From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 00:06:26 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Psychic powers >>And Purucker makes it clear that one of the >>first steps for new students is to shut down the psychic, > > Hmm, shut down seems to imply a coercive repressive. May I suggest that >the idea is to not pay too much attention to or not become glamoured by >psychic abilities (which vary widely). There are many today, I believe, who >are "old" students but who are in their twenties or younger and are free to >follow the development as they choose. Also, humanity is on the way to a new >discovery (as the ethers have been studied by science for several decades >now) and etheric vision can be increasingly developed by the general public. > This would be a natural evolutionary development. >Patrick It may sound repressive. While I've heard it taught as a general rule, though, the application has to be decided on an individual basis. The emergence of psychic abilities is not necessarily a sign of spiritual unfoldment; sometimes it may rather be a sign of regression. I would not consider them a severe danger, where I'd strongly advocate people avoiding them. On the other hand, they can be sufficient a distraction from the cultivation of the spiritual that warnings are given. And with some approaches to the spiritual, like Purucker has written, students are taught to deemphasize and turn away from them. Granted, there are other approaches that may use the psychic in their training. I'm speaking, though, from the particular theosophical school where I find my home. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 00:11:54 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: re: Theosophy as religion >>Alice Bailey was part of the E.S. and only got kicked out when she believed >>she began to receive her OWN Mahatma letters. But in the Adyar society of >>that time (and perhaps currently, I wouldn't know) you only received a >>Mahatma letter when the head of the Esoteric Section SAID you received a >>letter. So Bailey was kicked out, and continued to do her own thing. > >Thanks for this post, Rick. It's been several years since I've read Alice >Bailey's autobiography and I'd forgotten all about this good stuff. > >- ann In fairness, we've had problems with *every* theosophical group, not just the Adyar. There is controversy over Robert Crosby, one time an avid supporter of Katherine Tingley, being kiched out of Point Loma, and going on to found the ULT. In Point Loma/Pasadena, we've had many expulsions, splits, and rival claims over succession, authority, and speakership for the Masters. It's just human nature that such events occur in every group. In the final analysis, we have to use our own common sense and our personal insight to distinguish the real from the unreal, and make sense of things. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 00:21:36 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: To Rick & Liesel >Eldon, > >Exactly, the teachings have to become a living reality to >whoever is studying them. That means they have to be flexible >enough for the learner's imagination/intuition to be able to >interpet something meaningful into them. It also means that >whatever he reads must become part of him, be absorbed & >understood, not just be words in a book. I think the idea that >not all the esoteric wisdom was given out & that we can now >build on what was written is also important. We live in a >different world now, & the teachings have to mean something to >us today, & also must further our 3rd object "to explore >unexplained phenomena in nature & in man." To me, that's the >most exciting object of the 3. The words in a book are an attempt to express something that is living, dynamic, and far too complex to captured in writing. But we must make the attempt! Each such attempt is a work of art, as we attempt to give tangible expression to unspoken beauties. I also have found that this idea of "going beyond the words" is not just a theory, but is a very useful thing to do. I've had some success in coming up with what I consider, for myself at least, to be deeper Teachings than were in the words before me. Can I teach those new ideas as Theosophy? Only if I can show that they are consistent with the core Teachings, and somehow demonstrate that they are consistent. That means that most of what I may come up with, in my private studies, stays to myself, until it is solidly a part of my mind and life and is so well- understood and proven in my life that it's ready to share. Perhaps some of the off-the-wall stuff that people say at times is similar materials, presented prematurely, before the speaker has had the time to fully work out and prove the ideas in the speaker's life? >In closing, I was just thinking that in one form or another the >Wisdom Religion has existed for thousands of years, so it's not >very likely that we'll dilute it beyond ressurection. We might >distort it, but in some form or another it's always been with >us. > Liesel We shouldn't worry so much about spoiling the whole thing. The Mahatmas have the "real stuff," and they're always going to keep it pure. They do so not by rote learning, but by continually proving and reproving it in their lives -- by personal experience -- and they are always behind the sceens working to let out whatever fragments of Truth that are appropriate and needed in outer society. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 00:30:29 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: CWL and JHE Brenda: >>>Why don't you just let the clairvoyants analyze his >>>observations? He sees things and tells about them and we don't >>>see them. >> Are you suggesting that we should never question what a >>clairvoyant claims to see? >Jerry, > >This is really embarrasing because Eldon hasn't ever brought up any of the >study material in our de Purucker group. We're studying (The Doctrine of >the Spheres, VII) and this book claims so much that is fantastical: >humanities on every planet, Venus and Mercury in their Seventh Round, Mars >in her Third Round but on the higher spheres, etc. Jupiter has a humanity, >too, he claims, but.... oh, just listen: > >"The forms of the inhabitants of the different planets are very various >indeed, and we men of Earth in our egoism might not easily accept those >beings as intelligent, sensitive, and conscious, in our senses of these >words. ... > >What's the use of proving something like this wrong? There are two parts to this question. First is how was the information obtained. Second is to what use to we put the information. I don't think that Purucker ever claimed to be a clairvoyant. (Is that word French for "seer"? -- the word we use does not matter much.) I've heard two ways that he has been presented. One description is that Purucker was a scholar of the theosophical literature, and his lectures and writings are the results of his studies. The second is that Purucker was an appointed spokesman for the Mahatmas, and was authorized with them to give out materials that could well have gone beyond what Blavatsky was authorized to present. Whichever way we look at Purucker -- as scholar or Teacher -- we still have the source of his information as being *taught*, as coming either directly or indirectly from the knowledge of the Mahatmas. This is entirely different that information obtained from out-of-the-body experiences, from dreams and visions, from personal psychic and clairvoyant experiences. Regarding the use that we put the information, it should be studied in the context of the book it is in. Taken as an isolated passage, it does potentially sound strange, especially to someone new to Theosophy. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 00:34:20 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: de Purucker Brenda: >For the passage just posted, I'd like to give reference to THE SECRET >DOCTRINE, II, 699-709. > >And in THE MAHATMA LETTERS, p. 167, Letter XXIIIB, 1882, K.H. says there is >a Raja Sun behind Jupiter which no mortal physical eye has ever seen during >this Round. > >Should I attempt to muster up proof for this? There's not too much you can do with it, as regards to "proving" it to someone. The more far-removed we get from personal experience in occult teachings, the more strange things sound. Does this mean that the ideas are strange? No. I'd say that it means that either the true meaning is hidden under a blind, a veil, or that the ideas are regarding places and experiences for which we have no background to understand them. That is why the deeper Teachings will always remain occult or hidden from public sight. And it is why the Mahatmas have said that the Chela must come to them for teachings, teachings which to the uninitiated would sound like "insane gibberish." -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 00:39:36 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Angels >I don't see anything in theosophy that would prohibit a belief in angels. In >fact, just the opposite. Evidence for their existence can be found in >occultism, magic, and theosophy throughout our history. Personally, I believe >that they are all denizens of the lower cosmic planes along with such things as >elementals and pretas. > > Jerry S. Agreed. But like other ideas in the source literature, the terminology has changed. Many now call as "angels" what HPB would have called "elementals." This is like how the "astral" is now, in some circles, spoken of as both "etheric" and "astral" (in the Adyar and Bailey camps), where the term remains "astral" in Point Loma and ULT. The idea of an "angel" is more poetic. The danger we face, though, when we adopt more graphic, metaphoric terminology, is that the actual meanings eventually get lost, and we have another system of exoteric religious stories and imagery. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 00:46:33 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Angels >We call them Devas. Geoffrey Hodson wrote a whole book about >"The Brotherhood of Angels & of Men". It gives the idea that to >cooperate with the Devas brings out the best in a human being. >Also, the Theosophical Publishing House sells a set of very >beautiful Christmas cards. They depict various angels as Hodson >saw them, & relayed to an artist friend who drew them. > >Liesel I seem to recall that "Deva" is a Sanskrit term meaning "god". In the source writings, Deva's might refer to Dhyani-Chohans at times. The Besant/Leadbeater idea of the Devas (and Angels) as a parallel line of evolution puts a use to the term "Deva" that may conflict with how it is used in the source writings. (I'm not here wanting to write pro or con that parallel line of evolution idea, although I do disagree with it.) Apart from that idea, if we substitute the term "Elemental" for "Deva", I'd be happier with such books. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 00:52:44 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: On speculations >What then do we make of the theosophical speculations on cosmic evolution >beyond the solar system? I have seen the most amazing charts and graphs of >this plane and that plane on "the cosmic level," when apparently (according >to little ole HPB) even the Dhyan Chohans themselves do not make statements >about anything beyond our solar system... > >Rich What we can do is apply the law of analogy and assume that the universal patterns of life hold true at bigger scales of existence than we have personal experience of. We cannot talk, though, in personal terms of Parent Star named so-and-so doing such-and-such, and having this or that particular kind of karma. We know the general laws, and see them throughout life, but only seen and know by personal experience what is before our eyes. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 00:58:52 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: angels Brenda: >Angels are messengers and according to what I have read here, they do not >participate in the "desire to receive." They are strictly associated with >God's light, not the vessels, and would be a developed being that lives >within the "Desire to Impart" of God and man. When we bless others with >light, the angel does the work and lives in this activity. Being messengers and working to carry out the energies of life, that matches the descripton of elementals. >Anyway, I wrote some of this because Eldon was writing so selfishly about >"what people could get out of the books they were reading" and it's more >theosophical to think (which he does in a later writing admit) also what we >can give to the authors and others who are our fellow travellers on the >path. After reading a book, we don't just keep everything for ourselves, we >try to practice, develop, or share what we learned. You're right that it would be selfish if one's only interest was to read for one's personal benefit, without thought of others or sharing what one has received. And one does own a debt to others for the wisdom and knowledge that has been imparted to one. We all have a responsibility to make use of what we have received, and to *share it with others.* I think that I have been following that approach. The percentage of my time devoted to personal studies, as compared to that devoted to writing and working for Theosophy, has dropped significantly over the years. It won't entirely go away, but I see an increasing emphasis on making a creative contribution to others using what I have been priviledged to learn. Hopefully I am not in a minority in this regard. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 01:05:41 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Objectivity Brenda: >I don't know why Eldon is so philosophical and doesn't use enough examples. >He would probably prefer to live life entirely on the mental plane. But he >does help out with the organizational side of the theosophical movement when >he is able. He's been a very good husband and father and he makes friends >among his business associates. He has to think abstractly for his kind of >work which is the development of software. It helps if you have enought time to write more. This last week, I've had perhaps 1 to 1 1/2 hours free in the morning, when I get into work, before I start for the day. There's another 45 minutes at lunchtime. With my laptop and an outgoing modem line, I'm able to participate a bit. It's fun to do, like attending a giant theosophical discussion group. I think that the 'theos-l' list has finally hit "critical mass" and will start to take off as an lively forum. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 01:12:45 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Objective Truth Jerry: >I think we have a really niffty subject to discuss for >awhile. What is truth? The following is my response >to Daniel: this is in the nature of sharing opposing >viewpoints, and not intended as personal criticism, etc. >I find this whole subject fascinating and would enjoy >further discussions, but please, lets try to keep our >emotions out of it. "Truth" falls in the same catagory as "objectivity". There's relative objectivity, which for practical purposes in a world is fairly consistent; there's also relative truth within the context of a world. A statement that "things are this way" can be tested to be true or false: see if it is so. But that test is in the context of a particular world or plane, and may not hold true elsewhere. > Truth IS one's interpretation. >Period. If you think that there is some kind of >objective real and changeless truth outside of yourself, >then I think, my friend, that you have a lot of learning >to do. We each carry our own truth around with us, and >yes, it changes once in awhile, and grows just as we do. > This itself IS truth. The fact that we share certain >experiences while on this Earth is only made possible >because a portion of our "objective truths" overlap with >each other. This overlapping is a necessary condition >or prerequisite for any world to exist, and we each >agreed to this when we joined this life-wave that is >currently perigrinating around Globe D. We need to make a distinction between absolutes, which are unmanifest but utterly pure or perfect, and actuals, which are manifest but relative and subject to limitation. An ideal virture, for instance, is an absolute. One such virtue might be "Truth". In actual existence, in a manifest world, it expresses itself as a relative thing, it becomes limited or conditioned Truth, and has both limitations and differing applications in different circumstances. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 01:26:26 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Theos-l: An Incendiary Fellowship? >Dear Eldon, > >What's wrong with Mommies? Or Grandmas for that, which would >count me in. If you're saying you don't need me, just forget >it. >Liesel I'm not sure what I said? (You didn't quote it and I don't remember what this might be in response to.) Hope it wasn't too bad... -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 01:37:20 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: In the Lion's Den > > Do you feel confronted? You should...I am fulfilling my calling > in the Lion's Den. You are being Called! Will you talk with me > or will you hide your face? Will you walk with me or will you > run away? > > Daniel > Evangelical Polemist > 1Pet3:15 > I will pray for you - you are clearly in a highly emotional and unbalanced condition. I may begin to take you *a little* more seriously when I hear that you are prepared to look into the source materials from which your "Evangelic Polemic" has been derived. If you continue in the way of this latest posting, I will, along with most of the folk on the list, I suspect, run away as fast as my legs can carry me. Alan Bain, D.D. (ex-SBL and AAR). From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 01:48:04 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Law > Alan: > > >To me, the whole idea of an "objective reality" is a totally > >human abstraction, for, as individuals - this is the important > >bit folks - we are all *subject* to LAW, and thus incapable > >either individually of collectively of total "objectivity" - so > >even if there is such as thing as "objective reality" or > >"objective truth" we are constitutionally incapable of > >recognising it, as the human condition is relative to > >environment and context. > > I'd agree that our so-called objective reality is a human > abstraction, but that we are subject to law. But that law > is the consequence of life itself. Huh? Whatever we do affects > others, including the spiritual ecosystem of the multiplane > earth, and there will be a natural reaction. That reaction > is the consequences of our act. The "law" is a description > of the behavior of things, stating that when we do a certain > action there will be a typical (often predictible) reaction. > > -- Eldon Yep! Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 01:51:42 GMT From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Chaos Greetings: Forwarding this post to the list for those interested in Chaos/Complexity theory. -JRC Subject: FAQ:Society for Chaos Theory in Psychology + LifeSciences Brief FAQ for... THE SOCIETY FOR CHAOS THEORY IN PSYCHOLOGY & LIFE SCIENCES About the Society The Society is an international forum bringing together researchers, theoreticians, and practitioners interested in applying dynamical systems theory, far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics, self-organiza- tion, neural nets, fractals cellular automata, and related forms of chaos, catastrophes, bifurcations, nonlinear dynamics, and complexity theories to psychology and the life sciences. The Society was founded at its first meeting held in San Francisco, 1991. Our members hail from numerous specialties within psychology and the social sciences as well as from biology, physiology, neuroscience, mathematics, philosophy, physics, computer science, economics, education, management, political science, engineering, and the world of art. At the time this announcement was prepared, we have 470 members worldwide. Society Activities The Society publishes a newsletter, holds an annual international conference including workshops on new nonlinear methods, hosts regional conferences, and maintains the CHAOPSYC@MOOSE.UVM.EDU computer bulletin board (e-mail format). Future plans include both an electronic and a paper journal. A World Wide Web Site is now under construction, and it will link a wide range resources for researchers in nonlinear dynamics. The essential proceedings of the first two conferences appear in an edited collection along with works by additional Society members: Abraham, F., & Gilgen A. (Eds., 1995). Chaos Theory in Psychology. Westport CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 0-313-28961-1. The proceedings of the third annual conference was edited on behalf of the society by: Robertson, R., & Combs, A. (1995). Chaos Theory in Psychology and the Life Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 0-8058-1736-0 [hardbound], ISBN 0-8058-1737-9 [paper]. Proceedings of the fourth and fifth annual conferences are now in preparation. Annual Conference Annual conferences are, according to the present algorithm, alternately scheduled for June or August, and will precede one of the major psychological conventions in North America. The August, 1995 conference took place at Adelphi University in New York. The next annual conference is Scheduled for the San Francisco Bay area, June, 1996. Additional information will be posted in the Newsletter and elsewhere. Physical Location The new Society address for membership, newsletter submissions, and general inquiries is: Society For Chaos Theory in Psychology & Life Sciences c/o Stephen J. Guastello, Ph.D., President Dept. Psychology, Marquette University P.O. Box 1881 Milwaukee, WI 53201-1881 USA Tel: + 414-288-6900; FAX: + 414-288-5333; e-mail 6155guastell@vms.csd.mu.edu Membership The Membership year concludes with the annual conference. Rates are US$25.00 for regular members. (US$10.00 for students or persons with limited income.) Name _______________________________________________ Address ____________________________________________ ____________________________________________ City _______________________________________________ State/Province/zip/postal code: ____________________ Country ____________________________________________ Tel: ____________________ FAX: _____________________ e-mail: ____________________________________________ Please complete and mail to the Society at the address above. At the present time the Society can only accept payment by check or money order drawn on a US bank; consult your local bank for best procedures. We also regret that we cannot accept credit cards. ================== RFC 822 Headers ================== with BSMTP id 2310; Mon, 28 Aug 95 10:06:58 EDT 2196; Mon, 28 Aug 95 10:05:15 EDT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 03:06:22 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: CWL and JHE I have read the same sort of material in Steiner. I am probably too much of a rationalist to buy into it. But some words struck me as I read the post. "Mythopoetic interdimensionality". I could never imagine myself taking what Steiner and other esoterics say about this sort of stuff "literally". But just because is isn't literal, it doesn't mean that it is not meaningful. What is the meaning of those statements- what is being pointed to? I would never dimiss the formative value of Tolkien's characters or those in Narnia - likewise I wouldn't want to miss the jems found in the Saturalians or Maritians. Art From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 03:12:32 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: CWL and JHE Brenda, quoting from Purucker writes: >"The forms of the inhabitants of the different planets are very >various indeed,...Some are flat; some are spherical; some are >long. The inhabitants of the planet Mercury have, perhaps, the >nearest resemblance to the inhabitants of Earth. The inhabitants >of the planet Jupiter are the most diverse in form and outward >appearance from the men of Earth. The inhabitants of Venus, >which is an inhabited planet at the present time, are doubles, >ovoid in shape, that is to say egg-shaped, but are >doubles....[etc.]> > >What's the use of proving something like this wrong? " If this description is wrong, then for me, it throws suspicion upon other information that Purucker has expanded upon. The more often I find him wrong, the more cautious and critical I would become about his writings. If his descriptions turned out to be wrong often enough, and his errors pervasive enough, I would eventually discount his writings altogether at some point. In another message, Brenda continues: >For the passage just posted, I'd like to give reference to THE >SECRET DOCTRINE, II, 699-709. > >And in THE MAHATMA LETTERS, p. 167, Letter XXIIIB, 1882, K.H. >says there is a Raja Sun behind Jupiter which no mortal physical >eye has ever seen during this Round. > >Should I attempt to muster up proof for this? Why not? What kind of proof do you want to offer? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 05:04:01 GMT From: Lynn.M.Oelgart@Dartmouth.EDU (Lynn M. Oelgart) Subject: Re: In the Lion's Den I just wanted you to know that I enjoyed your post enormously. Thanks. Lynn From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 05:06:28 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: theosophical transformations from HPB to Shirley Maclaine Ann Bermingham, >The May/June 95' issue of UFO magazine is devoted to UFO cults. >One particular article is about Dan Fry, George Adamski and >Marion Keech, both of who claimed to have been contacted by >extraterrestrials and later went on to form cults. >The author, Peter Jordan, claims that they all got more than a >little inspiration from theosophical writings. I'm so glad that you raised this issue. The distillation of theosophical ideas from one writer to another, each adding a twist, changing meanings and contexts so that the ideas eventually look more like confused parodies of the originals has been much more than a passing interest with me, and I have been quietly trying to follow the trail for some years. Gregory Tillett in his biography of CWL pointed out, for instance, that theosophical terminology that has entered public consciousness is understood in the same way that CWL understood the terms, not how HPB used them. For instance "Masters" are publicly understood according to CWL's descriptions, not HPB's. "Astral" is used the way CWL used the term, not how HPB used it and so on. I think the reason for this is because CWL is so much easier to read than HPB. After teaching SD classes for over twenty years in both ULT and Adyar groups, I've observed that much of HPB's rhetoric is really too sophisticated for most readers. I'm not talking about too many "big words", but her organization of thought, her subtleties and her flow of logic is above the level that the average person is able to read anymore. Thus, since early in this century, CWL and AB's books were promoted as "clarifications" of HPB's ideas. Most of those early members never thought of the possibility that some of these "clarifications" might be misreadings. And so it goes all the way down to Shirley Maclaine who's writings are also full of "theosophical" ideas. If the Theosophical Society is to be the corner stone for future new religions, it would make sense that these new religions would be based upon distillations and misreadings of the original material. Is that not what the various sects of Christianity are about--misreadings of Jesus' message, now lost in theology? I wrote: >> Boris deZirkoff controlled the editing process of HPB's >>works for the Collected Writings. Dara Eklund has that >>responsibility now. She understands HPB and endeavors to stay >>true to the originals. Of course, there is nothing like the >>originals themselves, but all of that is rare now. Ann responds: >This is also true of Yogananda's book. There was editing done >on it by the Self-Realization Fellowship, after he died, to make >it fit their ideas. Old originals of Biography of a Yoga are >highly prized. I've heard of this. Do you know at which point (which editions) they began to make changes? Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 05:10:54 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Story of Deconversion: Confession from the Snake Pit I read and re-read you post and found a lot of wisdom there, Jerry. I have a few comments (after completing the post,I realize quite a few comments, sorry for those who are not interested just delete me if you will :),that I would like to add from my unique position of being a former Evangelical Polemicist who has been "deconverted". By that I am not denying the many truths that I think are contained within a Christian framework but I am denying a certain tonality that unfortunately has become associated with such a belief. I was a Daniel in the Lions Den twenty years ago. My Bible college used to send us into the university to do exactly what Daniel is trying to do on this list. Bring people who are under the blinding influence of secular humanism (and beneath that Satan) into a living relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. In arrogance I attempted to trash one of the greatest minds of the twentieth century Bertrand Russell in a first year apologetics book review. My professors were impressed and reinforced that inflation. A whole social cultural situation feeds and nurtures the virulent attitude of exclusivity and moral superiority. It is paradoxical that humility is one of the greatest virtues in this system and yet epistemological humility is completely lacking. What an evanglical does is interesting psychologically. One the one hand, they have a veiw of themselves and others as totally depraved but when regeneration or salvation takes place they place themselves "in Christ" and away from any critique due to a transformed nature and a Bible. Paul the Apostle wrote something that allows them to justify this stance: "Those who are spiritual discern all things, and they are subject to no one else's scrutiny. For who has known the mind of the (Lord) so as to instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. 1 Corinthians Jung speaks of this as the inflation of the mana personality. Your own ego is so underdeveloped that you get merged with an archetype and feel its power and wisdom and identify that with your ego. I would even go as far as to say that many people do link up with the Spirit (Self Archetype) but when they translate that back to historic reality, they use the power and insights gained there to bolster a low self esteem. They appear arrogant but in reality are very insecure and need the strong positions to keep from disolving. I say this not in superiority for I lived like that for years. I was a wreck like Daniel (he mentioned being a 31 year old failure before his "transformation" ) before I converted to evangelicalism, I lived in a commune and practised chemical Marxism in the sixties - the gospel that evangelicals taught got me out of that completely defeating life-style. I enjoyed a bit of a chuckle when I read you introduction about the snake pit. But then I remembered how I would have viewed that when I was an evangelical. What you said was true from that point of veiw and deadly serious. Salvation temporal and eternal rest on the maintaining of the strictest orthodoxy an evangelical can muster. It is really a personal security issue. You were perceptive in your description of the path to destruction when you said, "their evil wisdom may start creeping into your soul through hidden cracks in your mind." There is a theory in evangelical circles, I call it the domino effect, that once you let one of the fundamentals loose, you will eventually have your whole faith castle collape. The question you asked later in your post reflect what some of those fundamentals are: 1. Belief in a personal transcendent Holy (and therefore wrathful) and Loving (and therefore forgiving) Being. 