From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 01 Mar 1995 07:42:40 +1100 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: Re: God Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> writes: > Paul Gillingwater: "Does God exist? According to ML, most assuredly not." > HPB was not an atheist, and neither am I. Mary Baker Eddy, Hmmm... HPB certainly came close to that position, in my opinion. But she never denied that Spirit exists. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 08:54:58 -0800 From: ae677@lafn.org (Nancy Coker) Subject: Mastering Hierarchies MASTERING: I can't find and have not read Keith's original post on the Masters, but there were so many quotes from it, I can't help but chime in. We agree that the Spiritual Path is an inner one and this interiorization process naturally touches on the subject of privacy. Many times issues which some folks are comfortable discussing publicly, others feel are too private (too holy or too personal or a host of other too's) to discuss casually. For me, the subject of Masters is a sensitive one -- that is, I'm still coming to terms with my relationship to it. I'm still exploring the contours, the shapes, depths, and heights. This requires times of bright light, times of twilight, and times of no light, and I don't always care to have the process scrutinized/contaminated by the sometimes harsh light of other's opinions/prejudices. And so I sympathize with Keith's feelings. I dislike the wild eyed look I sometimes see when people profess their interest in the Masters. I am equally uncomfortable (defensive mostly) by the reaction of amused skeptics. My discomfort is a clue about where I need to continue working, and to that extent is a personal dilemma, but to the extent that others feel a similar discomfort, it may also be a group dilemma. Considering the heated reactions people in this group have had to postings on past leaders, I would say we indeed have a GROUP DILEMMA. HIERARCHIES: K. Paul -- Congratulations on your book review. And thanks too for your comment on hierarchies being more than a 2 dimensional concept. A point of view that enlarged my understanding was given by a friend who pointed out that the hierarchical nature of the Universe has a lot to do with increasing levels of responsibility. Does a baby or a kitty have the same responsibility as a mature adult? It is a much more humbling picture than imagining we have attained spiritual heights. Hugs Nancy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 12:21:36 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Mastering Hierarchies Dear Nancy-- I am writing via the list so as to spread the word. Monday night I talked with John Shafer and we agreed on a date for my talk-- the evening of Thursday April 20. I will fly in by Saturday, and might drive down should you all not be able to head north. How does your schedule look around then? FYI folks, this refers to a talk to the Oakland lodge. Topic will be The Masters Revealed. Regards Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 18:26:59 +0100 From: euser Subject: The initiate and co-creation About the initiate and the flower: we know from the SD2 that plants are the offspring of early humanity. So are the animals. I don't recall reading whether this process is finished or is still going on. Your thoughts 'precipitated' the following meditation on initiation: The weaver (neophyte) uses the spool (manas) for weaving threads of Buddhic Light as a weft through the warp (the aspirations of seekers, whose minds are touched by the thoughts of the neophyte/initiate), building a collective form of splendour, enabling the Hierarchy of Compassion to project a ray of Divine consciousness on earth (in the Akash). Co-creation so to speak! This, in my humble opinion, could be one of the mysteries of buddhi that HPB speakes about in the Key to Theosophy. Remember HPB speaking in the SD that the spiritual seeker aspiring initiation must at least have illumined a part of humanity to some degree? Isn't this what we are trying to accomplish? Friendly Yours, Martin From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 01 Mar 1995 20:07:22 +1100 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: God Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> writes: > 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. The Judeao-christian conception of God appears to favour the creation of the world out of nothing by a single creator. In the Buddhist world view (correct me if I'm wrong) the universe has always existed, but there is a kind of ultimate reality or consciousness we can attain to. Certainly we can subscribe to a kind of Absolute Spirit, but this is not God in the generally accepted sense in a Christian society. I think this is probably what KH meant when he said there is no God. He went on to laugh at this rather primative notion of a father-figure picking His teeth with a lightening bolt. ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 01 Mar 1995 20:23:02 +1100 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: small talk "K. Paul Johnson" writes: > 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. I have a favourite letter, but I always have trouble finding it! > > 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. Fascinating. ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 01 Mar 1995 19:14:08 GMT From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: RE: God in any letters In message <01HNMK6M7JKY8WW2KL@SSSAK1.SSS.CO.NZ> theos-l@vnet.net writes: > Alan, > > I suggest you take a well-earthed lightning conductor around > with you. > > M. Have insulation, will travel . . . A. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Mar 1995 10:16:14 EST From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Telepathy I have seen several references to telepathy lately and would like to add my own thought. I strongly believe that the unconscious parts of our psyches are in constant telepathic communication. I can't say it any better than Jung, who wrote: "But in the deeper layers of the psyche which we call the unconscious there are things that cast doubt on the indispensible categories of our conscious world, namely time and space. The existence of telepathy in time and space is still denied only by positive ignoramuses. It is clear that timeless and spaceless perceptions are possible only because the perceiving psyche is similarly constituted." (C.G. Jung, LETTERS, Vol I, p 117f) Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 10:31:37 -0600 From: Arthur_PattersonA@mbnet.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Emerson: A Theosophist? Along with plodding through HPB biography, which is excellent in my estimate, I have been reading some of the writings in Ralph Waldo Emerson which I can not help but think must be in the broad tradition of Theosophy. I am reading "Self-Reliance" right now - inspirational to be sure. What I want to know is whether Emerson has been evaluated from a Theosophic point of view I am familiar with and have read once the book Esoteric Emerson but I would like anyone on the list with a background in Emerson to tell me if he is in any formal manner a Theosophist. I know his dates are a bit early to be a member of any brance but his ideas are so close: Oversoul, reliance on experience, looking into the depth of creation, etc. Arthur Paul Patterson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 14:59:56 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Matthew C. Matthew-- I have your book signed and ready to go, but accidentally erased your addresses from my email. Please resend, with comments on recent Talisman exchanges if so inclined. Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 02 Mar 1995 17:14:46 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Telepathy In message <950302151613_76400.1474_FHA54-1@CompuServe.COM> theos-l@vnet.net writes: > I have seen several references to telepathy lately and would like > to add my own thought. I strongly believe that the unconscious > parts of our psyches are in constant telepathic communication. I > can't say it any better than Jung, who wrote: > Jerry S. I am pretty certain of this too, Jerry. One side effect of the medicine of Self-awareness is an increasing awareness of this very IMO fact, with a resulting increase in awareness of what a very unpleasant species we can be, and all too often are. I think this may be one of the reasons behind the traditional "awful warnings" attached to the study of "occult" or theosophical (in the non-intellectual sense) matters. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 20:41:36 -0500 From: Matthew_Cromer@mzdc.pdial.interpath.net (Matthew Zoe David Cromer) Subject: Re: Matthew C. >Matthew-- I =9D=9D=9D=9D your book signed and ready to go, but >accidentally erased your addresses from my email. Please resend, >with comments on recent Talisman exchanges if so inclined. > >Paul Well, I would say that the Baha'i treatment of minorities, in a hypothetical Baha'i world, has been pretty well established by what we've seen in an _actual_ Baha'i-dominated world--Talisman. I wish you wouldn't go--I enjoyed your comments there--but it seems that the level of discourse re: trying to be inclusive of unBaha'is has plummeted to near-zero. So I won't blame you for leaving. My Address is: Matthew Cromer 1501 Woodland Dr Durham, NC 27701 I hope to hear a lot from you on Usenet now that mailing lists are somewhat problematic. -- Matthew -- (Matthew_Cromer@mzdc.pdial.interpath.net) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 19:57:36 -0800 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Subject: Re: Emerson: A Theosophist? Arthur Patterson> What I want to know is whether Emerson has been evaluated from a Theosophic point of view I am familiar with and have read once the book Esoteric Emerson but I would like anyone on the list with a background in Emerson to tell me if he is in any formal manner a Theosophist. I have no background in Emerson, but do think of him as a theosophist. Do not know of his connection with the TS though. HPB wrote of him thusly: "Among those who come right under [Henry?] Vaughan's definition of *Theosophists*, Emerson stands conspicuous." Vaughan's definition is: "A Theosophist is one who gives you a theory of God or the works of God, which has not revelation, but an inspiration of his own for its basis." Nicholas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 00:26:05 -0600 From: Arthur_PattersonA@mbnet.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Off on the Weekend Thanks Nicholas for the tid bit on Emerson. I want to follow up my leads since I think Emerson is quite close to the thinking of many of the early theosophists. Beautifully written stuff. I will post on it sometime to get your impressions. Bev and I are going away this weekend to a cabin in Northern Manitoba Riding National Park. Need a rest, sauna whirlpool and lots of undisturbed reading and quite. So I will be not be on group just to let you know I haven't quite fallen off the end of the world. Hear from you on Monday or Tuesday, Art From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 03 Mar 1995 08:51:37 -0500 (EST) From: IXCHEL@delphi.com Subject: The name of God... Alan writes about the tetragrammaton: >(..."God," in Hebrew, is a four letter word) rendered >by 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." Jehovah was formerly Yehoshua. Yeh or Yah means _he_ or _his_. Hoshua means help. Thus...._His_ help. This is a completely different meaning, is it not? Sarah From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 03 Mar 1995 16:41:47 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: The name of God... In message <01HNOZ2IWJR696WYAK@delphi.com> theos-l@vnet.net writes: > Alan writes about the tetragrammaton: > > >(..."God," in Hebrew, is a four letter word) rendered > >by 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." > > Jehovah was formerly Yehoshua. Yeh or Yah means _he_ or > _his_. Hoshua means help. Thus...._His_ help. This is a > completely different meaning, is it not? > > Sarah Can you give source(s) for this? The Hebrew text is unambiguous so far as the "Name" is concerned - it is in Exodus Cap. 6 (first real appearance in the Bible) and is spelt YHWH - yod, he, vav, he. Elsewhere "God" is ALHIM in Hebrew, which is a feminine noun with a masculine plural. The same word is used for "gods" of any kind when spoken of in the plural; eg., Babylonian gods such as Astarte or Ishtar (Same lady). What _you say_ is a completely different meaning is clearly based upon your "Jehovah was formerly Yehoshua" claim, for which you offer no support . . . please clarify. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 15:37:52 PST From: naftaly@mdd.comm.mot.com (Naftaly Ramramkar) Subject: Re: The name of God... Hi everyone, The word YHEW comes from four Hebrew letters YOD, HE, VAV, HE The word Yehoshua Which is Joshua comes from four letters which are YOD, HE, SHIN, AYIN , as you see thay are totally different letters. Please refer to Gamatria for more explaination. The Hebrew word for LORD is ELOHIM, which is used in first five books of TORAH, IT is PLURAL. Please take into consideration that most of this is very symbolic and not literal. Also hebrew were very wise to reverse masculine with femine and future tense with past tense to confuse the many and hide the Wisdom from the eyes of profanes. The YHEW come much letter with prophets and with king David it signifies personal god and not the infinite, Please refer to Mahatma Letters, in one of the letters from Master Morya to Sinnet he nicely explains that YHEW is nothing but Planetary Spirit on the downward arc of evolution. We should not bring our religious projudeces in studying True Occultism, it will lead us no where. On the other hand meaning of the word Joshua as explained by Sarah is a true one but has no direct connection with YEHW. Have fun Naftaly.. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 15:39:45 -0800 From: ddd@hss.caltech.edu (Doreen Domb) Subject: Re: The name of God...Continued > Jehovah was formerly Yehoshua. Yeh or Yah means _he_ or > _his_. Hoshua means help. Thus...._His_ help. This is a > completely different meaning, is it not? >What _you say_ is a completely different meaning is clearly based >upon your "Jehovah was formerly Yehoshua" claim, for which you >offer no support . . . please clarify. Forgive me - I have no references with me and the little I add may not be relevant to the whole here, but Yehoshua is Hebrew for Joshua. Does the name "Joshua" figure in here somewhere or just an English translation & nothing more?! - Doreen From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Mar 1995 20:33:58 EST From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Emerson Thanks to Nicolas for the HPB quote about Ralph Waldo Emerson. In my view, his essays show him to be clearly a theosophist. Here is a historical sidelight some of you might find interesting. Mrs. Gertrude Emerson Sen (grand-daughter of Ralph Waldo Emerson) was also a theosophist (I cannot say if she belonged to an official organization). Maybe theosophy runs in some families. she married an Indian man, Bodhi Sen, a biologist, who worked and wrote about the consciousness of plants. She lived with him in Almora, a hill station in the Himalayan foothills, in India about 60 miles from the Nepal border. The two of them were close friends of Sri Krishna Prem (deceased) and Sri Madhava Ashish co-authors of the Stanza of Dzyan commentary books, Man, the Measure of All Things and Man, Son of Man, who maintain the Mirtola ashram near Almora, a Hindu temple of pilgramage for many Indian theosophists. Mrs. Sen wrote introductions to at least 2 theosophical books that I know of. She died about 10 years ago, in her nineties. I would be interested to know if any of you out there are familiar with the above 2 books (published by TPH) which are commentaries on the Stanzas of Dzyan and what your opinion is of them. They were the 2 books that gave me my start in theosophical inquiry. Sy Ginsburg From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 4 Mar 1995 09:01:03 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Emerson Dear Sy, I have a copy of those 2 books. Joy Mills refers to them quite often in her SD lectures, all of which I've heard on tape. I've looked through the books,. but they're on my list of those I want to study in more depth. If you began your study of Theosophy with them, you must've learned a lot of profound material right off the bat. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 04 Mar 1995 13:29:57 -0500 (EST) From: IXCHEL@delphi.com Subject: The name of God... To Alan, A few years back I took a Kabalah class. The teacher was Israeli and explained that the YHWH was rarely spoken, and the _yod, k, vav, k_ was purposely miss- spelled so as to protect it's powers in pronunciation from those with unacceptable intentions. He explained that the names of "God" were many. Each one relating to a different type of connection as it relates to a different level of consciousness. He explained that Hebrew is a Holy language and that each letter is the connecting vibration to an energy intelligence and is not considered to be just a symbol. The Yod is the 10th letter of the Hebrew alphabet and therefore re- presents the combination of all the 10 Sephiroth or energy centers. Here is where you get your meaning stated in a previuos post: "That which is", all of it. When I asked him the meaning of Yah in Hebrew he said it meant HE. This was the meaning given to me years prior by a private mentor who explained to me the meaning of the name Yehoshua. He spoke of a group of people called the Real Name Society in California. Many know of this name outside the society as well. This name is defined in the Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language. This is the College Edition and mine is a 1960 edition. Later editions do not have detailed in- formation. In my edition the word Yah is related to the name Yehoshua. You will find the definition I am referring to by look- ing up the word Jesus. The name Jesus, Jehovah, Yahweh and Yehoshua all point to the same source and are cor- ruptions of this source; the Tetragrammaton. As I stat- ed, the pronunciation of this word is highly guarded. This protective intent was sometimes purposefully mis- leading and has brought about the confusion over this name; at least in English. And so they are in essence the same in meaning, yet only one of the many names of "God." An interesting change in pronunciation occurred with the use of the letter J to replace the softer sounding Y used in the Hebrew language. I believe this relates to the Yod. Changes have occurred so much over time that most individuals are unaware of the fact that "Jesus" is a title, not a name. Many are also unaware that so much of what is found in the New Testament is none other than the deeper teachings of the Kabalah. For instance: Kabalah teaches, among other things, that humanity was born with the desire to RECEIVE. This desire must be transformed into the desire to receive in order to SHARE. The way to do this is to Love your fellow man. "Jesus" stated the same in his teachings by announcing that we should "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Being a (J)ew, I think it was possible that he was familiar with the Kabalistic teachings, even though he was under the age of 40. Of course, these are my humble opinions. And for the record I am not a Christian and not even a card car- rying Theosophist. I'm not a Buddhist, although Buddha taught the same compassionate message. Perhaps I've strayed from the main point, forgive me. Sarah From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Mar 1995 14:22:28 EST From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: guidance Although I've been a member for at least a month, I've been content to sit on the sidelines of cyberspace and listen to everyone else. Here's my first attempt at communicating. I truly enjoyed Sy Ginsberg's story about the revitalization of the Miami Branch and here's my stories of how I got where I am. When I was in college, I checked Thomas Sugrues' book, "There is a River: The Edgar Cayce Story", out of the public library. (No, it didn't fall off the shelf.) I thought it was interesting, but had no particular attraction to his concepts. Six months later, I read it again and it was like someone had turned on the lights. I've read recently that Cayce's philosophy is taken from the ancient Mystery Schools. On Christmas break, I took out six more Cayce books and read them all. In the fall of 1971, I noticed a poster at the UICC for the Liberal Catholic Church in Chicago. I became a member at that time and was married there in 1973. It was through my friends in the church that I became aware of TS, but never thought of becoming a member. In 1991, I kept getting these intuitional promptings in my meditations to "join up". So I got an application and sent it in. A few weeks later it was sent back to me. I had forgotten to sign it! As for Theos-L, I want to express my appreciation for all your thoughts and commentary on the electric net that binds us together. During the day, I am usually busy writing, and it is great to take a break, log on and read what you have to say. The Master discussion may be played out, but here's a final stab at it. I learned about the Masters when I was in my early twenties and I never found it to be a negative point. It might be difficult to make the TS into something that was more "popular", without losing what is valuable. After all, I don't think HPB would have approved of tearing down Quest Bookstore and putting up a MacDonald's. - Ann Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Mar 1995 14:33:55 EST From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: More on Identities Astrea said regarding my criticism of THE MAHATAMA LETTERS: "Yeah, who are you anyway?" Well who are the Mahatamas and who are any of us really? Isn't this the question we are all asking? Many like Liesel feel uncomfortable with heirarchies since they imply a better and a less better, so to speak. A network as a new paradigm may be similar to Indra's web where everything vibrates everything else and in the Buddhist sense (as I understand or misunderstand it) that the web is the great MU the nothing that is NOT Buddha-nature according to the Koan: Does a dog have Buddha nature? MU (no!) I think Nancy Cocker (welcome back Nancy, I don't remember reading your posts before. I just began in January) understands what I am trying to get at: Nancy writes: MASTERING: I can't find and have not read Keith's original post on the Masters, but there were so many quotes from it, I can't help but chime in. We agree that the Spiritual Path is an inner one and this interiorization process naturally touches on the subject of privacy. Many times issues which some folks are comfortable discussing publicly, others feel are too private (too holy or too personal or a host of other too's) to discuss casually. For me, the subject of Masters is a sensitive one -- that is, I'm still coming to terms with my relationship to it. I'm still exploring the contours, the shapes, depths, and heights. This requires times of bright light, times of twilight, and times of no light, and I don't always care to have the process scrutinized/contaminated by the sometimes harsh light of other's opinions/prejudices. And so I sympathize with Keith's feelings. I dislike the wild eyed look I sometimes see when people profess their interest in the Masters. I am equally uncomfortable (defensive mostly) by the reaction of amused skeptics. My discomfort is a clue about where I need to continue working, and to that extent is a personal dilemma, but to the extent that others feel a similar discomfort, it may also be a group dilemma. Considering the heated reactions people in this group have had to postings on past leaders, I would say we indeed have a GROUP DILEMMA. Keith: Thanks Nancy for this balanced analysis. Yes, the identity crises may be on a group level, indeed. How do we identify or approach the Masters as a group? My answer would be: with respect to all, that is to a new or unscholarly seeker, like myself, a healthy scepticism may be in order, to the advanced or devout student a respect for their acceptance of the Masters as presented in the Mahatma letters. It is a great idea to have a study group concerning the Mahatma letters here on theos-l. I could learn a lot and make a more informed opinion, as no doubt could we all. We should all be open-minded in the largest sense, that is perhaps the greatest tool of the person on the path along with discrimination, that much maligned term (IMHO). I picked up the ML just before I began posting. I was hoping to find a quote where it says that there is no evil. I thought this might be interesting along with the discussion regarding that there is no God. If there is no evil (ABSOLUTE EVIL) and no God (ABSOLUTE GOOD), well what is there :) ?? A lot of relative activity for sure, but not absolutes! This may beg the question. I'm still driving on the right hand side of the road, even now! :) But as I was looking I found a lot of references to the "people of the day" from scientists (now outdated) to lodge members and friends (unknown to me). This is not a criticism, just a fact. DOES AN EDITTED STUDY VERSION OF THE MAHATMA LETTERS EXIST?. Just a humble suggestion, but from laziness or whatever, I think an editted version would be better for study although purists would balk and I guess we would always debate about what might have been "left out", so forget that idea. More on the real subject of Masters: 1. advanced teachers exist (Jesus and Buddha, Plato, Plotinus, etc.) 2. advanced teachers may appear at anytime 3. advanced teachers appeared to HPB, Sinnet etc. 4. advanced teachers live today 5. we can become advanced teachers, if not in this lifetime, then in lifetimes to come (what makes an advanced teacher and how does one become one?) The above are hypotheses ONLY (and a queston) which I suggest we keep in mind if or when we study the Mahatma Letters. Namste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 04 Mar 1995 20:05:31 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: The name of God... To Sarah, Thank you for your prompt and detailed response. Oh dear. _yod, k, vav, k_ could spell all sorts of things. Is the _k_ a Chet, a Kaph, or a Qoph? All are sometimes transliterated as _k_ in English. THe ref I gave from Exodus 6 is (obviously :)) Biblical. Throughout Hebrew scripture this word is _always_ spelt YHWH - no hidden meaning anywhere, except in the very nature of the word itself. Devout Jews never pronounce it, and that includes Kabbalist Jews. The stricter 'Hasidim Kabbalists (I use 'H for Chet) would not teach anything to goyim (non-jews). Being Israeli may count for something, but I never heard this odd explanation in nigh on 40 years of study, which has necessarily involved contact with Jewish and Christian Kabbalists - in fact I have a copy of the 'Hasidic _Tanya_ which is a kind of holy study book for them, and includes the doctrines of the four worlds and ten sephiroth, etc., etc. They use the convention, even in English, of rendering the divine name as G_d. The way you tell it your teacher was into the "magical" aspect(s) of Kabbalah, although the idea of letters and sounds having special holy meaning is pretty ancient in eny event - viz., Hinud mantras. Here in England we do nit use Webster's dictionaries, but more often Chamber's or the Oxford Dictionary in all its forms. However, one of the best source books is the ~Hebrew and EnglishLexicon of the Old Testament~ edited by Brown, Driver and Briggs - a well know scholarly reference in theological and academic circles. I go to this, as the Hebrew language of true Kabbalah dates from O.T. times, and could even have originated in Egypt before the Exodus. I have come across the "Yehoshua" myth many times in my studies, but there is _no_ scholarly or Hebrew Kabbalist teaching which can be made to support this idea, which in essence tries to hook Jesus uo the the deity so that some sorts of Christian occultists can claim the "Jesus is Lord and God" idea as Kabbalistic. The name of Jesus probably originates in his Galiliean birth in Aramaic speaking Galilee, where a dialect form of Aramaic was the language of the day, as was a southern version of the language further south in Judea. Hebrew was not spoken at all, except perhaps among lawyers as a "legal" language, much as Latin is sometimes used in English law today. His name therefore derives from the Aramaic, not the Hebrew, though the fact is more or less academic, as in either language "Jesus" means "He saves." It is spelt, in either language _yod, shin, ayin_ and is pronounced in Aramaic, "Ishoo." We render the Hebrew ditto as "Joshua." But then we also call Jacob "James." :-). The name YHWH is frequently contracted to YH, and there is no way, except in human imagination, that the name of Jesus can legitimately be derived from it. YH is often rendered "Yah" in English. In Hebrew texts, the divine name is sometimes only implied b the use of the H alone, with // in front of it (to the right, as Hebrew is written right to left). The substitution of J for Y in English renderings of Hebrew is very old, and is to be found thus in the King James Version of the 16th century. This may be because in earlier centuries we had no letter J in English, only the letter I followed by K. Hence, in some inscriptions, INRI being used as shorthand for the words written above the cross of crucifixion, being Latin shorthand for I(esu) N(azarene) R(ex) I(udae). The English alphabet derives from Latin. You can say, if you like, that Jesus is a title, but you cannot say that it is not a name! Most names in antiquity were also titles, in that they were intended to be descriptive of the function attributed to that person. "Sitting Bull" is the title _and_ the name of a well-know N. American Indian - I got his picture on line from the Smithsonian :-). As it seems to be "long posting" time, when Jesus taught to love God and Neighbor etc., he was quoting directly from O.T. scripture, namely Deuteronomy and Leviticus, where these teachings first appear. Returning to the four-letter word, Brown, Driver and Briggs give: I. YHWH is . . . given Ex 3:12-15 as the name of the God whi revealed himself to Moses at Horeb, and is explained thus: ... "I shall be with thee" which is then implied in AHYH AShR AHYH "I shall be the one who will be it." It is noteworthy that this entry is placed not placed under a category of words beginning with Yod, but under Chet, as HWH is the three-letter Hebrew root from which YHWH is derived. HWH is a verb meaning "to become" - so G_d can be described as a state of [eternal] becoming. THis would fit the Kabbalist idea of creation by emanation - very much a theosophical concept in antiquity, just as it is now. I do agree that there are deeper "Kabbalist" teachings in the New Testament, for a Paul the Apostle tells us, he "sat at the feet of the rabbi Gamaliel," who is honored in at least one Kabbalist tradition as being in their "line of succession." There is more on this in my work, ~The Nazarenes~ which you should be able to download by ftp from the theos archive if John Mead has posted it there yet. If you did stray from the main point, that's fine by me - this is a discussion list, after all! Very besy wishes, Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 04 Mar 1995 23:47:03 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: guidance In message <950304192227_72723.2375_FHP33-1@CompuServe.COM> theos-l@vnet.net writes: > The Master discussion may be played out, but here's a final stab > at it. I learned about the Masters when I was in my early > twenties and I never found it to be a negative point. It might > be difficult to make the TS into something that was more > "popular", without losing what is valuable. After all, I don't > think HPB would have approved of tearing down Quest Bookstore and > putting up a MacDonald's. > > - Ann Bermingham I'm sure she would have been horrified by just putting up a MacDonald's! Welcome aboard! Alan Bain From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 4 Mar 1995 19:03:31 -0500 (EST) From: John Mead Subject: Re: Mahatma's A good source for "non-TS" literature on Mahatmas, is Meher Baba's works. his book "God Speaks" covers all of the levels of existance where the various ascended beings communicate. Mahatmas, Masts, etc. all work at different levels according to their capability. It is a very detailed work, non-TS, and a good second to look at (in the same league as "Secret Doctrine", but better written). It agrees with alot of classic TS concepts. BTW - I'm not a M.Baba follower per se. However, his stuff is very good. peace - jem p.s. it also has the advantage of many people who are still living and can verify various things/happenings. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 05 Mar 1995 00:12:00 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: The name of God... Too many typos in my last - sorry! AB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Mar 1995 20:06:23 EST From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: God Dog I realized that my reference to Joshu's koan in relation to the web or network of existence probably didn't make much senses so I thought I would try to clarify my reference. Koan: Does a dog have Buddha nature? answer: Mu (no!) It is probably the most used and most important of the Zen koans. Many newcomers struggle with it before going on. My perspective is very personal as I have used it while reading the books of Ken Wilber such as THE SPECTRUM OF EXISTENCE, THE ATMAN PROJECT, UP FROM EDEN, NO BOUNDARY AND SO ON. Some of these have been published by Quest and so are theosophical at least by association and IMHO largely in content. Mr. Wilber borrows, if the people where alive a stronger term could be used, liberally from theosophical and buddhist writings to apply the ideas, especially the 7 planes or level, to psychology. Jean Houston has done much the same, but applying the ideas of evolution and involution to history, sociology and mythology. (This is an admitted oversimplification of their work, but what can you expect in a few sentences :) Anyway, I guess Mr. Wilber and Ms. Houston have taken theosophy where few men or women have dared to go (play Star Trek theme here). That is why I am a little impatient, though in full understanding, of those who want to cling to Blavatsky, the Masters and the 19th century. Yeah they are great, but it's almost 2000, less than four years by my clock. HPB and the ML are great, but what do they have to say to us today (minus the science and gossip of the time). Well, I think Mr. WIlber and Ms. Houston have shown the way to bringing it all up to date, in their own way. This is not to say they are a replacement, or even a substitute for the original works, but are pointing the way to the future, not the past. Fade back to Josu's koan. I was studying the koan along with Mr. Wilber's ATMAN PROJECT and their was talk about Sunyata as a web that is no web but the final veil before everything is transparent to everything else. This is what is meant (for me) by the enigmatic or even absurd answers given to such question as "what is Buddha?" answer: the wind blows cold on the north slope (or variations on that type of thing). The point is that Buddha nature is not a mental or even an intuitional construct but is interpenetrating all existense such that I cannot seperate Buddha-nature from a tree in the garden, a dog or an outhouse stick. So the hierarchies are a useful tool like driving on the right hand side of the road in American and on the left in G.B. but are finally left (I mean abandoned :) when one "winds slowly every upward" on the great path (see Proem probably misquoted) to Transparent Universal Mind. And a last thought on Modern Master, Jung had his own Master, talking Wise Old Man or amenuensis (sp?). I forgot his name, but there is picture of him in THE RED BOOK and he dictated THE SEVEN SERMONS TO THE DEAD and one would think much of what Jung said about the God-image in the collective unconcious and things that had to do with his "revelations" from his Higher Self. Why don't we form a cult around Jung? Well, because he was so clear that these Masters are within us all and available to us. Of course, his ability to intergrate and verbalize his experience is beyond most of our abilities. I'm not sure HPB would want a cult of the Masters. Is this what the Esoteric Section is or was? Somehow I don't expect an answer on that one. Krishnamurti at the beginning of this century disavowed all cults and gurus and Masters as THE way to TRUTH. He stated that truth is a pathless land. Although many of us still need pointers and guidelines and books etc. his message can still reach us in 1995. Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Mar 1995 20:07:53 EST From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: On "A Breif History of Time" (film) I sent this before, but it did not format. One more try! This is one of those films that is of definite interest to theosophists. Many know the story of Stephen Hawkings and how he developed some of our best and most current models of scientific cosmology while suffering from ALS, a debilitating motor-neron disease. The film asks all the big questions: where did the universe come from?, how will it end?, why do decent people suffer?, why do some people need a wound to heal them is some strange way so they will get on with their work?, and many more. In fact there are enough questions for several films and very few satisfying aswers. The film asks the questions and then throws the viewer back on himself. In that moment of "no answers" may come a moment of transformation. I don't mean your will pack your bags and feed the starving in India or become a lounge lizard in reaction to that moment, but you may see life a little differently after seeing how Mr. Hawkins fights his disease in order to get to a grand unified theory that if found "we will know the mind of God". Well, he hasn't found it yet. In fact, the film is a little misleading, because if my memory serves me correct, he reivised the book so that the universe is now expanding indefinitely with no fixed creation or destruction point, as opposed to the "big crunch" scenario in the film No mattter, the film stand on its own and operates at a surprising number of levels. There are perhaps too many interviews, but they give the film a human, homey feeling tone. Yet the music of Phillip Glass is alway there, insisting, suggestive, foreboding , ominous, portentous. It leads one to think big things are coming, really big things. Well the payoff is there, but not what one might expect. It is personal story about Hawkins, the triumph of the human spirit, seemingly undeserved suffering, the origin and end of the universe and the scale of these vastly different events somehow become part of an even larger story, our collective larger story. What did you think about the film? Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 4 Mar 1995 22:29:15 -0500 (EST) From: John Mead Subject: study courses Hi -- due to the last few weeks of discussion, I think that it the following conventions (NOT rules) would be appropriate. 1) the Mahatma letters' discussion could use Theos-buds@vnet.net 2) the Kabbalah discussion could use Theos-Roots. the two lists as mentioned, are seldom used. This would *use* the lists, and facilitate the discussions. comments?? this is a suggestion only. I doubt people would have any strong objections to this?? please feel free to comment. I am only trying to promote the use of existing facilities. peace - john e. m. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 4 Mar 1995 22:57:09 -0500 (EST) From: John Mead Subject: Re: study courses another comment: the Kabbalah studies will regard the interpretation of that ancient knowledge and system.. the ML discussion (as I see it formulating) will discuss many topics which deal with the current relationship, problems, and interpretation of the ML as relating to the current society in which we live. hence it may really be that ML is a "buds" topic, and the Kabbalah is a "roots" topic. ?? peace -- john mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 00:16:11 -0500 (EST) From: John Mead Subject: for your enjoyment from the Net (fwd) New Computer Viruses ( brought to you this week by CyberChick - ROFL): BOBBIT VIRUS: Removes a vital part of your hard disk then re- attaches it. (But that part will never work again.) OPRAH WINFREY VIRUS: Your 200MB hard drive suddenly shrinks to 80MB, and then slowly expands back to 200MB. AT&T VIRUS: Every three minutes it tells you what great service you are getting. MCI VIRUS: Every three minutes it reminds you that you're paying too much for the AT&T virus. PAUL REVERE VIRUS: This revolutionary virus does not horse around. It warns you of impending hard disk attack---once if by LAN, twice if by C:. POLITICALLY CORRECT VIRUS: Never calls itself a "virus", but instead refers to itself as an "electronic microorganism." RIGHT TO LIFE VIRUS: Won't allow you to delete a file, regardless of how old it is. If you attempt to erase a file, it requires you to first see a counselor about possible alternatives. ROSS PEROT VIRUS: Activates every component in your system, just before the whole damn thing quits. MARIO CUOMO VIRUS: It would be a great virus, but it refuses to run. TED TURNER VIRUS: Colorizes your monochrome monitor. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER VIRUS: Terminates and stays resident. It'll be back. DAN QUAYLE VIRUS: Prevents your system from spawning any child process without joining into a binary network. DAN QUAYLE VIRUS #2: Their is sumthing rong wit your komputer, ewe jsut cant figyour out watt! GOVERNMENT ECONOMIST VIRUS: Nothing works, but all your diagnostic software says everything is fine. NEW WORLD ORDER VIRUS: Probably harmless, but it makes a lot of people really mad just thinking about it. FEDERAL BUREAUCRAT VIRUS: Divides your hard disk into hundreds of little units, each of which does practically nothing, but all of which claim to be the most important part of your computer. GALLUP VIRUS: Sixty percent of the PCs infected will lose 38 percent of their data 14 percent of the time. (plus or minus a 3.5 percent margin of error.) TERRY RANDLE VIRUS: Prints "Oh no you don't" whenever you choose "Abort" from the "Abort" "Retry" "Fail" message. TEXAS VIRUS: Makes sure that it's bigger than any other file. ADAM AND EVE VIRUS: Takes a couple of bytes out of your Apple. CONGRESSIONAL VIRUS: The computer locks up, screen splits erratically with a message appearing on each half blaming the other side for the problem. AIRLINE VIRUS: You're in Dallas, but your data is in Singapore. FREUDIAN VIRUS: Your computer becomes obsessed with marrying its own motherboard. PBS VIRUS: Your programs stop every few minutes to ask for money. ELVIS VIRUS: Your computer gets fat, slow and lazy, then self destructs; only to resurface at shopping malls and service stations across rural America. OLLIE NORTH VIRUS: Causes your printer to become a paper shredder. NIKE VIRUS: Just does it. SEARS VIRUS: Your data won't appear unless you buy new cables, power supply and a set of shocks. JIMMY HOFFA VIRUS: Your programs can never be found again. CONGRESSIONAL VIRUS #2: Runs every program on the hard drive simultaneously, but doesn't allow the user to accomplish anything. KEVORKIAN VIRUS: Helps your computer shut down as an act of mercy. IMELDA MARCOS VIRUS: Sings you a song (slightly off key) on boot up, then subtracts money from your Quicken account and spends it all on expensive shoes it purchases through Prodigy. STAR TREK VIRUS: Invades your system in places where no virus has gone before. HEALTH CARE VIRUS: Tests your system for a day, finds nothing wrong, and sends you a bill for $4,500. GEORGE BUSH VIRUS: It starts by boldly stating, "Read my docs....No new files!" on the screen. It proceeds to fill up all the free space on your hard drive with new files, then blames it on the Congressional Virus. CLEVELAND INDIANS VIRUS: Makes your 486/50 machine perform like a 286/AT. LAPD VIRUS: It claims it feels threatened by the other files on your PC and erases them in "self defense". CHICAGO CUBS VIRUS: Your PC makes frequent mistakes and comes in last in the reviews, but you still love it. ORAL ROBERTS VIRUS - Claims that if you don't send it a million dollars, it programmer will take it back. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 00:27:20 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: the name of God I'm not a Hebrew scholar, but I know about a few things Jewish, that being my heritage. Just like Sarah, I have been told too that Yahweh is not the real name of God, but that it is somehow hidden in YHWH. Alan, the Hebrew-English Lexicon you consult was written by Christian scholars. I'd think that one compiled by Jews would be more accurate & to the point. Same thing goes for the King James Version of the Bible. We in America have a number of newer translations of the Bible, some by Christians, some by Jews, because the King James Bible was translated from the Greek, not from the original Hebrew, & is not considered to be very accurate any more. Sorry 'bout that. I myself own a very beautiful 5 Books of Moses, translated by Rabbi Arieh Kaplan. It has Hebrew on 1 side & English on the other. Kaplan was modern enough to have drawings, & a great plethora of footnotes, in which he explains what the different passages could possibly mean besides the meaning he gave it. He died in an accident about 10 years ago, while still in his 40ies, otherwise he would probably have gotten around to translating the entire Old Testament. I'd think a Jewish man who grew up with English & Hebrew as his languages, passed down from a long succession of Jews, would be a most accurate translator of the Bible. But there are any number of other modern Bible translations, & they all try to be more true to the original than the King James version, venerable as it is. Sorry to have to tell ya, old bean, but... Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 00:27:43 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: more indentities I'm not too interested in the gossippy ML letters either, but rather in the ones from which we can learn something. I also have my own opinion of the Masters. I expressed it on Theos-l recently. I think everyone should, & will or has developed their own idea as to what the Masters are. I can't see that this makes an iota of difference as far as studying what they have to say. Whatever anyone thinks they were or are, what they have to teach is pretty sophisticated & shows a great deal of knowledge, wisdom, & thought. So, whether they were Indian Rajahs or discarnate spirits, their message still remains the same cogent one for Theosophists. It's too late, & I'm too tired just now, but tomorrow, mid-morning, after I've done my studying, meditating, & breakfast eating, I'm planning to copy some of the ML onto Theos-buds. That, so we have something to discuss, until Eldon gets an ok from Vic to send the newest edition into our archives. I'm going to do letter #10, the end of which, if I get that far, talks about evil. You might like to look it up, since you were interested in evil. Good night, you all, Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 08:11:43 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: name of God To Sarah & Alan, & to whomever else this may concern, This is a PS to what I wrote yesterday evening. Somehow things always look different to me when I've slept on them. This morning I think that this whole discussion as to what the right name of God is & etc. depends on who's naming God. It also seems from the discussion that the Christian view is not the same as the Jewish view, and that Christian Kabbala is not the same as Jewish Kabbala, also that the views Alan, Sarah & I expressed in these posts, are not necessarily the Truth for all Christians or all Jews, or all humanity for that. The Truth is whatever is true for the believer. There is no absolute in manifestation. I forgot about that when I wrote last night. I was expressing my Truth. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 11:53:20 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: ML #10, part 2 of 3 (The Universal Mind) - A few reflections and arguments ought to support every new idea - for instance we are sure to be taken to task for the following apparent contradictions. (1)We deny the existence of a thinking conscious God, on the grounds that such a God must either be conditioned, limited, and subject to change, therefore not infinite, or (2) if he is represented to us as an eternal unchangeable, and independent being, with not a particle of matter in him, then we answer that it is no being but an immutable blind principle, a law. And yet, they will say, we believe in Dyans, or Planetaries ("spirits" also) and endow them with a universal mind, and this must be explained. Our reasons may be briefly summed up thus: (1) We deny the absurd propostition that there can be, even in a boundless and eternal universe - two infinite eternal and omnipresent existences. (2) Matter we know to be eternal, ie having had no beginning (a) because matter is nature herself (b) because that which cannot annihilate itself and is indestructibe exists necessarily - and therefore it could not begin to be, not can it cease to be (c) because the accumulated experience of countless ages, and that of exact science show to us matter (not nature) acting by her own peculiar energy, of which not an atom is ever in an absolute state of rest, and therefore it must have always existed, ie, its materials ever changing form ;, combinations and properties, but its principles or elements being absolutely indestructible. (3) As to God - since no one has ever or at any time seen him or it - unless he or it is the very essence and nature of this boundless eternal matter, its energy and motion, we cnnot regard him as either eternal or infinite or yet self-existing. We refuse to admit a being or an excistence of which we know absolutely nothing; because (a) there is no room for him in the presence of that matter whose undeniable properties and qualities we know thoroughly well (b) because if he or it is but a part of that matter it is ridiculous to maintain that he is the mover and ruler of that of which he is but a dependent part and (c) because if they tell us that God is a self existent pure spirit independent of matter - an extra-cosmic deity, we answer that admitting even the possibility of such an impossibility, ie his existence, we yet hold that a purely immaterial spirit cannot be an intelligent conscious ruler nor can he have any of the attributes bestowed upon him by theology and thus such a God becomes again but a blind force. Intelligence as found in our Dhyan Chohans, is a faculty that can appertain but to organized or animated beings however imponderable or rather invisible the materials of their organizations. Intelligence requires the necessity of thinking; to think one must have ideas; ideas supppose senses which are physical material, and how can anything material belong to pure spirit? If it be objected that thought cannot be a property of matter, we will ask the reason why? We must have an unanswerable proof of this assumption, before we can accept it. Of the thelogian we would enquire what was there to prevent his God, since he is the alleged creator of all - to endow matter with the facutly of thought; and when answered that evidently it has not pleased Him to do so, that it is a mystery as well as an impossibility, we would insist upon being told why it is more impossible that matter should produce spirit & thought, than spirit or the thought of Gods should produce & create matter. We do not bow our heads in the dust before the mystery of mind - for we have solved it ages ago. Rejecting with contempt the theistic theory we reject as much the automaton theory, teaching that states of consciousness are produced by the marshalling of the moelcules of the brain; and we feel as little respect for that other hypothesis- the production of molecular motion by consciousness. Then what do we believe in? Well, we believe in the much laughed at phlogiston (see article "What is force & what is matter?" Theosophist September), and in what some natural philosopherws would call nisus the incesssant though perfectly imperceptible (to the ordinary senses) motion or efforts one body is make on another - the pulsations of intert matter - its life. The bodies of the Planetary spirits are formed of that which Priestley & others called Phlogiston and for which we have another name - this essence in its highest seventh state forming that matter of which the organism of the highest and purest Dyans are composed, and in its lowest or densest form (so impalpable yet that science calls it energy and force) serving as a cover to the Planetaries of the 1st or lowest degree. In other words we beleieve in MATTER alone, in matter as visible as nature and matter in its invisibility as the invisible omnipresent omnipotent Proteus with its unceasing motion which is life, and which nature draws from herself since she is the great whole outside of which nothing can exist. For as Bellinger truly asserts "Motion is a manner if esxistence that flows necesssailry out of the esssence of matter; that matter moves by its own peculiar energies; that its motion is due to the force which is inherent in itself; that the variety of motion and the phenomena that result proceed from the diversity of the properties of the qualities and of the combinations which are originally found in the primitive matter" of which nature is the assemblage and of which your science knows less than one of our Tibetan Yak-drivers of Kant's metaphysics. The existence of matter then is a fact; the existence of motion is another fact, their self existence and eternity or indestructibility is a third fact. And the idea of pure spirit as a Being or an Existence - give it whatever name you will - is a chimera, a gigantic absurdity. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 12:31:10 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: ML #10, part 1 of 3 This is transcribed from pp 52-59, 2d ed., 8th impression, Rider & Co., London, NY, Melbourne, Sydney, Capetown. It's marked in part "notes by KH" " Transcribed from a copy in Mr.Sinnett's handwriting" "Received at Simla 1881-? '82 (Transcriber's note. I'm sending this letter in 3 parts, in case something happens while I'm typing, so I don't need to copy the whole thing over a 2d time. I'll be as careful as I can about typing errors.) Neither our philosophy nor ourselves believe in a God, least of all in one whose pronoun necessitates a capital H. Our philosophy falls under the definition of Hobbes. It is preeminently the science of efffects by their causes and of causes by their effects, and since it is also the science of things deduced from first priciple, as Bacon defines it, before we admit any such principle we must know it, and have no right to admit even its possibilit y. Your whole explanation is based upon one solitary admission made simply for argument's sake in October last. You were told that our knowledge was limited to this our solar system: ergo as philosophers who desired to remain worthy of the name we could not either deny or affirm the existence of what you termed a supreme, omnipotent, intelligent being of some sort beyond the limits of that solar system. But if such an existence is not absolutely impossible yet unless the uniformity of nature's law breaks at those limits we maintain that it is highly improbable. Nevertheless we deny most emphatically the position of agnosticism in this direction, and as regards the solar system. Our doctrine knows no compromise. It either affirms or denies, for it never teaches but that which it knows to be the truth. Therefore, we deny God both as philosophers and as Buddhists. We know there are planetary and other spiritual lives, and we know there is in our system no such thing as God, either personal or impersonal. Parabrahm is not a God, but absolute immutable law, and Iswar is the effect of Avidya and Maya, ignora nce based upon the great delusion. The word "God" was invented to designate the unknown cause of those effects which man has either admired or dreaded without understanding them, and since we claim and that we are able to prove what we claim - ie the knowledge of that cause and causes we are in a position to maintain there is no God or Gods behind them. The idea of God is not an innate but an acquired notion, and we have but one thing in common with theologies - we reveal the infinite. But while we assign to all the phenomena that proceed from the infinite and limitless space, duration and motion, material, natural, sensible and known (to us at least) cause, the theists assign them spiritual, super-natural and unitelligible and un-known causes. The God of the Theologians is simply an imaginary power, un loup garou as d'Holbach expreses it- a power which has never yet manifested iteself. Our chief aim is to deliver humanity of this nightmnare, to teach man virtue for its own sake, and to walk in life relying on himself instead of leaning on a theological crutch, that for countless ages was the direct cause of nearly all human misery. Pantheistic we may be called - agnostic NEVER. If people are willing to accept and to regard as God our ONE LIFE immutable and unconscious in its eternity they may do so and thus keep to one more gigantic misnomer. But then they will have to say with Spinoza that there is not and that we cannot conceive any other substance than God; or as that famous amd unfortunate philosopher says in his 14th propostion, "praeter Deum neque dari neque concepi potest substantia" - and thus become Pantheists .. who but a Theologian nursed on mystery and the most absurd supernaturalism can imagine a self existent being of necessity infinite and omnipresent outside the manifested boundless universe. The word infinite is but a negative which excludes the idea of bounds. It is evident that a being independent and omnipresent cannot be limited by anything which is outsidse of himself; that there can be nothing exterior to himsellf- not even vacuum, then where is there rooom for matter? for that manifested universe even though the latter limited. If we ask the theist is your God vacuum, space or matter. they will reply no. And yet they hold that their God penetrates matter though he is not himself matter. When we speak of our One LIfe we also say that it penetrates, nay is the essence of every atom of matter; & that therefore it not only has correspondence with matter, but has all its properties likewise, etc. - hence is material, is matter itself. How can intelligence proceed or emantate from non-intelligence- you kept asking last year. How could a highly intelligent humanity, man the crown of reason, by evolved out of blind unintelligent law or force! But once we reason on that line, I may ask in my turn, how could congenital idiots, non-reasoning animals, and the rest of "creation" have been created by or evoluted from, absolute Wisdom, if the latter is a thinking intelligent being, the author & ruler of the Universe? How? says Dr. Clarke in his examination of the proof of the existence of the Divinity. "God who hath mada the eye, shall he not see? God who hath made the ear shall he not hear?" But according to this mode of reasoning they would have to admit that in creating an idiot God is an idiot; that he who made so many irrational beings, so many physical and moral monsters, must be an irrational being... ..We are not Adwaitees, but our teaching respecting the one life is identical with that of the Adwaitees with regard to Parabrahm. And no true philosophically brained Adwaitee will ever call himself an agnostic, for he knows that he is Parabrahm and identical in every respect with the universal life and soul - the macrocosm is the microcosm and he knows that there is no God apart from himself, no creator as no being.Having found Gnosis we cannot turn our backs on it and become agnostics. ... Were we to admit that even the highest Dyan Chohans are liable to err under a delusion, then there would be no reality for us indeed and the occult sciences would be as great a a chimera as that God. If there is an absurdity in denying that which we do not know it is still more exctravagant to assign to it unknown laws. According to logic "nothing" is that of which everything can truly be denied and nothing can truly be affirmed. The idea therefore either of a finite or infinite nothing is a contradiction in terms. And yet according to the theologians "God, the self existent being is a most simple, unchangeable, incorruptible being; without parts, figure, motion, divisibility, or any other such properties as we find in matter. for all such things so plainly and necessarily imply finiteness in their very notion and are utterly inconsistent with complete infinity." Therefore the God here offered to the adoration of the XIXth century lacks every quality upon which man's mind is capable of fixing any judgment. What is this in fact but a being of whom they can affirm nothing that is not instantly contradicted.; Their own Bible the Revelation destroys all the moral perceptions they heap upon him, unless indeed they call those qualities perfections that every other man's reason and common sense call imperfections, odious vices and brutal wickedness. Nay more he who reads our Buddhist sciptures written for the superstitious masses will fail to find in them a demon so vindictive, unjust, so cruel and so stupid as the celestial tyrant upon whom the Christians prodigally lavish their servile worship and on whom their theologians heap those perfections that are contradiacted on every page of their Bible. Truly and veritably your theology has created her God but to destroy him piecemeal. Your church is the fabulous Saturn, who begets children but to devour them. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 15:15:07 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: ML #10, part 3 of 3 Our ideas on Evil. Evil has no existence per se and is but the absence of good and exists but for him who is made its victim. It proceeds from 2 causes, and no more than good is it an independent cause in nature. Nature is destitute of goodness or malice; she follows only immutable laws when she either gives life & joy, or sends suffering & death, and destroys what she has created. Nature has an antidote for every poisn and her laws, a reward for every suffering. The butterfly devoured by a bird becomes that bird, and the little bird killed by an animal goes into a higher form. It is the blind law of necessity and the eternal fitness of things, and hence cannot be called Evil in Nature. Humanity then alone is the true source of evil. Evil is the exaggeration of good, the progeny of human selfishness and greediness. Think porofoundly and you will find that save death - which is no evil but a necessary law, & accidents which will always find their reward in a future life- the origin of every evil whether smalll or great is in human action, in man whose intelligence makes him the one free agent in Nature. It is not nature that creates disease, but man. The latter's mission and destiny in the economy of nature is to die his natural death brought by old age; save accident, neither a savage nor a wild (free) animal die of disease. Food, sexual relations, drink, are all necessities of life; yet excess in them brings on disease, misery, suffering, mental & physical, and the latter are transmitted as the greatesst evils to future generations, the progeny of the culprits. Ambition, the desire of securing happiness & comfort for those we love, by obtaining honors and riches, are praiseworthy natural feelings but when they transform man into an ambitious, cruel tyrant. a miser, a selfish egotist they bring untold misery, on those around him; on nations as well as on individuals. All, this then- food, wealth, ambition, & a thousand other things we have to leave unmentioned, becomes the source and cause of evil whether in itst abundance or through its absence. Become a glutton, a debauchee, a tyrant, and you become the originator of disease, of human suffering and misery. Lack all this and you starve, you are despised as a nobody and the majority of the herd, your fellow men, make of you a sufferer your whole life. Therefore it is neither nature no an imaginary Deity that has to be blamed, but human nature made vile by selfishness. Think well over these few words; work out every cause of evil you can think of and trace it to its origin and you willl have solved one-third of the problem of evil. And now, after making due allowanace for evils that are natural and cannot be avoided,- and so few are they that I challenge the whole host of Western metaphysicans to call them evil or to trace them directly to an independent cause- I will point out the greatest, the chief cause of nearly two thirds of the evils that pursue humanity ever since that cause became a power. It is religion under whatever form and in whatsoever nation. It is the saceredotal caste, the priesthood and the churches; it is in those illusions that man looks upon as sacred, that he has to search out the source of that multitude of evils which is the great curse of humanity and that almost overwhelms mankind. Ignorance created Gods and cunnng took advantage of the opportunity. Look at India and look at Christendom and Islam, at Judaism and Fetichism. It is priestly imposture that rendered these Gods so terrible to man; it is religion that makes of him the selfish bigot, the fanatic that hates all mankind out of his own sect without rendering him any better or more moral for it. It is belief iin God and Gods that makes 2/3 of humanity the slaves of a handful of those who deceive them under the false pretense of saving them. Is not man every ready to commit any kind of evil if told that his God or Gods demand the crime?; voluntary victim of an illusionary God, the abject slave of his crafty ministers. The Irish, Italian, and Slavonian peasant will starve himself and see his family starving and naked to feed & clothe his padre and pope. For 2,000 years India groaned under the weight of caste, Brahmins alone feeding on the fat of the land, and today the followers of Christ and those of Mahomet are cutting each other's throats in the names of and for the greater glory of their respective myths. Remember, the sum of human misery will never be diminished unto that day when the better portion of humanity destroys in the name of Truth, morality, and universal charity, the altars of their false gods. If it is objected that we too have temples, we too have priests and that our lamas also live on charity ... let them know that the objects above named have in common with their Western equivalents, but the name. Thus in our temples there is neither a god nor gods worshipped , only the thrice sacred memory of the greatest as the holiest man that ever lived. If our lamas to honour the fraternity of the Bhikkhus established by our blessed master himself, go out to be fed and taken care of by the Samgha (the fraternity of lamaic monks) the lamassery providing for the wants of the poor, the sick, the afflicted. Our lamas accept food, never money, and it is in those temples that the origin of evil is preached and impressed upon the people. There they are taught the 4 noble truths - ariya sakka, and the chain of causation (the 12 nidanas) gives them a solution of the problem of the origin & destruction of suffering. Read the Mahavagga & try to understand not with the prejudiced Western mind but the spirit of intuition & truth what the Fully Enlightened one says in the 1st Khandhaka. Allow me to translate it for you. "At the time the blessed Buddha was at Uruvella on the shores of the river Nerovigara as he rested under the Boddhi tree of wisdom after he had become Sambuddha, at the end of the 7th dady having his mind fixed on the chain of causation he spake thus: 'from Ignorance spring the samkharas of threefold nature - productions of body,of speech, of thought. From the samkharas springs consciousness, from consciousness springs name & form, fron this spring ,the 6 regions (of the 6 senses the 7th being the property of but the enlightened); from these springs contact from this sensation'; from this springs thirst (or desire, Kama, tanha) from thirst attachment, existence, birth, old age, and death, grief. lamentation,suffering., dejection, and despair. Again by the destruction of ignorance, the sankharas are destroyed, and their consciousness name & form, the 6 regions contact,sensation, thirst, attachment (selfishness), existence, birth, old age, death, grief, lamentation, suffering, dejection, and despair are destroyed. Such is the cesstion of this whole mass of suffering." Knowing this the blessed one uttered this solemn utterance. "When the real nature of things becomes clear to the meditating Bikshu, them all his doubts fade away since he has learned what is that nature and what its cause. From ignorance spring all the evils. From knowledge come the cessastion of this mass of misery, and then the mediatating Brahmana stands dispelling the hosts of Mara like the sun that illuminates the sky," Meditation here means the superhuman (not supernatural) qualities, or arhatship in its highest of spiritual powers From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 05 Mar 1995 19:27:07 +1100 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: study courses John Mead writes: > due to the last few weeks of discussion, I think > that it the following conventions (NOT rules) would > be appropriate. > > 1) the Mahatma letters' discussion could use Theos-buds@vnet.net > > 2) the Kabbalah discussion could use Theos-Roots. > > the two lists as mentioned, are seldom used. This would *use* > the lists, and facilitate the discussions. > > comments?? I would like the discussions on both topics to stay where they are. It's just an extra thing to do to set up these other two things, and I probably wouldn't get around to reading them. Also, if all discussions on certain topics are transferred somewhere else, there won't be anything left on this list. When the topics peter out, we can start discussing something else. ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 05 Mar 1995 19:44:41 +1100 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: More on Identities Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> writes: > Astrea said regarding my criticism of THE MAHATAMA LETTERS: > "Yeah, who are yo anyway?" Well who are the Mahatamas and who are > any of us really? Isn't this the question we are all asking? Children of the multiverse! ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 05 Mar 1995 19:30:11 +1100 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: study courses John Mead writes: > another comment: > > the Kabbalah studies will regard the interpretation of > that ancient knowledge and system.. Since the Kabbalah fails squarely under the second object of the Society, I think it should be allowed to remain on the list. Same with any other religion or philosphy. Perhaps, however, it might be useful to relate it somehow to theosophy eg what HPB said about it, etc. > the ML discussion (as I see it formulating) will discuss many > topics which deal with the current relationship, problems, > and interpretation of the ML as relating to the current > society in which we live. The ML are also directly applicable to the history of the society and key players in its establishment, so it should stay on the list too. ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 05 Mar 1995 14:24:17 -0500 (EST) From: IXCHEL@delphi.com Subject: The "name".... To Liesel, Thanks for your comments. I suppose there is so much concern over the "right" "name" because there is so much reference to names and letters, and the meanings of them, when studying the Bible and/or the Kabbalah. You say, "The Truth is whatever is true for the be- liever", and that "there is no absolute truth in manifestation." I believe there are exceptions to these statements. I believe there are some situations that have an "absolute" truth to them. Example: O.J. Simpson either murdered his ex-wife or he did not. If he killed her, that would be the truth. If he didn't kill her, that would be the truth. That we don't know who did it doesn't take away the fact that there is only one true killer. And that person is the absolute TRUTH in mani- festation. To Alan, You state, "The name Jesus _probably_ originates etc.. .." PROBABLY???? You say, "Jesus" means "He saves." This "name" is an idea/statement/message. _He_ the pronoun, and _saves_, the verb. I think the key to the matter lies in the meaning of the verb. I don't believe that if one simply believes in Jesus or believes he is the Lord of something, one is thus saved. But there must be a reason that some folks claim that this person has the power to save, or they wouldn't have named him "He saves." Now, either he can or cannot TRULY save. Is he an absolute in manifest- ation or not? It is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of HOW. And whether this individual quoted from the Old Testament or was referring also to concepts found in the substance of the Kabbalah is one of those situations where Liesel's, "truth to the believer", comes into play. The Yod as you indicate is related to the pronoun HE. The question is: Does Yah also indicate HE, and is the Je in Jesus related to HE as well? Thanks for your thoughts... Sarah From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 14:42:00 -0500 (EST) From: John Mead Subject: Re: study courses > I would like the discussions on both topics to stay where they > are. It's just an extra thing to do to set up these other two > things, and I probably wouldn't get around to reading them. > Also, if all discussions on certain topics are transferred > somewhere else, there won't be anything left on this list. > > When the topics peter out, we can start discussing something > else. perhaps you're right. however there is an advantage (when e-mail is sent in digest mode) in that the topics get "sorted", so the users may address them more efficiently (from their time-management viewpoint). Under a low volume scenario, the advatage is definitely nil. peace -- jem From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 15:15:13 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: ML TEXT IS NOW ON "BUDS" Dear theos-l. Want to let you know that I just copied ML #10 onto the buds system. So we can start discussing. I sent it in 3 parts, mainly because I wanted to prevent some chance eracing what I'd copied. I didn't really want to copy it over a 2d time. The 1st 2 parts contain KH's ideas mostly on what God is not. You really have to dig out what he believes in. He is very Buddhist, which is to be expected. I think everyone thinks his religion is the best. I have an idea that in the last 10-20 years the Western churches have tried not to be in the image he pictures. Well, no doubt, some of you will have comments to write about that. With this I sign off, for now. I'm not a rapid typist, & it took me the better par of the day to get this letter in the computer. I hope, Eldon, you get an answer from Vic soon. If not, do we have any speedy typists who'd volunteer to put on the next letter, when conversation on this one peters out? I thought we'd take up Daniel Caldwell's suggestion of Letters #22 & #134, which both deal with similar subject matter, but maybe some of you want to go a different route.. Also the Olcott Library sent me "Readers' Guide to the Mahatma Letters to AP Sinnett" by George E. Linton & Virginia Hanson. Haven't had a chance to look at it yet. But we got it, if we need it. It has study notes. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 15:06:47 -0800 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Subject: ML Study To one and all -- It is too much work for anyone to enter the ML (even one letter at a time) for us to study electronically. Let us simply stay on Theos-l and follow in our own books the chronological order of the new edition. One does not need the actual new edition. The chronological order according to the new ML is: 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 3C, 143, 4, 126, 106, 99, 98, 5, 28, 6, 7, 142A, 142B, 8, 107, 31, 9, 121, 49, 27, 26, 104, 71, 73, 102, 101, 74, 29, 134, 40, 114 This should keep us occupied for a while. Folks can chime in with a passage(s) that puzzles, infuriates, or enlightens. I would not ignore the "gossip". Most of the criticism directed at "theosophists" of that day still applies. Human character or lack of, does not change much over the ages. Nicholas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 19:03:08 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: God Dog Keith, As I was typing up ML letter #10 today, I came to a part that reminded me of particle physics. I also thought that some of what KH said in the letter was dated. Let me put it to you this way. I, for one, was glad that we found a vehicle for study that we could all agree one. It has to be an older classic, because that's the only thing people from ULT accept, I think, & the span of the ML's is broad.. If you've been reading Wilber, Huston, Jung,Krishnamurti, & Zen, please, by all means do bring them in to your posts. I've been looking at more current stuff too, & intend to quote it when it occurs to me. So willothers. We'll take the ML's as a basis, & whever it leads us .. Darth Veder is not the limit. Maybe Jerry S. will take us beyond entropy & chaos. After all, most of us are living a la fin du siecle, 20th century, not 19th. Please don't give up right away, your posts are interesting, & always lead to discussions. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 19:09:30 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: On "A Breif History of Ti... Keith, Do you know the name of the Hawkings movie. Is it available on video. I'd like to show that one to my study group. Is it also called "A Brief History of Time"? Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 19:59:11 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: study courses Astrea, > From my experiences with the Interrel mailing list, & I think > theos works the same way, all posts come intermixed onto your > screen, provided you're subscribed to Buds and Roots. I guess John will tell you. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 20:04:42 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: study courses Not to becloud the issues, I think some of Kabbalah is applicable to today's living too, as parts of all religions are. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 20:27:46 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: The "name".... I can't argue with you about that somebody killed Nicole, she's dead; but the motive might have been that she played around & the killer thought she was evil, or that she was going to slug him/her one & they killed in self defense, or maybe they were jealous of her money. The case with whether Jesus can or cannot save is much easier & clearer in my mind. I just don't think of that as absolute. Jesus can save those who believe that He can. If you're dealing with a Buddhist, who believes in "work out your own salvation with diligence", ie that "The finger does but point at the moon", but that the individual has to figure out first what that green cheese is up there, that person can't be saved by Jesus, because they believe they have to find their own way by themselves, with some hints given to them along their path by their favorite holy people, but not through a holy figure's intercession. It's just like it seems that while some people are dying they see visions of religious figures, but the shape of the figures depends upon what they believe in. Christians may see Christ or the Virgin Mary, Buddhist may see the Buddha or Quan Yin, Mohammedans might see Muhamad, and maybe Jews would see Moses or Abraham, or Sarah. I've been taught that what you perceive depends on your inner self, & that idea has been reinforced for me by the Heisenberg principle. Hope you can see my point of view. It's very legit. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 05 Mar 1995 23:30:21 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: the name of God In message <950305002719_39602154@aol.com> theos-l@vnet.net writes: Liesel writes: > I'm not a Hebrew scholar, but I know about a few things Jewish, > that being my heritage. > > Just like Sarah, I have been told too that Yahweh is not the real > name of God, but that it is somehow hidden in YHWH. Verily, but it ain't "Yeheshua" or similar - it is the mystery of Being Itself - the Eternal Unity: Hear O Israel! YHWH your G_d, YHWH is One (Achd - Unity) (From the Shema). > Alan, the Hebrew-English Lexicon you consult was written by > Christian scholars. I'd think that one compiled by Jews would be > more accurate & to the point. The New Bantam-Megiddo Heb/English Dictionary has only YH: God. It may be that A Jewish source would offer a different view than the Christian [surprise?]. I quote from the Soncino Press (second edition) of the Pentateuch and Haftorahs, firstly from the Preface: " 'Accept the true from whatever source it come,' is sound Rabbinic doctrine - even if it be from the pages of a devout Christian expositor or of an iconoclastic Bible scholar, Jewish or non-Jewish." Secondly from Exodus 3:15 [note] "_the LORD_. This is the translation of the Divine Name written in the four Hebrew letters Y H W H and always pronounced 'Adonay.' ... This Divine Name of four letters - the Tetragrammaton - comes from the same Heb. root (_hayah_) as _Ehyeh_; viz. 'to be.'" This - if you like - _Chumesh_ was edited by Dr. J.H.Hertz, C.H., late Chief Rabbi of the British Empire. Date given in original Preface as Lag-be-Omer, 5696, or 10 May 1937. Jewish enough? :-). > Same thing goes for the King James Version of the Bible. We in > America have a number of newer translations of the Bible, some by > Christians, some by Jews, because the King James Bible was > translated from the Greek, not from the original Hebrew, & is not > considered to be very accurate any more. Sorry 'bout that. The KJV translation of the Bible has long been discredited, even among Christian scholars. I _never_ use it, preferring either the Revised Standard Version (originally pub. 1945, where the 'O.T.' is translated from the Hebrew Masoretic text (10th Century) or the more recent New Revised Standard Version, which is more faithful to the original Greek in the NT section. For example, it is from this edition (having also checked with the Greek received text) that I took the quote from Jesus, "Whoever has ears to hear, Listen!" instead of the patriarchal "He who has ears" version when writing my article "I'm alright, Jill" posted some while back in favor of gender inclusive language. The Greek agrees with the NRSV. > I myself own a very beautiful 5 Books of Moses, translated by > Rabbi Arieh Kaplan. It has Hebrew on 1 side & English on the > other. Kaplan was modern enough to have drawings, & a great > plethora of footnotes, in which he explains what the different > passages could possibly mean besides the meaning he gave it. He > died in an accident about 10 years ago, while still in his 40ies, > otherwise he would probably have gotten around to translating the > entire Old Testament. I'd think a Jewish man who grew up with > English & Hebrew as his languages, passed down from a long > succession of Jews, would be a most accurate translator of the > Bible. But there are any number of other modern Bible > translations, & they all try to be more true to the original than > the King James version, venerable as it is. As you may gather, I at least own the Soncino Pentateuch & Haftorahs, which like the work you mention has extensive footnotes - so much so that they take up more room then the Hebrew text, which is given on the same page. > Sorry to have to tell ya, old bean, but... .. but I already knew! :-). I also have my own battered copy of _Likutei Amarim-Tanya_ [bilingual edition] published by "Kehot" Publication Society, 770, Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn, NY 11213. Mine is a 1981 edition. It is the definitive work for modern Jewish Chassidism from their own Press. It treats of all the Kabbalist doctrines of the four worlds, ten Sephiroth, etc., etc. and is largely based upon these doctrines - these guys are Jewish Kabbalists! While I haven't actually asked them, I think you would find that modern Hebrew scholars such as Prof. Geza Vermes (Oxford, and a practising Jew) and Prof. Jacob Neusner (Formerly Brown University RI - I think he has moved now) would also agree on the basics relating to YHWH. Prof. Neusner was kind enough to send me a complimentary copy of his translation of _Pirke Avot_ which is really something else! [Rossell Books, Dallas, Texas, 1984]. Lib. of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data: Mishah. Avot. Torah from our sages. (This is the official title of the book) ISBN 0-940646-36-6. The quote which opens my "The Nazarenes" is taken from this book. Sorry to have to tell ya, old gel, but I done my homework ... Shalom, Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 05 Mar 1995 00:49:50 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: study courses In message <1wei2c2w165w@actrix.co.at> theos-l@vnet.net writes: > John Mead writes: > > > another comment: > > > > the Kabbalah studies will regard the interpretation of > > that ancient knowledge and system.. > > Since the Kabbalah falls squarely under the second object of the > Society, I think it should be allowed to remain on the list. > Same with any other religion or philosphy. Perhaps, however, it > might be useful to relate it somehow to theosophy eg what HPB > said about it, etc. She goes on about it a great deal, both in _Isis_ and the SD. Trouble is, her comments are scattered all over the place. It is clear she regarded it much more highly than the church :-). Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 05 Mar 1995 01:01:21 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: The "name".... In message <01HNS39181OI8ZGVXY@delphi.com> theos-l@vnet.net writes: > To Alan, > > You state, "The name Jesus _probably_ originates etc.. > .." PROBABLY???? > You say, "Jesus" means "He saves." This "name" is an > idea/statement/message. _He_ the pronoun, and _saves_, > the verb. I think the key to the matter lies in the > meaning of the verb. I could not agree more - eg., saves _from what_? :-) This is the translation of the [Hebrew'Aramaic] name offered by scholars - they may be right or wrong, hence "Probably." > I don't believe that if one simply believes in Jesus > or believes he is the Lord of something, one is thus > saved. But there must be a reason that some folks > claim that this person has the power to save, Dunno about that, but it was a fairly common name in Jesus' (or Joshua's) day so far as we know from history. Like how many Mexicans _today_ are called Jesus? > The Yod as you indicate is related to the pronoun HE. > The question is: Does Yah also indicate HE, and is > the Je in Jesus related to HE as well? > Sarah I don't recall indicating this at all. We might get further in this if you could say how much Hebrew [written as Hebrew] you are familiar with? "Jesus" or "Jesu" is the English rendering of the _Greek_ version of his name. As I said somewhere, the Aramaic uses "Ishoo" spelt Yod, Shin, Ayin for his name. As this appears to have been his own language, I go for that. Maybe we are talking at cross purposes? Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 20:54:07 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: To: All, & to Nicholas, re: ML Nicholas, and dearly beloved, I was copying off the ML on the assumption that not everyone had a copy of them. Would the interested parties please indicate whether or not they have a volume of the ML? Thanks. As to what letters we take up when, I'm neutral, except that we can't all be doing a different letter at the same time. I think that would be confusing. Any suggestions. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Mar 1995 21:30:51 EST From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Comments on ML #10. First, let me thank Liesel for typing in Letter 10. This allows me to cut and paste easily. I would like to start the ball rolling, as it were, with a few of my own comments: Here we see karma as the great law of cause and effect. However, they say nothing here of synchronicity, and appear to ignore or be ignorant of acausal possibilites (probably because it would be over the head of the reader). The word "preeminently" implies that there is more here than they are giving out. There is no *anthropomorphic* God, no supreme authority. Amen. This is a profound statement. It suggests ethics for ethics sake alone (which I have being advocating for some time). We invented religion as a crutch or salve in order to help us face the world, but instead wind up being even more miserable. This is doubtless because of the "my religion is better than yours" attitude that so many pious believers have. <(c) because the accumulated experience of countless ages, and that of exact science show to us matter (not nature) acting by her own peculiar energy, of which not an atom is ever in an absolute state of rest, and therefore it must have always existed, ie, its materials ever changing form ;, combinations and properties, but its principles or elements being absolutely indestructible.> How these guys knew that matter is never at rest and always changing form, not to mention its "own peculiar energy," back when this was written is anyone's guess. Because matter and energy are interchangable, the idea that matter always existed is not far-fetched at all. The theosophical teaching that matter and spirit are dualities, two sides of the same coin, also indicates that matter is as ancient and long-lasting as spirit. < Evil has no existence per se and is but the absence of good and exists but for him who is made its victim> I believe that I have used this quote before. I would like to put it on a wall plack and hang it up where I can see it every day. < Nature is destitute of goodness or malice; she follows only immutable laws when she either gives life & joy, or sends suffering & death, and destroys what she has created.> This sounds a lot like Shakespear's nothing is good or evil but thinking makes it so. The whole concept of good and evil is just that - a human concept or interpretation (false) of our world. This leads right into "Humanity then alone is the true source of evil." I think that our search for evil must begin within ourselves. Our desire for its erradication must also begin within ourselves. < I will point out the greatest, the chief cause of nearly two thirds of the evils that pursue humanity ever since that cause became a power. It is religion under whatever form and in whatsoever nation> This is another of my very favorite quotes. Note that they include Buddhism in the same hat with the others, even though Buddhism has never had a holy war and strongly advocates peace, charity, and compassion. This cryptic phrase seems to imply the necessity of obtaining a mystical experience or samadhi, which, in fact, is taught by virtually all Eastern gurus and adepts. I think you can see from the above that I love this letter, and have no quarrels with what it is saying. Although written a long time ago, I can't see where much is outdated or no longer useful or applicable. Most of it could have been written yesterday. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Mar 1995 21:35:02 EST From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Kabbalah Postings Since I am not on Theos-Roots - it being solely for the purpose of history - I for one would like to see Alan's Kabbalah discussions here on Theos-L or on Theos-Buds. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 09:05:15 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: ML#10, study guide excerpts To Whom It May Concern Shanti! The name of this book, in case anyone wants to look at it, is "Readers' Guide to The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett" Compiled & edited by Geroge E. Linton and Virginia Hanson. Published by the TPH. Our Library sent me the 2d ed. of 1988. On the first page there's "Acknowledgements, second edition 1988" ......"To DANIEL H. CALDWELL, research student in Tucson, Az., sincere appreciation for supplying considerable valuable information on various aspects of the "Letters". Daniel H. Caldwell is the person on this list who a few days ago wrote that letters #22 and #134 were on the same subject matter as letter #10. Daniel, it is hoped that you'll take an active part in this, since you're so familiar with the ML. Could you be our Resident Scholar? Also, any anecdotes you would care to write re your connection with Virginia, George, & the ML, would be most welcome. I'm speaking for myself here, but I think others would enjoy your experiences & knowledge too. Makes the material come alive. What's in this book: Explanatory notes, Abbreviations, Chronology, Study notes, Aphabetical notes, Appendices (A-I), Summary & Chronology of the letters. I'd like to quote a little from the beginning of the study notes for letter #10, about matters which I found of interest... maybe it'll interest others as well. "This is one of the letters most often referred to, sometimes called 'Letter concerning God'. "This is probably the most controversial letter in the volume." Speaking of the volume, Nicholas you listed some 30 odd letters. Is that all there is in the new ML? my older edition has 149 letters. Also, to me the chronological order in the book is not a problem. I have these few printed pages which I pasted into the front cover. I think it's called a concordance. It lists the letter in chronological order, so that, when I read through the letters, years ago, I read them in chronological order by following that list. Dunno where the pp. came from ... probably from the TPH. ".... these 'Notes' have caused some people to reject the whole occult philosophy because of the denial of the traditional concept of God. The student is therefore asked to withold judgement. The Mahatma KH's comments are not expressed in today's language ..... "... in using the word 'God', the Mahatma is dealing with the common concept of a being who, ... sits outside his creation quite separate from it, but with power over every atom of it. In short, the kind of God in whom many people, & certainly many people in the West, believed implicitly for decades; .. many still do." The text is interspersed with quotes from scientists vintage 1970ies "It is probable that the average intelligent Christian's concept of God does not agree with the concept which the Mahatma is attacking. "... the Mahatmas were Buddhists .... in Buddhism, there is no mention of God.... It is ... the advice of a spiritual physician. The Buddha gives the cause of the human condition as ignorant craving.... What is the cure?.... a way of life. " 'It is one of the elementary & fundamental doctrines of Occultism,' says .. KH elsewhere ...' that the 2 (spirit & matter) are one, and are distinct but in their respective manifestations, & only in the limited perceptions of the world of senses'" Good day, Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 21:03:30 +1000 (GMT+1000) From: Cameron Brown Subject: Re: ML TEXT IS NOW ON "BUDS" If anyone has any typed material that they want to post to the net i'ld be glad to run it through my scanner and OCR rather than having someone type it (OTOH I am in Australia so getting the material to me.....) :)Cameron Brown From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 18:24:21 +0100 (MET) From: euser Subject: Free the internet! (fwd) Subject: URGENT PETITION -- Fight Govt. Censorship! Hello everyone... A matter has come to my attention that is of the utmost importance to all of us online. Simply put, a couple of senators have proposed a particularly heinous piece of legislation titled the "Communications Decency Act of 1995" (Senate Bill S. 314). Basically, the bill would subject all forms of electronic communication -- from public Internet postings to your most private email -- to government censorship. The effects of the bill onto the online industry would be devastating -- most colleges and private companies (AOL, Compuserve, etc.) would probably have to shut down or greatly restrict access, since they would be held criminally liable for the postings and email of private users. Obviously, this bill is designed to win votes for these senators among those who are fearful of the internet and aren't big fans of freedom of speech -- ie., those who are always trying to censor "pornography" and dirty books and such. Given the political climate in this country, this bill might just pass unless the computer community demonstrates its strength as a committed political force to be reckoned with. This, my friends, is why I have filled your mailbox with this very long message. A petition, to be sent to Congress, the President, and the media, has begun spreading through the Internet. It's easy to participate and be heard -- to sign it, you simply follow the instructions below -- which boil down to sending a quick email message to a certain address. That's all it takes to let your voice be heard. (You know, if the Internet makes democracy this accessible to the average citizen, is it any wonder Congress wants to censor it?) Finally, PLEASE forward this message to all your friends online. The more people sign the petition, the more the government will get the message to back off the online community. We've been doing fine without censorship until now -- let's show them we don't plan on allowing them to start now. If you value your freedoms -- from your right to publicly post a message on a worldwide forum to your right to receive private email without the government censoring it -- you need to take action NOW. It'll take fifteen minutes at the most, a small sacrifice considering the issues at hand. Remember, the age of fighting for liberty with muskets and shells is most likely over; the time has come where the keyboard and the phone line will prove mightier than the sword -- or the Senate, in this case. Yours in liberty, -don Here's what you have to do to sign the petition: send an e-mail message to: S314-petition@netcom.com the message (NOT the subject heading) should read as follows: SIGNED eg. SIGNED lsewell@leland.Stanford.EDU Laura Sewell YES If you are interested in signing the petition, I would highly suggest investigating the details of the situation. You can find out more on the Web at http://www.phantom.com/~slowdog or in the newsgroup comp.org.eff.talk Save the 'net! If you won't do it for the sake of justice and the American way, DO IT FOR ME!! PLEASE!!!!!! --Laura _\\|//_ Why are you unhappy? o o Because 99.9% of everything you think, --uuu--U--uuu----- & everything you do is for your self, \_/ And there isn't one. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 05 Mar 1995 02:02:01 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: The "name".... In message <950305202744_40239806@aol.com> theos-l@vnet.net writes: It's just like it seems that while some people are > dying they see visions of religious figures, but the shape of the > figures depends upon what they believe in. Christians may see > Christ or the Virgin Mary, Buddhist may see the Buddha or Quan > Yin, Mohammedans might see Muhamad, and maybe Jews would see > Moses or Abraham, or Sarah. > Liesel Perhaps _we_ shall all see a posting from jem (John Eternal Master?):-))) Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 13:01:53 -0600 From: John Tullis Subject: Re: study courses >In message <1wei2c2w165w@actrix.co.at> theos-l@vnet.net writes: >> John Mead writes: >> >> > another comment: >> > >> > the Kabbalah studies will regard the interpretation of >> > that ancient knowledge and system.. >> >> Since the Kabbalah falls squarely under the second object of the >> Society, I think it should be allowed to remain on the list. >> Same with any other religion or philosphy. Perhaps, however, it >> might be useful to relate it somehow to theosophy eg what HPB >> said about it, etc. >She goes on about it a great deal, both in _Isis_ and the SD. >Trouble is, her comments are scattered all over the place. It is >clear she regarded it much more highly than the church :-). > >Alan. Related to this, I have read from various sources that HPB received a lot of input on the Kabbalah from one of the founders of the Golden Dawn (MacGregor? ...its been a while and I'm not sure if I remember the name correctly.) It would not have been unlikely - the Theosophical Society and the Golden Dawn were contemporaries, and a few senior members of each society were members of the other. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 14:14:43 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: study courses The Golden Dawn founder with whom HPB had the most contact was W. Wynn Westcott, who helped her with the Theosophical Glossary. MacGregor Mathers, to my knowledge, was not in the same league in terms of friendship with HPB. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 06 Mar 1995 21:18:12 +1100 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: study courses John Tullis writes: > >In message <1wei2c2w165w@actrix.co.at> theos-l@vnet.net writes: > > Since the Kabbalah falls squarely under the second object of the > > Society, I think it should be allowed to remain on the list. > > Same with any other religion or philosphy. Perhaps, however, it > > might be useful to relate it somehow to theosophy eg what HPB > > said about it, etc. > >She goes on about it a great deal, both in _Isis_ and the SD. > >Trouble is, her comments are scattered all over the place. It is > >clear she regarded it much more highly than the church :-). > > > >Alan. > > Related to this, I have read from various sources that HPB > received a lot of input on the Kabbalah from one of the founders > of the Golden Dawn (MacGregor? ...its been a while and I'm not > sure if I remember the name correctly.) It would not have been > unlikely - the Theosophical Society and the Golden Dawn were > contemporaries, and a few senior members of each society were > members of the other. It just so happens that I have a book out of our not inconsiderable, but rather jumbled, library called "The Magical Mason: Forgotten Hermetic Writings of William Wynn Westcott, Physician and Magus" Edited and introduced by R.A. Gilbert. Westcott was one of _the_ founders of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. This book contains a couple of papers on the Kabalah (one "b" this time, Alan :) which were presented to the Blavatsky Lodge, and printed in "Lucifer" (in 1891/1893). He says in one paper: " Upon several previous occasions I have had the pleasure of giving lectures, by special request, upon Kabalistic Philosophy, because audiences of Theosophists/ I have indeed found that the modern Theosophist of the school of the late lamented Madame Blavatsky are found of wandering from the Sanskrit path of Occult Philosophy into the fields of the Egypto-Hebraic Mysticism of the Early Kabalah. Our respected HPB herself has also, in her books, made constant references to the philosophic and mystic doctrines of the ancient Rabbinic teachers, and, although we find her condemning many of their more modern vagaries, yet she implied the belief that the pure and ancient Kabalah was a Western offshoot from the Wisdom Religion of prehistoric times..." (Westcott has a much more approachable style that Waite's, in my view.) Anyway, kind of interesting that there was some "cross-pollination" going on between people in the different orders. ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 07 Mar 1995 09:44:48 +1200 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: To: All, & to Nicholas, re: ML Replying to Liesel, I have the ML at home. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 06 Mar 1995 19:59:44 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: ML TEXT IS NOW ON "BUDS" In message theos-l@vnet.net writes: > If anyone has any typed material that they want to post to the > net i'ld be glad to run it through my scanner and OCR rather than > having someone type it (OTOH I am in Australia so getting the > material to me.....) > > :)Cameron Brown If you get too much, I can try it on _my_ scanner (OTOH I am in England...) :-) Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 16:54:10 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: ML TEXT IS NOW ON "BUDS" Dear Cameron, Thank you. Now we can really go ahead with the ML. Are you anywhere near Brisbane ? I have some TS friends at the shore to the North of Brisbane. Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 06 Mar 1995 22:06:37 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: study courses In message <199503061901.NAA30235@mailman.pk.ac.com> theos-l@vnet.net writes: > > Since the Kabbalah falls squarely under the second object of the > > Society, I think it should be allowed to remain on the list. > > Same with any other religion or philosphy. Perhaps, however, it > > might be useful to relate it somehow to theosophy eg what HPB > > said about it, etc. > > > > > >She goes on about it a great deal, both in _Isis_ and the SD. > >Trouble is, her comments are scattered all over the place. It is > >clear she regarded it much more highly than the church :-). > > > >Alan. > > Related to this, I have read from various sources that HPB > received a lot of input on the Kabbalah from one of the founders > of the Golden Dawn (MacGregor? ...its been a while and I'm not > sure if I remember the name correctly.) It would not have been > unlikely - the Theosophical Society and the Golden Dawn were > contemporaries, and a few senior members of each society were > members of the other. Difficult to be _certain_, but yes, some were contemporary. The most likely adviser however would have been G.R.S. Mead, who wrote a lot on gnosticism - trans. Pistis Sophia, for example - and was for a time her personal secretary; certainly so, I am told by a theosophical historian, when she was writing the SD. As the Golden Dawn was a secret organisation, we cannot be certain who all the members might have been at that time. Writings by some of them appear in early editions of _The Theosophist_ and I think even in _Lucifer_. Some of the best-known names in the GD are however too late. She does mention some names of Kabbalist advisers in the SD - I'll have a rummage through the index ... AB. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 06 Mar 1995 23:31:11 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: To: All, & to Nicholas, re: ML In message <01HNUM44HVW28WW30C@SSSAK1.SSS.CO.NZ> theos-l@vnet.net writes: Replying to Liesel, I _too_ have the ML at home. I spellchecked your uploads - not bad! Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 11:29:56 -0600 From: Arthur_PattersonA@mbnet.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Mahatma Letters Anachronistic and Intolerant? I just finished reading the Mahatma letter and I am not awfully impressed, it might be a lack of historical background but I wanted to breifly speak of my reaction. First of, I found the document awfully culturally and historically bound there are a lot of rationalist and reductionistic tonalities throughout. Sinnet, since I doubt enlightened beings would speak so limitedly, must have a very strong emotional response to historic Christianity and Judaism. I am not fond of the worst aspects of those perspectives, which have enough intolerances of their own but Sinnet or whoever wrote this letter is not far from the intolerance they criticize. I think this brings me to the second big reaction and that is that Theosophy is supposed to be trans-religious not anti-any particular religion. I agree with much of the letter in way for instance on the ambiguity of the God image presented in the Scriptures, which is a hermeneutic problem not a problem of the best of monotheisim. The anthropomorphism of the Scriptures needs to be considered symbolically or metaphorically. I think that since their is a teleological purposefulness in the universe a personal metaphor for the Process might not be totally naive as Sinnet suggests. I am still willing to read and craft my view given my total ignorance of the letters and their means of production. Nonetheless these are my first impressions. Must be Getting Better, Art From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 14:23:28 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Mahatma Letters Anachronistic and Intolerant? According to Arthur Paul Patterson: > I just finished reading the Mahatma letter and I am not awfully > impressed, it might be a lack of historical background but I > wanted to breifly speak of my reaction. First of, I found the > document awfully culturally and historically bound there are a > lot of rationalist and reductionistic tonalities throughout. > Sinnet, since I doubt enlightened beings would speak so > limitedly, must have a very strong emotional response to historic > Christianity and Judaism. The letter is to Sinnett, not by him. Consider, though, that HPB and her Mahatmas were very concerned about the prospect of Christian conversion of India. There was so much missionary activity at the time that India's spiritual and political leaders welcomed HPB as a Western fellow-opponent of the proselytizers. But Olcott later admitted that the TS had gone overboard in opposing Christianity. I am not fond of the worst aspects of those > perspectives, which have enough intolerances of their own but > Sinnet or whoever wrote this letter is not far from the > intolerance they criticize. I think this brings me to the second > big reaction and that is that Theosophy is supposed to be > trans-religious not anti-any particular religion. I agree with > much of the letter in way for instance on the ambiguity of the > God image presented in the Scriptures, which is a hermeneutic > problem not a problem of the best of monotheisim. The > anthropomorphism of the Scriptures needs to be considered > symbolically or metaphorically. I think that since their is a > teleological purposefulness in the universe a personal metaphor > for the Process might not be totally naive as Sinnet suggests. Back when the letters were written, however, this kind of thinking was not yet in vogue. > I am still willing to read and craft my view given my total > ignorance of the letters and their means of production. > Nonetheless these are my first impressions. Fair enough. I hope we can all discuss our impressions without flames and hard feelings. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Mar 1995 15:10:57 EST From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re WW Westcott Re Westcott & Kabbalah. Not only did he give lectures to theosophists, and co-founded the Golden Dawn, but he was also a member of HPB's inner group - see The Inner Group Teachings of H.P. Blavatsky and you will note his name. And I agree, he is a much better read than Waite (who was not only pompous, but Christianized the GD into oblivion). As an aside, it was Westcottt who taught that the chapters of the Egyptian Book of the Dead were actually living rituals, giving me the insight to translate them as I did in my EGYPTIAN MAGICK. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 09 Mar 1995 01:41:34 GMT From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: Mahatma Letters Anachronistic & Intolerant Arthur Paul Patterson wrote: I just finished reading the Mahatma letter and I am not awfully impressed, it might be a lack of historical background but I wanted to breifly speak of my reaction. First of, I found the document awfully culturally and historically bound there are a lot of rationalist and reductionistic tonalities throughout. ... etc I don't find it hard to understand this reaction to this particular letter, at all. It helps, though, to keep in mind that it's on record that the Mahatmas found it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find English words and phrases to convey their more occult knowledge. As Arthur says, the hermeneutics of the scriptural God image is ambiguous to say the least. Finding truth in this letter clearly depends on how we interpret it, too, piecing together an esoteric idea from a bunch of inadequate words. As I said in an earlier post, the word "God" in those days would have been laden with connotations which would be incompatible with the Mahatmas' world view, while having a few that would have been compatible which Arthur called "the best of monotheism". I guess the Mahatma chose to confront those that disagreed or were anthropomorphic, perhaps thinking he had to do some breaking down before he could introduce subtler ideas. Although Sinnett didn't write these letters, they were written for him, and in any communication, the receiving person conditions or limits what can be sent and understood. The light of the Master's consciousness falling upon Sinnett's (or anyone else's, for that matter) psyche could perhaps be likened to how the energy of the sun is filtered and attenuated when it falls on the atmosphere of the earth. Much of the high-frequency radiation (X-rays and ultraviolet, in the physical example) is lost before it reaches the ground. But it's there if we rise a way above the ground. Certainly, the Mahatma would have chosen the words, but what could be said would have been strongly determined by the Sinnett's makeup and thought world, especially as the letters were aimed at him specifically. Murray Stentiford From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 07 Mar 1995 18:37:42 GMT From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Mahatma Letters Anachronistic and Intolerant? In message theos-l@vnet.net writes: > I just finished reading the Mahatma letter and I am not awfully > impressed, It may seem anachronist because of the distance in time from which we perceive it. Whoever wrote the letter {supposedly to Sinnett} wrote, it seems to me, in terms suitable to the understanding of its receiver, who was a 19th century enquirer steeped in the values of _his_ age, not ours. No point in writing to an uneducated Chinese in Turkish. Putting the letter in its time-context helps to make more sense of it. I would consider it as a very _theosophical_ letter :-). It enquires after truth, of which we say there is no religion higher than [syntax?]. > The anthropomorphism of the Scriptures needs to be considered > symbolically or metaphorically. Good point - in fact it is difficult, in the light of the scholarship of the past 100 years or so, to argue anything else. It may be, however, that we underestimate the true perceptions of the writers of Scripture(s). There is "milk for babes" in them as well as more substantial "food" for those "with ears to hear." > I think that since their is a teleological purposefulness in the > universe a personal metaphor for the Process might not be totally > naive as Sinnet suggests. There is an assumption here that a teleological purposefuless in the universe is a given fact. Evidence please? :-). BTW, folks, _I had to look it up too_. "Teleology" is defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as "Doctrine of final causes, view that developments are due to the purpose or design that is served by them." > Must be Getting Better, > > Art Nice to hear it! Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 07 Mar 1995 18:56:46 GMT From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Comments on ML #10. To Jerry S. Yep. Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Mar 1995 00:39:19 GMT From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Re WW Westcott In message <950307201056_76400.1474_FHA86-1@CompuServe.COM> theos-l@vnet.net writes: > Re Westcott & Kabbalah. To Jerry S. Thanks for the info. Maybe WWW doesn't mean what we thought it did :-). Reading Waite can be like wading through treacle! Unfortunately, he had some useful, albiet long-winded things to say. SOme of the GD material has now been seen to be faulty, as I was able to demonstrate in my KEYS TO KABBALAH. (My turn for the Book plug) ::--))) AB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 09:12:00 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: belief systems and the Mahatmas To whom it may concern, especially to Art, I was debating with myself whether to put this on -l or on -buds, but I think it's of interest to everyone, not just those interested in the ML, so I'm putting it on -l.. It seems that human beings need some sort of a belief framework in which to operate. You can go inside or outside your framework with your ideas, as the occasion warrants, you can change around your framework when you come across an idea somewhere that suits you better. Christianity is such a framework, as are all religions. Sciences are such frameworks. Nowadays religious frameworks have had to adapt to Relativity Theory, chaos theory, Heisenberg Principle, particle physics, and the scientific beliefs seem to be reaching some sort of a rapprochement with the religious ones, "The Tao of Physics" must be about 20 years old by now, & has been followed by a number of other books. Yesterday, I was listening to a section of a talk by Emily Sellon, (who was a member of the New York Lodge, & a fantastic lecturer/thinker) in which she says that she thinks particles disappearing & reappearing is part of the laws of reincarnation. A particle, she thinks, has a short life span, so it dies (disappears) and reappears (is reborn) incessantly in a matter of seconds. Well, that links up well with my belief in reincarnation, & with what I've read about the actions of particles, so I've made Emily's idea part of my belief system. Different people have different needs as to what belief system suits them best. It depends on the culture you've come out of, and also on you as a person. This goes for different Theosophists as well, as DePurucker will tell Geoffrey Hodson. My own belief system is eclectic. I started out adopting many Buddhist views, (mostly Christmas Humphreys', & lateron Lama Govinda's) but over the years, these views have become modified by beliefs I've picked up here & there as they made sense to me. I look for a system that is useful for me to live by, & since things have a habit of changing a lot (an idea I got from the Buddhists) I try to make my belief system versatile & flexible (an idea I got from Harry VG, a Dutch -Indonesian Theosophist, reinforced by Serge King, a Hawaiian Kahuna). These 2 have also taught me something about forgiveness, about which I didn't learn anything as I was growing up, that concept being reinforced by "Hate the deed, but love the doer" of Martin Luther King Jr. As I said, my own belief system is eclectic. Something I need to remind myself of from time to time, just recently when some of us were discussing Kabbalah with Alan Bain, is that no one has a corner of the Truth. Whatever the Absolute perceives,( & I myself believe that there is some sort of an intelligence that plays around with natural forc es until there are leaves & trees, DNA & blood circulation, lumbering turtles & cute little fuzzy pussy cats. It's a belief I've adapted from certain Theosophists) whatever Absolute perception is, in manifestation, on the level where we're at, I think it's more like the Indian story of the blind men who were touching different parts of an elephant. One thought an elephant looked like a trunk, & another thought it looked like a little curly tail etc. What I'm coming to is that I think we should read the ML in just that spirit. Take out of it whatever wisdom appeals to us, & leave the rest. I didn't answer Arthur Paul yesterday, because I thought Murray did very adequately. This AM ( always after I've slept on it), I want to tell Art that I perceive letter #10 as being very slanted towards Buddhism. Doesn't bother me, because I tend to go that way anyhow. But I can see how what KH says would bother an ex Menonite Christian Minister. Paul, I know, by now, something about your Christian beliefs, and I think they're just as beautiful & useful & valid as my Buddhist/Kahuna/Jewish/Christian etc etc ones. Matter of fact, they often coincide, expressed, perhaps, in different terms. I would ask you to take out of these letters what you can use, & leave the rest. That's what HPB meant for us to do, & that's what Theosophy is all about. We have our doctrine, but aside from a belief in Brother/Sisterhood, the indvidual is free to choose. It's 1 reason why we have so many factions. I began my day today by reading part of ML #XXII, which Daniel Caldwell said was related to #10. It talks of God from a different angle. It starts out with the voluntary & the involuntary parts of our brain/nervous system, & expounds on "as below, so above". If we're made that way, so is the universe made that way. I think Daniel was right, those 3 letter belong together. I've got other things on my schedule for today, but, unless someone volunteers to do the chore, I'll try to put on ML#22 next week-end. Namaste Liesel PS Come to think of it, John Algeo comes into this elclectic mix. It was while I was going over Basic Theosophy by correspondence with him, that I first learned about that we all function within our own belief framework/system. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 9:58:42 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: NCoker's address Dear Theos-l: I want to send email to Nancy Coker but don't have her address written down. Someone once posted a method of getting addresses of all subscribers. Can you please remind me/us how this is done? Thanks Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 09:18:41 -0600 From: Arthur_PattersonA@mbnet.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Loving our Way to the Source > It seems that human beings need some sort of a belief framework > in which to operate. You can go inside or outside your framework > with your ideas, as the occasion warrants, you can change around > your framework when you come across an idea somewhere that suits > you better. Christianity is such a framework, as are all > religions. Liesel, This is the wisdom that I wished the writer of Mahatma #10 had when discussing G-d. We are within our relative frameworks. Yet as I thin about what Murray and Paul said I concluded that the relative framework of this author's comments have to be honored as well. If there was not possible for the lettter writer or receiver to speak in terms of the radical relativity that we are in in our Post-Modern times. But like the feminists who itch and scratch when they hear about Mankind I get rubbed when I encounter "exclusivism and intolerance" in culturally limited situations. I recall when studying the Hebrew Scriptures how the concept of the "chosen people" whether applied to Torah followers of Christ followers urked me. I was rattled when I read in greek the patriarchy of Paul, including his advocation of slavery, which left me wondering how the Risen Christ could possibily be encountered in the writings of a bigot. Later I realized that that there was a context of Paul's ( The Apostle) comments and there were limitations. So I get a chance to do the same with these letters, reading them contextually. What happened when I did that is that I came to understand Paul and even see the fledgling seeds of liberation within his ideas couched though they were in limited language. The chosen nation status of Israel can be read likewise- that all become chosen in the seed of liberation found in the Torah. So the Mahatma letter must be read contextually in view of the seed of liberation within. Read this way I see another picture or image emerging, I will contemplate that for a while and get back when I can. > Different people have different needs as to what belief system > suits them best. It depends on the culture you've come out of, > and also on you as a person. This goes for different > Theosophists as well, as DePurucker will tell Geoffrey Hodson. > My own belief system is eclectic. I started out adopting many > Buddhist views, (mostly Christmas Humphreys', & lateron Lama > Govinda's) but over the years, these views have become modified > by beliefs I've picked up here & there as they made sense to me. > I look for a system that is useful for me to live by, & since > things have a habit of changing a lot (an idea I got from the > Buddhists) I try to make my belief system versatile & flexible > (an idea I got from Harry VG, a Dutch -Indonesian Theosophist, > reinforced by Serge King, a Hawaiian Kahuna). These 2 have also > taught me something about forgiveness, about which I didn't learn > anything as I was growing up, that concept being reinforced by > "Hate the deed, but love the doer" of Martin Luther King Jr. As > I said, my own belief system is eclectic. I like that sort of eclectism. I think that it bespeaks an honoring of traditions while transcending them at the same time. To use the metaphor then when up against the edge of mystery be willing to sacrifice it for the larger truth. To slightly paraphrase, There is no religion bigger than the truth. > What I'm coming to is that I think we should read the ML in just > that spirit. Take out of it whatever wisdom appeals to us, & > leave the rest. I didn't answer Arthur Paul yesterday, because I > thought Murray did very adequately. This AM ( always after I've > slept on it), I want to tell Art that I perceive letter #10 as > being very slanted towards Buddhism. Doesn't bother me, because > I tend to go that way anyhow. But I can see how what KH says > would bother an ex Menonite Christian Minister. Paul, I know, by > now, something about your Christian beliefs, and I think they're > just as beautiful & useful & valid as my > Buddhist/Kahuna/Jewish/Christian etc etc ones. Matter of fact, > they often coincide, expressed, perhaps, in different terms. Liesel you are completely right about being influenced by my Mennonite training and experience however much I am not in it right now. I do think, I should say pray and hope, that my relationship to modern spirituality of the Jungian or and Psychoanalytic traditions has served to form me as well. I think my critical thought came from studying higher critical thought in university which had the best of humanist thinking in it. I may not be as thoroughly eclectic as some of the list but I believe my pilgrimage is leading me to the same eclectic syncretism that is reflected in your writing, Liesel. My main hope however is not to have the theory figured out but to grow into a compassionate person who honors others and yet stays true to their own lights. > It talks of God from a different angle. It starts out with the > voluntary & the involuntary parts of our brain/nervous system, & > expounds on "as below, so above". As I was waiting of my wife Bev to come out from here work place I read an article by Sri Ashish and was awakened by the sentence. It was in non-inclusive language so excuse this, "Man is at one with the universe; and that is the same as saying that man is at one with God.Man is God, or God is Man; it makes little difference which way one looks at it. Nor is it a blank impersonal power, for what is blank and impersonal could not give birth to the full personality of man. But to say that divine power encompasses personality does not mean that there is a personal God, for hte univerally diffused awareness does not discriminate between the bliss of one individual or the suffering of another. While this quote appears contradictory it is a marvellous, in my estimate, statement of the paradox that the Mystery is unutterable in the last analysis. It is beyond both impersonal category and personal ones beyond language itself. I think it can only be found in the existential experience of being alive whether sick or healthy, poor or rich, with all limitation. Whatever is beyond us is that which we are utterly dependent upon - as Tillich called it the Ground of Being. I want to acknowledge that Ground and perhaps love my way into a fuller knowledge of it. Augustine put it really well when he said: "This is Thou; and this is not Thou" Herein is the affirmation of images and the negation of the same images. under the Mercy, Art From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 11:07:32 -0500 (EST) From: John Mead Subject: e-mail address hi - to get a list of subscribers, send a message to listserv@vnet.net containing the line review theos-L peace - john mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 12:34:31 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Book Spam SUNY just faxed me the cover design and back cover copy for my new book. With apologies to those who don't want to read it [no flames please] here is the back cover stuff: INITIATES OF THEOSOPHICAL MASTERS K. Paul Johnson Examines the careers of the most distinguished disciples of the Theosophical Masters profiled in The Masters Revealed; including George Ivanovitch Gurdjieff, Alexandra David-Neel, Anagarika Dharmapala, and Isabelle Eberhardt. [among 32 title characters--PJ] "Johnson is always interesting to read and the topic is central to the spiritual history of the twentieth century." -- Joscelyn Godwin The author examines the careers of the most distinguished disciples of the Theosophical Masters. He begins by examining the concept of initiation promoted by the Theosophical movement's founders. Each section investigates a separate category of initiates, focusing consecutively on Hindus, Muslims and Baha'is, Buddhists, and Western female occultists. More than just a study of Theosophy, this book explores many related developments in political and religious history. Among the figures it illumines in new ways are Anagarika Dharmapala, Alexandra David-Neel, George Ivanovitch Gurdjieff, and Isabelle Eberhardt. Its approach brings needed objectivity and balance to a topic too long mythologized by cultists and ignored by scholars. "What I like most about the book is that Johnson is covering new territory. Moreover, he is grounding Theosophical claims in actual history. There is no question in my mind that Johnson's studies-- this one in particular-- will become the benchmark by which other works in Theosophy will be appraised."-- David Christopher Lane "This is a valuable exploration of the spiritual impact of Theosophy on individual seekers and activists. The author largely avoids the well-trodden areas such as the Irish literary renaissance, and the early Krishnamurti saga, to follow new trajectories, such as the detailed Gurdjieff-Blavatsky comparison."-- Leslie Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Mar 1995 12:54:19 EST From: uscap9m9@ibmmail.com Subject: ML Electronic Book Vic Hao Chin has given me permission to make an electronic copy (in Adobe Acrobat format) of his chronological edition of "The Mahatma Letters". I will try to get it ready this weekend and then put it into the "theos-l" archives. When it is available, I'll post a note. A reader program (available to distribute free) for DOS, Windows, Mac, Unix, is available from Adobe. I'll try to see if one can be downloaded from adobe's internet address before uploading a copy myself. The book is still under copyright, and a personal copy may be made by "theos-l" students, but permission from Vic would be required to give copies to other people. His mailing address is: vhc@philtap.tool.nl -- Eldon Tucker (eldon@netcom.com) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Mar 1995 23:19:36 EST From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: The Anti-Christian Writings of HPB Authur touches on a sensitive issue, and I feel that I need to give him some background. Perhaps some of you (hint, Paul) with an historical background can chime in as well. Arthur: < I think this brings me to the second big reaction and that is that Theosophy is supposed to be trans-religious not anti-any particular religion.> You are essentially correct. But the early founders found that they had to give reasons for why others should switch their religion. HPB in particular, caught a lot of heat from Jesuits and others, and found herself in a position of defense most of the time. They also felt strongly that Christianity had a lot of holes in it. For example, the whole concept of Satan had been screwed with over the years and was wrong (in their opinion). So, many of them spent a lot of time defending theosophy and showing where Chrisitanity was wrong - which I think we will all admit sounds a lot like criticism and plain anti-Christianity. However, HPB and the Masters all agreed that what they called 'esoteric Christianity' was good stuff and needed to be brought out into public. So you will come across pieces of their writings that sound very harsh and critical, and other pieces that sound supportive and acceptive. There has been very little criticism of Christianity or its churches or teachings since those early days. It is very doubtful that a 'good' Christian can read or study HPB's works and not give up on theosophy in short order, because of her attacks, which sometimes were quite bitter sounding. As I had already given up on Christianity before reading her writings, I found myself saying Yeah! Go get 'em, and agreeing with her on most things (some of her arguments are hard to follow today, and one wonders why the heck she is trying to attack dead horses. Only, they weren't dead yet when she wrote it!) I think the reason why you find Christianity was especially singled out for attack was because that is where all the heat was coming from. Theosophy received very little flack from the Hindu, Buddhist, or Islam communities. Christians, especially the Jesuits, attacked HPB and theosophy both with a vengence and her writings are sandwiched with all manner of defensive rebuttals. I suspect that this is one reason why few Christians switch to theosophy. It may also be one reason why Steiner left to form his own Anthroposophy, which in my view is just a Christianized form of theosophy. This is strickly my own humble opinion, but I think that because HPB has already provided a strong rebuttal to Christianity in her writings, we see little of any attacks today. There is no longer any need. Today we can concentrate on universal siblinghood and let her writings stand as sufficient religious rebuttal to any would-be antagonist. For this, we all owe her a large debt of gratitude. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Mar 1995 23:20:08 EST From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Mathers & HPB Paul Mathers admitted to actually seeing HPB only one time. However, he had a lot of respect for her, and to my knowledge, never once criticized her. On this same line, I still have a letter from Israel Regardie (who made public the Golden Dawn secret rituals) in which he admits to a great admiration for HPB, whom he affectionately called the Old Lady. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 14:37:23 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: K. Morris book The 2/15 Library Journal has a review for Kenneth Morris's short story collection The Dragon Path (Tor Bks, ISBN 0-312-85309-2, $23.95). It reads "This collection of short fiction from one of fantasy literature's seminal authors includes a number of pseudonymous works as well as a thoughtful essay on Morris's often-overlooked contributions to the genre." Morris was a longtime resident of the Point Loma Theosophical community and later returned to his native Wales where he continued as an active member of the PL society. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 14:51:02 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: The Anti-Christian Writings of HPB According to Jerry Schueler: > > You are essentially correct. But the early founders > found that they had to give reasons for why others should > switch their religion. HPB in particular, caught a lot > of heat from Jesuits and others, and found herself in a > position of defense most of the time. HPB emerged as a writer with her defenses of Spiritualism, which was condemned by the mainstream churches and the scientific establishment. But in India, she was pretty much on the attack against Christianity, due to its effort to belittle and undermine Hinduism, Sikhism, etc. This I think was encouraged by her Masters, who saw Indian culture as being in danger of destruction by the English. > anti-Christianity. However, HPB and the Masters all agreed > that what they called 'esoteric Christianity' was good > stuff and needed to be brought out into public. Arthur, you might wish to see HPB's New Testament Commentaries (PLP, 1988?) for a more sympathetic side of her approach to Christianity. So you > will come across pieces of their writings that sound very > harsh and critical, and other pieces that sound supportive > and acceptive. This, fortunately, is true of all religious traditions. Despite her great respect for India, HPB was capable of vigorous criticism of Hindu conservatism. There has been very little criticism of > Christianity or its churches or teachings since those > early days. It is very doubtful that a 'good' Christian > can read or study HPB's works and not give up on theosophy > in short order, because of her attacks, which sometimes > were quite bitter sounding. Isis Unveiled and some of the periodical pieces are; but isn't this tendency gone by the time of the SD, Key and Voice? As I had already given up on > Christianity before reading her writings, I found myself > saying Yeah! Go get 'em, and agreeing with her on most > things (some of her arguments are hard to follow today, and > one wonders why the heck she is trying to attack dead > horses. Only, they weren't dead yet when she wrote it!) > I think the reason why you find Christianity was especially > singled out for attack was because that is where all the heat > was coming from. Theosophy received very little flack from > the Hindu, Buddhist, or Islam communities. Christians, > especially the Jesuits, Having been told recently that someone is accusing me of being a tool of the Jesuits, I must comment that I have never heard of or seen any evidence concerning supposed anti-TS conspiracies by them. (That's what they paid me bunches of money to say. Yeah, right.) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Mar 1995 15:08:18 EST From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Paul, re your new book Paul. Your new book sounds great. When will it be available? I note that you are including Alexandra David-Neel. I was not aware of any theosohpical tie-in with her, as she never mentions HPB or vice versa, as far as I know. IMHO, she was more up on Tibetan Buddhism than HPB. Of course, that is as it should be, since she lived there for a few years. Could we get a heads up on the connection here, or must we wait for the book to come out? Did they actually meet at some point? Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Mar 1995 15:07:37 EST From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Quantum Foam Liesel I agree with Ms Sellon on this. I am including a short piece that I did recently on the quantum foam which may be of interest. I have deleted references and figures to keep it in ASCII: Quantum Foam--A Creative Matrix. Nuclear particles are known to enfold and unfold in endless processes within their quantum fields. Elementary particles have self-referential iterations (repetitions) which create and/or destroy themselves from a vacuum state. According to modern quantum mechanics, there is no such thing as a vacuum. What was once considered a vacuum is now known to be seething with the creation and destruction of virtual particles. Virtual particles cannot be detected directly, but scientists know them from their effects. They are born and they die so fast that they cannot be detected. In essence, they represent a quantum foam where chaos and order struggle together ceaselessly, the one coming out of the other, over and over, forever. Experimentalist, Willis Lamb, was actually able to measure the vacuum polarization in the vacuum between the electron and nucleus of the hydrogen atom. He measured a small change in the orbit of the electron due to the inherent background charge in what was previously thought to be empty space. His observations compared favorably to those calculated theoretically by using the equations of quantum electrodynamics. Modern science has discovered that chaos and cosmos exist together even at the quantum level. The quantum foam of science is comparable to the chaos of alchemy. Translating an alchemical work, Jung describes chaos as an "assortment of crude disordered matter .... [which nevertheless contains the] divine seeds of life". This chaos-order relationship is also embedded in the Chinese symbol of yin-yang. Jerry S. ps. In short, there is no such thing as a vaccum, and there is an energy field everywhere throughout our space-time continuum. This includes within our physical bodies. If we can make the assumption that consciousness can influence this energy field and bring about the manifestation or change from energy to matter, or vice versa, within the quantum foam of our own body, then I think we are on to a real scientific understanding of how yoga, biofeedback, and other such techniques actually work. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 19:20:13 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: ML Electronic Book Hurray, & Amen! Now we can really get going on this project. How do you get the reader program from Adobe. From what you say, I gather one has to have that to download the ML. Thanks, Eldon Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Mar 1995 23:18:01 GMT From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Loving our Way to the Source In message theos-l@vnet.net writes: > As I was waiting of my wife Bev to come out from here work place > I read an article by Sri Ashish and was awakened by the sentence. > > It was in non-inclusive language so excuse this, "Man is at one > with the universe; and that is the same as saying that man is at > one with God.Man is God, or God is Man; it makes little > difference which way one looks at it. Nor is it a blank > impersonal power, for what is blank and impersonal could not give > birth to the full personality of man. But to say that divine > power encompasses personality does not mean that there is a > personal God, for hte univerally diffused awareness does not > discriminate between the bliss of one individual or the suffering > of another. To Art: Reading the above (which is more or less how I see it) inspired me to look out one or two quotes (again, there is a shortage of inclusive language, alas): "There is no Religion higher than truth." (TS) "The spirit of truth ... will guide you into all truth." John 16:13 "I will not engage on wordy disputes, such as can only unsettle the minds of those who are listening. The Law is intended for edification, and it is an excellent thing, where it is applied legitimately, because its end is charity, based on purity of heart, on a good conscience and a sincere faith. Christ our master well knows which are the two commandments on which, he said, all the Law and the Prophets depend. "O my God, light of my eyes in darkness, since I believe in these commandments and confess them to be true with all my heart, how can it harm me that it should be possible to interpret these words [of scripture] in several ways, all of which may yet be true? How can it harm me if I understand the writer's meaning in a different sense from that which another understands it? All of us who read his words do our best to discover and understand what he had in mind. "Provided, therefore, that each one of us tries as best he can to understand in the holy scriptures what the writer meant ... what harm is there if a reader believes what you, the light of all truthful minds, show him to be the true meaning? It may not even be the meaning which the writer had in mind, and yet he too saw .. a true meaning, different though it may have been from this." St. Augustine, _Confessions_ xii, 18. It seems to me that the spirit of Augustine's view, if not the letter, is the best way to approach our studies, including the MLs. Ultimately, as Liesel has [I think] suggested, it is the experiential part that matters. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Mar 1995 23:47:07 GMT From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: The Anti-Christian Writings of HPB To Jerry S. and others interested: While HPB may seem to attack Christianity, iy has mostly seemd to me that the main thrust of her objections were against "Churchianity" and especially the Roman Catholic variety. The (as she saw it) _core_ teachings of Christianity were fine - it was the twisting and abuse of them to which she objected, and rightly so. Personally, I do not agree that the debate is by any means over, especially with the increase in religious s-called "fundamentalism" among all the world religions. Her at Bristol, UK, Lodge, we have an old poster which was once used for local publicity, which reads: "THERE IS ONLY ONE LIFE ENERGY shared in varying degrees of consciousness by man and animal, vegetable and mineral, so THE BROTHERHOOD OF HUMANITY is not an ideal to which we all aspire but a fact in nature, which all must realize." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 09 Mar 1995 00:00:09 GMT From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: ML Electronic Book To Eldon (or anyone who knows): I have seen the Adobe Acrobat reader you mention on a few ftp sites, but wonder if, for the DOS user on a PC, a minimum 386 machine is needed - it's a big file to download if I can't use it on a 286! :-). From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Mar 1995 20:50:40 -0700 (MST) From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Various comments on ML #10 and HPB's Anti-Christian remarks I have been very preoccupied with various other duties but have scanned my last 100 E-mail messages and feel compelled to make a few comments. I assume the Mahatma letter being commented upon is ML #10 (so listed in the first 3 editions) and designated as Letter No. 88 in the new chronological edition. First of all, the letter is NOT written by A.P. Sinnett but the letter is actually extracts of notes by Master Koot Hoomi on several "chapters" or essays written by A.O. Hume. Also these Mahatma Letters were not written soley for A.P. Sinnett and A.O. Hume, but as indicated in the letters themselves, the teachings and occult ideas were to be disseminated in articles and books written by A.O. Hume and A.P. Sinnett. In other words, the teachings were to be conveyed to the general public. Back to letter #10, I would suggest that this letter needs to be carefully studied and viewed in the context of what is written in Letters 22 and 134. Plus the concepts need to looked out in the light of what HPB says elsewhere in the first 200 pages of Vol. I of the Secret Doctrine, as well as in Isis Unveiled, the Key to Theosophy, etc. I believe Arthur Osborn provides much background in his COSMIC WOMB. And at the end of ML #82 (Letter No. 113 in the chrono ed), KH provides additional insight into what he means in Letter #10 when he writes: "...according to Mr. Massey's philosophical conclusion *we have no god?* He is right---since he applies the name to an extracosmic anomaly, and that, we knowing nothing of the latter, find each man his *God*--within himself in his own personal , and at the same time *impersonal* Avalokiteswara...." How many millions if not billions of people still believe in a "God" separate from themselves and separate from the universe? It is said that there are 50 million "born-again" Christians in the U.S.A. Having had discussions with many of these fundamentallist, orthodox Christians, I can assume you that probably 99.9% of them believe in the kind of "God" that Master K.H. says does NOT exist! [Correction: in the last sentence the word "assume" should be "assure"!] And related to this is the statement that HPB was anti-Christianity. She certainly criticized the "literal" interpretation of the Bible. She also was against "elevating" the Bible and Christianity to a unique status among all world scriptures and world religions. How many millions if not hundreds of millions of Christians still believe the Bible is alone divinely inspired and all other religious writings come from Satan? How many millions... still believe that Jesus Christ alone saves one's soul from Damanation and hellfire? How many millions still disbelieve in reincarnation because they believe the Bible does NOT teach such a concept? How many millions... still beleive that there really was a Garden of Eden, that there really was a physical opening of the Red Sea, etc. etc? How many of the millions of Christians know 2 cents about the sacred writings of Hinduism, Buddhisms, Sikhism, etc. etc? STudents of Theosophy would do well to publicize that there is an esoteric side to Christianity, that the language of symbolism and allegory does exist and that the Bible is but part of a much larger corpus of sacred writings. etc etc. The book THE NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARIES OF H. P. BLAVATSKY (I believe that is the exact title?) published by Point Loma Publications is a good reference point from which to start the exploration of what HPB says about Christianity but, unfortunately, no book has been written to date which attempts to show in both general and specific terms what HPB says about Christianity, about the historicity of Jesus Christ, about the origins of Christianity, about the relationship between Chrisitianity and other world religions, about esoteric Christianity and the language of symbols and allegory as found in both the Old and New Testaments and in various religious writings from the Gnostics to the Norse myths, from the Puranas to Mesopotaminan mythology, etc. etc. I mean a really indepth treatment covering possibly 500 to 1000 pages. As it is, even most students of Theosophy are probably not as aware as they should be as to what HPB and her Masters taught on these topics. Letter # 10 is a very profound letter and much of what is said is not easily assimilated without exploring the background as to what Master K.H. says. In doing classes on the Mahatma Letters, I find that students to often start disagreeing with what the Mahatamas says *before* they really know what the Mahatmas are talking about! Read the latter part of Letter No. 22 where Master K.H. says "Learn first our laws and educate your perceptions." and also: "I tell you plainly you are unfit to learn, for your mind is too full ,and there is not a corner vacant from whence a previous occupant would not arise, to struggle with and drive away the newcomer. Therefore... I only give you time to reflect and deduce and first learn well what was already given to you...." Much of Letters 10 and 22 deal with the concept of "theism" as opposed to A-theism and PAN-theism. Look these terms up in a good encyclopedia or consult THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY edited by Paul Edwards. See the article "Concepts of God" in the Ency of Phil. and the related articles on Arguments for the Existence of God, as well as the articles on Atheism, Pantheism and Theism in the volumes edited by Paul Edwards. For example, the article on Theism starts off by saying: "Theism signifies belief in one God (theos) whi is (a) personal, (b) worthy of adoration, and (c) separate from the world, but (d) continuously active in it." [Correction: the word "whi" in the last sentence should be "who".] KH's comments in letter 10 and 22 is a critique of the theistic concept. Another book that gives good back ground material to Letters 10 and 22 is the book by John Hick entitled PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION. See especially chapters on "The Judaic-Christian Concept of God", "Grounds for Belief in God," and "Grounds for Disbelief in God." Since K.H. mentions Samuel Clarke. Spinoza, Baron de Holbach, and others in Letter 10, read the biographical articles on these individuals in THE ENCYLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY and K.H.'s comments may appear more understandable, etc. In summary, the letters under consideration need to be read, reread and studied and the student needs to educated himself on many subjets relevant to the letters including not only the ones mentioned above but also on mysticism (in the sense of a universal mysticism), esoteric christianity, etc. Those interested should now read Letter #134 which has caused a great deal of controversy in Theosophical circles. It will be interesting to hear people's comments on the subject matter of Letter 134 (as numbered in the first 3 editions of the MLs). Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 09 Mar 1995 05:56:37 -0500 (EST) From: RAINGER@delphi.com Subject: Adam Warcup Dear All Just to let you know that Adam Warcup, former General Secretary of the English Section, is in hospital in London and may be there for the next two or three weeks. Please do not send him any more e-mail as he already has a backlog of 3 weeks which he has not read. He will let you know when he is back on line. Thanks. Michael Rainger From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 09 Mar 1995 05:56:58 -0500 (EST) From: RAINGER@delphi.com Subject: Mahatma Letters Liesel - Thanks. Now have complete No 10. Adam Warcup suggests that you read Letter No. 22 as it deals with the same subjects as Letter 10. May I suggest two books that may be of help with the study of the letters - in addition to The Reader's Guide, which is essential. They are "The Mahatmas & Their Letters" by Barborka, publ by TPH, Adyar - available from Wheaton and London: "Study Course on The Mahatma Letters to AP Sinnett" - a 95page booklet compiled by Olive Dutta & Adam Warcup and available from The Information Department, Theosophical Society, 50 Gloucester Place, London W1H 4EA England. If anyone wants any second-hand theosophical or esoteric books, I have a list available - please ask. Michael Rainger email rainger@delphi.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 14:08:03 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Paul, re your new book Dear Jerry-- I don't have the galleys here, but can summarize the material about ADN off the top of my head. 1) She MIGHT have met HPB as her first contact with the TS was in London in 1889 (I think)-- anyway, before HPB's death. 2) But she didn't join the TS until after HPB's death, 1891 I think, after having spent some time in a Paris Group called The Supreme Gnosis. 3) Daniel Caracostea has unearthed correspondence suggesting that ADN applied to Annie Besant to join the ES, but did further research finding that she never actuall 4) ADN continued to be an active TS member through her first extended period in India and Ceylon in 1912. But after a long stay at Adyar, she (like P.D. Ouspensky who went there around the same time) became disillusioned with Besant and the TS, and never said much about Theosophy thereafter. 5) Her great exploits in Tibet therefore postdate her 21 years of active Theosophical involvement. She does mention that her Tibetan teachers were amused and surprised by the idea of precipitation of letters, apportation of objects, etc. being associated with their practices, and considered the thought an irreverent joke. That's the gist of it. Interesting re HPB is that the present Dalai Lama has called ADN the first to bring true knowledge of Tibet to the West. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 9 Mar 1995 15:44:18 -0400 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: guidance Ann, I too came to theosophy via Surgre's book on Cayce. Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 15:58:26 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: guidance Maybe we have a pattern forming. My first contact with Theosophy was through the library of the A.R.E. in Virginia Beach. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 16:36:06 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Corrections-ADN I found my section on Alexandra David-Neel on the hard drive, and thus can correct my earlier post. The Supreme Gnosis, an occult group to which ADN belonged, was in London, not Paris, and she spent some time there in 1887, during which she may have met HPB and the London TS. But she didn't join the TS until 1889 after returning to Paris (not 91 after HPB died.) She joined Lady Caithness's lodge. In 1891-2 she spent time in India including Adyar, where she was for a longer period in 1911. She had become involved with the entourage of Anagarika Dharmapala in 1906 in London, and in 1912 met the Maharaja of Sikkim, who sponsored her studies and travels for a time. Thenceforth her interest was almost exclusively in Mahayana Buddhism. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 18:51:29 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: S-314,Commun. Decency Act of '95 Below "Abstract & Digest" for S.314. "(from Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress)" I asked & received this abstract from the office of my Senator, A. D'Amato. I went over the abstract with a retired judge who lives in my building, and since we had several more questions, I recontacted D'Amato's office, & they'll answer them, hopefully, within a few days, when I'll pass them on to you. S. 314 'Amends the Communications Act of 1934", and since we were wondering, among other things, whether the original act stipulated that the definition of "obscene, indecent language" was to be arrived nationally or locally, we decided to ask D'Amato's office for the "Legislative Intent", something which is included with every proposed law. I personally am not sure as to what I would consider "obscene &/or indecent", & what censorship. I'm also wondering whether making it a federal offense would stop a pervert. I agree with making it a federal offense when someone is "annoying, abusing, threatening, or harassing" people. Please take a good look at (Sec.4), # (1) Do you consider that censorship? (Sec.4), # (2) It is not clear to us what's meant by this sentence, especially by "prohibited against". Is the law for or against "interception and disclosure of various forms of communication". (Sec.6), concerns the internet Here's the whole abstact: "Communications Decency Act of 1995 - Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit the use of any telecommunications device (currently, only the telephone) by a person not disclosing their identity in order to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person who receives such communication. Prohibits the repeated use of a telcommunications device solely for harassment purposes. Prohibits a person from allowing the use of any telecommunications facitlty (Currently, telelphone facility) in his or her control for such purposes. Increase (1) the fine and maximum sentence for such violations; and (2) the fine for the transmission over a cable system of obscene or otherwise unprotected material. "(Sec.4) Amends the Federal criminal code to: (1) increase the fine for broadcasting obscene, indecent, or profane language over the radio; and (2) include digital communications in a prohibition against the interception and disclosure of various forms of communications. "(Sec.6) Prohibits a person making a toll-free telphone call from being assessed a charge for the call by being asked to connect or otherwise transfer to a pay-per-call service. "(Sec.7) Requires a cable operator, in providing video programming unsuitable for children to any subscriber through a cable system, to fully scramble or otherwise block the video and audio portion of each channel carrying such programming to ensure that one not a subscriber to such programming does not receive it. "(Sec.8) Allows a cable operator to refuse to transmit any portion of a public access program or leased access program which contains obscenity, indecency, or nudity." When I get the rest, I'll post it. I thought that you'd all like to see this, in the meantime. Liesel F.Deutsch From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 19:17:59 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Various comments on ML #10 and HPB's Anti-Christian remarks This morning I reread letter #10, and this afternoon read #134 as Daniel suggests. First, about letter 10, I must say that rereading it I found much to admire and appreciate and relatively mild disrespect for theism. It seems we have agreed not to discuss the historical details of the letters' receipt etc., but to bracket these and focus only on doctrinal content. Is this true? I fear getting flamed if I share my views on how and why they were written, but it's hard to discuss the content without the history. Letter 134 berates the orthodox Hindus with even less circumspection than number 10 showed for the Christians. Later, when Olcott and Besant needed to be on the right side of the Brahmins, they said that HPB had invented or misunderstood the material in this letter. That is why it was controversial; it was repudiated by HSO and AB. As for anti-Christian bias, I think HPB was somewhat more fine-tuned than that. For example, she always had a soft spot for the Russian Orthodox Church, and was friendly with more liberal Christians like Spiritualists and Unitarians. Her ire was reserved for Roman Catholicism, Calvinism, and Protestant missionaries. Later From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 14:13:59 +1200 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: Various Comments on ML #10 etc K. Paul Johnson wrote > This morning I reread letter #10, and this afternoon read #134 > as Daniel suggests. First, about letter 10, I must say that > rereading it I found much to admire and appreciate and > relatively mild disrespect for theism. > > It seems we have agreed not to discuss the historical details > of the letters' receipt etc., but to bracket these and focus > only on doctrinal content. Is this true? I fear getting > flamed if I share my views on how and why they were written, > but it's hard to discuss the content without the history. I for one would like _some_ historical background in the discussion of the Mahatma Letters, especially where it illuminates the content or helps explain the difficulties in transmission and reception etc. All this stuff is of real interest to me, as I shall draw from it for study groups etc where appropriate. There's obviously some fiery event (several?) in the history of the list that involved you before I came along, Paul, but please give this a go. Murray Stentiford From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Mar 1995 20:47:21 EST From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: More on Anti-Christianity Daniel writes I rather think the opposite. I would be very surprised to find that anyone who reads anything at all of HPB's works doesn't come across something about a Christian tenent or teachings in short order, and then must either agree or put her books down and search elsewhere. I think (God, I certainly hope!) that theosphists clearly understand exactly where HPB was on the subject of Chrisitanity. In Sinnet's days, this is probably not true, as your quote from Letter #82 implies. General comment. You should be thanked for all of the nice advise that you gave us, and all of the suggested reading materials. But (isn't there just always a darn ol but?) I don't have the time or the inclination to read a bunch of books these days. Actually, I would much rather know what you personally think. I assume that you have already read most of these books, so could you please sit down and write me a few words about your own personal thoughts and feelings on the subject? I would much prefer to read that than a laundry list of books. Also, I don't find the comment "Plus the concepts need to looked out in the light of what HPB says elsewhere in the first 200 pages of Vol. I of the Secret Doctrine, as well as in Isis Unveiled, the Key to Theosophy, etc." terribly helpful or illuminating. I have already read those and have already reached my own conclusions, and would much rather hear your findings than your techniques. However, again I thank you for providing the list and study ideas for those on Theos-l with the time and inclination to look all of this stuff up and digest it. Question to all: Am I the only one who thinks that these letters are pretty straightforward and self-evident? BTW, you don't have to be a fundamentalist to believe in an extra-cosmic God. This is, after all, what most Christians believe - God made the world and can end it at any time, etc. Alan I agree. But when a good Christian reads it, they may have trouble with this finer point, and may take it more personally. I really like your old poster. Jerry S. ps. For those folks who try to explain away HPB's anti-Christian sentiment, just remember that Steiner and others pulled away from the TS just because of this, (the second TS Objective emphasizes Buddhism and Hinduism at the expense of Christianity) and Steiner was chocked full of esoteric Christianity and left anyway. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Mar 1995 20:46:39 EST From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: To Paul Johnson Paul I am not surprised by this. I have read a lot of Tibetan material myself over the years, and have never once come across such a thing. It probably isn't Tibetan, but rather a stray occult/magic thing that the Mahatmas picked up somewhere along the line (?). Paul Again, I am not surprised. And actually, I agree with H.H. on this one. My reasoning is that ADN taught pure Buddhism as she learned it in Tibet, while HPB and Evans-Wentz also taught other philosophys and did not teach pure Buddhism (in the sense of *only* Buddhism). Eldon rightly has pointed out several times that theosophy is not Buddhism. However, I would credit HPB with being one of the first, if not the first, to bring the Mahayana concept to the West, which until then associated Buddhism with the Theravadin. Of course, D.T. Suzuki and others expanded greatly on it, but I am not aware of anyone before HPB's Voice of the Silence who taught Mahayana doctrine. Anyway, thanks for the info. I look forward to your book. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 22:36:48 -0500 (EST) From: John Mead Subject: Re: ML Electronic Book Hi --- I find it starnge that anyone "owns" the ML's ?? john From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 22:36:01 -0500 (EST) From: John Mead Subject: Re: ML Electronic Book > Vic Hao Chin has given me permission to make an electronic > copy (in Adobe Acrobat format) of his chronological edition > of "The Mahatma Letters". why the restriction... if we eliminate his commentary, why not just put it in ascii?? peace -- john From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 22:52:44 -0500 (EST) From: John Mead Subject: southeast US news we are starting a class on the Kabbalah this tuesday at 7:30pm. We plan to meet on every second tuesday of each month at the UU church of Charlotte. The class will eventually relate the Kabbalistic Tree of Life to Astrology, Tarot, I-Ching, Hinduism, Buddhism, and most/all esoteric traditions. for more info --- call the Charlotte TS at 704-543-6559 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 22:54:18 -0600 From: Arthur_PattersonA@mbnet.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: More on Anti-Christianity Jerry Wrote: >ps. For those folks who try to explain away HPB's >anti-Christian sentiment, just remember that >Steiner and others pulled away from the TS just >because of this, (the second TS Objective >emphasizes Buddhism and Hinduism at the expense >of Christianity) and Steiner was chocked full >of esoteric Christianity and left anyway. I have been picking my way through Steiners stuff. It is a bit heady and trying to hard to be intellecualist but packed with intriguing concepts and ideas. Nonetheless, Jerry could you please expand on why you think that his version of Theosophy is Christianized? and what it was that caused it to be so. He is not an orthodox, fundamentalist by any stretch. I get a hunch he was applying Theosophy to Christianity and not Christianity to Theosophy. Anyway what about Steiner please anyone with comments? I would be very appreciative. Art From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 00:45:34 -0500 (EST) From: John Mead Subject: ml's I was wondering is someone in London could visit the museum there, take pictures of the letter,s and then fax those to theos-l as original source documents?? volunters?? peace - john mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 9:02:31 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: ml's I think you could probably get arrested for trying to photograph the letters. It would be a violation of archival policy most likely. Maybe with a major institution behind you special permission could be obtained. Otherwise, fraid not. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 9:05:02 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: ML Electronic Book I too wondered about copyright. One cannot establish copyright on a reprint of material in the public domain. The TUP edition of the MLs has no copyright notice. The death of the author issue is somewhat tricky with these letters. But in general the Philippines TS could not copyright by international publishing law, but their national laws could allow or even automatically apply copyright of some form. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 09:57:50 -0500 (EST) From: RAINGER@delphi.com Subject: Mahatma Letters I shall be visiting the British Library in London about 22 March. As I have a reader's ticket to the students' manuscript room I have had regular access to the Mahatma Letters over the last five years and have arranged for many visitors to view them. I will make enquiries about the possibility of photographing the letters. This was done in the past for the recent video on HPB, put out by Blavatsky Trust here in England. We may have to get permission from The Mahatma Letter Trust - and I will check on that. The only other possible difficulty will be the expense. I understand the Library must photograph them themselves - and there are SIX volumes. Michael Rainger From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 22:59:13 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Christian Indians K.Paul was talking about HPB & the early Theosophists trying to stem the tide of the British turning Indians into Christians. During part of my working life, I was stationed in a North Jersey town which had a fairly sized group of Indian immigrants. They were often professionals, looking to get a start in this country. Of course, with an Indian coming to my desk, my first thought was to ask whether they could chant Gayatry. Of all the ones I asked, there was one, and he was enchanted that I knew it too. All the others looked at me as if I had somehow just landed here from outer space. They were Christian. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 23:02:21 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: ML #1, part 1 of 2 I think we need 1 more letter, before Eldon can give us the whole book to read from. I've looked at the Letters a little more, & think a change of subject matter would be better.So I'm going to follow Nicholas' wishes & copy off Letter #1, instead of the others dealing with what the Mahatmas thought of God. First a little background from Virginia & George's study note: HPB and HSO (Olcott) were visiting the Sinnetts in Simla, the summer capital of British India, in the foothills of the Himalayas. Earlier HPB had produced a number of unusual phenomena, crediting them to the Masters. Letter # 1 is in answer to 2 first letters of Sinnett's. He had asked the Masters, to give him a foolproof proof that they weren't impostors, & to produce in Simla an edition of that day's "The London Times" at the same time as it was coming out in London. Letter #1 was written by KH. Received in Simla about Oct. 15,1880 Esteemed Brother & Friend, Precisely because the test of the London newspaper would close the mouths of the skeptics - it is unthinkable. See it in what light you will - the world is yet in its first stage of disenthralment if not development, hence - unprepared. Very true, we work by natural not supernatural means & laws. But, as on the one hand science would find itself unable (in its present state) to account for the wonders given in its name, & on the other the ignorant masses would still be left to view the phenomenon in the light of a miracle; everyone who would thus be made a witness to the occurrence would be thrown off his balance & the results would be deplorable;. Believe me, it would be so - especially for yourself who originated the idea, and the devoted woman who so foolishly rushes into the wide open door leading to notoriety. This door, though opened by so friendly a hand as yours, would prove very soon a trap - & a fatal one indeed for her. And such is not surely your object? Madmen are they, who, speculating but upon the present, wilfully shut their eyes to the past when made already to remain naturally blind to the future! Far be it from me, to number you with the latter - therefore will I endeavor to explain. Were we to acceded to your desires know you really what consequences would follow in the trail of success? The inexorable shadow which follows all human innvations moves on, yet few are they, who are ever conscious of its approach and dangers. What are then to expect they, who would offer the world an innovation which, owing to human ignorance, if believed in, will surely be attributed to those dark agencies the two-thirds of humanity believe in and dread as yet? You say - half London would be converted if you could deliver them a Pioneer on its day of publication. I beg to say that if the people believed the thing true they would kill you before you could make the round of Hyde Park; if it were not believed true,- the least that could happpen would be the loss of your reputation and good name - for propagating such ideas. "The success of an attempt of such a kind as the one you propose, must be calculated and based upon a thorough knowledge of the people around you. It depends entirely upon the social; and moral conditions of the peole in their bearing on these deepest and most mysterious questions which can stir the human mind - the deific powers in man and the possibilities contained in nature. How many, evven of your friends, of those who surround you, who are more than superficially interested in these abstruse problems? You could count them upon the fingers of your right hand. Your race boasts of having liberated in their century, the genius so long imprisoned in the narrow vase of dogmatism and intolerance - the genius of knowledge, wisdom & freethought. It says that in their turn ignorant prejudice & religious bigotry, bottled up like the wicked Jin of old, and sealed up by the Solomons of science rests at the bottom of the sea and can never, escaping to the surface again, reign over the world as it did in days of old; that the public mind is quite free, in short, and ready to accept any demonstrated truth. Aye; but is it verily so, my respected friend? Experimental knowldedge does not quite date from 1662, when Bacon, Robert Boyle and the Bishop of Chester transformed under the royal charter their "Invisible College" into a Society for the promotion of experimental science. Ages before the Royal Society found itself becoming a reality upon the plan of the "Prophetic Scheme" an innate longing for the hidden, a passionate love for and the study of nature had led men in every generation to try and fathom her secrets deeper than their neighbours did. Rome ante Romulum fuit - is an axiom taught to us in your English schools. Abstract enquiries into the most puzzling problems did not arise in the brain of Archimedes as a spontaneous and hitherto untouched subject, but rather as a reflection of prior enquiries in the same direction and by men separated from his days by as long a period - and far longer - than the one which separates you from the great Syracusian. The vril of the 'Coming race' was the common property of races now extinct. And, as the very existence of those gigantic ancestors of ours is now questioned- though in the Himava's, on the very territory belonging to you we have a cave full of the skeletons of these giants - and their huge frames when found are invariably regarded as isolated freaks of nature, so the vril or Akas - as we call it - is looked upon as an impossibility, a myth. And without a thorough knowledge of Akas, its combinations and properties, how can Science hope to account for such phenomena? We doubt not but the men of your science are open to conviction; yet facts must be first demonstrated to them, they msut first have become their property, have proved amenable to their own modes of investigation, before you find them ready to admit them as facts.; If you but look into the Preface to the 'Micrographia' you will find in Hooke's suggestions that the intimate relations of objects were of less account in his eyes than their external operation on the senses - and Newton's fine discoveries found in him their greatest opponent. The modern Hookeses are many. Like this learned but ignorant man of old your modern men of science are less anxious to suggest a physical connexion of facts which might unlock for them many an occult force of nature, as to provide a convenient 'classification of scientific experiment s'; so that the most essential quality of an hypotheses is not that it should be true but only plausible - in their opinion. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 23:06:18 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: ML #1, part 2 of 2 "So far for Science - as much as we know of it. As for human nature in general, it is the same now as it was a million of years ago: Prejudice based upon selfishness; a general unwillingness to give up an established order of things for new modes of life and thought - and occult study requries all that and much more - ; pride and stubborn resistance to Truth if it but upsets their previous notions of things,- such are the characteristics of your age, and especially of the middle and lower classes. What then would be the results of the most astounding phenomena, supposing we consented to have them produced? However successful, danger would be growinig proportionately with success. No choice woud soon remain but to go on, ever crescendo, or to fall in this endless struggle with prejudice and ignorance killed by your own weapnos. Test after test would be required and would have to be furnished; every subsequent phenomenon expected to be more marvellous than the preceding one. Your daily remark is, that one cannot be expected to believe unless he becomes an eye-witness. Would the lifetime of a man suffice to satisfy the whole world of skeptics? it may be an easy matter to increase the original number of believers at Simla to hundreds and thousands. But what of the hundreds of millions of those who could not be made eye-wittnesses? The ignorant - unable to grapple with the invisibele operators - might some day vent their rage on the visible agents at work; the higher educated classes would go on disbelieving as ever, tearing you to shreds as before. In common with many, you blame us for our great secrecy. Yet we know something of human nature for the experience of long centuries - aye, ages - has taught us. And we know, that so long as science has anything to learn, and a shadow of religious dogmatism lingers in the hearts of the multitudes, the world's prejudices have to be conquered step by step, not at a rush. As hoary antiquity had more than one Socrates so the dim Future will give birth to more than one martyr. Enfranchised science contemptuously turned away her face from the Copernican opinion renewing the theories of Aristarchusa Samius - who 'affirmeth that the earth moveth circularly about her own center' years before the Church sought to sacrifice Galileo as a holocaust to the Bible. The ablest mathmatician at theCourt of Edward VI - Robert Recorde - was left to starve in jail by his colleagues, who laughed at his Castle of Knowledge, declaring his discoveries 'vain phatasies' .Wm. Gilbert of Colchester - Queen Elizabeth's physician - died poisoned, only because - this real founder of experimental science in England - has had the audadacity of anticipating Gail0eo'; of pointing out Copernican's fallacy as to the 'third movement', which was gravely alleged to account for the parallelism of the earth's axis of rotation! The enormous learnig of the Paracelsi, of the Agrippas and the Deys was ever doubted. it was science which laid her sacrilegious hand upon the great work 'De Magnete' - 'The Heavenly WhiteVirgin' (Akas) and others. And it was the illustrious 'Chancellor of England and of Nature' - Lord Verulan-Bacon - who having won the name of the Father of Inductive Philosophy , permitted himself to speak of such men as the above-named as the 'Alchemicians of the fantastic philosophy'. "All this is old history, you will think. Verily so; bbut the chronicles of our modern days do not differ very essentially from their predecessors. And we have but to bear in mind the recent persecutions of mediums in England, the burning of supposed witches and sorcerers in South America, Russia and the frontiers of Spain - to assure ouselves that the only salvation of the genuine proficients in occult sciences lies in the skepticism of the public; the charlatans and the jugglers are the natural shields of the 'adepts'. The public safety is only ensured by our keeping secret the terrible weapons which might otherwise be used against it, and which, as you have been told became deadly in the hands of the wicked & selfish. "I conclude by reminding you that such phenomena as you crave, have ever been reserved as a reward for those who have devoted their lives to serve the goddess Saraswati- our Aryan Isis. Were they given to the profane what would remain for our faithful ones? Many of your suggestions are highly reasonable and will be attended to. I listened attentively to the conversation which took place at Mr. Hume's. His arguments are perfect from the standpoint of exoteric wisdom. But, when the time comes and he is allowed to have a full glimpse into the world of esoterism, with its laws based upon mathematically correct calculations of the future - the necessary results of the causes which we are always at liberty to create and shape at our will but are as unable to control their consequences which thus become our masters - then only will, both you and he understand why to the uninitiated our acts must seem often unwise, if not actually foolish. "Your forthcoming letter I will not be able to fully answer without taking the advice of those who generally deal with the European mystics. moreover the present letter must satisfy you on many points you have better defined in your last; but it will no doubt disappoint you as well. In regard to the production of newly devised and still more startling phenomena demanded of her with our help, as a man well acquainted with the strategy, you must remain satisfied with the reflection that there is little use in acquiring new positions until those that you have already reached are secured, and your Enemies full aware of your right to their posession. In other words, you had a greater variety of phenomena produced for yourself & friends than many a regular neophyte has seen in several years. First, notify the public of the production of the note, the cup, and the sundry experiments with the cigarette papers, and let them digest these. Get them to work for an explanation. And as except upon the direct and absurd accusation of deceit they will never be able to account for some of these, while the skeptics are quite satsified with their present hypothesis for the production of the brooch - you will then have done real good to the cause of truth and justice to the woman who is made to suffer for it. Isolated as it is, the case under notice in the Pioneer becomes less than worthless - it is positively injurious for all of you - for yourself as the Editor of that paper as much as for anyone else, if you pardon me for offering you that which looks like advice. It is neither fair to yourself nor to her, that, because the number of eye-witenesses does not seem sufficient to warrant the public attention, your and your lady's testimony should go for nothing. Several cases combining to fortify your position as truthful and intelligent witenss to the various occurrences, each of these gives you an additional right to assert what you know. It imposes upon you the sacred duty to instruct the public and prepare them for future possibilities by gradually opening their eyes to the truth. The opportunity should not be lost through a lack of as great confidence in your own individual; right of assertion as that of Sir Donald Stewart. One witness of well known character outweighs the evidence of ten strangers; and if, there is anyone in India who is respected for his trustworthiness it is the Editor of the Pioneer. Remember that there was but one hysterical woman alleged to have been present at the pretended ascension, and that the phenomenon has never been corroborated by repetition. Yet for nearly 2,000 years countless milliards have pinned their faith upon the testimony of that one woman - and she not over trustworthy. "Try- and first work upon the material you have and then we will be the first to help you to get further evidence. Until then, believe me, always your sincere friend, Koot Hoomi Lal Singh" PS Anyone interested in futher study of vril, Akas', prana, chi, mana, (all seem to be the same), a history of the subject apppears in "Earth Energies" by Serge Kahili King, TPH 1992 Serge goes into Mesmer's vril, pyramid power, dowsing, Reichenbach, Reich, several other experimenters, plus present day experiments, both done and suggested. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 12:00:14 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: To Paul Johnson Dear Jerry-- One weird tidbit unearthed by Joscelyn Godwin relates to HPB's role as first Western exponent of Mahayana. In New York, she welcomed a Chinese Buddhist missionary, Wong Chin Foo, and had a reception for him. He is mentioned in Isis, but Godwin found the evidence about the reception in a newspaper or Spiritualist journal. So as early as her New York phase, HPB was promoting the Mahayana. Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 20:04:05 +1100 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: ml's John Mead writes: > I was wondering is someone in London could visit the > museum there, take pictures of the letter,s and then fax those to > theos-l as original source documents?? > > volunters?? > > peace - > > john mead Why not scan the photos in existing books? They're not complete, of course. But I can't imagine anyone being allowed to photograph hundreds of pages of text in the British museum, without a very special reason. ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 15:03:04 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: HPB vs the Church One last message on the anti-theistic views in ML 10, and how this relates to the historical setting. It is probably impossible to figure out, at this late date, just how the letters were written and received, particularly since there are so many variations among them. Some were mailed directly from North Indian locations. The handwritings vary somewhat. HPB later admitted that it was only rarely that the letters were dictated verbatim to her. Yet it is clear that in many cases she wrote them while in a state of consciousness that connected her to the Master(s). I have some ideas about what kinds of practices were involved. Reading the Hare brothers's Who Wrote the Mahatma Letters? provides many clues that the language and some of the factual errors in the letters point to HPB as author. Yet it is clear from history that HPB was being supplied information and source material from her hidden sponsors, and that in large part the content of the letters' teachings is NOT hers although the language is. To the extent that anti-Christian sentiments in the letters are accurate reflections of the Masters' views (which I believe they are) rather than just HPB's own attitude, how can this be explained? I have no doubt that the Masters were genuinely devoted to religious brotherhood. BUT in looking at the three categories of individuals who dominate my list of Mahatmas in The Masters Revealed, one sees abundant grievances against Christianity. First, the many rajas and maharajas who supported the TS did so largely because they saw it as an agent of revivification of Indian national pride and self-respect. Indeed, in a cartoon that HPB pasted in her scrapbook, she indicates that she sees India as a lion caught in a net, and the TS as a mouse that is gnawing at the net so as to free the lion. Since Indian philosophy was so refined and profound in its metaphysics compared to Christianity, to some extent HPB's anti-Christianity was the flip side of being pro-India. Second, HPB's allies in the Buddhist priesthoods of Ceylon, India, and Tibet also saw European domination as a source of religious and cultural oppression. When this letter was written, HPB was planning a trip to Darjeeling and vicinity, where she spent a few days in the Ghum monastery. This was two years after her formal admission to Buddhism, and shows that she had personal contacts with both Theravadin and Mahayana leaders. The former already had felt abused by Christian Britain; the latter would soon have the same experience with the 1903 invasion of Tibet. Third, HPB's secret sponsors among Punjabi Sikhs were appalled at the amount of conversion to Christianity that was going on within their ranks. The TS alliance with Swami Dayananda's Arya Samaj was also founded on a strong anti-missionary emphasis. So, the bottom line is that HPB's work in India was affiliated with several Hindu rajas and maharajas, Buddhist priests, Sikh reform leaders, as well as Western occultists she had known prior to going to Asia. Every single one of these groups had some reason to feel threatened by Christianity. So there is a sense of singling out the enemy in HPB's works of this period that seems unbalanced and untheosophical. But in light of the pressures under which her sponsors were living, it is understandable. Finally, I would suggest that the later you go in HPB's writing career, the less you find disrespectful attitudes toward any religion, and the more you find an effort to harmonize them all. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 15:10:02 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Various Comments on ML #1... I agree with Murray, as long as we can refrain from throwing spit balls at each other, & at each other's role models. Wrote so to K Paul yesterday to his private address, but meant to post the letter to Theos-l. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 16:40:20 -0700 (MST) From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Various comments on various comments about the MLs Concerning John Mead's question on getting photographs of the MLs: All of the Mahatma Letters in the British Library have been photographed and put on microfilm. Copies of the microfilm are at Wheaton T.S. and at Pasadena T.S. Also colored slides of the letters have been made. Georgre {misspelling] George Linton of Portland Oregon has a set and so does (i believe) Pasadena T.S. Concerning copyright on the various editions of the Mahatma Letters. According to George Linton, the copyright on editions one and two have expired. These are now in the public domain. The third edition, I understand, is still under copyright. Under International Copyright Law, the Chronological edition (I call it the 4th edition) is copyrighted as far as the arrangement of the letters and the commentary by Virginia Hanson. In summary, the text of the Mahatma Letters are now in the public domain. Concerning Paul Johnson's comments on the Mahatma Letters: In his internet message he mentions the book *Who Wrote the Mahatma Letters?8 by Harold and William Hare. Every serious student of the Mahatma Letters should read the Hare book, but what Paul Johnson does NOT mention in his message and what he does NOT mention in his book THE MASTERS REVEALED (see pp. 174-175) is that the Hare book is full of misinformation and numerous mistakes. If you read the Hare book, you should also read the series of articles written by Dr. H.N. STokes in *The O.E. Library Critic* in 1936 and 1937. There are many other articles by several Theosophists which critique the Hares' book. I find it somewhat misleading that Paul Johnson mentions the Hares' book but is silent to the critiques written on the book. The Hare brothers declared that they had examined the originals of the Mahatma Letters and that they had discovered that HPB had physically written the letters. Their examination of the letters was limited to just a few hours of inspection and as far as I know the Hare brothers were not versed and were not experts in handwriting. In contrast, Dr. Paul Kirk in 1963 (an individual which Paul Johnson does not mention in his book) and Dr. Vernon Harrison in 1986 both declare that HPB did NOT physically write the Mahatma Letters. Both Dr. Kirk and Dr. Harrison are handwrting experts. Also concerning writing style and syntax of the Mahatma Letters as compared to HPB's letters (for example, to Sinnett), Charles Marshall in a paper entitled "The Mahatma Letters---A Syntatic Investigation into the Possibilities of `Forgery' by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky...", published in *Viewpoint Aquarius, Oct. 1980, pp. 8-14, did a computer analysis of the style and syntax of the Mahatma Letters and the Letters of HPB to AP Sinnett. His conclusion was that HPB did not write the Mahatma Letters. Unfortunately, Paul Johnson in THE MASTERS REVEALED does NOT allow his readers to know about this study by Marshall. I am planning to do a full-length critique of THE MASTERS REVEALED and the most distressing observation I can make about this book is that the author omits or downplays any evidence that would throw a monkey wrench into his various theories and hypotheses. In his speculations on who the real historical personages are behind the personae of Koot Hoomi and Morya, the author omits probably more than 95% of the testimonies and evidence concerning the existence of the Masters. How many of the readers of THE MASTERS REVEALED are knowledgable enought to know exactly what is not mentioned in Johnson's book? I have spent 25 years collecting all of the first hand accounts concerning HPB's life and testimonies, etc. concerning the HPB's Masters. In the last few years, I have discovered a number of Koot Hoomi letters never published before as well as 2 MSS of HPB never published before. It is very important that interested Theosophists and interested members of the public be made aware of ALL the evidence both pro and con concerning HPB and the Masters. Unfortunately, THE MASTERS REVEAL, although a tresure trove of information, omits or downplays evidence and information that the reader should be aware of in order to make an informed opinion as to the validity or falsity of Paul Johnson's speculations and hypotheses. My critique will document all of this and more in great detail. I hope publish it as a pamphlet and also to make a copy avaialble on Theos-L. [Sorry for typos in the above text!!] As far as the various comments that have been made about so-called "anti-Christian" comments in the Mahatma Letters and also in HPB's writings, no one has reallly defined what they mean by "Christian" and "anti-Christian." Furthermore, the assumption seems to be made that it is somehow "wrong" and "bad" that HPB and the Masters made such criticisms! Maybe the criticisms are valid! What's wrong with pointing out some of the fallacies of certain "Christian" teachings? During the time HPB was in India in the early 1889s, Christian missionaries of various churches were active in India and Ceylon trying to convert the Hindu and Buddhists from their "false", "pagan" religions to the "true", "one and only religion"---Christianity! [Correction: "...in the early 1880s..." HPB and the Masters also made criticisms of exoteric Hinduism and exoteric Buddhism. Daniel H. Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 22:53:36 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re Arthur's Question on Steiner Arthur In his LIFE BETWEEN DEATH AND REBIRTH, Steiner mentions "the Mystery of Golgotha" and stresses its importance about 26 zillion times per page, without ever really telling us what it is. Somehow, this mystery is supposed to unite the world's religions by allowing us to remain conscious after death. Let me give you just one quote from this book which I picked at random: "This is why in our modern occultism such stress is laid upon understanding how Christ came to earth from the Sun sphere. It is essential to grasp how Christ leads us to the Sun through the Mystery of Golgotha. Occultism shows that Christ is a Sun Being who leads us back to the Sun." (p 19) and so on ad nauseam. He simply replaces Mahatma with Christ. Ellic Howe (author of THE MAGICIANS OF THE GOLDEN DAWN) says that Felkin (a high ranking leader of the Stella Matutina, a Christianized version of the Golden Dawn ala Waite) met Steiner and was impressed with his knowledge. He writes: "Dr. Steiner had been Secretary General of the German branch of the Theosophical Society since 1902. Never a Theosophist in the Blavatsky-Adyar tradition he was already on uneasy terms with Annie Besant. He and many of his followers broke away from the T.S. in 1912 when he founded the later far more influential Anthroposophical Society" (p 262). He also mentions Steiner's "pusedo-Masonic activities" and says that in 1910, during Felkin's visit, Steiner had been warranted a special rite in 1906 - that of Memphis and Misraim - which he obtained from Theodor Reuss, a leading Mason and head of the OTO before Crowley. Steiner was, in fact, head of the Masonic Mystica Aeterna Lodge while still in the TS. His breaking from the TS probably had more to do with his personal disagreements with Besant and Leadbeater than anything else. One of the things that bothers me about Steiner is that he never credits HPB and the TS with anything. On the contrary, in the opening lines of his THEOSOPHY, he carefully dissociates himself with the TS movement started by Blavatsky. He wants us to believe that he has nothing whatever to do with the TS. Now Crowley said much the same thing. But in fairness to Crowley, he was never a theosophist and probably read only HPB's works, and in addition he does give her credit as being a high initiate. Steiner was a theosophist and was familiar with the TS literature, and yet rebuked it all. In fairness to Steiner, I do see him as a remarkable occultist in the CWL tradition. Most of his stuff is from his own experience. His AN OUTLINE OF OCCULT SCIENCE is probably his best book, and worth reading. In it, he says things like "Progress in spiritual training is not thinkable without a corresponding moral progress" (p 280) which we can all agree with. On the down side, he throws around a lot of psychology and in the process IMHO shows his ignorance. I have to take his concepts of the ego and "new-born ego" with a rather large grain of salt. I am sorry folks, but the theosophical arrangement of bodies and principles seems to make a lot more sense to me. One quick quote in the way of example: "When a person is possessed by something in the subconscious working of his soul, then something bursts through from the subconscious ... resulting in a brilliant and appropriate observation. But this makes it all the more difficult for someone who is called to be an individuality, an individual soul, to struggle for the truth." (REINCARNATION AND IMMORTALITY, p 51). Again, this is a quick quote taken at random. What the heck is "the subconscious working of his soul?" And what is an "individual soul?" I don't know but it sounds like something as opposed to a collective soul (which is what?). He throws around terms like personality and individuality (which is not quite what theosophy means by that term) together with psychological buzz-words. Jung is one of the few psychologists who used the term soul, but he didn't like the term subconscious, because it negates the fact that there is also a superconscious (his term 'the unconscious' refers to both). Anyway, I have studied enough psychology to have problems with Steiner in these areas. I hope that this helps you, Arthur. When you study Steiner, just remember to take what you feel comfortable with, and leave the rest alone. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 22:53:49 -0800 From: toddkatz@ix.netcom.com (Todd Katz) Subject: Hermetics & The Occult Way Hi, I'm looking for information about folks interested in P.G. Bowen's writings, esp. The Occult Way. Similarly, I'm wondering if the Hermetic Society in Dublin, founded by A.E. Russell, still exists? I'd be very grateful for any info. on either ... Todd Katz SF, CA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 00:06:29 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: mahatma letters; Beachcroft John Mead, JM> I was wondering is someone in London could visit the museum there, take pictures of the letter,s and then fax those to theos-l as original source documents?? Photographing British Museum documents is strictly prohibited, and trying it is a good way to get thrown out. However, color transparencies of the letters are available through the Mahatma Letter Trust. They cost about $5000.00 per set if I correctly recall. I have photocopies of all of the published and unpublished mahatma letters and will be glad serve as a resource to check and answer any questions concerning them. Regarding the faxing of them to theos-l--my guess is that we would be in violation of the Mahatma Letters Trust rules. But if they are willing to go for it--I'll do that too. On another matter, does anyone have any information on the possible connection of the short story writer Thomas Beachcroft might have with theosophy? Jerry Hejka-Ekins JHE@KOKO.CSUSTAN.EDU From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 07:35:21 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Fwd: Campaign to stop Senate ... Further info about Senate Bill S.,314 > Forwarded message from dorns@goliath.sunyocc.edu (Sue Dorn) >From some librariophiles in New York City I submit the following post, of particular interest to all librarians and libraries involved in providing Internet services directly or indirectly. CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE US COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (S. 314) PLEASE WIDELY REDISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT WITH THIS BANNER INTACT DO NOT REDISTRIBUTE AFTER MAY 1, 1995 DO NOT REPRODUCE THIS ALERT IN NON-POLITICAL FORUMS Feb. 22, 1995 Distributed by the Voters Telecommunications Watch (vtw@vtw.org) In order to use the net more effectively, the following organizations have joined forces on a single Congressional net campaign to stop the Communications Decency Act, S. 314 (in alphabetical order): the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), the Center for Public Representation (CPR), the CyberQueer Lounge, an online resource for the gay community, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the Electronic Frontier Foundation-Austin (EFF-Austin), (Note that EFF-Austin is not a chapter of the DC-based EFF) the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), the Hands Off! the Net petition drive, the National Writers Union (UAW Local 1981 AFL-CIO), (NWU) the People for the American Way (PFAW), the Society for Electronic Access (SEA), and the Voters Telecommunications Watch (VTW) These organizations are using the Voters Telecommunications Watch (VTW) as a conduit for legislative feedback. When you contact Congress about the Communications Decency Act and send your feedback to vtw@vtw.org, that information is being fed back to all participating organizations. If your organization would like to signon to this campaign and receive legislative feedback, contact vtw@vtw.org. INTRODUCTION Dear Net Citizens: Legislation has been introduced before the Senate which would severely restrict your freedom of speech, halt the free flow of information on the net, and require all telecommunications carriers to censor your public and private communications. The "Communications Decency Act of 1995" (S. 314), introduced in early February by Senators Exon (D-NE) and Gorton (R-WA), would place substantial criminal liability on telecommunications carriers (including traditional telephone networks, Internet service providers, commercial online services such as America Online and Compuserve, and independent BBS's) whenever their networks are used to transmit any material which is deemed indecent or harassing. In order to avoid these penalties, carriers would be forced to restrict the activities of their subscribers and censor all public and private communications. We must act quickly to stop the progress of S. 314. The bill may soon be incorporated into Senate telecommunications reform legislation, which is currently being drafted by the Senate Commerce Committee. The telecommunications reform bill may be introduced as early as mid March, and is expected to be considered on a fast track. If S. 314 is included in this bill, it will be extremely difficult to change or remove and could pass quickly. We are asking you to join us in urging key members of the Senate to prevent S. 314 from being included in Senate telecommunications reform measures and to hold open, public hearings on the issue. WHERE CAN I LEARN MORE ABOUT THE BILL? The Voters Telecommunications Watch has set up a gopher page where you can get a copy of the bill (including analyses by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Electronic Messaging Association, and others). Here's the URL: WWW URL: gopher://gopher.panix.com/11/vtw/exon Gopher command : gopher -p 1/vtw/exon gopher.panix.com If you have difficulty getting to this gopher page, or if you don't have access to Mosaic/gopher, drop a note to: vtw@vtw.org WHERE WILL I LEARN ABOUT UPDATES TO THIS ALERT? We will post updates to this alert in three places: -On the account vtw@panix.com (finger vtw@panix.com) -On Usenet (comp.org.eff.talk, comp.org.cpsr.talk, and alt.privacy) -Through our announcements mailing list, vtw-announce@vtw.org. To subscribe, simply send a message to listproc@vtw.org with the following in the message body: subscribe vtw-announce Firstname Lastname Karen G. Schneider Cybrarian/Internet Trainer kgs@intac.com "Have Powerbook, Will Travel!" Need a NJ provider? Free referrals. Blue Highways Internet Services http://www.intac.com/~kgs/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 08:57:07 -0600 From: Arthur_PattersonA@mbnet.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: Various comments on various comments about the MLs Daniel Writes: Since I sort of brought up the question through my first impression of ML #10 I felt it necessary to make a brief response. As I have had a chance to read the responses of others and to skim some of HPB's criticisms of Christianity I realize that there appears to be a difference in tone between a majority of her comments and the ML letter than got my attentions. Blavatsky is scathing in her criticism of what I call the "public Christianity" of her time. See accuses it of spiritual materialism, naive literalism( anthropomorphism of god being the most blantant) and supplies other worthy critique of various atonement theories. While sacrastic in tone sometimes she doesn't sound pompous in her criticism like that letter I read ML10. IMHO public Christianity has made the world less spiritual, more collective and has supported heinious cultural movements. But the myth of Christ found in the Canonical NT and the Gnostic Gospels has the potential to destroy the unsavory aspects of institutional Christianity, especially Fundamentalism. What I think bothered me, in the ML, the most was the penchant for tight logic, (a nineteenth century rationalism), and the apparent demeaning tonality. I am not at this point of my own pilgrimage ready to cast off the possibility of the theism of personality for an impersonal process. I don't think the childish notions of a personal god who is little but a Sunday School throw back is helpful but an I Thou rather than an I - IT relationship with the Source of Creation is still attractive to me. Of course my personal perspective lies in the viewpoint, some see it as mysticism, that language is too small a container for most mysteries and that direct experience of the unutterable can only be communicated in metaphor. So to critique public Christianity without getting to the deeper meaning of the exoteric symbols is I think a weakness in those who blighly write off the entire mythological structure of the Christian myth. I am with Jung who sees the Christ myth as the guiding myth of the West however misrepresented. Unfortunately the 18 and 19 century missionaries demeaned other people's myths and forced convertion along with cultural genocide in the name of Christ. > So the criticisims are true to an extent but I am cautioning > against bitter over reaction. > > As far as the various comments that have been made about > so-called "anti-Christian" comments in the Mahatma Letters and > also in HPB's writings, no one has reallly defined what they mean > by "Christian" and "anti-Christian." Furthermore, the assumption > seems to be made that it is somehow "wrong" and "bad" that HPB > and the Masters made such criticisms! Maybe the criticisms are > valid! What's wrong with pointing out some of the fallacies of > certain "Christian" teachings? During the time HPB was in India > in the early 1889s, Christian missionaries of various churches > were active in India and Ceylon trying to convert the Hindu and > Buddhists from their "false", "pagan" religions to the "true", > "one and only religion"---Christianity! > > [Correction: "...in the early 1880s..." HPB and the Masters also made criticisms of exoteric Hinduism and exoteric Buddhism. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 10:17:17 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Various comments on various comments about the MLs According to MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU: [PJ is misleading because he cites...] > the Hares' book but is silent to the critiques written on the book. These critiques (Stokes) are not widely available. I've never seen a copy of the O.E. Library Critic. Nor have I seen these criticisms summarized in another more accessible source. There is a huge difference between suppressing information you possess and not conveying information you don't possess. Do you acknowledge the difference? Some of my lack of information is due to the hostility of those who possess it. Rarity and geographical inaccessibility of information is another obstacle. Of course my study is limited; all are. But a deliberate intent to mislead? I ask that you withdraw the accusation. > The Hare brothers declared that they had examined the originals of the > Mahatma Letters and that they had discovered that HPB had > physically written the letters. Their examination of the letters > was limited to just a few hours of inspection and as far as I > know the Hare brothers were not versed and were not experts in > handwriting. In contrast, Dr. Paul Kirk in 1963 (an individual > which Paul Johnson does not mention in his book) Because, again I don't know of him. > and Dr. Vernon Harrison in 1986 both declare that HPB did NOT > physically write the Mahatma Letters. Both Dr. Kirk and Dr. > Harrison are handwrting experts. I do cite Harrison's findings, and make it clear that I view the Hares findings as biased. Also concerning writing style and syntax of the Mahatma Letters > as compared to HPB's letters (for example, to Sinnett), Charles > Marshall in a paper entitled "The Mahatma Letters---A Syntatic > Investigation into the Possibilities of `Forgery' by Helena > Petrovna Blavatsky...", published in *Viewpoint Aquarius, Oct. > 1980, pp. 8-14, did a computer analysis of the This is a really obscure article, and again, a journal I've never encountered. Nor have I seen anyone subsequently cite it, which makes me wonder about how seriously scholars take it. Would like to see it. > Unfortunately, Paul Johnson in THE MASTERS REVEALED does NOT > allow his readers to know about this study by Marshall. Gee, Dan, it sure seems like you are saying I am familiar with the study, or had some kind of access to the journal in which it appears. How can I not allow something when I'm ignorant of it? It never has been reported on or discussed in TH or among theosophical historians in my presence. > I am planning to do a full-length critique of THE MASTERS > REVEALED and the most distressing observation I can make about > this book is that the author omits or downplays any evidence that > would throw a monkey wrench into his various theories and > hypotheses. It is certainly a distressing "observation" because it is in fact an unfair accusation. You are entirely within your rights to complain that I'm ignorant of certain evidence. But your insinuations of active effort to suppress information in order to distort the reader's understanding-- well, we're both librarians so you should know just how dishonored I feel by that. In his speculations on who the > real historical personages are behind the personae of Koot Hoomi > and Morya, the author omits probably more than 95% of the > testimonies and evidence concerning the existence of the Masters. Hmm. Maybe a catalog is in order! But many more testimonies are presented in the sequel. Might bring it to 10%! How many of the readers of > THE MASTERS REVEALED are knowledgable enought to know exactly > what is not mentioned in Johnson's book? Well, the author certainly isn't! You are suggesting that I deliberately chose 5% of the evidence that supported preexisting suppositions. Whereas I reviewed the theosophical literature for all evidence that might yield any correspondences with historical records. The small percentage that was relevant to my quest was based on usefulness in terms of the kind of evidence rather than because I was out to prove something. All these identifications occurred as I went along, on the basis of an open-minded search through the literature. To the extent that limitations of access make the book limited, I welcome your corrections. But don't attack my honor as an author, a Theosophist and a librarian. > I have spent 25 years collecting all of the first hand accounts > concerning HPB's life and testimonies, etc. concerning the HPB's > Masters. In the last few years, I have discovered a number of > Koot Hoomi letters never published before as well as 2 MSS of HPB > never published before. It is very important that interested > Theosophists and interested members of the public be made aware > of ALL the evidence both pro and con concerning HPB and the > Masters. Unfortunately, THE MASTERS REVEAL, although a tresure > trove of information, omits or downplays evidence and information > that the reader should be aware of in order to make an informed > opinion as to the validity or falsity of Paul Johnson's > speculations and hypotheses. Check it out folks, and see for yourselves. > My critique will document all of this and more in great detail. > I hope publish it as a pamphlet and also to make a copy avaialble > on Theos-L. This is wonderful. As someone who has made a specialty of collecting such material, you have a special role to play. But before condemning me as you have, consider that I went all the way to India, hoping to see Olcott's diaries, and was not allowed to. Then you lambasted me (in mail from last year) for not having used that source which you somehow obtained a copy of! "Good" Theosophists have a much easier time of getting access to such material apparently. I salute you for having accumulated such an archive. But you aren't the first person to slam me for not using information to which I never had access. And you know very well why such access has been hard to get, since you yourself spoke of wild accusations that I was a tool of dugpas or Jesuits. Every book is limited in the information it conveys. Every research trail misses some useful material because of geographical, ideological, etc. barriers. But not every author is out to deliberating distort the presentation of the evidence in order to prove a preexisting set of hypotheses! And I ask you to withdraw this accusation. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 10:12:31 -0600 From: Arthur_PattersonA@mbnet.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: Various comments on various comments about the MLs Sorry,correction, the first part of post is written by Art not Daniel as the title implies: Since I sort of brought up the question through my first impression of ML #10 I felt it necessary to make a brief response. As I have had a chance to read the responses of others and to skim some of HPB's criticisms of Christianity I realize that there appears to be a difference in tone between a majority of her comments and the ML letter than got my attentions. Blavatsky is scathing in her criticism of what I call the "public Christianity" of her time. See accuses it of spiritual materialism, naive literalism( anthropomorphism of god being the most blantant) and supplies other worthy critique of various atonement theories. While sacrastic in tone sometimes she doesn't sound pompous in her criticism like that letter I read ML10. IMHO public Christianity has made the world less spiritual, more collective and has supported heinious cultural movements. But the myth of Christ found in the Canonical NT and the Gnostic Gospels has the potential to destroy the unsavory aspects of institutional Christianity, especially Fundamentalism. What I think bothered me, in the ML, the most was the penchant for tight logic, (a nineteenth century rationalism), and the apparent demeaning tonality. I am not at this point of my own pilgrimage ready to cast off the possibility of the theism of personality for an impersonal process. I don't think the childish notions of a personal god who is little but a Sunday School throw back is helpful but an I Thou rather than an I - IT relationship with the Source of Creation is still attractive to me. Of course my personal perspective lies in the viewpoint, some see it as mysticism, that language is too small a container for most mysteries and that direct experience of the unutterable can only be communicated in metaphor. So to critique public Christianity without getting to the deeper meaning of the exoteric symbols is I think a weakness in those who blighly write off the entire mythological structure of the Christian myth. I am with Jung who sees the Christ myth as the guiding myth of the West however misrepresented. Unfortunately the 18 and 19 century missionaries demeaned other people's myths and forced convertion along with cultural genocide in the name of Christ. So the criticisims are true to an extent but I am cautioning against bitter over reaction. Daniel Writesl > As far as the various comments that have been made about > so-called "anti-Christian" comments in the Mahatma Letters and > also in HPB's writings, no one has reallly defined what they mean > by "Christian" and "anti-Christian." Furthermore, the assumption > seems to be made that it is somehow "wrong" and "bad" that HPB > and the Masters made such criticisms! Maybe the criticisms are > valid! What's wrong with pointing out some of the fallacies of > certain "Christian" teachings? During the time HPB was in India > in the early 1889s, Christian missionaries of various churches > were active in India and Ceylon trying to convert the Hindu and > Buddhists from their "false", "pagan" religions to the "true", > "one and only religion"---Christianity! > > [Correction: "...in the early 1880s..." > > HPB and the Masters also made criticisms of exoteric Hinduism and > exoteric Buddhism. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 13:54:56 -0600 From: Arthur_PattersonA@mbnet.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: More on Steiner > >In his LIFE BETWEEN DEATH AND REBIRTH, >Steiner mentions "the Mystery of Golgotha" >and stresses its importance about 26 >zillion times per page, without ever really >telling us what it is. I looked up what the Mystery of Golgatha was about. It is nebulous to be sure but in an acknowledged Anthroposophical primer by Stewart Easton it remarks, " The incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ Jesus and the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost are are all part of the same mystery that we call the Mystery of Golgatha." So in my reading it is the basic Christian story that is the mystery. But as I read further I discover a rather eclectic blend of ideas giving meaning that story that I have never heard before. Steiner holds that work of Christ involves the freeing of our consciousness enabling humankind to be free..This occured according to him by the incarnation of a plantetary Sun being called Christ who came to earth through two Jesus' in the first century one called a Solomonic Jesus the other Nathan Jesus. One is a highly evolved being (Solomonic) the other a backward person who received the Christ and confounding the wise of his era. In a former incarnation the Christ was supposedly Zarathursra. I don't really know how to unravel this myth but it is intriguing, if convoluted. Just a note: I was eltated to read that the goal of a Christian was to be free, that it does not meaning having to associate with the Church on the downside however he says that Christianity will replace all religions. This could be misunderstood to be very paternalistic and imperialist but if he is using Christianity as a metaphor of a free consciousness which is evolving then I suggest another word be taken up, perhaps Theosophy. Theosophy as I have encountered it doesn't have the exclusive overtones that Steiners Christianity however reconfigured does. I can speak very comfortably within the Christian metaphor but a new language is necessary when trying to communicate interreligiously or inter-philsophically. Some He >simply replaces Mahatma with Christ. That is really no problem language wise for me but the issue of the source of this knowledge is. He claims to have an Akasha Chronicle which seems a hidden history of the world. I like the experiential emphasis but "revelations" are difficult things for me to figure out. It is difficult to discern from where these ideas come the psyche, some extreterretrial source of where? >THEOSOPHY, he carefully dissociates himself >with the TS movement started by Blavatsky. > He wants us to believe that he has nothing >whatever to do with the TS. Yes, I have even read where he think HPB was basically correct but had a distorted soul. What was going on there? "concerning this writing , through, it must be said that the great truths revealed in it are rendered in a rather distoreted , and often even caricatured form ... The explanation for this is that the truths themselves are inspired by the great Intitates of the West, who are also the inititators of Rosicrucian wisdom. The distortion is caused by the discordant manner in which these truths were taken up by the soul of Blavatsky.... Sinnet's work distorts the lofty revelations of the intiates by subjecting them to his philosophically inadequate intellectualism, and Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine distorts them through the sheer chaos of her own sould." Essential Steiner. 20 21 Autobiographic Sketch. It is the lack of what he calls the Christ Principle that he finds limiting. He says, Yet without this principle the Theosophical movement must remain without any decisive effect on Western Culture, which has the life of Chirst as its point of origin... Arthur writes: While I don't understand much here I do think that I like the idea that Steiner has evolutionarily reinterpreted the Christ Event and has reintroduced ideas of Karma and Freedom etc into his spirituality. I also recognize the importance of the Christian Myth or as he says the Mystery of Golgatha. What I don't like is his rejection of Theosophy and his disassociation with it. Is not Anthroposophy a possible integration point for Westerns learning the beings of Theosophy or is it too exclusive? What is your take on this Jerry? I have to take his >concepts of the ego and "new-born ego" with >a rather large grain of salt. I am sorry >folks, but the theosophical arrangement of >bodies and principles seems to make a lot >more sense to me. Jerry could you spell out the difference here a bit more thoroughly and simply for the novice here. > >I hope that this helps you, Arthur. When >you study Steiner, just remember to take >what you feel comfortable with, and leave >the rest alone. Thanks Jerry I will do that but I am not too confident yet to make out what is bullsgeschitche and what is authenticating. Art From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 20:04:08 +1100 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: HPB vs the Church "K. Paul Johnson" writes: > Finally, I would suggest that the later you go in HPB's writing > career, the less you find disrespectful attitudes toward any > religion, and the more you find an effort to harmonize them all. I noticed, when reading the ML, that they started off extremely anti-Christian. However, further toward the end, the writers, especially KH, seemed to mellow considerably on the subject. From memory, didn't the Mahachohan decide that Anna Kingsford should be the President of the London Lodge, even though she was promoting Hermetic Christianity? I think there was some discussion of Christianity in that context. Her other noteworthy attributes included being vegetarian and antivivasectionist. I think there is also a passage somewhere in the ML where it is suggested that the GWB has members from many different countries and traditions, which would, no doubt, include the judeo-christian tradition. ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 21:25:59 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Various comments on various comments about the MLs Having read K. Paul Johnson's posting, I must agree that a withdrawal of the allegations mentioned is surely in order. None of us who writes can ever be certain that we have been able to ferret out all the source material we _might_ have used. In fact, it is probably certain that we will _not_ find it all. That does not devalue what we _are_ able to write. I have not read Paul's book, so have no doctrinal axe to grind. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Mar 1995 18:49:49 EST From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Some Comments The following are some of my comments to recent postings: Daniel< As far as the various comments that have been made about so-called "anti-Christian" comments in the Mahatma Letters and also in HPB's writings ... the assumption seems to be made that it is somehow "wrong" and "bad" that HPB and the Masters made such criticisms! Maybe the criticisms are valid!> Indeed, mayhaps they are. Liesel. First of all, thanks for the kind words. < I was wondering whether the conflict between creation & destruction exists in the life of slower moving particles as well, not only virtual particles.> I believe that this conflict exists on *all* levels. It is a duality that seems to be an inherent part of the fabric of this world. Chaos and order are battling it out in our bodies and in our minds every hour of every day. However, it is not as obvious in the larger scales - the subatomic scale has things happening so fast relative to us human observers, that it all seems like a "foam" or chaotic soup. < Also, I wanted to let you know that Harry Van Gelder talks about man's 7 force fields, instead of the 7 bodies of man. Does that make any sense to you?> Actually, I would prefer to talk about man's 7 energy fields. Matter and energy are two sides of the same coin. Force is like active energy, and is usually associated with motion (F=ma and so on). I'm sorry, but I am unfamiliar with Harry Van Gelder. Perhaps he is referring to the principles rather than the bodies? Most writers seem to equate these two, but Eldon wants to keep them separate and distinct. But I would agree that the aura is very close to a living energy field. < I've also wondered whether vibes aren't the basic building blocks of the universe. As in "In the beginning was the Word". or do you think we'll never get around to finding the basic building blocks?> I suspect that someday they will split the quark. The problem with vibrations is that there must be something to vibrate as well as a medium through which they can travel to us. But essentially I agree with you. The Gnostics taught that the 7 vowels created the basic materials out of which the universe is formed. The consonants, depending on how they were placed between the vowels, gave creation its depth and variety. This idea is also found in mantra yoga. I have always recommended THE GARLAND OF LETTERS by Sir John Woodroffe (alias Arthur Avalon) as the best study you can find on the mantra-shastra, the tantric teaching of the creative power of words (in this case, Sanskrit letters). This idea is very ancient. In my EGYPTIAN MAGICK, Isis, the goddess "who is adept with words" says "The life of a person is invested in his name." This idea of the creative power of words, later became the rationale for magic words and "words of power" taught during the middle ages. But, according to mantra-shastra, it is not the word itself, but its seed (bija) or vibration that has the real power. < Also, when you talk about consciousness influencing an energy field, did you stop at yoga & biofeedback on purpose? Or are you not aware that such phenomena as precipitating a letter and travelling astrally are also acts of a trained will> Yes, I did stop on purpose. Precipitating a letter employs the same theory, but requires a *lot* more energy or concentrated consciousness. I believe that I can influence my own body, for example. But I have yet to precipitate a letter. Traveling astrally also involves conscious influence over matter, but in this case astral matter rather than physical. The aura or Body of Light will automatically go wherever the thought directs it, so not too much concentration is required. Yoga and biofeedback are relatively safe and easy techniques to employ this theory, and stop short of magick, so I stopped with them. But you are certainly right. Paul Johnson. Thanks for the historical info. < HPB later admitted that it was only rarely that the letters were dictated verbatim to her. Yet it is clear that in many cases she wrote them while in a state of consciousness that connected her to the Master(s).> She was a tulku, as defined by Barborka in H.P. BLAVATSKY, TIBET AND TULKU. G de P also describes this process, which is pure occultism and can be found outside of theosophy per se, e.g., in Tibetan Buddhism. This is different from the Adept, where the incoming entity is his or her own higher self. It is almost like a magical invocation, except that invocations usually call in a deity of some kind, while the tulku calls in an Adept or Saint, embodied or disembodied. Many people see the tulku as the reincarnation of a saintly historical person, such as the Dali Lama, for example. ADN notes that a person can have a strong desire to accomplish something, and that this desire itself, if not satisfied at the death of the person, can embody itself in a new baby or in the body of another living person. She points out that, "Tulku literally means an "illusory body" created by magic. There is thus no permanent ego which transmigrates." (SECRET ORAL TEACHINGS, p 105). The tulku is a person whose ego is possessed by another person or idea or "complex" in the Jungian sense. The Tibetans use the term in a permanent sense, in that once a person is a tulku they are such for the rest of their lives. HPB's ability suggests that she was a temporary tulku, allowing the incoming ego of her Master to take over her body temporarily, while her own ego relaxed for the time with more or less complete memory of the incident (which is the chief differentiating feature of tulku vs possession or mediumship where memory is lost). I personally believe that tulku is a valid phenomenon which we in the West still know little about. < To the extent that anti-Christian sentiments in the letters are accurate reflections of the Masters' views (which I believe they are) rather than just HPB's own attitude ...> I agree with your line of argument here. < Finally, I would suggest that the later you go in HPB's writing career, the less you find disrespectful attitudes toward any religion, and the more you find an effort to harmonize them all.> Agreed. Perhaps she mellowed with age? :.) Thanks Paul. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Mar 1995 18:50:27 EST From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: ADN & Tantrayana Although I have been extolling the virtues of MDN in several postings, I want everyone to know that she, like everyone else, was not perfect. In her MAGIC & MYSTERY IN TIBET she writes "Padmasambhava belonged to the degenerate sect of tantric Buddhism." Now, as we all know today, the Great Saint and magician Padmasambhava is revered throughout Tibet as the beloved guru who first brought Buddhism to Tibet. ADN, like HPB, both had a wild hair concerning tantricism. Now, as a theosophist, I will agree that the Hindu version which seeks personal power should be left alone. But the Buddhist version seeks only knowledge IAW the Bodhisattvic Vow, and I have found nothing in it to freighten me away. Anyway, Arnaud Desjardins speaks of ADN's misguided stand, and says "So it would seem that even Madame David-Neel, who lived and studied in Tibet for many years, and who knew many gurus, did not attach much importance to Tantrayana. And yet she is one of the authors writing of Tibet whose books are considered by English speaking lamas as representative and which they can recogmise their own country." (THE MESSAGE OF THE TIBETANS, p 86) Tantrayana, or tantricism, is the Tibetan's "third Vehicle" which Desjardins says "has been preserved in Tibet in all it purity." Indeed, we can read a lot of Tantrayana in the flood of recent books published by Tibetan scholars and gurus. So what does all of this mean? It means that somehow HPB and ADN both misunderstood Padmasambhava and the Tantrayana. This is probably because of its use of sex (I have already described the use of the karmamudra to obtain bliss in a previous posting). But I think it unfair to call Tantrayana black magic or degenerate just because of its use of sex. Of course, today we are a bit more liberal on this subject. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Mar 1995 01:38:14 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Some Comments In message <950311234948_76400.1474_FHA54-1@CompuServe.COM> theos-l@vnet.net writes: To Jerry S. > < HPB later admitted that it was only rarely that > the letters were dictated verbatim to her. Yet it is > clear that in many cases she wrote them while in a > state of consciousness that connected her to the > Master(s).> > > She was a tulku, as defined by Barborka in H.P. > BLAVATSKY, TIBET AND TULKU. G de P also describes this > process, which is pure occultism and can be found > outside of theosophy per se, e.g., in Tibetan Buddhism. > There is thus no permanent ego which transmigrates." > (SECRET ORAL TEACHINGS, p 105). The tulku is a person > whose ego is possessed by another person or idea or > "complex" in the Jungian sense. The Tibetans use the > term in a permanent sense, in that once a person is a > tulku they are such for the rest of their lives. HPB's > ability suggests that she was a temporary tulku, > allowing the incoming ego of her Master to take over > her body temporarily, while her own ego relaxed for the > time with more or less complete memory of the incident > (which is the chief differentiating feature of tulku vs > possession or mediumship where memory is lost). I > personally believe that tulku is a valid phenomenon > which we in the West still know little about. IMH experience, the ego is not possessed, but is _linked_ to the "other" very much in the Jungian sense, but also in the "occult" sense of communication. The retention of the memory of the event by the person concerned is the essential ingredient. I have called this "conscious mediumship" after having come across it as an empirical discovery (which I have been glad to make use of). It seems that the _link_ can be fragile at times, and is subject to the interpretive mechanism of the "receiver," which could well account for some seeming discrepancies in HPB's [possibly] similar experience with the "Masters." I prefer to call them "Higher Intelligences." It is my experience that they are usually deceased human beings who have moved on to "higher" states of being. They may also however belong to the "deva" or "angelic" evolutionary process - it's hard to tell, and in practice not too important. In the Kabbalist tradition I guess the tulka would be equivalent to the maggid. This is an experience which requires hard work and training to achieve. Whether it can be taught I am not sure, but if so, it would have to be on a one-to-one basis. Not something to fool around with. AB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Mar 1995 21:31:07 EST From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Comments. More on Steiner Alan Being a writer myself, all I can say here is AMEN. Alan I have, but I don't either. Arthur. The saga of Rudolf Steiner continues: Wrong reading, I think. The basic Christian story is the formulative myth by which we come to know the occult theory. The Mystery of Golgatha is that there is a way to remain conscious throughout the afterdeath state and to remember our past life when we are reborn. Steiner has taken this simple idea (which comes to us from ancient Egypt as well as the East) and Christianized it into a mysterious occult technique based on the Biblical myth (and I am using 'myth' in the Jungian sense) that only he seems to intimately know. I can't for the life of me understand what all the mystery is about. This idea has been around for a long time, and its best representation today is probably in the Bardo Thodol or Tibetan Book of the Dead. Today we know that we can sleep with full consciousness as well - called lucid dreaming. Arthur Actually, her soul was a bit distorted. She admits this, and gives it as the reason how she remained in telepathic communication with the Masters. But her "distortion" is called tulku, which I commented on the other day. This is explained in the ML, in Letter XXVI, where K.H. says that she is missing one of her 7 principles. I really don't like to pick on anyone, especially someone who is long gone and can no longer defend themself. So, I don't want to throw any stones at Steiner or anyone else. But, to help Arthur, who seems to need some advise, let me give just one 'pick.' I selected a thought of Steiner's, purely at random, which follows: "Recently I have been able to examine the state after death of people with moral sentiments and also the state of those with an immoral disposition of soul, and in every case it could be established that a person with a moral disposition of soul was able to preserve clear, radiant consciousness after death, whereas those with an immoral soul constitution sink into a kind of dim twilight consciousness." (LIFE BETWEEN DEATH AND REBIRTH, p 8) This statement alone tells me that Steiner was a victim of his own psychic meanderings. The teaching here, findings from his own personal psychic experiences, is pure nonsense (I would use a stronger term, but ladies may be reading this). Steiner, in several of his books, rightly equates death with sleep. How, then can he possibly arrive at such a hairbrained notion that 'good' people are rewarded after death while 'bad' people suffer for their sins? First of all, he sets himself up as one who can tell the difference between the moral folks and the immoral ones (this is a good example of exactly why I have been saying that ethics are dangerous). If this 'teaching' is true, then moral people would have only beautiful dreams, while immoral people would have only nightmares. My own observations are contrary to these findings. I observe that we all partake of good and bad features, and we all have good and bad dreams at night, and we all will experience both good and bad in the afterdeath state, as well as in the next life. In short, Steiner suffers from the same problem that CWL and probably all psychics suffer - a (false) sense of their own infallibility where their psychic senses are concerned. I have nothing against psychic investigation. But it should not conflict with occult teachings (especially your own) else they need verification before writing such silly things in a book. My objections to Steiner's psychology are many and too numerous to go into here. In his THEOSOPHY, he gives us 9 "members of the whole man" which he then condenses to the traditional 7. But he gives us new names for them (his anthroposophy has its own unique vocabulary). The 7th, which equates to atman, he gives as "Spirit-man" and again later as "Spirit-man as transmuted physical body." He puts the "I" which he calls a "soul-kernal" in the center of the 7 parts. The relationship between his "I" and what he calls ego is very unclear. Anyway, his 7-fold system is then compressed into a trinity of body, soul, and spirit, all of which are very unclear to me. He seems to enjoy making obscure things even more obscure. My biggest objection is that I don't care for his writing style, which meanders around Robin Hood's barn a lot with a few nuggets of value conservatively sprinkled throughout the chaff. All of this does not mean that I don't like Steiner or respect his anthroposophy, which I do. I simply don't agree with everything that he wrote. I read a lot of his material just as I was coming into theosophy in the late 60s. At first I really liked him (which explains why I bought so many of his books) but it just so happened that I was also reading HPB and G de P at this same time. It wasn't long before I gave up on Steiner's obscurity and went for theosophy instead, G de P being a much easier read. Since G de P made a lot more sense to me, I put Steiner's books on the shelf where they have remained until now. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 22:54:43 -0700 (MST) From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Reply to Paul Johnson, etc. Reply to Paul Johnson I would like to briefly reply to Paul Johnson's comments on my brief critique of certain items in his book THE MASTERS REVEALED. To begin with, I would like to remind everyone on Theos-l that almost 2 months ago, I wrote a brief "review" of THE MASTERS REVEALED and I belive [correction: believe] I said complimenetary things about the book and, in fact, I urged every Theosophist reading my words to obtain and read Paul Johnson's book. I still stand by what I wrote then. In my recent, more critical posting on Paul Johnson's book, I pointed out certain weaknesses of the book. If I seemed to attack Paul Johnson as a *person* then I am sorry for that. My comments were directed to Paul Johnson as the *author* of the book. It must be remembered that Paul has written this book in which he has embodied *his* ideas, *his* hypotheses, *his* statements, *his* evaluations , *his* "statements" of facts, etc. *His* book is, in reality, his brain child, his mind-born creation. Therefore, it is almost impossible to criticize *his* book without in someway referring to the man Paul Johnson. Therefore, if I criticize anyone it is Paul Johnson *the writer* of the book and NOT Paul Johnson *the human being*. I believe there is a vital distinction here and not merely a play of words! I do not attribute any bad motive to Paul Johnson. On the contrary, I believe his is a likable guy. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, we could erase Paul's name from the title page of his book and replace his name with an X. In other words, regardless of who authored the book, let us judge the ideas and statements in the book based on their own merits *regardless of who wrote them*! Are the statements accurate, true, fair, etc.? Now briefly, looking at some of my statements concerning Paul and his book: I said for example: ...Paul Johnson does NOT mention in his message and ..he does NOT mention in his book.....I find it somewhat misleading that Paul Johnson mentions the Hares' book but is silent to the critiques written on the book." Yes, I do find it somewhat misleading, especially to the reader that the author is silent about the critiques on the Hare book. Did Paul consciously intend to mislead his readers? I hope not, and am relieved to find out that such is not the case. But when, for example, Paul in reply to my criticism writes: "These critiques (Stokes) are not widely available. I've never seen a copy of the O.E. Library Critic....", does this excuse the "author" for not, at least mentioning them? Fourteen years before THE MASTERS REVEALED published, Bruce Campbell in his ANCIENT WISDOM REVIVED: A History of the Theosophical Movement (1980) writes in his Notes to Chapter 3 of and on "The Masters and Theosophical Teachings" (pp. 212-214) "...Stokes wrote a total of ten articles reviewing the Hare book; they began with the June-July issue of the *Library Critic*..." and he cites the Stoke's article as follows: "H.N. Stokes, `Did H.P. Blavatsky Write These Mahatma Letters?' *The O.E. Library Critic* 24 (August-September 1936): 1-6." These words just quoted are part of a biblography on "the controversy about the Mhatmas." and the citation about Stokes is listed under the heading "Theosophical defenses..." Now the Bruce Campbell book is listed in the bibliography of Paul Johnson's book IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS (1990) and also in his THE MASTERS REVEALED (1994). So the Stokes citation is not that obscure! And as regards the availability of the *O.E. Library Critic*, this journal can be located in a number of locations, including Theosophical organizations. In research methodology, one is taught to do a literature search on the subject one is intending to write on in order to familiarize oneself with what others have already discovered ,etc about the subject. I believe I was taught this procedure as an undergraduate in college. One need not be a "scholar" to realize the importance of this kind of literature search. Again, I was taught even as an undergraduate that when you read a book or an article, you should also look for reviews and other commentaries on that particular book. This is part of the learning process. For example, when I read books on parapsychology, I always look for reviews and critiques in the various parapsychological journals as well as the popular press. These reviews can provide one with other perspectives, etc. Bruce Campbell in his notes gives the interested reader access to various critiques of the Hare brothers' book. Unfortunately, THE MASTERS REVEALED does not aid the reader in this direction. Moving on..... When I mention Dr. Paul Kirk and Paul Johnson replies: "...I don't know of him", I am even more surprised! I guess that Paul has never read Victor Endersby's THE HALL OF MAGIC MIRRORS (1969) where Dr. Kirk's important letter is published. It is also printed in one or two issues of Victor Endersby's THEOSOPHICAL NOTES in the early 1960s. But what suprises me even more is that Dr. Kirk and his handwritng analysis of certain Mahatma Letters is written about by Cylvia Cranston in her 1993 biography of HPB and Paul listed this Cranston bio. in his book THE MASTERS REVEALED and even at least twice from the Cranston bio. See p. 274. [Correction: "Cylvia" should be "Sylvia". Also in the last sentence the latter part should read: "...and Paul even quoted at least twice from the Cranston bio. See p. 274 of Cranston's bio. on HPB."] Again, when I wrote: "Unfortunately, Paul Johnson in THE MASTERS REVEALED does NOT allow his readers to know about this study by [Charles] Marshall." , Paul replies: "Gee, Dan, it sure seems like you are saying I am familiar with the study, or had some kind of access to the journal in which it appears. How can I not allow something when I'm ignorant of it? It never has been reported on or discussed in TH [Theosophical History] or among theosophical historians in my presence." So Paul admits he is ignorant of the existence of this article? Yet in the same Cranston biography of HPB, p. 274, a whole paragraph is devoted to summarizing the findings of Marshall. And in the index to the Cranston biography, under the entry "Mahatma Letters..." the title of this article is given plus the page number. Again Ted G. Davy in an article entitled: "Computer Vindicates Blavatsky," writes about Marshall's findings. See the theosophical magazine "The Canadian Theosophist", Nov.-Dec., 1980, pp. 97-98. And copies of "Viewpoint Aquarius" in which the Marshall article appeared can be found in some Theosophical libraries. All I am suggesting is that the author of THE MASTERS REVEALED when writing the section on "Who Wrote the Mahatma Letters?" (see pp. 174-175) would have done himself a favor and certainly a favor to his readers if he had followed up the sources mentioned in Cranston's biography of HPB. Instead, readers of that section will not be well informed and in fact will be given a very one-sided, incomplete treatment concerning the Mahatma Letters. Furthermore, probably 99 readers out of every 100 who read that section will have not idea where to go to find more information both pro and con on the subject discussed. [Correction: "...will have not idea where..." And finally, when I wrote: "I am planning to do a full-length critique of THE MASTERS REVEALED and the most distressing observation I can make about this book is that the author omits or downplays any evidence that would throw a monkey wrench in to his various theories and hypotheses." To my statement, Paul replies: "It is certainly a distressing `observation' because it is in fact an unfair accusation. You are entirely within your rights to complain that I'm ignorant of certain evidence. But your insinuations of active effort to suppress information in order to distort the reader's understanding---well, we're both librarians so you should know just how dishonored I feel by that." My reply is: I cannot get inside your mind and see the workings of your minds. I am glad to know that you are not consciously and with an "active effort" attempting to suppress information, but at the same time the fact remains that you quote only that evidence which you feel supports your speculations on the identities of Koot Hoomi and Morya. And as anyone can verify who will read your book you do not make your readers aware of any evidence that would show your speculations to be way off the mark. [Correction: "I cannot get inside your mind and see the workings of your mind...."] In my two letters to you in 1993 (letters which you solicited from me), I quoted pages after page of evidence which would suggest that your speculations on KH and Morya were as inadequate to explain the facts concerning the Masters as Richard Hodgsonn's "explanations" were in 1885- 1886. I thank you for mentioning me in your Acknowledgments page as follows: "Daniel Caldwell provided helpful criticisms of my identifications of Morya and Koot Hoomi." Unfortunately, your readers will not have access to my "helpful criticisms." And only a well versed student of early Theosophical history will be aware of the testimonies that refute your "House of Cards" speculations on the two Theosophical Masters. Enough for now. I again urge readers on Theos-l to buy and read Paul's book. The book does have its merits and it is a treasure trove of information. Unfortunately the uninformed reader can be easily misled by the incomplete and one-sided treatment of many important issues that the book attempts to address. Maybe in a new edition of this work, these defects will be corrected. I will attempt to do a critique of the book especially on Paul's speculations concerning the identities of Koot Hoomi and Morya. This will probably take several months since I am preoccupied with other duties that must first be taken care of. Daniel Daniel H. Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Mar 1995 07:24:47 EST From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@compuserve.com> Subject: P.G. Bowen et al Hi Todd Katz: About your inquiry concerning P.G. Bowen, the Occult Way and A.E., I came across "The Candle of Vision" by A.E. in the late 1970s, and it seemed to me that this was written by a man with his own access to the inner planes. In 1986, I found Bowen's "The Occult Way" in our Theosophical Society Branch library in Miami and was even more impressed. I began to investigate who these people are just as you seem to be doing now. I have looked up the old information I have, and hope it will be of help to you. Included are various names and addresses. You may also like to know that the 1936 and 1939 editions of "The Occult Way" contain an entire section that is omitted from the TPH revised 1978 edition. Dr. Ian Cowan, General Secretary of The Theosophical Society in Ireland, 31 Pembroke Road, Dublin 4 wrote in 1986: "The Hermetic Society which Russell founded is no longer represented in Dublin... I think it may be rather difficult to find many persons with direct experience of studying under A.E. or Bowen...A previous General Secretary, Miss Dorothy Emerson, was a member of Bowen's group and studied with him. She is, however, rather old, and although she is quite glad to speak about it if visited, I do not know if she would be able to correspond. If you wish to contact her, her address is: Alexandra Guild House, 30 Leinster Road West, Dublin 6." I received no response from Ms. Emerson and cannot say whether she is still living. Mr. Leslie Shepherd, 1 Lakelands Close, Stillorgan, Blackrock, Co. Dublin, Ireland, who is also familiar with this line of teachings wrote in 1986: "I am confident that there is no esoteric school based on the Bowen teachings at the present time. Bowen left the TS to join the Dublin branch of the Hermetic Society (Anna Kingsford) but dissolved the Society in 1939 with the onset of World War II, dying the following year. His disciple Mrs. E.A. Ansell took his teachings to London in 1926 under the aegis of the Ancient Order of Druid Hermeticists, which was amalgamated with An Druidh Uileach Brathreachas twenty years later. So far as I know, the organization and its splinter movements have long since disappeared." Following up various leads I finally did contact a resurrected Hermetic Society, called "The Hermetic Society Bournemouth, C/O Douglas E. Western, 115 Southbourne Overcliff Drive, Bournemouth BH6 3NP. He and I had a correspodence for several years but never met. Douglas Western had revived the Hermetic Society and made an attempt to keep several of Bowen's lesser known writings in print in addition to maintaining the group. He died in 1990, but I have the address of his daughter-in-law who you might write to, and see if anyone has carried on this line of work. She is: Ruth Western, 4, Crossway, Chesham, Bucks, HP5 3LW, United Kingdom. Two others who were in this group, although I do not have their addresses are, Andrea Rushton and Phyl Harris. The following from Douglas Western may be of interest to you, writing about "The Occult Way": "Here, at last, I had come across a Teacher writing, not from information - but with an inner knowledge - ever since then I have revered him as my Guru. Here let me correct you - he was not the pupil of AE - he was a co-worker in the same field, one who took over the responsibilities of AE and his group when the latter left Dublin and came to live in the South of England. The Occult Way, is the work, the author tells us, that he was commanded by AE to do when taking over The Hermetic Lodge in Dublin - there is nothing to compare with it, it stands alone and is for me The Seven Pillars of Wisdom. His other important work is "The Sayings of the Ancient One"; published by TPH London, here we have six Lessons in true occultism. The devotional type of student does appear to respond better to this work than to The Occult Way. "The Way Toward Discipleship" (may be out of print) is positively the simplest version of the genuine occult doctrine treated, that exists. It was written with intense care, with the intention of giving the simplest statement of the subject possible to human words, without running counter to the essential law." There was a book published in 1988 which contains much information about A.E.'s writings, and you might want to look at it if you have not already done so: R. and N. Iyer, "The Descent of the Gods" (London-Gerrards Cross: Colin Smythe, 1988). Also, this publisher, Colin Smythe and an associate Henry Summerfield, have much information about A.E. and perhaps also about Bowen. One of the things that attracted me to Bowens work, and encouraged me to make these inquiries, was the parallel I saw with the practical teachings of Gurdjieff. Teachings having to do with self-awareness. So, if you are as much interested in the practical teachings, as in the historical lineage of A.E. and Bowen, you may want to look into Gurdjieff, if you have not already done so. Also, there are plenty of Gurdjieff groups around with whom to work (but be careful, there are a lot of charlatans, rogues and self-deluded idiots purporting to give out Gurdjieff's teachings). One of the reasons I am happy to put out this information Todd, in addition to attempting to meet your needs, is that I am myself interested to know if anyone else has chosen to carry on the Bowen-A.E. Hermetic tradition. Hope to hear from some others of you on this net with more information. Sy Ginsburg From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Mar 1995 04:50:11 -0800 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: scholarship The recent discussion between Daniel Caldwell and Paul Johnson has caught my attention. I haven't had time to read Paul's latest book, so on this subject, I have no comments. But there is a broader and (I think) more important issue here that I feel needs to be pointed out. I am thinking of the issue of good and bad scholarship. If one is a professional librarian (as both Paul and Daniel are), then one will hopefully have special training in the scholarly skill of seeking out and locating obscure information. Further, a librarian has the good fortune of having first hand access to electronic data bases in order to locate and obtain otherwise hard to find material. Library skills doesn't make a scholar, but they sure help in finding material. Yet, even those researchers who are not librarians (such as myself) can still have the same access to materials through the inter-library loan services. In the case of obscure Theosophical material, sometimes a little dective work is required to track it down, but it is always somewhere--and almost always in more than one place. In light of the above, I find Paul's statement curious that "Some of my lack of information is due to the hostility of those who possess it." Like Paul, my own outspoken philosophy of saying exactly what I think has closed the doors to some sources. For instance, like Paul, it is unlikely that I would ever be given access to Olcott's Diaries at Adyar. But, unlike Paul, I didn't have to go to India to figure that out. Yet in spite of the alleged "hostility" I have never failed to find a copy of any theosophical document that I have set out to look for--regardless of its rarity. Therefore, even if Paul is correct that "`Good' Theosophists have a much easier time of getting access to such material" that doesn't mean that "bad" theosophists are out of luck. Being able to locate and access needed material is one of the things a researcher learns to do. Alan Bain has correctly pointed out that a researcher can never be certain to have found all possible source material upon a given subject. On the other hand, a responsible researcher will have made a thorough search of secondary material to see what has already been covered on the subject and to "ferret" out possible sources of primary material to investigate. The subsequent investigation of the primary material may reveal further primary material. Though a researcher may miss a piece of evidence here and there, a conscientiously and systematically researched work will be balanced and fairly represent the source material that gives evidence on each side of the argument. Even if *every* piece of evidence has not been found (as long as the material used is fairly representative), and the researcher has made allowances (such as refraining from drawing conclusions) for the missing material a balanced and good piece of research can still be done. The researcher, however, only represents half of the problem. The other half involves the reader. When we read "researched" works on subject that we are not deeply familiar, it is easy to be fooled into thinking that a work is better research than it actually is. For instance, Over the last six months or so, I have been plowing through scores of "scholarly" articles and books concerning the connections between some modernist literary figures and the occult. Almost all of the articles and books were published by major University presses and authored by some of the top authorities in their specialties. Yet, when the discussion turns to Theosophy, I am finding at least one error of fact in almost every paragraph. It just goes to show that "scholarship" is not necessarily what it is cracked up to be. So, I think the reader has to be aware and read critically even those works that purport to be scholarly. Even if the material is unfamiliar, there are a few questions one might ask to help ascertain whether a work is scholarly: 1. Is the presentation balanced? Does the author present the evidence both pro and con? Does the author demonstrate the complexity of the issue? 2. Are the author's statements backed up by references? For instance, if a historical event is related, does the author draw from more than a single source? Are those sources primary ones? (Primary sources are the source documents e.g. first hand accounts, and original letters. Other books on the subject are not source documents. For instance, Sylvia Cranston's Bibliography is a secondary source. But most of the sources that Cranston used to write the book are primary). 3. Is the author examining the evidence and allowing that evidence to lead her to the logical conclusions? Or does the author seem to be organizing the evidence to fit a preconceived conclusion? Often it is difficult to determine this, but sometimes it is pretty obvious. 4. Is the author careful not to force uncalled for conclusions from the evidence. An example that come to mind on this is an anthropological work published a few years ago by a U.C.L.A. graduate. In the beginning of her book, she cites the existence of prehistoric carvings of female figures. She state at the beginning of the book that these figures could *possibly* be goddess figures. By the middle of the book, she states that these figures are *probably* goddess figures. By the end of the book, she states that these figures *are* goddess figures. Yet she never offers a shred of direct evidence through the whole book to support the conclusion she came to at the end. Another recent example concerns a presentation I recently gave. During the discussion period, a questioner informed me that everything H.P.B. knew about Kabbalah came from Issac Meyer. His only evidence for this astounding statement was that H.P.B. discusses Meyer in the *S.D.* Obviously this is a rather weak premise. I met Manly Hall on several occasions, and have read some of his books, but that doesn't mean that I know what he knows, or that I necessarily owe my understanding of one subject or another to him. If the reader also has expertise in the same area, then she may be in a position to make an assessment of how well the source material is utilized. Are there any obvious source documents that have been ignored? Has all of the evidence been considered? If not, then why not? Not taking evidence into consideration (even when it is not available) can seriously weaken the soundness of any research. I feel that it is of vital importance that as readers we strive to hone our critical skills. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Mar 1995 15:13:33 +0100 (MET) From: euser Subject: To Art Patterson from Martin Euser Hi Art, You asked about Steiner. I've read most of his books when I was young and found it interesting at that time. I did not limit myself to Steiner and moved to Theosophy after a couple of years after attending a lecture. Now, about Steiner; 1. His work is a. Antropocentric and b. Christocentric. Antropocentric because man is at the center of his work, while in Theosophy there is a much broader scope of teaching. Christocentric indeed! If you read his book : about 'how to reach consciousness on the higher planes' (note: title will be a bit different, because I just translated the Dutch title; German will be something like: 'Wie erlangt man bewusstsein auf hoeheren Gebieten') you will find at the first pages a footnote about Eastern religions being inferior to Christianity! This expresses an attitude of arrogance from the side of Steiner (indeed, Western society) that needs no further comment. 2. If I recall well, Steiner has a totally different opinion about how the seven principles of man evolve. He starts more with the physical side than the spiritual side, while Theosophy mentions the involving of Atman into matter during the first round. (I would have to check Steiner's work though, to analyze this further) 3. Steiner has 'extraordinary visions' in the Akasha chronicles. Indeed! In my opinion he is one of the thousands of people who has been deluded by the astral light. If you read William Quan Judge (Echoes of the Orient, Vol. I) you will find some valuable stuff about this. Hope this will interest you. Martin From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Mar 1995 07:47:08 -0700 (MST) From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: A Note on my typos! In "My Reply to Paul Johnson" there are too many typos! Sorry for that! Hopefully most of them will be obvious. That's what I get for sending a first draft at 11 pm. Daniel Caldwell P.S. I fully agree with the points made in Jerry H-E's message which was just posted on Theos-L. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Mar 1995 17:32:47 EST From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Kabbalah Alan, I just read your Kabbalah, Part I, and overall I think its quite good. I would like to start the ball rolling on a discussion of Kabbalah (John said to just start right in) in two related areas, the Klippoth and the Abyss. 1. Klippoth. I have one question about your equation of Assiah = Klippoth where you say "The last of the four Worlds is called Assiah, the material world, also called Klippoth, or shells." Do you have a source for this? The reason ask is that the O.T.O. and G.D. both describe Klippoth in a different and more sinister vein. The following quote is an example: "Qliphoth (Heb.): The plural form of ' qlipha,' meaning 'an harlot' or 'strange woman'; terms which signify 'otherness.' The shadowy world of shells or reflections. Each 'sephira' of the Tree of Life has its corresponding 'qlipha.' which is the reflection of the energy which it represents, and these averse power-zones - or 'qlipoth' - form the Tree of Death." (Kenneth Grant, NIGHTSIDE OF EDEN, in Glossary, pp 275-276. I have put Grant's italics in single quotes to keep this in ASCII) Grant pictures the Qlippoth or Klippoth as being beneath the physical plane, rather like the Avichi (the so-called "8th Sphere") of theosophy. Is this one of the areas of difference that you mentioned you had with magic schools? I bring this up because Grant has built up an elaborate thesis on the foundation of the Klippoth being sub-physical - i.e., his Tunnels of Set. According to Grant, the doorway into the Klippoth lies in Daath. I have talked with people who tell me that they have actually visited these tunnels. 2. Dqath. You write, "...the link which arises between the Supernal Sephiroth on the Tree of Life and those below them. This link is called Daath, Knowledge, sometimes considered for convenience as another, "invisible" Sephira..." I agree with you that Daath is not a Sephera per se. In fact, it has no connecting path on the Tree. However, it does separate, so to speak, the upper three Sephiroth from the lower seven, in that it is always said to be located in the Abyss, and some would go so far as to equate Daath with the Abyss itself. You write that Daath is "the point of knowledge via which hidden teachings are received" and I agree with you. But are you saying that it does *not* exist as a special region of "inner space?" The whole idea of Daath only makes sense to me as a kind of Ring-Pass-Not for the human mind, and as you say, as a link between the formless spiritual planes and the formed material planes. But I have no problem seeing it as a subtle region which can actually be visited, and one that must sooner or later be "crossed" or spanned. In fact, this idea is clearly spelled out in Enochian Magic, where the Abyss is the 10th Aethyr, ZAX, an actual subtle region that can be (and has been) visited, has denizens, and so on. The idea of the Abyss containing "tunnels" to lower cosmic planes seems a possibility, although your text suggests that it is only associated with upward movement. Have you ever come across anything that repudiates or substantiates Grant's hypothesis? I am looking forward to Part 2. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Mar 1995 15:21:34 -0800 From: toddkatz@ix.netcom.com (Todd Katz) Subject: Re: P.G. Bowen et al Hi Sy, Thanks so much for your comments about The Occult Way, P.G. Bowen and AE. I am impressed at the scope and success of your research. You have saved me a lot of work! I'll tell you how I came to be aware of Mr. Bowen's unique book. It the late-60s a professor at the University of Texas at Austin taught several courses on Eastern Philosphy. Possibly because many of the older women who were attending his class were Theosophists, Prof. Desani gave a graduate seminar that, as I recall 25 years later, dealt almost exclusively with The Occult Way. (Its also possible that the seminar covered the Bhagavad Gita; either that or another seminar did.) Professor G.V. Desani still lives in Austin, although he is 86 and an invalid due to a dibilitating stroke. He was an widely acclaimed novelist in England through World War II. Then he returned to his native India and spent the next 20 years seeking and investigating everything spiritual: yoga, tantra, theravada and zen buddhism. He taught in Austin for about 8 years. I worked for him for several years as an unpaid assistant. He remains under the care of students he met in those years. Anyway, I too young and ignorant then to appreciate the fact that this accomplished man would choose an obscure Irish book as a suitable topic for enlightenment studies. I do not know how or when Prof. Desani found the Occult Way. I do know that he made a habit of looking at every book on mysticism, occultism, magic and yoga that was published. Over the years I've referred to The Occult Way, but it wasn't until a personal event this year caused me to begin studying in earnest that I began to suspect the full significance of what he had achieved. I do have the original Occult Way. Why the Quest people choose to remove the Q&A section is a mystery. I also have the original Sayings of the Ancient One. It seems to me that I once saw (probably at the UT gigantic main library) some other writing by Captain Bowen. I do not know if I've ever seen "The Way Toward Discipleship." Do you have a copy? I will write to Mr. Western's daughter to see, as you suggest, if anyone carried on his work. Todd Katz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Mar 1995 18:25:04 EST From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Kabbalah Alan, I just read your Kabbalah, Part I, and overall I think its quite good. I would like to start the ball rolling on a discussion of Kabbalah (John said to just start right in) in two related areas, the Klippoth and the Abyss. 1. Klippoth. I have one question about your equation of Assiah = Klippoth where you say "The last of the four Worlds is called Assiah, the material world, also called Klippoth, or shells." Do you have a source for this? The reason ask is that the O.T.O. and G.D. both describe Klippoth in a different and more sinister vein. The following quote is an example: "Qliphoth (Heb.): The plural form of ' qlipha,' meaning 'an harlot' or 'strange woman'; terms which signify 'otherness.' The shadowy world of shells or reflections. Each 'sephira' of the Tree of Life has its corresponding 'qlipha.' which is the reflection of the energy which it represents, and these averse power-zones - or 'qlipoth' - form the Tree of Death." (Kenneth Grant, NIGHTSIDE OF EDEN, in Glossary, pp 275-276. I have put Grant's italics in single quotes to keep this in ASCII) Grant pictures the Qlippoth or Klippoth as being beneath the physical plane, rather like the Avichi (the so-called "8th Sphere") of theosophy. Is this one of the areas of difference that you mentioned you had with magic schools? I bring this up because Grant has built up an elaborate thesis on the foundation of the Klippoth being sub-physical - i.e., his Tunnels of Set. According to Grant, the doorway into the Klippoth lies in Daath. I have talked with people who tell me that they have actually visited these tunnels. 2. Dqath. You write, "...the link which arises between the Supernal Sephiroth on the Tree of Life and those below them. This link is called Daath, Knowledge, sometimes considered for convenience as another, "invisible" Sephira..." I agree with you that Daath is not a Sephera per se. In fact, it has no connecting path on the Tree. However, it does separate, so to speak, the upper three Sephiroth from the lower seven, in that it is always said to be located in the Abyss, and some would go so far as to equate Daath with the Abyss itself. You write that Daath is "the point of knowledge via which hidden teachings are received" and I agree with you. But are you saying that it does *not* exist as a special region of "inner space?" The whole idea of Daath only makes sense to me as a kind of Ring-Pass-Not for the human mind, and as you say, as a link between the formless spiritual planes and the formed material planes. But I have no problem seeing it as a subtle region which can actually be visited, and one that must sooner or later be "crossed" or spanned. In fact, this idea is clearly spelled out in Enochian Magic, where the Abyss is the 10th Aethyr, ZAX, an actual subtle region that can be (and has been) visited, has denizens, and so on. The idea of the Abyss containing "tunnels" to lower cosmic planes seems a possibility, although your text suggests that it is only associated with upward movement. Have you ever come across anything that repudiates or substantiates Grant's hypothesis? I am looking forward to Part 2. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Mar 1995 23:35:56 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Kabbalah In message <950312223246_76400.1474_FHA47-1@CompuServe.COM> theos-l@vnet.net writes: In reponse to Jerry S. > Alan, I just read your Kabbalah, Part I, and overall I think > its quite good. I would like to start the ball rolling on a > discussion of Kabbalah (John said to just start right in) in > two related areas, the Klippoth and the Abyss. > > 1. Klippoth. > > I have one question about your equation of Assiah = Klippoth > where you say "The last of the four Worlds is called Assiah, > the material world, also called Klippoth, or shells." Do > you have a source for this? The reason ask is that the > O.T.O. and G.D. both describe Klippoth in a different and > more sinister vein. The following quote is an example: > > "Qliphoth (Heb.): The plural form of ' > qlipha,' meaning 'an harlot' or 'strange > woman'; terms which signify 'otherness.' > The shadowy world of shells or reflections. > Each 'sephira' of the Tree of Life has its > corresponding 'qlipha.' which is the > reflection of the energy which it represents, > and these averse power-zones - or 'qlipoth' - > form the Tree of Death." (Kenneth Grant, > NIGHTSIDE OF EDEN, in Glossary, pp 275-276. > I have put Grant's italics in single quotes > to keep this in ASCII) > > Grant pictures the Qlippoth or Klippoth as being beneath the > physical plane, rather like the Avichi (the so-called "8th > Sphere") of theosophy. Is this one of the areas of > difference that you mentioned you had with magic schools? I > bring this up because Grant has built up an elaborate thesis > on the foundation of the Klippoth being sub-physical - i.e., > his Tunnels of Set. According to Grant, the doorway into > the Klippoth lies in Daath. I have talked with people who > tell me that they have actually visited these tunnels. It is a crucial difference. The Hebrew definition of `Klipha' is simply `shell.' That's it. `Harlot' is `znh' [zain nun heh] or in the biblical sense of a temple harlot, `KDShH' - a word related to the idea of `holy.' A shell is by definition a container, such as the physical body [of anything]. I guess you could call a tunnel a "shell" but it is stretching the meaning. Kenneth Grant wrote very much in support of the Crowley Magickal [sic] approach, which is a long way from mine [or the 'Hasidim. I use 'H to represent the letter "chet," to attempt to prevent people pronouncing it like the "ch" in "cheese." It is more like the German "ch" in "Ach!"] > 2. Daath. > > You write, "...the link which arises between the Supernal > Sephiroth on the Tree of Life and those below them. This > link is called Daath, Knowledge, sometimes considered for > convenience as another, "invisible" Sephira..." > I agree with you that Daath is not a Sephera per se. In > fact, it has no connecting path on the Tree. However, it > does separate, so to speak, the upper three Sephiroth from > the lower seven, in that it is always said to be located in > the Abyss, and some would go so far as to equate Daath with > the Abyss itself. The reason for this is not explained until you get to my Part Three . . . note the words "for convenience" in your quote. > You write that Daath is "the point of knowledge via which > hidden teachings are received" and I agree with you. But > are you saying that it does *not* exist as a special region > of "inner space?" One could argue that that is _exactly_ what it is, though I would call it a "bridge" in inner space, if the term inner space is going to be used. The whole idea of Daath only makes sense > to me as a kind of Ring-Pass-Not for the human mind, and as > you say, as a link between the formless spiritual planes and > the formed material planes. But I have no problem seeing it > as a subtle region which can actually be visited, and one > that must sooner or later be "crossed" or spanned. See above. When you get there it is somewhere else. In fact, > this idea is clearly spelled out in Enochian Magic, where > the Abyss is the 10th Aethyr, ZAX, an actual subtle region > that can be (and has been) visited, has denizens, and so on. Oh. > The idea of the Abyss containing "tunnels" to lower cosmic > planes seems a possibility, although your text suggests that > it is only associated with upward movement. Have you ever > come across anything that repudiates or substantiates > Grant's hypothesis? Gulp. Experience. > I am looking forward to Part 2. This deals with the Tarot and the world of Yetzirah in particular. I am not ready to upload this for a while yet. Of course, if you want to buy the complete hard copy version . . . :-) The root of the word "Assiah" BTW, is associated with the idea of `manufacture' - as in an artifact, perhaps. The Kabbalah which originates in Israelite `Creation' theory thus regards the lowest world as the absolute bottom - there is nothing beneath it, certainly not any `Klippoth' as these are the containers of the `artifacts.' In this sense our own bodies are artifacts, and containers of the human soul, self, spirit - whatever. This area of discussion could produce some longish replies - such as this is compared to most [and I have barely touched the surface of the questions you raise]. This is why I proposed a while back that e-mail directly to me might be a better way of going about Kabbalah which is based upon my work and teaching(s). I have no interest in debating various alternative systems using the same or similar language [eg., Qabalah]. I did all of that years ago, and leave it to the student to do the same on his or her own behalf, if debate is wanted. What I offer is Kabbalah _as I have received it_. Don't believe a word I tell you. Check it out. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Mar 1995 22:05:20 EST From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: OUT IN LEFT FIELD Hi Liesel! Your postings concerning the possible censorship in cyberspace are interesting. I am not a historian or scholar or librarian so I am just keeping an open mind about the ML etc. and not commenting. But in the midst of all this I would like to add briefly that the fundametalist Christian inner circle know the name of Blavatsky very well. I listen to Marlon Mattox, kind of the Rush Limbaugh of Christian radio. I listen because it energizes my shadow, but it also let's me see what the other side is doing. I hope everyone is aware that if the religious right had their way, anything remotely theosophical and Blavatsky in particular would be locked up and not to protect it either. The commentators on the radio are fond of saying that all our problems in the schools somehow started with Blavatsky and her influence (usually unseen or acknowledged) on the likes of John Dewey and have spread everywhere even to the NEA. Their interpretation is sometimes very sophisticated (IMHO). You would be surprised that they "get it", but don't like it because it takes their authority and control away. And from really left field - has anyone considered that the Hierarchy is somehow like the food chain, but in a very special sense. I mean the little things get eaten by the big things and thus they serve that purpose. And by analogy our higher principles are somehow fed on, perhaps transmuted or transformed would be a better term, for use by them in their unseen purpose. In other words they need us as much as we need them. The idea of communion or eatting a "god" is a common idea and doesn't raise and eyebrow from Borneo to the Vatican. Is this communion somehow mutual? This sounds almost like the vampirism of the shells in the seance room, but with all this energy flowing around that is not evil, but just the diminution of good a la letter #10 one wonders where the energy goes? What seems to be occult is not the people. or the process exactly but the purpose. The view from the left is pretty dark right now! Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 18:11:24 +1200 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: ML precipitation methods K. Paul Johnson wrote (under "HPB vs the Church"):- > It is probably impossible to figure out, at this late date, > just how the letters were written and received, particularly > since there are so many variations among them. Some were > mailed directly from North Indian locations. The handwritings > vary somewhat. HPB later admitted that it was only rarely that > the letters were dictated verbatim to her. Yet it is clear > that in many cases she wrote them while in a state of > consciousness that connected her to the Master(s). I have some > ideas about what kinds of practices were involved. There are some hints and asides on how the Mahatma Letters were written in Letter 140 in the 3rd Edition, pp 470-474, in the Appendix. Note especially the part on p 473: > [It is mean and stupid] ... the word correctly written was there > before _my_ eyes or those of any chela who precipitated the > letter, .... "Difference in handwriting" - oh the great wonder! > Has Master K.H. written himself all _His_ letters? How many > chelas have been precipitating and writing them - heaven only > knows. How if there is such a marked difference between letters > written by the same identical person _mechanically_, (as the case > with me for instance who never had a _steady_ handwriting) how > much more in _precipitation_, which is the _photographic_ > reproduction from one's head, and I bet anything that no chela > (if _Masters_ can) is capable of _precipitating_ his own > handwriting twice over in precisely the same way ... . And there were other methods, too, I take it. It does suggest complicated communication channels, and probably somewhat noisy ones at times, to use the terms from information science. Murray Stentiford From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 9:44:28 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Reply to Paul Johnson, etc. According to MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU: > To begin with, I would like to remind everyone on Theos-l that > almost 2 months ago, I wrote a brief "review" of THE MASTERS > REVEALED and I belive [correction: believe] I said complimenetary > things about the book and, in fact, I urged every Theosophist > reading my words to obtain and read Paul Johnson's book. > I still stand by what I wrote then. Thank you. > In my recent, more critical posting on Paul Johnson's book, I > pointed out certain weaknesses of the book. If I seemed to > attack Paul Johnson as a *person* then I am sorry for that. Thank you. > My comments were directed to Paul Johnson as the *author* of the > book. It must be remembered that Paul has written this book in > which he has embodied *his* ideas, *his* hypotheses, *his* > statements, *his* evaluations , *his* "statements" of facts, etc. > *His* book is, in reality, his brain child, his mind-born > creation. Therefore, it is almost impossible to criticize *his* > book without in someway referring to the man Paul Johnson. Well-- it should at least be stated that I have actively solicited advice and materials from an international cast of characters. There are 9 I can name off the top of my head who definitely know more Theosophical history than I do: Leslie Price, John Cooper, Joscelyn Godwin, Daniel Caracostea, Michael Gomes, Greg Tillett, Jim Santucci, Jerry Hejka-Ekins, Daniel Caldwell. ALL of these were asked to share their criticisms and suggestions at various points. Price, Cooper, Caracostea, Tillett and Godwin provided voluminous leads to follow or corrections to make. Every time I jumped on them like "a duck on a June bug" and immediately incorporated (or pursued at least) the suggestion, material, etc. Santucci and Hejka-Ekins had offered to make editorial corrections and recommendations when it was being considered that In Search of the Masters might be published by Theosophical History Foundation (at my expense). When that fell through due to time constraints I still asked them for critiques, but never got them. Gomes provided a large amount of material, although no criticisms. The point is, I have been absolutely open to all suggestions from those more knowledgable than myself, (have solicited them) and have used all provided. With the partial exception of yourself, and for reasons related to time and relevance. > Therefore, if I criticize anyone it is Paul Johnson *the writer* > of the book and NOT Paul Johnson *the human being*. I believe > there is a vital distinction here and not merely a play of words! PJ the human being wishes fervently that somebody else had written the book! But alas, he did. > I said for example: ...Paul Johnson does NOT mention in his > message and ..he does NOT mention in his book.....I find it > somewhat misleading that Paul Johnson mentions the Hares' book > but is silent to the critiques written on the book." More on this later. But I only mentioned it (Hare) in a last-minute insertion into the text in response to your insistence that I shouldn't totally ignore the topic of handwritings, etc. So in the time I had, I wrote a brief section which is now criticized as shallow and misleading. Should have left it out. The topic is irrelevant to my inquiry, as I will discuss in my next post. > author is silent about the critiques on the Hare book. Did Paul > consciously intend to mislead his readers? I hope not, and am > relieved to find out that such is not the case. But when, for > example, Paul in reply to my criticism writes: "These critiques > (Stokes) are not widely available. I've never seen a copy of the > O.E. Library Critic....", does this excuse the "author" for not, > at least mentioning them? Fourteen years before THE MASTERS Why mention something I've never seen? If these critiques are so powerful as to demolish the Hares findings, I guess I should have read them. But the whole topic is irrelevant and I shouldn't have been persuaded by you to touch it at all; my reward for trying is just to be criticized for the inadequacy of the effort. > Now the Bruce Campbell book is listed in the bibliography of Paul > Johnson's book IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS (1990) and also in his > THE MASTERS REVEALED (1994). So the Stokes citation is not that > obscure! And as regards the availability of the *O.E. Library > Critic*, this journal can be located in a number of locations, > including Theosophical organizations. After having been rejected by TUP, TPH and PLP, I didn't feel any welcome mats awaited me at any Theosophical organization. But I continually sought corrections, suggestions, etc. from ALL those publishers before their rejections of my work. NO ONE ever said "we think you are not looking at the right evidence, and suggest you investigate X." If they had I would have immediately complied. > In research methodology, one is taught to do a literature search > on the subject one is intending to write on in order to > familiarize oneself with what others have already discovered ,etc > about the subject. I believe I was taught this procedure as an > undergraduate in college. One need not be a "scholar" to realize > the importance of this kind of literature search. But you are insisting that I should have become familiar with literature that has nothing to do with my investigation, as I defined it. Only because of your belief that I needed to touch the tar baby of paranormal phenomena did I do so; trying to please you only opened me up to more criticism from you. > When I mention Dr. Paul Kirk and Paul Johnson replies: "...I > don't know of him", I am even more surprised! I guess that Paul > has never read Victor Endersby's THE HALL OF MAGIC MIRRORS (1969) > where Dr. Kirk's important letter is published. Read ten to fifteen years ago, and the last thing anyone could accuse me of is a photographic memory. > 1960s. But what suprises me even more is that Dr. Kirk and his > handwritng analysis of certain Mahatma Letters is written about > by Cylvia Cranston in her 1993 biography of HPB and Paul listed > this Cranston bio. in his book THE MASTERS REVEALED and even at > least twice from the Cranston bio. CONSIDER some chronology here. THE MASTERS REVEALED went in its first draft to SUNY Press in February 1993. The contract to publish was signed in late June. My final manuscript draft was delivered in September. Now, I don't recall exactly when I received my copy of the Cranston bio, but it was in 1993. In other words, every citation from Cranston you find in TMR was inserted late in the game to a manuscript that had already been submitted to a publisher. These circumstances meant that I incorporated only material that related directly to topics already included. I was certainly in no position to go off pursuing a tangent of questionable relevance that was found in a book appearing at such a late stage in my own writing. > Again, when I wrote: "Unfortunately, Paul Johnson in THE MASTERS > REVEALED does NOT allow his readers to know about this study by > [Charles] Marshall." , Paul replies: "Gee, Dan, it sure seems > like you are saying I am familiar with the study, or had some > kind of access to the journal in which it appears. How can I not > allow something when I'm ignorant of it? It never has been > reported on or discussed in TH [Theosophical History] or among > theosophical historians in my presence." > > So Paul admits he is ignorant of the existence of this article? No. Ignorant of the contents or value. I had heard of it. Again, this is all irrelevant to my inquiry and you can only use it as a weapon against me because of my abortive attempt to satisfy your demands to delve into the whole paranormal side of the story. Yet in > the same Cranston biography of HPB, p. 274, a whole paragraph is > devoted to summarizing the findings of Marshall. And in the > index to the Cranston biography, under the entry "Mahatma > Letters..." the title of this article is given plus the page > number. see above about Cranston timing. I read the whole book, but just don't recall the Marshall description. > All I am suggesting is that the author of THE MASTERS REVEALED > when writing the section on "Who Wrote the Mahatma Letters?" (see > pp. 174-175) would have done himself a favor and certainly a > favor to his readers if he had followed up the sources mentioned > in Cranston's biography of HPB. Instead, readers of that section > will not be well informed and in fact will be given a very > one-sided, incomplete treatment concerning the Mahatma Letters. Which would not have been there at all unless... The biggest favor I could have done myself and readers would be to stick to my guns and say "this is irrelevant and I'm not getting into it"-- 20-20 hindsight. > My reply is: I cannot get inside your mind and see the workings > of your minds. I am glad to know that you are not consciously > and with an "active effort" attempting to suppress information, > but at the same time the fact remains that you quote only that > evidence which you feel supports your speculations on the > identities of Koot Hoomi and Morya. This is not at all true. I quote only evidence that I feel is RELEVANT to the identities of KH and M, some of which is ambiguous and some of which conflicts with my identifications. See all the description of conflicting stories about M, for example-- which obviously don't support my identification of him-- in the Mazzini chapter. > In my two letters to you in 1993 (letters which you solicited > from me), I quoted pages after page of evidence which would > suggest that your speculations on KH and Morya were as inadequate > to explain the facts concerning the Masters as Richard Hodgsonn's > "explanations" were in 1885- 1886. The whole sad story of my effort to cooperate with you and utilize your input probably needs to be told eventually, but suffice it to say that the timing, relevance and unfriendly tone of your correspondence were all factors inhibiting my ability to incorporate your suggestions. Yet I tried, by writing as much as seemed appropriate with as much new research as I had time to do. Then, when you pretty much massively rejected my effort, the publisher and I decided to delete all the "answers to criticism" material for reasons I explained at the time. > I thank you for mentioning me in your Acknowledgments page as > follows: > > "Daniel Caldwell provided helpful criticisms of my > identifications of Morya and Koot Hoomi." > > Unfortunately, your readers will not have access to my "helpful > criticisms." But-- you're about to take care of that problem. > And only a well versed student of early Theosophical history will > be aware of the testimonies that refute your "House of Cards" > speculations on the two Theosophical Masters. Well, it looks like you are the man chosen by destiny to refute the Johnsonian heresy before it claims any victims. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 11:02:36 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Lake Theosophy This weekend I had to work from 9-12 Saturday morning, and thus read and replied to Dan's post in between waiting on 92 patrons by myself. The rest of the weekend was spent trying to deal with the distress caused by his comments. Saturday afternoon I went kayaking on Smith Mountain Lake while brooding over such matters, and came up with a metaphor for the conflict over my book's discussion of the Mahatma letters. Think of Theosophy as a large, deep, wide, beautiful lake. Following the metaphor that is closest to hand in this part of the world, it's an artificial lake. This huge reservoir of deep, wide wisdom has collected behind the dam constructed by HPB and Olcott. Whatever of the human religious and philosophical heritage flowed into HPB's consciousness was therein contained and defined in her writings as modern Theosophy. In light of this metaphor, what The Masters Revealed does is to survey the shoreline of the lake in order to identify where tributaries flow into it; in other words to be specific about where the water comes from, and how it enters the lake. It neither ventures below the surface of the lake (thus missing 99% of the volume, which is under the surface) nor out into the middle (missing the 99% of the surface that isn't adjacent to shore). So only the surface, and only the periphery is explored. The shoreline is where the "water" --spiritual wisdom of Theosophy-- can be observed to meet the "land"-- documented history of the people and places involved in the emergence of the Theosophical movement. And the tributaries are the places where particular currents flow into the lake, which collects waters from many different sources. The Masters identified in the book are the people I met as I paddled up those tributaries. The evidence that is deemed relevant to my inquiry is thus only a tiny proportion of what Dan Caldwell would deem relevant to the question of the Masters. ONLY evidence that is specific about places, names and/or times, e.g. about physical trips to or encounters with the Masters, is relevant. (The shoreline). All the mayavi rupa appearances, paranormal letters, etc., are irrelevant to my quest because they lead nowhere in terms of identifying the historical Masters. (The depths). Only clues that actually lead somewhere are pursued, and all the paranormal stuff is bracketed as having no usefulness to the very specific research project of identifying the historical individuals from whom HPB derived information, inspiration, and guidance. The introduction says something like "the definition of the term `Master' as applied here is based on measurable, objective factors" while "because their `spiritual status' and psychic powers are inaccessible to historical research, these alleged criteria are treated with agnosticism." The measurable and objective factors involve being authorities in one or more spiritual traditions, or literary figures, who served as mentors to HPB. Questions like "Who wrote the Mahatma letters" are unrelated to my research objectives. Why? All the paranormal phenomena associated with the Mahatma letters could be genuine, but if so, what implications would this have as to the historical identities of the authors? None that I know of. On the other hand, even if all the phenomena and letters were fake, what does this tell us about whether or not the Masters really existed, and if they did, who they were? Nothing as far as I can tell. But in my usual readiness to try to please all critics by incorporating new material and points of view, I agreed to touch on the question of the letters and paranormal phenomena after receiving material from Daniel about it JUST before my manuscript was due at SUNY for review. So the new material (of which pp. 174-75 are the remnant) was written after the ms. was submitted, tried to touch on many of Mr. Caldwell's objections, and ran to 1500 words or so. But just as the deadline for the final submission loomed, he told me that my effort to deal with his objections was completely unsatisfactory, and produced a whole bunch of new objections. At that point, never having felt that this line of inquiry had any place in the book, I cut it down to a minimum. Now the minimum that was left in is being condemned as one-sided etc. The book would certainly not lose anything much by having this part cut completely. Finally, I must in self-defense point out that this book existed in a first draft BEFORE I ever dreamed that even one Master figure would be identified. Theosophical University Press received a ms. in late 1988 that was simply a series of investigations into Theosophical history. From then, through their rejection in 1989, and with TPH through 1989 and 1990, the manuscript was in constant evolution, revision, expansion. Each new angle (the Singh Sabha, the maharajas of India, the Masonic connections of HPB) was explored independently of the previous body of research. Those publishers despaired of working with me, I'm sure, as every month or so I'd be off on a whole new tangent, and throwing out a lot of what I had done previously. Even through the 90s as I revised In Search of the Masters into the two SUNY Press books, there were constant revisions, deletions, new identifications of Masters (12 new to ISM out of 32). No one who dealt with me during the process of writing and research would believe that there was some set of hypotheses I was out to prove, and that my search for new evidence was insincere. If that had been the case, the book would not have metamorphized a dozen times in the two years that most of the writing was done, nor would it have continued to change radically for several more years. There is a large and respectable group of character witnesses I could call on for verification that the book was in continual and totally unpredictable flux during the period I was supposedly twisting all the evidence to support preexisting conclusions. There are many people who are far more familiar than I with the depths and breadths of the Theosophical teachings and history. Many have delved into questions like tulku and precipitation from various points of view. This is like exploring the depths of the lake. But no one else, to my knowledge, has surveyed the points where early Theosophical history interacts with political, religious, and intellectual history, with comparable scope and thoroughness. Continuing the metaphor, the sequel follows the river on downstream from the dam to explore the flora and fauna nurtured by the same waters as they flow on toward the sea. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 11:17:15 -0400 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Esoteric School Keith wrote: > his experience is beyond most of our abilities. I'm not sure HPB > would want a cult of the Masters. Even if she had, they themselves asked that the cant about them be put down. It was the ideas and not themselves they said they were interested in promoting. > Is this what the Esoteric Section is or was? Somehow I > don't expect an answer on that one. In my experience, it is a school...not a cult. HPB's GOLDEN STAIRS includes...a willingness to accept the behests of truth, once we have placed our confidence in and believe that teacher to be in possession of it... This school asks if you can so place your confidence in these teachers. llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 09:32:14 PST From: naftaly@mdd.comm.mot.com (Naftaly Ramramkar) Subject: Re: Emerson Hi They also have three more books which you may find interesting Initiation in to Yoga Yoga of Bhagwatgita Yoga of Kathopanishad These books are as good as first two you mentioned Have fun Naftaly From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 09:20:18 +1200 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: ML precipitation methods part 2 Alan Bain and others have recently referred to transmission of ideas and teachings directly into one's mind, apropos ways the Mahatma Letters might have been communicated. The introduction to Geoffrey Hodson's "The Kingdom of the Gods" has this description of such a process: -------------------------------------------- One day as, on a hillside at the edge of a beech forest in a secluded valley in the West of England, I was seeking ardently to enter the Sanctuary of Nature's hidden life, for me the heavens suddenly became filled with light. My consciousness was caught up into a realm radiant with that light which never was on land or sea. Gradually I realised the presence of a great Angelic Being, who was doubtless responsible for my elevated state. From his (* see footnote below) mind to mine there began to flow a stream of ideas concerning the life, the force and the consciousness of the universe and their self-expression as angels and as men. This description is not strictly accurate, however, because during such communication, the sense of duality was reduced to a minimum. Rather did the two centres of consciousness, those of the angel and myself, became almost co-existent, temporarily forming one "being" _within_ which the stream of ideas arose. This, I believe, is essentially true of all interchanges which occur above the level of the formal mind, and especially at those of spiritual Wisdom and spiritual Will. In the latter, duality virtually disappears and oneness, uttermost interior unity, alone remains. Daily entering that realm of light, I found that the great ocean of the life, the force and the soul of the universe had its myriad denizens. These are the Spiritual Selves of men and Super-men and the vast company of the Angelic Hosts, of which the Being who "addressed" me was a member. * Footnote by G.H: The masculine is used for convenience only, such Intelligences being asexual, though of dual polarity, the apparent preponderance of one or other "sex" varying in different Orders. ----------------------------------------- Super-men are of course the Mahatmas, "great souls" of any and all occult schools. Murray Stentiford From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 13:52:11 -0700 From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: ML precipitation methods part 2 > The introduction to Geoffrey Hodson's "The Kingdom of the Gods" > has this description of such a process: > One day as, on a hillside at the edge of a beech forest in a > secluded valley in the West of England, I was seeking ardently to > enter the Sanctuary of Nature's hidden life, for me the heavens > suddenly became filled with light. My consciousness was caught > up into a realm radiant with that light which never was on land > or sea. Gradually I realised the presence of a great Angelic > Being, who was doubtless responsible for my elevated state. From > his (* see footnote below) mind to mine there began to flow a > stream of ideas concerning the life, the force and the > consciousness of the universe and their self-expression as angels > and as men. Horror of Horrors! The esteemed Mr. Hobson admits to ... *channelling* (?!). -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 20:27:11 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Reply to Paul Johnson, etc. Paul: I like your Lake Theosophy idea! Seems to me there is a kind of flame war going on here which I for one regard as irrelevant. Various things have been argued concerning the Masters and the letters, not least the controversies over authenticity, precipitation etc. All this is really very old stuff which has been, IMHO, done to death by some. One theory is that HPB wrote all the letters herself, without aid from anyone other than HPB. Maybe this extreme view is true, maybe not. It is probably of interest to historians, and of value as a historical enquiry. Theosophy, however, it is not. Whoever wrote the letters, and how, is perhaps like asking the question, "Who made the boat to take across Lake Theosophy?" My question is "Does it float?" As we are still discussing it [theosophy] after 120 years, it seems to me that it does. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 13:34:05 +1200 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: RE: ML Precipitation Methods part 2 > >The introduction to Geoffrey Hodson's "The Kingdom of the Gods" > >has this description of such a process: > > > >.... From his (* see footnote below) mind to mine there began > >to flow a stream of ideas concerning the life, the force and the > >consciousness of the universe and their self-expression as angels > >and as men. > > Horror of Horrors! The esteemed Mr. Hobson admits to ... > *channelling* (?!). Good one, John!!! I like it. All we have to do now is get a few other theosophists to accept that the word *channelling* is big enough to cover not only Hodson but Blavatsky etc. Murray Stentiford From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Mar 1995 22:40:15 EST From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Kabbalah Alan I apologise if I sounded like I was trying to debate you. That was not my intent. I agree with your reasoning, and I too studied these things years ago, and don't care to debate them. But you have hinted that there are differences in your view and those of the GD and OTO with which I am already somewhat familiar. So, it is only natural curiousity on my part to try and see what some of those differences are (and I am not throwing stones at either side). In Part 1, I saw only the two areas that I have already mentioned. I am already well aware that Kabbalists do not agree with many of the interpretations given by the Qabalists, but am not versed on the specifics. I really wondered if you had any direct quotes for your interpretation of Klippoth and Abyss, which the magical schools may have missed, or whether you were using your experience, or the experience of others, and so on. I have absolutely no axe to grind on this subject (I am not a memeber of the OTO or GD or any other group other than the TS) and am fully aware of the subjective nature of one's experiences in the "inner planes" having had my share of them. The Tree is a universe model in the same vein as HPB's Gupta Vidya Model, which she obviously held in esteem (as I do). So is the Enochian Model. These models help us to structure our experiences, and like maps in a foreign land, one could easily get lost without them. I want to thank you for sharing your research, and your experience, with us on the net. I think a lot would be lost if we kept this discussion (not arguement) on a one-on-one between you and each of us separately and would much prefer to keep it in public so others can share the info. I, for one, promise not to throw any stones (I live in a glass house, after all). Any questions that I may have are purely from my own academic interest, and you are under no obligation to answer them if you don't want to. Jerry S. ps. While were on the subject, here is another point of interest: Alan This is interesting, and shows a point of difference between Kabbalah and theosophy. I am aware of several others, but never thought of this one. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 23:24:12 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: (none) Paul Johnson writes: PJ> ...Santucci and Hejka-Ekins had offered to make editorial corrections and recommendations when it was being considered that In Search of the Masters might be published by Theosophical History Foundation (at my expense). When that fell through due to time constraints I still asked them for critiques, but never got them. Speaking for myself, I don't recall you asking for a critique, but I don't doubt that you did. What strikes me as odd however is the circumstances that you are referring to. Shortly after I received a copy of the mss for ~In Search of the Masters~ in 1990, you told me over the phone that TH was either going to publish the book as it was, or you were going to self publish. You said that you were "tired of the mss" and wanted it out. In light of your ultimatum, I saw little sense in my continuing to make "editorial corrections" that were not going to be used. Under these same circumstances, I also don't see how it would have made any sense for me to critique the mss for you either. Regarding your "lake theosophy" post, I never fail to be surprised by your oft make statements of being "distressed" by other people's comments about your books. Without even going beyond the covers, it seems to me that you are "baiting the bear" as they say. The title of the first book suggests that the true identity of the Masters are hidden "behind the occult myth." The word "myth" suggests that the "occultism" which so many believe in is false. The revised title is a little more focused, suggesting that the "great white lodge" is a myth i.e. untrue. It seems to me that the very choice of your titles is asking for a negative response from a lot of people who don't like you messing with their sacred cows. If I were to publish a book called "Christianity revealed, the truth behind the Jesus Myth," I think I would be a bit on the naive side to think that the fundamentalist Christian community would run to embrace it with smiles and blessings. As for Dan's post, it appears that he has gone beyond the covers of the book and is questioning the methodology and the thoroughness of your research. It seems to me that such scrutiny is part of the game. If you publish an academic book through an academic press, and you will get members of the academic community dissecting the hell out of it. That is what they do for a living. Peer criticism is an important and necessary activity used to keep the quality of research at a high standard. Whatever is in that book, it was published under your name, therefore I would think that you want all of the feedback you can get in order to do a better job on your next endeavor. After all, your book bears your name, and you are ultimately responsible for every word in it. If you find this distressing, perhaps you might find more satisfaction in other ways of making theosophical contributions. I hope that you understand that my comments are not intended to throw flames. As I have said before, I think your book should be read and discussed. But if you find that discussion "distressing," then we have a problem. Peace Jerry Hejka-Ekins JHE@KOKO.CSUSTAN.EDU From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Mar 1995 07:26:04 EST From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@compuserve.com> Subject: OUT IN LEFT FIELD Hi Keith, The idea of the food chain in which everything eats everything else is not really out in left field at all. As I understand it, it underlies all esoteric philosophy, one only has to look for it. Sometimes, it is even spelled out for us. It is, for example, a cornerstone of Gurdjieff's teaching. Here is Ouspensky quoting Gurdjieff: "According to this diagram (The Diagram of Everything Living), every kind of creature, every degree of being, is defined by what serves as food for this kind of creature or being of a given level and for what they themselves serve as food, because in the cosmic order each class of creature feeds on a definirte class of lower creatures and is food for a definite class of higher creatures." P.D. Ouspensky, "In Search of the Miraculous" pp. 322-323 The whole idea of self-transformation, in my view, is that we use the energy that is transformed by our organism (our chemical factory according to Gurdjieff), for the crystallization of our higher being bodies, the interpenetrating bodies posited by theosophical teaching. In other words, the esotericist who has learned the techniques of energy transmutation "eats himself", this is what alchemy is all about, whereas for the ordinary person who does not understand working on oneself, the energy that is given off by the organism and not used fruitfully for i.e. locomotion or reproduction, is used by higher cosmic forces both during one's life and at one's death. No energy is ever wasted, it cannot be destroyed, only transformed (transmuted) for a different use in the vast cosmic organism of which we are all a part. Having a wonderful time. Wish I were here. Sy Ginsburg From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 09:02:30 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: various responses Have you noticed what a wide area we have covered in the last few days, with very interesting, researched responses from everyone? I think theos-l is coming of age. Dunno how anyone else feels about this, but to me, it's been a pleasure reading you-all. Below, a few brief answers. To: JERRY SCHUELER You say you'r not familiar with Harry Van Gelder. He's not as well known as his famous sister. I'm leafing through his "Inner Peace through The Process of Knowing, Essays in Metapsychology", trying to pick out little pieces to give you the flavor of it. He talks about electrical fields, you're right. He also talks about that each field has 1 more dimension, starting with 3 dimensional "Physical Body: the electro-somatic field.", 4 dimensional "Pysche:development of personality, field of the emotions & thought process; the electro-psychic field", up to 7 dimensional "Consciousness: the field of all-encompassing unity; indefinable." I've never heard anyone else call them "fields" & that makes sense to me. I can't comprehend more than 3 dimensions, maybe 4, do you? A little further on "Modern experiments have proven that all forms are the nature of electric fields. Visible forms seem solid to our sight & touch, but measurements by high frequency scanners show that these perceptions are sensory illusions. "The pysche & its fields do not have the same space/time relationship as forms. Experiments in telephathy & telekinesis have demonstrated that the psyche is 4 dimensional and operates in a space/time continuum; hence it does not take measureable time to cover distance. This can be demonstrated through the communications centers in the body that are of a neuro-physical nature but correspond to the psychic patterns within that field. "Scientists have demonstrated that the spine & back are a positive field and the center part of the front of the body is negative in polarity, and that the right side of the body is positive and the left side negative." etc. "The vital forces from the sun enter the body through the hypograstric & sacral centers & become modified by the other centers until they reach the pineal center. The vital forces then radiate outward to the body & limbs. The flow of these forces is probably related to respiration. When we inhale, the forces flow upward; when we exhale, they move through the body and extremities.... "It is important to realize that another center, which can be elctrically measured, exists about 12 to 15 inches above the head. This center, however, begins to function only in people who have developed their ability to communicate in the higher dimensional fields. Thus, it seems to be the communication center to the subjective fields via its electro-psychic field. This center above the head is the communication line by which the 4 other centers, which lie in the elkectro-physical field can reach the higher dimensional subjective fields." Harry's first educations was as an engineer. Lateron in life, he became an osteopath & he knows a lot about Indian & Asian types of healing, plus what he's developed himself. If this sounds interesting to you, I have a spare copy of his book, which I could send you via snail mail. But the Olcott Library also has a copy which you could borrow. KEITH Re: Out in Left Field If God didn't have us, how would He know Himself? CAMERON BROWN Thanks for your reply. I remember well how it is to be a student. I went through on scholarships, work/study, loans, and a pittance consisting of whatever I could earn during summer vacations, and I didn't know how to sell myself at all, at that point in my life. So I understand very well where you're coming from about not making toll calls to my friends. If you're exploring mystical experiences, various people from among us might be able to assist with answering your questions, if any. But if you do have some, please don't hesitate to ask. We'll reply, if we can. LUCAS I know a little bit something about the ES. It's supposed to be a way of accelerating your spiritual path. It's also supposed to provide the TS with leaders. I don't think it has anything directly to do with the Masters, except that you're supposed to be serving them. OK? Signing off for today. It's my week end to have a car, & I have to finish my errands, in spite of a bad cold. When I get very desperate, I take antibiotics . Well, I just started to. Hopefully this post isn't too wishy washy. Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Mar 1995 09:13:05 EST From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: P.G. Bowen et al Hi Todd, Glad to have been of help re Bowen information. Your story about Professor Desani is a good one. He was obviously a man who could look behind the words of a book and see if the thing, the spirit, is there. You and I would agree that the truth shines through "The Occult Way", and that Bowen writes from experience. The words are not just hearsay. I must have seen "The Way Toward Discipleship" but looking through my papers, I cannot find it. I think it was only a small pamphlet. Good luck on your search for an ongoing Hermetic Society that continues Bowen's work. I hope you will let us know what you uncover. Sy Ginsburg From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 9:26:57 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: your mail According to Jerry Hejka-Ekins: > > Speaking for myself, I don't recall you asking for a > critique, but I don't doubt that you did. What strikes me as odd > however is the circumstances that you are referring to. Shortly > after I received a copy of the mss for ~In Search of the Masters~ > in 1990, you told me over the phone that TH was either going to > publish the book as it was, or you were going to self publish. Not quite. I had sent the ms. to Jim in June, with the understanding that it HAD to be in print by December for tax reasons (couldn't deduct any 1990 expenses for travel, etc. unless I had 1990 income from the book). My willingness to revise was huge in June-- I could have done massive rewrites. By October, when I heard from you all, it was indicated by Jim that it would take at least 90 days to do the recommended revisions. That was the point at which it became impossible to meet TH requirements timewise, and probably when I told you I was sick of the ms. Meaning, really, sick of being in limbo. But I did have time to make SOME changes, and asked you (on a phone message machine-- you didn't return the call) and Jim to suggest some major corrections that I WOULD be able to make in the short time available. > You said that you were "tired of the mss" and wanted it out. In > light of your ultimatum, I saw little sense in my continuing to > make "editorial corrections" that were not going to be used. > Under these same circumstances, I also don't see how it would > have made any sense for me to critique the mss for you either. A misunderstanding that might have been resolved had you returned that phone call. But I take some responsibility for conveying the wrong message in the conversation. > > Regarding your "lake theosophy" post, I never fail to be > surprised by your oft make statements of being "distressed" by > other people's comments about your books. They can say what they like about the books as long as they refrain from personal attacks and invented charges. I think there are plenty of fair ways to criticize the book, and could offer a few productive suggestions. Why not "novice researcher with limited access to information takes on a project too big for him and fails due to inadequate qualifications?" One could take that argument a lot further than "deceiving schemer plots to mislead all his readers by deliberately distorting the evidence." But it would still run up against all the academic experts who have advised me and my publisher otherwise. Without even going > beyond the covers, it seems to me that you are "baiting the bear" > as they say. The title of the first book suggests that the true > identity of the Masters are hidden "behind the occult myth." The > word "myth" suggests that the "occultism" which so many believe > in is false. The revised title is a little more focused, > suggesting that the "great white lodge" is a myth i.e. untrue. The intro explains that I am not using myth in this way; Joy Mills focused on this distinction in her review in The Quest. But you are right; the first impression is confrontational. > It seems to me that the very choice of your titles is asking for > a negative response from a lot of people who don't like you > messing with their sacred cows. If I were to publish a book > called "Christianity revealed, the truth behind the Jesus Myth," > I think I would be a bit on the naive side to think that the > fundamentalist Christian community would run to embrace it with > smiles and blessings. Fair point. But smiles and blessings aren't what I expect; just a certain Theosophical forbearance and respect for my labors regardless of their flaws. Which has pretty much been the case worldwide, with just a few exceptions to date. Maybe if more people had been hostile I wouldn't be as shockable by it. As for Dan's post, it appears that he has > gone beyond the covers of the book and is questioning the > methodology and the thoroughness of your research. Which is an entirely commendable thing to do. But which does not at all justify accusations of the sort made or implied. It seems to > me that such scrutiny is part of the game. If you publish an > academic book through an academic press, and you will get members > of the academic community dissecting the hell out of it. Absolutely. But the dissection is a bit different. In addition to all the Theosophical scholars who reviewed the mss., there were three experts on Asian religious history to whom SUNY sent it for comments. None gave any indication of seeing the books as deliberately distorted propaganda for a foregone set of conclusions. Indeed their statements to the contrary adorn the back covers of the two books. As someone who is not an expert in research methodology or religious studies or history, I do expect to have made mistakes that deserve criticism. But Dan's criticism reminds me of a scary warning given by M. Gomes at the Chicago AAR conference. (He said this in front of others at dinner so I don't think this violates a confidence). What Michael said was "you will be attacked by Theosophists, in fact the attacks are already underway. But they can't get you for your research or your logic, so they'll attack you as a bad person." I didn't ask who "they" were, but Dan's focus on what is not in the book rather than what is, and his use of the "omissions" as a basis for some very dark insinuations/accusations against my honor, seemed to fulfill the prophecy. That is > what they do for a living. Peer criticism is an important and > necessary activity used to keep the quality of research at a high > standard. Without it, I'd have been lost. Whatever is in that book, it was published under your > name, therefore I would think that you want all of the feedback > you can get in order to do a better job on your next endeavor. Absolutely. > After all, your book bears your name, and you are ultimately > responsible for every word in it. If you find this distressing, > perhaps you might find more satisfaction in other ways of making > theosophical contributions. Perhaps. But it is also possible that the hostility of Theosophists to new approaches may gradually diminish through progressive desensitization. And believe me, I feel 10 times more pain from a Theosophist saying my book is evil than from some academic saying it's poorly researched, or whatever. But I hope that future writers will have less of this to deal with, in part because of my own trial by fire. Obviously, I have some desensitization of my own to do. > I hope that you understand that my comments are not intended to > throw flames. As I have said before, I think your book should be > read and discussed. But if you find that discussion > "distressing," then we have a problem. I think a discussion of the ground rules for fair and mutually respectful discussion is probably the discussion we need most at this point. With apologies for using the same word three times in a sentence. I'm sure when you get time to read the book, you will find things to praise and to blame, and welcome finding out which is which. > Peace and love Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 08:23:33 -0800 From: ae677@lafn.org (Nancy Coker) Subject: HOT MAHATMAS MARCH 14 1995 Paul's lake metaphor is a fine one. Thanks for the clarifica- tion, Paul. I was one of the folks watching on the sidelines while you were doing your research, and, as you say, discovering new theoretical possibilities with each passing month. You were much more like an adventurer discovering virgin territory, than a scientist trying to authenticate a position. I'm not certain if your level of excitement -- as history began to give up some of its secrets -- shines through the book. If it does, perhaps it is being mistaken for some other kind of zeal. I have always found you extremely willing to listen (and incor- porate) new perspectives. You must have racked up huge phone bills over those years, as I know we were not the only long distance friends you were calling to share and invite comments. Your suggestion that we develop a group approach to dealing with these HOT issues is a wonderful one. SUGGESTION #1 I suggest we ask respondents to deal with only one issue at a time. Longwinded, overly detailed posts, derail the process as I believe many folks who might otherwise be interested, begin skimming the posts. SUGGESTION #2 I suggest that when someone recognizes (or thinks they recognize) an implication that is personally insulting, that they request clarification on that one point by means of a simple question. In keeping with my belief posts should be short, I'll yield the floor. Nancy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 11:41:58 -0700 (MST) From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: A Historical Seminar on the Masters? A Reply by Daniel Caldwell to several recently posted messages on Theos-l: I want to reply to a number of comments made recently by Jerry H-E and Paul J. But before I do that, I want to suggest that we institute a "In Search of the Masters" seminar on Theos-l. Probably most of us have heard about the "Jesus" seminar in which various New Testament scholars have met on a regualr basis for several years to discuss from a scholarly and historical viewpoint what Jesus "actually said" as opposed to what has been attributed to him by the Gospel writers. Although I don't agree with many things said in Paul's books, nevertheless, his books are thought-provoking. Certainly over the years I have learned a great deal from reading various MSS copies of his first book IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS, the published volume by that name, Paul's THE MASTERS REVEALED, and the various letters exchanged between the two of us. Paul certainly raises some good issues in his two books and I believe they should be given a fair hearing. I would suggest that Theos-l might be a place where a serious, indepth discussion and dialogue on the subject of "Do the Theosophical Masters Exist?" could occur. I realize that not everyone subscribing to Theos-l is interested in Theosophical history. To such individuals all this discussion is possibly boring or simply irrelevant. But to others the issues raised directly or indirectly by Paul'b book are of vital interest and these issues are worthy of serious thought, discussion and study. Maybe Theos-roots would be a better forum for this discussion. I plan at some time in the future to attempt to write a pamphlet review on Paul's THE MASTERS REVEALED, but in the meantime I think this Theos-l forum is a good place to have discussion, interaction, almost immediate feedback and response. In other words, a serious dialogue on the subject of the Masters. It is unfortunate that Michael Gomes, John Cooper, and others mentioned by Paul as giving him input on his books are not also on Theos-L & the Internet. Goodness what discussions we could all have! Nevertheless, I believe James Santucci is on Theos-L. And of course, we have Jerry H-E and others who (to varying degrees) have an interest in Theosophical history as well as some expertise and knowledge on the subject. Therefore, I hope that this suggestion to have a "In Search of th e Masters" seminar will be seriously considered by at least some members of Theos-l and acted upon. I give my vote for such a seminar. Such a discussion and interaction can flow out of the discussions already started on Theos-l. (Continued in Part II....) Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 13:27:42 -0700 (MST) From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Part II of Message by Daniel Caldwell Part II of Message by Daniel Caldwell: I will now respond to various comments made by Paul Johnson (hereafter PJ) and Jerry HE (JHE). PJ writes: > The rest of the weekend was spent trying to deal with the > distress caused his [Dan's] comments.... DC's reply: It was not my intention to cause PJ any psychological distress. Much of the criticism posted here had been included and touched upon in my two letters of 1993 in which I took some of PJ's contentions to task. I would have thought that by now PJ would have developed a thick skin to the various criticisms of Theosophists. But again as I said in my last posting if I criticize PJ it is directed toward the author PJ and not to PJ the person the human being. So PJ shouldn't take my criticisms on a personal level. Because I am much more concerned with the validity of PJ's ideas, hypotheses, etc. "Are the hypotheses concerning the Masters M and KH as outlined in THE MASTERS REVEALED true?" "Are PJ's hypotheses on the Masters more probable than Richard Hodgson's hypotheses?" etc etc etc PJ writes: > The evidence that is deemed relevant to my inquiry is thus only a > tiny proportion of what Dan Caldwell would deem relevant to the > question of the Masters. ONLY evidence that is specific about > places, names and/or times, e.g. about physical trips to or > encounters with the Masters, is relevant. (the shoreline). All > the mayavi rupa appearances, paranormal letters, etc. are > irrelevant to my quest because they lead nowhere in terms of > identifying the historical Masters. (The depths) Only clues that > actually lead somewhere are pursued, and all the paranormal stuff > is bracketed as having no usefulness to the very specific > research project of identifying the historical individuals from > whom HPB derived information, inspiration, and guidance.... DC's reply: Yes, I can see the distinction although I believe the historian has to grapple with the paranormal in HPB's life and in relation to the Masters. But much of my criticism of how PJ (the author!) handles his material has nothing to do with the paranormal. In PJ's quoted above, he mentions: > ONLY evidence that is specific about places, names and/or times, > e.g., about physical trips to or encounters with the Masters, is > relevant. Later (in another message) I will focus in on these "physical" trips to or encounters with the Masters that are "specific" about places, names and/or times. I belive I covered much of this ground in my 1993 letters and these criticisms had nothing to do with the "paranormal." We will separate the material into two categories: (1) the "physical" and (2) the paranormal. And then focus in on the specifics about physical trips to or encounters with the Masters. But in both IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS and THE MASTERS REVEALED statements are made about certain paranormal aspects and these should also be scruntized. PJ writes: > No one who dealt with me during the process of writing and > research would believe that there was some set of hypotheses I > was out to prove, and that my search for new evidence was > insincere. If that had been the case, the book would not have > metamorphized a dozen times in the two years that most of the > writing was done, nor would it have continued to change radically > for several more years. There is a large and respectable group > of witnesses I could call on for verifiction that the book was in > continual and totally unpredictable flux during the period I was > supposedly twisting all the evidence to support prexisting > conclusions..... DC's reply: Before the publication of IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS, I saw 2, 3, maybe 4 different versions of your MSS. And yes, you were constantly changing many things. But in all those MSS (which I saw) your speculations on the identities of the people behind the personae were very identical to what you eventually published in 1990. And I believe you have not changed your speculations on these individuals in THE MASTERS REVEALED. Correction to the above paragraph: "But in all those MSS (which I saw) your speculations on the identities of the people behind the personae of Koot Hoomi and Morya were very similar if not identical to what you eventually published in 1990...." Yes, one of my major criticisms of your hypotheses concerning Morya & Koot Hoomi has to do with the fact that you fail to mention evidence that would knock a hole (if not several) into your speculations. Does this lead to the conclusion that you are "insincere"? Maybe, Maybe not. I am not really concerned with that "conclusion" one way or the other. But I think I can show that (for what reasons) in your books evidence to the contrary is omitted. Maybe you are ignorant of the material or don't see the relevance or whatever. I don't know since I can't read your mind. But you yourself have criticized Theosophical writers on the same issue. In your first letter to me of Jan. 23, 1993 you bring this subject up to me. And in my reply of April 7, 1993, I wrote: "In your letter to me of Jan. 23, you criticize `every Theosophical book about HPB' for [among other things] 'suppression of inconvenient information.' Yet one could also accuse you of suppressing `inconvenient information' that doesn't fit your `hypotheses' concerning the true identities of the Masters." And I then proceed to give examples. Were you accusing all these Theosophical writers of being "insincere" and "twisting all the evidence to support preexisting conclusions"? And, I believe, that in several reviews of bigraphies on HPB you have written similar statements about said biographers. I wonder if they were "distressed" by your criticisms. This is all really beside the point. Nevertheless, if you can criticize other people's productions and even state that "suppression of inconvenient information" has occurred, is it not fair to ask that same question about your literary work? And after I sent my criticisms to you in the letter dated April 7, 1993, you wrote a reply. And in my answer to your reply, I said: "...it is not my intention to be adversail with you. No doubt, you are a sincere individual who has devoted alot of hard work and money to your research. I can and do appreciate that. But if you want my honest opinion, then I must give it to you." "Also in your letter to me of April 14th, you seem to think I have not been fair and objective in my criticism of your book; you also question my motivation. On this score all I will say is that I have given my criticisms of your thesis and *you shold be able to assess the validity of my criticisms , regardless of my own motivations." I believe I was attempting to be frank, honest and straightforward with you during that correspondence. And I was not "distressed" when you questions my own motivations. Maybe I have a thicker skin than you do. I hope if we get this "seminar" going that we will not regress into all this "personal" stuff which leads to side issues and only obscures the real issues, the historical issues, the evidence issue, etc. etc. I plan to avoid the personal stuff as much as humanly possible in future discussions on Theos-l. I have already seen the "flames" being directed towards you and JHE over the Leadbeater controversies. Little of substance was accomplished due to the fact that several members on Theos-l were "distressed" by negative comments made about CWL. Of course, the basic issue was whether the "negative" comments were in fact true or false. The focus of discussion should have been on the evidence, discussing it and weighing it and NOT on the *distress* of certain individuals who more or less refused to *study* and *discuss* the issues and evidence. Of course, that is there [Correction: Of course, that is their right to refuse to study and discuss the subject.] That is why I suggested several months ago that such controversial subjects might best be confined to a different forum (like Theos-Roots) so that those who wanted to discuss the matter could do so and those who are bored by such matter or "distressed" by such matter could go their own way. I want to comment on PJ's statement: "But Dan's criticism reminds me of a scary warning given by M. Gomes at the Chicago AAR conference...." etc. But I will do this in a later message. I hope a number of Theos-l members will want to pursue the "In Search of the Masters" seminar. I believe PJ's thesis and book are worthy of serious study and discussion. Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 16:00:39 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Part II of Message by Daniel Caldwell Having been advised by two friends to drop this debate, I will respond only by private email. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 17:12:48 -0800 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Subject: Kitchen too warm for PJ? I am still going to read your book. The discussion of its notions will also continue, on Theos-l, I hope. You suggested that Dan the Inquisitor was chosen by destiny to abolish the Johnsonian heresy. Should not your destiny as the theosophical Paul of Arc at least give you the fortitude to remain in the arena to face more than the tiny ripple of criticism that has distubed Lake Theosophy? After all, the onlooking peasants need a courageous exemplar to inspire them. How about an explanation then? *Why* can you only discuss your book(s) privately? In the future, however, I would have no objection if any new writings of yours on the same lines were kept just as private. Is it a deal? Nicholas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Mar 1995 20:13:13 EST From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: Letter X Last night I read ML X and the proem to the SD. I was struck by the difference in perspective or "maturity" or something. The SD seems in advance of the ML (IMHO). Very strange wouldn't you say? My edition says the letter was recieved at Simla 1881 - ? '82. The SD was written after this, right? If the Masters where in advance of HPB and her teachers, why does she sound better than them? Maybe they were letting out more to her later on or all that kind of thing (armchair quaterbacking is a wonder ful thing :))? I think a real study could be done on the evolution of 19th century theosophy from the ML, through Isis to the SD. Maybe someone has done it. It seems like ideas are evolving not emerging full blown from the minds of the Masters. The Master states that two thirds of the problem of evil concerns the sacerdotal caste, the priesthood and the churches. The problem of evil for who? Today the priesthood has almost no power, at least over me, but I feel the effects of "evil" anyway from disease, old age, cancer. loss of loved ones, war, poverty etc. The Master writes: "It is belief in God or Gods that makes two-thirds of humanity the slaves of a handful of those who make a false pretense of saving them?" Does anyone hear echoes of Nietsche and his resentment of Christianity as a kind of castration of man's nobility? Do you hear his ideas on religion as in destroying the altar of the false gods (echoed directly in Letter X) as related in Gotzendamerung et al? Of course Nietsche wasn't famous in his on time, but the ideas were in the air, I'm sure. Would anyone care to comment on "phlogiston"? It seem to be the essence of the 7th state, something like Fohat that connects subject to object and links the syzygies (this is my wild guess!). The Master seems to reiterate the idea that evil has no reality, it is just karmic effects. However we seem to have a receiver set (brain) that percieves the maya of evil. The knowlege of good and evil is what sets us apart from the lower kingdoms (according to many traditions) and makes us "in His image". Oh divine (?) paradox! The Kabala may have something to say on this, right Alan or Jerry? I don't mean to sound negative all the time. I think it could be very interesting studying the Kabala with the Mahatama Letters. Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 00:20:45 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Kabbalah Reply to Jerry S. No apologies needed or expected! I was at one time very familiar with the [published] GD material, and have since seen some of the unpublished bits and pieces - nothing exciting, plus a little correspondence between Regardie and a local colleague. Even had the original 4 vol. set of Regardie's "Golden Dawn" once. My interpretation of Klippoth and Abyss is my own, based upon experience. Having said that, I have to go on and say that the Abyss is a subjective inner area which has no objective reality - unless you want to describe the grave as such! Only having seen my Part One, which addresses only the Kabbalah which most people are likely to come across when meeting it for the first time, you will appreciate that I have tried to talk in a manner suitable for those who may have read [say] some Dion Fortune and similar material. Mathers' "Kabbalah Unveiled" (intro thereto) is almost a direct `steal' from the 'Hasidic position described in their _Tanya_ (In an appendix). Maybe that's where he got it - who can say, this long after? Some of the more recent OTO stuff, or that claiming to be, is now on a CD-ROM called 2000 Greater and Lesser Mysteries issued in the UK by PDSL [shareware]. I am unimpressed. So, although I discuss the Abyss and Klippoth in Part One, then unless you want to consider a further "lower" world below Assiah relating to the animal realm [and maybe two more below again for Veg and mineral] then Klippoth means `shells' and only shells. Whoever made a harlot association can only have done so because they wanted one. Kabbalah is based upon Hebrew and Israelite traditions, which would regard such associations as nonsense, as I do. Some while back I had a kind of Kabbalist "Apostolic Succession" list from Warren Kenton (Halevi) in which he placed the Rabban Gamaliel firmly in the picture circa 32 c.e. [common era - modern scholarship for e.v. :-)]. This is the same guy at whose feet the apostle Paul sat, as he tells us himself. Take it from there, and there is a lot of Kabbalah hints in 1 Corinthians. _This_ thread really runs in and through and around and in and out of so many places! Insofar as I said that Israelite `Creation' theory ends with the lowest world (Assiah) then my remarks above concerning animal, veg and mineral worlds would have to be included in it, as they are _material_ worlds, as is Assiah. To understand what I have to say it is necessary to go to two Kabbalist sources, both from the Hebrew tradition, and originally Hebrew documents: 1. Sepher Yetzirah; 2. 32 Paths of Wisdom. Join 'em up upon their own definition that there are "ten Sephiroth and not nine, ten and not eleven," and you should eventually arrive more or less at the same position as I have. In fact I recently published [privately] a paper showing how these two connect. As a by-product, it contains illustrations of the system as they seem to have been applied - very accurately - in all of the medieval abbey and cathedral churches so far looked at in Britain, as also in the Temple at Luxor, Egypt. If you have access to Halevi's work where you are, you will find a similar approach to mine, best expressed in his "Way of Kabbalah." More recent work of his seems to be purely commercial, and serious Brit Kabbalists will have none of it - including his first teacher, who is a very old friend of mine. (Inflates ego for the benefit of the net with a bit of no-name dropping). The research I have done over many years breaks `new' ground in the area of Kabbalist studies, and for this reason has to be self-published. Samuel Weiser could have had it in 1977, but turned it down, as did other publishers. The reason is simple enough - it isn't "sensational" enough, does not involve any kind of "Magi[c]k" or dressing up in weird gear to play "Knock, knock, who's there? There is an alarm!" It contradicts some of the GD system in places, showing where they were actually WRONG. This does not make for a good press if your market wants "The Occult," and "Secret Mysteries Revealed." Maybe I could try marketing it as "Do it Yourself Kabbalah - no rituals required, just a lot of time and effort, plus a desire to be honest with yourself, while being sure to get it wrong much of the time." Reckon it would sell . . . ? Kabbalah is the inheritance we have received from Israelite _Theosophy_, which is why I include it under the same head - as did HPB. Blah, etc. Love, peace, hard work :-) Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 21:19:05 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: your mail K. Paul, Jerry & Dan Shall we dance? A rhumba, I'd like, or a Conga line. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 17:12:48 -0800 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Subject: Kitchen too warm for PJ? I am still going to read your book. The discussion of its notions will also continue, on Theos-l, I hope. You suggested that Dan the Inquisitor was chosen by destiny to abolish the Johnsonian heresy. Should not your destiny as the theosophical Paul of Arc at least give you the fortitude to remain in the arena to face more than the tiny ripple of criticism that has distubed Lake Theosophy? After all, the onlooking peasants need a courageous exemplar to inspire them. How about an explanation then? *Why* can you only discuss your book(s) privately? In the future, however, I would have no objection if any new writings of yours on the same lines were kept just as private. Is it a deal? Nicholas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Mar 1995 20:13:13 EST From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: Letter X Last night I read ML X and the proem to the SD. I was struck by the difference in perspective or "maturity" or something. The SD seems in advance of the ML (IMHO). Very strange wouldn't you say? My edition says the letter was recieved at Simla 1881 - ? '82. The SD was written after this, right? If the Masters where in advance of HPB and her teachers, why does she sound better than them? Maybe they were letting out more to her later on or all that kind of thing (armchair quaterbacking is a wonder ful thing :))? I think a real study could be done on the evolution of 19th century theosophy from the ML, through Isis to the SD. Maybe someone has done it. It seems like ideas are evolving not emerging full blown from the minds of the Masters. The Master states that two thirds of the problem of evil concerns the sacerdotal caste, the priesthood and the churches. The problem of evil for who? Today the priesthood has almost no power, at least over me, but I feel the effects of "evil" anyway from disease, old age, cancer. loss of loved ones, war, poverty etc. The Master writes: "It is belief in God or Gods that makes two-thirds of humanity the slaves of a handful of those who make a false pretense of saving them?" Does anyone hear echoes of Nietsche and his resentment of Christianity as a kind of castration of man's nobility? Do you hear his ideas on religion as in destroying the altar of the false gods (echoed directly in Letter X) as related in Gotzendamerung et al? Of course Nietsche wasn't famous in his on time, but the ideas were in the air, I'm sure. Would anyone care to comment on "phlogiston"? It seem to be the essence of the 7th state, something like Fohat that connects subject to object and links the syzygies (this is my wild guess!). The Master seems to reiterate the idea that evil has no reality, it is just karmic effects. However we seem to have a receiver set (brain) that percieves the maya of evil. The knowlege of good and evil is what sets us apart from the lower kingdoms (according to many traditions) and makes us "in His image". Oh divine (?) paradox! The Kabala may have something to say on this, right Alan or Jerry? I don't mean to sound negative all the time. I think it could be very interesting studying the Kabala with the Mahatama Letters. Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 00:20:45 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Kabbalah Reply to Jerry S. No apologies needed or expected! I was at one time very familiar with the [published] GD material, and have since seen some of the unpublished bits and pieces - nothing exciting, plus a little correspondence between Regardie and a local colleague. Even had the original 4 vol. set of Regardie's "Golden Dawn" once. My interpretation of Klippoth and Abyss is my own, based upon experience. Having said that, I have to go on and say that the Abyss is a subjective inner area which has no objective reality - unless you want to describe the grave as such! Only having seen my Part One, which addresses only the Kabbalah which most people are likely to come across when meeting it for the first time, you will appreciate that I have tried to talk in a manner suitable for those who may have read [say] some Dion Fortune and similar material. Mathers' "Kabbalah Unveiled" (intro thereto) is almost a direct `steal' from the 'Hasidic position described in their _Tanya_ (In an appendix). Maybe that's where he got it - who can say, this long after? Some of the more recent OTO stuff, or that claiming to be, is now on a CD-ROM called 2000 Greater and Lesser Mysteries issued in the UK by PDSL [shareware]. I am unimpressed. So, although I discuss the Abyss and Klippoth in Part One, then unless you want to consider a further "lower" world below Assiah relating to the animal realm [and maybe two more below again for Veg and mineral] then Klippoth means `shells' and only shells. Whoever made a harlot association can only have done so because they wanted one. Kabbalah is based upon Hebrew and Israelite traditions, which would regard such associations as nonsense, as I do. Some while back I had a kind of Kabbalist "Apostolic Succession" list from Warren Kenton (Halevi) in which he placed the Rabban Gamaliel firmly in the picture circa 32 c.e. [common era - modern scholarship for e.v. :-)]. This is the same guy at whose feet the apostle Paul sat, as he tells us himself. Take it from there, and there is a lot of Kabbalah hints in 1 Corinthians. _This_ thread really runs in and through and around and in and out of so many places! Insofar as I said that Israelite `Creation' theory ends with the lowest world (Assiah) then my remarks above concerning animal, veg and mineral worlds would have to be included in it, as they are _material_ worlds, as is Assiah. To understand what I have to say it is necessary to go to two Kabbalist sources, both from the Hebrew tradition, and originally Hebrew documents: 1. Sepher Yetzirah; 2. 32 Paths of Wisdom. Join 'em up upon their own definition that there are "ten Sephiroth and not nine, ten and not eleven," and you should eventually arrive more or less at the same position as I have. In fact I recently published [privately] a paper showing how these two connect. As a by-product, it contains illustrations of the system as they seem to have been applied - very accurately - in all of the medieval abbey and cathedral churches so far looked at in Britain, as also in the Temple at Luxor, Egypt. If you have access to Halevi's work where you are, you will find a similar approach to mine, best expressed in his "Way of Kabbalah." More recent work of his seems to be purely commercial, and serious Brit Kabbalists will have none of it - including his first teacher, who is a very old friend of mine. (Inflates ego for the benefit of the net with a bit of no-name dropping). The research I have done over many years breaks `new' ground in the area of Kabbalist studies, and for this reason has to be self-published. Samuel Weiser could have had it in 1977, but turned it down, as did other publishers. The reason is simple enough - it isn't "sensational" enough, does not involve any kind of "Magi[c]k" or dressing up in weird gear to play "Knock, knock, who's there? There is an alarm!" It contradicts some of the GD system in places, showing where they were actually WRONG. This does not make for a good press if your market wants "The Occult," and "Secret Mysteries Revealed." Maybe I could try marketing it as "Do it Yourself Kabbalah - no rituals required, just a lot of time and effort, plus a desire to be honest with yourself, while being sure to get it wrong much of the time." Reckon it would sell . . . ? Kabbalah is the inheritance we have received from Israelite _Theosophy_, which is why I include it under the same head - as did HPB. Blah, etc. Love, peace, hard work :-) Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 21:19:05 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: your mail K. Paul, Jerry & Dan Shall we dance? A rhumba, I'd like, or a Conga line. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Mar 1995 22:34:55 EST From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: History to Theos-Roots Daniel Subject: Re: Letter X To Keith Price: I just e-mailed you my Part One as requested, so maybe *you* will be able to tell *me* how it may relate to ML X :-). Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 10:10:40 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Hot Mahatmas Hi, Nancy, Suggestion #2 Anything you, or anyone else can do to keep personally insulting remarks close to zilch would be welcome by all of us, I think I can speak for all of us on this. Nobody likes this disruptive garbage that keeps on cropping up. Maybe requesting clarification on the insulting point will help. It could serve as a red flag "Hey, my friend, you're going off the deep end." I'm for trying it. Suggestion #1 I think we've agreed to take up one ML at a time. That seemed to go ok for letter #10. It led to a variety of discussion matters. I consider that fruitful, if everyone can bring in their own angle & specialty, but I too skip over posts that don't interest me too much. I don't see anything wrong with that. Do you? Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 10:31:27 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Fwd: ML #1, part 2 of 2 Nobody reacted to this, so here it is on Theos-l LFD "So far for Science - as much as we know of it. As for human nature in general, it is the same now as it was a million of years ago: Prejudice based upon selfishness; a general unwillingness to give up an established order of things for new modes of life and thought - and occult study requries all that and much more - ; pride and stubborn resistance to Truth if it but upsets their previous notions of things,- such are the characteristics of your age, and especially of the middle and lower classes. What then would be the results of the most astounding phenomena, supposing we consented to have them produced? However successful, danger would be growinig proportionately with success. No choice woud soon remain but to go on, ever crescendo, or to fall in this endless struggle with prejudice and ignorance killed by your own weapnos. Test after test would be required and would have to be furnished; every subsequent phenomenon expected to be more marvellous than the preceding one. Your daily remark is, that one cannot be expected to believe unless he becomes an eye-witness. Would the lifetime of a man suffice to satisfy the whole world of skeptics? it may be an easy matter to increase the original number of believers at Simla to hundreds and thousands. But what of the hundreds of millions of those who could not be made eye-wittnesses? The ignorant - unable to grapple with the invisibele operators - might some day vent their rage on the visible agents at work; the higher educated classes would go on disbelieving as ever, tearing you to shreds as before. In common with many, you blame us for our great secrecy. Yet we know something of human nature for the experience of long centuries - aye, ages - has taught us. And we know, that so long as science has anything to learn, and a shadow of religious dogmatism lingers in the hearts of the multitudes, the world's prejudices have to be conquered step by step, not at a rush. As hoary antiquity had more than one Socrates so the dim Future will give birth to more than one martyr. Enfranchised science contemptuously turned away her face from the Copernican opinion renewing the theories of Aristarchusa Samius - who 'affirmeth that the earth moveth circularly about her own center' years before the Church sought to sacrifice Galileo as a holocaust to the Bible. The ablest mathmatician at theCourt of Edward VI - Robert Recorde - was left to starve in jail by his colleagues, who laughed at his Castle of Knowledge, declaring his discoveries 'vain phatasies' .Wm. Gilbert of Colchester - Queen Elizabeth's physician - died poisoned, only because - this real founder of experimental science in England - has had the audadacity of anticipating Gail0eo'; of pointing out Copernican's fallacy as to the 'third movement', which was gravely alleged to account for the parallelism of the earth's axis of rotation! The enormous learnig of the Paracelsi, of the Agrippas and the Deys was ever doubted. it was science which laid her sacrilegious hand upon the great work 'De Magnete' - 'The Heavenly WhiteVirgin' (Akas) and others. And it was the illustrious 'Chancellor of England and of Nature' - Lord Verulan-Bacon - who having won the name of the Father of Inductive Philosophy , permitted himself to speak of such men as the above-named as the 'Alchemicians of the fantastic philosophy'. "All this is old history, you will think. Verily so; bbut the chronicles of our modern days do not differ very essentially from their predecessors. And we have but to bear in mind the recent persecutions of mediums in England, the burning of supposed witches and sorcerers in South America, Russia and the frontiers of Spain - to assure ouselves that the only salvation of the genuine proficients in occult sciences lies in the skepticism of the public; the charlatans and the jugglers are the natural shields of the 'adepts'. The public safety is only ensured by our keeping secret the terrible weapons which might otherwise be used against it, and which, as you have been told became deadly in the hands of the wicked & selfish. "I conclude by reminding you that such phenomena as you crave, have ever been reserved as a reward for those who have devoted their lives to serve the goddess Saraswati- our Aryan Isis. Were they given to the profane what would remain for our faithful ones? Many of your suggestions are highly reasonable and will be attended to. I listened attentively to the conversation which took place at Mr. Hume's. His arguments are perfect from the standpoint of exoteric wisdom. But, when the time comes and he is allowed to have a full glimpse into the world of esoterism, with its laws based upon mathematically correct calculations of the future - the necessary results of the causes which we are always at liberty to create and shape at our will but are as unable to control their consequences which thus become our masters - then only will, both you and he understand why to the uninitiated our acts must seem often unwise, if not actually foolish. "Your forthcoming letter I will not be able to fully answer without taking the advice of those who generally deal with the European mystics. moreover the present letter must satisfy you on many points you have better defined in your last; but it will no doubt disappoint you as well. In regard to the production of newly devised and still more startling phenomena demanded of her with our help, as a man well acquainted with the strategy, you must remain satisfied with the reflection that there is little use in acquiring new positions until those that you have already reached are secured, and your Enemies full aware of your right to their posession. In other words, you had a greater variety of phenomena produced for yourself & friends than many a regular neophyte has seen in several years. First, notify the public of the production of the note, the cup, and the sundry experiments with the cigarette papers, and let them digest these. Get them to work for an explanation. And as except upon the direct and absurd accusation of deceit they will never be able to account for some of these, while the skeptics are quite satsified with their present hypothesis for the production of the brooch - you will then have done real good to the cause of truth and justice to the woman who is made to suffer for it. Isolated as it is, the case under notice in the Pioneer becomes less than worthless - it is positively injurious for all of you - for yourself as the Editor of that paper as much as for anyone else, if you pardon me for offering you that which looks like advice. It is neither fair to yourself nor to her, that, because the number of eye-witenesses does not seem sufficient to warrant the public attention, your and your lady's testimony should go for nothing. Several cases combining to fortify your position as truthful and intelligent witenss to the various occurrences, each of these gives you an additional right to assert what you know. It imposes upon you the sacred duty to instruct the public and prepare them for future possibilities by gradually opening their eyes to the truth. The opportunity should not be lost through a lack of as great confidence in your own individual; right of assertion as that of Sir Donald Stewart. One witness of well known character outweighs the evidence of ten strangers; and if, there is anyone in India who is respected for his trustworthiness it is the Editor of the Pioneer. Remember that there was but one hysterical woman alleged to have been present at the pretended ascension, and that the phenomenon has never been corroborated by repetition. Yet for nearly 2,000 years countless milliards have pinned their faith upon the testimony of that one woman - and she not over trustworthy. "Try- and first work upon the material you have and then we will be the first to help you to get further evidence. Until then, believe me, always your sincere friend, Koot Hoomi Lal Singh" PS Anyone interested in futher study of vril, Akas', prana, chi, mana, (all seem to be the same), a history of the subject apppears in "Earth Energies" by Serge Kahili King, TPH 1992 Serge goes into Mesmer's vril, pyramid power, dowsing, Reichenbach, Reich, several other experimenters, plus present day experiments, both done and suggested. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 10:35:28 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Fwd: ML #1, part 1 of 2 Noone responded to this on budsj, so i'm repeating it on theos-l LFD I think we need 1 more letter, before Eldon can give us the whole book to read from. I've looked at the Letters a little more, & think a change of subject matter would be better.So I'm going to follow Nicholas' wishes & copy off Letter #1, instead of the others dealing with what the Mahatmas thought of God. First a little background from Virginia & George's study note: HPB and HSO (Olcott) were visiting the Sinnetts in Simla, the summer capital of British India, in the foothills of the Himalayas. Earlier HPB had produced a number of unusual phenomena, crediting them to the Masters. Letter # 1 is in answer to 2 first letters of Sinnett's. He had asked the Masters, to give him a foolproof proof that they weren't impostors, & to produce in Simla an edition of that day's "The London Times" at the same time as it was coming out in London. Letter #1 was written by KH. Received in Simla about Oct. 15,1880 Esteemed Brother & Friend, Precisely because the test of the London newspaper would close the mouths of the skeptics - it is unthinkable. See it in what light you will - the world is yet in its first stage of disenthralment if not development, hence - unprepared. Very true, we work by natural not supernatural means & laws. But, as on the one hand science would find itself unable (in its present state) to account for the wonders given in its name, & on the other the ignorant masses would still be left to view the phenomenon in the light of a miracle; everyone who would thus be made a witness to the occurrence would be thrown off his balance & the results would be deplorable;. Believe me, it would be so - especially for yourself who originated the idea, and the devoted woman who so foolishly rushes into the wide open door leading to notoriety. This door, though opened by so friendly a hand as yours, would prove very soon a trap - & a fatal one indeed for her. And such is not surely your object? Madmen are they, who, speculating but upon the present, wilfully shut their eyes to the past when made already to remain naturally blind to the future! Far be it from me, to number you with the latter - therefore will I endeavor to explain. Were we to acceded to your desires know you really what consequences would follow in the trail of success? The inexorable shadow which follows all human innvations moves on, yet few are they, who are ever conscious of its approach and dangers. What are then to expect they, who would offer the world an innovation which, owing to human ignorance, if believed in, will surely be attributed to those dark agencies the two-thirds of humanity believe in and dread as yet? You say - half London would be converted if you could deliver them a Pioneer on its day of publication. I beg to say that if the people believed the thing true they would kill you before you could make the round of Hyde Park; if it were not believed true,- the least that could happpen would be the loss of your reputation and good name - for propagating such ideas. "The success of an attempt of such a kind as the one you propose, must be calculated and based upon a thorough knowledge of the people around you. It depends entirely upon the social; and moral conditions of the peole in their bearing on these deepest and most mysterious questions which can stir the human mind - the deific powers in man and the possibilities contained in nature. How many, evven of your friends, of those who surround you, who are more than superficially interested in these abstruse problems? You could count them upon the fingers of your right hand. Your race boasts of having liberated in their century, the genius so long imprisoned in the narrow vase of dogmatism and intolerance - the genius of knowledge, wisdom & freethought. It says that in their turn ignorant prejudice & religious bigotry, bottled up like the wicked Jin of old, and sealed up by the Solomons of science rests at the bottom of the sea and can never, escaping to the surface again, reign over the world as it did in days of old; that the public mind is quite free, in short, and ready to accept any demonstrated truth. Aye; but is it verily so, my respected friend? Experimental knowldedge does not quite date from 1662, when Bacon, Robert Boyle and the Bishop of Chester transformed under the royal charter their "Invisible College" into a Society for the promotion of experimental science. Ages before the Royal Society found itself becoming a reality upon the plan of the "Prophetic Scheme" an innate longing for the hidden, a passionate love for and the study of nature had led men in every generation to try and fathom her secrets deeper than their neighbours did. Rome ante Romulum fuit - is an axiom taught to us in your English schools. Abstract enquiries into the most puzzling problems did not arise in the brain of Archimedes as a spontaneous and hitherto untouched subject, but rather as a reflection of prior enquiries in the same direction and by men separated from his days by as long a period - and far longer - than the one which separates you from the great Syracusian. The vril of the 'Coming race' was the common property of races now extinct. And, as the very existence of those gigantic ancestors of ours is now questioned- though in the Himava's, on the very territory belonging to you we have a cave full of the skeletons of these giants - and their huge frames when found are invariably regarded as isolated freaks of nature, so the vril or Akas - as we call it - is looked upon as an impossibility, a myth. And without a thorough knowledge of Akas, its combinations and properties, how can Science hope to account for such phenomena? We doubt not but the men of your science are open to conviction; yet facts must be first demonstrated to them, they msut first have become their property, have proved amenable to their own modes of investigation, before you find them ready to admit them as facts.; If you but look into the Preface to the 'Micrographia' you will find in Hooke's suggestions that the intimate relations of objects were of less account in his eyes than their external operation on the senses - and Newton's fine discoveries found in him their greatest opponent. The modern Hookeses are many. Like this learned but ignorant man of old your modern men of science are less anxious to suggest a physical connexion of facts which might unlock for them many an occult force of nature, as to provide a convenient 'classification of scientific experiment s'; so that the most essential quality of an hypotheses is not that it should be true but only plausible - in their opinion. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 10:40:37 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: History to Theos-Roots Second Jerry's motion all the way. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 11:07:34 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Study Group on Buds Eldon must be just about ready to give us the whole "Mahatma Letters". If not, I'll hand copy another one this week-end. Question has come up now a couple of times as to how to proceed from here. Putting together a few people's suggestions, I thought we'd do well, if we took the letters in chronological order, with perhaps skipping some, when they're not too interesting for us. How does everyone feel about that. Are most of you agreeable to that? Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 11:46:30 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: ML #1 The first thing that strikes me upon rereading this letter is a paradox. Near the beginning, KH refers to HPB as foolishly rushing into the wide open door leading to notoriety. Elsewhere he is prescient of the shadow that follows all innovations. This seems to be prophetic of all the tribulations that would result from publicizing the Masters. And yet near the end, KH encourages Sinnett to publish his experiences (which later became The Occult World)-- the very act that most exacerbated HPB's notoriety. There are at least two ways to consider this. One is that the author recognized all the painful costs associated with the phenomena and Mahatma letters, but still considered the benefits to outweigh them. The other is that the author thought that somehow things could be arranged so that these new ideas, challenging phenomena, etc. could be publicized without leading to disaster; but that the TS failed to accomplish this. There is something haunting to me in the question of whether or not the SPR investigation and condemnation was inevitable given the historical circumstances. Could things have worked out differently, if someone (Sinnett? Olcott? HPB?) had made different choices at some point? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 12:37:31 -0700 (MST) From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: "Oh, No! One More Reply to Paul Johnson from Daniel Caldwell" "Oh, No! One More Reply to Paul Johnson from Daniel Caldwell" This is my last reply to Paul Johnson on various comments of his that I believe require additional comments. In the future, I will put any new comments about Paul's book on Theos-roots, as suggested by Jerry S. Concerning Liesel's suggestion to study the Mahatma Letters in chronological order, I think this is a good idea and will hopefully be more productive than the Caldwell-Johnson debate. I do intend to write and publish (hopefully within the next 6 months) a critique of portions of Paul's THE MASTERS REVEALED. And I will post it also on Theos-roots. I will try my best to deal with Paul's *ideas* and *methods* and not with Paul as a person. Paul has notified me in a *private* e-mail message that he will not discuss his book and its ideas anymore in public. That is his choice and decision. But everything he said in the *private* e-mail message to me should have, in my opinion, been posted for the world to see. Some of what he said might have been informative to others besides me. It would seem from previous public postings on Theos-l that Paul is very sensitive to criticism of his book and the ideas expressed in the book. For example, he wrote in a message dated Mar 14, 1994, 07:36: "But Dan's criticism reminds me of a scary warning given by M. Gomes at the Chicago AAR conference....What Michael said was `you will be attacked by Theosophists, in fact the attacks are already underway. But they can't get you for your research or your logic, so they'll attack you as a bad person." I didn't ask who `they' were, but Dan's focus on what is not in the book rather than what is, and his use of the `omissions' as a basis for some very dark insinuations/accusations against my honor, seemed to fulfill the prophecy....And believe me, I feel 10 times more pain from a Theosophist saying my book is evil than from some academic saying it's poorly researched, or whatever...." My comments are as follows: (1) I am somewhat amazed by overstatement in this comment. Yes, I did criticize some of Paul's statements and some of his methods, but did I insinuate that he was a "bad person" and offer "very dark insinuations" against Paul's "honor"? (2) Is Paul trying to say that I said his "book is evil"? (3) And concerning this prophecy given by Michael Gomes, I for one would like to hear Michael's version? Maybe Paul misunderstood what Michael said? (4) When was this Chicago AAR conference? In April 1993 I sent to Paul Johnson (at *his* request) a critique of some of the ideas in his book IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS. In this critique I basically said what was only partially covered in my recent posting on Theos-l. True, Paul was not pleased with all my criticisms but in the 1994 THE MASTERS REVEALED, Paul thanked me for my "helpful criticisms" of 1993. (5) It somewhat amazes me when Paul gets so bend out of shape over criticisms directed against some of his ideas and his handling of some of the material. Paul admits that he gets distressed at criticisms directed against his "work" but he can also dish out the criticism when he is inclined to do so. In the above quoted statement he mentions "Dan's focus on what is not in the book rather than what is, and his [Dan's] us of the `omissions' as a basis for some very dark, insinuations/accusations against my [Paul's] honor...." [Correction: "and his [Dan's] use...." Well, as I just said Paul can also dish out the criticism and VERY SIMILAR criticism when he is so inclined. I refer the reader to THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY, the Oct-1992-Jan. 1993 issue, pp. 158-160 to a review by Paul Johnson of a biography on HPB by Noel Richard- Nafarre. Please read the whole review for context. Now Paul says some complimentary things about this biography, but he also offers some criticisms. I quote but a few selective extracts to illustrate: "...a biographer must crefully study all relevant publications, identify points disputed by previous writers, and try to reach fair, objective resolutions...." [Correction: "...carefully study...." But then Paul writes: "...Richard-Nafarre approaches H.P.B. with the closed mind of a True Believer...." Again: "Haste and partisanship are all too evident in many loose ends left unexplained...." Again: "While Richard-Nafarre refers to all these sources, he never mentions any discrepancies, thus evading the challenges of explaining them." Again: "Evasion is also found in selective use of Albert Rawson's testimony ...Richard-Nafarre ignores this evidence...,presumably because it conflicts with other sources he prefers." Again: "Unexpected questions about use of sources arise...One can only wonder how many secondary sources are thus concealed , and what mtoivates [correction: "motivates"] such behavior." And finally: Paul Johnson writes that Richard-Nafarre's biography on HPB, that this biography's "scholarly credibility is underminded by sectarian bias and a lack of thorough, objective research." Maybe what Paul says is absolutely true. And possibly, Mr. Richard- Nafarre felt, as a result of these criticisms, "distress" and possibly even believed that Johnson had attacked his "honor." Richard-Nafarre replied to Paul in a subsequent issue. My only point is that Paul Johnson can dish out the criticism when he is inclined to do so. But it seems to me (and I may be sincerely mistaken) that he can't take the "heat" of criticism of his own literary work without crying "foul"! Knowing I am probably beating a dead horse, I will briefly cite one other example of Paul Johnson's criticism of an author's "omissions" of what Paul considers is relevant evidence, etc. In THE ECLECTIC THEOSOPHIST, Jan.-Feb, 1989 Paul does a review of 2 books by Jean Overton Fuller. Most of the space is devoted to the book BLAVTSKY AND HER TEACHERS. Paul commends Miss Fuller on many good aspects of the book but also offers the following criticism: "However, Fuller's BLAVATSKY AND HER TEACHERS...is at least as much hagiography as biography....Hagiography...is characterized by...a tendency to ignore evidence which does not fit the desired image....In her eagerness to justify the `received view' of HPB's veiled years, Fuller ignores many relevant clues. Among the significant questions not seriously addressed by Fuller are.....[a list is then given]...." Once again, maybe Johnson's criticisms are fully justified. But if I mention what I consider are relevant omissions in his text, I have made "some very dark insinuations/accusations against" his honor. As they say, "If you can't take the heat....." And if Paul is so concerned about "his honor" what about the "honor" of Theosophists who are dead and can no longer defend themselves against the "insinuations/accusations" [? let us say rather "statements"] made in Paul's two books? In order to butress his "hypotheses", his "suggestions", his "version of the facts", Paul believes that "a cover story about their [the Masters'] residence in a Tibetan ashram was promoted and a number of false testimonies concocted as a diversionary tactic. Mahatma letters gave instructions for this deception...." [p. 6 of THE MASTERS REVEALED.] He quotes a snippet from a KH letter to Mohini Chatterji. And the suggestion is that "Koot Hoomi" is this letter tells Mohini to lie and make up a series of incidents that never happened. [Correction: "...that `Koot Hoomi' in this letter tells Mohini..."] Interested readers might turn to LETTERS FROM THE MASTERS OF WISDOM, Series II [Volume II] and read the entire letter as well as the article Mohini wrote as a result of KH's instruction. Mohini's article is reproduced in Appendix B of this Series II book. Paul's speculation about "deception" is, yes, one interpretation of the evidence but certainly not the only one and certainly, not in my opinion, the most reasonable one. But obviously, if what Mohini's says in his article is true, accurate and factual, then Johnson's theories may not be correct. So the author of THE MASTERS REVEALED chooses to impugn the "honor" of Mohini Chaterji, a Theosophist who can no longer defend himself. In Richard Hodgson's Report, Mohini testifies that he saw the Master Koot Hoomi on the roof of the headquarters building at Adyar. Hodgson was told by Emma Coulomb that she (at HPB's suggestion) dressed up as the Master and duped Mohini. What would the author of THE MASTERS REVEALED say? Again, in Paul Johnson's first books IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS, pp. 244-249, in a section entitled "False Witnesses and Real Masters", the author suggests that S. Ramaswamier, another Theosophist, lied when he said that he had meet the Master Morya on horseback in Sikkim. Richard Hodgson, when dealing with Ramaswamier's account of meeting the Master M., believes that Ramaswamier was deceived by one of HPB's confederates. Marion Meade in her 1980 article believes Ramaswamier simply hallucinated the whole encounter with the Master. Paul Johnson's interpretation is that Ramaswamier lied and made the whole experience up. On p. 247 of IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS, Johnson comments on Morya's appearance on horseback to Ramaswamier: "The height and horsemanship are reminiscent of Ranbir Singh [Maharaja of Kashmir], one protype for Master M. But what could he have been doing in Sikkim?" Johnson goes on to say that "this tale" by Ramaswamier distracts the reader from the geographical circumstances of the real M..." Johnson's phrase is "...the real M...." Meaning the "individual" that Johnson has speculated is the real person behind the persona of M. What is Johnson's thinking? Since I can't read his thoughts, I will suggest that possibly Johnson speculated as follows: "Well, let's see. Since I have come up with the hypothesis that Ranbir Singh is the "real" person behind the Morya persona, then obviously Ramaswamier didn't encounter on the other side of India the Maharaja of Kashmire. Therefore, something must be wrong with Ramaswamier's account. He didn't see the "real" M. Hmmm.....How can I reinterpret this incident so it will be consistent with my hypothesis....." etc etc etc. So Ramaswamier lied, deceived the world (of course at HPB's insistence and with the real Masters' approval?). Another theosophist's "honor" and "honesty" impugned. Thank you Richard Hodgson and Marion Meade for at leaving sparing Rama- swamier's honor. [Correcton: "Thank you Richard Hodgson and Marion Meade for at LEAST sparing Ramaswamier's honor." Enough of all this. Probably most of you are simply bored with all this old historical stuff. Happened long time ago. Who cares? And probably Paul Johnson is even more convinced that I am out to get him personally! But that is not the case either. For all the know and I accept it, Paul Johnson is a sincere individual. But that does not mean that his ideas and reasoning,therefore, are valid. There is much more that could be said but we will save this for another time. I will at some point post either the complete review of his book on Theos-roots or possibly do it in installments and post them one at a time. I wish Paul the best in his future historical explorations and will always be an attentive reader. But I wish he would also remember that maybe what he writes *distresses* others who also seek for the truth as much as he does. And if he feels that I or someone else has trashed his honor, he might reflect on the possiblity that he also has impugned other peoples' "honor" including Theosophists who are dead and can speak up in their own defense. Sometimes to speak honestly and openly seems harsh, but it is better to do that than to keep silent to pacify those who believe brotherhood (or whatever one should call it) is something in which one never speaks a truth (as you perceive it) least others might be "distressed". I believe Paul has tried to follow that path, but he should not forget that others too have their paths to walk. Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 17:06:45 -0800 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: dance Liesel writes: >K. Paul, Jerry & Dan > >Shall we dance? >A rhumba, I'd like, or a Conga line. > >Liesel I'm really not into the rhumba, conga or even the tango. But I would be pleased to dance the waltz or the minuet with you any time you are ready to change the record. Peace Jerry From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Mar 1995 20:57:18 EST From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Re:Masters? > In Richard Hodgson's Report, Mohini testifies that he saw the > Master Koot Hoomi on the roof of the headquarters building at > Adyar. Hodgson was told by Emma Coulomb that she (at HPB's > suggestion) dressed up as the Master and duped Mohini. Amazing. Sounds just like something that's been on several modern soap operas, several gazillion times. It has been fascinating to read all the comments on the Masters, concerning the letters and the book by PJ. After reading them all, I still come to one conclusion. Unless anyone is actually hanging out with the guys, it will be impossible to actually speak fully about them. And even then, it might be difficult to know them entirely. Sometimes it seems we're gazing at the remains of an ancient document and trying to see into the past. Methinks we need a time machine here. (Where is that tardis when you need it?) Although the letters and writings of HPB are all we have at this time, I have begun to wonder if that view may be dated. The Masters/Mahatmas may have progressed in consciousness and might have even changed bodies. Maybe some have even left for parts unknown to do other work. My own humble opinion of the Masters has been this for a long time: if you see one, he's got work for you. And my humble opinion is very humble in this learned group. Having only been in TS for 4 years, I consider myself a "toddler theosophist". Part of the joy of reading your messages is the learning. yours most humbly, -ann bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 21:35:14 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: dance Jerry, Deal. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 19:29:43 -0800 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Subject: ML #1 comments "the world is yet in its first *stage* of disenthralment if not development" This phrase has always attracted me. We think are always progressing, up, up, and away. But the Brothers see us needing to see through some illusions *before* we develop. A few more lines down mention is made of the "dark agencies" that much of mankind then (and now) believed in. So perhaps the first step is to get beyond the mist of external demons and, by implication, external gods. We are the Angel/Demon. As long as we think of ourselves as puppets of the environment, whether physical, psychic or spiritual, we will remain such. Of course the whole external/internal split is ultimately false, but we learn in stages. "Madmen are they, who, speculating but upon the present, wilfully shut their eyes to the past when made already to remain naturally blind to the future!" Certainly sounds like encouragement to pay more attention to history, whether mystic, cultural, intellectual or theosophical. Our fondness for this present time may correspond to our even greater attachment to our present personalities of this lifetime. More later. Nicholas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Mar 1995 23:15:19 EST From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: Letter I Since I have been skimming I'm a little disconnected from everyhing but: 1. Go Liesel! You are doing the work concerning posting the ML's on net so what you decide is OK by me. 2. Thanks Alan for the Kabala e-mail. I assume we can discuss it along with the ML's. 3. BIG QUESTION - Can someone tell me briefly why the Master KH is condescending to begin this correspondence? It seems there was a request for some kind of phenomenal "proof" in a newspaper??? 4. Number 3 points to the problem of evil in Letter X and in the Kabala and life. Why did the sephira eminate, why did we fall, why did the Masters condescend to help humanity if it only gets everybody's hands dirty? Experience and consciousness seems to come at a great price. Namste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 19:00:27 +1200 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: Re:Masters? Keith wrote a couple of days ago: > Last night I read ML X and the proem to the SD. I was struck by > the difference in perspective or "maturity" or something. The SD > seems in advance of the ML (IMHO). Very strange wouldn't you > say? > > I think a real study could be done on the evolution of 19th > century theosophy from the ML, through Isis to the SD. Maybe > someone has done it. It seems like ideas are evolving not > emerging full blown from the minds of the Masters. This is something I've wanted to comment on for some days now, but didn't have the time to do so. To my mind, there are notable differences in the tone and apparent aptness of the language in the ML's. Letters 10 and 22 are an example, being on fairly similar subjects and written close together in time. Probably signs of a complicated data path, going perhaps via one chela then another, plus the "receiver" factors I mentioned a week or so ago. And as Ann said: > Although the letters and writings of HPB are all we have at this > time, I have begun to wonder if that view may be dated. The > Masters/Mahatmas may have progressed in consciousness and might > have even changed bodies. Maybe some have even left for parts > unknown to do other work. I feel sure the Mahatmas evolved in those late 1800s, and are still evolving in their interactions with the world. They certainly hoped, and learnt from experience. > My own humble opinion of the Masters has been this for a long > time: if you see one, he's got work for you. Yes, Ann. I reckon you're right. Murray Stentiford From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 05:26:43 -0800 From: ruben@netcom.com (Ruben Cabigting) Subject: Re:Masters? > > In Richard Hodgson's Report, Mohini testifies that he saw the > > Master Koot Hoomi on the roof of the headquarters building at > > Adyar. Hodgson was told by Emma Coulomb that she (at HPB's > > suggestion) dressed up as the Master and duped Mohini. > > Amazing. Sounds just like something that's been on several > modern soap operas, several gazillion times. > > It has been fascinating to read all the comments on the Masters, > concerning the letters and the book by PJ. After reading them > all, I still come to one conclusion. Unless anyone is actually > hanging out with the guys, it will be impossible to actually > speak fully about them. And even then, it might be difficult to > know them entirely. Sometimes it seems we're gazing at the > remains of an ancient document and trying to see into the past. > Methinks we need a time machine here. (Where is that tardis when > you need it?) > > Although the letters and writings of HPB are all we have at this > time, I have begun to wonder if that view may be dated. The > Masters/Mahatmas may have progressed in consciousness and might > have even changed bodies. Maybe some have even left for parts > unknown to do other work. > > My own humble opinion of the Masters has been this for a long > time: if you see one, he's got work for you. > > And my humble opinion is very humble in this learned group. > Having only been in TS for 4 years, I consider myself a "toddler > theosophist". Part of the joy of reading your messages is the > learning. yours most humbly, > > -ann bermingham > Ann Your opinion of the Masters is admirable. You are a new member in this life but I think you are familiar with Theosophy in your past lives. shanti, shanti, shanti Ruben From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 10:22:31 EST From: uscap9m9@ibmmail.com Subject: "The Mahatma Letters" on Acrobat There's a delay in getting a computerized copy of this book ready. The files that I have from Vic turn out to be Wordstar format, and do not recreate the book when I read them into Ventura Publisher. I've written Vic for the Ventura-format copy of the necessary files, but it may take a few weeks to get a floppy from him. Since the letters are one microfilm, it would be possible to have the microfilm scanned, and one or more CD-ROM's with the images released. I'm not sure how much money this would cost, but it may require some permissions to do. As text, the first and second editions of "The Mahatma Letters" is in the public domain. The editorial changes done by Christmas Humphreys and Elsie Benjamin which made the third edition are copyright by TPH Adyar in the 1950's and will remain in copyright for some time to come. Although the text of the early editions of "The Mahatma Letters" is in the public domain, the letters themselves, and possibly a fascimilie of their appearance (e.g. direct pictures of the letters) may not be. The letters are like a painting in a museum, which the owner retains indefinite rights to reproductions of images of it. The letters are in the British Museum, but I recall them being also in a "Mahatma Letters Trust," at one time headed by Elsie Benjamin and Christmas Humphreys. The one time I was in England, many years ago, I was able to see them because of having a letter from Elsie Benjamin giving me permission to see them. Although I'm not absolutely certain, I'd think that the Mahatma Letters Trust controls permission regarding makining reproductions of the letters, and would need to grant permission for a CD-ROM of their iamges to be made. While I follow up on getting Vic's book in ebook format for 'theos-l', someone else might check on if there's already a computerized version of the second edition, which is in the public domain. Perhaps Nancy Coker could check at T.S. Pasadena if that is one of the theosophical books that they have scanned and computerized, and if so, if they'd permit its free circulation on the Internet? I'm not sure regarding the DOS version of Adobe Acrobat running on a '286, but will check in a few days. ---- On another subject, someone has asked me a literary question which I'd like to ask for help on. I've been asked if it's possible to verify the existence of the following book: Author : P.D. Ouspenski Title : "The Fourth Dimension" Version : 3rd edition, revised Publisher: M.Z. Pirozhkov Location : Pregrat, St. Petersburg, Russia Year : 1918 (I hope I copied down the information right!) -- Eldon Tucker (eldon@netcom.com) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Mar 1995 11:59:46 EST From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: ML #1 First, let me thank Liesel for typing in Letter 10. This allows me to cut and paste easily. I would like to start the ball rolling, as it were, with a few of my own comments: Here we see karma as the great law of cause and effect. However, they say nothing here of synchronicity, and appear to ignore or be ignorant of acausal possibilites (probably because it would be over the head of the reader). The word "preeminently" implies that there is more here than they are giving out. There is no *anthropomorphic* God, no supreme authority. Amen. This is a profound statement. It suggests ethics for ethics sake alone (which I have being advocating for some time). We invented religion as a crutch or salve in order to help us face the world, but instead wind up being even more miserable. This is doubtless because of the "my religion is better than yours" attitude that so many pious believers have. <(c) because the accumulated experience of countless ages, and that of exact science show to us matter (not nature) acting by her own peculiar energy, of which not an atom is ever in an absolute state of rest, and therefore it must have always existed, ie, its materials ever changing form ;, combinations and properties, but its principles or elements being absolutely indestructible.> How these guys knew that matter is never at rest and always changing form, not to mention its "own peculiar energy," back when this was written is anyone's guess. Because matter and energy are interchangable, the idea that matter always existed is not far-fetched at all. The theosophical teaching that matter and spirit are dualities, two sides of the same coin, also indicates that matter is as ancient and long-lasting as spirit. < Evil has no existence per se and is but the absence of good and exists but for him who is made its victim> I believe that I have used this quote before. I would like to put it on a wall plack and hang it up where I can see it every day. < Nature is destitute of goodness or malice; she follows only immutable laws when she either gives life & joy, or sends suffering & death, and destroys what she has created.> This sounds a lot like Shakespear's nothing is good or evil but thinking makes it so. The whole concept of good and evil is just that - a human concept or interpretation (false) of our world. This leads right into "Humanity then alone is the true source of evil." I think that our search for evil must begin within ourselves. Our desire for its erradication must also begin within ourselves. < I will point out the greatest, the chief cause of nearly two thirds of the evils that pursue humanity ever since that cause became a power. It is religion under whatever form and in whatsoever nation> This is another of my very favorite quotes. Note that they include Buddhism in the same hat with the others, even though Buddhism has never had a holy war and strongly advocates peace, charity, and compassion. This cryptic phrase seems to imply the necessity of obtaining a mystical experience or samadhi, which, in fact, is taught by virtually all Eastern gurus and adepts. I think you can see from the above that I love this letter, and have no quarrels with what it is saying. Although written a long time ago, I can't see where much is outdated or no longer useful or applicable. Most of it could have been written yesterday. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Mar 1995 12:01:49 EST From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: van Gelder Liesel, Thanks for the info on van Gelder. I have heard of him, but I have not yet read any of his books. I really enjoyed THE PERSONAL AURA by his famous sister. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 15:05:20 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Ouspensky question Dear Eldon, I did a search in OCLC for P.D. Ouspensky's works (Uspenskii is now the LC transcription). There is The Fourth Way, a late collection of talks to disciples, published in English. His early Tertium Organum, published in Russian, had a lot about dimensions in it. But he never wrote anything called The Fourth Dimension that I can find in the database. There was a Charles Hinton, author of The Fourth Dimension, whose work interested Ouspensky. No citation to a Russian translation in OCLC, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Perhaps Ouspensky translated the Hinton. Close but no cigar Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 16:12:02 EST From: uscap9m9@ibmmail.com Subject: Discussing Paul Johnson's Latest Book In reading the discussion, I can see how there were various circumstances contributing to Paul leaving out materials from his latest book. Looking at the book, it is a great improvement over the last one. There's nothing to prevent the trend from continuing: his next book could be bigger, more inclusive, and with additional source materials. I don't think it's productive to second guess anyone's motivations, either in writing a book, or in reviewing one. We can ask the person what was intended, and can leave it at that. The approach that would be most productive to the theosophical community would be for the discussion to remain above board (continue to be posted, rather than by private email), and for offers of sharing with Paul materials he did not previously have access to, so that he can improve over what he was able to come up with on his previous book. The only point where I can see anything dark or destructive coming in would be when we feel we've been insulted, and respond to it (responses being fear--flight--or anger--attack). If there is a dark side to life, it comes into our lives uninvited, and captures our minds and hearts. We can let small seeds of discord grow into hateful qualities and responses in ourselves, or uproot them early on, while they first germinate. There's always something constructive we can take from the other person, and that is all we have to respond to. Jerry Hejka-Ekins is right that the academic world has almost a dog-eat-dog approach of tearing apart an academic work. This is motivated by the desire for maintaining truthfulness, but may also be applied with especial vigor on works that question the status quo and are seen as heretical. When this happens, there could be two reasons. Either there are flaws in the work, that need reexamination, or there are aspects of the work that remain unappreciated by others because they need reexpression with greater clarity. In either case, we go back to our original presentation, reexamine what we've done with a fresh mind, then respond based upon our new insight into the matter. Having only skimmed over the book, I cannot offer but passing comments on it. The basic point that I think that many theosophical students might dislike about the book is that it suggests that HPB's teachers were seemingly ordinary people that she knew during her life. Is this a challenge to the basic theosophical Teachings? No. There is still a basic idea of spiritual evolution, with an endless series of stages of development and experience awaiting us. We go from ordinary people, to pre-Chelas, to Chelas, Masters, and yet higher. There is no top-most stage to this progression. So it's a moot point *which stage on the scale* we call that held by the Masters, since there are always higher stages and beings. -- Eldon Tucker (eldon@netcom.com) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 17:06:05 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Discussing Paul Johnson's Latest Book According to uscap9m9@ibmmail.com: > over the last one. There's nothing to prevent the trend from > continuing: his next book could be bigger, more inclusive, and > with additional source materials. Well, it's between galleys and page proofs, so it's not growing any more. It's going to end up around 260 pages compared to about 290 for the first. But most of the sources are new. > The approach that would be most productive to the theosophical > community would be for the discussion to remain above board > (continue to be posted, rather than by private email), and for This needn't be either/or. Dan and I are mending things by email today, and somehow that sort of thing doesn't work very well when done in public. But I'm sure we're both willing to discuss further. I for one don't want to disrupt the ML discussion with it, though, which was a real danger. > The only point where I can see anything dark or destructive > coming in would be when we feel we've been insulted, and OR when we feel things and people we hold sacred have been-- which is more likely to be what I get roasted for. > respond to it (responses being fear--flight--or anger--attack). > small seeds of discord grow into hateful qualities and > responses in ourselves, or uproot them early on, while they > first germinate. We're working on it. > it suggests that HPB's teachers were seemingly ordinary > people that she knew during her life. Is this a challenge to Well-- not all THAT ordinary. My findings establish her as unquestionably well qualified to present in her writings a synthesis of East and West, religion and philosophy, by virtue of the international network of teachers/advisors she learned from. THE most influential reformers of her period in Hinduism, Sikhism, and Islam and some of the most prominent Masons and Rosicrucians in Europe and America number among her teachers/sponsors/advisors (whether or not we accept my calling them her Masters). > the basic theosophical Teachings? No. There is still a > basic idea of spiritual evolution, with an endless series > of stages of development and experience awaiting us. We > go from ordinary people, to pre-Chelas, to Chelas, Masters, > and yet higher. There is no top-most stage to this progression. > So it's a moot point *which stage on the scale* we call that > held by the Masters, since there are always higher stages and > beings. Thanks for your thoughts; I hope you enjoy going into the book in depth. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 20:14:55 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Letter I According to Keith Price: > 3. BIG QUESTION - Can someone tell me briefly why the Master KH > is condescending to begin this correspondence? It seems there was > a request for some kind of phenomenal "proof" in a newspaper??? The Founders were in Simla as guests of the Sinnetts from 8 September through 21 October, when they departed for Amritsar and thence Lahore. On 29 September, Mrs. Sinnett received a not from KH in the branches of a tree. On 3 October, the famous cup and saucer phenomenon was done by HPB, and later a missing brooch was produced for Mrs. Hume. Sinnett wrote twice to KH in early October. Hume also wrote to KH around this time. Sinnett got his replies on the 18th and 19th, just before the Founders headed to Amritsar. So it seems clear that the decision to communicate with Hume and Sinnett had been made before HPB and Olcott went to Simla, and the Masters took the initiative by sending the first message. Hope this helps. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Mar 1995 20:16:36 EST From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@compuserve.com> Subject: Ouspensky Question - 4th Dimension Hi Eldon, Ouspensky wrote a series of essays, mostly in Russian, and published separately before his work with Gurdjieff. These were collected, translated into English, and published in a book entitled "A New Model of the Universe" (New York: Vintage 1971), in paper and still in print. One of these essays which appears as Chapter 2 of this book (pp. 61-100) is entitled "The Fourth Dimension", and is likely what you are looking for. This essay is related to Ouspensky's more famous work, the one for which he first became noted, "Tertium Organum", which you might also want to look at if you have not already done so. Glad to be of help. Sy Ginsburg From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 9:56:19 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Batty Theosophists This morning's epiphany-while-driving-to-work, which is not what you think from the header. Thanks, Eldon for your wisdom. Yesterday's mail brought a real consciousness-raiser, which only Eldon's advice enabled me to appreciate. It was a copy of a letter whose author had protested to The Quest editor the publication of Joy Mills's review of The Masters Revealed. Some illustrative excerpts: "This has been given space in your review columns as though it had a decent standing and validity. Unfortunately it does not... a myth that is entirely his own creation...derision, prejudice, and ignorance...superficial curiosity, wonder seeking, and an almost total incomprehension...the holy names of the benefactors of mankind: the Mahatmas, are again dragged through the slime of an untutored if not malicious mind...not an honest book...incompetent and untutored deride and attempt to abase the source of that wisdom and philanthropy which sustains, and is the real substratum of our progress..inexactitude and the horror it inflicts...profess to know more than Col. Olcott and HPB...soul-dazzling falsehoods about these Great Teachers...wish to make their living off sensationalism and untruths...not to be trusted...claim to be authors...seek notoriety..." Eldon comes into the picture because while driving to work today I thought to myself "I wonder how Eldon would find something to uplift and inform me in this hate letter." And with the thought, immediately came the answer, which has to do with bats. I recalled that in the late 80s, when I lived in a big old house with 7 fireplaces, I also got a job directing a library in a converted warehouse. One night, something started flying around my bedroom, which initiated a series of attempts on my part to see the thing, which I gradually realized was a bat. I'd turn on the light, and it would vanish. Go out the room, turn the light off, and it would start flying. Rush in, turn the light on-- no bat anywhere. All this was accompanied by total horror-- blood running cold, disgust, fear, you name it. I was just overwhelmed with bat phobia. Ended up never finding the bat, and changing bedrooms. Shortly thereafter came the job change. It turns out the place is infested with bats, and whenever one starts flying around the library the all-female staff starts shrieking and coming to me to solve the problem. It took about 5 times of catching bats and releasing them outside before the phobia was gone and I could see them as they were-- gentle, beautiful creatures who ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time and inspired fear and hatred. I grew fond of the little things. And wondered why I or anyone else ever reacted to them like they were demons from hell. Recalling this, I realized that my reaction to getting Theosophical hate mail was physiologically identical to the first bat encounter. Total horror, fight or flight, etc. And the cure therefore would also be the same. Repeated exposure leading to desensitization. So I read and reread the letter and before long-- my horror of being hated by Theosophists because of my book just vanished, replaced by a compassionate respect for the source of my phobic reaction. Somewhere HPB says that fate delivers to us the one thing we think we can't bear. For me, that was being hated by Theosophists for the books that were a labor of love. But there are good reasons we get what we most dread, and I'm working on understanding them. What I can see in that letter is also identical to the bat reaction. Total revulsion, kill-it-or-flee-from-it, this-is-a-demon-from-hell stuff. And so, when I read it, I feel the pain of someone confronted with an unbearable phobic stimulus. And hope that he progresses toward a resolution of his fears, as I try to work on mine. So, Eldon, your words of wisdom struck home, and I thank you. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 09:26:48 -0600 From: Arthur_PattersonA@mbnet.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: Batty Theosophists Great Bat Story, You have sacralized the lowly beast. But perhaps that is not altogether inappropriate since the theosophical bats are also a piece of the Divine, if I have the theory straight. They are flying toward the light of transformation too. What makes the bat paranoid? Too much light? Too much diversity and yesodic imagery for them. Bats hone in like radar on what doesn't fit their particular theory. Their theory is what keeps the theosophical, and anyother ideological bat, safe. But I firmly believe that safety while important to consider is not as important as transformative truth. As a former and recovering bat, I have come to realize that the truths of others, that I disagree with, are limited as mine are and that they in no way threaten the Absolute - so I trust instead of know. I hope the bats learn to trust that Absolute. Like I said excellent story, Paul. Bats in the Belfry, Art From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 11:20:44 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Ouspensky Question - 4th Dimension Sy's information strikes me as suggesting that the original publication may not have been in book form. Russia in 1918 was not a very auspicious publishing environment, one would think. So the Ouspensky piece that ended up in A New Model of the Universe may have been in pamphlet form-- which would explain why it never made it into the OCLC database. Most Russian books from the period are probably in there. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 17 Mar 1995 19:48:08 -0400 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: "Oh, No! One More Reply to Paul Johnson from Daniel Ca Daniel, I have found your comments extremely interesting and look forward to hearing more from you on the subject of the Masters. Sometimes one has a feeling there is another side, but doesn't know what it is. Thank you for attempting to articulate it and thus offer some tangible checks and balances to the discussion. Lewisllucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 18 Mar 1995 10:30:24 +1100 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: Re: Re: "Oh, No! One More Reply to Paul Johnson from Daniel Caldwell Dear Fellow THEOS-L subscribers, I guess since this seems to be a good time to discuss theosophical "heresies" (such as Paul Johnson's suggestion that the Masters were but influential friends of HPB and not semi-mystical divine presences abiding in a Himalayan fastness), I'd like to point readers on this mailing list to an interesting book. It's called "Light of the Sanctuary", by Geoffrey Hodson. GH, as he was affectionately known to many in New Zealand, developed a considerable reputation over the years for his very clear writings on theosophical topics, especially on meditation, yoga and devas, and some of the results of his scholarship and claivoyance, including investigations into the symbolic meaning found in music, mythology and the Bible. What many people didn't know about GH was that he was in almost daily contact with the Masters of HPB and Col. Olcott, and he kept detailed diaries, which he permitted to have published (somewhat edited) after his death, in order to make a statement about Their reality to the theosophical world. The result has been a rather controversial book. On one side, there are traditionalists, including those who continue to revere CWL and AB, who assert that this is a wonderful proof of Their continued existence and help to the TS, even today. On the other side, this is viewed by some theosophists as just another set of channeled writings and potential delusion from one whose clairvoyance may have been influenced by unconscious kriyashakti. What do you think? Well, you probably haven't seen the book, because all of the theosophical publishing houses approached refused to publish the book. Instead, it was privately published by the TS in the Philippines, and therefore hasn't reached the audience it might have. If there is interest in some of the statements by and descriptions of the current activities of the Masters, I'd be happy to transcribe extracts for this list. Thanks, Paul Gillingwater From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 18 Mar 1995 10:25:26 -0700 From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: Re: "Oh, No! One More Reply to Paul Johnson from Daniel Ca PAUL... Re: GH book. Please do translate a bit. I'd be very interested. Is it available anywhere in English? -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 18 Mar 1995 10:06:11 -0800 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Subject: Re: Batty Theosophists Paul Johnson> [I received] a copy of a letter whose author had protested to The Quest editor the publication of Joy Mills's review of The Masters Revealed. Some illustrative excerpts: Nicholas Weeks> Considering the number of elisions, how else could one illustrate the batty-hate-filled-theosophist theory. I'm guessing the parts left out must have been "irrelevant" to the thesis. Since I have a copy of the full 6 page letter I will fill in a few of the blanks. The author of the letter to Quest mag. has been devoted to the Masters and the Theosophical Cause for well over 50 years. I know this gentleman. He is not batty, nor, even when vastly irritated by PJ's piffle, a man of hate. The starred phrases are some of what PJ left in. "...*This has been given space in your review columns as though it had a decent standing and validity. Unfortunately it does not.* I am both saddened and dismayed by the fact that space is given to review such a book, and that by this selection, some credibility is attached thereto by the publishing of any notice of it. I spent over thirty five years in India. While there, I studied almost all aspects of that country, and especially Theosophy. I had the opportunity to visit many of the places where HPB and Col. Olcott lived, worked and taught. Mr. P. Johnson has visited India briefly, and has emerged with *a myth that is entirely his own creation.* I had written to him to produce any evidence to support his thesis that the Masters, of HPB spoke an wrote of, had any relation to certain individuals he had selected, said to have lived in the North of India. He has so far failed to advance any to me. I wish to register a strong protest at the misuse of those sacred Names of the Masters. No one is in possession of all the facts relating to the work, the nature and the conduct of the Masters in the World. Instead of being grateful to those wonderful beings I find *derision, prejudice, and ignorance* Instead of the assiduous study of their writings and philosophy, I find *superficial curiosity, wonder seeking, and an almost total incomprehension* of the moral ideal of a cooperative life based on Universal Brotherhood, Human Solidarity, Karma and Reincarnation -- as found focused in the concept and practice of metaphysical and ethical Theosophy..." NW> The full letter is probably too long to be all in Quest, but more than my or PJ's extracts will hopefully appear. PJ> So I read and reread the letter and before long-- my horror of being hated by Theosophists because of my book just vanished, replaced by a compassionate respect for the source of my phobic reaction. NW> How dandy for you. Since this breakthrough of yours could we now get back to the ML study? You were so very noble to put aside the "debate" for the sake of ML study, how about also keeping private your martyr-facing-bravely-"demon-from-hell stuff" for a time? Nicholas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Mar 1995 20:35:16 EST From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: TS cushion During dinner tonight, my husband gave me his idea of what TS was all about. I'd like to share it with you: "It's NOT like someone handing you a cushion and saying, 'Sit here.' It's more like someone handing you scissors, thread, needle, fabric and stuffing. Then you can make your own cushion." - ann bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 09:45:24 +1100 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: Re: Re: "Oh, No! One More Reply to Paul Johnson from Daniel Ca jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu writes: > PAUL... > Re: GH book. Please do translate a bit. I'd be very interested. > Is it available anywhere in English? > > -JRC Sorry, I should have specified that it is written in English, but was published in the Philippines. It's certainly available in some places if you ask for it. Here are the details: Light of the Sanctuary The Occult Diary of Geoffrey Hodson Compiled by Sandra Hodson The Theosophical Publishers, Inc. Manila, Phillipines ISBN-971-9113-0-0 First published 1988 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 21:50:22 +1100 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: Extracts from Geoffrey Hodson's Occult Diary < Light of the Sanctuary < The Occult Diary of Geoffrey Hodson < Compiled by Sandra Hodson For those who may not have seen it, this book (587 pages) contains edited extracts from the private occult diaries of Geoffrey Hodson, a noted English theosophist clairvoyant and seer, who spent much of his later years living in New Zealand. He wrote dozens of books on theosophical topics, covering The Spiritual Life, The Powers Latent in Man, The Theosophical Philosophy of Life, Interpretations of Scriptures and Myths, The Angelic Hierarchy, Health and Animal Welfare. The diary entries cover years from 1921 through to soon before his death at the age of 96 in 1983. Spanning over 60 years, they include recorded memories of superphysical experiences, insights gained from meditation, and most controversially, recorded statements from theosophical Masters who are in some cases identified by name. >From the statements made, it seems that the Masters as seen by GH seem to take an active interest in the world. e.g., from an entry in 1963, from one named "Master Kourious", writing about an unnamed Master: "He is exerting Our power to minimize the danger in Crete and prevent a rupture in the relationships between Turkey and Greece. At present this is occupying almost the whole of His attention, though He is not alone in the task, the Lebanese Section also assisting." It is likely that the Master referred to is the Master Polidorus Isurenus, who is quoted in the next entry: "I greet you from across the blue waters where in Cyprus there is a temporary lull in the fighting, though smouldering passions and national rivalries constitute a tinder-box indeed. We cool down the astral atmosphere, We influence when permissible the psychology of leaders, potential trouble-makers, and future saviours of the troubled situation." Another interesting comment from 5 December 1966: "As far as you are able, do not encourage or even allow Theosophists to anticipate, wait for, and rely upon dramatic manifestations in the last quarter of the century. An effort will be made for power to be liberated, but it is not likely to be spectacular, neither are its results to be immediate. ... Immense good has been done in spreading into the world-mind and the minds of large numbers of individuals, Theosophical ideals and teachings, including that of the Path... There will be help in the last quarter [of the century] and even certain great personalities who might appear at certain times. In consequence, an upsurge of spiritual and intellectual awakening, interest and effort is likely." A comment from K.H., 14 September 1971: "Yes, I am in the same body and expect to be so for at least a hundred years more. Some of Our Shaberons have bodies which are over five hundred years old and perfectly efficient. The Adept, you know, _has_ discovered and partaken of the Elixir of Life. Try, as you are doing, to preserve your own body as long as you can, useful as it is both to Us and to yourself. For it is a humanity and Adept-serving body.... :-)" Here's a controversial message, from H.P.B., 5 March 1976: "Yes, Centenary message good, Why not circulate it widely throughout the Society or your group. The danger is that in looking forward to and bringing about developments in the future, the membership may tend to lose sight of, touch with, and inspiration from the early years. Do what you can to prevent this, not only in your own work but through suggestions to the leaders, the President for example."... H.P.B. (as I then was) So, why haven't the Masters been found? Here's a message from the Master Morya, dated 28 March 1976: "None, no one, can see, find, visit either Ourselves or Our retreats against Our wills, which are totally predominant in this matter of Our personal lives. Similarly, no one flying over, travelling, or wandering upon the Gobi Desert can see the remains of the buildings of what was once the Great White Island in the Gobi Sea. This intrusion, My son, into Our personal pprivacy and that of the Government of the Brotherhood as a whole, is forbidden and with such potency that the greatest of the inventions of scientists of today and tomorrow cannot enable one single person to enter Our realms against Our wishes. This is the only claim We make -- that of uninvadable privacy. Even Our disciples and fellow Initiates, up to a certain Degree, who do visit Us, can never do so, can never find Us and Our retreats again unless We permit. THIS IS THE ONE UNBREAKABLE STATUTE OF OUR GOVERNMENT--UNINVADABLE PRIVACY. .. By the imposition of a maya which not even the strongest minds of the most advanced non-Initiate can penetrate or dispel. It is so, My brother, I thus assure you." Later, He again says, when asked by GH how the Masters can remain undiscovered in this modern world of aeroplanes and modern aerial cameras and equipment used for scanning terrain and mountainous areas: "The Adepts have powers of which you little dream. They can make a group of homes appear like a bare landscape." What about Theosophists? Here's a statement from the Master K.H., dated 30 December 1978: "In both cases, and with many other active members in our Society, the need exists to deepen their inner experience of the reality of the teachings of Theosophy, so that they are really true and known to be, so far as is possible to a lecturer. A certain personal conviction then becomes apparent without the necessity for any claim being made. It is this, the interior experience and the developing mystical sense which are so important, if only because they take the mind of the worker past mere mental knowledge, however necessary, into an increasing measure of the certainty of the Truth which is being taught." 22 November 1979: Geoffrey aked the Masters about world affairs such as those in Kampuchea and Iran and received comment to the effect that: "Our own lives We can and do control. The lives of Our fellow human beings We cannot control, and so must permit unavoidable events to occur, deeply regretable though they are. Nevertheless, We assist whereever We may permissibly do so; the founding of the TS and drawing attention to Theosophy being examples. Our deep concern is always with root causes, and their outworkings. Every basic theosophical principle that is both understood and applied to living by a human recipient, is of immense value not only to that person but to humanity as a whole; for the UNITY principle applies there also." I hope that the above extracts may provide some food for thought. Please let me know if you want to hear more.... best wishes Paul Gillingwater From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 9:51:12 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Lightning-struck Solar Plexus Reflections on Eldon Tucker's advice to take only the highest, productive elements of "attacks" and let the rest go: At least five people have advised me, in the past week or so, to develop a thicker skin. But that hasn't felt at all like the right advice, to become insensitive to energies directed at me. So while waiting for another solution, I've been thrashing around in public expressing pain that itself provides a target for further hostility. Well, there's something that works far better than a thick skin, and I want to share it. If we want to defend our emotional selves from attack, we instinctively tense up, as it were making our emotional fabric more dense. Unfortunately, this is exactly the wrong thing to do. To become more tense and dense under attack is to make one's emotional nature more vulnerable to being wounded seriously. It can take days or weeks to recover from the emotional wounds caused by words used as weapons. The "thick skin" school of advice suggests that hostile energy can just be bounced off us without doing any harm. But my experience is that by trying NOT to sustain the pain, the best we can do is to feel somewhat less. A better solution, at least for me here and now, is to become more THIN skinned-- let that hostile energy right in. It feels like a lightning bolt to the solar plexus when someone directs intense hostility at the center of your being. (Yes, for an author of a book like mine, one's writing is at the center.) And rather than tensing up and trying to deflect that energy, I think it's healthier to RELAX, OPEN UP to it, FEEL IT FULLY and then LET IT GO. Feel it as the OTHER PERSON'S anger, fear and hostility. If you try to resist and deflect it, whatever does get in will be YOUR pain, fear, and anger. The key to compassion is to feel it as what it is-- the other's pain, and then let it go, reflecting on the experience for its wider significance but not identifying with or possessing it. When the solar plexus receives this kind of energy while tight and tense, it sustains wounds to the lower vehicles. One's energy flow, physical well-being, and emotional state are all thrown into turmoil. Whereas if the lightning strike hits a solar plexus that is relaxed and open, it will pass right through doing no lasting damage. And understanding will increase as a result of observing the process. This reminds me of ceiling fans, in which you can flip a switch that determines whether the air blows down or up. In our "normal" setting, the heart center or solar plexus or whatever it is that hurts when someone hates you, is oriented downward, to our personal needs, desires, attachments. And an attack will therefore throw the lower vehicles into discord and disfunction. But by just flipping the switch so that the energy of the lightning strike goes UPWARD, we can keenly feel the OTHER's pain, anger, etc., and let it awaken our COMPASSION for their suffering and our UNDERSTANDING of life. Having learned all this, I apologize to y'all for what Nicholas calls my martyr act. But it was healthier in the long run to feel the pain intensely and then learn to make good use of it, than to just try to keep out the hostile energy. Sorry if my learning process was felt to be obnoxious to some. But the result of Eldon's advice coming right before the hate mail did provide what I feel is a valuable lesson. RELAX, LET IT IN, LET IT GO. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Mar 1995 10:34:01 EST From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Hodson diaries > "The Adepts have powers of which you little dream. They can make > a group of homes appear like a bare landscape." I saw something like this on a recent episode of "Babylon 5". A group of renegade psychics created an illusion that let them escape from the bad guy. It was similar to this, except they only held it for five minutes. I have often wondered if Michael Stryczynski, the writer and producer of this syndicated sci-fi saga, is a Theosophist. He seems to tucking little gems of Ancient Wisdom into every program. Does anyone know of any other fiction writers, past or present, who have incorporated Theosophy into their works? Would very much like to see other extracts from GH's diaries. Would this be available through Quest Book Store? - ann bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 13:33:03 -0800 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Subject: Re: Batty Theosophists Paul Johnson> Nicholas, this is the second time you have demanded (requested? suggested?) Wistfully supplicated actually. >in a Theosophical Archie Bunker kind of way, >"stifle yourself." Last time you wanted me to withhold >publication of my forthcoming book and all future ones. You mean you won't?! Lordy how cruel. > Now you just want to dictate topics of posts. But face it, > there's no way you can get me to shut up by blasting hostile > energy at me. I'll try to be good Paul. Your waves of love surging across the Akasa are soothing this savage beast even now. >You've done it in person and by letter, indirectly (letter >to Richard Smoley, editor of Gnosis). Now, on the net. >Although I wish you would stifle your hostility, I'm in no >position to demand that you do. Then stand up. You demanded Dan do thus & so. Why not me, also? > I suggest that the energy you put into telling me what not to > post would have been better spent in simply writing a post > related to the ML discussion. Who's stopping you? All in good time, friend, all in good time. Seriously Paul, if you think I or my postings are *hostile* then you must have had an entirely insulated childhood. Nicholas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 15:21:24 -0800 (PST) From: Diana Cooper Subject: Harry Van Gelder For those who are interested : Harry Van Gelder died on Friday morning (March 17th) peacefully at home in Australia. He was 89. He is survived by his sister, Dora Kunz, and by his children . Harry lived in Vancouver, was a member of Hermes Lodge, was very active at Camp Indralaya on Orcas Island, then lived in California and eventually in Australia. Diana E.M. Cooper 604-822-3943 Fine Arts Reference Librarian Fine Arts Library 604-822-3893 (fax) University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall INTERNET:dcooper@unixg.ubc.ca Vancouver,B.C. V6T 1Z1 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 13:47:38 +1200 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Batting theosophists When feelings of hurt, indignation, contempt, distrust etc etc run high across the electronic network, it is very reminiscent of face-to-face confrontations. The sequences of attitudes and responses can be very similar, and you can literally feel the emotions and pain of the direct participants as you tune in through the words on the screen. Barbara Ann Brennan gives a very illuminating account of the swordplay of energy that can arise between people in her book "Light Emerging", based on her own HSP observations (Higher Sense Perception, as she calls it). She describes 5 main defences that people use when they are feeling devalued or disliked, such as attack, pleading, withdrawal or blocking, and traces them all back to the primary psychic and spiritual wound that we all have, of feeling alone and cut off from the universal matrix of life-supporting psycho-spiritual energy. We bury this wound beneath various more recent pain-bearing complexes until we do the work of unravelling it all and being healed. These defences are ways we learn in our attempts to gain or retain energy, but they are always second-best and never really satisfy our inner needs. She also says that people experience similar energies to different degrees depending on their own defence tendencies, so that what one might see as a mild criticism, another might experience as an attack and betrayal. Brennan gives comprehensive techniques for coming to see these processes in ourselves and then transforming them in ways that affirm ourselves and those we deal with. A related approach to all this is in James Redfield's book "The Celestine Prophecy". Couched as a gripping story, he presents nine insights about the competition for energy between people as they try to gain energy in second-best ways. He ends up painting a picture of how society will be transformed when people come to the nine insights themselves and learn how to reconnect with the all-surrounding energy, and how to _give_ each other energy rather than get it at each other's expense. Redfield says that when we reconnect this way, the base feeling that accompanies it is love. Let's be a little more kindly to each other and a little less ready to see enemies in each other. Murray Stentiford From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Mar 1995 22:20:20 EST From: "Ronald A. Banister" <70402.2301@compuserve.com> Subject: Virginia Beach Meeting I will be giving my third lecture in Virginia Beach this Saturday from 1:30 to 3:30PM at the 57th Street Ramada Inn. Eloise Smith has graciously reserved the Dolphin room for us. Subject will be "Involution & Evolution". I try to maintain an informal atmosphere conducive to discussion. If you are in the area please stop by. Ron Banister From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 05:28:16 -0800 From: ruben@netcom.com (Ruben Cabigting) Subject: Re Mahatma Letters & G.H.'s Books from the Philippines For those who are interested, You can order the following books from: QUEST BOOKS P.O. Box 270, Dept. M-179 Wheaton, IL 60189-0270 Accepts Visa or M/C 1(800) 669-9425 THE MAHATMA LETTERS TO A.P. SINNETT Chronological Sequence. Edited by Vicente Hao Chin Jr. Hardcover 600 pages. Reg. $ 28.00 LIGHT OF THE SANCTUARY by Geoffrey Hodson Hardcover 619 pages. Reg. $ 27.95 Sale 25.00 ILLUMINATIONS OF THE MYSTERY TRADITION Compiled by Sandra Hodson Hardcover 346 pages. Reg. $ 22.50. Sale $ 20.00. THE YOGIC ASCENT TO SPIRITUAL HEIGHTS by Geoffrey Hodson Hardcover 278 pages. Reg. $ 16.50. Sale $ 15.00. Note: Sale prices are good through April 15, 1995 and stocks are limited. Shanti, Ruben Cabigting From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 11:35:56 EST From: uscap9m9@ibmmail.com Subject: Thanks for the Help Thanks Paul, Sy, and Dennis for the helpful information on the material by Ouspensky. -- Eldon Tucker (eldon@netcom.com) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 11:41:08 EST From: uscap9m9@ibmmail.com Subject: Thoughts on the Masters Thoughts on the Masters -- Eldon Tucker There is much speculation about the nature of the Masters, and even upon their very existence. They fill a certain place on the evolutionary scale, in advance of the ordinary man, but trailing behind the highest flowers of humanity, the Buddhas. Who are they? What are their lives like? How do they relate to us? Our study of Theosophy provides us with the groundwork from which we can build up an understanding of them. Thinking about the Teachings, applying some common sense, and looking deep within, we can come up with a reasonable understanding of the nature of the Mahatmas. When we attempt to study something new to us, we first explain the unknown by analogy to what we know. When we learn a new word, we first define it in terms of words that we already know; as we grow to appreciate the word, it takes on a meaning of its own, apart from those definitions. In a study of the Masters, we may consider what they do in terms of activities that we know, and we may consider how they relate to us in terms of relationships we find in our lives. These comparisons are analogies, that are initial aids in our understanding, but are later left behind. The Masters are frequently described as authority figures. Why is this? We are looking outside ourselves for guidance, and are seekers. We have not yet found that what we are really looking for is an active, living relationship with our Inner Teacher, whom is not an external person. The goal of an external Guru is to awaken that relationship in us, not to act in its stead. We may mistakenly look to Masters as greater beings to tell us what to do, or to give us lessons to train ourselves. But our individual karma, and life itself, is the greatest Teacher. We can evoke from life lessons and training far in advance of anything that a mere human, even a Master, could devise! We may consider a Master to be a *parent*, to watch over and take care of us. We may consider one a *law maker*, as someone making rules for us to live by. We may consider one a *boss*, as our direct supervisor in an organization, giving us work assignments and evaluating our work. All these are analogies, but are incomplete and still put us in the role of a subordinate, a junior helper, an underling. Although life on Globe D has an element of dog-eat-dog mentality, with big animals eating littler ones, size -- and physical might -- have little to do with the importance of our roles in live. A flower in a meadow, blossoming according to schedule, and adding its beauty to the environment, is as important a contributor to life as a writer of a grand book, as a Mother that gives her life to protect her children, or as an Avatara returning to brighten our dark world. The highest value is in giving full expression to what is within, to the beauty in our inner natures, regardless of its apparent affects in the outer world. How do we know about the Masters? We have some descriptions of them in our literature. We have some Teachings about them. And when we take the core concepts, and *go deeper*, we can sometimes learn more that appears on the written page. We hear that they do not want to tell us what to do. They do not want followers. They do not want irrefutable public evidence of their existence. What work do the Masters do? Well, what work do *we* do? They are more advanced people than us. They are more advanced because they have spend more time in inner growth than we have; they are not intrinsically different than us. If we spend a few years learning to ice skate, we would be more advanced ice skaters than other people; we would not be better than them, just more experienced in a particular way because of having spent the time to learn and grow. The Masters have certain heightened faculties of consciousness. They have a greater ability to know and understand; they have flowered their manasic principle. So what do they do? They have as many different things to do and as much a freedom of choice as we do! We can become dancers, ice skaters, bums, great writers, hermits, accomplished musicians--almost a countless number of different things. So can they. Because of their special development, they are naturally the carriers of the wisdom of humanity. They carry on the deepest knowledge, as *learned tradition*. What they study and pass on cannot be simply put into writing, but has to be trained and individually instructed. There is a passing on, from generation to generation, of the precious body of Wisdom given to humanity in its infancy. The Masters are not puppets in some rigid world plan. They are not predestined to do things, to act out certain events according to prophesy. They are not rigidly locked into some pseudo-Christian or Tibetan hierarchy of angels or deities, following out a plan according to some hard-and-fast outline in some religious text. The Mahatmas are just people, but able to appreciate and understand things that we cannot. And perhaps they exist on the other Globes (Planes) at times, when not living on earth as an apparently ordinary person. Some may choose to train Chelas. If they do so, it is because they have taken it up as their vocation, as what they choose to do in life. Some may do so, but this is not universal. There is no rigid organizational hierarchy that we and they must join and work our way up, progressing from one level to the next. We may read that they intended the Theosophical Society for certain purposes. That may be so, but it was what a few of them planned at that time. As circumstances change, so do plans. There is a general work of pulling the west out of materialism. The current usefulness of theosophical groups in this work depends on their current membership, and not upon any claims regarding being "the true society", having some succession from HPB, or having the largest membership. Not all Masters are with Chelas, or acting as Gurus. They do not work in a business-like hierarchical organization, with everyone a manager of underlings, and having a boss. In normal circumstances, they are born on earth as regular men, and function according to the conditions of Fourth Round human life, even if they are *interiorly* Fifth Rounders. They can suspend their ordinary personalities, stepping aside and functioning on other Globes, or on earth in a self-made Mayavi-Rupa; but this is not the normal course of life. They are still people, and live as such, although many of them may be seeking embodiment on the other Globes, rather than our Globe D earth, since the experiences that they need for their hastened evolution may not be available here. How do we relate to them? We do not need a Master as a personal trainer, we do not need one to progress on the Path. They are self-made, and we also must progress by our own self- devised efforts. When we do come into relationship with the Masters, the type of relationship is as varied and individual as any relationship that we might have with other people that we may know. There is no one, special, solitary way of knowing a Mahatma. We could have a reverence for one as a Teacher to us, living out the parent-to-young-child relationship. Consider a four- month-old baby, wide-eyed, looking with unconditional love and trust at the parent holding him. But we could also relate to a Mahatma in the apparent role of enemy, where the Master seems to block what we would do in life, bringing us continual pain and frustration. There are many ways to relate to a Mahatma, and the simplest may be as friend and equal. The Masters are just as human as the rest of us. A Master has no need to be in a superior role, and can be simply a kind, helpful person in our lives. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 15:03:28 -0500 (EST) From: John Mead Subject: Liesel D. -- in hospital > Dear Theosophists: > > Ms. Deutsch was admitted to the hospital 3/18. She is healthy > enough to be worried that her friends on the computer would > miss her and wonder where she was. She said you will have to > wait for the next chapter of the book. > > I said I would send a message. > > Cheryl Gatling RN > Crouse-Irving Memorial Hospital > Syracuse, NY > > csgatlin@mailbox.syr.edu > > > Cheryl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 15:04:37 -0500 (EST) From: John Mead Subject: Liesel D. Update (fwd) > Hello, My name is Mike Lamb. I am a good friend of Liesel > Deutsch's (LieselFD@aol.com), and I received a call from her > today. It turns out that she is in the hospital with a bad case > of bronchitis, so se won't be able to get around to answering > E-Mail for a few days. She says that she is feeling better, > though, even after a bad first night in the hospital. > Apparently, the flu and other stuff has been going around alot > where she lives, and she says she is easily succeptable to chest > colds and such. So, she wants me to say Hi and she'll be back > online in a few days. > > Best Regards, > Mike Lamb > (PhatPC@aol.com) > [oo] > /==\ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 22:30:15 +1100 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: Re: Hodson diaries "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> writes: > Does anyone know of any other fiction writers, past or present, > who have incorporated Theosophy into their works? Of course! Terry Pratchett pokes gentle fun at theosophists in one or two works. An excellent read is with the "Adept" series by Katherine Kurz, although this is more in the Dionne Fortune tradition. > Would very much like to see other extracts from GH's diaries. > Would this available through Quest Book Store? You'll have to ask them. :-) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 22:18:48 +0000 From: bazzer@pavilion.co.uk (Bazzer) Subject: Greetings. Hello all. My name is Paul and the home base is in the United Kingdom. Having been kindly allowed to join the Theos list, the following is a brief resume of one's introduction/link with Theosophy: First came into contact with Theosophy at the age of around 14/15 years (over 20 years ago, now:-)) in a paperback which had re-printed inside it "Occultism vs the Occult Arts" by H. P. Blavatsky. Somewhere in the late teen's joined the Theosophical Society in England. Visited the British HQ in London and had a look 'round the library. Bump into a chap - now a long-standing friend and theosophical student - who introduced me to a photostat copy of the original 1888 edition of "The Secret Doctrine" and, at the same time, met Mr Rex Dutta, then Director of Viewpoint Aquarius magazine. Joined Viewpoint Aquarius's Secret Doctrine study group. Continue to attend monthly meetings (now some two decades later and re-named the Viewpoint Aquarius Study Centre after Rex Dutta 'died' a couple of years ago). Continue to write papers for Viewpoint Aquarius magazine (published bi-monthly). Main focus of study is *original* (or photostat copies) of HPB's works, "The Secret Doctrine", "The Key to Theosophy", "The Voice of the Sience" and other works published during the time of HPB's and M/KH's auspices. Kindest regards, Paul. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 16:42:35 -0500 (EST) From: bill@Zeus.itdc.edu Subject: Nontheosophist theosophical writers (was: Re: Hodson diaries) Hi all, Recently Ann Bermingham posted a response (in part): > I have often wondered if Michael Stryczynski, the writer and > producer of this syndicated sci-fi saga, is a Theosophist. He > seems to tucking little gems of Ancient Wisdom into every > program. > > Does anyone know of any other fiction writers, past or present, > who have incorporated Theosophy into their works? I have often seen bits of theosophical ideas in the work of the famous science-fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein (who passed away several years ago). I haven't seen it in all of his works that I've read but it seems to stick out rather prominently in his classic _Stranger_in_a_Strange_Land_. I wrote to his widow, Virginia Heinlein, who wrote back and said he was aware of the Theososphical Society but did not confirm whether he was a member or not. Just $0.02 worth. And, as Valentine Michael Smith (the main character in SiaSL) would say, may you always grok in fullness (a very theosophical concept, IMHO) ... Bill-- |William A. (Bill) Parrette|4000 Executive Pk. Dr., #310 |bill@[Zeus.]itdc.edu |Cincinnati, OH 45241-4007 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 08:13:32 +0200 (EET) From: Aki Korhonen Subject: Re: Lightning-struck Solar Plexus Hello Paul. I think you are on the right track on your methods. Just wanted to comment that Christ gives an advice in His mountain preach, that we should not resist evil. This 4th of 5 advice, has been very poorly accepted and understood when I have spoken about it with Christian people, laymen and theosophists. Finnish, late theosophist, Pekka Ervasti, used to emphasize a lot of Christ's 5 ethical advice and he also gave other arguments, why not to resist evil in its any form. One argument was, that it will only get more powerful when opressed, like a string that gets more tension when pressed. I found in your methods something similiar to above, and also to oriental martial arts, namely Morihei Ueshiba's Aikido, and Chinese Taiji, where it is essential not to confront the force of the opponent directly. If you do so then it is a matter who is stronger, and in that case the stronger one wins. But Aikido/taiji way is to not take the force directly, but to go along it, not to resist it, and when going to same direction, then change the direction of the mutual flow of force. Of course there are other methods, like just stepping aside and letting the attacking force pass by. But also here, on the physical level, it is not very wise to confornt evil ( physical attack ) by resisting it.... Peace. aki korhonen. Oulu, Finland. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 01:33:02 -0500 (EST) From: John Mead Subject: Re: Lightning-struck Solar Plexus > comment that Christ gives an advice in His mountain preach, that > we should not resist evil. This 4th of 5 advice, has been very > poorly accepted and understood when I have spoken about it with > Christian people, laymen and theosophists. could you list these five commandments by Christ... It apparantly follows the sermon on the mount?? thanks -- john mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 02:27:33 -0500 (EST) From: John Mead Subject: masters could someone explain that if Paul Johnson's work is incorrect, then what is the correct interpretation of the Masters?? I'm confused. What is the logical/psychical correct viewpoint? can it be defended?? peace -- john mead p.s. curious From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 02:43:35 -0500 (EST) From: John Mead Subject: Re: Batty Theosophists hi - Nicholas seems to freely criticize. That may be well, but I am not familiar with his viewpoint? could you please explain the Masters in detail?? I'm not sure it is fair to criticize Paul when your own assumptions are hidden?? peace -- john mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 03:18:10 -0500 (EST) From: John Mead Subject: articles hi -- if you have sent me an article/essay which has not been inserted into the theos-l archives, I would like a reminder of such. I was under the weather for several days, and have lost track of these items. peace - john mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 12:00:50 +0200 (EET) From: Aki Korhonen Subject: Re: Lightning-struck Solar Plexus Hello John and the others. On Wed, 22 Mar 1995, John Mead wrote: You wrote: > could you list these five commandments by Christ... > It apparantly follows the sermon on the mount?? They are taken from the sermon on the mount, (I didn't know the correct english term for that part of the Bible). ( The part is in Matt. 6, if somebody want's to check.) The one point in these 5 advice or rules is, that they are in a ethical or in a moral form. Unlike the 10 commandements, which are such that you can sue them in most courts if you wish. Like don't kill, etc. But these new ones are left only between you and your conscience to deal with. Pekka Ervasti, the previously mentioned Finnish theosophist, says that the 10 comm. are of course prerequisite to these 5. But there is not too much spirtual merit if you only follow the 10 comm., that should be natural to a sivilized person. Of course it would be more than good, if people in general would follow even these 10 commandments. Also, the 10 commandments are from old testament, from Judaism and from their law, anyway, P.E. suggests that Christ reformed some old habits, among them these new ethical guidelines. They are: 1. Do not get angry. 2. Be pure in your thoughts. 3. Do not swear, or make oaths. 4. Do not resist evil. 5. Love your enemies. P.E. has wrote about these rules and their applications and occult reasons behind them in his many books. So if you are interested, I can take some quotations mainly from my memory, since I don't have all his books at hand. I like these moral advices, since they are kind of illogical if you think them by "normal" standards. They are not rules for getting succesful in a material world, so that suggest that they might really be worth studying. Peace. aki. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 8:55:59 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Hodson diaries > Does anyone know of any other fiction writers, past or present, > who have incorporated Theosophy into their works? Helen Yglesias wrote a 1987 novel about Krishnamurti called "The Saviors." There's F. Marion Crawford's "Mr. Isaacs"-- about the Masters (1882?), several Mabel Collins books, and.. well, others are probably answering too. So I'll stop with Kenneth Morris, a fantasy novelist, and Doris Lessing, whose Shikasta series is theosophical in the little-t sense although Sufism is her affiliation. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 05:57:05 -0800 From: theos@netcom.com (Theosophical Society) Subject: Re Mahatma Letters & G.H.'s Books from the Philippines For those who are interested, You can order the following books from QUEST BOOKS P.O. Box 270, Dept. M-179 Wheaton Il. 60189-0270, 1 (800) 669-9425 or QUEST BOOK STORE, (708) 665-0123: QUEST BOOK STORE THE MAHATMA LETTERS TO A.P. SINNETT, Chronological Sequence, Edited by Vicente Hao Chin Jr. Hardcover 600 pages LIGHT OF THE SANCTUARY by Geoffrey Hodson. Hardcover 619 pages. ILLUMINATIONS OF THE MYSTERY TRADITION Compiled by Sandra Hodson. Hardcover 346 pages. THE YOGIC ASCENT TO SPIRITUAL HEIGHTS by Geoffrey Hodson. Hardcover 278 pages. Shanti, Shanti, Shanti, Ruben Cabigting From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 05:57:08 -0800 From: theos@netcom.com (Theosophical Society) Subject: Re: Hodson diaries Ann asks. > Would very much like to see other extracts from GH's diaries. > Would this be available through Quest Book Store? > > - ann bermingham YES! The following books are available at the Quest Books, T.P.H. 1 (800) 669-9425; Monday - Friday, 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. central. Or at the Quest Book Store, (708) 665-0123 LIGHT OF THE SANCTUARY by Geoffrey Hodson ILLUMINATIONS OF THE MYSTERY TRADITION by Geoffrey Hodson THE YOGIC ASCENT TO SPIRITUAL HIEIGHTS by Geoffrey Hodson THE MAHATMA LETTERS TO A.P. SINNETT. Chronological sequence, edited by Vicente Hao Chin Jr. ruben From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 06:17:30 -0800 From: ruben@netcom.com (Ruben Cabigting) Subject: Re: Hodson diaries Ann asks, > Would very much like to see other extracts from GH's diaries. > Would this be available through Quest Book Store? - ann bermingham Affirmative, in fact there are three diary books of Hodsons in the Quest Book Store as follows: LIGHT OF THE SANCTUARY, ILLUMINATIONS OF THE MYSTERY TRADITION, AND THE YOGIC ASCENT TO SPIRITUAL HEIGHTS. Liesel asks previously about the availability of the MAHATMA LETTERS TO A.P. SINNETT in chronological sequence. Yes it is also available in Quest Book Store or Quest Books. Tel: 1 (800) 669-9425 or (708) 665-0123. Shanti, Ruben From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 09:00:55 -0600 From: Arthur_PattersonA@mbnet.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: Lightning-struck Solar Plexus Paul, I totally agree with your strategy of allowing yourself to feel the pain of criticism rather than repress it. I have been responding to the postings around this issue because I have not read your book or much on the Mahatma's at all. But I felt it very necessary to make an observation about criticism. I really am tired of academics trying to play the machismo game of not being bothered by criticism, or even inviting it, but inwardly being wounded. Anyone who shows sensitivity to criticism is deemed a whimp and shouldn't be playing hard ball. This is patriarchy at its worst. I have two Masters degrees, no great feat for anyone who has learned to conform, and experienced this in grad seminars. When I suggested that instead of calling responses to the papers Criticism it might be better to talk about enhancement or furtherance I was seen as too soft. All the talk about intellectual integrity and scholarly precision looses its authenticity when "truth", notice the lower case here, is substituted for Love. I don't object to real honesty rooted in building a work up but the callous criticism I have seen even on line here is heart wrenching - it rips the heart out of good intentions , inhibits risk taking and adventure in the name of some abtract "objectivity". Most of time this sort of criticism is not objective at all but attempts to play psycho-analyst through attributing motive to authors without a thorough understanding of them. I would love to hear an enhancement of Paul's work by those who are learned rather than an emotional reaction. I know that this post is flame bait... and is likely to be criticized for being judgemental but my intentions are to remind us all that fine tuning our criticism would do no one harm and everyone would benefit from a covenant of enhancement. Toward Consciousness, Art From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 09:33:08 -0800 From: ae677@lafn.org (Nancy Coker) Subject: Criticizing Critics 3/22 Thank you Art, for unveiling the ANALYZING process and pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes. Our ability to think critically is helpful as a check and balance to our other abilities, unchecked and left to its own devices it might fly off into the most absurd fanaticism. Doesn't the Eye Doctrine need the Heart Doctrine? It may be that in order to be God-like one must develop critical thinking, but that is not to make a God of the process of analysis. I recently came across this John Ruskin quote in an old issue of SUNRISE magazine, and had to gulp twice in recognition and admission I repeat it here, not in any way finger pointing: There are three weighty matters of law -- justice, mercy and truth: and of these the Teacher puts truth last, because that cannot be known but by a course of acts of justice and love. But men put, in all their efforts truth first, because they mean by it their own opinions; and thus, while the world has many people who would suffer martyrdom in the cause of what they call truth, it has few who will suffer even a little inconvenience in that of justice and mercy. Cheers Nancy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Mar 1995 14:22:56 EST From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Comments on the flaming of Paul's book Aki: <4. Do not resist evil.> This has to do with turning the other cheek, an idea that never caught on with Christians. It means returning abuse with love, and is a whole lot harder to practice than one would think. Aki - thanks for the five rules. They help remind us that Jesus was a Master too. John M: You just hit a nerve John. None of Paul J's critics have tried to answer this one here (but I would have thought that theos-Roots would have the details by now!). My hope was that all history buffs, pro and con Paul J's book, would get together on Theos- Roots and hash this out between them. We have all heard a lot about where Paul was wrong, but nothing about what really did happen or who the real Masters were (which no one knows with certainty, but at least Paul J took a reasonable stab at it). Art: < my intentions are to remind us all that fine tuning our criticism would do no one harm and everyone would benefit from a covenant of enhancement.> Amen, Art. Loved your posting. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 15:23:13 -0500 (EST) From: John Mead Subject: Re: Comments on the flaming of Paul's book John M: > You just hit a nerve John. None of Paul J's critics have tried > to answer this one here (but I would have thought that > theos-Roots would have the details by now!). My hope was that > all history buffs, pro and con Paul J's book, would get together > on Theos- Roots and hash this out between them. We have all > heard a lot about where Paul was wrong, but nothing about what > really did happen or who the real Masters were (which no one > knows with certainty, but at least Paul J took a reasonable stab > at it). jerry -- you see my point correctly. The critics have an easy time attacking Paul since he has spent so much effort in writing out his ideas. (several hundreds of pages) the others have not a word to say, other than what is not correct. So -- where are the critic's alternatives?? can they send out any statements/arguements which we can judge?? they seem mysteriously silent. Perhaps their opinion is even less well-founded than Paul's ?? peace -- john e. m. jem@vnet.net From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 21:40:55 +1100 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: Re: Re Mahatma Letters & G.H.'s Books from the Philippines theos@netcom.com (Theosophical Society) writes: > THE YOGIC ASCENT TO SPIRITUAL HEIGHTS by Geoffrey Hodson. > Hardcover 278 pages. I would like to state that this work is especially valuable for one who is seriously into meditation. Although it is a compilation, it contains incredible insight which accords with experience of other meditators I know. Highly recommended. Also, it is written in a highly impersonal style, without any "channelled" material, so represents an excellent counter-weight to the far more personal material in his diaries. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 21:44:32 +1100 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: Re: Comments on the flaming of Paul's book Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> writes: > Roots and hash this out between them. We have all heard a lot > about where Paul was wrong, but nothing about what really did > happen or who the real Masters were (which no one knows with > certainty, but at least Paul J took a reasonable stab at it). I haven't seen Paul J.'s book, so cannot comment on it, but offered the Hodson material as a more subjective approach to the continued reality of the Masters and their inspiration of the T.S. I feel it _is_ valuable to debate who they were, but more importantly, _what_ they are, and the implications this has for us today. The masters themselves suggest that they should not be considered as personalities, but rather as the Principle behind. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 18:38:37 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Re: "Oh, No! One More Rep... Dear Paul, This reply is a little late. I just got out of the hospital this PM. I think it would be great, if you transcribed some of Hodson's writings which fit in here. Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 19:16:19 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Harry Van Gelder Harry Van Gelder is also survived by his wife, Marie Van Gelder, a woman who valiantly stood at his side, & helped & supported his every move during the latter part of his life. Harry & Marie lived in Portland Oregon, before they moved to Australia. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 19:18:00 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Batty Theosophists Seriously, Nicholas, I think your postings are hostile, and I'm far beyond my very insulated childhood. I wish you'd stop it. I don't agree with Paul's point of view either, at all, but what's the use of what you're doing? Barbs like that hurt you as much as they do him, if you've ever read CWL, et al., like "Thought Forms" you'd realize. Nasty barbs hurt the sender as much as they do the receiver. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 00:15:28 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Comments on the flaming of Paul's book In message <950322192255_76400.1474_HHL26-1@CompuServe.COM> theos-l@vnet.net writes: You just hit a nerve John. > We have all heard a lot about where Paul was wrong, but nothing > about what really did happen or who the real Masters were (which > no one knows with certainty, but at least Paul J took a > reasonable stab at it). > Jerry S. One associate of mine is _convinced_ (He's away right now, but I will ask for backup :-)) that HPB wrote (most of?) the Mahatma Letters to Sinnet. THe argument is, if I recall correctly, that no one would have taken notice of the writings of an obscure Russian woman in the 1870s, however wise she was, or however much she had to offer the world (which was quite a lot!). By doing it this way (the argument runs) she got her hearing in a man's world and found an honorable place in it as well. No flames please - I am reporting someone else's views, but someone who is well versed in theosophical history as well. I will try to get him to write something up to offer backup for his views and post the same to the list (or lists, as appropriate). My reason for, if you like, "jumping the gun" on this one is that I too have wondered what all this is supposed to be about, and I STILL am firmly convinced that it not who the Masters (or anyone else) _really_ were or are that matters, but whether of not *what was written is worth taking seriously*. It was, it is, and will remain so. _Theosophia_ is divine wisdom whoever writes it down. [Goes to quiet room to gibber quietly alone] Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 19:44:02 -0500 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: Lightning-struck Solar Pl... Paul, my prediction is that you will never find a method--thick skin, thi= n skin, or whatever--to deal with UNEXPECTED hostility after it has come yo= ur way. If we could somehow easily dissolve the consequences of imperfect Mindfulness, there would be no need to perfect Mindfulness, would there? Here are a couple possibilities to consider: = 1. Perhaps you were not fully Mindful of how threatening the writing of = a book like THE MASTERS REVEALED could be to certain individuals. 2. Perhaps you were not fully Mindful of how easily some of these individuals could give themselves permission to be unkind. If you had been fully Mindful of these things--but nevertheless chose to write the book and interact with these individuals afterwards--you might = have EXPECTED everything which has been coming in your direction. You might h= ave even been satisfied in a perverse sort of way--since you would just be receiving something you had EXPECTED, after all. Now, of course, you have some =93karma=94 to deal with. You can choose t= o fight back and forth, trying to think of good responses to ever-evermore sniden= ess following evermore snideness, or you can just quit. If I were you, I thi= nk I would just quit. If people want to talk to you about your book, let them= first qualify themselves as meditation-developed theosophists by being ab= le to maintain at least a minimal standard of courtesy and kindness. EXPECT that the majority of on-lookers will understand and commend your silence. . . . Best wishes, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 20:19:53 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Comments on the flaming o... I said some time way in the beginning what _i_ thought the Masters were. I guess it bears repeating. First off, I believe they were adepts, initiates, human beings with wisdom, powers, & ethics far beyond that of today's humanity. Second off, I believe that their main mission in communicating with some of us was to teach "The Ancient Wisdom". I imagine them to be very advanced, skilled shamans, of the kind that Harry Van Gelder was, and Serge King is... others who don't like to be mentioned. Harry once waved me a cheery ESP "good-bye". I had been to see him, in Portland Ore. for treatment, and was taking off to the airport in a minibus. Suddenly, very unexplainedly, the lights in the bus blinked off & on, off & on, repeatedly, for several minutes, to the consternation of the driver, who was trying in vain to stop the blinking, in all sorts of technical ways. Think of it what you will, I believe it was Harry wishing me a safe journey home, blinky, blinky. That's the kind of tricks shamans can do, when they're playing, Serge did a few similar tricks at the workshop I attended. I believe this kind of playing includes preicpitating a letter, or a tea cup, or whatever. But it's playing, & not nearly as important as the communication of "The Ancient Wisdom", with all its attendant attributes. Liesel. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 22:00:00 -0500 From: "William Allen" Subject: Re: Comments on the flaming o... > whatever. But it's playing, & not nearly as important as the > communication of "The Ancient Wisdom", with all its attendant > attributes. Hospital or no, you are in great form! Good letter. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 22:01:17 -0500 (EST) From: IXCHEL@delphi.com Subject: If the shoe fits... I think an interesting point is being brought out con- cerning how to respond or not respond to a personal challenge. It seems the very essence of Theosophy and the purpose behind religion can be revealed in a discussion such as this. Theosophy claims that humanity is evolving through phases of development and that at this point we are in the fourth round and fifth race of this proces- sion forward. In much time to come we shall be passing into fields of experience where a more spiritual nature or response will be the order of the "day." It is my understanding then that we are now in a tran- sitional stage whereby we might learn methods of be- havior that are or will be conducive to a superior state of being and acting. It is also my understanding that individuals such as Buddha and Christ and others were extraordinary persons incarnated to assist "ordin- ary" persons on the details of how to actual overcome the shortcomings still inherent within us due to that fact we are still in the middle phase of our develop- ment. The Sermon on the Mount, I believe, is extremely deep in the direction that is given. However, there is dif- ficulty in an understanding of its content when one only gives it a cursory reading. For instance: What does "blessed are those who _mourn_ for they shall be comforted" really mean? And what will the blessed who "hunger and thirst after righteousness" be filled with? I think there is much more to those teachings than what is actually found in print. The discussion on anger that "Jesus" makes, parallels the teachings of Buddha when he was said to have said, "Hatred is not appeased by hatred, hatred is appeased by not hatred only." The I Ching as well points out that, "He does not hate him, for hatred is a form of subjective involvement by which we are bound to the hated object." Anger and hatred are emotional states that cause us to act in ways that most often we regret. Some of us can take a good look at ourselves and _mourn_ over our in- ability to perform according to the higher Buddhi state of consciousness which we perceive through the light of our own conscience. Then there are those who are in denial that persistently project the cause of the "problem" onto the other person. These are angry people who's anger and state of judgment blind them from seeing their own shortcomings. This is the myster- ious nature of anger, hatred and judgment. The ego justifies its superiority by comparing itself to someone else's "flaws." This is the "sickness" of the principle of Kama. This is that which needs to be under- stood and overcome by "following" the MASTERS: those who have MASTERED their passions and who have found a way to leave the emotional reactions behind--those who have achieved a state of being where forgiveness means they no longer need to react to challenging provocation by becoming upset (ego threatened). They well know that this planet is inhabited by unfinished beings and they are not surprised when their "enemies are they of their own household." Among theosophical and other literature there are hints and instructions given to those who have the guts to acknowledge that Heart doctrines take precedence over Eye doctrines and try to live accordingly. But the details of how to actually gain a measure of control over the emotional Kama state are fragmented and scat- tered so that even those who have a major part of the puzzle formed are yet missing some vital pieces. I contend, that although the minds are deep, the wall is deeper still..................................Sarah. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Mar 1995 23:08:14 EST From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: RE: Flaming comments > . . . I STILL am firmly convinced that it not who the Masters > (or anyone else) _really_ were or are that matters, but whether > of not *what was written is worth taking seriously*. It was, it > is, and will remain so. _Theosophia_ is divine wisdom whoever > writes it down. I've been trying to think of a way to put just that thought into words. You probably did a better job, anyway. I send you a hearty round of applause. - ann bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 23:51:18 -0500 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: Lightning-struck Solar Pl... (Second try with more Mindfulness. . .) Paul, my prediction is that you will never find a method--thick skin, thin skin, or whatever--to deal with UNEXPECTED hostility after it has come your way. If we could somehow easily dissolve the consequences of imperfect Mindfulness, there would be no need to perfect Mindfulness, would there? Here are a couple of possibilities to consider: 1. Perhaps you were not fully Mindful of how threatening the writing of a book like THE MASTERS REVEALED could be to certain individuals. 