what was agitating the assembly at the moment was the preamble to that constitution -- a Declaration of the Rights of Man. Suddenly one of the members interposed with an amendment. He proposed that the Declaration of the Rights of Man should also be a Declaration of the Duties of Man. His amendment was impatiently rejected, the majority being 575 against 433; and the assembly proceeded to adopt almost unanimously the motion that the preamble should consist only of a Declaration of Rights. Human nature has not changed much since then. We still hear much about the rights of man. About the duties we do not hear quite so much. The lesson is applicable to the present situation, if at all. When we demand our rights, or promise other people their rights, the motive concerned is self-interest, the self-interest of an individual or of a class. When duties are spoken of, it is conscience that is appealed to. Which is the better for the welfare and progress of the individual -- self-interest or conscience? Which is better for the welfare of the community? This mention of rights and duties suggests that they are opposed to each other. Rights are pleasant things, and duties are painful things. Rights are what we want and can't get, and duties are what we get and can't want. So perhaps it is advisable to find another word that will suit the case better. That is why the word `Privileges' was chose for the third of our title. What are the Privileges of Man? Do they include the Rights or the Duties or some of both? I believe that a man's Rights and Duties and Privileges are really all one and the same thing. But the word `Rights,' in this case, means something that *cannot* be taken away from a man. He does not have to clamor for this kind of Rights; no one can do him out of them. To be a Man, a human being -- is not that privilege enough? Does it not confer power enough? For what is Man? An ancient emblem represents him as having a human head, the body of a lion, and the wings of an eagle. The human head represents man's intellect; the lion's body, his daring and will-power; the eagle's wings, his power of aspiration. With these divine gifts, man can make himself what he will; and yet he abrogates them and clamors for lesser things he calls his rights. We do not need to clamor for our rights; we only need to *recognise* them. The real Rights of man are his *birthrights,* and we know that he is born of the Spirit as well as of the flesh. Leastwise, however the doctrine and theology may run, it is an indisputable fact that you and I are somehow mysteriously endowed with a Mind and a Heart and a Will and good many other things that money cannot buy and thieves cannot steal. The sooner we recognise these gifts, the sooner we shall have our Rights. The sooner we exercise these gifts, the sooner we shall do our Duties. And, as to Privileges, all this will be privilege enough and to spare. Let us claim our Birthrights. Would you like to be a strong man or a weak man? A strong man is self- dependent, but a weak man is always leaning on other people. The weak man has his eyes fixed on the past and on the future, but never on the present. The future is always getting away from him as he goes, like his shadow thrown before him; and the past is always receding from him. Only the present stays with him, but this he seems to have no use for. He is the unpractical man. The weak man is affected by the opinions of others, by praise and blame; he is alternately exhilarated and depressed by the turns of fortune. He lives in an atmosphere of expectation and fear and is a creature of vain emotion. The strong man simply takes his life as he finds it and acts strongly here and now in the present place and the present moment. Why be a weakling? Why not face boldly the life in which you find yourself and determine to utilize you wonderful resources to the full? Surely it is the venturous man who discovers things. The man who waits for a lead never starts at all. Yet how many people there are today who say feebly that they do not know the mysteries of life, and that they can never know; people who demand to be shown before they will move; people who will stay where they are until they can see something better? These people do not realise that it is often necessary to take a step *first* before you can see where to plant the next step. If you would discover something about the mysteries of your own nature, you must have faith enough and grit enough to start. You must not wait for knowledge to fall into your lap. The kingdom of heaven has to be taken by might; it will not throw itself at our heads. When we try to imagine the future of humanity, and can think of nothing better than a lot of people, of different classes, all clamoring for what they consider their rights, we do not get a very edifying picture. What is needed is that people should be taught to recognise their *privileges* -- the rights that they have, not the rights that they think they ought to have. "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you," means that, if you attend to your duties, your rights will take care of themselves. Surely it is a privilege to take care of duties! Man has many more rights and privileges than the thinks he has. What he is clamoring for is mere pittance. There are rights and privileges waiting to be claimed; but they are the price of duty. A man who has not the faith or the grit to do his duty will stay where he is and will go on hungering for his rights. But the man who recognises that duty is his privilege will obtain all the rights he expects -- and more. And remember that your better nature has its rights as well as your inferior nature. Why not give it a chance? And it is just because you will not give it a chance that `Fate' steps in and does it for you. The human race would soon perish from self-indulgence if it were left to choose its own fate according to its selfish desires. Fortunately, a power wiser and stronger than our selfish desires steps in and gives us what is good for us. What is this power? It is the power that rules our destiny; it is our own real Self, the light behind our mind, the guiding star of our lives. Why not recognise its claims and admit that our higher nature has also its rights and privileges? To follow duty is simply to recognise the claims of our higher nature. What we call duties are the rights of our higher nature; and when we sacrifice a duty to a personal pleasure, we starve our higher nature to feed our lower. So much has been dinned into our ears about our animal nature that it is time a little more was told us about that spark of divine creative fire that is in all of us. Then perhaps we would have more self-reliance and not be expecting so much from systems and regulations. If you think you are as good as the other man, it is up to you to show it. No doubt social conditions are wrong in many points; but they would stand a better chance of righting themselves if a little more of the spirit of true self- reliance and self-respect were abroad in the world. -- "The Theosophical Path", Jan. 1923 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 4 Feb 1995 16:11:11 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Re Buddhism & Experience Jerry, Just a propos of Buddhism, Dr. Ingrid Shafer, who teaches Religion & Philosophy, asked on another net for titles etc. of books by Buddhist women. If you have any such to post to her, it'd be much appreciated. facsshaferi@mercur.usao.edu or ihs@ionet.net Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 13:07:41 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Study Groups Foreword A slightly different version of the article which follows was originally submitted for puiblication in The Theosophical Journal but was not used, although the endnote to it was. It has been adapted and reprinted with a view to helping forward the work of The Theosophical Study Group in Bristol and any similar groups which may develop. THEOSOPHICAL STUDY "The Theosophical Society was founded to let it be known that such a thing as Theosophy exists." - H.P. Blavatsky in The Key to Theosophy. Although it is high time that the language used should be amended (see alternative suggestions) it is stated in every issue of the Theosophical Journal: THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY was formed in New York on 17th November 1875, and incorporated in Madras, India, on 3rd April 1905. Its three declared objects are: 1. To form a nucleus of the universal brotherhood of humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste or colour. . . . a nucleus of a universal human family . . . 2. To encourage the study of comparative religion, philosophy and science. 3. To investigate unexplained laws of nature and the powers latent in man. . . . the powers latent in human beings. At first sight it seems that the first of these objects is more than a little ambitious, however expressed. On reflection, it is clear that we are not striving for some kind of total and all- embracing new world order without beginning where we all must - on our own doorsteps. If support for the first object is to mean anything, we must endeavour to practice what we preach - and of course, it is only by individual human beings living the life that is implicit in such a lofty purpose that we can have any hope of realising it. And so, in practice, we are looking, in the first instance, to form smaller groups attempting to live in harmony and co- operation with each other, groups which may one day learn to unite with others to form larger "families." It is very clear that the second and third objects are as necessary for the eventual achievement of the first as are the good intentions of those who subscribe to them. Comparative Religion This is the first of three subjects which we are committed to encourage - committed, not to take it or leave it, as it may or may not please us, for to take such a view would be to deny acceptance of the objects themselves. Why should the study of Comparative Religion be the first on the list? It is plain that the world has not been well served by religious institutions, by different religions in open competi- tion or even war with each other, and by different sects within the same religion committing acts of violence upon those who are supposedly of their own persuasion. Yet religions survive, competing with each other for the minds and hearts of individuals. Behind this impulse must lie a need, otherwise no one would ever subscribe to any creed. That a need exists, and attempts made to meet it, is self-evident from the long history of religion. Religion may be as old as humanity itself, planted there, perhaps, by some divine or spiritual intelligence, an intelligence with the wisdom to know our needs before we are ourselves aware of them; planted, perhaps, by a divine wisdom - but "divine" and "wisdom" are the roots of the word Theosophy itself. May it not be that the theosophical founders, in their wisdom, realised that if we could not overcome the obstacles that religious institutions placed in the way of universal harmony, then that harmony could not even be begun to be achieved. And so, perhaps, they realised the need to make such a comparative study in order to discover the essence of wisdom underlying all true religion, for surely it is wisdom, not idealism, that may eventually enable us to fulfil our primary purpose? Philosophy "Philosophy" is a term that derives from two Greek words meaning, together, "Love of wisdom." Clearly this has also to be a part of our study, equally with Religion. Science Science is not so much a subject, but a method; a method which takes the practical approach, the investigative approach. It may appear to ask "Why?" but in reality all it ever asks - and certainly all it ever discovers - is "How." If our perception of the how of things is false, then we will place a false emphasis on everything else. The scientific method is essential for a true approach to universal harmony, otherwise we may run the risk - as some theosophists have done in the past - of accepting ideas and opinions as dogmas - sacred "truths" never to be questioned. To encourage study, therefore, requires that we ourselves engage in study, and to study is to ask questions and look for answers. Therefore we must not merely encourage the study of Comparative Religion, Philosophy and Science, but we must undertake it ourselves, otherwise will not others look at us and say, "This is all very well, but why are you not doing yourself what you are asking me to do?" Will they not be justified in thinking of us as just the teeniest bit hypocritical? - at least as hypocritical they may already perceive "religionists" to be? The Third Object "Unexplained laws of nature." To even begin to investigate these a working knowledge of scientific subjects and disciplines must, surely, already have been achieved? In other words, only by pursuing the second object can we hope to begin to work on the third. The powers latent in human beings have become the domain of psychologists and parapsychologists, separate scientific studies within the overall perception implicit in the second object. We need to pay some attention to their discoveries. Both parts of the third object are, in a sense, addressing the same question - the unexplained and undiscovered - the "hidden" or "occult." This too requires study. It is not enough therefore simply to attend lectures, listen to speakers, engage in debates and theoretical discussions, thence to go home saying, "Well, fancy that!" or "My oh my, what a clever and learned person!" We are various sorts of members of a Theosophical Group, not the local debating club, or visitors to an entertainment centre. The three objects are real, vital objects, requiring real vital attention, devotion, and discipline. To achieve anything really worthwhile requires doing, not talking about doing. Alan Bain, Bristol, January 12, 1994. (Revised February 1995). From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 13:08:40 -0500 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: A Quiet Afternoon in Ojai A Quiet Afternoon in Ojai -- Eldon Tucker I'm writing this note from Krotona, where Brenda is currently attending a Co-Masonic meeting. It's 3:30 p.m. on a warm Saturday afternoon (about 80 degrees--a southern California "winter" day). I don't have a cat by my side, like Jerry H-E or Liesel, but I do have a three-month boy, sleeping in a car seat to my right. I'm sitting facing a water fountain, surrounded, on the ground, by a Star of David. (The star consists of a white and brick-red pavement, and is surrounded by two circles of bricks, between which is a walkway.) I'm sitting cross-legged in front of the water fountain, with my laptop sitting on my briefcase, as I'm writing this. Krotona is a nice place to visit, and has theosophical classes throughout the year, except for the summer. It's about an one-hour drive from the Oxnard airport, or two hours from the one at Los Angeles. Brenda and I live about 60 miles southeast of it, so we can come here for a day trip. The air is usually smoggy, because of some recent quite-heavy rainstorms, the sky is clear and we can see in detail the surrounding mountains. I've just finished reading the latest from 'theos-l', and will soon be thinking about what to write about next. At the moment, it seems appropriate to write about what is happening outside, about me, rather than on a more-typical discussion topic. There are flowers in blossom, as thought it was springtime. A family walked by a few minutes ago. There are two bicycles parked on the right, by the goldfish and turtle ponds; their owners are in the Krotona Library, checking out the books. Right now, in this place, there's a sense of quiet peacefulness, a sense of still contemplation and enjoyment of being alive. There's a sense of functioning in a different mode than thought and mental discourse. The feeling just now is akin to the sense of peace that can be felt on perhaps the sixth day of a Dai Sesshin, a Zen Buddhist retreat, where the mind has exhausted itself of all the things it must urgently consider and there is a sense of timelessness, a sense of eternity or being disconnected from the Western sense of clock and time. The baby, Geoffrey, is just waking up. His eyes have opened and he is starting to move about. He'll be getting fussy soon, and I'll have to stop and care for him. Brenda still has over an hour left on her meeting, and it's my primary job to see that Geoffrey is taken care of, just now. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 13:09:22 -0500 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Updated Subscriber List For everyone's information: There are about 100 subscribers to the four lists on Theosophy. This is up from about 70 subscribers a month or two ago when I last compiled this list. Since last time, we lost five subscribers and gained over 30. The following names are from the 'review' command to the listserv program. First is the name, then the email address, then the lists subscribed to, where "b" is 'theos-buds', "l" is 'theos-l', "n" is 'theos-news', and "r" is 'theos-roots". (Note that the list was compiled on Friday, February 3, 1995.) Since last time, we lost five subscribers and gained over 30. ? Astrea ASTREA@ACTRIX.CO.AT (BLNR) ? Digest RTHOMPS@ACHILLES.K12.AR.US (B) ? Dsbrasil DSBRASIL@BRA000.CANAL-VIP.ONSP.BR (L) ? JH JH@PORI.TUT.FI (BLNR) ? Murray MURRAY@SSS.CO.NZ (BLNR) ? Paul PAUL@ACTRIX.CO.AT (BLNR) ? Titchenell AB463@LAFN.ORG () ? V, John JOHNV@ACTRIX.GEN.NZ (L) Agarwal, Sirish SIRISH@SUN.SOE.CLARKSON.EDU (BNR) Alexander, Mark HASLTISL@AOL.COM (BLNR) Allen, William WALLEN@AZTEC.ASTATE.EDU (BLNR) Bain, Alan GURU@NELLIE2.DEMON.CO.UK (BLNR) Banister, Ron 70402.2301@COMPUSERVE.COM (BLN) Beizer, Lance LANCEB@IX.NETCOM.COM (L) Bermingham, Ann 72723.2375@COMPUSERVE.COM (N) Cabigting, Ruben NEBUR@AOL.COM (BLR) Cabigting, Ruben RUBEN@NETCOM.COM (LN) Cain, Robert RPC@VNET.NET (BLNR) Caldwell, Dan MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU (BLNR) Chambers, J CHAMBERS@HAL.EMBA.UVM.EDU (BLNR) Chansarkar, Shailesh SHAILESH@CAIR.ERNET.IN (L) Chenery, Mary-faeth CHENERY@REDGUM.UCNV.EDU.AU (BLNR) Cilcain, Judy CILCA001@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU () Coker, J JCOKER@EIS.CALSTATE.EDU () Coker, Nancy AE677@LAFN.ORG (BLNR) Cole, Leonard 71664.3642@COMPUSERVE.COM (LN) Cooper, Diana DCOOPER@UNIXG.UBC.CA (LN) Crocker, John JRCECON@LEWIS.UMT.EDU (BLNR) De Carvalho, Osmar OSMARDC@BRA000.CANAL-VIP.ONSP.BR (BLNR) Degracia, Don 72662.1335@COMPUSERVE.COM (BN) Deutsch, Liesel LIESELFD@AOL.COM (BLN) Doe, John JWHICKER@INDIRECT.COM (BNR) Domb, Doreen DDD@HSS.CALTECH.EDU (BLNR) Edmondson, Neil US000614@INTERRAMP.COM (L) Eklund, Dara AH430@LAFN.ORG (BLNR) Emerson, Chris CHRIS@CAMP.WPIC.PITT.EDU (BNR) Euser, Martin EUSER@XS4ALL.NL (BL) Gemme, Roger RLGEMME@AOL.COM (BLNR) Gerard, Tamara TAMARALEA@AOL.COM (BLNR) Ginsburg, Sy 72724.413@COMPUSERVE.COM (BLNR) Glenn, Loy DGLENN@COMP.UARK.EDU (BLNR) Goebel, Theodora NIRA2U@AOL.COM (L) Graye, Michelle MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU (BLNR) Grenier, Michael MIKE@PLANET8.SP.PARAMAX.COM (BLNR) Griffin, Tom 73277.3724@COMPUSERVE.COM (BNR) Hampson, Daniel DARATMAN@AOL.COM (BLNR) Hao Chin, Vic NLTAP!PHILTAP!VHC@RELAY.NL.NET (BLNR) Hejka-Ekins, Jerry JHE@KOKO.CSUSTAN.EDU (BLNR) Helmer, George MAGNALUX@TIBALT.SUPERNET.AB.CA (L) Hittmeyer, Gary 73324.3676@COMPUSERVE.COM (LN) Hobbs, Terry HOBB@DELPHI.COM (BLNR) Hofmann, Felix FELIX@MELBPC.ORG.AU (L) Hugo, Oliver OLIVER4@VAXA.MIDDLESEX.AC.UK () Ihle, Richard RIHLE@AOL.COM (BLNR) Johnson, Paul PJOHNSON@LEO.VSLA.EDU (BLNR) Joseph, Father ARCHMONK@GATE.NET (BLNR) Kalvin, Sarah IXCHEL@DELPHI.COM (L) Kangas, Antero AK@TKS.OULU.FI (L) Korhonen, Aki AKIKORHO@PAJU.OULU.FI (BLNR) Kotas, Marek MKOTAS@CCMAIL.CROSSCOMM.COM (BLNR) Kumar, Arvind EXUAXK@EXU.ERICSSON.SE (N) Lagman, Julius INFOMAGNUS@DELPHI.COM (BLNR) Levin, Mike MLEVIN@JADE.TUFTS.EDU (BLNR) Library, Olcott OLCOTT@CEDAR.CIC.NET (BLNR) Litzenberg, Jacqueline LITZENBERG@DELPHI.COM (BLNR) Livingston, Kent KENT@GATEZONE.COM (BLNR) Lucas, Lewis LLUCAS@MERCURY.GC.PEACHNET.EDU (BLNR) Markland, Gary PPPMARKL@ATLANTIS.ACTRIX.GEN.NZ (N) Marshall, David DAM@PANIX.COM (BLNR) Maxwell, Patrick MAXWELL%NEWARTS_PMB@GATE.CC.UNP.AC.ZA (L) Mead, John JEM@VNET.NET (BLNR) Meier, Jim 70242.1611@COMPUSERVE.COM (BLNR) Mishra, Aditya Z900672A@BCFREENET.SEFLIN.LIB.FL.US (LN) Moffitt, Lee LMOFFITT@DELPHI.COM (BLNR) Moyer, Chris MOYERC@MCS.COM (BLNR) Murdic, Bob MURDICRJ@ESVAX.DNET.DUPONT.COM (BLNR) Norman, Joe DPJMN@VM.CC.OLEMISS.EDU (N) Oneill, Ken KONEIL@PIMACC.PIMA.EDU (L) Parrette, William A. Bill BILL@ZEUS.ITDC.EDU (BLNR) Patterson, Arthur Paul ARTHUR_PATTERSONA@MBNET.MB.CA (BLR) Plasto, Paddy PPLASTO@PEG.PEGASUS.OZ.AU (LN) Price, Keith 74024.3352@COMPUSERVE.COM (L) Prunier, Rich PRUNES@AOL.COM (BLNR) Rainger, Michael RAINGER@DELPHI.COM (BLNR) Ramrajkar, Naftaly NAFTALY@MDD.COMM.MOT.COM (BLNR) Rooke, Andrew ANDREW@MMCLIB.MED.MONASH.EDU.AU (BLNR) Santucci, James JSANTUCCI@CCVAX.FULLERTON.EDU (BLNR) Sapos, Michael T_MSAPOS@QUALCOMM.COM (BLNR) Schorre, Val VAL@NETCOM.COM (BNR) Schueler, Jerry 76400.1474@COMPUSERVE.COM (BL) Shafer, John JOHNSHAFER@AOL.COM (BLNR) Stentiford, Murray CELSO@LICK.UCSC.EDU (BLNR) Stoper, Arnold ASTOPER@S1.CSUHAYWARD.EDU (BLNR) Sutter, Christoph WSDE09@WSFG1.WISO.UNI-ERLANGEN.DE (R) Theosophical Library Pasadena DEODARS@AOL.COM (BLNR) Theosophical Society in America THEOS@NETCOM.COM (BLN) Thompson, Roxanne RTHOMPS@ACHILLES.K12.AR.US (L) Titchenell, Kim KTITCHE@EIS.CALSTATE.EDU () Tucker, Eldon ELDON@NETCOM.COM (BLNR) Tullis, John JTULLIS@APG.ANDERSEN.COM (LR) Van Der Waal, Bert VDWAAL@DUTW1.WBMT.TUDELFT.NL (BLNR) Warcup, Adam WARCUP@DIRCON.CO.UK (BLNR) Weeks, Nicholas AH430@LAFN.ORG (BLNR) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 13:10:09 -0500 From: bill@Zeus.itdc.edu Subject: Has anyone read this book? Hi all, Just a quick question for some of you more well-read theoso- phists out there. I was recently doing business in Seattle, WA and had an oppor- tunity to visit a Barnes & Nobel bookstore while there. As is my habit when visiting a book store, I looked through the "Comput- ers" and "New-age" sections. In this latter section I found a book that caught my eye. It appeared to be recently released and was entitled something like: _Madame_Blavatsky's_Baboon_ Has anybody read this? I didn't have enough money with me to pick it up myself but I sat down and read the first few pages and scanned a little more. The publisher's text on the cover of the book seemed to indicate that the book was the result of research aimed at discrediting any and all religions that had been esta- blished outside of mainstream christianity over the last one hun- dred years or so. But I saw little if any of this in the first few pages. Does anyone know anymore about this book? Just curious. Never thirst ... Bill-- ...who thinks that every solution breeds new problems. |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: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 13:11:37 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: fwd by jem-- Murray's Drama and the Cure (to JHE) Hi - the following is the truncated message from Murray S. I don't think the original ever got through in one piece. probably there is a line that begins with "from .." which terminated the listserv transmission. I have a fix for this bug (I think) and will be changing the catmail routine to force a ">" before each message line (if it works as documented). john mead (jem@vnet.net) (Murray's message follows - the part which was clobbered:) > MS> I'd like to see the means of communicating theosophy and its > > values extended more often, for instance to drama. > > ..... It makes for a nice alternation of modality > > and group dynamics that keeps interest at a very high level. > > The idea of doing occult plays has > held my fascination for years. It has been a dream of mine that > an opportunity will come to revive this. I have a similar hope, too. The New Zealand TS conventions sometimes have a drama piece, whether adapted from a known author or put together by some of the members. Typical themes are scenes from a theosophical leader's life, or extracts from some more-or-less "occult" play. Wellington Lodge created and put on a delightful and fun-filled pageant for a Convention about 8 years ago, tracing the history of the TS from Neanderthal times, through to the business world of today and its false gurus. The basic purpose of all these has been basically "entertainment for a TS audience". Beyond this, however, there is the intentional use of drama for teaching or expanding awareness, or even modification of behaviour patterns. These are the areas I'd like to see more energy put into. The little readers' theatre pieces I mentioned before are for teaching, providing a vehicle for introducing some of the key ideas of reincarnation and having a discussion about them. The process involves participation and some fun along the way. A Wellington member and I wrote the scripts, basing them on some of Edgar Cayce's readings, carefully chosen to highlight some facet of karma. In fact that's the title of the whole presentation: Facets of Karma. (Otherwise known as karma drama!) Each piece lasts only a few minutes, to illustrate a point, and is followed by disussion. You probably get a lot more information across, and better retention, this way, than you'd get by doing a lecture on the same topic. There are some times when a lecture is more appropriate, of course. Another way of using drama that I have only dreamed about, is to use it to present alternatives in inter-personal relationships. For example, two short pieces (perhaps only a minute long each) showing how the lead-up to an argument could be de-fused if one or both participants had a more love-infused approach, and/or used certain techniques. There could be a whole range of applications like this, for instance showing how attitudes and behaviour patterns vary with specific deficiences in each chakra, or blocks in the psyche, how resolution can be brought about, and how people behave afterwards. The power of the role model, in miniature. You'd need people with real insight coupled with the ability to crystallise it into drama, to write this kind of stuff. A workshop or group to create this kind of drama would probably be a highly illuminating experience in itself. > working on Yeats, who wrote and produced several occult plays. > But that is another story. Can you give us the names of some of them to look out for? > MS> Indeed. Sometimes, obviously, the wound is extremely painful > - ie threatening to a world view or a deeply-felt loyalty. We > need to have more than one way to open wounds, perhaps, and use > the one best suited to the case. > > For those who are willing to "take the cure," I propose > therapy through "talking it out." For those who are in the pain > of denial--I haven't got a clue. I think they just need a lot of > time to put themselves into a place where they can deal with it. > Any ideas? I think talking it out, and taking the time it takes, are two of the key elements. A third person acting as a mediator can be important too, if there are two parties in some kind of confrontation. Good will is important, and sometimes overlooked. We can let loose "nasties" unconsciously, sometimes, in our fight-or-flight reaction. It's probably easier to do this face-to-face than over e-mail, but in any case, trust is required. There are Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) techniques around, I gather from talking to someone who practises and teaches ADR techniques to business and industrial clients. I don't know about them as such, myself, but could possibly find out. I have felt the anguish and loss of a world view. I was twelve and had been reading Christian Science for about a year, feeling very excited about it - a real sense of discovery and enlightenment. Then, one day, I picked up a Catholic book which was all about exposing the faults in other religious systems, and it had a section on Christion Science. Now, I didn't agree with the Catholic view, but nevertheless just reading it somehow punctured my CS world and let it sadly deflate. I probably had this coming anyway, and this was just the trigger for it, but the pain and loss were deeply felt at the time. I'll come back to this post of yours, Jerry. There's more I'd like to respond to another day when there's more time. Murray Stentiford From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 14:10:13 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Has anyone read this book? Peter Washington's Mme. Blavatsky's Baboon first appeared in a UK edition last year. I read that; it was reviewed by Robert Ellwood in Gnosis for Winter 1994. Ellwood describes the book as "a long, rollicking, freewheeling narrative history of modern Euro-American occultistm, centering on Theosophy, Gurdjieffism, and their multitudinous various." After noting that it is not particularly well-researched, but entertaining reading and not completely biased against its main characters, Ellwood concludes: "despite its occasional intriguing or infuriating insight, this book cannot be considered-- any more than it considers itself,-- an important scholarly or interpretive work on modern occult movements. It can be recommended as a good read to those who enjoy this kind of history, provided they don't take it too seriously." Although I liked the author's style, there wasn't anything new in the book for me, and on one point he really screwed up badly. Early on, he gives a description of the Masters which he says reflects what HPB taught about them. But there are something like 50 factuals errors in a row here, because all the stuff he attributes to HPB actually was formulated by CWL years after her death. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 15:52:21 -0500 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"@vnet.net Subject: Re: Art, Theosophy & Related Courses Sy Ginsberg, I was most grateful to see your post of branch activities and receive the personal news of Carol and Stanley Hurd. To pick out just one of the many subjects I was pleased to see on your program, the Star Trek group brought a smile to my face - of appreciation, because I have often thought that many of the New Generation episodes could form an excellent starting point for a theosophical discussion. Some related ideas for group work are: Theosophy in Pop Music - there's some amazing stuff around You need a reasonably good sound system in the hall/room. I've done this and people loved it. Good ideas emerged too. Theosophy in Movies and Literature Theosophy in Indigenous Cultures Approached as seekers rather than dictators, this can come up with many a treasure. The beauty of many indigenous cultures is that they have preserved their wisdom by a rigorous oral transmission, so when you find correspondences with modern theosophy, it supports the idea of a universal ancient wisdom. Reincarnation and Children - begin with Ian Stevenson research, and go on to how to handle kids who seem to remember, and other related sources of information. I've seen all these work well. Murray Stentiford murray@sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 15:53:25 -0500 From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@compuserve.com> Subject: Madame Blavatsky's Baboon To Bill Parette and others interested: There is a good review by Robert Ellwood , in my opinion, of Peter Washington, Madame Blavatsky's Baboon (London: Secker & Warburg 1993) in Gnosis Magazine Winter 1994. I'll quote Ellwood's final paragraph which I think sums it up: "Despite the occasional intriguing or infuriating insight, this book cannot be considered - any more than it considers itself - an important scholarly or interpretive work on modern occult movements. It can be recommended as a good read to those who enjoy this kind of history, provided they don't take it too seriously." For those unfamiliar, the book is a kind of critical and negative historical review of modern occult movements. Its subtitle is "Theosophy and the Emergence of the Western Gurus." Its really quite humorous if taken the right way. There are sections not only on Blavatsky, but on Gurdjieff, Krishnamurti and others - generally showing the negative aspects of these various people. More, I think about their foibles as personalities, than their teachings. I was especially interested in the part on Gurdjieff because Washington asked me for some information. It's clear that he knows very little about the Gurdjieff teaching and I doubt that he knows a whole lot about the real importance of Theosophy. But, as Ellwood says, it is a good read. Especially if you do not mind your "idols" being taken down a peg or two. Hope this helps. Sy Ginsburg From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 16:08:18 -0500 From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: Nothing more than feelings. I feel like I should write a retraction of sorts for my rambling thoughts driven by feelings that were largely unprocessed. There seems to be a need for me to make theosophy into something it isn't. Others are quite comfortable with theosophy exactly as it is. I think theosophy is "ancient wisdom" (or its study) that is somehow always relevent through all manifested time and space. The T.S. is largely a modern guardian of this "ancient wisdom" as it has been handed down, but more specifically a guardian of the teachings and writings of modern theosphists from Blavatsky on. (I could be wrong about this for sure). Theosophy is not meant to be all things to all people and indeed, whoever said it was? The three objects spell out and perhaps justifiably limit the scope and purpose of theosophy (which is pretty ambitious). I would like to include art and psychology into theosophy, but maybe they don't really fit. Maybe they were left out with good cause. Feeling issues tend to be expresssed and processed more in art and in psychological practice (therapy) than in theosophy which deals more with thinking issues. Also my comparison of Unity Church with theosophical study centers or lodges was unfair since a lodge is not a church and is not meant to compete with churches (IMHO). Also the people in our lodge and most I have come into contact with in theosophy have been unusually developed, friendly, concerned and compassionate individuals (IMHO). I was projecting a lot of frustrated feelings and needs on to things outside. So what good are feelings? Without feelings, instincts and attachments we would probaly not bother to live or study theosophy, although the goal seems to be to gid rid of them? Feelings, some might say, come largely from the astral plane and therfore are ipso facto to be mistrusted. How can you tell a feeling (astral) from a high intution (buddhic) or a necessity (atmic)? There seems a common theme in many related posts recently that everything relates to its own level that is math to math, but not math to spirituality, in the sense that the uncertainty principle says nothing to us about universal laws on other levels or about Eastern mysticism. Can we be sure or is the hope for something that unifies all the levels only an impossible dream? Stephen Hawkings would say he and others are on the verge of some mathematical expression of "the mind of God" and Blavatsky claimed that the "Secret Doctrine" is the synthesis of philosophy, science and religion. The grand picture seems to be one of Spirit tearning itself down (falling) and enfolding itself in matter (itself again) so as to build itself back up (evolution or even a kind of salvation?) so as to become conscious and conscious of itself. Whew! And then to return to the Unconscious/Unmanifest and do it all again. Nothing Gold Can Stay Nature's first green is gold Her hardest hue to hold Her early leaf's a flower But only so an hour. Then leaf subsides to leaf So Eden sank to grief So dawn goes down to day Nothing gold can stay. -- Robert Frost Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 18:19:01 -0500 From: uscap9m9@ibmmail.com Subject: Rumors and Reality Rumors and Reality -- Eldon Tucker Depending upon the source of our information, its accuracy varies. We are faced with the task of separating truth from fiction in all walks of life. We can hear, and if not careful, pass on rumors, hearsay, slander, and white- washing. How does this happen? With hearsay, we hear and repeat someone else's story as though it were factual. That story is presented as "common knowledge," and has nothing with it to allow its verification. Untrue or inaccurate depictions of people and groups are passed on, perhaps with a bit of elaboration, added by a memory that changes over time. I read a study a few years ago that was based upon rumors. It concluded that rumors cannot be denied. A public denial was perceived by some as additional proof of guilt. The only way that a rumor could be contained was by giving a twist to it, by giving it a new meaning or slant that changed what it said. A story, once circulated, cannot be recalled, but only altered or reinterpreted. This may be why the public relations agents of politicians are called "spin doctors," since they work to give a spin or twist to public opinion favorable to their candidates. With rumors, there are two kinds. There is the type that is whispered, passed on in secret, perpetuating underground stories. Then there is the type that is given public expression. It is better to air out the rumors, to let them see the light of day, to make them subject to challenge and correction. A rumor cannot be suppressed by never allowing it a public airing. There is no way to counteract something, even if it be to give it a different "spin," if it stays in hiding. Coming back to the subject of truth, of reality, of the validity of what we think we know, let's consider what "hearsay" is. With hearsay, we have second-hand information, information that is not an eye-witness, or first-hand account of something. There is at least one person between us and the actual experiencer of the event, one retelling of a story, subject to reinterpretation or misunderstanding. The statement "Sally said she heard they hold seances at the Blacksprings Lodge" would be hearsay, since it appeals to "common knowledge," but fails to cite a source. The statement "I heard her tell people at the public lecture to never read HPB" is first-hand, from the person that experienced hearing the lecture, and is not hearsay. If another of us repeated that statement, without giving the name of the person hearing the lecture, our statement would then become hearsay. A similar desire for accuracy drives historians to always seek source documentation, rather than settle for second- hand accounts, since there is always the danger of misunderstanding or inaccuracy in the later writers. With a rumor, the truth of a person or organization can be lost. That loss can be for better or worse. Not all stories that arise are critical. Some stories are uncritical, unreasonably flattering, and tend to whitewash undesirable aspects of people. Compare the nice way that HPB may be depicted at times, as compared to her actual outlandish personality! Or consider the failings of other historical characters that we have discussed in the past. With our study of Theosophy, we are faced with a similar obstacle in our search for the Truth. Some writers are "source" in the sense of being direct agents of the Masters, with their writings sanctioned, if not actually overseen and subject to correction of the Masters. (HPB's "The Secret Doctrine," for instance, would have corrections and additional notes added to it overnight, by the Mahatmas, while she slept.) Other writers are interpreters or sought to digest and simplify the deeper materials; they are secondary-sources, and need to be read with additional care, subject to comparison and review against the authoritative works. When we seek the source materials, though, there are two kinds of source. First is eyewitness statements or accounts of something. The authoritative theosophical texts fall in this category. Second, but also of considerable importance, is personal experiences. We need to have direct experiences of the theosophical thought-current, from a deep study of the literature, as our own first-hand experience of the Teachings. Both approaches allow us to bypass the rumors, half-truths, and watered-down speculative literature of the world and approach Wisdom directly. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 19:44:35 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: GOD AS 'HE' (fwd) Forwarded message follows: >From @ashley.cofc.edu:hermetica-error@cofc.edu >Date: Mon Feb 06 22:20:40 1995 > I am thankful that the English language has a neuter gender, so that (unlike the French and Italians) I can call God "IT" and not have to create it in my own image, or yours. In the Western tradition, which derives its concept of God mostly from the Christian/Judaic model, the word "God" is English for the (originally) Hebrew Jehovah, or YHWH. (Okay, it's theos in Greek, but the Greeks got this version from the Hebrews). The Hebrew noun YHWH is derived from the verb "to be" and as near as can be translated is something along the lines of Being *per se* or "Eternal Being." Many of the early church fathers, because of this (and maybe not being English :)) spoke of deity as "The Eternal" - often, granted, adding "blessed be *he*." But in a patriarchal culture, that is to be expected - man makes Gid in *his* own image. Watch out for the women on this one - they are on to it now [are you there Liesel?]. There are many studies in progress which are addressing this unjustified description being undertaken by women, and some men, although rarely, if ever, among theosophists. See my "I'm alright Jill ..." posted a while back. Note that the above quote is from a different list, and so is not a response to my posting to Armand. The same opinion is likely to be found on the church history mailing list to which I also subscribe. Part of the original translation problem is certainly due to the fact that apart from patriarchal viewpoints which dominated ancient Israelite thinking, Hebrew has only two gender its its grammar. Every noun is either he or she - no it. In Hebrew, for example, "Spirit" is always feminine, as is "Wisdom" and "Understanding" and in its singular form ALHE (Elohe) the word for god. As kabbalists everywhere know, the word Elohim used for God in Genesis and throughout the OT, is a feminine noun with a masculine plural, and is said to represent the totally inclusive nature of deity. Not many people know that. -- Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk [Mailbox shared with various worthy causes - IMHO] - All views expressed are humble opinions - From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 19:46:40 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Nothing more than feelings. In message <950206210337_74024.3352_BHT92-1@CompuServe.COM> Keith Price writes and quotes: > So what good are feelings? Without feelings, instincts and attachments we would probaly not bother to live or study theosophy, although the goal seems to be to gid rid of them? Feelings, some might say, come largely from the astral plane and therfore are ipso facto to be mistrusted. How can you tell a feeling (astral) from a high intution (buddhic) or a necessity (atmic)? There seems a common theme in many related posts recently that everything relates to its own level that is math to math, but not math to spirituality, in the sense that the uncertainty principle says nothing to us about universal laws on other levels or about Eastern mysticism. Amen. Dunno that I support the idea that math does not relate to spirituality, though. In my own study and work I am always careful to try to distinguish between feelings on the one hand and feeling on the other. By which terms I mean: 1. Feelings; passing impressions (in our astral depts if you like) which center more or less exclusively around "I like it, or I don't like it" and 2. Feeling; lasting *emotion* - such as love. Feeling is thus, in life, a constant, whereas feelings (1.) come and go. "Love," wrote Shakespeare, "is not love which alters when it alteration finds." Having said that we cannot do without *either* of these - except perhaps in the dizzy heights of a post-mortem devachanic existence. > > The grand picture seems to be one of Spirit tearning itself down (falling) and enfolding itself in matter (itself again) so as to build itself back up (evolution or even a kind of salvation?) so as to become conscious and conscious of itself. Whew! And then to return to the Unconscious/Unmanifest and do it all again. You mean, like, God is about disappearing up her own fundament? And *we* are picking up the bill? Funny kind of divine wisdom if you ask me - but then maybe you don't (ask me). :-) PS. I love you all. -- Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk [Mailbox shared with various worthy causes - IMHO] - All views expressed are humble opinions - From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 20:01:55 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re to Keith Keith: "I would like to include art and psychology into theosophy, but maybe they don't really fit. Maybe they were left out with good cause." Why can't they be included? Who left them out? Any philosophy or doctrine that leaves out art or psychology can't be much of a philosophy. I have found that theosophy has a good deal to say about both of these areas. It seems to me, Keith, that you have talked a good deal about art already. It all sounded pretty good to me. Keith: "Feeling issues tend to be expresssed and processed more in art and in psychological practice (therapy) than in theosophy which deals more with thinking issues." Wrong. Theosophy, like Mahayana Buddhism, doesn't try to ignore or repress feelings, but rather tries to sublimate or refine them. Theosophists seek to turn hate into love, and love into compassion. HPB says again and again that the heart doctrine is more important than the eye (or brain) doctrine. Most good art is a language of feeling rather than thinking. As long as we are human beings, we will feel emotions, and to ignore our feelings or to repress them is worse than useless. Keith: "So what good are feelings? Without feelings, instincts and attachments we would probaly not bother to live or study theosophy, although the goal seems to be to gid rid of them?" Again, our goal is not to get rid of our feelngs (heavens knows HPB had her share) but rather to refine them. In Enochian Magic, it is taught that those Adepts who totally eliminate their feelings go to the City of the Pyramids where their body becomes ashes in the form of a pyramid; they become a lifeless consciousness center who stagnates at that location. Theosophy speaks of the Black Brotherhood, which is said to be composed largely of those without any feelings for others. Keith: " Feelings, some might say, come largely from the astral plane and therfore are ipso facto to be mistrusted." Why should astral plane objects be any more or less mistrusted than any object anywhere in Maya? Yes, feelings are illusory. So are thoughts. So is our physical world. But while we are human, they are about all we have, and we need to take care of them. Keith: "How can you tell a feeling (astral) from a high intution (buddhic) or a necessity (atmic)?" Although I am unfamiliar with your term "necessity (atmic)" I would refer you to an earlier posting of mine in which I said that astral feelings are usually tainted with self, or ego-centered, while buddhic feelings are not ego-centered but rather other-centered or more altruistic. This is one way to tell the difference. Keith: "There seems a common theme in many related posts recently that everything relates to its own level that is math to math, but not math to spirituality, in the sense that the uncertainty principle says nothing to us about universal laws on other levels or about Eastern mysticism." Why not math to spirituality? I have used the expression S=Fv2 where S is spirit, F is form, v is the speed or velocity of thought, and the 2 is a square term (v is squared as in Einstein's equation for the speed of light, c, from which this was taken). The problem is that it is difficult to measure parameters such as spirit and the speed of thought. But as a language of relationships, equations can be used nicely to show how things can work together. Actually, the uncertainty principle says a lot about universal laws. Haven't you read the Tao of Physics yet? How about my Enochian Physics? What the uncertainty principle says, is that every observer effects what is observed in some way. Mind effects matter by being conscious of it. Carl Jung used this idea in his principle of synchronicity. Tantric yoga uses this principle to control the flow of prana in the body. It has lots of fallouts and carry overs. So cheer up, Keith. Theosophy has lots of room for both art and feeling. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 20:47:59 -0500 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Dream interpretation Nicholas, Do I understand you correctly, that one should not interpret ones dreams using your own symbolism? That is what I extrapolated, not what you said, but it is an interest of mine. What I had thought I had gleaned from Blavatsky was my current idea that the elements of our dreams have diffenet meanings for each of us. For instance, when I began my inquiry into Theosophy I was reading many books on the subject. My mother called to say she had a dream in which I had snakes coming out of my head. It was very upsetting to her and she was concerned about me. I interrpreted the snakes as the ancient symbol of wisdom, which I had read about in theosophy. As I wrote my example it occurred to me that we had "conferred" with each other, so the example would validate your point and not the one I was making. Perhaps you can straighten me out! Lewisllucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 21:03:43 -0500 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Art, Theosophy & Related Courses Hello Miami! Thank you for the update on activities there. Please pass greetings to the Hurds from Lewis Lucas. We served together many years ago on the Florida Federation. Also Jaun Cruz and Ricardo...last name escapes me at the moment, but we worked together at national headquarters. Atlanta, I have been told, intends to buy a computer with modem and CD drive, which I think is a great idea. This would give members of the group access to discussions on this list. Any chance Miami might do the same? Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 21:49:23 -0500 From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Nothing more than feelings The grand picture of spirit evolving so as to become conscious and conscious of itself seems as good an answer to the question of Why? as any other. Gurdjieff called us human beings experiments by which the Absolute becomes conscious of itself on this planet. His question was whether we would make it or whether we would be failed experiments like the ants and the bees who became too mechanical to be conscious of themselves, and thus made it impossible through them for Spirit to be conscious of itself. And then there is the talmudic (or is it Kabbalistic) story where God is chastising Abraham and says, "Abraham, if it wasn't for me you wouldn't be here." Abraham deferentially replies, "Yes, Lord and I thank you, but if it wasn't for me, no one would know you." Sy Ginsburg From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 22:33:44 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Nothing more than feelings. Dear Keith, I haven't been following what's been going on on the Theos-l net lately. I had another phase of my life to attend to. Were you talking tongue in cheek, when you pictured Theosophy as only a thought process? Must be, because you also mention that the Theosophists you've come into contact with were, "friendly, concerned & compassionate" all of which have elements of feeling. When I did Basic Theosophy, I learned that the astral & the mentals function together a lot, & I personally can't imagine thinking without any feeling. To me, that's very cold, dead. I think one complements the other, that they go hand in glove. It also seems to me that Mme. Blavatsky didn't write for us to understand "exactly" what she wrote. I always thought that her writings were to learn, to play with, to imagine into, to intuit. Your vision of Theosophy isn't necessarily the same as your neighbor's. It wasn't meant to be. What HPB wrote, & others after her, needs to be reinterpreted by every individual who tries to study it. No 2 people will see it exactly alike. Art & psychology do fit into Theosophy. There was Nicholas Roerich, among other artists, & Assagioli, a Theosophist - psychiatrist, a pupil of Freud. We have a whole system of self improvement, which is based on our brand of psychology. You were kidding, weren't you? Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 06 Feb 1995 01:09:45 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Vedas > Date: 5 Feb 1995 16:23:26 GMT > From: susarla@owlnet.rice.edu (H. Krishna Susarla) > Subject: Teachings of the Vedas Teachings of the Vedas . From the book "Sri Isopanisad" . By His Divine Grace A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (c) The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International Used with permission (Delivered as a lecture by His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada on October 6, 1969, at Conway Hall, London, England.) Ladies and gentlemen, today's subject matter is the teachings of the Vedas. What are the Vedas? The Sanskrit verbal root of veda can be interpreted variously, but the purport is finally one. Veda means knowledge. Any knowledge you accept is veda, for the teachings of the Vedas are the original knowledge. In the conditioned state, our knowledge is subjected to many deficiencies. The difference between a conditioned soul and a liberated soul is that - the conditioned soul has four kinds of defects. The first defect is that he must commit mistakes. For example, in our country, Mahatma Gandhi was considered to be a very great personality, but he committed many mistakes. Even at the last stage `of his life, his assistant warned, "Mahatma Gandhi, don't go to the New Delhi meeting. I have some friends, and I have heard there is danger." But he did not - hear. He persisted in going and was killed. Even great personalities like Mahatma Gandhi, President Kennedy-there are so many of them - make mistakes. To err is human. This is one defect of the conditioned soul. Another defect: to be illusioned. Illusion means to accept something which is not: maya. Maya means "what is not." Everyone is accepting the body as the self. If I ask you what you are, you will say, "I am Mr. John; I am a rich man; I am this; I am that." All these are bodily identifications. But you are not this body. This is illusion. The third defect is the cheating propensity. Everyone has the propensity to cheat others. Although a person is fool number one, he poses himself as very intelligent. Although it is already pointed out that he is in illusion and makes mistakes, he will theorize: "I think this is this, this is this." But he does not even know his own position. He writes books of philosophy, although he is defective. That is his disease. T hat is cheating. Lastly, our senses are imperfect. We are very proud of our eyes. Often, someone will challenge, "Can you show me God?" But do you have the eyes to see God? You will never see if you haven't the eyes. If immediately the room becomes dark, you cannot even see your hands. So what power do you have to see? We cannot, therefore, expect knowledge (veda) with these imperfect senses. With all these deficiencies, in conditioned life we cannot give perfect knowledge to anyone. Nor are we ourselves perfect. Therefore we accept the Vedas as they are. You may call the Vedas Hindu, but "Hindu" is a foreign name. We are not Hindus. Our real identification is varnasrama. Varnasrama denotes the followers of the Vedas, those who accept the human society in eight divisions of varna and asrama. There are four divisions of society and four divisions of spiritual life. This is called varnasrama. It is stated in the Bhagavad-gita [4.13], "These divisions are every where because they are created by God." The divisions of society are brahmana, ksatriya, vaisya, sudra. Brahmana refers to the very intelligent class of men, those who know what is Brahman. Similarly, the ksatriyas, the administrator group, are the next intelligent class of men. Then the vaisyas, the mercantile group. These natural classifications are found everywhere. This is the Vedic principle, and we accept it. Vedic principles are accepted as axiomatic truth, for there cannot be any mistake. That is acceptance. For instance, in India cow dung is accepted as pure, and yet cow dung is the stool of an animal. In one place you'll find the Vedic injunction that if you touch stool, you have to take a bath immediately. But in another place it is said that the stool of a cow is pure. If you smear cow dung in an impure place, that place becomes pure. With our ordinary sense we can argue, "This is contradictory." Actually, it is contradictory from the ordinary point of view, but it is not false. It is fact. In Calcutta, a very prominent scientist and doctor analyzed cow dung and found that it contains all antiseptic properties. In India if one person tells another, "You must do this," the other party may say, "What do you mean? Is this a Vedic injunction, that I have to follow you without any argument?" Vedic injunctions cannot be interpreted. But ultimately, if you carefully study why these injunctions are there, you will find that they are all correct. The Vedas are not compilations of human knowledge. Vedic knowledge comes from the spiritual world, from Lord Krsna Another name for the Vedas is sruti. Sruti refers to that knowledge which is acquired by hearing. It is not experimental knowledge. Sruti is considered to be like a mother. We take so much knowledge from our mother. For example, if you want to know who your father is, who can answer you? Your mother. If the mother says, "Here is your father," you have to accept it. It is not possible to experiment to find out whether he is your father. Similarly, if you want to know something beyond your experience, beyond your experimental knowledge, beyond the activities of the senses, then you have to accept the Vedas. There is no question of experimenting. It has already been experimented. It is already settled. The version of the mother, for instance, has to be accepted as truth. There is no other way. The Vedas are considered to be the mother, and Brahma is called the grandfather, the forefather, because he was the first to be instructed in the Vedic knowledge. In the beginning the first living creature was Brahma. He received this Vedic knowledge and imparted it to Narada and other disciples and sons, and they also distributed it to their disciples. In this way, the Vedic knowledge comes down by disciplic succession. It is also confirmed in the Bhagavad-gita that Vedic knowledge is understood in this way. If you make experimental endeavor, you come to the same conclusion, but just to save time you should accept. If you want to know who your father is and if you accept your mother as the authority, then whatever she says can be accepted without argument. There are three kinds of evidence: pratyaksa, anumana and sabda. Pratyaksa means "direct evidence." Direct evidence is not very good because our senses are not perfect. We are seeing the sun daily, and it appears to us just like a small disc, but it is actually far, far larger than many planets. Of what value is this seeing? Therefore we have to read books; then we can understand about the sun. So direct experience is not perfect. Then there is an anumana, inductive knowledge: "It may be like this"-hypothesis. For instance, Darwin's theory says it may be like this, it may be like that. But that is not science. That is a suggestion, and it is also not perfect. But if you receive the knowledge from the authoritative sources, that is perfect. If you receive a program guide from the radio station authorities, you accept it. You don't deny it; you don't have to make an experiment, because it is received from the authoritative sources. Vedic knowledge is called sabda-pramana. An other name is sruti. Sruti means that this knowledge has to be received simply by aural reception. The Vedas instruct that in order to understand transcendental knowledge, we have to hear from the authority. Transcendental knowledge is knowledge from beyond this universe. Within this universe is material knowledge, and beyond this universe is transcendental knowledge. We cannot even go to the end of the universe, so how can we go to the spiritual world? Thus to acquire full knowledge is impossible. There is a spiritual sky. There is another nature, which is beyond manifestation and non-manifestation. But how will you know that there is a sky where the planets and inhabitants are eternal? All this knowledge is there, but how will you make experiments? It is not possible. Therefore you have to take the assistance of the Vedas. This is called Vedic knowledge. In our Krsna consciousness movement we are accepting knowledge from the highest authority, Krsna. Krsna is accepted as the highest authority by all classes of men. I am speaking first of the two classes of transcendentalists. One class of transcendentalists is called impersonalistic, Mayavadi. They are generally known as Vedantists, led by Sankaracarya. And there is another class of transcendentalists, called Vaisnavas, like Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Visnu svami. Both the Sankara-sampradaya and the Vaisnava-sampradaya have accepted Krsna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Sankaracarya is supposed to be an impersonalist who preached impersonalism, impersonal Brahman, but it is a fact that he is a covered personalist. In his commentary on the Bhagavad-gita he wrote, "Narayana, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is beyond this cosmic manifestation." And then again he confirmed, "That Supreme Personality of Godhead, Narayana, is Krsna. He has come as the son of Devaki and Vasudeva." He particularly mentioned the names of His father and mother. So Krsna is accepted as the Supreme Personality of Godhead by all transcendentalists. There is no doubt about it. Our source of knowledge in Krsna consciousness is the Bhagavad-gita, which comes directly from Krsna. We have published the Bhagavad-gita As It Is because we accept Krsna as He is speaking, without any interpretation. That is Vedic knowledge. Since the Vedic knowledge is pure, we accept it. Whatever Krsna says, we accept. This is Krsna consciousness. That saves much time. If you accept the right authority, or source of knowledge, then you save much time. For example, there are two systems of knowledge in the material world: inductive and deductive. From deductive, you accept that man is mortal. Your father says man is mortal, - your sister says man is mortal, everyone says man is mortal-but you do not experiment. You accept it as a fact that man is mortal. If you want to research to find out whether man is mortal, you have to study each and every man, and you may come to think that there may be some man who is not dying but you have not seen him yet. So in this way your research will never be finished. In Sanskrit this process is called aroha, the ascending process. If you want to attain knowledge by any personal endeavor, by exercising your imperfect senses, you will never come to the right conclusions. That is not possible. There is a statement in the Brahma-samhita: Just ride on the airplane which runs at the speed of mind. Our material airplanes can run two thousand miles per hour, but what is the speed of mind? You are sitting at home, you immediately think of India - say, ten thousand miles away - and at once it is in your home. Your mind has gone there. The mindspeed is so swift. Therefore it is stated, "If you travel at this speed for millions of years, you'll find that the spiritual sky is unlimited." It is not possible even to approach it. Therefore, the Vedic injunction is that - one must approach-the word--compulsory" is used-a bona fide spiritual master, a guru. And what is the qualification of a spiritual master? He is one who has rightly heard the Vedic message from the right source. And he must practically be firmly established in Brahman. These are the two qualities. Otherwise he is not bona fide. This Krsna consciousness movement is completely authorized from Vedic principles. In the Bhagavad- gita Krsna says, "The actual aim of Vedic research is to find out Krsna. " In the Brahma-samhita it is also stated, "Krsna, Govinda, has innumerable forms, but they are all one." They are not like our forms, which are fallible. His form is infallible. My form has a beginning, but His form has no beginning. It is ananta. And His form-so many multiforms-has no end. My form is sitting here and not in my apartment. You are sitting there and not in your apartment.. But Krsna can be everywhere at one time. He can sit down in Goloka Vrndavana, and at the same time He is everywhere, all-pervading. He is original, the oldest, but whenever you look at a picture of Krsna you'll find a young boy fifteen or twenty years old. You will never find an old man. You have seen pictures of Krsna as a charioteer from the Bhagavad- gita. At that time He was not less than one hundred years old. He had greatgrandchildren, but He looked just like a boy. Krsna, God, never becomes old. That is His supreme power. And if you want to search out Krsna by studying the Vedic literature, then you will be baffled. It may be possible, but it is very difficult. But you can very easily learn about Him from His devotee. His devotee can deliver Him to you: "Here He is, take Him." That is the potency of Krsna's devotees. Originally there was only one Veda, and there was no necessity of reading it. People were so intelligent and had such sharp memories that by once hearing from the lips of the spiritual master they would understand. They would immediately grasp the whole purport. But five thousand years ago Vyasadeva put the Vedas in writing for the people in this age, Kali yuga. He knew that eventually the people would be short-lived, their memories would be very poor, and their intelligence would not be very sharp. "Therefore, let me teach this Vedic knowledge in writing." He divided the Vedas into four: Rg, Sama, Atharva and Yajur. Then he gave the charge of these Vedas to his different disciples.. He then thought of the less intelligent class of men-stri, sudra and dvija-bandhu. He considered the woman class and sudra class (worker class) and dvija-bandhu. Dvija-bandhu refers to those who are born in a high family but who are not properly qualified. A man who is born in the family of a brahmana but is not qualified as a brahmana is called dvija-bandhu. For these persons he compiled the Mahabharata, called the history of India, and the eighteen Puranas. These are all part of the Vedic literature: the Puranas, the Mahabharata, the four Vedas and the Upanisads. The Upanisads are part of the Vedas. Then Vyasadeva summarized all Vedic knowledge for scholars and philosophers in what is called the Vedanta-sutra. This is the last word of the Vedas. Vyasadeva personally wrote the Vedanta-sutra under the instructions of Narada, his Guru Maharaja (spiritual master), but still he was not satisfied. That is a long story, described in Srimad Bhagavatam. Vedavyasa was not very satisfied even after compiling many Puranas and Upanisads, and even after writing the Vedanta-sutra. Then his spiritual master, Narada, instructed him, "You explain the Vedanta sutra." Vedanta means "ultimate knowledge," and the ultimate knowledge is Krsna. Krsna says that throughout all the Vedas one has to understand Him: vedanta-krd veda-vid eva caham. Krsna says, "I am the compiler of the Vedanta-sutra, and I am the knower of the Vedas." Therefore the ultimate objective is Krsna. That is explained in all the Vaisnava commentaries on Vedanta philosophy. We Gaudiya Vaisnavas have our commentary on Vedanta philosophy, called Govindabhasya, by Baladeva Vidyabhusana. similarly, Ramanujacarya has a commentary, and Madhvacarya has one. The version of Sankaracarya is not the only commentary. There are many Vedanta commentaries, but because the Vaisnavas did not present the first Vedanta commentary, people are under the wrong impression that Sankaracarya's is the only Vedanta commentary. Be sides that, Vyasadeva himself wrote the perfect Vedanta commentary, Srimad Bhagavatam. Srimad Bhagavatam begins with the first words of the Vedanta-sutra: janmady asya yatah.. And that janmady asya yatah is fully explained in Srimad Bhagavatam. The Vedanta-sutra simply hints at what is Brahman, the Absolute Truth: "The Absolute Truth is that from whom everything emanates." This is a summary, but it is explained in detail in Srimad Bhagavatam. If everything is emanating from the Absolute Truth, then what is the nature of the Absolute Truth? That is explained in Srimad-Bhagavatam. The Absolute Truth must be consciousness. He is self-effulgent (sva-rat). We develop our consciousness and knowledge by receiving knowledge from others, but for Him it is said that He is self-effulgent. The whole summary of Vedic knowledge is the Vedanta-sutra, and the Vedanta-sutra is explained by the writer himself in Srimad-Bhagavatam. We finally request those who are actually after Vedic knowledge to try to understand the explanation of all Vedic knowledge from Srimad-Bhagavatam and the Bhagavad-gita. Please call (800) 927-4152 (in USA) for more information or mail your comments/questions/suggestions to "jagadish@aol.com" or "anand@primenet.com" BBPI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 07:20:04 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: archives It appears that last week while I was away, there was an interesting discussion between Eldon Tucker and Elisabeth Trumpler concerning the availability of archives. It appears that they both made very good points, and still managed to talk past each other. Elisabeth made that point that: "Theosophical centers are not the only institutions who keep their archives under lock and key! This is standard practice for the purpose of preserving the valuable, often fragile, materials housed in archives. The reason is not secrecy but safety." Elisabeth is of course correct. Archives are always separated from the main collections for reasons of "safety." Of course, Eldon's issue was not safety, but availability. Elisabeth replies that : "Any serious researcher may apply to Dr. John Algeo for access to the Archives at Olcott, and in the time I have been here, permission has been granted many times, as long as application is made well ahead of time, so that the materials wanted can be located." Here, Elisabeth is not clear whether she is talking about the de Zirkoff archives, the American Section Archives, or both. My understanding is that the de Zirkoff archives were donated to the Wheaton Society under the proviso that they be open to anyone who is doing research on HPB. If Elisabeth is talking about the de Zirkoff archives, I'm glad that the policy has changed so that they are now open to "any serious researcher." Some years ago, a former head librarian had informed me that access to the de Zirkoff archives was routinely denied to researchers if there was any question as to whether or not that person might write favorably about HPB or not. This, of course eliminated scholars doing research in conjunction with a University--the very people that archives are normally most available for. But that was another Olcott librarian and under another administration. So if Elisabeth is referring to the de Zirkoff archives here, I'm glad to hear that the policy has been changed to conform to Boris' wishes. Next, Elisabeth makes the point that: "The second reason for restricting access to the archives is that we do not have an archivist at Olcott-- someone who is able to find the materials and to keep them organized. At some time in the future, we hope to be able to afford such a position. Even photocopying valuable documents can be harmful to them. It should be done only by someone who has the skill and the experience." Now here, Elisabeth may be thinking of the American Section Archives, since the de Zirkoff archives are mostly relatively recent transcriptions rather than the original documents themselves (I'm aware that there are also some "documents."), though of course someone is needed to keep the material organized. No doubt there is a lot a delicate material in the American Section archives that would require special handling. However, I'm yet to have met a "serious researcher" outside of an inner circle of residents who have ever been given access to it-- though I have met many who have made such requests. Perhaps Elisabeth will clarify for us the status of the American Section Archives as to whether or not they are also open to "serious researchers", and what constitutes a "serious researcher." Elisabeth also asks: "BTW I wonder why people refer to the Olcott headquarters as `Wheaton'? Just because we are located in the town of Wheaton? Most of Wheaton has nothing to do with the TS. Certainly the City of Wheaton has no say over the use of our archives or library or whatever!" My experience has been that Theosophical Organizations are normally referred to by location. "Wheaton" thus refers to the American Section of the Adyar Society, to distinguish it from "Adyar", the International Headquarters of the Theosophical Society (in Adyar India), or from "Pasadena", the International Headquarters of the Theosophical Society (in Pasadena California). When I hear people use the designation "Olcott", more often than not, they are or were employees there, or they are referring more specifically to the physical Headquarters and grounds rather than to the Organization or the bureaucracy. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 07:37:07 -0500 From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@compuserve.com> Subject: Art, Theosophy & Related Courses Hello Lewis Lucas and others, Lewis Lucas writes, "Atlanta, I have been told, intends to buy a computer with modem and CD drive, which I think is a great idea. This would give members of the group access to discussions on this list. Any chance Miami might do the same?" This is a really good question about branch work. In addition to myself, one other at Miami branch that I know of has subscribed to the Theos lists thus far, Jacqueline Litzenberg. This came about because several of us were talking a month ago about the "information superhighway" and thinking the branch ought to do something. We were estimating some sort of substantial outlay for equipment, although the branch does already have a computer with modem, but it is used for other purposes. None of us knew the required technology for creating the "mail hub" or whatever you call it that John Mead has set up. I remembered a short notice some issues back in the American Theosophist about what John Mead was doing so I inquired of John Algeo at Wheaton and he got us the information. The result is that there are 2 of us here that are now subscribers. I hope there will be a lot more. There is no reason why our branch computer should not be available to members who do not have computers in order to access discussions on this list. The practical problem is that during the day, the computer is in use for other things and not readily available for anyone to just come in, sit down at it, and begin to communicate. Also, the chances are that anyone computer literate enough to want to subscribe to the Theos lists probably has their own computer and modem. But maybe we can try something Lewis, at least during "off" hours. How about other branches of the various theosophical organizations? I have no idea who is doing what. Question: Is there some inexpensive way for the branch to access an Internet gateway with a local telephone access number. Miami South Florida branch of TSA is a not-for-profit religious corporation. Can anyone help with this information? Meanwhile, I am sitting here at the comfort of my own computer at 7 A.M. Florida time and writing this. It happened that I was already a compuserve subscriber for other purposes, so compuserve is my gateway, although I think it is one of the more expensive ones. Probably a third of the members (at least 30) at our branch I would think now have either their own computers or access to a computer with a modem. If we could motivate some of them as we are now trying to do, I think that there could be several more from Miami South Florida branch signing on. As a practical matter I think that for those interested, the convenience of just communicating from where your own computer is at the most convenient time is likely what will happen. I wonder what the makeup is of the present group of Theos-L accessers? Some of you I know are into branch work as I am of one or another branch of the various lines of theosophical societies. Others must be members-at-large, or non-member theosophists. The Internet is certainly breaking down any lines of demarkation between people belonging or not belonging any of the various "official" theosophical organizations. Thanks to whoever for the recent list of Theos lists subscribers. Does anyone know or care what is the makeup of that list? I have another question. I am a subscriber to all 4 lists, but only seem to receive communication on Theos-L. Does that mean the other lists are not used. It would seem appropriate for this communication to be on Theos-News or Theos-Buds but if I sent it out on one of those, I am not sure who would receive it. How should this all work. I think this is all great. Three cheers to John Mead for setting it up. Lewis, I will pass your greetings along. Sy Ginsburg From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 07:53:48 -0500 From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@compuserve.com> Subject: Copy of: Re: Nothing more than feelings > From: Sy Ginsburg, 72724,413 > TO: Multiple Recipients, INTERNET:Theos-L@vnet.net > DATE: 2/6/95 10:25 PM > > RE: Copy of: Re: Nothing more than feelings The grand picture of spirit evolving so as to become conscious and conscious of itself seems as good an answer to the question of Why? as any other. Gurdjieff called us human beings experiments by which the Absolute becomes conscious of itself on this planet. His question was whether we would make it or whether we would be failed experiments like the ants and the bees who became too mechanical to be conscious of themselves, and thus made it impossible through them for Spirit to be conscious of itself. And then there is the talmudic (or is it Kabbalistic) story where God is chastising Abraham and says, "Abraham, if it wasn't for me you wouldn't be here." Abraham deferentially replies, "Yes, Lord and I thank you, but if it wasn't for me, no one would know you." Sy Ginsburg From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 10:04:08 -0500 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Elizabeth Clare Prophet The discussion on Elizabeth Clare Prophet has been very interesting and informative. Thank each of you for your contributions. Lewisllucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 11:03:45 -0500 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: ES 2-year requirement Paul wrote: > > One question: why "members only" for the Theosophy-- a > Spiritual Path group? I have a problem with the fact that > the ES requires a couple years' membership, and that a large > number of TS members never make it past the first year. Probably > a lot of the dropouts feel that they never really connected > with a spiritual path through the TS. > > So: what are the costs and benefits of "members only" > approaches to the things we hold most sacred? > Since one of the reasons for the Esoteric School is to train "workers" for the Society, those who drop out after less than two years have not demonstrated the commitment looked for in students of this school. To paraphrase another, this is the work of lifetimes much less a few years. I doubt membership in the ES would have made much difference to those whose interests change so rapidily, since many who do meet the requirement lose interest and drop out. We are too quick to give up on *ourselves*, much less something as impersonal as a school. It has been my personal experience over the years that a "members only" meeting is extremely valuable. In the branches where there has been one I have noticed a vitality that I didn't see in the branches which didn't hold one. Consider for a moment that the lodge is the laboratory in which we all get a chance to "practice" the brotherhood the society was founded to promote. There are few channels through which one can get a drink from the wells of the ancient wisdom. These "organizations," though much maligned on this, list are essential in my opinion. We need more of them! Members only meetings give one a sense of belonging, they provide an opportunity to become involved in the lodge's business, they offer a chance to delve deeper into subjects, since some assumptions can be agreed to and study continue. Public meetings require establishing the basic propositions over and over again--as they should. There are many people who are not "joiners." The idea of committing themselves to anyone or anything just gives them a "fenced in" feeling (probably strong Sag in the chart). But others, we fined that group work confers enough benefits that we are willing to suffer the trials and tribulations of working with dissimalar personalities. Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 11:05:07 -0500 From: "William Allen" Subject: Re: Nothing more than feelings. Liesel, Thank you for the following. I think I'll post it to my door as a reminder of what all teaching should be about. William > It also seems to me that Mme. Blavatsky didn't write for us to > understand "exactly" what she wrote. I always thought that her > writings were to learn, to play with, to imagine into, to intuit. > Your vision of Theosophy isn't necessarily the same as your > neighbor's. It wasn't meant to be. What HPB wrote, & others > after her, needs to be reinterpreted by every individual who > tries to study it. No 2 people will see it exactly alike. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 11:21:50 -0500 From: euser Subject: Symbol study; Kabala; Chaos theory Thinking about some of last week posts I want to write something about chaos-theory, harmony, kabalah and study of symbols. First of all, the study of (religious) symbols. Dr. Bain wrote about the necessity of comparitive religious study (& philosophy & science). I agree with that. Strange enough, this object of the TS has been neglected, much to the detriment of theosophical work. Apparently, it didn't occur to many theosophists that this is an object which should be pursued with heart and soul, greatly enlarging our understanding of applied theosophy. If only 'outside' people pursue this study, they will get the attention of the public, and rightly so. HPB has written a lot about symbols ('persons') in the Bible and other Sacred Scriptures. To sort that out is on itself a very rewarding thing. Connecting her info with others' ideas is a great challenge too. The deceased Dutch leader DJP Kok has written an excellent book (actually compiled speeches of his) on the symbolical meaning of Biblical persons and events. I guess I could paraphrase some of his ideas (based on HPB and to some extent on GdP) for theos-l, if people are interested. You could say that the symbolical key to the Theosophical teachings has been turned at least once in this book (not translated into English as far as I know). The kabalistic key (numerical) has been applied to the Bible by Ralston Skinner. This sheds another light on the esoteric meaning of this Scripture. Again, I could paraphrase some of his ideas for theos-l. Dr. Bain could possibly comment on that, if he likes the idea. Sacred Geometry is partly revealed by Skinner too. I myself found an intriguing formula regarding cycles which I could present (though I haven't quite finished the study of its meaning and application). This formula contains an interesting cycle of numbers and repetition of certain proportions, maybe applicable to astronomy and the periodic table of elements. Regarding chaos theory (maybe better: recursive pattern theory?): this is an interesting theory, which possibly could be blended with the theory of cycles, although it would require a lot of intuition to do so. I don't regard it as better or worse than the theories of Ralston Skinner (this is to Eldon!). In my opinion it's just another angle of study, and probably connected to Kabalah and cycles. Rereading my list of points, I see that I skipt the subject of harmony. Harmony is expressible in numbers. The harmonic mean is quite important in Sacred Geometry I think. Two poles generate the Arithmatic, Geometric and Harmonic mean. This is the basis for the formula I found. It is the basis for cycles (repetitions) and involves the use of roots, squares and cubes (etc.) of numbers. All of this was sacred among Pythagoras and Plato. One last point. I remember a question from Jerry Schueler about the connection between the Tree of Life and the Gupta Vidya model of HPB. In Isis Unveiled she writes about this connection. You can browse through the index. (I don't think she mentions the GV model explicitly- that is in the SD). The secret lies of course within man himself. All the powers of the universe are _in_ man. Well, I would like to see who is willing to actively pursue some of these studies. My opinion is that understanding and promotion of Theosophy can be greatly enlarged by this kind of work. What do you think? Martin Euser euser@xs4all.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 15:43:34 -0500 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: Re: Art, Theosophy & Related Courses Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@compuserve.com> writes: > I wonder what the makeup is of the present group of Theos-L > accessers? Some you I know are into branch work as I am of one or > another branch of the vario lines of theosophical societies. > Others must be members-at-large, or non-mem theosophists. The > Internet is certainly breaking down any lines of demarkati > between people belonging or not belonging any of the various > "official" theosophical organizations. It occurs to me that this mailing list is in some strange way the first theosophical branch in Cyberspace. I suspect HPB would approve. I wonder if any of the parent TS orgs would accept the formation of a branch with members all over the world? :-) Paul Gillingwater From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 15:59:31 -0500 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: RE:ES information Found Lewis' reply on the ES very thought-provoking, as I have just joined the Akbar Lodge in Chicago. I know that in my case, I have been a member for four years, but didn't join a group till this year due to time constraints and a general lack of knowledge of TS. The latter was remedied by my attendance at the summer session at Olcott. In my case, I would also add that I already had a spiritual path before I joined. It seemed to me that being a member just expanded on that path. My commitment has come slowly. It has grown over time, with the realization that I just couldn't seem to get the kind of information or as wide of variety anywhere else. As for those who aren't "joiners", I am reminded of my husband. He is not a joiner either, and is an Aquarius rising. The freedom lovers hate to be fenced in. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 17:27:03 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Symbol study; Kabala; Chaos theory Hmmm.... Martin Eusler has some interesting point on this. Of particular value I think might be a correlation of Ralston Skinner with Kabbalistic thinking as it appeared in those heady early days of the TS. Certainly HPB was greatly enamoured of his work! To what extent "number games" might be of interest on the list is another matter, and perhaps research areas like this might be better posted to theos-roots and [maybe] archive as well. It can be very easy to be carried away by gematria (where numbers = letters and vice versa) and all kinds of silliness has been known to result from such things. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 20:26:14 -0500 From: ah430@lafn.org (Dara Eklund) Subject: Re: Dream interpretation >Nicholas, > > Do I understand you correctly, that one should not interpret ones > dreams using your own symbolism? That is what I extrapolated, not > what you said, but it is an interest of mine. Dear Lewis, If "your own symbolism" is based on very little exposure to what the ancients taught about dreams and the dream state, then you should not place too much confidence in your interpretations. But if you have basked in their thoughts; then so much the better. Nicholas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 20:53:36 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: A Quiet Afternoon in Ojai Dear Eldon, What a nice post!. Thank you. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 10:35:31 -0500 (EST) From: Olcott Library Subject: Re: archives Response from Elisabeth Trumpler On Tue, 7 Feb 1995, Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote: > > Here, Elisabeth is not clear whether she is talking about > the de Zirkoff archives, the American Section Archives, or both. > My understanding is that the de Zirkoff archives were donated to > the Wheaton Society under the proviso that they be open to anyone > who is doing research on HPB. If Elisabeth is talking about the > de Zirkoff archives, I'm glad that the policy has changed so that > they are now open to "any serious researcher." > > Perhaps > Elisabeth will clarify for us the status of the American Section > Archives as to whether or not they are also open to "serious > researchers", and what constitutes a "serious researcher." > ET: I do not know what the archives policies were under previous administrations. I am the Librarian at Olcott and not the Archivist. The Boris de Zirkoff Collection is located in the Archives Room. Access to the Archives Room requires written permission of the President-- regardless of whether it's access to archival materials or to the de Zirkoff Collection. Olcott staff members must follow the same procedure. I do not have the authority to answer further questions on the TSA Archives. My previous statements were intentionally kept rather general, based on my previous experience in academic libraries and my current responsibility as Olcott Librarian. Any questions regarding access to the Archives Room at Olcott should be directed to the personal attention of Dr. John Algeo. I feel that with this I have clarified as much as I can, now I would like to get back to my own work, which currently involves the computerization of the Olcott Library, a project which I am sure everyone on this list is very much interested in getting completed rather sooner than later. Please understand if I do not participate in any more discussions on the Board. -- Elisabeth PS. Requests for library materials and research should be sent directly to: olcott@dupagels.lib.il.us We handle them as quickly as we can. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 22:37:36 -0500 From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Concerning the video: The Occult Hitory of the Third Reich: The SS: Blood and Soil. Toward the beginning of the video, 3 or 4 minutes are devoted to H.P. Blavatsky and Theosophy. Mention is made of the Hidden Elect and the Great White Brotherhood. The audience is told of HPB's teaching concerning the 7 root races and the first five races are enumerated as follows: (1) the Astral Race, (2) the Hyperboreans, (3) the Lemurians, (4) the Atlanteans, and (5) the Aryans. The Aryans are described as the fifth root race, the "race of Hope". It is then related that Guido von List (1848-1919) and Lanz von Liebenfels (1874-1954) were inspired by some of HPB's teachings and in turn their writings were influential in occult circles in Germany and Austria. Himmler, in charge of Hitler's SS, was greatly influenced by the writings and teachings of von List and von Liebenfels. The video talks of the "evolution of the human race by selective breeding." Himmler believed that the Aryan rce was the race of the future and that it would subjugate all other races. The German people contained Aryan blood but had been contaminated by interbreeding with other inferior races. HImmler wanted to transform the SS into a brotherhood of templars, an aryan elite. The SS was considered the elite, a body of Supermen, the Aryan superman of the coming race. etc. etc. See James Webb's THE OCCULT ESTABLISHMENT (1976), Chapter 5 entitled "The Magi of the North," pp. 275-344. The video seems to be based in part on the information from this book. This is a very brief description of part of this video. Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 23:35:01 -0500 From: ah430@lafn.org (Dara Eklund) Subject: Book of Dzyan Feb. 3, 1995 >> From: David Reigle 3185 Boyd Rd. Cotopaxi, CO 81223 Phone: 1-719-942-4602 Re: Preparation for the coming out of the Book of Dzyan I have been advised by well-wishing friends to let the Theosophical community know about the work being done here in preparation for the coming out of an original manuscript in Sanskrit and/or Tibetan of the Book of Dzyan. H.P.B. specifically mentions translations of the original Senzar into these languages (S.D. I, 23), and it is noteworthy that thousands of new Sanskrit and Tibetan manuscripts have been discovered in the last two decades. This event will take away the single biggest stumbling block to the acceptance of Theosophy in the world, the fact that no one has seen the text on which ~The Secret Doctrine~ is based. I have long been convinced that it will come out during my lifetime, but have felt that the timing is dependent upon the preparedness of Theosophists. (It seems unlikely to be released if there are only skeptical scholars to receive it.) Now that I have personally passed the 42 year mark, and with the close of the millennium only five years away, I am becoming concerned about getting this preparatory work done in time. This to the point of seriously considering leaving here and embarking upon an academic career where sufficient funding exists to adequately do this work, primarily textual, but also including grants for research in places like Tibet. Since our present location high in the Colorado Rockies provides a more conducive psychic atmosphere for dealing with the Book of Dzyan than large cities where universities are located, friends have advised me to turn first to the Theosophical community. Hence this letter. Although when the time is right the Mahatmas could send a chela to bring out the Book of Dzyan and explain its meaning, once an original manuscript is released it becomes public property and subject to scholarly criticism. Scholars would have no compelling reason to accept the explanations given by the chela, but would be obliged to work on the text by reference to other known texts. This is only natural, and in fact is a principle widely held in scriptural tradition, in order to preserve the teachings unaltered and guard against unwarranted innovation. This is why H.P.B., herself following this principle, spent so much time annotating ~The Secret Doctrine~ from every known religion and philosophy of the world, to show that she had not just made it up. She predicts that in the twentieth century (now almost over) scholars will begin to recognize the validity of the ~Secret Doctrine~ using their accepted methods (S.D. I, xxxvii). In her day there was no question of bringing out an original Sanskrit or Tibetan version because it was premature to gives proofs of the existence of the Ageless Wisdom, and in any case few could have benefitted from an original language version. Sanskrit was a new field, and Tibetan was still largely unknown. Hindu studies were in their childhood, Buddhist studies were in their infancy, and Jainism as a religion distinct from these had only just been recognized. Today we have printed Sanskrit editions and English translations of most of the major Hindu scriptures, a large number of the Buddhist scriptures, and many of the Jaina scriptures. It is these texts that I have considered it my duty to seek out and gather in one place for the purpose of some day annotating the Book of Dzyan. When, for example, the rare phrase "(g)zodmanas zhiba" is found in the Tibetan Book of Dzyan (S.D. I, 23), or its equivalent "adi-santa" in the Sanskrit Book of Dzyan, someone will need to be able to find out where else it occurs in known texts, as it does for example in the ~Sandhinirmocana Sutra~ 7.1, 20, and in the ~Samadhi-raja Sutra~ 8.2, and cite and translate those passages. And it is not enough to just know Sanskrit, no matter how fluently, as was shown when some Sanskrit Buddhist texts were first brought out in the 1800s and given to Hindu pandits, who could not understand them correctly. While the Tibetan translations help considerably, one must ultimately familiarize oneself with the specific technical vocabulary of a particular system. H.P.B. in her letters to A.P. Sinnett, p. 195, mentions the Secret Book of Maitreya in conjunction with the Book of Dzyan. Certainly the extant five books of Maitreya would provide one with many of the important technical terms to be aware of. But these books have proved unusually difficult to modern translators, who have not done well with them. Help could probably be gained from Aryasangha's voluminous ~Yogacara-bhumi~, which includes gloss after gloss of Buddhist terms, but this has not yet even been completely edited in Sanskrit, let alone translated into English. Then there is the Kalachakra, foremost of the Books of Kiu-te, another giant project. The relation of Kalachakra to the Book of Dzyan was pointed out in my paper "New Light on the Book of Dzyan" (~Symposium on H.P. Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine~, San Diego: Wizards Bookshelf, 1984, pp. 54-67). The most efficient way to access this material for annotating the Book of Dzyan would be to enter it onto a computer searchable database. The Sanskrit scriptures of Aryavarta, "the bright focus into which had been poured in the beginning of time the flames of Divine Wisdom" (BCW 14, 310), and their English translations, have been systematically sought out and gathered over a period of nearly two decades, and our collection is at present unparalleled in the private sector. To safely preserve these text and provide an appropriate place to work with them we purchased a small piece of land (two and a half acres) and began construction of a fireproof building two and a half years ago. This is so far all completely paid for, but we have been unable to finish it. My wife and I have always believed in the principle, "consciousness first, form follows," in other words, prepare our minds by learning the languages, etc. and gather the texts, and the building will come. Even in the last year, due to unusual opportunities, we purchased a set of the Tibetan Kangyur in 100 volumes, purchased several important Vedic text edition sets, and traveled to major academic libraries to locate and photocopy some 200 printed Sanskrit texts, mostly Buddhist, spending over five thousand dollars that could otherwise have gone toward completing the building. (Only fifteen thousand dollars total is needed to complete it.) Thus having a building sit without a roof for two and a half years is not necessarily a sign of financial incompetence on our part, but rather reflects our priorities. However, our building permit cannot be renewed indefinitely without some progress on the building. Last March the extensive library of Alex Patterson was willed to me, which I believe is to be used for the annotation of the Book of Dzyan, as it adds many subject areas which we were lacking, such as Platonic and Egyptian. But the persons responsible for implementing the will, who have the right to select from the library whatever they wish, have understandably been hesitant to release the books to me as long as our building remains without a roof. So our immediate need is funding to get our building completed, and our long-term need is funding for textual work in preparation for the coming out of the Book of Dzyan. This work must be done and will be done, whether here or at a university, i.e., whether in or out of the Theosophical world. The obstacle in the academic world is skepticism, which shuts out the influence of the Mahatmas, and even prevented H.P.B. from doing her work at Adyar (see "Why I Do Not Return to India," BCW 12, 156-67). The obstacle in the Theosophical world is lack of funding, which just as effectually prevents the work from getting done. I had always believed that this work should be done in the Theosophical world, and best in a Theosophical setting dedicated solely to it. This is what I have spent my adult life working for. But time is running out. If the Theosophical community feels that this work is their responsibility, then let them support it. David Reigle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David and Nancy Reigle developed the Eastern School curriculum which provides a systematic course of training in the essentials of the Ageless Wisdom. A specific aim of this curriculum is to prepare a group of Theosophically-oriented scholars for the coming out of the Book of Dzyan. It was published in the Winter 1993 "Eclectic Theosophist." Its three-year foundation course was offered 1984-86 in Oregon. There are no fees. Eastern School is supported solely by voluntary contributions. For this reason, no classes have yet been offered at its present location about seventy-five miles southwest of Colorado Springs. Eastern School is an independent non-profit educational organization, unaffiliated with any other Theosophical organization. ****************** Make out your checks to: David Reigle/Eastern School. David has no e-mail, only regular mail. -- Nicholas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 12:20:09 -0500 From: euser Subject: To Jerry Schueler; re chaos To Jerry Schueler: >Does Sanskrit has an accepted Gematria? Not that I know. Although I wouldn't be surprised if it had (among the initiates of old?) > Chaos theory - sensitivity to initial conditions- relation to astrology? I don't know much about astrology. This sensitivity to initial conditions - is this connected to the 'butterfly-effect'? It reminds me of the theosophical idea that even one man can have an enormous impact on world-consciousness.. >How does chaos fit into your sacred geometry? Well, sacred geometry allows for variations within certain schemes and proportions. Ralston Skinner shows this in 'Source of Measures'. If we say that the elements have certain degrees of freedom within some bounds, then we have chaos + order. Statistical analysis probably confirms this. Another interesting point of view is that this apparent chaos could well hide certain patterns, like the swarming of ants and bees. > Different universe models.. Well, yes. I actually meant to say that I recall reading in Isis Unveiled that the Tree of life is about forces and principles and states of consciousness within man himself. The same obviously applies to the GV-model. (and the Egg-scheme of GdP). Macro=Micro or maybe a nice expression: micro is a cycle (compound of cycles) within macro (greater cycles). Speaking about recursion.. Martin Euser euser@xs4all.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 12:21:45 -0500 From: euser Subject: To Daniel Thanks Daniel for reviewing this video. I gather that HPB is not directly blamed for nazistic ideas? Because, if she is blamed, then some corrective action seems indicated. Martin From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 17:20:13 -0500 From: ah430@lafn.org (Dara Eklund) Subject: Sanskrit Gematria? T. Subba Row wrote in his article "The Twelve Signs of the Zodiac": "...very often Sanskrit words are made to convey a certain hidden meaning by means of certain well-known pre-arranged methods and a tacit convention, while their literal significance is something quite different from the implied meaning. The following are some of the rules which may help an enquirer in ferreting out the deep significance of the ancient Sanskrit nomenclature used in the old Aryan myths and allegories: -- 1. Find out the synonyms of the word used which have other meanings. 2. Find out the numerical value of the letters composing the word according to the methods given in ancient Tantrik works. 3. Examine the ancient myths or allegories, if there are any, which have any special connection with the word in question. 