2. A correspondence view of absolute truth and objectivity based on logical rationality 3. The full plenary verbal inspiration of an infallible and inerrant revelation in the Holy Scriptures (no extra canonical revelation) 4. the ontological (not merely functional oneness but oneness of essence) divinity of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. There are probably at least fifty more principles that need holding onto like Virgin Birth, miracles, etc but what I mentioned are I believe essentials. The deconvertion took place like this. First I realized that other positions where held by people of deep sincerity, love, and intelligence. The word heretic began to stick in my throat when I thought of Gandhi, or Mohammed or Buddha. But it really was problematic when I studied Origen an early church father who live in Alexandria who attempted to share his faith and deepest beliefs by translating them into Platonic thought. My professor at graduate school said that all heresey came from the platonic cesspool of "divinization". That is where the distinction between human and divine broke down and we corresponded with the nature of God. Anyway, while studying this man and his beliefs a strange feeling came over me and I prayed that God, the God beyond God, would protect me if I were to be open minded. I decided that if I were to give my heart to God and my will to God, why not give also my intellect. It was the scariest step I have ever taken. I determined to study seriously and as much as possible without ideological lens what I encountered. That is chapter one abbreviated. Chapter of my deconversion came when I encountered the contents of collective unconsciousness in a dream. It was synchronistic in that it was a month before I was going to work on a tutorial on the Analytical Psychology of C.G. Jung. I decided that I would not just academically study Jung but see what the living tradition was like in the Jungians in Vancouver. So I attended the society and met people who were wise, decidedly non christian, and didn't reject me because I was. Well most didn't - there are some narrow minded liberals out there, aren't there? I wrote a paper on Jung and Evangelical Christianity and shared it with the Jungian Society. They challenged and deepened my perspective. The principle that set my evangelical house tumbling in this setting was the need for a symbolic view instead of a literal one. I began to interpret the Scriptures from a symbolic viewpoint which brings me to the third aspect of my fall from certainty. The idea that revelation is found exclusively in Holy Scripture is the bulwark of the evangelical faith position. There is a claim that Jesus is Lord and that it supposed to be the creedo. But in reality the Scripture literally interpreted is the creedo. What do the Scriptures say about Jesus of Nazareth? Well in my classes I learned a critical method that suggested that the Scriptures are, as you correctly pointed out, a diversity of books but more than that they are a diversity of faith traditions. So when the question is asked who is Jesus as Master? The answered depends on which section of the writings you are focussing on. If you are in Mark Jesus is the Son of Man barely divine at all and if you take the best text critical evaluation of the book Jesus doesn't get resurrected. If you look in John you see a eternal logos figure who has existed before the foundation of the world. If in Matthew you have new lawgiver. Etc. ... So the question became which Christ do I know or have inner resonnance with. This historial Jesus is very deeply buried in the layers of tradition and is almost impossible to get an accurate picture of although many have made excellent attempts at reconstruction. I came to the conclusion that Jesus the human one of history and the Christ of faith are significantly while not entirely different from each other. I can hear the floor boards of faith rumbling at that point. This entire process took twenty years of authentic searching to arrive at, so I don't expect any road to Damascus to occure for our Daniel but he is sincere and I respect that sincerity. If he follows that sincerity he will change and alter if not his beliefs at least his tone. I believe in the intensity of his experience and that it is truly remarkable and invigorating to experience self transcendence. My newly found creedo is from Emerson. It will last for at least this week :) and it is: When we have broken our God of tradition and ceased from our God of rhetoric, then may God fire the heart with his presence. Ralph Waldo Emerson And for Daniel, Character teaches over our head. The infallible index of true progress is found in the tone the man takes. Neither his age, nor his breeding, nor company, nor books, nor actions, nor talents, nor all together can hinder him from being deferential to a higher spirit than his own. if he have not found his home in Oversoul, his manners, his forms of speech, the turn of his sentences, the build, shall I say, of all his opinions will involuntarily confess it, let him brave it out as he will. If he has found his center, the Diety will shine through him, through all the disguises of ignorance, of uncongenial temperament, of unfavorable circumstance. The tone of seeking is one and the tone of having is another. Ralph Waldo Emerson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 05:33:36 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Objectivity Daniel: >Pls tell me how you would respond. >You come home late from work to find a man raping and beating >your wife. Your instant reaction permanently puts this man to sleep. >Have you just comitted a crime against humanity or has objective >truth put a criminal to death? Your example is complicated. It seems to refer to the distinction between absolute virtues, like the not taking of life, and the application of them to specific situations in life. An Ideal can be lived up to, but does not stand along. In any situation there are a mix of factors, perhaps opposing ideals at work, at we have to balance and compromise. It's wrong to become overcome with rage and kill another, but in an act of self-preservation the judgement of right and wrong requires greater insight. What we basically have are Ideals, general rules of spiritual action, and the *use of our moral consciousness* in the situation of the moment. A certain special type of consciousness is required to evaluate things in a moral, ethical manner, seeing and balancing all the factors involved, and come out with a decision that benefits the greatest good. Most of us don't have this consciousness. It doesn't come from the unthinking adherance to an arbitrary set of commandments, it requires penetrating insight into life, insight into oneself and others and what is truly going on. >Self-preservation reaped survival and justice. >If the assailant was within the bounds of Objective Morality, he >would have been in bed with his wife. Being able to do something, perhaps by force, does not make it right. This reminds me of something that Brenda showed me last night. It was a short biographic sketch of a distant ancestor (or friend of that ancestor?) in Germany. He was jailed for witchcraft in the 1600's, and when his case was reviewed, he was also given the additional punishment of a few weeks of torture. Is the right? No. But that is what an authoritarian religion will often do if it has absolute political power. Since it cannot win by logic or spiritual persuasion, it uses severe punishment on those who would be different. >What if McDonalds were to have placed an addictive drug >in the Big Mac. Is there one nation in the World that would >declare this right? No. Neither brute force nor trickery is right. What is right is an appeal to the nobler side of people, to their own ability to understand and appreciate and live unselfish, spiritual lives. >Why can all societies determine these two to be errors, >yet through dialog you can determine that there is no >objectivity? There are Ideals, Virtues, and high standards that we can aspire towards. There is not, though, easy, clean-cut situations in life where it is easy to know the best way to act, because life is a compromise, and it is complicated by many conflicting goods and bads. We weigh a delicate balance at times in picking "right" from "wrong". >It makes no sense. To me, Theosophy makes sense, but until you've studied it, you only have second-hand opinions about what it consists of to base your judgement. I'd suggest keeping an open. >This is not Theosophy it is Liberal Pudding. Theosophy leads to a sharper perception of what is right, noble, and ideal in life than a traditional church's approach. We are taught to think for ourselves, to learn to distinguish the real from the unreal, to open our hearts to the spiritual and awaken *the divinity within.* There's no politics in that. Some of us may, in fact, be on any position on the political spectrum. We're enabled, if we take advantage of the opporutnity afforded us, to progress must further in being able to tell right from wrong, to tell spiritual from the non-spiritula, to becoming active forces for good in the world, than someone who is only taught to pay lip service to some creed, and whose highest ideal may be to sign up more members for his particular sect. Hopefully you are not in this bind, yourself, and are able to engage us in a meaningful discussion. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 05:40:00 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Re: On speculations But I enjoy contemplating cosmic relationships (I was raised on Star Trek). >Footnote: "We are taught that the highest Dhyan Chohans, or Planetary Spirits >.. are in ignorance of what lies beyond the visible planetary systems, since >their essence cannot assimilate itself to that of worlds beyond our solar >system. When they reach a higher stage of evolution these other universes >will be open to them; meanwhile they have complete knowledge of all the >worlds within and beneath the limits of our solar system." This may be true on some level, but just as we humans can look to the stars with our telescopes and understand some of what is going on so the Dyani Chohans would be able to know much more of the universe outside our solar system and in particular relationships with our planet vis a vi energy flow. They can also be instructed by beings more advanced than themselves. >when apparently (according >to little ole HPB) even the Dhyan Chohans themselves >do not make statements <<<<<-----[this is a misquote!] >about anything beyond our solar system... Well, there is astrology and the cosmic relationships as they are reflected here. What HPB said is that the Chohans may not have direct "personal" experience with such cosmic processes (but there are other ways ...) and that we should not make statements about things which we do not know. Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 06:17:46 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: CWL and JHE >The inhabitants of Venus, which is an >inhabited planet at the present time, are doubles, ovoid in shape, that is >to say egg-shaped, but are doubles. As we have pointed out, Venus is a >planet superior to Earth: both naturally and spiritually, and in other ways. > (p. 68-69) A bizarre sidebar to the above: The May/June 95' issue of UFO magazine is devoted to UFO cults. One particular article is about Dan Fry, George Adamski and Marion Keech, both of who claimed to have been contacted by extraterrestrials and later went on to form cults. The author, Peter Jordan, claims that they all got more than a little inspiration from theosophical writings. "The legend of MU and Atlantis, it should be understood, did not originate with Dan Fry, nor Adamski, and in fact can be traced back to some of the earliest theosophical writings of the 20th Century. As with nearly every other cult or mass movement, the contactees demonstrated little originality; they were imitators who found it easier to pilfer their ideas - even their personae - from the annals of history. . . . Charles Leadbeater, a British theosophist and medium, in his Handbook of Theosophy (published in 1932) declared that Venusians ("Lords of the Flame") occupy the highest rank in what he called the "Great White Brotherhood," with Aryans considered the highest native race on Earth." (UFO magazine, pg 35) - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 06:25:07 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Re: On speculations On making statements about anything outside our solar system: "Still the fact remains that most of the planets, as the stars beyond our system, are inhabited..." (SD II, p. 701, published 1979 collected writings). There are also references to universe, kosmos, stars by name, space, astronomy, etc. Cheers, Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 06:48:03 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Re: Psychic powers Dear Eldon, Thanks for your response. <> Yes. <> Yes. <> I like the idea of simply keeping them in their proper place. I have known many children who were very sensitive, some fully clairvoyant, and what they need is clear understanding of what is going on rather than avoidance. <> Yes, this truth should be made clear to all "seekers." The approach of indifference and use of all faculties for good is the one I follow. <> Hmm, Yes, if one is new and full of glamours about psychism. <> I hope that I did not give the impression that I do this. All training should be based on the development of the qualities of the heart and right motivation in service, then any and all abilities follow with right timing. The focus on auras and etheric vision today is because it is so wide-spread and, I believe, a recapitulatory evolutionary event, that the need for clarity and right understanding is called for, not repression. <> Ok. Peace, Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 07:08:04 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Comparing Clairvoyants As I previously stated, I just renewed membership in the Association for Research and Enlightenment, which I first joined before the TS. The wrangling about the clairvoyance of Leadbeater and Purucker (and Bailey's clairaudience) in this group inspired me to reflect why I feel more comfortable with the Cayce material than any of those more explicitly Theosophical writers' work. First, there is the simple fact of honest, open investigation-- research-- rather than promotion of authority. A.R.E. is quite up front about admitting Cayce's many and big errors, and would never engage in the kind of deceptive editing JHE has decried. Neither the Bailey people nor any Theosophical admirers of alleged clairvoyants seem to have the same commitment to objectivity and evidence. Second, there is the sheer volume of relevant evidence available. Cayce is by far the most convincing example of paranormal abilities that I can think of. Even a brief reading of works about him establishes this. Third, there is the fact of his unconsciousness. To me, this cuts the Gordian knot of mistrust that people like Bailey and HPB and CWL cannot cut. That is, if the seer is conscious of the material and its source, there is abundant opportunity for mixed motives to pollute the "revelation." Personal gain, fame, bias, etc. all must be considered. Whereas with Cayce, there was little or no conscious awareness of the material, and this far less cause to suspect personal bias or motive. Of course, the unconscious can bias and contaminate anything anyone does, but in the case of Cayce we are dealing directly with the unconscious. This raises the question of archetypal patterns vs. historical reality (e.g. is Atlantis/Lemuria really inside the collective unconscious?) rather more directly than the other teachers mentioned. The above is not offered in the spirit of "mine's better than yours" but rather to suggest that we can be receptive to the work of clairvoyants while remaining skeptical. For example, how would Cayce's life readings measure up against the Lives of Alcyone? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 07:14:55 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: angels Alan, >> Remember, judgement (Gevurah) and emptiness (Din) on the left, mercy(Hesed) >> and glory(Hod, also known as Netzah-Victory) on the right. >> Only these four are considered because Kether, Hokmah and Binah all conduct >> the Light and this is their only affect on the physical world. (This is why >> there are four doors in the home????) > >All are reconciled by Tiphereth [Beauty, Harmony] in the center. >And so we, in our development as individuals. are wise to seek >to center ourselves. Hod and Netzach are usually juxtaposed >left and right, being separate and distinct sephiroth. Well, what about the Sephiroth called Din? I'm sure there is one and it means emptiness. Victory doesn't seem empty, so I thought Hod and Netzach were the same. >> On another subject: What more suitable fate for Mars than to "slaughter it." > >Frankly, if this is not intended as a joke, I see it as nonsense. This is in relation to what the publishers did to the sections of MAN, WHENCE, HOW AND WHITHER regarding Martian cities. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 07:24:28 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: re:theosophy historical & doctrinal Jerry: > Boris deZirkoff controlled the editing process of HPB's >works for the Collected Writings. Dara Eklund has that >responsibility now. She understands HPB and endeavors to stay >true to the originals. Of course, there is nothing like the >originals themselves, but all of that is rare now. This is also true of Yogananda's book. There was editing done on it by the Self-Realization Fellowship, after he died, to make it fit their ideas. Old originals of Biography of a Yoga are highly prized. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 07:32:11 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: CWL and JHE Jerry, > If this description is wrong, then for me, it throws >suspicion upon other information that Purucker has expanded upon. >The more often I find him wrong, the more cautious and critical I >would become about his writings. If his descriptions turned out >to be wrong often enough, and his errors pervasive enough, I >would eventually discount his writings altogether at some point. > >In another message, Brenda continues: > >> >>And in THE MAHATMA LETTERS, p. 167, Letter XXIIIB, 1882, K.H. >>says there is a Raja Sun behind Jupiter which no mortal physical >>eye has ever seen during this Round. >> >>Should I attempt to muster up proof for this? > > Why not? What kind of proof do you want to offer? The proof that I would offer, if I could, would be my own personal investigation through clairvoyance or discussion with somebody I trusted who used clairvoyance. Your disproofs tend to be based on scientific findings, such as when the space probes photographed Mars. This isn't the same method of discovery so why use it as definitive, especially when you seem to be someone who has studied the existence of inner realms and their importance in any discussion about life. In de Purucker's words, "That is what the scientific statment amounts to; nobody who believes that other planets are inhabited has ever made the preposterous claim that man, as we know him here, could live on these planets. Consequently the scientific answer is not responsive to the hypothesis that other planets are inhabited, for each planet is inhabited by its own kind and type of inhabitants, fitted by evolution to there." And he says that man on other planets is part of the ecosystem of each planet, living harmoniously with the planet's elements, temperatures, atmosphere, etc. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 08:29:57 GMT From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: Story of Deconversion: Confession from the Snake Pit Art: Just a quick note (perhaps more on your interesting post later tho) "JRC" is John R Crocker ... wouldn't want Jerry to get blamed for my ramblings (-:). -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 09:34:41 GMT From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Subject: In the Lion's Den This is a reposting as I made a booboo the first time round. > >Hi Daniel, >May I humbly add my little bit and first ask if you have read HPB's Isis >Unveiled. It's historical scope is grand and puts all our various 'saviours' >in a wider perspective. I will give a small quote from Vol 2 pg 335. " How >little Jesus had impressed his personality upon his own century, is >calculated to astound the inquirer. Renan shows that Philo, who died towards >the year 50, and who was born many years earlier that Jesus, living all the >while in Palastine while the 'glad tidings' were being preached all over the >country, according to the Gospels, had never heard of him. Josephus, the >historian, who was born 3 or 4 years after the death of Jesus, mentions his >excecution in a short sentence, and even those few words were altered 'by a >Christian hand' says the author of the Life of Jesus, writing at the close >of the first century. Josephus, the painstaking enumerator and careful >historian of even the most unimportant sects, entirely ignores the existence >os a Christian sect. Suetomius, secretary of Adrian, writing in the first >quarter of the 2nd century, knows so little of Jesus or his history as to >say that the Emperor Claudius 'banished all the Jews, who were continually >making disturbances, at the instigation of one Crestus.' meaning Christ we >must suppose. The Emperor Adrian himself, writing still later, was so >little impressed with the tenets or importance of the new sect, that in a >letter to Servianus he shows that he believes the Christians to be >worshippers of Serapis." End of quote. >That is another perspective you may take or leave but I think it fair to >acknowledge that there are other ways of being 'saved' I know of a lot of >people who are waiting to be saved by the Space Brothers who will effect the >earth's transit into a more spiritual mode. These people are not cranks >either but have chosen that idea as valid for them. I find them quite >normal, intellegent persons. > >Bee > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 10:14:12 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: CWL and Mars Brenda, Brenda wrote quoting the Mahatma Letters: >>And in THE MAHATMA LETTERS, p. 167, Letter XXIIIB, 1882, K.H. >>says there is a Raja Sun behind Jupiter which no mortal >>physical eye has ever seen during this Round. and asked: >>Should I attempt to muster up proof for this? I replied: > > Why not? What kind of proof do you want to offer? Brenda's replies and my answers to hers: >The proof that I would offer, if I could, would be my own >personal investigation through clairvoyance or discussion with >somebody I trusted who used clairvoyance. Under the circumstances, that may be the only method open to you, though I would not rule out radio astronomy, ultra violet and infrared photography as well as x-ray photography. Lets face it, cameras are more objective than people. I would look at photographic evidence first. >Your disproofs tend to be based on scientific findings, such as >when the space probes photographed Mars. This isn't the same >method of discovery so why use it as definitive, especially when >you seem to be someone who has studied the existence of inner >realms and their importance in any discussion about life. I think that the study of a phenomena by using different methods of observation and measurement is a fruitful method to seek the truth of the matter. I also prefer subjective observations to be backed up by objective measurements. For instance, if we suspect high amounts of iron in the Martian soil based upon our observation that the soil is red, then find iron in the soil through chemical analysis, that makes for a strong case, doesn't it? However, if we found no iron in the Martian soil though chemical analysis, I think we would be obliged to start thinking about other possible reasons for the red soil. Now, applying the same reasoning to CWL's Martian cities, I think it is not unreasonable to conclude that the Viking photographs throw serious question upon CWL's observations, to say the least. I must remind you that CWL was quite clear in his description that he was talking about physical cities on the physical plane in the presence tense. Also, CWL himself often alluded to physical visual evidence to substantiate his descriptions. For instance, in his description of Mars, he cited telescopic observations and explained that the astronomers were seeing: "The actual canals themselves are not visible to terrestrial telescopes; what is seen is the belt of verdure which appears in a tract of country on each side of the canal only at the time when the water pours in. Just as Egypt exists only because of the Nile, so do large districts on Mars exists only because of these canals. From each side of them radiate at intervals waterways, which run some miles into the surrounding country are then subdivided into thousands of tiny streamlets, so that a strip of country a hundred miles in width is thoroughly irrigated. In this area are forests and cultivated fields, and vegetation of all sorts starts forth in the greatest profusion, making upon the surface of the planet a dark belt which is visible to us even forty million miles away with the planet is at it nearest and favorably situated." (~The Inner Life~ (1917 edition), vol.2, pp. 276-77). With the above description in mind, is it really unreasonable to expect that since a distant telescopic image bares out CWL's observations, that a closer look should confirm them out also? But where are those complexes of canals and forests that CWL saw and many astronomers of his time theorized were there? >In de Purucker's words, "That is what the scientific statment >amounts to; nobody who believes that other planets are inhabited >has ever made the preposterous claim that man, as we know him >here, could live on these planets. Consequently the scientific >answer is not responsive to the hypothesis that other planets >are inhabited, for each planet is inhabited by its own kind and >type of inhabitants, fitted by evolution to there." > >And he says that man on other planets is part of the ecosystem >of each planet, living harmoniously with the planet's elements, >temperatures, atmosphere, etc. I completely agree with de Purucker here. And this "preposterous claim that man, as we know him could live on these planets" (Mars in this case) is precisely the claim that CWL was making. Allow me to quote again from the 1917 edition of ~The Inner Life~: "In physical appearance the Martians are not unlike ourselves, except that they are considerably smaller. The tallest men are not above five feet in height and the majority are two or three inches shorter. According to our ideas they are somewhat broad in proportion, having very great chest capacity--a fact which may possibly be due to the rarity of the air and the consequent necessity of deep breathing on order fully to oxygenate the blood. The whole civilized population of Mars is one race, and there is practically no difference in features or complexion, except that, just as among ourselves, there are blonds and brunettes, some of the people having a faintly yellowish skin and black hair, while the majority have yellow hair and blue or violet eyes--somewhat Norwegian in appearance. They dress mostly in brilliant colours, and both sexes wear an almost shapeless garment of some very soft material which falls straight from the shoulders down to the feet. Generally the feet are bare, though they sometimes use a sort of metal sandal or slipper, with a throng round the ankle. They are very found of flowers, of which there is a great variety, and their towns are built on the general plan of the garden-city, the houses usually being one-storeyed only, but built round inner courtyards and straggling over a great deal of ground. These houses look exteriorly as though built of coloured glass, and indeed the material which is used is transparent, but it is somehow so fluted that while the persons inside enjoy an almost unimpeded view of their gardens, no one from outside can see what is going on in the house." (vol. 2, pp. 277-78) CWL continues his long description with construction methods for building their houses; the regularity of their language; machines they use to record their voices; a description of their writing and their books; the domestic animals they use to do their work for them; and of course, the Political system under which the people live. Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 12:54:51 GMT From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: Psychic powers Re: Patrick's post about psychic powers. I must agree with a couple of different things. First, I like what P said about children being born with them. I guess I believe that there is some sort of change going on - and that the number of children being born with psychic "powers" is increasing. Whether this is merely absolute (the percentage of the population remaining constant, but the number increasing because of our rapidly growing population), or is a sign of something (e.g., the postulated incarnation of increasing numbers of the 6th sub-race) that is increasing the number per hundred born with such abilities - well, point is, I (quite subjectively) seem to be running into an growing number of children to whom what would have been called psychic "powers" are simply natural, inborn senses. Additionally, perhaps because of what is often spoken of (sometimes with a demeaning attitude) as "New Age philosophies, there seem to be growing numbers of parents who do not simply write their children's abilities off as "fantasy", but who are willing to at least consider that what their children are seeing may be something more than simply imagination. In the era in which HPB & etc. wrote, such abilities may have been "natural" to a much smaller number - and there may have been a good number of adults who were not born with such things attempting to force them into development through somewhat unnatural means, and perhaps this is the reason for the early Society's injunctions against fooling with this stuff. I guess I believe that this ought to be completely re-thought, and updated to more effectively serve a very different world. I was, near as I can tell, born "clairvoyant" - meaning simply that there's a sort of place in my head that sees things (makes no difference whether the physical eyes are open or not). I remember being quite young and playing with these little flitting things that would sort of make little bubbles and balls of light and pop them at me - and I would try to catch them. In retrospect, my parents probably just thought I was waving my arms around and giggling - but at the time, *I just assumed everyone saw what I was seeing* - it was not a "psychic power" or some bizarre thing that required whispers and ominous warnings - but just a sense organ no better or worse than other sense organs. By the time I was six or seven, the ability was mostly gone (though in my worldview, I would be more inclined to say that the "sense closed"). This was very likely because I (as is the case with almost all children) had a deep desire to form the world that is validated by the surrounding human family - and it was just must easier to live in the "human" world with the band of reality revealed by that particular sense chopped off. In my late teens and early twenties, as I was experimenting (somewhat idiotically) with a hodgepodge of spiritual practices, the sense began opening again (or perhaps I simply became open to acknowledging it again). Within several years I had met "angels" (which I'll write something about to the list this weekend) & had determined that the "sense" required a good deal of discipline to be able to use in any meaningful way, and even further, that a very distinct moral code would need to be developed surrounding its use. All this happened before I stumbled across Theosophy - and when I first started going to meetings and reading some of the books, I thought oh good, somebody is actually talking about this stuff - I don't have to keep my mouth shut (I learned early on that people's reaction to even mentioning what I saw was mostly unpleasent). I soon, of course, got in trouble. First, I heard all sorts of attitudes like "oh that is lower psychism and you must avoid the use of it because it will stop your spiritual growth"; and "the development of that `ability' is frowned upon"; and "that is the road of delusion and the path requires that such things be transcended"; ...along with a bit of suspicion that I had purposely done something spiritually "illegal". These *all* seemed like *really* bizzare attitudes - its hard to explain, but it was as though something I had considered somewhat neutrally ... it was, in the end, just another _sense_, and to me no more or less important than any other (imagine how puzzled you would be if people began waving cautionary fingers and speaking in dark tones simply because you could *smell* dinner cooking in the kitchen (-:)... was suddenly being contextualized as a "power" and being invested with all sorts of earth-shaking "spiritual" ramifications. Things, of course, got much worse when I made the mistake of questioning some of the Theosophical giants - though I very much appreciate CWL's devotion to *service* (a trait that, to me, excuses a host of flaws), when I read his books and (especially) looked at the pictures of what the inner worlds alledgedly looked like - all I could do was protest "no it *doesn't* look like that" - CWL's view of the inner world seemed to me (not philosophically, mind you, but simply in terms of what I was seeing) to be oddly distorted - like someone had given the innerland to a group of systems analysts and efficiency experts and said "make it neat". [Liesel - dear friend, understand this is *not* an attack on CWL - whose life I do admire, and whose total committment to service seems to me to greatly surpass that of most of his detractors - but is simply the result of looking at what he saw and just not being able to see it myself]. Hodson, who I also admire, and who I began to read ravenously once I heard he fooled with "angels" (though I wasn't yet conceptualizing the beings I experimented with in those terms) - also seemed badly distorted once I saw a bunch of his drawings of "angels" that actually seemed to have human *faces* .. and read a comment that implied that while angeels obviously didn't need such things, they often sort of "mimicked" the appearence of humans because the human kingdom was considered such an achievement of planetary evolution (or something like that) --- which to me seemed like a wildly anthropomorphic concept (and, by the by, provoked massive (and quite beautiful) explosions of the angelic analog of laughter when I tried to convey this concept to a group of them (-:). I was young, and quite naive about human emotions when this was happening, and when I began giving my opinion of this stuff in TS meetings ... the reaction was not good. I did not realize that several of the older members were used to being the "teachers" in the group, and could hold forth at great length about the complexities of the inner worlds - because they had read so many of the *books* - and were quite used to positions of honor because of their knowledge of the inner worlds - and were not at all happy that someone was not only speaking in meetings at the level of experience rather than theory, but was disagreeing (often, gulp, in a terribly undiplomatic way) with the theory. In my own mind, at the time, it seemed kind of nasty that apparently it was only ok to talk about this stuff if you were 1) Dead, or 2) Were alive, but were taught by those who were dead (it apparently *was* ok, for instance, for Dora Kunz to be acknowledged as "gifted" instead of "deluded by lower psychism"). Point is, I guess, that there is a curious paradox that has developed over the years of Theosophy - on the one hand, the 3rd Object would seem to make it a natural place for the study of some abilities that may be moving *quite naturally* from latency to potency in a growing number of humans ... which humans are often quite puzzled and who might very greatly appreciate a place that not only acknowledges what they have, but helps them to learn how to think about their abilities, to wrestle with all sorts of ramifications that come from such abilities (e.g., virtually all philsophical systems of ethics *assume* humans are very limited in perceptual abilities - entirely new ethical foundations must be built if, for instance, people's thoughts are no longer invisible ...) etc., etc. - while on the other hand, there is huge and old pile of (IMO) philosophical baggage surrounding the possession of any such abilities. Theosophy *could* become a place (and there are really very few places that might even potentially serve this purpose) where such abilities might be studied, refined, clarified, and integrated into a service-oriented worldview. Perhaps even where modern science is also used ... [As a for instance, it long puzzled developmental biologists that something as massively complex as the human brain - a thing requiring literally millions of connections to be made, and