From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 12:20:11 -0500 (EST) From: John Mead Subject: May Sci. American mag. hi - there is a brief article on the Nobel Physicist Josephson regarding his divergence from physics to psyhics. for your info. (FYI) peace - john mead jem@vnet.net From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 16:48:38 -0400 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: What should we fear? JRC, Well you certainly got me smiling! Irreverence always seems to amuse me, which is why HPB so often breaks me up. Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 21:08:53 -0500 (EST) From: John Mead Subject: ts lit. in turkey ?? >>> I want to order some books of Theosophy. I need a list of >>> books and prices. >>> Can You sent me this list in e-mail or mail? >>> email: guner@promete.tubitak.gov.tr >>> mail: Tetm. C/3 Tubitak Ankara/Turkey >>> >> >> hi -- >> >> I have helped Guner subscribe to the theos-xxx lists. >> >> he needs help in obtaining Theosophical literature in his >> region (Turkey). >> >> if people know of any contacts which may help his >> request, please send info to: >> >> guner@promete.tetm.tubitak.gov.tr >> >> thanks - >> >> jem@vnet.net From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 21:24:00 -0500 (EST) From: John Mead Subject: anewtestmsg sorry - test message jem From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 01:21:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Olcott Library Subject: Re: ts lit. in turkey ?? To John Mead: Thanks for forwarding the message from Guner in Turkey. You are right, the Olcott Library does not lend materials outside of the US. However, I am forwarding Guner's request to Quest Books/TPH, and they will be able to send him a Quest Books catalog, which will enable him to purchase books, audios, and videos from TPH. Elisabeth Trumpler Head Librarian Olcott Library & Research Center Send e-mail to: olcott@dupagels.lib.il.us From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 04 May 1995 13:19:01 EDT From: uscap9m9@ibmmail.com Subject: Theosophy and Politics I'm still behind in things I'd like to respond to, but thought I'd comment on Theosophy and politics, since it's an important topic in the news. Consider these comments as an editorial on the subject. Theosophy and Politics -- Eldon Tucker Theosophy is a religious philosophy, sometimes called the Wisdom Tradition. It is not simply an intellectual pursuit, important as the mind is. It is not based upon devotion or worship, nor upon well-intentioned social work. Theosophy is rather a study of the highest form of understanding, a study that necessitates the practice of unselfishness, and of spirituality in the student's life. We are not given specific morals and ethics, but rather taught how to understand ethical thought, and to derive what is right through an understanding of the nature of right and wrong. There is not a rigid adherence to some arbitrary set of rules, like the Judaic ten commandments. Rules are to help the laggards of humanity, those who would fall behind the rest of us, without some external assistance. When we've developed our innate saintliness, we can directly perceive what is right, without having to refer to an external rulebook. With regard to politics, we are taught to obey the law of the land, to be faithful citizens of the nation which we call our home. We must act according to our conscience, but accept the consequences, like Socrates did, in ancient days. Theosophical groups promote an open forum for the study of the Ancient Wisdom. There are little requirements of members except for an acceptance of universal brotherhood, and for respectful tolerance of the views of others (The freedom of belief, and the wide tolerance of differing views, though, does not mean that Theosophy is anything that anyone wants it to be. There is a definite, well-defined philosophy that can be studied. It is possible, with some study, to distinguish theosophical ideas from countless personal speculations of untrained minds. While it is true that behind anyone and anything we see, there is a spark of the divine, it would be incorrect to generalize this to say that behind any word that someone may utter, there's a pearl of divine wisdom.) Theosophical groups are not officially connected to any political or religious organization. There is no attempt to promote one church over others, nor to promote one political party or agenda over the rest. Religious and political practices are left up to individual conscience, and neither are considered important in the long run. Theosophy looks at the big picture. Even 50,000 years hence, none of the current-day religions or political systems will be around. Theosophy deals with the timeless, with parts of us that transcend the present-day world. We find that in some religions that there are political organizations. The Catholics have had their Jesuits with a dark history of meddling in politics, and the Moslems have extremist groups promoting terrorism. There have been many horrors promoted in the name of organized religions, like, for instance, the Crusades and the Inquisition. Theosophy teaches self-responsibility. We are taught to practice unselfishness, to seek the betterment of humanity. Being good citizens, concerned for the welfare of our neighbors, and in a general sense for our fellow inhabitants of planet earth, we can never condone violence or oppression in any form. The world is not bettered by political manipulation. Passing some law, devising new ways to regulate the lives of others, we do not really change or better them. People are not mindless puppets, made to do whatever external influences tell them. By watching TV, for instance, someone is not "made" to do stupid, awful things! And by passing a law to say that people smile at others, we do not make them friendly. How do we better things? We better things for others by giving them the same freedoms that we want for ourselves. We do not ban or burn books, but encourage the free exchange of ideas. Although we are left up to our own to decide what religion and politics that we may practice, we are taught that there are higher things than politics and organized religion. We are taught of a path of spiritual evolution, self-devised, lonely, but infinitely rewarding, that leads to an inner wealth beyond compare! Obtaining and sharing that wealth is the highest good! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 04 May 1995 16:41:36 EDT From: uscap9m9@ibmmail.com Subject: Posting History to theos- lists Following is a quick-and-dirty summary of the posters to the theos-* lists since July 1993. -- Eldon Tucker ------------------------------- over 100 postings since July 1993: bain, dr. a. m. 184 deutsch, liesel f 222 hejka-ekins, jerry 171 johnson, k paul 297 mead, john 195 schueler, jerry 190 tucker, eldon* 354 *a few dozen by Brenda Tucker. ------------------------------- posters July 1993 - April 1995: agarwal, sirish 1 allen, william 34 anderson, jim 1 astrea 59 bain, dr. a. m. 184 banister, ronald a 12 barclay, jack 1 barville, mark 2 bermingham, ann e 29 brown, cameron 1 butler, sheldon 3 cabigting, ruben 4 cain, robert 4 carter, raphael 1 carvalho, osmar de 20 chambers, christopher a 1 chenery, m 1 chin, vic hao 7 cilcain, judy a 3 coker, jessica l 41 coker, jt 1 coker, nancy 7 cole, leonard e 17 cooper, diana 2 cromer, matthew zoe david 6 davis, derek 1 degracia, donald 42 deutsch, liesel f 222 domb, doreen 16 donant, alan 1 dyer, frank 3 eklund, dara 24 euser, martin 41 ferres, rodrigo de 2 franklyn, roland 2 gillingwater, paul 34 ginsburg, sy 16 goodwin, chuck 1 grenier, michael w 51 griffin, tom 1 hampson, daniel 1 hejka-ekins, jerry 171 hobbs, terry 22 hofmann, felix 1 ihle, richard 28 johnson, k paul 297 kalvin, sara 29 kangas, antero 6 katz, todd 4 korhonen, aki 36 kotas, marek 1 kumar, arvind 92 landres, j shawn 2 leiderman, martin 2 library, chestatee regional 4 library, olcott 11 livingston, kent 1 lucas, lewis 69 mcfarlane, thomas j 1 mead, john 195 mead, louise c 4 meier, jim 1 meyer, michael r 10 moyer, christopher 5 murdic, bob 1 oneil, ken 10 patterson, arthur 57 price, keith 58 ramramkar, naftaly 3 richards, robin 1 rooke, andrew 14 santucci, james 6 sapos, michael 2 schorre, dewey val 8 schueler, jerry 190 skeptic, the 1 society, altadena classical homeopathy edu. 4 society, theosophical 3 stentiford, murray 63 stoper, arnold 11 susarla, h krishna 1 thompson, roxanne 1 titchenell, denis 1 titchenell, katinka 5 titland, joseph 2 tucker, eldon 354 tullis, john 8 vorstermans, john 1 weeks, nicholas 27 ??, 91484615@uwwvax.uww.edu 10 ??, bazzer 23 ??, bill@zeus.itdc.edu 24 ??, blavatsky@delphi.com 1 ??, can@igc.apc.org 1 ??, danielart@aol.com 2 ??, daratman@aol.com 12 ??, de-hiwi 1 ??, dtilghman@a1.pbs.org 1 ??, frank 3 ??, hasltisl@aol.com 3 ??, johnshafer@aol.com 2 ??, jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu 18 ??, kent 2 ??, kim 1 ??, lmoffitt@delphi.com 3 ??, mgraye@ccit.arizona.edu 35 ??, mlevin@jade.tufts.edu 5 ??, nira2u@aol.com 9 ??, nowan 1 ??, portelli@calon.com 3 ??, pplasto@peg.apc.org 10 ??, rainger@delphi.com 3 ??, segibson@aol.com 1 ??, stelios@ollamh.ucd.ie 1 ??, washcraf@carleton.edu 1 ??, zfenton@aol.com 1 ??, zgg002@sol1.solinet.net 4 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 20:00:25 -0500 (EST) From: John Mead Subject: newtest new test jem From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 May 1995 10:43:24 -0400 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Theosophy & Politics. Dear Eldon, Your editorial inspired some further thoughts in my mind, so I hope you won't feel offended, if I play around a little with what you said. It's meant to enhance. It's also meant ot invite further discussion. I agree with what you say in your first paragraph that Theosophy "is not based ... on well-intentioned social work". Such social work is one of the banes of my existence. But I'd like to tie that in with your thoughts expresse d at the end of the editorial the "path of spiritual evolution...... Obtaining & sharing that wealth is the highest good." That too, I fully agree with. The 2 seem to cvontradict each other, but, to me they don't. I think because I've added a Buddhist ingredient to the mix of sharing whatever I've ben able to learn with someone else, who might also be able to use it. That ingredient is expressed as "Skill in means".I've been trying to steadily improve my skill in means for sharing whatever beautiful & useful I've found. maybe I'm not so very skillful yet, but i've improved, & I think all Theosophists should aim for improving their "skill in means". "Theosophy teaches self-responsibility". It does, but I've also learned that you yourself are responsible for your own Karma, and that other people need to be responsible for theirs, & that you very seldom take on another person's karma upon yourself. It doesn't work, for one thing, as I found out when I very willingly took on some of my grandson, Benjamin's karma, & as it so happened, didn't succeed. All I got across was my point of view, but since I didn't get either little Ben nor his parents to fall in with my idea, nothing further happened. It concerned a health problem, & nothing constructive is being done about it, so I'm still worried about it, but I cannot take on Ben's karma. He & his parents have made their choice, & it's completely out of my hands. & I think that's where it should be. Other people have to make their own choices. 'Buddhas do but point the way." After you've made your choices, you need to live with the results, but the results aren't necessarily untoward, they might be very pleasant, & enjoyable. If, however, they don't come out to your liking, then it's again time to make another choice to get them more in line with what you tried to achieve in the first place. So I'm still hoping about Ben, even though there's nothing further I can do about it. I think "hairbrained", or "not- theosophical" ideas aren't only found in untrained minds. PhD's can talk & think stupid sometimes too. People don't always agree with your own point of view, & Theosophy is set up so that people can be Theosophists & still have different points of view. & wouldn't it be boring, if we all looked at everything exactly alike? I think that's not even the case with the Dhyani Chohans, where an idea travels across the group at such great speed that they can immediately all act in unison.To me, there's also the matter of that what is appropriate for one person in a situation might not be appropriate for another. I think a tangible example is, 4 pieces of candy. If you're thin as a rail, you don't have to think twice about enjoying 4 pieces of candy, one right after the other. If, on the other hand, you're fighting the battle of the midriff bulge, you better be careful about how many pieces of candy you consume, & if you happen to be diabetic, the candy is usually even worse for you. I happen to be a Karma Yoga person, & I happen to believe that wherever you notice a lack that you can profitable remedy, you should do so. If the TS does n't believe in taking part in organized religion nor in politics, that doesn't present an obstacle for me personally to take part, if I see that I'll be able to help with profit in some way. Of course, I can't go around, & again be a do-gooder, & try to fix everything. I have to pick & choose among all the things I could be helping to fix the ones which appeal to me most, & the ones I have the most knowledge & expertise to help fix. About laws, I agree with you that laws are for those not advanced enough to follow their own inner law. The inner law takes a long time to develop. I think it is made up of intuition and conscience. I don't believe that people are born evil, & need to be raised from being miserable sinners. I believe that everyone is born with a conscience, & if they listen to that, & if they also learn the workings of karma, which is also Law, no other law is needed. I think Theosophy is based on the innate goodness of people, & the spiritual training is to bring it out. The end Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 May 95 14:21:11 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Theosophy & Politics Liesel: > About laws, I agree with you that laws are for those not advanced > enough to follow their own inner law. The inner law takes a long > time to develop. I think it is made up of intuition and > conscience. In other words, when you have real thing, you don't need the system anymore. That's a paraphrase of a line from Ann Rice's book, Exit to Eden. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 May 95 17:28:27 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re to Liesel on karma Liesel: <"Theosophy teaches self-responsibility". It does, but I've also Subject: Re:Re: Karma Jerry: > In short, we influenced their karma, to the good to be sure. I > think that this kind of thing goes on all the time - we mingle > our karmic burdens with others, often unconsciously at the time, > and hopefully for the better. This struck deep to the heart of something I've been thinking about lately. My mother has been mentally disturbed all her life and I've realized that I've been taking care of her most of my life, forty some years. Many of the skills most kids learn from their parents I had to go out and learn for myself. I figure there must be some terrible karma between us and I've agreed to assist her through this life in ways which other normal people would have done for themselves. Even though she now resides in a home I am still responsible for her welfare as I am the only child. Certainly both our karmas have affected our actions towards each other. My fondest wish is that in some future life she might come back as my daughter and I might help her over some inner problems. Seems like I've only been able to help her with her outer ones this time around. I had a yoga teacher who once said, "Never fulfill another person's bad karma." If there's something about that person which makes you want to react negatively about them, then do just the opposite. A tall order to fill, but a good idea. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 7 May 1995 20:22:45 -0400 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Re to Liesel on karma Dear Jerry, I think I found the key to your question. I think that you should try to heal a sick animal or child to the best of your ability, but the animal or child must be willing to accept the healing you offer (that part is the other entity's choice), otherwise, your healing or your music lessons are for nought. I think what happens is that you help and/or give as much as you reasonably can, but what the other person then does with it is his choice, no longer yours. He uses your help in a way which fits in with his Karma, point of view, whatever. Thought of a good example. At Serge King's workshop, one of my childhood problems started acting up, when a woman went beserk & started chanting & talking so that I couldn't hear Serge..I just told Serge that I was having a problem with this nut, without going into particulars about who orginally caused the problem. He asked me had I tried this, that & the other thing. I had & it hadn't worked. We decided that it might help to grok the person who was giving me the problem after supper, when I'd again returned quitely to my cabin. Serge said "ok, I'll send you energy". He did, & it worked well. The idea was that he just sent me some extra energy for my Ku (unconscious) to use as I needed it. Serge didn't try to direct the energy, nor give it a quality. He left that up to me. I think that's helping without getting tangled up in the other person's Karma. The example you give of what Ramakrishna did with his students is exactly what I tried to do for our Ben. Ramakrishna's students accepted the gift, Ben, to my knowledge, did not. Does that make sense to you? Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 7 May 1995 20:32:43 -0400 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Re:Re: Karma Dear Ann, Seems to me that you've done quite a bit for your mother, and if she's not well enough to appreciate it, I think you yourself should.. Are you perhaps trying to be the perfect daughter who wishes not to leave a stone unturned? If so, I hope you realize that's not possible. Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree, because it makes me think of my relationship with my mom. I had a mother who always wanted more from me, and was never satisfied with what I had to give her, which was quite a lot. One fine day, I got angry, & finally got her to say "thank you" to me for taking good care of her. That "thank you" was good for both of us. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 7 May 1995 19:39:20 -0600 From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: Re:Re: Karma Its always seemed to me as though the "Law" of Karma doesn't need to be taken into account at all in questions of behaviour. First, because its one of those things that seems straightforward when looked at in broad, general terms, but seems absolutely unknowable when minutely analyzed ... does (for instance) *every* thought, feeling or action have a *precise* reaction, of the same sort? of a different sort? or is it just general patterns of behaviour and thought? is it *only* individual actions, or is every member of every group somewhat subject to the actions of that group? and if so, in what way, and to what degree, and as defined by what parameters? The larger reason, however, seems to boil down to this: If Karma *does* exist as some sort of universal, natural law, it certainly doesn't need us to try to "figure" it out in any way ... to reason, for instance, that one wishes to act in a situation, but that one needs to somehow take the karma of another into account, or somehow be careful about "taking on" someone else's karma seems kind of ridiculous .... *Gravity* is another "universal" law, but it certainly doesn't need our complicity or cooperation, and nothing would sound more foolish than one person believing they could "take on" some portion of the gravitational force "afflicting" another. I suspect *no one in incarnation* is capable of possessing anything other than speculations about "karma", or at least of actually expressing anything other than partial hints at the truth (if there is one) ... as our whole language is deeply embedded in assumptions about the nature of reality that may not hold at all other than in the world constructed by our physical brains ... we assume, for instance, three dimensions of space, one of time, and we try to understand "karma" within that worldview, and with the assumption that the karmic agents (i.e., ourselves) are seperate, atomistic, discrete units .... but presume (for instance) that at anything other than the most physical layers of consciousness, the karmic agents are fundamentally collective in nature, and operating in spaces containing far more dimensions of both space and time (and even our modern physicists ... a rather grounded bunch .. cannnot currently explain physical reality with anything less than 11 dimensions). I suppose I believe that simply intending to act with clarity, with justice, with compassion, i.e., according to the classical virtues, and letting the law of Karma (whatever the devil it is) operate in whatever fashion it operates is the best way of approaching the subject ... problem is, I've heard "karma" often used as an *excuse* for inaction ... -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 7 May 1995 22:43:28 -0400 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Re:Re: Karma Well, if you don't have a good reason for wanting to know what Karma is all about, then I suppose it doesn't really matter what it is. I found my reason for wanting to know about Karma in one of Sri Ram's essays, in which he states that the object is to become adept enough at maneuvering Karma so that the reaction you create (action/reaction) doesn't hit you with a bang anymore, but glances off without any effect at all. That's supposed to be part of Nirvana. Agreed it's not an easy thing to know, because, as you say, it exists at many levels, & with various numbers of individuals involved and various dimensions involved, etc. etc. That's why it takes an adept. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 08 May 1995 17:54:18 +1200 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: Re:Re: Karma Ann, replying to Jerry, wrote > Jerry: > > In short, we influenced their karma, to the good to be sure. I > > think that this kind of thing goes on all the time - we mingle > > our karmic burdens with others, often unconsciously at the time, > > and hopefully for the better. > > > This struck deep to the heart of something I've been thinking > about lately. My mother has been mentally disturbed all her life > and I've realized that I've been taking care of her most of my > life, forty some years. Many of the skills most kids learn from > their parents I had to go out and learn for myself. I figure > there must be some terrible karma between us and I've agreed to > assist her through this life in ways which other normal people > would have done for themselves. ....... > > My fondest wish is that in some future life she might come back > as my daughter and I might help her over some inner problems. > Seems like I've only been able to help her with her outer ones > this time around. The last part of this makes me feel that there's not just a terrible karma between you, but an enduring love contract at a deep inner level, being put into practice in this particular form. Perhaps you are both in the midst of transforming a terrible karma but, on the other hand, there might not have been a terrible karma at all. Whatever the case, though, it looks as if you have both taken an opportunity to grow through this particular relationship. And surely a healing essence from your "outer" help is soaking into your mother's being, to help her grow in her own best ways in the future when love express itself in "outer" ways again. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 May 95 14:56:50 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Re:Re: Re: Re: Karma Murray: > The last part of this makes me feel that there's not just a > terrible karma between you, but an enduring love contract at a > deep inner level, being put into practice in this particular > form. > Perhaps you are both in the midst of transforming a terrible > karma but, on the other hand, there might not have been a > terrible karma at all. Whatever the case, though, it looks as if > you have both taken an opportunity to grow through this > particular relationship. > And surely a healing essence from your "outer" help is soaking > into your mother's being, to help her grow in her own best ways > in the future when love express itself in "outer" ways again. I hesitated to use the word "terrible" ,but it seemed to be the only one that fit. My mother and I seem to be a rather intense bond, with her being much more attached to me than I was to her. The signed contract must have been "binding". Love can be terrible. Terribly beautiful that it carves the heart into a fine sculpture. I look forward to a harmonious outcome for all souls involved. I also think that it can be futile to wonder what previous circumstances got us to where we are now. Speculation hardly ever works, because, as they say, truth is stranger than fiction and the causes of our karma with another can be myriad. Only someone with higher powers can unravel the strings and I'm not so sure that's it's necessatily a good thing to know. Knowledge of past associations can be rather shocking, to say the least. Thanx for the posts - ann. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 08 May 95 17:30:00 PDT From: "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ" Subject: Karma the mirror of your actions Karma is an interesting subject of discussion. It is even recognized by science by the law that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. The key to dealing with karma is intention. One must always strive for selflessness versus selfishness. If you are selfless in your action and act to someone in that manner as Liesel pointed out then you can break the chain of negative karma that keeps getting repeated. You must act without identification to the personality instead or reacting. The repetition of negative karma (one extreme example is one person killing another in a past life and then the other has the opportunity to do the same in a previous life) can be broken when one deals with others in a selfless manner of good will. This is the only way that the chains of karma can be broken and we can free ourselves to having freedom of action from the higher self. When we a constantly reacting to others out of anger, etc. we are strengthening the karmic chains and giving our free will less freedom to operate on. And therefore free will can only truely become free when we are able to not react to karma for action of reaction is one of not using the higher mind. We should never worry about effecting another persons karma if our intention is good. We are responsible for everything we think, feel, do and say to the extent that we are conscious. Like on the movie Gum Ball Rally when the race car driver broke the rear view mirror and threw it away, and his passenger asked what he was doing, he said what's behind you is not important. I feel that before one makes a decision if you take responsibility for your actions at the time and consider all the consequences you possibly can and act with good intentions then regardless of the outcome that is the best you can do. Hind sight is 20 - 20 and at that point you have to let go of the past and not worry about it. After doing the best you can for another, the other person is responsible for what they do with it. You left them with your best and that is all you can do. You can't live their life for them. If you give them your best with love (for true love is the realization of unity) then you can only receive back what you gave at the level it was given. Another interesting aspect of Karma is that it is returned on the level it is given. An example of this is from professional Astrologer Dr. Douglas Baker who in his book Esoteric Astrology talked about almost losing his life when he was a young man. He said after he became a student of Metaphysics and Astrology and had been doing spiritual searching he noticed that his astrological chart was about to have similar planets transiting to that of when he had almost lost his life. When the time came, he did not find himself in mortal danger. He instead went through a death or transformation of ideas or concepts and realizations in his life. He surmised that since he was not primarily operating on the physical level but on the mental and spiritual then that was the level that karma was primarily operating at. This is the reason that so many esoteric groups have tried to transcend the physical like the alchemists whose changing of base metal to gold was symbolic of changing the consciousness of the physical to the spiritual. It is also important to notice that the Alchemists found mercury to be very important for the transformation process. Since the element mercury is ruled by the planet Mercury it becomes important to notice that the planet Mercury rules the mind (the analytical mind of Virgo and the philosophical mind of Gemini). Therefore we can deduce that it is through the development of the higher mind that the physical can be transcended to the spiritual. Whether one uses the philosophers stone or the holly grail or the number 13 as the symbolic means of transformation. Both are the searching of spiritual truths that seam to be as a result of an inner call. The number 13 is symbolic for transformation. Some people say yes but only through death. Both King Arthur and Jesus were the thirteenth member of their respective groups. In this case they were the means of transformation. Jesus stood for the transformational point between the physical and the spiritual. Mathematically you can see that the number thirteen is made of twelve and one. If you take twelve ball bearing of equal diameter you can cover one of equal size completely without room for any others. Symbolically this is a way of showing that the twelve are at one level and within is the thirteenth. Therefore transition from one level of consciousness to another by going within. The one in the center then can be represented by twelve smaller ball bearings covering one of equal size, etc., etc. Therefore as above so below. By the way this Thursday on the Learning Channel their is part two of a program called the Secret of the Templars which goes into some symbolism and the holy grail legends and the Cathars. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 07 May 1995 22:12:00 -0600 From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: Re:Re: Karma Its always seemed to me as though the "Law" of Karma doesn't need to be taken into account at all in questions of behaviour. First, because its one of those things that seems straightforward when looked at in broad, general terms, but seems absolutely unknowable when minutely analyzed ... does (for instance) *every* thought, feeling or action have a *precise* reaction, of the same sort? of a different sort? or is it just general patterns of behaviour and thought? is it *only* individual actions, or is every member of every group somewhat subject to the actions of that group? and if so, in what way, and to what degree, and as defined by what parameters? The larger reason, however, seems to boil down to this: If Karma *does* exist as some sort of universal, natural law, it certainly doesn't need us to try to "figure" it out in any way ... to reason, for instance, that one wishes to act in a situation, but that one needs to somehow take the karma of another into account, or somehow be careful about "taking on" someone else's karma seems kind of ridiculous .... *Gravity* is another "universal" law, but it certainly doesn't need our complicity or cooperation, and nothing would sound more foolish than one person believing they could "take on" some portion of the gravitational force "afflicting" another. I suspect *no one in incarnation* is capable of possessing anything other than speculations about "karma", or at least of actually expressing anything other than partial hints at the truth (if there is one) ... as our whole language is deeply embedded in assumptions about the nature of reality that may not hold at all other than in the world constructed by our physical brains ... we assume, for instance, three dimensions of space, one of time, and we try to understand "karma" within that worldview, and with the assumption that the karmic agents (i.e., ourselves) are seperate, atomistic, discrete units .... but presume (for instance) that at anything other than the most physical layers of consciousness, the karmic agents are fundamentally collective in nature, and operating in spaces containing far more dimensions of both space and time (and even our modern physicists ... a rather grounded bunch . cannnot currently explain physical reality with anything less than 11 dimensions). I suppose I believe that simply intending to act with clarity, with justice, with compassion, i.e., according to the classical virtues, and letting the law of Karma (whatever the devil it is) operate in whatever fashion it operates is the best way of approaching the subject ... problem is, I've heard "karma" often used as an *excuse* for inaction ... JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 8 May 1995 19:05:57 -0600 From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: Karma the mirror of your actions To Nick (& others): You speak definatively about "Karma" ... with an attitude that suggests you *know* the truth in some absolute sense. Out of curiousity, how do you come about such certainty? There have been philosophers from several different traditions arguing about the existance of and nature of karma for literally millenia ... and they have drastically different opinions of the matter, as different as the arguments among Christians about the nature (for instance) of heaven and hell. Your vieew certainly resembles pieces of some of these different thinkers ... but you speak as though it is far more than simply your belief ... as though you are stating accepted, universal, objective truth. Have I misunderstood? Are you really less certain than your tone seems to imply? And if you do believe in you certainly, from whence does this spring? JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 May 95 10:12:45 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: More on Karma As I had hoped, some very interesting thoughts have cropped up on the subject of karma. Here are some more thoughts: Ann: Very good advice. If someone wants to die in a car accident, for example, thats fine with me, but I don't want to be the one who accidently kills them. If a lot of people want to go down in a plane crash, fine, but please don't ask me to be aboard at the time. Whenever a person starts to walk out in front of my car, I kindly tell them, under my breath, to find another vehicle to express their karma with and to please leave me out of it thank you very much. So far this has worked well for me. I don't care much about causing more karma or taking on someone's karma, but I do not want to be the servant of bad karma to anyone. Liesel: Yes. kinda scary huh? :-) JRC:< the "Law" of Karma ...seems straightforward when looked at in broad, general terms, but seems absolutely unknowable when minutely analyzed ...> I have been saying this for many years. You can't begin to know how glad I am to hear this from a fellow theosophist. For the most part, the TSs and all the early TS writers describe karma as a very simple principle that always mysteriously works; a cosmic Law. Either they never thought it through (which is hard to believe) or else they were appealing to simple minds and figured that the unanswerable questions would just confuse their readers. It is just this sort of thing that Jung referred to when he said theosophy appeals to lazy minds. Karma is infinitely more complex than we can possibly imagine. Anyone who thinks that karma "explains" our life is a lazy thinker IMHO. JRC:<, for instance, that one wishes to act in a situation, but that one needs to somehow take the karma of another into account, or somehow be careful about "taking on" someone else's karma seems kind of ridiculous .... *Gravity* is another "universal" law...> Actually, I rather think that we can, and do, take on other's karma. I also think that we should consider the karma of others at times before we act. Psychology tells us that there is a difference between forcing our help on someone else and really helping. When help is forced, there is usually an underlying need for control and/or domination (we thus act from our own karmic burden rather than from compassion). In most cases, it pays to ask if the person wants our help first before we charge in and do something that we assume needs doing. And we can't communicate with another person in any way without coming into their karmic sphere of influence, and thus mixing in their karma to some extent. I am not saying that this is wrong; obviously we would have to live in isolation to avoid karma altogether (and I would guess that isolation brings its own kind of karma anyway). Gravity seems to me to be a bad example here, as it relates only to the physical plane. How about the Law of Attraction? Anyway, my point is that we shouldn't worry or "be careful about" taking on new karma, any more than we need to worry about killing animals and plants to eat their bodies, or about killing hundreds of ants each time we stroll through our local park. Rather, as theosophists we simply need to be knowledgable about what is going on. We should know where our own personal karmic burden came from (for info on our collective karma, just watch the evening news on any day of the week). We should be aware of our motives. To do this, we need to be aware of our karmic burden so we don't push the stuff off onto others - this is not the proscribed method for eliminating our karma. JRC: While I agree with your second analysis as to the inadequacy of our language, I can't agree with the first part as to the ability to obtain more than speculation about karma. It is not that difficult to get an intuitive feel for karma and how it works. Trying to put this into words is all but impossible. I am aware of many universe models, and at least three are well known today: Qabala, Gupta Vidya, and Enochian. I am sure that there are many others that I am not aware of. But all of them as far as I know employ the concept of karma, simply because all embrace the concept of causality. But I agree with Jung that causality can't adequately address the whole story. Some things happen that are not causal, and so I agree with Jung's concept of synchronicity or the possibility of acausal events. Thus while karma can "explain" most of what happens to us, it can't explain all of it; not even if we take into account the astral karma, mental karma, and spiritual karma that exists on other planes or dimensions. JRC: Sounds like an artistic approach. Go for it! I believe it was HPB who said that inaction, as surely as action, produces its own karma. JRC:< You speak definatively about "Karma" ... with an attitude that suggests you *know* the truth in some absolute sense.> I far as I can tell, there are several definitions of karma floating around, some complementary and others at odds. One view is simply causality or the law of cause and effect. Another is the law of action and reaction, which is complementary to the first but not quite the same things because in this view karma is limited to actions with "intent." Some see karma as a general system of good and evil or reward and punishment in which we can add or deplete our stockpile or accumulation of chits. Ome see it as a cosmic balance of all dualistic forces. In the new April/May issue of SUNRISE, Hugh Harrison defines karma and reimbodiment as "the primary agents of evolution and involution." This restricts the Law of Karma to the dualistic processes of involution and evolution that we, as monadic consciousness-centers, are currently going through. In this view we can only eliminate karma to the extent that we can extricate ourselves from the Rounds of this manvantara. There are doubtless other interpretations of this complex principle. In the same way that many Teachers have described karma in simplistic terms, so they have described its elimination. Theosophists have, by and large, stayed away from the whole idea of eliminating karma in the sense of jivamukti (liberation of the jiva or self). The concept of karmaless action begs for techniques and initiations, which are anathema to the TS. Yet the idea is found in virtually all schools of magic and throughout Eastern esotericism. But just as defining karma is complex, so is its elimination. It takes more than intuition, insight, satori, mystical experience, gnosis, initiation, enlightenment, and so on (I would say it takes a combination of all of the above). Being able to act totally selfless is not as easy as it might sound. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 9 May 1995 11:05:22 -0400 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re to Liesel on karma Was it Annie Besant who suggested that if it was within your power to help someone, then that must be within their karma, too. Since karma is suppose to be a law of universal equilibrium doesn't it make sense that all action is included. We could not "interfer" with someone's karma no more than we could interfer with the rising sun. Blavatsky mocked the idea of a universal scapegoat who, as the christians teach, could take on your karma. She thought it would be nice if we all had someone who would clean up our messes after us like carrion crows, but argued we were each our own absolute law giver, the dispenser of glory or gloom for ourselves. If the law of equilibrium has a purpose would it not be to teach each to live in harmony. If one disturbs that harmony and does not see the effects of the act how would we learn "the ways of the Force," to steal a line from the Star Wars trilogy? Lewis From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 9 May 1995 11:12:09 -0400 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Re:Re: Karma JRC, Thought you made some excellent points. Lewis From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 9 May 1995 15:26:31 -0600 From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Techie question I apologize for asking this technical question on line but I haven't gotten a response off line yet. I have changed servers so my personal e-mail address has been changed from apatters@mbnet.mb.ca to taliesin@magic.mb.ca My mail is being forwarded by my last server mbnet so I receive two copies of every message. This is annoying and cumbersome. I would like to unsubscribe apatters@mbnet.mb.ca from theos-l and still remain a member of theos-l under taliesin@magic.mb.ca. When I attempt to unsubscribe I get error messages returned from the theos-l server. Any one have any idea how to solve this problem. I would be very, very grateful. Arthur Paul Patterson. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 May 95 18:24:56 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: Karma, Dharma and Chaos There have been numerous posts recently on Karma rather than reiterate the many interesting ideas, I would like to introduce the idea of Dharma. A concept that now always springs to my mind in association with Karma ( I guess because they rhyme :-)). But really, to oversimply Karma is passive type of past destiny (somewhat overly mechanical and Newtonian to my mind), Dharma is future destiny brought about by WILLFUL fullfillment of some responsibility or inner drive. Karma is push and Dharma is pull. We could make other analogies like introverted and extroverted, yin and yang etc. Karma has a lazy, manana quality like I was born this way to learn lessons, so I better not better myself but endure it so I won't be born (whatever) again. It really smacks of the passivity in the worst way. Dharma is more active in that it says "find out who you are and go for it!" Think of Arjuna in the Bhagavgita. But think of all those overpaid sports stars (in America). Just go for what??? Dharma also resonates (to me) a little of Promethean or Faustian hubris. I think it was probably Dharma and not Karma that started the cosmic ball rolling. Karma implies that when all the swings of the pendulum are finished, we come back to groung zero, a cold dead entropic end. But another Dharmic push starts another manvantara. Dharma seems to imply that there is a calling, a grace, an evolutionary meaning to all this running around. One can fool oneself with Dharma as with Karma. We can't all be Arjuna after all, and the West is filled with exploitation, corruption and pollution which is as bad or worse than the "what will be will be" philosophy of Karma. We have already discussed that East and West are now psychogical (introverted and extroverted respectively) and not geographical notions because the world boundaries have dissolved so much after World War II. Chaos may enter as a dissrupting or freedom of movement factor that allows for the lawful, but ever changing flow of reality and consciousness keeping us on our toes. I guess the question has always been: how do we neutralizie our bad karma? Maybe we don't. Maybe we discover our Dharma eventually and wake up. Perhaps my discussion has not been really scholarly (it never is). Dharma also has a tiresome quality of obligation. Like the Dharma of paying bills etc. But even this points to the obvious conclusion that if you follow your Dharma (Bliss?), you can escape a lot of Karma, but not Chaos. Namste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 10:51:49 +1200 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: More on Karma Jerry Schueler wrote: > > Ann: > another person's bad karma."> > > Very good advice. If someone wants to die in a car > accident, for example, thats fine with me, but I don't > want to be the one who accidently kills them. Likewise, and I think it also means avoid letting another person express and therefore reinforce negative aspects of their nature with you, in ways that are destructive to one or both or you. For example allowing yourself to be drawn into conflict with an argumentative kind of person. The underpinning idea is that karma can be expressed in inner makeup as well as external circumstances. I'm not saying to prevent others from ever expressing anger towards you, for instance; just that there are modes of interaction that it's better not to put energy into, and negative beliefs that you can reinforce in others by going along with them. > > JRC:< the "Law" of Karma ...seems straightforward when > > looked at in broad, general terms, but seems > > absolutely unknowable when minutely analyzed ...> > > I have been saying this for many years. You can't > begin to know how glad I am to hear this from a > fellow theosophist. Well, I agree to a considerable extent with JRC here and am also glad to hear it from a theosophist. The intellectual part of the mind only gets so far when it tries to delve into the minute recesses of the universal fractal of which karma is an aspect. When I ask myself how much of theosophy I know for myself, ie as first-hand experience that can be put up as intellectually justifiable, it isn't a lot, and, with obvious variations that must apply to all of us. Intellectual integrity makes you feel pretty small at first, but can lead on to a sense of wonder and amazement. Before you know it, you're meditating! I keep getting a sense of how amazingly the different principles of nature (Mahatma Letter terminology) are interwoven, so that intention can so powerfully affect karmic outcomes, physical, emotional and mental, and that meaning can be so deeply imbedded in events. This goes down to the quantum level where consciousness and events are inextricably connected. I feel that the theosophies of the world give us frameworks to try and fit the coloured panels of our own experience and intuitions into. Sometimes the fit is not very good, and then we have to reassess our understanding of the framework or our understanding of that area of life. In another metaphor, theosophies are maps of territory around and ahead of us. Like all maps, they are a model, and only a very partial one at that. To me, theosophy says to us "It's something like this, but these words can only tell you so much. Go and see for yourself." > The concept of karmaless action begs for > techniques and initiations, which are anathema to > the TS. You're so right! I often see people in our study groups asking for simple, tried and accessible techniques in meditation and living, beyond what's in the few relevant TS books. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 09 May 1995 18:57:37 EDT From: uscap9m9@ibmmail.com Subject: Theosophy Lodge On-Line I just came across information on a new theosophical BSS. Following are notes on what I've just read about it. I haven't spoken to the people involved yet, but it should be interesting. I don't know if they know of us or not, but it would be worthwhile for us to join forces. -- Eldon Tucker Theosophy Lodge On-Line A new theosophical BBS on the internet came online yesterday. THEOSOPHY.COM was inaugurated by John Powers, Josh & Kathy Carpenter, of Ellicott City, MD. Called "Theosophy Lodge On-Line", it will attempt to provide access to Internet users to a wide range of theosophical literature which has been organized into "electronic Pamphlets" under a variety of topics, as well as to provide a meeting place where discussions on Theosophy may take place. They have drawn passages from articles in HERMES, the PATH, THE SECRET DOCTRINE, THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY, the COLLECTED WORKS OF HPB, JUDGE, many of the Concord Grove Press publications, and other works in establishing their on-line library. The service is free to users, though they hope they can generate some financial support through its use. Their main objective for the past six months has been to solve the technical problems, secure the required hardware and software, and actually get the system up and running with as much literature as they could scan and correct. They will have a "discussion room" on the BSS, and numerout electronic publications. Access is via telnet to "theosophy.org". A direct-dial line is 301-942-4312. They can be reached via email at JK1CARP@AOL.COM. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 00:36:21 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Karma > I suppose I believe that simply intending to act with clarity, with justice, with compassion, i.e., according to the classical virtues, and letting the law of Karma (whatever the devil it is) operate in whatever fashion it operates is the best way of approaching the subject ... problem is, I've heard "karma" often used as an *excuse* for inaction ... -JRC This seems to be one of the more sensible approaches on this issue to me. The last thing I want from my supposedly caring compassionate theosophical colleagues [seeking to extend the hand of fellowsip and brotherhood] is that the reason someone beat me up the other day [hypothetical] is because of some "bad" karma I generated in 1492 when I invaded the West Indies, and which I cannot recall ever having done. I am not entitled to sympathy and support for, after all, as a theosophist, I should know perfectly well that it is all my own fault. So, I wonder, why am I not then allowed to decide to "get" the B______ who beat me up and administer some immediate and very effective karma to him, thus saving him from some unhappy experience(s) in his next life - surely I would be doing him a big and compassionate favor? In line with your unquoted remarks, you may be interested to note that having successfully worked on myself to change my thought patterns and inner motivations, the force of gravity in Bristol, England, will be in abeyance for two days starting on June 1st. :-))) Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 00:48:28 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Theosophy & Politics > In other words, when you have real thing, you don't need the > system anymore. That's a paraphrase of a line from Ann Rice's > book, Exit to Eden. > > - ann My version of this over many years is that when you have built your inner temple "not made with hands" then you put the tools aside, bringing them out only for occasional maintenace work ... Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 9 May 1995 20:36:11 -0400 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Karma the mirror of your ... Dear JRC, You're right. We can't be certain that what any of us say about Karma is really, absolutely so. We're only talking about the Theosophical belief system. We're talking about how things seem to us from a reasonable theosophical point of view. But it is equally true that other people operate just as well out of a completely different set of beliefs. I think all human beings need beliefs as a framework to work out of. There's some agreement among the members of a group as to what certain terms & concepts mean. We often get into difficulties when 2 different groups place different values on the same thing, or when their beliefs conflict, and one group looks askance at the beliefs of the other, as do the Tutsis & the Hutus. ( if I've got the name right ). Another example is that the Japanese look at their commerce from a different perspective (belief system) than we do, and so we're having a dickens of a time getting acceptable trade treaties signed. And again I think all Americans agree to call a certain shade of green "chartreuse". But another langugage may have entirely different classifications for their greens, which allow people who speak that language to recognize certain other words as certain shades of green, and to them "chartreuse" is only a French liqueur. I tried to adapt the most feasible, flexible belief system I knew about, & that came to be Theosophy. It has served, and still serves, me well; other Theosophists understand what I'm saying when I use certain terms, and concepts, ie when I use a certain theosophical framework. ( I have to add... most often they understand, more often than non-theosophists anyway.) We talk amongst ourselves as if what we were saying were absolute truth, but you're so right, it isn't. Theosophy is a belief system like any other, & so is Karma. It works well for me, so I use it. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 9 May 1995 18:41:33 -0600 From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: More on Karma Jerry: >>JRC:... the "Law" of Karma ...seems straightforward >>when looked at in broad, general terms, but seems >>absolutely unknowable when minutely analyzed ... > >I have been saying this for many years. You can't >begin to know how glad I am to hear this from a >fellow theosophist...Karma is infinitely more complex >than we can possibly imagine. Anyone who thinks >that karma "explains" our life is a lazy thinker >IMHO. Yes yes yes! Goodness its good to hear this. Karma seems, for some reason, to inspire people to make large, broad statements with tones of absolute authority ... but most of what I hear, in both New Age and Theosophical circles seems phrased in terms that assumes a 19th century scientific paradigm (which is when most of the thoughts were formulated) ... e.g., prior to the knowledge of quantum mechanics, chaos and complexity theory & etc., the entire world was assumed to be deterministic, and hence "Karma" was easily explained as an extension of physical laws to the moral/behavioural arena (i.e., "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction etc., etc.); Metaphysics (IMO) has only barely begun to integrate and appreciate the worldview gradually emerging out of late 20th century science ... a worldview that fundamentally deconstructs most of the foundations upon which 2 or 3 millenia of "truths" about karma are built .. and at this point is far more complex and "occult" than most of the ponderous pronouncements of Piscean "occultism". >>JRC:...for instance, that one wishes to act in a >>situation, but that one needs to somehow take the >>karma of another into account, or somehow be careful >>about "taking on" someone else's karma seems kind >>of ridiculous .... *Gravity* is another "universal" >>law. > >Actually, I rather think that we can, and do, take on >other's karma. I also think that we should consider >the karma of others at times before we act. >Psychology tells us that there is a difference between >forcing our help on someone else and really helping. >When help is forced, there is usually an underlying >need for control and/or domination (we thus act from >our own karmic burden rather than from compassion). Yes, but this isn't really about karma ... its a discussion about how to love and serve intelligently, which is a whole different topic (and one probably well worth pursuing on the list IMO ... I agree that much service in this current world is "given" by people on the condition that the value system of the giver is accepted by the recipient ... and is often given to fill buried voids within the giver ... but again, this is a whole different discussion...). My point in saying its not worth it to consider "karma" in action is that it is an unanswerable question ... how can any of us *know* the nature of our current or past karmic relationships with *anyone* in anything other than a speculative fashion? Karma (for instance) is usually spoken of in quite a linear fashion, i.e., "he murdered me in life A, I murdered him in life B" etc., etc., but what if karma is far more of a complex, multi- dimensional web than a single line of action/reaction (which seems, IMO, far more likely) ... we may have, with any person that comes into our sphere of influence, everything from *no* karmic past whatsoever, to multiple past relationships of all sorts (and in combinations of both genders, cultural roles, familial relations, etc., etc.) *many* of which have some sort of karmic results still pending ... and this doesn't even take into account the others with whom many of those relationships may be linked (the "three-body problem" of classical physics may apply as much to karma as to planetary bodies, eh?). On the other hand, a simplistic view of Karma *is* very attractive because: 1) it can be used to explain all sorts of uncomfortable and strange things that happen to everyone during the course of life (a Christian might say "Jesus is testing me", a Hindu can say "It's my karma" ... and 2) it provides wise persons and teachers a fertile field for countless articles in metaphysical journals (giggle). >>In most cases, it pays to ask if the person >>wants our help first before we charge in and do >>something that we assume needs doing. And we can't >>communicate with another person in any way without >>coming into their karmic sphere of influence, and >>thus mixing in their karma to some extent. I am >>not saying that this is wrong; obviously we >>would have to live in isolation to avoid karma >>altogether (and I would guess that isolation brings >>its own kind of karma anyway). Well, yes, I suppose so, but I guess I believe that there is such an enormous number of people asking, often desperately, for help that I can't conceive of ever needing to try to "force" my service onto anyone. Plus I guess I believe "service" to be at root an orientation towards life rather than a series of discrete acts ... every job I hold (volunteer or paid) is simply an avenue of "service". And the second point you make is part of the one I was attempting to make: That it is impossible to avoid affecting (often deeply affecting) the lives of others ... and the more powerful one's growth, the greater the breadth and depth of the affects on others ... and those who are (arguably) further along the path often affect enormous numbers of people .... besides the fact that too much worrying about one's "personal" karma simply re-affirms the illusion of a seperate, personal self, there is also the fact that concernig oneself with such questions could potentially paralyze large-scale service ... how far would HPB or HSO have gotten if they started trying to figure out the ramifications of every individual they affected? I guess I also consider it at least possible that the concept of "Karma" is some form of Plato's "Noble Lie" (as I consider the concepts of Heaven and Hell to be) ... a common formula in many religious traditions in which a "Truth" is introduced, a truth *intended* to become dogma, that is not true in itself, but that will cause those of limited understanding to act with compassion and service prior to the time when their awareness has expanded to the point of grasping the actual truth of why such intentions and behaviour is to be preferred above all other motives. >>Gravity seems to me to be a bad example here, as it >>relates only to the physical plane. How about the >>Law of Attraction? Ooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhh! I'd love to talk about this, as I'm currently fleshing this out for a book in process. I *don't* think gravity only relates to the physical plane, but rather that the *phenomena* called "gravity" by physicists is but a cross-section of a much larger principle that works in all space: Newtonian formulations of gravity have its force directly related to the mass of the bodies, and inversely related to the distance between them ... but Einstein's formulations hold that what Newton understood was an aftereffect, a surface appearance, of a deeper principle; that mass bends space itself. Presume, for a moment (if, that is, you feel like fooling around with this), that this holds true in *any* manifested space; that (for instance) a "thought- form" *has the analog of "mass" in mental space*, and hence has a "gravity" of sorts that can begin attracting other thoughts that resonate with its animating impulse ... that we each live as tiny "suns" with constantly produced (and dissipated) "planets" orbiting our sphere, and even further, that these tiny suns tend to orbit larger "galactic centers" ... i.e., political parties, religious ideologies, social movements all exert a huge gravitational pull that cause whole groups of individuals to orbit central idea-complexes (which are often embodied by individuals) ... but again, this is another discussion :-) ... <...much interesting stuff snipped cause this post is already too damn long ...> >In the same way that many Teachers have described >karma in simplistic terms, so they have described >its elimination. Theosophists have, by and large, >stayed away from the whole idea of eliminating karma >in the sense of jivamukti (liberation of the jiva or >self). The concept of karmaless action begs for >techniques and initiations, which are anathema to >the TS. Yet the idea is found in virtually all >schools of magic and throughout Eastern esotericism. >But just as defining karma is complex, so is its >elimination. It takes more than intuition, insight, >satori, mystical experience, gnosis, initiation, >enlightenment, and so on (I would say it takes a >combination of all of the above). Being able to >act totally selfless is not as easy as it might >sound. Yes, I suppose all of this is personal predilection. I do believe the *concept* of karma is probably useful, and once accepted and internalized can be relied upon to deliver "intuitions" about its "real" nature, but intuition is a notoriously tricky thing ... I know good Christians who "know" clearly the moment they meet a person whether that person is going to "heaven" or "hell". I guess at this point I might accept the possibility that some principle may exist (whether "universal" or not I couldn't say) that is at least partially responsible for that large group of disconnected phenomena commonly lumped together and labelled "karma", but have concluded that so long as I operate within that *highly* limited (by its very nature) range of awareness of an incarnate human I not only do not, but *cannot* know the "truth" of karma to the degree necessary to use it as a modifier of action. I guess I've just concluded that attempting to lose oneself in service seems a far more direct road to the Innermost than countless speculations about how to "eliminate" "karma". But then, maybe its just my karma to act within this belief structure (-: -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 09 May 1995 22:55:29 EDT From: uscap9m9@ibmmail.com Subject: Comments to Liesel, JRC, Jerry S Liesel: Some stray comments ... Each of us has a unique purpose in life, and we cannot really find out that purpose by rigidly following some external rulebook. Rules are important, though, as a means of social cooperation. One good rule, for instance, is that everyone drives on the right-hand side of the road. (Granted, of course, that in England and some other countries we drive on the left-hand side.) With self-responsibility comes the decision-making process. We don't take away that from others when we nurture them, granting them resources and loving support. We're taught to not interfere in others free will, in their karma. And as we approach a study of Theosophy, it does not mean that we all think in unison, that we all parrot the same words. What we study may be difficult at times to put into any words at all. Our studies will take us into the unknown, into uncharted waters. Most of what we and others know is culture-specific, learned as we grew up, and we are now seeking to study things that transcend life on this earth as we know it. Jerry S: You're right that we share responsibility with others. Our karma with them is something that is dynamic, living, a link between people. The "banker's model" of karma, where we talk about debits and credits, of debts owed and debts collected, does not go very far in describing the living reality. We are our karma, we are not so much a fixed self as we are a collection of living links to others. When we take an active role in the lives of others, we pour new energy into our links with them, we forge stronger bonds, and we naturally tie our destinies together. JRC: Your point about the need to act with clarity, justice, and compassion is important. The idea of karma, like many others, can be used as an excuse for being cold-hearted and self-centered. Karma is best considered as derived from the law of Compassion: the lives of others are as important as our own because we realize our essential unity and cannot help but want to serve and care for others. I'd say that karma is as universal as gravity, and it is descriptive of the interaction of living things. We can understand chemistry and apply that knowledge in the lab with useful results. The knowledge of the laws of nature grants the power to affect and change things, to be better able to fashion the world for better or worse, as our hearts dictate. The same is true of karma and other metaphysical laws as with the laws of physics. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 16:02:27 -0400 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: to Murray S. & Nick P. Dear Murray, Thank you for the healing words you sent to Ann. They were healing for me too. Dear Nick P. The concept that was missing in my idea as to how one may deal favorably with karma was that one needs the right intention ... selflessness... Love. I know of very few people who can really act selflessly. One of them has the intitials HVG. Then you also say "you can only receive back what you gave at the level it was given". Serge King teaches the same idea in terms of vibes & resonance. A person emits a certain set of vibes, and because like vibes tend to resonate together, the vibes one most easily tunes into from others are similar to one's own. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 May 95 17:09:59 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: And still more on Karma Here are a few thoughts on the subject of karma: JRC:< prior to the knowledge of quantum mechanics, chaos and complexity theory & etc., the entire world was assumed to be deterministic, and hence "Karma" was easily explained as an extension of physical laws to the moral/behavioral arena> Right. When we think of karma in terms of causality, we are going along with the outdated Newtonian view of the world as a large machine. It is not a machine. It is a living complex system as defined in modern chaos theory. Karma defined within the context of any moral system as a balance of rewards and punishments is too naive for us to even consider today. JRC:< Metaphysics (IMO) has only barely begun to integrate and appreciate the worldview gradually emerging out of late 20th century science> Agreed. HPB was correct when she foresaw 20th-century science coming closer to theosophy. But theosophy, as she taught it last century, has itself come a long way. I see us getting away from the "lazy thinking" that Jung saw, and drawing the general principles of theosophy (Eldon's "core teachings" if you will) closer to modern science. The arrogance of the scientific community that HPB confronted is gone. Einstein, Bohr, and Godel have thoroughly changed the scientific environment or atmosphere around (for those who don't know, Godel's theorem is a mathematical proof that mathematics itself has inherent limitations). Nowadays everything is a "theory" or "model" rather than truth. The fact that the modern theosophical movement is also heading in this direction is, I think, a very healthy sign for the TS. Just as science is no longer arrogant in its assumptions, theosophists should not be arrogant in their knowledge. This is why I deliberately called HPB's planetary chain a model, and only one model of many at that. JRC: I Agree. It is interesting to me that while G de Purucker carefully showed that karma worked on all planes and levels, we always seem to interpret this as linear functioning on each plane rather than multi-dimensional functioning. The linear notion that A kills B in one life so that B kills A in another is a good example of determinism. I see order as being opposed by chaos, and causality as being opposed by acausality. In an ultimate sense, existence itself is opposed by nonexistence just as light is always opposed by darkness and spirit by matter. We always knew that death is necessary for life, but only recently have we discovered that chaos is necessary for order. If karma is opposed by its opposite, then perhaps we need a name for it? JRC:< (the "three-body problem" of classical physics may apply as much to karma as to planetary bodies, eh?).> Exactly. For those who don't know, most of the equations used in physics involve two masses. Newton's gravitational equation for planets as well as equations in quantum mechanics work well with two bodies, but get very messy when a third body is introduced. JRC:< I believe that there is such an enormous number of people asking, often desperately, for help that I can't conceive of ever needing to try to "force" my service onto anyone. Plus I guess I believe "service" to be at root an orientation towards life rather than a series of discrete acts ... every job I hold (volunteer or paid) is simply an avenue of "service".> I agree with you that service should be an orientation towards life. It should be a mind set that we do because we want to, rather than a duty. The idea of forcing one's help only hit home to me when we got our current foster child. She has a borderline personality disorder and often "helps" in ways that exert her dominance rather than really help (she helps only when it suits her, and doesn't ask first; often what she does is either totally unnecessary or wrong and must be done over). "I was only trying to help" is an oft-used excuse for why something got broken. On a larger scale, countries often help other countries with strings' attached to their care packages. I doubt that theosophists have these problems, but I do think it important to understand that these problems do exist and that we should ask if help is needed before we blunder in. JRC:< too much worrying about one's "personal" karma simply re-affirms the illusion of a separate, personal self> Exactly. This idea hit me years ago and has allowed me to quit worrying about my personal karma. JRC:< Presume, for a moment (if, that is, you feel like fooling around with this), that this holds true in *any* manifested space; that (for instance) a "thought-form" *has the analog of "mass" in mental space*, and hence has a "gravity" of sorts that can begin attracting other thoughts that resonate with its animating impulse> I like this. Your idea holds a treasure trove of possibilities and ramifications. According to Einstein's famous field equation, matter is related to the curvature of spacetime; that the geometry of spacetime is directly related to the distribution of matter in that spacetime. Spacetime is a continuum that curves back on itself. There is a sense of space and time on all cosmic planes except the divine (highest), so it is likely that some type of "matter" exists on each plane. The amount (density) of matter determines the strength of gravitational attraction. One of my pet theories is that our past curves around to become our future. Another is that attraction is one side of a duality, so that whenever/wherever attraction can be found, repulsion is lurking close by. JRC:< I guess at this point I might accept the possibility that some principle may exist (whether "universal" or not I couldn't say) that is at least partially responsible for that large group of disconnected phenomena commonly lumped together and labeled "karma", but have concluded that so long as I operate within that *highly* limited (by its very nature) range of awareness of an incarnate human I not only do not, but *cannot* know the "truth" of karma to the degree necessary to use it as a modifier of action. I guess I've just concluded that attempting to lose oneself in service seems a far more direct road to the Innermost than countless speculations about how to "eliminate" "karma". > Agreed. If you could see karmic forces resulting from a single action, they would probably look a lot like a spider's web, reaching outward in many directions and affecting many others over time. The probabilities associated with karmic resultants render predictions nigh impossible even for the most advanced Adepts (though they can, I believe, foresee most resultants especially in the near term. Its rather like predicting the weather - high probabilities for the short term falling to low probabilities for the long term; this is one important fallout from chaos theory). Actually, losing yourself in service will, by itself, help eliminate your karma. Service is a spiritual technique that works very well as any bodisattva could tell you (as long as the service is done without any thought of a reward or payoff). Liesel:< I tried to adapt the most feasible, flexible belief system I knew about, & that came to be Theosophy. It has served, and still serves, me well; > It serves me well too. Liesel:< Theosophy is a belief system like any other, & so is Karma. It works well for me, so I use it.> An eclectic view that I also advocate. Murray:< I often see people in our study groups asking for simple, tried and accessible techniques in meditation and living, beyond what's in the few relevant TS books.> This is probably the single-most reason that the TS has such a high turnover rate in membership. People don't want to hear that the results obtained are always in proportion to the effort and time expended. I was as guilty as anyone in this. I felt that theosophical techniques were too slow for me. So, I must confess that I have dabbled in unapproved techniques' myself. But my theoretical outlook has remained in the theosophical camp, chiefly I suppose, because the TS "core teachings" have been able to explain my experiences satisfactorily. We can maintain our worldview only for so long as that worldview logically explains our experiences. Whenever we experience something that cannot be explained by our belief system, we either sink into cognitive dissonance and/or depression which often leads to death, or we set about to change or revise our belief system to something that can explain those experiences. As soon as I experience something that theosophy can't explain to me, I'll let everyone know :-). Keith:< Dharma seems to imply that there is a calling, a grace, an evolutionary meaning to all this running around.> There is Keith. It has many names besides dharma. Magic calls it our True Will. I see it as our inherent need for self-expression. Keith:< But even this points to the obvious conclusion that if you follow your Dharma (Bliss?), you can escape a lot of Karma, but not Chaos.> I question your word "escape" here. No one can escape their karma. This would be equivalent to escaping from yourself. Well, many people have tried to run away from themselves or from their memories, but so far none have been very successful. The idea that I was trying to convey is to transmute or transcend karma (to rise above it so that it no longer has any effect on you) rather than to escape from it. Actually, the ability to follow your bliss or not depends on your karma. Our personal karma or karmic burden is intricately tied to our sense of a personal self. The only real way to eliminate our personal karma is to eliminate our sense of a separate independent self. This can't be done completely while embodied because such a egoic sense is needed to function in this world. (The very idea that I' can't help others because I' don't exist is exactly the teaching of the Pratyeka-Buddhas). It can, however, be approached in degree. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 May 95 12:55:55 -0700 From: eldon@deltanet.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Inner Certainity JRC: You bring up some important points in your recent postings. Following are a few thoughts that represent an alternate view, based upon a different model of what life is and how it works (a different theosophical worldview). Inner Certainty -- Eldon Tucker Your comments regarding karma -- that we can't really know it, or perhaps can't really communicate a knowledge of it -- are understandable. They represent one viewpoint or approach to Theosophy that is held by many. There are, however, many different theosophical worldviews, and that uncertainty is not found in all of them. We are dealing with assumptions about the nature of knowledge, and of how experience relates to what we know. Consider something that is not in our personal experience. Say we're not convinced that it is true, but others hold it to be real according to their experience. Whom has the final say? With metaphysical matters, where the proof is in the experience, and the experience is not universally had by all, how do we proceed? When we subject what we know, feel, or experience to severe scrunity, it starts to break down. Krishnamurti, for instance, attempted at times to reduce everything to the basic motivation of fear. Does this mean that everything is constructed of fear? No. Freud reduced everything to a sexual drive. Is everything sexual? Again: No. After a certain level of reductionism, things break apart into their component elements, and they "die", the higher order disappears, and the life has departed. Six basic questions, if asked enough time, will do this: Who? What? Where? When? Why? How? Consider how quickly we run out of answers for a child that continues a series of Why's, eventually leaving us without an answer. Pushing an idea, an understanding to its limits, it starts to break down. Does this mean that the idea is flawed? No, it means that the idea has room for growth, that there is more for us to learn about it. With continued study, deep though, contemplation, the idea comes together again, and we can push it farther. Our ideas, including the deepest mystical insights, have their limits, and fall apart when pushed beyond those limits. But when we study the mysteries that open up to us, as our ideas break down, we learn more, and the ideas are unified again. It is possible to throw everything open to doubt and uncertainty. A healthy dose of skepticism is necessary in order to support frequent reality checks. There are different forms, though, of certainty, and not all are bad. It's wrong to be certain in the rigid, unthinking adherence to external rules, formulae, and words. But certainty grounded in experimentation and personal experience is a healthy thing. With the study of Theosophy, that personal experience is in using a different way of thinking, sometimes called higher Manas. It is not difficult, and does not require vast training. It represents a form of inner experience that is different from visions, psychic experiences, OOBE's, or dramatic external events in life. With it, it is possible to explore and have experiences in a metaphysical sense, in our theosophical studies. This type of experience leads to a conviction, a certainty that comes from a dynamic process, from an inner living link to a source of learning, sometimes called one's Inner Teacher. One goal of the Theosophical Movement may be to encourage people to discover and appreciate this manner of contemplation, study, and knowing about things. We have a dynamic process of inner reflection that paradoxically increases our sense of uncertainty as we learn and grow. This uncertainty represents growth pains, where our attention is drawn to ponder those areas of our understanding that are ripe for reflection, reexamination, and exploration. Picture a circle that contains what we know. Outside the circle is the unknown. We're aware of what we don't know by the boundary that the circle marks off. As the circle grows, and we know more, the boundary is also larger, and we are made more aware of how much there is that we have yet to know. How do we transcend this? When we transcend the sense of personal self, make the boundary fuzzy, and embrace the outside. But that is a whole other topic of discussioni ... In the ultimate analysis, the most healthy form of certainty is from a sense of being grounded, deeply rooted in the spiritual, where we have a solid connection with our inner source. With that connection, we may still be thrown off source by accidents, mistakes, and mishaps in life. But like a good compass, when bumped, we always return to true north in our orientation. The pull of the "north" is strong to us, and it is a shaping force in our lives. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 20:24:37 -0400 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: And still more on Karma 2 brief comments Murray "techniques ....beyond those in books." My reaction to this was that I've always been able to use better what the few cogent books say, when I've had a personal contact with someone knowledgeable. You can get a lot, but not everything from a book. Jerry - I haven't experienced anything yet either which theosophy couldn't explain. Right now, I'm experiencing some very positive, & helpful Karma that I didn't think I had coming to me. But experiencing it now, I can look back over my life and say "yes, I guess it might have come from what I did way back then." Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 22:43:19 -0400 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Inner Certainity Eldon' What you're saying is that if you just try to be analytical & rational, your reasonable thought- castle will eventually fall apart. Don't you think that's what the scientists have now found out, & why more of them have been looking at metaphysics & etc? It's why I like Assagioli, who invented psycho-synthesis, instead of psycho- analysis. What Serge King tried to tell us, & I often forget, is that my certainty may not necessarily also be the next guy's. A person's view of what is out there is relative, subjective. "Certainty grounded in exepriementation & personal experience is a healthy thing." Agreed, It's a lot sounder than listening to someone else tell you what you should see out there, & you just believing (& seeing) whatever they tell ya. Often the experimentation & personal experience of 1 person overlaps with another, especially if they're both living in the same culture, but not always. I've been told that, since the beliefs of what happens to a person after death vary so widely, and much of these states are based on thought, your after death state might be partly just what you think it's going to be. People who've had NDE's have seen a holy figure, just for instance, who was very loving. They all seem to have this glorious vision in common. Depending on the person's beliefs & inclinations the vision can be Jesus, Mary, The Buddha, a Master, Moses, or Muhamad & etc. The ND person is sure of what it is they experienced, but it doesn't necessarily match exactly the next guy's experience. Seems to me that all such experiences ought to be accepted as valid, because the general outlines match. But that is based on my "experimentation" which consists of comparing several accounts of NDE's. I've been taught that I shouldn't go around saying that one experience is right & the other isn't. The experiences are right for whoever had them. Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 10:26:10 -0400 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Karma Liesel wrote: > I tried to adapt the most feasible, flexible belief system I knew > about, & that came to be Theosophy. It has served, and still > serves, me well; Me too! > so right, it isn't. Theosophy is a belief system like any other, > & so is Karma. I was with you up to here. Are you saying you think karma is just a belief? I thought it was more like a fact of nature, a law, and operated irrespective of our belief system. If a man thinks gravity doesn't apply to him and steps off a cliff, he is in a manner of speaking, predestined to fall until something breaks his fall. Can we act without generating karma? I think the answer is that it is possible, but not normally for the vast majority of us at this stage of humanity's development. Several people have made reference to intent. I understand intent to color or modify the results, but not eliminate them. Great discussion! Lewis From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 May 95 17:22:08 EDT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: to Jerry S. on Chaos Syhcronistically, I keep running up against this concept of Chaos. Today I picked up a book called "The Tao of Chos" which links mathematics, fractals (the beauty of the Mandelbrot and Julia sets), the I Ching and DNA in a interesting psychological, but not systematic way. The link seems to be that there is an "Unseen Hand" in Chaos or underlyning reality that seems to synchronistically appear when we examine such things as the I CHing, DNA, and I suppose dreams too when we try to give meaning to our lives with these things. These seems to be the action at a distance problem that seems to plague subatomic physics (trying to measure the speed or location of a particle seemed to affect it at a distance). I admit I know the concept more from Ilya Prigogine's now early "Order Out of Chaos" and not all the recent work. Jerry mentions that the past and the future may be more linked than we think. But to be breif and over simply, I have been tossing around these ideas: 1. Karma focuses on the Past as cause and effect as a type of memory - it is reactive 2. Dharma or our personal mission, obligation, duty or whatever projects us into the Future as out ability to plan and reason about cause and effect - it is proactive 3. Chaos allows the present to be free from both. Its is the Nothingness, Sarte talks about a nothingness that slips and slides and seperates like a knife (magic?) - it is creative. Chaos is strangely Creative, because of its nihilating (making nothing) or seperating the past from the future so that consciousness or time itself can slip in as free, as alive, as evolving. Sartre was supposed to be an atheist, but he made Nothingness into a kind of creative principle or god. I haven't thought about Sartre in years. He acknowldged the neo-platonists, the gnostics as the fore runners of existentialism. Existentialism sees to have fallen from favor as has Marxism (and maybe for good reason). But the problem of the ego as a kind of vortex of negativity and creativity stills haunts me. That is spiritual people seem to agree that the ego should be "bound back", the meaning of the word "religion" to a higher purpose. Many suggest the ego should be in service of humanity, the group, - this is the view of Christians and many Western occultist systems including theosophy. Some suggest the ego should be extinguished so the Self can enter Nirvana - Buddhism. All suggest the ego should become united with something beyond selfishness to the higher Principles, the Higher Self, the Will of God or something. This is YOGA. But people disagree on how to do this and how you can tell if this has been done. I think Blavatsky said that theosophy was a type of Jyana or intellectual yoga. The Bakti yoga or the cult of the guru has never appealed to me - look at the Branch Davadians and that Japanes cult. Karma yoga seems to be the way of the Puritan heritage - work out your salvation with fear. This Puritan idea of purifying the body, the emotions, and the ego so as to make it a temple or fit receptical of the higher principles seems noble, enlightened, worthwhile, but Chaos seems to tip the applecart in unexpected directions. Has anyone talked about the idea that Blavatsky seemed to suggest that Lucifer (bringer of the light of consciousness) got a bad name somewhere along the line? That consciousness was a gift, but that it gave man, the Promethean fire of the mind. The gift of freedom and knowlege brought guilt. Or was it just the Agnishwattas from Venus? Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 20:34:30 -0400 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Karma Hi, Lewis, I think it's a great discussion too. Everyone has something else important to contribute. I've learned from it, & I feel real proud of us that we can carry on a discussion at that high a level. I've been meaning to ask John Meade to save it for our archives. Before I try to express to you my answers to some of your questions & statements, I'd like to very carefully preface what I say, with a little phrase I often forget about: "Thus I have heard". Below are =my= subjective conclusions from my experience, my Weltanschauung. As Theosophy so aptly states with the Buddha, you gotta find out for yourself. It's gotta make sense to you, or to anyone else who is taking part in this discussion. If it makes no sense, if you can't use it to good advantage, it's no good to you. So you pick & choose what best appeals to you from what's being offered, & what you yourself figure out from what's being offered. The laws of karma & gravity are part of our belief system. We don't really know what's out there. We only know what our senses tell us (& the modern extension of our senses such as a telescope) . For instance, our experience was extended by fine instruments and we found out there's X-rays, ultra violet rays, particles, quarks etc. So Karma & gravity are laws we assume to be valid according to our experience, and because it makes sense to act on our assumptions. Knowing what we know about the law of gravity will help us not to fall off a cliff & get hurt, if we're standing on top of one. Our asasumption works for us. But for instance when you read about activity on the astral plane, the effect of gravity is quite different. I think if you started to fall off a cliff on the astral Ppane, you could think "go up", & you'd go up instead of down. Or if that's too imaginative, think of the TV pictures of the astronauts hopping around on the moon. I agree with your conclusion that, according to theosophy you can't act without creating karma. But I know from past experience that when you get angry at someone, they get angry back, And poww! So I've tried hard to teach myself not to lose my temper, & the results come out much better. Nobody tries to poww me that much anymore, and we get much more done working together than working against each other. I'm assuming that I learned part of the Law of Karma. Anyway, it works. What I'd also like to say is that what Nick Porrecco brought into the discussion the other day, is real important, I think.. namely you're well on the road, if you try to be of service as selflessly as you have it in you. I think that you're supposed to have eliminated being effected by karma by the time you're wise enough to live in a state of nirvana. But then, if you believe in the Bodhisattva ideal, you don't go into nirvana, but rather come back & help the others make it. A world when the lion shall lie down with the lamb is a long way off. "Not until the last blade of grass"... Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 21:10:45 -0400 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: to Jerry S. on Chaos Dear Keith, A lot of the science you talk about is beyond me. So I'm not going to comment on that. But I do need to comment on 2 other points you make. I consider myself a Karma Yoga person, but I don't act out of fear. That's much too negative a motivator. I enjoy being active, & reacting with other people, & I'd rather be doing that than sitting meditating for peace in the world for long stretches, although I do that too occasionally for a short while. I'd rather act to try to bring preace, at least locally. Now if you want to say that I'm trying to bring peace because I'm afraid of fighting, well, I guess you're right there, or maybe it's not exactly being afraid, it's rather having had the fighting experience I try for something better. I'll fight, if I have to, but I'd rather not, because I find a different route more productive. I don't understand why you think the gift of freedom & knowledge brought guilt. If it did that, it would be a misuse of the gift. I know that we're perhaps just coming out of millenia where ruling classes, be they priest or king, tried to keep the ordinary citizens in line by laying a guilt trip on them. "Religion" is the opium of the masses". Be a real good, obedient little worshipper now, & you'll get your harp put right next to God's great toe. Meantime, be a good little sinner & give me some money so I can put a gold dome on my little church, then you can see how beautiful I am when you come to worship here. If on the other hand, you were a Seigneur in medieval France, you owned all the people who lived & worked in your fiefdom. Most of what their farm work produced came to you, & when one of the men got married, you got to sleeping with the bride before he could. It was very difficult to get out of this arrangement, because if a serf ran away, the Seigneur could have him locked up. After a while, towns came into being, & the burghers had it a bit better. To come to modern days, have you ever gone into a store, & the sales clerk handed you the wrong thing. When you try to point out to her that this isn't what you wanted, she's been brought up to feel so guilty about her actions (I think, because she's more tractable that way), that she has to pin the error on you. I don't call this freedon & knowledge, but rather the kind of slavery & ignorance theosophy tries to free us from. Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 21:29:28 -0400 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: to Jerry S. on Chaos PS I didn't really sum up, but my idea was to portray that we were just working our way out of a long period of fear, ignorance & guilt. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but seems to me, that besides theosophy there's the whole new age movement, feminism /goddess, the United Nations, psychotherapy, conflict resolution, the uncertainty principle, etc. who are working away from these negative human attributes. But maybe you're going to say that these movements came about partly because there's an atomic bomb dangling over our heads. Maybe so. But I just don't like to believe that this is our sole motivation. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 13 May 1995 20:24:33 -0400 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Reality My son's friend, David Hirsch, gave me a lovely quote this AM from a Broadway play. "Reality is a collective hunch." The play is "Search for Creative Intelligence in The Universe" The lines were said either by Lili Tomlin or Jane Wagner. Incidentally, David is one of the chefs at the Moosewood Restaurant in Ithaca NY. The Moosewood collective, which runs & mans the place, has done any number of nice vegetarian cook books. Happy Mothers' Day to Ann, Astrea, Sarah, and Brenda. I think that's all the ladies we have on the net. If I forgot anyone, please pardon me, & consider this a blanket Mothers' day wish. It's meant for the whole sisterhood of women, & anyone else who wishes to celebrate Mothers' Day.. Have a good one. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 May 95 10:28:46 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Some Responses and Thoughts. A few meandering thoughts: Lewis: Every action produces a reaction, so I suspect that yes, every action we make generates karma. But, we don't have to let past karma effect us. In a sense, we can eliminate past personal karma. In another sense, what we really do is not so much eliminate it, but rather simply manage to be unaffected by it (which for practical purposes is the same thing). Keith: Check out his new one: Exploring Complexity (1989). A lot more math, but definitely interesting. Keith: < Karma focuses on the Past as cause and effect as a type of memory - it is reactive> Glad you mentioned this. I recently came across an interesting finding. Some scientists have been studying the brain and memory using chaos theory. They discovered that "experience changes memory." Memory can be observed in terms of neurological patterns, and these can be changed. I wonder how this affects karma? Just how much a role does memory play in the law of karma anyway? Keith: Why do you see the ego as negative? It is an expression of the inner god or divine Self. It is a complex in the Jungian sense, but only seems negative when given too much inflation with itself. BTW, the gnostic demiurge, Yaldabaoth, is the cosmic equivalent of the ego. His only real sin is ignorance of his true nature. Keith: This is doubtless picky on my part, but Buddhism does not teach the elimination or extinguishing of the ego, but rather that the ego has no real existence to begin with. Nirvana appears to result in the extinguishing of an ego, but the ego has no real existence to be extinguished. Keith: God, I hope not! Can you give me a source on such a remark? As far as I know, she said that her SD can be used as a type of Jnana Yoga. HPB said several times that Raja Yoga was the best one to practice for the serious student. Most folks haven't a clue as to how to practice Jnana Yoga. Keith: Right. With Bakhti Yoga or Guru Yoga, you have got to have a real Master or you will get into a lot of trouble. BTW, this is the yoga that H.H. the Dali Lama seems to prefer and he has co-written an excellent book on it. Karma Yoga is the one preferred by the TSs (and by Liesel). Keith: It can. But after all, thats life - few things go exactly as planned. Keith: I don't think we discussed this. He got a bad name because he was responsible for us being thrown out of Eden. BTW, you should read the excellent article on the Garden of Eden in the latest issue of Sunrise by Nancy Coker. Keith: I think you mean self-consciousness rather than just consciousness - which is what we are and not an attribute or characteristic. The formation of self-consciousness brought about the original dualistic split between self and not-self or subjectivity and objectivity; and the rest, as they say, is history. Suchness. The Buddhist concept of suchness implies authenticity or something that is a thing-in-itself. It refers to anything that has no parts. Buddha called things that are collections of parts 'aggragates.' Scientists used to think that atoms were tiny indivisible spheres. But now we know that atoms are aggragates too. According to Buddhism, all aggragates are maya; their reality is illusive. Our body is a collection of parts. Jung showed that our minds too are a collection of parts. The unconscious is also, and so is the cosmos. So when we look outside ourself or inside, all we can see are mayavic aggragates. I suspect that everyone here knows about the example of a car, but I will briefly go through it. Take a car. Remove a door. Is it still a car? Yes. Then remove the windshield wipers. Is it still a car? Yes. Then remove the tires. Is it still a car? Keep this up long enough, and sooner or later you will reach a point where the name 'car' no longer applies. We give aggragates like cars names and then think that they are real things, but really all you have are parts put together in certain ways. And the parts are also aggragates. According to theosophy, suchness only applies to monads, which by definition are indivisible. A monad has no organs, no cells, no parts. Therefore, a monad has suchness. Monads only exist on the highest of the seven cosmic planes. So, everything that exists on the six lower planes, the so-called Planes of Manifestation, are aggragates. They are maya. They have no suchness. On the highest plane, the divine (or whatever name you want to call it) everything has suchness. This is the home of monads. Each monad is in a condition of nonduality; not split or separated in any way. The essence or constitution of each monad is called monadic essence, which is as good a term as any. There, countless hosts of monads exists outside of space and time. Zillions of look-alike monads exists together in the very same space and time so that you can't tell if you see one or a billion (which accounts for the strong sense of oneness experienced by the world's mystics). It is this concept of monads that brings theosophy and Buddhism close together, but only when we allow that monads exist only on the first, or highest, cosmic plane (thus Buddhism insists that the human monad, the animal moand, and so on as taught by the early theosophists are as mayavic as anything else and not true monads). Just a few thoughts. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 13:43:33 -0500 (EST) From: John Mead Subject: Hinduism Today (fwd) fwded from Paul Johnson by jem: > ... Could you pass on this news to theos-l for > me. Just saw it on soc.religion.eastern, and checked it out. > Hinduism Today, available online, has a long and very favorable > article on Theosophy, "Woven from and into the Fabric of > Sanatana Dharma." It can be read by going into the index found > on the home page of the magazine at > http://hookomo.aloha.net/~htoday/htoday.html > > Definitely worth checking out. > Cheers > Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 May 95 20:05:37 +1100 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: Smithsonian magazine praises Olcott In the May issue of the Smithsonian magazine, there is an article entitled "W Colonel Olcott met Madame Blavatsky" by Edward Hower. The great pictures, including one of Master Morya, are worth the price of the magazine alone ($3) But I thought it strange that they included a color photograph of Shirley MacLaine and sort of referred to her as a modern version of HPB. Can anyone send me a copy? ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 May 95 19:42:39 +1100 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: Luxor Lodge "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> writes: > > I think this may be good in some ways, bad in others. I feel > > more like I am dinner conversation, a la MY DINNER WITH ANDRE or > > something, than standing before a boss, a teacher, a class etc. > > But maybe newcomers are disappointed by not LEARNING theosophy > > here (I'm not sure they could). > > What's so bad with having dinner with Dr. Bain, Jerry, Rubin, > Astrea, Leisel K. Paul? I was starving for conversation about > theosophy and I'm grateful th people are around. That's nice Anne. I'm back, by the way. We payed our respects to some inspiring sites in Egypt, including the temples at Luxor, Sakkara and the valleys of the Kings and Queens. We kept an eye out, but we didn't see any of the Brotherhood of the Lodge of Luxor there (that we knew of), but there was still a feeling of how magnificent the ancient mystery schools must have been there. I think the Lodge of Luxor took in Olcott, whereas HPB belonged to the Transhimalayan Siblinghood. Really, the ancient Egyptians achieved a level of art and architecture which has, in its way, remained unsurpassed. Any comments, any one? One day our taxi broke down. Our driver got us another lift - a solemn young man driving what seemed to be a hearse! I imagined that perhaps it was Anubis in mortal guise! Ciaou, ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 May 95 19:55:12 +1100 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: Fogies or what? jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu writes: > The best way to respond to those few who bother to attack us is > probably just to hand them the American Theosophist ... they'll > quickly go aw convinced that we pose no threat to any established > order whatsoever. The fac that fundamentalists can visit > Headquarters and go away with their minds at ease is *not* > something we can be proud of, but in fact is a symptom our most > profound failure. > > -JRC I know what you mean. I go through a love/hate thing with the Society. At times it seems extremely ineffectual - just a lot of harmless old fogies sitting around having cups of tea and chatting. And yet, there is a strong ethical influence which comes through the TS which is quite hard to find any where else. Also, it is, for all practical purposes, entirely non-coercive, and non-profit seeking. Its very humility and harmlessness gives it a certain power. Like it says in the Tao de Ching, " a good walker leaves no tracks." It seems somehow reassuring that there are still old (and young) fogies in the world as custodians of the outer courts of the mysteries, however inadequate they may appear in the eyes of the world. The TS also exists as a kind of training school for idealists, who, after having learned their lessons, have to make their own way in life and try to put it in to practice. This is an individual responsibility, and we can't really blame the Society or anyone else for our shortcomings in this area. ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 May 95 20:14:50 +1100 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: Reality LieselFD@aol.com writes: > Happy Mothers' Day to Ann, Astrea, Sarah, and Brenda. I think > that's all the ladies we have on the net. If I forgot anyone, > please pardon me, & consider this a blanket Mothers' day wish. > It's meant for the whole sisterhood of women, & anyone else who > wishes to celebrate Mothers' Day.. Have a good one. Well, since the Goddess who inspired my choice of pseudonym was the Mother of Zeus (inter alia, I think), I suppose I could claim to be vicariously a mother. :-) I produce a lot of good ideas too. Haven't produced any babies yet though! ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 May 95 14:12:04 -0500 From: "judy a cilcain" Subject: Re: Fogies or what? > At times it seems extremely ineffectual - just a lot of harmless > old fogies sitting around having cups of tea and chatting. In my latest 'theosophical' sermon delivered yesterday I gave due credit to a lot of these "old fogies" whom I discovered in 1970 and the things I learned from them. As I said in that sermon, "they were talking about the most extraordinary things! They were talking about karma, reincarnation, adepts-mystical, magical things...The scales were lifted from my eyes, and I was changed forever." And I'm really grateful for their wisdom that they were willing to share. Only one of these dear old people still remains here-she's 96, still a firm theosophist, and to quote her "she still has all her buttons." One hopes that one will be as fortunate down the road. And, by the way, it's nice to be back! Hello to all new contributors, by the way. Judy Judy A. Cilcain Executive Secretary Office of the Provost for Arts, Sciences, and Engineering University of Minnesota 12 Morrill Hall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 612, 626-0362 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 May 95 19:15:09 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Grok Theory I just read a book by the mathematician, Ralph Abraham, who puts groking into a scientific context. He was s neighbor of Robert Heinlein, and picked up the word from his Stranger in a Strange Land. He says, "Its a translation into English of the technical term Verstehen,' which was introduced by Wilhelm Dilthey into the literature of hermeneutics. Verstehen' (from the German verb zu verstehen,' meaning to understand) refers, not unlike the word hermeneutics' (which comes from a Greek root meaning to interpret'), to a special form of sympathetic, experiential, and intuitive understanding." (Chaos, Gaia, Eros, HarperSanFrancisco, 1994, p. 13). He then defines a grok circle' which looks like the following (I am doing this in ASCII so it looks a bit crude): -------Simulation------> Dynamic Target Model System <------Observation------- This is actually a standard scientific model used to show how we model things. We make a model of a target system. Then we observe the target system, and tweak our model accordingly, which in turn better simulates the target system. For a good model, this is a never ending process. He says "It is implicit in grok theory that the model and the observation are linked within the grok circle" and so on. I just thought that this was especially interesting after all of the discussion recently about groking. Jerry S From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 May 95 21:06:24 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: grokking theory Jerry S sez: >This is actually a standard scientific model used >to show how we model things. We make a model of a >target system. Then we observe the target system, >and tweak our model accordingly, which in turn >better simulates the target system. For a good >model, this is a never ending process. This sounds an awful lot like the way I create characters when I write fiction. I'll base a character on someone I actually know, in the media or just someone I saw on the street. This essence then becomes more refined and developed until the character becomes its own person, separate and distinct from the original, but still retaining the essence. The same "never ending process" continues as the story unfolds. I've never thought of this as grokking, but now I realize it is. My understanding of these beings depends on my ability to be one with them, otherwise I couldn't write them. I've always thought of them as though-forms floating around in my aura and kicking me in the side if I didn't pay enough attention to them. By the way, folks, I've checked out a few others lists, including the soap opera newsgroup and Theos-l is still the most interesting one out there. At least, as far as I'm concerned. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 21:59:00 -0400 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Fogies or what? Excuse me, but I fail to visualize John Algeo, Steve Schweizer, Jeff Gresko, and Bill Metzger as old fogies. I don't know many of the others, because I'm an older fogie than they are, & I haven't been in Wheaton in years. I don't remember who of them drinks tea, but I know that I do ... decafinated. I'd also like to point out that from what I've noticed things have been perking up considerably since John Algeo became President. We may get some more spirited activity in the life of the old Society yet. At least I see signs of it. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 May 95 07:36:32 EDT From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@compuserve.com> Subject: Fogies or what? The T.S. does not have to be a bunch of old fogies sitting around only remasticating old expressions of the perennial philsophy. Our branch, in fact, has lots of active working people who are not retirees. We have more than 50 members under the age of 50. Theosophy itself, as brought by HPB, and the historical religious traditions are, of course, basic. But if we just sit around rechewing the ancient wisdom, we will not attract many bright young people who recognize that much about the universe has only become generally known in the last 100 years. We tend to forget the second and third declared objects of the Theosophical Society which encourage the study of comparative religion, philosophy and science and the investigation of unexplained laws of Nature and the powers latent in humanity. At our Branch there are more than 20 courses being offered and, although, 4 of these are specifically Theosophical, other things of more contemporary interest are being explored. These include, for example, courses on the teachings of Edgar Cayce, Gurdjieff and the Urantia book to name a few. One of the most interesting courses, in my view, is a study group entitled "Esoteric Science." The purpose is to try to understand what science has discovered about the universe and how this is related to Theosophical teachings. The group includes several engineers along with others who just want to try to understand what science is beginning to acknowledge. The text being used is Itzhak Bentov, "Stalking the Wild Pendulum" and will be followed by a second Bentov text, "A Cosmic Book." A third text that will likely be explored is the recent book by Norman Friedman, "Bridging Science and Spirit" , in which the author, a physicist himself, relates the teaching of David Bohm's physics to the Perrenial Philosophy and to the Seth material. I appreciate that many on the Internet Theosophical discussion list are working independently, but you also have in your independent studies likely been exploring some of these new expressions. I know that these inquiries are going on at our Branch and also in some other Branches, sometimes quietly, sometimes not so quietly. We are only "old fogies" if we make it so. We need not, and I think, should not. Having a wonderful time. Wish I were here. Sy Ginsburg, The Theosophical Society, Deerfield Beach, Florida From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 11:58:38 -0400 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Grok Theory Jerry S. wrote: > -------Simulation------> > > Dynamic Target > Model System > > <------Observation------- > > > This is actually a standard scientific model used > to show how we model things. We make a model of a > target system. Then we observe the target system, > and tweak our model accordingly, which in turn > better simulates the target system. For a good > model, this is a never ending process. He says > "It is implicit in grok theory that the model and > the observation are linked within the grok circle" > and so on... It strikes me as another way of talking about karma and reincarnation. We create a personality (the model of our ideal self) and "tweak" it in a never ending process of improving its ability to reflect the higher self ie. --------Stimulation (Action)---> Model System Target System Self absorbed Self actualized Personality Individual <------Observation (Experience)--- Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 May 95 12:09:16 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: reincarnated old fogies Liesel: > Excuse me, but I fail to visualize John Algeo, Steve Schweizer, > Jeff Gresko, and Bill Metzger as old fogies. I don't know many > of the others, because I'm an older fogie than they are, & I > haven't been in Wheaton in years. I don't remember who of them > drinks tea, but I know that I do ... decafinated. I'd also like > to point out that from what I've noticed things have been perking > up considerably since John Algeo became President. We may get > some more spirited activity in the life of the old Society yet. > At least I see signs of it. When I told a friend that I was joining Akbar Lodge in Chicago, he told me he had visions of white-haired ladies sitting on folding chairs. I then told him about the last meeting I had attended. I was the only woman there and half the males were African-American, of various ages. At one point, someone pulled out a videotape, which we all watched on a television set. I have recently joined a study group, as the Lodge sometimes proved too advanced for me. The ages here range from twenties to forties. No tea is allowed. I agree that things have perked up. Seems the Annual Meeting and Summer School has been livelier and more interesting since Algeo took over. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 May 95 20:08:55 +1100 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: Fogies or what? Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@compuserve.com> writes: > The T.S. does not have to be a bunch of old fogies sitting > around only remasticating old expressions of the perennial > philsophy. Our branch, in fact People seemed to have picked up only on my use of the word "fogies" in the last post, but not any of the other points I made. I thought I had made it clear I think it's OK to be a fogie - old, young or middle-aged. ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 00:42:27 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Luxor Lodge Welcome home! Maybe we on the net are a kind of latter-day Luxor Lodge . . . Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 19:57:56 -0400 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Fogies or what? Right on, Sy, If you have any tapes or written material on your science courses, I'd love to see it. I'm anything but a scientist - French Major, English minor - but I like to keep up with things a little. Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 May 95 21:19:36 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Keith on ego Keith Price: > But the problem of the ego as a kind of vortex of negativity and > creativity stills haunts me. That is spiritual people seem to > agree that the ego should be "bound back", the meaning of the > word "religion" to a higher purpose. All suggest the ego should > become united with something beyond selfishness to the higher > Principles, the Higher Self, the Will of God or something. In psychoanalysis, the ego is the division of the psyche that is conscious, most immediately controls thought and behavior, and is most in touch with external reality. If one accepts this definition of ego, then in my experience, the ego becomes a mask through which the Higher Self can work. This occurs after the ego willingly gives itself up to a higher purpose, relieving it of it's petty worries and concerns. Bliss is achieved in service. > But people disagree on how to do this and how you can tell if > this has been done. Disagreement reminds me a many people arguing. Sounds like chaos. Maybe every person has a unique way of achieving integration with the Higher Self. Those many different paths seem like chaos, but are actually order. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 21:39:56 -0400 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: reincarnated old fogies Hi, Ann, Very pleased to note that Akbar has a number of African Americans attending. I think we need more of them in our Society. They have something very positive to contribute. Most of my working life was spent among black people, both clients & colleagues. When I retired in 1988, or even a little before, I suggested to Wheaton that I'd like to try to go around working with/recruiting African Americans. I never even got a reply. Now that things have changed, I've gotten to be too old to go galavanting around the countryside recruiting African Americans. Besides, I now have my work cut out for me here in Syracuse. But I know that John Algeo is open to fresh new ideas. I know that his being President has made some of the staff more enthusiastic, & hopefullly also some Theosophists all around the country, since he's been spending time visiting branches, study centers, & Krotona. He's got a super elegant creative mind, & gets dynamic new ideas all by himself without anyone else's help. He's also a good speaker, coming from an academic background. But I've gotten the impression that he's open to suggestions, & to offers to volunteer. The more help, the further away we get from the old fogies idea. We've got a very dynamic belief system that's not grown stale with time, let's get it out to where more people can have a good look at it, and let's us keep up our study of fresh new ideas & concepts. With Sy, I find the study of nature & man fascinating. It brings Theosophy right to the outskirts of human knowledge. Studying that, I don't think anyone can go stale, even if they're 90 & enjoy drinking tea. Namaste, Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 19:48:23 -0600 From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: Inner Certainity Response to Eldon: [NOTE: This is a long post.] >Your comments regarding karma -- that we can't really know it, or >perhaps can't really communicate a knowledge of it -- are >understandable. They represent one viewpoint or approach to >Theosophy that is held by many. There are, however, many >different theosophical worldviews, and that uncertainty is not >found in all of them. Well, I'm not sure if its a "Theosophical" point of view, and it certainly doesn't seem to be held by many in the TS. Some sort of doctrine of "karma" is probably one of the core *beliefs* among most Theosophists, with the only substantive arguments being definitional. There is a large difference between assuming the "truth" of karma, and then proceeding to attempt to discover (whether by rational, dialectic, or intuitive modes of thought) the details of that truth, and beginning by presuming that a "law" of karma is nothing more than a hypothesis, and insisting that it be subjected to rigorous examination before it is accepted ... especially as a guide for behavior. The second approach seems very rare in the TS. >We are dealing with assumptions about the nature of knowledge, >and of how experience relates to what we know. Consider >something that is not in our personal experience. Say we're not >convinced that it is true, but others hold it to be real >according to their experience. Whom has the final say? With >metaphysical matters, where the proof is in the experience, and >the experience is not universally had by all, how do we proceed? Agreed that it is an epistimological question, but Theosophy (or at least most Theosophists, and most definitely the Theosophists who I was questioning in my post about Certainty) do not speak of karma as being a "metaphysical" truth (whatever that means), but rather as a *universal law*. If it is a universal law, it is *not* dependent upon personal experience. It doesn't matter whether someone believes in gravity or not, one still falls off a cliff. Aristotle's most basic principle of metaphysics was "A=A", that is, a thing is identical to itself. A thing cannot both be and not be. If there is a "law" of karma, and it is "universal", how can it *not* be in *everyone's* personal experience? I am perfectly willing to accept that there may exist something like the "metaphysical" truths that you speak of ... (that Christians believe in the "truth" of Christ, and in some form of heaven and hell, for instance). If someone holds they know a truth about their own life .. well, no problem. If someone, however, holds that they know a truth that not only applies to my life, but that is held to be of so powerful and dramatic a nature that, if true, it ought to substantially condition my thoughts and behavior, then yes, I want something far more powerful than "I feel, intuitively, that its true" as demonstration of its existence. If there is a universal "law" of Karma, *why is it not universally accepted*?" Why has the process of evolution not, by now, thoroughly integrated such a truth into behavior? (As it has with the "law" of gravity ... we may be the first animal that has consciously framed it as a law, but every life form, animal, plant or human, behaves as though there is no doubt about its existence). Why is it that there are large numbers of the human population that would *not* admit it as a truth? That it is really only held as a truth by those who operate within particular religious/philosophical traditions ... and even among those its details are vehemently disputed? >When we subject what we know, feel, or experience to severe >scrutiny, it starts to break down. Krishnamurti, for instance, >attempted at times to reduce everything to the basic motivation >of fear. Does this mean that everything is constructed of fear? >No. Freud reduced everything to a sexual drive. Is everything >sexual? Again: No. > After a certain level of reductionism, things break apart into >their component elements, and they "die", the higher order >disappears, and the life has departed. Six basic questions, if >asked enough time, will do this: Who? What? Where? When? Why? >How? Consider how quickly we run out of answers for a child that >continues a series of Why's, eventually leaving us without an >answer. When you do this, you may arrive at the results you mention, but not when "we" do it. The reductionism of Krishnamurti, Freud, and for that manner, countless others, is not what I was doing with karma. Krishnamurti *began* by assuming fear, Freud *began* by assuming sex to be a thing that everything could reduce to ... and in doing so, I believe, made a mistake that you so well illustrate ... the *same mistake made by those who begin by presuming "karma" to be a premier operative law and proceeding then to explain all sorts of events by reference to its operation*. It is, IMO, when I have *failed* to subject what I know, or feel, or experience to severe scrutiny that thousands of roads full of enticing illusion open before my eyes. > Pushing an idea, an understanding to its limits, it starts to >break down. Does this mean that the idea is flawed? No, it means >that the idea has room for growth, that there is more for us to >learn about it. With continued study, deep though, contemplation, >the idea comes together again, and we can push it farther. Our >ideas, including the deepest mystical insights, have their >limits, and fall apart when pushed beyond those limits. But when >we study the mysteries that open up to us, as our ideas break >down, we learn more, and the ideas are unified again. But as often as not it most definitely *does* mean that the idea is flawed. The sun does *not* revolve around the earth. Drilling holes in a lunatic's head to "let the evil spirits out" does *not* cure neurotransmitter imbalances. Sometimes pushing a concept used to frame what is believed to be a truth does cause it to fall apart to the extent that a much wider appreciation of that truth becomes possible .. as with gravity, where Einstein's equations didn't disprove Newton's, but merely showed Newton's to be a partial understanding of what General Relativity explained much more fully. But Einstein didn't request that people simply *believe* his insights. Upon framing the General Theory, he himself proposed three tests ... telling the scientific community that if they were not passed, he himself would refute his own theory (which resulted in Sir Arthur Eddington travelling to South America to view an eclipse, and to observe the light of an occulted star being distorted by precisely the magnitude Einstein's theory had predicted). Subjected to severe scrutiny, some ideas dissolve to reveal much larger scales of truth hidden within them, but *others are exposed as simply untruths, or superstitions*. If Theosophy, where "There is no religion higher than Truth" is not willing to subject its own core concepts to rigorous examination, is not willing to push its own ideas to that limit you speak of, is willing to accept things on the basis of personal, subjective experience alone, then it becomes simply another religion (an odd amalgam of Hinduism and Buddhism sprinkled with a dash of western occultism) asserting its "truths" in the same way, and upon the same foundation, as any other religion (which is, incidently, the way the general population ... at least those parts of it that have heard of Theosophy ... tends to see the Theosophical Society). >It is possible to throw everything open to doubt and uncertainty. >A healthy dose of skepticism is necessary in order to support >frequent reality checks. There are different forms, though, of >certainty, and not all are bad. It's wrong to be certain in the >rigid, unthinking adherence to external rules, formulae, and >words. But certainty grounded in experimentation and personal >experience is a healthy thing. > With the study of Theosophy, that personal experience is in >using a different way of thinking, sometimes called higher Manas. >It is not difficult, and does not require vast training. It >represents a form of inner experience that is different from >visions, psychic experiences, OOBE's, or dramatic external events >in life. With it, it is possible to explore and have experiences >in a metaphysical sense, in our theosophical studies. This type >of experience leads to a conviction, a certainty that comes from >a dynamic process, from an inner living link to a source of >learning, sometimes called one's Inner Teacher. One goal of the >Theosophical Movement may be to encourage people to discover and >appreciate this manner of contemplation, study, and knowing about >things. Well, I hate to keep harping about this, but its been years since there was really any such thing as a Theosophical "Movement". The tone of these two paragraphs is that of a Teacher speaking to a Pupil, or of a Guru speaking to a Chela (sometimes called Condescending). This attitude is (unfortunately, IMO) a terribly common one throughout the current TS, and may be a chief reason why so many from my generation that have touched the TS leave it after a very short period of time. I had a good friend who was, as far as I can tell, born with the instinct towards service within her ... it was automatic. She had little use for "techniques" and still less use for religions, but after some persuasion, I convinced her that Theosophy might be a place where kindred souls, sharing the service ethos, and non-dogmatic about their pursuit of truth, might be found (I had recently joined, and was rather a tad idealistic about this). Despite the fact that the First Object raised her hackles, she still agreed to attend a meeting (not all that comfortable with notion of supporting a "Brotherhood" ... and for all those who still think gender language does not matter, please understand that the women ... and many of the men ... of my generation are *not* going to let go of the issue). The meeting was discussing Karma (I won't say which Branch) and after listening for a little while, she raised a couple of simple questions. She was answered with an attitude that she framed afterwards as composed of a couple different aspects: First, that she was lacking in the "mystical insight" necessary grasp the real truth, but with study and discipline she might be able to reach the "level" of the wise persons in the group; and second, that rational thought and the desire for empirical forms of investigation were considered the marks of "unenlightened" minds. She *rightly* concluded that these two attitudes are pretty much parts of the core definition of a *cult* (albeit a relatively harmless one), and she never returned. >We have a dynamic process of inner reflection that paradoxically >increases our sense of uncertainty as we learn and grow. This >uncertainty represents growth pains, where our attention is drawn >to ponder those areas of our understanding that are ripe for >reflection, reexamination, and exploration. Picture a circle >that contains what we know. Outside the circle is the unknown. >We're aware of what we don't know by the boundary that the circle >marks off. As the circle grows, and we know more, the boundary >is also larger, and we are made more aware of how much there is >that we have yet to know. How do we transcend this? When we >transcend the sense of personal self, make the boundary fuzzy, >and embrace the outside. But that is a whole other topic of >discussion ... Again this predilection to universalize. Why "our" instead of "my"? And this is not a personal attack, but is at the core of the point I was trying to make about inner certainty. This paragraph contains, possibly, part of a description of *your* particular configuration of how growth takes place. Along its particular line of unfolding, *you* may start by assuming something called "karma" to be an operative principle. You may unfold into greater and greater circles of the unknown, and at each stage, gain what you feel to be a deeper and deeper understanding of what you call karma. This is your personal road, and your understandings are your personal understandings, and no one has any grounds upon which to question the validity of your insights or the intensity of your belief in them. When, however, someone *universalizes* their insights, when they claim, either explicitly (as everyone from the Pope to David Koresh has) or implicitly (by such means, for instance, as calling a belief a "law") that the particular formulation of a principle that they happen to hold at some particular time holds for *everyone* in *all times*, then (IMO) something considerably more than "inner certainty" can, and should, be required from them. And I hold this opinion *because* of Theosophical studies. The only thing "we", as Theosophists, are really encouraged to accept, is the Three Objects. The study of comparative religion is included in those objects, and I have, over the years, attempted to understand both the philosophical foundations as well as the outer activities of most of the world's major (and many of the minor) religions. Religion has contributed many remarkable things to the lives of humans, but it has also engaged in deeds foul beyond imagination ... and if there is any one idea that seems present among some in almost every religion, and is (arguably) the most lethal, dangerous, idea within them, that has lead to more suffering and bloodshed than almost any other single idea, it is the idea that could be formulated: "*I* know the truth, and that truth is universal". This sentiment was, and is, at the foundation of every crusade, every inquisition, every "holy war" in the recorded history of our race. (I should add, however, that I believe it to be a necessary, but not sufficient condition for atrocities ... I do not mean to imply that anyone that universalizes their personal truths does evil, only that there is subtle, but very definite danger in not knowing when it is being done). For whatever its worth, I believe there may be two general ranges of truths, the universal and the personal. Personal truths come about through the agency of the human ability to condition their perceptive reality. Integrate a belief structure deep enough into the unconscious, and it will become the equivalent of an operative archetype that then conditions what a person perceives (and doesn't perceive) and how the person evaluates the perception. If a person believes an evil spirit called "Satan" is alive on earth, its easy to see how a multitude of different and completely unrelated events will all appear to be "acts of Satan". An entire perceptual world may then unfold out of that belief-complex. Different people may come to be seen as "tools of Satan". The perceptual world will differentiate into the forces of "good" and the forces of "evil". The person may pray or meditate on "Satan", and will, predictably enough, begin to receive deeper and deeper "insights" about Satan and the way he works. Anyone, however, that has not entered that belief structure, will most definitely not accept the "truths" of those insights ... and will likely see them as superstition or madness. Plato's Noble Lie was a recognition of this principle, and an attempt to use it towards a positive end. Universal truths, on the other hand, arise out of the most basic qualities of existence itself, and are not at all dependent upon the will or perception of any of the beings concerned. The philosophical search for truth, I believe, is the search for those universal truths, for the understanding of those basic qualities of existence, and nothing is as destructive to this search than failing to differentiate between the personal and the universal, than, in fact, arriving at *premature* "Inner Certainty" (the greater the person's Inner Certainty about "Satan", the less chance that person would have of discovering the actual principles and causes behind the events blamed on Satan). The scientific method of the last couple of centuries has greatly aided this search ... but I believe it was used by genuine occultists for millennia prior to its appearance in the general population: If the "Masters" can, for instance, precipitate objects and letters, or perceive events and situations at a considerable distance from the location of their physical bodies, they must have learned how to do it, must have gradually developed the abilities, must have, in essence, done some (to most of us, unknown) things, checked to see the results, refined what they were doing, tried again, etc., etc. The knowledge and abilities of these beings could not have been arrived at without a clear differentiation between the personal and the universal. Most religions don't even begin to distinguish between the two, and simply speak the personal as though it is the universal. "Karma" is a concept that is spoken of as a universal principle by some, but definitely not all, religions on earth. Those that accept it as a truth certainly do seem to gain continuous insights about it, and many events in their lives certainly are conceptualized as the operations of its principles, but none of this means it is a universal truth, and if it is not, then the Certainty it is spoken with in the posts I was questioning is *not* positive, but is a means of maintaining the operations of a superstition. The Theosophical Society has contained within itself a fundamental contradiction ... it is composed of Three Objects, that describe a society composed of people encouraged to work towards creating (or revealing) the interconnectedness of humanity, its religions, sciences and arts, and committed to the exploration of latent human potential, but it also contains a set of writings that introduce concepts from a couple of eastern religious traditions. It is possible to fully accept the Three Objects without in any way accepting (at least not a priori) any of the religious truths of Hinduism or Buddhism. The more I have thought through the concept of "Karma", especially in the light of modern physics, and with the understandings coming from complexity and chaos theories, the more it is beginning to appear as a personal, rather than a universal truth. It assumes a determinism that is only possible in a closed, entropic, conservative system ... but in a world in which it is coming to be increasingly understood that even the most basic particles of matter don't always behave in a deterministic fashion (which leaves out the agency of "free will" that might be expected to be present in human behavior, and would suggest even greater indeterminacy), a world which even the most materialistic of scientists are beginning to describe with the equations of non-linear fluid dynamics and probability theory rather than with simultaneous linear equations, in which simple concepts are having an increasingly hard time explaining the stunning complexity of human life at both the individual and collective levels, its becoming harder and harder for me to accept the notion of Karma as a universal truth, at least as it is framed in the metaphysical texts of the Piscean age. I also consider it at least possible that it is a sort of moral dogma, introduced deliberately by members of the inner kingdom for the benefit of human civilization. Throughout books such as the Mahatma letters (and many others, including even the Christian bible) there are continual hints that the "Masters" consider the average human to be rather childish, both in motives for behavior and capacities of understanding. They refer to themselves as "Elder Brothers", and claim both the rights and the duties of guidance. I do not question their motives, but I also believe them fully capable of using white lies (even really *huge* white lies) as a means of guidance. In short, I have *no* certainty, inner or outer, about what Karma is, or even whether it actually exists as a principle in lives other than those who have internalized it as an operative paradigm. And when I observe someone speaking with total certainty about its truth and even its minute characteristics, speaking as though it is not merely a personal belief but is a universal law, then I cannot help but ask about the source of that certainty. There really *is* no religion higher than truth. Regards, -JRC PS: And I second the sentiments already expressed by others, this *has* been a positively smashing discussion! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 11:18:04 +1200 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: Inner Certainty There are many points I would agree with in JRC's long post about Karma, especially about the dangers that can arise when people generalise from individual experience to the universal. I'd like to put a few of my responses into words, and leave others unwritten as my time is a bit limited at the moment. > If there is a universal "law" of Karma, *why is it not > universally accepted*?" Why has the process of evolution not, by > now, thoroughly integrated such a truth into behavior? (As it has > with the "law" of gravity ... Why is it that there are large > numbers of the human population that would *not* admit it as a > truth? It seems to me that an unconscious or conscious awareness of karma-like, perceivable patterns of consequences from given types of physical action or situations *is* deeply imbedded in the behaviour of a vast range of living things. When the probability of a certain outcome is somehow perceived as high, living things tend to learn and change their behaviour to seek or avoid the outcome, whichever is appropriate. I feel it is quite legitimate to say that karma in the *physical* world, is both observable, and supported by intuitive insights, on a wide scale. This is a bit like the match (within the relatively small quantum fluctuations) between the observable path of a ball thrown in the air, and the mathematical equations we can frame to describe it. It says something significant about our imbeddedness in reality that physical behaviour can be matched to a high degree by a mental, mathematical concept or model. There's mystery here (as in most places!). Of course, theosophical concepts of karma are not restricted to the physical world. In fact, they overlook it a bit, I think, to their detriment. It's the *extension* of karma/consequence concepts to realms of emotion, thought and beyond that can lead us into problem areas, for the simple reason that the sensory equipment of the great majority of humanity in these realms is much less developed than would be required to support typical theosophical karma concepts by first-hand experience. We're told that some individuals like the Masters can see these sorts of interactions for themselves much better than the rest of us, but meanwhile, more "ordinary" mortals are left with issues of trust, belief, authority, intuition and, as JRC points out, the tendency to lay our beliefs on others in ways that are not appropriate either for us or for them. So, this would be partly why "there are large numbers of the human population that would *not* admit it [karma] as a truth". Cultural conditioning has a lot to do with it too, in the absence of clear first-hand perception. > I also consider it at least possible that it is a sort of moral > dogma, introduced deliberately by members of the inner kingdom > for the benefit of human civilization. ... I do not question > their motives, but I also believe them fully capable of using > white lies (even really *huge* white lies) as a means of > guidance. I'd rather think of these ideas as stepping stones offered to us. A stepping stone has to be within reach to be of value. We also need to need to step off it when we're ready. > In short, I have *no* certainty, inner or outer, about what Karma > is, or even whether it actually exists as a principle in lives > other than those who have internalized it as an operative > paradigm. I find myself less willing to make definite-sounding statements about much of the "received wisdom" found in the TS and elsewhere, not because I'm getting more doubt-filled, but because I'm becoming more aware that sometimes it's not appropriate for me to tell the universe what it is, but rather to listen to what it has to say. Murray Stentiford From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 10:46:56 +0300 (EDT) From: Aki Korhonen Subject: THE DAYS FOR SPIRITUAL GROWTH, OULU, FINLAND THE DAYS FOR SPIRITUAL GROWTH 20.-21.5.1995, Sat-Sun 10.00-18.00 o'clock The City Music Hall Oulu, Finland Exhibitors: Biokustannus, books; Ditte Bremer, etheric oils and healing stones; Pekka Jauhiainen, glass works; The Baha'i community of Oulu; The Natural Nutrition, Anja Similae; Theosophical Society; Oulu Lodge; Ultra-magazine. Lectures: Pekka Suominen: Graphology - What Handwriting May Reveal Vilho Raatikainen: About Clairvoyance Tapani Kuningas: Metaphysical Knowledge and its Possibilities as a Developing Factor to Mankind Ahti Karivieri: Ufos as a Preserving Factor to Mankind Matti Luoma: The Ecumenism of the Religions Hannu Vienonen: A Human as a Traveller on the Spiritual Path by Theosophy Tapio Raett-Seule: The Initiation School of Sampo (Kalevala-related) Marjatta Anttila: The World of Tarot Yrjo Mikkonen: The Chances of the Mankind to Survive the Spiritual and the Moral Bankruptcy Entrance fee: one day 40 fim, two days 60 fim, children 10 fim. Organiser: Tapio Haerkonen. Tel: int+358-81-530 7967. Addr: Peuratie 6 B 5, 90650 Oulu, Finland. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 22:22:46 -0400 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: JRC's Karma +Hi, JRC, I think the key to your puzzle would be if you could accept that all beliefs, & universal truths are relative.... related to what you can perceive though your subjective senses. When you think you're being objective, you're trying, but what you perceive is still & always partly dependent on what's inside you. You might be myopic, you might get a coloration because you relate what you perceive to certain past experiences, there's always Maya, in some form. The outcome of a scientific experiment is partly dependent on the observer .. scientifically proven by the particle physicists. I'm talking as if I were propounding God's Truth, when in reality what I'm telling you is a conglomeration of what I've heard, seen & read, & put together in my own little head. I've accepted it, it's my belief system, my "universal truth" because it works for me. & may I never get so old & brittle that when something new & useful comes along I can't adopt it & use it. You say something to the effect that the Law of Karma is just accepted by many Theosophists without being first "subjected to rigorous examination before it is accepted... especially as a guide for behavior." and you say that "the rigorous examination approach is very rare in the TS". I haven't been at Conventions for years, nor do I often get to seeing Theosophists, your picture is completely strange to me. The Theosophy I learned & have long practiced is exactly one of never accepting anything at all, unless I've first thoroughly tested it out to my own satsfaction, in whatever way I felt like testing it out. With the above argument falls into place that what is claimed as universal law is indeed dependent upon personal experience. How else can you perceive it? And to repeat myself, as long as you mention gravity as being universal, remember the astronauts shown on TV, or on video tape if you're to young to have seen the moon landings as they happened, bouncing around on the surface of the moon. Moon gravity needs to be responded to in quite a different way than earth gravity. So what's universal? Well, there seems to be gravity all over the universe, but it seems not always to manifest the same way. I accept that on faith, because our scientists tell us so ... until they discover something else & change their minds again. To me, you can't know universal law. You can only guess at it from what you perceive. To repeat that lovely quote from a Broadway play "Reality is a creative hunch." Anyway, that's my belief system, & I like it because for me it answers more questions to my satisfaction than your beliefs answered for me, when I held them. You say "I want something more powerful than 'I feel intuitively'..", the answer to that wish of yours is that whatever proof is most powerful to you is what you should accept. & if no such powerful proof exists, then you're dealing with a belief you shouldn't accept. To be a Theosophist, all you need to accept is the relatedness of humankind. (Brotherhood etc.) "We're putting everything else on the table," say the Republicans. I wonder whether that helps you sort out. Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 22:04:34 -0600 From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: JRC's Karma Liesel... > I think the key to your puzzle would be if you could accept that > all beliefs, & universal truths are relative.... related to what > you can perceive though your subjective senses. When you think > you're being objective, you're trying, but what you perceive is > still & always partly dependent on what's inside you. You might > be myopic, you might get a coloration because you relate what you > perceive to certain past experiences, there's always Maya, in > some form. The outcome of a scientific experiment is partly > dependent on the observer .. scientifically proven by the > particle physicists. Yes, I'm aware of the arguments of the post-modernists ... they are all the rage in academic social sciences & humanities departments right now, but I fear I don't believe the entire universe is subjective. Particle physicists, however, did not prove that all scientific experiments are dependent upon the observer; they reached a point in their studies where the act of studying something like an electron required interference with its behaviour, because the smallest instruments used for the study (photons & etc.) existed at the same scale as the electrons themselves ... but this doesn't mean light isn't still used to look at (for instance) plants or viruses under microscopes, and it certainly doesn't necessarily mean that a meaningful distinction between an objective viewpoint and purely subjective belief has disappeared (though some schools of philosophy seem to attempt to draw this conclusion). My perception of universal truths may be partial, or incomplete, or colored, but that doesn't mean the truth itself is not universal, nor does it mean that there are not varying degrees of Maya, with complete delusion at one end and total clarity at the other. It was Eliphas Levi, I think (do you remember, Alan?) who said that "Truth is idea identical with being" ... i.e., that it is possible, and a spiritual goal, to reach a point where human awareness is capable of perfect, undistorted reflection of the actual. > You say something to the effect that the Law of Karma is just > accepted by many Theosophists without being first "subjected to > rigorous examination before it is accepted... especially as a > guide for behavior." and you say that "the rigorous examination > approach is very rare in the TS". I haven't been at Conventions > for years, nor do I often get to seeing Theosophists, your > picture is completely strange to me. The Theosophy I learned & > have long practiced is exactly one of never accepting anything at > all, unless I've first thoroughly tested it out to my own > satsfaction, in whatever way I felt like testing it out. I was not trying to take shots at any Theosophist (though my post, upon reflection, was prob'ly a bit more strident than is the norm of my usual sweet self :-) ... apologies to all for the tone ... I has a week of listening to both a Christian berate me for not grasping the "truth" of Our Lord, and a new-ager attempt to "enlighten" me about the eight different lifetimes whose karma he "knew" was currently trapping me in my present viewpoint, especially the parts of it that didn't agree with his ...). Only point I was trying to make is that I travel in a lot of circles, and only in a couple of them is karma even conceptualized, let alone accepted, but in those that talk about it, it seems utterly accepted ... even on this list, probably the most free-wheeling, non-dogmatic Theosophical forum I've had the pleasure of experiencing, I've yet to see anyone express any serious doubts about the existance of the principle of karma (with the exception of Jerry, who appears to be re-thinking it in some very interesting directions) ... yet for much, if not most of America, it is most definately not something about which there is that little question. > With the above argument falls into place that what is claimed as > universal law is indeed dependent upon personal experience. How > else can you perceive it? And to repeat myself, as long as you > mention gravity as being universal, remember the astronauts shown > on TV, or on video tape if you're to young to have seen the moon > landings as they happened, bouncing around on the surface of the > moon. Moon gravity needs to be responded to in quite a different > way than earth gravity. So what's universal? Well, there seems > to be gravity all over the universe, but it seems not always to > manifest the same way. I accept that on faith, because our > scientists tell us so ... until they discover something else & > change their minds again. Well, you seem to have made my point for me. The astronauts bouncing around on the moon, and the virtual weightlessness in space was *fully predicted* by the laws of gravity as formulated by earth scientists, in fact, if the law of gravity was not able to predict, with fairly stunning accuracy, the conditions on the moon, the moon landing would have been a fairly ugly disaster. The universal nature of the law is what allows moon landings, and Juptiter flybys, and much of the somewhat breathtaking astronautical adventures of our race. And it did not matter *which* astronauts did the landings ... their personal feelings about gravity would not have saved them if NASA scientists had not precisely formulated an objective law, and used it to successfully predict lunar conditions. And yes, scientists do change their minds a lot, as knowledge grows, an "idea becomes more identical with being", in fact what they are willing to do throw out conceptions of universal laws that are shown to be in error, or partial. This is generally cited in popular culture as a reason to doubt science, but is (IMO) its highest virtue. Having spent time in both scientific and metaphysical circles, I have found the former somewhat more willing than the latter to seriously question their own premises and assumptions. I do understand those who choose the devotional/belief path to the All, and that its approach is different than the one I take. Some start with faith, and refine through intensity of belief ... I start with doubt, and refine with re-examination and demonstration .... For my road, being clear about what is known, what is presumed, and what simply can't be known given the present state of my faculties is required. A common failing is framing truth too narrowly. But by the same token, a common failing of the road of belief is that truth is framed too broadly, every personal truth at any stage of development is hd with total certainty, and universalized to apply to everyone. People were speaking of karma with the tone of absolutism, and I simply wanted to introduce another (IMO quite underrepresented) viewpoint into the discussion. > Anyway, that's my belief system, & I like it because for me it > answers more questions to my satisfaction than your beliefs > answered for me, when I held them. You say "I want something > more powerful than 'I feel intuitively'..", the answer to that > wish of yours is that whatever proof is most powerful to you is > what you should accept. & if no such powerful proof exists, then > you're dealing with a belief you shouldn't accept. To be a > Theosophist, all you need to accept is the relatedness of > humankind. .(Brotherhood etc.) "We're putting everything else on > the table," say the Republicans. I wonder whether that helps you > sort out. Oh, yes, I agree 100%, and this is exactly the point I was trying to make ... that a few posters (and you were not one of them) talk commonly not as though they are engaged in a search, but as though they have some sort of absolute answers that they are simply waiting for others to become enlightened enough to understand. In fact, I am not troubled at all by the principle of karma ... it has no relevance in my world-view, nor do I feel any particular need to integrate it. I do currently think that there is a sort of predilection for human thoughts, emotions, and behaviour to tend towards the formation of patterns, which, when they begin to operate unconsciously, may produce some of the phenomena people ascribe to karma ... but I also think that there is another, balancing principle that tends to dissolve patterns, that patterns have life-spans of sorts, etc., etc. In my own conceptual reality, I also currently operate with 5 dimensions of space and three of time as assumptions underlying my perceptual reality, and much of what is called both "synchronicity" and "karmic effects" appear to me to be nothing other than the aftereffects of fourth and fifth dimensional objects bisecting three dimensional space (sure as hell didn't express that very well, but its late). When I mentioned that I want something more powerful than "I feel, intuitively ...", I wasn't saying I'm on a desperate hunt to believe in karma, only that (in response to Eldon's post that "inner certainty" was sufficient for some things) when someone speaks as though they've got God's truth, when they speak of karma as a universal law, then yes, before I accept this as valid I would want to hear something more powerful than subjective sensations of validity. With love & giggles, JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 May 95 08:05:09 +1100 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: Re: Theosophical library software "Murray Stentiford, writes: > Paul G., I wonder if there's a Windows version of CDS-ISIS out > now? I'll check into it. In the meantime, may I suggest you look at ASK Sam for Windows version 1.0. It's available for the price of a magazine -- PC PLUS magazine from the U.K. (available in NZ) has placed it on their cover CD-ROM. Let me know if you can't get it, and I'll send you a copy. Basically, it's a free-text database which also allows structured info and searching, and the price is right. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 07:45:13 -0600 From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: Theosophical library software Murray, 2000-3000 records w/ 9 or 10 different fields should be able to be handled by most standard database programs, DBase, or Paradox, etc., ... though it would take some real work to set it up initially. By the way, is some of the info already on a computer somewhere, or will it all have to be entered (some programs import data from other formats better than others)? Good luck with your task ... -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 00:52:10 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Inner Certainty? > I find myself less willing to make definite-sounding statements > about much of the "received wisdom" found in the TS and > elsewhere, not because I'm getting more doubt-filled, but because > I'm becoming more aware that sometimes it's not appropriate for > me to tell the universe what it is, but rather to listen to what > it has to say. > > Murray Stentiford Me too! Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 15:19:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Olcott Library Subject: Re: Theosophical library software Murray Stentiford: > I am looking at options for software to put our theosophical > branch library catalog into and would very much like to hear from > anyone who has, or can refer me to, packages that are either > ready-made for the job or can be configured to your own data > structure. > > The basic needs are > > 1 Runs under Windows 3.1+ . > 2 Able to handle 2000 - 3000 books comfortably. > 3 Under $US1000, or shareware etc. > 4 Able to hold basic information for books, such as all or most > of:- Author, Title, Subject keywords, Description, Publisher, > Year, Shelf location code (Dewey or other), Accession number > 5 Able to search any or all of the above for simple text strings. > 6 Able to print or produce catalog files sorted in order of > Author, Title or Subject. To Murray: If you want to get a *real* library program which uses cataloging records that can be interfaced with other library systems, you will have to have a larger budget. The good library systems use the MARC communications format for the record structure. One of the better ones and reasonably priced ones is MOLLI, based in Wisconsin, but it'll cost around US$2-3,000 and they do have a Windows based version. That price includes their cataloging module (to create records), the Online catalog (for searching by author, title, subject, keyword, etc.), the circulation module, and a MARC interface module to load cataloging records from other sources (that saves you the labor of having to key in every record, but you pay a fee for getting the records). The Olcott Library uses the McGraw-Hill Columbia Library System, which has a number of additional features essential for our library, including the possiblity of establishing a union catalog of several libraries. Its cost is about double of MOLLI, and the current version does not run on Windows (the Windows version is expected out in early 1996). It is MARC based, and we will be obtaining our cataloging records from OCLC (= Online Computer Library Center) in Ohio. This will take a couple of years. Eventually, we will be able to share these cataloging records with other theosophical libraries who have MARC based library software. The least expensive way, but fairly labor-intensive, is to use just about any decent database managing program on the market, such as Paradox, DBase, FoxPro, Filemaker, etc. You'll have to create your own fields and set up the database structure to your own liking. Chances are that it will be incompatible with any other library program and when it comes to cooperation and sharing with other theosophical libraries you'll start all over. Here at Olcott Library we have just activated the Columbia online circulation module and are in the process of identifying OCLC records for our holdings to create the database of cataloging records for our Online Catalog. As I said above, it will take at least a couple of years before we can activate the Online Catalog. I hope this is of some help, from a librarian's perspective. Elisabeth Trumpler Head Librarian PS. Have you tried to reach me directly recently? The e-mail address is still: olcott@dupagels.lib.il.us From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 May 95 20:30:31 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Grok Theory & Reincarnation Lewis: I agree. There is definitely an analogy here. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 May 95 23:37:50 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Uncertainty & Karma The Karma discussion has been great. I especially want to thank Eldon and JRC for their repsective views. I only have time for a few quick thoughts on JRC's thought-provoking response to Eldon. JRC<. It doesn't matter whether someone believes in gravity or not, one still falls off a cliff. Aristotle's most basic principle of metaphysics was "A=A", that is, a thing is identical to itself. A thing cannot both be and not be. > I think a large part of the "problem" with our dicussion of karma lies in its definition. There are several definitions of karma. Also, there is a personal and a collective karma. I think that if we see karma as the process of causality (cause and effect over time without any morality attached) then it can legitimately be viewed as a universal law. But what are universal laws, anyway? In my view, they are the rules of the game of life that we (our psyches, not our egos) accept when we incarnate or self-express in the lower four cosmic planes the lower 7 Globes of HPB's planetary chain. Some Adepts are said to be able to levitate, and thus would not necessarily fall off the proverbial cliff. How can this be? Perhaps they are aware of alternate rules in this game of life that can be played? Or perhaps they are sufficiently advanced (having already 'won' the game) that they can bend some of the rules for a time? According to Buddhist logic, A can be A as well as not A just fine, thank you very much. We can, according to their system, be something and not be that something at the same time. Existence and nonexistence are two sides of a duality, and both have truth (or both are falsehoods, take your pick). Thus even Aristotle is probably relative. The problem of accepting karma comes along mainly with the correspondiong idea of reincarnation. If karma is seen as causality, then no problem - during this life. But when we try to use karma across many lifetimes, this is where we have most non-acceptance. It is hard for most people (theosophists included, with perhaps Alan being one exception) to accept karma without reincarnation or vice versa. Most writers and teachers link the two doctrines together for this reason. Reincarnation, per se, is a religious doctrine because it is hard to define such a process without some kind of ruling/governing deity(ies) behind it. The notion of a long series of imbodiments for all beings begs for some kind of a divine oversight. My own notion of us doing it all for the fun of it still needs some kind of Builders, Cosmocrators, Recorders, and so on to keep it all going. Whether you can accept the doctrine of reincarnation (in some form or another) or not largely depends on your view of God, or gods & goddesses, which gets us into the area of religion. Thus trying to keep Karma far away from religion will be a bit tricky. < If Theosophy, where "There is no religion higher than Truth" is not willing to subject its own core concepts to rigorous examination, is not willing to push its own ideas to that limit you speak of, is willing to accept things on the basis of personal, subjective experience alone, then it becomes simply another religion (an odd amalgam of Hinduism and Buddhism sprinkled with a dash of western occultism) asserting its "truths" in the same way, and upon the same foundation, as any other religion (which is, incidently, the way the general population ... at least those parts of it that have heard of Theosophy ... tends to see the Theosophical Society). > Agreed. You are absolutely right here, and it is our challenge to keep the mystery of life intact and its "answers" to a minimum. We must all vow to no longer allow "lazy thinking" in our ranks. < ...Condescending). This attitude is (unfortunately, IMO) a terribly common one throughout the current TS, and may be a chief reason why so many from my generation that have touched the TS leave it after a very short period of time. > I hope that you are wrong here. Speaking for myself, neither James Long nor Grace Knoche were ever condescending to me. I rather think that most leave because they seek easy answers and fast solutions. However, if some TS leaders are condescending, then I have to agree with you that this alone would drive folks (including myself) away. <..., that rational thought and the desire for empirical forms of investigation were considered the marks of "unenlightened" minds. > This is very very unfortunate. It shows a degredation from the HPB philosophy of seeking your own truth and of the Adept teaching of the need to take heaven by storm. If theosophical teachings don't stand up to scientific scrutiny (such as life-as-we-know-it on Mars and Venus) then the teachings need to be changed. Theosophical ideas will ever need to be upgraded as our knowledge advances. < For whatever its worth, I believe there may be two general ranges of truths, the universal and the personal.> I would prefer to say personal and collective. The personal is what I myself believe to be true. The collective is what the general public believes to be true. Both the personal and the collective views include unconscious agreements as to the rules or laws that are operative at any given time. My own scientific viewpoint makes me cringe at the idea of universal truths (What is true on Earth today may not be what was true on Saturn six million years ago, and so on). Perhaps the only universal truth is 'as above so below' which seems to work well on all planes and worlds. < It is possible to fully accept the Three Objects without in any way accepting (at least not a priori) any of the religious truths of Hinduism or Buddhism. > Absolutely. I hope I never forget this. < In short, I have *no* certainty, inner or outer, about what Karma is, or even whether it actually exists as a principle in lives other than those who have internalized it as an operative paradigm.> This is simply being honest. Do the gods really exist, or are they "only" inner archetypes? Is divinity within or without? We may think that Karma has been shown to exist by modern psychology at least to the extent that our past affects our present and our future. The question is whether it is a universal law operating, or whether it is our own guilts, regrets, and unconscious desires that are affecting us. Another question is whether these guilts, regrets and desires carry over to future lives in the form of skandhas or shistas. Even when we catch glimpses of a past life, how do we know whether the vision was real or a mayavic illusion? Carl Jung, for example, based most of his teachings on his own personal experiences both waking and in dreams. Who can say which were valid and which were illusion? I guess what I am getting at here is that we all remain uncertain about life, and will probably continue to do so. When we occassional do have an ecstatic vision during meditation or dream, can we ever be certain that it is valid? It seems to be that a scientific approach is a good thing, but it almost has to be tempered a bit by faith. On the other hand, faith unguided by reason can fly off in all sorts of unhelpful directions. Jerry S. PS. I also am studing chaos theory and complexity theory, and so far what I have found only strengthens my theosophical belief system. But I agree with JRC that determinism is dead and chaos (wearing the clothes of uncertainty) is alive in the world and must, somehow, be accounted for if anyone wants to keep their belief system intact over the coming years. In fact, it is just this that has caused me to take a deeper look into karma and reincarnation. The old idea of karmic determinism can no longer hold today. Does this mean that karma and reincarnation are not valid doctrines? No. But it does mean that we have to change our view of them somewhat (a paradigm shift, if you will). This is exactly what I have been trying to say and to bring out in these discussions. The exoteric (i.e., simplistic) teaching of karma (and probably reincarnation) can no longer be accepted as presented by Judge, Besant, and others. Life is now shown to be lot more complex. In fact, Jung's idea of synchronicity shows that even causality may no longer be valid as a single explanation of how things work. Physicists took gas for years trying to ignore this, and finally succumed to the inevitable, albeit distastful, facts. Physicists now speak in terms of probabilites rather than certainties. We theosophists need to do likewise. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 13:31:15 -0400 From: TAMARALEA@aol.com Subject: CONFERENCE INTERORGANIZATIONAL THEOSOPHICAL DIALOGUE JULY 29 & 30, 1995 A conference for independent minded Theosophists will be held Saturday and Sunday, July 29 and 30, 1995, in Washougal, Washington - 30 minutes northeast of Portland, Oregon. This conference is being held by a group fo Oregon and Washington Theosophical students for the purpose of networking with like minded people, and to tap into a rich resource base - each other. Just a few Theosophists who have already confirmed they will be attending are Jerry & April Hejka-Akins and Lee Renner from Southern California, Christina Zubelli from the Bay Area, Joan McDougall from Tacoma, Andrew Barker and Ronnie Rich from Seattle, Nancy & Morry Secrest and Tamara Gerard form Portland. A fee of $20 per person will cover the costs of the conference, including vegan vegetarian food provided for the weekend. Camping on-site or local hotel accommodations are available. More details will be forthcoming upon return of the registration form. Please distribute this information to your lodge members. For planning purposes, please answer the following questions and return this form to the conference committee: INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL THEOSOPHICAL DIALOGUE 1. (A) Are you planning to attend? (B) Are you bringing fellow Theosophists? Include name, address, & phone number of all members of your party. (C) Will you camp on -site? 2. Our theme is TRANSFORMATION. Please include questions and issues you would like to see discussed at this conference. Your input is important for development of the agenda. We look forward to your timely response! Mail your registration and check payable to: Tamara Gerard 30427 S.E. 30th Street Washougal, Washington 98671 Phone (360) 835-3706 email: tamaralea@aol.com or via theos-l network From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 19 May 95 22:47:40 +1100 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: Egypt > From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> > > My husband bought another copy of the Smithsonian magazine and it > will be winging its way to Astrea as soon as I can get to the > post office. Thanks very much, I appreciate that! On the subject of ancient Egypt, I had one funny dream. I was reading a book which said the rule of the Pharoahs was flawed because it failed to comply with the teachings of Christ. There was a diagram in the book of a triangle (the rule) within a circle (the teachings) and one corner of the triangle fell outside the circle, cutting it off and thus marring its perfection. Pretty wierd dream for a non-Xian, though I was arguing about it in the dream, somehow it seemed true. ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 May 95 18:01:25 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Thoughts on Karma Some more thoughts on karma. In OCCULT GLOSSARY, G de P gives Karma (which he called Karman) as causality; "a chain of causation, stretching back into the infinity of the past ...[and] ...into the infinity of the future." He then calls it "universal Nature, which is infinite and therefore everywhere and timeless." In effect, he is calling Nature infinite and eternal, which is to say, beyond time and space. Clearly Nature exists within time and space. Clearly, so does Karma. I can't help but think that G de P meant "everywhere and timeless" in the sense of throughout this entire manvantara, and not in the sense of outside of our space-time continuum. This may seem to be a small point, but it is not. In fact, it is a crucial point if we want to learn what Karma is. If Karma is truly infinite and eternal, then it is divine and the entire concept takes on a religious mystique that can never come to terms with science. Although this is exactly what G de P implies, I have to hope that he actually meant the words in terms of this manvantara (and therefore within space-time). In Vol I of ECHOES OF THE ORIENT, Judge lists 31 "Aphorisms on Karma." I don't have time to type in all of these, but I would like to comment on a few of them: (1) There is no Karma unless there is a being to make it or feel its effects. Now this, the first aphorism, makes a lot of sense to me. It implies that Karma is relative; it only exists relative to a subjective self. (2) Karma is the adjustment of effects flowing from causes... Here we have Karma as the Law of Causality which is a rather typical way of looking at it. (3) Karma is an undeviating and unerring tendency in the Universe to restore equilibrium, and it operates incessantly. I personally like this definition of Karma as a balance of opposing forces (both cosmic and personal). Carl Jung describes the psyche as a field in which libido (psychic energy) seeks a balance between opposing forces such as spirit and instincts. This definition helps us see Karma in terms of psychology and physics (where entropy also seeks a balance). However, I would omit the word "unerring" in this definition as this notion is purely subjective. Who, for example, is wise enough among us to know if errors occur or not - no one and so any "unerring" business will have to be accepted on faith. (6) Karma is not subject to time, and therefore he who knows what is the ultimate division of time in this Universe knows Karma. Here again is the business of Karma being outside of time. I think that we have to look at this here as the idea of Karma being extended over many lifetimes so that it seems' timeless to the ego. Again, I hope that this definition is not intending to say that Karma is outside of space-time (and thus some kind of divine law). I think that its pretty safe to say that the ultimate division of time is no-time or the timeless present (although why this seems such a mystery is beyond me). My own study and experience indicate to me that when consciousness raises above space-time, it leaves Karma behind and "sees" Karma as a governing law over the cosmos - our space-time solar system - and lasting only so long as this manvantara (which is pretty long!). (7) For all other men Karma is in its essential nature unknown and unknowable. (8) But its action may be known by calculation from cause to effect... Here I have a problem. Aphorisms 6, 7, and 8 are saying that Adepts can know Karma fully, while for the rest of us its workings remain forever unknowable. This smacks of determinism, albeit if only for Adepts. During the turn of this century, mathematicians were convinced that if only they knew all of the laws of physics that governed this world, they could explain everything, and predict future events with mathematical certainty. This desire is a natural one for the human mind which seeks knowledge. The concept was formulated in the worldview of our world as a mechanical clockwork, albeit a complex one. Kurt Godel, a mathematician and friend of Einstein, burst this bubble with the famous theorm that bears his name. This theory says that there is no "decision algorithm" for the truth or falsity of arithmatical statements. You cannot, for example, write a computer program that will always tell you if a statement is true or false. In short, his theorem says that mathematics has inherent limitations and that science will never be able to fully explain our world mathematically. In the same way, I don't think that theosophy (or any other religion or philosophy) can fully explain all of life because Godel's theorem can be extended to imply that all languages are inherently limited (mathematics is a language like any other). I do not think that Adepts, no matter how advanced, can possibly know all of one's karma, or predict any future event with full certainty (high probability perhaps :-) ). (12) Karmic causes already set in motion must be allowed to sweep on until exhausted... Here is a potential problem. We are too apt to see this as saying that Karma can never be eliminated; that the Wheel of Life must roll on forever. I agree with this idea up to a point. But the very desire to tread the path will cause much of one's stored karma to be vented. (28) No man but a sage or true seer can judge another's Karma. This aphorism misses the point - once a seer gets to this exalted stage, he or she will no longer have any desire to judge anyone. I do not believe that a spiritual Adept will judge another person one way or another. Spirituality is non-judgemental. Meanwhile, lesser Adepts and Initiates cannot know all of the karmic burden of a person, and so should not judge. Either way, judging others is always a mayavic action and is best avoided. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 19 May 95 16:00:29 -0700 From: eldon@deltanet.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: re: Inner Certainty JRC: I was just reading your lengthy reply to my posting on "Inner Certainty" this morning. You raise a number of important points, which I will try to respond to. First, I should note that we each have our own distinctive style of writing and communicating. You indicate your preference when you say you like talk as though someone is engaged in a search, but don't like talk sounding like someone has absolute answers, and is simply waiting for others to understand. It should go without saying that none of us, in writing to "theos-l", is making authoritative statements on behalf of the Masters; we all speak for ourselves, for our personal understanding of the Philosophy. In your model, you have the duality of universal laws, universal truths, and personal laws, personal truths. The universal laws work regardless of personal belief. This distinction usually is made with different terms: objective and subjective. The objective truths hold true regardless of how one cares to understand or relate to them. Subjective truths depend upon personal belief and interpretation. It's important to subject to severe scrutiny what we know, feel, and experience, to freshly rethink things. That is an important step in keeping our understanding fresh, growing, alive. But it is only half of the process. It should be immediately followed by synthesis, where we reunify the ideas that we have broken apart. Without that second step, we are left with but doubts, uncertainty, and a gnawing skepticism. You're correct, though, that some ideas are flawed and with greater knowledge can be discarded. Not every idea will withstand the test of time. The ideas that I would consider among the core concepts of Theosophy would be those that have been tested and found true, rooted in the ultimate nature of life. These ideas are not concepts from a couple of eastern religious traditions, but rather are from Blavatsky, and a few others, acting as agents of the Masters in presenting some of their knowledge in the west. When some of the theosophical ideas are presented to us, we can wonder, are these really true? How can I prove them? What can I do to check them out and see if they are real? What tests can I do to determine to my satisfaction that the ideas are true, solid, firmly rooted in reality? Much is presented that does not come with specific tests, trials, or proofs to undertake. Is this bad? First, I'd be glad to have the opportunity to study, to dwell on high thought and philosophy that go beyond my current ability to prove it in my life. The study is uplifting, ennobling. Even if I can't have absolute certainty about these things, I'd rather benefit from the exposure than remain in the dark until some future stage of personal readiness. Second, we are told the general way to obtain irrefutable proof to the Teachings: live the life and then you shall know. We can take our first initial steps in the direction of one day entering upon the Path. With inner transformation comes the ability to see and understand much that we were blind to before. Third, we're taught of a second way of "knowing", other than by personal experience. It's a different way of using the mind to understand things. If the ordinary way of thinking can be compared to the sense of touch, this second way could be compared to that of sight. This inner process of knowing is awakened by a study of Theosophy, and is a spiritual faculty important to cultivate. I don't think that it should sound condescending to talk about it. (Something might sound condescending if it says: "I know something important that you don't know, listen carefully to me!" Taken one way, it's sharing, taken another way, it's condescending.) In a discussion when you're questioning the idea of karma, and asking how we can possibly know about such ideas, it should be ok for me to reply with the theosophical idea of an Inner Teacher, or of a theosophic thought-current, that once the student is in contact with, becomes a source of knowing about things. It should be ok for me to bring up theosophical ideas, and speak as though I thought they were true. Granted, without providing you with a set of tests with which you can prove to yourself the ideas, you have to take them as my subjective opinion. To the extent, though, that the ideas remain rooted in universal nature, they remain just as true regardless of whether they are proved to your personal satisfaction. Granted, on the other hand, that to the extent that the ideas are my subjective views, and unrelated to the Teachings, you have no reason to give credence to them, when I mention them without any supporting evidence. This is a theosophical discussion group, and we should practice writing about what we've studied. Something is neglected if we only question the basic tenants of Theosophy, on the one hand, or if we simply post lengthy quotes, on the other hand. It's much better if we give fresh expression to what we've learned! You make a good point when you say: "When ... someone *universalizes* their insights, when they claim ... that the particular formulation of a principle that they happen to hold at some particular time holds for *everyone* in *all times*, then something considerable more than "inner certainty" can, and should, be required from them." I hope you don't believe that any of us think that our postings to theos-l' are the final word on anything theosophical! We quickly see in studying Theosophy that no single set of words can contain a truth; we see that we have to continually reclothe our ideas in new words, new expressions, new formulations. Some of us may find considerable value from exploring the Teachings, and may be doing a theosophical "show and tell". Let's give people the benefit of the doubt and attribute to them a good motive. We don't have to attribute negative motives to people when they speak positively about the Philosophy. We get problems in the world when people seek to force their beliefs onto others. (This is different from, in a discussion, when multiple views are represented, to speak up to insure that a particular view has its fair hearing along with the rest.) The problem appears even when we don't actively seek to convert others, but settle for belittling others who don't see as we do. Although some ideas, based upon untruths, break down upon critical examination, others, as you say, allow for a much wider appreciation of a truth. I would put the core concepts of Theosophy in this class. Each idea is an exoteric blind to a yet-deeper, still esoteric idea behind it. The process of study and contemplation of these ideas leads to both a growing understanding of life and an inner connectedness with things. I do not see a dichotomy between personal, subjective beliefs and objective, universal truths. First, there is, I'd say, no "the universe." No matter how big a system we may conceive of, it's but one unit in yet a bigger scheme of things. The term "multiverse" seems best, since it does not imply a single absolute that governs all things. All that is is alive. There is no such thing as inert matter, or objective, impersonal laws. For a particular universe, there are laws, but these laws are the behavior of things in that universe, and not something with an objective reality of their own. When we speak of the "laws of physics," we are talking about the behavior of matter, as we know it, as observed on our physical plane earth. I consider an on-going examination of what we think we know as important. I also consider rational thought, and logic an essential part of understanding things. But most important of all, I'd say that most important is our awakening the inner faculties of knowing, of insight, of learning. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 19 May 95 17:07:26 -0700 From: eldon@deltanet.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: theosophy on line I just tried to telnet to 'theosophy.org' and got in. The theosophical bulletin board seems to be online and active. It might be something interesting to check out. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 20:36:57 -0400 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Thoughts on Karma Dear Jerry, ""Neither James Long nor Grace Knoche were ever condescending to me." That goes for John Algeo as well. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 21:23:21 -0400 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Thoughts on Karma Jerry, Towards the ends of your post you say " I do not think that Adepts, no matter how advanced, can possibly know all of one's karma, or predict any future event with full certainty (hi probability perhaps ..)". Serge King. a very skilled shaman, told us that one can see the present and from that give an educated guess as to what the future might be. But human beings have choice, and they may choose different routes to go between now and the future. Those choices may change the future outcome as foreseen now. I think Harry Van Gelder said much the same thing. He ameliorated my health (physical, psychological &n spiritual) on the assumptions that my choosing to ingest the homeopathic remedies he advised, meditate (& etc.) would moderate my karma. It did. My health took a different turn on every level, or at least it modified. Best wishes Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 May 95 23:56:00 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re to Eldon & JRC The following are some comments about Eldon's recent posting: We all need to keep this in mind. I probably sound condescending also at times, but never intentionally. I have no Master or Guru to refer to, just books and my own experience. I have watched my own worldview change over the years, and expect it to happen some more in the future. Thats what growth is all about. So all I can say is based on that and nothing more. The same goes for everyone. This is one of the nice features of Theos-l - no one is a Leader, and so we all are Leaders, in the sense that young or old, we can all bring something to the group. < Much is presented that does not come with specific tests, trials, or proofs to undertake> Very true. I believe HPB somewhere says that this is an occuLt law: that no occult truth will ever be fully provable to the confirmed sceptic. But I do think that theosophical teachings must either change somewhat to accord with the findings of modern science, or flatly refute those findings. We can't stick our heads in the sand and pretend that there is no conflict. Scientific findings must either be assimilated or refuted. As far as chaos theory is concerned, I think that it can be assimilated very nicely simply by a more in-depth look at Karma, which is what I have been trying to do. Yes, but how many lifetimes will this take? I agree with this teaching up to a point. The reverse, however, I think is always true - that in order to Know, yoe have to live the life. I am not so sure that living the life necessarily gives you any proof of occult Teachings or theosophical doctrine. I base this doubt on my obervations of such notables as Mother Terisa (?? I am never sure about the spelling) and other good people who clearly live the life but whose grasp on the Teachings are somewhat lacking. This reminds me of the magic phrase, love under will; love needs direction and guidance just as surely as will needs to be gentled by compassion. Compassion, which generates the ability to live the life, needs the Teachings for a proper balance. The reverse is also true, for knowledge without compassion is the path of Black Magic. Tibetan Buddhism teaches that we need both wisdom and skillful means or method, both bliss (inner) and emptiness (outer). Unfortunately our world has lots of people with either the ability to love or to know, but precious few with both. Beautifully phrased, Eldon. As far as I am concerned, the inner Teacher is the best Teacher one can ever hope to find. I have felt a strong and very particular thought-emotion (for want of a better term) in theosophy that I have called the theosophical current, and I think that this is what you must be referring to. Its kind of like an atmosphere that you feel around you when you study theosophy. Of course, other currents exist as well; practically every major religion and philosophy has one. I wouldn't go so far as CWL and try to give it a shape and color, but I certainly can feel its presence. In fact, I felt this shortly after I came into theosophy over 25 years ago, and it is still with me. I am as guilty as you on this one. But again, if we all realize that we can only speak from our own study and experience, this shouldn't upset anyone. 'Thus have I heard' is well and good and certainly has its proper place, but it doesn't have to preceed every posting. For a theosophist to speak with inner conviction on theosophy is hard not to do. Besides, I find lengthy quotes from the Teachers boring and unhelpful for the most part, because I have already studied and pondered them. I prefer to hear what people today think. Amen. I will agree to tone down my condescending manner, if everyone else agrees to realize that I am speaking solely from my own study and experience, and that I am not on a soap box, even though it may sound like it at times. I am not a Master and make no claim to being jivamukta (at least not yet). I am a Seeker like every other theosophist and if I sometimes sound like I know more than anyone else, just rap my hands once and again to remind me to keep my place. I think that this syndrome of self-knowledge comes from studying theosophy for too many years. After awhile, I tend to think that I know what is REALLY going on and I forget that all of the theosophical writings are just fingers pointing in the right direction. JRC, thank you for reminding me, even if you didn't mention me by name (if the shoe fits, etc.). Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 20 May 1995 09:27:30 -0700 From: ae677@lafn.org (Nancy Coker) Subject: Researching Mother Goddesses 5/20/95 Does anyone have any recommendations for good books, movies, magazines or whatever dealing with the Mother Goddesses. I'm interested in exploring as many dimensions as possible -- religious, archetypal, psychological, mythological, magical, historical etc. I'll start with HPB and branch out from there. Any suggestions? Nancy Coker ae677@lafn.org P O Box C Pasadena CA 91001 818 798 1070 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 May 95 21:04:19 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Theosphists? In a post for a conference in Oregon, there was a reference to "independent-minded Theosophists". IMHO & experience, that seemed to be a strange way of putting it. IOW, show me a bunch of Theosophists that aren't independent-minded and I'll show you a bunch of people that aren't Theosophists! : - }}} - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 May 95 20:10:47 +1100 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: Luxor Lodge guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) writes: > > Welcome home! Maybe we on the net are a kind of latter-day > Luxor Lodge . . . > > Alan Thanks. Somehow the net seems less inspiring than Luxor Lodge - but perhaps we don't yet have the benefit of antiquity, which always adds a patina of mystery :-) ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 May 1995 16:25:33 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Researching Mother Goddesses Nancy: "The Great Mother, An Analysis of the Archetype" - Erich Neumann. Pub. by Princeton University Press, Bollingen Series XLVII 1963. ISBN 0-691-01780-8 (pbk). 379pp + 185 plates. This is dedicated to Jung, and written by one of his major pupils. Also worth reading from a pro-woman angle: "Alone of all her Sex, - The Myth and the Cult of the Virgin Mary." - Marina Warner. Pub. Alfred A. Knopf. New York, 1976, ISBN 0-394-49913-1 (Knopf). Exists in other editions. Various articles in Hastings Encycolpedia of Religion and Ethics, particularly Astarte, As(h)teroth. Asheroth, Ishtar. etc., as well as the obvious goddesses such as Isis. Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 13:06:54 +1200 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: Researching Mother Goddesses Responding to Nancy Coker's request: > Does anyone have any recommendations for good books, movies, > magazines or whatever dealing with the Mother Goddesses. I'm > interested in exploring as many dimensions as possible -- > religious, archetypal, psychological, mythological, magical, > historical etc. Nancy, here are a few references in the clairvoyant research arena. Sorry, I can't give publisher details as I'm away from home where my library is. "The Miracle of Birth" Geoffrey Hodson Published approx. 1930. Mentions the World Mother being or principle and describes the work of her deva representatives during development of the foetus. "The Kingdom of the Gods" Geoffrey Hodson Publ. approx. 1950. Has a chapter or section on the World Mother and says, if I remember rightly, that she is involved in many of Nature's growth processes. A Glimpse of Our Lady Phoebe Payne Bendit A pamphlet published by the Theosophical Order of Service, possibly around 1950. Describes the presence of the World Mother via a deva representative during a specific birth, and briefly mentions the way some doctors are linked to her in their work. Clairvoyant Investigations Geoffrey Hodson Publ. approx. 1980 Mentions the invocation of deva representatives of the World Mother by singing of specific musical pieces, during clairvoyant research on the inner effects of music. I was there for this work - could tell you more. The Hodson books are fairly standard theosophical works, but if you would like further details on them or can't locate the pamphlet, please e-mail me and I'll be happy to send you the details or a copy of the pamphlet. Murray Stentiford murray@sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 13:38:08 +1200 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: Theosophical Library Software Many thanks to Paul Gillingwater, JRC and especially Elisabeth Trumpler for their responses on library software. Murray Stentiford From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 May 1995 21:49:59 -0400 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Researching Mother Goddesses Dear Grace, These are all paper backs. I have others, but consider these the best "Goddess Mother of Living Nature" Adele Getty, Thames & Hudson, 500-5th Ave, NYC 10110, no date, but it looks recent I think Getty is an anthropologist. Brief, cogent history; lots of good photos. "The Goddess Re-awakeining" Shirley Nicholson compiler, Quest Books, Wheaton. 1989, An anthology "When God Was a Woman", Merlin Stone, Harcourt Brace, 1976 Thorough description of goddesses in ancient times. "The Once & Future Goddess", Elinor W. Gadon, Harper Collins 1989. This is a historical account from stone age to present day. Profusely illustrated. Some of the pictures are quite graphic. "Women oif Wisdom", Tsultrim Allione, Arkana Paperbacks - Routledge & Keegan Paul, 1994,6, biographies of 6 Tibetan female mystics. "Woman as Healer", Jeanne Achterberg, Shambalah Publishing, 1990, describes healers & their methods from ancient times to 20th cent. "Bodhisattva of Compassion, The Mystical tradition of Kuan Yin", John Blofield, Shambala Dragon Editions, Boston, 1988. Folk tales about Kuan Yin. "The Book of Goddesses & Heroines" Patricia Managhan, Lewelllyn Publications, St. Paul 55164, 1990, (first published by EP Dutton) over 400 pp. glossary of all the goddesses who've ever been in any culture. Hope this is helpful. Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 May 1995 22:01:01 -0400 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Researching Mother Goddesses Dear Nancy, I just replied to your request for Goddess books with a list, but addressed them to "Dear Grace" by mistake. Tried to recall the post but couldn't. Sorry 'bout that. So now it reads "Dear Grace" But it's meant for you. namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 May 1995 22:13:23 -0400 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Researching Mother Goddesses Dear Murray, I'm not Nancy, & I'm not doing research except for myself, but your list to Nancy contains info I'm vitally interested in about the World Mother & etc. I'd been bothering the Olcott Library for literature on theosophical Goddess figures, & from time to time, Karen R. mails me a xerox copy of something. I'm going to try to get some of the material from your lists from them, if they have it. The one about the development of the foetus I've read. Borrowed it again last year when Karen M. who was on the staff of Summerfield Village, where I live, was expecting. She's slightly clairvoyant & loved the book. Meantime, her Nicky had his first b'day this month. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 May 95 23:33:04 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Researching Mother Goddesses Nancy, I did an essay on the rising goddess awhile ago. I think I posted it on Theos-l, but can't recall when. It has several references including HPB. If you are interested, please let me know and I will send you a copy. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 01:15:52 -0400 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: JRC and Jerry S To JRC, By now, most of what you discussed in your post of 5-18 has been responded to very well by the others. I'd like to add just one thing... my picture of reality & maya. There must really be something out there. Just now, I think it's all vibes which aggregate in certain ways, & move so as to cancel each other out at times, & etc. ie they form diverse patterns. Since I used to think years ago that there were atoms out there, I may in the future think there's something other than vibes. Right now, I think it's vibes. These vibes and the patterns they make are transformed into signals I've learned to recognize by my eyes, ears, tongue, finger tips, intuition, higher self, microscope etc etc. What my sense organs tell me is what I perceive, & how I perceive it... even though I surmise there's really only aggregations of vibes out there sending out various stimuli. It is said that when I have learned enough wisdom to live in Nirvana I'll be able to perceive what is really there. It is said that this will be a capability of fully developed human beings These are the ideas I have evolved probably from several sources, but the one I remember is "Inner Peace Through the Process of Knowing" by Harry Van Gelder. What Harry writes is lots more detailed & complicated, because 1. he was a scientist and 2. he perceived lots more than I'll ever be able to. If anyone on this list is interested in following up on it, the Olcott Library has Harry's slender book, which contains a lot. I also have a copy I'd lend out, if someone wants to borrow it, & will be sure to return it. To Jerry S. Thank you for that beautifully thought through, & graceful post. Several comments - I think we =are= all bringing something to the group, and I for one am thoroughly enjoying our writings. At 1 point while we were discussing Karma, I started printing out everyone's posts, & putting them into a special folder. I'm hoping someone in the new Onondaga TS study group will enjoy reading them. At times, I too sound like I'm speaking from a soap box. We're all so sure that what we've learned about Theosophy is true, that we tend to sound very positive. I think we've got a right to be, as does every other person who has strong convictions, but we do call ourselves "Students" to sometimes remind us of the fact that we're only on the road to becoming Masters. I'm sorry, Jerry, if my quoting other people offends you. I have a thing about that, having been taught in school that it's not ethical to plagiarize. Most times I don't quote my sources directly, but rather an approximation consisting of what I remember & have learned from them; but I do like to acknowledge that what I'm saying is not quite original, because I'd feel guilty if I thought I were stealing someone else's ideas. Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 01:32:51 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Goddesses NAME: WMSPRT-L DESCRIPTION: This list is an open discussion for women and men interested in goddess spirituality, feminism and the incorporation of the feminine/feminist idea in the study and worship of the divine. ADDRESS TO SUBSCRIBE: LISTSERV@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU or LISTSERV@UBVM.BITNET or LISTOWNER: Gail Wood (woodg@snyalfva.cc.alfredtech.edu) STATISTICS: List announced 14/01/94. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 May 95 22:54:24 +1100 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: Researching Mother Goddesses ae677@lafn.org (Nancy Coker) writes: > > 5/20/95 > > > Does anyone have any recommendations for good books, movies, > magazines or whatever dealing with the Mother Goddesses. I'm > interested in exploring as many dimensions as possible -- > religious, archetypal, psychological, mythological, magical, > historical etc. > > I'll start with HPB and branch out from there. Any suggestions? > > Nancy Coker > ae677@lafn.org > P O Box C > Pasadena CA 91001 > 818 798 1070 I know so many, my mind has suddenly gone blank! :-) A couple of goodies are: two books by Alice O. Howell" The Web in the Sea: Jung, Sophia and the Geometry of the Soul", and "The Dove in the Stone." >From a somewhat different perspective: "The Black Goddess and the Sixth Sense" by Peter Redgrove. Somewhere in the chaos of our library there is also a commemorative calendar/book of days for major festivals of the Goddess in the Ancient world. (It was there I learnt that "Astrea's" (the real one) special day is my birthday - a bit of synchonicity for you.) Also, we had a book of sites of Goddess worship in Europe, but I think the Goddess has reclaimed that one :-). We also have one called "Sky Dancer" (I think) on the role of women, or more specifically Dakinis in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition - I know it's there somewhere! Then of course, there's the classic "The White Goddess" by Rober Graves. Cheers ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 May 95 23:05:40 +1100 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: Researching Mother Goddesses ae677@lafn.org (Nancy Coker) writes: > > 5/20/95 > > > Does anyone have any recommendations for good books, movies, > magazines or whatever dealing with the Mother Goddesses. I'm > interested in exploring as many dimensions as possible -- > religious, archetypal, psychological, mythological, magical, > historical etc. > > I'll start with HPB and branch out from there. Any suggestions? > > Nancy Coker > ae677@lafn.org > P O Box C > Pasadena CA 91001 > 818 798 1070 > It's me again. Found 'em! "Sky Dancer: The Secret Life and Songs of the Lady Yeshe Tsogyel" by Keith Dowman. "The Year of the Goddess: A Perpetual Calendar of Festivals " by Lawrence Durdin-Robertson. Pity they're both written by men, but never mind ... may be they are worshippers of Her. Another goody is "Priestess:The Life and Magick of Dion Fortune" by Alan Richardson. It's not about the Goddess, but does cast some light on woman's spirituality in the Western esoteric tradition. I can provide date, publisher etc if you're interested. ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 15:39:05 -0800 (PST) From: JSANTUCCI@CCVAX.FULLERTON.EDU Subject: Re: Researching Mother Goddesses Perhaps the one person who popularized the mother goddess in modern times was Marija Alseikaite Gimbutas, the late professor of archeology at UCLA. The books that she wrote that are of interest are THE CIVILIZATION OF THE GODDESS (San Francisco: Harper, 1991) and THE LANGUAGE OF THE GODDESS (SF: Harper, 1991). Going back to the 19th century, the one scholar who emphasized the the importance of the mother goddess (as distinct from the male sky god) was theSwiss anthropologist Johann Jakob Bachofen in his work DAS MUTTERRECHT. J. Santucci From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 18:43:58 -0400 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Theosophical library software Murray, I have installed several libray software systems in corporate libraries, academic and public. All were micro based except one. None was under $1,000. I would agree with Elizabeth Trumpler you will have to spend a little more than that to get a good software package. I would remind you that the vast majority of the "costs" associated with establishing a database are the hours and hours of data input someone will have to do. A common mistake is to spend thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, on an inexpensive database from which you can't get the data back out when it is time to move to something else. If there is no plans to share the data with other libraries then you can create your own with any of serveral database software packages off the shelf...and that's probably the only way you could do it for under $1,000. Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 May 95 20:45:51 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re to Liesel Liesel No, your quoting doesn't bother me a bit. I was referring to those whose repsonse is *only* one or more quotes. You always put your quotes in with your own words, which is pretty much what I try to do. We all *should* use quotes when others have said what we want to say. But if I ask a specific question, I usually am wanting someone's personal response rather than a "book" answer. But you are certaintly right that quoting is better than plagarizing. I don't want to point fingers, but Brenda was extremely good at giving me a lot of quotes when I really was wondering what she herself thought. (I do hope she reconsiders and comes back). Actually, I have enjoyed your Serge quotes because until you mentioned him and quoted him, I had never even heard of him. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 May 95 20:50:08 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: posts for posterity Liesel writes: > Several comments - I think we =are= all bringing something to the > group, and I for one am thoroughly enjoying our writings. At 1 > point while we were discussing Karma, I started printing out > everyone's posts, & putting them into a special folder. I've also been printing out posts and putting them a binder. Especially those that would somehow be useful for my writing. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 22:13:24 -0600 From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: posts for posterity Ann... What do you write? -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 17:48:21 +1200 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: posts for posterity Well, I'm another who prints out selected posts. And I think with delight of being able to search a directory full of posts from the past, extracted from the archive with the get command. I've already found it very useful when preparing to talk to a study group. Great stuff! Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 14:03:15 +1200 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: Researching Mother Goddesses Liesel said > Dear Murray, > > I'm not Nancy, & I'm not doing research except for myself, but > your list to Nancy contains info I'm vitally interested in about > the World Mother & etc. Great. Glad to be able to help. > The one about the development of the foetus I've read. Borrowed > it again last year when Karen M. who was on the staff of > Summerfield Village, where I live, was expecting. She's slightly > clairvoyant & loved the book. Meantime, her Nicky had his first > b'day this month. I imagine the ideas in the book heightened her sense of bonding with and appreciation of the incoming child being, not to mention Nature's processes. Geoffrey Hodson said he always kept in touch with the mother and child he describes in "The Miracle of Birth". Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 11:02:14 +1200 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: Researching Mother Goddesses Thanks for the list of Goddess-related books, Astrea. But apropos your > Pity they're both written by men, but never mind ... may be they > are worshippers of Her. I think most men are, though they mightn't know it - under several piles of garbage. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 09:09:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Olcott Library Subject: Re: Theosophical library software > Murray, > > ... I would remind you that the vast majority of the "costs" > associated with establishing a database are the hours and hours > of data input someone will have to do. A common mistake is to > spend thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, on an inexpensive > database from which you can't get the data back out when it is > time to move to something else. > > If there is no plans to share the data with other libraries then > you can create your own with any of serveral database software > packages off the shelf...and that's probably the only way you > could do it for under $1,000. > > Lewis > Yes, Lewis -- you are absolutely correct about this. Also, the data keyed in with those little homegrown systems are usually frought with errors and misconceptions about "how to catalog" so that the identity of any book may not be obvious from the description in the record. In the end it is necessary to go back to the book itself to determine the "right" (i.e. appropriate) record for that book, when you search for it in a national or international database. I know, because that's what we are going through here at the Olcott Library. So far, our "hit rate" of finding records for our books in the OCLC database is above 95% (but we aren't finished yet by far!) The labor we are putting into this project consists of taking books off the shelf, searching for the matching OCLC record, and keying the OCLC record number into a special program which will be used by OCLC to batch-extract the records identified by us. The records we receive contain our own call number, barcode, and shelf location information (which of course we need to enter in along with the record number at the beginning-- most of it is "wanded in" with a pre-programmed barcode reader). The project will probably take about two years, but when we are done, our records will be compatible with those of other libraries and information can be shared easily, and loaded into almost any library program available on the market. The library program determines how the records are searched and displayed. Elisabeth Trumpler From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 07:55:52 -0700 From: ae677@lafn.org (Nancy Coker) Subject: Researching Mother Goddesses 5/23 THANK YOU :) THANK YOU :) THANK YOU :) Yum. Yum. Yum. Thank you for all your suggestions. I 'll be burying myself into the subject for a while, so do think of me again, if you hear a song, see a movie, read an editorial or book, on this subject. Once I'm more familiar with the background, (through other people's research), I'd like to become more conscious of the foreground (where they might be peeking out at us through pop (or unpop) culture). Nancy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 May 95 08:56:38 PDT From: naftaly@mdd.comm.mot.com (Naftaly Ramramkar) Subject: Re: Researching Mother Goddesses Hi There In Theosophy the Mother Goddess is known as World Mother. It is along the angelic line of evolution. You will find lot of references to this in Blavatsky's books and Beasant-Leadbeater's writings. Esoteriv writing of Swami Subba Row has a chapter on this issue. Also lot of refrences in Geoffry Hodson's Writings including Kingdom of the Gods. Have fun Naftaly.. > 5/20/95 > > > Does anyone have any recommendations for good books, movies, > magazines or whatever dealing with the Mother Goddesses. I'm > interested in exploring as many dimensions as possible -- > religious, archetypal, psychological, mythological, magical, > historical etc. > > I'll start with HPB and branch out from there. Any suggestions? > > Nancy Coker > ae677@lafn.org > P O Box C > Pasadena CA 91001 > 818 798 1070 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 May 95 11:37:07 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Re:re: posts for posterity JRC My big project is a fiction work about illusion. It's set in this time frame with an emphasis on fantasy and characters in the media. Underlying it all is the theme of spirit coming into matter, becoming bogged down by it, learning from it and emerging with knowledge. Spirit is embodied as a woman who becomes enamored with her own celibrity status, which proves to be her downfall. It has taken me years to learn to write and I'm still learning, along with finding a style. I read somewhere "that you'll know you are a writer when you'll feel you will die if you don't tell your story." I would say that sums up this project for me. I also have written some straight reporting stuff for a Liberal Catholic newsletter, but that isn't anywhere as difficult as writing fiction. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 May 95 12:14:24 -0700 From: eldon@deltanet.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Calvin and Hobbes There's a great strip of Calvin and Hobbes in today's newspaper. It seems at home with our various discussions. Frame 1: Calvin: "I'm a great believer in the value of novelty." Frame 2: Calvin: "I say anything *new* is *good* by definition! It can shock, insult, or offend me, so long as it doesn't bore me!" Frame 3: Calvin: "If you can't give me something new, then repackage the old so it *looks* new! Novelty is all that matters! I won't pay attention if it's not fresh and different!" Frame 4: Hobbes: "I see why timeless truth doesn't sell." Calvin: "Give me a good flash in the pan any day." ---- Sound familiar? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 14:24:16 -0600 From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: Calvin and Hobbes >There's a great strip of Calvin and Hobbes ... Yes! But as an old political wit once said, a conservative is someone who worships a dead radical. :-) -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 20:04:59 -0400 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Re to Liesel Jerry S. Thanks for your reply. I too would like it if Brenda would come back. She sounded from the little I read of hers as if she had something to contribute. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 20:34:01 -0400 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Calvin and Hobbes Eldon, that's. funny! Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 May 95 20:57:06 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: judy cilcain Judy A. Cilcain: > curious when I saw your posting to theos-l regarding "reporting > stuff for a Liberal Catholic newsletter." Would this be Ubique? I > am deaconess at St. Francis LCC in MN and have had a few things > published in Ubique myself (other than the quarterly church > reportings). My last was a sermon wherein I stated my firm > belief that the Holy Ghost is female. Before that I did an > article about the LCC deaconesses in this country. What church > are you affiliated with? I've never submitted anything to Ubique. I am the editor and a contributor to Chicago's St. Francis newsletter. It comes out three times a year, coinciding with Easter, Christmas and the feast of the Assumption of Our Lady. As a matter of fact, I've been thinking about the August issue and been wondering where I might find material such as the type you wrote or something pertaining to Our Lady. I don't think I've seen the articles you mentioned, but maybe you could tell me what issues they were in. If I don't have them, I can try to find some back issues at church. I will also send you a few copies of our newsletter, so you can get an idea of what your "sister" church is about. As for the Holy Spirit being female, I've ALWAYS thought that was a given! - ann Send private email to "Ann E. Bermingham"72723.2375@compuserve.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 13:00:14 +1200 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: Re to Liesel Can I just say that I'd like Brenda to come back too? I remember a couple of her posts just after I joined the list, and would very much like to see her colour in the many-hued rainbow of our list again. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 20:19:13 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Theosophical library software Olcott Library: Please excuse this ignoramus: what does "OCLC record" stand for? AB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 20:25:02 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Researching Mother Goddesses > Another goody is "Priestess:The Life and Magick of Dion Fortune" > by Alan Richardson. It's not about the Goddess, but does cast > some light on woman's spirituality in the Western esoteric > tradition. > > I can provide date, publisher etc if you're interested. > > ASTREA Yes please on this one! My very first Qabalist study was her "Mystical Qabalah" - it is still a classic. I have read everything so far published that was written by her (I think) but did not know about this ?biog. Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 18:23:13 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: "Holy Ghost" Ann and Judy: Verily, the "Holy Ghost" in the earliest Christian tradition is undoubtedly "she." The language of the first Christians [before anyone had thought to call them such] was almost certainly Aramaic, the language of Jesus and the territories of the Holy Land in his time. The first church headed by James [Jacob] at Jerusalem after the crucifixion would have used this language, in which the word for "Spirit" is "Rucha" - a feminine noun, as is "Ruach" in Hebrew. The theology that went with this migrated to the East, ie. the Persian Empire, where Aramaic was the _lingua franca_ of the region, just as Greek was in the West. It was perpetuated by the Syrian Church (Syriac being another term for Aramaic). The original Church of the East had its scriptures entirely in Aramaic, and its remnant church still does. This is know as the "Peshitta" (Simple, True) text. I have a copy of the NT in this version. They are mostly Nestorians, and therefore "Heretics" in the catholic traditions. For LCC bishops up to 1985 see my "Bishops Irregular, a Directory of Independent Bishops." For Early Church origins see my "The Nazarenes" (1989). [Ask by private e-mail for more info - the latter is available in ascii text]. Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 07:13:06 -0700 From: ae677@lafn.org (Nancy Coker) Subject: Researching the Mother Goddesses Resending 5/25 5/23 THANK YOU :) THANK YOU :) THANK YOU :) Yum. Yum. Yum. Thank you for all your suggestions. I 'll be burying myself into the subject for a while, so do think of me again, if you hear a song, see a movie, read an editorial or book, on this subject. Once I'm more familiar with the background, (through other people's research on the Mother Goddesses), I'd like to become more conscious of the foreground (where they might be peeking out at us through pop (or unpop) culture). Nancy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 19:29:13 -0400 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Thoughts on Karma > (3) Karma is an undeviating and unerring tendency > in the Universe to restore equilibrium, and it > operates incessantly. > > I personally like this definition of Karma as a > balance of opposing forces (both cosmic and > personal). Carl Jung describes the psyche as a > field in which libido (psychic energy) seeks a > balance between opposing forces such as spirit and > instincts. I wonder if this is only a prepartory step. The need for a well balanced personality to provide the necessary calm in body, mind and spirit to make possible the expression of our inner/higher conscious self. It reminds me of the analogy of the calm mountain lake that reflects the stars above. We being the "field" or medium in or upon which karma acts to create a calm lake. > This definition helps us see Karma in > terms of psychology and physics (where entropy > also seeks a balance). It seems to me one of the basic tenets of the theosophical movement was that science, religion and philosophy had failed to solve the riddle of existence. Science was becoming more and more materialistic. Religion had lost the esoteric keys to its scriptures and had fallen into a dead-letter interpretation, and philosophy was stuck in an endless chase of its own tail! If we are willing to accept such premises then shouldn't what these discplines have to offer be held up against the ancient wisdom rather than the other way around? I guess what I am trying to say is I am much more sceptical of the tenets of science and religion than I am of theosophy because the lines of inquiry suggested by theosophy offer (at least to me) a much better chance of solving the riddle of existence. Sorry, Jerry this probably doesn't have much to do with what you said just came to mind as was reading your post. Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 20:12:45 -0400 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Researching Mother Goddesses Nancy wrote: > Does anyone have any recommendations for good books, movies, > magazines or whatever dealing with the Mother Goddesses. I'm > interested in exploring as many dimensions as possible -- > religious, archetypal, psychological, mythological, magical, > historical etc. My wife was just reading to me from a book by Jean Bolen, Goddess in Every Woman, that sounds very interesting. She uses the Greek goddesses as archtypes of psychological patterns and behaviors. Mary Gayle Floden will be using Bolen's book as the basis for a worshop at Stil-Light on Father's Day weekend for women only. Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 03:44:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Olcott Library Subject: Re: Theosophical library software On Wed, 24 May 1995, Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > Olcott Library: > > Please excuse this ignoramus: what does "OCLC record" stand > for? Alan: Here's some background on OCLC (this is NOT about theosophy, so anyone who's not much interested in library technicalities can skip this): OCLC stands for "Online Computer Library Center." It is located in Dublin, Ohio (suburb of Columbus) and has the largest database of library cataloging records (over 33 million) in the world. It was established in 1967 as "Ohio College Library Center" and was originally intended only for libraries in Ohio as a shared online catalog. Because it was so successful, libraries in other states begged to join, and around 1972 they began to accept other libraries as members. In 1977, the governance of OCLC was changed to include libraries outside Ohio, and in 1981 the name was changed to "Online Computer Library Center." In the mid-1980s, libraries in foreign countries joined, first the British Library and some German libraries. Today, OCLC serves 18,000 libraries in 52 countries. It is the world's largest and most comprehensive database of bibliographic information. Practically every library of any standing in the US is a member or has access to OCLC. The Olcott Library joined OCLC in 1994. The foundation of OCLC's services is its Online Union Catalog, containing the merged catalogs of libraries around the world. It can be accessed in a variety of ways for cataloging, interlibrary loan, serials holding information, and reference services. Access is by password only. Catalogers in libraries access the database to find appropriate records that describe the books they own. There is a fee to search and export the records, and to attach the library's holding symbol (to tell the other libraries that they own this title). If a record cannot be found for an item, a cataloger with authorization can create a record and enter it into the OCLC database, to be shared by others (we earn credits for doing this). The OCLC database includes all machine-readable cataloging records ever created by the Library of Congress and by the British Library. OCLC provides a wide variety of services which are related to its large database. Two of its major reference services are EPIC and FirstSearch, both of which include access to other databases as well as OCLC's own union catalog, now called "WorldCat." Any further questions? (This is probably more explanation than you were asking for, and I don't think you are and "ignoramus" for asking.) Elisabeth Trumpler From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 May 95 15:39:10 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re to Lewis Lewis: True during the last quarter of the last century when HPB wrote all of her works (Judge as well). Science was as dogmatic as religion in those days. The US patent office, for example, closed up saying that there was nothing left to invent. Scientists were certain that with just a few more equations they could fully comprehend the universe. Then, along came Einstein with his energy=matter equation, and then Bohr and his quantum mechanics all conspired to knock the wind of the the sails of science. Then Godel showed the limitations of mathematics, and if this wasn't enough, chaos and complexity theories came along to say that the small fudge factors used for years in differential equations could no longer be ignored; that chaos was alive and well and that complex systems encounter strange attractors. All in all, the 20th century did almost a 180-degree turn in the field of science. Today's scientists are no longer dogmatic. They all freely admit that our world is a lot more complex than they had thought, and are no longer so smug about knowing everything. Chaos theory (the fact that relativity and chaos are still "theories" shows just how much science has been affected by the shocks to its collective ego in this century) for example, has expanded the definition of entropy so that it now can be used with open systems, and all living systems are open. So, the atmosphere surounding the scientific community is vastly different today from what HPB confronted. Now, science has yet to solve the riddle of existence, but it is not as materialistic as it used to be. However, it still won't admit to higher planes except in the mathematical sense and prefers to limit its observations to the physical plane (except the concepts fields, morphic-resonances, and quantum electro-dynamics which sometimes talks about particles going backward in time, and other weird subjects, which make some scientists stop and think a little). Lewis: Unfortunately, these are still probably true today. But in fairness to philosophy, tail chasing is the natural condition of the human mind. Also, the concept of religion has expanded today because we can now include Tibetan and Zen Buddhism, which were little known in HPB's day. Maybe you mean Christianity here? Lewis: This is pretty much a subjective call. As theosophists, I suspect that this is exactly what we tend to do. But because science has changed so much, and psychology (which for all practical purposes did not exist in HPB's day) has come into its own, I think that comparing the latest findings of science against the ancient wisdom is fair. But I have nothing against going the other way around either. Remember, many of today's scientists would probably agree with most of the arguments HPB used against the leading scientists of her day (dogmatism, elitism, etc.). Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 26 May 95 13:57:00 PDT From: "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ" Subject: RE: Re to Lewis Jerry:<> Just to add to you statement, in my association with a student of CWL, whose background was in Engineering, we would use the term dimensions instead of planes when describing the various levels. Since my background is also in science this made it easier to understand. As a three dimensional object like an apple when sliced in half expose a two dimensional surface, one can see that if the slice was made at a different spot the surface would be different. Therefore with an infinite possibility of two dimensional reflections (or slices) of the three dimensional object. If I can carry this analogy further we can speak of the three dimensional physical, the four dimensional Astral and the five dimensional self (the higher mind versus the four dimensional lower mind from "At the Feet of the Master" by Alcyone.) And therefore as in the case of the Apple the lower dimension are possible reflections or manifestations of the higher ones. An example might be a thought that troubles you to the point of worrying then causing emotions and eventually manifesting as an ulcer. Here is a possible example of going from thought, to emotion and finally to the physical. Thanks for the historical recap, I feel it is important to know the history of how things came about to put things in perspective. Nick P. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 16:17:00 -0400 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re to Lewis Lewis: True during the last quarter of the last century when HPB wrote all of her works (Judge as well). Science was as dogmatic as religion in those days. The US patent office, for example, closed up saying that there was nothing left to invent. Scientists were certain that with just a few more equations they could fully comprehend the universe. Then, along came Einstein with his energy=matter equation, and then Bohr and his quantum mechanics all conspired to knock the wind of the the sails of science. Then Godel showed the limitations of mathematics, and if this wasn't enough, chaos and complexity theories came along to say that the small fudge factors used for years in differential equations could no longer be ignored; that chaos was alive and well and that complex systems encounter strange attractors. All in all, the 20th century did almost a 180-degree turn in the field of science. Today's scientists are no longer dogmatic. They all freely admit that our world is a lot more complex than they had thought, and are no longer so smug about knowing everything. Chaos theory (the fact that relativity and chaos are still "theories" shows just how much science has been affected by the shocks to its collective ego in this century) for example, has expanded the definition of entropy so that it now can be used with open systems, and all living systems are open. So, the atmosphere surounding the scientific community is vastly different today from what HPB confronted. Now, science has yet to solve the riddle of existence, but it is not as materialistic as it used to be. However, it still won't admit to higher planes except in the mathematical sense and prefers to limit its observations to the physical plane (except the concepts fields, morphic-resonances, and quantum electro-dynamics which sometimes talks about particles going backward in time, and other weird subjects, which make some scientists stop and think a little). Lewis: Unfortunately, these are still probably true today. But in fairness to philosophy, tail chasing is the natural condition of the human mind. Also, the concept of religion has expanded today because we can now include Tibetan and Zen Buddhism, which were little known in HPB's day. Maybe you mean Christianity here? Lewis: This is pretty much a subjective call. As theosophists, I suspect that this is exactly what we tend to do. But because science has changed so much, and psychology (which for all practical purposes did not exist in HPB's day) has come into its own, I think that comparing the latest findings of science against the ancient wisdom is fair. But I have nothing against going the other way around either. Remember, many of today's scientists would probably agree with most of the arguments HPB used against the leading scientists of her day (dogmatism, elitism, etc.). Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 20:01:05 -0400 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: re: Re: Thoughts on Karma Dear Lewis. I thought your post of 5-25 was really well done. I particularly like your last 2 paragraphs. I'd forgotten that I too had turned to Theosophy for answers, because I too had found that "science had become .... materialistic, Religion ... had fallen into a dead-letter interpretation, & philosophy ... was chasing its own tail.'" Also, your last paragraph goes very well with what several of us have stated lately, namely that as we studied Theosophy, we found that we can always count on its showing us a good Way and an giving us good answers for whatever is happening in our lives. And so, you're absolutely right, we should hold the other disciplines up against what we've learned of the ancient wisdom, rather than the other way around. Bravo. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 21:02:13 -0400 (EDT) From: IXCHEL@delphi.com Subject: For Goddesses only! Normally I don't give the Goddess much thought. Maybe I think it's sexist to do so. I think of Gods and Goddess and men and women as equals with different attributes. I know I'm not alone in this thinking. Anyway, I woke up the other day thinking about the topic on the net: "In Search of the Goddess for Nancy", and suddenly I realized that my e-mail ad- dress, Ix Chel (pronounced: e-shell), is the Maya Moon Goddess of ancient Mexico. Maybe I was previous- ly in denial. There are only three surviving Maya books in the world, since all the rest were burned. But the legend of the Moon Goddess remains very strong. Her story is retold time and time again when it is woven into the indigenous daily costumes of the remote Highlands of Chiapas, Mexico. Many more people are familiar with this area nowadays, since the political trouble put Chiapas on the map. Present day Maya women weave their own clothing from cotton thread or home spun wool. It is said that a Maya woman dreams a dream. The next day she sets up her loom. She uses the ancient geome- tric Maya symbols to tell her story. She weaves her dream into the material world of cloth which will later become a vestment of protection, warmth and beauty for the wearer. Her traditional blouse is cal- led a Huipil (pronounced: we-peel). It is rectangular in shape and has a square hole in the middle for the head to pass. When the women places the Huipil over her head to come to rest upon her shoulders, she con- siders herself to be at the center of the cosmos. The ever present diamond symbol pattern of brocade called the Grand Design surrounds her, with the four points of the diamond shape representing the four corn- ers of the heavens: North, South, East and West. In essence the Huipil is a map of the universe itself. Ancient Maya cosmology remains today, recorded contin- ually in the Maya traditional costume. Most weavers do not understand the geometric language they weave, but they learn to master weaving as an art form which secretly holds the legends of their past. The Maya Moon Goddess represents fertility. That is why the toad is a symbol of the woman and is a popular theme in the Huipil. Ix Chel is also the Goddess of weaving and the healing arts. According to legend the Moon was the consort of the Sun. The Sun God got jealous because the Moon Goddess was unfaithful. She was weaving rela- tionships with all the other planets. The Maya of Guatemala only weave remnants of their ancient symbolic language. Remember in the 60's when the hippies wore colorful cotton ikat shorts and shirts? The figure of Ix Chel is woven on just about every garment ever sewn. She stands among the corn (also woven into the fabric) in the cornfield. It is imperative that she be there insuring the fertility of the harvest. The Maya are superstitious, and must have their Goddess nearby for protection. Actually, Ix Chabel Yax was the first weaver. She is always pictured with a snake on her head. She is ugly, and is the wife of the Creator of the universe, Itzsam Na. Ix Chel was more attractive and had a baby strap- ped to her back. That is why I picked Ix Chel for my business logo when I worked among the Maya. All that I have said is from memory. There were lots of stories floating around among the many anthropologists. I am not an anthropologist, but I used to think the indigenous women I worked with were. I think they had great fun studying us foreigners among them. I had some time off, and so I wrote these memories down. I'm not sure if this fits on the theos-l, but maybe a Goddess or two out there might find it an amusing story. Sarah....... From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 21:45:46 -0400 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Added Dimensions/Densities Hi, Sy Re the various bodies, which Harry called "fields", having always one more dimension, I can fax you a chart he has in his book "Inner Peace through The Process of Knowing, Essays in Metapsychology", but I think the writing explains more than the chart does. Leafing through it, I'm thinking that several sections of the slender book might interest your "Esoteric Science" class. Harry was an engineer & an osteopath as well as a shaman. I own an extra copy of his book. I could mail it down, if you & your people would like to look at it. I'm just at random looking at a page, and note that some of what I didn't understand too well before, is beginning to make sense. Here's a piece of it: "One sees life, as demonstrated by physics, that there is constant expansion & contraction. This is due to the relativity of the developed and undeveloped potentials of functions within our consciousness. Consequently, one sees a great many perversions called "disease", "neuroses", or "psychoses". The theory of relativity applies to all phenomena, whether material or non-material; that which applies to science is often true in psychology. Manifestations are the result of unbalances. Absence of manifestation leads to cessation or collapse, temporarily, of the process of evolution. If there were no unbalances present in the human consciousness, then there would be no need for manifestation in the objective sense. "In the case of death, one can postulate that there is temporary suspension of manifestation by the law of entropy. The consciousness ceases to function through the physical and later the psychic media. But as unbalances continue, sooner or later manifestation must occur again in space/time. ..." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 22:24:06 -0400 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: For Goddesses only! Dear Sarah, This Theosophical Goddess loves anthropological stories. I'm trying to recall what it says about the Mayans in "The Story of Antlantis". I can't look it up, because I lent it to who knows whom. But I seem to remember that the Mayans are remnants either of Atlanteans or post Atlanteans. It's perfectly theosphical. We study all religions. Your post gave me an ideas for a future program for my incipient study group. Story telling is all the rage, so wouldn't it be fun for everyone to bring in & tell a myth concerning a subject agreed upon ahead of time, like the different chief god(desse)s & what they did, or etc. Thanks Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 May 95 14:37:39 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Goddesses Only Thank you, Sarah, for sharing your stories about the Moon Goddess with us. I'd never heard anything like that and really enjoyed them. Last night I saw a play at the Goodman Theater in Chicago in which Kwan Yin (one of my all-time favorite goddesses) had an important part in the story. Throughout the entire play she was inspiring a group of Buddhists monks on their pilgrimage to the Western heaven. The actress, in full Chinese dress, would frequently stand behind one of the pilgrims and say something about what they should do next. The pilgrim/actor would repeat it right after her or they would say the lines together. This gave me the impression that Kwan Yin was being protrayed as the spirit of the feminine divine that comes as intutional thought. They play was taken from an English translation of 16th century Chinese Buddhist texts. The translator is a professor at the University of Chicago and it took him 13 years to do the translation. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 May 95 14:50:55 EDT From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@compuserve.com> Subject: Additional Major Arcana of the Tarot I have a copy in French of " Les Tresors du Tarot: Acces aux Mysteres du Cosmos" and "Fragments de Gnose: Bases de L'Esoterisme" by Nicolas Tereshchenko (Both published by: Guy Tredaniel, 65 rue Claude-Bernard, 75005 Paris, France) , and I understand that the complete Tereshchenko work on Tarot is going to be published in English under the title "The Cosmos Tarot" (Publisher: Murray Wilson, 1280 M. Mt. Hermon Road, Scotts Valley, CA 95066). This work deals with the Tarot as a medium of learning and describes as well as the traditional arcana, 5 additional major arcana including the 23rd major arcanum, known as "The Drowned Sleeping Titan." This arcanum was previously unknown except by the high initiates of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, as mentioned but not illustrated in the Israel Regardie book ("The Complete Magical System of the Golden Dawn"). Tereshchenko shows a picture of this major arcanum as well as those of 4 additional major arcana and also proposes that the total number of major arcana should be 38, as is also being gradually found by other researchers. Does anybody know about these additional major arcana and/or have seen them in their meditations? If so, what can you say about them? Would appreciate any information. Thanks Sy Ginsburg From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 28 May 1995 13:08:03 +0800 (SST) From: Cleatus Fernandez Subject: re: Re: The Inner Life HI...... I just re-read the book by Charles W. Laedbeater after a long period... This second reading tinkers me for some pausible explanation on the paragragh I was reading.....And I sincerely hope I can get/derive some healthy discussion from it.... It is on page 137 - The Fear of Death (From the book The Inner Life).."The so-called loss of a loved one by death is really only a temporary absence, and not even that as soon as a man develops the power to see on the higher planes..........ansd as soon as we leave the physical vehicle in sleep we are with them and can communicate with them exactly as when they were on the physical plane.." The queries I hv are as follows : a) I thought the so-called dead persons on most cases will proceed on to higher planes for further enlightenment and has very little communication with man on earth ? It this true and how can one reconcile with the above para.. b)How is that when we are at sleep, we can communicate with the oved ones as we do in the physical plane and yet not able to retrace a single venet after that ? c) Can someone tell me how can I develop the faculty to recall the impressions of most incidents during sleep...? And how can we will ourselves if we so desire to communicate with the loved ones...? d) Finally, can anyone give me guide to where I can find the book called "The divine art of Meditations" By (I don't really know the author) Ant help on these areas (Meditations) books, on-line articles, usergroups etc...willne appreciated ? Thanking you in advance.....and cheers..... So MOte It Be..... Cleatus Fernandez ( Cleatus@technet.sg) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 28 May 95 20:10:49 +1100 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: Brenda's return "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"@vnet.net writes: > Can I just say that I'd like Brenda to come back too? > > I remember a couple of her posts just after I joined the list, > and would very much like to see her colour in the many-hued > rainbow of our list again. > > Murray Brenda! Come back! All is forgiven! (I wonder if she knows...) :-) ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 28 May 95 20:20:51 +1100 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: Researching the Mother Goddesses ae677@lafn.org (Nancy Coker) writes: > burying myself into the subject for a while, so do think of me > again, if you hear a song, see a movie, read an editorial or > book, on this subject. Once I'm more familiar with the > background, (through other people's research on the Mother > Goddesses), I'd like to become more conscious of the foreground > (where they might be peeking out at us through pop (or unpop) > culture). I like "Hymn to Her" (I think it's called) by the Pretenders. ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 28 May 95 20:13:05 +1100 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: Dion Fortune guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) writes: > > > Another goody is "Priestess:The Life and Magick of Dion Fortune" > > by Alan Richardson. It's not about the Goddess, but does cast > > some light on woman's spirituality in the Western esoteric > > tradition. > > > I can provide date, publisher etc if you're interested. > > > > ASTREA > > Yes please on this one! My very first Qabalist study was her > "Mystical Qabalah" - it is still a classic. I have read > everything so far published that was written by her (I think) but > did not know about this ?biog. > > Alan. Yes, this one might interest you: the title and author are as above (so below:) published by the Aquarian Press, 1987, ISBN 0-85030-461-X. In the afterwword, the author says he felt Dion's presence during writing some books, and he had intense and lucid dreams about her on many occasions where she gave him information he was looking for. ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 28 May 1995 23:18:53 -0400 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: re: Re: The Inner Life Dear Cleatus, Those are difficult questions you ask. I have sort of answers to a.) and b.,). Maybe someone else has some others. a.) I've heard it both ways. I've heard that communication is easier with newly dead, than with people who died a long time ago. I've also heard, or read that communicating with people on higher levels depends on how well the person in the body can raise his consciousness. b.) It is said that some people do remember communicating with loved ones on the astral. I can't. I don't remember a thing. Shanti Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 28 May 95 23:17:33 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re to Sy on Tarot Sy: < Tereshchenko shows a picture of this major arcanum as well as those of 4 additional major arcana and also proposes that the total number of major arcana should be 38, as is also being gradually found by other researchers.> Any reason for the number 38? The rationale of the Tarot card deck is that its structure mirrors that of our universe. Traditionally, this structure includes 22 cards simply because there are 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet and I believe the Qabala mentions 22 paths on the Tree of Life somewhere. I am not familiar with any extra trump cards (which would indicate additional subtle regions in the invisible worlds that surround us). My Enochian Tarot deck has 30 cards in the major arcana because Enochian Magic has 30 Aethyrs or subtle regions linking the divine with the physical. So, my deck has 8 additional trump cards and gee, 30 and 8 add to 38. In Enochian gematria, the words OL (to make) and LO (first) are both 38. Also, if we use theosophic reduction (Where did this technique ever get this name?) we see that 30 (the number of Aethyrs) and 21 (the number of letters in the Eno alphabet) both reduce to 3, the number for manifestation. Also, the Enochian letter F is 3, and F means to visit. So the Enochian system is numerically consistent and gematrically sound. The 22 paths and Hebrew letters reduce to 4, the number for firmness and solidity, while 38 reduces to 2, the number for duality. With this in mind, I prefer 38 to 22, because the paths are all in duality but not all are terribly concrete. But to be fair to the Qabala, the 22 letters and 10 Sephiroth make 32 which reduces to 5, the number for a human being, which seems intrinsically nice. Does everyone follow me here? The idea that additional regions exist in the magical Universe that only the Adepts or highest Initiates know about is an old story. It can't ever be disproved, simply because the Magical Universe is so darned subjective that lots of regions can exist hidden to all but Initiates. Enochian Magic, for example, has 30 Aethyrs but also 4 Watchtowers with 256 vast regions in each, and 20 additional spiritual regions in the Tablet of Union. The amount of regions to explore in Enochian Magic is staggering, and would take an Adept most of her life to explore all of them. Anyone have a clue as to the number of Tarot decks on the market today? I know it is over 100, and probably over 200. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 00:50:39 -0500 (EST) From: John Mead Subject: mike G. address if someone has an up-to-date e-mail address for Mike G, --- please let me know. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 01:26:26 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Dion Fortune > > In the afterwword, the author says he felt Dion's presence during > writing some books, and he had intense and lucid dreams about her > on many occasions where she gave him information he was looking > for. > > ASTREA > Basil Wilby (aka Gareth Knight) told me he had the same sense of her overshadowing him when he was writing his 2-volume work on Qabalistic Symbolism - can't recall exact title. I too met her in a dream many years ago, where she gave me some very clear teaching [gulp] concerning Law. I saw her in the dream much as I later saw her picture in the waking state many years later. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 01:31:26 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: re: Re: The Inner Life > HI...... > I just re-read the book by Charles W. Laedbeater after a long > period... This second reading tinkers me for some pausible > explanation on the paragragh I was reading.....And I sincerely > hope I can get/derive some healthy discussion from it.... > > It is on page 137 - The Fear of Death (From the book The Inner > Life).."The so-called loss of a loved one by death is really only > a temporary absence, and not even that as soon as a man develops > the power to see on the higher planes..........ansd as soon as we > leave the physical vehicle in sleep we are with them and can > communicate with them exactly as when they were on the physical > plane.." > > The queries I hv are as follows : > > a) I thought the so-called dead persons on most cases will > proceed on to higher planes for further enlightenment and has > very little communication with man on earth ? It this true and > how can one reconcile with the above para.. This is true and does _not_ reconcile with the above, except when the circumstance concerns someone who has _recently_ moved on. This is certainly my experience over many years, as well as that of others I have worked with. Leadbeater seems to have had a desire to impress people with his self-perceived knowledge of things, and, I suspect, moved the facts around a bit sometimes to suit his purpose and appear more important, IMHO. No doubt his clairvoyant abilities worked for him just as he described them, but I believe he was mistaken is supposing that his _personal_ experiences were valid for everyone else. His _Science of the Sacraments_ is a good example of this. Having exercised the priestly ministry and observed the subtle levels at work during the sacraments of the Xtian church, I have seen a quite different picture from his which is probably valid only for me. As awareness of the subtler planes develops (if it does) then one can, I have found, contact the departed occasionally in the waking state, which is much clearer than in the dream world(s). Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 29 May 95 20:52:45 +1100 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: re: Re: The Inner Life Cleatus Fernandez writes: > a) I thought the so-called dead persons on most cases will > proceed on to higher planes for further enlightenment and has > very little communication with man on earth ? It this true and > how can one reconcile with the above para.. The person will probably move on to devachan within a period of time between months and many years, according to various factors which I don't even partially understand. In some cases, the shell is left behind, but for most people this rapidly breaks up into its components at that level. After this time, communication "through the veil" becomes very difficult indeed. > b)How is that when we are at sleep, we can communicate with the > oved ones as we do in the physical plane and yet not able to > retrace a single venet after that ? It is possible that Leadbeater experienced a lucid dream state in which he believed that he was in contact with deceased persons. It's actually a product of the seer's mind, but may appear to be a full and meaningful dialogue with those who have gone beyond. I have no evidence for this theory. > c) Can someone tell me how can I develop the faculty to recall > the impressions of most incidents during sleep...? And how can we > will ourselves if we so desire to communicate with the loved > ones...? Start by developing the technique of lucid dreaming. See books by Stephen LaBerge. Communicating with loved ones can occur in a lucid dream, and is emotionally as satisfying, although no new information will be exchanged, since you're really dealing with your projection of that person as expressed in your deepest memories. Most of what we consider the `person' (or mask) is gone very quickly after death. Even memories are given up (although still accessible through a kind of sympathetic vibration from the Astral Light), and Being (or Be-ness) abides. I might recommend trying to go beyond the images or memories one has of a loved one, trying to contact the divine centre or Silence within where we are all one, and work outwards, rather than looking for something that might be recognised as the last incarnation. Hope this helps, Paul Gillingwater From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 15:51:11 +0300 (EDT) From: Aki Korhonen Subject: Re: Egyptian nostalgia & Astrea's magazine Hello all. Sorry, my reply is bit late... On Wed, 17 May 1995, Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > When I was three years old the movie called "The Egyptian" was > released. It was taken from a book about Egypt at the time of > Ikhnaton. I saw clips of it on television and immediately began > to obsessively draw pictures from the film. When I was attending > the University of Illinois at Circle there was a walkway over the > campus that had tall pillars. That always reminded me of walking > into an Egyptian temple. I have to make a note. There is a famous Finnish novelist, Mika Waltari, who wrote a book with same name, "Sinuhe, The Egyptian". I wonder was your movie based on this same book. Regarding "Sinuhe" people wondered how Waltari managed to write so authentic novel, without too much historical study. I think there is something to do with Waltari's past lives. I have heard, that Mika Waltari went so deep in his book, that he lived in Egypt in his mind - he met at daytimes those people he wrote about etc. Peace. aki. akikorho@paju.oulu.fi Finland, Oulu. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 09:18:44 -0600 From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: Re to Sy on Tarot Jerry, I teach a course on Tarot called Tarot Traditions where I stress the importance of the creation of the Inner Tarot through meditation and study. Assuming that the images of the tarot are fundamentally universal archetypes I have no objection to a expansion or contraction of the images as long as what gets worked with is living. I have been sort of irritated by the reoccurance of a form of literalism that often comes up when individuals do not hold to their theories as metaphors for growth and equate the intellectual convolutions for hard "fact". This is one of the reason why I remain agnostic concerning the orgins or the precise esoteric schemata that lie behind the cards. Personally I tend toward a psychodynamic approach since I am probably more edept at that form. Below is a list of the books I have in my library on Tarot some are beginners stuff but I hope there are some people who find the list helpful. In the Spirit of the Tarot Fool, Arthur Paul Patterson Tarot Bibliography Ashcroft-Norwicki, Dolores. The Servants of Light Tarot. London: Aquarian/Thorsons., 1991. Campbell, Joseph & Roberts, Richard. Tarot Revelations. San Alselmo, California: Vernal Equinox Press., 1987. Compton, Madonna. Archetypes on the Tree of Life: Tarot as Pathwork. St. Paul, Minnesota: Llwellyn Publications., 1991. Connolly, Eileen. Tarot: A New Handbook for the Apprentice. North Hollywood, California: Newcastle Publishing Company Inc., 1979. Davis, Courtney. The Celtic Tarot. London: Aquarian/Thorsons., 1990. Eakins, Pamela. Tarot of the Spirit. York Beach, Maine: Samuel Weiser, Inc. 1992. Fairfield, Gail. Choice Centered Tarot. Smithville, Indiana: Ramp Creek Publishing., 1990. Fenton, Sasha. Super-Tarot: New Techniques for Improving Your Tarot Reading. London: Aquarian/Thorsons., 1991. Gad, Irene. Tarot and Individuation: Correspondences with Cabala and Alchemy. York Beach Maine: Nicholas Hays, Inc., 1994. Gerulskis-Estes, Susan. The Book of Tarot: Illustrated with the Morgan Greer Tarot. Stamford, CT.: US Games Systems Inc., 1981. Giles, Cynthia. The Tarot: History, Mystery, and Lore. New York: Paragon House., 1992. Gonzalez, Magda Weck & Gonzalez, J.A. Star-Spider Speaks: The Teachings of the Native American Tarot. Stamford, CT: U.S. Games Systems Inc., 1990. Gray, Miranda. Beasts of Albion: Using Ancient British Animal Guides for Self-Development. London: Aquarian/Thorsons., 1994. Gwain, Rose. Discovering Your Self Through the Tarot: A Jungian Guide to Archetypes and Personality. Rochester, Vermont: Destiny Books., 1994. Hoeller, A. Stephan. The Royal Road: A Manual of Kabalistic Meditations on the Tarot., Wheaton, Illinois: Quest Books., 1975. Jayanti, Amber. Living the Tarot: Applying an Ancient Oracle to the Challenges of Modern Life. St.Paul, Minnesota: Llewellyn Publications., 1993. Kaplan-Williams, Strephon. Dream Cards: Understanding your Dreams and Enrich Your Life. New York: Simon & Schuster., 1991. Knight, Gareth. The Magical World of The Tarot: Fourfold Mirror of the Universe. London: Aquarian Press., 1991. Knight, Gareth. Tarot and Magic: Images for Rituals and Pathworking. Rochester, Vermont: Destiny Books., 1991. Masino, Marcia. Easy Tarot Guide. San Diego, California: ACS Publication., 1987. Matthews, John and Caitlin. The Arthurian Tarot: A Hallowquest Handbook., London: Aquarian/Thorsons., 1990. Matthews, Caitlin. The Arthurian Tarot Course: A Quest for All Seasons. London: Aquarian/Thorsons., 1993. Matthews, Caitlin. The Celtic Book of the Dead: A Guide for Your Voyage to the Celtic Underworld. Toronto: Stewart House., 1992. Matthews, John and Caitlin. Hallowquest: Tarot Magic and The Arthurian Mysteries. London: The Aquarian Press., 1990. Nichols, Sallie. Jung and the Tarot: An Archetypal Journey. York Beach, Maine: Samuel Weiser Inc., 1990. Nobel, Vicki. Motherpeace: A Way to the Goddess Through Myth, Art and Tarot. San Francisco: HarperColins Publishers., 1982. Ozaniec, Naomi. The Element Tarot Handbook: Initiation Into the Key Elements of the Tarot. Rockport, MA: Element Books Limited., 1994. Pollack, Rachel. The Haindl Tarot: Vol.II The Minor Arcana. North Hollywood, California: Newcastle Publishing Inc., 1990. Pollack, Rachel. The Haindl Tarot: Vol.I The Major Arcana. North Hollywood, California: Newcastle Publishing Inc., 1990. Pollack, Rachel. Seventy-Eight Degrees of Wisdom - A Book of Tarot: Part 1 The Major Arcana. London: Aquarian Press., 1980. Pollack, Rachel. Seventy-Eight Degrees of Wisdom - A Book of Tarot: Part 2 The Minor Arcana and Readings. London: Aquarian Press., 1983. Pollack, Rachel. Tarot Readings and Meditations. London: Aquarian/Thorsons., 1990 Sams, Jamie. Sacred Path Cards: The Discovery of Self Through Native Teachings. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco., 1990. Sams, Jamie. The Sacred Path Workbook: New Teachings and Tools to Illuminate Your Personal Journey. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco., 1991. Sams, Jamie & Carson, David. Medicine Cards: The Discovery of Power Through the Ways of Animals. Santa Fe, New Mexico: Bear & Company., 1988. Sharman-Burke, Juliet & Greene, Liz. The Mythic Tarot: A New Approach to the Tarot Cards. New York: Simon & Schuster., 1986. Sharman-Burke, Juliet. The Mythic Tarot Workbook. New York: Simon & Schuster., 1988. Stewart, R.J. The Complete Merlin Tarot: Images, Insight and Wisdom from the Age of Merlin. London: Aquarian/Thorsons., 1992. Stewart, R.J. The Dreampower Tarot: The Three Realms of Transformation in the Underworld. London: Aquarian/Thorsons., 1993. Suster, Gerald. The Truth About the Tarot: A Manual of Practise and Theory. London: Skoob Books Publishing., 1990. Waite, A.E. The Pictorial Key to the Tarot: A Fully Illustrated Guide to What Tarot Is and How to Consult It. New York: Barnes and Noble., 1979. Wang, Robert. Qabalistic Tarot: A Textbook of Mystical Philosophy. York Beach, Maine: Samuel Weiser Inc., 1992. Wang, Robert. Tarot Psychology: Jungian Tarot Set Handbook & 78 Cards. Aitrang, Germany: Urana Virlags., 1990. Woudhuysen, Jan. Tarot Therapy: A New Approach to Self Exploration. Los Angeles, California: Jeremy P. Tarcher Inc., 1988. Zerner, Amy & Farber, Monte. The Enchanted Tarot. New York: St. Martin's Press., 1990. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 May 95 10:56:24 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: re: re: The Egyptian Aki Korhonen: > I have to make a note. There is a famous Finnish novelist, Mika > Waltari, who wrote a book with same name, "Sinuhe, The Egyptian". > I wonder was your movie based on this same book. Waltari was the author, but in the US they left off "Sinuhe". As I recall, it was about a man who became physician to the Pharoah Akenaton. > I think there is something to do with Waltari's past lives. I > have heard, that Mika Waltari went so deep in his book, that he > lived in Egypt in his mind - he met at daytimes those people he > wrote about etc. I believe this. When I am writing, there seems to be a separate universe in my mind and the more energy and attention I pour into it, the more real and alive it becomes. The characters seem to live beside you. Alex Haley, the famous American author who wrote "Roots", the saga of Africans taken to work as slaves in the Old South, told this story. While he was writing the book, he was on a boat and he was almost out of money. Standing on the deck at night, he despaired and thought about giving up on it. He said that all the characters, who were his ancestors, came to him and begged him to keep writing. The book was a bestseller and was later turned into one of most sucessful TV miniseries of all time. -ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 May 95 14:05:42 EDT From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@compuserve.com> Subject: Tereshchenko's Tarot Hi Jerry Schueler and others who are interested, Nick Tereshchenko is visiting me just now and has discussed with me his 2 books on Tarot in French, which is the reason for my query, as I had never heard of the additional major arcana other than in his books, and with his permission I decided to ask the Theos-L subscribers if anyone had any confirmation of these things, through meditation or otherwise. As he is very knowledgeable on Tarot, I have asked him to complete this message explaining the basis of his reasoning to assert that there are additional major arcana. Incidentally, are you the Gerald Schueler who is the author of "The Enochian Tarot" of which I have a copy? Sy Ginsburg Now here is Nick's reply: In the Tree of Life there are 22 traditional paths but also 16 hidden (?forbidden) ones, making 38 in all. The exoteric Hebrew alphabet has 22 letters, but this is an "intentional blind". On further study you find 5 additional "final" letters and that 7 letters (2 of them with final forms) are "double", that is have TWO quite distinct different sounds. Also VAV is used to represent 3 sounds. Added together these make 38. See my article (in English) in THE HERMETIC JOURNAL and in French in my book "FRAGMENTS DE GNOSE". It will appear in "THE COSMOS TAROT" when published in English. Also see article by Gary ROSS in TAROT NETWORK NEWS and my contribution to Newcastle's "NEW THOUGHTS ON TAROT." If you wish to write to me directly (I am not on INTERNET) my address is Nicolas Tereshchenko, 87 rue Vercingetorix, 75014 Paris, FRANCE. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 May 95 15:17:47 EDT From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@compuserve.com> Subject: Gurdjieff Hi Liesel and others who are interested, You asked me in an E-mail, "For what purpose are you studying Gurdjieff?" and I replied that I would send my answer to you on Theos-L in case anyone else would like to know. So, here it is. The Gurdjieff Study group which is one of some 20 plus study groups that we have at our Branch of the T.S. meets weekly. Very briefly, Mister Gurdjieff's basic Teaching is that man as he is at present is not what he can and should be because he is "asleep" and lives in a kind of dream-world in which he is not aware of his capacities and reacts to all stimuli as a machine does, without any real consciousness of his behaviour. The practical part of the Work (as the technique of becoming awake is called) is designed to get one really to know himself, starting right at the earthly level, that of one's planetary body. It consists, again very briefly, in becoming aware of the NORMAL sensation present in one's body and all its parts in its healthy everyday state; then in observing in a particular methodical way one's REactions to external events; and finally in bringing all one's centres into proper balance, so that in all circumstances it is the correct centre that responds to the need of the moment and initiates the right ACTION, not a merely mechanical REaction. The whole system is based on, and supported by, a Cosmology, somewhat simpler and less complex than the theosophical one, but which nevertheless explains clearly and effectively to me the laws of World Creation, World Maintenance and World Conservation. The primary purpose of meeting with other people on a regular basis (we meet weekly) is to exchange experiences and to check on certain exercises that we have attempted during the week when we are manifesting in ordinary life but in a special way so that we can be conscious of ourselves. The tool that we use is "ATTENTION." I have found indications of a similar technique in certain Eastern teachings such as those of Ramana Maharshi, but Gurdjieff brought it in a way that seems to me to be more useful for 20th century Western people. One of the confusing things when we approach Gurdjieff's teaching is that his own writings, with the exception of "Meetings With Remarkable Men", are written only for those who already know the elements of his ideas. Therefore, the ideas are usually approached through the writings of P.D. Ouspensky, who was arguably, Gurdjieff's most famous pupil, and are expressed in his "In Search of the Miraculous" and other works such as "The Psychology of Man's Possible Evolution." Another recommended introductory text written by a theosophist is Harry Benjamin's "Basic Self-Knowledge." At our Branch we have developed our own introductory workbook which we have published under the name "GURDJIEFF, A NEW INTRODUCTION TO HIS TEACHING." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 14:59:52 -0600 From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: Tereshchenko's Tarot Ok, since it is legit to add to the major arcana what are these new archetypes and what energies are they contributing to our consciousness? It is back to my previous post - do these things live or not and if they do how do you know if they are operative in our lives? Arthur Patterson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 17:14:09 -0400 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: re: Re: The Inner Life > > a) I thought the so-called dead persons on most cases will > > proceed on to higher planes for further enlightenment and has > > very little communication with man on earth ? It this true and > > how can one reconcile with the above para.. > > The person will probably move on to devachan within a period of > time between months and many years, according to various factors > which I don't even partially understand. In some cases, the > shell is left behind, but for most people this rapidly breaks up > into its components at that level. After this time, > communication "through the veil" becomes very difficult indeed. > > > b)How is that when we are at sleep, we can communicate with the > > oved ones as we do in the physical plane and yet not able to > > retrace a single venet after that ? > > It is possible that Leadbeater experienced a lucid dream state in > which he believed that he was in contact with deceased persons. > It's actually a product of the seer's mind, but may appear to be > a full and meaningful dialogue with those who have gone beyond. > I have no evidence for this theory. I have no evidence either, but I do recall an idea which may be related. The personality was described as like a cup of water which had been filled by the Higher/Inner Self. The cup, no matter how large and full, was still only a portion of this Self. Furthermore, that this Self was capable of filling other "cups", these being the thought forms created by others of us. Thus a Master could influence the student through this thought form if he had formed a clear mental image of the teacher. If this is true could those who have lost their physical vehicle still "talk" to us through these mental forms. Another interesting aspect of this whole idea was that we could grow/evolve as a result of the added opportunities such forms offered, so a person who had touched many peoples lives would have many for "cups" to work through. Lewis P.S. Thanks Jerry and Lisle for your comments on my previous post. llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 May 95 18:16:22 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: After-death communications > b)How is that when we are at sleep, we can communicate >with the oved ones as we do in the physical plane and yet >not able to retrace a single venet after that ? We can communicate with the recently dead in dreams. But after they leave kamaloka and enter devachan, communication is no longer possible. We can also communicate with them in meditation. The exoteric idea is that death only separates us from the lowest vehicles, such as the physical body and prana. The deceased goes to kamaloka which is on the astral plane (or whatever we want to call the next plane up). I believe that kamaloka lies between Globes C and E. To communicate, we need only drop off our physical body and prana (etheric body) and communicate via our astral body. But after the dead drop their astral components (emotions) they rise to devachan which, I believe, lies between Globes B and F. There, such communication is virtually impossible, because they become wrapted in a cacoon-like shell and dream heavenly dreams for a long time. Only Adepts can break through this shell. There are many magical rituals (some from ancient Egypt, such as Opening the Mouth) designed to allow us to break through this shell and permit communication. The human psyche is like a movie projector, and continually projects images. The shell of the devachani serves as a movie screen which receives the projected images. All of this is highly exoteric (by which I mean that it is actually a lot more complex then it seems on the surface) and can be found in most of the early theosophical writings. Both myself and my wife have had dreams where we met deceased persons. I met my brother shortly after his death, and am ashamed to say that the experience was so real, it scared me so much (because I knew that he was dead and that nevertheless he was right before me) that I woke in a cold sweat without talking to him. My experiences occured before coming into theosophy. With my acquired theosophic insight, I would hope to remain unafraid and communicate with such a one. Alas, I have not had a recurrence of this experience in the last 25 years. My wife almost died of an illness prior to meeting me. While lying in bed, she dreamed she met me, my family, and my family's house, as well as several deceased relatives. She correctly described them all to me when I brought her to the house on her first visit (before she met them physically) shortly before we were engaged. There are many kinds of dreams and some simply make mincemeat of time and space. > c) Can someone tell me how can I develop the faculty to > recall the impressions of most incidents during sleep...? There are lots of books around on this (and I have written a great deal about it in my own books). But I think that the first technique that anyone should work on here it to get a small notebook, and place it by your bedside together with a pencil. As soon as you wake up, write down what you remember of your dream. At first, you may not remember much, but in time you will be able to recall whole dreams. Everyone usually remembers the last dream they have before waking, for a few seconds. Also, you need resolve. Say to yourself just before falling asleep that you WILL remember your dreams when you awake. I don't want to bore everyone with the technical details of this, but trust me, it does work. Somehow the resolve, if sincere, will carry over to the morning and allow you to remember. But usually by the time we dress, we have forgotten - thats why it is important to write them down as soon as you wake, even before getting out of bed. After three years of doing this, I was able to remember my dreams without writing them down, and no longer do so. Alan: < No doubt his clairvoyant abilities worked for him just as he described them, but I believe he was mistaken is supposing that his _personal_ experiences were valid for everyone else.> This points out a perennial problem. We all tend to assume that we are just like veryone else. Jung developed most of his analytical psychology based on his own experiences. Pieget based his psychological stages from observations made on his own children. Freud based his psychology on only a handful of case studies, and so on. How can we tell when our experiences are real or are just projected visions? Perhaps one person's experiences are another persons hallucinations. Just as we have a personal and collective karma, so I believe, we have personal and collective (shared) experiences. Subject: Re to Arthur on Tarot Authur, I can see from your impressive list of book that you are well versed in Tarot. I wish that my own library had as many. I would only add two to your list, Crowley's Book of Thoth, and James Wanless' New Age Tarot (which describes the Thoth deck). I am currently working on a course paper that addresses Jungian symbolism of the tarot deck. Cynthia Giles (who is on your list) suggests that Jungian archetypes are in the major aracana cards. The symbolism in the minor arcana cards are more like Jung's 'signs' than archetypes. According to Jung, signs can be interpreted, while archetypes can never be fully interpreted. I am currently working on the idea of using Tarot cards during therapy. Some Jungian therapists are doing this successfully. The idea is to give the client three readings: at the beginning, middle, and end of therapy. Let the client interpret the symbols in their own way, and then discuss them just like dream symbols are discussed in Jungian dream analysis. Changes in the client's interpretation of any recurring symbols could indicate the effectiveness of the therapy. The assumption here is that a client will interpret the card symbolisms as they 'fit' with their current psychological or behavioral problem - the reason for their visit to the therapist. Any comments? Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 May 95 19:34:37 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re to Sy Sy: < Incidentally, are you the Gerald Schueler who is the author of "The Enochian Tarot" of which I have a copy? > Guilty as charged. My thanks to Nick Tereshchenko for his explanation. I would be interested to know his source for the 16 "hidden paths" (Qabala, some occult text, channeling?) The number 16 is especially interesting as it plays a very important role in Enochian Magic (as does the binary numbering system: 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, etc). Do these "hidden paths" refer in some way to the Qlippoth? Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 May 95 19:35:29 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: More on Tarot - Re to Arthur Arthur: First of all, I am not so sure that it is a given that additional trump cards are "legit." I doubt if traditionalists would ever accept them. The number of trump cards (and minor arcana cards too) depends on how you want to structure the universe. If you add cards, then you must also add regions somewhere in the universe. While this is easily done, it is not so easily accepted by the layman - those who read the Tarot cards or those who feel that tradition is important in the significance of symbolism. I feel that it is very legit for the Enochian Tarot, because the Enochian universe has a different structure from the Qabalistic universe. And, I did not make it up, but rather it was given to John Dee by Angels (and who am I to argue with an Angel?). According to HPB, monads that express themselves in our universe cannot skip any of the cosmic planes. So, we must express ourselves on each cosmic plane all the way down to the physical. I intepret this to mean that we have a part of ourselves in each major realm of the invisible universe - and a subtle body suitable for each cosmic plane. These are all "operative in our lives" to some extent. We are more than our physical body. So, we can assume that each Tarot card, or at least each major arcana card, represents both an external realm or deity, and an internal state or energy or force as well. When we look at a Tarot trump, we are looking at the symbols of both an external and an internal state of our being. The Empress is both a goddess and an archetype. The Hanged Man is symbolic of both an external event (the descent of the Silent Watcher or cosmic Christ) and an internal event (the sacrifice of our own spiritual state of bliss in order to take on physical manifestation). The Hierophant is both external Adept and inner divinity. And so on with all of the trump cards. The following is something that I wrote several yers ago on Tarot smbolism which some may find useful. SYMBOLS IN THE TAROT MAJOR ARCANA The Tarot cards were originated long before modern psychology. The designers, whoever they may have been, attempted to preserve key religious, sociological, and psychological processes and relationships, and yet had not the proper words in which to express their ideas. Their language was limited to expressing the experiences of the common man of those times. For example, the notion of ego and the subtle relationships between ego and the subconscious were totally unknown to the common man, and thus no words had been coined to express them. In short, their task was to preserve as well as to disseminate the esoteric ideas realized by the highest mind's of their day, but they had very limited exoteric means in which to work. Their answer to the problem was the use of symbols. H.P. Blavatsky expressed this process when she wrote, "The primative purity of a creed can become soiled; its apostles can degrade and soil it by the inevitable admixture of human element. But its symbolism as the concrete expression of some now lost idea of the founder, will survive forever." (COLLECTED WRITINGS, Vol XIII, page 300). Because the ancients couched their ideas in symbols, they have survived through the centuries. Unfortuneately, the meaning of many of the symbols used has either become lost over the long span of years, or has been changed in subtle ways. This has led to the many discrepancies that exist in the numerous Tarot books available today. Modern authorities each read into the symbols their own biases and views, and in some cases, have deliberately "refined" the cards to better reflect their own ideas. The main symbolism used in the Major Arcana cards are as follows: The Fool. The Marseilles shows the fool as a court jester holding a baton and standing near a cliff. This symbolism suggests silliness, but perhaps a deliberate silliness. The Waite deck (this is the popular name of the deck made famous by A.E. Waite) is more complex. It shows a young wanderer holding a rose and a walking stick, to which a bag is tied, walking off a cliff. A dog romps at his side. This suggests a happy and carefree attitude that could be dangerous. The Golden Dawn deck (this is the deck used by the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, and was probably created by one of its founders, McGregor Mathers) shows a naked child holding the reins of a wolf while plucking fruit from a tree. This symbolism, probably the most esoteric of any of the cards, suggests that the fool is innocence, and that pure innocence can check animal passions while surviving quite nicely on what nature provides. The Magician or Magus. The Marseilles deck shows a parlor magician going through a magic act of some kind with various `tools of the trade' on a table. This is the popular view of the magician; one who does sleight of hand, and who employs gimickery. The Waite and G.D. decks are a bit more sofisticated. They both show a true magician in robes, with his four traditional weapons: a sword, a wand, a cup, and a pantacle. The High Priestess. The Marseilles deck shows the goddess Junon (Juno), wife of the god Jupiter and a peacock. The more traditional goddess shown most other decks is Isis. The symbols here are lunar and suggest a lunar or occult vision (for example, the intuition as opposed to common sense). The Empress. Most all decks agree that this card is symbolized by a mature woman wearing a crown and seated on a throne. This suggests the feminine side of the psyche, perhaps the anima of Carl Jung, or any strong feminine authority. She is the archetypal mother, the ultimate feminine creator and provider. The Emperor. Most all decks agree that this card is symbolized by a mature man wearing a crown and seated on a throne. This suggests the masculine side of the psyche, perhaps the animus of Carl Jung, or any strong masculine authority. He is the archetypal father, the ultimate masculine creator and provider. The Hierophant. Like the Emperor, this card is usually shown as a mature man wearing a crown and seated on a throne. The Marseilles deck shows the god Jupiter. Some decks show this as the Pope or some other religious leader which clearly distinguishes the difference between the Hierophant and the Emperor; the former is religious while the latter is civil or social. The symbolism here suggests the conscience. The Lovers. The Marseilles deck shows Cupid about to shoot one of his famous arrows into a young couple. All decks show a man and woman together, and the general theme is love. This card suggests the union of opposites, especially masculinity and femininty, anima and animus. Cupid is the symbol of romance, but one that is usually governed more by emotions than by rational thought. The Chariot. Most decks agree that the main symbol of this card is a chariot. Usually a charioteer is also shown. The theme is powerful deliberate motion toward a fixed goal and thus a victory over space. The card symbolism suggests the spiritual impulse which sooner or later will drive man to seek his true nature. Justice or Adjustment. The main symbol for this card is a balance or scale used for measuring weight. The scale is held by a goddess who holds an upright sword. The symbolism represents karma, the law of cause and effect, which seeks a balance or moderation in all things. The Hermit. Almost all decks agree that the symbolism of the Hermit is an older man in a robe holding a staff in one hand and a lamp in the other. The lamp is a symbol of the inner light of truth. The theme here is the wise old sage, the inner guiding light of conscience illumined by the intuition. The Wheel of Fortune. The main symbol of this card is a wheel. The wheel is a symbol for cycles, and the card represents the law of cyclic manifestation. The original symbols of this card were meant to portray the doctrine of reincarnation, as well as other cyclic processes. Strength/Lust. Most cards use the symbol of the lion in this card. The lion as the "king of beasts" is a traditional symbol for strength. Some cards also show a man, while others show a woman, who is controlling the lion in some way. The theme here is controlled strength, or inner resolve that is directed toward a goal. The Hanged Man. The Hanged Man is just that, a man hanging upside down from a wooden scaffle of some kind, ususally in the form of a cross. Most cards show the man with his left leg bent to form a cross with his legs. The cross is the traditional symbol for sacrifice. The theme here is the deliberate undergoing of a selfless sacrifice, usually for the purpose of helping others. Death. Death is symbolized by a human skeleton. Sometimes the skeleton is shown holding a sickle to suggest that death levels all living beings. The theme is the process of death, which is an ending or completion of something that we have known. Death also implies change of some kind, a transformation. Temperance/Art. This card is usually depicted by an angel who is pouring water from one vase into another. The water is the "water of life" and its being poured suggests that a necessary change of some kind is taking place. The card symbols not only imply the skill or ability that is required to `get through' unwanted experiences, but those needed to turn such experiences to your advantage in some way. The Devil. The main symbol here is a devil. The Marseilles deck shows a stereotyped middle-ages Christian concept of Satan complete with horns and a forked tail. The Waite deck is much more refined, showing the stereotyped version of a devilish black magician. Most cards also show a naked man and woman chained to a block. The theme is Black Magick and the card suggest slavery or confinement. The symbolism strongly suggests the wrongness of an overinflated ego. The Lightening Struck Tower. Almost all decks agree on the basic theme of this card. A stone tower is shown being struck by a bolt of lightening with two people falling from the destruction. The card suggests bad karma of all kinds, but especially destruction and ruination. In at least one sense, the card represents the Fall of Man, because the lightening bolt is a symbol of an "act of God" that forces man to fall from his protective tower, itself a symbol of a spiritual environment, into an unprotected mortality. The Star. The main symbol here is a star. One or more stars is shown over the head of a goddess who is pouring water from two vases into a pool. The goddess is usually shown naked, although the Marseilles deck shows her partially clothed. She is Isis, the goddess of nature, and the waters are the Waters of Life. She is shown returning individual water into a collective pool, thus indicating that nothing in life is ever lost. The theme here is one of hope. The Moon. The main symbol here is the moon, and the cards of all decks amplify the lunar theme with various symbols usually associated with the moon. Most cards show two towers with a stream running between them to illustrate the idea of relationships. A scorpion, lobster, crayfish, or scarab, is often included to represent the forces of regeneration. One or two dogs or jackals are often shown to suggest the idea of the subconscious and the underworld. The theme here is the astral world, the realm of illusions and dreams. The Sun. The main symbol of this card is the sun which is almost always shown with extending rays, and sometimes with a face to suggest solar intelligence. The Marseilles deck shows a young couple together under a sun. The Waite deck shows a naked child riding a horse under a sun. The Golden Dawn deck shows two naked children holding hands under a sun. The sun, as the generator of light and heat, is the symbol for life and the forces of conscious creativity. Judgement. Most decks represent Judgement with an angel blowing a horn above a group of people. The heralding of a trumpet call as an act of divine judgement is suggested here. The Waite deck shows people standing in coffin-like boxes which suggest that an after-death judgement is implied. The Golden Dawn card shows people chest-deep in water implying a renewal or regeneration. The Universe. The last card of the Major Arcana includes the symbolism of the four animals of the Apocalypse and of the vision of Ezekiel. These are the bull, the lion, the eagle, and man. A naked woman stands within a circular wreath. In the Marseilles deck, this woman is the fourth animal, but in most decks she stands apart as a central figure. Her symbolism as the mother of the universe is clearly suggested in the Golden Dawn deck where the wreath is a ring of twelve globes which are obviously the twelve constellations of the Zodiac. The symbolism here suggests that this card includes the entire universe: the physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual planes of existence. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 31 May 95 10:59:29 EDT From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@compuserve.com> Subject: Tereshchenko's Tarot Hi Arthur Patterson and others, Nick Tereshchenko (my house guest) wishes to reply to yours of 30 May, so here is Nick: The shortest way to answer you is to refer you to the article of Gary ROSS in the TAROT NETWORK NEWS dealing with the additional Tarot Major Arcana proposed by me and others. He very ably compares them and deals with their similarities and differences. Also some of the answer is to be found in my contribution to Newcastle's "NEW THOUGHTS ON TAROT". For me the overall symbolism making up, and/or included in, the design of each arcanum is more important than its possible/potential "archetytpe", which is only a part of the significance of any arcanum or representation, be it called "Tarot" or by any other name, so long as it is a valid symbol or an arrangement of valid symbols, and not a personal fantasy, as some of the decks calling themselves "tarot" are. See also Sy Ginsburg's E-Mail of 30 May to Jerry Schueler and others interested. Nick Tereshchenko From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 11:35:35 -0600 From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: Re to Arthur on Tarot Dear Jerry, >I can see from your impressive list of book that you are >well versed in Tarot. Having the books is ok but really understanding the Inner Tarot and the way that it moves is a spiritual discipline. I get distracted from my Tarot work but it is becoming more integrated so that even when I am not paying attention to it the cards are at work. For instance, like most people lately, I have been feeling the pinch of cash. Just beneath this everyday reality is the four of Pentacles looking as anal as absolutely possible clutching his Pentacle to his chest and with a silly look on his face. Well that would be a way to reconfigure my psyche when I get into scarity. I see this fellow and then follow it up with an inner dialogue with the symbol, asking otherTarot figures to gather round to help the o'l four out. The resources brought to bear symbolically are wonderful - World Dancer with her evolutionary perspective, the king of Pentacle with his groundedness and many others encourage this scarcity based immoblized miser. What the four of Pentacles has learned is that he must be more generous and act in faith to move into the world with courage. >I wish that my own library had as >many. I would only add two to your list, Crowley's Book of >Thoth, and James Wanless' New Age Tarot (which describes >the Thoth deck). I must admit that I have heard of the books but for some strange reason I am scared to death of Crowley (The Beast 666 etc). Could be the power stuff or the sexual material? I just feel eery when I get near Crowley's material. Someday I know I must overcome this but for now I just note his work listen to what I can and try to be open. Somehow I think part of the fear comes from my fundamentalist past but at other times I see the wisdom of listening to hesitances. The unconscious knows more than I understand whether grounded in paranoia or wisdom. >I am currently working on a course paper that addresses >Jungian symbolism of the tarot deck. IMHO ,by far the best book on Jungian symbolism in the tarot is Sue Nichols Jung and the Tarot. > Cynthia Giles (who is >on your list) suggests that Jungian archetypes are in the >major aracana cards. The symbolism in the minor arcana >cards are more like Jung's 'signs' than archetypes. >According to Jung, signs can be interpreted, while >archetypes can never be fully interpreted. There might be some truth to that. But what I find is that the Ones tend to come pretty close to archetypal significance. Ace of Cups, Pentacles, Swords and Wands all represent he unmanifest kether of the suit. This hidden unmanifest has the quality of the unconscious. >I am currently working on the idea of using Tarot cards >during therapy. Some Jungian therapists are doing this >successfully. The idea is to give the client three >readings: at the beginning, middle, and end of therapy. >Let the client interpret the symbols in their own way, and >then discuss them just like dream symbols are discussed in >Jungian dream analysis. Changes in the client's >interpretation of any recurring symbols could indicate the >effectiveness of the therapy. The assumption here is that >a client will interpret the card symbolisms as they 'fit' >with their current psychological or behavioral problem - >the reason for their visit to the therapist. Great idea. I have used the cards in a story telling manner which of course evokes the unconscious dynamic as well. What I do is get the client to either self select or randomly choose seven or so cards. I get them to order them and through active imagination tell the story that is taking place. If anyone is interested in receiving my summary or the course or the cards please let me know through private e-mail. My wife Bev and I teach courses on Tarot at an intro level and have just completed one called Tarot Traditions. Arthur Paul Patterson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 12:05:58 -0600 From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: More on Tarot - Re to Arthur Jerry: >First of all, I am not so sure that it is a given >that additional trump cards are "legit." I doubt >if traditionalists would ever accept them. The >number of trump cards (and minor arcana cards too) >depends on how you want to structure the universe. >If you add cards, then you must also add regions >somewhere in the universe. While this is easily >done, it is not so easily accepted by the layman - >those who read the Tarot cards or those who feel >that tradition is important in the significance of >symbolism. Arthur: To limit archetypal symbols to a certain number or to limit spheres or planes of the universe seems to me to be somewhat contradictory of the whole principle of what a symbol is. A symbol is elastic and bends and deepens - perhaps there are perameters but certainly never ridgid ones. >Jerry: I feel that it is very legit for the >Enochian Tarot, because the Enochian universe has >a different structure from the Qabalistic >universe. And, I did not make it up, but rather >it was given to John Dee by Angels (and who am I >to argue with an Angel?). Arthur: I am not a esoteric historian by any means but wasnt' John Dee a 17th century divine? Jerry: So, we can assume that each Tarot >card, or at least each major arcana card, >represents both an external realm or deity, and an >internal state or energy or force as well. When >we look at a Tarot trump, we are looking at the >symbols of both an external and an internal state >of our being. The Empress is both a goddess and >an archetype. Arthur: Other than a heuristic one, is there a distinction between an archetype and a goddess. I think the categories are culturally conditioned. Goddess seems to come from the religious framework whereas Archetype a more philosophic one.( or from Jung trying to look repectable among his reductionistic 20 century colleagues?) Jerry: The Hanged Man is symbolic of both >an external event (the descent of the Silent >Watcher or cosmic Christ) and an internal event >(the sacrifice of our own spiritual state of bliss >in order to take on physical manifestation). The >Hierophant is both external Adept and inner >divinity. And so on with all of the trump cards. > >The following is something that I wrote several >yers ago on Tarot smbolism which some may find >useful. > >SYMBOLS IN THE TAROT MAJOR ARCANA > > The Tarot cards were originated long before >modern psychology. The designers, whoever they >may have been, attempted to preserve key >religious, sociological, and psychological >processes and relationships, and yet had not the >proper words in which to express their ideas. Arthur: I am not sure about whether their words are proper of improper? What do you mean? They didn't think in our categories but that is no blight as I see it. >Their language was limited to expressing the >experiences of the common man of those times. For >example, the notion of ego and the subtle >relationships between ego and the subconscious >were totally unknown to the common man, and thus >no words had been coined to express them. Arthur: Medieval humanity certainly did a lot of unconscious work and symbolic work without the benefit or blight of modern categories - you will note that as we became more discursive the symbols seemed to dry up considerably. Ancient man spoke of the oracle within or the daimon these are words that I think we may want to begin using again. >H.P. Blavatsky expressed this process when she >wrote, "The primative purity of a creed can become >soiled; its apostles can degrade and soil it by >the inevitable admixture of human element. But >its symbolism as the concrete expression of some >now lost idea of the founder, will survive >forever." (COLLECTED WRITINGS, Vol XIII, page >300). Arthur: I would say that the original experience of the mysterium tremendum or whatever was categorized and creedalized. When this happened the experience was lost. I really think the same holds true today the more we cognate about an experience rather than attempt to move the experience forward evocatively the more we distance ourself from the experience. > Modern >authorities each read into the symbols their own >biases and views, and in some cases, have >deliberately "refined" the cards to better reflect >their own ideas. Arthur: Some of the modern writers do this with depth and others superficially. Those individual interpretations that express something in the creative unconsciousness will last whereas those that that are just aping contemporary culture will go the way of the go go boots. Oh I shouldn't say that go go boots return occassionally. I feel that it is perfectly alright to play with the symbols you never know what wisdom we may step in. The Tarot is a tradition and if it is to be a living tradition it will require heretics and defenders - it is the dialectic that makes it move forward. My main fear about the Tarot Tradition is about the propensity toward fortune telling in a ridiculous sense - and in making the cards part of the new age fundamentalism that is occuring. I can't stand it when a tarot client asks what will happen to them in a literal manner - all I can do is say where I intuit the symbols to be leading in very broad terms. On the other hand the new age fundamentalists often have complete simpified meanings to the cards... this means that... sort of stuff that I think denigrates the great collective wisdom that formed them. Thanks a lot for the summary of the cards. I want to re-read that a few times. It is good to have some tradition to keep the wandering psyche in check. In the Spirit of the Tarot Fool. Arthur Paul Patterson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 31 May 95 21:19:37 +1100 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: Re: Re to Arthur on Tarot Still on the subject of Tarot... has anyone here also had the experience of finding both Tarot and playing cards on the street -- up to 3 or 4 times per year, in different streets, cities and countries? I would think that this signifies something more than coincidence. Of course ordinary playing cards can be read as Tarot minor arcana... From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 14:51:20 -0600 From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Here is a Taste of the Tarot Tradition Stuff Here is a bit of the interpretive work we did in our course on tarot. INDIVIDUAL TAROT CARD INTERPRETATIONS - TAROT TRADITIONS (November, 1994 - February, 1995) For those of you who would like a comprehensive summary of the individual card meanings we discussed during our recently completed intro course, here it is. Remember, of course, that these are merely brief sketches of the Outer Tarot. What is even more important is the relationship between the Outer archetypes and the Inner Tarot imprinted on your hearts. We learned that all traditional Tarot decks are divided into four suits, outside of the Major Arcana cards (22 Major Arcana cards, 16 Court Cards and 40 numbered Minor Arcana cards). Simply put: Wands or spears represents fiery creative and intuitive energy. Cups represents deep satisfaction or love usually found in relationships. It has a watery quality that encompasses deep feelings and fills basic needs. Swords energy is oriented to the mental discernment of the truth and justice of things. It has an airy feel for clear perception that often exposes conflicts for what they really are about. Pentacles or coins represents the earthly body, the feminine, physical foundation of all life. The FOOL and the MAGICIAN are bi-polar symbols of the entire Tarot. To grow one needs to get in touch with both our bumbling, idealistic, mistake-filled side and the ordered wise image in ourselves that wants to transform the world. One without the other is either stupidity or madness. But together they evoke the ancient saying: "As above, so below." The spiritual energies become embodied and coalesce to form a Oneness we all desire. The first of the four related "halls" that are emblematic of the Fool/Magician relationship is that of STRENGTH. Issues of power are dealt with here. The Strength card depicts a woman using gentleness to control the strength of the lion. Here mature uses of power and strength order the immature, more animal-like forces of aggression. The HIGH PRIESTESS embodies spiritual feminine power. In the Arthurian Tradition she is the wise Lady of the Lake (ex. Jessica Tandy, Marion Woodman). The EMPRESS symbolizes Nurturing Mother. She sustains earthly life but often doesn't know how to sustain herself. The EMPEROR is the powerful, responsible business man or philanthropist. He is Zeus or a real good father figure (Jean Luc Picard). The HIEROPHANT is the more spiritual masculine strength figure. He is Shaman, Pope or Taliesin who is wise in the application of Eternal Laws (Robert Bly). A mentor in the service of others. The second "hall" is that of TEMPERANCE, the blending of energies in the area of everyday life. The LOVERS seek to honour the blending of energies in male and female relationships. The CHARIOT signifies the developmental issue of moving beyond black and white values to accepting ambiguity in all things. The HERMIT symbolizes our need to be alone without rejecting others, and to embrace others without forgetting the value of solitude. The WHEEL OF FORTUNE reveals our need to relate to fate by learning to accept the mountaintops and valleys that Life hands our way. The third "hall" is that of JUSTICE . It involves the confrontation of what our "karma" has given us and what we have done so far in resolving it. Although this could be considered a malicious place, Justice is ultimately concerned with our healing if only by forcing us to give up our long-cherished illusions that are really imprisoning our true selves. This is where saving judgement is received and worked through. The HANGED MAN symbolizes the suffering of us living out of sorts with reality, and of our perpetual need for transformation. The DEATH card asks us to be stripped down to our essentials so that we may be reborn. Perhaps the most important stripping occurs when we remove the fear that transformation does NOT mean annihilation of our essential selves, merely our pesky egos. The DEVIL symbolizes accepting our many limitations without qualification, particularly that of our bodies. If you accept them you are freed, if you fight them your delusions will kill you (Frankenstein). The TOWER embodies the experience of free-falling from a supposedly secure place in your life. Job loss, divorce, major illness, deaths of those you love will all bring intimate knowledge of the Tower. However, while old structures collapse striking us with heavy blows, new ones surely beckon us from the ashes. In short, Justice will seek many unavoidable ways to purify your soul. The fourth and last "hall" are those involving our relationship to the macrocosm, the universe. The WORLD card suggests the adoption of a new paradigm or new way of seeing the world. The STAR honours our intimate relationship with the cosmos. We come from the stars and thus we are a part of everything. It's a call to hope within Mystery. The transforming MOON indicates that we are fast-changing creatures, with many cycles of life and death within the larger scheme of things. The SUN is the shadowless, idealistic, vulnerable energy that gives us the urge to live openly and without shame. The LAST JUDGEMENT or SLEEPING LORD calls us to embrace ALL that has been, and find recognition in all of all that you are. Truly, a celebration like no other. A few symbolic features of the FOOL gleaned from the traditions in the decks include the white rose symbolizing the purity of desire; a white sun denoting the spiritual world of the Fool; the gazing skyward suggesting an idealistic mind who isn't worried about pragmatic problems. Another includes the dog or panther symbolizing domesticity and the call of the instincts. The Fool is a trickster who is attuned to life in the unconscious that gives him the liberty to step off a cliff into the next life or stage. The Fool can be described astrologically as that of Uranus, the eccentric and sideways rotating energy. The Fool is the God Within, unconventional and always out of step with society. He is Christ the Clown, the Tramp with the big heart - the one who "foolishly" believes that truth can stop the world. On the other hand, too much Fool energy makes us idiots, isolated from the human race and the Life Spirit by maintaining a constant contrary state of mind. The traditional MAGICIAN image has a saintly male figure standing before a table holding the tools of his craft: a wand, sword, cup and a pentacle. His arms, one stretched upwards and the other down, symbolizes his connective daimon energy. His purpose is to be a channel between the spirit world and this world. He takes the overflowing Fool's energy and makes proper use of it. The Magician lives behind the scenes a la Merlin transfiguring realities for the boy Arthur in us. The motivation of this growing awareness is not to be overidentified or underidentified with this Magician power. We can relate to and submit to his wisdom but we are not THE magician. "He is Thou: he is not Thou" as the saying goes. Tread carefully here in this sacred place but also ignore at your own peril. One of the main card energies that the Magician orders is STRENGTH, who in turn cares for the High Priestess, Empress, Emperor and the Hierophant. Strength is ultimately feminine in nature who makes sure that power in all areas of life is not misused. She harnesses masculine/feminine and secular/spiritual powers. She has to be direct enough to tame these violent energies but also gentle enough to be deeply relational. Strength is the mediator in a warped world of hierarchies in which the primary game is to force others to submit to your arbitrary will. Power games are instinctual creatures who need to be actively harnessed so that they can order real change and healing. Notice that Strength acknowledges the power of the lion but she is relating to him, opening and closing his mouth as the situation warrants. Bad uses of authority are defined by a lack of relationship. In fact, most "authorities" today are by definition out of relationship with people around them. Yet if you get close to them you will find out that they are human too, and that, coincidentally, we are not devoid of authority ourselves. Withoutthe shape-shifting, gentle control of Strength at our side, we will be tempted to insanely control everything and anything around us. The domain of the HIGH PRIESTESS is that of the inspirational, feminine mentor. She rules over and helps us understand our spiritual ideals. Peresephone-like, she rules the Spirit's underworld. With Strength, she empowers a person spiritually. Without Strength she abstracts wildly and is caught up in the preservation of "secret" knowledge, depriving others of growth opportunities. The EMPRESS is motherhood, Demeter, and the nurturing Guinevere. Embodied in both males and females, she meets our basic survival needs. Without Strength she swallows her children whole, desiring above all that her offspring remain infantile and weak. She is also insanely jealous and rageful as she feels that she has no life and therefore needs to live through others. The Emperor is embodied masculine strength in a business suit. He is a competent manager who takes on a fatherly role in actively establishing justice around him at great cost to himself. Without Strength he serves only his ego and rigidly and judgementally tries to make other pay for his own comfort. The HIEROPHANT helps others in developing their relationship to authority. He is the Shaman who is never contained by groups. Because of his detachment he can act wisely and compassionately. Rather than imposing a spirituality on another, he will draw out what is already there in a person. Without Strength he is unapproachable and dogmatic, using spirituality for his own advancement. TEMPERANCE redirects energies that are off center in the pragmatic world. She rules over time management as "the ultimate daytimer". She cares for economics or the usage of things. Paul said that he used to think the worst of "balance". By nature he is a passionate extremist, not a number cruncher or bottom liner. Temperance appears to embody withholding, restraint, fear and caution. To intentionally aim for balance seems passionless. Trying to be careful above everything else kills the soul. However, the real Temperance is quite different from this distorted view. Temperance passionately oversees the alchemical blending of opposites to fit the context at hand. When in a discussion someone genuinely raises an opposing viewpoint a sense of unity and wholeness is fostered. Temperance encourages creative disagreements so that a deeper and more healing synthesis can be sought. Temperance, however, is not about ensuring equal amounts of energies. She is also not honored when we frantically swing from being cheap to being extravagant, for instance. Temperance tells us when we should be modest or extreme based not on a principle but an internal rhythm. She tells us to see the value of money as a means of exchange for relationship. Temperance can be involved in even the smallest transactions. She offers us skills in prioritizing our time and energies free of static formulas. The result is a form of wisdom and a feeling of solidity to our lives. Temperance is the essence that makes sure we adapt to suit our changing environment. Although we sometimes doubt its presence, something automatically unifying is happening behind the scenes of our lives. There is a self-correcting principle that seeks to balance us. Paul suggested that although how we make choices is important, making a choice one way or another at a certain level really doesn't matter. The experience that you will receive walking down one path will eventually show you the elements you've neglected and will need to reintegrate. Jung calls this the principle of individuation. The so-called blind choices we make are there for our own growth as we learn from them. The card image of the Temperance is pouring an elixir of life symbolizing the Creative Unconscious. She is a grounded healer that challenges our many fears of change and adaptation. Paul said that during big changes in our lives our fear is that our essence will disappear if we make a pivotal choice. Our fear is unfounded. We stay the same essential person. Moreover, these unavoidable choices often will correct an already bad situation that we couldn't tolerate anyways! As one of the images that Temperance cares for, the LOVERS order our intimate relationships. The euphoria we experience as new lovers is based on psychic fusion. In the heat of romance we don't realize the tough road ahead in becoming related to another historically. It means moving from the wonder of seeing neglected parts of ourselves in another to standing alone but together. Temperance's job is to push us from I-I relationships to I-Thou relationships. Without this rebalancing of energies we will become highly resentful of the other or too individualistic to allow room for anybody else in our lives. The CHARIOT is about preventing us from being torn apart by conflicting passions. It concerns the exercise of the will to stick through things with a sense of underlying trust. Temperance supplies that trust so we don't have to hang onto the reins in desperation. Without the Chariot's energy, we will move towards dominating situations and become crushed by the duelling opposing energies. The HERMIT allows us to be to be alone with ourselves with integrity. True hermits have learned that in humility you are never isolated but can carry the world in your heart. Living with the Hermit as your friend is to dig into the meaning of responsibility and to choose higher roads than are instincts dictate. We can't blame anybody else anymore. With Temperance there is an invisible presence that stays with us. However, if we become isolationists, demons will haunt us from our dark side and drive us literally mad. The energy of the WHEEL OF FORTUNE deals with having hope when our lives are in turmoil. It is about seeing the effects of Love in our lives after we experience loss. Whether moving towards success or failure one clear message is that we are not to take fate too personally. It's more of a universal predicament that keeps us humble. Without Temperance we fear failure and success. But what difference does it make? We really don't succeed by effort alone. It's really more about being in the right place at the right time that determines our supposed winners and losers. What is in our power is how we choose to respond. With Temperance we feel accompanied and can restraint our desire to panic. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 31 May 95 18:05:10 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re to Arthur Arthur, I want to thamk you for your very interesting discussion of the Tarot cards and ways in which they can fit together. Jung's observation that Tarot symbolism is archetypal is doubtless true; it is incredible that 22 cards can have so many perfectly valid interpretations (by the way, Mouni Sadhu has a nice, but somwhat tedious, occult interpretation in his _The Tarot_, 1971). Arthur: I agree. I was simply pointing out that there will always be opposition. I base this observation on my own deck of 30 major arcana cards. "Too many cards" is a common complaint. Arthur: Dee lived from 1527 to 1608 and "was one of the most celebrated and remarkable men of the Elizabethan age. Philosopher, matahematician, technologist, antiquarian, teacher and friend of powerful people, Dee was at the center of some of the major developments of the English Renaissance; in fact, he inspired several of these developments through his writings and his teachings." (John Dee: The World of an Elizabethan magus, by Peter J. French, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984, from the intro). Some of his diaries having to do with Enochian Magic were recently published by Magickal Childe titled A True and Faithful Relation of What Passed for many Years Between Dr. John Dee and Some Spirits. He was a most remarkable man, and many say he was a spy for Queen Elizabeth on top of everything else. Arthur: < Other than a heuristic one, is there a distinction between an archetype and a goddess> Lets say, for example, that I had an experience in which a beautiful woman appeared before me. Suppose we had a nice chat, and she told me things that would happen to me in my future. Then, lets suppose that she simply disappeared right before me eyes. Now, I would probably interpret such an experience as having been confronted by a goddess. Carl Jung, and perhaps many other psychologists today, would tell me that no real goddess appeared, but that rather the goddess archetype was projected before me by my own psyche. He would say that the experience was all in my mind, and would doubtless point out that no one around me saw or heard anything. So, Arthur, I would say that yes, there is a distinction, but I can't begin to tell you what it is, because there is simply no way for me to tell you how to differentiate between a psychic projection and a real external event. Both seem real to the experiencer. Even in the event that the foretold events came true I still won't know, because Jung would interpret such an experience as a synchronicity. How does one differentiate between a sychronicity (an inner psychic event) from a valid prediction from a supernatural being (an external event)? I don't know. The same is true for astral traveling or what is nowdays called pathworking. There is no way to know for sure if such experiences are external or internal. The same goes for dreams. Because I see external and internal as two sides of a coin, it really doesn't matter to me; but for most people this is a deeply contested issue. I will say this though, which is from a magical point of view: it is better to assume such experiences are valid and act accordingly. If we pooh pooh such experiences as 'only' a dream or 'merely' a psychic projection, then we denigrate them to a point where they are no longer effective or helpful to us (they lose their mystery and thus their power). All too soon the magic will go out of our life, and we will have to pay a tremendous price for this later down the road. Arthur: No blight as I see it either. What I mean is that they had none of our modern jargon or scientific terminology, and thus spoke in terms of signs and symbols (e.g., the alchemists, which according to Jung were actually talking psychology). The problem with this is that signs and symbols have lots of possible interpretations. Were the alchemists really talking about chemistry? Or psychology? or philosophy and occultism? It is difficult for us today to really know. Arthur: Again, I can't argue with you. Jung himself points out the danger of moderns losing their symbols, and thus the keys to the unconscious. Of course, what we all tend to forget sometimes, is that words themselves are symbols. By giving something a name, we think we understand it (which is the foundation of magic). Actually, Jung speaks of the Self within, where the Self is kind of a fully integrated and matured or idealized ego. His archetypal Self is the psychological version of the inner divinity of theosophy; so again, how will we ever know if we are listening to our inner god or to our archetypal Self? Perhaps it really doesn't matter. Arthur: True. I would classify myself as a little of both. Jerry S.