4. Permute the different syllables composing the word and examine the new combinations that will thus be formed and their meanings. etc. etc." -- Nicholas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 17:51:53 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: numerology of sanskrit hi - there is a well defined numerology for sanskrit defined in the book "Vedic Mathematics" by the late Sri Krishna Tirthaji Maharaja (page 194, chapter XXV) just thought people might find this interesting. The book also has many unusual algorithms based on Sanskrit Sutras too. peace - john mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 20:33:29 -0500 From: uscap9m9@ibmmail.com Subject: Eight Various Comments Eight Various Comments -- Eldon Tucker (To Dr. Bain, Elisabeth T., Nicholas W., Paul Gillingwater, Lewis L., Jerry Hejka-Ekins, Keith Price, and Liesel D.) Dr. Bain: If I remember right, the original purpose of the T.S., as an organization, was to bring Eastern philosophy to the west. The three objects were formulated later. Early on, there was much talk of the Masters and their work. After the false charges against the T.S. and the now-debunked SPR Report on faking phenomena at Adyar, HPB was compelled to keep a low profile, and the E.S. was formed to allow her to continue her work in the T.S. in a more underground form. This was all in the 1880's. The T.S. was but one project by two Masters, intended to do a specific work to affect Western thought. The other work that they might do, and the work of all the other Masters, is another matter. As a specific project, it can be changed at any time to keep responsive to its primary need. I'd say that the primary need is not in the three objects, per se, and the objects don't establish a fixed blueprint for its operation. I'd say the primary need that the T.S. fulfills is the greater good, which may change over the years since it was founded. The T.S. can have its importance overstated at times. I would not put it on the level of the guiding impulse for this 2,160 year period, the "Age of Aquarius," but rather consider it is one of many participants in that impulse. The impulse exists, regardless of what the T.S. may do, but the T.S. can help fulfill it, if its membership doesn't become too self-centered. ---- You may be right when you say that we speak in the west of God as "he" because of our bias to think as men being naturally the ones in charge. In other languages, like Sanskrit, there are numerous terms for deity, each giving a different perspective. Some views mainly involve traits that are masculine in nature, others feminine. I'd say we use a term with a specific gender, and not a gender-neutral term, when we want to depict masculine or feminine characteristics. Elisabeth T.: I didn't notice it before, but we both have the same initials. It's probably best that we not label our paragraphs as "ET". If we were writing each other, how would we tell the comments apart! ---- You mention "Please understand it if I do not participate in any more discussions on the Board." We're all limited by time constraints. The sentence can be interpreted different ways. I hope you don't mean that you're quitting the "theos- l lodge", but rather that you mean that you're active participation in the near future is extremely limited, so we won't see you write much yourself. Nicholas: Thanks for typing in the long note from David Reigle. His project is certainly deserving of our support. Paul Gillingwater: You're probably right that most organizations would have difficulty having us as one of their lodges. There's too much freedom and diversity of ideas. Every group would find things said that they would find outrageous. How many groups tolerate the "outrageous" within their own organizations? At this point, I think the time has come where we could confer upon ourselves the honorary title of a lodge. Perhaps we would start calling ourselves the "theos-l lodge"! Lewis: If I remember my reading of Jungian psychology, there's talk of two kinds of dream symbolism. One is personal, from the personal unconscious, and is understood by free association with personal connotations to the dream images. The second is universal, from the collective unconscious, and is understood by a study of the mythology of society, by the study of the grand symbolism of the ages. Jerry Hejka-Ekins: Thanks for the additional information regarding theosophical archives. I'm hopeful that a spirit of openness may exist among the theosophical groups, allowing scholars such as you and Paul Johnson free access to the historic treasures that they safeguard. Keith Price: I'd agree with Jerry Schueler that the goal is not to get rid of feelings, but to sublimate them. Our goal is to raise our *seat of consciousness* from a lower principle to a higher one, and then yet higher within. We don't kill out the lower principles, but rather make our central focus, our point of self-origination, our seat of motivation to be in Manas, rather than Kama. Kama and the lower principles are not killed out, but domesticated, cultured, tamed, brought under the control rather than allowed to run wild. The term "kill out desire" should be replaced with "take the leadership role away from desire, and assume it yourself!" ---- In one sense, we drop from spiritual realms into the material to gain consciousness. In another sense, we're already conscious, but are seeking increased *self*- consciousness. (Jerry Schueler has said of this that we do it for the pure sense of adventure.) I'd put it a third way. There's a deep part of us that transcends time, and does not participate in the cyclic dip into matter and evolution; it is uniquely us and acts as a *motivating force* to everything in us below it. Just below it is ourselves, as perfected through the evolutionary drama, through participation in countless Maha-Manvantaras. This part is our karmic treasury, our Auric Egg, our repository of our self-becoming, as of this particular moment in time. This lower part, in seeking the higher, is ever striving, ever compelled to participate in cyclic evolution in its attempt to reach up to the higher part, our Ideal Nature. Both these parts of us are beyond existence, beyond manifestation, and overshadow our seven principles, as we clothe ourselves in the fabric of consciousness and participate in life in the world. ---- Regarding something that unifies all the levels, there's a good quote in "The Mahatma Letters" where we are told that to become a Mahatma, we unify Kama, Manas, Atman, and the rest of the principles in Buddhi. Buddhi is spoken of as the unifying principle in our constitution. ---- When we speak of "The Secret Doctrine" as the synthesis of philosophy, science, and religion, we don't mean that it is composed of diverse areas of study, somehow glued together. What we have is an approach at primordial knowledge, an approach that leads us to an area of study that transcends any particular area of thought as we know it. Fields like philosophy, science, art, religion, psychology, healing, etc.--these are all specialized areas of study. Some are more generalized than others, but they all involve making artificial distinctions. We can find art in everything else; we can find philosophy in every area of thought; we have science in all subjects. The primordial wisdom which our theosophical literature taps is not culture-specific, and is not limited to any category of thought as we know it. The basic question is not "is there Art in Theosophy," but rather "how do we find the Radiant Mind in all things?" Liesel: Sometimes, in telling stories of things that have happened, we are also, in an indirect way, writing on philosophy as well. The experiences that we have, and our reactions to things, when retold, communicate something of value. It's certainly a way of sharing that others can't disagree with! We start to wonder about life at quite an early age. Brenda mentioned yesterday that our daughter, Galina, 5, asked two days in a row, while being driven to Montessori School, the questions: "Who are we really? Why are we alive?" Galina's understanding, suited to her age, is that we start off in our mothers' tummies, then we come out and are born. When we die, we are ghosts for a while, then we end up in some other mothers' tummies, where we start over again, on our way to being born into another family. When Galina gets a bit older, she can learn more about reincarnation, karma, and the after-death states. She'll hear what is easy for her to understand, responsive to the questions that she asks; nothing will, hopefully, be forced prematurely on her. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 22:08:31 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Eight Various Comments *Please* don't let us be a "Lodge" - I couldn't bear it. Although I see a number of things in a similar way to Eldon, I have serious reservations (for example) about the doctrine of re-incarnation as usually presented, and it is by no means an obvious assumption as far as I am concerned. I would not teach it as a *fact* to my children - in fact I didn't! Also, while I will agree that the three TS objects are dated (*brother*-hood ) I do not see that this necessarily invalidates or diminishes what I have said on theos-l regarding same. Eldon and others make frequent reference to "standard" SD-style theosophical terms, many of which are not in my vocabulary at all, though some are. My own discipline of nearly 40 years has been Kabbalah, which has its own set of unintelligible terms [to most people] :-) Kabbalah, however, is theosophy, but in a different box, of a different color, if you like, and sees many things from an entirely different perspective. Kabbalah is a pragmatic theosophy, addressing matters that concern us in our everyday lives, but with a view to their destination, ie, the transition to another life. Whether that life is back here or on another plane, level, world or whatever, is very much a matter of individual opinion and interpretation of the evidence. THe second and third objects of the TS are about getting the evidence - I cannot see how that has changed in principle, even if the methods may have changed. And, when it comes to assigning gender *in any capacity* to the Eternal Unity of Being of which we all partake - let's get real: this thing is bigger than all of us! PS. I love you all. PPS. Hi, Liesel. -- Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 12:22:31 -0500 From: ae677@lafn.org (Nancy Coker) Subject: SEX This is from Nancy. Greetings! I am about 2 months behind on reading correspondence on this list and I apologize if I'm repeating what someone else may have pointed out. Regarding sex and celibacy: I consider some of the theosophical paranoia about sex to be a product of the Victorian way of thinking, and not necessarily relevant to spiritual seekers. However, when a seeker wants to be an Occultist, I think the rules change. Here is what makes me pause . . . In BCW, E.S. Instruction No. V entitled THE SPINAL SYSTEM p.701, HPB talks about why an Occultist must be celibate. She writes, From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 14:46:36 -0500 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: Re: Eight Various Comments guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) writes: [re: first t.s. lodge in cyberspace] > *Please* don't let us be a "Lodge" - I couldn't bear it. Hmmm... I thought the term "Lodge of living stones" may be familiar to you. I think of a lodge in its inner aspect as a focus at the mental level of people who are engaged in a dialogue, participating together in a shared voyage of discovery. We're all, in Joy Mills' words, pilgrim souls -- sometimes it's helpful to travel a while with others who pursue the same quest. Sorry if the idea of establishing a t.s. lodge in cyberspace is frightening to you, :-), but i quite like the idea. cheers Paul Gillingwater From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 15:17:16 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: cyberspace study-group/Lodge We have already applied to TSA (quite awhile ago) for recognized status. (as a lodge for members-at-large etc.) unfortunately the current "laws" need to be revised (By-Laws). I forget the details, something to do with lodge affiliation, districts, multiple lodge memberships etc. It was suggested by John Algeo that we instead consider it a "Camp" like Pumpkin Hollow, Stil-Light etc. in general --- not being affiliated with any organization, may actually be a "prefferred" state. hence we have not pursued this since the original formation (1993). The initial reason I liked the concept of recognized status, is it allows the group to do things otherwise not permitted (like by Quest books at a discount etc.). After considering it further, it felt that these things are already provided by the current system(s)/organization(s). being somewhat of a Libertarian by nature, I think it is best to keep it totally unaffiliated, allowing total freedom of speech, action etc. perhaps I've seen to much "politics" in organizations. ?? what more is needed than the three Objects, anyway?? :-) peace - john mead jem@vnet.net From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 15:19:01 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: Re: Eight Various Comments > Sorry if the idea of establishing a t.s. lodge in cyberspace is > frightening to you, :-), but i quite like the idea. > > cheers > Paul Gillingwater > well... I thought it already existed?? :-) membership by subscription (open to any seeker), no dues either! . peace - john mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 15:50:07 -0500 From: Arthur_PattersonA@mbnet.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: Eight Various Comments Referring to the viability of the Cyber-Lodge, John Mead writes: >well... I thought it already existed?? :-) >membership by subscription (open to any seeker), no dues either! >. This is a very good point, John, the Theosophical Movement or whatever name you wish to utilize is a an actuality beyond the concepts of membership. Even though and infant TS'r in the formal sense I don't think I have lived outside the grace of the Perrenial Wisdom when I held to different ideologies. Wisdom is not ideological or even organization. I see organizations as merely as servants of Wisdom. When they accrue to themselves the status of revelatory agents it is time to renew them or leave. So here we are in Cyber-Space basking in Wisdom, what a wonderful place to be in my estimate. Thanks John for bring this fact to our attention. Count me in as always. Art From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 16:52:50 -0500 From: ddd@hss.caltech.edu (Doreen Domb) Subject: cyberspace study-group/Lodge John Mead writes: "... I think it is best to keep it totally unaffiliated, allowing total freedom of speech, action etc. perhaps I've seen too much "politics" in organizations. My response to this: YES! YES! YES! My reason: EXPERIENCE From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 18:07:07 -0500 From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: To ET1 et al Thanks to Leisel, Jerry S and Eldon (could we have ET1 and 2 :) ) for comments regarding feeling, art and theosophy. I decided I need to do more listening. Yes, Leisel, I guess I was joking or something about feeling having no place in theosophy. The problem is its hard to imagine anything without the four functions of consciousness. They seem to always appear together in some way at least in incarnation. Jung had a saying over his door which I remember as "announced or unannounced, God (or the gods) will be there". In other words, where any human activity is, the whole range is there, if only as possibility or in another way, divinity (as expressed in the human unconscious as archetypes) is everywhere whether we always like it or not. So feeling and art provide support to the thinking function in theosophy or any endeavor. No one has mentioned "A Brief History of Time". Maybe you talked about it last year or before, I am still impressed by such a "balanced" ( in the sense of feeling, thinking, sensation and intuitive elements) presentation of cosmology and a cosmologist. You get formulas and graphs, but you also get the suffering and strange triumph of a genius in a cripple's body. Pretty strong stuff! Eldon uses the term "Radiant Mind" as a euphemism for something inexpressable, but what I have termed Creative Spirit (is this Fohat or is he just a messanger ???). Nicholas I believe had a criticism that I was trying to make art in Art or synonymous with Creative Spirit or Radiant Mind or everything and by implication "nothing". Well that is a justifiable criticism, but still everything folds out on the great unified implicate order into the "artifcially" created (by our minds) maya of the explicate order and so that is the point. Like the four forces in physics that are from one force, so everything can be traced back to a grand unified force that is a "singularity" (a breakdown of "law") of some kind beyond the languages of English, Sanskrit, Kabala, math, philosophy, art, science, poetry, theosophy and on and on, yet contains them all and a whole lot more. So when I use art, I should be careful to distinguish it from Primordial Art (Pan). Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 20:13:31 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Peter in SD Taken from *The Secret Doctrine.* The section quoted below has been copied from the third 1895 edition of Blavatsky's monumental work. Original gootnotes are replaced by numbers within square brackets []. Original italics are indicated by an asterisk * before and after the word or words originally italicized. In the case of Indian or Sanskrit words, I have followed a practice which I have observed used by Indians on the Internet of placing the caret ^ which appears above certain letters to the right of the English equivalent. In this way it is hoped to present as accurate a representation of HPB's original writing(s) as is possible via a medium which uses so many different computer platforms. I hope this posting will be the first of a number to follow. All HPB's original writings have long been in the public domain, and there is no reason not to upload her work for the benefit of students. Maybe others will find the time to upload other examples of her work. At this time I am concentrating on the Kabalist reference in vol. iii of the 1895 edition. Alan Bain, February, 1995. SECTION XVI PETER A JEWISH KABALIST, NOT AN INITIATE. As to Peter, biblical criticism has shown that in all probability he had no more to do with the foundation of the Latin Church at Rome than to furnish the pretext, so readily seized upon by the cunning Irenaeus, of endowing the Church with a new name for the Apostle - Petra or Kiffa - a name which, by an easy play upon words, could be readily connected with Petroma. The Petroma was a pair of stone tablets used by the Hierophants at the Initiations, during the final Mystery. In this lies concealed the secret of the Vatican claim to the seat of Peter. As already quoted in *Isis Unveiled,* ii. 92: "In the Oriental countries the designation Peter (in Phoenician and Chaldaic an interpreter), appears to have been the title of this personage." [1] So far, and as the "interpreters" of *Neo*-Christianism, the Popes have most undeniably the right to call themselves successors to the title of Peter, but hardly the successors to, least of all the interpreters of, the doctrines of Jesus, the Christ; for there is the Oriental Church, older and far purer than the Roman hierarchy, which, having ever faithfully held to the primitive teachings of the Apostles, is known historically to have refused to follow the Latin seceders from the original Apostolic Church, though, curiously enough, she is still referred to by her Roman sister as the "Schismatic" Church. It is useless to repeat the reasons for the statements above made, as they may all be found in *Isis Unveiled,* [2] (where the words, Peter, Patar, and Pitar, are ex- plained, and the origin of the "Seat of Pitah" is shown. The reader will find upon referring to the above pages that an inscription was found on the coffin of Queen Mentuhept of the Eleventh Dynasty (2250 B.C. according to Bunsen), which in its turn was shown to have been transcribed from the Seventeenth Chapter of the Book of the Dead, dating certainly not later than 4500 B.C. or 496 years before the World's Creation, in the Genesiacal chronology. Nevertheless, Baron Bunsen shows the group of the hieroglyphics given (*Peter-ref-su,* the " Mystery Word") and the sacred formulary mixed up with a whole series of glosses and various interpretations on a monument 4,000 years old. "This is identical with saying that the record (the true interpre- tation) was at that time no longer intelligible. . . . We beg our readers to understand that a sacred text, a hymn, containing the words of a departed spirit, existed in such a state, about 4,000 years ago, as to be all but unintelligible to royal scribes." [3] "Unintelligible" to the non-initiated - this is certain; and it is so proved by the confused and contradictory glosses. Yet there can be no doubt that it was - for it *still is* - a mystery word. The Baron further explains: "It appears to me that our PTR is literally the old Aramaic and Hebrew " Patar," which occurs in the history of Joseph as the specific word for *interpreting,* whence also Pitrum is the term for interpretation of a text, a dream. [4] This word, PTR, was partially interpreted owing to another word similarly written in another group of hieroglyphics, on a stele, the glyph used for it being an opened eye, interpreted by De Rouge' [5] as "to appear," and by Bunsen as "illuminator," which is more correct. However it may be, the word Patar, or Peter, would locate both master and disciple in the circle of initiation, and connect them with the Secret Doctrine; while in the "Seat of Peter" we can hardly help seeing a connection with Petroma, the double set of stone tablets used by the Hierophant at the Supreme Initiation during the final Mystery, as already stated, also with the Pi^tha- stha^na (seat, or the place of a seat), a term used in the Mysteries of the Ta^ntriks in India, in which the limbs of Sati^ are scattered and then united again, as those of Osiris by Isis. [6] Pi^than is a Sanskrit word, and is also used to designate the seat of the initiating Lama. Whether all the above terms are due simply to "coincidences" or otherwise is left to the decision of our learned Symbologists and Philologists. We state facts - and nothing more. Many other writers, far more learned and entitled to be heard than the author has ever claimed to be, have sufficiently demonstrated that Peter never had anything to do with the foundation of the Latin Church; that his supposed name Petra or Kiffa, also the whole story of his Apostleship at Rome, are simply a play on the term, which meant in every country, in one or another form, the Hierophant or Interpret- er of the Mysteries; and that finally, far from dying a martyr at Rome, where he had probably never been, he died at a good old age at Babylon. In *Sepher Toldoth Jeshu,* a Hebrew manuscript of great antiquity - evidently an original and very precious document, if one may judge from the care the Jews took to hide it from the Christians - Simon (Peter) is referred to as "a faithful servant of God," who passed his life in austerities and meditation, a Kabalist and a Nazarene who lived at Babylon "at the top of a tower, composed hymns, preached charity," and died there. Footnotes: [1] Taylor's *Eleusinian and Bacchic Mysteries,* Wilder's ed., p. x. [2] ii. 91-94 [3] Bunsen *Egypt's Place in History,* v. 90. [4] *Ibid.* [5] *Stele,* p. 44. [6] See Dowson's *Hindu Classical Dict, sub voc., "Pi^tha-stha^nam." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 20:16:15 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Eight Various Comments In message theos-l@vnet.net writes: > Hmmm... I thought the term "Lodge of living stones" may be > familiar to you. I think of a lodge in its inner aspect as a > focus at the mental level of people who are engaged in a > dialogue, participating together in a shared voyage of discovery. > We're all, in Joy Mills' words, pilgrim souls -- sometimes it's > helpful to travel a while with others who pursue the same quest. > > Sorry if the idea of establishing a t.s. lodge in cyberspace is > frightening to you, :-), but i quite like the idea. > > cheers > Paul Gillingwater Okay - so long as we don't get a moderator or have to form committees. Maybe as travelling companions we are esoteric cyberspace gypsies? :-) AB -- Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 20:17:45 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: cyberspace study-group/Lodge Doreen: AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! -- Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 20:18:31 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Objects? TS in Cyberspace: Objects? 1. To form a nucleus of a universal human family, without discrimination with regard to sex, creed, class, or color. 2. To encourage and engage in the study of comparative religion, theosophy, philosophy and the scientific method. 3. To investigate unexplained laws of nature and unrealized human potential. (Some working ideas prompted by a suggestion by John Mead, following others suggested by J. Crocker and given, in part, the *Imprematur* of Liesel Deutsch. :-). Start feedback now . . . From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 03:52:58 -0500 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"@vnet.net Subject: Re: Objects? Add my YESes to Doreen's. To AB's suggested Object, I'd like to add "open" so that it reads 1. To form an open nucleus of a universal human family, without discrimination with regard to sex, creed, class, or color. We don't want to repeat some of the mistakes of the TS. I think that interest and the desire to share through communication should be our primary links. The less formality the better. Perhaps, better, AB's 1. should be 1. To be an open nucleus of a universal human family, ... etc. Murray Stentiford murray@sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 04:08:18 -0500 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"@vnet.net Subject: Karma, causality, art ... yeah, just about everything Replying to Jerry Schueler's post of 27 January 95 headed "Synchronicity". This is a rather long post, but I have tried to write it in a way that does not exclude the general list reader. It has taken me a lot longer to find the time to write than I would have liked, but here it. Near the end of your post, Jerry, you say > Post no Flames. Please, before you flame this idea, think > about it. I can understand your concern for this possibility, but I'm not one who was affronted by your piece. I agreed with much of it. With university degrees in physics, I'm familiar enough with the general quantum scene, though not an expert in it. On the other hand, I don't have that sort of familiarity with Jung, so may have to draw on your patience as in > I will be happy to address questions or further refinements. As with you I am attempting to integrate scientific and theosophical world views. That's the basis of my following comments. First, I agree with you that the workings of karma are not rigidly deterministic. Nature is chaotic and unpredictable as well as orderly and deterministic, intermeshed in ways you have already mentioned. However, there are some aspects of causality I want to write about. (Murray in "Re: The Chaos Factor" of 27 Jan 95): > > I don't see synchronicity necessarily as acausality. > > Synchronicity is necessarily acausal because that is Jung's own > definition. Obviously, but that begs the question of what Jung meant by "acausal". (In your 26 Jan 95 post): > Causality works in the outward physical plane while synchronicity > (acausality) works within the psyche and both interrelate > together in our lives. (and on 27 Jan 95) > Jung defines synchronicity as the polar opposite or complement > (... syzygy) of causality. It refers to things that happen > without a physical cause. So Jung & Pauli use the word "acausal" to refer to just the physical plane, which is fine by me if we stay within their set of ideas and terminology, but a theosophical world-view posits whole realms and heirarchies of non-physical causes, some of which work within the psyche while others are beyond it. I had this wider sense in mind when writing "I don't see synchronicity necessarily as acausality". Clearly, we need to specify what levels of reality we're considering when using the word "acausal". > The difference between a synchronicity and pure coincidence is > that it must be *meaningful* to the psyche experiencing it. Yes, a sense of meaning or recognition or insight does characterise a synchronistic experience, but this is a bit like art. You can find artistic beauty or meaning in the sand patterns of a beach, and also in any humanly-produced work of art, but the causality in the two cases is very different. The intentionality and motive are very different, too, even if you accept the idea of devas of nature working through sand, water and air. I believe the experience of synchronicity often has a distinct cause like a knot of karmic energy or a creative event in the surrounding universal mind field, or etherial beings or archetypes working through the situation. This is rather like the work-of-art situation above. But there can be other kinds of experience of synchronicity that don't have such a definite cause; they rely mainly on a readiness in the psyche to find meaning or import in circumstances, with little coming from the "outside". This corresponds to the artful sand patterns case above. Mind, this readiness is also a factor in the "strongly caused" kind of synchronicity above. Pardon the terminology. I suspect that Jung and Pauli were talking mostly about the "weakly caused" form of synchronicity, hence their term "acausal". Probably the scope of a theosophical view would have been too wide for them to accept comfortably as "good scientists", so they consciously or unconsciously bunched strongly caused synchronicity in with it. Correct me if I'm wrong. All this raises questions of what defines or puts limits around the experiencing self. As we go within, the boundaries soften and we can experience ourselves as a larger field of consciousness than the customary one-person-alone. Cause and experiencer are connected in a continuous field of energy and consciousness, and experiencer comes to be aware of it. ----------------------------------- Now I want to take a look at causality as the transmission of information in a noisy environment, using an analogy that has a lot to offer in understanding karma. It shows how things can be connected yet not deterministic, ie how there is not always a specific karma behind an event, and how a karma can be overridden by subsequent inputs. I'm using "karma" more specifically, now. Imagine you're in a long underground station with a lot of people waiting in it and talking. A friend of yours appears at the other end and tries to call out to you. If the station is long enough, and there are enough people in between talking loudly enough, your friend's voice will be lost in the noise that surrounds you. This physical situation is like sending a television signal along a coaxial cable or data along a fibre optic cable. As the signal weakens, there comes a point at which it becomes comparable with the surrounding noise which in the cable is due to microsopic thermal motion of the electrons and atoms, and quantum uncertainty. Further down the line, you can't pick out the signal amidst the noise any more. Yet you and your friend are still connected acoustically, even if the signal is apparently lost. You could prove this by making a repetitive sound and averaging the response in synchronised time frames, as in brain experiments which "dig out" the brain's response to a flash of light by adding together its responses to a large number of repetitions of an identical stimulus. You could retrieve the original signal at the railway station out of overwhelming noise, if you could repeat it and combine the sound around you (to get the average) enough times. Applying this to karma, the way you blinked your eyes at one moment in a previous life would have no discernible effect on you in this life because the karmic signal has been lost in the noise. It is too weak compared with the local signals. Strong karmic signals would come from powerfully-motivated or frequently- repeated thoughts/feelings/actions. They would have identifiable karmic outcomes. The karmic "noise" that surrounds you consists of thoughts, feelings and physical activity, both macroscopic and macroscopic, from all manner of beings and disturbances. So when the cat barfs on the rug, it is most probably due to little more than local effects, eg the grass it ate before you gave it dinner, or an irritation in its stomach. But it is just possible that some deep and meaningful karma could express itself through an outwardly similar event. If there was, you'd probably experience it as synchronistic. No wonder it's notoriously difficult to try and guess the karma behind an event or situation! As to HOW the subtle energies of thought/feeling karma express themselves in circumstances in the physical world, that's another major field of inquiry and frontier onto mystery. By the way, I chose acoustic and electrical signals for my example of how a signal transmits and competes with noise for simplicity since they are linear systems, ie response is basically proportional to input. Large nonlinear systems like the planet's atmosphere involving bulk movement of matter and turbulence, bring in disorder in an additional way. Minute inputs at some parts of the system can have major effects (the butterfly effect) but similar inputs at other parts or times can be completely lost due to a widely-varying sensitivity throughout this kind of system. So while this situation is much more complicated, it supports the idea that weak karmic impulses can be lost in the turbulence as well as the noise. That sounds like life. Conclusion: if karma works like these analogies, it does not have an implacable down-to-the-toenails determinism about it. Which is basically what you were saying, Jerry, but were concerned that some people would reject or feel threatened by. So the karmic impulse is mutable and loseable; local and relatively trivial things can decide what happens. That's not a bad definition of an accident. But the universe is full of life! Perhaps the quantum unpredictability of atomic particles is an expression of the divine life within them. Perhaps they're even having fun!! Take care. Murray Stentiford murray@sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 09:03:47 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Objects? According to Dr. A.M.Bain: > > TS in Cyberspace: Objects? > > 1. To form a nucleus of a universal human family, without > discrimination with regard to sex, creed, class, or color. What about species? Do Jerry and Liesel's cats count if they are sitting on their owners' laps while they post? > > 2. To encourage and engage in the study of comparative > religion, theosophy, philosophy and the scientific method. i "Comparative religion" is outmoded. Make it the comparative study of religion.... Why scientific method rather than science per se? Aren't we supposed to be comparing substantive findings, not just epistemological principles? > > 3. To investigate unexplained laws of nature and unrealized > human potential. > > (Some working ideas prompted by a suggestion by John Mead, > following others suggested by J. Crocker and given, in part, the > *Imprematur* of Liesel Deutsch. :-). > > Start feedback now . . . > Fine start. Namaste From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 13:17:41 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re to Nancy on Sexual Energy Nancy: Thanks for your quote from HPB on sex magic. As usual, she is quite right. She is referring to Kundalini Yoga, where the Muladhara Chakra is located at the genitals and the Ajna Chakra is located between the eyes (the third eye). The connection between these is the spinal cord - or rather the Sushumna Nadi or Central Channel that actually lies in the Body of Light at a point that corresponds to the spinal column of the physical body. When I began studying this stuff, little was known, and few books were available. Nowadays they are plentiful, and a whole lot more is known about this subject. Yes, arousal of the genital area does effect the brain and vice versa. This is a potential danger, but as used in Tantricism, it is a useful fact. I would like to provide a quick rundown of sexual magic as it exists today, largely for those who are not familiar with it. I am not advocating its practice, but in the spirit of the TS second and third objectives, I feel that its theoretical aspects are important for us to understand and to discuss. Those who are squeamish about sex should please skip the rest of this posting. There are many forms and levels of sex magic, but they can generally be put into two main groups. In the West, most sexual magic operations end in orgasm and ejaculation. This is true in Wicca as well as most magical and occult schools. The idea here is to concentrate on the objective or goal, and then direct the sexual energy that is generated toward its accomplishment. At orgasm, the energy flies away to accomplish the goal. For the most part, I would call these operations low magic, as opposed to high magic (this is a purely subjective call). They are also sometimes black magic, though not always (remember, if the only difference in black or white magic is the motive and if the motive is to heal or otherwise help someone, then it can hardly be black). In the East, most sexual operations do not end in orgasm or ejaculation (some Hindu schools do, but I don't know of any Buddhist schools where this is the case). The practice of sexual magic in Tibetan Buddhism, for example, is a high magic technique that is altogether white. The motives are very pure - normally something along the lines of strengthening the bodhisattvic vow. Here the sexual partner is called a karmamudra or "action seal." The action seal is specially trained for the task, and the goal is the production of bliss, not orgasm or getting money or other mundane objectives that are found in many other schools. Taoism also teaches a similar sex magic, both with and without a partner, but the goals vary widely between schools. I should mention here that the action seal is virtually always a member of the opposite sex. If there are any special techniques or versions for homosexuals, I am not aware of them. However, since the goal is to produce bliss (amrita, which is a physical precipitation of ananda) I don't see why the sex or gender of the karmamudra matters, so long as he or she makes you feel completed or whole. OK, so why is Kundalini considered superior to Raja Yoga? The answer is simple: In Raja Yoga your consciousness can enter samadhi. In Kundalini Yoga, your samadhi is accompanied by bliss. The difference is the extra ingredient of bliss that you can only get from some kind of sexual stimulation. What is this mysterious bliss? Some describe it as an overall orgasm, where every cell of your body vibrates in orgasmic ecstasy. If your practice results only in genital orgasm, it is not good enough. Paradoxically, Tantra teaches that by refraining from genital orgasm, you can generate bliss which is an all-over orgasm that can last hours instead of seconds. This comes about by consciously directing the "essence" of the sexual fluids inward rather than ejaculating outwards as in a "normal" orgasm. In Kundalini Yoga, the karmamudra is used to stimulate your genitals and allow you to generate a strong field of sexual energy in the Muladhara. Although a physical partner is not necessary (IMHO), it helps because your auras overlap and the karmamudra can thus stimulate and reinforce you in ways that you cannot do yourself, at least at first. Then, rather than ejaculation or physical climax, you mentally direct this energy up the Central Channel and into the Ajna, which vibrates and produces bliss that radiates throughout your whole physical body via the nadis within the subtle body. If during this operation your mind is on the karmamudra, or on the bliss that is produced, then again you will fall short of the goal (and this is the real trap, which can lead to black magic as HPB warns us). While your body is saturated with bliss, your consciousness must shift into samadhi. When done properly, the resulting combination of samadhi (which Tibetan Buddhism calls emptiness) and bliss is far superior to samadhi alone. Samadhi alone is just another altered state of consciousness. But when combined with bliss, it is a direct experience of spiritual consciousness, of those spiritual planes that lie above the Abyss. The Tibetan Yogis have gone so far as to label 16 different levels of bliss and emptiness that we can experience. Vedanta teaches that one of our highest bodies or "sheaths" is the anandakosha or body of bliss. When consciousness is focused in this sheath, a spiritual ecstasy is experienced. Many of the early Christian mystics reported an accompanying feeling of ecstasy that they found hard to describe. The Gnostics wrote about a bridal chamber in which the Adept was the bride and Christ, or one of the Aeons or gods, was the groom. So the idea of combining formless consciousness and bliss is very ancient, and can be found in many cultures throughout our history. There is also an obvious psychological equivalent, in which the karmamudra is one's own anima or animus in the Jungian sense. Sanskrit is ahead of us, and here the partner is the jnanamudra or thought seal. This is the inner consort, for which sexual union becomes a symbol or metaphor for our own unification into a whole and complete person - much like Jung's individuation process. The bottom line is that we are at present incomplete beings. One half of us is expressed outwardly with each incarnation, while the other half remains in a potential form within us. Our evolution demands a unification. We can sit back and wait for a few million years, when the evolutionary power of Kundalini will take effect, or we can hasten our evolution via sublimation and transformation of the sexual energy and become fifth-rounders (this is not an advocacy, but rather merely an obvious observation. This observation has already been expressed by Sri Aurobindo and many others). Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 13:46:31 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Objects? In message <01HMXS2FPZYA8WVZ30@SSSAK1.SSS.CO.NZ> theos-l@vnet.net writes: Add my YESes to Doreen's. > To AB's suggested Object, I'd like to add "open" so that it reads > > 1. To form an open nucleus of a universal human family, without > discrimination with regard to sex, creed, class, or color. > > We don't want to repeat some of the mistakes of the TS. > > I think that interest and the desire to share through > communication should be our primary links. The less formality > the better. > > Perhaps, better, AB's 1. should be > > 1. To be an open nucleus of a universal human family, ... etc. I'll go for that! AB -- Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 13:47:07 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Objects? In message <9502111349.AA08076@leo.vsla.edu> theos-l@vnet.net writes: > According to Dr. A.M.Bain: > > > > TS in Cyberspace: Objects? > > > > 1. To form a nucleus of a universal human family, without > > discrimination with regard to sex, creed, class, or color. > What about species? Do Jerry and Liesel's cats count if they > are sitting on their owners' laps while they post? "A universal family of being?" Of course Liesel's cats count! > > 2. To encourage and engage in the study of comparative > > religion, theosophy, philosophy and the scientific method. > "Comparative religion" is outmoded. Make it the comparative > study of religion.... > Why scientific method rather than science per se? Aren't we > supposed to be comparing substantive findings, not just > epistemological principles? Define "Science" . . . > > 3. To investigate unexplained laws of nature and > > unrealized human potential. > Fine start. (To be continued ...) AB -- Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 15:26:36 -0500 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Blavatsky CD-ROM When I attended the summer session at Olcott, last year, someone told me that TS was working on a CD-ROM of the complete works of Blavatsky. Is this true and if so, when will it be available? Thank you, Ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 15:56:46 -0500 From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@compuserve.com> Subject: Copy of: Copy of: Theos-L Branch in Cyberspace >>From Sy Ginsburg, Miami & South Florida Branch (TSA) Paul Gillingwater suggested that "this mailing list is in some strange way the first theosophical branch in Cyberspace. I suspect HPB would approve. I wonder if any of the parent TS orgs would accept the formation of a branch with members all over the world?" Eldon Tucker responded with "You're probably right that most organizations would have difficulty having us as one of their lodges. There's too much freedom and diversity of ideas. Every group would find things said that they would find outrageous. How many groups tolerate the "outrageous" within their own organizations? At this point, I think the time has come where we could confer upon ourselves the honorary title of a lodge. Perhaps we would start calling ourselves the "theos-l lodge." I think what is going on here is great. Whether it is called a Theosophical Branch in Cyberspace or the Theos-L Lodge, I think it is really useful and am glad to be a subscriber. For those who do not belong to any organized branch(lodge) it is particularly good. But even for someone like me who belongs to an organized branch (Miami & South Florida TSA) the contact with and almost immediate imput of others from around the planet adds a dimension that we do not have in a local branch. At the same time, I find the personal contact with other people and especially the friction and rubbing up against each other that occurs in the ordinary course of participating in branch work to also be very valuable. Because theosophy, in my view, is not just about increasing one's level of knowledge. It is also about raising one's level of being, and for this we need to see how we are, and rubbing up against others helps us to see ourselves. So, I am glad to be able to participate in both. Maybe we can also rub up right here. Re Parent Organizations: my experience as an active branch officer in dealing with a parent organization is positive in so far as the parent (TSA) being supportive of what our active Miami & South Florida Branch does. I don't know what would be considered "outrageous" but certainly anything within the scope of the 3 objectives would not be "outrageous" in my view and that is a pretty broad mandate. In fact, in one of the study groups at our branch "Theosophical History" we have been reading and discussing Old Diary Leaves. The early theosophists had an extremely wide view of what they wanted to investigate and that tradition prevails at our branch with full support of the national TSA, so far as we are led to believe. I put out on this list previously, a schedule of our various courses and study groups and we have groups in everything from Gurdjieff to Star Trek to Developing your Psychic Abilities to the Urantia Book. We have 5 different Theosophy study groups too, and lots more. To quote from or remind of what the TSA national descriptive pamphlet says " The Theosophical Society maintains the right of individual freedom of thought for every member.... no doctrine, no opinion, by whomsoever taught or held, is in any way binding on any member, and no teacher or writer has authority to impose opinions upon others. All members are urged to defend and act upon these fundamental principles and also fearlessly to exercise their own right of liberty of thought and of expression within the limits of courtesy and consideration for other...The Society therefore does not commit its members to any special observances or attitudes....etc., etc. I cannot speak for experience with any other parent theosophical organizations, but in so far as the Theosophical Society in America is concerned, I would not want it to "get a bad rap" because in my experience it is a really good organization, and supportive of the broad mandate as stated in the 3 objects and the national literature. This does not mean that I am advocating a formal affiliation with TSA or any other group, although John Mead wrote to me earlier that "this list evolved from the growth of Theos-L, an informal discussion list created as an 'Electronic Study Group' for the Theosophical Society in America." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 16:12:47 -0500 From: kent@gatezone.com (Kent Livingston) Subject: Re: Blavatsky CD-ROM Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > When I attended the summer session at Olcott, last year, someone > told me that TS was working on a CD-ROM of the complete works of > Blavatsky. Is this true > > and if so, when will it be available? I'm interested in this (or other CD's) also. Are there any ftp sites with TS material available. Probably the answer has already flowed by in the mail list stream when I wasn't looking. kent Kent Livingston GateZone Communications kent@gatezone.com kent@actlab.rtf.utexas.edu Voice: (512) 419-9444 kent@acad.stedwards.edu Fax: (512) 419-9445 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 16:58:02 -0500 From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@compuserve.com> Subject: Theos-L Branch in Cyberspace Somehow the last part of my previous posting did not transmit, so to continue: What is the possibility as to both usefulness and technical feasibility of having a regularly session, maybe weekly, where those who wish could actually be on line with each other? Something like a conference room in a Compuserve forum. Maybe John Mead can answer the technical part of this question. But is there any interest in doing this, and what would be a reasonable time period? How about Sunday 11 pm to 1 am Greenwich time? I don't know how intellectual the conversation would be, but socially it could enhance the idea of being a TS branch. Any feedback. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 18:38:21 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Karma, causality etc. The title of Jung's book, so far as I recall, is "Synchronicity, an acausal connecting principle." It would be helpful perhaps if someone could upload Jung's own definition as given in his book, by way of a citation. I would do this, but I parted with my copy some years ago. The important aspect of this idea is, I suspect, that as a scientist of sorts, Jung would want to approach the *evidence* which he presents in the book without having to take on board any dogma(s) such as Karma or reincarnation; ie., the "connecting principle" is *demonstrable* regardless of individual belief. I, for example, do not accept standard theosophical given ideas concerning reincarnation (I do not rule it out under some circumstances) but I *can* relate to Jung's approach. AB -- Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 19:35:43 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Theos-L "conference" In message <950211214821_72724.413_FHP68-1@CompuServe.COM> theos-l@vnet.net writes: > What is the possibility as to both usefulness and technical > feasibility of having a regularly session, maybe weekly, where > those who wish could actually be on line with each other? > Something like a conference room in a Compuserve forum. Maybe > John Mead can answer the technical part of this question. > > But is there any interest in doing this, and what would be a > reasonable time period? How about Sunday 11 pm to 1 am Greenwich > time? I don't know how intellectual the conversation would be, > but socially it could enhance the idea of being a TS branch. Any feedback. Good idea - John? -- Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 19:36:43 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Theos-L Branch in Cyberspace How about: "Theosophy International" AB? -- Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 19:51:20 -0500 From: bill@Zeus.itdc.edu Subject: Synchronicity definition (was Re: Karma, causality etc.) Hi all, AB wrote: > The title of Jung's book, so far as I recall, is "Synchronicity, > an acausal connecting principle." Yes, that is basically correct (a ":" instead of the "," though :-) ) > It would be helpful perhaps if someone could upload Jung's own > definition as given in his book, by way of a citation. I would > do this, but I parted with my copy some years ago. From the Bollingen Series, the Princeton/Bollingen Paperback edition, translated by R.F.C. Hull, and published in 1973 (cita- tion quoted without the author's ;-), translator's, or publisher's permission :-( ): Page 25, paragraph 850 -- Synchronicity therefore means the simultane- ous occurrence of a certain psychic state with one or more external events which appear as meaningful parallels to the momentary sub- jective state -- and, in certain cases, vice versa. ... And from page 29, paragraph 855, the 11th line on the page -- ... In all these cases ... we find a simul- taneity of the normal or ordinary state with another state or experience which is not causally derivable from it, and whose objec- tive experience can only be verified after- wards. This definition must be borne in mind particularly when it is a question of future events. They are evidently not *synchronous* but are *synchronistic*, since they are ex- perienced as psychic images *in the present*, as though the objective event already exist- ed. An unexpected content which is directly or indirectly connected with some objective external event coincides with the ordinary psychic state: this is what I call synchroni- city, and I maintain that we are dealing with exactly the same category of events whether their objectivity appears separated from my consciousness in space or in time. ... I hope this is what was desired and I hope I don't get flamed or sued for posting excerpts from copyrighted material. :-) May you grok it in fullness ... |William A. (Bill) Parrette|4000 Executive Pk. Dr., #310 |bill@[Zeus.]itdc.edu |Cincinnati, OH 45241-4007 513-733-4747 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 12:25:16 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Theos-L Branch in Cyberspace Sy, I think your idea of a conference is great. I'd love it. I think we'd have to agree on a time to do it. Over Lunch hour isn't good for me. How about 8PM Eastern time, which would be 5PM Pacific time? I'd also like to add my vote to keeping this group unaffiliated. I don't have much time just now to read & comment on theos-l. I got very tied up on a project on the Interrel list. It seems to get totapering off a little now, so i hope to be able to get back more with you guys. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 12:55:08 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: Re: Theos-L "conference" > What is the possibility as to both usefulness and technical > feasibility of having a regularly session, maybe weekly, where > those who wish could actually be on line with each other? > Something like a conference room in a Compuserve forum. Maybe > John Mead can answer the technical part of this question. > > But is there any interest in doing this, and what would be a > reasonable time period? How about Sunday 11 pm to 1 am Greenwich > time? I don't know how intellectual the conversation would be, > but socially it could enhance the idea of being a TS branch. it would not be hard to do this through IRC. However, people would need to learn IRC, and it may not be available to everyone. We could set up several hours some day. probably a weekend. Maybe with a large time window (12 hours?), so that it could "flow" across several time zones?? The first person "on" could look for a session called theos (or theosophy) and start it if it didn't exist already. It would be perhaps good to start it in a time-zone where we know several people will be looking for it?? or else the dedicated few could get it going regularly, and let it evolve?? i'll check out IRC, I haven't used it much. does the person who starts the session have to "stay on" the whole time as an owner (assume a Public session)?? peace - john mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 20:06:25 -0500 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"@vnet.net Subject: A Nucleus in Cyberspace An afterthought to suggesting "an open nucleus of ..." (Yes, I have cats that like to jump into my lap when I'm at my home computer, too.) I think the whole TS needs to go more from a nucleus mentality to a network mentality. Present company excepted, of course. Not just in communications, but in recognising that we're no longer the lone pioneer, battling to set up an action group. There are others out there, now, and some of them are doing the same sort of things as us. I've seen theosophists forget about kinship with them. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 20:22:26 -0500 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: SD-Paul Taken from *The Secret Doctrine,* vol. iii, 1895 edition. (For notes see Section XVI, previously uploaded. Words printed in Greek here have been transliterated into English equivalents). SECTION XV ST. PAUL THE REAL FOUNDER OF PRESENT CHRISTIANITY WE may repeat with the author of *Phallicism*: "We are all for *construction* - even for *Christian,* although of course philosophical *construction.* We have nothing to do with reality, in man's limited, mechanical, scientific sense, or with *realism.* We have undertaken to show that mysticism is the very life and soul of religion; [1] . . . that the Bible is only misread and misrepresent when rejected as advancing supposed fabulous and contradictory things; that Moses did not make mistakes, but spoke to the "children of men" in the only way in which children in their nonage can be addressed; that the world is, indeed, a very different place from that which it is assumed to be; that what is derided as superstition is the only true and the only scientific knowledge, and moreover that modern knowledge and modern science are to a great extent not only superstition but superstition of a very destructive and deadly kind. [2]. All this is perfectly true and correct. But it is also true that the New Testament, the Acts and the Epistles - however much the historical figure of Jesus may be true - are all symbolical and allegorical sayings, and that "it was not Jesus but Paul who was the real founder of Christianity;" [3] but it was not the official Church Christianity, at any rate. "The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch," the *Acts of the Apostles* tell us, [4] and they were not so called before, nor for a long time after, but simply Nazarenes. This view is found in more than one writer of the present and the past centuries. But, hitherto, it has always been laid aside as an unproven hypothesis, a blasphemous assumption; though, as the author of *Paul, the Founder of Christianity* [5] truly says: "Such men as Irenaeus, Epiphanius and Eusebius have transmitted to posterity a reputation for such untruth and dishonest practices that the heart sickens at the story of the crimes of that period." The more so, since the whole Christian scheme rests upon *their* sayings. But we find now another corroboration, and this time on the perfect reading of biblical glyphs. In *The Source of Measures* we find the following: "It must be borne in mind that our present Christianity is *Pauline,* not *Jesus.* Jesus, in his life, was a Jew, conforming to the law; even more, He says "The scribes and pharisees sit in Moses' seat; whatsoever therefore they command you to do, that observe and do." And again "I did not come to destroy but to fulfil the law." Therefore, He was under the law to the day of his death, and could not, while in life, abrogate one jot or tittle of it. He was circumcised and commanded circumcision. But Paul said of circumcision that it availed nothing, and *he* (Paul) abrogated the law. *Saul* and *Paul* - that is, Saul, under the law, and Paul, freed from the obligations of the law - were in one man, but parallelisms *in the flesh,* of Jesus the man under the law as observing it, who thus died in Chrestos and arose, freed from its obligations, in the spirit world as *Christos,* or the triumphant Christ. It was the Christ who was freed, but Christ was in the Spirit. Saul in the flesh was the function of, and parallel of Christos. Paul in the flesh was the function and parallel of Jesus become Christ in the spirit, as an early reality to answer to and act for the *apotheosis;* and so armed with all authority in the flesh to abrogate human law." [6]. The real reason why Paul is shown as "abrogating the law" can be found only in India, where to this day the most ancient customs and privileges are preserved in all their purity, notwithstanding the abuse levelled at the same. There is only one class of persons who can disregard the law of Bra^hmanical institutions, caste included, with impunity, and that is the *perfect* "Sva^mi^s," the Yogi^s - who have reached, or are supposed to have reached, the first step towards the Ji^vanmukta state - or the full Initiates. And Paul was undeniably an Initiate. We will quote a passage or two from *Isis Unveiled,* for we can say now nothing better than what was said then: "Take Paul, read the little of original that is left of him in the writings attributed to this brave, honest, sincere man, and see whether anyone can find a word therein to show that Paul meant by the word Christ anything more than the abstract ideal of the personal divinity indwelling in man. For Paul, Christ is not a person, but an embodied idea. "If any man is in Christ he is a new creation," *he is reborn,* as after initiation, for the Lord is spirit - the spirit of man. Paul was the only one of the apostles who had understood the secret ideas underlying the teachings of Jesus, although he had never met him." But Paul himself was not infallible or perfect. "Bent upon inaugurating a new and broad reform, one embracing the whole of humanity, he sincerely set his own doctrines far above the wisdom of the ages, above he ancient Mysteries and final revelation to the Epoptae. "Another proof that Paul belonged to the circle of the "Initiates" lies in the following fact. The apostle had his head shorn at Cenchreae, where Lucius *(Apuleius)* was initiated, because "he had a vow." The Nazars - or set apart -as we see in the Jewish Scrip- tures, had to cut their hair, which they wore long, and which "no razor touched" at any other time, and sacrifice it on the altar of initiation. And the Nazars were a class of Chaldaean Theurgists or Initiates." It is shown in *Isis Unveiled* that Jesus belonged to this class. "Paul declares that "According to the grace of God which is give to me, as a wise *master-builder,* I lave laid the foundation." *(I Corinth., iii. 10.)*" "This expression, master-builder, used only *once* in the whole *Bible,* and by Paul, may be considered as a whole revelation. In the Mysteries, the third part of the sacred rites was called Epopteia, or revelation, reception into the secrets. In substance it means the highest stage of clairvoyance - the divine; . . . but the real significance of the word is "overseeing," from (Gk) *optomai* - "I see myself." In Sanskrit the root *a^p* had the sane meaning originally, though now it is understood as meaning "to obtain." [7]. "The word *epopteia* is compound, from (Gk) *epi* "upon," and *optomai*" to look," or an overseer, an inspector - also used for a master-builder. The title of master-mason, in Freemasonry, is derived from this, in the sense used in the Mysteries. Therefore, when Paul entitles himself a "master-builder," he is using a word pre-eminently kabalistic, theurgic, and masonic, and one which no other apostle uses. He thus declares himself an *adept,* having the right to initiate others. "If we search in this direction, with those sure guides, the Grecian Mysteries and the *Kabalah,* before us, it will be easy to find the secret reason why Paul was so persecuted and hated by Peter, John, and James. The author of the *Revelation* was a Jewish Kabalist, *pur sang,* with all the hatred inherited by him from his forefathers toward the pagan Mysteries. [8]. His jealousy during the life of Jesus extended even to Peter; and it is but after the death of their common master that we see the two apostles - the former of whom wore the Mitre and the Petaloon of the Jewish Rabbis - preach so zealously the rite of circumcision. In the eyes of Peter, Paul, who had humiliated him, and who he felt so much his superior in "Greek learning" and philosophy, must have naturally appeared as a magician, a man polluted with the "Gnosis," with the "wisdom" of the Greek Mysteries - hence, perhaps, "Simon, the Magician " as a comparison, not a nickname. [9]. [1] But we can never agree with the author " that rites and ritual and formal worship and prayers are of the absolute necessity of things," for the external can develop and grow and receive worship only at the expense of, and to the detriment of, the internal, the only real and true. [2] H.Jennings, op. cit., pp. 37, 38. [3] See *Isis Unveiled,* ii. 574. [4] xi. 26. [5] Art. by Dr. A. Wilder, in *Evolution.* [6] op. cit., p. 262. [7] In its most extensive meaning, the Sanskrit word has the same literal sense as the Greek term; both imply " revelation," by no human agent, but through the " receiving of the sacred drink." In India the initiated received the "Soma," sacred drink, which helped to liberate his soul from the body; and in the Eleusinian Mysteries it was the sacred drink offered at the Epopteia. The Grecian Mysteries are wholly derived from the Bra^hmanical Vaidic rites, and the latter from the Ante-Vaidic religious Mysteries-primitive Wisdom Philosophy. [8] It is needless to state that the Gospel according to John was not written by John, but by a Platonist or a Gnostic belonging to the Neoplatonic school. [9] Ibid., loc. cit.* The fact that Peter persecuted the "Apostle to the Gentiles" under that name, does not necessarily imply that there was no Simon Magus individually distinct from Paul. It may have become a generic name of abuse. Theodoret and Chrysostom, the earliest and most prolific commentators on the Gnosticism of those days, seem actually to make of Simon a rival of Paul and to state that between them passed frequent messages. The former, as a diligent propagandist of what Paul terms the "antithesis of the Gnosis" *(I Epistle to Timothy)* must have been a sore thorn in the side of the apostle. There are sufficient proofs of the actual existence of Simon Magus. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 20:59:43 -0500 From: Matthew_Cromer@mzdc.pdial.interpath.net (Matthew Zoe David Cromer) Subject: introduction to Theosophy Hello everyone. My name is Matthew Cromer, and I will introduce myself soon. But first, I would be very interested in reading what you all believe about theosophy. I'm familiar with many religions, but fairly ignorant of theosophy. I'll talk soon, I promise. Thanks! -- Matthew -- (Matthew_Cromer@mzdc.pdial.interpath.net) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 21:00:26 -0500 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"@vnet.net Subject: Re: RE: Karma, causality etc. Thanks, Bill, for the definitions of synchronicity. When all else fails, read the definition! To AB; I imagine Jung wanting to keep away from reliance on dogmas too - part of being the good scientist. Scientists don't alway manage to avoid dogmatism in their personal or even professional beliefs, though! Karma and reincarnation do not, of course, have to be taken as dogmas. Theosophists try to study them, intuit them, and even run their lives by them - and don't always manage to avoid dogmatism either! Karma doesn't need the scope of reincarnation, as it can be seen in purely physical processes. After all, its original meaning in Sanscrit is action. For example, the emergence of a bullet from a gun is a karmic consequence of the energy stored in the powder, plus a triggering factor. > the "connecting principle" is *demonstrable* regardless of > individual belief. I would hope so, yet Jung's definitions of synchronicity stay safely with terms like "simultaneous occurrence"; refraining from inferring causality. I'm trying to say that events and experiences that are acausal with regard to the physical, may yet have a higher or subtler form of causality behind them. And this with full acceptance of the presence of disordering or chaotic processes as well. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 21:52:19 -0500 From: KONEIL@pimacc.pima.edu Subject: Re: RE: Karma, causality etc. As Buddhism evolved and developed earlier notions of causality underwent refinement to aid the life of developing and maturing mystical illumination. First, simple causality was replaced by the notion of interdepence - found most expressed in the Flower Adornment Sutra. By that notion the entirity of the universe is one seemlessly interconnected process; the universe expresses an aspect of its process by doing the "you" that is your existence. Secondly, the Buddhists put little emphasis on personal identity - the mask of personality. Seeing all attempts to make reality into independently and separately existing things, emphasis was put on the emptiness or transparency of reality. What does that mean in practical terms, in skills of illumination? Much of the fabric of illusionary reality, personalized in that identification with a self-imagine (which self-esteems), amounts to maintaining a false sense of separation and separateness (satkayadrsti in Sanskrit). As illuminating expereince breaks through that illusion (kinda like looking through a pin prick in a sheet behold the vastness of the Grand Canyon), life's greater potentials show themselves. Normal illusions come to be known for what they are: conditioned and emptiness of absolute character. How does this pertain to reincarnation? A tricky matter. One the one hand reincarnation is just another way of saying immortality. But of what? Without an illusionary self, what reincarnates. At this point the buddhists say mum is the word. Bankei, one of Japan's great mystics, referred to the experience of gnosis about immortality as a kind of koan: he called it The Unborn. His zen aims at realizing your unborn/undying nature - no theology, no theory, no dogma, no speculation - just waking up with mind/body/core altering experience. Certainly the cost effective solution for wear and tear. One of the Ch'an mystery questions from China posed it centureies earlier: what is (now, in the active voice) your original nature - before your parents conceived you? Another way of getting to what we known in the Tibetan inflection as the pure light. On this note, and despite tremendous investment in Victorian Puritan views of Buddhism that should be treated as waste ready for recycling, the most pervasive tradition of buddhism is what academics call Pure Land Buddhism. Begining in India, then spreading to Central Asia/China, it finally journeyed to Korea, Japan and Vietname; last but not least to Tibet. The core teaching transcends cultural inflections. From several centureis bc it concerned exactly these questions. The real reason Buddhism caught on in China is not well known in the West. Carl Becker, an American, recently published his Breaking the Circle - a cross cultural study of death, dying and rebirth in Buddhism. The book is admittedly weak, relying on outdated or just terrible resources for India and Tibet (e.g., Evans=Wentz and Jennings). Its great revelations come with China. Buddhism really caught on there due to maps and practices concerning Out Of Body Experience and Near Death Experience. As you might guess, Becker had to find employment as a scholar in Japan - he's just too challenging to the anglo norte americano buddhist studies paradigm; the good news is the Japanese love his revelations of the soul of buddhism. His publisher is Southern Illinois University press. The buddhism is pure land - even in Tibet. So much for my two cents worth. Ciao gassho, Ken O'Neill, kyoshi White Lotus Society Tucson, Arizona From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 01:34:41 -0500 From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: Entropy, Evolution and Evil There has been a lot of talk back and forth about communtication theory, noise, channels by Murray S. and Eldon and others. I've picked this idea up and put it back down so many times, mainly because I'm not a scientist or engineer, just humanitites mainly so they "esoteric" math leaves me unilluminated. But I'm open because in our lifetime we have an abundance of paradigms, perhaps and over-abundance. One year it's entropy, the next holograms, the next fractals and the next subatomic physics and with no end in sight. So little time, so much to know. Some look with amusement, I'm sure, at dilletantes picking up these ideas and seeing (projecting?) spiritual ideas in them. Yet they add to the richness of the dialogue. Correct me if I'm wrong, but entropy doesn't have so much to do with a measure of heat loss, or even with a measure of orderdness in an open system, but with a meaure of our INFORMATION about heat loss, orderness, signal clarity. In other words we are not measuring "real" events but our knowledge of them. The entropy is not a measure of heat flow, but a measure of our knowledge and the entropy of our information or disinformation. Don't snicker too loudly. This is my current understanding, and I'm no mathematician. So we get back to the the fact that consciousness is looking at itself trying to look at "real" events in the objective world, but really trapped in its own subjectivity. Cogito ergo sum, n'est pas? So we get thrown back into phenomenology that all we can know and describe is our subjective phenomenon and if they correlate with observations over time and the observations of other conscious beings like ourselves. So entropy may be a construct of our own minds. It is the only way we can perceive time and energy flow, but may not be what is actually occuring in any "real" way by someone with a higher more evolved Masterful consciousness. So its all maya, but a maya we are stuck with because at this stage of evolution, it's the best we can do with our limited minds. So evil is not real, it is only a limitation of our consciousness at our particular stage of evolution. Bishop Berkely, I believe, said: "I refute it thus" (as he stubbed his foot on a stone). Yeah, it's all maya, but I'm still driving on the right side of the road (not recomended to AB and others in other coutries, other realities). Which leads us to the question of how much of our "reality" is consensual? In the Kali Yuga of 1995 America, well, the mind reels (reals?). Namste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 09:50:30 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: RE: Karma, causality etc. Dear Ken-- Carl Becker also has a SUNY Press book on Paranormal Experience that I found persuasive and interesting. Could you explain how Evans-Wentz is outdated, and how he has misrepresented anything. On talk.religion.buddhism there have been several comments about E-W distorting Buddhism under HPB's influence, but every time I asked for further explanation it went unanswered. Regards Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 10:59:45 -0500 From: HASLTISL@aol.com Subject: Papers Got your galleys, Paul. I will get back to you once I have read them. Thanks :-) Mark From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 12:45:56 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: introduction to Theosophy Would it be too much to ask, for those of use unfamiliar with the WWW, that the FAQ be posted here as well from time to time? Although instruction about how to find the Theosophy material on the Web might be just as useful to individuals, having it here for us to examine might be more productive in terms of group dynamics. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 13:49:33 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: RE: Karma, causality etc. In message <01HN06HFPHJ68WVZ1O@SSSAK1.SSS.CO.NZ> theos-l@vnet.net writes: Murray: > I'm trying to say that events and experiences that are acausal > with regard to the physical, may yet have a higher or subtler > form of causality behind them. And this with full acceptance of > the presence of disordering or chaotic processes as well. Aha! Just as I thought . I suspect that this is what Jung thought as well, but being a scientist, was trying to develop a language for it. And yet . . . if all the planes (worlds, levels, whatever) are interpenetrating, eg., the `astral' *includes* the physical (which is how I see it) then "subtler" would be a better word than "higher" for the causality behind the apparently acausal. I have often though that Jung was on tricky ground with this one, for what may be described as "acausual" may be nothing more (!) than events for which causality synchronous with them is not immediately obvious - like the powder and the bullet from the gun - which, BTW, is *exactly* how I have come to perceive the idea of Karma in general - there is not necessarily a moral dimension to it at all. Karma is TANSTAAFL! AB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 13:53:20 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: Re: introduction to Theosophy > Would it be too much to ask, for those of use unfamiliar with > the WWW, that the FAQ be posted here as well from time to > time? Although instruction about how to find the Theosophy > material on the Web might be just as useful to individuals, > having it here for us to examine might be more productive in > terms of group dynamics. the WWW intro. to Theosophy is already in our archives. If I understand correctly, it is the Windows module which Don deGracia wrote and placed there for Internet access. It can be run under any Windows 3.1 "Help" facility. peace - john mead p.s. Other FAQ's are welcome. I will add to the Theos-L archives almost anything I can get my hands on. :-) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 13:54:37 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: the creation -- sorry, I had to send this! IN THE BEGINNING (To justify God's ways to the 21st century) #In the beginning was the computer. And God said :Let there be light! #You have not signed on yet. :God. #Enter user password. :Omniscient. #Password Incorrect. Try again! :Omnipotent. #Password Incorrect. Try again! :Technocrat. #And God signed on 12:01 a.m., Sunday, March 1. :Let there be light! #Unrecognizable command. Try again! :Create light. #Done. :Run heaven and earth. #And God created Day and Night. And God saw there were 0 errors. #And God signed off at 12:02 a.m., Sunday, March 1. #Approx. funds remaining: $92.50. #And God signed on at 12:00 a.m., Monday, March 2. :Let there be firmament in the midst of the water and #Unrecognizable command! Try again! :Create firmament. #Done. :Run firmament. #And God divided the waters. And God saw there were 0 errors. #And God signed off at 12:01 a.m., Monday, March 2. #Approx. funds remaining: $84.60. #And God signed on at 12:00 a.m., Tuesday, March 3. :Let the waters under heaven be gathered together unto one place and let the dry land appear and #Too many characters in string specification! Try again. :Create dryland. #Done! :Run dryland. #And God created Earth and Seas. And God saw there were 0 errors. #And God signed off at 12:01 a.m., Tuesday, March 3. #Approx. funds remaining: $65.00. #And God signed on at 12:00 a.m., Wednesday, March 4. :Create lights in the firmament to divide the day from the night. #Unspecified type. Try again! :Create sunmoonstars. #And God created Sun, Moon, Stars. And God saw there were 0 errors. #And God signed off at 12:01 a.m., Wednesday, March 4. #Approx. funds remaining: $54:00. #And God signed on at 12:00 a.m., Thursday, March 5. :Create fish. #Done. :Create fowl. #Done. :Run fish'nfowl. #And God created the great seamonsters and every living creature that creepeth wherewith the waters swarmed after its kind and every winged fowl after its kind. 0 errors. #And God signed off at 12:01 a.m., Thursday, March 5. #Approx. funds remaining: $45.00. #And God signed on at 12:00 a.m., Friday, March 6. :Create cattle. #Done. :Create creepy things. #Done. :Now let us make man in our image. #Unspecified type! Try again. :Create man. #Done. :Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over of the fowl of the air and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth. #Too many command operands! Try again. :Run multiplication. #Execution terminated. 6 errors. :Insert breath. #O.K. :Run multiplication. #Execution terminated. 5 errors. :Move man to Garden of Eden. #File Garden of Eden does not exist. :Create Gard.En. #Done. :Move man to Gard.En. #O.K. :Run multiplication. #Execution terminated. 4 errors. :Copy woman from man. #O.K. :Run multiplication. #Execution terminated. 3 errors. :Insert woman into man. #Illegal parameters. Try again! :Insert man into woman. #O.K. :Run multiplication. #Execution terminated. 2 errors. :Create desire. #Done. :Run multiplication. #And God saw man'nwoman being fruitful and multiplying in the Gard.En. #Warning: No time limit on this run. 1 errors. :Create freewill. #Done. :Run freewill. #And God saw man'nwoman being fruitful and multiplying in the Gard.En. #Warning: No time limit on this run. 1 errors. :Undo desire. #Desire cannot be undone once freewill is created. :Destroy freewill. #Freewill is an inaccessible file and cannot be destroyed. #Enter replacement, cancel, or ask for help. :Help! #Desire cannot be undone once freewill is created. #Freewill is an inaccessible file and cannot be destroyed. #Enter replacement, cancel, or ask for help. :Create Treeofknowledge. #And God saw man'nwoman being fruitful and multiplying in the Gard.En. #Warning: No time limit on this run. 1 errors. :Create good'nevil. #Done. :Activate evil. #And God saw he had created shame. #Warning: System error in sector E95. Man'nwoman not in Gard.En. #1 errors. :Scan Gard.En. for man'nwoman. #Man'nwoman cannot be located. Try again! :Search Gard.En. for man'nwoman. #Search failed. :Delete shame. #Shame cannot be deleted once evil has been activated. :Destroy freewill. #Freewill an inaccessible file and cannot be destroyed. :Stop! #Unrecognizable command. Try again. :Break :Break :Break #ATTENTION ALL USERS ATTENTION ALL USERS: COMPUTER GOING DOWN FOR REGULAR DAY OF MAINTENANCE AND REST IN FIVE MINUTES. PLEASE SIGN OFF. :Create new world. #You have exceeded your allotted file space. You must destroy old files before new ones can be created. :Destroy earth. #Destroy earth. Please confirm. :Destroy earth confirmed. #COMPUTER DOWN. COMPUTER DOWN. SERVICES WILL RESUME ON SUNDAY MARCH 8 AT 6:00 A.M. YOU MUST SIGN OFF NOW! #And God signed off at 11:59 p.m., Friday, March 6. #And God saw he had zero funds remaining. -- z z |\ _,,,--,, why worry? z z /,`.-'`' ._ \-;;,_ |,4- ) )_ .;.( `'-' '---''(_/._)-'(_\_) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 16:17:46 -0500 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: Re: introduction to Theosophy Matthew_Cromer@mzdc.pdial.interpath.net (Matthew Zoe David Cromer) writes: > But first, I would be very interested in reading what you all > believe about theosophy. I believe theosophy, in the words of Vladimir Loncar, is the place to come to have your questions answered and your answers questioned. > I'm familiar with many religions, but fairly ignorant of > theosophy. If you're familiar with religions, then look to their common heart. Paul Gillingwater From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 17:11:11 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Various Comments Some comments on various subjects: Re Evans-Wentz: I agree with Paul's question on Evans-Wentz. I still prefer Sandup's translations to the several newer one's out. There may be a problem with the "flavor" of E-W in that he emphasizes yoga and magic over the religious aspects, but I am not aware of any real content conflicts. This is not the case with Richard Wilhelm, where I do prefer the new translations by Cleary. Also, I doubt that E-W was influenced much by HPB and see little of any Pasadena TS influence (which downplays yoga and magic) in his books. Re entropy: Entropy is a scientific term that measures disorder or chaos in an open system (entropy always increases unless energy is somehow applied/added to the system to reduce it). You can't measure it like temperature (there are no entropy meters). It only looks at physical systems and says nothing whatever of astral or mental or spiritual levels of any system (i.e., science ignores the dimension of consciousness and the doctrine of cosmic planes). The theory that the entropy of the universe is increasing assumes that no energy has been added since the Big Bang. HPB's laya centers and the scientific possibility of white holes could challenge the assumption of increasing entropy which says that our universe is degenerating (aging) toward an entropy soup. On the other hand, HPB also points out that planets, solar systems, galaxies, and universes all have a birth, undergo development and life, and then die (as above so below). So the theory of increasing entropy is probably correct - but again, only for physical bodies. Re Synchronicity: Jung postulates a "psychic world" or psychic continuum in which the psyche functions. When events in that continuum overlap with events in our spacetime continuum, and when we assess those events as being meaningful to us, then we have a synchronicity. When Jung says this is acausal, he means that we are not conscious of any causation, and even therapy and dream evaluation are useless. His acausal principle is meant to complement causality, and both apply mainly to our physical plane. However, Jung was certainly aware of the cause-effect relationships that exist between the body, the emotions, and the mind, and synchronicity rules these out. Indeed, the real cause could be something that we did 34,562 lifetimes ago. But does offering this explanation help us any? It doesn't help me much, because whenever a theory is used to explain everything, then it explains nothing (i.e., "its God's will" is just as good an explanation as past karma since both expanations demand faith). There is another aspect of synchronicity that needs to be explored. When we read Tarot or I Ching or gaze into a crystal, and see some future event, and then that event occurs, we say that it is sychronistic. But such events can also mean that we unconsciously look for just such an event to occur - one that was predicted - and then say 'aha' after finding something reasonably close, as if we unconsciously want to give credence to the prediction. The idea here is that we can almost always find synchronistic events in our lives if we want to look for them. It is very difficult to tell when an event is actually predicted and when it is simply interpreted as such. A good example is the ancient oracle, which was never wrong, but always worded so obscurely that its possible interpretations allowed for a good chance of its coming true in some fashion. Another example: take two groups, one with believers in Tarot and one with sceptics. Chances are high that the believers will be able to offer "proof" of successful predictions, while the sceptics will offer "proof" that the Tarot doesn't work. I offer this as a good example of how synchronicity works in our lives (i.e., our experiences tend to validate our beliefs). In other words, Tarot believers will tend to find some meaningful event that verifies a previous prediction. This, in turn, will strengthen their belief in the Tarot. Sceptics, will not find any such meaningful events and conclude that the Tarot doesn't work, thus confirming and strengthening their belief. Re reincarnation: Jung says that the psyche pre-exists the ego, which is born with the body and develops like the body and dies like the body. He also says that the psyche exists after the ego and body have died. He steadfastly remained silent on the question of reincarnation, but instead described a rebirth archetype in the collective unconscious. I really see great parallels between theosophical teaching and Jung, once we get though the semantics. However, I agree with Eldon that theosophy goes farther than any psychology (perhaps Jung would admit that too since he deliberately drew lines in the scientific sand, and refused to cross over into speculation and unprovable theories - although he could be accused of doing this too else his psychology would be more widely accepted). There is little in theosophy or any religion that cannot be addressed in Jungian psychology in some way; i.e., there is little that we can experience or believe that can't be put into a psychological framework or perspective. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 17:30:41 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Intro Theosophy While awaiting the appearance of a polished and thorough answer to Matthew's question, I'll offer a few words in response. Theosophy rests on the conviction that all life is an expression of divinity, and that it is possible to know something about how and why this is so. Theos= God; Sophia= Wisdom; hence divine wisdom or wisdom of the gods. Theosophy regards science, religion, and philosophy as all aspects of humanity's evolution toward knowledge of self and cosmos. It attempts to integrate and transcend these diverse ways of knowing, moving towards a holistic understanding of self AS cosmos. I think I posted the 3 objectives and the 3 fundamental propositions to you before, so won't repeat them here. But will summarize by saying that Theosophy views all life as one, and all beings as linked in an evolutionary pathway from "unselfconscious god-sparks to self-conscious gods." Theosophists strive to learn from those who have evolved to higher levels of spirituality and understanding, without imposing limits on any seeker's quest for truth. There is great internal diversity among Theosophists' views and interests, but ideally a mutual respect for truthseeking binds us together as a group with common values and principles. There are thousands of pages on the many doctrines developed by teachers of modern Theosophy, starting with Mme. Blavatsky. Perhaps if you asked "what does Theosophy teach about X?" we would be in a better position to get specific. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 17:31:53 -0500 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Subject: Re: RE: Karma, causality etc. Paul Johnson> Could you explain how Evans-Wentz is outdated, and how he has misrepresented anything. On talk.religion.buddhism there have been several comments about E-W distorting Buddhism under HPB's influence, but every time I asked for further explanation it went unanswered. In 1989 Station Hill published ~Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness;~ translation & notes by John M. Reynolds. He translated anew one of E-W's texts and severly criticised it. I have not read it lately, but if I recall, various Swamis, Yogananda for one, were given as much blame for distorting his view of Buddhism as Theosophy. He also had some difficulty discerning the pseudo-theosophy of CWL, AAB, et al from HPB's real Theosophy. But the "once a human always a human" notion was taught by HPB, and Reynolds does take her & E-W to task for accepting it. Destroys karmic law he thinks. Nicholas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 18:24:49 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Papers Dear Mark-- Glad you have received them. My corrections are due back by the end of next week, should you find any. What do you know about, or think of, Sri Michael Turner? I'm probably going to write by e-mail. Namaste Paul P.S. Occasionally I find myself sending/receiving greetings to/from you while hearing the Sound Current. It's actually much more appealing to me to make contact with friends and equals via this technique than to hook up with great cosmic authority figures. The experiment with "seeing" one another was great fun, and I'd like a.r.e. to get further into this kind of exploration-- which transcends sectarian boundaries. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 18:42:55 -0500 From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: What is occult, the occult? My dictionary says: "1. Of pertaining to, dealing with, or knowledgeable in supernatural influences, agencies, or phenomena. 2. Beyond the realm of human human comprehension; mysterious; inscrutable 3. Available only to the initiate; not divulged; secret occult lore 4. Rare. Hidden from view; concealed." When talking about sychronicity being acausal to the senses, but caual on the occult planes, we begin to speculate or claim to have knowledge or at least an intuition of something supernatural. We are on very dangerous ground here it would seem as much of the "truth" accepted for centuries now appears as pretty silly, such as the stars circle the earth attached to a globe that is moved by angels etc. In we claim to be an initiate, we had better be able to back it up, but that is the one thing the inititiate can't do - go public! This is a very convenient catch-22. Those that know, don't say, at least they don't say enough. I like Bing Escudero's use of the 4th meaning, that occult is not supernatural, but hidden. What is more hidden than consciousness from consciousness. I know my own thoughts briefly, but they slip by often of their own free will and slip into my unconsciousness. I can never know your thoughts, feelings, sensations or intuitions except as I get the second hand from you through communication - words, art, expressions etc. We are paradoxically imprisoned and released by our local personal consciousness. We are imprisoned from our true universal self or Atma, monad, etc., but get the only release we can into this limited mesocosm between the macrocosm and microcosm. Of course, many have had glimpses of the larger consciousness through meditation and our various paths. Yes, as Alan Blain pointed out many posts back concerning the theosophical schemes of evolution, it can seem like a long needlessly painful trip to those in it, but what of those above ? It seems like the gnostics and even the fundamentalists may have something on us here. Original sin, may not stand up to close scrutiny, but it does provide motivation for seeking "salvation". The gnostic fall also gives a justification that spirit was seduced into matter, and provides gnosis as a "salvation". Karma appears fair, and just and reasonable and even scientific, but a little cold. Why was the first chord ever struck, the string pulled, the big banged? Namste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 19:17:50 -0500 From: uscap9m9@ibmmail.com Subject: More Comments Comments -- Eldon Tucker Notes to Ann Bermingham & Kent Livingston, Dr. Bain, Murray Stentiford, Nancy Coker, and Keith Price. ---- Ann Bermingham & Kent Livingston: Vic Hao Chin (vhc@philtap.tool.nl) is working on the CD Rom of theosophical books. He has "The Secret Doctrine," "Isis Unveiled," and "The Key to Theosophy" done. He's at work on the Collected Writings. The CD Rom may also include "Esoteric Buddhism" by A.P. Sinnett. The type of software that the etexts will be distributed on, and the required viewer, is still being investigated. I've recommended to Vic that he use Adobe Acrobat, but he needs to look into it. One FTP site is at vnet.net, where John Mead has the archives for 'theos-l' and other theosophical files. I also have some under /ftp/public/e/eldon/theos-l (just unix compress'ed files for each month of discussion on 'theos-l' since July 1993). I'm also working on electronic books, and may have some on the internet in the next few months. Some are old books; others are a few from Point Loma Publications. Dr. Bain: Regarding our becoming a lodge, my suggestion is still good: let's self-confer the honorary title of lodge upon ourselves. There's no rules, no moderator, no membership in any theosophical organization. Are we a lodge? There's the saying: "If it looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, etc., then it must be one." It would be easy for John Mead at any time to make our lists into moderated lists, where he has the power to approve/reject any submissions before they go out. I'm glad that he has had the foresight to keep things complete open. As to teaching reincarnation and karma to children, I think it depends on the interest and responsiveness of the particular child. If the parent is uncertain about the truth of the ideas, it would be best to keep silent until the child is old enough to sort out religion and philosophy on its own. If the parent is convinced and comfortable with the ideas, it's proper, I'd say, to teach the child when interest is shown. I would teach geography, mathematics, and psychology to my children when they are ready to learn, because I consider them "true" subjects and valuable to know. I'd put the doctrines of Theosophy in the same class. Murray Stentiford: I don't think there are any dogmas in Theosophy, no required beliefs that must be accepted in order to be a Theosophist. Reincarnation and karma are best presented as *doctrines,* not dogmas; they should be presented as core concepts to be studied, to be given deep contemplation, rather than as formulas of words to be memorized and repeated upon demand. Nancy Coker: It's good to see you back among us again. I'd agree that the early theosophical literature shows a strong Victorian bias. Sex was not well-known, nor well-thought-of in those days. It was not discussed in public, so there were likely many misunderstandings about it. (Things were rather extreme then. The sight of a woman's leg was considered obscene. I seem to recall that there was even a time when the legs to tables were covered, because they would remind the onlooker of women's legs!) A full discussion of what it is, how it works, and when it is good or bad in our lives probably could not be openly written about in the last century, without offending people and causing them to turn away from one's theosophical books. At that time, it was likely safest to simply say to avoid it, outside of marriage, perhaps just for having babies, etc. where the most conservative stage is expressed. When we get to someone who would be a practical occultist, there'd better be a Teacher watching over the student! With a Teacher, there'll be advise on sexual and other matters appropriate to his station in life. Without a Teacher, there's the risk of serious harm, regardless of celibacy. Keith Price: We shouldn't picture the universe as having started with an initial impulse, and that energy being lost to entropy, winding down to a random nothingness. It's true that any system can lose energy through dissipation. A rocking-horse, given a push, will rock for a while, then stop. It's energy was dissipated due to friction. But the universe, and life itself, is not the result of a single impulse of energy. It is something that is self-sustained. There is an endless sequence of impulses, keeping it going, adding new energy to it, driving it through cyclic evolution. It undergoes an never-ending sequence of iterations, and is always different, more individualized, more expressive of the streams of life energies expressed in the world. If the outflow of energy from the divine stopped, even for but an instance, all existence would cease; nothing can independently sustain itself for even the most fleeting of moments! The universe and life is self-created *from with* in and during every moment of time, and entropy or physical death only happens when a life moves on to other worlds, like we do, in our after-death states, before seeking rebirth on earth. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 19:35:47 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: introduction to Theosophy Dear John-- Thanks for your reply. Alas, I don't have Windows. Maybe Matthew does, in which case there is no problem for now. But if someone wanted to see the FAQ and didn't have Windows, the WWW page would be the only solution, right? (I'm feeling particularly concerned about this since I recommended theos-l to Matthew, so want to make sure he gets the background info.) Cheers Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 20:11:54 -0500 From: Matthew_Cromer@mzdc.pdial.interpath.net (Matthew Zoe David Cromer) Subject: Re: RE: Karma, causality etc. >To AB; I imagine Jung wanting to keep away from reliance on dogmas too - ??? What is AB? -- Matthew -- (Matthew_Cromer@mzdc.pdial.interpath.net) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 20:12:39 -0500 From: Matthew_Cromer@mzdc.pdial.interpath.net (Matthew Zoe David Cromer) Subject: Re: introduction to Theosophy >Dear John-- > >Thanks for your reply. Alas, I don't have Windows. Maybe >Matthew does, in which case there is no problem for now. But >if someone wanted to see the FAQ and didn't have Windows, the >WWW page would be the only solution, right? (I'm feeling >particularly concerned about this since I recommended theos-l >to Matthew, so want to make sure he gets the background info.) > >Cheers >Paul I have a web browser. Where should I look? -- Matthew -- (Matthew_Cromer@mzdc.pdial.interpath.net) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 20:30:29 -0500 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"@vnet.net Subject: Re: RE: Karma, causality etc. Matthew, another welcome to THEOS-L from me. You asked ??? What is AB? AB is Alan Bain. His initials had been used in a few posts addressed to him, so I took the liberty. Obviously not always a wise choice! Alan is another THEOS-L subscriber. Murray Stentiford murray@sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 20:48:13 -0500 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"@vnet.net Subject: Dogma - to Eldon > Murray Stentiford: > I don't think there are any dogmas in Theosophy, no required > beliefs that must be accepted in order to be a Theosophist. > Reincarnation and karma are best presented as *doctrines,* > not dogmas; they should be presented as core concepts to be > studied, to be given deep contemplation, rather than as > formulas of words to be memorized and repeated upon demand. I couldn't agree more, Eldon. To re-word my response to Alan Bain, I was saying that theosophists try to study things Reincarnation and Karma, as opposed to taking them as dogmas, but that dogmatism still slips in despite the best intentions. It's usually a result of passionate enthusiasm, or a bit of inflexibility, in my experience. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 21:07:50 -0500 From: Matthew_Cromer@mzdc.pdial.interpath.net (Matthew Zoe David Cromer) Subject: Re: RE: Karma, causality etc. >Matthew, another welcome to THEOS-L from me. > >You asked ??? What is AB? > > AB is Alan Bain. His initials had been used in a few posts > addressed to him, so I took the liberty. Obviously not always a > wise choice! > >Alan is another THEOS-L subscriber. > >Murray Stentiford >murray@sss.co.nz Oh. I am an ex-Baha'i, where AB stands for someone else. -- Matthew -- (Matthew_Cromer@mzdc.pdial.interpath.net) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 21:08:42 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Entropy, Evolution and Evil In message <950213061755_74024.3352_BHT28-1@CompuServe.COM> theos-l@vnet.net writes: > Yeah, it's all maya, but I'm still driving on the right side of > the road (not recomended to AB and others in other coutries, > other realities). Which leads us to the question of how much of > our "reality" is consensual? In the Kali Yuga of 1995 America, > well, the mind reels (reals?). > > Namste > > Keith Price Philosophical question? When I have been in the USA or Europe, it isn't so much a question of what side of the road people drive on, but of not looking the wrong way when you are crossing the street. :-) I just *love* your American policemen! AB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 21:43:30 -0500 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"@vnet.net Subject: Matthew's AB Matthew wrote: > Oh. I am an ex-Baha'i, where AB stands for someone else. Fine. Are you (were you) on a Baha'i discussion list or bulleting board? Have you downloaded any of the THEOS-L monthly archives yet? Maybe John Mead has already told you how, but you send a message to THEOS-L with no subject, and a line in the text portion reading GET THEOS-L TLyymm.LOG where yy is the year, eg 94, mm is month. Ask John for more info. if you need it. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 22:01:19 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: More Comments In message <199502140006.AA15291@vnet.net> theos-l@vnet.net writes: > > Comments -- Eldon Tucker > > Notes to Ann Bermingham & Kent Livingston, Dr. Bain, Murray > Stentiford, Nancy Coker, and Keith Price. > > Dr. Bain: > > Regarding our becoming a lodge, my suggestion is still good: > let's self-confer the honorary title of lodge upon > ourselves. There's no rules, no moderator, no membership in > any theosophical organization. Are we a lodge? There's the > saying: "If it looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, > etc., then it must be one." It would be easy for John Mead > at any time to make our lists into moderated lists, where he > has the power to approve/reject any submissions before they > go out. I'm glad that he has had the foresight to keep > things complete open. In that case Eldon I have nothing else to say but "QUACK!" > As to teaching reincarnation and karma to children, I think > it depends on the interest and responsiveness of the > particular child. If the parent is uncertain about the truth > of the ideas, it would be best to keep silent until the > child is old enough to sort out religion and philosophy on > its own. If the parent is convinced and comfortable with the > ideas, it's proper, I'd say, to teach the child when > interest is shown. I would teach geography, mathematics, and > psychology to my children when they are ready to learn, > because I consider them "true" subjects and valuable to > know. I'd put the doctrines of Theosophy in the same class. I would not; there's the difference. Theosophy is too broad a heading to sit alongside geography and mathematics. I see Theosophy as a working hypothesis. Suppose the parent is certain about the truth of the ideas, and the parent is wrong? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 22:02:18 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: RE: Karma, causality etc. In message theos-l@vnet.net writes: > >To AB; I imagine Jung wanting to keep away from reliance on > >dogmas too - > ------- > > ??? What is AB? > > -- Matthew -- (Matthew_Cromer@mzdc.pdial.interpath.net) Good question. Answers please single-sapced on one side of the screen only. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 22:20:33 -0500 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"@vnet.net Subject: Re: RE: Karma, causality etc. AB: > Good question. Answers please single-sapced on one side of the > screen only. ??? What is single-sapcing? MS From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 02:37:26 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: A Nucleus in Cyberspace Murray, Now that you mention it, I too think networking with others of similar interests is a good idea. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 09:10:41 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Entropy, Evolution and Evil For me in England, it wasn't looking the wrong way that was the problem, but getting freaked out every time I saw a driverless car headed toward me! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 09:30:55 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: RE: Karma, causality etc. Dear Nicholas-- Thanks for the clarification. One thing I recall seeing on t.r.b. is the allegation that HPB infected E-W with the dread "one mind" doctrine. Is this in the book you describe, and if so, can you elaborate what it means? Namaste Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 15:02:35 -0500 From: Olcott Library Subject: Re: Eight Various Comments To Eldon Tucker: No, I am not "resigning" from theos-l. I just don't have time to engage in the lengthy discussions that some of you are so fond of. Elisabeth Trumpler (I used "ET" to sign notes and memos a l-o-n-g time before the movie came out, but people still kid me about it. You probably have the same experience.) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 15:04:08 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: RE: Karma, causality etc. In message theos-l@vnet.net writes: > >Matthew, another welcome to THEOS-L from me. > > > >You asked ??? What is AB? > > > > AB is Alan Bain. His initials had been used in a few posts > > addressed to him, so I took the liberty. Obviously not always a > > wise choice! > > >Alan is another THEOS-L subscriber. > > > >Murray Stentiford > >murray@sss.co.nz > > Oh. I am an ex-Baha'i, where AB stands for someone else. > > > -- Matthew -- (Matthew_Cromer@mzdc.pdial.interpath.net) > Oh dear - maybe I should stop putting my intials at the end of postings. In Hebrew AB is Father. Yes, I *will* stop doing it. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 15:39:15 -0500 From: Olcott Library Subject: Re: RE: Karma, causality etc. Hmm, I always thought "AB" stands for "Annie Besant"... Elisabeth Trumpler On Mon, 13 Feb 1995, Matthew Zoe David Cromer wrote: > >Matthew, another welcome to THEOS-L from me. > > > >You asked ??? What is AB? > > > > AB is Alan Bain. His initials had been used in a few posts > > addressed to him, so I took the liberty. Obviously not always a > > wise choice! > > >Alan is another THEOS-L subscriber. > > > >Murray Stentiford > >murray@sss.co.nz > > Oh. I am an ex-Baha'i, where AB stands for someone else. > > > -- Matthew -- (Matthew_Cromer@mzdc.pdial.interpath.net) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 18:59:04 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: RE: Karma, causality etc. In message <01HN1NMIRBP48WVZI5@SSSAK1.SSS.CO.NZ> theos-l@vnet.net writes: > AB: > Good question. Answers please single-sapced on one side > > of the screen only. > > ??? What is single-sapcing? > > MS Do you know, I wondered that myself. Possibly a communication from one of the masters, but more likely a typo for 'spacing.' ??? What is MS? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 23:07:22 -0500 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"@vnet.net Subject: Karma, Causality & Love Taking Keith Price's piece as a springboard: Ie, Keith, not all this is aimed at you personally! > When talking about sychronicity being acausal to the senses, but > caual on the occult planes, we begin to speculate or claim to > have knowledge or at least an intuition of something > supernatural. It doesn't take us out of our realm of ordinary experience to suggest that there can be non-physical causes to things. Our physical actions, typing on a keyboard, the painting of a picture, etc usually originate at the non-physical departments of the human system. They are all examples of intentionality expressed in action. Embodiment of insight, feeling, thought - the whole thing we've been talking about on this list - the production of symbols to encapsulate and communicate something; there's an unmistakeable causality to these processes. Alongside this is the insight in Ken O'Neill's piece of two days ago: > First, simple causality was replaced by the notion of > interdependence. Secondly, ...Seeing all attempts to make > reality into independently and separately existing things, > emphasis was put on the emptiness or transparency of reality. Everything I've been saying about causality has been with a concept of interdependence in mind, and a belief that it is possible to experience the emptiness and transparency of reality. However, we CAN identify causal sequences or segments within the great dance, where the energy and states of A flow predominantly on to and affect B. A bud can grow into a flower, but I haven't seen a flower grow into a bud excepting through the longer cycle of death, composting and absorption into another living plant. As Thich Nyat Hanh (sp?) said one day near Krotona, we are about turning garbage into roses and roses into garbage. As with everything else in the universe, these causal segments, like the bud to flower sequence, are fuzzy concepts, ie they don't have a separate shut-off existence, and they have chaotic processes working alongside them, but this doesn't mean we can't identify them and strive to understand them. It would be like saying we shouldn't have a concept of an atom because it doesn't have a clear boundary and its constituent particles are constantly emerging and falling back into the sea of space. > Original sin, may not stand up to close scrutiny, but it does > provide motivation for seeking "salvation". Pain, and the desire to grow, are two great motivators! > Karma appears fair, and just and reasonable and even scientific, > but a little cold. I reckon: Karma is as cold or as warm as we are. The karma of love is love. We ride to our salvation on our karma. The doorways that open on our path _are_ our karma. Karma, like everything else, is not separative; another's love could save us. Karma has been called a law of love, as its effect is said to be always toward growth and restoring wholeness. A practical example of this would be where somebody did something for which the karma was cancer. (Simplistic, but just for illustration.) If all the karma descended on them in the same lifetime, they could end up with nothing but negative results like bitterness, incomprehension, self-pity etc. If it's delayed till the person has more insight, love and resourcefulness, they could transmute much of the experience into positive qualities. Don't ask me HOW it does this, but having seen my first wife die of cancer, I could see beauties and strengths being forged amidst the otherwise miserable situation. It seemed thoroughly consistent with the idea of karmic timing, as well as the karma itself, being an expression of love. Murray Stentiford murray@sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 11:52:11 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Arthur Patterson Art isn't feeling well. Please send healing messages to help him on his way. Liesel Arthur_PattersonA@mbnet.mb.ca From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 14:10:29 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: WWW Matthew mentioned to me that no one had given the address of the Theosophy file on the WWW. Could someone please do so, with a word of explanation if possible? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 15:14:12 -0500 From: mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com (Michael W. Grenier) Subject: Re: WWW >Matthew mentioned to me that no one had given the address of >the Theosophy file on the WWW. Could someone please do so, >with a word of explanation if possible? Forgive me if I get this question out of context - haven't had a chance to follow this thread. There is an Introduction to Theosophy on http://email.sp.paramax.com/theos/theos.html Let me know if you want to add to it. -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: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 16:06:18 -0500 From: mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com (Michael W. Grenier) Subject: Re: Theos-L "conference" >In message <950211214821_72724.413_FHP68-1@CompuServe.COM> theos-l@vnet.net writes: > > What is the possibility as to both usefulness and technical > feasibility of having a regularly session, maybe weekly, where > those who wish could actually be on line with each other? > Something like a conference room in a Compuserve forum. Maybe > John Mead can answer the technical part of this question. This can be done with Internet Relay Chat which allows a forum of people to talk interactively together. Attached is the readme file for a sharware version of the program you could run on a PC attached to the internet. For simple two way communication, you can use other programs like Wintalk (which is usually running on this pc (mike@mwg.sp.paramax.com)) Anyway, these programs are available on ftp.cica.indiana.edu in the /pub/pc/win3/winsock directory or its mirror ftp sites. -Mike Grenier mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com IRC4WIN v1.10BETA ===================== (C) David V.Elkind (FNELKIND@TAVOR.OPENU.AC.IL) aka JimmyPage, 1994 BWCC.DLL (C) Borland Intl. 1. OVERVIEW IRC4WIN is the MS-Windows (WINSOCK-compliant) version of the IRC client. The IRC (which means Internet Relay Chat) is the Multi-User Chatting system which became very popular and widely used by UNIX users. In the recent time there appeared IRC clients for various operating systems (such as MacOS, MS-DOS, and so on). The client you see is the attempt to make the Windows compatible, user-friendly IRC client. Hope you will enjoy it. NB: WINSOCK.DLL required in order to use this client. 2. THE COMMANDS UNIQUE TO THIS CLIENT At the present time, the client has only two unique commands: -SAVE - saves aliases to disk -LOAD - loads aliases from disk In the future I am going to add more commands. If you have any ideas, feel free to send me mail. NB: 1) The UNALIAS command with no params given, erases ALL the aliases created during the last session 2) SAVE command issued with no alias defined erases the aliases file 3) LOAD command ADDS (and not replaces) the aliases. 4) ALIAS command with no parameters lists all the aliases 5) if the file AUTOEXEC.IRC exists, it is loaded at startup if connected to server. File AUTOEXEC.IRC should be built from the IRC commands (one command per line) and should exist in the IRC4WIN startup directory (where IRC4WIN.INI and ALIASES.IRC files exist). 6)"~" symbol is replaced with Ctrl-G (Beep) The AUTOEXEC.IRC included in the package includes only one command : /load, which loads aliases if they were previously saved. 3. REGISTRATION INFO This program is NOT freeware, but SHAREWARE, so you can use it only for 30 days of trial period. If you decide to use it further, you must register it. The registration costs $50 for single user and $450 for site license. Registering will give you additional features (such as UNIGNORE command, DCC command and more comfortable interface). Registration will also disable some unpleasant effects, such as "Please register" dialog box that appears sometimes. How to register? Very simply: send cheque to the following address: DAVID ELKIND Yavne Road, 49/10 Rehovot 76344 I S R A E L W A R N I N G : By not registering the SHAREWARE products, you cause the people to think twice before spending hundreds of working hours and getting the headache which always accompany programming process. 8-) 4. CREDITS You may distribute this program freely as long as no charge is taken for it and as long as the code remains COMPLETELY unchanged and this file exists in the package. 5. BUGS? QUESTIONS? SUGGESTIONS? If you found bug, have a question, suggestion or whatever, feel free to E-Mail me at: FNELKIND@TAVOR.OPENU.AC.IL. Also you can catch me in the IRC (my nick is JimmyPage). Hope you will enjoy.. :) ---- Michael W. Grenier mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com 612-456-7869 Unisys - Air Traffic Control From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 16:06:53 -0500 From: JSANTUCCI@CCVAX.FULLERTON.EDU Subject: Origins of TS On July 15 and 16 there will be a conference on the "Origins of the Theosophical Society" under the auspices of the Foundation for Theosophical Studies at the headquarters of the Theosophical Society in England (50 Gloucester Place, London W1H 3HJ). It will be an International Conference under my (Jim Santucci) and will probably resemble the Theosophical History Conferences that Leslie Price arranged in the 1980s. Leslie is helping to organize the conference as well as Lilian Storey, the General Secretary of the T.S. in England. If you are interested you may e-mail me at jsantucci@fullerton.edu or write directly to Lilian Storey at the address given above. If you wish to present a paper, send me an abstract (1 page) directly to me (c/o Dept. of Relgious Studies, California State University, Fullerton, CA 92634). Information about the Conference will also be included in Theosophical History (April 1995). Jim Santucci From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 16:24:58 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: More Comments Keith: "So evil is not real, it is only a limitation of our consciousness at our particular stage of evolution." I would say that any and all limitations to our consciousness are, in fact, evil. When someone robs us, or beats us up, we tend to think of that person as evil, or that kind of action or behavior as evil. Actually, what is really evil is the fact that we don't know why it happened to us. Perhaps if we had unlimited knowledge, we would see that we needed to be robbed at that particular time for some reason, or that the robber really needed the money more than we did. Our big problem in life is ignorance. Anyway, as a nondualist I believe that evil is as real as goodness, and will last as long. Keith: "When talking about sychronicity being acausal to the senses, but caual on the occult planes..." No one is talking about any such thing (I hope). Synchronicity is acausal. Period. If an event is causal, regardless of plane or inner knowledge or whatever, than it is not, by definition, a synchronistic event. We seem to have a semantic problem here. If a fact is unknown, then it is esoteric. Once it becomes known, then the fact becomes exoteric, by definition. The same is true with synchronicity. Events are only synchronistic if they have no known cause and are meaningful to someone. Keith: " Original sin, may not stand up to close scrutiny, but it does provide motivation for seeking "salvation". The gnostic fall also gives a justification that spirit was seduced into matter, and provides gnosis as a "salvation". The problem with religion is that is teaches us that we need to be saved from something, and each denomination offers its own path toward salvation. I like theosophy because it steers clear of such things. What is it that we need to be saved from? Eternity in Hell? Ourselves? The only thing that I want to be saved from is my own ignorance. In one sense spirit was indeed seduced into matter. But in another sense the "fall" was a deliberate act of self-manifestation (just for the fun of it). As I understand gnosis, or Knowledge, it is a salvation from ignorance. Those who desire to be saved from matter (which is the complement of spirit - the two being a syzygy as taught in Gnosticism) are caught up in their own ignorance and obviously need a good dose of gnosis. Re E-W. I don't recall any of the new Tibetan writers today criticizing E-W, but many have said that Sandup's translations are outdated. This is offered for the main reason why new translations are being published, for example. I agree that HPB's teaching that once a human always a human, and that you can't slip back, is against Buddhist doctrine - even H.H. talks about wanting to be a fly in his next life. But as Eldon says, Theosophy isn't Buddhism. So, I suppose this is one instance where we can fault E-W (who was writing a Tibetan book), but not HPB (who was teaching us theosophy). Personally, I am still undecided, and have yet to be convinced that HPB is right on this issue (perhaps someone can convince me?). As another interesting aside, I have yet to see any of the Tibetan writers mention anything close to HPB's Gupta Vidya Model as she describes it in the SD. None have mentioned Root Races, or Rounds, for example, let alone a planetary chain. E-W mentions that Sandup acknowledged it as authentic Buddhism, but other than that, no one else has ever written or spoken about it (and there are a lot of Buddhist books around these days). Tibetans don't even seem to emphasize seven very much - you will usually find five rather than seven. The reason I bring this up, is that her model is the reason why she claims once human always human - because the "door" backwards into the animal kingdom closed at the turn of this fourth Round. It is very hard for me to believe that this is Buddhism, when no real Buddhists have spoken or written of it. Here again is a good example of the power of her model, which seems to be the primary framework or structure upon which most of theosophy hangs (or falls). ps. The fact that none mention it, don't mean that it ain't so. Alexandra David-Neel studied and lived among Tibetans for many years and wrote some of the very best esoteric Buddhist teachings that I have yet read anywhere, and few Tibetans have confirmed her stuff either (her descriptions of magic and ritual, heating wet towels using "psychic heat" and so on have all been confirmed as true. I refer here to the esoteric teachings on ego and the "crowd of others" that she wrote about in SECRET ORAL TEACHINGS). It is well known that Tibetan Lamas have maintained sets of oral teachings ("ear-whispered") that are not allowed to be written down. Perhaps HPB's model lies in that arena? We may never know. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 17:00:29 -0500 From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: An Attack (?) on H.P. Blavatsky & Theosophy Message by Daniel H. Caldwell In the latest issue of NEWSWEEK (February 20, 1995), p. 66, there is a half-page review of Peter Washinton's MADAME BLAVATSKY'S BABOON. The review is accompanied by a photograph of Madame Blavatsky and Henry Olcott. The reviewer, David Gates, mentions "the glorious comedy" of HPB's career and describes the Great White Brotherhood of Masters as "an incorporeal pantheon rooted in the fantasy novels of Edward Bulwer Lytton. Theosophy is described as "a vague blend of occultism and Eastern religion." The reviewer writes that "directly or indirectly, Blavatsky inspired generations of career gurus." Also Gates writes: "...when her fakery was exposed she would 'fess up `with a wink and a chuckle.' As Washington says, `she didn't give a hoot for anyone or anything." Charles Leadbeater (though not mentioned by name) is described as a "pederastic Blavatskyite " who "spotted 14-year-old Jiddu Krishnamurti on a beach in India" in 1909. James Wedgewood is described in the following way: "A `Bishop' in one Theosophist sect smuggled cocaine in his crozier; caught cruising men's rooms, he told cops he was looking for a friend from a previous life." What a way for HPB and Theosophy to be advertised to the American public! Get your copy of Newsweek today! I hope some readers of this message will take to the defense of HPB and Theosophy. Please pass this message on to all Theosophical Societies and groups. Those of you reading this in England, Europe, India, Australia and elsewhere please notify various Theosophical centers. Andrew Rook, please notify John Cooper. Thanks. Daniel H. Caldwell Wed., Feb. 15,1995 2:55 pm Mountain S.T., Tucson, AZ, USA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 17:19:51 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re E-W vs Reynolds Re E-W and his Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation. Actually, after looking at the translation given by E-W and his Tibetan translators, and the new translation by Robert A. F. Thurman (see near the back of his The Tibetan Book of the Dead, Bantam, 1994) I can see that Reynolds has a good point. Let me give you an example. Here is the first line of the text by each: E-W: "To the Divine Ones, the Tri-Kaya, Who are the Embodiment of the All-Enlightened Mind Itself, obeisance." (p 202) Thurman: "Homage to the Three-bodied Deity, intelligence's natural clarity!" (p 227) As you can see from the differnce in the opening line of the text, there is a very big difference. I would agree that Thurman's translation is a lot more true to Buddhism and he also has the backing of H.H. the Dali Lama, who provides a glowing foreword to his book. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 17:21:37 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: More Comments According to Jerry Schueler: > The problem with religion is that is teaches us that we need to > be saved from something, and each denomination offers its own > path toward salvation. I like theosophy because it steers clear > of such things. What is it that we need to be saved from? > Eternity in Hell? Ourselves? The only The heresy of separateness. Theosophy saves! > theosophy). Personally, I am still undecided, and have yet to be > convinced that HPB is right on this issue (perhaps someone can > convince me?). Regardless of who's right, the only once-human-always-human reincarnationism in Asian tradition is found among the Isma'ili and the Ahl-i-Haqq as far as I know. This from a T. Buddhist who lectured at a London conference and regarded Theosophical teachings as deriving on this point from non-Buddhist sources. BUT... > Round. It is very hard for me to believe that this is Buddhism, > when no real Buddhists have spoken or written of it. Here again > is a good example of the power of her model, which seems to be > the primary framework or structure upon which most of theosophy > hangs (or falls). It is still conceivable that she could have obtained some kind of texts that had been preserved in Tibet but weren't really T. Buddhist, no? The idea of a sevenfold evolutionary path for the adept, the human race, the planet, etc. is clearly Isma'ili. But there is evidence of some intermixture of Vajrayana and Isma'ili teachings in Central Asia according to Pio Filippani-Ronconi. Which means individual works in Tibetan or Sanskrit might have played around with such a septenary scheme without ever being taken as canonical. This is the most plausible explanation I can come up with to explain the conflicting evidence you mention. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 17:39:24 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: An Attack (?) on H.P. Blavatsky & Theosophy BTW, perhaps more outrageous than anything in the article was the headings: A Bunch of Balmy Swamis-- Mystic Monkey Business From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 17:40:06 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Re E-W vs Reynolds Wow! This is striking in that one Tibetan doctrine HPB is accused of misreading is precisely that of the 3 kayas. I have heard several students of TB state that she presents them as 3 alternatives when in fact they are simultaneous realities. Maybe this came from the same school to which Samdup belonged? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 18:15:12 -0500 From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: Housekeeping issues A lot of people are talking about theos-l as a lodge, and going chat mode as an experiment etc. Humble suggestions: 1) some of us are new to internet. For instance, I have learned by myself what various acronyms (IMHO) etc are and smiley faces etc. I recently joined Prodigy and they have something called "netiquette" which would have same time and money and hurt feelings (flames) if I had read it. It is basic rules for joining a discussion group as regard threads of discussion and rules of conveying appropriate tone and humor so as not to unintentionally step of toes by being misuderstood. I don't know if it would be a good idea to have a newcomer's packet, as for our new friend (Matthew?) with FAQ's, netiquette etc. 2) Many take number 1 for granted because they are more cyber-literate. Many of these people, it looks like to me, work with computers and may receive posts at work or school for free. Some of us are on compuserve or prodigy or some other gateway and pay 10 to 15 cents for each post past a certain mail allowance. It may save money and time to put posts together rather than sending a seperate post for each topic unless the topics are really different and one may be interested in one and not the other. 3) Some of us could get together on Compuserve on the weekends or whenever in the "New Age Forum". This is not to exculde anyone, but just an experiment to see how it goes. 4) Does anyone know if Prodigy is cheaper than Compuserve as a gateway to internet? I'm on both for a while, but I use Compuserve now for internet. 5) Things are going great guns! We certainly have no lack of posts in quality or quantity and it is likely to increase. I'm surprised when I log on at the volume. I hope it remains manageable to those at home like me. The above was written only in the hopes of increasing order on theos-l and reducing entropy. Which way does information travel on the information highway superhighway, on the right or left? Does it matter if you are liberal or conservative? :-) Oh, one more thing. Imagine you are in a previous incarnation sitting around a fire. The conversation is along the line something like: "wouldn't it be wonderful if we had clairaudience, clairvoyance, the ability to see history as it happened, the ability for someone to read our thoughts almost instantly around the world and we to read theirs??" Well we have radio, TV, documentary films on war etc., the internet and e-mail, but it isn't quite the "magic" we wanted. People say oh yeah, TV, who cares? That isn't what I mean't by clairvoyance etc. Well what they wanted is probably "magic" powers that no one else has. They don't want information, but to be special. Is this why so much of evolution is denied to us? Because we misuse or trivialize what we have instead of benefiting humanity. Well, theos-l is a nucleus of universal family communicating in cyber-space. do you think the Masters listen in? Could they percipitate a letter? Where is cyber-Sinnett when we need him? Namste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 18:41:22 -0500 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"@vnet.net Subject: Karma, Causality & the Occult Replying to Keith Price: > When talking about sychronicity being acausal to the senses, but > caual on the occult planes, we begin to speculate or claim to > have knowledge or at least an intuition of something > supernatural. We are on very dangerous ground here it would seem > as much of the "truth" accepted for centuries now appears as > pretty silly, such as the stars circle the earth attached to a > globe that is moved by angels etc. If the supernatural puts us on dangerous ground, then the TS is in deep trouble! Depends how you take the word, of course. From a theosophical viewpoint, there is nothing super-natural, as everything "below" the Absolute is within nature, an expression of cosmic law. Speculation there is aplenty. The TS is very good at it, but how else do we explore? Where the mind hasn't already been, the feet are not likely to take us to. HPB in her first Fundamental Proposition of The Secret Doctrine said that all speculation on the Ultimate Cause is impossible, but it didn't stop her going on to try and put it into words to give us an idea. The centuries are littered with the corpses of old theories and speculations, but that is what happens to them when humanity moves on to something better. They all sound more or less silly now. The seeker after spiritual insight often strives to understand and perceive things that are a bit (or a lot!) beyond them. There's no doubt there are dangers to this, but it is life itself, for that sort of person. I like the definition of "occult" as hidden, too. As most of us will know, that is its original meaning, and it's still used that way in medicine (occult blood) and astronomy (occultation of a star by the moon). It's just a pity the word has got a lot of flaky associations in the public mind. Murray Stentiford murray@sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 19:16:17 -0500 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"@vnet.net Subject: Karma, Causality & Love Taking Keith Price's piece as a springboard: Keith, not all this is aimed at you personally! > When talking about sychronicity being acausal to the senses, but > caual on the occult planes, we begin to speculate or claim to > have knowledge or at least an intuition of something > supernatural. It doesn't take us out of our realm of ordinary experience to suggest that there can be non-physical causes to things. Our physical actions - typing on a keyboard, the painting of a picture, etc - usually originate in non-physical levels of the human system. They are all examples of intentionality expressed in action. Embodiment of insight, feeling, thought - the whole thing we've been talking about on this list - the production of symbols to encapsulate and communicate something; there's an unmistakeable causality to these processes. The thoughts in Ken O'Neill's piece of three days ago are a synthesising balance to the analysis of karma and causality. They point to a more transcendent view: > First, simple causality was replaced by the notion of > interdependence. Secondly, ...Seeing all attempts to make > reality into independently and separately existing things, > emphasis was put on the emptiness or transparency of reality. At the same time, however, we CAN identify causal sequences or segments within the great dance, where the energy and states of A flow predominantly on to and affect B, while others in turn precede A. It's a little like stooping to inspect the pieces of cord in a fishing net; they aren't separate yet they're distinct pieces. Causality differs from the fishing net, though, in having directionality. A bud can grow into a flower, but I haven't seen a flower grow into a bud excepting through the longer cycle of death, composting and absorption into another living plant. As Thich Nyat Hanh (sp?) said one day at Krotona, we are about turning garbage into roses and roses into garbage. As with everything else in the universe, these causal segments, like the bud to flower sequence, are fuzzy concepts, ie they don't have a separate shut-off existence, and they have chaotic processes working alongside them, but this doesn't mean we can't identify them and strive to understand them. It would be like saying we shouldn't identify and analyse a wave on the ocean because it's a contiguous part of the great ocean of water and it has an evanescent, illusory existence. No, we can raise and lower our "magnification" or the scale of things we're looking at, and look at fuzzy objects. In fact there's no such thing as an object that isn't fuzzy! It's a constant feature in the great fractal that the universe is. > Original sin, may not stand up to close scrutiny, but it does > provide motivation for seeking "salvation". Pain, and the desire to grow, are two great motivators! > Karma appears fair, and just and reasonable and even scientific, > but a little cold. I think: Karma is as cold or as warm as we are. The karma of love is love. We ride to our salvation on our karma. The doorways that open on our path _are_ our karma. Karma, like everything else, is not separative; another's love can save us. Karma has been called a law of love because its effect is always toward growth and restoring wholeness. A practical example of this would be where somebody did something for which the karma was cancer. (Simplistic, but just for illustration.) If all the karma descended on them in the same lifetime, they could end up with nothing but negative results like bitterness, incomprehension, self-pity etc. If it's delayed till the person has more insight, love and resourcefulness, they could transmute much of the experience into positive qualities. Having seen my first wife die of cancer, I could see beauties and strengths being forged amidst the otherwise miserable situation. It seemed thoroughly consistent with the idea of karma, including its timing, being an expression of love. But just to balance that, it could just as well have been that the disease was not an expression of some big karmic impulse, but a choice taken by the soul for the purpose of doing a certain work, or even maybe an accident! Whatever, I could see some real beaut roses being made out of the garbage. Murray Stentiford murray@sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 19:51:41 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: An Attack (?) on H.P. Blavatsky & Theosophy I have already replied. My beef was with the characterization of the Masters as "incorporeal beings derived from the novels of Edward Bulwer Lytton." SUGGESTION: Don't attack the reviewer, and don't attack the book until you have read it. Letters that are well informed are more likely to get printed. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 19:52:18 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Karma, causality & morality In message <01HN2SJN5RWI8WVZ8D@SSSAK1.SSS.CO.NZ> theos-l@vnet.net writes: > > Replying to Alan Bain but not to Annie Besant: Murray: On the whole I find general agreement with you re morality etc., so have managed to avoid re-quoting your posting. However ... > BTW:- > > Here are some more questions for your on-screen exam paper: > > TANSTAAFL is > 1 an acronym > 2 an ancient Tibetan term > 3 a new South African ice-cream. TANSTAAFL is a new South African ice-cream based upon an ancient Tibetan term for the American acronym "(T)here (A)in't (N)o (S)uch (T)hing (A)s (A) (F)ree (L)unch. > or means > 1 grins > 2 gulps > 3 gargles > 4 all of the above simultaneously Possibly 4, but really 1. = grin = Big Grin (Ancient Internet acronyms) pre :-) > Seriously, I _would_ like to know what these mean! > > Murray Stentiford Enjoy! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 20:27:16 -0500 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"@vnet.net Subject: Karma, Causality and Morality - 2nd try Replying to Alan Bain but not to Annie Besant: > I have often though that Jung was on tricky ground with this one, > for what may be described as "acausual" may be nothing more (!) > than events for which causality synchronous with them is not > immediately obvious - like the powder and the bullet from the gun > - which, BTW, is *exactly* how I have come to perceive the idea > of Karma in general - there is not necessarily a moral dimension > to it at all. Karma is TANSTAAFL! (!) noted. My reductionism detectors slept through that one Whether you feel a moral dimension is involved depends, of course, on how you define it. There was a lot of discussion on ethics and morality a couple of months back which I kept out of for lack of time rather than lack of interest. As I see it, morality has much to do with what is harmful to the life processes and evolution of all those affected by an action, including the person doing it, across the full range of principles/planes/levels of consciousness that theosophy might conceive of. Because of the connectedness and unity of things, that means we're considering whether we're aiding or hindering the life wave on the planet, or wider still, the whole cosmic life process. The more conventional view of morality (you know: naughty, bad, shocking, reprimanding, big stick, ... etc) is a bit off the mark, though still related to it. Just how harmful something is, is sometimes very difficult to assess, though, for example when it's mildly negative or destructive in the short term but more positive and constructive in the longer term, or is simultaneously constructive and destructive. Then we're into value judgements and relative costs of the alternatives - multi-level economics, here! So for actions that involve this kind of consideration, I feel there is definitely a moral dimension to karma. On the other hand, processes of nature would generally not have a moral dimension, but even there, there are some interesting issues to think about, like the difference that intentionality makes, in the web of karma. BTW:- Here are some more questions for your on-screen exam paper: TANSTAAFL is 1 an acronym 2 an ancient Tibetan term 3 a new South African ice-cream. or means 1 grins 2 gulps 3 gargles 4 all of the above simultaneously Seriously, I _would_ like to know what these mean! Murray Stentiford From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 21:19:12 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: Re: Housekeeping issues > 2) Many take number 1 for granted because they are more > cyber-literate. Many of these people, it looks like to me, work > with computers and may receive posts at work or school for free. > Some of us are on compuserve or prodigy or some other gateway and > pay 10 to 15 cents for each post past a certain mail allowance. > It may save money and time to put posts together rather than > sending a seperate post for each topic unless the topics are > really different and one may be interested in one and not the > other. to get the "clumped" into a "digest" form send the message to listserv (listserv@vnet.net) contining the line set theos-L mail digest this will force your e-mail from theos-L to come only once or twice daily. If you pay per e-mail item, then this should help alot. peace -- john mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 21:20:06 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Origins of TS Just saw the item about the conference mentioned in Subject line. I am anxious to know more about the Foundation for Theosophical Studies here in the UK - what is its remit, how far does this go? I understand it has charitable status - does this extend to individual UK Lodges, or is it specific to TS in England activities organised from 50 Gloucester Place? UK subscribers with info please advise ASAP - use E-mail maybe to avoid lumbering our non-UK colleagues with irrelevant info. Ta. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 21:21:56 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Housekeeping issues In message <950215225941_74024.3352_BHT50-1@CompuServe.COM> theos-l@vnet.net writes: > Oh, one more thing. Imagine you are in a previous incarnation sitting around a fire. The conversation is along the line something like: "wouldn't it be wonderful if we had clairaudience, clairvoyance, the ability to see history as it happened, the ability for someone to read our thoughts almost instantly around the world and we to read theirs??" Well we have radio, TV, documentary films on war etc., the internet and e-mail, but it isn't quite the "magic" we wanted. People say oh yeah, TV, who cares? That isn't what I mean't by clairvoyance etc. Well what they wanted is probably "magic" powers that no one else has. They don't want information, but to be special. Is this why so much of evolution is denied to us? Because we misuse or trivialize what we have instead of benefiting humanity. Well, theos-l is a nucleus of universal family communicating in cyber-space. do you think the Masters listen in? Could they percipitate a letter? Where is cyber-Sinnett when we need him? > Namste > Keith Price Things don't seem to change much, do they! If "God's plan is evolution" then maybe God is out to lunch. Suppose we got cyber-Leadbeater? My guess is that any Masters may have other things to be getting on with . . . Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 21:36:55 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: Origins of TS (fwd) On July 15 and 16 there will be a conference on the "Origins of the Theosophical Society" under the auspices of the Foundation for Theosophical Studies at the headquarters of the Theosophical Society in England (50 Gloucester Place, London W1H 3HJ). It will be an International Conference under my (Jim Santucci) and will probably resemble the Theosophical History Conferences that Leslie Price arranged in the 1980s. Leslie is helping to organize the conference as well as Lilian Storey, the General Secretary of the T.S. in England. If you are interested you may e-mail me at jsantucci@fullerton.edu or write directly to Lilian Storey at the address given above. If you wish to present a paper, send me an abstract (1 page) directly to me (c/o Dept. of Relgious Studies, California State University, Fullerton, CA 92634). Information about the Conference will also be included in Theosophical History (April 1995). Jim Santucci From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 21:40:46 -0500 From: Nira2U@aol.com Subject: Happy post-Valentine's Day, y'all... Single Sapcing is a rare bird that flies solo --and croons after filling it's craw with honeysuckle nectar... Dr. Al' I think you've been sitting at your 'puter too looooooong --to profess love for American Bobsters... Unless you're not getting trial coverage of the Great Juice Fiasco... ;-} Gentlefolk, I want to tell you again how much I've enjoyed your insights --I've been 'recovering' from a severe BBQ'n experienced in the Orthodox Christianity pit. And I *thought* Baptists were the only ones who had a monopoly on singlemindedness... With regard to the discussions about resynthesizing Theosophy into more contemporary terminology --the texts could be appended easily by having translators in the margins for those who need to have Antiquated terminologies clarified. It's really a shame in this day & age that CyberSpace has neutered communication requiring these GAAAAWWWWDDDDDDDDAAAAAAAAWWWWFFFFFUUULLLLL EmotIcons to justify every minute meaning... Whatever would HPB's writings look like these days if she had to after every admonition? With regard to the discussions on Synchronicity -v- Causuality, it was my understanding that the latter was the effect of Synch's cause; at times bringing about Karmic repercussions. Things happen because they're meant to reawaken insight to some previous action/reaction. In the physical sense --running into someone moments after thinking of them is a spiritually plotted event. Throwing Tarot cards is no more a 'chance' thaing than reacting to physical stimuli. Have any of you worked with The Voyager Deck? It has some potent imagery in it that always brings INSIGHT... As a Channeler, I find I get better Affirmation Readings for my 'clients' with this deck. The Rider deck has value on more physical stimuli levels (eg: business, interpersonal reactions) while Voyager brings you into Soul Essence. Another interesting deck is the Arthurian --on a Truth Quest level, it brings some unusual reflection to your spiritual/emotional awarenesses. Generally when I do face to face readings, I have the Ponderant shuffle the deck until they're comfortable with it's mix; then have them split the deck and chose which third they want me to read from. This way, my energies are *not* influencing any outcome. I have to be objective & interpretive. When I was doing "phone-psyches" it necessitated the Ponderant verbalizing the area they wanted 'read' --and some minor concentration on their part (I wasn't the sort who ran up peoples' phone bills but I needed our vibes to interact for at least 60 seconds so I could attune to them...) My accuracy rate was in the 88 percentile range... The point I'm making here in my round about Texanan way is --how spontaneous is spontanaety? The Universe's Ordering is a lot less chaotic than we think. It's falling prey to second guessing action -v- reaction that makes for human error. On a Dharmic level, if we followed instincts without injecting fear into everything we do, we most probably would progress more rapidly... Have any of you worked with Crystal/Vibrational energies yet? Being a late comer to the Theos-buffet, I think I may have missed on this one. As an adjunct to energy stabilization (or even merely transmitting computer communications thru a quartz chip or two) it would seem a valid area to explore. Some interesting reading material on this subject was Channeled by Kevin Ryerson's guide Gurudas... And I believe Sir Oliver Lodge was just scratching the surface of Vibrational energies' usefulness (the earlier works of SPR collectively is a particular area of 'affection' for this recycled soul... I'll leave it to you to guess why...) Just a few posies to throw into the thought bouquet... I'm changing my screen name to "Our Hyacinth" since I seem to be other's bane... I trust you'll get my drift Doc Al... A fond good evening... (she exits, singing...) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 22:51:02 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: More Comments Dear Eldon, I'm glad you gave us such a nice description of sex in Victorian times. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 22:52:16 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: What is occult, the occult? Dear Keith, God only knows why. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 05:59:12 -0500 From: John Vorstermans Subject: Re: A Nucleus in Cyberspace According to Murray Stentiford, > I think the whole TS needs to go more from a nucleus mentality to > a network mentality. Present company excepted, of course. I see them as being somewhat similar. Can you have a network without having a nucleus? > Not just in communications, but in recognising that we're no > longer the lone pioneer, battling to set up an action group. > There are others out there, now, and some of them are doing the > same sort of things as us. I've seen theosophists forget about > kinship with them. Most religions display the same sort of trait. Generally it signifies (IMO) the degeneration of the ideals it stands for when members of the organisation see themselves as being "above" or "better: than members of another. In general the TS today is simply a group of armchair intellectuals who site and discuss the theories put forth by the founders, this mailing list I guess being an extension of this. Or perhaps it is simply an organisation which holds talks and lectures for the entertainment of it's members and to perhaps try and convert those with a like minded nature to its ranks. A far cry from what it was setup for, as is quite obvious by looking at the work done by the founders. The TS today has lost its way and is very much anchoured down by a generation who have lost their vision. (Yes I generalise). It is fine having a knowledge of Karma, Reincarnation, and some sort of understanding of multi-demensional being, but what use are theories that we cannot really know. To take on the challenge of what theosophy is we need to put it into real practice, go out on a limb and live it. We must create new paths for ourselves, not simply following the old ones. Have you decided what it is you wish to achieve this lifetime? What are your current goals? To buy a house, save enough money so you can be comfortable warm and content? The TS is one of the steps to help take the world into a new age of progress. However it is only a step and not the way itself. If we look at the words in the books we read in our libraries we will only find ourselves lost in ideals. If we follow the spirit of what is being expressed and dare to let it led us we will find the way expressed through our own lives and actions. The challenge we as individuals have is to follow our hearts and not our minds. Very few are up to it. Food for thought. John From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 11:44:39 -0500 From: Arthur_PattersonA@mbnet.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Thanks for your Healing Words I am utterly amazed and quite frankly floored that there would be so much personal support from being on a listserv. For the past few weeks, I have been suffering form a combined problem of bladder infection and sleep apnea, an irritating problem that causes me to wake up breathless in the middle of the night. Several of you wrote inquiring where I was hiding up and if I was ok. Then Liesel suggested sending me healing words. Bev and I noticed a marked change in my energy and my spirit when you started to doing that. Thanks alot Alan, Doreen and others for your healing incantations, I really appreciate your concern and love. Now what about those intellectualized armchair theosophist that John mentioned. From my early impressions I do recognize a certain cerebrialism in theosophy but many on this list are sufficiently in touch with their humanty. Perennial wisdom does not require pretentiousness or inflated egoism to follow the path is to renounce clinging on to accolades. So my personal story seems to suggest that many theosophists are ethically concerned and caring people. Thanks for Being Here, Art From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 12:09:40 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Happy post-Valentine's Day, y'all... In message <950215194813_22634810@aol.com> theos-l@vnet.net writes: > Single Sapcing is a rare bird that flies solo --and croons after > filling it's craw with honeysuckle nectar... I knew it! > Dr. Al' I think you've been sitting at your 'puter too > looooooong --to profess love for American Bobsters... Unless > you're not getting trial coverage of the Great Juice Fiasco... > ;-} Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa . . . > Gentlefolk, > > I want to tell you again how much I've enjoyed your insights > --I've been 'recovering' from a severe BBQ'n experienced in the > Orthodox Christianity pit. And I *thought* Baptists were the > only ones who had a monopoly on singlemindedness... OUCH! I have come across this horror among folk I know in this country, and believe me, my heart goes out to you ... > The Rider deck has value on more physical stimuli levels (eg: > business, interpersonal reactions) Only if you use it that way? I see it very differently. > I'm changing my screen name to "Our Hyacinth" since I seem to be > other's bane... I trust you'll get my drift Doc Al... > > A fond good evening... > (she exits, singing...) (exits gibbering, accompanied by men in white coats). From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 13:37:23 -0500 From: Aki Korhonen Subject: Re: An Attack (?) on H.P. Blavatsky & Theosophy Hello all. On Wed, 15 Feb 1995, K. Paul Johnson wrote: > I have already replied. My beef was with the characterization > of the Masters as "incorporeal beings derived from the novels > of Edward Bulwer Lytton." > > SUGGESTION: Don't attack the reviewer, and don't attack the > book until you have read it. Letters that are well informed > are more likely to get printed. I have not yet seen this issue of the Newsweek, but I agree with Paul. Somebody told me once, that if you follow the Christ's Mountain Preach, you really are a Theosophist. Originally this was said by H.P.B. There Christ gives an advice; "Do not resist evil" One of the reasons is, that if you resist evil, it will only grow, and get more power. The only final way to end evil is to response it with goodness. If this article is so infantile as it seems by e-mailings, it will be put to its right value by every sensible being. Peace. aki korhonen. Oulu, Finland. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 15:22:14 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Addresses? Dear Theos-l networkers-- Can anyone provide me the address for the Australian Section of the TS-Adyar, and email addresses for William Metzger and John Algeo? I have some heartfelt thank you letters to write. Cheers Paul P.S. For those who aren't members or subscribers I should mention this is about a review in the current issue of Quest. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 19:23:56 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Housekeeping issues Hi, Keith, I think the Masters are getting a big kick out of what we're doing. It's almost as good as communicating worldwide via ESP. I think our e-mail reception is coming close to precipitating a letter. I don't know about Cyber-Sinnett. Maybe he should be writing "Finding Esoteric Buddhism in Cyberspace." Ain't this the nuts? I still get spaced out every time I think about that Murray is in New Zealand, Martin in Holland, Art in Canada, & the rest of us all over the US, & here we are making hourly contact with each other. I once (before we started quibbling) wrote a message around 11 PM to Jerry H-E. He came home from a meeting & answered it, & next AM when I went to my computer breakfast coffee cup in hand, there was my answer. I have made real good friends with a woman in Oklahoma, & a young man in England, also one in Wales, & twice now I've exchanged e-mail with a man in Moscow. I've also exchanged e-mail with a columnist in our local newspaper. How hard it usually is to get an answer to a snail mail letter from columnists. And snail mail to Russia takes 6 weeks, if it comes through at all. It's unbelieveable! Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 20:54:33 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Strange but true I'm going through Library Journal doing orders, and just found this gem: Jesus, CEO: Using Ancient Wisdom for Visionary Leadership. Authored by the owner of a marketing, advertising and business development firm, it includes a chapter entitled "He Kept in Constant Contact with His Boss." I guess if it were HPB, CEO the chapter would be "She Had Great Communication with her Board of Directors." It was Mencken who said no one ever lost a dime by underestimating the taste of the American public. This book will probably sell very well. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 20:56:14 -0500 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: A Nucleus in Cyberspace John wrote: > I see them as being somewhat similar. Can you have a network > without having a nucleus? This is a point very similar to one recently made to me by John Algeo. In order to form a nucleus we need something around which we coalesce. The TS was formed for this purpose. > Most religions display the same sort of trait. Generally it > signifies (IMO) the degeneration of the ideals it stands for when > members of the organisation see themselves as being "above" or > "better: than members of another. > In one of the letters from the Mahatmas the point was made that one of the surest signs of regression on the path was when one expected others to be as virtuous as yourself. > In general the TS today is simply a group of armchair > intellectuals who site and discuss the theories put forth by the > founders, this mailing list I guess being an extension of this. > Or perhaps it is simply an organisation which holds talks and > lectures for the entertainment of it's members and to perhaps try > and convert those with a like minded nature to its ranks. I don't see the TS this way, but have often heard it critized this way. Many of the members I have gotten to know over the years are people who are trying as best they can to put into practice the ideals they have learned about at the "intellectual" discussions of a local group, or from an author who has taken the time to share with them what he has learned. Trying to convert others to ones own point of view is an error I made myself on occassions, carried away by the excitement of discovering what was for me some new understanding. I realize it is seldom appreciated by others, but there are few organizations or individuals that have avoided it entirely. Maybe it is not entirely to be avoided. It seems to me it offers both parties an opportunity to clarify their points of view. In the Buddhist traditions the monks are trained to debate their doctrines. If someone has gone to the trouble of coming to a disucssion group, perhaps it is because they are looking for answers to questions, sign posts on the path. HPB once said it was to bad so many had to set sail on the ocean of occultism with the benefit of rudder or compass! What good is knowledge of these things if they only benefit a select few. Trying to convert others is better than apathy and perhaps a step in the right direction. > A far cry from what it was setup for, as is quite obvious by > looking at the work done by the founders. The TS today has lost > its way and is very much anchoured down by a generation who have > lost their vision. (Yes I generalise). It does seem little progress has been made toward the "vision" outlined by the TS's early leaders, but we have been counseled to not be so concerned with results and what an organization or an individual accomplishes, but to pay more attention to their motives. > It is fine having a knowledge of Karma, Reincarnation, and some > sort of understanding of multi-demensional being, but what use > are theories that we cannot really know. Ah, but theosophy teaches we ALL can really know if we are willing to follow the disciplines given. > To take on the challenge of what theosophy is we need to put it > into real practice, go out on a limb and live it. We must create > new paths for ourselves, not simply following the old ones. Good point. It reminds me of the one which says the road to hell is paved with good intentions. > Have you decided what it is you wish to achieve this lifetime? > > What are your current goals? To buy a house, save enough money so > you can be comfortable warm and content? Early in my TS membership an elderly member told me an empty wagon rattles the loudest. That if I wanted to help others, give others a drink from the fountains of the ancient wisdom, I must first fill the cup...me. I can't give to others what I don't possess. > The TS is one of the steps to help take the world into a new age > of progress. However it is only a step and not the way itself. > If we look at the words in the books we read in our libraries we > will only find ourselves lost in ideals. I work in a library full of ideas, but as Bing Escudero is fond of saying ideas help us formulate our ideals. As we begin to put those ideals into pratice they become our defining virtures. > If we follow the spirit of what is being expressed and dare to > let it led us we will find the way expressed through our own > lives and actions. To know, to dare, to will, and to be silent. The last of these the hardest! How often have I contemplated this advise over the years?! > The challenge we as individuals have is to follow our hearts and > not our minds. Very few are up to it. Annie Besant wrote a little book called, THE DOCTRINE OF THE HEART. She argues the value of the heart in a very convincing manner. But she also wrote A STUDY IN CONSCIOUSNESS and many other works in which the value of the mind is extolled. I have read that Manas is the bridge between the lower nature and our higher self. Perhaps the mind is not all bad. Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 01:13:37 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Fwd: Forwarded: Massacre in C... Thought you'd like to know. My local librarian passed this on to me, Liesel > From: Goodwin@univscvm.csd.scarolina.edu (Chuck Goodwin) > Subject: Massacre in Chiapas We've just recevied an emergency call from friends in Mexico. They tell us that the Mexican army has surrounded the city of San Cristobal in Chiapas, and that the hospital in the nearby city of Comitan is flooded with casualities. The press is being excluded from the area. The people being attacked are the Myan Indians, and other poor farmers, who've been denied land and food since the conquest. They've asked that we try to get word about this out via email. While we have no further information beyond this one call I ask you to pass this message on, or tell anyone you think relevant via any means so that this does not occur in silence. Chuck Goodwin Anthropology University of South Carolina Colubmia SC 29208 (803) 356-6006 (803) 777-0259 (fax) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 11:14:10 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re Tarot Paul. I just saw that your book is now in the Adyar library. Congratulations! Re Tarot. Actually, I confess that I do have the Voyager Tarot deck. It was given to my my James Wanless who designed it. In turn, I gave him a copy of my Enochian Tarot deck. Very nice guy. He also autographed a copy of his New Age Tarot for me. Its probably the best book around to explain the Crowley deck. I guess I also have to confesss that I have never used the Voyager deck. I look at it sometimes (its beautiful) but I have not actually used it. Most of the pictures are rather busy, and I think you would have to 'get to know it' before you could use it very well. It took me a long time just to get to know my own deck (I designed it, but an outside artist rendered my designs, and I had to get to know her 'feel' of them). I confess, I haven't used it either for awhile. My all time favorite deck is Crowley's Thoth deck. It is pretty busy too, but I have already gotten to know it fairly well. I used to use Tarot for predictions, but nowadays Its just for meditation. Now computer Tarot is another story. I use my own computer Windows Tarot a lot (I recieved authority from US Games to use their Thoth deck pictures in color in my program) which is now shareware - $20 for those interested. An earlier black & white version is on Compuserve in the New Age library. As you may guess, I like Tarot. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 12:58:02 -0500 From: mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com (Michael W. Grenier) Subject: Re: Addresses? >Dear Theos-l networkers-- > >Can anyone provide me the address for the Australian Section of >the TS-Adyar, and email addresses for William Metzger and John >Algeo? I have some heartfelt thank you letters to write. > >Cheers >Paul > >P.S. For those who aren't members or subscribers I should >mention this is about a review in the current issue of Quest. Silly question, how do I order this book (Master's Revealed)? -Mike Grenier mike@planet8.sp.paramx.com ---- Michael W. Grenier mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com 612-456-7869 Unisys - Air Traffic Control From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 13:16:08 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: references to Book of Dyzan I received this request, and thought I'd forward it on to theos-l. It seems interesting. > Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 21:32:30 -0600 (CST) > From: ROLAND FRANKLYN > Subject: Theosophy Dear Mr. Mead, As part of an ongoing research project, I am studying the connections between the stories of horror writer H. P. Lovecraft and various bodies of occult belief. The Book of Dzyan is mentioned in some of his stories, and I have reason to believe that this volume may be part of a myth-cycle of which it was a part long before Blavatsky mentioned it in her Secret Doctrine. I was wondering if you knew anything about this, or could direct me to someone who would. Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 13:18:02 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Addresses? Dear Mike-- There are 4 possibilities I can think of for ordering: By phone to CUP Services, SUNY's distributor, located in Ithaca, NY. 1-800-666-2211. Credit card orders only. Check or money order to CUP at PO Box 6525, Ithaca, NY 14851 (Both these options cost $3 for shipping on top of the $16.95 price.) Order through a bookstore and you save the $3, but it may take longer. Or, send me your address and I'll send a book with invoice for $16.95, no charge for postage. But I won't be able to send it till Tuesday since POs will be closed Monday and all my stuff is at home. (MAYBE the Danville PO is open Saturday AM but I dunno) Thanks for asking. Comments always welcome here or by email. Cheers Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 13:53:19 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: Bk of Dyzan/Lovecraft followup(fwd) hi -- here are more details from Daniel. peace - john mead > Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 12:16:24 -0600 (CST) > From: ROLAND FRANKLYN > Subject: Re: Theosophy John, Thanks for your offer of help. The quote I cited doesn't really come from any of HPL's stories, but from his letters. In one of these, Lovecraft is asking his friend E. Hoffman Price for information on a myth-cycle including Shamballah and the Book of Dzyan. In a later letter he mentions the information Price sent him, which indicates that the Book of Dzyan was brought to earth by the Lords of Venus and is kept at the city of Shamballah. The problem is that the _Selected Letters_ volumes only give Lovecraft's side of the correspondence, and I have no idea of where to find the E. Hoffman Price letter, much less the money and time to go to see it even if I did. The information seems to be pretty much Blavatsky-inspired, but there are some parts which I still can't find. Price avowed that this was part of an actual myth-cycle in some part of the world, and from what I've read about him, he doesn't seem the type to make something up to mislead Lovecraft. Anyway, enough of my babbling. If you find out anything, please let me know. Daniel P.S. In _HPB_, the author mentions a scholar who did some work on this sort of thing. I can't remember his name right now, though. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 14:09:02 -0500 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Creating FAQs John, I have been discussing with John Algeo the idea of offering the Dept. of Ed's correspondence courses on the Interent. He suggested I start by creating a FAQ. Not having ever created one I am not sure how to do that and thought you could probably help. I had suggested it to him first, thinking the file would provide inquirers with basic info on the courses offered and how to get started. His reply seem to indicate he thought I was talking about a FAQ which would help users navigate the Internet connections. He said the courses would need to be updated and procedures would need to be worked out as to how students and advisors would interact with HQ and that he didn't have time for all that right now. However, he suggested we could continue to work on it from this end. Are you interested? I don't know that there is a lot we could do. I asked him if HQ had a page scanner and suggested they could scan in the lessons as separate files which could then be given to students as they progressed. Any ideas? Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 17:05:41 -0500 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Subject: Re: Bk of Dyzan/Lovecraft followup(fwd) > In a later letter he mentions he information Price sent him, > which indicates that the Book of Dzyan was brought to earth by > the Lords of Venus and is kept at the city of Shamballah. > The information seems to be pretty much Blavatsky-inspired, but > there are some parts which I still can't find. Dear Daniel, This sounds much more like CW Leadbeater or Alice Bailey "inspired." Check out their corpus. Nicholas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 09:34:56 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Creating FAQs Lucas, I think that's a great idea. I'd already clicked off your post, because I had nothing to add except to applaud, but then I thought of something, & clicked it back on. Maybe for starters, we could just copy material by hand into Theos-l. Like in the last "Messenger" there was a superb explanation of the 7 fields (bodies) of human beings. We could at first do it unofficially, until someone in Wheaton has time to give it some attention, & make it official. Why don't you ask John whether that would be ok with him? Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 09:40:30 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Addresses? Dear Mike, The e-mail address for TS Adyar in Wheaton is theos@netcom.com If you address your remarks to Att; Bill Metzger or John Algeo, they'll get it. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 15:15:37 -0500 From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: Myth of the Masters I just read a review by Joy Mills in the current QUEST magazine of K. Paul Johnson's "The Masters Revealed: Madame Blavatsky and the Myth of the Great White Lodge. I will not comment on the book since I haven't read it. It looks very interesting and K. Paul has discussed elements of the issues here on theos-l before. I will request that our lodge get a copy as it looks like "must reading". I hope the book opens up a much needed airing of the whole Masters "thing". The question always arises at our lodge, particullarly by newcomers: "do you have to believe in the Masters?" The standard "no" is given, but with implication that most "real" theosophist do somehow. I have thought about voicing my opinion which is a little, well a lot, on the skeptical side, but I am relying more on my "feelings" and intuitions than on research. Joy Mills in her review takes her theosophical hat off to K. Paul for his serious research and insights into the Masters as "enlightened" westerners (usually) who were very much real people and friends etc. of Blavatsky and others (from what I can tell from the review only) and not disembodied (from Tibetan and Indian bodies) spirits sitting in Shamballa or elsewhere forever holding meetings and writing letters it seems. His book (IMHO) may add some insights to a very old issue. I think the Masters in some ways are mostly embarrasing deadweight to theosophy as currently presented. Their contribution could be better assimilated by me, and I assume by many in the 20th almost 21st century, if they were made a little more plausible by being "that higher MANAS which is inseparably linked to the ATMA and its vehicle (the 6th principle)" -HPB quoted by Joy Mills in the review. The higher Manas is not disembodied but activated to a very unusal degree in real human beings just like you and me and then only for short periods of time. Much of what I'm suggesting you've already heard. There are so many hints that the Masters are just ordinary men or women but are Masters only when in a special state ie. meditaion, contact with even higher beings, ritual, and so on. In other works we are offered the hope of activating our latent powers by these and other methods, not in the hope of being super-persons but of being fully awake in our current stage of evolution. In other words, a monkey who could talk would be a Monkey Master, but who would listen? A man who had awakened his latent poweres would be so advanced, no one could understand him. He would be a prophet without honor in his own land. A parting thouht, the Master should not be confused with the Dhyani-Choans, Boddhisattvas, archetypes, gods, angels, demons etc. who are far in advance of humanity and trully on another plane and not in incarnation at all. The Masters are in human incarnation, but carry the principles that we all have and will be more fully developed in later cylces (6th rounders). I hope K. Paul will share his insights and research with us on this very important topic. It would make a very good live Chat topic. Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 18:59:00 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Myth of the Masters Responding to Keith: It seems to me that this is an area which can well do with another "airing," especially as so much confusion can exist in people's minds when they come across the idea. You suggest that a definition of a "Master" [What, no Mistresses?] would be that of (say) a 6th "root-race" incarnate human being. At the same time, it is clear that many newcomers perceive such intelligences as discarnate. There can obviously be room for both. IMO, the question of the existence of such advanced human beings remains open, though I would agree that we may all be capable *now* of realising from within ourselves some degree of "higher" wisdom or understanding when in certain states, such as meditation. When it comes to the question of the discarnate (human or ex-human) intelligence, but any information received from them seems to be obtainable only by some form of "channelling" - a faculty which depends heavily on the state of the mental equipment and subjective interpretation of the channeller. Let's have some ideas on this one - maybe even some *experiences?* To Mega Alan :-) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 19:16:59 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: Re: Creating FAQs > I have been discussing with John Algeo the idea of offering the > Dept. of Ed's correspondence courses on the Interent. He > suggested I start by creating a FAQ. Not having ever created one > I am not sure how to do that and thought you could probably help. > > I had suggested it to him first, thinking the file would provide > inquirers with basic info on the courses offered and how to get > started. His reply seem to indicate he thought I was talking > about a FAQ which would help users navigate the Internet > connections. off-hand, I would say he meant a FAQ on the course(s). i.e. content, outline, lesson plan, outline etc. (who to contact too). I would think that Tony Lysy might be of help, especially obtaining the above for the new "Institute" at Olcott. > Are you interested? I don't know that there is a lot we could do. > I asked him if HQ had a page scanner and suggested they could > scan in the lessons as separate files which could then be given > to students as they progressed. Any ideas? yes, I'm interested. The Faq's are just vanilla ascii files (usually). I can add them to the archives. We can add anything there as needed. We would really need an "Institute" person on-line to answer questions. (or a Dept. of Ed. person too, if different) Perhaps a separate discussion list for course work? The text may already be on a computer format (somewhere)?? The TSA does not have a scanner (to my knowledge). They are pretty cheap though (<1000K$ for good ones WITH converters to ascii). peace - john mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 23:37:37 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Myth of the Masters I imagine the Masters as very advanced shamans. It's not hard to imagine, when you've come into contact with shamans, &/or read some of their books. They just know how to do things ordinary people can't do, but they can. Serge King even taught us some shamanic techniques, but I can''t do them, because I'm not practicing; & also I'm not clairvoyant & it's easier to do when you are. Of course, if you don't believe in all that stuff, then you figure the Masters out differently. Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 05:55:39 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: Re: Bk of Dyzan/Lovecraft followup(fwd) > > In a later letter he mentions the information Price sent him, > > which indicates that the Book of Dzyan was brought to earth by > > the Lords of Venus and is kept at the city of Shamballah. > > > The information seems to be pretty much Blavatsky-inspired, but > there are some parts which I still can't find. > > Dear Daniel, > > This sounds much more like CW Leadbeater or Alice Bailey > "inspired." Check out their corpus. > > Nicholas > Nicholas - daniel claims that he has not received any replies to his query yet. where did you get a thread from this? peace - john mead p.s. daniel does not subscribe to the list (theos-l). I will need to forward the messages, or you need to send them direct. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 05:56:32 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: Re: Bk of Dyzan/Lovecraft followup(fwd) > >> In a later letter he mentions > >> the information Price sent him, which indicates that the Book of > >> Dzyan was brought to earth by the Lords of Venus and is kept > >> at the city of Shamballah. > > >> The information seems to be pretty much Blavatsky-inspired, but > >> there are some parts which I still can't find. > > Dear Daniel, > > This sounds much more like CW Leadbeater or Alice Bailey "inspired." > Check out their corpus. > > Nicholas > where did you get this --- confused - john m. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 13:03:43 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Iwo Jima Anniversary Just watched the ceremony in DC commemorating the battle of Iwo. My brother, Gus, then a Marine Cpl., is a veteran of that battle. He was in charge of a small group of men who detonated booby traps, in pillboxes abandon ed by the Japanese. They did this before the other Marines were allowed in the area. Gus got a Bronze Star for detonating a tricky explosive device in his helmet filled with water. He was also severely wounded on the last day of the battle. Still, his buddy, Dawley, had been wounded in his buttocks & couldn't walk, so Gus slung him over his shoulder, & carried him to the first aid station. Gus is fine now. He's had a very successful career in the Arts, & is the father of 4 kids, 1 of whom, my Nephu Jeffu, just got a novel published. . I don't know what this has to do with Theosophy, but I wanted ot tell you. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 21:39:24 -0500 From: Matthew_Cromer@mzdc.pdial.interpath.net (Matthew Zoe David Cromer) Subject: Re: Matthew's AB >Matthew wrote: >> Oh. I am an ex-Baha'i, where AB stands for someone else. > >Fine. Are you (were you) on a Baha'i discussion list or bulleting >board? Yes, Talisman, where K. Paul is also. -- Matthew -- (Matthew_Cromer@mzdc.pdial.interpath.net) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 21:30:32 -0500 From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@compuserve.com> Subject: Myth of the Masters In November 1992, at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Miami, the Miami Branch of the T.S. sponsored Expo-92, a metaphysical fair. There were many talks and workshops. I happened to be giving one on Gurdjieff's teaching, and afterward a young woman came up to me and said that she was visiting Miami but lived in New York City. I asked her how she became interested in these kinds of ideas. She told me that about 5 years earlier, she was in Doubleday's Book Store (an interesting name) in Manhattan, and that while she was browsing, a book fell off a high shelf and hit her on the head. She bent down and picked it up off the floor. The book was P.D. Ouspensky, "In Search of the Miraculous." (For those unfamiliar, this is the text most often used to present Gurdjieff's teaching). She began to read that book and couldn't put it down. She was hooked and has been on her quest ever since. She was ready to be open to ideas of this kind. Most of you who read this will know the feeling. How many of us have had similar experiences! And how many like stories have we heard! Your own story is probably no less extraordinary. Of course there are Masters. I don't see them as embarassing deadweight at all. Jesus was one but he still had to be born and live in a mundane body to accomplish something here. And I'll bet he was subject to many weaknesses of the flesh. That doesn't make him any less a Master. There are often good reasons for advanced beings to take up physical body. K. Paul deserves much credit for his important research, but if Morya was the Maharajah of Kashmir that doesn't make him any less a Master. And what of those incarnated as Blavatsky, Gurdjieff, others! Who of us is high enough to sit in judgment of the level of attainment of any of these extraordinary beings? And if they smoked, drank, cursed or otherwise behaved badly in terms of our contemporary morality so what. That makes them no less Masters. They are Masters because they have mastered what we seek, and maybe even mastered our hearts. They are further "ahead" on the infinitely long path of return. They leave tracks on the path for us to follow, but we each still need to tread that path ourselves. If we simply pay attention to the synchronicities all around us, we easily find proof of discrete intelligence guiding us in our quest. The more open we are to this guidance and the more willing we are to serve others in their quest, the more obvious this help is to us. There is a tradition that esoteric ideas, ideas about consciousness, are intentionally sewn into the fabric of ordinary life by the advanced intelligence that guide us. These ideas are embedded in monuments, in structures, in certain paintings, in certain music, in certain dance, of course in literature. They become mixed with the things of ordinary life. But when we, each of us, begin to sift through and discover them, then further help is given. I like to collect stories about how people find their way onto the spiritual path. One story is more extraordinary than the next. Mine began when, as a tourist, I visited the Borobudur, the vast Buddhist monument on the island of Java. I didn't know anything about it at the time, didn't know anything about theosophy, didn't know that it symbolized the 7 interpenetrating bodies, the lower quaternary and the upper triad. But there was something about it that was unforgetable and it left me with a lasting impression. Only some years later when I was already a member of the T.S. and saw Geoffrey Hodson's book in which he showed a painting of the permanently stationed angel that he was able to see residing over the Borobudur, did I begin to understand a little about this. There's more to the story, but I'll stop here. Would anyone else like to tell their story of how they were brought to the quest? Sy Ginsburg From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 23:08:01 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re Keith on Masters The following are some of my comments re Keith's discussion on Masters: Keith: "I think the Masters in some ways are mostly embarrasing deadweight to theosophy as currently presented." This is doubtless a personal opinion. I don't agree. I see nothing wrong with the idea of Mahatmas or Adepts - especially since this is taught in both Hinduism and Buddhism. When alive they are called Mahatmas, Masters, or Adepts. When discarnate they are called Nirmanakayas - at least in theosophy. HPB called discarnate Masters by the name of nirmanakayas, which is *not* the definition given in Mahayana Buddhism. BTW, the idea of discarnate Adepts is ancient too, and can be found as far back as ancient Egypt (where such were called Osiris-Khenti-Amenti, the Osiris who initiates in Amentet). I don't find the truth embarrassing at all. If theosophy drops Masters as "deadweight" then I suspect that other teachings will soon follow down the same drain. Keith: "Their contribution could be better assimilated by me, and I assume by many in the 20th almost 21st century, if they were made a little more plausible by being "that higher MANAS which is inseparably linked to the ATMA and its vehicle (the 6th principle)" -HPB quoted by Joy Mills in the review. The higher Manas is not disembodied but activated to a very unusal degree in real human beings just like you and me and then only for short periods of time." Again, a personal opinion which I don't agree with. There are both external Masters and internal Masters (there are lots of external Masters, but we each have only one internal Master or inner god). You are confusing occult psychology with occult ontology (or should I say, inner reality with outer reality?). These are two entirely different things, Keith. But "as above so below," and as there are outer Masters, so we have inner Masters. The central thrust of High Magic (*not* theosophy) is to acknowledge our inner god, converse with it, and finally to unite with it (BTW, this is exactly how one goes about becoming a Master). Keith: "There are so many hints that the Masters are just ordinary men or women but are Masters only when in a special state ie. meditaion, contact with even higher beings, ritual, and so on." I would prefer to say that Masters are such *because* they can enter special states like samadhi, rather than when. No one can be a Master only at certain times of the day. You are making a Master sound like a psychic. They are much more than that. They are more than channelers. Zen says that the only real difference between Buddhas and ordinary people is that Buddhas knows they are Buddhas, while ordinary people are asleep to that reality. A small, but important difference. Another Buddhist saying is that only a hair's width of difference separates heaven from earth, so there really is a fine, but important, dividing line. Keith: "A man who had awakened his latent poweres would be so advanced, no one could understand him. He would be a prophet without honor in his own land." While this is true to some extent, there are always a few disciples who understand and carry on the message - else why bother? There has never been, and probably never will be, a single Master who can get everyone to understand him or her. Each Master comes from the Lodge with a particular message, meant only for those few who are ready to hear it and be helped from it. Some Masters find hundred or thousands of followers. Some find only a handful. HPB knew very well about the Law of Duality that says for every loving disciple a Master finds, he or she will also find a hateful enemy. Its a law of this world that every Master must be willing to accept. Keith: "A parting thouht, the Master should not be confused with the Dhyani-Choans, Boddhisattvas, archetypes, gods, angels, demons etc. who are far in advance of humanity and trully on another plane and not in incarnation at all." I would agree with all but the bodisattva, who deliberately incarnates to help others. The bodhisattva is a Master in the true sense. They can be incarnate or discarnate, like everyone else. Most deliberately hasten their own Devachan in order to come back sooner and help. Not all bodhisattvas are Buddhists, by the way. The bodisattvic vow is universal and not especially limited to any one religion. What does archetype have to do with Masters? I certainly agree that one should not confuse a Master with an archetype. Also, I don't agree with you that demons are far in advance of humanity. Keith: "The Masters are in human incarnation, but carry the principles that we all have and will be more fully developed in later cylces (6th rounders)." The principles that are developed in a Master are undeveloped in most of us. They currently remain in us in a potential state (Kundalini Yoga symbolizes this fact by the snake coiled three and one-half times in the Muldhara Chakra). We all have a choice: we can wait and develope slowly along with evolution, or we can hasten this development through yoga or other means. But any such deliberate development should be accompanied by a bodisattvic-like vow of some kind. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 22:53:06 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re Keith on Masters The following are some of my comments re Keith's discussion on Masters: Keith: "I think the Masters in some ways are mostly embarrasing deadweight to theosophy as currently presented." This is doubtless a personal opinion. I don't agree. I see nothing wrong with the idea of Mahatmas or Adepts - especially since this is taught in both Hinduism and Buddhism. When alive they are called Mahatmas, Masters, or Adepts. When discarnate they are called Nirmanakayas - at least in theosophy. HPB called discarnate Masters by the name of nirmanakayas, which is *not* the definition given in Mahayana Buddhism. BTW, the idea of discarnate Adepts is ancient too, and can be found as far back as ancient Egypt (where such were called Osiris-Khenti-Amenti, the Osiris who initiates in Amentet). I don't find the truth embarrassing at all. If theosophy drops Masters as "deadweight" then I suspect that other teachings will soon follow down the same drain. Keith: "Their contribution could be better assimilated by me, and I assume by many in the 20th almost 21st century, if they were made a little more plausible by being "that higher MANAS which is inseparably linked to the ATMA and its vehicle (the 6th principle)" -HPB quoted by Joy Mills in the review. The higher Manas is not disembodied but activated to a very unusal degree in real human beings just like you and me and then only for short periods of time." Again, a personal opinion which I don't agree with. There are both external Masters and internal Masters (there are lots of external Masters, but we each have only one internal Master or inner god). You are confusing occult psychology with occult ontology (or should I say, inner reality with outer reality?). These are two entirely different things, Keith. But "as above so below," and as there are outer Masters, so we have inner Masters. The central thrust of High Magic (*not* theosophy) is to acknowledge our inner god, converse with it, and finally to unite with it (BTW, this is exactly how one goes about becoming a Master). Keith: "There are so many hints that the Masters are just ordinary men or women but are Masters only when in a special state ie. meditaion, contact with even higher beings, ritual, and so on." I would prefer to say that Masters are such *because* they can enter special states like samadhi, rather than when. No one can be a Master only at certain times of the day. You are making a Master sound like a psychic. They are much more than that. They are more than channelers. Zen says that the only real difference between Buddhas and ordinary people is that Buddhas knows they are Buddhas, while ordinary people are asleep to that reality. A small, but important difference. Another Buddhist saying is that only a hair's width of difference separates heaven from earth, so there really is a fine, but important, dividing line. Keith: "A man who had awakened his latent poweres would be so advanced, no one could understand him. He would be a prophet without honor in his own land." While this is true to some extent, there are always a few disciples who understand and carry on the message - else why bother? There has never been, and probably never will be, a single Master who can get everyone to understand him or her. Each Master comes from the Lodge with a particular message, meant only for those few who are ready to hear it and be helped from it. Some Masters find hundred or thousands of followers. Some find only a handful. HPB knew very well about the Law of Duality that says for every loving disciple a Master finds, he or she will also find a hateful enemy. Its a law of this world that every Master must be willing to accept. Keith: "A parting thouht, the Master should not be confused with the Dhyani-Choans, Boddhisattvas, archetypes, gods, angels, demons etc. who are far in advance of humanity and trully on another plane and not in incarnation at all." I would agree with all but the bodisattva, who deliberately incarnates to help others. The bodhisattva is a Master in the true sense. They can be incarnate or discarnate, like everyone else. Most deliberately hasten their own Devachan in order to come back sooner and help. Not all bodhisattvas are Buddhists, by the way. The bodisattvic vow is universal and not especially limited to any one religion. What does archetype have to do with Masters? I certainly agree that one should not confuse a Master with an archetype. Also, I don't agree with you that demons are far in advance of humanity. Keith: "The Masters are in human incarnation, but carry the principles that we all have and will be more fully developed in later cylces (6th rounders)." The principles that are developed in a Master are undeveloped in most of us. They currently remain in us in a potential state (Kundalini Yoga symbolizes this fact by the snake coiled three and one-half times in the Muldhara Chakra). We all have a choice: we can wait and develope slowly along with evolution, or we can hasten this development through yoga or other means. But any such deliberate development should be accompanied by a bodisattvic-like vow of some kind. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Feb 95 11:02:21 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Myth of the Masters According to Keith Price: > > I hope the book opens up a much needed airing of the whole > Masters "thing". The question always arises at our lodge, > particullarly by newcomers: "do you have to believe in the > Masters?" The standard "no" is given, but with implication that > most "real" theosophist do somehow. I certainly got the sense of a dual message from my very first contact with Theosophy. > I have thought about voicing my opinion which is a little, well a > lot, on the skeptical side, but I am relying more on my > "feelings" and intuitions than on research. Joy Mills in her > review takes her theosophical hat off to K. Paul for his serious > research and insights into the Masters as "enlightened" > westerners (usually) who were very much real people and friends > etc. of Blavatsky and others (from what I can tell from the > review only) and not disembodied (from Tibetan and Indian bodies) > spirits sitting in Shamballa or elsewhere forever holding > meetings and writing letters it seems. This doesn't necessarily exclude the possibility of paranormal communication with those real people. I think HPB used techniques to align her consciousness with those of certain Master figures, and that these relate to those of the Shabd Yoga tradition (see Voice of the Silence). But how or whether this "worked" is unknown except by the fruits of her writings. > I hope K. Paul will share his insights and research with us on > this very important topic. It would make a very good live Chat > topic. I am not available to theos-l except during working hours, but will respond to all questions and comments on the book. Even from those who haven't read it. Some thoughts are percolating at the moment but I'll wait for specific input before posting. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Feb 95 11:07:00 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: NYTBR 2/26 The current issue of the New York Times Book Review (dated 2/26, which will appear in next Sunday's edition but is already out separately) carries a favorable review of The Masters Revealed. Since I started my library career in 1977 I have read NYTBR week in and week out, cover to cover. So this is a very happy occasion for me. Won't reproduce the whole thing here, but the last para reads "K. Paul Johnson's book is a real original. In straightforward, readable prose, it presents a panorama of heroes, heroines and eccentrics. Tracing Madame Blavatsky's secret life, it often reads like an occult whodunit about a woman who was, in fact, as fascinating as the legends she created about herself." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Feb 95 14:53:24 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Re Keith on Masters According to Jerry Schueler: > Keith: "I think the Masters in some ways are mostly embarrasing > deadweight to theosophy as currently presented." > > This is doubtless a personal opinion. I don't agree. I see > nothing wrong with the idea of Mahatmas or Adepts - especially > since this is taught in both Hinduism and Buddhism. When alive > they are called Mahatmas, Masters, You are missing an important word, "the". It isn't Masters in general, but "the" Masters that Keith finds problematic as I read it. As I comment in the sequel, HPB as AN agent of SOME Masters is historically solid. As THE agent of THE Masters, we are seeing her in mythical terms. What is embarrassing deadweight, in my opinion, is the occult elitism that emerged from the view of the Masters in the early TS. The whole idea of ladders of spiritual development with everyone worried about which rung he/she was on. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 17:07:52 EST From: uscap9m9@ibmmail.com Subject: More theos-l Comments This is by Eldon Tucker Comments to John Vorstermans, Keith Price, Jerry Schueler, Sy Ginsburg, Dr. Bain, Murray Stentiford, and Paul Johnson ---- John Vorstermans: Theosophists have been depicted at times as armchair intellectuals. Many are. But is this a problem? Your question--what do we do with the Philosophy--is a good one. But is there a general formula for living a useful, productive life? I'd suggest that each of us has to determine his own right way to live. The study of Theosophy can be a spiritual practice in itself that affects both us and the people we meet in life. Is this study an idle passing of time, like playing solitaire, or do we accomplish something? I'd say that there are deep benefits derived from the study, even if there are no immediate, noticeable effects on our personality and outer life. What about taking action, about becoming involved in social reform, politics, feeding the hungry, teaching the uneducated, etc.? There are many ways that we can express ourselves in life. Is it wrong for a flower to grow in the field, looking pretty, but not "doing anything"? One person may feel called to work in politics. Another may be a scholar, and prefer study and research. A third may like people, and be drawn to work as a psychologist. Each is being true to an inner calling. I'd say that working for the highest is not done by taking a specific plan of action to help the world. Rather, it is in living life true to oneself, in an unselfish, self- forgetful, compassionate way. The living of the higher is done by functioning consciously in our higher principles, as we go through the experiences of life; it is not done by the pious, but not heart-felt observation of some external code of compassionate action. Keith Price: You mentioned the old idea that the stars circle the earth, attached to a globe, which was moved by angels. That idea, taken literally, is, as you say, silly. But behind the apparently crude symbolism in such ideas may be hidden deeper truths. The hidden truths do not get out of date, even if the symbolism that they hide behind gets stale. Some ideas, once held to be true, may now be considered as wrong, as based upon outdated theories. An example would be that the sun and stars rotate about the earth. We now know that the earth orbits the sun, and that the stars do not circle the earth, but that the earth spins on its axis, and faces different stars from one moment to the next. But when we consider relativity, what is happening depends upon the frame of reference we take. Taking different frames of reference, we'd describe a particular situation differently. From the earth's point of view, the geocentric viewpoint, the sun and stars do circle it. From the sun's point of view, the heliocentric, the earth orbits it. From a third point of view, the sun and earth circle a common center of gravity. Speaking of Initiates, there's an important distinction that needs to be made. An Initiate is someone new, a beginner, a tyro, an introductory student to new vistas of life. An Master is someone experienced, proficient, with a fully- developed skill set. An Initiate may not have sufficient understanding or experience to be able to go public with anything, but rather needs to learn, study, and apply his skills in silence. Paul Johnson: It would be interesting to learn how Tibetan Buddhism may agree with Theosophy. Theosophy is not a rehash of Tibetan Scripture; it is not based upon a representation of any of our modern world religions or philosophies. Theosophy, as I understand it, is a partial presentation of the Wisdom Religion, as preserved by the Masters, since the Dhyani- Chohans imparted it to humanity in the middle of the Third Root Race, ages ago. Murray Stentiford: I don't think that we ever transcend our karma, since we are that karma. Everything that makes us up is our karma, and it is a living, dynamic thing. Karma takes on an appearance of cause and effect, an appearance of a series of events separated in time, when we perceive things from the standpoint of a self that is separate from everything else. Karma takes on an appearance of a living web of life, with separate strands connecting us to everyone and everything else, when we perceive things from the standpoint of no separate self. We cannot separate out a single bond of karma, a single living connection between us and some other single person. The karmic effects can blend. Even a connection to a single person affects everyone else and comes back to us from all directions. Consider the connection, say, between Brenda and I. There's another connection between Eldon to Galina to Brenda or Brenda to Galina to Eldon. Anyone or anything else has a dual connection to both Brenda and I, and is affected by both of us, and participates in the karma between Brenda and I. Specific karmic events arise out of our respective karmic storehouse, out of our treasury of experience, and are based upon the living, dynamic nature of our relationship, out of a living bond between us. The banker's model of karma, with debit and credit, is too simple, and should be replaced with one that considers the storehouse of karma as our individual natures, our swabhava, and not as something external to us, something applied to us by a external judicial system. Dr. Bain: You bring up the question: What if parents teach their children Theosophy and it later proves to be wrong? I'd say that parents must use their best judgment to direct the upbringing of their children, and that includes both education in philosophy and religion, as well as in science. They must make their best judgment as to what is true and good for their children. Some people come across Theosophy and feel an instant draw, a sense of kinship, an attraction to learn and study it; others do not. This attraction should be looked for in growing children, and respected. Children with no such attraction should not have Theosophy forced upon them, whereas those with a hunger to learn it should have that desire to know respected. Sy Ginsburg: I'd agree when you say that the idea of the Masters is not a dead weight, that holds down the T.S. The idea of them is part of the Philosophy. The idea is only subject to abuse when people attempt to claim things in their name, and use the idea as an attempt to assert authority over the minds and hearts of others. Picture a church with a priest telling us the word of God, telling us that we have to do what he says on the authority of his special connection to God. Substitute "theosophical figure" for "priest," and "Masters" for "God", and you could have the same thing. This is completely different that what the Masters tell us to do. In "The Mahatma Letters," they say that every Chela is left to his own device and council, even up to the supreme and last Initiation. You show a profound insight when you say, in effect: Esoteric ideas are sewn into the fabric of ordinary life. All levels of life are interwoven, and stand before us, awaiting to be seen and appreciated. There's the statement that the Kingdom of God is already on earth, and you just have to perceive it. We don't need to leave our physical body, and travel to the highest planes, to experience the spiritual-divine; it is also a part of our life here on earth, and an inseparable part of our consciousness. To experience the divine, we just need to become aware of that part of our selves, that part of our spectrum of consciousness, that lies in that range. There is an aspect of live that is miserable and dark, there is another that is grand, spiritual, and self-forgetful; both aspects exist on our spectrum of consciousness. Which do we choose to dwell in? We can find the deeply profound about us, or we can see a bitter dog-eat-dog world; which perception of life we experience is up to us to choose. Jerry Schueler: I'd consider "Nirmanakaya" to refer to one of three modes of consciousness, one of three ways of experiencing life. All three views of life co-exist; all are happening at the same time; it is up to us to choose *our personal perspective* and dwell in one of them. The separation of subject and object, of self and others, is the viewpoint of the Nirmanakaya. The blissful union with the object of action, the loss of sense of separation with others we are interacting with, is the Sambhogakaya vesture. The transcendence of a sense of this particular situation, and an overpowering experience of timelessness, of lack of being in a particular situation, of direct experience of destiny, is found in the Dharmakaya. Life exists, and can be seen in different ways, depending upon to what degree we take on a sense of self. Others can experience life in a different mode than we do at this moment. But the entire nature of the universe, and the meaning and purpose of life, changes *for us*, as we take on one vesture after another. These vestures are generally, I'd say, situated in our three highest principles, with Nirmanakaya corresponding to Manas, Sambhogakaya to Buddhi, and Dharmakaya with Atman. Even so, we function in all seven principles, regardless of vesture, for the principles compose the necessary ingredients or components of a fully-conscious, manifested being. There's another meaning to the vestures, when referring particularly to the parts of a Buddha. Upon attaining nirvana, the highest part enters nirvana, and that is the Dharmakaya. The intermediate part stays behind as a Bodhisattiva, and that is the Sambhogakaya. And the lower part exists as a man, minus the physical body, and that is the Nirmanakaya. Any body or form taken on, here on Globe D earth, would have to be mind-created, a Mayavi-Rupa. Apart from such a form, there is still sense perception and the remaining higher principles. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 23:06:48 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Re Keith on Masters To Jerry S. Having read your posting in response to Keith with great interest, I thought you would be more than a little interested to know that the Kabbalist teaching includes its "Masters" as a given fact of reality. The language is different, but the ideas match exactly (IMO) what you have said to Keith. Living "Masters" [or "Mistresses"] will be called "Rabbi" or "Rabboni" (if very important). DIscarnate ones are called *Maggidim* and are sometimes, or maybe often, the same human beings - eg., one *'Hasid* I came across was being taught by a *maggid* who had formerly been his rabbi. (This applies only within the Jewish 'Hasidic Kabbalist tradition - "orthodox" Judaism might well take a derogatory position vis a vis the same). Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 23:52:15 -0500 From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: Masters etc. > Keith: "I think the Masters in some ways are mostly embarrasing > deadweight to theosophy as currently presented." > This is Jerry: > This is doubtless a personal opinion. I don't agree. I see > nothing wrong with the idea of Mahatmas or Adepts - especially > since this is taught in both Hinduism and Buddhism. When alive > they are called Mahatmas, Masters, This is K. Paul Johnson: > You are missing an important word, "the". It isn't Masters in > general, but "the" Masters that Keith finds problematic as I > read it. As I comment in the sequel, HPB as AN agent of SOME > Masters is historically solid. As THE agent of THE Masters, > we are seeing her in mythical terms. > > What is embarrassing deadweight, in my opinion, is the occult > elitism that emerged from the view of the Masters in the early > TS. The whole idea of ladders of spiritual development with > everyone worried about which rung he/she was on. This is Keith: What I said or meant to say, misplacing the phrase "as they are currently presented", is that the Masters are not deadweight, but the Masters AS PRESENTED are deadweight. I don't think most people can accept the very hazy quasi-historical picture, including portraits, of the Masters. Yet this PR approach works for "Jesus", God knows. It seems the vauger and more unbelievable, the better for a lot of people. One can idolize and even fall in a kind of "love" with a myth, look at Elvis' fans. But someone with warts that farts, well that's asking too much. And isn't it asking even more to accept every word of The Mahatma Letters" as inspired from on high? There is an atrocious amount of petty organizational gossip and silliness. Why couldn't they percipitate something really worthwhile like a cure for cancer, the theory of relativity, even a really good parable instead of apoligizing about what they can't give out? How convenient! I don't want to ramble, because obviously many people know a lot more. Yet my questions and concerns are valid, at least to me, and stand. I believe K. Paul and others are doing the society and theosophists a service by forcing them to reexamine the issue. Congratulations again to Mr. Johnson. It looks like the book will also bring theosophy back into the eye of some of the public. Jerry, I believe, mentioned the Master Jesus. It is appears to me as a probable interpretation of the gospels that he wasn't a Master from cradle to grave. Maybe now out of incarnation, yes. Much of the miraculous and "specialness" of Jesus as the ONE AND ONLY son of God was probably added on later by helpful writers that weren't even there (Luke). He spent a lot of time as a drudge in the carpenter shop before the dove descended. At that moment he was "initiated" before that he was probably a regular kid, teenager and adult. He couldn't work miracles in the town with no faith. He prayed in the garden of Gethsemane to have the cup removed. He felt forsaken at the crucifiction and so on. Guatama Buddha similarly was even married and before that a rich playboy! This in no way takes away from their Master status it only shows that they two were evolving, not evolved and had problems on the way. Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 06:46:13 -0500 From: val@netcom.com (Dewey Val Schorre) Subject: TS correspondence courses on the Internet > Are you interested? I don't know that there is a lot we could do. Yes, having TS correspondences on the Internet is a great idea. Having taken correspondence courses, I know that after completing a lesson the student is very enthusiastic and anxious to know what the teacher thinks about his answers and often has questions that he wishes the teacher to answer. Usually, the student must wait for several weeks for reply by s-mail. In the mean time, he goes on to another subject of the next lesson and by time he gets the reply his enthusiasm will have diminished. > Any ideas? If everything could be done by e-mail, it would be a lot simpler for most people. Those with CompuServ and America on line and several other services can send and receive messages by e-mail. Some have trouble with getting files by FTP and reading news groups. Students who are already using e-mail will like the idea. Seems that the problem may be in training the teacher on using e-mail. They will need to check their mail daily and reply right away for this system to be superior to s-mail. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 10:43:44 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Fwd: Re: Interfaith On 2d thought, this belongs on Theos-l as well, not only on my Interfaith mailing list. A few days ago, I noticed again that someone, don't remember who, said something a little disparaging about Annie Besant, and Alice Bailey (both in 1 sentence, although they surely don't always share the same points of view). There are people on this net who believe in 1 or the other, or both of these 2 ladies, & what's wrong with that? Are all Theosophists supposed to be uniformly blond haired, blue eyed, wearing a brown uniform with a red Swastika arm band, ticky tocky? & if you happen to be black haired & brown-eyed, then "off with her head!"? In this sense, I think, what T. Subba Row wrote 100 years ago applies very much to the diverse factions of Theosophists today. It would be nice if we, who have as our 1st object to be a nucleus of the human family, (officially known as "The Brotherhood of Man", because red tape causes all bureaucracies to be a little behind the times) would include Annie Besant, Alice Bailey ,& all others who, don't exactly believe as we do ourselves, in our Brotherhood of Man aka The Human Family. They happen to belong there. It's a birthright. Human is human, even if it doesn't always look that way to everyone. See ya round Liesel Hi, everyone, This AM, I was browsing around in T Subba Row's "Esoteric Writings" again, vintage 1895. I found a passage which so perfectly agrees with what we're trying to do here, that I thought you all might like to see it. So I'm about to copy it off for you. It's 100 years old, & sounds so new. T. Subba Row isn't a very well known personnage in Theosophical circles. I have no idea why I ever purchased his "..Writings". But I do keep on finding passages which arouse my interest, every time I browse through his book. He must have been a Hindu Theosophist (we belong to all of the world's religions, & his picture on the book's cover shows him in a turban), and a good friend of H.P. Blavatsky, the founder of the Theosophical Society. p. 451-3 ".... I desire to live in peace and brotherly love with all men; I have my own views, which satisfy my head and heart, in which I firmly believe, and which I hope all other men will respect in me; and I do not doubt that others who differ from me have equallly seized the views that satisfy their heads & hearts, are equaly justified in holding these and have an equal claim on me to respect these their views. "Looking round the universe nothing so strongly impressed me, as the system of division of labour which pervades it. Practical results never spring from solitary causes; they are ever the resultants of the more or less divergent effects of an inextricable plexus of diverse causes. It is from contrasts, that all the joys and beauties of the world arise; it is from the equilibrium of antagonistic forces that the Universe subsists. All progress springs from difference; all evolution is the result of differentiation; as in the great, so in the spiritual; as in the visible so in the unseen universe. "How, then can men fail to see that diferences of opinion on matters spritual are parts of the necessary mechanism of the spiritual organism that everywhere underlies (as the bones underlie the flesh & skin) the physical or visible world? How can they find fault with others for holding views different from their own? How fail to realise that those others are as truly working in harmony with the pervading design or law of the ALL as themselves? Night is as needful to our mundane economy as day; shall the night revile the day, for its glare, its noise, its heat, or the day reproach the night for its dusky stillness? "So then it is in no spirit of finding fault with those who differ from me, but only in the hope of clearing away imaginary differences which being unreal work harm, not good as real differences do that I desire to say a few words as to belief in a Personal God, in an Impersonal God and in No-God ...." The section is entitled "A Personal & An Impersonal God." The above quotation is the lead-in. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 15:55:43 EST From: uscap9m9@ibmmail.com Subject: Regarding the Masters Regarding the Masters -- Eldon Tucker Following are some comments in response to the recent posting of Keith Price regarding the Masters. ---- If you're not sure that you believe in the Masters, or are unsure whom or what they are, that's fine. We each have our own understanding of the Philosophy. It's important to remember the context in which we are speaking from. There are many variations on the original Theosophy as taught by HPB. Each variation has its own unique ideas, each brings with it a different worldview. It might be possible to characterize a few as: * OSW - [original-source writings] - strictly HPB and maybe Judge * BAL - [Besant/Leadbeater] - variant based upon Besant's & CWL's ideas * PL - [Point Loma] - variant based upon Purucker's ideas * JAM - [just another myth] - variant taking Jungian Psychology as greater truth * ULT - [Crosby] - variant based upon Crosby's ideas * AAB - [Bailey] - variant based upon Alice Bailey's writings * BTB - [back to Buddhism] - variant taking Buddhism as greater truth * PS - [psychical scientist] - philosophy is bunk, psychical research reveals truth There are doubtlessly more, and an individual's beliefs may not entirely fall into any single category, but for purposes of discussion, these theosophical groupings are adequate. For myself, I find the PL appears to be the true, the most accurate one. I'm sure that in this respect I'd probably be in the minority on 'theos-l'! I'd hope, though, that as I share my ideas, that some of them are appreciated and found useful. When we talk about one of the key ideas of Theosophy, the nature of the discussion depends on our worldview. An idea like that of the Masters may be one of many possible theories, it may be an archetype, or it may be a limited description of a real fact of human existence, a description of real people. The OSW view of the Masters is as real men that are only truly Mahatmic when their ordinary personality is paralyzed and they act apart from it. The BAL view of the Masters is that they are often superphysical, and go around doing things in their astral bodies. The PS view might be that they don't exist, except in the sense that some people have more advanced psychical powers than others. Each variant of Theosophy has its own explanation. When we hear someone talking of Theosophy, we should not be too quick to criticize them if they disagree with us. We have to understand which standpoint they are coming from, in order to understand if they speak accurately. Often when we may be inclined to say the other person is wrong, we're really disagreeing with the variant of Theosophy that they espouse. Do we really intend to take on and condemn the other school of Theosophy? It's much better, I'd say, to stick to expressing our own understanding as clearly and lucidly as possible, and let a discussion be a beauty contest of ideas, rather than a battle to prove which system is the Truth. It should be possible for your discussion on the validity of the idea of the Masters, to coexist with another person writing about the wonderful attributes of a BAL Master or the initiations undergone by a PL Master. What's important is that we all keep thinking, that we all keep exploring the Philosophy, and don't become rigid, crystallized, locked-in with our ideas. We should freshly rethink what we know on a regular basis. It's only when we think we've got it, and we're no longer exploring, that we've come to a dead end and start to lose the true essence of our understanding. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 14:15:10 -0500 (EST) From: John Mead Subject: listserver Hi -- the listserver was down for the last day (1.5 days). it is now back runnibg. peace - john mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 16:01:28 -0500 From: Donald DeGracia <72662.1335@compuserve.com> Subject: Theosophy Correspondance courses on the Net Hi Everybody! I just received Dewey Val Schorre's posting about Correspondance courses for Theosophy over the Internet. I just want to say I think this is a very good idea, especially for the reasons Val listed. Therefore, I willingly volunteer my services to help with this i project. If anyone specific is in charge, please feel free to contact me. Best to you all, Don DeGracia From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 17:56:08 +1200 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: The weather Wot a silence has descended on THEOS-L etc! Makes me wonder if there's a group "weather", with anticyclones, cyclones, depressions, and just plain calm. Perhaps we're all deluged with work and are too busy, in some unfathomable synchronised fashion. It may even be synchronistic! Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Feb 95 19:07:08 +1100 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: NYTBR 2/26 "K. Paul Johnson" writes: > The current issue of the New York Times Book Review (dated > 2/26, which will appear in next Sunday's edition but is already > out separately) carries a favorable review of The Masters > Revealed. > > Since I started my library career in 1977 I have read NYTBR > week in and week out, cover to cover. So this is a very happy > occasion for me. > Congratulations! Hopefully this will also provided some needed publicity to the cause of Theosophy ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Feb 95 19:08:34 +1100 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: Re Keith on Masters Some passing thoughts on Keith's important and provocative post: > Keith: "I think the Masters in some ways are mostly embarrasing > deadweight to theosophy as currently presented." Yes, but if they do not exist, the Society was founded on lies, by liers, and we should dissociate ourselves from it immediately - who knows what other errors we might also be drawn into otherwise. If they do exist, then this is surely an extremely important fact which should not be ignored, even if "embarrassing." > Keith: "Their contribution could be better assimilated by me, and > I assume by many in the 20th almost 21st century, if they were > made a little more plausible by being "that higher MANAS which is > inseparably linked to the ATMA and its vehicle (the 6th > principle)" -HPB quoted by Joy Mills in the review. Why does everything in the occult world have to be _nothing but_ psychology? It's a convenient way out of admitting there might be "more things in heaven and earth than ever dreamt of in our (western materialistic) philosphy." The higher Manas is not disembodied but activated to a very > unusal degree in real human beings just like you and me and then > only for short periods of time." So what? The fact that the higher principles can be expressed on the more material levels from time to time doesn't make it any less wonder-full. > Keith: "A parting thouht, the Master should not be confused with > the Dhyani-Choans, Boddhisattvas, archetypes, gods, angels, > demons etc. who are far in advance of humanity and trully on > another plane and not in incarnation at all." How can you be so sure? Especially as you view Masters as an embarrassment. A last thought: any one who knows anything about the Masters is highly unlikely to admit to it in public. ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Feb 95 15:52:23 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: NYTBR 2/26 Thanks, Astrea, it is a marvellous time for me, with NYTBR coming right on the heels of Joy Mills's wonderful (IMO) review in the Quest. Maybe Gnosis is about to come through with one too. Alas, Peter Washington's funny, entertaining, but poorly researched book is getting the lion's share of publicity. Having a commercial press book out there that's anti-HPB (although not nastily so) is probably good for sales of my pro-HPB (whether or not all her admirers welcome it as such) academically published one. SUNY just told me they had ordered a second printing before the reviews came out, and added a third one just in case sales really jump. Theosophy's public attention is mostly due to the Washington book, but mine is definitely a contributing factor and I hope a counterbalancing one. Looking forward to discussing with y'all the pros and cons of the public attention Theosophy is getting/will be getting over these books. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 00:05:30 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Re Keith on Masters To ASTREA > > Keith: "I think the Masters in some ways are mostly embarrasing > > deadweight to theosophy as currently presented." > > Yes, but if they do not exist, the Society was founded on lies, > by liers, and we should dissociate ourselves from it immediately > - who knows what other errors we might also be drawn into > otherwise. If they do exist, then this is surely an extremely > important fact which should not be ignored, even if > "embarrassing." > > Why does everything in the occult world have to be _nothing but_ > psychology? It's a convenient way out of admitting there might be > "more things in heaven and earth than ever dreamt of in our (western > materialistic) philosphy." > > Keith: "A parting thouht, the Master should not be confused with > > the Dhyani-Choans, Boddhisattvas, archetypes, gods, angels, demons > > etc. who are far in advance of humanity and trully on another plane > > and not in incarnation at all." > > How can you be so sure? Especially as you view Masters as an > embarrassment. Squelch . . . > A last thought: any one who knows anything about the Masters is > highly unlikely to admit to it in public. I know _something_ and will admit (!) to it on theos-l. Dunno about "in public" though. Mostly one is either not believed at all, branded an "imposter, seeking attention" (or some such) or "deluded," etc., etc. As far as I am concerned the "Masters" are REAL, they are THERE, and they _are nowhere near as concerned about us as our vanity would like them to be_. I do not in fact call them "Masters" [or "Mistresses" :)] but simply "Intelligences" - of another and discarnate order, higher, and difficult to contact. Even if contacted, what is received has to be filtered through our tiny brains and psychological mechanisms, ie., interpreted. Krishnamurti once said - in the Conway Hall, London, I believe, that whatever he taught in the moment was only of relevance _in that moment_ and it was a waste of time and energy to take down what he said and publish it. By the time it was published, it would no longer be accurate. This I know because I read it in the book which contained the transcript of his lecture! "Messages" from the "Masters" are the same - their meaning is for the moment in which the message is given. Gosh, this could sound pompous and mysterious, couldn't it! It isn't meant to be. HPB spoke for all of us when she said that in our ordinary waking lives we do not amount to much - and she included herself in this, making that wonderful distinction between "Madame Blavatsky" and "H.P.B." - the latter _might_ be worth listening to, the former was just a silly woman (she said, in effect). Like all of us on this list, I am a student. Okay, I teach a bit, but that makes me a student who teaches a bit. No big deal. I once asked a 'Master,' "Why ?" The reply: "Tell me why it is _not_ : which is what you are really asking - and we might get somewhere." (Interpreted). That put me in my place - and I am still in it [up to my neck]. Love to all, Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 22:09:42 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: e-mail study group Hi, you-all Dewey & Donald, I'm with you. I too would like to see us form a study group on e-mail. Long time ago, I took my Basic Theosophy from Wheaton via snail mail, & I too found that my lessons were super. I learned a lot. I also had a super teacher, John Algeo. At the end of my course, he was in England for a while, but he kept it up, till I'd finished my lessons. At that time, we used "The Basic Ideas of Occult Wisdom" by Anna Kennedy Winner as a manual. The nice thing about that book is that it has a pamphlet with questions as a review for each chapter. The book is a little outmoded by now, I think, & it seems Shirley Nicholson's "Ancient Wisdom, Modern Insight" is more current. I've read in places that Wheaton is using that as a course of study manual nowadays, but I don't think it has a pamphlet with useful questions to answer that goes with it.. Don D. glad you volunteered to help. I did too, & I think, from what JEM wrote, Lewis did too, but I missed his post. So far, no one except John Mead is in charge. I think we're evolving what we'd like to do. What kind of ideas do you have, and what could you help with? What I'd like to see happen is that we take 1 book, such as Shirley's as a base, & that we then have a teacher from each Theosophical "sect" to teach on the same topic. Say we decide on Shirley's first item, The One - unity in diversity. Someone from Adyar will present it from Shirley's book, someone from ULT will do it from HPB's writing, someone from Point Loma will give a DePurucker version, if we have people from Pasadena & Alice Bailey we can include them in. In other words, we'll look at the idea of "The One", in some detail, from all Theosophical version that are available. The problem with this method is, that we can't download the books from any place on line, for every one to study from. I understand that this would take something called a scanner, & no one has one, I don't think. So it would mean that the teacher from Point Loma would have to get his/her material together & write it up on the e-mail. The other members of the group would ask questions to be answered, & that could be done either in conference form, on a certain day, between the hours of ? to ?, or John M. could set up another department like Theos-buds, & people could read what's there & write comments & questions about what's there, whenever they get to it. Only the teachers would have to put in their lessons on a certain (loose) schedule, and then answer the questions fairly promptly as the come in. That's what I'd like to propose we do. It would make theos-l unique, & truly representative of all the diverse Theosophical beliefs. It would represent a big bridge towards all of us being able to work together. Besides, I would bet my bottom boots on that participants would find that they like a piece of "The One" according to one sect, & a piece of "Karma " better from another sect's writer. I bet we'd also find that sometimes what 1 writer says will be very similar to what another one has to say. At the end all study group members would be familiar with the writings & ideas of all the groups, & not like now think of the unfamiliar ones as strange monsters. I'd like to know what everyone who's interested in a study group thinks of this idea. & I'd like to hear what ideas everyone has, as to what we want to do. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 00:14:35 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: To: Sy Ginsburg Hi, Sy A few days have gone by since your post re "Myth of The Masters". My e-mail reception has gone kerflooie, & I had to ask John Mead first how to retrieve your post again. I'd lost it, ie my machine just jammed. Anyway, one of the things you wanted to know from people is how they got to the "The Path". My story isn't really miraculous. I didn't get hit in the head with a book, I got books handed ot me. I'd met Bill Nicholson, who was a Theosophist. At age 48, I hadn't found too much comfort from any religion I'd had contact with, but I was looking. Bill gave me some books to read re Buddhism, because we thought that might interest me. What I noticed was that all the books he lent me were from the Theosophical Publishing House. So I started to inquire as to what that was, & that's how I got into Theosophy. My 1st book was AB's "The Ancient Wisdom". I don't think I really remember a thing anymore of what that book contains. The 2d book I tackled was "The Mahatma Letter..." & I doub t that I understood too much of that either. But it fascinated me & I guess something stuck & I went on, & finally found a religion I could believe in, & live by... even if everyone else says Theosophy is a religious philosophy. Incidentally, you have a Jewish name, so it might interest you to know that back in the 1920ies Jewish Theosophists had a convention. Goodness knows what I did with the pamphlet I had describing it. I too have had the feeling at various times that I was being guided by something in the right direction. I used to think of it as my guardian angel, my deva, but having been to a Serge King workshop, maybe it's my Ku, my unconscious, that's guiding me. Doesn't really matter, whether it's inside or outside, it's whatever one perceives it to be. Also, at times I've asked my teacher Harry, questions by mail. Very often the day after I mail the letter to him, I'll somehow, without thinking go to a Leadbeater book on my shelf (Harry was a CWL pupil) & find an answer. Goodness knows how that happens. Serge would say again it's your Ku. However it works, it works for me in both cases. As I said a few days ago in a post ... I believe in the Masters, because I've seen several top notch shamans at work, & so have some experience with perceiving how realms other than the purely physical can work. I'm glad they gave HPB the wherewithall to found the TS. But I'm one who's not terribly devoted to the Masters, & I don't perceive of myself as working for them, but rather for suffering humanity, which I try to help along whenever I can, whenever some one or the other human being comes across my way. Happens frequently, because I live in a Sr. Citizen's Apt. Complex & everyone in here has their large or small complaints. Be well, Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 17:52:14 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: e-mail study group Just read Liesel's enthusiasm for an e-mail study group, and am suitably inspired to offer to teach Kabbalah (not Qabalah) - something I have been doing on and off for over 35 years. I could post ascii files as "chapters" of my own study book, which summarizes the teaching. I think it would need a list of its own (a study group, that is). Feedback awaited . . . Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 17:57:02 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: To: Sy Ginsburg In message <950224001434_30821932@aol.com> Liesel writes: > But I'm one who's not terribly devoted to the Masters, & I don't > perceive of myself as working for them, but rather for suffering > humanity, which I try to help along whenever I can, whenever some > one or the other human being comes across my way. Happens > frequently, because I live in a Sr. Citizen's Apt. Complex & > everyone in here has their large or small complaints. > > Be well, > > Liesel *That's* theosophy! I am sure you help the animals when you can, as well. Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 16:54:36 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Re Keith on Masters To Alan Bain: Alan "I'm sure you help animals as well." Yeah, my little cat Chouchou. I used to be a Boy Scout! Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 23:47:58 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Nice Puss In message <950224165429_31407065@aol.com> theos-l@vnet.net writes: > To Alan Bain: > > Alan "I'm sure you help animals as well." > > Yeah, my little cat Chouchou. > I used to be a Boy Scout! > > Liesel Purrrrrrrr. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 13:04:07 -0500 From: John Tullis Subject: ================================================================== >Just read Liesel's enthusiasm for an e-mail study group, and am >suitably inspired to offer to teach Kabbalah (not Qabalah) - >something I have been doing on and off for over 35 years. I >could post ascii files as "chapters" of my own study book, which >summarizes the teaching. > >I think it would need a list of its own (a study group, that is). > >Feedback awaited . . . > >Alan I think that is an excellent idea. Please do post the files. Please include in the body of each posting that it is posting #x e.g., "This is posting #4". That way those of us who are interested would be sure we got all of your postings. Re the Kabbalah - in your studies, are you relating it to the Tarot? Regards, John Tullis. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 16:17:13 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: In message <199502251744.LAA22434@mailman.pk.ac.com> theos-l@vnet.net writes: > >suitably inspired to offer to teach Kabbalah (not Qabalah) - > >could post ascii files as "chapters" of my own study book, > >which summarizes the teaching. > >Alan > I think that is an excellent idea. > Please do post the files. > Please include in the body of each posting that it is posting > #x e.g., "This is posting #4". > That way those of us who are interested would be sure we > got all of your postings. > > Re the Kabbalah - in your studies, are you relating it to the > Tarot? > > Regards, > John Tullis. Will do (post the files). I will post to theos-roots, then subscribers to theos-l who are not interested won't have to get them. Before doing this though, I would appreciate John Mead's views, as their are quite a few of us who take both lists. Maybe postings to individuals separately would be better, or to the archive . . . Anyhow, so far two subscribers have shown a serious interest, and I will mail a basic ascii file to each individually for the time being. I don't so much relate Kabbalah to the Tarot as the other way around, but the Tarot is a useful tool, yes. This will not be part of the first posting! Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 16:35:12 -0500 From: LMOFFITT@delphi.com Subject: Study Ge-mail study group On Thu, 23 Feb 1995, LieselFD@aol.com said: > What I'd like to see happen is that we take 1 book, such as > Shirley's as a base, & that we then have a teacher from each > Theosophical "sect" to teach on the same topic. Say we decide on > Shirley's first item, The One - unity in diversity. Someone from > Adyar will present it from Shirley's book, someone from ULT will > do it from HPB's writing, someone from Point Loma will give a > DePurucker version, if we have people from Pasadena & Alice > Bailey we can include them in. In other words, we'll look at the > idea of "The One", in some detail, from all Theosophical version > that are available. > > The problem with this method is, that we can't download the books > from any place on line, for every one to study from. I > understand that this would take something called a scanner, & no > one has one, I don't think. Sounds like a great idea! I have access to a scanner and an OCR program. If you identify a text that I can get a copy of, I'd be willing to undertake scanning it and uploading it to theos-l. Modulo copyright permission, of course. Lee M. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 18:36:02 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: study course > > >suitably inspired to offer to teach Kabbalah (not Qabalah) - > > > >could post ascii files as "chapters" of my own study book, > > >which summarizes the teaching. sounds good. > Will do (post the files). I will post to theos-roots, then > subscribers to theos-l who are not interested won't have to get > them. Before doing this though, I would appreciate John Mead's > views, as their are quite a few of us who take both lists. I noticed that Liesel and Don Degracia were interested. They are only signed up on theos-buds (versus roots). perhaps you can either use theos-buds, or talk others into subscribing to theos-roots?? peace - john e. m. p.s. I will add the "chapters" to the archives, for future referal. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 20:37:28 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: study group. In answer to several responses. John Mead, Alan Bain talks about having his Kabalah lessons on a separate track. That would be ok with me. I'm interested in having a Theosophical study group - & was thinking in terms of going through the basic ideas, but on a broad enough level to invite discussion by the more advanced students as well as the newer ones. I wasn't thinking in terms of comparative religions. That, to me, is something entirely different. John, you said in your post that I was interested. I'm not interested in Kabalah. I have several books here on the subject & hardly ever look at them. But far be it from me to discourage those who'd like to study it, & if Alan has such good notes available, by all means, let's have them, but on a different track than the one I suggested. Besides Donald DeGracia, Dewey was interested in a study group. I was just trying to retrieve his post, but America on Line has been giving me a lot of balk leately, & I couldn't retrieve Deweys post anymore, & I didn't put his last name or address down. Also Arthur Patterson thinks it would be a good idea, when he feels up to it again. Lee Moffit If you have access to a skanner, I think that's 1/2 the ball game. Thank you very much for offering. I think I can try to get Wheaton's ok on using Shirley's book. I was hoping that Maybe Dick Slusser or Marty Lyman would take DePurucker. They were talking about coming on board theos-l soon. Or if not they, then they'd hopefully know someone who would, unless someone who's on the net now would volunteer. They would have to ask Point Loma permission to quote DeP, but Dick quotes him in his "High Country Theosophist" now, so it's within the realm of the possible tha Point LOma would agree. We'd still need at least someone from ULT, and I think, Pasadena. Come to think of it, Stan Treloar in Canada is an Alice Bailey man, & he has a computer. If he's not too busy, maybe he would do Alice Bailey, or maybe he'd know someone who would. All of this is just off the top of my head. Someone would have to do some legwork to get this whole thing going... round up all the teachers, and books, & permissions. But first we'd have to see how much interest there is in doing this, & we'd also have to get the go ahead singal from the Manager of theos-l. Astrea You say you have some notes you took at a workshop Shirley gave. Glad you enjoyed it. That means that her book has good possibilities as a study group tool. If you don't have time to give, maybe you could lend your notes as a guide to whoever teaches that part. I have something to add to your Krishnamurti quote, in your pos about the Masters. K said that "whatever he taught in the moment was only of relevance in that moment, & it was a waste of time to take down what he said & publish it. By the time it was published, it would no longer be accurate." Serge King, during the workshop I keep on talking about (he crammed a tremendous anount of stuff into it), said something very similar to Krishnamurti. He told us that there was really nothing but "Now". Your memories of the past are what you remember "now" (most probably changed from the past event itself). What you project into the future is as you visualize it "now", & when it happens down the road a ways, it'll not be the same as you now imagine it. But the time to change either your memories of the past, or your anticipations of the future is now. That's healing, which is Serge's business. It's the same message from a different person's point of view. Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 00:21:26 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: Re: study group. > Alan Bain talks about having his Kabalah lessons on a separate > track. That would be ok with me. I'm interested in having a > Theosophical study group - & was thinking in terms of going > through the basic ideas, but on a broad enough > ... > who'd like to study it, & if Alan has such good notes available, > by all means, let's have them, but on a different track than the > one I suggested. well.... the differences do materialize quickly! :-) are we to assume that the study courses are mandated to a particular topic and list?? I think not. perhaps we could let Dr. Bain do his study course on Theos-roots, and you couldd do (whatever) on Theos-buds?? I prefer to keep a VERY low profile on these discussion lists (else --- accused of "management" and other sordid sins!). i suggest that you just START what you want to study. If people do not want to participate, they won't. The topic will die a natural death. the only thing I can do, is to add the "literature" into the library. I will usually do that despite the dis-interest. !! please send to me an ascii text file containing each lesson. That is all I ask. if new discussion-lists are needed ... I will add them. They are easy to add, however the Vnet people can be a bit slow sometimes. :-) peace -- john e. m. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 04:54:51 -0500 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: Re: study group. John Mead writes: > i suggest that you just START what you want to study. If people > do not want to participate, they won't. The topic will die a > natural death. One very interesting topic for me comes out of a close reading of the Mahatma Letters (which I'll refer to as ML from now on.) I'm presuming that all theosophical groups have heard of them, and have access to a copy, and that they are generally accepted as authentic theosophical source material without particular bias towards ULT, Pt.Loma, Adyar or what have you. Does God exist? According to ML, most assuredly not. Their best adepts have looked very carefully, and have found no One that is apart and separate from Life itself. At most, it seems there is a hierarchy of intelligences, including planetary spirits, dyhani chohans et. al. To me, the Solar logos appears to match most closely the traditional ideas of a Divine Being in whom we live and move and have our being -- but even That One is limited in scope, to this solar system (with all its hidden globes.) From this point of view, Christianity becomes perfectly justifiable as a solar cult. Any thoughts? Thanks, Paul Gillingwater From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 10:53:22 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Study Ge-mail study group Hi, Lee, Could you please explain to me what a OCR program is? I don't know. Are you a man or a lady? I used to go by Lee too, because we thought Liesel, was too German sounding. But after I got older, & WWII faded into the distance, I went back to Liesel. In Wheaton they still call me Lee. Namaste, Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 10:54:14 -0500 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: study group. LieselFD@aol.com writes: > Astrea > > You say you have some notes you took at a workshop Shirley gave. > Glad you enjoyed it. That means that her book has good > possibilities as a study group tool. If you don't have time to > give, maybe you could lend your notes as a guide to whoever > teaches that part. I'll see what I can ferret out! > > I have something to add to your Krishnamurti quote, in your pos > about the Masters. K said that "whatever he taught in the moment > was only of relevance in that moment, & it was a waste of time to > take down what he said & publish it. By the time it was > published, it would no longer be accurate." It wasn't "my" K. quote, it was Alan Bain's. I just commented on it. > Serge King, during the workshop I keep on talking about (he > crammed a tremendous anount of stuff into it), said something > very similar to Krishnamurti. He told us that there was really > nothing but "Now". Your memories of the past are what you > remember "now" (most probably changed from the past event > itself). What you project into the future is as you visualize it > "now", & when it happens down the road a ways, it'll not be the > same as you now imagine it. Yes, I believe Saint Augustine had some quite interesting theories of time along these lines, too. Namaste ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 10:54:55 -0500 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: e-mail study group guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) writes: > Just read Liesel's enthusiasm for an e-mail study group, and am > suitably inspired to offer to teach Kabbalah (not Qabalah) - > something I have been doing on and off for over 35 years. I > could post ascii files as "chapters" of my own study book, which > summarizes the teaching. > > I think it would need a list of its own (a study group, that is). > > Feedback awaited . . . > Can you explain the difference between Kabbalah and Qabalah. I thought they were both corruptions, or rather translations, from the Hebrew. Which do you think is better and why? I would be interested in reading your chapters on the Kabbalah. But actually it would be even nicer to have them in nicely presented hard copy! ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 10:55:36 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: study group. I think you're entitled to your low profile. My feeling is to watch this for a few more days, & then get started on "Buds". In today's post, Paul Gillingwater came up with what I think is a better idea than mine... to,study the "Mahatma Letters" which is a classic for all of us., and leads the e-mail study group in an entirely new direction. So now let's see what we can do with that. Maybe I'll contact Dick Slusser& Stan Treloar by phone & see what they have to say, & meantime, others will respond via e-mail. I'd also like to contact the TPH to see whether there's a study guide for the "Mahatma Letters", or maybe someone on this list knows which are the more important letters. It's been a very long time since I've read them. Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 11:13:22 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: study group. The One I imagine is the consciousness which in some way created all that is. To me, the Solar Logos is part of this, it's "The One ... limited in scope, to this solar system (with all its hidden globes.)" There must be some Logos who dreamt up the rest of this universe, including the solar system, & some of whose dreams might still be unmanifest. Hierarchies bother me. I know Theosophists talk about t that here are planetary spirits, & dhyani chohans and The Manu. They don't sit well with me, because it reminds me of human beings trying to figure out how far along the Path they are. I can't tell how far along I am, & I'm not sure anyone else can. I wonder whether you or anyone on this list has any thoughts about that. Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 12:06:57 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: study group. Hi, Astrea, St. Augustine, hmm. Had no idea the concept was that old. Just goes to show you. I'll have to look it up sometime, when next I go to our Library. Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 12:41:59 -0500 From: LMOFFITT@delphi.com Subject: Study Group LieselFD@aol.com asks: >Hi, Lee, > >Could you please explain to me what a OCR program is? I don't know. > > Are you a man or a lady? I used to go by Lee too, because we > thought Liesel, was too German sounding. But after I got older, > & WWII faded into the distance, I went back to Liesel. In > Wheaton they still call me Lee. > >Namaste, > >Liesel Answer to #1: Optical Character Recognition (OCR) is transforming printed text into ASCII characters that a computer understands. To transform printed material (e.g., in a book) into computer-readable form requires three steps in general: 1. The pages are scanned into a computer. (The scanner is a piece of equipment that looks (and acts) vaguely like a copier. It converts the page into a computer image.) 2. The scanned image(s) are run through an OCR program, which locates each character on the scanned image and "recognizes" it as an "A", "B", "8", or whatever. It produces "raw" computer-readable text. 3. The results of the OCR process are always imperfect, so there usually is a fairly time-consuming process of editing the OCR output to make a clean text copy. Answer to #2: I am a man. Although some of my best friends are women ;-) Regards, Lee M. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 13:17:27 -0500 From: Arthur_PattersonA@mbnet.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: study group. > Hierarchies bother me. I know Theosophists talk about t that > here are planetary spirits, & dhyani chohans and The Manu. They > don't sit well with me, because it reminds me of human beings > trying to figure out how far along the Path they are. I can't > tell how far along I am, & I'm not sure anyone else can. I > wonder whether you or anyone on this list has any thoughts about > that. Liesel, That is so true, the obsessive spiritual checking that we do only proves that we are not as advanced as we thought. I see Hieracrchy as an immature and egocentric point of view. I am sure that the more advanced being becomes the less time you have for grading yourself spiritually. In the best of the traditions that I have studied, there was always a push toward "self-transcendance" I like to call it ego transcendance. Part of trying to figure out where we are on the path is our insecurity the feeling that we are not accepted whatever condition we are in. We are so judgemental that we need to be at some place before we can self affirm our little existence. It is like the Christian who never thinks he or she is "saved" and needs to be born again. It is the same in Judaism with those who are under the burden of the Torah, or in Buddhist thinking there are those who become spiritual technicians to move beyond themselves to acheive greater heights of enlightenment. In all the traditions it is compassion, love, acceptance and the joy of discovery and the passion of life that is emphaized. I will now get of my pulpit opps. and say hello to the theos-l. Still not fully recovered but I am working at it. Thank you for your thoughts. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 13:35:11 -0500 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: Re: study group. LieselFD@aol.com writes: > There must be some Logos who dreamt up the rest of this universe, > including the solar system, & some of whose dreams might still be > unmanifest. Well, this implies hierarchy -- an almost infinite succession of intelligences, each responsible for a solar system, and somehow forming part of a greater kosmos, and its intelligence (citing the principle of the Macrocosm.) I certainly agree that the process of creation is on-going -- in fact, one of my fantasies (I've never seen any TS writer comment on the idea) is that one of the tasks required of the would-be initiate is to become a co-creator, reaching into Atziluth (the world of archetypes) to bring an archetype down into Briah (the sphere of creation), and then working with devas to bring the result down to Yetzirah (the world of formation) and thence to Assiah (our world of manifestation.) As an example, I imagine that for every new adeptic flowering of humanity, a new flower appears in the world as a result. > Hierarchies bother me. I know Theosophists talk about that there > are planetary spirits, & dhyani chohans and The Manu. They don't > sit well with me, because it reminds me of human beings trying to > figure out how far along the Path they are. I can't tell how far > along I am, & I'm not sure anyone else can. I wonder whether you > or anyone on this list has any thoughts about that. I agree that speculation on individual "occult grade" is worse than futile, because it can inflate the great bug-bear of the path, pride. But being part of hierarchy doesn't have to mean that we invoke the spirit of competitiveness -- in fact, it's all about cooperation, and I personally think it's useful to my humility to occasionally be reminded of my rather insignificant place in the universe... if I was being mischievous, I might suggest that I am more insignificant than you (neener, neener, nyer. :-) > Namaste Bright Blessings! > Liesel best, Paul Gillingwater From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 16:11:18 -0500 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"@vnet.net Subject: Re: Study Course I'd like to throw my name in as one interested in receiving Alan's Kabbalah material through the list. I don't mind which one, as I subscribe to the 4 of them. I'd be very interested in seeing other study courses or one-off material, too. The Mahatma letters would be very well worthwhile. Joy Mills would probably have, or have access to, the wealth of information that Virginia Hansen drew together on the Mahatma Letters. I remember being deeply impressed by the insight as well as scholarship of the sessions on the ML at Krotona in 1989, given by Joy and, in one case, with Virginia present. Joy and Virginia were very good friends and used to spend a lot of time in joint study of theosophical things. Now that Virginia has passed on, we could think of approaching Joy on the subject of the Letters. Is anybody at Australian headquarters or Blavatsky Lodge Sydney on the list? That's where to contact Joy. Murray Stentiford murray@sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 16:47:07 -0500 From: Arthur_PattersonA@mbnet.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: Study Course I agree with Liesel that for some of us it would be helpful to study "Source Theosophy" that which originates from Sinnett, Blavatsky or Olocott. I am currently going through a great course constructed by April and Jerry called the Perennial Wisdom. I am sure it has its own point of view but their work is so rooted in the sources it might be a worthwhile to recommend to the whole group. They use the Key, the Ocean and other such material along with an excellent study guide. Regardless, I am interesting in following any course offered on the newsgroup there is a lot of collective wisdom out there between us all. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 18:49:30 -0500 From: ruben@netcom.com (Ruben Cabigting) Subject: Re: Newsweek's book review on Blavatsky's Baboon The President of the Theosophical Society in America sent the following to the Editor of Newsweek in response: Letters Editor, Newsweek 251 West 57th Street New York, NY 10019 To the Editor: The review of Madame Blavatsky's Baboon ("A Bunch of Balmy Swamis," THE ARTS, Feb. 20), mentions that Theosophical supporters have included W.B. Yeats, Thomas Edison, and Gen. Abner Doubleday; others such as Wassili Kandinsky, Piet Mondrian, and Jawaharlal Nehru could be added. The Theosophical Society has attracted such persons perhaps because its objects are to bring human beings together without distinction of nation, race, creed, or sex; to honor the truths or religion and science equally; and to be open without prejudice to the potentials of the universe and human nature. Teaching self-reliance and individual responsibility, Theosophy rejects dogmatism in all its forms --- whether as religious fundamentalism, political totalitarianism, or intellectual closed-mendedness. More Knowledge and less flippancy would have improved the accuracy of your review. John Algeo National President Theosophical Society in America --- Ruben From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 19:08:06 -0500 From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: Identity Crises Know thyself. To thine own self be true and thus thou canst not be false to any man. (probably misquoted) Can we ever really know ourselves or others? This indeed seems to be the real challange. For instance: >Hi, Lee, >Could you please explain to me what a OCR program is? I don't know. > > Are you a man or a lady? I used to go by Lee too, because we > thought Liesel, was too German sounding. But after I got older, > & WWII faded into the distance, I went back to Liesel. In > Wheaton they still call me Lee. >Namaste, >Liesel ------- To Liesel: I was going to ask you the exact same thing, but thought it would be too personal, but since you asked someone first - I will ask you, Liesel, are you a man or a lady? I thought you were a lady but you made a joke about the "boy scout" cookies which I took as a joke, but it really confused me too. It so easy to take others wrong here in CyberSpace because we don't see each others bodies, for body language and all important attitude cluse, much less get a gander at their aura :-) This is a small example of how easily it is to not know others. It is even harder to know the MOTIVES of oneself or others. One of the most difficult problem on the path, for me, is to know my own motives. One of the most common human traits is hiding a bad action under a supposedly good motive. I was trying to sit back and learn why I was so negative about the "Mahatma Letters", their percipitation of letters and all the hocus-pocus that surrounds them. l think, part of it is a desire to be a devil's advocate, in some way. Many people turn away from theosophy BECAUSE of the percipitated letters and teacups and various bric-a-brac. Many inside the society seem to attack the motive of questioners such as the Coulumbs, the society for psychical research (could be wrong name) etc. These people's attacks are seen as selfishly motivated. And the objection of commoners like me are ignored as being uninformed or lacking in "FAITH". What theosphist really takes anything on faith, but this is exactly what we are expected to do and the percipitated letters only make things worse because one has to take it on faith that their writings and percipitations weren't faked. Someone wrote that if the Masters don't exist then "The Secret Doctive" is a fraud. Why? BIG, BIG WHY? "The Secret Doctrine" (IMHO) stands are falls on its own merits and does not need the Master of the leaves of Kiu-Ti (spelling?) to back it up. This is theosophical fundamentalism and is doing more to hold back theosophy in the largerst since as in the totality of the Ancient Wisdom and is doing very little to bolster the T.S. as an organization (IMHO) So, I personally, have been suffering an identity crisis in that I decided not to post until I could post something positive. I think that the Masters have a lot more to do with DIVINE PRINCIPLES than quasi-historical quasi-human beings. (Is it pronounced kwa-zi or cwazy, here I like cwazy ;-) The Masters have been talked about in terms of the 7 rays and 7 levels. I think this may be more productive to an understanding in our psychological and phenomenological age. This of course will be surpassed as we evolve. The idea that the Masters spoke to Sinnett and HPB but the age of miracles is past so we have to spend our time looking backward to the thesophical scriptures of the late 19th century, the way fundamentalist Christians look to the Bible only and Islam to the Koran, strikes me as unhealthy. Of course I am in no position to judge "The Mahatma Letters" and I was not trying to. I was "judging" the dependence on them as the justification of the T.S. etc. I was trying to play devil's advocate so that when the objections are brought up we will have thought it through and not just take a superior attitude to the attackers as in "who are you to judge the Masters?". Further identity issues: Is it K. Paul Johson of just Paul? It's Paul on "In Search of the Masters"? Is it Jerry or Gerry Scheuler? It's Gerry on my copy of "The Electric Tarot". I owe you $20. Where does Alan's writings on the Kabala belong? I hope he posts at least one or two here on theos-l as a sample so we can decide further! Namsate Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 19:26:18 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Mahatmas & God In message theos-l@vnet.net writes: > > One very interesting topic for me comes out of a close reading of the > Mahatma Letters (which I'll refer to as ML from now on.) > Does God exist? According to ML, most assuredly not. Their best > adepts have looked very carefully, and have found no One that is apart > and separate from Life itself. At most, it seems there is a hierarchy > of intelligences, including planetary spirits, dyhani chohans et. al. > Any thoughts? > > Thanks, > Paul Gillingwater My own research, study, etc., etc., all tends to confirm the statements made in the ML, as eloquently expressed above. Alan Bain From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 19:27:01 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: e-mail study group In message theos-l@vnet.net writes: > A.M.Bain writes: > > > Just read Liesel's enthusiasm for an e-mail study group, and am > > suitably inspired to offer to teach Kabbalah (not Qabalah) - > > Feedback awaited . . . > Can you explain the difference between Kabbalah and Qabalah. I > thought they were both corruptions, or rather translations, from > the Hebrew. Which do you think is better and why? A kind of literary convention has appeared in recent years on this matter, in which Qabalah is generally used by those of the [broadly] "New Age" approach or the "Magical" or the "Mystical Orders and/or Brotherhoods" approach. Those like myself, who may or may not have come originally from these traditions (I did) but have moved to a - IMVHO opinion - saner approach, spell it Kabbalah: this way students get to know which is more likely to be the approach taken by a given writer, teacher, student or whoever. More seriously, Jewish students will _usually_ spell it with a K not a Q in order not to be identified with the New Age people. As in all these things, you pay your money (or not :)) and take your pick. Strictly speaking, "Q" is a better rendering of the Hebrew letter beginning the word, but the magicians got to it first in this century :-). So - I use K in order to distance myself from the Q folk. If anyone wants to study magic, fine, but not with me, as I don't teach or study it [any more]. > I would be interested in reading your chapters on the Kabbalah. > But actually it would be even nicer to have them in nicely > presented hard copy! Costs money ... > ASTREA Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 19:27:46 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Hierarchies Hierarchies bother me too! If we theosophists truly want to promote a brother/sisterhood of humanity, the last thing we need is a big brother or sister telling us what we are supposed to believe - methinks the TS has suffered from this problem in the past ... Alan Bain From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 19:28:27 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Augustine St. Augustine's musings on time are fascinating, and are to be found in his ~Confessions~ which here in the UK can be bought as a Penguin Classic. He really gets himself tied up in knots over it - great fun! Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 19:29:39 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Hierarchies In message theos-l@vnet.net writes: > > >Hierarchies bother me. > Liesel, > > That is so true, the obsessive spiritual checking that we do only > proves that we are not as advanced as we thought. I see > Hieracrchy as an immature and egocentric point of view. I am > sure that the more advanced being becomes the less time you have > for grading yourself spiritually. In the best of the traditions > that I have studied, there was always a push toward > "self-transcendance" I like to call it ego transcendance. Part > of trying to figure out where we are on the path is our > insecurity the feeling that we are not accepted whatever > condition we are in. We are so judgemental that we need to be at > some place before we can self affirm our little existence. It is > like the Christian who never thinks he or she is "saved" and > needs to be born again. It is the same in Judaism with those who > are under the burden of the Torah, or in Buddhist thinking there > are those who become spiritual technicians to move beyond > themselves to acheive greater heights of enlightenment. In all > the traditions it is compassion, love, acceptance and the joy of > discovery and the passion of life that is emphaized. Amen, Amen, Amen. Thanks for a breath of common sense! And carry on getting better - I hope to read more posting of yours! Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 19:30:30 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Humility I would tell you all just how insignificant and humble I really am, but modesty prevents me .... Love and Peace Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 19:31:35 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Re: Kabbalah Study Having given the matter some thought, I will post the chapter(s) of my "Keys to Kabbalah" to John Mead for the Archive as and when seems appropriate. Chapter One has already been sent, and John will certainly place it there. I don't really see it as material to post to any specific list, as too many people might receive it who have no interest at all in such an approach. The original idea was for study coure(s) by *e-mail* not by list postings. I have already sent material to two people this way, and will do likewise for anyone who e-mails me personally (see sig) for the same. What anyone makes of what they receive is up to them. If they wish to pursue it further, I will respond by e-mail to e-mail received. This will, if it takes off, then work like any other correspondence course, but won't cost so much :-). Students (or other co-workers) will get replies appropriate to individual needs and/or interests. Anyone who wants to sample the offering(s) without feeling obliged to commit themselves to study can go the archive for it. There are a couple of WWW pages with Theosophical material in their directories, into which the material could also go, but I do not have the URL's to hand, and they are not my pages! I am suggesting this approach for several reasons: 1. I am not looking for proselytes or "followers" [yuk]. 2. I want to help only those who find this particular path of value without boring those who do not. 3. I do not want to get into debates and/or arguments over the small print - done it, read and wrote the book, got the T-shirt, etc., etc. Kabbalah is about Life, not theories. So - if you are interested, go to the archive or e-mail me direct! Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 22:22:56 -0500 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Kabbalah Extracted from "The Keys to Kabbalah" by Alan Bain: When, in due time, we have used the tools and completed the building of the "Temple not made with hands," we put the tools aside. This work is not a game to be played, and although "magical" symbolism is employed [for example] by the Tarot, any ideas we might get that we are in any way some sort of "magicians" with "special powers" belong to the comic books and science fiction or fantasy movies, not real life. Real life is much more clever than that, as we shall discover with some trepidation if we take our work seriously. - Just a short posting for information. Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 00:06:34 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Study Group to: Lee Moffit Some of my best friends are men, too. liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 00:41:53 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Newsweek's book review on... yippeee! Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 01:00:08 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Identity Crises Dear Keith, Liesel is a German womans' name. I was in the Boy Scouts because I have 2 sons. I was Assistant District Commisioner, in charge of Cub Scout Round Tables. No identity crisis. Alan Bain was kidding around, so I did too. Re the "Mahatma Letters" I'm not for fooling around with all the folderol about precipitating letters & tea cups. Phenomena aren't the basis of Theosophy. What I have in mind, & I'm sure Paul Gillingwater, & Murray do too, is to take the important letters which teach Theosophy - Buddhism. We'd have to pick & choose, but there's a lot to be learned, if you look at the right letters. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 01:52:19 -0500 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: Re: Identity Crises LieselFD@aol.com writes: > Re the "Mahatma Letters" > I'm not for fooling around with all the folderol about > precipitating letters & tea cups. Phenomena aren't the basis of > Theosophy. What I have in mind, & I'm sure Paul Gillingwater, & > Murray do too, is to take the important letters which teach > Theosophy - Buddhism. We'd have to pick & choose, but there's a > lot to be learned, if you look at the right letters. Thanks Liesel, yes, you're right -- I'm not interested in the phenomenal aspect of the letters themselves, or all the occult goings-on that occured last century. What's important to me is the teachings. I was privileged two years ago to visit the British Library with Astrea, and to handle and read carefully the original letters for several hours. As far as I'm concerned, they're genuine, so I'm not particularly interested in getting into a debate about fraudulent production or forgery. To me, HPB's masters were real men, as evidenced by many contemporary accounts (impossible for HPB to have fabricated them all.) Re: Buddhism. Yes, KH makes the point that the heart of their doctrines is Buddhist, but with some significant differences from the exoteric schools, and with a healthy dose of Advaiti (non-dualist) philosophy. It's possible that the ideas of rounds and chains might be too difficult to discuss in detail on the THEOS-L list, but there are plenty of other statements and hints which in my opinion have startling implications. Another aspect I consider useful to consider are some of the flashes of humor which shine through in the letters, and the personal criticism directed at Hume, Home and other contemporaries. We have to remember these letters were originally written as private communications to Sinnet, and are as close to source material as theosophists can get, in my opinion, apart from HPB's own collaborative writings. cheers Paul Gillingwater From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 06:26:57 -0500 From: Robert Cain Subject: Re: Re: Kabbalah Study I would like to receive and take part in your study group. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 09:18:30 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Identity Crises I can solve at least one! Just call me Paul. It's my middle name but I've always gone by it. Problem is, another BIG author got it first-- British historian and conservative thinker. So for literary purposes I have to use my first initial which stands for Kenneth which I never use. Cheers From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 09:40:35 -0500 From: Arthur_PattersonA@mbnet.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: Identity Crises >I can solve at least one! Just call me Paul. It's my middle >name but I've always gone by it. Problem is, another BIG >author got it first-- British historian and conservative >thinker. So for literary purposes I have to use my first >initial which stands for Kenneth which I never use. > >Cheers Paul, Well, that's my middle name too. It means "little one" and if you saw me you would wonder what joke my parents were trying to make. Arthur is my first name which means "king of the bruins" or the King of the bears. I started using the name after a great mid-life initiation I receive several years ago - my life had so changed that I decided I may as well reflect that in my name, especially my writing name. None of my land based friends here call me Art but thats ok I am equally comfortable with both names. Just and indulgent personal note but I thought it interesting that we share our second name and we have always gone by it. Arthur "Paul" Patterson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 11:24:57 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: study group. In support of Liesel's point about hierarchies: The problem with the way we think of hierarchies is that it's so linear and two-dimensional. Like point a has to be either higher or lower than point b, and that defining its position in this way is comprehensively meaningful. In fact, from studying astrology I can agree with the idea of all people being expressions of hierarchical energies-- represented by the planets-- but since we're composite beings it doesn't make sense to see humanity itself as hierarchical. Or rather, it makes too much sense in the wrong kinds of ways. For example, there's no way you can say that the highest possible Pisces Sun person is "higher" than the highest possible Aries. They are "up" in different dimensions. That's a gross oversimplification because no two charts are alike so even Sun signs aren't categories in which there are linear hierarchies of good and bad. Would like to go further with this theme if others (Keith?) are interested in it. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 11:26:43 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Identity Crises Hi Art-- I have wondered if I could, like you, give up "Paul" at mid-life and start being "Ken." Kenneth means handsome so my full name is John's handsome little son. There was a rapist/murderer in Norfolk named Paul Patterson back in the 60s, BTW and apropos of nothing. Glad to see you back on the net, and hoping you're on the mend. Cheers Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 12:17:28 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: Archives update; Kabbalah essay by A.M.Bain The theos-l archives (and ftp site) now contain the essay "The Keys to Kabbalah Part One" by A.M.Bain the file name is Kabbalah01.txt, and can be received by e-mail by sending the command to Listserv@vnet.net get theos-l kabbalah01.txt for ftp access, connect to vnet.net (as anonymous or ftp) and get the file pub/theos-l/kabbalah01.txt peace - john mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 12:22:09 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: NYTBR 2/26 According to Astrea: > Paul Johnson, > > Could you give me the full reference of your book ie publisher, > ISBN etc, and I might try to find a copy, or order it. (Might > not be easy in Vienna.) You've probably done this already on the > list, but if you have, I missed it. THE MASTERS REVEALED: Madame Blavatsky and the Myth of the Great White Lodge. SUNY Press, $16.95 paperback, ISBN 0-7914-2064-7; $49.95 hardcover, ISBN 0-7914-2063-9. The European distributor for SUNY Press (State University of New York, FYI) is University Presses Marketing, c/o Neville Gosling, The Old Mill, Mill St., Wantage, Oxon OX12 9AB, ENGLAND. Phone: (44)23-576-6662; Fax (44)23-576-6545. Hope this helps. Thanks for asking. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 12:23:51 -0500 From: euser Subject: Re: Kabbalah Study Dr. Bain, Here's another interested student in Kabalah. Martin From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 12:25:09 -0500 From: euser Subject: To Paul Gillingwater from Martin Hi Paul, Interesting idea about initiation! A close parallel can be found in a Rosicrucean idea about 'weaving the bridal gown of Christ' by initiated diciples (of Rosecrucian School). BTW, did you receive my E-mail to your Austria-account sent you a couple of weeks ago? Martin From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 12:43:55 -0500 From: Arthur_PattersonA@mbnet.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: Identity Crises > There was a >rapist/murderer in Norfolk named Paul Patterson back in the >60s, BTW and apropos of nothing. Thanks alot Paul. For your encouragement about mending. I think given your above reference I had better stick with Arthur, eh? That was hilarious, Ken. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 14:32:39 -0500 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: Identity Crises Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> writes: > I was trying to sit back and learn why I was so negative about > the "Mahatma Letters", their percipitation of letters and all the > hocus-pocus that surroun them. l think, part of it is a desire > to be a devil's advocate, in some way. Hang in there, and try to keep an open mind! No one should ask you to have faith in something you consider to be incorrect or without foundation. Credulity is worse than skepticism. By the same token, be aware that you don't know everything. > Many people turn away from theosophy BECAUSE of the percipitated > letters and teacups and various bric-a-brac. That's their prerogative. (It's a splendid tea-cup, by the way :) And the letters make interesting reading. > Someone wrote that if the Masters don't exist then "The Secret > Doctive" is a fraud. Why? BIG, BIG WHY? "The Secret Doctrine" > (IMHO) stands are falls on its own merits and does not need the > Master of the leaves of Kiu-Ti (spelling to back it up. You might be referring to my post, although this isn't exactly what I said. I think it would be a mistake to take the Secret Doctrine out of context. You need to look at HPB, her motivations, and contemporary developments to understand what the TS is about, in my opinion. There is extensive TS literature on the existence of the Masters, and even suggesting that they provided a lot of the information in the SD. HBP was adament on this point. If she would lie about this fundamental fact, she would lie about other things in the Secret Doctrine. The same goes for Olcott, Besant and others. If you don't want to understand the theosophical movement as a whole, and prefer to concentrate soley on the SD, that's fine. But me, I like to know my sources. If I was going to have surgery, I would like a qualified doctor to carry it out. If I am going to study cosmogenesis, I would like a qualified adept/seer to teach me - not some day-dreaming bozo. This is theosophical fundamentalism and is doing more to hold > back theosophy in the largerst since as in the totality of the > Ancient Wisdom and is doing very little to bolster the T.S. as > an organization (IMHO) How do you define fundamentalism? Why should we bolster the organization? > So, I personally, have been suffering an identity crisis in that > I decided no to post until I could post something positive. Yeah, who are you, after all? I think that the Masters have > lot more to do with DIVINE PRINCIPLES than quasi-historical > quasi-human being Divine principles we all have, but aren't all so hot at manifesting. > The Masters have been talked about in terms of the 7 rays and 7 > levels. I th this may be more productive to an understanding in > our psychological and phenomenological age. This of course will > be surpassed as we evolve. This might prove an interesting topic for discussion. THe 7 Rays have been pretty neglected lately, because of a rash of assigning Rays to people a few years back. But I think its pretty interesting. The id > that the Masters spoke to Sinnett and HPB but the age of miracles > is past so So called "miracles" still happen! > have to spend our time looking backward to the thesophical > scriptures of the late 19th century, the way fundamentalist > Christians look to the Bible only a Islam to the Koran, strikes > me as unhealthy. We could abandon all texts, and seek the fast track to enlightenment. Maybe some Tantric sex might raise the kundalini, without having to read a word! (I shouldn't get too sarcastic, I suppose - but actually this is an option.) > Of course I am in no position to judge "The Mahatma Letters" and > I was not trying to. I was "judging" the dependence on them as > the justification of th T.S. etc. The ML are no justification for the TS. They were originally private correspondence. But they do provide interesting study. ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 14:36:44 -0500 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: study group. LieselFD@aol.com writes: > To me, the Solar Logos is part of this, it's "The One ... > limited in scope, to this solar system (with all its hidden > globes.)" There must be some Logos who dreamt up the rest of this > universe, including the solar system, & some of whose dreams > might still be unmanifest. Personally, I find it difficult to think beyond this solar system. It seems clear that the Solar Logos provides us on this planet with our life force, and everything that implies. But certainly the same laws e.g. gravity, geometry... are applicable in this galaxy and beyond, which suggests there is an ordering principle which goes beyond the Solar Logos. The question is: does the Law have a consciousness? > Hierarchies bother me. Why? Nature functions in a hierarchy all the time. It's only human beings who imply moral worth to position in a hierachy. It is my opinion that we are inherently equal, even if we are different and occupy different positions in the scheme of things. As for an occult hierarchy - yes, I believe this exists. Ignoring or denying it won't make it go away. > planetary spirits, & dhyani chohans and The Manu. They don't sit > well with me, because it reminds me of human beings trying to > figure out how far along the Path they are. I can't tell how far > along I am, & I'm not sure anyone else can. That's true, some people like to speculate where they and others are on the ladder of evolution. These speculations tend to lead to inflation of the ego, and perhaps cause some to lose their proper perspective. We have some of this in TS history, which is probably why the subject is now taboo. It's probably better to get on with business, and leave the grading to those who know best how to do it. However, my feeling is that planetary spirits, dhyani chohans and Manus exist, but on a level where its unlikely that we will make their acquaintance personally. Namaste ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 15:30:40 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Gender & Science I just read an interesting book by Evelyn Fox Keller called Reflections of Gender and Science (Yale University Press, 1985). She makes a very convincing case for gender differences in the scientific community stemming from the very inception of modern science. For example, she says that the pioneers of modern science (she references Francis Bacon a lot) equated masculinity with mind and reason, and femininity with feelings and emotions. This lead to the natural fallout of science=male while nature=female. She asserts that the main theme (should I say thrust?) of science over nature that has developed through the last several centuries, but especially in this one, is really one of male domination of the female. She also accuses early scientists of downgrading alchemy, not on any real scientific grounds, but rather because alchemy taught (and still teaches) the equality of the sexes. She argues that both the Church and science have contributed to the dominance of men over women - possibly unconsciously but there nonetheless. What does this have to do with theosophy? Well, I think we all know that theosophy is attempting to unite science with religion and philosophy. HPB included the science of her day in her teachings. We all try to see how recent scientific developments and insights fit' into the theosophical milieu. Many of us (and I include myself here) are scientists to boot. Could the rejection of the theosophical movement by the scientific community stem, at least in part, from the fact that theosophy teaches sexual equality? Its certainly food for thought. With more and more women entering the scientific disciplines today, hopefully this trend will be reversed. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 15:51:18 -0500 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: Re: To Paul Gillingwater from Martin euser writes: > Interesting idea about initiation! It appeals to my sense of order. I like the idea of co-creation -- since we are all gods in the making, why not start at some point on actually helping to manifest reality? And linking each new illumined One with a new flower is poetically true, if not literally. > BTW, did you receive my E-mail to your Austria-account > sent you a couple of weeks ago? Ummm... sorry, I don't recall receiving that. Paul Gillingwater From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 16:11:29 -0500 From: uscap9m9@ibmmail.com Subject: The ML -- Eldon Tucker Regarding Paul Gillingwater's suggesting that we study "The Mahatma Letters", I'd agree that it's a good idea. It's a basic text that is accepted in principle by all the various theosophical groups, and full of good material to ponder. The material is given special status because of a general agreement among the groups--though not by all their members!-- that they were the direct writings of Mahatmas. The pheonomenal way in which they were produced adds nothing to their value. We don't need an electronic text to study them, just an agreement to look at and comment on portions of the book at the same time. A good approach is chronological, following the order of Vic's new edition of the book. For those of us with older editions, we can still follow along. Just say we're reading letter X, Y, Z, this week, regardless of the pages they follow on... From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 16:30:12 -0500 From: naftaly@mdd.comm.mot.com (Naftaly Ramramkar) Subject: Re: The ML Hi everyone, suggestion: Try to buy or use the new version called in chronological sequence. This one is easier to read and follow. It is available from Wheaton Cheers Naftaly From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 16:31:08 -0500 From: uscap9m9@ibmmail.com Subject: Spanish List -- Eldon Tucker I met Martin Leiderman at Krotona last Saturday during a program put on by John Algeo on HPB's Messages to Conventions. He's a member of the Spanish Lodge in Los Angeles, and has several decades of theosophical study and lecturing experience. He's interested in our lists, and hopefully will soon join us. He would be willing to help support a new theos- list for the Spanish language, if John Mead permits. If anyone wants to write him an encouraging word, I understand that his email address is: MartinLei@eworld.com (Note I've sent him a 'hello' message but haven't confirmed the address yet via a reply from him.) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 13:49:12 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Identity Crises OK, Paul G. let me ask you whether this is a good starting place. I was going to take 2 sections of letter X "The Universal Mind" and "Our Ideas on Evil", when we get an ok to do it. Can you put on others that are thought provoking. I happen to have heard of Letter X before, so I looked it up. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 13:53:25 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Identity Crises Paul G. I was thinking that an account of your & Astrea's visit 2 years ago to the British Museum to see the "Mahatma Letters" would be a nice lead in. Could you write it up for us? Please. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 13:54:39 -0500 From: ddd@hss.caltech.edu (Doreen Domb) Subject: INQUIRY Liesel wrote earlier today: "...back in the 1920ies Jewish Theosophists had a convention. Goodness knows what I did with the pamphlet I had describing it." Anyone out there who has any info or leads on this, I would love to hear - PLEASE! THANKS - Doreen Domb From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 13:56:08 -0500 From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@compuserve.com> Subject: Masters and Hierarchies Thanks Liesel for sharing your story of how you got to the path. Whether you see it as evidence of an intelligence that guided you is not clear, although you say you have the feeling at times of being guided by something in the right direction. For me the synchonicities abound and have changed me over the years from a cynical business type who would have none of this, to one who is open to the concept of guiding intelligence that comes to our aid when we ask for it. If one wants to call this intelligence Masters does not seem terribly important, except that they, in hierarchical order, represent a kind of road map. We could just as easily call this intelligence: my deva or my ku or my guardian angel. And studying about them is not the same as trodding the path, it is more like examining the map. It seems to be that it is in trodding the path, that we actually encounter the Masters (or whatever name we cloose to call them). Here is a story of help from "above" not given to a person, but to a group. In this case the Miami, Florida branch of the Theosophical Society in America. Those of us who lived through the past 2 years of experience at the branch are hard pressed not to acknowledge some kind of help. The branch had fallen on difficult times over the years, principally because the location of the meeting hall was in a Miami neighborhood that, over a 30 year period, had turned into a slum. Membership had fallen to a low of 28 in the spring of 1993 when the then president, announced her departure from Florida to California, consequently having to resign the presidency. The treasury had been depleted over several years as one effort after another to revive the branch failed, and there was very little money left with which to run the branch or to finance a move. The other 6 officers were dejected and wanted to quit. But we decided to try once more, agreeing that we would not reopen the branch at the then location in Miami in the autumn of 1993. We would either move somehow, or pack it in. No sooner was the decision made to somehow move, than things began to happen. A friend of the TS who was not a member, located a retail store building in a shopping center, in Deerfield Beach, a prosperous suburb of Miami. It was a well lighted location with plenty of parking. He contracted with the seller to buy the building, putting up a substantial deposit, and gave our TS branch a 6 month option to buy it from him. Meanwhile, we could rent it for 6 months, while trying to sell the old branch building in the Miami slum. This was a great opportunity, but why did this fellow enter into such a transaction? We decided to take a chance. We did not have a really good business plan because there was no way to know when or if we could sell the old branch building. We just gambled that somehow things would work out. So we closed the old branch building, putting it up for sale, and moved to the new location. We opened a Quest bookstore, began offering a number of study groups, and people began to come, and they began to join the T.S. Our moribund branch began to grow again. Old members were reinspired and we began to attract new members. (The branch as of now has 110 members and continues to grow.) Meanwhile the summer of 1993 rolled into autumn, and our 6 month option was gradually coming to a close. There had been no viable offers on our old building. Across the street from it was a Catholic High School, and we had approached them as possible buyers, but they seemed uninterested. We were getting very nervous as our option was running out. Then, suddenly in November 1993 with barely a month remaining on our option to buy the new building, the Archdiocese of Miami made us a viable offer to purchase the old building. When we saw the Archbishop's signature on the offer to purchase, we just knew that we were getting help. We closed the transaction to sell the old building within 2 weeks of the required closing date to buy the new building. The cash received from othe sale of the old building was used to close the purchase of the new building. If this had not happened, if the Roman Catholic Church had not come along to buy our old building and just in time, I don't know what would have happened, but the odds were very high that it would have been the end of the Miami branch that had been founded in 1919. There are those who will say that what happened to our branch was the result of just plain hard work or dumb luck. Certainly the Church got a property for its money, and at a fair price, but there were no other viable buyers. Why did they buy it just in time, so that our branch could continue? Some of us close to the transaction are convinced that we got help, just the help we needed, and just in time. Some of us would call it a "miracle." Is this the same kind of "miracle" as the manifesting of tea cups or the precipitation of writing? It seems to me to be a more important kind of "miracle". So, to those who seem to have doubts about the reality of the Masters as a guiding intelligence for us, I suggest that it is worthwhile pay close attention to the synchronicities in your own life, and that abound throughout life. Sometimes they are not as dramatic as a book falling off a shelf and hitting you on the head. Often, it is someone who comes into our life at just the right moment and lends us a book. But we have likely made the first effort. We are open to read that book, or we are looking for some new avenue of study, or in the case of our TS branch, we made the effort to finally move it. I wonder if anyone else has any stories like this to share? Sy Ginsburg From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 13:57:15 -0500 From: John Tullis Subject: > Hierarchies bother me. I know Theosophists talk about t that > here are planetary spirits, & dhyani chohans and The Manu. They > don't sit well with me, because it reminds me of human beings > trying to figure out how far along the Path they are. I can't > tell how far along I am, & I'm not sure anyone else can. I > wonder whether you or anyone on this list has any thoughts about > that. > >Namaste > >Liesel Interesting the modern corporations are going to a more networked rather than a hierarchical approach for organization. Hierarchies were a human social construction for centuries - networked organizations, "virtual corporations", etc. seem to be a new thing for human societies (at least to the extent that is now occuring). Perhaps the early Theosophists perceived the "spiritual" world in that fashion because that is how they conceived of it - people do tend to filter their views of reality based on their understanding. - John Tullis - From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 13:58:35 -0500 From: uscap9m9@ibmmail.com Subject: The Adyar Mission Statement -- Eldon Tucker On Saturday I heard John Algeo talk about Theosophy and the Theosophical Society. His program at Krotona, in Ojai, was on HPB's Letters to Conventions. Following is my impression of what he said. It's not necessarily my views or approach, but I think it shows a good picture of the direction of the Adyar T.S. in America. The Adyar Mission Statement: Theosophy is not its tenants, but justice balanced by kindness with concern for others. The actual tenants come in as many flavors as ice cream, and a preference is based upon individual taste. The ideas in a general sense have affected western thought, to the point that they have entered the main stream. Our numbers are limited because we use the word "Theosophy," that is associated with a cult in the public mind. It is really the opposite, for in a cult the members subordinate their judgments to that of the leader. In our studies, the process is more important than the content. The decision we make is not as critical as how we arrived at it. People benefit from our branches for many reasons. They gain much more from making personal contacts with fellow seekers, than they do from the specific doctrines they are taught. The T.S. was not founded as a factory for producing adepts, but rather for the fellowship of common folk. Our greatest good is in helping others. This is summarized in two terms. First is altruism, where our primary concern is with the well being of others. Second is benevolence, where we have general good will for other living creatures. ---- On another note, John Algeo mentioned the theosophical CD- ROM. The Letters of HPB are being worked on, and will come out in three volumes. The TSA will do HPB on a CD-ROM after they are done. The preliminary text of volume one will be in Wheaton in one month, and will require much additional work before it is done; the other two volumes are later down the road. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 14:02:14 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: small talk ART P. said: "We need to be at some place before we can self affirm our little existence." You're right, we just need to"be", which we do anyway. I have to remember that. I don't always. I sometimes try to affirm where I'm at, & try to shift myself to some better where I'm at. I'll have to remember just to "be". That's much more comfortable. PAUL G. I'll toss you re who's more insignificant. (but actually, that depends upon what mood I'm in. I'm not always in an insignificant -being mood, are you?) MARTIN E. I gave Dick Slusser your message. He'll be in touch re Project Outreach. ALAN BAIN Thank you for the posies old bean, Bain. ASTREA Where in the ML is the exposition of the 7 rays? We could post that next. (That's already the 3rd post) Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 17:01:07 -0500 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: small talk LieselFD@aol.com writes: > ASTREA > Where in the ML is the exposition of the 7 rays? We could post > that next. (That's already the 3rd post) I'm not sure it's in the ML at all. But I think there is some reference to it in the SD. I am ready to sit corrected if anyone else can find it in the ML. ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 17:20:21 -0500 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: Masters and Hierarchies Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@compuserve.com> writes: > I wonder if anyone else has any stories like this to share? > > Sy Ginsburg (True story) I was on mission in Outer Mongolia, and in the first week started to feel quite depressed. Physical conditions were difficult there, but it wasn't so much that. During the Stalinist purges a large proportion of the male population (especially the Buddhist monks) had been executed and buried in mass graves. (Can't recall how many now. It might be as many as 50% of the adult men.) Also, as you know, this was the homeland of Ghengis Khan who led "the Golden Horde" to destroy much of the developing civilization across Europe and Asia. All this had affected the psychic atmosphere, and it seemed very much a place of desolation where terrible things had happened. I started to feel I couldn't cope with it. Then one night over dinner, I found a scrap of paper next to my place. On it had been written the word "Humanity." Instead of a normal "t" a cross had been drawn (as in a Christian cross.) In an instant, this communicated to me the idea of suffering humanity, as if impaled on the cross of matter or circumstance, or the divinity within humanity somehow crucified. (Even though I'm not Christian. ) In that moment, I had a change of attitude, and was able to complete my work there, satisfactorily, I hope. (Later, I also dreamed that a priest sealed my higher chrakras so I didn't sense the horror as much - which definately helped as well.) It could have been coincidence, but it meant a lot to me. ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 19:21:39 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: God Paul Gillingwater: "Does God exist? According to ML, most assuredly not." I think that the answer to this one depends on how we define God. HPB was not an atheist, and neither am I. Mary Baker Eddy, founder of Christian Science, taught that God is Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Principle, and Spirit. While I am no longer a Christian Scientist, I still agree with her definition of God. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 19:59:20 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: small talk This ML project sounds great to me. I wonder if it would work for each participant to pick a letter that is especially meaningful to him/her and then for us to discuss them in chronological order? Just a thought. Re the MLs and the 7 rays. The idea of rays isn't there, but the basic sevenfold system is: "The degrees of an adept's initiation mark the seven stages at which he discovers the secret of the sevenfold principles in nature and man and awakens his dormant powers." This is on page 99 of the TUP edition. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 20:35:36 -0500 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"@vnet.net Subject: God in the Mahatma Letters > > Paul Gillingwater: "Does God exist? According to ML, most > > assuredly not." > > Jerry S: I think that the answer to this one depends on how we > define God. HPB was not an atheist, and neither am I. Mary > Baker Eddy, founder of Christian Science, taught that God is > Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Principle, and Spirit. While I am > no longer a Christian Scientist, I still agree with her > definition of God. A nice definition, or pointer, indeed. And yes, it all depends on what definition or concept we have. In the so-called 1900 letter which is usually regarded as one of the letters from the Mahatmas, there's a relevant sentence: Let the devotion and service be to that Supreme Spirit alone of which one is a part. There was quite a bit of discussion of this letter on THEOS-L last October. The letter itself is quoted in the archive file TL9410.LOG part 1, and the discussion followed on for a while after that. The Mahatmas found it extraordinarily difficult, even with their talents, to find English words and phrases that could accurately convey their occult science, so I think we need to keep this in mind and use intuition to the maximum. That is why people like David Reigle are working on original Sanskrit and Tibetan texts, where the language is vastly richer for this sort of topic. My feeling about some of the early letters in the ML is that the Mahatmas were trying to point out how their philosophy differed from that which an educated Englishman of the day might hold. Almost to shock and challenge an entrenched mind-set, as a koan might do. I can imagine them rummaging around the mass of thought-forms and associations surrounding various words and thinking "No, that won't do, that won't do.", one after the other. The word "God" in those days would have been laden with connotations which would be incompatible with the views of the Mahatmas. More so than now, probably. On the other hand, the word God can quite appropriately be used to refer to a Solar Logos or, more comprehensively, the cosmic Ishvara - That which has emerged from the Unmanifest as the primary and all-inclusive creative energy/being/etc, call it what you will. By the way, since there are galaxies, and great groups of galaxies, we can suppose there is a super-Logos of a galaxy, and a mega-super-Logos of a galactic group. The huge black hole thought to be at the centre of each galaxy could be the physical focus of such a being. Real speculative stuff, but it's just applying "As above, so below." Murray Stentiford murray@sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 20:55:16 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: "Help from ..." One time I was anxious to get a book giving the history of the Old Catholic Church in Holland. I had never seen one anywhere. I was passing a local bookshop, rarely used, when my legs turned left, took me upstairs, over to the right shelf. My eyes saw THE book, which I bought. I have still never seen another copy! A second time I was researching Christian origins for my Essay "The Nazarenes" and needed scarce o/p books mostly on the Dead Sea Scrolls. All arribed by quite natural (?) means within _two weeks_. I think we _do_ get help - if we really _need_ it :-) Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 20:56:45 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: small talk Gee thanks. Posies are inexpensive, but they can lighten our lives a lot, no? Let's keep 'em coming! Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 21:15:58 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: No Subject Hi, John Tullis, Eactly what I had in back of my mind & didn't get out. Today there are corporate networks & virtual corporations, and "people do tend to filter their views of reality based on their understanding." Thanks Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 21:16:34 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: God in any letters In the Hebrew of the Old Testament (Exodus 6) "God" tells Moses "His" real name, the well-known tetragrammaton (yes, folks, "God," in Hebrew, is a four-letter word) rendered by modern theologians etc. as YHWH (formerly Jehovah). This "Name" is in fact an unusual rendering of the Hebrew verb, "To be" and can be translated (approx) as "That which is" or "Eternal Being." Many of the early Church Fathers were well aware of this (not knowing English) and used the "short version" in which they speak of "God" as "The Eternal." "God" or G_d if you are a 'Hasidic Jew, is thus not any kind of finite or individual intelligence, but the fact of Being per se. This, I am quite sure, is how the Mahatmas would have perceived it, but how to get it across to English Sinnets of the 19th century, who saw "God" as the mighty Jehovah, a kind of Grand Old Man in the sky with a long white beard, as portrayed by William Blake, perhaps? When they say there is no God, it is _this_ guy they are likely talking about. (If my posting cease, you will be able to guess Who done it) :-) Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 21:34:50 -0500 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"@vnet.net Subject: Re: RE: God in any letters Alan, I suggest you take a well-earthed lightning conductor around with you. M. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 22:47:37 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: To Sy, Re Devas Sy writes "whether you see it as evidence of an intelligence that guided you is not clear." It's not clear to me either. I thought about it another little while after I read your post, & I think the most accurate description of the way I feel about it is that I think there's something out there which I perceive according to my experience. I can tell you, though, that I've been helped telepathically several times, but I know exactly what human being helped me. It's also happened to me more than once that someone who helped me came along into my life at just the right moment. I'm as convinced as you are that sometimes there is something guiding me, but in spite of CWL's "Invisible Helpers" I'm not sure of what it is. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 23:42:17 -0500 From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: The Study of the Mahatma Letters The idea to study the Mahatma Letters is a great idea! In my opinion, the best edition to read and study is the new Chronological edition published by The Theosophical Publishing House, Phillipines. Copies of this new edition can be purchased from TPH, Wheaton, from Theosophical University Press and from Point Loma Publications. I believe all of these publishers are selling it for $28.00. I would urge all individuals on theos-l to obtain a copy. It is well worth the money. I would also invite everyone to read the MLs trying to forget everything you think you know about Theosophy. This can be a quite interesting experience if you try! 2 or 3 essential background books for the study of the MLs are: The Occult World by A.P. Sinnett Esoteric Buddhism by A.P. Sinnett and Isis Unveiled by H.P.B. There are other books which are essential for the understanding of the MLs but these three are very helpful. Concerning Letter No. 10 [the letter on God], I would like to suggest that one should also read Letter No. 22 and Letter No. 134 in conjunction with Letter No. 10. [Letter Numbers are to the first 3 editions of the MLs and not to the 4th edition (chronological); I am quoting from memory!] There are many books which would help one to understand what the Mahatma is getting at in these letters on God. One good source which most students of Theosophy are probably not aware of, is Arthur W. Osborn's Quest Book *The Cosmic Womb*. Mr. Osborn chapters on "What is Ultimate Reality?", "About the Word `God', "The Location of God", and "God and Evil" are a valuable commmentary on Letters 10, 22 and 134. Another good book that outlines the concept of "God" in the western sense is Dr. John Hick's *The Philosophy of Religion*. Concerning whether HPB was an atheist or not: I believe she would say that she was an A-theist, ie. NOT a theist but more a pan-theist if the word "pantheism" is understood in the proper context. Letters 10, 22 and 134 contain profound concepts but they need to be read and understood in the light of HPB's *Secret Doctrine* and other writings of HPB. Unfortunately, these 3 letters have been misunderstood by many Theosophists, including Dr. Hugh Shearman and even Colonel Henry Olcott! Also the letters need to be viewed within the context of mysticism, the Hindu doctrine of "Atman" and "Para-Brahman" and the Buddhists doctrines of "Nirvana" and "Sunyata", etc. In fact, a whole commentary should be written clarifying and elucidating Letters 10, 22, and 134. Mention by Master K.H. of Spinoza, Samuel Clarke and Baron d'Holbach provide additional clues to the greater understanding of these 3 letters. I have found that one needs to read and re-read and carefully study and meditate upon these letters and try to go beyond the mere words to the various realities pointed to by the Master. Also one should educate oneself about many of the names and subjects brought up in these letters. Far too many students of Theosophy try to fit what the Master says into their own a priori conceptions of things instead of trying to leave their prior "knowledge" and "beliefs" aside and attempting to really listen and view all of what the Mahatma says from a new "frame of reference." Enough! I think the suggestion to study the MLs on Theos-l is a great idea and I want to join in. How do we approach these "letters"? Daniel Daniel H. Caldwell