2. Perhaps you were not fully Mindful of how easily some of these individuals could give themselves permission to be unkind. If you had been fully Mindful of these things--but nevertheless chose to write the book and intereact with these individuals afterwards--you might have EXPECTED everything which has been coming in your direction. You might have even been satisfied in a perverse sort of way--since you would just be receiving something you had EXPECTED, after all. Now, of course, you have some "karma" to deal with. You can choose to fight back and forth, trying to think of good responses to ever-evermore snideness following evermore snideness, or you can just quit. If I were you, I think I would just quit. If people want to talk to you about your book, let them first qualify themselves as meditation-developed thesophists by being able to maintain at least a minimal standard of courtesy and kindness. EXPECT that the majority of on-lookers will understand and commend your silence. . . . Best wishes, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Mar 1995 20:05:40 EST From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: Cambell and the power of myth and art (for me) This and one more post will be the end of my harangue on art and theosophy (for now). These formulas are not meant to be "in stone" but to simplify, yes, maybe oversimplify: 1) Symbol = mathmatical "truth" (science) 2) Symbol = logical "truth" (philosophy) 3) Symbol = scriptural "truth" (religion) on art we going to make it more complex, because that is what we are talking about: 4) Symbol = myth = art = "lie" 5) Symbol = myth = art = psychological, phenomenological, intuitive etc "truth" 4 and 5 are the biggies. I use quotation marks around "truth" and "lie" becaue I know you can't ever define them in any ultimate sense so let's not waste time trying, let's stick to theosophy and art. I'm sure many saw Joseph Cambell's "The Power of Myth". I think Cambell got around the problem of 4 and 5 by using the term "power", and its a good thing too. Jung used the same idea about the power of the archetypes. They have no outside existence, but they sure have power in our lives as much as science, religion and philosophy ever will, This saves a lot of headaches. Do you remember the way Bill Moyers would interview Joseph Cambell? Well, this is not meant as a literal recreation but if my memory serves me right, it went something like this (week after week): BM: You're not saying that there is power in myth the way there is power in science are you? JC: Well yes, but in a different way. BM: But it's hard for a Baptist boy like me brought up in the south to believing in the scriptures that I should treat the myths of other countries with the same respect. JC: Well yes, you see . . . BM: Well I really like that strory about Krishna and Arjuna (my memory fails me), it was really exciting and somehow marvelous, but you don't really mean that this story is somehow real or true? JC: Well, yes, but the truth is not objective or outter, it is inner and symbolic, but powerful nonetheless (OK, this is unfair to both parties, but this is not meant as a transcript of any kind but my personal reaction to Bill Moyers, playing dumb for all the poor groundlings in America who just might not get it the way they get the "reality" and "truth" of football plays and the like.) Well the same can be said for the power of art. It's not something you can touch, but it's effects are something you can see. In fact, the problem is art is so powerful, it is easily abused and we hardly notice, as in Nazi Germany, advertising, MTV (Beavis and Butthead are heroes to a generation, now that's art and that's a little too real), church ritual, a veritable four act play with music and sets. So the problem isn't art, but the idea"only, merely, just" art and that art is somehow less than the other domains. Namste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Mar 1995 20:06:03 EST From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: Art is Lie, a humble satire The following like all art is a lie. Any resemblance to persons or organizations living, dead or dieing is purely coincidental (except for HPB). Fasten your seatbelts! Let's create an imaginary discussion of theos-l a la the one Bill Moyers had with Joseph Campbell on TV about the power of myth. The interviewer is Pat Not-Moyers (of indetrminate sex), hereafter referred to as PN and Keith Not-Price, hereafter referred to as KN. PN: Well, I can't say I liked your long winded discussion of art and spirituality. It was a compete waste of my time. Why didn't you focus on something important like the truth in the "The Secret Doctine" of "The Mahatma Letters". KN: Well actually I was coming to that. It finally occured to me that the reason why HPB eschewed a discussion of art and why she didn't include it in the synthesis is that this was her greatest unconscious fear. PN: What the heck do you mean? KN: That "The Secret Doctrine" would be labeled art. That is something made up like a novel to amuse children. That she didn't really have any Senzar palm leaves or hear voices of the Masters, but was very skillfully creating her own Gnostic system (as Jung suggests, see collected works CGJ). The Gnostic's (as their very successful critics pointed out) created a new Gospel of Christ everyday right out of their heads and in fact were expected to do so. PN: Well did she have the palm leaves and hear the voices or not? KN: You know I have no idea and I really don't care. "The Secret Doctine" either stands or falls on its own merits not on any palm leaves or voices. PN: You can't really me saying that the SD is only a myth. KN: Why only? PN: Let me get this straight, you're saying that the SD is not historical fact, but a work of art, a lie. KN: Well again, I really don't know and I really don't care. The SD is obviously the greatest occult work to date, why label it? PN: But you can't really be saying that history about Lemuria and Atlantis is just a moral fable. KN: Well, let me put it to you this way. I really don't know and I really don't care. There are obviously great lessons to be learned if one looks. PN: But you can't be trying to tell us that the Stanza of Dzhan are just a fairy tale. KN: How can I phrase it? I really don't know and I really don't care. The Stanzas open the eye of intuiton to the collective unconcious where the storehouse of all humanity's encoded wisdom lies. Some can access this wisdom easier than others. Some call these people Masters, some call them artists, some call them liers. PN: Aren't you saying something very dangerous? What if everyone thought this way? KN: Let me just give you the first letter of each word to save time. IRDKAIRDC. What so dangerous about a modern perspective. After Jung and Campbell and others most people are comfortable with the idea that things don't have to be literally true to contain important information about our humanity, where we came from, where we are at, and where we are going. PN: But shouldn't we keep up a front. I mean what if people found out that the "Secret Doctrine" is only a heavily researched creation of HPB and cannot claim a higher authority. KN: IRDKAIRDC. With what 10,000 mebers (a generous figure), I don't really think we are going to get many more seekers by bringing up percipitated teacups and letters that fell from the ceiling or that were discovered in chests with false backs. Do you? PN: Well, we can't backtrack now. We have a tradition to uphold! We must remember who we are? KN: Who are we? PN: People with a claim to a higher authority? KN: Well, you know you might be right. It works for the Catholics and Islamics. PN: Yes, we must not have any talk of art. That's the worst. We must not utter its name. People back in the 1800's knew that art is for idleness and entertainment. Today it is the opiate of the masses. Who could place any importance on art. KN: You know I've come over to your side. Art is lie. We must not breath its name in the same breath as theosophy ever again. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 07:22:25 +1100 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: A spoonful of sugar... LieselFD@aol.com writes: But it's playing, & not nearly as important as the communication of "The Ancient Wisdom", with all its attendant attributes. I agree that this is an attribute of such beings. In fact, I think that a certain humour is an integral part of many such activities -- a light heartedness which is always kindly and perceptive. Some personal experiences (not mine) lead me to think that this is far more common than we might expect. Another example of an advanced being living in the world, teaching the ageless wisdom and using "tricks" is Sai Baba, who describes his various materializations as "lila", or games, which catch the attention of the mind so that it might be receptive to deeper teachings. After all, who wants to imbibe undiluted moral philosophy? Wasn't it that great sage, M. Poppins, who declared that "a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down... " :-) Paul Gillingwater From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 09:16:22 -0600 From: Arthur_PattersonA@mbnet.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: The Symbolic and the Real Dear Keith et al, I found your post on art very helpful and clarifying. I added my few comments below. In fact I joined your imaginary conversation. I think what is interesting is that in the end the whole debate of the historicity of the Mahatma's brings up the old debates on the Historical Jesus. I answered that in the same way as your imaginary guest does. I think it is only responsible for us to attempt to translate theosophy into modern dress without loosing it essence. I look forward to the comments of other on these possiblies. Thank You Keith. Keith: Jung used the same idea about the power of the archetypes. They have no outside existence, but they sure have power in our lives as much as science, religion and philosophy ever will, This saves a lot of headaches. Art: I am not sure Jung was saying that they have no existence but rather that our capacity to know directly is limited so therefore metaphysical statements must all be relative. I call this hermeneutical agnosticism and consider it a humble approach to any symbol. I think that the human apparatus is insufficient to be exposed to the archetypes directly so they are mediated through "archetypal images'. This is where art comes in in my opinion. If you want to explore the possibility of immediate contact with the archetypes try Place of the Lion by Charles Williams. The archetypes become real and enter space time reality to dumbfound an academic. JC: Well, yes, but the truth is not objective or outter, it is inner and symbolic, but powerful nonetheless (OK, this is unfair to both parties, but this is not meant as a transcript of any kind but my personal reaction to Bill Moyers, playing dumb for all the poor groundlings in America who just might not get it the way they get the "reality" and "truth" of football plays and the like.) Well the same can be said for the power of art. It's not something you can touch, but it's effects are something you can see. In fact, the problem is art is so powerful, it is easily abused and we hardly notice, as in Nazi Germany, advertising, MTV (Beavis and Butthead are heroes to a generation, now that's art and that's a little too real), church ritual, a veritable four act play with music and sets. So the problem isn't art, but the idea"only, merely, just" art and that art is somehow less than the other domains. Art: To put in another way I would suggest that art is a mediator of archetypes of the human consciousness. PN: Well, I can't say I liked your long winded discussion of art and spirituality. It was a compete waste of my time. Why didn't you focus on something important like the truth in the "The Secret Doctine" of "The Mahatma Letters". KN: Well actually I was coming to that. It finally occured to me that the reason why HPB eschewed a discussion of art and why she didn't include it in the synthesis is that this was her greatest unconscious fear. Art: Was is fear of that she was so close to the archetypes that she couldn't differentiate? Was is possible that HPB was primarily an artist and you know the sort of damage it does for an artist to become a theorist of art. I think she would have become terribly reductionist if she were to dissect art rather than live it. PN: What the heck do you mean? KN: That "The Secret Doctrine" would be labeled art. That is something made up like a novel to amuse children. That she didn't really have any Senzar palm leaves or hear voices of the Masters, but was very skillfully creating her own Gnostic system (as Jung suggests, see collected works CGJ). The Gnostic's (as their very successful critics pointed out) created a new Gospel of Christ everyday right out of their heads and in fact were expected to do so. PN: Well did she have the palm leaves and hear the voices or not? Art: This is the same as the child asking the question how did the dinosaurs get on Noah's ark? The teenager asks if Adam and Eve were anthropoids and the adult asks if the miracles "happened" in space and time. All these are examples of literal hermeneutics applied to myth and symbol. KN: You know I have no idea and I really don't care. "The Secret Doctine" either stands or falls on its own merits not on any palm leaves or voices. Art: This is the same arguement that could be used for any Scripture: Hindu, Christian or Muslim. Does the Scripture evoke the archetype and does the read participate in some way with what they are reading. PN: Let me get this straight, you're saying that the SD is not historical fact, but a work of art, a lie. KN: Well again, I really don't know and I really don't care. The SD is obviously the greatest occult work to date, why label it? PN: But you can't really be saying that history about Lemuria and Atlantis is just a moral fable. Art: There are intriguing theories that suggest the actual existence of Atlantis and they can be explored with interest. But this is not to say that my experience of Atlantis or the concept behind it is contingent on literal reality. A healthy agnosticism concerning Atlantis is I think required as a faith perserver otherwise theosophy becomes just another fundamentalism. PN: But you can't be trying to tell us that the Stanza of Dzhan are just a fairy tale. KN: How can I phrase it? I really don't know and I really don't care. The Stanzas open the eye of intuiton to the collective unconcious where the storehouse of all humanity's encoded wisdom lies. Some can access this wisdom easier than others. Some call these people Masters, some call them artists, some call them liers. Art: Some are peasants others are academics others are saints. In a negative way some are mad men and women, cult leaders and charismatic leaders. All of us have a degree of connection to the archetype stewarding the gift, exploring it, and using it are responsibilites that we have to take serious. The inner Teacher as someone has said on line is much more important that what appears as an external authority. Perhaps the Mahatmas were hte inner teachers of HPB that she projected on a group of Tibetan sages. That way Paul would be right and so would those who see the Mahatmas as more supra-historical. Both and not either or suits me fine. PN: But shouldn't we keep up a front. I mean what if people found out that the "Secret Doctrine" is only a heavily researched creation of HPB and cannot claim a higher authority. Art: It is back to the ol authority problem is it? Authority meaning to bind. What are we bound to? I think the best authority is inner and self authenticating not external and second hand. What is your experience of the Secret Doctrine as you read it? We can be intrigued by what HPB thought and felt as she wrote it. We can even participate in some of the quality of that experience but what is the Secret Doctrine do for you, now? I am sure that HPB wouldn't appreciate a parroting approach so her work is open to critical thought. KN: IRDKAIRDC. With what 10,000 mebers (a generous figure), I don't really think we are going to get many more seekers by bringing up percipitated teacups and letters that fell from the ceiling or that were discovered in chests with false backs. Do you? Art: I remember when Charles Templeton wrote a book in the seventies concerning find ing the bones of Jesus. The question concerned whether faith would disappear for Christendom or not. Of course if you are a rationalist or a materialist there would be no faith after the finding of those bleached bones but what about those who have a living relationship to the Christ archetype. There would undoubtedly be a bump in the road a few pots and pans would fall off the faith cart but it would not be the end. Reconfiguring faith might breath life into the dead recitation of dogma. Could this not be possibly true in Theosophy? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Mar 1995 13:46:27 EST From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re Alan Alan: Amen. When I began theosophy, I too was convinced that she wrote the ML and made up the Masters. But I really didn't care. Nowdays I am undecided. I agree with Paul J in that she doubtless communicated with numerous living Adepts as she traveled over the world. And she read a lot. And I accept the possibility of Masters just as she describes them (while holding a small jar of salt in my hand). But it is the message that counts, not the messenger. Jerry S. PS. I will join you in the Quite Room where we can jibber together. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Mar 1995 13:47:07 EST From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re to Paul G. Paul G: I don't disagree with you Paul. I agree that such a debate is important. I simply suggested that history buffs who want to argue about WHO the Masters were can do so in Theos-Roots, which John thoughtfully set aside for such things. As far as WHAT the Masters are, we have been discussing this on Theos-L for some time, as is proper. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Mar 1995 13:46:02 EST From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Moral Development The Three Levels of Moral Development. Jesus' charge to us that we should not resist evil makes little sense until we arrive at the third level of moral development. Although I have already discussed this before, I hope readers will bear with me once again, and I will try to tie up some loose ends and put it all together. I will connect the three levels and seven stages of moral development given by Lawrence Kohlberg, the psychological pioneer of modern moral development theory, with the three stages or levels of moral development according to occultism. Level 1. Development of Morals and Ethics. This level is absolutely critical, and must be gone through in order for any lasting degree of spiritual progress. We simply must develope a moral sense, and a system of ethics and ethical behaviors. Virtually all religions agree to this. Level 1 is Kohlberg's Preconventional Level. It has two stages. The first stage is punishment and obedience, where rules are followed in order to avoid punishment. At this stage we do good in order to get into heaven after we die, or in order to obtain merit or good karma. Please take note: doing good to others in order to obtain good karma is the very first stage of moral development. In the second stage, "right" is defined in terms of satisfying one's own needs or attaining rewards. In the second stage, we will help others only in return for some favor or reward. Although occultism recognizes the importance of this level, it stresses the need to go on to Level 2. Level 2. Development of Compassion. After some degree of moral development has been attained we must start developing compassion and concern for others. This is Kohlberg's Conventional Level. In this level laws take precedence over the needs of individuals. It has two stages. In stage three, we do whatever pleases our friends in order to obtain their approval. In stage four "right" is seen as doing one's duty and we have the desire to show respect for authority. In level 2, we recognize others, and we begin to adapt our needs to those of other people. Occultism stresses the need for this level, because compassion and selflessness are absolutely essential to further progress on the Path without going down the slippery road to Black Magic. Black Magic, by most definitions, comes about when we develop psychically without a corresponding moral development. The Tibetans use the technique of Tonglen' to develop compassion (see THE TIBETAN BOOK OF LIVING AND DYING for an excellent description of Tonglen). Level 3. Letting Go of Right and Wrong. After developing morals and compassion, we are now in the position of letting our sense of right and wrong simply drop away. We must do this in order to act spontaneously. In this level, our spontaneous actions are always the "right" thing to do in any situation, because we have already gone through the first two levels. This is Kohlberg's Postconventional Level. Kohlberg gives three stages for this level. In stage five laws are seen to be beneficial to society and if they are unfair, they can be changed. In stage six "right" is seen according to self-chosen abstract ethical principles like the Golden Rule rather than specific ones like the ten commandments. In level seven "right" is defined in terms of cosmic unity. In this level we are letting go of specific laws or rules of conduct, and instead are adopting general ones. For example, if we really love people, then when a specific situation arises we will automatically do the "right" thing. The right thing for one instance may be wrong in another instance. So, in this level we develop what has been called situation ethics, which eventually leads to what can be called amorality in the sense that our actions are beyond any specific moral sense of mandatory rules and regulations. Love is seen to be a higher calling than man-made laws, for example. Psychological note. Kohlberg generated his scale and his findings using males. Carol Gilligan has argued that women differ somewhat from men in their attitudes. For example, most 16-year-old boys score at stage 4 on Kohlbergs's scale, while most 16-year-old girls score at stage 3. Gilligan argues that girls care more about social responsibilities while boys care more about individual rights, and therefore girls are not really less moral than boys. Most psychologists today agree with Gilligan. So, while there is room to fudge a bit, the overall structure of moral development given by Kohlberg and occultism is a reasonably fixed one for most of us. TS note. The TSs agree with the importance of Levels 1 and 2. All TSs emphasize the development of morals and compassion. An abundance of literature tells us to work on our karma and to make a better future life for ourselves (Stage 1 of Level 1). All TSs emphasize the need for compassion, though seldom telling us why, other than pointing out that progress without compassion leads us down the road to the Black Brotherhood. There are other reasons; the main one having to do with crossing the Abyss, which none of the TSs want to go into. No TS, that I am aware of, emphasizes or even recognizes Level 3. Why? Probably because of the danger involved - Level 3 only works if you have already successfully passed through the first two levels. In the old days, one would work under a guru or Teacher who would make the determination that one was ready for Level 3. Nowdays most of us must work for ourselves, or with books for guidance. When we say to ourselves "OK, I have developed a moral sense of right and wrong and I have compassion and concern for others, so now I am ready to drop what is right and wrong and to act spontaneously" how will we ever know if our ego is conning us or if we are really ready? I know of no easy answer to that one. Perhaps advancement to Level 3 should occur naturally and unconsciously? General Comment. Wherever we individually are on the moral scale of development, it is important as theosophists to be aware of all three levels. There is nothing wrong, per se, with doing good deeds in order to improve our karma and to get a better future life. But we should be aware that such motives place us at the first level of development, and that eventually we may want to broaden our motives to include others. At some point in our development we should be aware of the need to recognize that good and evil may be two sides of the same coin. After years, and even lifetimes, of grasping for the good and of resisting evil, we may recognize that we are, in effect, like a dog chasing after its own tail and that perhaps there is a better way. At that point, the thought may come to us that if we stop trying to be good and stop trying to avoid evil, and that if we just let both of them go from our thinking, we may be a lot better off. If we then carry this out, effortlessly, we just may find ourselves somewhere in Level 3. It is probably unnecessary for me to point out here that every true Adept has reached Level 3, but that reaching Level 3 does NOT automatically make one an Adept. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 14:07:42 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: What Matters about the Masters According to Dr. A.M.Bain: > My reason for, if you like, "jumping the gun" on this one is that > I too have wondered what all this is supposed to be about, and I > STILL am firmly convinced that it not who the Masters (or anyone > else) _really_ were or are that matters, but whether of not *what > was written is worth taking seriously*. It was, it is, and will > remain so. _Theosophia_ is divine wisdom whoever writes it down. Usually, it is a good idea to beware any formulation that says a) doesn't really matter, b) does. This implies an either/or approach that from the outset excludes the middle possibility-- that both matter, but in different ways. My observation is that HPB's writings have not been taken nearly seriously enough outside the TS precisely because of distrust about their alleged sources. While I doubt anyone will figure out exactly who wrote the Mahatma letters or how, it is possible to establish that HPB knew what she was writing about. To show, as TMR does, that she was closely linked to the most learned experts of her time in such diverse fields as Masonry, Rosicrucianism, Sufism, the Vedas, the Vedanta, Theravada Buddhism, Tibetan Mahayana Buddhism, Sikhism, Spiritualism... is to establish her as at least worth considering as a serious author. Whereas the consensus of non-Theosophical writers that she invented the Masters and wrote self-deluded channeling material, with no scholarly legitimacy, has prevented her writings from being appreciated properly. In short, you are right that it doesn't matter exactly who the Masters were, and moreover her writings' value is the same regardless of where they came from. But the fact that her teachings were derived from real teachers, and that she knew whereof she wrote, IS important to the goal of getting humanity to listen to her wisdom. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 14:11:09 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Comments on the flaming of Paul's book According to John Mead: > > John M: > incorrect, then what is the correct interpretation of the > > Masters??> > > > jerry -- > > you see my point correctly. The critics have an easy time > attacking Paul since he has spent so much effort in writing out > his ideas. (several hundreds of pages) > > the others have not a word to say, other than what is not > correct. > > So -- where are the critic's alternatives?? can they send out any > statements/arguements which we can judge?? they seem mysteriously > silent. Perhaps their opinion is even less well-founded than > Paul's ?? > > peace -- > > john e. m. > jem@vnet.net I have some thoughts on all this which I will write and save, but rather than forward to all subscribers, I'll just send to John and Jerry, and upon request to anyone who's interested. Namaste. Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 17:16:31 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Batting Theosophists To add to Murray's post, here's a quote from a small pamphlet Serge King puts out in which he describes what he calls "Blessing". Blessing consists of any kind of positive thought you can send to another person. The pamphlet is called "The Aloha Spirit" " aloha's "deeper meaning is ' the joyful sharing of life energy in the prese nt'. "As you share this energy you become attuned to the Divine Power that the hawaiians call mana (prana, chi etc.) And the loving use of this incredible power is the secret for attaining true health, happiness, prosperity, and success. "The way to tune into the Power and have it work for you is so simple that you might be tempted to pass it off as being too easy to be true. Please don't let yourself be fooled by appearances. "This is the most powerful technique in the world, and althought it is extremely simple it may not prove easy," (It takes conscious practice to do it at first) "because you must remember to do it and you have to do it a lot. It is a secret which has been given to humanity over & over again, and here it is once more in another form. The secret is this: "BLESS EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING THAT REPRESENTS WHAT YOU WANT! "That's all there is to it. "Anything that simple, however, does need some explanation. "To bless something means to give recongnition or emphasis to a positive quality, characteristic or condition, with the intent that what is recognized or empphasized will increase, endure or come into being. "Blessing is effective in changing your life or getting what you want for 3 re asons: "first of all, the positive focus of your mind stirs up the positive creative force of the Power. "Secondly, it moves your own energy outward, allowing more of the Power to come through you. Thirdly, when you bless for the benefit of others, instead of directly for yourself you tend to by pass any subconscious fears about what you want for yourself, and also the very focus on the blessing acts to increase the same good in your life. What is so beautiful about this process is that the blessing you do for others helps them as well as you." In another place Serge says that at the same time you should try to stop cursing, ie say & think negative thoughts about other people as much as you can, because they have just the opposite effect. Desperation blessing "when he breathes out, he nourishes the flora & fauna." Or Serge said he once had a lawyer & the only thing he found to bless in him was his ability to get Serge's goat. For copies of the pamphlet "The Aloha Spirit", write to Aloha, Int., Box 599, Kapaa Hi., 96746. It'll be sent for free, but they ask for a donation. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 19:17:37 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Comments on the flaming o... Dear Paul, I thought I just sent out my considered opinion yesterday as to the impression i have as to what the Masters are. You missed it. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 00:56:55 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Cyberpathology When I joined theos-l late in 1993, my expectations were that I would be joining a community of theosophists from many backgrounds united in the quest for new discoveries and perspectives. But from the beginning, I discovered that my own expectations for theos-l were often very much at odds with the reality of the beast. I quickly discovered that many contributors feel that "theosophical history" should not be discussed here, while others wished to censor anything "critical" that might be said about a favored theosophical personality or subject that is at odds with their own views. I recall other objecting to the discussion of "Blavatsky Theosophy" because, they said, it was "out of date" and "irrelevant to the 20th century." Others countered that "neo-Theosophy" is useless. Some were true to this or that set of teachings, others made up their own. Others insisted that their are no "teachings." It became obvious to me that theos-l is not the utopian level playing field were any subject raised will evoke enthusiastic responses and opportunities, leading to a stimulating exchange of ideas opening new and ever widening vistas of inquiry. Instead, it appeared to be more of an arena were the contenders competed to get recognition for their own point of view. It seems to go back to what we all sooner or later learn from human experience--that most people are completely open to creative and critical discussions on any subject just as long as they don't have a vested opinion about it. So a problem with having free and open discussions on theos-l about theosophy is that most of the responders already have vested opinions on the subject, and those vested opinions are often quite at odds with each other. Well, of course the above dynamics might be present in any heterogeneous group, but in cyberspace it takes some weird twists, and I think the problem is related to the nature of the (mis)communication itself. I've observed that in cyberspace, there is only text. Unlike the telephone, there are no voice inflections--no tones expressing emotions. Unlike even in letter writing, there are no "Dearest John" openings, or "with all my love" closings. There is no distinctive handwriting--or even the often creative formatting of a familiar typescript. There is no characteristic stationary with flowers or butterflies--no perfume. Cyberspace filters out all of these subtle messages leaving only a standard text--single spaced, 80 lines across on a monitor or in the default text of your software and printer. Further, there is no audience in the traditional sense. Even when one writes a book or an article, it is slanted toward a particular audience. On cyberspace, with 100 subscribers, most of whom never communicate, the audience is really an unknown. In short--cyberspace is public and impersonal. A statement intended to be a joke can appear to be an insult. A friendly criticism can come across as an attack. We have not evolved many techniques as yet to clarify which is which. Some symbols have come into use. For instance, an indication that the writer is making a statement with a friendly smile may end with :-). But what is the symbol for a sarcastic smile? Or a "I really mean it" statement? Or a "I'm really trying to understand you" statement? We need to develop a cyber-rhetoric before this form of communication can see its potential. I've noted three extensive attempts (as I perceive them to be) at a cyber-rhetoric: John Mead, through extreme self censorship as a function of his position; Art Patterson, whose approach, I would describe as...? (I don't have a word for it yet); and Nancy Coker, who has made some very important formatting and approach suggestions. Like some of us on this net, I'm watching each of your rhetorics in order to discover effective techniques that may work for me and for who I (think I) am. Thank you for the many great ideas so far. Because cyberspace is so impersonal, I feel it becomes very easy to forget that those on the other side of the monitor are also people with feelings. It is very easy to make cyber- discourse a macho game or a place to vent feelings--whether they be hostile, hurt or joyous. We can play games or we can communicate. Sadly, however, being human, sometimes our needs and our feelings have more to say about the choice we make than does our will. Therefore I offer a new term for the dynamics that I perceive--cyberpathology. In light of all of the above, the latest episode concerning Paul's book, has left me reluctant to contribute much at all over the past month or so. Yes, a big part of the reason has been because I have been very busy, but part of the reason is also because I really don't want to be a part of what I perceive is going on. Two items bother me: First, as Paul has pointed out, his "martyr act" made him a "target for further hostility." So it seems, but I might add that I noticed that it also invoked a greater number of responses from people standing up for him. So there is a sacrifice and a payoff here--it works both ways. The point I'm trying to make is, once we get to the bottom line of this discourse, it doesn't seem to have much to do with the merits of Paul's book anymore. Does it? I'm not criticizing individuals here, I'm just trying to point out what I see to be a dynamic that does not further the proposed discussion that we are supposed to be having. The second thing that bothers me is the nature of the criticism, or what Art Patterson (In what I perceive as an attempt to put the discussion in a more positive direction) suggests we call "enhancement" or "furtherance." I feel that Art's contribution is very "right on" here. Criticism correctly done is indeed "enhancement" and "furtherance." But the critic needs first to recognize his or her motives for the criticism, and to understand what criticism is supposed to do. But I think there might be too much confusion at the moment about what criticism really is, so let me take a step back.... First of all, constructive (academic) criticism applies to the process not to the product. In other words, for the purposes of constructive criticism, Paul's conclusions concerning the Masters are in themselves really irrelevant. What is important is how he came to those conclusions. Did he make a thorough search of the evidence? Did he treat the evidence fairly? Does the evidence support the conclusions? This last question is very different from whether or not his conclusions are "correct," which may be an unanswerable question anyway. Lastly, I have begun reading Paul's book, and as he correctly predicted, I have found "much to praise and much to condemn." But sadly, with the above dynamics going on, I feel very reluctant to post my criticisms i.e. "enhancement and furtherance" on the subject, because of the risk of it becoming further fuel for "cyberpathology." I look forward to reading any comments on this post. No flames please. Peace Jerry Hejka-Ekins JHE@KOKO.CSUSTAN.EDU From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 13:25:08 +0200 (EET) From: Aki Korhonen Subject: Re: Cyberpathology Thank you Jerry for your thoughts. I symphatise with them and you. Just to mention, that there is a time-lapse, which is also a considerable difference, and also that here is going on many conversations at the same time, this, if we compare cyber-conversation with real conversation. I have found that, in addition to new ideas that I receive now and then, e-mail postlist is a good place to get feedback to my ideas / theories. Just think, if I have a thought and I want to get 100 , specialist to talk about it, it would require a larger auditorium and at least a month for organizing it, not to mention that some of these persons might be living abroad. E-mail lists are virtual aditoriums not depended of time and place. Steiner folks, antroposophists, talk about Ahrimanism, if I have understood correctly, it means that spiritual matters are drawn into matter and mechanizing things. Computers seem to have a record in this; people work through machines, communicate, experience, relax, now even most of used to be brain-functions have manged to move in computers - namely thinking, computers make decisions, etc. etc... It seems, that first God created Man as His Image and now man has created computer as his image. This is not matter of good or bad, just a fact. But sad is, by my view, that some people get so deep hooked on computers, without first learning to manage by themselves, that it might take lots of incarnations to learn the other side. But I also think that we have created this situation by ourselves and knowingly, so this phase is obviously needed. How much deeper we can evolve into matter? Peace. Aki Korhonen akikorho@paju.oulu.fi Oulu. Finland. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 9:42:16 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Cyberpathology According to Aki Korhonen: > Steiner folks, antroposophists, talk about Ahrimanism, if I have > understood correctly, it means that spiritual matters are drawn > into matter and mechanizing things. Computers seem to have a > record in this; people work through machines, communicate, > experience, relax, now even most of used to be brain-functions > have manged to move in computers - namely thinking, computers > make decisions, etc. etc... > > It seems, that first God created Man as His Image and now man has > created computer as his image. This is not matter of good or > bad, just a fact. But sad is, by my view, that some people get > so deep hooked on computers, without first learning to manage by > themselves, that it might take lots of incarnations to learn the > other side. But I also think that we have created this situation > by ourselves and knowingly, so this phase is obviously needed. > > How much deeper we can evolve into matter? Is the advent of the cyberspace era really a further involution into materiality? It looks quite the reverse to me, despite the pathology. (BTW, there's nothing unique about theos-l; the knock-down drag-outs on Talisman, alt.religion.eckankar, talk. religion.buddhism etc. are part of the same cyberpathology). That is, all the material barriers to communication, which are geographical, vanish in cyberspace, making it a place where our evolution can accelerate through a vastly increased set of interlocutors with similar interests. But that loss of materiality is, as Jerry says, also the loss of all the cues that tend to modify our behavior in real space. Therefore, cspace communication tends to bring out the best and the worst in people. But surely there is a forward momentum that is evolutionary, not involutionary? Isn't Jerry's well thought out and sensitive post an example? Don't we see a continual dialectic in which there are syntheses emerging from the clashes of thesis/antithesis? Or rather, where hopeless antinomies can be transcended by looking at the issue from a higher level? The one thing I think would be most helpful for me, and maybe for us, is to devise some guidelines for what should be reserved for private email vs. general distribution. For example, should Jerry post his evaluation of my book to the list, I'll respond to the list only with the most detached of clarifications, admissions, explanations of how missing pieces are dealt with in the sequel, etc. If there are any comments that evoke an emotional response, and that I think he should know about, it will be posted only to him. In other words, more sensitivity to the audience of one's remarks will probably reduce a lot of tension and irritation. There's something about being PUBLICLY attacked that drastically magnifies the conflict potential, and contributes to the downward spiral of cyberpathology. Conversely, private email can heal such interpersonal conflicts that originate in public, as I have observed on all the lists and newsgroups mentioned. Somehow, if we write to just one person, even if there is an impulse to attack something they've written, the knowledge of one human being with feelings reading what we write is much more conducive to productive exchange than the quasi-anonymity of duking it out in front of God and everyone. And if we just need to vent, there is almost always some individual to lend a willing ear on email and to sympathize with our feelings. In the case of the TMR debates, that became abundantly clear to me through the private posts of quite a few people. In closing, to speak theosophese for a minute, cyberspace seems to accentuate the extent to which we live in kama-manas. But in all the clashes of thoughts and feelings is the key to an evolutionary process in which manas will eventually become more dominant. Gradually, what we know will be more important to us than what we want to believe. It may take a million years, but the Internet might cut it down to 900,000. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 10:37:14 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: a poem by Harry Van Gelder in his memory: "May the Beauty which lies within, Shine out through your mind And body. May the love in you heart, Radiate out in all directions. May the being which is you, Function through you, affecting All around you, inspiring Everyone by the Beauty there. These are expressions of the Self." HVG From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 10:36:25 -0600 From: Arthur_PattersonA@mbnet.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Cyber-rhetoric and Theos-l To Paul et al, Paul writes: > The one thing I think would be most helpful for me, and maybe for > us, is to devise some guidelines for what should be reserved for > private email vs. general distribution. For example, should > Jerry post his evaluation of my book to the list, I'll respond to > the list only with the most detached of clarifications, > admissions, explanations of how missing pieces are dealt with in > the sequel, etc. If there are any comments that evoke an > emotional response, and that I think he should know about, it > will be posted only to him. In other words, more sensitivity to > the audience of one's remarks will probably reduce a lot of > tension and irritation. There's something about being PUBLICLY > attacked that drastically magnifies the conflict potential, and > contributes to the downward spiral of cyberpathology. I understand what you are saying and would wholeheartedly agree were it not for the niggliing objection that going public with our deepest hopes and fears, even to the point of subjecting them to ridicule, seems to me a sort of healing and adventure too. I have said things on line which I have said with fear and a sense of vulnerablity but I know that I must be willing to be enhanced or furthered in my understandings of theosophy, spirituality and my communication style. When what I pick up as a mean spirited post comes my way I have the option of ignoring it, finding the partial truth of it, or valiantly defending my position for all it is worth. The last option is rarely tried since I hardly have firm positions in regard to theosophy yet. I have generally assumed good will on the part of Theo-l responders but I know there are many bees in our bonnets, many sacred cows, and a lot to disagree on. The major problem I see in the dynamics of communication is that people take there perspectives as more than subjective or individual. I always assume that my expression is limited and that language is metaphor pointing toward the great Mystery of life. Otherwise you are delving into "revelation" which is subject to no critique at all. It is an arguement on a grand scale about whose "revelation" is bigger than yours. It is like the kids game, My dad is bigger and better than yours. Everyone comes to know that subjectively that is always true and no one holds the correct measuring stick anyway. So have real Mahatma, have inner guides , have extra terresterials, but more than that have love, a desire to understand and the humility to not know what you are talking about sometimes. We can be good humoured in all of this or we can take ourselves terribly seriously and perhaps those who do are accomplishing something the rest of us don't understand but should respect anyway. > Somehow, if we write to just one person, even if there is an > impulse to attack something they've written, the knowledge of one > human being with feelings reading what we write is much more > conducive to productive exchange than the quasi-anonymity of > duking it out in front of God and everyone. And if we just need > to vent, there is almost always some individual to lend a willing > ear on email and to sympathize with our feelings. In the case of > the TMR debates, that became abundantly clear to me through the > private posts of quite a few people. Love those private posts too! But please lets all be forthright and ourselves never writing in order to avoid those inevitable confrontations. I want to hear about those Mahatmas and all the variant views on them and on your book. I would like to get into it deeper once I get your book. Here, I will say some thing personal. I will undoubtedly change my views but , I don't like some of what I have been reading about the Mahatmas because they a seem to me to be extra psychic sources of authority. I prefer Emerson's acts of intuitive self reflection to the Mahatma letters as Scripture. The choice is to flame this because you have a advanced view and want to prove you do. Consider it the rambling of a noviate. Try to understand where this poor refugee of religious fundamentalism is coming from. Debate the meta-issue of authority in spirituality is . Or just delete it. Whatever, the response I get will undoubtedly clarify my position, if my motives aren't misread and good will prevails. If they are I will... who knows what I will do, it ranges from crawl in a corner and whimper, to get angry enough to read and study more, in the end I will try to understand what gift I have been given.. Art From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Mar 1995 11:44:09 EST From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: The Art of HPB The art of HPB may very well be that she created the masters from her outter teachers (real people including Europeans like Paul suggets) and inner archetypes like Art suggests. And she created a giant stage (the world) to play out her drama. I don't remeber the heydays of theosophy when our numbers where trully amazing and growing, but she did what she had to do and I don't blame her. How may actors and actresses have had to lie on the real or metaphorical casting couch? From many accounts her virginity was just another of her many "myths". TO ART: I think we are in basic agreement (so what :) grins). The idea of course is not to agree. I had held back this post trying to be a kinder gentler theosophists, but all the dense sometime hateful gush about the historical reality of the Masters got on my last nerve. Paul says we need to research the historical reality, but I don' think this will help Harvard and Cambridge to take HPB more seriously and would probably do the opposite since the emphasis nowadays is on cold rationalism and scientific research in academia and not on philisophical or moral (oh hated and politically incorrect word) issues. Someone has talked about the four M's of a spiritual movement. First you have the message, then the man (or woman in this case), then the active movement, then the dead monument. We seem to be moving into polishing the monment rather that living the movement (in my very humble opinion). I like your ideas about the archtypes being really beyond internal or external and that we can only know them directly or better for short periods of time (this to me is more likely as I have said) through the ARTS like kabala, tarot, astrology, meditation, active compassion, love, the fine arts and magic (white and black). T0 JERRY: I think your ideas about Kolhberg have definite application to the issues at hand. Yes, little encouragement is given to crossing the abyss or going beyond good and evil. The danger is great look what happened to Nietcshe and Nazi Germany. Sometimes the ends don't justify the means BIGTIME. But this shouldn't stop us, I think. Zen also seems to point to this as enlightenment allows one to act spontaneously and intuitvely because one is aware and had access to the power of the archetypes in everyday life. Which brings us to the path of crossing over to the archtypes for real and not just as a scholarly game. TO ALAN: I am struck by reviewing kabalah that the paths between the sephiroth capture my imagination as they point not to the existence and qualities of the archetypes but to the RELATIONSHIPS between and paths upward or downward and the multiple interactions possible between them. The aspects in astrology also point to the importance of realtionships TO ALL: No one's ideas are ever really changed by argument about things that are abstract and out of reach. All this talk about the Master reminds me of the great debate about how many angels could sit on the head of pin? I would rather be an angel (big, big grin). Everybody is really namaste-ing each other these days, Namste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 12:52:26 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: The Colonel agrees with Art According to Arthur Paul Patterson: > Here, I will say some thing personal. I will undoubtedly change > my views but , I don't like some of what I have been reading > about the Mahatmas because they a seem to me to be extra psychic > sources of authority. I prefer Emerson's acts of intuitive self > reflection to the Mahatma letters as Scripture. Dunno if you were aboard when this was posted before, but in any case it bears repeating. Col. Olcott writes in Old Diary Leaves: As the co-Founder of the Society, as one who has had constant opportunities for knowing the chosen policy and wishes of our Masters, as one who has, under them and with their assent, borne our flag through sixteen years of battle, I protest agains the first giving way to the temptation to elevate either them, their agents, or any other living or dead personage to the divine status, of their teachings to that of infallible doctrine. Not one word was ever spoken, transmitted, or written to me by the Masters that warranted such a course, nay, that did not inculcate the very opposite. I have been taught to lean upon myself alone, to look to my Higher Self as my best teacher, best guide, best example, and only savior. I was taught that no one would or ever would attain to the perfect knowledge save upon those lines; and so long as you keep my in my office, I shall proclaim this as the basis, the only basis and the palladium of the Society. I am led to make the above remarks by what I have seen going on of late... What the Colonel saw going on continued to go on, in all Theosophical groups, for a very long time. But he obviously foresaw it, agreed with your view of the danger of extrapsychic authority, and tried to stop it. What was the result? The Society of which he was president refused to publish his memoirs,* insufficiently adoring of HPB and the Masters for the taste of many, and he had to go to a commercial publisher, Dutton, to get them out. *in book form; they had appeared in the Theosophist first. A followup quote from the 1900 K.H. letter to Annie Besant: Are we to be propitiated and made idols of. Is the worship of a new Trinity...to take the place of exploded creeds. We ask not for worship of ourselves. The disciple should in no way be fettered. Beware of an Esoteric Popery... Mindful of the paradox of quoting authorities to undermine authoritarianism... Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 00:51:25 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Art is Lie, a humble satire HUH? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 01:01:33 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: What Matters about the Masters > My observation is that HPB's writings have not been taken > nearly seriously enough outside the TS precisely because of > distrust about their alleged sources. While I doubt anyone > will figure out exactly who wrote the Mahatma letters or how, > it is possible to establish that HPB knew what she was writing > about. To show, as TMR does, that she was closely linked to > the most learned experts of her time in such diverse fields as > Masonry, Rosicrucianism, Sufism, the Vedas, the Vedanta, > Theravada Buddhism, Tibetan Mahayana Buddhism, Sikhism, > Spiritualism... is to establish her as at least worth > considering as a serious author. Whereas the consensus of > non-Theosophical writers that she invented the Masters and > wrote self-deluded channeling material, with no scholarly > legitimacy, has prevented her writings from being appreciated > properly. Er, yes indeed. I fear this will remain forever the case, the more so as time passes, as many of her references would be very difficult to check nowadays. She does mention quite a few living ordinarily human contacts in the SD, and I would have to agree that the Kabalist sources she mentions are reliable in their content and context. At the same time, there is an awful lot of Ralston Skinner and The Source of Measures which, to me, gives her work an unbalanced side (as in measure, not psyche). One problem is certainly the criticism of academics, who expect chapter and verse, bibliographies, quotes form learned journals, etc., etc. (I know what this means, having been in both the AAR and the SBL in my time:)). Although there are such references, it is difficult for us to know this late in the day how much of the SD was "mediated" (or edited in the proper sense of the term) by G.R.S.Mead, who was, I am told, her secretary during her SD writing period. Certainly he would have been a great asset in her work with his background in, and support for gnostic ideas, and is an "authority" in himself. ["Thrice Greatest Hermes" and similar works]. > In short, you are right that it doesn't matter exactly who the > Masters were, and moreover her writings' value is the same > regardless of where they came from. But the fact that her > teachings were derived from real teachers, and that she knew > whereof she wrote, IS important to the goal of getting humanity > to listen to her wisdom. Amen. Get up off your butt, humanity! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 13:35:51 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: The Art of HPB According to Keith Price: > TO ALL: No one's ideas are ever really changed by argument about > things that are abstract and out of reach. All this talk about > the Master reminds me of the great debate about how many angels > could sit on the head of pin? I would rather be an angel (big, > big grin). But-- there's nothing abstract and out of reach about it IMO. I think that you like most of us are thinking of the verb "to matter" as if it makes sense objectively. But things only matter TO PEOPLE. It would be totally stupid for me to say "kayaks matter, reading books in French matters, watching TV shows about critters matters, BUT sports on TV doesn't matter, genre novels don't matter, popular music doesn't matter." These are simply personal tastes and interests that matter TO ME, (or don't)-- not objective realities about which you and I can meaningfully argue. So my book doesn't matter to you, or Alan, or Ann. Fine. It will only matter to 3,000 people in the whole world, by SUNY's estimate of sales potential. Several of them are on theos-l, but I don't think they'd want to argue "it does too matter" as if it mattered to EVERYONE. Let's just agree to disagree about what matters to us, rather than make sweeping proclamations. When you've devoted many years of your life to something that matters to you very much, how do you feel when someone loftily announces that it "doesn't matter"? It may not matter to him or her, but hey-- let's live and let live and stop dissing. Namaste From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Mar 1995 14:47:21 -0400 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Cyberpathology Jerry, Much of what you say concerning this discussion group applied to the local groups I have participated in, too. Not being able to pickup no verbal clues may be seen as a drawback here, but could also be seen as an advantage. We often form our opinions about others rather quickly, judging them by their appearances, language skill, and personality quirks. Here many biases are in temporary suspension, at least until one says something which triggers them. C.W. Leadbeater wrote a small pamphlet about lodge work in which he talks about the need in each group for three types, which he referred to as oilers, boilers and toilers. The toilers were those stalwart members who created a solid foundation. They were always at the meetings no matter what the topic, often holding routine offices in the lodge, taking care of the lodge's business interest, etc. The boilers, on the other hand, could be counted on for stimulating disucssion, advocating change, exploring new ideas and territory and being a general nusiance to the toilers. Which is where the oilers came in with the skills to keep the tensions from other two extremes from riping the group apart. It seems to me we all play one of these roles at different times, but have our "favorite." Another important consideration CWL raised was that the practice of brotherhood between the disparate, independent minded, and strong willed members the group was likely to attract was one of the cheif benefits of participating in such a group. Consider it a real "workout." Our skills are weak and they need the exercise! Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 13:05:27 -0700 From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: Cyberpathology [A wee bit 'o levity...] So, there is this really hot computer programmer who takes it into his head to write the ultimate program. Finishing it, he inputs the question "Is there a God?" and runs the program ... which spits out "%can answer question, will take ten years". Unable to wait, the programmer gets the government involved, and pretty soon they tie all the computers in the US together, write a much bigger program, and input "Is there a God?" ... to which it answers %can answer question, will take five years". Now they're all excited, and can't wait, so they go to the UN, and pretty soon the whole world is involved, and they tie every mainframe on the planet together and write a megaprogram, and input the question "Is there a God?"...and the answer comes back "%THERE IS NOW" -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 11:31:57 -0500 (EST) From: IXCHEL@delphi.com Subject: For Astrologers I mentioned in a past posting that the internet exper- ience was introduced to the Theosophical Society during the Pluto transits over the natal Sun in the TS horo- scope. The Sabian Symbol for the Sun is: INDIANS MAKING CAMP. I take this to mean that the Theosophical Society is in a period of reorganization and expansion via the most powerful influences associated with the planet Pluto. Making camp is a periodic process as we nomadic Pilgrims move along in "real" and cyber---space. I sup- pose there will be many more camp sites to establish along the way. I personally am enjoying immensely the process unfold- ing before our eyes and screens. Pluto is under the influence of some pretty powerful Chohan intelligences. It's quite cleaver of "them" to introduce us to each other in such a world wide fashion as is happening with this interesting transit of Pluto. What will happen when Pluto stations 3 degrees away from the Sun this August? Perhaps we will be more established in our new camp as far as a finalization of camp rules. My computer has a real hardware pathology, so I will unfortunately be out of touch for a time. Well, that's the nature of Pluto--beyond human control. I'll be back in camp next week hopefully..... Sarah From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 20:25:03 +0000 From: bazzer@pavilion.co.uk (Bazzer) Subject: Re: Comments on the flaming of Paul's book >One associate of mine is _convinced_ (He's away right now, but I >will ask for backup :-)) that HPB wrote (most of?) the Mahatma >Letters to Sinnet. >Alan Firstly, thank you Alan for posting your comments. May one focus on one particular point you mention (as shown above): Your "associate" is convincingly mistaken:-). The Opposition continues to do a very good job in befuddling the student's mind into swaying this way and that about HPB and the Masters. Maybe your "associate" is equally convinced that the Letters are not, in the majority of cases, precipitated? Or that HPB - while in London, for example - wrote letters in blue or red ink (KH & M respectively) herself sending them by post to India, getting them posted back to London via some accomplace or other to arrive back before sunrise the same day for Mr Sinnet's perusal! And pigs, as they say, will fly!:-). If HPB *did* write the Letter's then she was a fraud and liar, for *she* claimed that she did *not* write them. One would hope that anyone who believes HPB was/is a fraud and a liar does not go by the title of "theosophist". Ask your "associate" to get a pass to visit the British Museum (it can be arranged) where the Mahatma Letter's are currently stored. Ask him to examine the way in which the ink is permeated *into* the paper, and how the colour of the "ink" changes. Ask him to observe the dozens of *individual* "pen" strokes which go to form each and every letter, of each and every sentence, on each and every page and how these brush strokes move left or right, up or down, differently even within the same sentence. Ask him to explain how the "ink" itself, after over a century, remains as unfaded and as bright as the day it was manufactured...............then ask him to reconsider the absurd proposition that the Letter's signed by KH or M to APS were written by HPB. In all events, please pass my kindest regards to your "associate". PB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 20:25:09 +0000 From: bazzer@pavilion.co.uk (Bazzer) Subject: Re: Comments on the flaming o... >I imagine them to be very advanced, skilled shamans, Far, far "higher", my friend. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 20:25:12 +0000 From: bazzer@pavilion.co.uk (Bazzer) Subject: Re: What Matters about the Masters Whereas the consensus of >non-Theosophical writers that she invented the Masters and >wrote self-deluded channeling material, with no scholarly >legitimacy, has prevented her writings from being appreciated >properly. Then let such "non-Theosophical writers" pass her by. All this " HPB was, or was not, this or that", "who or what are the Masters etc." sounds like apologies and excuses. "The Secret Doctrine", for example, stands or falls on one simple plane fact: Master's did or did not help in it's production. If the establishment is not prepared to accept that the Master's *did*.....................then let it sing for it's supper!:-) It is the "establishment" which has to elevate itself to theo-sophia, not theo-sophia (and her humble servants) degenerate itself to the level or crass materialism, illusion and personalities. In short, you are right that it doesn't matter exactly who the Masters were, and moreover her writings' value is the same regardless of where they came from. But the fact that her teachings were derived from real teachers, and that she knew whereof she wrote, IS important to the goal of getting humanity to listen to her wisdom. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 20:25:17 +0000 From: bazzer@pavilion.co.uk (Bazzer) Subject: Re: Re to Paul G. > Paul G: more importantly, _what_ they are, and the implications this has > for us today. The masters themselves suggest that they should > not be considered as personalities, but rather as the Principle > behind.> Ah, a light in the wilderness. Agreed:-) >I don't disagree with you Paul. I agree that such a debate is >important. I simply suggested that history buffs who want to >argue about WHO the Masters were can do so in Theos-Roots, >which John thoughtfully set aside for such things. > >As far as WHAT the Masters are, we have been discussing this >on Theos-L for some time, as is proper. > > Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 16:28:09 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Comments on the flaming of Paul's book According to Bazzer: > claimed that she did *not* write them. One would hope that > anyone who believes HPB was/is a fraud and a liar does not go by > the title of "theosophist". Think this one over. Would HPB endorse such an exclusivist attitude? Didn't she ALWAYS insist that one could disbelieve in her and the Masters and still be a Theosophist? I can think of no instance where she was less than hyperemphatic about this. It would be a shame if her and Olcott's devotion to making the movement a home for seekers of all varieties should be undermined by attitudes like that expressed above. He drew a circle that shut me out-- Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout. But love and I had the wit to win We drew a circle that took him in. Edwin Markham This strikes me as a harmonic overtone of our motto and objectives. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 22:31:02 +0000 From: bazzer@pavilion.co.uk (Bazzer) Subject: Re: The Art of HPB > The art of HPB may very well be that she created the masters from > her outter teachers (real people including Europeans like Paul > suggets) and inner archetypes like Art suggests. And the personal imagination may create a 'convenient' explain-away for the Masters, too :-) > And she created a giant stage (the world) to play out her drama. The poor creature (HPB): tormented, vilified, suffering night *and* day for the benefit of Humankind. The *reality*, lest we loose ourselves in poetic metaphor. > From many accounts her virginity was just another of her many > "myths". Celibacy is a cin qua non for Practical Occultism (these are the basics any theosophist should know and understand). HPB was a practical/practicing Occultist. Her virginity was proven by medical examination. It was physically impossible for her to be otherwise after an 'accident' she had falling from a horse at an early age. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 22:31:08 +0000 From: bazzer@pavilion.co.uk (Bazzer) Subject: Re: Cyberpathology > >[A wee bit 'o levity...] > > So, there is this really hot computer programmer who takes it > into his head to write the ultimate program. Finishing it, he > inputs the question "Is there a God?" and runs the program ... > which spits out "%can answer question, will take ten years". -JRC Very enjoyable, sir! Excellent:-). From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 23:33:34 +0000 From: bazzer@pavilion.co.uk (Bazzer) Subject: Re: Comments on the flaming of Paul's book > >According to Bazzer: > > > claimed that she did *not* write them. One would hope that > > anyone who claimed HPB was/is a fraud and a liar does not go by > > the title of "theosophist". > > >Think this one over. Would HPB endorse such an exclusivist > >attitude? Not a clue, my friend, her Ego is who knows where and we have to think for ourselves. > Didn't she ALWAYS insist that one could disbelieve >in her and the Masters and still be a Theosophist? Did she? She said one could be a theosophist without necessarily wearing the label "theosophist" and that there were more (true) theosophists outside the Society than in it. The comment stands as it is: anyone who considers HPB a liar/fraud can not be a *theosophist* in the true sense of the term, or, rather, aught not to label themselves or let other's believe they are. > I can think >of no instance where she was less than hyperemphatic about >this. It would be a shame if her and Olcott's devotion to >making the movement a home for seekers of all varieties should >be undermined by attitudes like that expressed above. Truth is One. It is not and can not be 'open' to debate. A fact is a fact. Human beings may (and invariably will:-)) attach labels and apply intellectual gymnastics to Truth. The "shame" is the various hotch-potch of isms and ologies, anthropomorphic will o' the whisps, which, having no real substance or life of their own, suck the life-blood of theo-sophia and claim the Source as their own. No doubt the Liberal Catholic Church, for example, contains some of the variety of seekers, this *religion* (religion being described as being the cause of 2/3rds of human misery) founded by a tool of the Opposition (ie CWL) being largely responsible for the fragmentation and destruction of HPB's and Master's work. It is the undermining of *this* work which should be boldly and fearlessly challenged. Theosophy needs thinkers, not sheep. Kindest regards, PB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 23:52:27 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: WWW > >Hi Friends, > > > > There is a great service provided by 'World-wide-web' at site > > SPIRIT-WWW site in australia which has lots of good stuff, > > Can you give me the address to access this site? Thanks. > > Val http://zeta.cs.adfa.oz.au/Spirit/Theosophy/Overview.html You could also look in on http://www.protree.com/kiwi/Spirit.html AB Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 19:06:02 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Mahatma Letter #2 Mahatma Letter # 2 is now on theos-buds. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 18:43:29 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Cyberpathology To JHE: Some _very_ good points in your posting. I wonder if there is a case for posting _academic_ approaches to a different list? For example, querying Paul's (or anyone else's) sources, asking for verification data for research purposes, etc., etc. - much as one would in a college situation. Transcibed material has been posted on t-roots and t-buds - should we have a t-scholarly or something similar . . . . blah blah blah ... Alan -- Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 00:41:45 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Comments on the flaming of Paul's book > > Ask your "associate" to get a pass to visit the British Museum > (it can be arranged) where the Mahatma Letter's are currently > stored. I believe he has done this ... > In all events, please pass my kindest regards to your "associate". Will do. He does not live in "quotes" - why do you use them? When I say I am talking about someone else - in this case an associate - that's what I mean. I personally have no axe to grind in this matter one way or another; I simply thought it might get things moving a bit if I mentioned his views. Seems I was right . . . Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 00:49:00 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Comments on the flaming o... > >I imagine them to be very advanced, skilled shamans, > > Far, far "higher", my friend. Whatever you mean by "higher" would be educational, perhaps. Skilled shamans are, by this definition, "lower." What is the base measure which is to be used in such judgements? Is the poster of the item you quote a personal friend known to you personally, or are you being patronising? The "flavor" of your postings comes across as sarcasm, which I hope, on a theosophical mailing list, is not intended as such, and that I am mistaken in seeing it so. Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 00:58:37 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: The Art of HPB > > From many accounts her virginity was just another of her many > >"myths". > > Celibacy is a cin qua non for Practical Occultism (these are the > basics any theosophist should know and understand). HPB was a > practical/practicing Occultist. Her virginity was proven by > medical examination. It was physically impossible for her to be > otherwise after an 'accident' she had falling from a horse at an > early age. Good grief. I think you mean sine qua non. Suddenly we are seeing Dogmatic Theosophy on theos-l. Not a pretty sight. Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 00:05:09 -0800 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: responses to cyberpathology Aki Writes: AK> It seems, that first God created Man as His Image and now man has created computer as his image. This is not matter of good or bad, just a fact. But sad is, by my view, that some people get so deep hooked on computers, without first learning to manage by themselves, that it might take lots of incarnations to learn the other side. But I also think that we have created this situation by ourselves and knowingly, so this phase is obviously needed. Perhaps in some ways the computer has replaced God. Paul Johnson Writes: PJ>The one thing I think would be most helpful for me, and maybe for us, is to devise some guidelines for what should be reserved for private email vs. general distribution. For example, should Jerry post his evaluation of my book to the list, I'll respond to the list only with the most detached of clarifications, admissions, explanations of how missing pieces are dealt with in the sequel, etc. If there are any comments that evoke an emotional response, and that I think he should know about, it will be posted only to him. In other words, more sensitivity to the audience of one's remarks will probably reduce a lot of tension and irritation. Sounds fair PJ> There's something about being PUBLICLY attacked that drastically magnifies the conflict potential, and contributes to the downward spiral of cyberpathology. Conversely, private email can heal such interpersonal conflicts that originate in public, as I have observed on all the lists and newsgroups mentioned. If appears so. It may be that fighting is a necessary human activity, even on Internet. If so, then perhaps we need rules for fighting. PJ> In closing, to speak theosophese for a minute, cyberspace seems to accentuate the extent to which we live in kama-manas. But in all the clashes of thoughts and feelings is the key to an evolutionary process in which manas will eventually become more dominant. Gradually, what we know will be more important to us than what we want to believe. It may take a million years, but the Internet might cut it down to 900,000. Now that's the most positive thing I've heard all day (!?). Do ya think with some dedication we can cut it down to 850,000? :-) By the way Paul, I'm still waiting for your itinerary and plans for April. Will you be staying with us? Lewis Lucas Wrote: LL> C.W. Leadbeater wrote a small pamphlet about lodge work in which he talks about the need in each group for three types, which he referred to as oilers, boilers and toilers. The toilers were those stalwart members who created a solid foundation. They were always at the meetings no matter what the topic, often holding routine offices in the lodge, taking care of the lodge's business interest, etc. The boilers, on the other hand, could be counted on for stimulating discussion, advocating change, exploring new ideas and territory and being a general nusiance to the toilers. Which is where the oilers came in with the skills to keep the tensions from other two extremes from riping the group apart. Interesting that CWL's description of over sixty years ago still can be applied to Lodge dynamics today. I wonder where the line is between when the oilers, boilers and toilers are holding the pathology in check, and when true harmony emerges. Thank you for the citation. [Citation from a post that appeared today] >One associate of mine is _convinced_ (He's away right now, but I >will ask for backup :-)) that HPB wrote (most of?) the Mahatma >Letters to Sinnet. >Alan Sounds great. I'm looking forward to learning about his convincing evidence. Alan Bain Writes: AB>Some _very_ good points in your posting. I wonder if there is a case for posting _academic_ approaches to a different list? For example, querying Paul's (or anyone else's) sources, asking for verification data for research purposes, etc., etc. - much as one would in a college situation. Transcibed material has been posted on t-roots and t-buds - should we have a t-scholarly or something similar . . . . blah blah blah ... Alan Sounds like an exciting idea. I think that a discussion bound by the rules of academic discourse might be fascinating-- and perhaps even productive. Such rules are very easy to learn, and one doesn't have to be an academic to participate. By the way, did you ever receive my private post to you dated March 13th.? Peace Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 13:44:22 +0000 From: bazzer@pavilion.co.uk (Bazzer) Subject: Re: Mahatma Letter #2 >Mahatma Letter # 2 is now on theos-buds. > >Liesel > Thank you for the notification re the above. With apologies for my ignorance, but could you advise what/where theos-buds is? Is it a newsgroup or listserve or something. With thanks and kindest regards. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 13:44:25 +0000 From: bazzer@pavilion.co.uk (Bazzer) Subject: Re: Comments on the flaming of Paul's book > > Ask your "associate" to get a pass to visit the British Museum > > (it can be arranged) where the Mahatma Letter's are currently > > stored. > >I believe he has done this ... > > > In all events, please pass my kindest regards to your >"associate". > >Will do. He does not live in "quotes" - why do you use them? No particular reason, other than perhaps a personal typographical peculiarity of one's own:-) If a name had been used the quotes would have not. Sincerest apologies if this gave any unintentional offence. Kindest regards. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 13:44:29 +0000 From: bazzer@pavilion.co.uk (Bazzer) Subject: Re: Comments on the flaming o... >> >I imagine them to be very advanced, skilled shamans, >> >> Far, far "higher", my friend. > >Whatever you mean by "higher" would be educational, perhaps. >Skilled shamans are, by this definition, "lower." What is the >base measure which is to be used in such judgements? The "base measure" being the degree of spirituality and altruistic motive. >Is the poster of the item you quote a personal friend known to >you personally, or are you being patronising? Do you mean the Signature at the end of the email? If so, it is merely a quote from a book. Don't understand how this could be considered patronising? It seems to me a beautifull verse, but if it gives offence the Signature will be deleted from further postings. >The "flavor" of your postings comes across as sarcasm, Would other people on the group please give their opinion on this. Sarcasm, as they say, is the lowest form of wit and certainly unbecomming of a student-theosophist. If it is the general feeling on theos-l that my comments are seen to be "sarcasm" or flippant (ie an endeavour to undermine the purpose of the discussion) I will unsubscribe *immediately*. To respect privacy, please feel free to email your comments direct to: bazzer@pavilion.co.uk. Thank you. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 15:16:43 +0000 From: bazzer@pavilion.co.uk (Bazzer) Subject: Re: The Art of HPB > > > From many accounts her virginity was just another of her many > > >"myths". > > > > Celibacy is a cin qua non for Practical Occultism (these are the > > basics any theosophist should know and understand). HPB was a > > practical/practicing Occultist. Her virginity was proven by > > medical examination. It was physically impossible for her to be > > otherwise after an 'accident' she had falling from a horse at an > > early age. > > >Good grief. I think you mean sine qua non. Suddenly we are >seeing Dogmatic Theosophy on theos-l. Not a pretty sight. > "The aspirant has to choose absolutely between the life of the world and the life of Occultism. It is useless and vain to endeavour to unite the two, for no one can serve two masters and satisfy both. No one can serve his body and the higher Soul, and do his family duty and his universal duty, without depriving either one or the other of its rights; for he will either lend his ear to the 'still small voice' and fail to hear the cries of his little ones, or, he will listen but to the wants of the latter and remain deaf to the voice of Humanity. It would be a ceaseless, a maddening struggle for amost any married man, who would persue *true* practical Occultism, instead of its *theoretical* philosophy. For he would find himself ever hesitating between the voice of the impersonal divine love of Humanity, and that of the personal, terrestrial love. And this could only lead him to fail in one or other, or perhaps in both his duties. Worse than this. For, *whoever indulges after having pledged himself to OCCULTISM in the gratification of a terrestrial love or lust*, must feel an almost immediate result; that of being irresistibly dragged from the impersonal divine state down to the lower plane of matter. Sensual or even mental self-gratification, invloves the immediate loss of the powers of spiritual discernment; the voice of the MASTER can no longer be distinguished from that of one's passions *or even that of a Dugpa*; the right from wrong; sound morality from mere casuistry". Extract from: "Occultism versus the Occult Arts" by HPB "During human life the greatest impediment in the way of spiritual development, and especially the acquirement of *Yoga* powers, is the activity of our physiological senses. Sexual action being closely connected, by interaction, with the spinal cord and grey matter of the brain, it is useless to give any longer explanation". "The Secret Doctrine", II, 296 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 07:57:55 -0800 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Subject: Heart of the matter The Outcast Sometimes when alone At the dark close of day, Men meet an outlawed majesty And hurry away. They come to the lighted house; They talk to their dear; They crucify the mystery With words of good cheer. When love and life are over, And flights at an end, On the outcast majesty They lean as a friend. AE From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 17:04:07 +0000 From: bazzer@pavilion.co.uk (Bazzer) Subject: Re: Heart of the matter > > The Outcast > >Sometimes when alone >At the dark close of day, >Men meet an outlawed majesty >And hurry away. > >They come to the lighted house; >They talk to their dear; >They crucify the mystery >With words of good cheer. > >When love and life are over, >And flights at an end, >On the outcast majesty >They lean as a friend. > >AE Very moving/thought provoking. Thanks. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 12:36:50 -0500 From: ZFenton@aol.com Subject: (none) Bazzer writes: > Would other people on the group please give their opinion on this. > Sarcasm, as they say, is the lowest form of wit and certainly > unbecomming of a student-theosophist. > > If it is the general feeling on theos-l that my comments are seen to > be "sarcasm" or flippant (ie an endeavour to undermine the > purpose of the discussion) I will unsubscribe *immediately*. Bazzar, I consider you to be a valued member of the group and find your comments to be worthwhile and constructive. I strongly urge you to stay in the group. I am amazed that someone would even direct personal criticism towards you over such trivial things as your use of quotation marks and a signature verse. I look forward to receiving your comments in the future. Zack Lansdowne Arlington, Massachusetts From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 18:21:46 +1100 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: Re: The Art of HPB bazzer@pavilion.co.uk (Bazzer) writes: > "The aspirant has to choose absolutely between the life of the > world and the life of Occultism. It is useless and vain to > endeavour to unite the two, This is basically true, however for most people in the world, who might class themselves as "aspirants", it would be vain and foolish (if not even delusive) to seek to characterize themselves as occultists, and therefore to choose such a path which denies the possibility of learning some very valuable lessons that come with family life. Personally, I but note Geoffrey Hodson, who through two marriages lived not only a happy family life, but also followed a truly occult path of mystical development while at the same time serving humanity through his teaching, healing and other service. I am truly grateful that life has given me a partnership in which both of us aspire. > struggle for amost any married man, who would persue *true* > practical Occultism, instead of its *theoretical* philosophy. > For he would find I believe that such a theoretical study is not without its value, especially when accompanied by meditation and service. And of course, not forgetting the sine qua non of the occult life --- a sense of humour, and a lively appreciation of one's own inadequacies (c.f. "Diary of a Sacred Magician" by Georges Chevalier.) Thanks for your contribution Bazzer -- it seems we have a few things in common, judging by the brief personal history you outlined. Paul Gillingwater From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 18:29:23 +1100 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: Re: Heart of the matter am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) writes: > The Outcast Aha! Poetry week. How about a bit of Browning.... "Truth is within ourselves; it takes no rise From outward things, what'er you may believe. There is an inmost center in us all, Where truth abides in fulness; and around, Wall upon wall, the gross flesh hems it in, This perfect, clear perception -- which is truth, A baffling and perverting carnal mesh Binds it, and makes all error: and, to KNOW Rather consists in opening out a way Whence the imprisoned splendor may escape, Than in effecting entry for a light Supposed to be without." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 10:07:40 -0800 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Subject: Stand Fast Bazzer Paul? Bazzer> If it is the general feeling on theos-l that my comments are seen to be "sarcasm" or flippant (ie an endeavour to undermine the purpose of the discussion) I will unsubscribe *immediately*. Even if the "general feeling" were negative, pay it little mind. To speak out, to discuss, to argue can be helpful to those many silent ones on this or any list. Those of us who make the most noise are not to be feared or propitiated. Relax. Life, whether off or on line, has pain and pleasure in a mix. To crave the sweet and abhor the bitter is normal. But it is our great failing, as Buddha and many others have pointed out. Try not to lust too much for comfort, nor to push away the unpleasant. One of my favorite stories, (from which ancient culture I don't know) has to do with just how to handle this problem. Long, long ago there was a village that was settled in the midst of vast rocky plain. For as far as the eye could see were nothing but sharp shards as terrain. Many a village sage had put forward a solution on how to tread on this most painful earth. One of the wisest suggested skinning their cattle and sewing together the skins to make a gigantic rug surrounding the village. But their herd was not that large and the sun, rain & snow would destroy their small carpet virtually every year. But the daughter of one the ladies sewing together the carpet had the best idea. She said to the elders: "Why could we not take small pieces of leather and wrap them around our feet? Would we not need far less cattle skins and then we could make our moccasins thick and keep them soft with oils?" Needless to say she was an incarnation of the Goddess of Wisdom. The moral is: change yourself, not your environment; it is the only practical, long term solution. Nicholas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 14:35:40 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: "Focus" by Harry Van Gelder in his memory: "Focus the mind on what is. Expand this focus beyond The world of form, into the world Of Ideas. Then the mind Begins to enter into cognition. Let the mind expand beyond this By the realization of Love and Beauty. Beauty as an experience is the Realization of the Universal Unity. Love is the realization of the synthesis Of all that is, and all that will ever be. The process of growth is infinite. The expansion of the mind can lead To the realization of unity, the Beauty Inherent of it; the loss of identification With the personality, to the infinite Progression of consciousness. Tear one veil away and there is Another behind it ... "Concentration of the mind is Opposite of expansion and leads To the blockage of life. Only the process Of Cognition and understanding is expansion to infinity. HVG From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 14:46:20 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: The Art of HPB Re: HPB's virginity ... Who cares! Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 15:37:45 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: The Art of HPB Dear Bazzer, Theos-buds, is a subsection of theos-l. I was looking through my papers for directons as to how to subscribe to it, but can't find it just now. Please ask John Mead, the Theos-l manager. JEM@char.vnet.net Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 16:41:32 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: to: Nicholas & Bazzer Dear NICHOLAS, re "The Outcast" Cheer up, old man. We love you anyway. Dear BAZZER, Stay awhile. You have something to say. I haven't seen anything from you I'd label sarcasm, but if there was, so what? You're entitled. Nobody's paying you not to. I don't see eye to eye with your HPB quote. To me, spirit & matter manifest together, work hand in glove. The person who loves his spouse dearly, eventually comes to enlarge this love to embrace all of humanity, the spouse being a starting point. At least that's the way it was for me. I came to love humanity more, because I loved 1 person who also had a great love for humanity. To me, the 2 are complementary rather than exclusionary. Besides, I think you need a certain amount of self-gratification, of loving yourself, & g iving to yourself, before you can move beyond that stage to altruism. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 16:30:49 -0700 From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: The Art of HPB The Art of HPB? Human civilization is composed, through the ages, mostly of what could be called relatively mundane activity. Now and then, however, have existed humans who, for whatever reason, clearly have energy systems that appear so much larger, so much more intense than is the norm, that their very brilliance virtually compels attention. These people rarely fit comfortably within the confines of any civilization's accepted norms. Large numbers of people will pedestal them and wish to follow them (in some form or another), and equally large numbers of people will try to debunk them and reveal them to be frauds. As Robbins says, "Ideas are made by masters, dogma by disciples, and the Buddha is *always* killed on the road". HPB clearly unleashed an energy of some sort that has had effects, both subtle and overt, that have crossed both decades and continents ... its not so much her words (regardless of who did or did not write them) as it is the energy carried by those words; it is the facy that her energy-system itself was large enough to withstand the impact of an energy large enough to generate such huge effects. Was she celibate or not? for goodness sake what the devil difference does *that* make? did she write the letters? Make up her "masters"? These questions seem (IMHO) to completely miss the point of what she was .... the far more (again, IMHO) essential question is: What are we to make of the glimpse she showed us of a huge energy-system, one that seemed part-way to the goal (i.e., it was constantly subject to very large frequency-bands, and sometimes she could bring them into internal equilibrium, while other times the seemed to escape her control completely and throw her into wild and unpredictable behaviour). What are the means by which *our* systems may be increased, intensified, balanced, and perhaps finally, transcended? A friend of mine once said that she thought collective human life was composed of 5% that actually lived, and 95% that talked about the 5%. HPB, no matter what conclusion anyone comes to about her, clearly was one who lived ... and the nature of what this means, and the essential root of what she was, will never be understood through the agency of academic analysis .. and is probably only possible for those whose own natures can match hers in both selflessness and intensity. So, a toast to you, HPB, celibate or not; if you did nothing else, you made the world far more interesting by your presence ... would that more of your kind stomped the terra! JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 23:43:15 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: HPB's virginity > Re: HPB's virginity ... > > Who cares! > > Liesel Not me :-). I doubt it is much use to her these days either way. One might ask the same question concerning CWL and his students, as indeed many have. He and some of them have since moved on to other dimensions. I once asked the hidden or "inner" beings I personally regard as "masters" about this. All I got was mental plane laughter {summat like that} and the advice, "It really doesn't matter. Lead the life - that's the law and the wisdom." I prefer the term "higher intelligences" to masters. I'm sure they are not all male :-) - at least _I hope not_! Keep well, Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 23:56:43 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Paths > TO ALAN: I am struck by reviewing kabalah that the paths between > the sephiroth capture my imagination as they point not to the > existence and qualities of the archetypes but to the > RELATIONSHIPS between and paths upward or downward and the > multiple interactions possible between them. The aspects in > astrology also point to the importance of realtionships I have often offered the personal view that astrology is the origin of all our esoteric systems. It can certainly be argued of Kabbalah. As to the "paths" between sephiroth, on the major scale there aren't any, as I try to show in my "Keys to Kabbalah" [Part Three]. I produced, last November a short paper linking the Speher Yetzirah text with that of the 32 Paths of Wisdom text, and both with the cathedral and abbey churches begun around the 12th century - plus the Temple at Luxor circa 1600 bce. It is not practical to upload this anywhere, as Hebrew text is used in places, and there are many diagrams. E-mail me if you are interested. These items are not free BTW :-). Re the Luxor connection, see Acts 7:22 - "And Moses was trained in all the wisdom of the Egyptians." Pretty explicit, huh? > TO ALL: No one's ideas are ever really changed by argument about > things that are abstract and out of reach. All this talk about > the Master reminds me of the great debate about how many angels > could sit on the head of pin? I would rather be an angel (big, > big grin). How big is the pin? Old joke: "My wife/husband is an angel." "You're lucky, mine's still living." > Everybody is really namaste-ing each other these days, Whatever turns you on! Shalom! Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 01:46:20 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Mail Someone asked me if I had received a personal E-mail item of 14? March? Owing to accidental erasure by me of some mail, and serious problems with the service provider's mail system(s) during the past week, I cannot answer the question! Please re-post the original mail item if possible, or repeat the query if not. Apologies. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 20:00:18 -0700 (MST) From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Various comments on various comments Various comments on various comments by Daniel Caldwell I want to jot down a number of my comments on what I've been reading on Theos-l of late. My comments are food for thought and nothing else. I firmly believe that everyone on Theos-l is entitled to their opinions. But it would be nice if we could put those opinions aside and actually discuss a subject in some depth....looking at it from different angles... etc. What are these theos-l postings for if not to educate ourselves... expand our horizons.....see a subject from a different point of view. Too many of us are too sensitive. If something said is not to our way of thinking we huff and puff. I have also noticed how some of us discount subjects of discussion by saying: "X...is boring." "..who cares..." "X...is irrevelant." etc. Personally I find all the postings and discussions on Theos-l interesting if not fascinating. Some of you probably think I only like history. The teachings are even more interesting and fascinating. I have been following the discussions on the Kaballah, etc. etc. Let us all give our opinions. But to me what is even more important is your reasoning behind the opinions. How did you arrive at that conclusion? Maybe I can gain some insight, learn something new, be better informed if I can see behind the facade of the "opinion." May no one cares if HPB was a virgin or not. But if you say she had a child it would be informative to know your sources, how you arrived at that conclusion, etc etc.? In other words share the workings of your mind, your insight, etc. etc. If someone believes that HPB physically wrote the Mahatma Letters, I would like to know how they arrived at that conclusion. What are the facts, etc.? On to another subject or two. Some of us have indicated that history (in general ? or theosophical?) is pretty boring. But just remember that history is all around us, everyday we do historical research whether we know it or not. Everyday we reconstruct events and many times act upon those historical conclusions. In fact we are creatures of history. If reincarnation is a factual process in nature, then the process of reincarnation interacts with the physical world and is in a sense a part of history. History and historical research is not just some academic pursuit, but one of many ways or methods of searching for truth. Why downgrade "history" and exalt some other way of gaining knowledge? Intuition may be a method gaining knowledge, insight. Clairvoyance may be a way of obtaining knowledge. But historical research has its domain too. Why not use all these methods? In our search for truth, why discard any method that can help us discern truth as opposed to falsehood? To be personal for a second, I have had on many occasions, "mystical experiences" and I have gained alot from these experiences but intellectual pursuit of knowledge, historical pursuit of knowledge, etc., all these things are certainly different ways or avenues to a greater understanding of the world we live in and of ourselves. In about a month I plan to start posting criticisms of Paul's book on Theos-roots. I hope that some of you who still find that insights and knowledge can be gained through the study of history, will find my criticisms useful. A number of you have sent me private e-mail messages saying that you have enjoyed reading my criticisms. One word on the so-called flaming of Paul's book. I did a test and indeed when you apply a flame to Paul's book it ignites and heat and light is produced! Criticism, if taken with the proper attitude and frame of mind, can be productive of heat and light. Maybe not on the physical plane, but certainly on the mental plane. And I hope that Jerry H-E and others will address certain issues in Paul's book. Not to have an emotional debate but to address some of the issues raised in the book. The book, by the way, addresses not only historical concerns but other issues involving the teachings of Theosophy, etc. Another thought: we live in a world full of falsehood and lies. (yes, there is another side to the story but....) Joseph Smith claimed to be in contact with Moroni. Herbert W. Armstrong claimed to be God's only true prophet in these modern times. Jehovah Witnesses claim to be God's chosen people. There is an atheist show on my local cable company and the host of the show is convinced that there is not God, period, no life after death, no ESP, just a material world (yes, Madonna's Material world). I could extend the list another 30 pages giving examples of the claims and counterclaims filling the airways of our planet. Billy Graham is planning (has it already happened?) to beam his "message" to at least 1 billion people. The fact is, that, to anyone who can somewhat detach himself or herself and look around and just observe....wow......people are believing or disbelieving in about every conceivable idea you can imagine!!!!!! Yes, every one is entitled to his or her opinion, but if anyone is interested in putting aside his or her opinions, how do you even start to begin to discriminate and discern between the false and true? Are we interested in disovering truth or having opinions? I personally would put aside 99% of my own opinions for a few SOLID FACTS, a few truths. Sometimes I get the impression that us theosophists are more concerned in having our opinions, in having our right to have opinions than we are concerned in trying to discover truth. Personally I want to keep at least one foot on the solid ground while also having my head in the clouds and also reaching for the stars. In other words I love to soar into metaphysical regions of thought and even beyond to realms of intuition.... but it is also wise to anchor oneself to the ground, to have a few solid facts to add perspective. It seems to me that history and science can help us to anchor ourselves to tangible facts while religion and metaphysics and meditation and mysticism can keep us aware of the clouds and the stars. Can we really do without all of these approaches? Is metaphysics better than history? Is science better than religion? Why not use all these aveneues and tools in our search for truth? Someone has commented about scholarship and academic historical research and the implication was that all that is....boring....who cares anyway. But some of the concerns of scholarship and academic historical research are of practical value. To ask someone to cite their sources, to tell where they got certain information from---has its practical application., etc. Again, some of us on Theos-l has written as though the Theosophical history is something totally separate from the Theosophical teachings. They may be studied separately but are they really "separate". I would suggest that history can throw light and perspective upon the teachings and vice versa. In all of HPB's voluminous writings she interweaved teaching with history. Why? I've said too much but maybe I've given some food for thought? I do hope that maybe in the future discussions on Theos-l will be more productive, will in fact be a dialogue in which everyone learns something. There is so much in Theosophical history that we can learn from. There is so much in the Theosophical teachings that we can learn from. Let's discuss all of these subjects and more, without flaming, without freaking out on the emotional level, without name calling....but listening to other points of view with which we disagree, asking ourselves if we can learn something new, challenging our own "precious" beliefs and assumptions, trying to put ourselves in the other person s shoes! Isn't that what dialogue is all about? Daniel P.S. This is a rough draft so please read between the lines, "get the message that I'm sending" and bear with the typos! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Mar 1995 00:44:01 EST From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: A Response to Bazzer While I welcome Bazzer to the list and feel he has every right to speak his mind, just like everyone else, nevertheless I simply must take some exception to his comments (nothing personal intended - I have a right to speak my own mind too). In short, this is not a flame, but merely a presentation of an alternate opinion. Bazzer: <"The Secret Doctrine", for example, stands or falls on one simple plane fact: Master's did or did not help in it's production. > IMHO this is nonsense. I read the SD over 25 years ago and loved it. At that time I took her Masters with a large grain of salt. I have always assumed that HPB wrote the SD with or without anyone's help. But whoever wrote it, whether with or without the hand of an Adept, (and HPB was an Adept herself, don't let her modesty fool you) the SD, like any other book, must stand on its own merits. The argument that it stands or falls on Masters sounds to me like the Christian fundamentalist attitude that the Bible must be believed because it is the very word of God. Sorry Bazzer, I can't buy into either your idea of that of the fundamentalists. Bazzer: I agree with your first statement. I do not agree with your second. A theosophist, IMHO, is someone who believes in the reality of universal brotherhood. Period. Whatever else a theosophist may believe in is mental fluff and my fluff is as valid as anyone elses. Bazzer: This again, IMHO, is pure nonsense. Truth has been open to debate since Adam and Eve ate the apple from the Tree of Knowledge (i.e., after they descended below Daath). Bazzer: <...founded by a tool of the Opposition (ie CWL) being largely responsible for the fragmentation and destruction of HPB's and Master's work. > Please... I understand that you are new here, but folks have bashed poor ol' CWL unmercifully on this net for months. Let him rest in peace, OK? Now the poor guy is accused of working for the Dark Brotherhood of all things! Bazzer: This statement, IMHO, suggests to me that you know little of true occultism. You are simply quoting some of HPB's words which you kindly provide us as well, but I suspect that you don't understand them. If the quote was intended to help sink your point home, it certainly failed with me. Perhaps one of the historians among us will tell me I am wrong here, but as I recall, her accident on the horse only prevented her from getting pregnant. She was accused of having an illigitimate child and offered the doctor's certificate as an excuse as to how it was impossible for her to have a child. I don't ever recall anyone saying anywhere that she couldn't have sex (she did, however, say that she never consumated her marriage with old General Blavatsky, preferring to leave Russia instead. This sounds so much like her that I would guess it to be true). And whether she did or did not have sex with anyone has nothing whatever to do with her being an Adept or her conversing with Masters. HPB as quoted by Bazzer: <"The aspirant has to choose absolutely between the life of the world and the life of Occultism. It is useless and vain to endeavour to unite the two ..." and so on > This is pure exotericism, and she is speaking in general about what would apply to most (i.e., the average) person. Being unmarried makes it easier to tread the Path. Period. Lots of Masters were married (Swami Ramakrishna comes to mind as one). And anyone who thinks that you can't have sex and stay on the Path is simply whistling in the wind. For every celibate Adept that you can find, I can show you an Adept who enjoyed his or her sexuality. The two are simply unrelated, except in your own mind (i.e., if you think of sex as dirty and sinful, then yes, it will be a block for your spiritual development; but so will anything else that you think is dirty or sinful). I suggest you read LUST FOR ENLIGHTENMENT: BUDDHISM AND SEX by John Stevens (Shambala, 1990) for the way things really are. From this book, I too will give a quote. It is from the great Zen Master, Sengai: Falling in love is dangerous, For passion is the source of illusion; Yet being in love gives life flavor, And passions themselves Can bring one to enlightenment. (p 108) I am always amazed at the strong current of puritianism found among theosophists. It comes, I suppose from HPB (e.g., from taking Bazzer's quote too literally). But she was writing during a very puritanical time, and wanted people to read her material and to join her society (she did admit to holding some things back, after all). She wrote in the way she had to, leaving out things that she had to leave out (such as the fact that several very high Adepts in Tibet were women, which she had to have known). If this posting makes me less a theosophist, then so be it, but I must be honest and speak my mind. As a magician as well as a theosophist, I have discovered that sex magic works as well as any other kind, and that sex and celibacy are two sides of a coin (picture a coin with one clean side and one dirty side and you get the picture). Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 10:36:53 +0000 From: bazzer@pavilion.co.uk (Bazzer) Subject: Re: The Art of HPB >bazzer@pavilion.co.uk (Bazzer) writes: Response to Paul Gillingwater's reply: > > "The aspirant has to choose absolutely between the life of the > > world and the life of Occultism. It is useless and vain to > > endeavour to unite the two, > > This is basically true, however for most people in the world, who > might class themselves as "aspirants", it would be vain and > foolish (if not even delusive) to seek to characterize themselves > as occultists, and therefore to choose such a path which denies > the possibility of learning some very valuable lessons that come > with family life. Agree entirely:-) The (to us) somewhat severe 'rules and regulations' required of *practical* occultism are somewhat outside the possbilities of most of us - certainly oneself! One only has to look at the 12 extracts of the 73 "rules" mentioned by HPB in "Practical Occultism" (Lucifer, May 1888) to get a glimpse of the undertaking:-). Yet it is important not to loose sight of them. > > struggle for amost any married man, who would persue *true* > > practical Occultism, instead of its *theoretical* philosophy. > > For he would find > > I believe that such a theoretical study is not without its value, > especially when accompanied by meditation and service. And of > course, not forgetting the sine qua non of the occult life --- a > sense of humour, and a lively appreciation of one's own > inadequacies (c.f. "Diary of a Sacred Magician" by Georges > Chevalier.) Theoretical study is of inestimable value. It is the first step for most of us; the first step being the beginning of every journey. The question arises, nontheless, as to where we should go to obtain our first step. One would suggest that the ground work, the foundation so to speak, begin with the *original* (un-edited/un-altered) works of HPB and her co-workers. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 10:36:59 +0000 From: bazzer@pavilion.co.uk (Bazzer) Subject: Re: Stand Fast Bazzer > Even if the "general feeling" were negative, pay it little mind. > To speak out, to discuss, to argue can be helpful to those many > silent ones on this or any list. Those of us who make the most > noise are not to be feared or propitiated. Relax. Life, whether > off or on line, has pain and pleasure in a mix. To crave the > sweet and abhor the bitter is normal. But it is our great > failing, as Buddha and many others have pointed out. Try not to > lust too much for comfort, nor to push away the unpleasant. Thank you, Nicholas, for your most pertinent thoughts. You are 100% correct. The offer to withdraw from the group was realy one of respect to current members who might have had an historical agenda that a newcommer had little or no right to unsettle. It appears, however, judging from your's and other's comments that this is not necessarily the case:-) One hopes, therefore, to stick with it:-) > The moral is: change yourself, not your environment; it is the > only practical, long term solution. "The Universe is guided from within without" (SD) may, I guess, reflect this. Thank you for the reminder. It's certainly one to reflect on. Kindest regards. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 10:37:04 +0000 From: bazzer@pavilion.co.uk (Bazzer) Subject: Re: The Art of HPB Dear Liesel, Thank you for the info below. Much appreciated. Kindest regards. > Theos-buds, is a subsection of theos-l. I was looking through my > papers for directons as to how to subscribe to it, but can't find > it just now. Please ask John Mead, the Theos-l manager. > > JEM@char.vnet.net From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 10:37:08 +0000 From: bazzer@pavilion.co.uk (Bazzer) Subject: Re: to: Nicholas & Bazzer For Liesel: > I don't see eye to eye with your HPB quote. To me, spirit & > matter manifest together, work hand in glove. The person who > loves his spouse dearly, eventually comes to enlarge this love to > embrace all of humanity, the spouse being a starting point. At > least that's the way it was for me. I came to love humanity > more, because I loved 1 person who also had a great love for > humanity. To me, the 2 are complementary rather than > exclusionary. Besides, I think you need a certain amount of > self-gratification, of loving yourself, & g iving to yourself, > before you can move beyond that stage to altruism. The quote from "Occultism versus the Occult Arts" was mainly in response to the celibacy question concerning HPB as a *practical* Occultist. Of course, you are right, we have to start at the beginning and not at the end and the 'lesser' loves and affinities we have for our fellow beings is non the less valuable, if not necessary. After all, separateness is the great Illusion and pretence at denying the more noble and elevating human emotions/feelings is, one would suspect, less than healty. If one is not mistaken HPB raises the matter somewhere to the effect that the man or woman of the world is better off being married than not. Best wishes. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 12:52:45 +1100 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: Re: to: Nicholas & Bazzer bazzer@pavilion.co.uk (Bazzer) writes: > If one is not mistaken HPB raises the matter somewhere to the > effect that the man or woman of the world is better off being > married than not. One is not. :-) Personal experience has taught me that when I was single, I was essentially selfish -- thinking only of my own comfort and needs. Since 5 years of marriage, I have learned to be a little less selfish, thinking not only of my partner's needs and feelings but also those of others. Another benefit of marriage is the support and guidance one receives that can help to prevent one's more mystical states ending up driving one loopy. It's nice to have a firm anchor to reality, a reminder that bills are due and common sense must be applied. I don't want to imply that the one in a partnership who "anchors" is any less spiritual, nor that these are fixed roles -- in fact, I think they change in a dynamic energy relationship. Sometimes I'm the anchor. The bottom line I guess is that when engaged in the quest for the Path, any fellow-Pilgrims are extremely helpful -- and to me, one of the benefits of this mailing list is that it represents a high concentration of such Pilgrim souls, representing different viewpoints, ages and ethnic backgrounds, in which the joint work of practical theosophy may be pursued in an atmosphere of acceptance and tolerance. Despite occasional friction, the important part is TO NEVER GIVE UP, and learn to better understand each others' points of view. Paul Gillingwater From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 17:07:04 +0000 From: bazzer@pavilion.co.uk (Bazzer) Subject: Re: A Response to Bazzer Reply to Jerry S. Firstly, thank you for your comments, Jerry. >Bazzer: <"The Secret Doctrine", for example, stands or >falls on one simple plane fact: Master's did or did not >help in it's production. > > ) the >SD, like any other book, must stand on its own merits. Absolutely. Nevertheless, the source of the work is important as, sometimes, is the 'author's' credentials to an enquiring newcommer (a tree being known by its fruit, as it's said). Sometimes one hear's absurd supositions that the SD, for example, was dreamed-up by HPB's imagination etc.. It was not. Maybe the point here is that we do not need to side-step the issue about the source of the work, i.e. the real Authors. >The argument that it stands or falls on Masters sounds to >me like the Christian fundamentalist attitude that the >Bible must be believed because it is the very word of God. >Sorry Bazzer, I can't buy into either your idea of that >of the fundamentalists. Don't feel the above para is in context with the point in question:-) >Bazzer: fraud and liar, for *she* claimed that she did *not* write >them. One would hope that anyone who believes HPB was/is >a fraud and a liar does not go by the title of >"theosophist".> > >I agree with your first statement. I do not agree with >your second. A theosophist, IMHO, is someone who >believes in the reality of universal brotherhood. Period. >Whatever else a theosophist may believe in is mental fluff >and my fluff is as valid as anyone elses. > Is it "mental fluff" for one to believe HPB a liar and a fraud and go around calling oneself by a name (viz theosphist) she is intimately and historically associated with? Seems unethical. What would others say? >Bazzer: debate.> > >This again, IMHO, is pure nonsense. Truth has been open >to debate since Adam and Eve ate the apple from the Tree >of Knowledge (i.e., after they descended below Daath). "Debate" is the outer; Truth the inner/real. Truth is "what is"; and "what is" is One (this being fundamental to theo-sophia). >Bazzer: <...founded by a tool of the Opposition (ie CWL) >being largely responsible for the fragmentation and >destruction of HPB's and Master's work. > > > Now the poor guy >is accused of working for the Dark Brotherhood of all >things! The original comment stands as is, I'm afraid (potential karma notwithstanding:-)) NB: a tool is diferent from the user of the tool. >Bazzer: (these are the basics any theosophist should know and >understand). HPB was a practical/practicing Occultist. >Her virginity was proven by medical examination. It was >physically impossible for her to be otherwise after an >'accident' she had falling from a horse at an early age.> > >This statement, IMHO, suggests to me that you know little >of true occultism. You are simply quoting some of HPB's >words You are entirely correct that one knows little of "true occultism", but surely it must be assumed that at least HPB *does*! What is wrong in quoting the words of some one who know's what they are talking about, i.e. HPB? > her accident on the horse >only prevented her from getting pregnant. Not a historian BTW, but believe she described the condition as making impregnation also impossible. Your account below is doubtless correct, however. Thank you for the details. By "excuse" I guess you mean evidence? > She was accused >of having an illigitimate child and offered the doctor's >certificate as an excuse as to how it was impossible for >her to have a child. >And whether she did or did not have sex with anyone has >nothing whatever to do with her being an Adept or her >conversing with Masters. It has *everything* to do with it (current and past standards of 'civilized' behaviour notwithstanding), as it does with the (re)opening (currently 'un-natural' for Fourth Round, Fifth Race, Humanity en mass) of the Third Eye and the *higher* siddhis. >HPB as quoted by Bazzer: <"The aspirant has to choose >absolutely between the life of the world and the life of >Occultism. It is useless and vain to endeavour to unite >the two ..." and so on > > >This is pure exotericism, Plane fact, surely? Would others care to comment, please? > and she is speaking in general >about what would apply to most (i.e., the average) person. >Being unmarried makes it easier to tread the Path. >Period. Lots of Masters were married (Swami Ramakrishna >comes to mind as one). A Mahatma *never* marries (see ML's to APS) > And anyone who thinks that you >can't have sex and stay on the Path is simply whistling >in the wind. For every celibate Adept that you can find, >I can show you an Adept who enjoyed his or her sexuality. >The two are simply unrelated, except in your own mind >(i.e., if you think of sex as dirty and sinful, then yes, >it will be a block for your spiritual development; but so >will anything else that you think is dirty or sinful). >I suggest you read LUST FOR ENLIGHTENMENT: BUDDHISM AND SEX >by John Stevens (Shambala, 1990) Stick to the SD, I think:-). It's somehow surprising how the entire human race hasn't got bored to tears with the s-e-x fixation:-)..........newspapers, TV, video, bill boards......you name it its there! "Do not believe that lust can ever be killed out if gratified or satiated, for this is an abomination inspired by Mara. It is by feeding vice that it expands and waxes strong, like the worm that fattens on the blossom's heart". Extract from "The Voice of the Silence" by HPB, pp 17. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 10:31:22 -0600 From: Arthur_PattersonA@mbnet.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: A Response to Bazzer Bazzar, As a seasoned Fundy I thought I would try to explain what Jerry might have had in mind when he spoke about the parallels between your arguement and that of the religious fundamentalist. Jerry : > The argument that it stands or falls on Masters sounds to me like > the Christian fundamentalist attitude that the Bible must be > believed because it is the very word of God. Sorry Bazzer, I > can't buy into either your idea of that of the fundamentalists. >Don't feel the above para is in context with the point in >question:-) When I was in the hot bed of fundamentalism there was a controversy called "biblical inerrency'. It is a long drawn out, and to me now ridiculous argument concerning the total truthfulness of all statements in the Scripture including scientific truth ie. creation. Well the arguement had its meta-communications which suggested that if you stray from inerrancy a series of departures from true faith would develop such as a low Christology etc. I call this approach the domino theory that if you tip one thing the rest go. Your argument on the veracity of both the Mahatma's and or Blavatsky suggests that once certain theosophical truths are departed from there is a domino effect that leads one to deny all of theosophy. Perhaps there should really be no, or little, value in being a Theosophist but in using theosophy as a guide and aid to spiritual development. I think that Thesophy is self authenticating and if the Mahatmas stand as mythic or historical guides in your mind and in your spiritual life great but the need to decide for others what constitutes a theosophist in the final end is unnecessary. Am I a theosophist? I have no idea but I do know that what I read in theosophical literature and hear on the group has aided my pilgrimage. I am grateful to it but I will never allow myself again to be defined by an external label or authority. Art From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 14:43:12 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: The Art of HPB to JRC Hear, hear! LFD From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 14:50:42 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: HPB's virginity To Alan, Mental plane laughter from one higher intelligence to another. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 14:57:10 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Paths question: Who's more comfortable the angel sitting on the pin, or the fakir sitting on a bed of nails? Are they doing it physically or extraterrestially? Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Mar 1995 15:10:56 EST From: Chuck Bermingham <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: RE: Bazzer on LCC > No doubt the Liberal Catholic Church, for example, contains some > of the variety of seekers, this *religion* (religion being > described as being the cause of 2/3rds of human misery) founded > by a tool of the Opposition (ie CWL) being largely responsible > for the fragmentation and destruction of HPB's and Master's work. > It is the undermining of *this* work which should be boldly and > fearlessly challenged. Theosophy needs thinkers, not sheep. Welcome to theos-l, Bazzer! I have been a member of the Liberal Catholic Church for over 20 years. I have also done some study of the history of the church and its early years, but I have never heard anything like what you posted. What you be willing to give a fuller explanation of the above paragraph? Thank you, Ann Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 17:01:55 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: to Daniel Caldwell Dear Daniel, I think your thoughtful post should get a detailed response, at least fom this Theosophist it should. You talk about doing some Theosophy in depth. I was hoping that the "Mahatma Letters" would be such a vehicle. Letter #2, which I posted a few days ago. concerns what the Masters consider selfish, & what not. Their ethics being so much more sensitive than our usual, I thought the subject would call for more of a response than it has so far. But maybe it's still forthcoming. I myself didn't mean to imply that history is boring. For instance, I still remember from a long time ago some of the details of "The History of Atlantis and Lemuria". They had vril-powered flying boats, and water ducts. Also, I just recently read an history of American Immigration waves, a book which presents quite a different, and enlightening side of American history. And what an eye opener my "American Women's History" course was several years ago! What I do find boring is trying to ascertain facts which don't shed any new light on anything, and in our case, seem to lead to bickering. I hate bickering. Rather than try to dig around to find out who the heck wrote the SD or the "Mahatma Letters", I find it more productive to try to read the material itself, & try to figure out what it says, & who cares who wrote it. Nobody knows who wrote the Bible either, nor the Sutras, and what difference does it make? But their contents do make a difference, & sometimes historical notes, such as those contained in George & Virginia's "Readers' Guide to the Mahatma Letters..." enhance. Now does that make sense to you? I do hope so. "How do you even start to discriminate and discern between the false & the true?" If history and science are your anchors, then that's where discriminati on starts for you. My anchor is whatever I find out that makes sense to me, & that fits in with what I've experienced & with what I already believe. If it makes sense to me, I appropriate it, if it doesn't, I discard it. I've come to believe that this is the only truth I can discern, the one that fits me, the one that makes sense to me. The only one who can visualize absolute Truth, I think, is God, because God's viewpoint embraces everything in & out of manifestation. I can't compete with that, so I need to be satisfied with seeing that part of the truth that I can perceive. I'd welcome your comments back. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 22:59:59 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: A Response to Bazzer In response to [part] of Jerry S.' posting: > Bazzer: debate.> > > This again, IMHO, is pure nonsense. Truth has been open > to debate since Adam and Eve ate the apple from the Tree > of Knowledge (i.e., after they descended below Daath). "Nonsense" is the polite way of putting it. . Interesting. How is your knowledge of Biblical Hebrew here, Jerry? This could be a separate thread . . . > folks > have bashed poor ol' CWL unmercifully on this net for > months. Let him rest in peace, OK? Agreed! > If this posting makes me less a theosophist, then so be > it, but I must be honest and speak my mind. As a magician > as well as a theosophist, I have discovered that sex > magic works as well as any other kind, and that sex and > celibacy are two sides of a coin (picture a coin with > one clean side and one dirty side and you get the > picture). > > Jerry S. You could be in serious trouble here, Jerry! Mind you, you might just get a special commendation from the "Dark Ones." :-) Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 22:33:37 GMT From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Paths > question: > Who's more comfortable the angel sitting on the pin, or the > fakir sitting on a bed of nails? Are they doing it physically or > extraterrestially? > Liesel Hmmm - I would guess the angel, as there seems to be a lot of other angelic company competing for the same space, whereas the fakir has the place to himself. Mind you, he _is_ sitting oon the sharp end of some very large pins. Maybe if the angels had to do this, a number of them would quickly move over to make way for the more fakir-minded ones. I guess they are all doing it physically - I could be wrong - but my uinderstanding is that to dwellers on the different planes their world seems as physical to them as ours does to us. Note: all of the above is [surprise] not intended to definitive in any way. WHat I hope it may suggest to us is that given the capacity of the ordinary human intellect to make association chains of ideas, we can oh so easily turn complete nonsense into a seemingly highly intelligent discussion. Some of theos-l has, in recent weeks, seemed to me to fall into just this category. Happily, when downloading the latest bunch of mail, I have just read some very constructive approaches from Jerry S. and Daniel! Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 22:43:29 GMT From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: RE: Bazzer on LCC > I have been a member of the Liberal Catholic Church for over 20 years. I have also done some study of the history of the church and its early years, but I have never heard anything like what you posted. What you be willing to give a fuller explanation of the above paragraph? > Thank you, > Ann Bermingham I believe I still have somewhere a copy of the original LCC Liturgy issued in 1918. The cover originally had a sticker describing it as an LCC publication, but underneath was its original cover as an Old Catholic Church liturgy and publication. Wedgwood seems to have been the leading light in the LCC formation, and all of them at the 1918 formation period appear to have been theosophists, though as Ann will know, this is no longer the case. Bazzer's assertion about CWL is very strange, considering that CWL was a Liberal Catholic bishop and a leading Theosophist *at the same time*. I have had many friends among LCC clergy over the years, and a few decidedly "not-friends" since the publication of my 1985 "Bishops Irregular" and its 1989 supplement. One LCC priest introduced me to Co-Freemasonry and indirectly into TS membership [although I began theosophical studies in 1956]. What worried me about Bazzer's post on this was the use of the word "Opposition" with a capital "O" - as if there were some kind of *conspiracy* to overthrow theosophy (especially the HPB kind). >From the history of the Society, it seems to be pretty good at plotting to overthrow itself . . . Is Bazzer I wonder introducing the EVIL ONE into all this? Smacks of Christian Fundamentalism to me. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Mar 1995 19:15:31 EST From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: Letter II Letter II appears as a timely phenomenon, in my humble opionion. It discusses the differences between a selfish search for powers to know more and gain special knowledge or the much different being open to the will to do the work of the masters on earth regardless of any special knowledge (my hasty reading). I felt more like a victim of cyberpathology though I might be accused of trying to spread the infection with a seemingly angry post. I was not trying to attack anybody, but just point out that some of us don't deeply care about the history of the masters, their reality or HPB's virginity (I threw that in because to prove a point that people will arugue about anything and trully like Liesel, I don't care.) What I care about and what has brought me to theosophy and this discussion group is a force beyond my control and certain willingness to work with it. Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 20:05:36 PST From: MARTINLEI@eworld.com Subject: Introducing Martin Hello brothers and sisters of the Theos-L. My name is Martin Leiderman and I just joined the cyber-theosophical exchange of ideas which I hope to enjoy for long time...wonderful technological times indeed. I live in Los Angeles since 1976 and belong to a Spanish Lodge "Logia Espana," we meet in the building of the Besant Lodge in Hollywood, CA. I was born in Venezuela where I I was a teenager when I had a very directed and strict theosophical education very much like an old Pythagorean school. Some day I relate all that in Theos-Root or buds which has to do with a daughter society called New Acropolis. I joined not understanding what this is all about but because of a big push from the great Eldon who was working on me for more than a year; and also due to a lecture of John Algeo at Krotona last February where he advertised it. Eldon ask me to start a Spanish Theosophical exchange over the internet which I would like to do if there are at least 3 people interested. Those of you interested please let me know at ................ ......... martinlei@eworld.com. I would like to thank John Mead and Liesel for their immediate welcome on my email and the encouragement of forming the Spanish list. When I came back from a business trip to rainy Seattle I was surprise to have more than 40 emails from theos-l and when I had them in Ms-Word in my Mac I had over 80 pages which I was able to reduce with some macros to about 50. I told myself I found the truly Nucleus of Universal Fraternity which HPB and the founders of the TS had dreamed of.... But, by the ghost (shell in real terms) of HPB, when I read the discussions!!!!! ... hum -#%^()**- oh well ..... we still have to work on it. But a nucleus we are and we need to grow in strength and wisdom . . . the world knowledge is advancing very rapidly and if we do not stay ahead like HPB and other early on in 1875 did, we will fall behind and disappear as a group in oblivion as no positive and creative energy will flow down from the astral light into ourselves. This is karma . . . we produce it with every word we write with every word we think and utter. Remember The Secret Doctrine: " because the spoken words has a potency unknown to, unsuspected and disbelieved in, by the modern sages." She also explain the karmic mechanism in Isis and W. Q. Judge in his Branch Paper No. 8, Nov. 1890. We must respect these esoteric laws to move ahead of our times and tune in the needs of our communities. Your brother Martin From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 18:42:44 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: "Lust" quote from "Voice.." Dear Bazzer, When did you stop eating? The way I heard it, wanting sex is like wanting food . Please do realise that "lusting" being applied to sex, is false Christian ethic, unfortunately much engrained. It does not apply to Buddhist sex, "The Voice ..." being Buddhist scripture. So please come off this riduculous nonesense. Having sex is not a great sin. People do it every day without having to go to hell first or after. And I still don't give a hoot whether HPB ever did or didn't. It doesn't add or subtract anything to or from her. Take it from an old crone. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 9:57:56 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: To be a Theosophist Not long after its formation, the Baha'i discussion group Talisman initiated a custom of self-introductions. Everyone on board at the time gave a one-para description of background and interests, and newcomers were asked to do the same. I wonder if this might be worthwhile here to help us get along. Bazzer, are you an associate of the United Lodge of Theosophists? It might help me and others understand your pronouncements about HPB's virginity, veracity, etc., and your assertions about The Opposition, if we knew where you were coming from Theosophically. When you argue that anyone who believes HPB to have been a "fraud and a liar" should not be allowed to call him or herself a Theosophist (and therefore, should not be accepted by other Theosophists as one of "us") this has wide-ranging implications. Because what you are really saying is that ONLY people who believe HPB never told a lie or did anything fraudulent should be welcomed as Theosophists. If the ULT wants to set up such a ground rule, I would regretfully say, "well, to each his own." But I think it fair to ask "do you acknowledge Olcott to have been a real Theosophist?" Because he surely didn't believe HPB to have been the paragon you portray her as being. And if your logic ends up rejecting Olcott as not being a real Theosophist, doesn't this relate to the ULT rejection of the entire TS as having been taken over by The Opposition? Should the majority of readers here on theos-l, who belong to the Adyar TS, be told of your evaluation of that organization, so as to know better where you are coming from? Thus far the list has been spared the trauma of outright inter-organizational wrangling, with some Theosophists denying that others are "real" Theosophists. And I don't think many of us welcome the initiation of such disparaging remarks. But if they are going to appear, then it would be helpful to have any hidden agendas unveiled so as to help us evaluate them. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 23:24:04 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: To Liesel and JEM Being subscribed to both theos-l and theos-roots, I am puzzled at not having received MHL #2 yet. The mailserver this end has had a few problems lately, but mail is now coming fast and furious - but not this one. Is there a way to "kick" this posting? Liesel: Your devotion in the matter of copying out all this material is worthy of high praise, and although I have the same basic edition in book form that you are working from, it is GOOD to have electronic, _searchable_ texts to work with. I for one am very grateful, and want to say so, loud and clear. Ready? I AM VERY GRATEFUL! Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Mar 1995 10:39:29 EST From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Welcome Martin > I joined not understanding what this is all about but because of > a big push from the great Eldon who was working on me for more > than a year; Eldon obviously saw that you had much wisdom to offer Theos-l. I have seen other groups get into a bickering mode, at which point they no longer grow, but start to stagnant in their own negative energy. You observations are refreshing and welcome. A big welcome to Martin in LA! - ann bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 11:13:41 EST From: uscap9m9@ibmmail.com Subject: Achieving Our Potential Jerry Hejka-Ekins: Following are some comments on your posting on the state of things on `theos-l'. (Excuse the writing style if there are too many should's in it; I just want to get out my reaction before too much time passes.) I'm not writing about you or any particular people on the list, but speaking in general about the great opportunity we have in this forum. Achieving Our Potential -- Eldon Tucker Our expectations of the behavior of the mailing list depend upon which paradigm that we use to describe what is going on. We can be happy with the state of things, or at least not surprised at what happens -- or we can be shocked and disappointed. If we take the model of a study class, there is a single thread of conversation. Depending upon the type of program going on, there is an appropriate topic, and we are expected to stay on the theme, and not change the subject. The topic might be an historic study of past Theosophists, and people offended by too much explicit history would stay away. The topic might be a psychic travelogue, with those feeling that approach to be degrading could stay away. Or the topic could be a specific study of the Theosophical philosophy, where we actually study the tenants, rather than promoting dozens of conflicting opinions, each opinion informing the world how much better it is than the old, out-of-date, half-developed theosophical literature of the last century! The problem with written rather than spoken, in-person, communication is that we don't see the other people. We cannot gauge their reaction to what we say, and adjust our exposition accordingly. With the internet, in email, we are at a greater disadvantage than other methods of written expression. In magazines and books, there are a number of graphic, visual cues that we can embellish our writings with. Let's consider the advantages of `theos-l'. First, there is *complete freedom of expression.* We are not subject to the dictates of a magazine editor or publisher regarding what is suitable content. We do not have to conform to someone else's standards or ideas. Second, there is *immediate feedback.* We have a form of expression where we are published immediately, and can hear a number of reactions to our writings within hours of when we sent it out. Third, there is *a healthy diversity of viewpoints.* We have a group of students that have come together through a common interest in Theosophy, and that are not subject to any organizational restrictions or structures. No matter what we might say, there could easily be vocal disagreement. Is this bad? No, within healthy bounds, a good discussion needs differing views. We can sound out, and work out or define the differences in viewpoints on Theosophy that may not otherwise find a forum. The meetings of no Theosophical group, I'd say, would be as inclusive of differing views on the Philosophy as we find on `theos-l'. For a healthy participation in `theos-l', we need to not have any expectations, but take for ourselves the same freedom we'd expect everyone to have: the freedom to write on what we find true, and what we find important and worthy of sharing with others. No matter what we may write on, we'll find some people interested, and enhancing our discussion; others might object or be offended. So what? The only problem with this is when intolerance takes over. We have intolerance when we must tell others to "shut up!" rather than allowing their interests to co-exist with ours. We can pass over writings or discussion on topics that we don't like, or that we may find offensive, without seeking to stifle or punish their writers. We need to grant to others the same freedom of expression that we should properly take for ourselves. We should give up the paradigm of a single-threaded study class, and embrace openness. A better paradigm would be of an interactive magazine, with multiple articles on its pages, some of interest to us, and others we may decide to skip over. Or we could consider that of a community college, with multiple classes under the same roof. Some classes we'd find intellectually challenging; others would bore us to tears, or would redden our faces with anger. To exist in this setting, the responsibility is on us to pick appropriate classes to attend, rather than drive away students and instructors of `inappropriate' materials, or rather than our dropping out and missing the classes we'd value. We're continually getting new people on `theos-l', and it takes them a little while to adjust to the new environment. They may initially write too harshly, or be unnecessarily confrontational; diplomacy and tact is learned by experience, and we get that experience fairly quickly because of the immediate feedback that arises to our postings. The recent discussion on Paul Johnson's books is a single thread of discussion, a single class in our `online community college'. This thread may deal with the topic of Paul's situation of dealing with the anger and intolerance that is given to him in generous portions. This is an entirely different thread or `class' than the topic of the completeness of his information, and of the discussion of the logic of how that information leads to conclusions. We can all appreciate the topic of dealing with anger and attacks from people not wanting to hear what we say, because it challenges certain core beliefs of theirs. We experience this, potentially, whenever we present theosophical ideals to someone not quite ready for them. We all can experience hostility and attack from others on an emotional level, unrelated to what we consider are our better ideas. I don't think that a historic discussion has to go elsewhere, or hide on some other mailing list, so as to not offend some readers. If we did that for historic discussion, who's to say what other topics are next to be banished, because a few readers are offended, until there is very little general discussion left at all? We could find, for instance, that all discussion of OOBE's and the psychic be banished to `t-psychic', all talk of the Masters as real and not fictional characters to `t-masters', all talk of recarnation to `t-rebirth', etc. The solution is not in banishment of topics based upon the intolerance and offense taken by people. Rather, the solution is in increased tolerance by our vocal readers, and the ability to either be open-minded or to politely not read materials that are not personally liked. We have an opportunity to write on Theosophy to an audience so diverse that we're guaranteed a sympathetic hearing. And at the same time, we have an opportunity for immediate criticism, sometimes of an unexpected nature, which challenges us to write even more clearly and to better express ourselves. I would not say that `theos-l' is pathological. Because of our lack of control over the participants and their responses, we have to deal with unexpected emotions and inner reactions. Dealt with properly, they help us to grow and become better people. Ignored or denied, they lead us to strike out angrily, or to withdraw our participation. There will always be people that, to our viewpoint, don't think straight, and allow emotion to rule, people we cannot talk to logically. And there will be those that are eager to mock ideas and ideals which we hold close to our hearts and hold sacred. This happens everywhere in life, even in theosophical meetings. How should we react? We respond with greater clarity, with greater insight, with greater inspiration, with the hope that we can touch the others and eventually share the truth and beauty that we have found in the Esoteric Philosophy. There's a saying: "don't cast pearls before swine." But like all sayings, it's a half-truth. It aptly applies in certain situations; in other situations it may be completely wrong. In the case of `theos-l', I'd say it does not apply. Every expression of something of value, every attempt to share something of value, does good to both us and the world. This is regardless of the objections or disagreement we'll sometimes hear. When we take a step to given tangible expression to the great Teachings, we're doing the work that the T.S. was founded to assist in. The work is in the giving expression to the Gnosis of Life. It is not a quantitative thing, where a readership count affects its value to the world. We change ourselves for the better, and brighten the world, when we sit down and write, *with the intent of sharing*. We should all be free to write about what we value and want to share. (Even John Mead should freely dive into the discussions. If John feels he must hold back to appear neutral because of his position of maintaining the mailing lists, I'd suggest he get another account, perhaps on AOL.COM, and join in under a pseudonym.) It's equally wrong for us to hold back from writing on what we'd say, because of fear of others attacking us and telling us to shut up, as it is wrong for us to tell others to shut up and not write on certain topics we'd rather not see. Let's see more people open up and start sharing their ideas, sharing what they've learned or have been wondering about. Let's come alive on `theos-l' and let it achieve it's potential! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Mar 1995 11:50:15 -0400 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Sarcasm Bazzer, I didn't see the sarcasim in your post, but in those responding to your post. I thought you raised a point of view that was different from others who post frequently on this list. I thought your post worth considering. To attack them as being "dogmatic" seems somewhat overwrought. It didn't seem to me you had stated your opinions any more forcefully than others have with contrary opinions. While I don't agree with your assesment of CWL's role in the T.S.'s history, I did find other things to which I could agree. If we looked more at our mutual or common points of agreement we could build a repore of mutual respect and appreciate these differences. They add colour (I'll use the British spelling in deference:) to the tapestry. Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 12:02:51 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Achieving Our Potential I applaud Eldon's remarks, which recall one of HPB's statements in the Letters to American Conventions, I think. "Diversity of opinion, within certain limits, keeps the TS a living and healthy body." This is a paraphrase, but I think a close one. What sort of limits does HPB imply? I don't think it's how diverse the opinions are, but rather how they are expressed. Mutual respect is a bottom line requirement; thus no expression of contempt for others of differing views contributes anything helpful. And yet, such feelings keep coming up. The karma of theos-l is to be a nucleus of brotherhood but also a vortex of unbrotherly feelings from time to time. How can we achieve the former if we don't work through the latter? In one of the Gnostic gospels, Jesus is quote as saying (again a paraphrase) "if you don't bring forth what is within you, what is within you will destroy you." Meaning, in this case, if we don't face the unbrotherliness boiling in our hearts, all our professions of working for Theosophy are just dust and ashes. HPB also said in the same letters something akin to "united we stand, divided we fall." But that unity and division, IMO have little to do with doctrine and everything to do with the presence or absence of mutual respect and forbearance. Just some stray thoughts-- BTW, JRC-- a fine post. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Mar 1995 12:34:31 -0400 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Various comments on various comments Daniel, Thought you made several good points. Look forward to hearing more from you. I thought your point regarding our opinions being more important to us than the search for truth bares contemplation. I'll try to be more circumspective in this matter. I do try to suspend judgement and consider others points of view, for instance, I have different opinions than some others regarding CWL but now have a better understanding of why they hold their opinions now. Had I just deleted their messages and refuse to entertain their ideas I would be ignorant of the criticisms they raised. Those criticisms are weighed against the value I place in the ideas CWL introduced to me. Just as the criticisms of the Masters letters now interest me, so do the arguements in their defense. Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 10:29:25 -0800 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Subject: A Fundamental Paul Johnson> Mutual respect is a bottom line requirement; thus no expression of contempt for others of differing views contributes anything helpful. And yet, such feelings keep coming up. [...] unity and division, IMO have little to do with doctrine and everything to do with the presence or absence of mutual respect and forbearance. Nicholas> In human relations, an absolute truth. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Mar 1995 13:39:24 -0400 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Achieving Our Potential Eldon, One difference between theos-l and a class or study group we might attend in person is the lack of a moderator who can draw out those who haven't expressed a point of view, or who can redirect the discussion if it wanders to far off topic, or politely ask one member who is dominating the discussion group to give others an opportunity to speak. I don't think John Mead acts in this way, or is expected to by us. I am not even sure it is possible. I agree with you that it is more like a magazine full of articles, some of which we choose to skip over. Yet is a magazine without an editor. That can be good for wide open free flowing exchange of ideas. It can be difficult to follow any one string/topic and doesn't offer any mechanism to draw out the quiet ones. The attempts to study the kaballah or the Mahatma letters will be instructive as to techniques/methods which may need to be developed that differ from those of an open discussion list. This reminds a little of the age old debate in lodges for/against members meetings, which were exclusive of the general public. Some members arguing the need to be able to go deeper into the subject required excluding newcomers so the rest could continue on and not have to offer a rehash to get new people of to speed. Correspondence courses allow individuals to study a topic with an instructor. It would be very difficult for a student to have to deal with 3 or 4 different instructors, especially if the instructors disagree among themselves on the topic. Perhaps a method will evolve out of the discussion group of dealing with some of these issues. Suggestions? Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 20:58:11 +0000 From: bazzer@pavilion.co.uk (Bazzer) Subject: Re: to: Nicholas & Bazzer Thanks for your comments, Paul. > The bottom line I guess is that when engaged in the quest for the > Path, any fellow-Pilgrims are extremely helpful -- and to me, one > of the benefits of this mailing list is that it represents a high > concentration of such Pilgrim souls, representing different > viewpoints, ages and ethnic backgrounds, in which the joint work > of practical theosophy may be pursued in an atmosphere of > acceptance and tolerance. Despite occasional friction, the > important part is TO NEVER GIVE UP, and learn to better > understand each others' points of view. Yes, that's the real 'sin': giving up. Kindest regards. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 20:58:23 +0000 From: bazzer@pavilion.co.uk (Bazzer) Subject: Re: A Response to Bazzer Thank you for your comments, Art. > Your argument on the veracity of both the Mahatma's and or > Blavatsky suggests that once certain theosophical truths are > departed from there is a domino effect that leads one to deny all > of theosophy. The danger - if one may use the term - is that it gets pulled, pushed and annotated to the point that the original meaning becomes warped and/or undecypherable:-). IMHO this is what has happened within the current-day theosophical movement. >Am I a theosophist? I have no idea Likewise. Not for ourselves to judge:-) BTW my links with 'official' (for want of a better term) Thesophy, ie, the Theosophical Society, ended many years ago, so maybe I have *less* right to the name than most! Best wishes, From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 20:58:47 +0000 From: bazzer@pavilion.co.uk (Bazzer) Subject: Re: Various comments on various comments Reply to Daniel. >Various comments on various comments by Daniel Caldwell > > I want to jot down a number of my comments on what I've been > reading on Theos-l of late. My comments are food for thought and > nothing else. Dear Daniel, One hopes that the considerable 'cutting' of your posting, in order to do this brief reply, is not misunderstood:-). Your comments and thoughts were truely inspiring and could, IMHO, do the rounds a dozen times and still remain a source of thought and reflection. Please post more! Kindest regards, From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 13:36:44 -0700 From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: Achieving Our Potential What's the veritable "motto" of our kingdom, something like "Harmony through conflict" ...?! "Tis, not, methinks, in mimiking a false harmony, but through having the courage to fully engage the struggle and ultimately arrive at a genuine harmony that seems the path of growth. In this respect, the utterly unedited nature of the net (editors and organizational bureauracies virtually always attempt to paint a nice public picture), and even, in fact, some of the outright nastiness, IMO, is a sign that we are really engaging growth here. JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 13:03:53 -0800 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Subject: Re: "Lust" Liesel to Bazzer> > Please do realise that "lusting" being applied to sex, is false > Christian ethic, unfortunately much engrained. It does not apply > to Buddhist sex, "The Voice ..." being Buddhist scripture. So > please come off this riduculous nonesense. Having sex is not a > great sin. People do it every day without having to go to hell > first or after. Nicholas> This not directed at you in particular Leisel, but the notions you express are pretty popular nowadays. In ML 43 Morya mentions "my family Bible," the ~Khuddaka Patha~. This is a Buddhist primer containing nine small texts. The fifth of these is has a verse mentioning "self-control" as one of the many blessings of leading a life dedicated to avoiding bad karma and fostering good karma. Self-control refers to sexual abstinence for Buddhist monks or nuns, and lawful sexual intercourse for heterosexual couples. In another sutta Buddha taught: "Unlawful sexual intercourse, committed, carried out, and often pursued, leads to hell, to the animal world or the realm of ghosts. Even the least result of unlawful sexual intercourse brings man enmity with his rivals." The law of cause & effect (when really believed in) does give one a different motivation to be good than fear of, or love for, God. Yet the effect is the same; a strict, pure, noble ideal to be lived. However intolerable this may be to the modern American; Buddha, the Great Patron of Master M, KH and others of the Tibetan branch of the Occult Brotherhood, taught a very sublime, virtuous, conservative, ethical ideal. A religion professor, Victor Hori, made the following comments which apply equally to Theosophy: "Americans have turned to a foreign religion like Buddhism only insofar as that religion affirms American values... using Buddhist labels for Western concepts... using Buddhism to reinforce Western notions of morality and psychotherapy -- will ultimately co-opt Buddhism, making it incapable of criticizing Western society." [Utne Reader, Jan-Feb, page 16] One of the reasons theosophical groups are so enfeebled today is because they, for varied reasons, have put the practicing and *teaching* of these ideal ethics in the closet. Why? Because they are not *popular today*, as if they ever had been, for that matter. HPB once mentioned that this era was not one overflowing with "moral courage." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 00:27:24 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser Subject: Theosophy and sex; some thoughts Bazzer quotes from the ~Voice of the Silence~ about lust. Some comments seem useful. I give my opinion as usual and include some facts that I find useful to consider. 1. Although I tend to agree with HPB's statement, it should not be supposed that by suppressing own's inner desires for sex one actually is a celibate! The mere desire classifies you as no real celibate. One could easily delude oneself in this respect. 2. Far more important than the issue of sex is the issue of controlling one's emotions as to hatred, anger, jealousy, etc. The effect of anger is far greater (on the inner planes) than the desire for sex. W.Q. Judge has some valuable things to say on this in his ~Culture of Concentration~ (also part of ~Echoes of the Orient~, Vol. I). 3. Buddha, Gautama, was married when he was young and had a son (Rahula?). Later on he became a recluse. 4. Many of the Theosophists who entered the Esoteric Section during the days of W.Q. Judge were single and entered the married state after having met a like minded Theosophist in that Section. What does this suggest to you? 5. The thought occurs to me that if two spiritually inclined persons marry there will be a good possibility that they have spiritually inclined children. They would have much to offer to their children, eg. they could set a living example of how to live life in a spiritual, inspired, way. 6. Theosophy seems to have certain teachings on sex which are hardly known to Theosophists themselves. One of these, according to DJP Kok, is that the act of procreation should be confined to a certain period of the year, namely March, during the two week period of the waxing moon.. Does anyone know more about this? 7. In India it was a custom to many men to first raise a family and later on in life, after having reached the age of fifty years, to spend most or all of their time to religious study and practice in ashram's (that is, for the spiritually inclined; of course they spend some time to religious affairs before they reached the age of 50) It seems difficult, however, to transplant this custom to our Western societies. In the SD mention is made to a certain practice among Sikhs (?) consulting an astrologist as to what time was appropriate for the act of procreation in order to have strong, healthy, children. None of this astrological knowledge seems to be known in the West. Any comments?? Martin Euser From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 23:17:16 +0000 From: bazzer@pavilion.co.uk (Bazzer) Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist Hello everyone. > Not long after its formation, the Baha'i discussion group > Talisman initiated a custom of self-introductions. Everyone on > board at the time gave a one-para description of background and > interests, and newcomers were asked to do the same. I wonder if > this might be worthwhile here to help us get along. Bazzer - a newcomer - did a brief resume in the first posting to theos-l. BTW personalities are utterly unimportant. > Bazzer, are you an associate of the United Lodge of Theosophists? No. Had a tentative connection with the ULT many years ago, but suspect any 'membership' lapsed long ago. Unless it has changed considerably, the ULT was doing excellent work. Any opinions expressed by Bazzer are absolutely *nothing* to do with the ULT. > When you argue that anyone who believes HPB to have been a "fraud > and a liar" should not be allowed to call him or herself a > Theosophist Defacto, they should not - out of respect for HPB and Masters. > (and therefore, should not be accepted by other >Theosophists as one of "us") The above two lines were never said or implied. > this has wide-ranging implications. Because what you are really > saying is that ONLY people who believe HPB never told a lie or > did anything fraudulent should be welcomed as Theosophists. Please be kind enough to quote what was said, sir. The statement "what you are really saying" is your opinion - which you are, of course, entitled to. No word was mentioned about anyone thinking HPB a liar or fraud not welcomed as Theosophists. All are welcome, surely? What was said was that anyone who claimed *they* were a theosophist while at the same time slandering HPB as a fraud/liar should not describe themselves as a theosophist to other's, out of respect to HPB. >" But I think it fair to ask "do you >acknowledge Olcott to have been a real Theosophist?" Absolutely. Surely no question about it? > Because he surely didn't believe HPB to have been the paragon you > portray her as being. What HSO believed and *knew* - here he has one up on us all! - HPB to be was entirely a matter for himself. HSO loved HPB, was devoted to her and her Masters, gave his life and soul to the TS and deserves our utmost respect. > And if your logic ends up rejecting Olcott as >not being a real Theosophist, doesn't this relate to the ULT >rejection of the entire TS as having been taken over by The >Opposition? Re HSO insinuation: see above Re ULT: please ask them. Not a clue. > Should the majority of readers here on theos-l, >who belong to the Adyar TS, be told of your evaluation of that >organization, so as to know better where you are coming from? Eh? > Thus far the list has been spared the trauma of outright >inter-organizational wrangling, with some Theosophists denying >that others are "real" Theosophists. And I don't think many of >us welcome the initiation of such disparaging remarks. >But if they are going to appear, then it would be helpful to >have any hidden agendas unveiled so as to help us evaluate them. Hidden agenda's? My dear friend, I can not speak for others, but one has better things to do with one's time than play games on this honorable list. Do you seriously think anyone with even the slightest, dimest, moral code would join a long-standing group enquiring into theosophy (viz *theos*-l) for the purpose of propogating "hidden agenda's"? Ladies and Gentleman, are we here to discuss personalities, or enquire into the nature of Theosophy? As a newcommer to the list one is begining to get confused (please do not interpret this as sarcasm:-)) Kindest regards, From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 16:29:40 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Introducing Martin WELCOME MARTIN! Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 00:44:24 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Re ML #2 > Alan: theos-roots, I am puzzled at not having received > MHL #2 yet. > > > Me too. > > Jerry S. s i g h Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 00:47:04 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: History All those in favour of History on theos-roots say "Aye." Aye. Only . . . I am not getting theos-roots, which I was before and should still be getting. Still no MHL #2. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 00:50:29 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: To Liesel and JEM To Liesel: Many thanks, O autumn chicken! Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 00:52:36 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: "Lust" > Et tu, Nicholas, > > Please note that you're talking about "unlawful" sexual > intercourse. I wasn't promoting promiscuity, I was debunking > that the usual sex people have every day is lustful, and now, > unlawful. It's neither, I think... unless it's overdone ... > but so is anything else, if it's overdone. > > Liesel > I burnt the toast today. God have mercy upon me, a sinner. Alan :-) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 00:56:51 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Dreamers of the Apocalypse > There is a fellow thesophists ( I will try not to give his identity away) who seriously believes he a special messanger of THE end of the world and has seen signs that "the end is near". I say big surprise, big deal. Yet recently he had sold many personal possesions and plans to give the world his message (that he was chosen for). Again I now can see his and my ego inflation that getting to be an old-testemant prophet manque. >I'm not sure what this has to do with theosophy except that it seems to be a definite stage of maya on the path (visions of the devil or marga in the desert etc). I for one have given up my status as prophet of the apocalypse, there doesn't seem anything special in it with the stage already so crowded with these dreamers. >The sad part is that many can be lead to follow them instead of seeing the larger cyles that lie beyond this Kali Yuaga and that the universe itself will reincarnate (at least seven time for our solar system we are told). Any thoughts? Namaste Keith Price Yes, one. I wonder, rather than think, that this Kali Yuga [Yuaga spelling unfamiliar to me] may still be on the downward spiral, ie., getting "worse" rather than turning upwards towards a "New Age," or Aeon, or Era. In short the excremental material is right on fan ... Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 13:20:01 -0500 (EST) From: John Mead Subject: theos-l, buds, roots, and news service check Hi - I am sending this message to all four theosophy lists (theos-news, theos-buds, theos-roots, theos-l) If you do not receive this message from any list, you may need to resubscribe to the missing list. caution: due to the way internet handles mail, the way the server here cycles through various lists on Vnet (we have alot here) etc. please allow at least a few hours to assure yourself that you have not gotten the message from the other "list". to subscribe to any list send to listserv@vnet.net a e-mail message with the appropriate line(s): subscribe theos-L your-name subscribe theos-news your-name subscribe theos-buds your-name subscribe theos-roots your-name to check the subscribers list (may be a good idea to do this first) send the line(s): review theos-L review theos-News review theos-Roots review theos-Buds By The Way (BTW) -- I'm also going to check the from problem in this message too, while I'm at it. peace - john mead jem@vnet.net p.s from check below from all of the lists from all of the world from all of the planes from all of the gods... I hope you get this last line! :-) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 28 Mar 1995 19:57:38 EST From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Comments on ML #2 Two Comments on ML # 2. 1. " The mysteries never were, never can be, put within the reach of the general public, not, at least, until that longed for day when our religious philosophy becomes universal." Whenever we read over and study the tremendous amount of TS literature available, we need to reflect on these words to gain a little humility. One of Carl Jung's complaints about theosophy is that it seems to have an answer for everything, but that just like science, many of these seeming answers are really of little help in understanding an experience. He uses, as an example, a person who eats bad food and then has a bad dream. The scientific explanation is that eating bad food caused the bad dream. But, this in no way explains' the meaning of the dream. In the same way, many theosophical answers use words or terms that are themselves little, if at all, really understood. The bottom line here is that while our verbage is high, and we are apt to think that we, as theosophists, know all the answers, much of life remains a mystery, and will always remain a mystery to the ego or human mind. 2. "The adept is the rare efflorenscence of a generation of enquirers; and to become one, he must obey the inward impulse of his soul irerrespective of the prudential considerations of worldly science & sagacity." As I have said many times, find your own Path, and then tread it and damn the consequences. This, unfortunately, is the only way the spiritual path seems to work. Prudence will not get you very far. Of course, prudence may the very Path that you want; if so then by all means be prudent. The letter goes on to say "It is but with armed hand, and ready to either conquer or perish that the modern mystic can hope to achieve his object." Most Adepts recognize the possibility of the student failing in some way, maybe even in their own death. The theory is that even if you die, your unfulfilled desire itself will carry over to another life where you can begin anew (this, by the way, is exactly the Tibetan view of reincarnation, desires not monads taking on new bodies). I have yet to see any TS espouse or even endorse this hard-nose view of Adeptship, yet here it is, from the Mahatmas themselves. Of course, the TSs are not training grounds for Adepts, either. Yet one would think that the theory itself could be more openly discussed. Ah well, where is Alan's quiet room when you really need it? Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 17:15 PST From: ocean@earthlink.net (Mark Barville) Subject: Alice Bailey, etc. Hello, I recently read "A Compilation", by Alice Bailey. I was discussing this with a friend last week and she proceeded to tell me the following information, material that certainly did not reflect the beautiful writing that I had just read, and it reeked of propoganda. I have been racing through the internet trying to find out where she got her information, whether it was true, and how it related to Alice Bailey's books. I have found nothin yet. Here are some of the tidbits she gave me: *Lucis Publishing used to be Lucifer Publishing because it's origins were in Satan worship. *Alice Bailey, and her writings, came out of theosophy. *The founders of theosophy practiced pedophilia. *Theosophy is concerned with "racial cleansing", that the "5th race" is the purified white race. Now this sounds like intense propoganda to me. I would like to ask if anyone on this list has ever heard this stuff before, if any of it is true (and to what extent), what sources I can go to for a more complete understanding of Alice Bailey, her books, Lucis Publishing, and what Theosophy has to do with it all (if anything). I really feel a need for honest facts in this regard (what is known, acknowledged, verified history). Are there any writings in Theosophy that make any kind of distinctions among the races of mankind, much less promote racism? What is the truth about these things? Is this known propoganda put out by some fundamentalist religious group or something (based on misinformation or misguided understandings)? I would deeply appreciate a response (please only reply to the whole list if it will definitely benefit everyone), even if it is just to list a couple of books or dependable resources! Thank you very much! Mark Barville ocean@earthlink.net From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 20:50:16 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Original Programme Dear PAul, Thank you for that beautiful quote Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 21:18:36 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: ML#1 Dear Alan, I found out that I can't e-mail by retrieving material from a disk. I sent ML#1 too long ago for it to be still available on "Mail I have sent" . John Mead wrote yesterday that he thinks it can be retrieved by "get listproc theos-buds.950310" or ...." 950305" That's the best I can do at this stage. Sorry 'bout that. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 17:11:04 +1200 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: History to THEOS-ROOTS response Aye to putting history to THEOS-ROOTS. Not because I'm against history; it would just help with organising different streams of discussion. Murray Stentiford From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 02:08:19 -0500 (EST) From: John Mead Subject: Re: History to THEOS-ROOTS response > Aye to putting history to THEOS-ROOTS. > > Not because I'm against history; it would just help with organising > different streams of discussion. this was the really the main reason it (theos-roots) was started. peace - john mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 9:46:47 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist According to Bazzer: > BTW personalities are utterly unimportant. In an ideal world, perhaps. In this one (theos-l) we see plenty of personality-heat as well as individuality-light. > No. Had a tentative connection with the ULT many years ago, but > suspect any 'membership' lapsed long ago. If you signed the membership card and never withdrew, you should still be officially an associate. > > When you argue that anyone who believes HPB to have been a "fraud > > and a liar" should not be allowed to call him or herself a > > Theosophist > > Defacto, they should not - out of respect for HPB and Masters. And if they do, then what should be the proper response to this lack of respect, by you and other Theosophists? Who gets to define what qualifies as believing her a "fraud and liar"? Presumably those who would wish to exclude others from fellowship on the basis of heresy. (It would bother me just as much to be de facto excommunicated as de jure-- I speak from experience on this one.) > >" But I think it fair to ask "do you > >acknowledge Olcott to have been a real Theosophist?" > > Absolutely. Surely no question about it? Actually, there are many who would question this, I think. And precisely on the basis you brought up-- being insufficiently wholehearted in his endorsement of HPB. > What HSO believed and *knew* - here he has one up on us all! - > HPB to be was entirely a matter for himself. HSO loved HPB, was > devoted to her and her Masters, gave his life and soul to the TS > and deserves our utmost respect. Glad we agree on this. > > Should the majority of readers here on theos-l, > >who belong to the Adyar TS, be told of your evaluation of that > >organization, so as to know better where you are coming from? > > Eh? As in "what's the Opposition and where do you see it now vis-a-vis the TS that was once taken over by it?" That's a heavy accusation to bring up against an organization whose members comprise 85% (?) of your audience. Not that you don't have a complete right to make such allegations-- you do. But having made them, why not explain just what you mean and where you're coming from? > Hidden agenda's? My dear friend, This kind of locution is what Alan called your sarcasm. Your tone is not that of a dear friend. I'd call it just an Anglicism, except that the first protest came from the UK. I can not speak for others, but one has > better things to do with one's time than play games on this > honorable list. Do you seriously think anyone with even the > slightest, dimest, moral code would join a long-standing group > enquiring into theosophy (viz *theos*-l) for the purpose of > propogating "hidden agenda's"? You betcha. It happens every day on a great variety of lists, especially ones with religious topics. People are out to propagandize for their own views, and alas, to denigrate those of others. Some of your posts have that flavor, which inspires me to ask about your agenda. Sorry I missed your first post; it must have expired while I was away. But perhaps we should have an archive of brief descriptions of background and interest by members, so new members can become familiar with the online community somewhat so as to gain a feel for the diversity of views and orientations. It might reduce the "rubbing the wrong way" that goes on so much. Namaste From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 29 Mar 1995 09:53:36 EST From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: RE:Fundies attack Alice >Mark Barville writes: I recently read "A Compilation", by Alice Bailey. I was discussing this with a friend last week and she proceeded to tell me the following information . . . Here are some of the tidbits she gave me: *Lucis Publishing used to be Lucifer Publishing because it's origins were in Satan worship. *Alice Bailey, and her writings, came out of theosophy. *The founders of theosophy practiced pedophilia. *Theosophy is concerned with "racial cleansing", that the "5th race" is the purified white race. Now this sounds like intense propoganda to me. I would like to ask if anyone on this list has ever heard this stuff before, if any of it is true (and to what extent), what sources I can go to for a more complete understanding of Alice Bailey, her books, Lucis Publishing, and what Theosophy has to do with it all (if anything). Ann writes: Your first and second questions could be answered by "The Unfinished Autobiography of Alice Bailey", published by Lucis Publishing. As to the third, I can only guess that someone is focussing on accusations that were made against CWL. I will leave the fourth to somebody on Theos-l who knows this material better than I do. I'm still trying to grasp the idea of rounds and root races. I heard this same stuff ten years ago, on a local Chicago television station. Owned by Christian fundamentalists, they used to have a program in the early evening that featured a man standing in a dark dungeon. His presentation would be periodically interrupted by spooky noises and he warned the viewers about various "Satanic" cults. Dungeons and Dragons, the role-playing game, was a favorite target. Later in the evening, the channel broadcast Jim Bakker. Recently, I tuned in to watch a man sitting at a desk, warning everyone about the dangers of Islam. He claimed the religion was sweeping the globe and that Christians and Muslims were headed for a holy war. IMHO, I think these people need something to fight AGAINST, because it makes them feel stronger. It is duality played to the hilt. It's difficult to have a discussion with them, as they are convinced they are right. - ann "Ann Bermingham"<72723.2375@compuserve.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 9:55:36 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Alice Bailey, etc. According to Mark Barville: > Here are some of the tidbits she gave me: *Lucis Publishing used > to be Lucifer Publishing because it's origins were in Satan > worship. Baloney. Neither of these statements is true. > *Alice Bailey, and her writings, came out of theosophy. True > *The founders of theosophy practiced pedophilia. False. Allegations were made against a second-generation TS figure, not the founders > *Theosophy is concerned with "racial cleansing", that the "5th > race" is the purified white race. Complete balderdash, except that the 5th race is identified with the Indo-European migrations, i.e. "Aryan," a word not much favored anymore. > (and to what extent), what sources I can go to for a more > complete understanding of Alice Bailey, her books, Lucis > Publishing, and what Theosophy has to do with it all (if > anything). I really feel a need for Bruce Campbell's Ancient Wisdom Revived surveys all Theosophical-derived movements. The author belonged to a Bailey-related group called Nature of the Soul. > honest facts in this regard (what is known, acknowledged, > verified history). Are there any writings in Theosophy that make > any kind of distinctions among the races of mankind, much less > promote racism? The Secret Doctrine outlines a complex evolutionary scheme involving "root-races" and "subraces" but these are not at all identical to what we know as races today. What is > the truth about these things? Is this known propoganda put out by > some fundamentalist religious group or something (based on > misinformation or misguided understandings)? Probably. Sounds like Cumbey's Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow (1983?). But I've seen L. Larouche stuff that makes comparably wild accusations, too. > I would deeply appreciate a response (please only reply to the > whole list if it will definitely benefit everyone), even if it is > just to list a couple of books or dependable resources! Good luck in your investigation. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 29 Mar 1995 10:26:52 -0400 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Dreamers of the Apocalypse Paul, In an Ancient Greek History class in my undergraduate work the professor made the observation that if you thought the world was going to hell it must be going in a row boat because as far back as recorded history goes there have been such reports. He said in defense of those ancient historians that they were correct so far as their civilization, as they knew it, often did experience apocalypitic endings, but humanity and civilization continued. Have also read of an astrological theory, though I can't recall where, which sees a cycle in the rise and fall of civilizations that moves from east to west across the face of the earth, ie. from China to Persia to Greece to Rome to Europe to U.S.. Do you know of it? Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 11:15:44 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Dreamers of the Apocalypse Lewis-- Your reference rings a bell very faintly-- could it be Rudhyar? He's the most historical/schematic astrologer I know of? Does anyone recall whether this theory is his? PJ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 11:30:14 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: To readers of TMR An appeal for help/advice: I'll be speaking about The Masters Revealed in a few weeks, and have been working on what to say. Intending to leave most of the time free for q/a, I need to cover some basics. Will give a 10-minute summary of my findings, and then (or first?) a rundown of what the book does and does not do. At this point I have 7 points on each list. Anyone willing to advise on this list, please let me know. I want to make sure it is all accurate as well as conducive to good discussion. So will gladly forward the brief list upon request. Thanks in advance. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 08:55:59 -0800 From: ae677@lafn.org (Nancy Coker) Subject: Critics and Lies Many years ago, someone (Paul, I'm sure it was you) told me that all criticism should be honest, necessary, uplifting and kind. Yes! Re: HPB (or anyone else) telling lies -- Am I falling into sophistry to imagine that there are times literal truths get in the way of deeper truths? Nancy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 29 Mar 1995 12:10:55 -0400 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Moral Development and the Plan Astrea wrote: > I tend to agree with you, Jerry. It seems to me, that what ever > exists either must exist, or needs to exist to fulfil the Plan > (whatever it is.)... This "Plan" is one of the basic concepts theosophy exposed me to and helps make sense of so much in my mind. It is the basic matrix into which a wide variety of topics discussed in theosophy, religion, philosophy, science and (yes Keith,) the Arts fit and are given meaning to me. The discussions on the Mahatmas existence, for instance. If one accepts there is a rational, logical plan with such elements as evolutionary and progressive development of form and consciousness, then the existence of beings in advance of present humanity is quite defenseable. > Furthermore, the Divine principle seems to support a good deal of > what seems to be "evil" to us. However, living as human beings > in society, it is desirable that we should adopt certain codes of > conduct, to avoid the unpleasantness which seems to occur when > human nature goes completely unchecked. To look at it from another point of view, that conduct is not something that is just "adopted" by an reluctant personality, but is the result of the development of principles based on laws in nature. Laws which are benign in intent, aiming at developing individuals "latent" powers of compassion, love, and a lucid understanding of how to nurture these qualities in others. > Furthermore, certain restraints may be necessary to achieve more > refined levels of consciousness, hence the ban on meat-eating and > alcohol in many yoga groups. These restraints being "self"-imposed as the individual's conscious awareness of their own unrealised potential exerts pressure on the psychic to do something about awakening them, nurturing them within onesself. > We should also be wary of imposing our own dogmatic views of > right and wrong on others (unless it is our dharma to do so), as > we seldom know the whole story. > > ASTREA One of the real disturbing trends of today is this growing lack of tolerance for differing views. The library I work in has gone through two attempts to remove books considered offensive to our "christian" - -I use a small 'c' on purpose--community. One was successful in having a childrens book moved to an adult collection (Heather Has Two Mommies) and the other attempt successfully removed the book entirely from the collection, not even allowing us to obtain a copy from other libraries for patrons who request it (Women on Top). Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 29 Mar 1995 12:17:19 -0400 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: History...theos-roots, buds,etc. > All those in favour of History on theos-roots say "Aye." > > Aye. Aye. d> > Only . . . I am not getting theos-roots, which I was before and > should still be getting. Still no MHL #2. > > Alan I don't think I am either and I thought I had subscribed to all the list. John, is it possible some of us got dumped from some lists but not others during one the network outages? Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 12:30:46 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Critics and Lies According to Nancy Coker: > Many years ago, someone (Paul, I'm sure it was you) told me that > all criticism should be honest, necessary, uplifting and kind. > Yes! Wish I could live up to it always! > Re: HPB (or anyone else) telling lies -- Am I falling into > sophistry to imagine that there are times literal truths get in > the way of deeper truths? Not at all. I think that for both Sinnett and Hume, the more details they might receive about the earthly personalities of the Masters, the less they would be interested in the philosophy. As Dan points out, though, the letters are really written to humanity, not just to a few people. And isn't the same true of people generally? As KH wrote: "...we do not wish Mr. Hume or you to prove conclusively to the public that we really exist. Please realize the fact that so long as men doubt there will be curiosity and enquiry, and that enquiry stimulates reflection which begets effort; but let our secret be once thoroughly vulgarized and not only will sceptical society derive no great good but our privacy would be constantly endangered and have to be continually guarded at an unreasonable cost of power." My research suggests that the concealment of the adepts' identities, and the use of blinds to confuse enquirers, was necessary due to the sensitive positions occupied by Indian political and religious leaders under British occupation. As part of an international network of HPB's advisors, the Indian Mahatmas had to be very careful to downplay their associations with foreigners. As M wrote: "There is more to this movement than you have yet had an inkling of, and the work of the T.S. is linked with similar work that is secretly going on in all parts of the world...know you anything of the WHOLE brotherhood and its ramifications? The Old Woman is accused of UNTRUTHFULNESS, INACCURACY in her statements. [CAPS for italics] `Ask no questions and you will receive NO LIES.' SHE IS FORBIDDEN to say what she knows. You may cut her to pieces and she will not tell. Nay-- she is ordered IN CASES OF NEED TO MISLEAD PEOPLE..." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 16:06:14 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Comments on ML #2 Jerry: Electronic quiet room below: Okay? Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 16:09:11 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: ML#1 > Dear Alan, > > I found out that I can't e-mail by retrieving material from a > disk. I sent ML#1 too long ago for it to be still available on > "Mail I have sent" . John Mead wrote yesterday that he thinks it > can be retrieved by The DIS package from Demon will let you do this on a PC - ask me for more info if this is any use to you, and I will give you the ftp address. > "get listproc theos-buds.950310" or ...." 950305" > > That's the best I can do at this stage. > > Sorry 'bout that. > > Liesel 's okay! You have been very helpful already. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 16:15:08 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: History to THEOS-ROOTS response Murray: Thanks indeed for re-posting MHL #1 to the list. My offline reader told me your post was one with a multimedia extension, which I cannot read on this machine [though the ascii text is readable complete]. I have had this kind of msg before, but have no idea what it means - perhaps you could let me know! Again, Many thanks, Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 13:20:01 -0500 (EST) From: John Mead Subject: theos-l, buds, roots, and news service check Hi - I am sending this message to all four theosophy lists (theos-news, theos-buds, theos-roots, theos-l) If you do not receive this message from any list, you may need to resubscribe to the missing list. caution: due to the way internet handles mail, the way the server here cycles through various lists on Vnet (we have alot here) etc. please allow at least a few hours to assure yourself that you have not gotten the message from the other "list". to subscribe to any list send to listserv@vnet.net a e-mail message with the appropriate line(s): subscribe theos-L your-name subscribe theos-news your-name subscribe theos-buds your-name subscribe theos-roots your-name to check the subscribers list (may be a good idea to do this first) send the line(s): review theos-L review theos-News review theos-Roots review theos-Buds By The Way (BTW) -- I'm also going to check the from problem in this message too, while I'm at it. peace - john mead jem@vnet.net p.s from check below from all of the lists from all of the world from all of the planes from all of the gods... I hope you get this last line! :-) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 14:03:51 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Moral Development As I understand it, when one has reached Jerry's level # 3, one just does the right thing as needed, without some God or lawgiver standing over you, pointing a finger at you, "Thou shalt not..." At that point the "Thou shalt not"'s are no longer necessary, because everyone just knows the right thing to do in certain circumstances, & does it, without reminders & proddings. A long ways off, maybe. When I was in college, we had an honor system. No proctors in test or exam rooms. We regulated ourselves. At the end of the exam, we signed a pledge that we hadn't cheated. If someone very occasionally did cheat, & you saw them, you had to ask them to turn themselves in. They did. They were brought up at Student Court. It happened so seldom that the whole campus knew about it. I remember one person cheating in the 4 years I was there, among maybe four thousand students. It works. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 11:11:59 -0800 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Subject: Bailey & Theosophy Mark Barville> Here are some of the tidbits she gave me: *Lucis Publishing used to be Lucifer Publishing because it's origins were in Satan worship. Nicholas Weeks> Satan, the personal devil, was not believed in by Blavatsky or her Gurus, so there could be no such "worship." I have a faint recollection that the first printing of Bailey's first and/or second "Tibetan" channelled book did have Lucifer Pub. on it. This may have been inspired by the title of HPB's London journal "Lucifer," the Light Bringer. See HPB's article "What's in a Name?" for details. (Blavatsky Collected Writings, Vol. 8, p. 5; or the United Lodge of Theosophists has a pamphlet including it.) In any case, AAB soon replaced it with Lucis Pubs. MB> *Alice Bailey, and her writings, came out of theosophy. NW> Very far out indeed. She & CW Leadbeater were psychics who were convinced that the entities they contacted on the inner planes were the same Adepts that taught Blavatsky. I, representing a minority on this list, am equally convinced that AAB & CWL were deluded. Since I was a devotee of both for about 15 years, I'm not just popping off. MB> *The founders of theosophy practiced pedophilia. NW> False. There was one TS member (not a founder) of HPB's era, that I recall, who was so afflicted. An American, Alexander Fullerton, who died in 1913. MB> *Theosophy is concerned with "racial cleansing", that the "5th race" is the purified white race. NW> Also pure poppycock. Theosophy does advocate a "racial cleansing" of the entire human race; a cleansing of all selfishness and sense of separateness. MB> what sources I can go to for a more complete understanding of Alice Bailey, her books, Lucis Publishing, and what Theosophy has to do with it all (if anything). NW> "The Elder Brother" by Gregory Tillett gives much about Leadbeater, whose teachings were the inspiration for Bailey's own. She (or rather the "Tibetan") denys this. Tillett touches on her a little. MB> Is this known propaganda put out by some fundamentalist religious group... NW> Probably. I recall seeing, on a Christian channel, some lady blaming HPB for the New Age and the rise of Satanism etc. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 20:52:22 +0100 (BST) From: STELIOS@ollamh.ucd.ie Subject: Re: Bailey & Theosophy > NW> Very far out indeed. She & CW Leadbeater were psychics who were > convinced that the entities they contacted on the inner planes were > the same Adepts that taught Blavatsky. I, representing a minority > on this list, am equally convinced that AAB & CWL were deluded. > ^^^^^^^ Since I was a devotee of both for about 15 years, I'm not just > popping off. Sorry I didn't understand that. What do you want to say with the expession "deluded"? > NW> "The Elder Brother" by Gregory Tillett gives much about May I have some more informations about this book? > Leadbeater, whose teachings were the inspiration for Bailey's own. > She (or rather the "Tibetan") denys this. Tillett touches on her a > little. Really I cannot see how Leadbeater inspirated an enormous and momentous work, as Alice Bailey's books are. LOVE AND PEACE TO ALL THE BEINGS St.Kot From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 15:19:43 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Bailey & Theosophy Re: the relationship between Bailey's ideas and Leadbeater's. I have seen it argued the other way; that certain elements appear in CWL only AFTER AB starts publishing. These include the Manu/Mahachohan/Bodhisattva doctrine. If Tillett argues for CWL influencing AB (I'm not sure he does but for the sake of discussion let's assume so) then SOMEBODY reads the evidence the other way. Maybe Campbell? BTW-- Nicholas, you may not be in the minority on these issues. But then-- we're all (not just theos-l, but all humanity) deluded to some extent. So the question in any given case isn't WHETHER but HOW and HOW MUCH, perhaps. Of course there may be some gems even in the midst of delusion. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 15:48:07 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Moral Development and the... I think we need very much to be aware of the growing intolerance of a certain segment of our population. I'm always aware of it, because I had the contact, however slight, with Nazi Germany, where they burned books, & people with certain beliefs. Just now, I'm aware of S314, which, to me spells internet censorship, & I'm trying to do my bit not to have that law passed.. My consolation in this country is that we seem always to be able to absorb these intolerant onslaughts. I still remember taking an adult course in current events during the McCarthy era, when everyone who only slightly opened their mouth was in danger of being branded a communist. I remember sitting in the class room, with adults, voicing a mild contrary opinion, & looking around me & seeing the scared faces of the others. They were afraid to answer me back, lest they be branded communist. One could possibly lose one's livelihood. That's how cowed McCarthy had people in New Jersey, at the time. Well, McCarthy ruined a number of people's lives, but the country as a whole survived him without becoming too bigoted. I remember that, & it always gives me hope that the general public in this country isn't going to go along with censorhship & intolerance over the long run. It's a big hope, in view of the fact that a few right to lifers have killed choicers. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 29 Mar 1995 15:31:10 EST From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Bailey and Theosophy NW writes> She & CW Leadbeater were psychics who were convinced that the entities they contacted on the inner planes were the same Adepts that taught Blavatsky. I, representing a minority on this list, am equally convinced that AAB & CWL were deluded. Since I was a devotee of both for about 15 years, I'm not just popping off. Ann asks NW & Theos-l> What would be the criteria for judging whether one was truly in contact with a higher source or just chatting with a bogus entity? In "The Search for the New Age", a book that came out several years ago, there was a one-line response to the channeling phenomena. "Just because they're dead don't mean they're smart." Thank you From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 13:03:29 -0800 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Subject: Re: Bailey & Theosophy Paul Johnson> >Re: the relationship between Bailey's ideas and Leadbeater's. >I have seen it argued the other way; that certain elements >appear in CWL only AFTER AB starts publishing. These include >the Manu/Mahachohan/Bodhisattva doctrine. If Tillett argues >for CWL influencing AB... I was not saying Tillett said so. I don't remember. I was thinking of a passage in a "Tibetan" book, in regard to CWL's "Masters and the Path" published in 1925. The "Tibetan" said, roughly, (I no longer have those blue books) that because his teachings had appeared in the Arcane School private papers before 1925 his teachings were the basis for CWL's book. However, CWL had been a teacher in the Adyar ES & TS long before 1918, when AAB began channelling, so it seems clear that 90 per cent of the influence was from CWL to AAB, not the reverse. Nicholas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 16:11:11 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: ML#1 Dear Alan, Glad Murray came to the rescue with ML#1. I'd like to have the FTP address of the DIs package from Demon, if it would help me be able to download from disk to e-mail. I could have used that capablitity a couple of times already. Besides, I'm very disgusted with America Online. Half the system doesn't work right, & I continually have to wait for it to catch up with what I'm trying to do. Its fast lane is out of commissioin, & my February bill was $123.- ... unheard of. I've applied to hook in to Syracuse U's e-mail system, which comes gratis, but it'll take another few weeks, until my application will be approved. Then I'll change addresses once more, but hopefully this time for good. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 21:50:21 +0000 From: bazzer@pavilion.co.uk (Bazzer) Subject: Re: Bailey & Theosophy >MB> *Alice Bailey, and her writings, came out of theosophy. > >NW> Very far out indeed. She & CW Leadbeater were psychics who were >convinced that the entities they contacted on the inner planes were >the same Adepts that taught Blavatsky. I, representing a minority >on this list, am equally convinced that AAB & CWL were deluded. >Since I was a devotee of both for about 15 years, I'm not just >popping off. At least not a minority of one:-). >MB> *Theosophy is concerned with "racial cleansing", that the "5th >race" is the purified white race. > >NW> Also pure poppycock. Theosophy does advocate a "racial >cleansing" of the entire human race; a cleansing of all selfishness >and sense of separateness. "........close fast thy senses against the great dire heresy of separateness that weans thee from the rest" (pg 9). "Let thy Soul lend its ear to every cry of pain like as the lotus bares its heart to drink the morning sun. Let not the fierce Sun dry one tear of pain before thyself has wiped it from the sufferer's eye. But let each burning human tear drop on thy heart and there remain, nor ever brush it off, until the pain that caused it is removed" (pg 12/13). Extracts from "The Voice of the Sience" by HPB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 14:24:12 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: ML #2 Comments > esses of L'Hassa - the blessed, could show the way to his guide. the > mysteries never were, never can be, put within the reach of the general > public, not, at least, until that longed for day when our religious > philosophy becomes universal. Meaning, in light of #10, when religion as we know it no longer exists? > to himself. Yet, you have ever discussed but to put down the > idea of a universal Brotherhood, questioned its usefulness, and > advised to remodel the TS on the principle of a college for the > special study of occultism.. This my respected and esteemed > friend and Brother - will never do! Sinnett's later career shows little appreciation for the gravity of this message. He forced his London Lodge members to promise not to visit the Blavatsky lodge, rejected the Secret Doctrine because it corrected some errors in his own writings, went behind HPB's back for alternative channels to the Masters... His autobiography is fascinating but mainly (IMO) as a warning as to how wrong one can go despite abundant opportunities. Until his death he remained an ethnocentric Englishman who looked down on most everyone outside his social class. > " And supposing you were thus to come - as two of your own > countrymen have already as Mad. B. did, annd Mr. O will; Which raises the interesting question of when HSO did so; my choice would be November 1883 when he met KH in Lahore and proceeded to Jammu. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 14:17:56 -0700 From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: Bailey & Theosophy >BTW-- Nicholas, you may not be in the minority on these >issues. But then-- we're all (not just theos-l, but all >humanity) deluded to some extent. So the question in any given >case isn't WHETHER but HOW and HOW MUCH, perhaps. Of course >there may be some gems even in the midst of delusion. Though the obviously tautological aspects of this suggestion might be somewhat hilarious, Alice Bailey's "Glamour: A World Problem" may be one of the better studies of delusion, both individual and collective, that I've ever read. [Using a Bailey book to discuss whether or not Bailey is deluded probably would not be accepted as legitimate to anyone that already had an opinion however]. Oh, and by the way, I remember hearing somewhere, sometime, from someone, that Lucis Trust was simply named after Alice's daughter Lucy. I have no idea, however, whether this is correct. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 13:30:32 -0800 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Subject: Re: Bailey & Theosophy NW>> Very far out indeed. She & CW Leadbeater were psychics who were >> convinced that the entities they contacted on the inner planes were >> the same Adepts that taught Blavatsky. I, representing a minority >> on this list, am equally convinced that AAB & CWL were deluded. St. Kot> Sorry I didn't understand that. What do you want to say with the >expession "deluded"? NW> That CWL & AAB were deluded, that is, mistaken, or befuddled, in thinking that the entities they contacted were the Adepts that taught HPB. They were not in contact with the same beings. The nature of their sources I do not know, but the teachings of CWL or AAB's "Tibetan" are often fundamentally contrary to those of real Theosophy. NW> "The Elder Brother" by Gregory Tillett... SK> May I have some more information about this book? NW> Published in 1982 by Routledge. Don't know if it is still in print. Jerry H-E is a bookseller and may have a copy. NW>> Leadbeater, whose teachings were the inspiration for Bailey's own. >> She (or rather the "Tibetan") denys this. Tillett touches on her a >> little. SK> Really I cannot see how Leadbeater inspirated an enormous and >momentous work, as Alice Bailey's books are. NW> The "inspiration" was not the quanity, but the quality. Virtually all the major concepts, terms and vision from AAB's "Tibetan" are identical with CWL's. She provided more detail, that is about all. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 16:41:41 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Alice Bailey, root races 2 ways to track down Alice Bailey The Lucis Trust is in Manhattan. I'm sure they're listed in the phone book. If you want rather to contact an Alice Bailey person, send a note to the President of the TS In Canada, who is such a one. I'm sure he'll be glad to answer questions. He's that kind of a guy. Stan Treloar RR#3 Burk's Falls Ontario, Canada POA1CO 2rd source: I'm sure the Olcott Library has some Alice Bailey books one can borrow. Re Root Races Almost everyone alive on earth today belongs to what Theosophy calls the 5th root race. It's purpose is to develop mind. There are still a few stragglers left from the 4th root race, to which belonged the Altlanteans, & whose function was to develop the emotions. The 6th root race is slowly beginning to come in, & its function will be to develop the intuitition. That's the big picture, there are sub-races & sub-sub races, but the whole thing has nothing much to do with color of skin & such like. The only purifying is that we're all supposed to be evolving, and not retrograding. Our physical evolution seems to be fairly well done, but we're hard at trying to establish Teilhard's noosphere. Advances achieved during earth lives accrue to the human spirit, I think, and spirit, being universal, I imagine will gladly accept advances from whatever source they come from, as long as they are true advances. Maybe that'll help. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 13:54:48 -0800 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Subject: Re: Bailey and Theosophy >NW writes> She & CW Leadbeater were psychics who were convinced >that the entities they contacted on the inner planes were >the same Adepts that taught Blavatsky. I, representing a minority >on this list, am equally convinced that AAB & CWL were deluded. Ann asks NW & Theos-l> > What would be the criteria for judging whether one was truly in > contact with a higher source or just chatting with a bogus > entity? Dear Ann, Criteria are of little help. Master Morya, in ML 31, writes: "There is one general law of vision (physical and mental or spiritual) but there is a qualifying special law proving that all vision must be determined by the quality or grade of man's spirit and soul, and also by the ability to translate diverse qualities of waves of astral light into consciousness... There are those who are willingly and others who are *unwillingly* -- blind. Mediums belong to the former, sensitives to the latter. Unless regularly initiated and trained...no self-tutored seer or clairaudient ever saw *quite* correctly." Read also, a few lines above this, about Suby Ram "a truly good man -- yet a devotee of another error." One does not have to be a vile monster to "see through a glass darkly". Nicholas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 29 Mar 1995 18:59:19 EST From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re to PJ Paul J: Thanks for the quotes Paul. This is exactly what I have been trying to say about ethics for some time. A strong sense of morals and ethics will naturally (at this stage in human evolution) urge us to judge others accordingly. This is the chief danger with ethics. History shows that using ethics to judge others leads to wars between countries and factions as well as all sorts of inhumanities (actually, we don't need a history book - just watch the evening news on tv). As theosophists, we need to be ethical while remaining non-judgemental - a tall, but very necessary, order. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 19:23:28 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Moral Development and the Plan > Lewis quoted ASTREA and replied [in part] thus: > > To look at it from another point of view, that conduct is not > something that is just "adopted" by an reluctant personality, but is > the result of the development of principles based on laws in nature. > Laws which are benign in intent, aiming at developing individuals > "latent" powers of compassion, love, and a lucid understanding of > how to nurture these qualities in others. (Sounds like one of our English Villages - "Have you been to Much Snipping - such a dear little church and pub ...") While this is, as you say, a point of view, what is the _evidence_ for laws of nature being benign in intent, aiming at the utopian outcome posited by such a view? > One of the real disturbing trends of today is this growing lack of > tolerance for differing views. The library I work in has gone through > two attempts to remove books considered offensive to our "christian" - > -I use a small 'c' on purpose--community. One was successful in > having a childrens book moved to an adult collection (Heather Has Two > Mommies) and the other attempt successfully removed the book > entirely from the collection, not even allowing us to obtain a copy > from other libraries for patrons who request it (Women on Top). > Lewis Sometimes one is tempted to wish that some "christians" could be as easily banned ... I personally know of at least two children who have "two mummies" and fine folk they are - all of them, IMO. Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 01:36:42 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Dead Masters > "Just because they're dead don't mean they're smart." > > Thank you My experience entirely! I have beem "told" quite frankly by "inner plane" contacts that they do not know everything, do not have all the answers, but may, on occasion (just like us) be able to put me/us in contact with someone who can tell a bit more than they can. A lot depends on the question(s)! (echoes of UK tv commercial)! Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 01:49:37 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Bailey and Theosophy > One does not have to be a vile monster > to "see through a glass darkly". > > Nicholas Phew! Glad to know I'm not a vile monster. Thanks. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 29 Mar 1995 22:46:19 EST From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Various Comments Some comments on recent postings: Lewis: Yes! One of these laws that I am especially fond of is "love is the law." In fact, I use it on all of my formal correspondences as part of my letterhead. It helps to remind me that we should love one another, not because of any possible reward or recognition, but because it is a universal law that we should do so. To love is to act in accordance with our True Self, Higher Self, Individuality, inner god, or whatever we want to call our inner divine essence. Nancy: Nancy, I for one do not believe that HPB ever told an outright lie to anyone. However, she did occassionally tell slight distortions of truth with an intent to mislead, which she called 'fibs.' When the subject was occultism, she called them 'blinds.' Now in a very real sense, these are not lies so much as partial truths or carefully couched truth with the intention to mislead. They were done, I believe, because in some cases she could not reveal the whole truth for one reason or another, and in some cases because her sense of humor simply got the better of her (i.e., where the results of fibbing were not karmically burdensome). There are also occassional differences between exoteric and esoteric knowledge, and what one gives out will quite often depend on one's audience at the time. For example, to one audience I can say that I believe in reincarnation and that I know that I have had many past lives. To another audience I can say that I believe the ego is a social fiction, and that where we go after death is like asking where my fist goes after I open my hand. Is one a lie and the other a truth? In a very real sense they are both valid statements that I can make, but on the surface (i.e., to an uninitiate) they seem like flat contradictions, and if given on different days to different audiences, an astute historian could accuse me of telling falsehoods. It is all very nice to believe that Truth is One and all else is false (I was there once myself) but unfortunately such a naive worldview will someday come crashing down around one's ears, because Truth is much too complicated (I almost want to say illusive) for such a naive worldview to hold up for very long. It was James Long who told me that Truth simply could not be put into pretty boxes tied up with colored ribbons (which is exactly what I had been doing). After my Dark Night of the Soul, I came to learn that he was right. ps. I know well that I am preaching to the choire with you, but I am scandalously using your posting as an excuse to write this for some others. Please forgive. Paul J: < So will gladly forward the brief list upon request.> I am not even close to a historian, but would like to give it a shot. Please forward. Re Channeling: There has been some discussion lately on the subject of channeling, and what and how this sort of thing works, some of it negative, but some rather inspiring. I am one of those weird fringe people who thinks that everyone in this particular human lifewave on Globe D is telepathically connected together via the collective unconscious. Each and every one of us is continuously being bombarded by the thoughts of others. The surface of our aura serves as a screen or filter, so that only a select number of these come through into our personal unconscious, and then only a very few of these ever pop into consciousness. When they do, we often think that the thought is our own. This happens all the time. All 'channeling' really does is to allow us to open up our filter, and let more of these thoughts in so that the number that pop into consciousness increases. In this sense, we all channel. It is the source of such channeled thoughts that gives everyone the real problem. We know, for example, that many new scientific ideas have come from different people in separate countries in very close to the same time period, such that one is sometimes accused of stealing another's ideas. Determining the source of the thoughts that pop into our consciousness is the tricky part. Channeling itself is childishly easy. I agree with someone's recent posting (my, haven't there been just a few!) that if we claim a specific source, then the thoughts themselves should dovetail with the spirit and previous teachings of that source. In short, if we think that we are channeling KH, then we should expect to see KH's style and worldview, and so on, in the thoughts that come to us. All of HPB's Masters are still around somewhere, embodied or disembodied, and if we listen closely, we can surely hear them speaking to us. So "the ability to translate diverse qualities of waves of astral light into consciousness" as stated in ML (the quote given by NW is from ML #XL, not #31), is available to all of us, and we all do it every minute of every day. Doing it consciously, whenever we want to, which was likely M's intent, now that is another story. When M says, "Unless regularly initiated and trained...no self-tutored seer or clairaudient ever saw *quite* correctly" I think is being a bit hard-nosed except he did, in fact, italicize the word 'quite' which gives us some allowances. I think "Very few self-tutored seers..." instead of the flat "no..." would have been clearer. It is possible, just darn improbable. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 29 Mar 1995 23:25:54 EST From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re to Alan Alan: < ...what is the _evidence_ for laws of nature being benign in intent, aiming at the utopian outcome posited by such a view?> This is a good question. I kind of see laws of nature, or universal laws if you will, as being amoral. I especially like "Love is the Law" because it reflects exactly where I want to be. Thus this law reflects my own inner universe as I am trying to make it and maintain it. But love, you see, is undefined in the law itself, and can mean a whole raft of things. Sometimes love means help me, and other times it means leave me alone. Perhaps its just a feeling we set up in our heart to help guide our behavior and then we hope that others will see it and emulate us in some fashion? But I doubt that my utopian outcome matches your utopian outcome. My world, inner and outer, is mine, and I make it what I will. You make yours what you will. Perhaps the only truly universal law is Do What Thou Wilt? Alan, thanks for sharing your electronic quiet room. Sometimes I need to time myself out. Its perfect. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 19:07:03 +1200 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: Various Comments Responding to Jerry Schueler: > Lewis: is not something that is just "adopted" by an reluctant > personality, but is the result of the development of principles > based on laws in nature. Laws which are benign in nature ... > > Yes! One of these laws that I am especially fond of is "love is > the law." In fact, I use it on all of my formal correspondences > as part of my letterhead. .... > To love is to act in accordance with our True Self, Higher > Self, Individuality, inner god, or whatever we want to call our > inner divine essence. Great, Jerry. I'm trying to fold love into my life or, from another point of view, unfold into love. Part of it all is discovering where the not-love is within yourself, and letting the light shine into it. And sometimes you don't see any light, because it's time to BE a light for a while. That can feel like hard work at the time. On ethical behaviour, people often say what *should* be done, but supposing you *really* want to do better and don't know how to change? There aren't so many who can tell you that, and in any case you have to find out by trying things for yourself. To my mind, "stage 3" ethical behaviour is reached through a growing sense of unity and connection with the life around you, plus that innate valuing of all being that wells up from within, that can be called love. The circle of concern and identification expanding as we unfold. Another facet of attaining stage 3 is, prosaic as it may sound, training. Yes. If we see ourselves as patterns of energy flow amidst the inertial factors of matter (ie habitual behaviours or "flow channels"), then we can do things to retrain ourselves at all 3 main personality levels - physical, emotional and mental. If love-impelled and wisely done, this can result in greater expression of love. Support groups can sometimes help, here, eg in learning anger management techniques etc, and there's much more that could be done and, I fervently hope, *will* be done in the future. It's a valid way to help yourself to ask for help from the network around you. So stage 3 comes about naturally, but can definitely be helped. > Re Channeling: .... I am one > of those weird fringe people who thinks that everyone in this > particular human lifewave on Globe D is telepathically connected > together via the collective unconscious. Each and every one of > us is continuously being bombarded by the thoughts of others. Yes! I think we're linked in this way, too. I believe there's a level where this interconnection is a palpable fact. There are seers etc who confirm it and may express it in terms of subtle energy fields, and may not, too. Multiple metaphors are not a bad thing and keep the mind supple. (Thinking of Dora Kunz on one hand and Carl Jung on the other.) > All of HPB's Masters are still around > somewhere, embodied or disembodied, and if we listen closely, we > can surely hear them speaking to us. Yes, I reckon so too. Murray Stentiford From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 07:07:11 -0600 From: Arthur_PattersonA@mbnet.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: Re to Alan Jerry, Right now I am reading Emerson and he speaks of natural law quite frequently. Could you please explain to me the quote below. If my memory serves me I have heard this in thelmatic throught? Crowley or somewhere like that. Is it similar to Augustine's Love God and do what you please. or has it different inferences? >My world, inner and outer, is mine, and I make >it what I will. You make yours what you will. Perhaps the only >truly universal law is Do What Thou Wilt? Thanks for your postings I find them very intriguing and eclectic. Art From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 08:32:09 -0800 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Subject: ML citation blunder With a chronological ML and a *non*chronological ML it was bound to happen. For the future I will try to remember to use, when citing only the ML letter number: ML = 2nd or 3rd edition MLC = Vic Hao Chin's new chronological arrangement. So MLC 31 is what should have been written, or ML 40, as Jerry S. points out Nicholas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 02:16:44 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Kabbalah Study How is it going? Is it going? What's new? Regards, Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 19:05:29 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Laws of nature To Jerry S. > Alan: < ...what is the _evidence_ for laws of nature being benign > in intent, aiming at the utopian outcome posited by such a view?> > > This is a good question. I kind of see laws of nature, or > universal laws if you will, as being amoral. I especially like > "Love is the Law" because it reflects exactly where I want to be. This reads as though you are making natural law in your own image, sort of thing ... ie, I want this to be a law of nature 'cos I like it? > Thus this law reflects my own inner universe as I am trying to > make it and maintain it. Is the inner universe any less _maya_ than the outer? Is there an "objective" universe? > But love, you see, is undefined in the > law itself, and can mean a whole raft of things. Sometimes love > means help me, and other times it means leave me alone. Perhaps > its just a feeling we set up in our heart to help guide our > behavior and then we hope that others will see it and emulate us > in some fashion? But I doubt that my utopian outcome matches your > utopian outcome. My world, inner and outer, is mine, and I make > it what I will. You make yours what you will. Perhaps the only > truly universal law is Do What Thou Wilt? Sorry to say this, but this sounds like "I want, I want, I want." I can't see this as love at all! I don't have a "utopian outcome" scenario, as I have [so far] found no evidence to justify having one. "Do what thou wilt" a la Crowley or anyone else sounds fine but says little, as it does not take into account any consequences. I guess you can do what the hell you like as long as you are preapred to pay the price - another way of defining karma perhaps, or as I quoted in a previous posting, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." In my view of things, love is something we _have_ and can _give_. It is never something we can demand, or even request. Hope for maybe. To quote the bard, "Love is not love which alters when it alteration finds." Glad you enjoyed my quiet room :-) Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 19:20:42 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Various Comments To Jerry S. > I am one > of those weird fringe people who thinks that everyone in this > particular human lifewave on Globe D is telepathically connected > together via the collective unconscious. Dunno about Globe D - where are A B C ? If you mean right here on l'il 'ol planet earth, I am with you! I think I would be inclined to delete "telepathically" from the above, and just say that we are all connected - maybe whether we like it or not. The general theosophical concept of Karma would require this, don't you think? > Each and every one of > us is continuously being bombarded by the thoughts of others. > The surface of our aura serves as a screen or filter, so that > only a select number of these come through into our personal > unconscious, and then only a very few of these ever pop into > consciousness. When they do, we often think that the thought is > our own. This happens all the time. All 'channeling' really > does is to allow us to open up our filter, and let more of these > thoughts in so that the number that pop into consciousness > increases. In this sense, we all channel. It is the source of > such channeled thoughts that gives everyone the real problem. Interesting that you seem to see this as a physical or semi-physical process. Come back phlogiston, all is forgiven! Maybe it is. What, in the above scenario, is the selecting or filter-operating mechanism? I suspect that we receive the lot, and that the only filtering may be within ourselves [wherever that is] in order to be able to handle it. Must be a mighty powerful filter, though. Dogma: Consciousness is a state of being. Awareness is a funtion of consciousness. [Channeled teaching!] Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Mar 1995 14:34:22 EST From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re to Arthur Arthur: >Right now I am reading Emerson and he speaks of natural law >quite frequently. Could you please explain to me the >quote below. If my memory serves me I have heard this in >thelmatic throught? Crowley or somewhere like that. Is it >similar to Augustine's Love God and do what you please. or >has it different inferences? > >>My world, inner and outer, is mine, and I make >>it what I will. You make yours what you will. >>Perhaps the only truly universal law is Do What >>Thou Wilt? Sorry, but yes, I borrowed from Crowley here. But I suppose that it is ok, because he borrowed the phrase himself. As you say, it goes back to Augustine, although the ancient Egyptians also had the idea ("see yourself as one who comes forth into light, and come forth to take your every pleasure upon the Earth among the living" - last sentence on Stele of Revealing, my own trans. in my Egyptian Magick p 168. The phrase "take your every pleasure" could also be "do your every will" or simply "do what you will"). This universal law, which Crowley adopted and many good folks have thus ignored, seems a bit selfish or harsh on the surface. In fact, modern wiccans have changed it to "an' in harm none, do what thou wilt" so folks won't get the wrong idea. Actually, the "an' it harm none" is implied in the law itself once you understand exactly what the "thou" is - it is not the personality or ego. The "thou" refers to the Self in the Jungian sense of the total psyche, or to the theosphical idea of Ego (cap E) or higher self, which magic calls the True Self and Enochian Magic calls the Holy Guardian Angel (a poetic term that is so outlandishly childish that it serves to shake the mind out of its normal grooves and reminds us that it is, after all, but a name, which is better than a lot of other names which all too often give us a false impression of knowing what the name refers to. But, I am digressing, and the occult theory of names is another story). The four words of this law, rather like the four letters of the Hebrew tetragammaton, are a condensation of an entire worldview. According to this worldview, life is rather like a joyous and fun game, an exciting adventure, a 'lila' or dance (almost in the spirit of Shakespear's "all lifes a stage" etc). This worldview says that we are not here to learn anything because we are already perfect and eternal in our essence, and that consciousness descends to the lower planes of manifestation in order to express itself in spacetime, rather like an artist painting a picture (I hope Keith notes my reference to art here). Our spiritual ascent is one of going back to our original spirituality (our original face, as Zen has it), a return to the point where we left off, and the idea of spiralling forever upward (and thus growing spiritually forever) is silly nonsense because one can only 'grow' by definition in spacetime (all growth or progress is, by definition, a process over time, and without time such concepts are meaningless). Spirituality is beyond or outside of any spacetime continuum, and according to this worldview, spirituality=eternity=timelessness and also spirituality=infinity=spacelessness. Although this worldview is somewhat difficult to phrase properly (I am trying my best) it has been shared, at least in part, by virtually all mystics throughout history. The Zen Master D.T. Suzuki once said that when we do return to our spiritual essence after countless lifetimes in the lower planes, or when we recover our original face, we will be a victim of the great Cosmic Joke - the realization that we never really went anywhere after all. In this worldview, God not only plays dice (sorry Einstein) but is a true gamester at heart. This mystical worldview really has to be seen or experienced before it can be adopted. It is one that our human minds will rebuke as illogical without a direct perception of some kind (it is the kind of worldview that inspires flames on a network, for example). So, if we have this very esoteric (because it is so devilishly hard to put into words) worldview, we will tend to act accordingly. By this I mean that, if we are here to express something within us, then it becomes imperative for us to find out exactly what that is, and then set about expressing it. Some who have done this, for example, discover that they are messengers of the Lodge, and then they must start teaching. Some become writers, and some poets. Some serve in charitable organizations. Everyone is different. But, until we know what the impulse was that brought us into birth at this point in spacetime, we are simply whistling in the wind, so to speak; that is, our actions and words will not be authentic. A person who is authentic, knows exactly what they are doing. BTW, such a person will have no regrets or guilts about how their lives went when they face their own death, and they usually die with a very contented smile. Do What Thou Wilt thus means that you should express whatever the impulse was that brought you into this life and damn the consequences (e.g., the hatred, rebuke, and condemnation that you are likely to receive from those you are trying to help). I am not familiar with Emerson, but being a poet and mystic, he quite probably adopted a worldview something like this one. Hope this helps. Jerry S. ps. The idea of me and my world vs you and your world is explained in my Enochian Physics. The several postings that I made here about it received such a cold response that I would rather not go into it. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Mar 1995 14:33:30 EST From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re to Murray Murray: Right. Many years ago, I used a simple technique. Just before going to bed every night, I would think of everyone who I had communicated with during the day. Then, if they had said or done anything that hurt me for some reason, I would forgive them. In some cases, this forgiveness was difficult, but I was able to do it. Pretty soon, I could honestly say that there wasn't a single person that I knew that I hated (some people I would rather not be around, but I didn't hate them). In this way, I got hatred completely out of my system. Murray: Exactly (but I think you mean "level 3"). Murray: I agree. The technique of daily forgiveness is itself a useful training aid. The human mind runs in grooves and is by nature habit forming. So, by training it to love instead of to hate, we can actually improve ourselves and our worldview. In time, the deliberate training will become natural. Murray: Yes. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Mar 1995 14:34:55 EST From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: INFJ I recently took a Myers Briggs test for Jungian psychological types and I am an INFJ. I just wanted to let all of you Thinkers out there know that at least one of us is a Feeler. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Mar 1995 15:00:25 EST From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Original Programme K. Paul Johnson writes: . . . Judgment of people and actions is going on inside us all the time. What would it be to transcend this? How can we start to comprehend the real nature of a theosophist? Ann writes: My guess is it would start with tolerance, then move on to a willingness to understand another viewpoint, position and condition. The automatic judgment machine would have to be replaced with an instant response of compassion. Seems this would require one to go beyond the level of the mental into the intuitive. One would have to view the situation from above, rather than at the point of duality on earth. I've gotten the impression that to be a "real theosophist", one would strive to live as a Soul behind the mask of a personality. Intuitive enough to be sensitive to promptings from a higher level, yet have your sneakers firmly planted in the mud to be able to do some good. (The Lotus?) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Mar 1995 15:38:12 -0400 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Moral Development and the Plan >> Lewis quoted ASTREA and replied [in part] thus: >> >> To look at it from another point of view, that conduct is not >> something that is just "adopted" by an reluctant personality, but is >> the result of the development of principles based on laws in nature. >> Laws which are benign in intent, aiming at developing individuals >> "latent" powers of compassion, love, and a lucid understanding of >> how to nurture these qualities in others. > > > While this is, as you say, a point of view, what is the _evidence_ > for laws of nature being benign in intent, aiming at the utopian > outcome posited by such a view? Evidence is difficult to agree on isn't it. History seems to record man's failures, atrocities and was often written by the conquerer. Another problem which HPB wrestled with was dates of events and civilizations, saying the Europeans had squeezed events into their preconceived time lines which reflected their christian bias. Beyond this we have whole civilizations to contend with whose existence there are no written historical records of which we are aware, although HPB does say these records are preserved by the Mahatma's. If we turn to science or the arts the graphs showing advancement and decline would look like those of history, jumping up and down across the known time line. So, I see your point, but would suggest there is much in heaven and earth of which we have not dreamt, to steal a line from Shakespeare. Someone else has said that plotting the advancements of mankind gives mixed results because humanity moves in large spiral cycles. It would be necessary to track one group of souls through time to see the gradual upward march. To place a point at the pinnacle of each succeeding civilization and then draw a line through those would give such an upward incline. Deciding when a civilization had reached its peak could prove challenging couldn't it. Has ours or is it only in its infancy. Some astrologers claimed the Babaloynian civilization flourished for over 20,000 years. HPB said the Atlantean civilization lasted 75,000 years, I think. If we could recover enough data to verify these times it would still leave the question of how one would measure the moral devleopment of humanity. What kind of evidence would you accept? If was said that we no longer throw christians to the lions for entertainment, being satisfied to dress men in shoulder pads and helments and send them into the arena to bang away at each other, would you consider that evidence of moral development in civilization? Lewis From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 16:20:45 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: RE: Original Programme K.Paul ends this description of all the things theosophists aren't supposed to be, with "This is a very tall order indeed. Judgement of people and actions is going on inside us all the time. What would it be to transcend this? How can we start to comprehend the real nature of a theosophist?" I learned something from Serge King in that direction, which helps, when I remember to apply it, which I don't always, because it's real eassy to forget & blame the other guy for not doing what you expect him/her to do.. I mentioned it the other day. Serge talks about "Should Rules". A "Should Rule" is a rule by which you yourself think you ought to function, & sometimes you do, & sometimes you don't, but you certainly think other people should function by your "should rule". The trouble with should rules is, that other people have minds & habits of their own, & they don't always conform to your should rules. Other people might never even have heard of your should rules. In any case, they function according to their own conscience, dharma, or what have you, & who are you to judge, who don't know what's going on in the other person's being? I've heard Theosophists say, when I've said, "but that's a dumb thing so&so did yesterday.." "but you don't know why they did it. They may have had a perfectly good reason for acting the way they did, that you don't know anything about." I know I've done some pretty stupid things in my time, & friends in Wheaton just accepted it. Thanks goodness, because that acceptance got me through some very lousy times I was having with myself. Besides the friends in Wheaton there was also a great deal of helpful acceptance from Harr y & Marie Van Gelder. I want to mention that especially just now, because Harry just passed over, & I miss him. Harry accepted what I was, in one way, & in another way, he made me jump the hoop. The minute I had achieved 1 thing, he was after me to achieve the next thing. He was as tough as any Roshi. That just as an aside. What also plays into this is "To us, motive is everything." The thing is to be tolerant, and accept that another person is following along their Path in a manner in which they have to go. They may go the Zen or whirling Dervish way, but they'll go the way which suits them best. & all another friendly Theosophist can do is to try to help them find their way, in their own way, and not according to the friendly Theosophist's "should rules". Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 14:48:06 -0800 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Subject: Electronic Index Nicholas to all> An Australian Theosophist (without e-mail I gather) is putting together an electronic index to 42 vols. of ~Lucifer/Theosophical Review~ and 116 vols. of ~The Theosophist~. He has completed about one-third of ~The Theosophist~ index. He would like to know if anyone else is doing the same electronic indexing. If anybody has even partial indexes *in electronic form* of these 3 journals, he could use them for merging and cross checking. His address is: Gladney Oakley c/o Theosophical Society 4th Floor 484 Kent St. Sydney, NSW, 2000 Australia From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 01:00:35 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser Subject: Re: Dreamers of the Apocalypse Lewis Lucas mentions cycles in the rise and fall of civilizations. It might be inteesting to know that HPB wrote about this (one article can be found in ~Five years of Theosophy~) Martin Euser From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 01:02:00 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser Subject: To John Mead & others; missing digest&replies Hi John, Theos-l digest #190 has not been received by me, for whatever reason (failure of my site or Charlotte site). Is there a way to retrieve this digest? Otherwise could you resent it to me? Thanks. To others: If anyone has replied to my post 'Theosophy and sex', please E-mail your respons to me. Martin Euser euser@xs4all.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 00:55:34 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 177 Mark Barville asked for info about Bailey. Alice Leighton-Cleather and Basil Crump have written a couple of articles about Bailey, which are bundled in a booklet called: ~The pseudo-occultism of Mrs. A. Bailey~ Leighton- Cleather compares passages from ~Cosmic Fire~ (from Bailey) with Theosophical writings (from HPB and the Masters). Quite illuminating! It contains also some severe criticisms on Besant & Leadbeater (sorry, folks) which she regarded as promoting some "Neo-Theosophy". It also includes notes on "initiation, human and solar" from Bailey & severe criticisms on the episode of 'the world teacher'. The booklet is probably difficult to get [ I bought it while being member of the Dutch Point Loma Society - this branch (re)printed it] It was more or less inspired by Mr. J.C. Miller, a member of the Blavatsky Association, Manila. If you, Mark, are interested in it I could make a copy of it (about 20 pages) and mail it to you. Final remark: the booklet is a real 'must' for those who have questions about Bailey, etc. The funny thing is I myself have read almost all of Bailey's books when I was young, starting at 16, and that's how I got to know about Theosophy (also by reading Steiner). I guess we have to think for ourselves when reading these kind of books; if we learn from these books-ok; if we don't-try something else. Martin Euser From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 18:42:38 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: ML citation blunder Nicholas, You're going to have to explain to me what you're talking about, because what you say is Greek to me. Let's see if I can maybe make some sort of sense of it. I have, & am going by the 2d edition; but I have this flyer in the front of my edition, which is written by someone who calls themselves "I" without ever saying a name. It lists the letters in chronological order, but this is not the same as the numerical order. Except for letter #X, which I did first, I'm taking the letters in chronological order, so that should coincide with Vic's. They're actually numbered I,II,III,CXLIII,IV, etc. In spite of this numbering, which I guess I can leave off & use only the chronological numbers, which is also listed on this pamphlet, the order of the letters should be the same as in Vic's book. I think it'll be less confusing, if I only put in the chronological numbers. So I'll do that from now on. OK, so the first letter I put on is chronologically #93 (labeled X, in my book). Then I put on #1 followed by #2, just as it's titled. #s 3 a, b, c and #4 are all very short, (I may or may not skip them) & this week end, I'll put on what in Vic's book should be #5. I think that'll clear up the confusion. It's easy enough, because I have the letters listed chronologically in that little pamphlet. I just wasn't paying any attention to it. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 11:14:44 +1200 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Auric filters (Re: Various Comments) > Jerry S> Each and every one of >> us is continuously being bombarded by the thoughts of others. >> The surface of our aura serves as a screen or filter, so that >> only a select number of these come through into our personal >> unconscious, and then only a very few of these ever pop into >> consciousness. Alan B> Interesting that you seem to see this as a physical or > semi-physical process. Come back phlogiston, all is forgiven! > Maybe it is. What, in the above scenario, is the selecting or > filter-operating mechanism? I suspect that we receive the lot, > and that the only filtering may be within ourselves [wherever > that is] in order to be able to handle it. Must be a mighty > powerful filter, though. Alan's sentence "I suspect that we .... " seems to be pretty much the same kind of picture as Jerry's. >From one point of view, it might take a particularly "powerful" or dense filter to do this, but another view is that a simple mechanism of consciousness automatically filters out more than a complex one. Evolution of more complex vehicles of consciousness allows more subtlety of response. As for where the filter is, there is a concept of a film of etheric atomic matter in our aura which stops many astral impressions from getting through into physical consciousness. I don't know where this idea first pops up in modern theosophy - perhaps somebody else will know. I do know that Geoffrey Hodson used to do repair work on the auras of people who had "torn" or "punctured" them in damaging experiences with drugs or mediumship. I think this kind of healing was a multi-level thing, though; not purely etheric. This work took a great deal of time and energy, and he had to reluctantly let much of it go in later life, which was sad, because there are always people in dire situations this way. Uncontrollable and distressing voices, visions, obsession etc. Part of the problem was that you could repair an aura this way, but it could be fairly readily damaged again. Not much use repairing the paint on the car if the driver doesn't know how, or want, to steer clear of walls. Hence the need for multi-level, whole-person healing and change. I understand the chakras are intimately involved in this kind of filtering, damage and repair, as well. I keep being confronted with the existence, and *need* even, for multiple metaphors for these kinds of things. I've been using fairly mechanistic, and structural language above, for experiences that are difficult to capture in any kind of language. We not only need to *tolerate* different world-views or forms of expression; we need to be able to *appreciate* more than one, because no single one says it all. Murray Stentiford From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 00:59:16 +0200 (MET DST) From: euser Subject: Re Bailey;Martin Euser to Mark Barville Mark Barville asked for info about Bailey. Alice Leighton-Cleather and Basil Crump have written a couple of articles about Bailey, which are bundled in a booklet called: ~The pseudo-occultism of Mrs. A. Bailey~ Leighton- Cleather compares passages from ~Cosmic Fire~ (from Bailey) with Theosophical writings (from HPB and the Masters). Quite illuminating! It contains also some severe criticisms on Besant & Leadbeater (sorry, folks) which she regarded as promoting some "Neo-Theosophy". It also includes notes on "initiation, human and solar" from Bailey & severe criticisms on the episode of 'the world teacher'. The booklet is probably difficult to get [ I bought it while being member of the Dutch Point Loma Society - this branch (re)printed it] It was more or less inspired by Mr. J.C. Miller, a member of the Blavatsky Association, Manila. If you, Mark, are interested in it I could make a copy of it (about 20 pages) and mail it to you. But first try to see if it is available elsewhere. Final remark: the booklet is a real 'must' for those who have questions about Bailey, etc. The funny thing is I myself have read almost all of Bailey's books when I was young, starting at 16, and that's how I got to know about Theosophy (also by reading Steiner). I guess we have to think for ourselves when reading these kind of books; if we learn from these books-ok; if we don't-try something else. Martin Euser From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 01:13:27 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Moral Development and the Plan >> ... what is the _evidence_ >> for laws of nature being benign in intent, aiming at the utopian >> outcome posited by such a view? > What kind of evidence would you accept? If > was said that we no longer throw christians to the lions for > entertainment, being satisfied to dress men in shoulder pads and > helments and send them into the arena to bang away at each other, > would you consider that evidence of moral development in > civilization? > > Lewis No. Humanity has invented and used the means to nuke each other. Here in the UK we are hearing of arms deals by UK companies with Iraq, which then used the arms to kill and maim UK and US soldiers, plus not a few dissident Iraqis and Kuwaitis. Some of these it also seems to have murdered with nerve gases invented in the "civilized" and "morally developed" West. Our Beloved Leaders give us rousing speeches about these things while doing nothing to prevent them. The Brit government has recently devised a new way of removing any social security whatever from those unemployed for more than six months - another way of throwing people to the lions? They don't have to be christians, even. They might just help to increase the crime rate, but the establishment statisticians keep moving the goal posts, so it will probably appear to be going down. We are told "the economy is improving" while we see high street stores closing every week, and long-established concerns going bankrupt. In South America police are shooting children as vermin. Some moral progress! Humanity, from the evidence offered, seems to be behaving much the same as it has always done. It's main "progress" seems to have been in finding more and more evil ways of doing it. In Theosophical terms, we are right in the Sh__ of Kali Yuga. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 01:31:08 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: RE: Original Programme To Liesel: "Should Rules" should be abolished. >From the Teaching: "Do what is necessary." GULP. That's real _hard_ to decide. I have to try to understand what it means for a start. Do I need to do anything anyway? Why do I want to do it? Am I judging someone? Am I entitled to if they judge me? The other side if this is "don't do what is not necessary." This may be a teeny bit easier, but not much. No wonder people flee to the Himalayas, go into monasteries, convents, hermitages, etc. Some things are simple, but all, IMO, depend upon an "if". I cannot understand why we should want to kill to eat. Is it necessary? Not so far as I can tell, although I have only been a vegetarian for about five years so far, and it doesn't stop animal slaughter. The "if" part is whether I find killing animals for food acceptable. I don't, so I don't eat them. Others do, so they do eat them. How much real choice do I have anyway? Right now the Uranus-Neptune conjunction is working its way through my first house (which is intercepted by the whole of Aquarius). I am 62 in April. This thing will be with me for quite a while - especially the Neptune! Watch this [psychic] space! Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Mar 1995 20:23:37 EST From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: Glamour: A world problem Jerry's mention of Alice Bailey's book "Glamour: A World Problem" brings back interesting associations for me. I rolled on the floor laughing the first time a read the title and had to get the book. It sounded like something Andy Warhol would write, a tounge-in-check look at politics perhaps, the way a soup can is "art" crossed my mindr. But I was quite suprised with the book and in some ways it may be her best book, at least for me in that it is finally systematic about the seven rays and suggests a special type of maya for each one. This time the "TIBETAN" came through in a way he never really did in books like "Esoteric Astrology" ( a completely abstruse an unusable book, esoteric in the worst possible meaning of the term - limited to the interest of a few kooky people who are fooling themselves about possesing secret knowledge). This maya of possesing secret knowledge is only one of the many forms of maya or illusion the book delineates. This is not a fair synopsis of the book, but in general she or HE propounds something like: There is a special maya or illusion for each of the planes or rays - 1. physical - maya of the senses, illusion of permanence in space and time 2. astral - glamourous maya of sexuality and the astral plane (channeling etc., drug use has a lot of contact with this level. Also this might be the maya of bhakti yoga (getting attached to a guru or cult) 3. lower mental - maya of the "truth" of science, rationalisn, and it's all dead matter with no spirit ( the illusion of our age) - DELUSION 4- this is the fourth ray, chakra or plane or whatever - has a lot to do with harmony through conflict. The maya here is the illusion of an IDEALIST without reality or a REALISt with ideals 5 - philosophical illusion and deluded thinkind - again the illusion that philosophy can solve world problems 6- the compassionate ray - (I forget) I think it has to do with the final illusion concerning the syzygies, that is the final illusion that good and bad, male and female, light and dark, angels and demons, beauty and ugliness are inseperable 7th - the end of illusion - enlightenment where the dualities are overcome and reality is revealed beyond the illusion of the opposites This is my synthesis of the book and may again is not a fair synopsis of HER/HIS ideas, but may help in all this talk about deluded channellers (CWL AND AAB from what some people are trying to say). Again I will offer a heresy - that no one, not CWL or AAB or that Jewish woman who claims to speak as Jesus in "A Course IN Miracles" or HPB or Sinnet or anyone gets this channeling crap right all the time. Most of them get some aspect pretty clearly and them repeat themselves over and over, sometimes effectively sometime very poorly. A cavaet emptor could be given for all of them, yet many have something of value and none have a corner of the market of a pipeline to the MASTERS (IMHO). This is more of a minority opinion than the opinion that only HPB got it right when speaking for KH and MM. Yet I think most people outside the circle of "TRUE BELIEVERS" would admit to the value of a lot of these writings and the literal integrity of none. I hope I still have an open mind as the real maya involves the maya that only my interpreation of the letters, or the kabala or whatever is valid. Yes, glamour is a world problem and as long as we are in the world it will be a problem. It comes with the territory, but what a beautiful territory sometimes. That is one of the reasons why I reincarnated perhaps is that I love the glamour, what a problem! Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Mar 1995 22:57:24 EST From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re to Alan >> "Love is the Law" because it reflects exactly where I >> want to be. Alan:> Thus this law reflects my own inner universe as I am >> trying to make it and maintain it. Alan: It is. It is. It is. According to Buddhism, desire is the principle cause of the four lower planes of manifestation - the worlds of maya below the Abyss. Question: Who am (or what is) the "I" that desires? Alan: Maybe its all in the eye of the beholder? Alan: < I don't have a "utopian outcome" scenario, as I have [so far] found no evidence to justify having one.> How about peace on Earth and goodwill towards men? How about universal brotherhood being demonstrated here on Earth? Or is this too utopian? Alan:< "Do what thou wilt" a la Crowley or anyone else sounds fine but says little, as it does not take into account any consequences. The deal, as I understand it, is that you have to accept the consequences up front. See my just-posted message to Arthur. Alan: I agree. Alan: We must all seek our own definitions. I prefer to think that love is something that we are. When we express it, we are expressing ourself, much like an artist paints to express an inner idea or emotion. According to the biblical John, God is love. Alan: I am heading there now. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Mar 1995 22:56:03 EST From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re to Alan Alan: < I think I would be inclined to delete "telepathically" from the above, and just say that we are all connected - maybe whether we like it or not. The general theosophical concept of Karma would require this, don't you think?> I agree. Yes. Alan: Actually, I see the aura as nonphysical. I don't especially agree with the theosophical idea that astral matter is simply less dense physical matter, and so on. The difference is more than just density (maybe vibrations?). The occult aura or Body of Light is essentially identical to Jung's psyche with its highest reaches merging into Mystery. According to Jung, the psyche functions in a "psychic space-time continuum" which is different from our physical spacetime continuum (for one thing, it is acausal and reaches all the way to timelessness and spacelessness). Alan: < What, in the above scenario, is the selecting or filter-operating mechanism? I suspect that we receive the lot, and that the only filtering may be within ourselves [wherever that is] in order to be able to handle it. Must be a mighty powerful filter, though.> G de Purucker says, "Thoughts are energies, imbodied energies, elemental energies. They do not originate in a man's mind. These elemental entities pass through the sensitive transmitting-apparatus which our mind is, and each one if us colors the thoughts as they pass through our minds, thus giving a new direction, a new karmic impulse to them. No thought was ever created in a human brain. The inspirations of genius, the loftiest productions of the human spirit, simply come to us through lofty and great minds, capacious channels which could transmit so sublime a flow." (The Esoteric Tradition p 653). He then goes on to say "On the cosmic-scale, the mystical picture-gallery of eternity is the Astral Light; and there is a part of our constitution - in fact ninety-nine percent of the totality of our constitution - which in modern Esoteric Theosophy is called the Auric Egg - an esoteric term which cannot be further elaborated - which like every other portion of the human constitution is a perfect picture-gallery, and of an amazing kind." (same page) This view of an inner picture-gallery is very close to Jung's collective unconscious which contains the archetypes. The archetypes communicate with us via pictures (what Jung calls images which are then interpreted as symbols). This is where dreams come from. Your question is, essentially, what is "the sensitive transmitting-apparatus" in our auric egg? Dora Kuntz suggests that it is somehow connected with resonance (see The Personal Aura, p 29-30). It would seem that although our aura is bombarded by continuous thoughts, we automatically will focus in on only those that we naturally resonate with. This is doubtless one reason for ethics and morals - in order to be able to resonate with (i.e., channel in) higher thoughts. Kuntz says that "just as we have a physical immune system which helps the body resist invasion, so we have a rejection mechanism at the emotional level which throws off undesirable or negative feelings. This rejection mechanism is a feature common to all of us, and therefore it can be thought of as an organic part of the aura's anatomy." (p 43). She sees this mechanism in terms of "valves" along the surface of the aura that serve as conduits with the environment (it was this feature that especially intrigued me with her book, because it very clearly suggests that the aura is an open system, which I have long believed). What Kuntz "sees" in the aura for filtering emotions. I believe has its counterpart for thoughts. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Mar 1995 22:54:57 EST From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Resp to Alan Alan: < ...what is the _evidence_ for laws of nature being benign in intent, aiming at the utopian outcome posited by such a view?> This is a good question. I kind of see laws of nature, or universal laws if you will, as being amoral. I especially like "Love is the Law" because it reflects exactly where I want to be. Thus this law reflects my own inner universe as I am trying to make it and maintain it. But love, you see, is undefined in the law itself, and can mean a whole raft of things. Sometimes love means help me, and other times it means leave me alone. Perhaps its just a feeling we set up in our heart to help guide our behavior and then we hope that others will see it and emulate us in some fashion? But I doubt that my utopian outcome matches your utopian outcome. My world, inner and outer, is mine, and I make it what I will. You make yours what you will. Perhaps the only truly universal law is Do What Thou Wilt? Alan, thanks for sharing your electronic quiet room. Sometimes I need to time myself out. Its perfect. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 13:56:07 +0300 (EDT) From: Aki Korhonen Subject: Re: Laws of nature Hello Alan and the others. On Thu, 30 Mar 1995, Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > Is the inner universe any less _maya_ than the outer? Is there > an "objective" universe? This woke me up. I think that it depends of viewpoint. From my viewpoint there are: 1) physical universe, which is relatively objective, maya 2) subjective universe which is my mind's contents, and 3) objective immaterial universe, free of time and space, Plato's world of ideas, like e.g. mathemathics is objective but immaterial. In this "subjective"-worldview the level 2 is most important, since I feel my personality existing there (usually). From my consciousness there are sensens to all these domains; physical senses to world 1, self-observation of my mind's contents to world 2 (feelings, thoughts, recollections, etc.) and to objective realm there is intuition. Thinking compared to the ideas of the objective world is analogical to the retinas of the eyes to the objects they reflect. Being only a stating, mirroring factor to intuition. peace. aki. Oulu.Finland. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 9:36:02 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Not Judging Thanks to Liesel and Ann for enlightening comments on the theme of Theosophists by definition being non-judgmental. Yes, developing compassion works against the judgmental reflex, as does seeing beyond our own set of rules. Both of these, as well as recent comments by Jerry S., may tie into the Jungian distinction between judgment and perception. The perceptual functions of sensation and intuition are ways we experience reality; the judgment functions of thinking and feeling are ways we evaluate what we experience. At one level, the idea that the very nature of a Theosophist is not to judge seems meaningless, since we all are constantly thinking and feeling about what we sense and intuit. But the fourfold model helps me catch a glimpse of what the writer might mean, in that our perceptions are terribly limited and constrained, and yet our judgments tend to be wildly excessive in relation to them. We can't see the inside of a person's body, and thus have no way to know how their physical condition might be related to their behavior. We can't see their past lives, and know what karmic burden they are under. We can't see their future, so we can't know how what they are doing is leading towards it. What we can perceive of others is just a tiny cross-section in space and time of a vast process of individuation. Yet, even though we know how limited our perceptions are, when we get into high gear with our thinking and feeling, we forget. We are so carried away by our thoughts and feelings in response to what the person did or said, that we become inflated with the idea that we are fully qualified to judge them. And when the data are missing, we just start making up facts that fit with our judgments. (I recently exemplified this with Bazzer/ULT somewhat). Maybe the thing that has been most difficult about responses to my book is when people just invent facts to fit their judgments. For example, a letter to the Times Book Review complained that the book, like many others "has gleefully bludgeoned the reputation of this woman [HPB]...invents new ones [canards]..[reviewers and authors] take the same smirking tone...The idea that she had genuine psychic powers or that she had received instruction from unseen masters is apparently intolerable to these writers." It's very hard to imagine anyone PERCEIVING gleeful bludgeoning of HPB's reputation, or a smirking tone, or intolerance for the idea of her psychic powers or relations with Masters, in the book, because they are NOT THERE. But perhaps the letter writer just got into a judgmental mood, reactive to EVERY book about HPB he didn't like, and in that mood felt fully qualified to condemn any particular example unread. People do that stuff all the time. More seriously, people can read something and see motives and attitudes that are simply not there, because they have programmed themselves to find what "proves" their attitude right. The trick about responding to this is to avoid judging back in retaliation. You have to realize that you know nothing at all about the person, or his motives, or background, or karma, and therefore you can only perceive what is immediately present, and say "I don't understand, therefore I cannot judge." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 09:33:18 -0600 From: Arthur_PattersonA@mbnet.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: Not Judging >Thanks to Liesel and Ann for enlightening comments on the theme >of Theosophists by definition being non-judgmental. Yes, >developing compassion works against the judgmental reflex, as >does seeing beyond our own set of rules. Both of these, as >well as recent comments by Jerry S., may tie into the Jungian >distinction between judgment and perception. > >The perceptual functions of sensation and intuition are ways we >experience reality; the judgment functions of thinking and >feeling are ways we evaluate what we experience. At one level, >the idea that the very nature of a Theosophist is not to judge >seems meaningless, since we all are constantly thinking and >feeling about what we sense and intuit. Art: I agree with you entirely. We will always judge, that is form conclusions about what we perceive. What Jung was undoubtedly getting at was that the way we form judgement is prodominantly throught the value of logical consistency (Thinking)or through the value of human relatedness. (Feeling). But it should be emphasized that we all use both at different times even though some are more adept at one of the functions than others. I notice that Daniel and Jerry E. are sometimes very good thinkers and that Liesel and Jerry S effectively evaluate through the feeling function. What has to be avoided is taking what is essentially a typology and making it a description of reality, that is making reality a stereo-type. So sometime Daniel or Jerry E will decide given the context that feeling evalutation might serve better and Liesel and Daniel would decide that logic might prove worthy on occasion. I think the mistake many people make is to take Judgment as judgementalism. One is a function the other is a flaw - I admire the function and detest the flaw in myself and others. >But the fourfold model helps me catch a glimpse of what the >writer might mean, in that our perceptions are terribly limited >and constrained, and yet our judgments tend to be wildly >excessive in relation to them. We can't see the inside of a >person's body, and thus have no way to know how their physical >condition might be related to their behavior. We can't see >their past lives, and know what karmic burden they are under. >We can't see their future, so we can't know how what they are >doing is leading towards it. What we can perceive of others is >just a tiny cross-section in space and time of a vast process >of individuation. In this paragraph I think Paul while rational enough is nontheless using the feeling function effectively. You are stressing the limits of logic in application to the human being. >Yet, even though we know how limited our perceptions are, when >we get into high gear with our thinking and feeling, we >forget. We are so carried away by our thoughts and feelings in >response to what the person did or said, that we become >inflated with the idea that we are fully qualified to judge >them. And when the data are missing, we just start making up >facts that fit with our judgments. (I recently exemplified >this with Bazzer/ULT somewhat). What I read here is that we use judgement without perception without taking in enough data to complete the picture. This group has been infamous for that IMHO. It will take a long time to get to know each other to read our cyber speak. >Maybe the thing that has been most difficult about responses to >my book is when people just invent facts to fit their >judgments. For example, a letter to the Times Book Review >complained that the book, like many others "has gleefully >bludgeoned the reputation of this woman [HPB]...invents new >ones [canards]..[reviewers and authors] take the same smirking >tone...The idea that she had genuine psychic powers or that she >had received instruction from unseen masters is apparently >intolerable to these writers." It's very hard to imagine >anyone PERCEIVING gleeful bludgeoning of HPB's reputation, or a >smirking tone, or intolerance for the idea of her psychic >powers or relations with Masters, in the book, because they are >NOT THERE. But perhaps the letter writer just got into a >judgmental mood, reactive to EVERY book about HPB he didn't >like, and in that mood felt fully qualified to condemn any >particular example unread. Another real possibility is that the reviewer couldn't resist the temptation to be an intellectual smart ass and impress us all with their witty cynicism. I see that a lot in movie reveiws too. People do that stuff all the time. >More seriously, people can read something and see motives and >attitudes that are simply not there, because they have programmed >themselves to find what "proves" their attitude right. Sometimes the motive is, as I suggested above, even lower than that. It is just the need for the human ego to be noticed somehow; being critical gets noticed alot now a days. eh? I get the sense that the actual writing, work of art, music etc is actually just a aesthetic rochshack (spelling) test for critics. >The trick about responding to this is to avoid judging back in >retaliation. You have to realize that you know nothing at all >about the person, or his motives, or background, or karma, and >therefore you can only perceive what is immediately present, >and say "I don't understand, therefore I cannot judge." On the other hand when you have taken in the perception with love and care and a contemplative attitude you may form judgments that can enhance the work and lives of other people so lets not be too down on judgement as a function but firmly down on judgementalism as an attitude of a blighted soul. Art From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 09:01:57 -0800 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Subject: Re: ML citation blunder >Nicholas, > >You're going to have to explain to me what you're talking about... When I, or anyone on the net quotes or refers to a Mahatma letter (but not the page number) they should make clear if they are quoting from the new MLC edition -- the C standing for chronological or the old ML. The "old" ML comes in a 2nd edition, pub. by Theosophical University Press and a 3rd edition pub. by TPH. Since the new MLC is in far less hands than the old ML I would suggest you continue to use *only* the original topical numbering when you laboriously enter them for us to read here. The order you present them *is* the chronological order. I will repeat the sequence for the first few, based on the MLC edition for those who want to read ahead. 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, 143, (Hume ltr,) 4, 126, 106, 99, 98, 5, 28, 6, 7, 142a, 142b, 8, 107, 31, 9, 121, 49, 27, 26, 104 The "Hume" letter is not in the old editions. If you have Conger's ~Combined Chronology~ it is there. If not, I will post it from Vic's MLC. It can also be found (most of it) in a ULT pamphlet called the "Masters Letter." Nicholas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 13:35:57 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: ML #3 a,b,c, and #4 (CXLIII) 3a Note by Sinnett "I saw KH in astral form on the night of 19th of October, 1880 - waking up for a moment but immediately afterwards being rendered unconcscious again (in the body) and conscious out of the body in the adjacent dressing -room where I saw another of the Brothers afterwards identified with one called 'Serapis' by Olcott, - 'the youngest of the chohans.' "The note about the vision came the following morning, and during that day, the 20th, we went for a picnic to Prospect Hill, when the 'pillow incident' occurred." "My Good 'Brother' "In dreams and visions at least, when rightly interpreted there can hardly be an 'element of doubt.' .... I hope to prove to you my presence near you last night by something I took away with me. Your lady will receive it back on the Hill. I keep no pink paper to write upon, but I trust modest white will do as well for what I have to say" Koot' Hoomi Lal Sing #3b "My 'Dear Brother' "This brooch no. 2- is placed in this very strange place simply to show to you how very easily a real phenomenon is produced and how stilll easier it is to suspect its genuinenes.. Make of it what you like even to classing me with confederates. "The difficulty you spoke of last night with respect to their interchange of our letters I will try to remove. One of our pupils will shortly visit Lahore and the N.W.P. and an address will be sent to you which you can always use; unless, indeed, you really would prefer corresponding through - pillows. Please to remark that the present is not dated from a 'Lodge' but from a Kashmir valley. Yours, more than ever Koot' HoomI Lal Singh 3c "A few words more: why should you have felt disappointed at not receiving a direct reply to your last note? It was received in my room about half a minute after the currents for the production of the pillow-dak had been set ready and in full play. And- unless I had assured you that a man of your disposition need have lttle fear of being 'fooled' - there was no necessity for an answer. One favour I will certainly ask of you, and that is, that now that you- the only party to whom anything was ever promised - are satisfied that you should endeavour to disabuse the mind of the amorous Major* and show him his great folly and injustice. Yours faithfully, Koot' Hoomi Lal Singh *Major Philip Henderson... was present on the occasion of the cup & saucer phenomenon & helped dig them out of the ground. He joined the TS .. that day, his membership certificate being produced phenomenally on the spot. However, the next day he became suspicious & resigned, thereafter joining hPB's critics." (Study Notes) #4 (CXLIII) "Would you wish the pillow phenomenon described in the paper? I will gladly follow your advice" "It certainly would be the best thing to do, and I personally would feel sincerely thankful to you on account of our much ill-used friend. You are at liberty to mention my first name if it will in the least help you." Koot Hoomi Lal Sing From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 31 Mar 1995 11:29:35 EST From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re to Paul J Paul J: Paul, this is the conclusion that I came to some years ago that led to my conviction that our experiences tend to confirm our world view. Because we always try to filter out anything that won't fit into our current world view. But every now and again we confront something that won't fit, that is so large or so meaningful that we can't ignore or filter it out. When this happens (i.e., when an experience cannot be assimilated into our world view) then we have a significant emotional event (Massey, an excellent teacher on organizational management, calls this a SEE in his famous Massey Tapes). According to Jung, failure to assimilate such experiences can lead to a nurosis. If you ask magic users why they ever went into magic, most will tell of a wild experiences that they had and their search for meaning (i.e., a wider worldview) brought them into it. Some come into theosophy this way. But until a SEE happens, we always filter out those things that don't fit with our current world view. It is interesting to me that after a SEE, we always tend to fall back into filtering again. I did a paper recently on the association of a SEE and a bifurcation as defined in chaos theory using the psyche as a complex system. Our psyches reach bifurcations points all through our lives, and only the flexible among us survive them. The interesting thing here is that it is the uncertainty at the bifurcation point that causes our growth. Creating order out of chaos is how we grow and learn. Right. I find myself doing this in regard to what is being said rather than who said it. I have nothing against the author, but usually just want to let everyone know that another viewpoint is possible. But I get tired of adding smiley faces after a while or saying 'no flames' after writing something that invites them. This problem goes back to earlier discussions of cyberpathology et al. No easy answers, except that we all need to agree to keep things as impersonal as possible. Attack ideas, not people. I have found out that in most (not all though) cases, the real differences are merely semantic in nature. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 14:41:52 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: CS article Knowing that two of our participants were brought up in Christian Science, I thought they or others might be interested in an article I just read in the April Atlantic Monthly. It is about the children of CS parents, including those who have suffered and died as the result of withholding of medical treatment. But it also goes into the psychology of former CSers and dealing with parents who remain members. Plus lots of inside info on recent controversies within the church. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 15:43:04 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: chronol. ML # 5, part 1 of 2 Amrita Saras Oct. 29 "My Dear Brother, "I could assuredly make no objection to that style which you have kindly adopted, in addressing me by name, since it is, as you say, the outcome of a personal regard even greater than I have as yet deserved at your hands; The conventionalities of the weary world, outside our secluded 'Ashrums', trouble us but little at any time; least of all now, when it is men not ceremony-maste`rs, we seek, devotion, not mere observances. More and more a dead formalism is gaining ground, and I am truly happy to find so unexpected an ally in a quarter where, hitherto there have not been too many - among the highly educated classes of English Society. A crisis, in a certain sense, is upon us now, and must be met. I might say 2 crises - one, the Society's, the other for Tibet. For, I may tell you in confidence, that Russia is gradually massing her forces for a future invasion of that country under the pretext of a Chinese War. If she does not succeed it will be due to us; and herein, at least we will deserve your gratitude. You see then, that we have weightier matters than small societies to think about; yet the TS must not be neglected. The affair has taken an impulse, which, if not well guided, might beget very evil isues. Recall to mind the avalanches of your admired Alps, that you have often thought about, and remember that at first their mass is small and their momentum little.; A trite comparison you may say, but I cannot think of a better illustration, when viewing the gradual aggregation of trifling events, growing into a menacing destiny for the TS. It came quite forcibly upon me the other day, as I was coming down the defiles of Kouenlun - Karakorum you call them - and saw an avalanche tumble. I had gone personally to our chief to submit Mr. Hume's important offer, and wasa crossing over to Lhadak on my way home. What other speculation might have followed I cannot say. But just as I was taking advantage of the awful stillness which usually follows such cataclysm, to get a clearer view of the present situation and the disposition of the 'mystics' of Simla, I was rudely recalled to my senses. A familiar voice, as shrill as the one attributed to Saraswati's peacock - which, if we may credit tradition, frightened off the King of the Nagas - shouted along the currents 'Oloctt has raised the very devil again! ... The Englishment are going crazy ... Koot Hoomi, come quicker & help me!' and in her excitement forgot she was speaking English. I must say that the 'Old Lady's' telegrams do strike one like stones from a caltapult.! "What could I do but come? Argument through space with one who was in cold despair, and in a state of moral chaos was useless. So I determined to emerge from the seclusion of many years and spend some time with her to comfort her as well as I could. But our friend is not one to cause her mind to reflect the philosophical resignation of Marcus Aurelius. The fates never wrote that she could say: ' It is a royal thing, when one is doing good to hear evil spoken of himself.' ... I had come for a few days, but now find that I myself cannot endure for any length of time the stifling magnetism even of my own countrymen. I have seen some of our proud ol Sikhs drunk and staggering over the marble pavement of their sacred Temple. I have heard an English-speaking Vakil declaim against Yog Vidya and Theosophy , as a delusion and a lie, declaring that English Science had emancipated them from such 'degrading superstitions,' and saying that any living man can or ever could perform any phenomena! I turn my face homeward tomorrow. "The delivery of this letter may very possibly be delayed for a few days, owing to causes which it will not interest you for me to specify. Meanwhile, however, I have telegraphed you my thanks for your obliging compliance with my wishes in the matters you allude to in your letter of the 24th inst. I see with pleasure , that you have not failed to usher me before the world as a possible 'confederate'/ That makes our number 10, I believe? But I must say, that your promise was well and loyally fulfilled. Received at Unristur on the 27th inst., at 2pm, I got your letter about 390 miles beyond Rawul Pindee, five minutes later, and had an acknowledgement wired to you from Jhelum at 4pm on the same afternoon. Our modes of accelerated delivery and quick communication are not then as you will see, to be despised by the Western world, or even the Aryan, English speaking and skeptical Vakils. "I could not ask a more judicial frame of mind in an ally than that in which you are beginning to find yourself. My Brother, you have already changed your attitude toward us in a distinct degree: what is to prevent a perfect mutual understanding one day! Mr. Hume's proposition has been duly and carefullly considered. He will, no doubt, advise you of the results as expressed in my letter to him. Whether he will give our 'modes of action' as fair a trial as yourself - is another question. Our Maha (The 'Chief') has allowed me to correspond with both of you. , and even - in case an Anglo-Indian Branch is formed - to come some day in personal contact with it. It now depends entirely on you. I cannot tell you more. You are quite right as the standing of our friends in the Anglo-Indian world having been materiailly iimproved by the Simla visit; and, it is also true, though you modestly refrain from saying so, that we are mainly indebted to you for this.But quite apart from the unlucky incidents of the Bombay publications, it is not possible that there should be much more at best than a benevolent neutrality shown by your people toward ours. There is so very minute a point of contact between the 2 civilisations they respectively represent, that one might almost say they could not touch at all,. Nor would they but for the few - shall I say eccentrics? - who, like you, dream better and bolder dreams than the rest; and provoking thought, bring the two together by their own admirable audacity. Has it occurred to you that the 2 Bombay publications, if not influenced, may at least have not been prevented, by those who might have done so, because they saw the necessity for that much agitation to effect the double results of making a needed diversion after the Brooch Grenade, and, perhaps, of trying the strength of your personal interest in occultism & theosophy? I do not say it was so; I but enquire whether the contingency ever presented itself to your mind. I have already caused it to be intimated to you that if the details given in the stolen letter had been anticipated in the "Pioneer' - a much more appropriate place, and where they would have been handled to better advantage - that document would not have been worth anyone's while to purloin for the 'Times of India', and therefore no names would have appeared. End of part 1. Part 2 of letter # 5 will follow tomorrow. For today, I'm completely ausgecopied. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 19:18:44 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: ML citation blunder Dear Nicholas, My edition has 2 letters by Hume. the chronological 8th "My Dear Koot Humi, I have sent Sinnett your letter to me and he has kindly sent me yours to him...." the chronological 75th "My dear Master, In speaking of Fragments No III of which you will receive proofs soon..." If you have another one, maybe you can copy it out for us. I'm hoping that Eldon will get his act together soon, so we'll have the whole book in the archives.. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 22:51 PST From: ocean@earthlink.net (Mark Barville) Subject: Re: Re Bailey;Martin Euser to Mark Barville Hello Martin, Thank you so much for your personal reply. I have read some of the things you have written, they are on the www virtual library in the Religion section. I feel quite honored that you personally took the time to answer my questions. I will look over some of these materials and then write you more later. Again, I deeply appreciate your clarity, honesty, sincerity, and ability (and willingness) to penetrate matters of the deepest importance without fear or waivering, thank you so much! Yours, Mark Barville