From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Jun 95 09:10:27 EDT From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@compuserve.com> Subject: Re to Jerry: Tereshchenko's Tarot Nick Tereshchenko has departed after visiting me in Fort Lauderdale and will be back at his home in Paris in 2 weeks. I cannot answer the questions you ask, but will forward your message to him. If you want to correspond with him directly (he does not have an INTERNET address), his address in Paris is: Nicolas Tereshchenko 87 rue Vercingetorix 75014 Paris FRANCE Telephone: 33+1+45.39.73.93 His Tarot book translated into English is "The Cosmos Tarot" (Publisher: Murray Wilson, 1280 M., Mt. Hermon Road, Scotts Valley, CA 95066), but I do not know if it has come out yet. The book(s) I have, (in 2 separate volumes in French) are "Les Tresors du Tarot: Acces aux Mysteres du Cosmos" and "Fragments de Gnose: Bases de L'Esoterisme" (Publisher: Guy Tredaniel, 65 rue Claude-Bernard, 75004 Paris, France), and I would think they should be added to Arthur's list. Not being really knowledgeable about Tarot, I cannot deal with your question, but I am fascinated by the idea of additional major arcana, which is why I wondered if anyone had "seen" them, as archetypes or however. According to Nick, "The Drowned Sleeping Titan" (card #23) has been "seen" by others and information about it appears in his article in "New Thoughts on Tarot" (Publisher: Newcastle Publishing Co., North Hollywood, CA), and he also suggests and describes "The Titan Awake" (card #24), "Mahakala" (card #25) and "Ineffable Heropas" (card #26). This last: "Heropas" is a word taken from Gurdjieff's arcane "Beelzebub's Tales" where it is called "the merciless heropass". It is something about which I do know a little and it has to do with "time". Can any of you Tarot students comment on these suggested additional major arcana and Nick's idea that there will eventually be 38 known major arcana in accordance with how he counts the letters of thu Hebrew alphabet? Sy G. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 09:18:25 -0600 From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: The Flexible Tarot Sy, I certainly will add Nicks book to my list. My only difficulty is that the bookseller in Winnipeg are sometime pretty pathetic and greedy when it comes to getting other than the Celestine Prophecy - best sellers. > Not being really knowledgeable about Tarot, I cannot deal with > your question, but I am fascinated by the idea of additional > major arcana, which is why I wondered if anyone had "seen" them, > as archetypes or however. Jung made a helpful distictinction between archetypes and archetypal images. Archetypes are quasi-genetic potentialities of pattern or (meaning) making - they literally can not be seen at all they are potentially seen. When we get to see archetypes we see the cultural and personally created images of them. I think it is a problem to confuse the pattern itself with the archetypal image. Jung speaks of the elasticity of the archetypes they actually stretch and can be wrapped around many images. For instance, Nick's The Downed Sleeping Titan, has much in common with say the Sleeping Lord of John Matthew's ArthurianTarot both can be related to the Judgement card. To make distinctions too clear cut is a problem since they all participate in some basic archetype which is slippery to define. One of the heretical questions I have is where or not even caballistic imagery or any esoteric schemata are not archetypal images clothed as the archetypes themselves. After all we do have a propensity of trying to control our reality through words. I am just a bit suspicious and prefer to be a hermeneutical( interpretative) agnostic. Perhaps I perfer the awe of a mystic to the secret knowledge of the esoterist. > Can any of you Tarot students comment on these suggested > additional major arcana and Nick's idea that there will > eventually be 38 known major arcana in accordance with how he > counts the letters of thu Hebrew alphabet? IMHO, getting the tarot to exactly conform to any metaphysical schemata is hazardous. There are wonderful analogies and correspondences but flexibility is the word when it comes to symbols. I love the harmonies and the subties and the wonder of a free symbol, truly a gift! Arthur Paul Patterson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Jun 95 12:12:53 EDT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re Sy: Additional Tarot cards Sy, I can understand the rationale for the extra five cards in the major arcana, because Kaph, Mem, Nun, Pe, and Tzaddi are all double letters (their gematria value changes if they are used as the last letter in a word). Basically, Tereshchenko is viewing them as separate letters when used at the end of a word. OK, so this would give us 27 letters and a rationale for 27 major arcana cards (I assume that the appropriate locations for these "paths" on the Tree are given in one of his books). But you haven't explained where the other 11 letters come from. Does Tereshchenko explain this? And how will he place 16 new paths on the Tree without some overlap? I think if he can do this in a rational manner, his idea about additional arcana make eventually be accepted. I see the Tarot symbolism and the Tarot structure as two very different things. The Structure is important, because it is supposed to be a microcosm of our universe, a mirror image if you will. which is the chief explanation for its predictive ability. Those who use it for its symbolism probably don't care about its structure. But obviously if anyone could channel some archetypal imagery and add new cards, we would soon have thousands of very different decks on our hands, and its tradition value would go out the window. Today there are a lot of Tarot decks, all using slightly different imagery and symbols, but all with the same structure (except for my Enochian, which is structually based on a different universe model) - which is that of the Qabala. James Wanless, Ph.D. (president of Merrill-West Publishing, and a Tarot expert and author of the Voyager deck) says "The strength of the tarot is that its symbolism is subject to constant redefinition and evolution" (New Age Tarot, p 1). Thus while the symbolism can evolve and grow (because it is archetypal) its structure holds us to tradition and gives the deck a sense of firmness. It is its structure, for example, that defines the Tarot from any other card deck. Basically, changing its structure is equivilent to redefining the magical universe, which can be done, but is not trivial. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 01 Jun 1995 19:23:06 -0700 (MST) From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: A Question Some months ago, Ann Bermingham wrote: "Although the letters and writings of HPB are all we have at this time, I have begun to wonder if that view may be dated." Ann, could you please give me a few more details about this line of thinking? What is the "view"? And why do you think it may be dated? Dated in comparison to what? Daniel Daniel H. Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 95 21:20:14 -0700 From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: dreams and return It's nice to read your invitations to rejoin. Thank you. Reading the posts here everyday is only rewarding if we are able to respond in kind. To respond in kind, I need to prepare by reading theosophical books. Spiritual reading is one of my goals and theos-l enhances this effort. I know Jerry Hejka-Ekins and his wife, April, (my husband, Eldon, also) have an approach of studying theosophical classics. Since only some theosophy is presented at any one time, we have to retain our own holographic view while looking at a given part. Wherever I am able to find harmonious thoughts and spiritual life, I am comforted. My thoughts are drawn to some of the recent posts on Goddesses, THE INNER LIFE, and Sarah's beautiful meandering on Mayan customs, but I'd like to respond to Cleatus Fernandez re: Fear of Death: Something I read in THE ASTRAL BODY, edited by Powell, hit me very powerfully. The idea is unusual and distinct. It is that if a person allows their astral body to separate into graded matter after demise, the coarser matter will form a ring around the finer matter and with the matter divided into several rings by grade, only coarse vibrations will be felt and are able to cause a person to respond. The subtle and refined vibrations will not be received from outside of our vehicles and refinement is locked in as well as out of a person's being until the coarse matter disintegrates. Leadbeater says that even family members and loved ones appear as monsters to someone who allows their astral matter to become divided in this way rather than allowing the matter to mix and swirl as in normal experience. I'm glad to see that someone is questioning and pondering, as a good book should be thought provoking. Dreaming and death are mysteries still and all of these novel ideas concerning dreaming and death could be true. At least they are encouraging thoughts. I'd like to recount my dreams for the last two nights in short. The first night's dream was in two parts. Two women entertainers became suspicious of a stagehand or producer's assistant and decided to investigate his authority and past. When they discovered his disrepute, he appeared in their room and murdered one of the inquirers. In Part 2, the scene switches to a mountainside in a blizzard. A spiritual teacher huddles near a fire. Among him were strangers, somewhat ignorant and cut-throat. (Perhaps even one of them was the murderer from part one.) After preparing a warm kettle of food he had with him, the spiritual teacher bundles some of the food and sets out on foot in the blizzard. He prefers to face a blizzard rather than keep company with the unenlightened. Concerned as ever though for the future of man, the teacher walks about a day's pace before storing the food in the snow and continuing his journey unnourished and cold. He left it there in case there should be a follower to his footsteps. I awoke with the shameful thought that this teacher had somehow been to blame for the murder in the first part of the dream, and that he was suffering for another's actions. The second night was a dream of a prison. In this prison was a woman who had stolen my wallet when I was in my early twenties. She had committed several other crimes and was beginning a sentencing by the courts. As she remembered my name as one she had used (credit cards, driver's license), I was on her mind. I saw some of the torture of her prison life, but refused to become sensible of any of her other crimes, feeling they were somewhat worse in nature. Whose duty is it to reform criminals? The prison staff's? I felt this could be a way for me to help, so I drew on energy from the planet Pluto among other half-waking thoughts of my friends in life, to stimulate energy for reform for her and all of those who had committed crimes to me. You wonder about "further enlightenment" "communication with loved ones" and "incidents during sleep." I know I shouldn't revere this author again, but his writing is so inspired. Does it really matter if we understand it totally? It's very comforting to me that he mentions a "temporary absence" from loved ones. Don't we have sleep experiences as well as future life experiences to permit our separation to be temporary? I guess my fear of death is similar to a fear of life. I may be thrown into the company of unenlightened. I guess we need to remind ourselves to be brave. Your interest in dreaming could prove fruitful in more ways than one. Maybe you wouldn't be able to effect strangers, but we have plenty of karma which could help in the unfolding of our inner lives. I wanted to report what my own endeavors had resulted in in terms of encouraging this sort of life experience. If we learn from our experiences, we certainly are able to learn from inner experiences of this nature in a similar manner, but possibly the learning is more similar to what we learn when we read something spiritual because it contains a lesson or requires that we actively put forth an effort (even if only through thinking) to live in accordance with natural law and love. If we love a deceased person and they need help, would we be available to render that assistance? Or are we just seeking pleasure and reward? As Alan (Dr. Bain) mentions SCIENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS, I'd just like to say, as Christians, we are as one body, one soul. And when this body is united on a soul plane, it is very strengthening and nourishing to know its light and glory. To make it useful on earth though, it is broken and eaten, symbolized by the bread and wine. The young souls here may only respond to the ONE SOUL, by receiving it in segments until it becomes a constant yearning in them to reunite the many parts in fellowship and wholeness. Ann Bermingham: I lived in Chicago for many years and am a graduate of The University of Illinois Chicago Circle. Do you have acquaintances at the Headquarters of the T.S.? Everyone: I haven't read more than a page or two (Liesel) since my last post, so there's plenty of archival material. Do you think this would be worth reviewing or that I should be able to just step in from this point? Would anyone be able to do a quick review of material from the past ten months? I heard Jerry Hejka-Ekins is no longer writing much as he felt the group was constricting or something. It's good to hear from Aki, Astrea, Sy-Hello, and everyone: thanks for bearing with me through a reacquaintance. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Jun 95 07:27:18 EDT From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@compuserve.com> Subject: Tarot: 16 hidden (forbidden?) additional paths Hi Jerry, Replying to your question of 1 June, Nick Tereshchenko has departed from here, but his earlier reply (30 May), was as follows: > 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. The question that I have for Nick, for you and/or others, which seems more relevant for me than exactly how many additional paths one can find on the Tree of Life, is whether in fact other people have "seen" any additional major arcana and in particular card 23, "The Drowned Sleeping Titan" which Nick claims has been "seen" by him and others. He has drawn the card and you can find a picture of it along with his commentary in the Newcastle "NEW THOUGHTS ON TAROT". If the major arcana are part of the archetypes in the (collective unconscious), consciousness of humanity and additional ones are revealed as humanity evolves, I would think that Tarot students who meditate would begin to "see" them. So, I remain interested to know if the image of the next Tarot card, "The Drowned Sleeping Titan" is becoming part of the consciousness of humanity, if there is some consensus about it, and if so, what attributes are given to it. If it really is, then this is something of a "revolution" in Tarot lore and would upend the huge body of literature based on the 22 major arcana. It would be "breakthrough" material. Sy G. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 02 Jun 1995 09:57:18 -0400 (EDT) From: IXCHEL@delphi.com Subject: More Goddesses..... Welcome back Brenda. I'm glad you and Liesel and Ann enjoyed my post on the Maya. One moe thing about that. Many people travel to Chiapas and are shocked at what they call poverty. It is a mistake to think that the indians are so poor that they cannot even afford shoes. The women by tradition NEVER wear shoes. In the rainy season they wear plastic sandals, but even in the heaviest downpour they are shoeless if they are in the presence of a man from their own village. What does this have to do with Theosophy? I'm not sure, except that I believe there are some hidden and sacred meanings behind their traditions. There's plenty of poverty in Mexico, but it is not among the Maya of the Highlands. Sarah.......... From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Jun 95 09:54:42 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Daniel's question Daniel writes: > Some months ago, Ann Bermingham wrote: "Although the letters and > writings of HPB are all we have at this time, I have begun to > wonder if that view may be dated." > > Ann, could you please give me a few more details about this line > of thinking? What is the "view"? And why do you think it may be > dated? Dated in comparison to what? I had to scratch my head several times before I could even remember what this was about. I believe I was referring to our views of the Masters, which was being discussed and thrashed out after K. Paul Johnson's book came out. My humble impression was that since a hundred or so years have passed by, the Masters may have evolved beyond what they were then and so has humanity's ability to perceive them. This would not negate in any way the past writings about them, but suggest considering a fresh look from this illusionary point in time. Maybe even try to get past the illusion and to the compassionate heart of a Being that sticks around to help His/Her struggling brothers and sisters. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 02 Jun 1995 08:12:00 -0700 (MST) From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Thanks Ann Thanks Ann B. for your answer concerning your quote of months ago! I will go back to your original message and ponder your latest reply. You mentioned K. Paul Johnson's book. Where is Paul these days? I have just finished reading almost 21 days of Theos-l messages and saw none from Paul. Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 18:03:45 +0100 From: Adam Warcup Subject: Re: After-death communications > 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. Jerry, Please let me know if you receive this posting. I have some comments on the above quoted passage which I'll send if you respond. Adam Warcup From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 13:12:33 -0400 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: test server activity Hi, John, Got it Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 12:18:27 -0500 (EST) From: John Mead Subject: back from New Mexico hi - We just got back from New Mexico. during my absence, the listserver died/crashed due to a problem with the Jagsmail list (Jaguars football list, runnung here at Vnet). Vnet (staff) was unable to fix it. After I got back late last night, I got it running again. However, the .subscribers list to Theos-L was corrupt so I had to make due with an older backup. peace - john mead jem@vnet.net From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 17:51:35 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Computer Tarot I am putting together a package based on my "Part Two" of "Keys to Kabbalah" which consists of full color illustrations of the Waite-Colman Smith Tarot with Comment Extension Blocks within each GIF image. The numbering has been restored to the original pre-Waite order, ie., "Justice" as card 8 and "Strength" as card 11. There is also a complete set of b/w GIFs of a primitive deck of Tarot Trumps with the same [original] numbering which is very useful for using with b/w only printers. I am not uploading this anywhere, so anyone interested please contact me for details (like cost). The whole will fit onto a single HD floppy for IBM compatible machines (286 and above). Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Jun 95 15:00:06 EDT From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@compuserve.com> Subject: Tereshchenko's Tarot Hi Astrea, In answer to yours: there was a Tarot symposium in Los Angeles in 1988 "The First International Newcastle Tarot Symposium" and the papers were subsequently published by Newcastle as "New Thoughts on Tarot" (Newcastle Publishing Co., Inc. PO Box 7589, Van Nuys, CA. 91409). I have a copy of this and I saw it not too long ago in a local bookstore, so it may still be in print. One of the papers was by Nicolas Tereshchenko entitled "Arcanum XXIII: The Drowned Sleeping Titan." In addition to that major arcana, Tereshchenko also shows drawings of XXIV "The Titan Awake", XXV "Mahakala: The Master of the Dance", and XXVI "Ineffable Heropas". He claims to have "seen" these 4 symbols in his dreams/meditations. He speculates that there will be 11 more discovered in accordance with the Hebrew alphabet as he counts it. The names mean nothing to me except for the last in that "The Merciless Heropass" is mentioned often in Gurdjieff's "Beelzebub's Tales" and has to do with "time." If you want to see what these look like, I can FAX it to you if you have access to a FAX machine and will give me your FAX number, or your address and I will mail a copy . My E-mail address is INTERNET:72724,413@compuserve.com Cheers Sy G. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 21:35:35 -0400 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Daniel's question That would make a nice treatise, if someone had the inclination & the time .. to look at at least some of the letters, note how we have changed since Sinnett & Hume, note also how civilisation has changed, & maybe guess at the Adepts' answers. Or at least ask the question as to how would they answer us today? If I get to it, I will, but that's a vague promise as of the moment, because I'm caught up in 10 million other things that need doing. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 22:32:54 -0400 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Tereshchenko's Tarot Hi, Sy, This isn't re Tarot, but my way of telling you and Angie "Thank you" for the package re the "Esoteric Science" course. It came today. Upon first quick perusal, it looks super. Somewhere in it, someone mentions that you're planning to sell the material which you sent me. I'd like to pay you for it. What does it sell for? I'm going to take a more detailed look at what Angie sent tomorrow AM & then write her a note about it. We're having what I hope will be a planning meeting on Monday. For 1 thing, Mondays isn't a good day, & we're thinking of meeting at various hours on Sunday. Then I'd like to convince my little group to meet twice a month, instead of once. On 1 meeting I'd like to feature Adam Warcup's "Cyclical Evolution" video tapes. They're commentaries on the SD, & Adam is very succinct, & the preparation only consists of duplicating the manual part for that particular tape. The whole manual; is $12,- and the TPH only had 1 copy.. At the other meeting, I'd like to have live participatory programs, such as the "Esoteric Science", & a few other program ideas we've had, which should take us from Sept. well into next Spring. I think the "Esoteric Science" is our best idea yet, & I'm planning to open it up to the public, just as you're doing. Some of the oldsters at Summerfield will be interested in attending. I was thinking of keeping the Warcup videos for members only. I really appreciate your & Angie's help. I'm planning to mail off Harry's book to you on the way to COSOCNY meeting on Monday. There's a post office nearby. Meantime, Loveya both Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 11 Jun 1995 12:39:01 +0100 From: Adam Warcup Subject: Re: After-death communications > LieselFD@aol.com writes: > > To Adam Warcup > > Dear Adam, > > Welcome to Theos-l! Please do respond. I know you'll have > something really interesting to contribute. > > You're one of my favorite younger TS lecturers. I'm upstate New > York. We just started a small study center, and are going over > at least some of your "Cyclical Evolution" video tapes. Don't > know yet whether we'll run all 12 of them. We're still > developing our group, our program & our schedule. The first tape > took 2 meetings (we put in an extra meeting to view the 2d half), > and next Monday we're about to look at the 2d one. So far, we've > only been meeting once a month, but I'm about to ask the little > group, whether they'd be interested in meeting twice a month, > once to study with one of your tapes, and the other time to do > other diverse programs. Where do you live these days? In Ojai, > or in England, or where? > > Best wishes > > Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Jun 95 07:23:20 EDT From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@compuserve.com> Subject: Tereshchenko's Tarot - re Jerry Schueler Jerry Schueler and others interested, Hi Jerry I sent copies of your postings of May 31 and June 1 re Tarot to Nick Tereshchenko who has returned to Paris. He has sent me the following and asked me to post it to you: "Mouni SADDHU (whom I knew well) looked on Tarot as being, amongst other things, a useful 'magical tool', following in this the Russian occultist who was one of his Masters. It is easy to draw the 16 other 'Paths' between the Sephiroth; try it yourself. It is Frater ACHAD, in one of his books of the Q.B.L. trilogy, who suggested their existence, and B.O.T.A. in one of the courses mentions them. My ideas on the Hebrew alphabet followed much later and seem to confirm the presence of 38 Paths which, added to the 10 Sephiroth gives 48 -- the number of 'Laws' to which according to Mister Gurdjieff, the Earth is subjected, which seem significant. As well as 38 Major Arcana, I feel there should be an additional Minor Arcana suit, attributed to Ether/Spirit corresponding to the 5th Tattwa. The completed Tarot deck would thus have 108 cards (or leaves of the "Book of Thoth"), another significant number, especially in India whence the Tarot has possibly come via the Gypsies. Recently I was told a new book and deck 'The Transformational Tarot' has just been published, having 27 Major and 73 Minor Arcana, 100 in all. I have not seen it yet, so can make no comment. The 30 Arcana of the 'Enochian Tarot', as published do not appear to have clear correspondences to the Major Arcana of the Traditional Tarot or of any of its legitimate variations; thus I am not sure that it can legitimately claim to be a 'Tarot' (for the same reasons as the so-called 'Tarot' of Kersaint is NOT a true Tarot), which does not in any way deny its use and efficiency as an accurate divination tool or/and probable usefulness for other purposes also. It must be clearly appreciated that, though undeniably it is John DEE who did receive the elements of what is now called 'ENOCHIAN MAGIC', nevertheless neither he nor anyone else employed it usefully until Samuel Liddell McGREGOR MATHERS licked it into shape and properly taught it to the members of the Second Order (the R.R. & A.C.) of the HERMETIC ORDER OF THE GOLDEN DAWN." As Nick is not a subscriber to Theos-L and only began to look at it when he was visiting me, he has asked me to post his address in Paris in case you or anyone would care to correspond with him. It is: Nicolas Tereshchenko 87 rue Vercingetorix 75014 Paris FRANCE Cheers Sy G. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 08:45:16 -0400 From: FRDHVY@aol.com Subject: cosmogenesis Our astronomers tell us that the Hubbel space telescope has identified objects in space that have ages inconsistant with previous theory. Further, they tell us they are observing stars that are colliding with other stars. The speculation is that there will have to be an entirely "new" model of cosmogenesis created to explain these observations. I am currently exploring the Stanzas of Dzyan, and I am struck by the ability of this "old" model of cosmogenesis to explain all the "new" observations. In fact, I believe that the current observations, as I understand them, could be predicted from the Stanzas. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts about the apparent breakdown in our "modern" theory of cosmogenesis. Light and Love Fred From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 95 23:08:09 +1100 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: Re: Huh? "Dr. A.M.Bain" writes: > Have had nothing from the list for three days. > IS ANYBODY THERE? > (One ckick for yes, two clicks for no). Click. :-) I just returned to Vienna from London and found over 40 pieces of e-mail waiting for me, including many on this list, so I presume things are flowing again. While in London Astrea and i stayed in the Kingsley Hotel. We were a little sorry to leave today, as we noticed that the hotel had scheduled a meeting for that evening, consisting of the "Himalayan Brotherhood Lodge." One presumes they're masonic, but with the Tibetan Shop across the road, one can't be certain one hasn't missed something interesting... :-) Oh, and for those who like things Egyptian, a visit to Harrods in London is a treat -- they've done a great job in simulating ancient Egyptian architecture in part of the store. Paul Gillingwater From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 95 23:15:04 +1100 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: Re: Computer Tarot guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) writes: > I am not uploading this anywhere, so anyone interested please > contact me for details (like cost). The whole will fit onto a > single HD floppy for IBM compatible machines (286 and above). I'm sure Astrea would like to receive it... Please forward details. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 11:36:34 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: William Laudahn About three months ago I received a desk-top-published volume in the mail: GNOSTIC AND MYSTICAL THEOSOPHY by William Laudahn. It is a collection of his writings since the late 70's. I never met Bill. We corresponded a little. He supported me with a few letters to the editor during the days when articles of mine could start debates on whether or not I really belonged in Theosophy. He said, "Richard Ihle challenges us and compels thought. Can he, therefore, be all bad?" Bill could also, from time to time, say things which had the power to move me in a deeper way: "The many lesser, temporary attractions arrive and depart, live and die, wax and wane in the unreality of Maya, cosmic illusion. Reality is the single Self of All." Anyway, I set GNOSTIC AND MYSTICAL THEOSOPHY aside, thinking that this summer would be soon enough to read it and send an appreciative response to Bill. However, I was surprised and saddened to learn, in the current issue of THE AMERICAN THEOSOPHIST, that he had died. I apologize for my tardiness, Bill. I apologize that THE AMERICAN THEOSOPHIST had an extended obituary for Burl Ives but not for you. I apologize that I let a fine mystic like you pass over without one more thank you. Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 22:09:20 +1100 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: Computer Tarot "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> writes: > I'd like to know your opinions on computer-generated tarot > reading. I have a inexpensive version and never seem to get much > out of it. > > - ann I couldn't give a definitive answer, but from my own experience, the computer versions don't seem to work. Tarot seems to mainly depend on the intuition of the operator, ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 22:07:33 +1100 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: Huh? "Dr. A.M.Bain" writes: > > Have had nothing from the list for three days. > > IS ANYBODY THERE? > > (One ckick for yes, two clicks for no). > I've just finished another extremely busy period at work, topped off by a trip to London - say, we could have seen _you_. However, I might have the time to read the list now, and even write some messages ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 16:11:00 PDT From: "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ" Subject: Re: Computer Tarot My experience and understanding of Tarot is that the person who has the question, meditates on it before and while cutting the cards. Your higher self (higher mental, etc.) is in touch with the answer (hopefully you were able to make a connection at that level and not just the lower mental or emotional) . The person doing the reading puts them in the appropriate order which is always the same, lays them out to answer the question being asked. The only variable is the order the person asking the question puts the cards in while cutting them. Therefore, I agree, I don't see how computer generated Tarot can be very valid. Nick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 16:47:00 +1100 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: Computer Tarot "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> writes: > I'd like to know your opinions on computer-generated tarot > reading. I have a inexpensive version and never seem to get much > out of it. > > - ann I couldn't give a definitive answer, but from my own experience, the computer versions don't seem to work. Tarot seems to mainly depend on the intuition of the operator, ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 17:33:51 -0700 From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: cosmogenesis > Our astronomers tell us that the Hubbel space telescope has > identified objects in space that have ages inconsistant with > previous theory. Further, they tell us they are observing stars > that are colliding with other stars. The speculation is that > there will have to be an entirely "new" model of cosmogenesis > created to explain these observations. > > I am currently exploring the Stanzas of Dzyan, and I am struck by > the ability of this "old" model of cosmogenesis to explain all > the "new" observations. In fact, I believe that the current > observations, as I understand them, could be predicted from the > Stanzas. > > I would be interested in hearing your thoughts about the apparent > breakdown in our "modern" theory of cosmogenesis. Light and Love > > Fred Dear Fred, Hi. I recently ran across a statement in THE SECRET DOCTRINE which remarkably was a "new" mode of thinking for me. The statement is found on p. 615 Vol I: "Space is the real world, while our world is an artificial one." This may not seem very important, but at the time it struck me in a way that I don't think I'll ever forget it. It made me think that this could be the "knowledge" that Guru Maharaji gives to his chelas. It's fairly simple. Reality is space. You can meditate on it. Last night I watched a movie called THE PAPER. The photography during the introduction to the film takes us inside the gears of a clock and finally outside to the face where the minute ticks to set off the alarm. I was thinking how beautiful our solar system is. If you try to think of all of the planets, maybe even as if they are a clock of some kind, we're caught within a familiar object to us. I don't know if I'm familiar enough with a clock to call it home, but.... Then, where we are - our planet Earth, I mean - is probably a point in space where we'll never return. Well, sure Earth returns to its seasons once a year, but the sun is moving and taking us to new space within the universe. There's quite a lot to ponder in this "new" mode of thinking. I found some neat measurements in Vol I, SD: Planet Density Equatorial Velocity Oblateness or Polar Compression Sun 1.47 2.0 .0005 Mercury 5.44 .003 .0012 Earth 5.52 .47 .003367 Jupiter 1.31 12.6 .06 Saturn 10.2 0.1 Also density of Venus is supposed to be less than Earth's, and Uranus' density is more than Saturn's. This is from the editor's note (1978 edition) Number 48, relating to page 593. Fred, I'm sorry I don't have a better answer, but thanks for raising that question anyway. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 17:42:04 -0700 From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: William Laudahn >I never met Bill. We corresponded a little. He supported me with a few letters to the editor during the days when articles of mine could start debates on whether or not I really belonged in Theosophy. He said, "Richard Ihle challenges us and compels thought. Can he, therefore, be all bad?" Hi Richard, Glad you're still here. I was fortunate to meet Wm. Laudahn and his widow and I are in the same lodge of Co-Masons, but I was even more fortunate to read some of his fine work, either cover story on THE AMERICAN THEOSOPHIST or ECLECTIC, but always flowing so well and being so much in line with my own thinking, (but not knowing.) Bill was a Point Loma theosophist living at Krotona. He's probably unique in this. He was being published quite frequently in many journals, and for his years, he sure could spill out the wisdom and will certainly be missed by me as well. Love you, Bill. Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Jun 95 20:20:18 EDT From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@compuserve.com> Subject: Tereshchenko's Tarot Hi Jerry Schueler, Arthur Patterson and All interested, Nicolas Tereshchenko, a good friend and an esotericist with wide interests, recently visited me and this resulted in my submitting some questions and comments to Theos-L regarding some of his ideas on Tarot. I also sent an earlier message on his behalf. Nick is now back at his home in Paris, but has forwarded to me the following message which he has asked me to post to Theos-L. So, the following is from Nick: TO: All interested, but in particular to Jerry Schueler and Arthur Patterson. This is Nick Tereshchenko's last communication this way; anyone who wishes to write to my Paris address will receive an answer. My study of the Tarot began in 1956 with the London based Insight Institute's correspondence course, costing 2 guineas ($11 at the then exchange rate) and consisting of 12 lessons and a full deck of Tarot de Marseille cards. It dealt exclusively with divination, but I soon became convinced that the Tarot was more than just a fortune-telling tool. Soon, as I studied and visualised the arcana, they began to "change", so I made notes. In particular 0 - The Fool divided itself into TWO cards (its 2nd aspect I now number 22 and call "The Ape of Thoth"). In 1973 the Editor of COSMOS (a monthly then published in Sydney, Australia) asked me to write a series of articles on the Tarot and published them (24 in all) between 1974 and 1978, when I retired from my work and came to live in Paris. These, with additional material I made into a book, but could not find an English language publisher, so translated my work into French and had it published in Paris (see previous mail for titles). In addition to my detailed comments on the "modified" (i.e. as "seen" by me) 22 Major Arcana (drawn for me by my artist niece Maria SKY), my book contains a full illustrated description of the 23rd Arcanum previously known only to Adepti Majores (6.=5.) of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn as well as other previously unpublished material (such as a ritual using Tarot to energise the planetary body's chakras). Although my primary interests currently are: first, the Gurdjieff Work and, second, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (whose Temple AHATHOOR N. 7 we have just revived in Paris), I am also in the process of "seeing/receiving" the "24th" Major Arcanum hinted at in the ritual of elevation to the high Grade of Adeptus Exemptus (7.=4.) and will in due course publish it in TAROT NETWORK NEWS, as well as adding it to the text of my book on Tarot, as yet unpublished in English. To Jerry Schueler: I know well your excellent 3 books on Enochian, but have not yet studied your Tarot writings. I do not wholly agree with your symbolic and other interpretation of some Major Arcana, such as VI - The Lovers, which should be in the singular NOT plural as wrongly labelled in almost all English packs; it is certainly NOT a card about "love", but is the arcanum of CHOICE generally and in particular about choosing the right "spiritual" path; or VIII - Justice which principally symbolises CONSCIENCE, hence the common confusion with XI - Strength which mainly symbolizes CONSCIOUSNESS. For further details, see my book which, in the French, devotes 11 pages to Justice and 12 to Strength - too long to type here in full and not useful without the relevant illustrations. The 16 "hidden" paths are also called "Tunnels of Seth" (partly dealt with by Kenneth Grant in one of his books) and probably were originally the pathways between the Qlipphoth (the Sephiroth's "evil" mirror images) which have "invaded" the Tree of Life proper. Though apparently "forbidden", nevertheless they must be explored by those aspiring to the grade of Magister Templi (8.=3.) and higher; they are probably part of the experience in "The Abyss". To Arthur Patterson: My remarks to Jerry S. re symbolism of certain arcana apply to your exposition too; for example, the 4 Minor Arcana Aces correspond principally to the 4 states of Consciousness, as explained by George Ivanovich GURDJIEFF. For more information on this ask Sy Ginsburg, who knows as much as I about this, if not more. John Dee (1527-1608) was the Court Astrologer to Queen Elizabeth I and received the elements of "Enochian Magic" through the medium known as Edward Kelly. But this was welded into a coherent practical system only last century by the Founder Member and Grand Master of the Golden Dawn Order, Samuel Liddell McGREGOR MATHERS, Compte de GLENSTRAE. Before him, no one had been able to usefully apply what John Dee learnt and recorded. --end of Nick Tereshchenko's message. His address is Nicolas Tereshchenko 87 rue Vercingetorix 75014 Paris FRANCE (unfortunately he does not have an Internet address) Cheers Sy Ginsburg From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 21:51:57 -0400 From: FRDHVY@aol.com Subject: cosmogenesis Hi Brenda, Your comments are most appreciated. Space is the real world. Our world is flawed, as it is finite. Space, to the best of my knowledge, is infinite. If there is an identity between infinite sets, then one could deduce that the infinite set we call space is identical with the infinite creative potential some call "God". As I see it, within the first and second stanzas of the Stanzas of Dzyan, there is a beautiful word picture created of the infinite potential contained in the universe, and of the finite nature of all expressions of that potential. Without much of a stretch in imaginiation, I feel that it is possible to successfully paraphrase these stanzas in the language of modern astronomy. When you do this, a remarkable series of testable hypotheses fall out. One of these hypotheses is that there are multiple universes in space which may overlap. This would be a simple solution to the conflict between the concept of an expanding universe and the observation that there are some stars that demonstrate a blue shift, rather than a red shift. Another is that the "black holes" might represent the actual locations in space that represent the holding position for the matter and energy of each universe, awaiting expression when the infinite potential of the universe, held in space, perhaps in the form of an hologram, interacts with the matter and energy through the intervention of the "ray". (As I am sure you know, when a beam of laser light passes through an holographic negative, the image contained in that holographic negative may be projected into three dimensions. If you take an holographic negative and cut it into many pieces, even the smallest fragment of the negative contains all the information contained in the whole negative, however the image created when a fragment is illuminated with coherent laser light is imperfect, fuzzy. I am entertaining a notion that perfection for our existences is manifested physically when the physical matter and energy of an individual is recycled back to the black hole, and the spiritual existence is reunited with the master hologram, ready to return to the world of matter at the beginning of the next major cycle. Any thoughts or comments? Love and light, Fred Guner, I received your note, but my response to the address you gave me is not accepted by the great mystical silicon chip that holds us all together. I hope you see this and get back to me. The Stanzas of Dzyan are scattered in several different areas of the writings of Helena P. Blavatsky. The portion of the Stanzas that deals specifically with cosmogenesis are presented in Volume 1 of The Secret Doctrine. This is the closest thing I know to the source. The Secret Doctrine is available through the Quest Bookstore, Box 270, Wheaton, Illinois. If you write them, they will send you their catalog, which will help you further your knowledge of the Theosophical literature available. Love and Light, Fred From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 95 07:55:23 -0700 From: "Paul-Erik Hansen @DMO" Subject: Good books... Hi, Being new to this list, I would ask you to contribute with information on interesting books that deals with theosophy. Maybe this has been done before, but it's never too late to start :) :) I would like to start up with two books that I found very interesting: (maybe you all know them, but here it is anyway) "Man the measure of all things" by Sri Krishna Prem. "Man Son of Man" by Ashish. The first is commentaires on cosmogenesis, taken from the Stanzas in vol 1. of Secret Doctrine. The second one is same thing, just on antroprogenesis from vol 2. I think both books is printed by Theosophical Publishing House. I have read through these books as a startup, before going into details with The Secret Doctrine. It has a good psycological way of describing the Stanzas. Have a nice day, Paul-Erik. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Jun 95 10:39:23 EDT From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@compuserve.com> Subject: Good books: Man the Measure of All Things Hi Paul-Erik, The books you cite, "Man, the Measure of all Things" by Sri Krishna Prem and Sri Madhava Ashish, and "Man, Son of Man" by Sri Madhava Ashish, were also my introduction to Theosophy in 1978. When I came across HPB's writings and realized that the Secret Doctrine was her magnum opus and that in turn is based on The Stanzas of Dzyan, and when I also realized, I didn't understand a thing about what she was saying, I looked for commentaries on the Stanzas, and thus found the 2 "Stanza" books. I was so impressed that I wrote a letter to Ashish c/o the Theosophical Publishing House (Prem had already died in 1964), and in due course received a reply. I subsequently visited him in India where he is the head of a small residential farm (ashram) in the foothills of the Himalayas. I have been back there many times. You might be interested to know that Ashish is an Englishman, who went to India more than 50 years ago, and became a Hindu monk. A really extraordinary and grand individual. You could also read, "Initiation into Yoga", a collection of articles by Sri Krishna Prem, who was Ashish's guru. It is currently in print through Theosophical Publishing House. Good luck on your quest. Sy Ginsburg From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 95 08:45:54 PDT From: naftaly@mdd.comm.mot.com (Naftaly Ramramkar) Subject: Re: Good books... > From: "Paul-Erik Hansen @DMO" > Subject: Good books... > > I would like to start up with two books that I found very > interesting ... > "Man the measure of all things" by Sri Krishna Prem. > "Man Son of Man" by Ashish. > Hi Paul, These two people have also written three other books and they are 1. Yoga of Kathopanishad 2. Yoga of Bhagvadgita 3. Initiation into Yoga These are excellent books Have fun Naftaly Ramrajkar From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 9 Jun 95 07:10:16 -0700 From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: New listing There is an address which I have reached through Deltanet called http://freethought.tamu.edu/lists. For those who are journeying through the internet it is reachable through The World Wide Web Virtual Library by clicking on "mail lists." This is The Secular Web as they so fondly call themselves. Also, the link was founded by those who call themselves "The Internet Infidels." If you look under people they largely refer to themselves as atheists, agnostics, humanists, and freethinkers. Since theosophy is now available as a subject heading, along with buddha-l, objrel-l, and other mail lists, (such as one that is brimming with subscribers called skeptic) it may be subscribed to by curious people. I hope that theos-roots and theos-buds can be used for our personal writings OR those writings that might not be comfortably presented to "profane" eyes. It's your choice of course. I hope a few more (I'll be interested to see exactly how many join and what their bent is.) subscribers isn't a problem for anyone. I'd also like to refer you back to a mention of this idea of connecting and publicizing the list discussed with John Mead in reference to someone "unveiling" theos-l in a group of mystics. He felt this was quite all right in certain places. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 95 21:23:16 -0700 From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: cosmogenesis > I am entertaining a notion that perfection for our existences is > manifested physically when the physical matter and energy of an > individual is recycled back to the black hole, and the spiritual > existence is reunited with the master hologram, ready to return > to the world of matter at the beginning of the next major cycle. > >Any thoughts or comments? >Love and light, Fred > Dear Fred, You mention overlapping universes, black holes, and perfected man. I did a search several months ago on the word "adversary" in THE SECRET DOCTRINE and was surprised to find a series of short thoughts basically leading to the idea that soul, spirit, and body are all adversaries of each other. If we're shooting for a physical manifestation of perfection it may prove to be at the expense of the other two realms, the ego and the monad. Vol I, Stanza 7.4. "The three tongued flames of the four wicks." I enter the region of the flames who have destroyed their adversaries (Book of the Dead) i.e., got rid of the sin-creating "four wicks." In my own words, we have the Perfect Ten in which there are three below, three above, and four in the middle. Vol II, p. 390 "In Christianity all the combatants, gods and demons, are called adversaries." p. 387 Adversary of all the Gods-Jehovah. Adversary of man, possibly Satan. p. 243 Satan as adversary to Jehovah (or the winning force of matter) helped to create man so as not to become an automaton. p. 162 Lucifer is the LOGOS in his highest and the Adversary in his lowest aspect- both of which are reflected in our Ego. p. 231 "Thy name" means the name of Christos, or Logos, or the spirit of true divine wisdom, as distinct from the spirit of intellectual or mere materialistic reasoning-the HIGHER SELF in short. Satan's fall from heaven is a reference to the incarnation of the divine ray. "Truly no man knoweth who the Son is but the Father, and who the Father is but the Son." So, for simplicity's sake: If people are behaving like automatons, choose Jehovah. If people are ridding themselves of sin, choose Soul or Satan. If people are seeking the divine spirit, choose Logos. If you choose Logos, you'll have to oppose (or maybe balance) Jehovah and Satan. We in manifestation are still capable of many things. Any comments? On a separate matter: In five years laser observatories (for which funds have recently been approved) will try to measure gravitational wave signatures of black holes and other events. These are sensitive to one one-millionth of a nuclear radius over 1 meter in detecting variations in earth's gravitational field. The gravitation wave is to global mass what electromagnetic radiation is to the molecule. This will help prove Einstein's theory of gravity as variations in the curvature of spacetime. At the same time, Einstein's friendly arguments with Niels Bohr over quantum physics are being weighted towards Bohr, due to experiments which show photons forming light patterns irrespective of the placement of the photons, and dependent upon whether the knowledge of placement itself is preserved by detectors. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 95 16:26:19 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: I'm back Namaste everyone. It was nice to have a break from the group while awaiting publication of my new book. But now that it's almost out, the pre-pub jitters are subsiding and it's time to rejoin theos-l. If anyone wants to receive the new SUNY Press brochure on INITIATES OF THEOSOPHICAL MASTERS, just email me your address and I'll put one in the mail. Hope the spring has been pleasant for you all, individually and collectively. Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 21:48:19 -0500 From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: to Brenda & Paul J Dear Brenda, Wow, all that particle physics! Sounds erudite! I need to comment on what you found in your travels throught the SD. you write:A sieries of short thoughts leading to the idea that soul, spirit, body are adversaries of each other." That's so. I learned too that each of them wants to go off in its own direction. But the goal, I was taught, is to get all 3 to synchronize & work together harmoniously. When you can do that I think you must already be an Adept. To Paul Johnson, Welcome back. I was wondering what had become of you, and hee you are. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 19:51:08 -0700 (MST) From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Several items I believe that there are over 100 subscribers to Theos-l on several continents. I would like to suggest that members of Theos-l post information items that they become aware of as related to Theosophy. Maybe there is an article appearing in Australia on Theosophy or Blavatsky or whatever. Maybe there is a new book published in England that Theosophists around the world should be aware of. If each of us on Theos-l would be on the outlook for such items and take it upon ourselves to alert Theosophists worldwide, I believe Theos-l will start to fulfill its vast potential. Also I wish that each of us would from time to time post a book review (even a brief one) on a book (new or old) that we have found of value in our Theosophical or related studies. Let's share information more on this Internet! Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:56:27 -0700 (MST) From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Several more items (1) I am glad that the two books MAN, THE MEASURE OF ALL THINGS and MAN, SON OF MAN have been mentioned on Theos-l. These books bring back fond memories of reading and studying these books in the early 70s. I remember having a detailed correspondence over many months with Geoffrey Barborka about MAN, SON OF MAN. Mr. Barborka took issue with many of the interpretations given in this work by Sri Madhava Ashish. Even I disagree with some of Ashish's views but the book is very thought-provoking and I hope all serious students of THE SECRET DOCTRINE have read this work. (2) In the current issue of THE AMERICAN THEOSOPHIST appears an article by myself entitled "The Myth of the `Missing' Third Volume of THE SECRET DOCTRINE. "Those of you who may be disinterested in history will probably yawn. But for those who value history as well as the philosophy of Theosophy, may find this article of some interest. I am well aware that some Blavatsky students will disagree with my thesis in this article, but I hope the article will provoke a careful review of the issues involved. Each of us make certain assumptions, many times without carefull study of the relevant facts, and then treat these assumptions as TRUTH, REALITY. My intent in this article on Volume III of the Secret Doctrine was to go back to the source documents written when the writing of the SD occurred and try to determine what really happened. If any one reading this posting is interested but does not have access to THE AMERICAN THEOSOPHIST, please let me know and I will send you a copy. Also I would appreciate any comments on anything discussed in this article. Also if anyone disagrees with my thesis, please post your reasons on Theos-l. I would love to see what those reasons are. They might shed more light on the subject! (3) Concerning Paul Johnson's book THE MASTERS REVEALED, I saw a favorable review of his book by John Cooper published earlier this year in THEOSOPHY IN AUSTRALIA. I don't have the review in front on me so I can't give the specific issue. I also see that in the current issue of THE AMERICAN THEOSOPHIST that there is a review of Paul's book written by Dr. John Algeo. In this review Dr. Algeo refers readers to a more detailed review of THE MASTERS REVEALED that will appear in the July 1995 issue of THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY. This review in THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY is also written by Dr. Algeo. I hope that some of Theos-l subscribers might take this opportunity to subsribe to THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY. This journal on Theosophical research and history needs all our support. I believe a one year subscription in USA is $15.00. I don't have all the particulars before me. Dr. Santucci is a subscriber on Theos-l and I hope he will give all pat particulars on how interested individuals may subscribe to THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY. I also hope that Paul Johnson will be given space in THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY to respond to Dr. Algeo's review. Anyone who is interested in Paul Johnson's THE MASTERS REVEALED will learn a great deal from Dr. Algeo's review. No doubt, Paul Johnson's response will also be informative. Several months ago on Theos-l, I promised to do a review of Johnson's book. I plan in the near future to post a series of comments on certain statements contained in THE MASTERS REVEALED. I believe that every serious student of Theosophy should carefully read THE MASTERS REVEALED. The book is food for thought and challenges one's ASSUMPTIONS concerning the Masters. For that reason alone, the book is MUST reading for open-minded, truth seeking students of Theosophy. We have purchased several copies of the book for the Tucson-Pima Public Library here in Tucson, Arizona. Having said that, I still believe that the book has a flawed thesis and contains a considerable number of errors and mistakes. I agree with Dr. Algeo's review in THE AMERICAN THEOSPHIST that Paul Johnson fails to REVEAL THE MASTERS. In trying to "correct" some of the errors in THE MASTERS REVEALED, I am hoping interested Theosophists will take stock of their own views of the Masters. What do they really know about the Masters? I think we Theosophists all have some flawed assumptions about the Theosophical Masters. We have all been to ready to believe or disbelieve this, that or the other about the Masters instead of trying to educate ourselves. >From observing the discussions that have taken place on Theos-l over the last year or two, I have noticed that too many of us are too prone to hold on to our "beliefs" and "opinions" on various aspects of Theosophy. We tend to be unwilling to discuss (without emotion) these subjects. To learn to disagree. Theos-l provides an excellent opportunity for Theosophists to have discussions and dialogues on whatever the subject may be. Yet so much of the time, we have not taken full advantage of this forum. We get our feeling hurt if someone takes a stance different from our own. If someone criticizes our "beliefs", we take offence or clam up. I could understand this behavior if we were dealing with "orthodox" Christians, but I guess I have been naive enough to think that Theosophists would be more mature and more objective! Alas, we are all human with our flaws, prejudices, etc. I thank Dr. Bain for commenting on my posting concerning Reincarnation. I would personally like to see Dr. Bain give us his detailed reasons for disbelieving in reincarnation (i.e. as a general process in Nature in which all humans are involved). Too many Theosophists accept the concept of REincarnation without really looking at the subject and asking hard questions. THanks also to JRC for his comments (some time ago!) on Karma. I was very interested in his criteria by which he judged whether karma was true or not. My one comment on his critieria is: By using those same criteria, how many other Theosophical ideas would stand the test? Would telepathy or levitation pass the test of JRC's criteria? ONE MORE THOUGHT ON THE SECRET DOCTRINE: the mention of the two books by Prem and Ashish, brings to mind another book that I believe is an excellent commentary on many of the SD's ideas on cosmogenesis. The book is MAN, GOD AND THE UNIVERSE by I.K. Taimni. The book contains alot of food for thought on topics relating to cosmogony and cosmogenesis. This book by Dr. Taimni has been one of my friend's favorite books of the last two or three years. My friend is not a "Theosophist" but one day he saw this title on my book shelf and asked if he could borrow it. He's not a student of Theosophy but he found the book a treasury of metaphysics. To my surprise many serious students of THE SECRET DOCTRINE have not read this Taimni book! What are some other good books that shed light on HPB's SECRET DOCTRINE? Please share them with us! Daniel Daniel H. Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 08:56:13 -0500 From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: PG Bowen A while ago, one of you commented on how good PG Bowen was, & suggested his "Way of The Disciple". The Olcott Library didn't have that for circulation, but sent me "The Occult Way", publ. in 1936, rev. 1978. I've been reading through that book in spurts. I too think it's real good, even though he sometimes expresses himself in a way that now seems a bit archaic to us, & today I found a most quotable quote which I'd like to share with you: p76 "Harmlessness, Truthfulness, Justice, Purity when practiced bring you to Self-Reliance, yet only when the latter is achieved do the other 4 become fully realized. Self-reliance is the universal solvent that separates false teaching from true, for the first leads away from it and the last leads towards it, and by that sign is their quality revealed. And yet, paradoxically as ever, to the self-reliant there is not in the universe anything that is truly false and evil, for whatever the limitations of a thing may be it is a mode of experience which when assimilated leads towards knowledge." Isn't that a beauty? It says so much in 1 short paragraph. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 95 9:41:45 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Dan's article Dan Caldwell asked for feedback from his article in the current AT. Having read it once over lightly, I can easily say that it makes perfect sense to me, more so than anything else I've read on the subject. But in fact, without any real analysis of evidence, I'd come to the same conclusion intuitively, having unquestionably PERCEIVED (rightly or wrongly) that the old volume 3 material BELONGED with the SD. That's all vague and naive and subjective and unscientific, and therefore worthless to anyone other than the perceiver. But Dan's work is all the opposites: clearcut, sophisticated, objective, thorough, and therefore quite relevant to everyone interested in The Secret Doctrine. It raises an interesting epistemological question (or rather a psychological one). When one has a vague, subjective, intuitive opinion, and finds evidence that supports it from the plane of objectivity, one simply responds "oh, yes, that makes perfect sense, I always figured there was evidence to support that view" and doesn't scrutinize it thoroughly. At least I didn't scrutinize Dan's with much care, but pretty much accepted it whole. But one whose vague, subjective, intuitive opinion is CHALLENGED by the scholar who is being objective, clearcut, etc., tends to scrutinize the scholar's work with great vigilance indeed, and to find a gazillion things wrong with it. Probably best summarized as "the amount and quality of evidence required to prove a proposition is directly proportional to my subjective resistance to the possibility of its truth." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 22 Jun 95 07:40:23 -0700 From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: seasonal activity on theos-l I was curious about the changes in volume on theos-l since it started, and so I looked up some statistics. Following is total theos-l volume since July 1993. It is measured in lines of text of discussion, with headers trimmed to 'From, Date, and Subject' lines. --- ----- ----- ----- MON 1993 1994 1995 --- ----- ----- ----- JAN . 15591 18653 FEB . 7999 11652 MAR . 3172 19167 APR . 5660 10341 MAY . 3122 7859 JUN . 2388 1489 JUL 341 3076 AUG 4740 13319 SEP 5512 10400 OCT 9309 4946 NOV 7927 9796 DEC 14453 10048 --- ----- ----- ----- It looks like the early Summer tends to be a slow time for our discussions. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 08:24:03 -0700 (MST) From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: A Question Have I missed on Theos-l Jerry S.'s reply to Adam Warcup's query concerning the relationship between the after-death states and the various globes of the earth's planetary chain? I was hoping Jerry S. and Adam W. would try to clarify their positions. Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 22 Jun 95 16:47:57 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Theosophy in the News In response to Dan Caldwell's suggestion that we report sightings of mentions of Theosophy in the media: This Sunday's Danville Register and Bee had an AP story about 70s singer Gino Vanelli ("I Just Wanna Stop") in which the focus was his overcoming financial crisis through the aid of a new guru/therapist. [Tried to find it this morning, but couldn't.] In explaining his previous metaphysical explorations, Vanelli described himself as formerly a "Zen-Theosophist". But neither Zen nor Theosophy were successful in getting him out of bankruptcy; the new guru did the trick. Definitely one of the weirdest surprise mentions of Theosophy in memory. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 17:49:13 -0500 From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: pride goeth before a fall Reading further on in Bowen's "Occult Way" (did the first quote come through about 2 days ago?) I find a passage about "Charity". It makes my heart swell with pride because I think I have learned do it fairly well as he describes it. But then, alas comes the last pargagraph, and, to be truthful, dear friends, I'm real lousy at that. Read on: "Charity It subsists not in an executive (love that word - lfd) self that apportions objective benefits to selected recipients, but in a Higher, inner Self that eternally gives of itself to Life, through whatsoever instruments, or channels, conditions place at its disposal: through synmpathy, through understanding, through teaching that may lead others to virtue. Of such a Self true Charity is but another name. Of it, it may truly be said: it covers over not merely a multitude of sins, but all sin. " (Will someone please explain this last sentence to me. It makes no sense to me.) ...."There is no true Charity in the man who cannot give to the inflictor of suffering an understanidng as perfect as the sympathy which he gives to the sufferer, not can that man ever manifest the Virtue of Harmlessness." The one event, thinking of which I understood this last parapgraph best, but which was also extremely hard was to slowly realize that Germans who had been on the Nazi side during WWII had suffered greatly as well as the persecuted. I had a colleague, around 1970-80 who'd spent the war in Berlin. She said she joined the Nazi youth organization because if she hadn't the other kids in school would have beaten her up. Her family were awakened one night to weird noises from the house next door from which a Jewish family, friends, were being taken to concentration camp. Her father managed a large war materiels factory in that part of Germany taken by the Russians at the end of the war. She doesn't know what happened to him. I met another German woman who emigrated to the US. As a young girl, she had been raped by Russian soliders, while she & her girl friend were taking a walk. When you think of the twisted minds of the SS men who tortured people, they could not possibly have been at peace with themselves. I can write this with sympathy, and I know it's true that the Germans too suffered, but it's most difficult for me to give them "an understanding as perfect as the sympathy which he gives a the sufferer." I've stood in the middle of Frankfurt (in 1972), listened to an ambulance syren chasing by, & having to tell myself these aren't Nazis. And I wasn't even there for very long. I heard all the stories from my family when they came to the US bit by bit. It had a terrible impact, and I think most of us German Jews who are left have trouble seeing where the Germans hurt. It's difficult to practice the Virtue of Harmlessness, but that is demanded of Theosophsts. Well, I'm trying. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 18:59:59 -0400 From: FRDHVY@aol.com Subject: cosmogenesis and other subjects Brenda, The manifestation of perfection in man, as I understand it from the Secret Doctrine and from my perspective as a psychoanalyst, is accomplished when soul, spirit, and body are working together as one. I believe this is consistant with Liesel's comments in digest 259. Even accomplishing this level of completeness fails to truely manifest the total potential of the universe, as each of us, even in our perfection as humans, lacks perfection (completeness) as we do not fulfill the manifestation of the non-human elements of the universe. As I see it, we can only participate in the totality of existence when we shed our physical manifestation, and our spirit is reunited with the universal spirit. As I may have suggested in my previous comments, I am exploring the possibility that "space" is the holographic blueprint for the physical manifestation of the universe, that spirit represents the information contained in space, and that our personal individual spirit is only an incomplete segment of the totality of information. I am working on a commentary on the Stanzas which brings twentieth century physics into a new perspective. My drafting process is slow, and I'm really not ready to subject the text to review on the net yet. (It seems there is never enough "time" and too much "space" in my time-space continuum. Anyone else find that particular problem?) On reincarnation (reference comments by Daniel Caldwell in digest 259), there is an interesting variation on Pascal's argument for the existence of God in the most recent American Theosophist. In his article, Be the best you can be, Ayers suggests, indirectly, that there may be everything to gain by beleiving in reincarnation, and very little to lose. Certainly there is a lack of objective evidence for belief in reincarnation, but there are tantalizing subjective evidences that come from past life age regressions under hypnosis. In my practice, I see people often who suffer depression which may be directly related to their belief that they have to be perfect all at once and forever. These patients are "cured" of their depression when they learn they may have more than one chance to "get it right". These same patients often suffer tremendous guilt feelings that reflect their blind acceptance of church teaching that they are flawed from the start and can never become perfect (unless, of course, they are "saved" by the charisma of their personal teacher/preacher, or by tithing, or by paying off the secular demands of their church). There does seem to be a wide range of practice within and between various denominations, which reflects the apparent conclusion that the individual preachers/teachers are given a lot of freedom in their interpretation of the way they should use and promote the sense of guilt in their followers. I use the possibility that reincarnation is a fact of existence to build a new perpective for some patients, enabling them to view their religious systems in a new, and more constructive light. (Please note well that I am very critical of some individual preachers/teachers and their approach to guilt, and am in no way being critical of the belief system of any organized religion. Please make the distinction between religious belief systems, which are spiritual and universal, and parish/congregation/cult policy, which are secular, manmade, and imperfect.) Last, a question for anyone on this list who is computer literate... I joined this list a couple weeks ago, and obviously, I have missed a lot since the start of this list. Is there any way I can recover the first 250 digests??? Love and light, Fred From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 18:49:07 +0100 From: Adam Warcup Subject: Re: A Question MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU writes: > > > Have I missed on Theos-l Jerry S.'s reply to Adam Warcup's query > concerning the relationship between the after-death states and > the various globes of the earth's planetary chain? I was hoping > Jerry S. and Adam W. would try to clarify their positions. > > > Daniel > Well, if you've missed it, so have I! I was beginning to wonder if my comments had ended up in a black hole. Adam From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 19:26:38 +0100 From: Adam Warcup Subject: Re: cosmogenesis and other subjects FRDHVY@aol.com writes: > On reincarnation (reference comments by Daniel Caldwell in digest > 259), there is an interesting variation on Pascal's argument for > the existence of God in the most recent American Theosophist. In > his article, Be the best you can be, Ayers suggests, indirectly, > that there may be everything to gain by beleiving in > reincarnation, and very little to lose. Certainly there is a > lack of objective evidence for belief in reincarnation, but there > are tantalizing subjective evidences that come from past life age > regressions under hypnosis. In my practice, I see people often > who suffer depression which may be directly related to their > belief that they have to be perfect all at once and forever. > These patients are "cured" of their depression when they learn > they may have more than one chance to "get it right". These same > patients often suffer tremendous guilt feelings that reflect > their blind acceptance of church teaching that they are flawed > from the start and can never become perfect (unless, of course, > they are "saved" by the charisma of their personal > teacher/preacher, or by tithing, or by paying off the secular > demands of their church). There does seem to be a wide range of > practice within and between various denominations, which reflects > the apparent conclusion that the individual preachers/teachers > are given a lot of freedom in their interpretation of the way > they should use and promote the sense of guilt in their > followers. I use the possibility that reincarnation is a fact of > existence to build a new perpective for some patients, enabling > them to view their religious systems in a new, and more > constructive light. (Please note well that I am very critical of > some individual preachers/teachers and their approach to guilt, > and am in no way being critical of the belief system of any > organized religion. Please make the distinction between > religious belief systems, which are spiritual and universal, and > parish/congregation/cult policy, which are secular, manmade, and > imperfect.) > > Love and light, Fred Hi Fred, I'd like to add a few thoughts on the question of having a belief in reincarnation. I have taught classes etc. on theosophy on and off for twenty years, and have discussed and debated the subject with a wide variety of people over the years, I have come to the following conclusions: 1) If a person starts out disbelieving in reincarnation, no amount of reasoned debate will get them to change their minds. 2) Reincarnation cannot be 'proved'. Anecdotal evidence is interesting, but is never proof. 3) Those who 'believe' in reincarnation (and that includes me) do so because of inner experiene and/or conviction. It satisfies them, but does not necessarily satisfy other people. As soon as I became aware of the idea, I just 'knew' that it was true. I know now that it is futile to pass on my conviction and enthusiasm to anyone else. Yes, I will talk about and teach the subject, because I may just remind someone of what they already 'knew'. Adam Warcup From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 14:12:59 -0500 From: von@telepath.com (vaughn webb) Subject: reincarnation greetings all, as a newcomer to theos I have been uplifted and edified by the letters that I have been reading. Please excuse my theosophical illeteratcy, but I do want to learn. I do have a question to anyone who wishes to answer or shed some light. Re: reincarnation...are the many documented cases of past life memories just that or are what we experience some kind of genetic memory,i.e. the memories and histories of our ancestors are kept deep within some sort of memory file gene. I suppose this question has been posed before but so little is known about genetics and the make up of the gene,even today. So thank you for letting me listen in, so to speak and I hope I can add some thing to the Society. thanks and peace (-: From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Jun 95 15:09:07 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: good ole summertime Eldon: >It looks like the early Summer tends to be a slow time for our discussions. For myself, I know May and June are busy months for gardening. June may also be a time a adjustment for those with school age children, who are out for summer vacation. It may also be a time for traveling and vacations. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 00:41:40 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Several more items In message <01HRXVXW4HKO8Y582Q@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU> theos-l@vnet.net writes: > I thank Dr. Bain for commenting on my posting concerning > Reincarnation. I would personally like to see Dr. Bain give us > his detailed reasons for disbelieving in reincarnation (i.e. as > a general process in Nature in which all humans are involved). > Too many Theosophists accept the concept of REincarnation without > really looking at the subject and asking hard questions. > > Daniel H. Caldwell Reason One: If the reincarnation process has been going on since (say) Lemurian times or even earlier _and_ new souls are coming up from the animal kingdom all the time _and_ it takes many many lives to achieve perfection/nirvana or whatever name is current, then by now there should be no room to move on planet earth. Reason Two: If reincarnation is part of "God Plan, which is Evolution" [Jinarajadasa - First Principles of Theosophy, Adyar] and leads to a general improvement in the human race, where is the supporting evidence? The human race is just as busy now at devising ways of its members being horrible to each other as it ever was, and improves the means of torture, death and destruction of its members on a daily basis. Reason Three: If Karma is tied to reincarnation as an integral part of the plan, what kind of "justice" is it which gives us punishments ("karmic consequences") in this life while denying us the recollection of what we did wrong to deserve them? Reason Four: Who in their right mind would want to come back to the vale of tears, murder, rape, torture, hunger, disease, etc., etc.? The incentives to get perfect damn quick are all around us .... If I kill and get life in jail, then I know what I am doing time for. If I reincarnate and "do time," why am I not told why? It may be that we _do_ reincarnate if we choose to, and that we do not if we choose to move on elsewhere. It is asking a bit much to believe that the spiritual essences we are alleged to be are to be tied for interminable periods to a small speck of dust in a remote corner of of a remote and insignificant galaxy (the "Milky Way") and incredible distance from the central sun. My guess (just a guess) is that there's a lot of room out there for our spiritual essences to play in, and that we may well do just that, given half a chance - after all, that's how we behave down here! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 01:10:14 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: pride goeth before a fall A thought .... Liesel writes: > I can write this with sympathy, and I know it's true that the > Germans too suffered, but it's most difficult for me to give them > "an understanding as perfect as the sympathy which he gives a the > sufferer." I've stood in the middle of Frankfurt (in 1972), > listened to an ambulance syren chasing by, & having to tell > myself these aren't Nazis. And I wasn't even there for very > long. I heard all the stories from my family when they came to > the US bit by bit. It had a terrible impact, and I think most of > us German Jews who are left have trouble seeing where the Germans > hurt. It's difficult to practice the Virtue of Harmlessness, but > that is demanded of Theosophsts. Well, I'm trying. > > Liesel This "Virtue of Harmlessness" sounds a bit like the Christian idea of turning the other cheek. Seems to me that some might use "turning the other cheek" as an excuse for "looking the other way." Here in England at the end of WWII the government sent out newsreel footage containing the full pictorial horrors of what the liberating troops filmed when they went into Bergen-Belsen for the first time - the piles of corpses, the pitiful state of those still barely alive, the German guards being made to carry the dead to mass graves, etc., etc. This was given a "U" for "Universal" certificate by the British Board of Film Censors we had then, which meant that every child in Britain could go see it, and we all did. It should be shown again _every year_ and be compulsory viewing. This is a reality of which we "evolved" humans are still capable, and which, I suspect, is still around in different ways. And some idiot will try to tell me that all those Jews and others must have deserved it for some unknown "karma" generated in previous lives. B...sh.t. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 24 Jun 95 10:36:30 +1100 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: Re: Several more items guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) writes: Thank you for the interesting set of ideas against reincarnation. I shall take great pleasure in providing alternative views. > Reason One: If the reincarnation process has been going on since > (say) Lemurian times or even earlier _and_ new souls are coming > up from the animal kingdom all the time _and_ it takes many many > lives to achieve perfection/nirvana or whatever name is current, > then by now there should be no room to move on planet earth. One important factor to consider is population size. Various estimates suggest that there is a fixed, large number of entities involved in human evolution at this time. I don't have a reliable number, but would suggest around 8 billion for the purposes of this discussion. In earlier (Lemurian) times, the world's population was much smaller -- and therefore the time between incarnations might have been much quicker, to allow more souls to gain embodiment--but there would be much more competition to get a body. Furthermore, new souls are _not_ coming up all the time. That particular door has been closed for a long time, and will not be open again for another round or so, according to various sources (not just theosophical.) By positing a fixed number of jivas, it's feasible to consider that there is a limit to the number that can be in incarnation at any one time. The more there are, the more opportunities there are to embody--but getting here is still a tremendous privilege. > Reason Two: If reincarnation is part of "God Plan, which is > Evolution" [Jinarajadasa - First Principles of Theosophy, Adyar] > and leads to a general improvement in the human race, where is > the supporting evidence? The human race is just as busy now at > devising ways of its members being horrible to each other as it > ever was, and improves the means of torture, death and > destruction of its members on a daily basis. This process takes a long time, and is not necessarily linear, but more like a spiral. There are flowerings, then periods of decay, as civilizations rise and fall. The suggestion of hope is that the highest point of each sucessive civilization is higher (in a spiritual sense, rather than materialistic one) than the ones preceding. This process takes a _very_ long time, but there are signs that humanity is improving. For example, 1,000 years ago it was inconceivable that nations could work together to relieve suffering -- look at the work of the United Nations now. That's progress, in my opinion. > Reason Three: If Karma is tied to reincarnation as an integral > part of the plan, what kind of "justice" is it which gives us > punishments ("karmic consequences") in this life while denying us > the recollection of what we did wrong to deserve them? This depends upon one's viewpoint. At the same time, there is mercy in denying recollection of just what kind of evil buggers we may have been in the past, which might lead to despair and inability to make any positive steps. If one accepts that the process of evolution is not actually happening to us as personalities, but rather to that part of us which is relatively immortal (the reincarnating self), then at that level of consciousness, which is ordinarily denied to us in the body, there _is_ recollection. From that point of view, it is just. The personality, however, is relatively unreal. It has no independent existence, being a transitory and rather loose collection of skandas, drives, conditioning and habit, with a sprinkling of whatever spiritual awareness that can make it through from our innermost levels. It is born, and will surely die. Life is fair, but it's not intended to cater to the whims of the human and therefore limited brain consciousness. > Reason Four: Who in their right mind would want to come back to > the vale of tears, murder, rape, torture, hunger, disease, etc., > etc.? The incentives to get perfect damn quick are all around us My guess is that there is generally an unwillingness to return, but the waters of Lethe (i.e. wiping of memories past) combined with tanha (the thirst for life experiences) combine to draw us again into the fleshly envelope. It's also the experience of some that when confronted by the vale of tears, they want to try to help. I'm sure you feel that way. Staying in some devachanic realm surrounded by happy memories is all very well, and no doubt some entities stay a very long time indeed, but as we progress there grows a feeling that we are not separate from the sufferings of our fellow human beings, and must therefore come into incarnation to try to help those struggling in the darkness. We are therefore _all_ murderers, rapists, torturers, in so much as we partake of the one life. Think of the Boddhisattva vow. > If I kill and get life in jail, then I know what I am doing time > for. If I reincarnate and "do time," why am I not told why? Why not try to find out who is the "I" that asks this question? > much to believe that the spiritual essences we are alleged to be > are to be tied for interminable periods to a small speck of dust Again, this is a matter of perspective. It's certainly possible that exception students, or graduates, are given the choice of moving into other worlds. I question however your idea of "interminable." Surely a few hundred thousand years in one set of globes isn't too much to ask when we're immortal? > guess (just a guess) is that there's a lot of room out there for > our spiritual essences to play in, and that we may well do just > that, given half a chance - after all, that's how we behave down > here! Everything I have learned in theosophy would tend to support your conclusion, however we have to graduate from kindergarten before we can go and "play" in the wider universe. There are probably a billion worlds where the One Life is manifesting--of course there will be opportunities for each of us to learn, love and serve in unimagineable ways. For now, let's remember we have work to do now, on this world, in this life--but try to enter the Silence where such distinctions are unimportant. cheers Paul Gillingwater From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 24 Jun 95 10:58:41 +1100 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: Re: pride goeth before a fall guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) writes: > compulsory viewing. This is a reality of which we "evolved" > humans are still capable, and which, I suspect, is still around > in different ways. And some idiot will try to tell me that all > those Jews and others must have deserved it for some unknown > "karma" generated in previous lives. B...sh.t. Karma is one of the toughest things for me to understand, certainly with my dull human brain. I've lain awake at night, wondering how a merciful God can allow such terrible suffering to exist. My feeling is that there isn't a "merciful God" -- that's a Christian construct. There is only Law. Karma is an incredible mystery, which may be easily misunderstood. The sufferings of Jews in WWII were terrible, but really no different from the suffering of any one individual, except in number. Each of us has a certain amount of past experience and karma which might bring about certain causes. Perhaps karma doesn't specifically bring us into situations where we will be tortured, but I agree that no-one "deserves" such suffering. It might be helpful to think that the karma of such a person was relatively neutral, i.e. normal for any typical human being, but that by being in the wrong race at the wrong time, they suffered due to the evil that afflicted their tormentors. They have thus generated a "credit balance", or wiped out much of previous debts, by suffering so, while their oppressors have set in train causes which will lead to much educative suffering in future. Paul Gillingwater From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 24 Jun 95 11:30:04 +1100 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: reincarnation von@telepath.com (vaughn webb) writes: > greetings all, Greetings and salutations! > as a newcomer to theos I have been uplifted and edified by the > letters that I have been reading. That's good. > some light. Re: reincarnation...are the many documented cases of > past life memories just that or are what we experience some kind > of genetic memory,i.e. the memories and histories of our > ancestors are kept deep within some sort of memory file gene. The standard " theosophical" line is that reincarnation is true, and the spirit learns by progressive incarnations. THis is very similar to the Hindu view, although some Buddhists tend to think that there is no independent soul at all, but a bundle of tendencies or samskaras somehow continues from life to life. I did a hypnotic past life regression recently with interesting results. There did seem to be memories linked to emotional and physical complexes. Then more recently, I did a spontaneous regression with the help of an inner guide this time, who seemed to take me back to my first human incarnation. Ever curious, I wanted to see what came before that, and pushed back further, finding myself in a sub-human ape-like body. It was quite interesting, but I wasn't very keen to find out more about it, or to go back further. I find myself asking the same question: were these my memories, or something genetically programmed or imprinted into the body, or a kind of psychodrama? They did seem to have resonances in the body itself ie not just "imagination." Whatever they are, they do reveal something of the psychology of the subconscious mind, and offer opportunities to learn. On previous occasions I have also had "waking dreams" and actual dreams about what seemed to be past lives. ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 24 Jun 95 13:40:58 +1100 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: cosmic justice guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) writes: > Reason Two: If reincarnation is part of "God Plan, which is > Evolution" [Jinarajadasa - First Principles of Theosophy, Adyar] > and leads to a general improvement in the human race, where is > the supporting evidence? The human race is just as busy now at > devising ways of its members being horrible to each other as it > ever was, and improves the means of torture, death and > destruction of its members on a daily basis. I believe the progress of the human race can only be judged over an extremely long sweep of time. The last two centuries have made technology of warfare available to humanity which it never had before. This may make it seem that we are getting worse, but in fact it only enabled us to carry out better what we had always wanted to do: safeguard our own territory, and gain more. However, now as never before, we have relatively clearly defined ideas about human rights, peaceful development and global security. These have only be able to develop in response to the atrocities witnessed by millions of people this century. Most countries abide by the rules of international law, ill-defined and enforced though they may be, and most people have a better understanding of different countries and people than ever before, thanks to new technologies. The technologies of communication have made a wider range of ideas more freely available than ever before, thus permitting an accelerated expansion of human awareness and consciousness of different possibilities - abused though this may be from time to time. > > Reason Three: If Karma is tied to reincarnation as an integral > part of the plan, what kind of "justice" is it which gives us > punishments ("karmic consequences") in this life while denying us > the recollection of what we did wrong to deserve them? We can't judge divine justice by human standards, because we don't have the whole picture of things. As I understand it, karma does not "punish" (an anthropomorphism) but rather it is a process whereby certain results follow certain actions. For example, Humanity as a whole has to learn that suffering follows cruelty as a cart follows a horse. The recollection of hundreds of lives would, in any case, only serve to confuse most of us, and would not aid the learning of lessons required _here_. > Reason Four: Who in their right mind would want to come back to > the vale of tears, murder, rape, torture, hunger, disease, etc., > etc.? The incentives to get perfect damn quick are all around us > .... You make it sound as if there was nothing attractive about this world. As I understand it, peoples desires bring them back pretty surely. I mean, there's a lot of shopping to be done here :-) The Tibetan buddhists say it's images of copulating couples which finally draws the soul back into incarnation. > If I kill and get life in jail, then I know what I am doing time > for. If I reincarnate and "do time," why am I not told why? Fortunately the administration of cosmic justice is better run than human criminal justice systems. May be deep down you know why, and don't want to face it. Or may be it is kinder to let you deal with situations as you find them, rather than always being reminded of your misdeeds. > much to believe that the spiritual essences we are alleged to be > are to be tied for interminable periods to a small speck of dust > in a remote corner of of a remote and insignificant galaxy (the > "Milky Way") and incredible distance from the central sun. My I don't see why this is so hard to swallow. Viewed from another perspective, space is all linked together and time is somehow timeless. Distance, and insignificance largely depends on your perspective. From a cells point of view, our bodies are monsterous universes. (We are still very much connected to the sun, despite apparent distance.) > guess (just a guess) is that there's a lot of room out there for > our spiritual essences to play in, and that we may well do just > that, given half a chance - after all, that's how we behave down > here! Yes, my aim is to expand my play ground! ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 24 Jun 95 14:00:32 +1100 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: pride goeth before a fall guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) writes: > A thought .... Liesel writes: > > > I can write this with sympathy, and I know it's true that the > > Germans too suffered, but it's most difficult for me to give them > > "an understanding as perfect as the sympathy which he gives a the > > sufferer." I've stood in the middle of Frankfurt (in 1972), > > listened to an ambulance syren chasing by, & I agree with Liesel that we need to understand these people and feel compassion for the oppressor as well as the oppressed, as we are all suffering. THe master-minds behind the Third Reich are probably suffering horribly in Avichi, and the others suffering persecutions in this world, until they learn compassion. We are very much linked to everyone else. > This "Virtue of Harmlessness" sounds a bit like the Christian > idea of turning the other cheek. Seems to me that some might use > "turning the other cheek" as an excuse for "looking the other > way." No, these are quite different ideas. We should do what we can to prevent a repetition of the atrocities carried out during WWII - (actually they're going on in Bosnia right now - what are you doing about it?) But that doesn't mean we should hate all Germans, for example. > Here in England at the end of WWII the government sent out > newsreel footage containing the full pictorial horrors of what > the liberating troops filmed when they went into Bergen-Belsen > for the first time - the piles of corpses, the pitiful state of > those still barely alive, the German guards being made to carry > the dead to mass graves, etc., etc. Let's not have any illusions that this was the first or last time such acts have occurred, nor project all the blame on to the Germans during WWII. A very short time ago the British were raking in money from the slave trade and forcing opium onto the Chinese. No country is entirely composed of Saints. Stalin and Mao both killed more people than Hitler did. My point is that the elimination of such violence should be a concern of all humanity. > in different ways. And some idiot will try to tell me that all > those Jews and others must have deserved it for some unknown > "karma" generated in previous lives. B...sh.t. We are all constantly changing, and all heading towards death of the physical body. To some people it happens sooner than others. Human history is full of blood shed. It seems to be tied into "the Plan", although this horrible to contemplate. While we suffer as individuals, the Divine life within does not seem to suffer in quite the same way. My point here, is that maybe from one point of view it wasn't as horrible really as it seems to us now. Doesn't that Bhagavid Gita say that the real person is neither born nor dies? ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Jun 95 11:12:00 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: re: virtual reincarnation of jack My view of reincarnation has been heavily influenced by an article I read in the June 94' issue of Discover magazine. Entitled "Virtual Jack", it was about a Computers Graphics Lab at the University of Pennsylvania. Virtual Jack is an ongoing project to use computer graphics to create a complete replica of a human being. They started with a wire frame, then gave him skin, taught him how to move like a man. He can dance the limbo and count with his fingers and he'd even driven a John Deere tractor. His last job was as a soda jerk in a virtual soda shop. Their task in 94' was to give him human organs. I found it fascinating because I thought about how long it's taken us to get this far. Reading about these computer scientists labor for years just to get this virtual guy to do simple things made me reallize why it is taking us so long to get THERE. Also in terms of reincarnation, I could visualize our bodies (astral, etheric, etc.) being shaped to fit the purposes of the our Higher Selves. I imagined the abstract monad recreating and reshaping over the aeons, the characters that would suit the experiences that would lead to enlightenment. Now, it's difficult for me to see reincarnation as one popping into a handy body, but rather seeing it as a creative process that starts from a spiritual level. (How many Virtual Jacks does it take to make an Adept?) My thinking has also been influenced by a Canadian television series (The Highlander) that I saw last year. In the show, a man ran into a burning building to save a little boy. At that moment I was lifted up to the place where I was detached from emotion and saw it only as a pure act of sacrifce. It only lasted 10 seconds but it seemed to me that this is the track that Buddha was on. He was able to see through the virtual Illusion by detachment and moving his consciousness to a higher level. (I apologize to Buddhists here. This is probably overly simple.) If God had divided himself into many beings that are working towards perfection, then it is no wonder that there has been wars, suffering, etc. All those Virtual Jacks and Jills, playing out their parts so that their Selves, stuck on the abstract, could achieve higher knowledge. Endless mini-series and television movies of pain and suffering, joy and pleasure. Illusions for enlightenment on the God's 12" monitor. I've been thinking of writing a post like this for a while, but felt your discussion of reincarnation gave me the opportunity to finally express it. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 20:45:33 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: pride goeth before a fall In message theos-l@vnet.net writes: > Karma is one of the toughest things for me to understand, > certainly with my dull human brain. I've lain awake at night, > wondering how a merciful God can allow such terrible suffering to > exist. My feeling is that there isn't a "merciful God" -- that's > a Christian construct. There is only Law. As far as I can tell, the evidence supports this view. It's a tough conclusion to accept, and begs many questions, like "Is there a law-maker, and if there is, how do we get even?" > Karma is an incredible mystery, which may be easily > misunderstood. Karma to me means that if I stub my toe I say "ouch" 'cos my toe hurts. Again, it's Law; there is no moral element. > The sufferings of Jews in WWII were terrible, but really > no different from the suffering of any one individual, except > in number. Hardly worth remembering, then? > Each of us has a certain amount of past experience and karma > which might bring about certain causes. Perhaps karma doesn't > specifically bring us into situations where we will be tortured, > but I agree that no-one "deserves" such suffering. It might be > helpful to think that the karma of such a person was relatively > neutral, i.e. normal for any typical human being, but that by > being in the wrong race at the wrong time, Whoa! - you just introduced a new abd apparently random factor - so it may not be "karma" at all? > they suffered due to the evil that afflicted their tormentors. > They have thus generated a "credit balance", or wiped out much of > previous debts, by suffering so, while their oppressors have set > in train causes which will lead to much educative suffering in > future. So millions of Jews suffered for the benefit of their oppressors? WOW - this is really spiritual! I bet they're pleased to have been of service ..... Maybe, as an alternative point of view, some of them reincarnated in Israel to get even with reincarnated NAZI party members now reincarnated as Palestinians ..... this way they get to be karmic agents directly. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 20:57:51 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Several more items In message theos-l@vnet.net writes: > Thank you for the interesting set of ideas against reincarnation. > I shall take great pleasure in providing alternative views. > > > Reason One: If the reincarnation process has been going on since > > (say) Lemurian times or even earlier _and_ new souls are coming > > up from the animal kingdom all the time _and_ it takes many many > > lives to achieve perfection/nirvana or whatever name is current, > > then by now there should be no room to move on planet earth. > > One important factor to consider is population size. Various > estimates suggest that there is a fixed, large number of entities > involved in human evolution at this time. I don't have a > reliable number, but would suggest around 8 billion for the > purposes of this discussion. In earlier (Lemurian) times, the > world's population was much smaller -- and therefore the time > between incarnations might have been much quicker, to allow more > souls to gain embodiment--but there would be much more > competition to get a body. What estimates, and suggested upon what evidential basis? Why suggest 8 billion? Why not 80 billion? 800 billion? There is, so far as I am aware, any evidence other than alleged clairvoyance that Lemuria existed as described, or that its population was of any particular size. This is, is it not, just a guessing game? > Furthermore, new souls are _not_ coming up all the time. That > particular door has been closed for a long time, and will not be > open again for another round or so, according to various sources > (not just theosophical.) Please cite sources, _and_ their credibility. > By positing a fixed number of jivas, it's feasible to consider > that there is a limit to the number that can be in incarnation By positing an infinite number of jivas, its feasible to consider that there is no limit, etc., etc., etc. > > Reason Two: If reincarnation is part of "God Plan, which is > > Evolution" [Jinarajadasa - First Principles of Theosophy, Adyar] > > and leads to a general improvement in the human race, where is > > the supporting evidence? The human race is just as busy now at > > devising ways of its members being horrible to each other as it > > ever was, and improves the means of torture, death and > > destruction of its members on a daily basis. > This process takes a _very_ long time, but there are signs that > humanity is improving. For example, 1,000 years ago it was > inconceivable that nations could work together to relieve > suffering -- look at the work of the United Nations now. That's > progress, in my opinion. When I was a youngster, we could leave our back doors open. We would be mad to do so now - the place would be ransacked pretty quickly. 1,000 years ago, there were organisations working together to relieve suffering, many of them Christian-based. We still have them today. People will send money to relieve suffering in Africa, then walk past someone sleeping rough on the local street. The United Nations have been trying to relieve suffering in Bosnia, only the Bosnians and Serbs won't let them, and the Americans won't pay enough to make any real difference - in fact I heard (could be wrong on this) that the US of A recently decided not to pay a cent. There are equally signs that humanity is _not_ improving. > The personality, however, is relatively unreal. It has no > independent existence, being a transitory and rather loose > collection of skandas, drives, conditioning and habit, with a > sprinkling of whatever spiritual awareness that can make it > through from our innermost levels. It is born, and will surely > die. Life is fair, but it's not intended to cater to the whims > of the human and therefore limited brain consciousness. Errr ..... from which level are you saying this, Paul? :-) > > Reason Four: Who in their right mind would want to come back to > > the vale of tears, murder, rape, torture, hunger, disease, etc., > > etc.? The incentives to get perfect damn quick are all around us > My guess* is that there is generally an unwillingness to return, > but the waters of Lethe (i.e. wiping of memories past) combined > with tanha (the thirst for life experiences) combine to draw us > again into the fleshly envelope. It's also the experience of > some that when confronted by the vale of tears, they want to try > to help. I'm sure you feel that way. Staying in some devachanic > realm surrounded by happy memories is all very well, and no doubt > some entities stay a very long time indeed, but as we progress > there grows a feeling that we are not separate from the > sufferings of our fellow human beings, and must therefore come > into incarnation to try to help those struggling in the darkness. My understanding of a devachanic realm is a kind of rest room. "Happy memories" may or may not come into it. *I see you are guessing again. More :-) > We are therefore _all_ murderers, rapists, torturers, in so much > as we partake of the one life. Think of the Boddhisattva vow. To my way of thinking, the evidence supports just this view. However, if by virtue of our partaking of the One Life, we are all both evildoers and victims, then the idea of individual karma is thereby negated. > > If I kill and get life in jail, then I know what I am doing time > > for. If I reincarnate and "do time," why am I not told why? > Why not try to find out who is the "I" that asks this question? Party line, eh, Paul? :-). The "i" that I find (which is which?) seems only to recognize Law. > Everything I have learned in theosophy would tend to support your > conclusion, Phew! > however we have to graduate from kindergarten before we can go > and "play" in the wider universe. There are probably a billion > worlds where the One Life is manifesting--of course there will be > opportunities for each of us to learn, love and serve in > unimagineable ways. For now, let's remember we have work to do > now, on this world, in this life--but try to enter the Silence > where such distinctions are unimportant. I enter the Silence regularly - have done for years. Trouble is, I have to leave it again just as regularly, and all the same old questions are still there. I have been given _some_ answers, and again, they all point towards Law. They also support the idea of our being in a kind of kindergarten. > cheers > Paul Gillingwater cheers to you too! Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 21:37:45 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: pride goeth before a fall In message theos-l@vnet.net writes: > > This "Virtue of Harmlessness" sounds a bit like the Christian > > idea of turning the other cheek. Seems to me that some might use > > "turning the other cheek" as an excuse for "looking the other > > way." > > No, these are quite different ideas. We should do what we can to > prevent a repetition of the atrocities carried out during WWII - > (actually they're going on in Bosnia right now - what are you > doing about it?) But that doesn't mean we should hate all > Germans, for example. Sadly, I can do nothing about Bosnia, nor can the UN. Of course we should not hate all Germans - some of them were Jews, some of them opposed what happened. Most of the generation that performed the atrocities are dead, and today's Germans are quite different people. > > Here in England at the end of WWII the government sent out > > newsreel footage containing the full pictorial horrors of what > > the liberating troops filmed when they went into Bergen-Belsen > > for the first time - the piles of corpses, the pitiful state of > > those still barely alive, the German guards being made to carry > > the dead to mass graves, etc., etc. > > Let's not have any illusions that this was the first or last time > such acts have occurred, nor project all the blame on to the > Germans during WWII. A very short time ago the British were > raking in money from the slave trade and forcing opium onto the > Chinese. No country is entirely composed of Saints. Stalin and > Mao both killed more people than Hitler did. My point is that > the elimination of such violence should be a concern of all > humanity. - My only point in reply to this is that we don't have quite the same newsreel footage of the latter events. My suggestion was simply that the human race, where it has such clear evidence to look at, needs to look at it regularly as an awful warning of what _can_ happen (probably has, and probably will again, as you observe - what price progress, again?). > > in different ways. And some idiot will try to tell me that all > > those Jews and others must have deserved it for some unknown > > "karma" generated in previous lives. B...sh.t. > My point here, is that maybe from one point of view it wasn't as > horrible really as it seems to us now. Doesn't that Bhagavid > Gita say that the real person is neither born nor dies? My point is that it was and still is every bit as horrible as it seems now and as it seemed then. The Gita's strength lies in its portayal of Arjuna on the battlefield - it's about Law. > ASTREA Love you too ... Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 18:40:46 -0400 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Correction The simple act of making an apology instantly creates an ego-formation which doesn't owe one. --R. Ihle I would like to apologize for and change a sentence in my William Laudahn posting. The revised version should read as follows: "I apologize that THE AMERICAN THEOSOPHIST had an extended obituary for Burl Ives but [that I was not-at-the-ready with a few lines] for you." This, I think, makes my intended meaning more clear. I have recently learned that THE AMERICAN THEOSOPHIST had made great, but unsuccessful, efforts to collect obituary material for Bill in time for publication, so I certainly do not want my previous poor writing to reflect on their continuing good work in any way. Best wishes, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 18:22:04 -0600 From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: Several more items Well, it seems as though perhaps the theos-l "Lodge" doesn't go completely dark in the summer after all! This is a response to Paul's reply to Alan ... some snipping done (not for editorial reasons, but because some people pay for post size & I don't want to repeat words already posted). >Furthermore, new souls are _not_ coming up all the time. That >particular door has been closed for a long time, and will not be >open again for another round or so, according to various sources >(not just theosophical.) By positing a fixed number of jivas, >it's feasible to consider that there is a limit to the number that >can be in incarnation at any one time. The more there are, the >more opportunities there are to embody--but getting here is still >a tremendous privilege. But this also posits a very fixed, closed system. Is not the universe virtually chock full of life? Is it not fully possible that that there is no cosmic overlord maintaining "rules"? That, for instance, there are beings from all over the place that come here to use the central nervous system of the physical human form as a point of access to the physical band of this planet ... for varying lengths of time and for various reasons? There is, right now, a large migration going on in the western US ... over one million people have moved from California to the Denver area in the last few years ... could the same thing not happen at the larger levels ... what if our sudden increase in earth population came from some large groups of travelling "jivas" discovering earth and the portals to physical level experience upon it? Is it not at least possible that there aren't nearly as many hard and fast rules as most of the Theosophical system seems to imply? That perhaps some souls do a kind of long multi- incarnational loop, while others are only here for temporary, specialized experiences, and still others only incarnate once ... [as is the analogical case at the University where I work ... some students doing a full four year degree, others going for only one year on exchange programs, others doing two far more intense years as Masters students, and still other community members only taking one class now and then for nothing other than self-enrichment]. > This process takes a long time, and is not necessarily linear, > but more like a spiral. There are flowerings, then periods of > decay, as civilizations rise and fall. The suggestion of hope is > that the highest point of each sucessive civilization is higher > (in a spiritual sense, rather than materialistic one) than the > ones preceding. This process takes a _very_ long time, but there > are signs that humanity is improving. For example, 1,000 years > ago it was inconceivable that nations could work together to > relieve suffering -- look at the work of the United Nations now. > That's progress, in my opinion. Well, 1000 years ago the concept of the "nation-state" didn't really exist as we know it today ... and it is really modern technology that even permits people to be aware that there is a "global" village that they belong to. Most humans a millenium ago were lucky if they had any awareness of half the population on their own continent, let alone other continents. But, neighbors *did* apparently feel far more responsible for one another than they do today. We have built enormous cities in which people in neighborhoods, in fact residents of single buildings do not even know each other, let alone feel any concern for one another. The United Nations is a nice idea, but is funded, and dominated by, those nations who have actually had quite a bit to do with causing a lot of the suffering. And, this century, according to most historians, is by far the bloodiest in all of recorded history. Yes, we invented the United Nations ... but we also invented the concept of the World War ... and I personally would gladly do without the first if it meant I could also do without the second. > At the same time, there is mercy in denying recollection of just > what kind of evil buggers we may have been in the past, which > might lead to despair and inability to make any positive steps. Ah, the strange logic of this. First karma and reincarnation are "universal laws", then they somehow seem to become delibrately merciful, then they decide that they should keep from people the memories of their evil because this might cause despair. Whew! How very odd that universal laws apparently have *personalities*, and that even further those personalities appear to bear a striking resemblance to those of parish priests. (-:) >If one accepts that the process of evolution is not actually >happening to us as personalities, but rather to that part of us >which is relatively immortal (the reincarnating self), then at >that level of consciousness, which is ordinarily denied to us in >the body, there _is_ recollection. If the process of evolution is really happening to this immortal part, what the devil difference does it make *what* happens to the personality? Looking from the viewpoint of that immortal self, isn't most of what we call "evil" almost completely irrelevant? We consider murder one of the worst evils imaginable, but *what does murder mean to an immortal being*? This is one of those things that has always struck me as odd about the theories of karma and reincarnation. It is first postulated that to make any sense, to explain the enormous apparent problems with those theories (such as no recollection of past lives, and no awareness what one is being "punished" for when some nasty event happens), one must include a relatively immortal being that stands behind the scenes and directs things ... but then these theories are spoken of as though that immortal being shares the same very limited assumptions of the "incarnating" entity. What *would* be the perspective of an immortal layer of consciousness .. we speak of reincarnation in terms of past, present and future lives, but this *assumes* that our spiritual core is only capable of the single, linear dimension of time that our brain squeezes reality into. Even further, following this line of thinking turns "karma" into one of the most unimaginably unjust "laws" any demon could make up. Imagine a parent who watches their first son beat up a playmate, and then, five years later, delibrately places their second son, without his knowledge and without explaining the reason, into a situation in which he gets beat up. In fact, it seems as though the laws of karma and reincarnation *only* make sense (and even then not much) to a limited, incarnate physical brain consciousness ... the more one attempts to see things *as an immortal being would*, the less sense most of the theories seem to make. > From that point of view, it is just. The personality, however, > is relatively unreal. It has no independent existence, being a > transitory and rather loose collection of skandas, drives, > conditioning and habit, with a sprinkling of whatever spiritual > awareness that can make it through from our innermost levels. It > is born, and will surely die. Life is fair, but it's not > intended to cater to the whims of the human and therefore limited > brain consciousness. Again this wonderful contradiction. The personality is unreal, with no independent existance, yet its acts are of such importance that they generate "karma"? Would not the actions of an unreal being be equally unreal? Even further, what is being said is stunning: That the human personality is apparently incapable of understanding or coming to clarity about *particular* manifestations of the laws of karma and reincarnation (which would seem most relevant to understand), yet at the same time is capable of going on *at length and in great detail* about the huge universal principles behind those manifestations? Is this not rather a tad like saying that an infant who is as of yet incapable of standing up without falling down is nontheless capable of understanding the mathematics behind Newton's law of gravity? > My guess is that there is generally an unwillingness to return, > but the waters of Lethe (i.e. wiping of memories past) combined > with tanha (the thirst for life experiences) combine to draw us > again into the fleshly envelope. Yes, a guess. And one that must be made once you accept karma & reincarnation as an operative paradigm. In fact one must construct an entire house of guesses about all sorts of different things to make those theories match experiential reality. > Again, this is a matter of perspective. It's certainly possible > that exceptional students, or graduates, are given the choice of > moving into other worlds. I question however your idea of > "interminable." Surely a few hundred thousand years in one set of > globes isn't too much to ask when we're immortal? Again, an immortal being that thinks in terms of three dimensions of space and one directional axis of time? Lord above, the average Master's student in physics thinks more expansively than that. > Everything I have learned in theosophy would tend to support your > conclusion, however we have to graduate from kindergarten before > we can go and "play" in the wider universe. There are probably a > billion worlds where the One Life is manifesting--of course there > will be opportunities for each of us to learn, love and serve in > unimagineable ways. For now, let's remember we have work to do > now, on this world, in this life--but try to enter the Silence > where such distinctions are unimportant. Why, why, *why* should we "remember" such a thing. This species, for some reason, is really awesomely masochistic. All of our religions seem to be constructed are the mythos of the immensely suffering hero ... of postulating that life is gloomy, that we all have "lessons" (speak that word in an appropriately serious tone with downcast, reverential eyes!) to learn, and if we don't learn them we'll have to keep "coming back" until we do ... as though universal laws are some sort of weird 19th century Catholic nun. Why frame the purpose of existance as "work"? Why would we think that *this planet* at *this time* (a tiny speck of dust out of trillions, with aeons of time existing before it and after it) is the place where we are in kindergarten? Say, what if growing numbers of people began standing up, throwing the ponderous pronouncements and continual dark warnings of the prophets and wise men out the window, and building life and civilization on the assumption that we are immortal souls who came to this planet out of sheer enjoyment ... that we are not bound here by fate but visiting here by predilection ... that there really is plenty for all of us on this bountiful planet (which there really, in fact, is) ... that we are not here to "work" (with all of the connotations behind that word), but to engage in the sheer joy of reality creation, with cosmically unusual substances, within the particular vibratory ranges that this planet offers ... ... that maybe the "Fall" began the moment we collectively *accepted the idea that we have fallen*. With love & giggles, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 20:59:11 -0500 From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: Re: reincarnation Dear Von, There are many facets and speculations about reincarnation. Let me just contribute one you might like to mull over. A few years back, Rupert Sheldrake came up with a concept he called morphogenetic fields. Sheldrake's fields are very similar to Jung's collective unconscious. In very broad outlines Sheldrake thinks that these fields are fed into by the experience of human beings, and thus are a conglomerate of human experience, and are also a source to newly incarnating human entities. Sheldrake is a biologist,. He proves some of his statements by experiments. He must have written a book about morphogenetic fields. About 10 years ago, he also gave a series of talks at the Krotona Institute of Theosophy, and I have a taped copy of what he said at the time. Best source --- the Olcott Library. They will, upon request, send you a reading list on reincarnation. The latest Theosophical book is "Reincarnation Explored" by Dr. John Algeo, our President. Shorter versions of this book are also on video and audio tape, which you can purchase from the Theosophical Publishing House, or else also borrow from the Library. Shanti Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 23:37:23 -0500 From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: Re: cosmogenesis and other subjects Dear Fred, Bringing 20th cent Physics into a new perspective by means of the Stanzas is of real interest to me. Because of correspondence with Sy Ginzburg of the Miami branch, I've just recently received course material from Angie Hall of the same branch. She was facilitator for a course called "Esoteric Science". The course used "Stalking the Wild Pendulum" as text. Course matter tried to ascertain what of modern science coincides with the visions of the ancient seers. I've just started a new little study center here in Syracuse, & we're hoping to use the same book as text for a similar course in the Fall. Angie's class assembled recent cogent articles. If you have anything that's ready for distribution in the way of essays or chapters, we'd love it, & I believe so would Miami. They're planning to do another more advanced course on the same subject matter. All courses are for laymen, not for scientists. Re reincarnation, to me it's also a great motivator. Whatever I can learn can be built upon, not only by myself in this and future lives, but also by others, because it seems that if 1 person learns something, the 2d person who goes to learn the same thing finds it easier. Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 21:37:59 -0500 From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: Re: Several more items Dear Alan, Even though your reasons for rejecting the idea of reincarnation are compelling, permit me to raise a few "but''s. Reason one: the way I heard it is that not everyone is at the same part of the cycle at a time. Some people are in the body, some on the Astral, some in Devachan, & etc. Reason 2 "The human race ... improves the means of torture, death & destruction." I also see psychotherapy, psychosynthesis, conflict resolution, & people who practice Theosophy & other religious ideas. It's got to go along with Krishnamurti's idea that ideals are a hindrance, because they send you on a guilt trip when you don't live up to them, and what must happen is that people live the teachings. I think that's happening as well as the devising of more sophisticated tortures. So is the glass half empty or half full? Shanti Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 22:11:27 -0500 From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: Re: pride goeth before a fall Dear Alan, No, I don't think the people who were slaughtered by the Nazis "deserved it". But let me tell you there's something about some Jews that puts them on the defensive. For centuries, they were accused of doing horrible things because they were different, and their ways were misunderstood by the Christians in Europe, just for instance. They were thought of as sinners, for 1 thing, because they refused baptism. Hundreds of years of saying "No, I'm not.", "No, I didn't do that", and getting to believe yourself that maybe you are that horrible thing anyway, since everyone says you are, can really make you be continually on the defensive, & thus give off vibes that attract that others to making you their scapegoat. Just for instance, I was brought up to be very quiet & sedate, & dress very simply, so I would fit in with the others, & not be identified as a loud Jew. Jews are supposed to be very loud. Do you see what the interaction is there? That's the Karma the Jews have. I know it well, & I think that, with Harry's help, I got rid of a good chunk of it. But the other point is, while everyone thinks that the Nazis were horrible creatures, which is true, everyone is so outraged that they forget that these too were human beings. Not all of them were as depraved as Hitler & his inner circle. They must've gone through hell too. No one can kill & torture that wantonly & not be adversely affected by it. I agree with you that it would be a good thing for everyone to see the Bergen Belsen movies. But if that would somehow be made to lead to breaking this cycle of raising sadists & masochists, I'd feel a lot better. To come down to personal experience of breeding sadists & masochists, I know of a kid in my neighborhood who's highly intelligent & ambitious, and his father beats him, but not just slightly, he gets drunk & beats him. What's going to happen to that kid when he gets to be an adult. All the grown-ups who have an influence over him are trying to smoothe the path for him, & so far so good. He's a great kid. But I wonder what getting beat up every now & so often by his father is going to do to him. Maybe he'll turn into a sadistic Nazi. I think, I strongly believe that our Theosophical job is to lift up people wherever & whenever we can. With our neighbors, we can make a difference, & if enough of us make a difference with our neighbors, maybe we can stoop the cycle sooner or later. Shanti Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 20:51:50 -0700 (MST) From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: A few questions to JRC and A. BAin Sat. PM Well, it seems that my questions on reincarnation has got Theos-l posting left and right! I want to at a later date when I have the time to respond to some of the comments made by AB, JRC and others. But I want to have the time to carefully read their comments on reincarnation, karma,etc. and try to understand their perspectives. Right now in very general terms and without rereading and quoting their exact statements, I want to pose several questions to JRC and AB (and of course these questions are posed to everyone on Theos-l including myself). Both AB and JRC have expressed their skepticism about truth and reality of "reincarnation" and "karma" as usually written about in most Theosophical literature published in the last 100 years. Both have asked where is the evidence and proof for "reincarnation" and "karma". How do those who beleive in these "ideas" know, really KNOW, that these teachings are really part and parcel of the fabric of the world in which we live? These are good questions and each of us on Theos-l would do well to think about these questions, their implications, etc. But in order to try to understand JRC's and AB's background assumptions, reasoning, etc. better, I would like to ask them: (1) If you are inclined to disbelieve in "karma" and "reincarnation", what other theosophical "ideas" do you believe are true? What other Theosophical teachings do you think have been proven and what kinds of evidence are their that have lead you to believe that these "ideas" have validity and reality? For example, do you believe in "astral bodies" or "causal bodies"? Is there good evidence to support a belief in some kind of "life after death?" Does "telepathy" or "levitation" occur? Did HPB's Masters exist? Could HPB "materialize" cups and saucers? Back to the bigger picture, do you believe in "other planes of existence" or in "devas" or in the "Logos"? And what evidence do you have that would show non-theosophists that there is something to these other Theosophical beliefs, *excluding karma, reincarnation, Lemuria and Atlantis? It's good to be skeptical and challenge beliefs and assumptions and it is valid to ask for evidence, proof, and good reasons for believing in karma reincarnation, Lemuria, etc. But if you believe in other Theosophical ideas or concepts, then are you also applying the same skeptical attitude, etc. to these other ideas? Several weeks or months ago (??), JRC said something to the effect that he did NOT believe in karma for several reasons. One of those reasons was to the effect that if karma was so universal, etc, etc. then why doesn't everyone in the whole wide world accept? Sorry, JRC, if I am mutilating what you actually wrote!! In other words, JRC was using that criterion to discount the validity of "karma". But if that criterion is a valid and useful one, I ask in turn, what theosophical idea would pass the test? In fact, what "belief" could such a test? JRC, if I have muddled your argument on this, please correct me and, if possible, post what you originally wrote. What is my point? It is this: We can be skeptical to such an extent, that I doubt that there would be any Theosophical tenet, belief, teaching, idea or even any metaphysical "idea" that would be acceptable. What are the standards and criteria by which we judge the truth or falsity of any "idea", etc.? As far as I know, "science" (or the "scientific community") does NOT even in 1995 acceptable the reality of ESP, PK, telepathy, clairvoyance, out of body experiences, etc. , etc. How many universities in the world have a department of parapsychology or how many psychology departments in universities and colleges throughout the world teach a course on parapsychology and accept that such paranormal phenomena exist and are a part of everyday life. If we want to be really skeptical, I suggest JRC and AB and others on Theos-l read and study some of the books published by members of CSICOP and printed by Prometheus Press. Start out with Dr. Paul Kurtz's book THE TRANSCENDENTAL TEMPTATION. What can be proven and verifed in the Theosophical teachings and in Theosophical history? Can we (whether JRC, AB, Dan Caldwell, etc, etc.) pin down any "facts"? Some may think "karma" and "reincarnation" fairly elusive concepts, vague and very, very hard to "pin down"! That is, "ideas" way up in the clouds. But what other concepts or teachings are closer to the ground and more verifiable? In other words, I think JRC's and AB's "skeptical" comments have opened up a whole can of worms. And others on Theos-l should examine their own "belief-system" involving karma and reincarnation. But in turn, JRC and AB should apply their own skepticism to other parts of their own belief system. I assume they have one?! :) All this is food for thought. I hope my central point has been communicted! Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 25 Jun 95 00:44 PDT From: portelli@calon.com Subject: Re: Several more items Holy Koot Hoomi's, how did I get back on this list? Jumpin Mitraya's, please get me off of this gold dang list and please stop filling my mail box with this stuff. I am not worthy of such eminence. Probably forth root race. Definitly not evolved enough to comprehend all this higher learning. Just stop it, for Hoomi's sake. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 01:24:38 -0600 From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: A few questions to JRC and A. BAin To Daniel... [from JRC ... a long post; hopefully worth reading (-:] >(1) If you are inclined to disbelieve in "karma" and >"reincarnation", what other theosophical "ideas" do you believe >are true? What other Theosophical teachings do you think have >been proven and what kinds of evidence are their that have lead >you to believe that these "ideas" have validity and reality? I draw a sharp distinction between Theosophical "teachings", the Theosophical "Society", and being a "Theosophist". I *am* a Theosophist, as I accept the Three Objects as being excellent goals ... and in fact consider the First Object to be filled with both transcendental beauty and pragmatic brilliance. I have been, off and on over the last decade or so, a member of the Theosophical Society headquatered in Wheaton, but this has always been a somewhat questionable membership to me ... it is often very difficult to pay for a yearly membership (with my very scarce money) when the money seems to go to supporting the personal visions of that small cotiere that dominates headquarters and keeps (IMO) a very limited, anarchistic view of Theosophy institutionalized. In fact, I fear I often believe that there are other organizations that are actually *accomplishing* various parts of the Three Objects far more effectively than the TS itself is. As far as Theosophical "teachings" go, if what you refer to is the standard dogma, I certainly do not accept any of it as true on faith, but rather read the old books in the same way as I read the ideas from dozens of different philosophies, religions, and even sciences. Some are interesting, others provide unique angles of vision, others are worth exploring, and still others seem to be severely limited by the superstitious assumptions of the eras in which they were born, or framed. I am on my own hunt for the Real, but I do not accept any particular, single viewpoint as my "home". I am not a Theosophical "student" ... simply an explorer that visits the Theosophical island sometimes. >For example, do you believe in "astral bodies" or "causal >bodies"? Is there good evidence to support a belief in some >kind of "life after death?" Have spent much time ramblin' through the inner realms, and for the life of me I can't say I've ever seen the nice neat lines that the Theosophical construct seems to imply. Seven sub-planes of the seven planes of the seventh cosmic plane? How many rounds on how many globes? Good gracious, sounds like there's road signs and traffic cops in there or something (-:). >Does "telepathy" or "levitation" occur? Did HPB's Masters >exist? Could HPB "materialize" cups and saucers? Telepathy yes, after a fashion ... have seen plenty of evidence of its empirical manifestation. Unclear about the full set of principles & relevant variables needed for its consistant operation however. HPB's Masters ... probably. Have personally bumped into a couple of Things that certainly possessed fairly impressive energy-systems ... wouldn't have any desire to personalize them however (and they didn't seem to have any desire to be personalized)...seemed rather more intensely goal-oriented than most denizens of the innerland. Materialization? Who knows? Wouldn't actually make much difference to me one way or the other. A group of people who can raise the money, marshal the resources, and organize the logistics needed to get thousands of tons of grain to a starving nation strikes a far deeper chord in me than a tea cup appearing out of the blue. >Back to the bigger picture, do you believe in "other planes of >existence" or in "devas" or in the "Logos"? I don't believe in "planes", because the notion is simply too structured. Had the odd circumstance of being born "clairvoyant" (as many children are), lost it by the time I was six or seven, and had it re-open again in my early twenties as the result of exercises I was playing with. Was a *bear* to wrestle under some sort of control. I began all sorts of interactions with all sorts of different "beings" ... and they showed me all sorts of possible permutations of human consciousness. That is, I had a huge wealth of experience *before* I ran into Theosophical construct. When I did, I began noticing that things spoken of in Theosophy as "Devas" bore some resemblance to a particular kingdom I was used to dealing with, but frankly a *lot* of the writings seemed far too concerned with form and structure to accurately reflect the "Devic" worldview. *Enormous* amounts of what I witness in the inner realms is not mentioned in any writings I've read ... many other things are hinted at, and a few things seem to be aprroached directly. I don't really "believe" in Devas, I simply interact with them ... but they really aren't "beings" so much as (?) particular sorts of movements. As far as I can tell, the vast majority of that "kingdom" has very little to do with humans ... but a few streams of that kingdom *do* wish interaction with humans ... and seem to believe that some interaction will further both Devic and human unfolding ... but (for instance) the particular waves that would probably be called "healing angels" do not themselves think of themselves as "healing angels" ... but rather are a sort of energy stream that, when it refracts through the human vibratory band, produces (almost as an aftereffect) the surface phenomena that humans would configure as "healing". I certainly have attempted to make sure that this is not just my imagination, and they have aided in this ... in fact, they will entertain requests from me 'cause at times I'll help them with projects they get themselves involved in (humans *can* create inner forms that permit them to condense themselves far more fully than they can alone) ... and they seem to be virtually *always* experimenting. I have been able to see, for instance, a huge difference in the growth rate of two identical plants (yes I *have* used to scientific method with them) ... and am currently attempting to set up an experiment to determine whether (as I fully suspect from lesser experiments) a group of humans interacting with a group of Devas can greatly increase the recovery rates in one wing of a hospital. Problem, of course, is that this stuff still has to be done quite on the sly. Point is, again, I have *never* seen "planes" or "sub- planes" or any sort of hierarchal ranking ... in fact their existances aren't really seperate enough to even make such distinctions. Humans believe that life is composed of "things that move", and that assumption conditions our philosophies at a very deep level ... but is irrelevant when dealing with existances that *do* have a form of awareness, even a bizarre form of self-awareness, but whose fundamental existance is as *movement itself*, which simply fluctuates between relatively patterned or free-flowing states. Fact (I just remembered) I attempted to "ask" them once (to the extent that communication is possible ... which is really kind of obliquely) about all the different "rankings" in various religious literature ... Archangels, angels, etc., etc... and it took the longest time to even get them to understand what the hell I was talking about. They finally "replied" with what I perceived as humor ... said most of that stuff was human fantasy .. that incarnate humans are kind of skittish beings that frighten very easily, and that many *do* have aspects that *are* aware of their realm, but that its reality is so fluid that this subtle knowledge is quite disturbing ... and that (I thought this was a good one) the human mind's instinctive reaction whenever it even touches the free-flowing energies of creation was to immediately try to structure the living hell out of it as a means of feeling itself to be again in control. (They have a sort of wry sense of humor about the human kingdom (-:). > And what evidence do you have that would show non-theosophists > that there is something to these other Theosophical beliefs, > *excluding karma, reincarnation, Lemuria and Atlantis? See previous comments ... if a "Theosophist" is one who accepts the standard writings ... then *I* am a non-theosophist. It's good to be skeptical and challenge beliefs and assumptions and it is valid to ask for evidence, proof, and good reasons for believing in karma reincarnation, Lemuria, etc. But if you believe in other Theosophical ideas or concepts, then are you also applying the same skeptical attitude, etc. to these other ideas? I fear I don't believe in *anything*. It's enough of a challenge to fully comprehend and digest the experiences I do have. >Several weeks or months ago (??), JRC said something to the >effect that he did NOT believe in karma for several reasons. >One of those reasons was to the effect that if karma was so >universal, etc, etc. then why doesn't everyone in the whole wide >world accept? Sorry, JRC, if I am mutilating what you actually >wrote!! In other words, JRC was using that criterion to >discount the validity of "karma". But if that criterion is a >valid and useful one, I ask in turn, what theosophical idea >would pass the test? In fact, what "belief" could such a test? >JRC, if I have muddled your argument on this, please correct me >and, if possible, post what you originally wrote. Forgot what I wrote. And there are many reasons why I don't accept "karma" as it is framed in Theosophical writings. Again, I don't priviledge Theosophical writings above the writings of any other religion, philosophy or science I've read. I *do* like the idea of the Universal Family of Humanity, of the study of comparative Religions and Sciences, and of the investigation of the powers latent in Human Beings ... thus I am a Theosophist. (And thus I am often in trouble with Theosophical institutions). > As far as I know, "science" (or the "scientific community") does > NOT even in 1995 accept the reality of ESP, PK, telepathy, > clairvoyance, out of body experiences, etc. , etc. How many > universities in the world have a department of parapsychology or > how many psychology departments in universities and colleges > throughout the world teach a course on parapsychology and accept > that such paranormal phenomena exist and are a part of everyday > life. Of course, it wasn't Theosophy that came up with a cure for small-pox either. So universities don't have parapsychology departments? Well, 150 years ago they didn't even have psychology departments, and the barest rudiments of the normal operations of the human psyche are still, at this early stage, being vehemently disputed ... not suprising that there isn't yet much study of people and phenomena that are way outside of the norm. Devas once seemed to hint that several decades down the road a science that is an odd combination of understandings currently being formed in quantum physics and depth & cognitive psychology *will* produce a *far* clearer, more precise understanding of some of those phenomena than any current religious or philosophical construct does. > What can be proven and verifed in the Theosophical teachings and > in Theosophical history? Can we (whether JRC, AB, Dan Caldwell, > etc, etc.) pin down any "facts"? Some may think "karma" and > "reincarnation" fairly elusive concepts, vague and very, very > hard to "pin down"! That is, "ideas" way up in the clouds. But > what other concepts or teachings are closer to the ground and > more verifiable? In other words, I think JRC's and AB's > "skeptical" comments have opened up a whole can of worms. And > others on Theos-l should examine their own "belief-system" > involving karma and reincarnation. But in turn, JRC and AB > should apply their own skepticism to other parts of their own > belief system. I assume they have one?! :) I probably do have a belief system, but I actually don't care that much what it is at any particular point, as it alters virtually continually ... and I guess I just consider any belief "system" to be nothing but an epiphenomena, an aftereffect, a static crystallization of experience. I do think about and attempt to digest experience when I have time, but it is expanding the range of possible experience, it is discovering new permutations of awareness, new vibratory frequencies upon which consciousness can resonate, discovering and refining new types and aspects of perceptual abilities within the human constitution that is what I'm after ... and the opportunity for some new adventure will always take precedence over maintaining some nice neat conceptual model. I have become convinced, experientially convinced, that this 'ol universe is almost impossibly, unimaginably alive ... and that the primary tones and vibrations of most beings are those of utter joyful playfullness and almost continually creative ecstacy .. and if at the root of it all is the "One Life" it seems the most appropriate, "spiritual" response is to *live it*, to provide (in a tiny, tiny way) one avenue through which that life can expand and experience to the fullest degree possible ... not to try to nail the sucker into a little philosophical box. My skepticism is not a way of proving any truth ... but a means of knocking holes in boxes. I don't think any religion or philosophy is "true", but I do think some are interesting, and others probably quite useful. Were I one of those Spooks whose particular predilection included accepting some responsibility for enlivening the human race, I suppose pure creativity might suggest that those constructs called karma and reincarnation, or heaven and hell, would seem almost necessary. Goodness, there are actually people all over the place who choose to resonate along the bands of hatred and violence and thievery ... you'd have to construct an awfully *dense* set of truths to even get such a species to pay attention. (-:) I've never attempted to get anyone to accept anything I frame as true as being some *absolute* truth ... and if at times I get testy and try to knock holes in things ... its 'cause it seems as though others *are* speaking in such a fashion. Were I to attempt to convince anyone on this list to entertain any idea, it might be this: That perhaps many here have so completely internalized noble ethical standards that perhpas they can do away with the dense truths that are needed to keep children from killing one another (and don't even work too well at that) but that may greatly limit both the service and joy of those increasing numbers who have but to claim what they've earned to be able to live again as fully conscious, immortal spiritual entities, with suprisingly few restrictions and "laws", in the Kingdom of Joy. W/ Love & more giggles, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 25 Jun 95 11:02:28 +1100 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: reincarnation guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) writes: > Our experience seems similar. Notwithstanding recent postings, > readers of theos-l may be surprised to learn that I have a number > of past life memories. Not surprising. > them _could_ be). One of my memories is of a most unhappy life, > some details of which I have been able to verify. I do not > believe that the person whose life I remember was, in this > instance, myself in any guise, though I suspect that I resonate > with her and share certain areas of compassionate interest - > which could explain why I remember _her_ life is some detail > rather than (say) Astrea in her ape-body. :-))) As well as trances or visions of past lives, I have also had dreams of being entirely different people. For example, I recently had an extremely vivid dream of being a young black guy in a big city who was trying to resist peer pressure to take illicit drugs. It involved some aspects of street life-style which I have never experienced myself. Was it imagination, just a dream? Or maybe there was some resonance with such a person which allowed me to "be inside his skin" for a short time. If the latter, I wonder if there was a two-way flow at all. Hmmmm... As for the ape-body ... I saw a gorilla on tv last night who was quite proficient at sign language. These animals really are intelligent. Ooookkk! ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 25 Jun 95 11:15:12 +1100 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: A few questions to JRC and A. BAin MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU writes: > In other words, I think JRC's and AB's "skeptical" comments have > opened up a whole can of worms. And others on Theos-l should > examine their own "belief-system" involving karma and > reincarnation. But in turn, JRC and AB should apply their own > skepticism to other parts of their own belief system. I assume > they have one?! :) > > All this is food for thought. I hope my central point has been > communicted! There are a cluster of ideas which have tended to be promoted through out Theosophical Societies, but more than this, there is also something of a tradition of free thought and questioning of authorities, so that any of these ideas are open to inquiry and even criticism by its members. Some members even question the questioning of authorities! This is actually quite healthy, I think, and is one of the important differences between the society and most churches. ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 25 Jun 95 11:35:13 +1100 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: Theosophical Enlightenment Has any one seen the book entitled "The Theosophical Enlightenment" by Joscelyn Godwin, 1994, State University of New York Press, Albany? It's quite a scholarly survey of esoteric philosophy and movements in the West from the 18th Century, and includes the Theosophical Society, amongst other things. He quotes from "our" Paul Johnson's books on a number of occasions. He is not hostile to the society, and seems to acknowledge some unexplained goings-ons, but appears to prefer ordinary explanations to extra-ordinary ones, when it comes to the Masters etc. I've just skimmed it, and these are my initial impressions. It is interesting however, because he brings in some relatively obscure figures associated with the early days of the TS, eg the Egyptians HBP associated with before she founded the Soceity. We bought the book in a small esoteric bookshop near the British Museum last weekend. (Just to add some local colour: as we were looking around the shelves a young lady came in trying to find someone who could initiate her as a witch. The woman behind the counter, who seemed to know a thing or two about these matters, told her she was too young, and that before a witch would take anyone on for training and initiation they would have to be much older.) ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 02:44:04 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Several more items Dear JRC: Thank you, thank you, thank you for your long posting. I LOVE IT! Love and even more giggles ..... Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 15:08:39 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: A few questions to JRC and A. BAin In message <01HS3HPCBAF68WW2M4@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU> theos-l@vnet.net writes: > But in order to try to understand JRC's and AB's background > assumptions, reasoning, etc. better, I would like to ask them: > > (1) If you are inclined to disbelieve in "karma" and > "reincarnation", what other theosophical "ideas" do you believe > are true? What other Theosophical teachings do you think have > been proven and what kinds of evidence are their that have lead > you to believe that these "ideas" have validity and reality? > > For example, do you believe in "astral bodies" or "causal > bodies"? Is there good evidence to support a belief in some kind > of "life after death?" I have exerience of Out of the Body activity, and have seen my own physical body from outside of it. That is evidence, albeit subjective evidence. I could call this OOB self an "astral" body, perhaps. Again, "subjectively," I have met dead people. I have even been given details about their lives "down here" which I could not have known and have been able to verify _after_ the event. I have also had three near death experiences, and am personally quite certain of life after death in consequence. > Does "telepathy" or "levitation" occur? Did HPB's Masters exist? > Could HPB "materialize" cups and saucers? Some sort of "telepathy" seems to occur naturally in people, but seems to be fairly low-level and primitive. Never seen or experienced levitation. If it exists on any worthwhile level, we could surely have done away with the automobile by now! I have little doubt that HPB's "Masters" exist(ed), but the answer begs a lot of questions, doesn't it? > Back to the bigger picture, do you believe in "other planes of > existence" or in "devas" or in the "Logos"? Yes to planes, yes to "devas" [but see JRC's posting]. "Logos" is a greek word with nearly three pages of shades of meaning in my Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament. I find it impossible to think of "The Logos" as some kind of entity. > And what evidence do you have that would show non-theosophists > that there is something to these other Theosophical beliefs, > *excluding karma, reincarnation, Lemuria and Atlantis? When teaching - can only be done by word of mouth accompanying the literature - I always tell new (and old) students, "This is the teaching as I have received/experienced it. DO NOT BELIEVE A WORD I TELL YOU - CHECK IT OUT, get your _own_ experience." I do not, as you seem to suppose, dismiss the _existence_ of Lemuria or Atlantis. > It's good to be skeptical and challenge beliefs and assumptions > and it is valid to ask for evidence, proof, and good reasons for > believing in karma reincarnation, Lemuria, etc. But if you > believe in other Theosophical ideas or concepts, then are you > also applying the same skeptical attitude, etc. to these other > ideas? Yes! See above! > What are the standards and criteria by which we judge the truth > or falsity of any "idea", etc.? The scientific method, personal experience, common sense. How many universities in the world have a department of > parapsychology or how many psychology departments in universities > and colleges throughout the world teach a course on > parapsychology and accept that such paranormal phenomena exist > and are a part of everyday life. In the UK, Edinburgh in Scotland. In our TS Lodge we sometimes have lectures from Dr. Serena Roney-Dougal, who has her Ph.D in Parapsychology from there. She has also given a one-day seminar. Okay so far? Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 15:27:24 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: reincarnation Astrea - I have also had semi-waking experiences of taking part in other [living] people's conversations _as if_ I were one of them. The content of the conversations has usually been very mundane and quite meaningless to my own life. Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 15:30:13 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Theosophical Enlightenment In message theos-l@vnet.net writes: > We bought the book in a small esoteric bookshop near the British > Museum last weekend. (Just to add some local colour: as we were > looking around the shelves a young lady came in trying to find > someone who could initiate her as a witch. The woman behind the > counter, who seemed to know a thing or two about these matters, > told her she was too young, and that before a witch would take > anyone on for training and initiation they would have to be much > older.) > > ASTREA Sounds like someone I may know - what was the name of the shop? :-) Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 15:35:26 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: A few questions to JRC and A. BAin JRC - most of what you say is my experience also. I think we have been here before - do I still owe you an e-mail? Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 08:48:42 -0700 (MST) From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Thanks to JRC and AB Sunday 8;45 am Tucson, Az Thanks JRC and AB for your postings in response to my "questions." Thanks very much for taking the time and effort to share with all of us your "viewpoints." This is what can make Theos-l such a great tool and vehicle! Much food for thought! Will try to digest and post comments later. Once again, your comments are greatly appreciated. Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Jun 95 12:18:26 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Brenda's adversaries Brenda: >I did a search several months ago on the word "adversary" in THE >SECRET DOCTRINE and was surprised to find a series of short thoughts >basically leading to the idea that soul, spirit, and body are all adversaries of each >other. If we're shooting for a physical manifestation of perfection it may >prove to be at the expense of the other two realms, the ego and the monad. Yes! It's my understanding that the personality takes its energy from the ego for lifetimes, until the wheel turns the other way. Then the personality surrenders to the ego. Slowly, the ego takes over the personality until the personality is a shell or mask to work through on the physical plane. And at some further time, the monad does the same with the ego. I know this is an old post, but just had to comment. - ann In five years laser observatories (for which funds have recently been approved) will try to measure gravitational wave signatures of black holes and other events. These are sensitive to one one-millionth of a nuclear radius over 1 meter in detecting variations in earth's gravitational field. The gravitation wave is to global mass what electromagnetic radiation is to the molecule. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 25 Jun 95 13:58:04 +1100 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: Re: A few questions to JRC and A. BAin astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) writes: > There are a cluster of ideas which have tended to be promoted > through out Theosophical Societies, but more than this, there is > also something of a tradition of free thought and questioning of > authorities, so that any of these ideas are open to inquiry and > even criticism by its members. Some members even question the > questioning of authorities! This is actually quite healthy, I > think, and is one of the important differences between the > society and most churches. I fully support this view, and welcome the chance to debate these questions with theosophists of the calibre of Alan Bain et al. It gives me a chance to clarify my own thinking, and to try to understand why my beliefs have evolved as they have. One of my favourite quotes in this regard comes from a member of Wellington lodge in New Zealand called Vladimir Loncar, who says that the "T.S. is the place where questions are answered and answers are questioned." In this spirit, I am going to spend some time thinking up replies, and will try to contribute more to this fascinating debate. Paul Gillingwater From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 25 Jun 95 18:58:56 +1100 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: mysterious bookshop guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) writes: > In message theos-l@vnet.net writes: > > Sounds like someone I may know - what was the name of the shop? > :-) > > Alan Ummmm...we think it might have been called "The Atlantis Bookshop" in Museum Street - just around the corner from our Hotel (meeting place of the Himalayan Brotherhood Lodge!). The older woman was of a certain age, curly brown shortish hair and glasses, as I recall. Quite a selection of books and cards, but alas nothing on either magic squares or goddess sites in Europe :-) ASTREA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 25 Jun 95 10:35:44 -0700 From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: oneness I don't know how many people occasionally remember that "superstition" is something to be avoided. "Superstition" to an occultist is more of an accumulated way of thinking than it is a true and valid practice. In its simplest most frequent form, it is avoiding ladders, remembering all day the black cat which made us "wary," knocking on wood, etc. I recently tried teaching my five year old about superstition and had some difficulty. So I decided I needed to review what we're trying to accomplish by being anti-superstitious. (Does this remind anyone of morphogenetic learning?) My last post contained three separate, though united, ideas. Here they are again for a recap: If people are behaving like automatons, choose Jehovah. If people are ridding themselves of sin, choose Soul or Satan. If people are seeking the divine spirit, choose Logos. If you choose Logos, you'll have to oppose (or maybe balance) Jehovah and Satan-Soul. We in manifestation are still capable of many things. The last SD search was re: adversary as I mentioned. This time I tried a search on Oneness and found a passage re: superstition which made me think I should try a search on superstition, but haven't done so yet.=20 The passage was in Vol I, Section XIV, The Four Elements (p.466 1978= edition) HPB compares the Bible believers with those they were condemning, or the mythological-minded. I got the impression from reading here that believing Jehovah will help you in a time of war and squash your enemies is as silly as believing that lightning is the angry voice of God or that there is a God of Lightning. But in the words of HPB, "The ancients knew these powers so well, that, while concealing their true nature under various allegories, for the benefit (or to the detriment) of the uneducated rabble, they never departed from the multiple object in view, while inverting them. They contrived to throw a thick veil over the nucleus of truth concealed by the symbol, but they ever tried to preserve the latter as a RECORD for future generations, sufficiently transparent to allow their wise men to discern that truth behind the fabulous form of the glyph or allegory. They are accused of superstition and credulity, those ancient sages; and this by those very nations, which, learned in all the modern arts and sciences, cultured and wise in their generation, accept to this day as their one living and infinite God, the anthropomorphic "Jehovah" of the Jews." When life is really in need of support, its really kind of comforting to find God in simple things. For God to have a voice, whether in the lightning, in the winds, in the law, or in the harvest, at least this becomes an external force calling for us to awake to a higher life. Part of my meditations lately have been in regard to "Space is the real world." I am having the same difficulty there which I am having on this earth, however. I am surrounded by stars which are objects of light primarily. Yet to research oneness, I have to choose a particular source of light and do the meditation which unites one with the object. Likewise, I have been finding myself seeking one particular object out of all the available objects on earth to hold as a meditation point during the day. This may seem like a futile exercise to some, but then I ran across another passage in SD which made me take notice. (Vol II, p. 41-42) "Christian theology, having rejected the doctrine of emanations and replaced them with direct, conscious creations of angels and the rest out of nothing, now finds itself hopelessly stranded between Supernaturalism, or miracle, and materialism. An extra-cosmic god is fatal to philosophy, an intra-cosmic Deity, 7i.e. Spirit and matter inseparable from each other is philosophical necessity. Separate them and that which is left is a gross superstition under a mask of emotionalism. But why "geometrize," as Plato has it, why represent these emanations under the form of an immense arithmetical table? The question is well answered by the author just cited. His remarks are quoted in Part II., =A7 "The Theogony of the Creative Gods." "Mental perception," he says, "to become physical perception, must have the Cosmic principle of light: and by this, our mental circle must become visible through light; or, for its complete manifestation, the Circle must be that of physical visibility, or Light itself. Such conceptions, thus formulated, became the groundwork of the philosophy of the divine manifesting in the Universe."" THE SECRET DOCTRINE suggests many more activities which can be done with "space." Number, geomentry, distance or measure all become relevant= activies. (and p. 41-42) "This is materialising the Spiritual without scruple. But the Kabala was not always so well adapted to anthropo-monotheistic conceptions. Compare this with any of the six schools of India. For instance, in Kapila's "Sankhya" Philosophy, unless, allegorically speaking, Purusha mounts on the shoulders of Prakriti, the latter remains irrational, while the former remains inactive without her. Therefore Nature (in man) must become a compound of Spirit and Matter before he becomes what he is; and the Spirit latent in Matter must be awakened to life and consciousness gradually. The Monad has to pass through its mineral, vegetable and animal forms, before the Light of the Logos is awakened in the animal man. Therefore, till then, the latter cannot be referred to as "man," but has to be regarded as a Monad imprisoned in ever changing forms. Evolution, not creation, by means of words is recognized in the philosophies of the East, even in their exoteric records." These words to me are the "objects" of oneness in meditation. Favorite objects are: water, bottle, cross, pencil, etc. This is like awakening in the morning with the light from one star or one zone in the universe. Now, have I ridiculed the idea of "oneness" enough. I can recall the thoughts which used to elevate being "oneness with nature", "oneness with humanity", and here are a few final quotes which may interest you from Volume II. (p. 216) "From the possession of the double principle in one, that is the Androgyne condition, the separation of the dual principle was made, presenting two opposites, whose destiny it was, for ever after, to seek reunion into the original one condition. The curse was this, viz.: that nature, impelling the search, evaded the desired result by the production of a new being, distinct from that reunion or oneness desired, by which the natural longing to recover a lost state was and is for ever being cheated" "This Tree reaches the heavenly vale and is hidden between three mountains (the upper triad of principles, in man). From these three mountains, the Tree ascends above (the adept's knowledge aspires heavenward) and then redescends below (into the adept's Ego on Earth)." (p. 249) "(b) This verse (thirty-ninth) relates exclusively to the racial divisions. Strictly speaking, esoteric philosophy teaches a modified polygenesis. For, while it assigns to humanity a oneness of origin, in so far that its forefathers or " Creators " were all divine beings, though of different classes or degrees of perfection in their hierarchy, men were nevertheless born on seven different centres of the continent of that period. Though all of one common origin, yet for reasons given their potentialities and mental capabilities, outward or physical forms, and future characteristics, were very different. (With a footnote as follows) Some superior, others inferior, to suit the Karma of the various reincarnating Monads which could not be all of the same degree of purity in their last births in other worlds. This accounts for the difference of races, the inferiority of the savage, and other human varieties." The conversations are very stimulating!!! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 20:59:11 -0500 From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: Re: reincarnation Dear Von, There are many facets and speculations about reincarnation. Let me just contribute one you might like to mull over. A few years back, Rupert Sheldrake came up with a concept he called morphogenetic fields. Sheldrake's fields are very similar to Jung's collective unconscious. In very broad outlines Sheldrake thinks that these fields are fed into by the experience of human beings, and thus are a conglomerate of human experience, and are also a source to newly incarnating human entities. Sheldrake is a biologist,. He proves some of his statements by experiments. He must have written a book about morphogenetic fields. About 10 years ago, he also gave a series of talks at the Krotona Institute of Theosophy, and I have a taped copy of what he said at the time. Best source --- the Olcott Library. They will, upon request, send you a reading list on reincarnation. The latest Theosophical book is "Reincarnation Explored" by Dr. John Algeo, our President. Shorter versions of this book are also on video and audio tape, which you can purchase from the Theosophical Publishing House, or else also borrow from the Library. Shanti Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 95 07:47:40 +1100 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: Re: A few questions to JRC and A. BAin guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) writes: > > For example, do you believe in "astral bodies" or "causal > > bodies"? Is ther good evidence to support a belief in some kind > > of "life after death?" > > I have exerience of Out of the Body activity, and have seen my > own physical body from outside of it. That is evidence, albeit > subjective evidence. I could call this OOB self an "astral" > body, perhaps. Again, "subjectively," I have met dead people. I All of these experiences are documented in the literature on lucid dreaming (e.g. Stephen La Berge, "The World of Lucid Dreaming.") Of course they are subjectively real -- that's what lucidity is about, but are they objectively real? To date, as far as I know, no one in a sleep laboratory has presented evidence that externalization actually occurs. Many people have dreamed that they saw their own sleeping body, and could describe what they were wearing, etc. But verbatim reports of conversations of people in adjoining rooms or reading of "hidden" messages that one could see only from 3 meters above the ground have so far eluded validation. This is an interesting finding, because it offers a new possibility by which the writings of many clairvoyants, including Leadbeater, could be assessed. Was Leadbeater deluded when he described his "layer-cake" model? Was he in a lucid state when he met the souls of deceased people? I'm suspending judgment until I can obtain proof. For me, the first stage of such a proof is to develop lucidity, which is apparently not impossible for most people with sufficient dedication (for those with WWW access, see http://www.lucidity.com, or read the USEnet group alt.dreams.lucid.) The second stage would then be to participate in experiments with proper protocols, that will allow externalization to be proven. Only then can one _scientifically_ accept such phenomena. Of course, _intuitively_ such phenomena may already be accepted, which they are in my case, but the question of objective, scientific proof is always going to be difficult for theosophists to achieve in relation to some of the statements that we make. > When teaching - can only be done by word of mouth accompanying > the literature - I always tell new (and old) students, "This is > the teaching as I have received/experienced it. DO NOT BELIEVE A > WORD I TELL YOU - CHECK IT OUT, get your _own_ experience." Yes, Amen. Hand-in-hand with experience of course must go the rational, critical faculties, and these may be honed by engaging in discussion with other interested parties. cheers Paul Gillingwater From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Jun 95 09:44:11 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: oneness Brenda: > "This Tree reaches the heavenly vale and is hidden between three > mountains (the upper triad of principles, in man). From these > three mountains, the Tree ascends above (the adept's knowledge > aspires heavenward) and then redescends below (into the adept's > Ego on Earth)." I've never had contact with The Secret Doctrine, but from your post I'm beginning to see what all the hooting and hollering is about. It also makes me even more enthusiastic about Ed Abdill's class on SD at the Summer Session. BTW, I noticed that the description of the seven races appearing on earth is very similar to the info Edgar Cayce received. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 95 12:26:53 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Theosophical Enlightenment According to Astrea: > > Has any one seen the book entitled "The Theosophical > Enlightenment" by Joscelyn Godwin, 1994, State University of New > York Press, Albany? It's quite a scholarly survey of esoteric > philosophy and movements in the West from the 18th Century, and > includes the Theosophical Society, amongst other things. He > quotes from "our" Paul Johnson's books on a number of occasions. > He is not hostile to the society, and seems to acknowledge some > unexplained goings-ons, but appears to prefer ordinary > explanations to extra-ordinary ones, when it comes to the Masters > etc. I've just skimmed it, and these are my initial impressions. > It is interesting however, because he brings in some relatively > obscure figures associated with the early days of the TS, eg the > Egyptians HBP associated with before she founded the Soceity. I hope that even those Theosophists who dislike my books will find something of value in Joscelyn's. His time frame is roughly 1770-1910, and most of the coverage is of esoteric currents prior to HPB's arrival on the scene. Yet even though she doesn't enter until chapter 13 (of 16?? or so) she is the central character by virtue of the way various currents meet in her life and work. Gnosis nominates The Theosophical Enlightenment as the best book on esoteric topics to be published in 1994. It provides fleshed-out portraits of people who heretofore have been mere names to Theosophical readers: Emma Hardinge Britten, P.B. Randolph, Hargrave Jennings, Samson Mackey, etc. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 95 15:57:10 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: "He saw the light..." Here's the AP story I mentioned the other day. It appears on p. 11A of the Danville Register & Bee for 6/18: He saw the light-- of a financial sort New York (AP)-- Gino Vannelli, who made a fortune on the 1978 hit "I Just Wanna Stop" and then blew it all, got his life back on track after receiving this message of enlightenment from a Hindu monk: Find a good accountant. The 42-year-old singer had gone more than $250,000 in debt and decided he wanted to find "my God-essence and get my life back together." He became what he termed a Zen THEOSOPHIST [my emphasis-PJ] and eventually encountered a Hindu monk in Malibu, Calif. "We spoke about my psyche, how there is no body without spirituality and how people built their sand castles in the sky," Vannelli recalls. "He emerged almost as if from a trance and then he faced me and said, "What you really need is a good accountant." Vannelli hired one in Portland, Ore., where he lives, and the accountant has helped him tone down his lifestyle. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 20:53:00 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: To Astrea The last I heard was that the Atlantis Bookshop was closing down, and that from the woman who used to run it (in Museum Street, as you say). This was a few years ago, so it seems it survived or reincarnated! In thwe 1950's this shop was a sinister place beloved of Crowleyites, dark and gloomy inside. The 50's reprint of Crowleys "777" was published from there in a limited edition of 1,000 copies, one of which I had (but no more). The more famous and lighter bookshop was (and is) Watkins Bookshop at 21 Cecil Court, of Charing Cross Road, near Leicester Square underground station. I used to visit Geoffey Watkins (son of the founder) regularly in those days, and it was he who kindly signed the recommendation for a readers ticket in the then Reading Room of the British Museum Library, where I did most of my early studies. Ah, happy days! Watkins Bookshop is these days much more commercial, and the personal touch has long gone (sigh). Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Jun 95 00:45:36 EDT From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@compuserve.com> Subject: Tarot Book for a Beginner Hi Liesel (and Jerry Schueler, Arthur Patterson and others who know about Tarot), Yes, I got your 2 letters from dreamscape. Been out of town for a bit. You ask, >"can you recommend a Tarot book for a beginner, just to get an >idea?" What I know about Tarot is beans+1, not a whole lot more than you. Nick Tereshchenko is a good friend and we met some years ago because we had a mutual interest in the Gurdjieff work, were in Gurdjieff groups, etc. Of course, I later learned that he also knows a lot about Tarot. But I don't, so I am not one to advise you. There seem to be almost as many ways to use the Tarot as there are users. I don't know which are valid. Nick does not use Tarot for divination. He thinks it too dangerous because of the accuracy and because it can "firm up" potential events (make them happen). He seems mainly interested in the archetypal value as do I, and he is also interested in the connection between Tarot and Kabbalah, and about how the Golden Dawn used Tarot. The woman at our T.S. Branch who facilitates our Tarot Study Group also seems to value the archetypal approach to Tarot. About a year ago, when Nick was visiting me, he gave a talk at our Branch entitled "The Cosmos Tarot" which, it seems to me, is a brief summary of his French book. He prepared a written paper for the talk and I have copies. So, I am mailing one to you. I think it is a good introduction to Tarot, and probably more useful to you than his book in French. You will probably want to get the "Rider-Waite Tarot Deck" and/or the "Tarot de Marseille." I think these are the 2 best known. Nick says something about these decks in his paper. I personally liked a book entitled "Jung and Tarot, an Archetypal Journey" by Sallie Nichols. It is well known, but may not be the best book to recommend for a beginner. She uses the "Tarot de Marseille" which is about the oldest known complete Tarot deck and therefore, also, the one that is theoretically most in the collective unconscious of humanity. I believe we have a couple of Tarot experts on Theos-L, in Jerry Schueler and Arthur Patterson. A short while ago, they both put out a lot of information including, I think, a book list. So, I defer to their expertise, and think your question needs to be put to them about recommending one book for a beginner. I would also be interested in their answer. Good luck on your Esoteric Science study group. The more I study Itzaak Bentov, the more I am impressed with his insights. He may very well have given us the most accurrate picture yet of the universe. Cheers Sy G. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 09:04:39 -0400 From: FRDHVY@aol.com Subject: Reincarnation and other subjects Adam, Thanks for your comments on reincarnation. I accept your statements 1 and 3, however I dispute your statement 2. I accept that reincarnation has not been proved to date, but it is unclear to me that it is impossible to prove reincarnation. Is there a logical proof that it is impossible to prove reincarnation? If so, I hope you will share it with me. Love and light, Fred Just a random comment: As I follow the digest, it seems that AB and JRC are carrying on a rather deep, and I presume ongoing debate on the details of the theosophical "belief system". I would like to hear them extend their discussions by speaking to the practical implications their respective positions have on the problems I face every day... How should I relate to my fellow man here and now, Why do bad things happen to good people, etc... As a practical matter, I find no particular help in knowing the length of a round or the speculated time between incarnations, and the total number of monads, give or take a million, is still more than I can comprehend. I may be simply ignorant of the significance of such esoteric material, and if I am, someone please enlighten me before you argue the number... Fred Liesel, I appreciated your comments to Alan (June 24, 1995) about guilt. Would you expand your thuoghts for me? If ideals become the cause of guilt, and guilt is undesirable, is it undesirable to have ideals? If not, how do I defuse the risk of failure and guilt that the ideal creates in me? Is it possible that the experience of guilt is a necessary part of of the maturation process (be in in one lifetime or many) of the monad? Love and light, Fred On the lighter side: Portelli@calon.com should subscribe to listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE (the Krisshnamurti mailing list) if he wants a full mailbox. Koot Hoomi would be hard put to respond to all their mail, even by precipitation with the help of a Chela. For that matter, maybe KH put Portelli on the theos-l@vnet.net list...Do we have a phenomenon here? Love and light to all! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 20:17:09 +0100 From: Adam Warcup Subject: Re: Reincarnation and other subjects FRDHVY@aol.com writes: > Adam, > > Thanks for your comments on reincarnation. I accept your > statements 1 and 3, however I dispute your statement 2. I accept > that reincarnation has not been proved to date, but it is unclear > to me that it is impossible to prove reincarnation. Is there a > logical proof that it is impossible to prove reincarnation? If > so, I hope you will share it with me. > > Love and light, Fred > > Fred, Yes, to me, it is a logical impossibility to prove reincarnation because we cannot prove a causal link between one life and another. Suppose I remember the details of another life, and that those memories can be historically verified. I feel that they are 'my' memories; I identify with the person that I remember being. There are any number of instances that fulfil these conditions. A sceptic can easily come up with an alternative explanation, such as cryptamnesia; he will say that the feeling that they were my memories is a purely personal identification. He will say that we are all experts in creating imaginary charaters who then become real for us. Can we prove that he is wrong? From a theosophical point of view I can also explain the facts without resorting to reincarnation. I could suggest that the past life memories are those of someone else. They are recorded in the Akasha. In reviewing those memories I will relive the personal emotions of that person. For a moment I will become them because I will identify with their memories. This is, in fact, what I do think. We are all too ready to believe that we recall past life memories on the slenderest of evidence. This aside, I believe that there is another even more fudamental reason for doubting whether reincarnation can ever be proved. When we say that 'I can remember a past life' we are ignoring a vital aspect of the whole process. What links one personality to another is the reincarnating Ego (or whatever you want to call it). It is, from this perspective, wrong to say that 'I was so-and-so in my past life'. Each personality is unique, nad evolves its own sense of identity. This 'I' has never lived before, and will never live again. The causes which have lead to this new personality originate in a sequence of personal lives, the causal link of which lies with or in the higher or reinarnating Ego. It is sloppy thinking to say 'In my previous life I was ...'. We can hardly fully identify with the person we were, say, twenty years ago, never mind the preceding personality. What could ever become proof of reincarnation, when we cannot clearly identify who or what has reincarnated? Best wishes, Adam From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Jun 95 19:27:38 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Re: Reincarnation & other subjects Adam Warcup: > Yes, to me, it is a logical impossibility to prove reincarnation > because we cannot prove a causal link between one life and > another. I'd like to propose the idea that from the higher viewpoint of the Soul/Ego, we are living out our lifetimes all at once. On that level, there may be no linear time. So "memories of past lifetimes" are actually glimpses of what is happening in some kind of synchronous state. I knew a man who claimed to have gone to a party and met the entire future crew of the spaceship he was captaining in some "future" life. He also claimed the ship was destroyed and everyone died. (Of did he just have too much to drink at the party?) > What could ever become proof of reincarnation, when we cannot > clearly identify who or what has reincarnated? When the majority of the population can accurately recall the other personality expressions of their Soul? Of when they can read the Akashic records? Just a thought . . . I hate to say never about the possibility of proof. BTW, Adam, I truly enjoyed your piece on the Parliament. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 19:39:12 -0700 (MST) From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Several questions and comments Monday, 6:55 pm, Tucson, AZ Fred in a posting today thanks Adam for his comments on reincarnation and mentions 3 points raised by Adam. For some reason I did NOT receive this posting from Adam Warcup. Fred, Adam or somebody else can you forward a copy of this posting since I would like to see what Adam was talking about? Adam says in his reply to Fred: "...A skeptic can easily come up with an alternative explanation." If this line of reasoning is used to justify that reincarnation cannot be "proved", then I would suggest that this same line of reasoning can be used to claim that the paranormal and the metaphysical in general CANNOT be proved. Skeptics belonging to the organization CSICOP constantly use the tactic of suggesting an alternative explanation as a possibility in order to show that there is no good proof even of ESP, telepathy, clairvoyance, etc. In trying to explain any "phenomenon" (including historical cases like Who killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman!), there are many *possible* alternative explanations. In scientific studies, there are many possible laternative explanations to explain a "phenomenon" but it is the job of the scientist to rule out and weed the number of competing possibilities and to attempt to come up with the explanation, i.e. the most probable explanation that can be found in light of all the known evidence. If you see a man stumbling down the sidewalk as you drive by, from your armchain vantage point in the car, you can come up with many different explanations for his "behavior". (1) He is drunk; (2) he is injured; (3) he has a physical disability; (3) he is "crazy"; (4) he is pretending and hoping someone will come over to him so he can mug that person, etc. All these alternative explanations are "possible" *given the right circumstances. But you will never know the real explanation unless you are willing to get out of your car and "collect" more data, information, evidence to help you answer the question: "Why is the man `stumbling' down the sidewalk." If anybody offers an "explanation" the burden of proof is on that person to submit evidence of some kind that shows that his explanation rules out the competing explanations. To simply offer an explanation as a possiblity solves nothing. For example, a number of people have tried to identify who the Master Koot Hoomi really was. Richard Hodgson said K.H. didn t exist! That's one "explanation". Steve Richards in the AMERICAN THEOSOPHIST (about 7 years ago) said K.H. was really a man by the name of Nisi Kanta Chattopadhyaya. Paul Johnson has tried to identify Thakur Singh Sandhanwalia as the man behind the K.H. "prototype." Mary K. Neff suggested that K.H. was a certain man (I can't remember the name and don't have before me that file). etc, etc. But in each and every "explanation", has the person putting forth the explanation really solved the problem concerning K.H. or have they only offered a "possibility" with some suggestive evidence while at the same time ignoring evidence to the contrary which would show their explanation is way off the base? How do you prove anything? What is evidence? I have found that far too many writers (including Theosophical writers) dealing with Theosophical history don't even follow the simple rules of basic research and some have the vaguest undertstanding about "evidence", "proof", "possibilities" versus "probability", etc. And dealing with the "teachings" of Theosophy, it seems that "Theosophists" (at least many of them) are even less concerned with attemtping to find "facts", etc. that would help to show the truthfulness or falsity of some of the basic ideas of Theosophy. Far too oftern I find them invoking "faith", "intuition" or "personal experience" to buttress their acceptance of Theosophical ideas. Therefore, are the Theosophists any more head of the "game" than, for example, orthodox Christians who also invoke "faith", "intuition", "personal experience"etc. to "prove" that the Bible is true, etc.? Now I am not denying that "faith" or "intuition" or "personal experience" doesn't have its place in the scheme of things. But I dare say that their is not a belief system in the world that cannot be "validated'" by faith, intuition and personal experience! So if Theosophists claim Theosophy is something unique among all the competing ideologies of this world (notice I said IF!), what is it that Theosophists can present to seekers other than "faith", "intuition" or "personal experience"? (NOTE: My above comments are made from the perspective that Theosophy (as a body of knowledge) is a science. See the writings of HPB and her Masters.) The above is food for thought. Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 22:51:52 -0600 From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: A few questions to JRC and A. BAin Alan ... Tried to e-mail you a couple of times privately, but the message keeps getting returned ... do I need to use a gateway of some sort? -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 28 Jun 95 11:17:12 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: One Question Daniel: > Back to the bigger picture, do you believe in "other planes of > existence" or in "devas" or in the "Logos"? This question will no doubt expose my vast ignorance of Theosophy, but what is the "Logos"? - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 95 11:57:52 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Several questions and comments According to MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU: > If anybody offers an "explanation" the burden of proof is on that > person to submit evidence of some kind that shows that his > explanation rules out the competing explanations. To simply > offer an explanation as a possiblity solves nothing. This seems to suggest that your expectations are too high for certain circumstances. How often is it, outside of exact science, for a new explanation to fully rule out all competing ones? I don't recall any universally-acknowledged, "let's throw out all the old biographies" kind of success for a new explanation of any biographical or historical question.* It's all, seemingly, a matter of tiny incremental increases in understanding and huge amounts of uncertainty. Meaning that "solving something" is not the only reason to explore evidence and alternative explanations. Maybe just inching closer to a solution that someone will reach in 2095? > (*David Lane's work on Paul Twitchell comes close.) > > Now I am not denying that "faith" or "intuition" or "personal > experience" doesn't have its place in the scheme of things. But > I dare say that their is not a belief system in the world that > cannot be "validated'" by faith, intuition and personal > experience! So if Theosophists claim Theosophy is something > unique among all the competing ideologies of this world (notice I > said IF!), what is it that Theosophists can present to seekers > other than "faith", "intuition" or "personal experience"? (NOTE: > My above comments are made from the perspective that Theosophy > (as a body of knowledge) is a science. See the writings of HPB > and her Masters.) The above is food for thought. Indeed so. What I would offer in response is that Theosophy is not "unique among the competing ideologies of this world." It is, rather, unique in providing a context in which people of differing ideologies can exchange their "faith, intuition and personal experience" in search of truth at a higher level than can be verbalized as just another competing ideology. In other words, a process rather than a product. "To theosophize" being to know or grok from buddhi-manas rather than kama-manas. Of course, by this definition we must face that theosophers have come up with all sorts of contradictory conclusions about reincarnation, which makes one wonder if "Theosophy teaches reincarnation" is quite exactly true. For my own "faith, intuition, and personal experience," the reincarnation question is as someone, Paul G. perhaps, already stated. The first time I heard about it as a small child, I immediately embraced the idea. Since then, there have been enough deja vu experiences with foreign countries and languages to confirm that "there's something to it." But the possibility that we can prove, or even fully understand, the process of reimbodiment seems pretty remote. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 95 10:13:35 -0700 From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: logical solution Here are some statements from posts by Dan Caldwell and Paul Johnson I'd like to respond to. >According to MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU: > > If anybody offers an "explanation" the burden of proof is on that > > person to submit evidence of some kind that shows that his > > explanation rules out the competing explanations. To simply > > offer an explanation as a possiblity solves nothing. >This seems to suggest that your expectations are too high for >certain circumstances. His expectations may be too low, because offering an explanation as a possibility is human and therefore beneficial to the growth of the thinking process. > > Now I am not denying that "faith" or "intuition" or "personal > > experience" doesn't have its place in the scheme of things. > Theosophy is, rather, unique in providing a context in which > people of differing ideologies can exchange their "faith, > intuition and personal experience" in search of truth at a higher > level than can be verbalized as just another competing ideology. We're not competing, but we are instead encouraging study and providing people with alternatives to 1) gurus 2) monasteries 3) universities , etc. People are able to continue their work in all different areas of life and still reap some of the "higher learning" associated with "spiritual living." Where is the spiritual life? Right where you are. You don't need to attend any classes or live anywhere. Reading, meditation, and listening to different points of view are available in every neighborhood, every country, etc. The only qualification is being human and in existence. Maybe the interest in reincarnation is concern for other human beings who may not be able to reach a group concerned with spiritual living or perhaps who aren't exposed to theosophical teachings in a modern way. For instance, can we make theosophy available to those who are out of existence? (Believe me, they need it.) > "To theosophize" being to know or grok from buddhi-manas rather > than kama-manas. For my own "faith, intuition, and personal > experience," the reincarnation question is as someone, Paul G. > perhaps, already stated. The first time I heard about it as a > small child, I immediately embraced the idea. Children are great, but they aren't faced with the problems of living in a world where we can find no consort to "spirit" or where public education refuses to become involved for some "sinister" reason with our "education for truth," ignoring (and banning?) any material that could strike the buddhi-manas or better yet atma-buddhi chord by presenting a world picture that encourages spiritual life and discipline. I still become almost frightened when I think I grew up and others have to without THE YOGA SUTRAS and without a view of doing away with suffering and reaching "isolated unity" and a consciousness of bliss, a consciousness which can be blessedly sacrificed for the service of mankind. To aid the struggling, ignorant pilgrims is the only cause greater than eternal peace and bliss. (Ignorance in childhood may be a result of maturation towards knowledge of being rather than a cause of lack of that knowledge.) Every member of The Theosophical Society has contributed something inestimably of value to me personally by helping it to exist, and if there is only one member who was encouraged (I know there were thousands.) to "take the journey in search of the self," we have participated in a method of living which has produced manifold good where there was failure and manifold difficulty before. I'd like to put a very nice posting from buddha-l on the list here to help our seeking of solutions to life's difficult questions. > David Thibodeau objects to the project of discovering whether > Buddhist Logic is more like classical or more like intuitionist > logic. He writes: "we could 'tie down' Mipham Gyatso in such > paradoxical dilemma; we could even end this discussion through > logical resolution. But to what ends? What would we have gained > in solving such dilemmas? Respect from one's peers? A place in > history books? And what would happen after such a resolution? > Would your heart and mind, so used to struggling and grappling > with such problems, feel an abscence, and find other struggles to > take into its soul?" > > Well, gee, I think we would have gained a better understanding > of Buddhist Logic, which has not been well understood at all. (And if > you don't believe that, try making sense of Kalupahana's remarks on > Buddhist Logic.) Not all knowledge is conducive to enlightenment, of > course, but that doesn't mean that acquiring it can't be satisfying > in itself. And as for finding other "struggles" (why "struggles?") to > take into my soul (my soul? Isn't this a Buddhist listserve?) > afterwards, I find that life has no problem plentifully supplying me > with them on a regular basis all on its own. > > He continues, "People: the essence of striving is the striving for > essence. The use of struggles of a rare and higher logical form is > an obsolete way for the mind to raise itself from the struggles of > the mundane. There is a better way." > > The chiasmus in the first line is surely striking, but I haven't any > idea what it means. After the combined effects of graduate training > in analytic philosophy and eleven years of Buddhist practice, I can > hardly remember what an essence is supposed to be. (It also reminds > me of how Wilfred Sellars loved chiasmus: "The perception of a > manifold is not a manifold of perceptions." But I digress.) If > "struggles of a rare and higher logical form" means working hard on > problems of logic, I agree that it is not a path to enlightenment, at > least for me, but it is satisfying and useful work, contibuting to > our collective store of knowledge. > > "To entrap and to desire to entrap would be a statement, for sure: > not only of your brilliance in reasoning, but also of your desire for > power over another human being; another living creature." > > In _Philosophical Explanations_, Robert Nozick has written > eloquently of the coercive tendency that often colors Western > Philosophy, speculating that some philosophers would like to > construct deductive arguments so strong, that if you accepted the > premisses and still rejected the conclusion, your head would explode. > Now there's a truly cogent argument. But I don't think anyone was > suggesting necromantically resurrecting Mipham and forcing him, on > pain of tortures too horrible to mention, to fess up and tell us > whether he accepts the existence of unprovable truths or not. I think > the idea was simply that it is interesting in contemplate what he > might say, just as some Aristotle scholars might want to ask the > Stagyrite what his views on prime matter are. (Unfortunately, > whenever I resurrect some departed worthy in my imagination to ask > him about some obscure problem in his philosophy, he always replies, > "Oh my, I never thought of that. It surely is a puzzler.") > > "For those of us who have spent moments contemplating this matter, I > ask: > during this time, were we aware that we were breathing in, and aware > that we were breathing out? The space between your birth and your > death IS your breath. To not pay attention to your breath, is to not > pay attention to your life." > > Ahh, I think we're finally on the same page here. I strongly > recommend that all logicians should remember to breathe. Some of them > do need reminding. > > Best to all - Brian Holly From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 19:58:16 +0100 From: Adam Warcup Subject: Re: Reincarnation & other subjects Dear Ann, Thank you for your comments. Here are a few responses. "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> writes: > > Adam Warcup: > > Yes, to me, it is a logical impossibility to prove reincarnation > > because we cannot prove a causal link between one life and > > another. > > I'd like to propose the idea that from the higher viewpoint of > the Soul/Ego, we are living out our lifetimes all at once. On > that level, there may be no linear time. So "memories of past > lifetimes" are actually glimpses of what is happening in some > kind of synchronous state. I like it! I have had similar thoughts myself. However, for us living in linear time, we tend to think in terms of before and after,and thus of causality. If we go for the timeless approach,it becomes even more difficult to 'prove' that any other personality was a part of the same Ego continuum. I am also reminded that HPB said of the higher Ego that it did not experience past-present-future but only the extended present, the eternal now. To such a being, the memories of all its personalities would be immnediately present. > I knew a man who claimed to have gone to a party and met the > entire future crew of the spaceship he was captaining in some > "future" life. He also claimed the ship was destroyed and > everyone died. (Of did he just have too much to drink at the > party?) > > What could ever become proof of reincarnation, when we cannot > clearly identify who or what has reincarnated? > > When the majority of the population can accurately recall the > other personality expressions of their Soul? Of when they can > read the Akashic records? Just a thought . . . I hate to say > never about the possibility of proof. > > BTW, Adam, I truly enjoyed your piece on the Parliament. > > - ann Kid regards, Adam From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 12:39:47 -0700 (MST) From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: What is "logos"? Ann B.: You asked what is "logos"? Instead of trying to tell you what it is, I would suggest that you consult a dictionary and then an encyclopedia for the general meaning of the word. Then consult an index to HPB's THE SECRET DOCTRINE, an index to ISIS UNVEILED, the index to HPB's COLLECTED WRITINGS and the index to THE MAHATMA LETTERS for HPB's and the Masters' definition. I realize this will involve a little work on your part but I encourage you to try this approach. Daniel P.S. It is a Greek word that you find in many English words. That's all I'll say! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 95 12:41:57 -0700 From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: some news I just heard this morning that Raghavan Iyer died on June 20th. Iyer was a key figure in the ULT in Santa Barbara. I'm sure that he will be missed by many Theosophists in the area. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 02:21:15 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Reincarnation and other subjects Dear Adam: Quite! AB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 20:59:45 -0600 From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: A Bit of Humor Greetings on a fine summer day ... thought I'd pass this on for the laughs that are in it ...... -JRC Those who forget history - and the English language - may be condemned to mangle both. Historian Anders Henriksson, a five year veteran of the university classroom, has faithfully recorded his freshman students' more striking insights into European history. Possibly as an act of vengeance, Henriksson has assembled these fractured fragments into a chronological narrative from the Middle Ages to the present. "During the Middle Ages, everyone was middle aged. Church and state were co-operated. Middle Evil society was made up of monks, lords, and surfs. After a revival of infantile commerce, merchants appeared. Those roamed from town to town exposing themselves and organizing big fairies in the countryside. The Crusades were expeditions by Christians who were seeking to free the holy land (the "Home Town" of Christ) from the Islams. In the 1400 hundreds most Englishmen were perpendicular. A class of ycowls arose. Finally, Europe caught the Black Death. It was spread from port to port by inflected rats. The plague also helped the emergence of English as the national language of England, France, and Italy. The Middle Ages slimpared to a halt. The renesance bolted in from the blue. Life reeked with joy. Italy became robust, and more individuals felt the value of their human being. Italy, of course, was much closer to the rest of the world, thanks to northern Europe. Man was determined to civilise himself and his brothers, even if heads had to roll! It became sheik to be educated. Europe was full of incredable churches with great art bulging out of their doors. Renaisance merchants were beautiful and almost lifelike. The Reformnation happened when German nobles resented that tithes were going to the pope, thus enriching Catholic coiffures. The popes were usually Catholic. An angry Martin Luther nailed 95 theocrats to a church door. Theologically, Luthar was into reorientation mutation. Anabaptist services tended to be migratory. Monks went right on seeing themselves as worms. After the refirmation were wars both foriegn and infernal. If the Spanish could gain the Netherlands they would have a stronghold throughout northern Europe that would include Italy, Burgandy, central Europe and India, thus surrounding France. The German Emporer's lower passage was blocked by the French for years and years. Louis XIV became King of the Sun. He gave people food and artillery. If he didn't like someone he sent them to the gallows to row for the rest of their lives. Vauban was the royal minister of flirtation. In Russia, the 17th century was known as the time of the bounding of the serfs. Russian nobles wore clothes to humor Peter the Great. Peter filled his government with accidental people; orthodox priests became government antennae. The enlightenment was a reasonable time. Philosophers were unknown yet, and the fundamental stake was one of religious tolerance slightly confused with defeatism. France was in a serious state. Taxation was a great drain on the state budget. The French revolution was accomplished before it happened. The revolution catapaulted into Napolean. Napoleon was ill with bladder problems and was very tense and unrestrained. History started in 1815. Industrialization was precipitating in England. Problems were so complexicated that in Paris, out of a population of 1 million people, 2 million able bodies were on the loose. The middle class was tired and needed a rest. The old order could see the lid holding down new ideas beginning to shake. Among the goals of the chartists were universal sufferage and an anal parliment. A new time zone of national unification roared over the horizon. Founder of the new Italy was Cavour, an intelligent Sardine from the north. Culture formented from its tip to its top. Dramatized were adventures in seduction and abortion. Music reeked with reality. Wagner was master of music, and when he died they labeled his seat "historical". World War I broke out about 1912-1914. At war people get killed, and then they aren't people anymore, but friends. Peace was proclaimed at Versigh, which was attended by General Loid, Primal Minister of England. President Wilson arrived with 14 pointers. In 1917, Lenin revolted Russia. Germany was displaced after WW1. This gave rise to Hitler, who remilitarized the Rhineland over a squirmish between Germany and France. Mooscalini rested his foundations on 8 million bayonets and invaded Hi Lee Salasy. Germany invaded Poland, France invaded Belgium, and Russia invaded everybody. War screeched to an end when a nukleer explosion was dropped on Heroshima. A whole generation had been wipe out, and their forlorne families were left to pick up the peaces. The last stage is us. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 29 Jun 95 12:10:08 EDT From: DAVID KUTTRUFF <71254.312@compuserve.com> Subject: A suggestion please I am fairly new to Theosophy. I have some experience with meditation (TM since '74), and have studied for many years under a student in a Mystery School. I have enjoyed two of Annie Besant's books: "Esoteric Christianity" and "The Ancient Wisdom". I have heard that reading Madame Blavatsky's books directly is somewhat overwhelming; therefore, I would like to ask for a recommendation or two as to which books might serve as good introductions before jumping into the deeper volumes. Also, are there any Theosophical Society groups in Southern California? Thank you much for your help. David K. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 02:10:10 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: A few questions to JRC and A. BAin In message <95062722515265@lewis.umt.edu> theos-l@vnet.net writes: > Alan ... > Tried to e-mail you a couple of times privately, but the > message keeps getting returned ... do I need to use a gateway of > some sort? > -JRC Not as far as I know - try again. You could also try copying the message (cc: in may mailer front end) to my friend Ellen@nellie2.demon.co.uk - see if we both get it or both get bounced! Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 02:16:19 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: What is "logos"? In message <01HS8MYHDNEQHSJIAF@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU> theos-l@vnet.net writes: Daniel writes about "logos" - > > P.S. It is a Greek word that you find in many English words. > That's all I'll say! Aww - why be so coy, Dan? Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 95 11:24:00 PDT From: "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ" Subject: RE: Several questions and comments Very well put Daniel, just a few comments, Belief is never an answer to proving anything. However I do not think that something of a non physical nature can be proved by physical means. As Buddha stated (this is not an exact quote) "Believe nothing, if you feel it to be true keep it as a theory, accept it only after experiencing it." The experiences of life like the rituals of initiation change us through the process of experience (information on initiation taken from a tape by John Algeo on "The Mysteries"). I think that blind belief leads us to a dead end, like structured religion. However proving many of the topics we are trying to examine is no more then an enfleshing process that creates a personality that can be seen and hides the reality behind it. As John Algeo said in the above mentioned tape, the mysteries were kept secret and could not be repeated to the uninitiated. John felt that this was not so much because of the actual act of keeping it secret but that the initiation consisted of an experience that could not be put into words (since over the 1000 years that the Eleusian Mysteries were around it seems that a great number of people were initiated but no detailed account of the initiation is available) and the lower versus higher mysteries were not so much a different set of experiences but the difference between how it was received like a ceremony versus a ritual. An example is someone attending a marriage who wants it to be over so that the food will be served, to him this is a ceremony where the people getting married are hopefully experiencing a ritual that will change them through realization through experience, etc. Another example is in the movie superman when after something that arch villain Lex Luther says is not understood by his underling Otis Lex says, " Otis some people can read the whole works of Shakespeare and not get anything out of it and some else can read the comic strip from a chewing gum wrapper and unfold the mysteries of the universe." I guess what I long windedly am trying to say that nonphysical REALITY can never be proven conclusively for the uninitiated through the process of physical illusion. We can only prove things to ourselves as we experience them through the initiations of life, and can only have experiences or initiations when we have been changed enough by previous initiations(experiences) when we are ready to see instead of just look. Other people can only give us hints, ideas but never proofs otherwise you have nothing more than a belief system. I do not believe you can equate Theosophy directly to science as it is today, unless you redefine science to include the esoteric. Science only perceives itself and nothing beyond. When it has developed finer perception then it perceives a little more and the definition of the exoteric can be expanded, as the veil of Isis is lifted a little more. But the esoteric will always be outside of the realms of science since it is based on that which can not be proved and (as I think CWL said) the esoteric when proved becomes the exoteric. Don't believe me, Nick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 22:53:00 -0700 From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Several questions and comments Monday, 6:55 pm, Tucson, AZ Fred in a posting today thanks Adam for his comments on reincarnation and mentions 3 points raised by Adam. For some reason I did NOT receive this posting from Adam Warcup. Fred, Adam or somebody else can you forward a copy of this posting since I would like to see what Adam was talking about? Adam says in his reply to Fred: "...A skeptic can easily come up with an alternative explanation." If this line of reasoning is used to justify that reincarnation cannot be "proved", then I would suggest that this same line of reasoning can be used to claim that the paranormal and the metaphysical in general CANNOT be proved. Skeptics belonging to the organization CSICOP constantly use the tactic of suggesting an alternative explanation as a possibility in order to show that there is no good proof even of ESP, telepathy, clairvoyance, etc. In trying to explain any "phenomenon" (including historical cases like Who killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman!), there are many *possible* alternative explanations. In scientific studies, there are many possible laternative explanations to explain a "phenomenon" but it is the job of the scientist to rule out and weed the number of competing possibilities and to attempt to come up with the explanation, i.e. the most probable explanation that can be found in light of all the known evidence. If you see a man stumbling down the sidewalk as you drive by, from your armchain vantage point in the car, you can come up with many different explanations for his "behavior". (1) He is drunk; (2) he is injured; (3) he has a physical disability; (3) he is "crazy"; (4) he is pretending and hoping someone will come over to him so he can mug that person, etc. All these alternative explanations are "possible" *given the right circumstances. But you will never know the real explanation unless you are willing to get out of your car and "collect" more data, information, evidence to help you answer the question: "Why is the man `stumbling' down the sidewalk." If anybody offers an "explanation" the burden of proof is on that person to submit evidence of some kind that shows that his explanation rules out the competing explanations. To simply offer an explanation as a possiblity solves nothing. For example, a number of people have tried to identify who the Master Koot Hoomi really was. Richard Hodgson said K.H. didn t exist! That's one "explanation". Steve Richards in the AMERICAN THEOSOPHIST (about 7 years ago) said K.H. was really a man by the name of Nisi Kanta Chattopadhyaya. Paul Johnson has tried to identify Thakur Singh Sandhanwalia as the man behind the K.H. "prototype." Mary K. Neff suggested that K.H. was a certain man (I can't remember the name and don't have before me that file). etc, etc. But in each and every "explanation", has the person putting forth the explanation really solved the problem concerning K.H. or have they only offered a "possibility" with some suggestive evidence while at the same time ignoring evidence to the contrary which would show their explanation is way off the base? How do you prove anything? What is evidence? I have found that far too many writers (including Theosophical writers) dealing with Theosophical history don't even follow the simple rules of basic research and some have the vaguest undertstanding about "evidence", "proof", "possibilities" versus "probability", etc. And dealing with the "teachings" of Theosophy, it seems that "Theosophists" (at least many of them) are even less concerned with attemtping to find "facts", etc. that would help to show the truthfulness or falsity of some of the basic ideas of Theosophy. Far too oftern I find them invoking "faith", "intuition" or "personal experience" to buttress their acceptance of Theosophical ideas. Therefore, are the Theosophists any more head of the "game" than, for example, orthodox Christians who also invoke "faith", "intuition", "personal experience"etc. to "prove" that the Bible is true, etc.? Now I am not denying that "faith" or "intuition" or "personal experience" doesn't have its place in the scheme of things. But I dare say that their is not a belief system in the world that cannot be "validated'" by faith, intuition and personal experience! So if Theosophists claim Theosophy is something unique among all the competing ideologies of this world (notice I said IF!), what is it that Theosophists can present to seekers other than "faith", "intuition" or "personal experience"? (NOTE: My above comments are made from the perspective that Theosophy (as a body of knowledge) is a science. See the writings of HPB and her Masters.) The above is food for thought. Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 29 Jun 95 15:17:58 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Logos revealed For coy Dan, AB and others who may be interested, here is the definition of logos, straight from the Microsoft Bookshelf Dictionary. Lo.gos (lo1gos', log1os') noun 1. Philosophy. a. In pre-Socratic philosophy, the principle governing the cosmos, the source of this principle, or human reasoning about the cosmos. b. Among the Sophists, the topics of rational argument or the arguments themselves. c. In Stoicism, the active, material, rational principle of the cosmos; nous. Identified with God, it is the source of all activity and generation and is the power of reason residing in the human soul. 2. Judaism. a. In biblical Judaism, the word of God, which itself has creative power and is God's medium of communication with the human race. b. In Hellenistic Judaism, a hypostasis associated with divine wisdom. 3. Theology. In Saint John's Gospel, especially in the prologue (1:1-14), the creative word of God, which is itself God and incarnate in Jesus. In this sense, also called Word. [Greek.] - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 95 12:58:31 -0700 From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: Membership in L.A. > I am fairly new to Theosophy. I have some experience with > meditation (TM since '74), and have studied for many years under > a student in a Mystery School. I have enjoyed two of Annie > Besant's books: "Esoteric Christianity" and "The Ancient Wisdom". > > I have heard that reading Madame Blavatsky's books directly is > somewhat overwhelming; therefore, I would like to ask for a > recommendation or two as to which books might serve as good > introductions before jumping into the deeper volumes. > > Also, are there any Theosophical Society groups in Southern > California? > > Thank you much for your help. > > David K. Dear David, Eldon and I could help you become acquainted with theosophical groups in Los Angeles. Why don't you give us a call at 818-888-6213? We're going on vacation over the weekend of the Fourth, so anytime after Tuesday next week. Eldon gets home about 7 p.m. Since you've read THE ANCIENT WISDOM, about the only resource you need to attempt THE SECRET DOCTRINE is a dictionary. When I started reading it I was 20 years old and I filled pages with words and their meanings. I didn't need to take notes, just needed to become familiar with the vocabulary. It is VERY large. Brenda Tucker From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 95 14:26:00 PDT From: "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ" Subject: Theosophical Network Help, Is anyone familiar with a publication called "The Theosophical Network" pamphlet. I am looking for a copy published in 1988 or 1989 about the final letter written by KH to Annie Beasant. Nick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 14:54:18 -0700 (MST) From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Comments on Paul Johnson's two books from SUNY PART I by Daniel H. Caldwell I will forward my comments on Paul Johnson's books in various parts over a period of time. At a later date I plan to issue a complete paper version copy of my comments for circulation to various individuals. K. Paul Johnson's book entitled THE MASTERS REVEALED available from SUNY Press. The price for a paperback copy is $16.95; hardbound, $49.50. The easiest way to order it is through SUNY customer service number 1-607- 277-2211 using your VISA, MasterCard, American Express or Discover.There is a postage and handling fee for $3 for U.S. and Canadian residents. Please call the above number for more details. A number of reviews have already appeared of THE MASTERS REVEALED including one in THE NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW. Another review by Joy Mills was publihsed in THE QUEST MAGAZINE. In the latest issue (Late Spring/Early Summer 1995) of THE AMERICAN THEOSOPHIST appears a review written by Dr. John Algeo. Dr. Algeo in the AT review mentions that a detailed review (also by Dr. Algeo) will appear in THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY in the July, 1995 issue. Those who are interested in obtaining a copy of this TH review and also possibly subscribing to THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY, should contact the TH editor who is Dr. James Santucci. His e-mail address is: JSANTUCCI@CCVAX.FULLERTON.EDU I repeat the e-mail address: JSANTUCCI@CCVAX.FULLERTON.EDU His regular address is: Dr. James A. Santucci Department of Religious Studies California State University Fullerton, CA 92634-9480 U.S.A. Telephone: 714-773-3727 Fax: 714-449-5820 or 714-773-3990 I believe the subscription for one year (4 issues) to U.S. residents is $15.00. But please check with Dr. Santucci. Also for subscriptins outside the U.S., please check with Dr. Santucci for details on exact amount of subscription, etc. In Joscelyn Godwin's Foreword to Johnson's THE MASTERS REVEALED, one find the following: "The theme of this book is that HPB's Masters were not the Himalayan sages whom she invented to distract her co-workers....Mr. Johnson's suggestion--- and he makes it clear that it is no more than that---is that the Mahatmas Morya and Koot Hoomi are fictitious Tibetan personae that conceal well- documented historical figures: Ranbir Singh and Thakar. With the skill of a detective, he unearths HPB's and Olcott's relations with these men...." (p. xviii) Paul Johnson himself writes his "Introduction" to the book (pp. 5-6): "Thakar Singh Sandhanwalia, founding president of the Amritsar Singh Sabha, corresponds in intriguing ways to clues about Koot Hoomi's identity in the writings of Olcott and HPB.... "Maharaja Ranbir Singh of Kashmir has many correspondences to Morya as described by HPB.... "Although much of HPB's portrayal of Morya and Koot Hoomi was designed to mislead in order to protect their privacy, enough accurate information was included to make *a persuasive case* for their identities as these historical figures...." Let us take note of several things in these 2 statements by Dr. Godwin and Mr. Johnson. First, Dr. Godwin assures us that Johnson's identifications of M. and K.H. are "suggestions", just suggestions. But Johnson himself tells us thta he has made *a persuasive case* (I added the *s in Johnson's quote) for these identifications. It seems to me that there is a significant difference between "suggestions" and "persuasive case". Which is it? I will go with Paul Johnson's description of his effort: "a persuasive case." It is also interesting to compare what John Cooper says in his review of THE MASTERS REVEALED which was published in the March 1995 (pp. 15-16) issue of THEOSOPHY IN AUSTRALIA. Cooper writes: "I believe that Paul would be the first to agree that he has not proved his theory. He has, however, argued it well...." It is unclear to me whether Cooper refers to Johnson's theory concerning KH and M and to something else in Johnson's book. I believe Cooper is referring to the theory concerning the identities of M and KH. Anyway, Johnson would probably agree with Cooper that he has not "proven" his theory but Johnson himself tells his readers that he has made *a persuasive case*. And such wording would indicate more than offering suggestions as Dr. Godwin phrases it. In other words, Johnson appears to be at least fairly convinced that he is on to something and is convinced (to a certain degree ) that his theory as to the identities of M. and K.H. is the correct one. Johnson has maintained this same theory in his previous book IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS, in his present book THE MASTERS REVEALED and will continue (so I am told) to maintain this theory in his new book INITIATES OF THEOSOPHICAL MASTERS to be released in late August, 1995. Let us now look at his "persuasive case": Dr. Algeo in his AT review mentioned above writes: "In fact, Johnson's identifications [of six Adepts including KH and M] are unsupported by the thin evidence he is able to marshal. The rhetoric of his presentation disguises the weakness of the evidence, perhaps even from Johnson himself....an uncritical reader is likely to assume...that Johnson has established his identifications at least with a reasonable degree of plausibililty. He has not. The questions here is not one of `belief' in HPB's veracity or the existence of her adepts. The question is rather whether Johnson has produced evidence that is relevant, reliable, and adequate in support of his thesis or belief." Algeo also writes: "But its [the book's] character flaw is that it pretends to have established some specific identifications that it has not established at all, and which in fact are at best improbable and in some cases ludicrous." Compare what Algeo has written with what Johnson says about establishing "a persuasive case." I am told that Dr. Algeo in his detailed review to appear in THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY will give the details to support his summation of Johnson's thesis. In my own research on Johnson's IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS as well as on his current book THE MASTERS REVEALED, I too have come to a similar conclusion to Algeo's. My conclusion has been based upon a careful study of the many primary source documents concerning the Master KH and M. As I read Johnson's books I am struck with the fact that Johnson does NOT grapple with or even mention the whole array of evidence that would indicate that his *persuasive case* falls apart like a house of cards. For example, Richard Hodgson's case (of 1885) against HPB may seem pretty convincing if you only have access to what he presents in the pages of his Report. But if you start searching for more evidence and facts *outside* the pages of Hodgson's Report, you may start to doubt the validity of Hodgson's thesis. In dealing with the testimonies concerning the existence of the Masters, Hodgson omits or downplays, for example, Col. Olcott's testimony to what I would call are the *close encounters* Olcott had with the Masters. Therefore, it has been my opinion that Hodgson is not dealing with these issues in a fair, open and just manner. Hodgson does not allow his readers access to vital information that might throw doubt on his own interpretation of HPB's claims about the Masters. I believe that the same criticism can be made concerning Paul Johnson's so-called "persuasive case" concerning Morya and Koot Hoomi. Johnson claims that the Master Morya presented to the world, the public is a fictional persona and that behind this persona one can identify Ranbir Singh, the Maharaja of Kashmir. Note well that Johnson makes two claims: (1) that there was this "fictional persona" and that (2) one can make an identification of Ranbir Singh as the origin for this "fictional character" known as Morya. And anyone who reads the chapter in the MASTERS REVEALED on Ranbir Singh will probably notice that almost all of Johnson's "evidence" is vague, indirect, etc. Yet in this chapter on Ranbir Singh, Johnson does NOT deal with the numerous people who testified to seeing Morya either in his physical body or in his "astral body". Readers of his book are kept in ignorance of these numerous encounters. I will detail just a few of these encounters and ask Johnson and interested readers of his book how do you grapple with these encounters in light of your thesis that "Morya" as such was a fictional character and Ranbir Singh was the historical person standing behind this persona? Example A: In Col. Henry S. Olcott's handwritten diary for Tues, July 15, 1879, we find the following entry: "Had visit in the body of the Sahib [Morya]!![He] sent Babula to my room to call me to H.P.B.'s bungalow, and there we had a most important interview...." In a letter written by Olcott to A.O. Hume on Sept. 30, 1881, Olcott describes this visit of Morya in greater detail: "This same Brother once visited me in the flesh at Bombay, coming in full day light, and on horseback. He had me called by a servant into the front room of H.P.B.'s bungalow....He came to scold me roundly for something I had done in T.S. matters....[H.P.B.