to be made precisely - could develop from the DNA code with so few flaws in most cases. What has recently been discovered by neurophysiologists and other clinical researchers is that this is achieved through *programmed atrophy* - the brain of a child actually has far *more* connections than that of an adult ... the nerve systems that allow the impulses from the eye (for instance) to be received and prosessed into meaningful information by the brain are, in a small child, present in a number of different forms with many duplications ... and in the first few months, the set of nerves that is the best, that carries the signals most effectively, becomes "burned in", and the others atrophy and die - i.e., evolution has built an *immense* fail-safe system into human natal development ... ... what if, for instance, there were all sorts of *other* senses that we are potentially wired for, but that fall off during those first few months .. that, in short, the presence of "abilities" does not come about because of something *added* to the normal human brain, but is rather the result of something that, for some reason in some people, is not genetically supressed? Might it not be possible, a few years from now, for Theosophy to be one of those rare places that begins to understand the foundations of senses that are starting to appear in growing numbers? Imagine a place where children might come to learn to control and refine their abilities - and where adults might even volunteer to be studied using some of the newest medical technology (MRI's & etc.) to determine whether there are differences in brain function in those possessing some of these new senses .... just speculatin' here, but would not such a picture be *fully* in line with our Objects? Would it not also (possibly) provide a great service to a growing group of people who really are struggling to understand themselves - and often feel terribly alienated in this present culture? Thing is, there is not even a glimmer of a chance of realizing this possibility so long as some of the attitudes towards such abilities still present in Theosophical circles (and mostly formed and propagated by those who do *not* have such senses open, and have not had to wrestle with all the ramifications inherent in them) persist. Well, didn't mean to make this so long - and (perhaps a few people have noticed what I just did) I guess maybe part of this post is a bit too personal ... apparently I still have some resentments left about some of my early experiences with the TS - but I do hope that maybe a bit of the subjective effects of "seeing" have come through ... it is very difficult to convey, but for both myself and for others I know who were born needing to wrestle with such things, these "abilities" are not only not felt to be "powers", but often are considered more like *disabilities* ... there is great inner uncertainty within everyone I know who has such born this way - a sort of continual and deep "Am I nuts" questioning - almost everyone tried at one time or another to delibrately make the stuff go away - there is a deep alienation that accompanies any difference from the norm ... that sometimes even turns into a sensation resembling guilt - a predisposition to keep one's mouth shut about it (as though one has an embarrasing secret) - and I suppose I'd like to, very respectfully, suggest to those that do not operate with those senses opened that they perhaps consider more deeply the attitudes and words they convey with their philosophical ideas ... simply because Theosophy *could* become a place where, in the future, people with abilities that are no longer "latent" might come to learn how to turn what is very often considered a *curse* into something that is not only validated, but refined into a tool for service. With love, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 13:23:16 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Peace Strategy Game ADI -- Advanced Strategy Game -- "The Art of Peace" ADI was developed with the hope that the vast amount of thought and time spent on competitive games (war strategy, etc.) could be spent on an equally challenging art of peace strategy game. ADI v.1.8 is now available in the Entertainment forums on Compuserve and America OnLine and at http://www.newciv.org/ADI/ "ADI may be one of the most advanced strategy games ever created -- with the simplest rules! ADI includes all of the strategic adventure of GO and Chess as well as the philosophy of the most ancient Sanskrit Tibetan culture. ADI uses the same board and stones as GO." P. Alessandra email: aprioripa@aol.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 14:35:07 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Angels >>Brenda: Eldon was saying that he couldn't believe the >>angelic kingdom is a parallel evolution to man. >> >Alan: I don't think it matters if it is or not. What >is of importance and relevance for us is what we do if >we meet any! :-) Alan, I agree with you on this one. During meditation, and also during sleep, meeting an Angel is a distinct possibility, although most go unrecognized because we are unprepared for such an encounter. How they evolve is rather like worrying about how many can sit on the head of a pin. Also, I agree with Eldon that today's terminology does not match that used by HPB, but then most of the old phraseologies that she used, both Hindu and Buddhist, are terribly outdated today and I suspect that few theosophists today can tell the difference between an Agniswatta and a Kumara, let alone the subtle distinctions between the lunar pitris and solar pitris, without resource to the literature. That being the case, how would today's theosophist act when confronting one (although this whole line is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, a slightly serious undercurrent exists here). Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 15:27:12 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: To Rick & Liesel Eldon, You're right. You also have to live it, as you say the Masters are doing. But I think other Theosophists have to live it too, & newcomers learn from role models as well as from books. Now that I think of it, I think my reading wouldn't have meant much to me, if I hadn't had several role models to emulate, & measure myself up against, from time to time, as I grew into Theosophy. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 15:31:22 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Angels Eldon, In our nomenclature Devas are lesser gods. Elementals are something similar but different. At the moment I don't know where to look up a definition, but if Adam Warcup is looking in on this post, he can explain better than I what we mean by elementals. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 15:37:41 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Objectivity Eldon, I think you've been adding your share of good stuff lately. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 15:39:57 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Theos-l: An Incendiary Fellowship? Eldon Nja. not too bad, just a bit derogatory. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 16:13:01 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: angels If you're wondering about what you'll do when you meet an angel, Please read Geoffrey Hodson "Brotherhood of Angels & of Men" He considers them a parallel evolution to the human one. Every plant, rock, being has an angel trying to help it. If I remember, in the back part of the book, there are also a few invocations. Harry VG was of the opinion that Devas could help you with your healing work. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 16:30:45 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: re: CWL & JHE Brenda: >And he says that man on other planets is part of the ecosystem of each >planet, living harmoniously with the planet's elements, temperatures, >atmosphere, etc. In my spiritual sojourns, both my former yoga teacher, a Kriya yogi, and Edgar Cayce stated that there were other life forms on other planets. They just weren't on the physical plane. Only earth was populated with physical forms. I'm not saying they or anyone else is right on this, I'm just noting an interesting correlation between different sources. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 17:04:37 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Arguments of ... > (In the Beginning God said "Let there be Light"...) According to the original Hebrew text: "In beginning gods ... said let light be." This is a literal translation of the received text. Note, "In beginning" - there is no definitive article ("the") in the Hebrew, although the language does have it. Thus, the text describes a process rather than an act. "Gods" is the literal translation of the Hebrew word Alhim or Elohim, and is used for lesser gods as well as for YHWH, who is thus a plurality as distinct from a trinity, which is not attested by "scripture" - a word which means nothin more than "writings". All existing Bible translations (of which there are an increasing number of variants) are translated in the light of the Christian religious beliefs of the translators. In the UK, we have the Jerusalem Bible (RC) and the New English Bible (Church of England). I use the New Revised Statndard Version (USA) for *approximate* fidelity to the received texts in the original languages - of which there are variants. Example: one Greek document states (as usually rendered) that John baptized people in the River Jordan at Bethany, which on today's map is physically impossible - 2 miles out. Another gives the place as Bethabara, which is/was a river crossing just below the Sea of Galilee - much more likely. > He is not bound by those laws, because He is the Creator of those laws. No he didn't. Alan. > Evangelical Polemist > 1Pet3:15 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 17:24:03 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: YHWH > > > It is also a four-lettered magical formula, which is > very well known in the OTO and GD schools. > > Jerry S. Yeah, verily, God is a four-letter word. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 18:05:04 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Objective Reality? > Alan, > > All this talk about Truth & objective reality reminds me of a > puzzle I have as yet not solved for myself. Maybe you can shed > some light on it for me. Theosophists are forever talking about > Reality, & with it they mean the reality that comes when one is > centered in the spirit rather than in the lower personality. > I'm at a loss to reconcile this with that I believe - that > reality is relative. To me, whatever & however you happen to > perceive, that's your reality for that moment. I can accept > that as you grow more & more spiritual your perception of the > world (whatever that encompasses) changes into something which > contains more wisdom, detachment, compassion & etc. The > perception becomes more mature & more at one with the All. But > it's still a subjective reality. Devachan is subjective. Do you > know an answer to this one? Does anybody? I think you have given the answer above! All of our experience is necessairly subjective *intrepretative*. If there is an "objective reality" we cannot possible experience it AS IT ACTUALLY IS, only as it appears to us, and then, only in part. As Paul the Apostle said, "we see as in a mirror, darkly" - in other words, a dirty mirror that needs cleaning. The work we do within ourselves (which IMO is what theosophy should be helping us to do if it is worth anything) is a way of trying to clean the mirror, if you follow me. So, Dear Liesel, I think you already have the answer, and have just stated it. So you have no problem! :-))))))) Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 18:11:05 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: angels > Alan, > > The idea of > >a "right-hand" side is a human convenience to help us understand > >the Kabalist Wisdom Tradition, and has no actual location > >whatever, other than a symbolic association of ideas in human > >minds, all of which will change when we go on to become angels > >ourselves [so we are told in the tradition]. In 39 years as a > >student of Kabala, I have never come across such a daft idea. > > > > Alan, > > You are right in a way. I wrote this so hurriedly and couldn't find the > exact quote I was looking for that I did present it pretty badly. > > Does your next post "re: concern" mean that you DO get the meaning of the > first one? I think so! > Eldon was saying that he couldn't believe the angelic kingdom is a parallel > evolution to man. I don't think it matters if it is or not. What is of importance and relevance for us is what we do if we meet any! :-) > "The motivating Thought of Creation, which was to impart beneficence to man, > through the Desire to Receive, influenced the emergence of the multiform > degrees of the Desire to Receive. This is due to the fundamental > characteristic of the Light, which could fill and nourish these vessels with > an infinite quantity of abundance. In other words the Light, in its infinite > Desire to Impart, necessitated and caused the manifestation of a > correspondingly infinite number of souls which would desire this > beneficence. Thus this first and primary world, the world of En Sof (the > Infinite), is given this symbolic name in accordance with the endless > variety of degree of receiving that took place within the union of the Light > with the Kingdom of the En Sof." > "We can compare this process of undiminished imparting to other > varieties of power and energy - the endless waterfall, which can fill an > infinite number of vessels without being affected, or an electric current > that can supply power for a wide range of appliances ... without affecting > the source of the energy." (P. 114-115) Remove the inference of "Desire to Impart" [which can lead to anthropomorphism] and I would argue more or less as above. > If man is a combination of both energy and vessel, as the sephirothal tree > is both left and right sided, then what is an angel? It isn't exactly a > parallel evolution at all, but angels could be seen existing alongside man, > animal, plant, and stone or within them. THe "right" and "left" sides represent the simple, single Tree of Life model which most people first discover when investigating Kabala. My own life's work has involved the discovery of the "Jacob's Ladder" model, which although very much more complex, shows the sephiroth as "globes" or "circles" in descending/ascending order. > Angels are messengers and according to what I have read here, they do not > participate in the "desire to receive." They are strictly associated with > God's light, not the vessels, and would be a developed being that lives > within the "Desire to Impart" of God and man. When we bless others with > light, the angel does the work and lives in this activity. Huh??? Messengers carry messages and information, *when necessary or desirable* One such I contacted some years ago later turned out to be the spirit [essence, identity] which had formerly held a teaching post at Cambridge University (UK) in the 1920s. This became clear as the communication developed, and the contact/messenger/angel gradually came closer to the material level, having started the communication in Briah [mental plane] and then slipped down into Yetzirah [astral plane] when he began to re-assume his previous personality. The session was necessarily terminated in everone's interest. > Also, "It is a law of the metaphysical realm that the first vessels to > develop after the Tsimtsum were those with a greater degree of purity and a > consequently lesser degree of the Desire to Receive. The opposite is true of > the Lights; here we find that the first Lights to emerge are those with a > lesser degree of the Desire to Impart, and a consequently smaller amount of > energy." (p. 107) Yes. > Remember, judgement (Gevurah) and emptiness (Din) on the left, mercy(Hesed) > and glory(Hod, also known as Netzah-Victory) on the right. > Only these four are considered because Kether, Hokmah and Binah all conduct > the Light and this is their only affect on the physical world. (This is why > there are four doors in the home????) All are reconciled by Tiphereth [Beauty, Harmony] in the center. And so we, in our development as individuals. are wise to seek to center ourselves. Hod and Netzach are usually juxtaposed left and right, being separate and distinct sephiroth. > Here's an interesting quote: "The other nations are ruled by prevailing > influences, by the instincts that are indicated by the angels, while Israel > has chosen to bind itself to the Almighty Himself. " (p. 99) Could explain > why they take no masters. But Israel has told us about the angels! > On another subject: What more suitable fate for Mars than to "slaughter it." Frankly, if this is not intended as a joke, I see it as nonsense. > Anyway, I wrote some of this because Eldon was writing so selfishly about > "what people could get out of the books they were reading" and it's more > theosophical to think (which he does in a later writing admit) also what we > can give to the authors and others who are our fellow travellers on the > path. After reading a book, we don't just keep everything for ourselves, we > try to practice, develop, or share what we learned. Yes - we need to receive *before* we can give, which I am sure Eldon realises. His writing seems to me to encourage people to go in search of something to receive, which they can then, as you say, pass on and share with others. Some time back I uploaded my "Keys to Kabbalah" to theos-roots and/or the theos-l archive. If it has gone missing, I can redo it, or e-mail the [now slightly outdated] material in sections, but not the diagrams, which are GIF files. This shows how the "Jacob's Ladder" model is derived. Nice to have a long chat with you! Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 19:35:26 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Liesel's Angels Liesel: This is not the kind of angels that I have been dealing with. Sounds like a personification of spiritual forces. I envision angels to be certain denizens of the invisible spheres that surround our Earth. Liesel:< Harry VG was of the opinion that Devas could help you with your healing work.> My opinion too. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 19:36:10 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re Eldon's Direct vs Indirect Eldon: I look at him as both scholar and Teacher. Actually, his role as scholar possibly went a little too far - he always used the scholarly term "karman" for example, when no one else would add the final n. As far as I know, he is the only writer/translator to do this, then or since. Are you saying here that the Masters (KH?) physically came to him at Point Loma and taught him what to say? This is certainly implied in your "directly" while I am at a loss to explain your "indirectly." Just how does one get special secret knowledge from Mahatmas "indirectly" except via what today we would call channeling? Would you please explain how this is "entirely different" from psychism? It would seem to me that any new idea G de P, or anyone else, has given out was done so via their "personal psychic and clairvoyant experiences." Except for physical contact or physical letters, it simply has to be through psychism. Even if the Mahatmas approached me in their subtle body, I would need to be a bit clairvoyant to see them and hear them. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 22:45:34 GMT From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Subject: Beyond words Hi Eldon, Many thanks for your comments on going beyond words when reading. This has clarified something that has bothered me for a long time. Other people can quote passages from books they have read and sound so intellegent. I have read thousands of books but in the fashion that you describe so that to quote anything I have to find the book and check out the actual words, yet I know what the book was about in my own terms. I discovered accidentally a few years ago that I read in that way when I decided that Martin Bubers 'I and Thou' had something in it I wanted to know. I began to read and it was like a brick wall when I looked at the words. No comprehension at all but I struggled on and then suddenly I found I read the book and knew what he meant yet the words themselves were as uncomprehensive as before. It then seemed to become my way of reading. So the idea is to speak about what has become solid knowledge within one's own reality and speculate about what hasn't made itself at home yet. It also seem easier to remain detached over what is really 'known' that what is tentative. If my 'known' is still in the tentative stage, it is then also insecurely attached to the body of knowledge that is trying to incorporate it. We can then get feelings of various kinds if someone questions the validity of this insecure knowledge. Oh, well, what is they say, He who knows not, says a lot He who knows, says nothing. Much food for thought. Thank you all for your enlightening comments on the various topics. Hope you realise that I print some of them off for posterity so that I can refer to the horse's mouth if I have to. Many thanks, Bee From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 23:28:57 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: On speculations >when apparently (according >to little ole HPB) even the Dhyan Chohans themselves >do not make statements <<<<<-----[this is a misquote!] >about anything beyond our solar system...< This is not a "misquote," read my original post and see that the quotation marks for the S.D. passage end the paragraph before. This selection is clearly my own opinion. Yet I notice one key part of HPB's writing is left out from my last post: "But when, extending our speculations beyond our planetary chain, we try to cross the limits of the solar system, then indeed we act as do presumptuous fools." (p. 700, vol. 2) Additionally, we find on page 701, "For even great adepts ... trained seers though they are, can claim thorough acquaintance with the nature and appearance of planets and their inhabitants belonging to our solar system only. They KNOW that almost all the planetary worlds are inhabited, but can have access, to -- even in spirit -- only those of our system..." None of this is quoted to say that HPB is the FINAL AUTHORITY on the subject, merely to show that her approach to things cosmic and beyond the solar system is quite different from many other Theosophical writers. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 23:33:01 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Theos-l: An Incendiary Fellowship? >Dear Eldon, > >What's wrong with Mommies? Or Grandmas for that, which would >count me in. If you're saying you don't need me, just forget >it. >Liesel I'm not sure what I said? (You didn't quote it and I don't remember what this might be in response to.) Hope it wasn't too bad... -- Eldon Eldon, Liesel is quoting something I wrote, but you must remember her previous post that she won't respond to me anymore. I can't find the original post, I don't think it was worth saving. Suffice it to say she was VERY mad and the things she said were not flattering (to herself or anyone). Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Sep 1995 23:33:06 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: re:theosophy historical & doctrinal Ann: "This is also true of Yogananda's book. There was editing done on it by the Self-Realization Fellowship, after he died, to make it fit their ideas. Old originals of Biography of a Yoga are highly prized." That BURNS MY BUTT and is very, very disturbing to me. What gives people the right to edit without documentation? This strikes me as one of the most arrogant things one can do, because they place themselves HIGHER than the teacher or author, and presume to "correct" their work. I wish we could leave published works alone, let them stand the test of time on their own. HPB is holding up admirably. If people have a burning need to tinker with words, let them write their own books and see how well THOSE hold up a century or two later! Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 00:10:05 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Story of Deconversion: Confession from the Snake Pit Arthur, That last post on deconversion was one of the most touching and deeply insightful meditations on fundamentalism I have ever read. Having lived the experience, I suppose you KNOW, but it is also wonderful that you can articulate the experience, and penetrate its feeling and meaning so thoroughly. Thanks so much. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 01:42:22 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Mars! I just found Vol. II of ~The Inner Life~ by C.W.Leadbeater, first edition, 1911. The imprint is that of The Theosophical Office, Adyar, Madras, below which The Theosophical Publishing Society, London. ~Mars and its Inhabitants~ occupies pp. 410-425, and is complete fantasy. Having read a great deal of sci-fi in my youth, I am certain that this material would never have made it past an editor's desk. Annie Besant's Foreword to this volume of over 600 pages (Vol. I may have slightly less) concludes: "I ... commend this volume and this which follow it to the earnest study od all our members." In the Author's note, written at Adyar in July 1911, CWL states: "... what has been written here represents in all cases the result of the latest discoveries in connection with these subjects." As I became a non-fan of Leadbeater after reading his ~Science of the Sacraments~ which makes silly claims for the Christendom in its entirety, I have not read any of his other longer works, and this discovery has not changed my inclination! I do not for one moment doubt that CWL genuinely saw many of the things he says he saw, but that does not make his visions accurate or reliable. If anyone wants to encourage me, I might have a go at scanning the Mars material and uploading it to the list (theos-roots?). For sure, if *I* had written this stuff, my credibility would be nil, zero, zilch, ie., absent. ~Isis Unveiled~ is much safer source material, IMO! Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 02:02:01 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: re: Theosophy as religion Eldon: "It's just human nature that such events [splits, controversies] occur in every group. In the final analysis, we have to use our own common sense and our personal insight to distinguish the real from the unreal, and make sense of things." Good point, I agree. I almost cringe to write this, but Robert Crosbie is spelled thus, no "y" in the last name. I am in the dark regarding the controversy regarding Crosbie, obviously one of my heroes, I would be interested in discussing whatever controvery may surround him and rectifying my ignorance. I am also curious how William Q. Judge is perceived by students on this board .. Your pal, Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 02:02:24 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Mars! >>If anyone wants to encourage me, I might have a go at scanning the Mars material and uploading it to the list (theos-roots?).<< Do it, do it. Like I said the first day I signed on to Theos-L: and why is we are thinking CWL is a good guide to the astral [let alone any higher] plane? And what are his qualifications? I really don't think the Masters could be bothered describing life on Mars (if there is such currently that we could perceive), and so I wonder what CWL hoped we might gain from all of his visions. Was he simply a deluded fool, or did he have some ennobling purpose in mind when he penned all this stuff on Mars and how Norwegian they are? Maybe he thought we would take comfort in hearing about beings from elsewhere who were much like us? I read this stuff and think "good god, who IS THIS GUY?" Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 02:05:44 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re:psychic powers Eldon, It's not just your particular tradition, in U.L.T. also we read HPB's and William Q. Judge's warnings that while psychic powers may or may not come to individuals who are studying Theosophy, they must not be confused with spiritual development, they arise from an entirely different part of our nature. Without getting hysterical, these two authors deliver serious warnings that we are to cultivate gentleness, compassion, altruism, and insight, and to largely leave psychic things alone, they will come in their own good time, perfectly naturally, all by themselves. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 02:06:25 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: angels >Every plant, rock, being has an angel trying to help it.< This sentence is, no joke, utterly opaque to me. Could someone please help explain it? Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 02:06:27 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Psychic powers David: "Death does not impart great knowledge." No, it wouldn't seem to. When one "sits for development," what is it one expects to happen? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 02:06:32 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Re Eldon's Direct vs Indirect >It would seem to me that any new idea G de P, >or anyone else, has given out was done so via their >"personal psychic and clairvoyant experiences." Except >for physical contact or physical letters, it simply has >to be through psychism. Even if the Mahatmas approached me >in their subtle body, I would need to be a bit clairvoyant >to see them and hear them.< No, no, no. We must distinguish spiritual (buddhic) from psychic (astral, kamic) faculties. We need to upload HPB's article "Psychic and Noetic Action" for the archives, if it isn't already there. Chelas, including Adepts who are chelas of those still higher (like HPB) are not "channeling" the Masters, not are they necessarily clairvoyantly seeing them. Olcott was hardly clairvoyant, and saw the Master M. on several occasions. But there is a spiritual bond which is not psychic. Rather, chelas (conscious or unconscious) have an inner link (through Buddhi) with the Mahatmas that is conditional upon the chela's purity or motive and effort. If that purity is defiled, the link is broken, they chela's Buddhi has been overwhlemed by lower, psychic energies. If spiritual powers are misused by a chela, they fall of naturally, or the guru cuts them off. This is quite different from psychism, which has no such restraints other than the long, drawn-out process of Karma, which necessarily follows upon exertion of the ego, rather than the All-self (alaya-vijnana). Psychic powers are always inperfectly developed, and PERSONAL, because they emanate from the astral, kama, and lower Manas regions of the entity. These lower regions cannot be compared with the swift, certain and CONDITIONAL awareness of Buddhi or pure spiritual awareness. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 02:25:42 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Sephiroth > Alan, > Well, what about the Sephiroth called Din? I'm sure there is one and it > means emptiness. Victory doesn't seem empty, so I thought Hod and Netzach > were the same. Din is, if memory serves me correctly, and alternative title for one of the regular sephiroth, though at short notice I cannot recall which one, though whichever it is would not affect the teaching per se. > > >> On another subject: What more suitable fate for Mars than > >> to "slaughter it." > > > >Frankly, if this is not intended as a joke, I see it as nonsense. > > This is in relation to what the publishers did to the sections of MAN, > WHENCE, HOW AND WHITHER regarding Martian cities. I just (about 15 minutes ago) posted some info about this, having found the original first edition of the book by CWL in which it occurs (q.v.). Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 03:06:03 GMT From: dmcardle@opennet.net.au (David McArdle) Subject: Re: Psychic powers >It may sound repressive. While I've heard it taught as a general rule, though, >the application has to be decided on an individual basis. The emergence of >psychic abilities is not necessarily a sign of spiritual unfoldment; sometimes >it may rather be a sign of regression. I would not consider them a severe >danger, where I'd strongly advocate people avoiding them. On the other hand, >they can be sufficient a distraction from the cultivation of the spiritual >that warnings are given. And with some approaches to the spiritual, like >Purucker has written, students are taught to deemphasize and turn away from >them. Granted, there are other approaches that may use the psychic in their >training. I'm speaking, though, from the particular theosophical school where >I find my home. > >-- Eldon Many people, particularly those interested in 'spiritualism' spend a considerable period of time in attempting to develop or improve their psychic powers. This is especially true in the discipline of 'sitting for development'. While this may be successful to some extent, it is surely a powerful distraction away from more productive lines of investigation and study. However in one lifetime or another we may all experience this interest. This increase in pyschic powers does not appear to lead to any great teaching or experience although the books of White Eagle are, I think, worth looking at. A rather crude quote from Stuart Wilde is:"If you are as thick as a brick when you are alive, you are as thick as a brick when you are 'dead'." So what is the point of trying to contact beings who are not very far removed from ourselves, or even not as knowledgable as ourselves. Death does not impart great knowledge. David From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 03:06:07 GMT From: dmcardle@opennet.net.au (David McArdle) Subject: Re: CWL and JHE >"The legend of MU and Atlantis, it should be understood, did not originate with >Dan Fry, nor Adamski, and in fact can be traced back to some of the earliest >theosophical writings of the 20th Century. I think Plato had something to say about Atlantis considerably before the 20th Century. >Charles Leadbeater, a British theosophist and medium, in his Handbook of >Theosophy (published in 1932) declared that Venusians ("Lords of the Flame") >occupy the highest rank in what he called the "Great White Brotherhood," with >Aryans considered the highest native race on Earth." (UFO magazine, pg 35) This is also mentioned in many of the books of A.A.B. - see for instance 'A Treatise on Cosmic Fire'. Incidentally, did I not see a recent post about Leadbeater's mention of Martians since descredited by NASA probes? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 04:08:35 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: old post re:Viking >This is also mentioned in many of the books of A.A.B. - see for instance 'A >Treatise on Cosmic Fire'. >Incidentally, did I not see a recent post about Leadbeater's mention of >Martians since descredited by NASA probes? This was written by Jerry Hejka-Ekins on the 31st: I agree that we can't throw out the baby with the bath water. As you suggest, one unreliable observation does not disprove the rest of the observations. Ideally the best way would be to test each observation. However, clairvoyant observations are so often untestable. For instance, CWL's descriptions of Martian cities written in the 1920's could not be tested until 1976. But now they are testable, and we discovered that CWL's descriptions did not match the objective observations of the Viking cameras. My point however, was that CWL's clairvoyant observations are removed from his books as they are shown to be false. This creates a problem for those who wish to assess CWL's writings-- How can one consider "each idea point by point" when his ideas are removed from consideration in subsequent editions of his books every time they are disproven? If CWL makes 100 observations and 98 are proven wrong and removed from his books, thus leaving two correct observations, does that make CWL a great clairvoyant, or someone who is correct two- percent of the time? My point is that if we are to fairly evaluate CWL's ideas "point by point", they have to be available in the form that he presented them--not edited of his errors. My point is this: How is the average person looking into the study of theosophy going to respond to reading CWL? Your "personal" and selfish interest in permitting your own far wider knowledge of theosophical study to influence your statement of opinion to anyone who might read theosophy through CWL. Your needs are very different than a curious-minded individual's need to explain what is happening inside of them and to their life. Would you agree that ordinarily people are selfish unless they fight very hard against it? Someone reading CWL is most likely trying to want to know what's wrong with being selfish. They're also probably interested in self-improvement and what "paths" are open to them as concerns spiritual development. CWL does a great job of taking us out of the "bonds of self." I don't know of a single other "acceptable" writer within public education who could interest us in "other worldly" material to the degree that he so casually describes his activities in search of a more meaningful world and more compassionate living. I know my words are not strictly sensible, but if there is a "sense" behind what I am writing it is that you and Eldon both admit being drawn to his writings early on in your study. I, too, began with CWL. What effect if any do his writings have on a "new student" to the degree that we may be asked to challenge, to question, to meditate, and to make self-discovery? Are we (as early students) to become afraid of anything we "might" discern because of a bold and public opinion provided by older students? I love CWL because I did learn through him to love theosophy and to find a "home" here. Nothing I could think or attempt became too bizarre to be included within my "theosophical life." Early on, during the purification stages, strange occurrences may sometimes take place. I think it might be hard to beat CWL's publicly written about experiences, so why try? Whatever we personally might be experiencing early on in the path, we don't need to necessarily make claims and draw attention to it, because it should be viewed as something that will pass and maybe a more noble viewpoint and experience will come later. Besides, hiding our own paranormal or psychic experiences can play second to some of the tongue-in-cheek things we've read from CWL. Whose would you discuss? His or your own? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 04:34:48 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: Story of Deconversion: Confession from the Snake Pit At 10:11 AM 9/2/95, K. Paul Johnson wrote: >Dear Art, > >This is one of the best posts I have ever read on any list or >newsgroups. Although I know you find many of the unpleasant >features of fundamentalism in the behavior of Theosophists, it >may not be obvious without being pointed out. I don't think that fundamentalism is so much a doctrine as it is a mental attitude at best, and a pathology, at worst. Given what I have read of Theosophy, I wouldn't expect the movement to be jam packed with Theosophical fundamentalists but I am not surprised that there are some. The best root is not to be defensive or to get into argumentation but to try to figure out what guides people, what drives them to cling onto orthodoxies. When you dig deep enough you will find that there is a reason for compassion underneath. In my case it was the lack of family hospitality, the despair and disillusionment with society, and a deep inferiority that kept me rooted to the externalized power of the Revealed Word. There is a tradition within Theosophy that speaks against basing faith on an external. When I joined the group, I ordered a few books form Jerry Hejka-Ekin, as well as an excellent intro to Theosophy on Video. Among the literature he sent was an out of print book called Revelation or Realization by J.J. Van Der Leeuw. It is one of the best critiques of externalized faith (Second Hand Revelatory faith) I havc ever read, one quote on the last page strikes me as central to the whole fundamentalist mood. "Theosophy as the reallization of life by each man (person) in his (her) own consciousness, is incompatible with a hierarchic system of revelation where truth and enlightenment come to us through others and where the guidance of our life rests on orders from superiors." Earlier in the book he argues against being so individual that you can not learn from others, so, it is not merely an immature reaction. Thanks for your connections Paul I will ponder them was I do my reading. Arthur Paul Patterson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 04:42:24 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Liesel's Angels Jerry, I've been browsing around in my books about angels. Annie Besant too uses the words angels & elementals interchangeably. Both Jinarajadasa & Hodson consider them another form of evolution parallel to the human one. Hodson's whole book describes how humans & angels can cooperate. To me the whole book is an inspiration. For those of you who aren't turned off by invocations & prayers, here's one of Hodson's I think is beautiful: "Evening Hymns of Prayer & Thanksgiving "May blessings from above Flow forth and beautify the human love Which we in gratitude pour forth To you, our angel helpers of this day. Accept our love and grateful prayers And help us, so to live and work, That ever, day by day, Your hosts shall find us growing Akin to you. We crave this night your guardianship for all, Be with the young, the aged, and the sick; Surround their beds with wings of light and peace, Cherish them, we pray, until the dawn. And, as the sun once more returns To give us life and warmth and light, Let us again prelude our work With salutation and with praise To Him Who is the FAther of us all; That hand in hand and side by side, His human and His angel sons May labour in His Name To bring about the gorious day When, in our world and theirs, His Will alone shall reign. Amen Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 04:43:54 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Liesel's Angels Jerry: PS They are personifications of spiritual forces, I agree. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 05:11:47 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Reality - Law Eldon writes: "There is the collective behavior of things, called 'laws', and those laws don't care what we think or feel. The world has a consistent set of rules & life operates according to them" Let's bat this around a little. I myself wonder where those laws came from. If you believe with Rupert Sheldrake the idea of morphogenetic fields, then the laws are a mixture of what the Logos evolves, & what we human beings then do with them, which also makes them evolve. It's an ongoing process. Come to think of it, a symbiotic process. I also think that the line between objective & subjective is very fuzzy. You realize there's something out there, but you need to rely on your senses (your subjectivity) to give you an idea of what it is. But you don't really know what that thing out there is like. It's like I'm touching the keys on my keyboard just now to write to you. The keys feel solid, & I use that which I feel, to work with. But scientists tell me that the keys are space & vibes, & also that my eye catches these things upside down to be righted by my brain, & I don't know what else. I store these facts away somewhere, but it's not something I can perceive, unless I'm clairvoyant, which I'm not; & it's not something I can consciously use in my every day life, because I'm used to feeling a solid keyboard, & that's what I need to work with. I seem to remember reading somewhere that your senses filter out the information which comes to you from all over, & let through information useful to you. All of which leads me to believe, that maybe there is a whole elephant out there, but I'm touching the trunk of it, & that's what I perceive & what I can work with. I've never read anywhere that the veils of maya can be lifted completely. Harry Van Gelder says in 1 of his poems "lift one veil, And there's another." Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 06:04:14 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Story of Deconversion: Confession from the Snake Pit Dear Art, This is one of the best posts I have ever read on any list or newsgroups. Although I know you find many of the unpleasant features of fundamentalism in the behavior of Theosophists, it may not be obvious without being pointed out. As Joscelyn Godwin said in his intro to The Masters Revealed, "Theosophists would be the first to urge this attitude [objectivity and skepticism] towards the reading of the Bible and the Quran. If they cannot face it in the case of their own scriptures and their own purported Masters, they are putting a religion `higher than truth' in defiance of their society's motto." Herewith some of the Theosophical versions of fundamentalism as you have portrayed it: > exclusivity and moral superiority. HPB is better than any modern spiritual teacher and we're better than you. Our movement (society) is the chosen instrument of THE Masters-- yours is some distant relation at best. > > It is paradoxical that humility is one of the greatest virtues in this > system and yet epistemological humility is completely lacking. What an We KNOW that HPB (or whoever) always tells the truth and her writings are always reliable. > > Jung speaks of this as the inflation of the mana personality. Your own ego > is so underdeveloped that you get merged with an archetype and feel its > power and wisdom and identify that with your ego. I would even go as far as > to say that many people do link up with the Spirit (Self Archetype) but > when they translate that back to historic reality, they use the power and > insights gained there to bolster a low self esteem. They appear arrogant > but in reality are very insecure and need the strong positions to keep from > disolving. I say this not in superiority for I lived like that for years. I This is pretty much what fervent belief in/attachment to the Masters and HPB does to people; I know from experience as well as observation. Not everyone, but many are thus affected/infected. > > There is a theory in evangelical circles, I call it the domino effect, that > once you let one of the fundamentals loose, you will eventually have your > whole faith castle collape. Once you start applying objective historical criteria to HPB's claims about her sources, you lose your right to be considered a real Theosophist. > objectivity based on logical rationality 3. The full plenary verbal > inspiration of an infallible and inerrant revelation in the Holy Scriptures > (no extra canonical revelation) ABSOLUTELY-- and if you dare question the literal inspiration of HPB's writings, you'll be treated as a heretic-- even if you are Olcott, who was obliged to publish Old Diary Leaves outside the TS because it was insufficiently respectful. 4. the ontological (not merely functional > oneness but oneness of essence) divinity of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. The ontological status of the Masters is not to be undermined by thinking of them as "normal" human beings-- They have to have capitalized pronouns referring to Them to show this. > I used to be a Theosophical fundamentalist, but got deconverted once I started to investigate history, and your description applies: > God, why not give also my intellect. It was the scariest step I have ever > taken. I determined to study seriously and as much as possible without > ideological lens what I encountered. That is chapter one abbreviated. > > The idea that revelation is found exclusively in Holy Scripture is the > bulwark of the evangelical faith position. There is a claim that Jesus is That the truth about the Masters can only be known through Theosophical scriptures is the bulwark of Theosophical fundamentalism. > history and the Christ of faith are significantly while not entirely > different from each other. I can hear the floor boards of faith rumbling at > that point. People may pull them up and start beating you over the head with them. > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 06:26:42 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Psychic powers According to jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu: > > In the era in which HPB & etc. wrote, such abilities may have > been "natural" to a much smaller number - and there may have > been a good number of adults who were not born with such things > attempting to force them into development through somewhat > unnatural means, and perhaps this is the reason for the early > Society's injunctions against fooling with this stuff. In her letters to American conventions, HPB explicitly says there will be an explosion of psychism in this country in the future. > mostly unpleasent). I soon, of course, got in trouble. First, > I heard all sorts of attitudes like "oh that is lower psychism > and you must avoid the use of it because it will stop your > spiritual growth"; and "the development of that `ability' > is frowned upon"; and "that is the road of delusion and the > path requires that such things be transcended"; ...along with > a bit of suspicion that I had purposely done something spiritually > "illegal". These *all* seemed like *really* bizzare attitudes - > its hard to explain, but it was as though something I had > considered somewhat neutrally ... it was, in the end, just > another _sense_, and to me no more or less important than > any other (imagine how puzzled you would be if people began > waving cautionary fingers and speaking in dark tones simply > because you could *smell* dinner cooking in the kitchen (-:)... > was suddenly being contextualized as a "power" and being > invested with all sorts of earth-shaking "spiritual" ramifications. I suspect that there's an ulterior motive behind this, which is to prevent "boat-rocking" a la Bailey. Paint a dark, threatening picture of the topic, and you may intimidate people into being good little Theosophists who project their own power onto leaders or fantasy figures. Thus: > > I was young, and quite naive about human emotions when this was happening, and > when I began giving my opinion of this stuff in TS meetings ... the reaction > was not good. I did not realize that several of the older members were used to > being the "teachers" in the group, and could hold forth at great length about > the complexities of the inner worlds - because they had read so many of the > *books* - and were quite used to positions of honor because of their knowledge > of the inner worlds - and were not at all happy that someone was not only > speaking in meetings at the level of experience rather than theory, but was > disagreeing (often, gulp, in a terribly undiplomatic way) with the theory. In > Point is, I guess, that there is a curious paradox that has developed over the > years of Theosophy - on the one hand, the 3rd Object would seem to make it a > natural place for the study of some abilities that may be moving *quite > naturally* from latency to potency in a growing number of humans ... which snip > invisible ...) etc., etc. - while on the other hand, there is > huge and old pile of (IMO) philosophical baggage surrounding the > possession of any such abilities. > > Theosophy *could* become a place (and there are really very few places that > might even potentially serve this purpose) where such abilities might be > studied, refined, clarified, and integrated into a service-oriented worldview. > Perhaps even where modern science is also used ... snip> > Thing is, there is not even a glimmer of a chance of realizing > this possibility so long as some of the attitudes towards such > abilities still present in Theosophical circles (and mostly > formed and propagated by those who do *not* have such senses > open, and have not had to wrestle with all the ramifications > inherent in them) persist. (as though one has an embarrasing > secret) - and I suppose I'd like to, very respectfully, suggest > to those that do not operate with those senses opened > that they perhaps consider more deeply the attitudes and words > they convey with their philosophical ideas ... simply because > Theosophy *could* become a place where, in the future, people > with abilities that are no longer "latent" might come to learn how > to turn what is very often considered a *curse* into something > that is not only validated, but refined into a tool for service. John, you should write a book! All these things need to be said, because people who approach the TS with these concerns often get stones rather than bread. One theory I can't help considering is that the ES has a lot to do with ambivalence in the Adyar society toward the paranormal and the devotional, for that matter. If there is a secret inner group where the life of discipleship is pursued, this sets up a "sheep vs. goats" mindset in which some things have to kept out of the hands of those who have not entered the sanctuary. Interrupted by work-- (drat!) > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 06:42:20 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Husbands on the mental plane > Brenda: use enough examples.