} came over at once with a rush, and seeing him dropped on her knees and paid him reverence. My voice and his had been heard by those in the other bungalow, but only HPB and I, and the servant *saw* him." Now how does Johnson explain or interpret this event? And let the readers of this posting realize that Johnson does "interpret" events. We all do, but the question is: How does Johnson interpret this one and how does he do it in comparison with other similar events. For example, on pp. 157-160, Johnson quotes Olcott's account where the Master K.H. comes to visit Olcott, W.T. Brown and Damodar on the outskirts of Lahore in Nov. 1883. The Master K.H. in this event, Johnson believes, is really Thakar Singh Sandhanwalia, ie. the person behind the KH "persona." Note well here that Johnson interprets Olcott's account of KH at Lahore as a straight-forward account of Olcott telling the truth and actually meeting a real flesh and blood "master" who Johnson believes is Thakar Singh. But would Johnson mention Olcott's similar account of Morya riding up on horseback to T.S. Headquarters in Bombay in 1879? And more importantly how does Johnson "interpret" this encounter with Morya? Is this Ranbir Singh, Maharraja of Kashmir, coming to visit Olcott and HPB in Bombay? Another example: Olcott in his diary for Wed., Aug. 4, 1880 writes that Morya is "here this evening." and in Olcott's OLD DIARY LEAVES, Vol. 2, (1972), p. 208 says: "On the evening of 4th Auguest, a Mahatma visited H.P.B. and I was called in to see him before he left. He dictated a long and important letter.... I was sent away before his visit terminated....I left him sitting in H.P.B.'s room." How would Johnson "interpret" this event? In Johnson's book IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS, Johnson (not having access to Olcott's handwritten diaries) was willing to believe that this Master might be Jamal ad-Din "al-Afghani". When in correspondence with Johnson, I pointed out that Olcott says this is M., i.e. Morya, Johnson concedes he was wrong. But he drops this encounter with a Master in IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS. But how does he explain this historical encounter that Olcott and HPB had with Master Morya in Bombay on Aug. 4, 1880? How does this encounter fit in with Johnson's "persuasive case" that "Morya" was but a fictional persona and behind this persona was Ranbir Singh? And there are numerous other times when "Morya" visited Olcott and other Theosophists. Johnson does NOT mention or grapple with these testimonies? Why? I would suggest that Johnson ignores these testimonies because if he took them at "face value" like he does K.H.'s appearance to Olcott in Lahore, then his "persuasive case" might start to crumble. And it should be stated that on several occasions that the Master Morya appeared at the T.S. Headquarters at Adyar, Madras, India and that several people at the same time saw him. Who is this "Morya" at Adyar? A "persona" walking around? Is this "Morya" seen by witnesses at Adyar Ranbir Singh? Unfortunately (at least for Johnson's readers), THE MASTERS REVEALED does not let its readers know about the cases I have cited above. And there are dozens of other examples I could give from the primary source documents. Johnson's thesis is totally unconvincing to me because he fails to mention or seriously grapple with all these testimonies. I would suggest that these testimonies seriously invalidate his so-called "persuasive case." Instead, he has come up with his thesis, based on weak, indirect evidence which he gives a prominent place in his book and then totally ignores vital, numerous pieces of evidence and testimony that shows that his thesis his identifications (as Algeo phrases it) "are at best improbable and in some cases ludicrous. Continued in Part II. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 95 18:59:17 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Theosophical Network Dear Nick-- The KH letter to Besant was first published in the Eclectic Theosophist in its uncensored form. Subsequently, Theosophical History reprinted it. It is in my forthcoming Initiates of Theosophical Masters. I have posted it here, and could do so again if you like. Theosophical Network was published from 1986 through 1990, and I don't have any copies. But if all you need is the letter rather than any accompanying commentary, I'll provide. Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 95 19:25:00 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Answering Critics Having learned from painful experience that defending one's work is an endless and thankless task, I won't be doing so any more. If anyone has any alternative identifications of Masters to offer, I'd be delighted to consider the relative weight of the evidence and discuss pros and cons. In the absence of such constructive criticism, I think it best to leave readers to judge for themselves. Here's a quote from a book recommended to me by Daniel Caldwell, The Modern Researcher by Barzun and Graff: "when he has done his work it is no refutation of it to say that he has selected his facts to fit his case. Mr. Sparrow gives us the right view of that tiresome cliche: "What else should an investigator do? It is for the critics to show that they themselves have evaluated all the evidence, and can make a selection from it as reliable as [the other], and base upon that selection conclusions that compel acceptance..." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 18:42:03 -0600 From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: Theosophical Network Paul ... Would be most interested in seeing the letter posted here if no one else objects ... -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 17:46:07 -0700 (MST) From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: A Few Remarks on Paul Johnson's Refusal to Engage in Discussion and Paul Johnson writes: If anyone has any alternative identifications of Masters to offer, I'd be delighted to consider the relative weight of the evidence and discuss pros and cons. In the absence of such constructive criticism, I think it best to leave readers to judge for themselves." Well, Steve Richards in THE AMERICAN THEOSOPHIST in 1988 offered an alternative identification of who Koot Hoomi really was. As far as I know Johnson doesn't grapple with Richards' "alternative identification" in his two published books. Now I believe I have very good evidence to show that Richards' hypothesis concerning the true identity of K.H. is way off base. I don't know who K.H. really was, that is, his personal name or identity. But why does one have to offer an "alternative identification" in order to show that Richards' identification as well as Johnson's identifications are incorrect? In other words, Johnson seems to be saying something like:"well, a bad identification is better than no identification." No, as Dr. Marcello Truzzi wrote in his journal *Zetetic Scholar*, August, 1987: "In science [as well as in history and other scholarly disciplines] the burden of proof falls upon the claimant...The true skeptic. . . asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof...." Paul Johnson is the claimant and he bears the burden of proof. It seems to me that a wrong "identification" of the Masters is NOT better than no "identifi- cation." And since Johnson wants to quote from THE MODERN RESEARCHER by Jacques Barzun and Henry F. Graf, I will quote this from that same classic: "The particular error we have been examining is worth a word more, because it enshrines a common slippage from one use of evidence to another: the writer on Wordsworth [substitute Johnson on the Masters] found his hypothesis consistent with the facts he had gathered, and from this consistency he deduced confirmation. He may be imagined as saying: `Since there is nothing against my view [in Johnson's case this isn't even true!] since, on the contrary, certain facts can be made to support my view, therefore my view is proved.' But proof demands *decisive evidence*; this means *evidence that confirms one view and excludes its rivals.* Mr. Bateson's [substitute Mr. Johnson's] facts will fit his view *and* his critic's *and* several other possible views as well. To say this is to say that they support none of them in such a way as to discriminate between truth and conjecture." yes, let readers of Johnson's THE MASTERS REVEALED who have access to some of the material I have cited in my Part I and in future Parts, judge whether Johnson's "identifications" are on target or not. I say his identifications are off target and I try to give evidence and reasoning to support my view. If Paul Johnson is not willing to discuss in a free and open way valid criticisms of his thesis that is his choice. But I repeat again: A bad identification is not better than no identification. Maybe some other student of Theosophical history or even myself will in the future discover the true identities of M. and K.H., but as far as I can ascertain the situation, Johnson's "identifications" are a dead end; his explanations don't even begin to explain the totality of evidence pro and con. In Part II, I will give examples from THE MASTER REVEALED that indicate that there are many statemnts therein that are simply wrong, totally in error in light of primary source documents. Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 30 Jun 95 07:34:55 +1100 From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater) Subject: Re: A suggestion please DAVID KUTTRUFF <71254.312@compuserve.com> writes: > I have heard that reading Madame Blavatsky's books directly is > somewhat overwhelming; therefore, I would like to ask for a > recommendation or two as t which books might serve as good > introductions before jumping into the deeper volumes. Ancient Wisdom, Modern Insight by Shirley Nicholson Published by Quest Books From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 07:43:45 -0700 (MST) From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Recommendations to D. Kuttruff on Theos-l To David Kuttruff: I recommend the following 6 or so books: (1) An Introduction to Esoteric Principles by William Doss McDavid Paper, $7.50 This is an excellent introduction to HPB's teachings. Order from The Theosophical Publishing House, P.O. Box 270, Wheaton, Illinois 60189. (2) Deity, Cosmos and Man: An Outline of Esoteric Science by Geoffrey A. Farthing. Paper, $15.00. Also a good introduction to Theosophy as presented by HPB and the Masters. Order from Point Loma Publications, P.O. Box 6507, San Diego, California 92166 (3) The Key to Theosophy with a Glossary by H.P. Blavatsky. Paper, $10.00 An introduction to Theosophy in HPB's own words. The best edition in print is available from The Theosophical University Press, P.O. Box C, Pasadena, California 91109. (4) The Voice of the Silence translated by H.P. Blavatsky. Paper, $5.00. Available from Theosophical University Press, see address above. Another good edition of The Voice of the Silence is the centenary edition with a historical introduction published by The Theosophical Publishing House, see address above. Paper, $5.95. (5) Abridgement of The Secret Doctrine by H.P. Blavatsky. Edited by Elizabeth Preston and Christmas Humphreys. Paper, $8.95. A good introduction to H.P.B.'s best known work. The essence of the S.D. in 250 pp. Available from The Theosophical Publishing House, see address above. (6) The Divine Plan by Geoffrey A. Barborka. Hardcover, $24.95. Although not an introductory book, still this book is very helpful to anyone who wants to understand the basic ideas and concepts of the Secret Doctrine. This book by Barborka is a commentary on the S.D. and also defines key Sanskrit words used in the S.D. The index to the Divine Plan can be used like a glossary to explain key Theosophical and Sanskrit terms used by H.P.B. Available from The Theosophical Publishing House, see address above. I also recommend two biographical works on H.P. Blavatsky to help round out one's understanding: (7) H.P.B.: The Extraordinary Life and Influence of Helena Blavatsky by Sylvia Cranston. Paper, 18.95; Hardcover; $30.00. Available from The Theosophical University Press, see address above. (8) The Occult World of Madame Blavatsky compiled and edited by Daniel H. Caldwell. $13.95, paper. Available from Impossible Dream Publications, P.O. Box 1844, Tucson, Arizona 85702. If you order by mail, these publishers also charge postage. Also prices do change. Here are the phone numbers of the publishers in order to confirm prices and postage: The Theosophical Publishing House 1-800-669-9425 The Theosophical University Press 1-818-798-3378 Point Loma Publications 1-619-222-9609 Impossible Dream Publications postage for the one book is $2.00. Of course, you can order all these books through your local bookstore (especially your local metaphysical/new age bookstore). Also all titles listed above are available from one source: Wizards Bookshelf P.O. Box 6600 San Diego, California 92166 Call 1-619-258-0049 for price confirmation and postage. These recommendations compiled by Daniel H. Caldwell. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 30 Jun 95 12:11:29 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: A Few Remarks on Paul Johnson's Refusal to Engage in Discussion and According to MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU: > > If Paul Johnson is not willing to discuss in a free and open way > valid criticisms of his thesis that is his choice. But I repeat > again: A bad I didn't say I was not willing to discuss in a free and open way valid criticisms of my thesis (what thesis?). I said I would not be drawn into defending my work (meaning on theos-l.) Free and open discussion is wonderful. Attacks that escalate with every attempt at defense only poison the atmosphere here. Your use of capitals, exclamation points, loaded terms like "house of cards" create a situation in which the emotional communication drowns out the intellectual content-- at least for the target. What you communicate emotionally is a sense of outrage, accusation, condemnation. Maybe in another life I can focus entirely on the intellectual content and ignore the emotional attack. This time around, since I'm still vulnerable to getting sucked into a fruitless cycle of defending, provoking further attack, more defending, ad nauseum, it's better to just opt out. Sorry to disappoint you. But take heart; the other cheek will be published in three weeks :) I've devoted many hours to responding to your complaints, by mail, on theos-l, by e-mail. Clearly, none of those responses carried any weight with you at all. Why, then, go through it all again? No one on theos-l seemed to enjoy it. I sure didn't. > In Part II, I will give examples from THE MASTER REVEALED that > indicate that there are many statemnts therein that are simply > wrong, totally in error in light of primary source documents. > > Daniel Caldwell You might recall that there was a strong consensus last time around that this line of discussion be posted to theos-roots rather than theos-l. That still seems the best policy. I encourage other theos-l participants to comment yea or nay on this suggestion. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Jun 95 12:55:33 EDT From: DAVID KUTTRUFF <71254.312@compuserve.com> Subject: Thank you for suggestions Dear Brenda, Daniel, and Paul: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. I appreciate your kind help in suggesting the various books and groups for further study. Sincerely, David K. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Jun 95 12:53:45 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: A few remarks . . . KPJ: >You might recall that there was a strong consensus last time >around that this line of discussion be posted to theos-roots >rather than theos-l. That still seems the best policy. I >encourage other theos-l participants to comment yea or nay on >this suggestion. I vote yea to table this discussion to another part of the list. How about the north pole of it, so the bitter flames can be cooled by the snow and icy winds? - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 30 Jun 95 10:28:57 -0700 From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re:Paul Johnson's book (s) (by Dan) > In Part II, I will give examples from THE MASTER REVEALED that > indicate that there are many statemnts therein that are simply > wrong, totally in error in light of primary source documents. (by Paul) > You might recall that there was a strong consensus last time > around that this line of discussion be posted to theos-roots > rather than theos-l. That still seems the best policy. I > encourage other theos-l participants to comment yea or nay on > this suggestion. Paul, I don't care if your statements are wrong. I have started reading IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS, and It's still too early to make many comments, but I'm so glad that you are introducing me to these people: Sotheran, Rawson, and Mazzini are people I never knew and you can assert their true identity to be Poccahontas, I'll just laugh and thank you, thank you, thank you for presenting these people in an interesting way. Now I have information which I can followup with to increase my knowledge and understanding of the world around me. What hit me about your book right away was the emphasis that Freemasonry has had on the world and you present socialism, spiritualism, and political struggles. This is tantalizing stuff. Why couldn't Scotland border France in the 1500s? It's just across the sea, isn't it? It seems a little bit far fetched to suggest the writer really meant Spain. I prefer to think that Scotland had people who were mystically inclined and aware of spiritual movements on the planet than to think they were only going on in Spain with the Sufis. Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 03:06:59 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: A Few Remarks on Paul Johnson's Refusal to Engage in Discussion and Phew! Are we to have yet more back and forthing re Paul Johnson's book(s)? Maybe KH and M were pals of Uncle Tom Cobley and all; maybe HPB invented them and their letters; maybe they were all other people. Is what is said in their letters worth reading? I think so. In Christian Mysticism there is a work called "The Cloud of Unknowing" with which I am sure some readers of the list are familiar. No one knows who wrote it, but I will often quote it - that's because it has some things worth repeating. Let us read Paul's book if we will, or not if we won't. All I can say is that there is a tide in the affairs of men which leads on to ebb ..... Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 03:13:45 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Logos revealed Thanks, Ann! A number of readers will find this more than useful, I am sure. Just be grateful I didn't upload all the Greek lexicon definitions :-) Be happy, Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 12:48:34 -0500 From: von@telepath.com (vaughn webb) Subject: help Ive tried three times to be taken off the mailing list, please make it so! thanks,von From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 30 Jun 95 10:43:59 -0700 From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re:Paul Johnson's book (s) One more quick comment and this is "secret." I knew your books contained information which would not be pleasing and would not be accepted by a number of theosophists. I knew they would be very controversial. Didn't you? The reason that I feel comfortable reading them now is that people in position within The Theosophical Society are reviewing them, putting their thoughts on paper, and now that they are going on record about what you have written, I feel better able to judge the book rationally myself. I don't know if this is morphogenetic or what, but since they have read and evaluated, I can also handle this task. See? If these leaders had instead not reviewed your books, left your books in the closet so to speak, untouched and unread, I probably still would have shuffled them to the back of the shelf as taboo stuff. This may sound strange, but those reviews actually encourage people to read them, so don't be too offended, unless you want to be offended by someone like me, who speaks too often and too boldly even in the presence of "great minds." Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Jun 95 17:52:58 EDT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: PJ's book Brenda: > If these leaders had instead not reviewed your books, left your > books in the closet so to speak, untouched and unread, I probably > still would have shuffled them to the back of the shelf as taboo > stuff. This may sound strange, but those reviews actually > encourage people to read them . . . To KPJ & Brenda: Or as Bela Lugosi once said to Edward D. Wood Jr., man considered the worst director of all time , "Ed, there's no such thing as bad publicity." - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 16:14:42 -0600 From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: A Few Remarks on Paul Johnson's Refusal to Engage in Discussion and Greetings... A whoppin' "Yea" to taking the discussion to the "theos-roots" list. Our esteemed list moderater has gone to the trouble of creating the seperate lists for precisely this reason (IMO) .... and while I have not read Paul's book, Daniel's comments struck me as containing something intensely personal in them, as though I was seeing the tip of a long drawn out discussion ... Point is, the history of the TS has an entire list devoted to this stuff ... so that those who are utterly indifferent to such discussions need not sit in on them. Love & chuckles, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 19:39:09 -0700 (MST) From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Wow! Now I know what "flames" are! Friday 6:34 pm Tucson, AZ Wow! And I thought it was a hot day in Tucson today! [Please don't use exclamation points.] I sign on to my e-mail tonight and all I see are FLAMES. [Please don't use CAPS!] Now I think I understand what they mean by "clique" mentality. Do I sense a kind of "censorship"? Yes, I will post part II of my critique on Paul Johnson's books on Theos- Roots so as to pacify those members of Theos-l who find such postings "boring", etc., etc. But with this posting it will go to Theos-l whether anyone reads it or not. Please note (if anyone out there is interested enough to read this): Whether my posting on THE MASTERS REVEALED was tinged by "personal" feeling on my part or not, I did deal with certain "issues" concerning parts of Paul's "thesis" (of course he doesn't have one) but instead of not responding at all to my posting or instead focusing on the intellectual issues mentioned in my posting, Paul focuses on the personal and the emotional. I really didn't care if P.J. responded or not. I was simply following up on my promise to review his book. And when I gave comments months ago on Theos-l (believe or not...) I recieved about a dozen private e-mail messages from members telling me that they appreciated the information. [Did they all belong to Theos-roots? ???] Paul J writes: "Free and open discussion is wonderful. Attacks that escalate with every attempt at defense only poison the atmosphere here." Attacks? Attacks on Paul Johnson as a human being? or "attacks" [I prefer the word "criticisms"] of P.J.'s "persuasive case." Rereading my posting I believe I focused on issues and if I criticized P.J. "ideas" or "methods" could it not be of P.J. as an "author" not as a "human being"? Paul J says: "I've devoted many hours to responding to your complaints, by mail, on theos-l, by e-mail. Clearly, none of those responses carried any weight with you at all." Actually, IF my memory serves me, seldom have you ever responded to the "issues" (historical that is) that I have addressed. Repeatedly you have gone to the emotional level and focussed on your "martyrdom." Is this a distraction: "don't deal with the issues; distract and get the discussion to the emotional, personal level." If I remember correctly, I posted messages on Theos-l back in Jan. and Feb, 1995 in which I said good things about your book, and even pointed out chapters that I thought were well done and contained very interesting, thought provoking material. And I believe that at that time I even said that I was glad you had written your books and that I had found much good for thought in them and had even learned a great deal. On those occasions, you were all smiles. If you look up to David Christopher Lane as a good scholar (which he definitely is), then I suggest that you learn from him how to "thicken your hide." Methinks you are too thinskinned! God! David Lane whom I know has been totally harassed as a result of his criticisms and books on Eckankar and John Rogers. His house has been broken in! He now keeps his home phone number a total secret. He has received even threatening letters and phone calls from certain followers of the two above mentioned groups/gurus. Yes, he has been flamed dozens of times even on the Internet on the Eckankar discussion group by the "clique mentality", the "mob" mentality of the vocal minority and yet as far as I know he has not put on a show of his "martydom", in fact, he has had a very good sense of humor about the whole thing, and when he had responded, it has been to deal with the issues (intellectual, historical) dealing with what he has writen about Eckaankar and John Rogers. He has defended his research, not by crying foul, but by showing through reason, logic, etc, that his thesis was right on the mark. This paragraph is for P.J. I have found his views on these controversail subjects refreshing and englightening and if I ever have to disagree with him, I feel confident that instead of "crying foul", he will deal with the intellectual issues involved and we will continue to be good friends. Please, P.J., meditate on the rhino, and I don't mean Rhino Records! If you are not willing to discuss in a free and open way my criticisms ( apparently they are not valid to you) on theos-l, I do hope that Dr. Santucci will give you considerable space in THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY where you can discuss in a free and open way the criticism of your thesis as found in the review of your THE MASTERS REVEALED to soon appear in that forum. One more comment (well maybe 2 or 3 more!): This is a totally honest comment: I would really like to see you explain your thesis in light on my criticisms. As far as I know, in all of our exhanges, you have never directly dealt (on an intellectual level) with my basic objections to your thesis concerning M. and K.H. On an intellectual level (scholarly level) I would really love to see you "defend" (in the best sense of the word) your thesis. I actually believe I would learn something new, and you might learn something new, and other interested parties on THEOS-ROOTS (please note this specific forum, oh sensitive readers) might learn something new (isn't that part of what education is all about?). I now bow to that vocal minority on Theos-l and will confine my P.J. remarks in the future to Theos-roots. I hope that in the future I do not rouse the fury of the crowd in any other remarks I may make on any other taboo or boring or irrelevant or ? subject. Right of liberty of thought and of expression thereof?.....with exceptions of course! But mind your P's and Q's, also no CAPS, no ! points, no "stuff"......Such a free and open theos network! [I said no exclamation points!] Daniel P.S.: Hey, Jerry H-E, how's the north pole? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 22:42:07 -0600 From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: Wow! Now I know what "flames" are! Greetings: Just received Daniel's post ... what a wonderful piece of humor for this 4th of July weekend! I don't think I've ever seen someone attempt to guilt-trip an entire list before. YeeeeHaaaaa! Since I am a proud member of the "clique" referred to, I thought I'd venture an answer as humorous as the original post (-:). >Now I think I understand what they mean by "clique" mentality. >Do I sense a kind of "censorship"? Yes! Of course! A whole bunch of us privately e-mailed one another furiously for several days, understanding how deeply the critique of PJ's book would affect the TS, and indeed western civilization as a whole, and we decided to cleverly and seperately drop flame after flame into your mailbox. But you discovered us and exposed us! Alright! We admit it! We want to censor you! We want to make sure no one hears your ideas! >Yes, I will post part II of my critique on Paul Johnson's books >on Theos-Roots so as to pacify those members of Theos-l who find >such postings "boring", etc., etc. I myself don't need to be "pacified", and yes, *I* am one of those that find such things *boring* ... and even further, *thought* I understood that theos-roots was *specifically created* because of the understanding that Theosophical history is a distinct area that those on theos-l may not necessarily wish to explore. Instead of doing it to "pacify" people, why not instead do it because that's where it belongs in the first place, and you *respect* the *choice* of those who wish to belong to theos-l but not theos-roots. >I actually believe I would learn something new, and you might >learn something new, and other interested parties on THEOS-ROOTS .(please note this specific forum, oh sensitive readers) might >learn something new (isn't that part of what education is all >about?). >I now bow to that vocal minority on Theos-l and will confine my >P.J. remarks in the future to Theos-roots. I hope that in the >future I do not rouse the fury of the crowd in any other remarks >I may make on any other taboo or boring or irrelevant or ? >subject. Zippy da doo dah! How lovely that you would choose to utterly demean those who simply said "We *don't* want to hear it and if you wish to say it, would you please say it on the list where it belongs". If someone was in a university course called "Trends in Modern Playwriting", and someone stood up in the back of the room and launched an intense critique of some new work that made fresh propositions concerning who `really' wrote Sheakspeare's plays, would it be "censorship" for the professor to say, simply, "This isn't the class for that topic" ... would the other students be overly "sensitive" if they suggested the student take a Sheakspeare seminar if he wished to discuss his pet topic? You hope you don't rouse the "fury of the crowd"? Good grief, who's the martyr now? Do you actually think all those flames came because you are addressing a subject that is "taboo"? You are bowing to a "vocal minority"? From all the posts I've seen on theos-l since your Part I, 'tis *you* that are the "vocal minority" ... do ya think maybe, just maybe, that a majority, perhaps a large majority, of the theos-l members have not even *read* Paul's book ... and hence have little interest (and very likely could not even follow) a critique of the thing? >Right of liberty of thought and of expression thereof?.....with >exceptions of course! >But mind your P's and Q's, also no CAPS, no ! points, no >"stuff"......Such a free and open theos network! [I said no >exclamation points!] Yes! As previously admitted, there is a *conspiracy*! Everyone talked and decided that *you* shouldn't have the "right" of thought and expression ... *You* are the exception, because of the content of the subject matter! Theosophists are, of course, *known* for moving in herds ... known for *always* thinking alike .. and your ideas are *so startling* that we are all now *afraid* of the truths they contain ... and hence, out of terrible intellectual fear of having our minds opened, we beg you please, please move your comments to theos-r ... so we can remain content in our dim, truthless worlds! Seriously though, perhaps you received some personal posts I am unaware of, but all I saw on the list was the question "does theos-l wish to discuss this", and a fairly complete consensus that simply said "no". This is not a limitation of any "right" to thought and expression, but is the way almost all of the lists I'm on, scientific, cultural, religious and philosophical, arrive at the group decision to either take up a subject or to choose not to. And on those occaisions when a person forces a topic that the list consensus has decided against (and often the decision is made because the topic just isn't felt to be within the parameters of the list) ... it either forces the moderator to switch from unmoderated to moderated and temporarily screen all posts (which just happened on another list I belong to) or it causes people to begin signing off the list. Both the greatest blessing and the greatest curse of the wild frontier of cyberspace is that there actually *is* almost complete freedom of thought and expression ... a blessing because (for instance) it gives those of us here the chance to carry on drawn out discussions with Theosophists and interested parites that span several continents and all the different theosophical institutions (this list may be more purely theosophy than any of the individual organizations are) ... but a curse because that very freedom, if not used responsibly, gives one single individual the ability to ruin lists (and I've seen entire lists almost collapsed by one or two people). I am happy you have chosen to simply bow to what seems to clearly be the list consensus, but was it really necessary to launch this passive- agressive attack on those who requested you do so? Might you not actually concede that theos-r *is* really where the discussion belongs ... and move the discussion there willingly instead of with a self-righteous snarl? Peace, Chuckles & a happy 4th! -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 30 Jun 95 23:38:53 +1100 From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea) Subject: Re: What we need is a FAQ MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU writes: > I recommend the following 6 or so books: (etc....) What we need is a FAQ (frequently asked questions) about theosophy which can be posted at regular intervals. It could include a bibliography of suggested reading for both beginners and non-beginners, an outline of the different theosophical groups, some notes on some of the key figures and a summary of any areas of controversy, and perhaps some of the main ideas associated with the society, the objects, addresses of Branches etc. This way, we don't have to reinvent the wheel every time someone asks for some introductory information. Any volunteers??? (Not me - no time!) Of course, the effort to develop a FAQ may unearth some areas where we don't agree ;-) But actually, these can be reflected in a well-constructed FAQ, ASTREA