> Jerry: > I have to take up for your husband here, Brenda. I > think that his responses to Daniel have been right on the mark, > and well said. Of course, my wife accuses me of living on the > mental plane too... Lewis: I agree with Jerry and Eldon, but then my wife also accuses me of living on the mental plane! Maybe we are being stereotyped and should demand equal time on the emotional plane. llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 07:20:05 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Reality and suitable vehicles Jerry S. wrote: > ...But, if you truly accept the > present state of things as "reality" then how can you ever > hope to grow into "something which contains more wisdom" etc. Lewis: Good point. Worth contemplating. Jerry S.: > ...In all states and stages of manifestation, we > always have a subjective sense of being in some kind of an > objective world (I believe that G de P says somewhere that > consciousness must always have a suitable vehicle). Lewis: I have read this, too, but since I haven't study G de P I must of got it from another source, probably HPB. llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 07:40:17 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: In the Lion's Den JRC wrote: > Daniel - > Careful! You tread on *very* dangerous ground here ... this is not > the lion's den - 'tis a list full of snakes, coiled and holding their tails > in their mouths ... and if you stay much longer, not only will you not > manage to "convert" a single one to your point of view, but their evil > wisdom may start creeping into your soul through hidden cracks in your mind > (that are unknown even unto yourself!) and you may find yourself (gasp!) > beginning to actually question your *own* beliefs! > (Psssssssst - hey buddy, over here ... you vant to taste theees > apple?) > (Tee Hee). > Sorry, I realize this may be quite serious, but the sudden presence > of an evangelical on this list is such an unexpected delight, such a very > bizarre intellectual juxtaposition, that I have been in stitches since you > began posting. > -JRC > Evangelical Economist & Chaos Theorist > [(-:)] Lewis: ME TOO! Thanks for a great post. I printed this one with intentions of showing it to my wife who's sister is lousy with this kind of "logic", and for my poor daughter who has to put up with this kind of "logic" at our local high school--even from some of the teachers, whom one would think were better educated! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 08:15:35 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: re: CWL &JHE >"The legend of MU and Atlantis, it should be understood, did not originate with >Dan Fry, nor Adamski, and in fact can be traced back to some of the earliest >theosophical writings of the 20th Century. I think Plato had something to say about Atlantis considerably before the 20th Century. >Charles Leadbeater, a British theosophist and medium, in his Handbook of >Theosophy (published in 1932) declared that Venusians ("Lords of the Flame") >occupy the highest rank in what he called the "Great White Brotherhood," with >Aryans considered the highest native race on Earth." (UFO magazine, pg 35) This is also mentioned in many of the books of A.A.B. - see for instance 'A Treatise on Cosmic Fire'. I agree, there are other sources, but Peter A. Jordan., the writer of this article, decided to focus on theosophical writings. One could say he didn't do his homework, but maybe this also represents how some of the general public sees the Thesophical movement. I've heard that HPB has been blamed for the "New Age" and all that comes under that name. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 08:28:54 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Story of Deconversion: Confession from the Snake Pit Art, Thank you for sharing that. It made me appreciate once again how fortunate I have been in my own process of self discovery. HPB lamented that so many set sail on the ocean of occultism without the benefit of compass, rudder or sail! I came to theosophy at an early age and almost immediately (Paul, Cayce's life story began my journey). But many times since, as a member of the St. Petersburg lodge in Florida, I met people like yourself who had spent their whole life searching thru various 'isms and 'osophies and marveled at my good fortune. Within the "new age" movement there are those who are, as Bing Escudero once expressed it to me, caught up in the "guru go-round." I think it was HPB who said she preferred a good sceptic to someone who was so guilable that they would follow anyone anywhere, like so many flies into the boiling milk. Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 08:39:23 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: life stories I'd like to thank both Arthur and Jerry for their stories regarding events in their lives. We're really glad that you are both able to be here sharing with other theosophists. It's a good thing we do trust our instincts or visions or companions or whatever it is that has been influencing our rational minds. It's just such an event as "being free to study" and being so happy about the results, because we were able to make the progress we set out to make. If we are able to accomplish our goals then we feel that we must have been receiving help along the way, and that's what CWL was to me. I'm much better off today than I was when I began with the T.S. And I'm determined to make the world a better place, too, even though there seem to be so many ahead of me on that. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 09:05:46 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: CWL and JHE Jerry E-H wrote: > > If this description is wrong, then for me, it throws > suspicion upon other information that Purucker has expanded upon. > The more often I find him wrong, the more cautious and critical I > would become about his writings. If his descriptions turned out > to be wrong often enough, and his errors pervasive enough, I > would eventually discount his writings altogether at some point. > Lewis: Don't we all have our blind spots in our reasoning? If one can find even one idea that opens a new door for you it could prove to be extremely valueable. In a Mahatma letter I ran across the idea that whole sermons can be taught through a rock. While I agree with you that "errors pervasive enough" might make me less inclined to spend valueable time pouring over that particular writers works, I don't understand why you feel they would force you to "discount his writings altogether". llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 09:07:09 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Angels Jerry S: >Alan, I agree with you on this one. During meditation, >and also during sleep, meeting an Angel is a distinct >possibility, although most go unrecognized because we >are unprepared for such an encounter. How they >evolve is rather like worrying about how many can sit >on the head of a pin. Knowing their place in the theosophical scheme of evolution through the Kingdoms is useful when studying the rounds and races. Dealing with them, I'd agree, as individual beings, we treat them as living things, and try to not allow our burden of preconceptions get in the way of our direct interaction. Specific knowledge about them can at times be useful, much as the knowledge of botany and zoology help the explorer of some amazon jungle, but how far does our actual knowledge go? >Also, I agree with Eldon that >today's terminology does not match that used by HPB, >but then most of the old phraseologies that she used, >both Hindu and Buddhist, are terribly outdated today >and I suspect that few theosophists today can tell >the difference between an Agniswatta and a Kumara, let >alone the subtle distinctions between the lunar >pitris and solar pitris, without resource to the >literature. That being the case, how would today's >theosophist act when confronting one (although this >whole line is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, a slightly >serious undercurrent exists here). At the very beginning of the theosophical literaure, in Sinnett's early days, the terminology was in a state of flux. Terms like 'ring' were toyed with, then discarded. Until we develope a specialized terminology of our own -- which may never happen -- we're are the mercy of misunderstood terms! Someone may take a Buddhist term, for instance, and assume that we mean the same thing by it that Buddhists do, and this is not always the case. In any area of specialization, there is a specific lingo, a specific jargon that arises. The student of electronics, for instance, learns a specialized terminology. It's not any different with Theosophy. Advanced though in any area leads to more words, an enhanced terminology, and a growing body of terms. Sanskrit is rich in metaphysical terminology because that area of thought and experience is heavily emphasized in the East; in the West there are far fewer such terms. We only start to have a problem with our literature, when it starts to be come a dead language, where there are fewer and fewer people that understand what it says. After it stops being a living, spoken language, the subtle distinctions in tought between one term in the next are lost -- and the precious wine has leaked out of the old, dusty, borrowed wine bottle! -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 09:21:50 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Beyond words Bee: >Hi Eldon, >Many thanks for your comments on going beyond words when reading. This has >clarified something that has bothered me for a long time. Other people can >quote passages from books they have read and sound so intellegent. I have >read thousands of books but in the fashion that you describe so that to >quote anything I have to find the book and check out the actual words, yet I >know what the book was about in my own terms. I discovered accidentally a >few years ago that I read in that way when I decided that Martin Bubers 'I >and Thou' had something in it I wanted to know. I began to read and it was >like a brick wall when I looked at the words. No comprehension at all but I >struggled on and then suddenly I found I read the book and knew what he >meant yet the words themselves were as uncomprehensive as before. It then >seemed to become my way of reading. So the idea is to speak about what has >become solid knowledge within one's own reality and speculate about what >hasn't made itself at home yet. I've personally come to see this approach from my study of Purucker. Some of his books are actually a collection of lectures, various series of advanced study classes held in estoeric groups at Point Loma. ("Fundamentals of the Estoeric Philosophy" is one such book.) It's rather difficult to describe this approach, because it's possible to confuse it with subjectivity personal opinion, when it rather deals with an further, more advanced step in study than the traditional intellectual study. When we learn to make the writings a part of our lives, we're not actually trying to leave our bodies and have experiences of other worlds. (Not, at least, until we reach a quite advance state in our spiritual development, and are under the training of some Teacher.) We're rather training ourselves in a second form of knowing. Traditional experience and knowledge corresponds to the sense of touch, where we "go there and do it." This second form allows is to "see there and know it," and it corresponds to the sense of sight. Behind a particular author, and behinds certain schools of thought, there are what might be called "thought currents," and we can be in touch with them as a source of learning and knowledge. This is what we "see" behind certain of our deeper books. >It also seem easier to remain detached over >what is really 'known' that what is tentative. If my 'known' is still in the >tentative stage, it is then also insecurely attached to the body of >knowledge that is trying to incorporate it. We can then get feelings of >various kinds if someone questions the validity of this insecure knowledge. There's a sense of when something is solidly a part of our mind, when it is genuinely part of ourselves and shareable. It is then "objective truth"? No. There may be greater things for us to learn, that would gradually cause us to learn and grow in different directions, gradually leaving behind what we thought we knew. But what is solidly part of us at this moment of time, as contrasted with tentative ideas and feelings that we have considered but not assimilated, we can share. We're ready to make a gift to the world of what is truly part of ourselves, and that includes our deeper learning. It's just a matter of distinguishing the "true part" from the transitory. But we have a feeling of genuineness when we share that true part, a feeling we don't get otherwise. >Oh, well, what is they say, >He who knows not, says a lot >He who knows, says nothing. >Much food for thought. Thank you all for your enlightening comments on the >various topics. Hope you realise that I print some of them off for posterity >so that I can refer to the horse's mouth if I have to. It may be more a matter of approach. Perhaps I'm taking an approach in some of my writings that is more useful to people than a confrontational approach, that seeks to tear down ideas I dislike. Perhaps there's a wealth of useful ideas and insights available to us, things we can readily appreciate when written for us the right way. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 09:26:28 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Thank you I wish to thank Jerry, Patrick and Eldon, K. Paul (are you related to Ru Paul? :-)) for their definitions of "initiate". It's a word that I'd heard a lot lately and had begun to wonder what it really meant, including it's accompany word, "initiation." I also wish to thank those participating in the CWL discussion. It has given me a greater perspective in viewing his work, certainly a more realistic one. During the many years I was in the LCC (and am no longer affiliated with), he was revered for starting the church and no criticism was ever uttered against him. So I had a much different viewpoint of him. On the other hand, one of his books has been read aloud at Adyar Lodge in Chicago and those attending were allowed to agree or disagree with what he wrote. From those readings, which were about how an occultist should live, he seemed to be an exacting judge of what others should do to live with the energy forces. An example of this is what kind of art you should surround yourself with, kinds of furniture and bed. He recommended no mattress but strips of cloth over a frame. He detested wool clothing because he said it could not be properly cleaned. CWL hated the fashions of the day because he felt the occultist should only wear loose and flowing clothing. How many of us can wear a toga to work? This exacting attitude carried over into his work with the church and the Science of the Sacraments, as did his link with Masonry and theosophy. Let me put it this way, he seemed to be (besides everything else) a stickler for details. He felt everything had to be "just so", in order for the forces to work to their maximum. While he was a pioneer, I've come realize that this attitude was one peculiar to his personality and not recommendations from a "higher" source. As the saying goes, there are many ways to skin the onion, and CWL had only one. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 09:31:23 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Angels >In our nomenclature Devas are lesser gods. Elementals are >something similar but different. At the moment I don't know >where to look up a definition, but if Adam Warcup is looking >in on this post, he can explain better than I what we mean by >elementals. > >Liesel As lessor or demi-Gods, they would be the Dhyani-Chohans of the SD, the three Kingdoms of Nature that *follow the Human*. The Elementals are the three Kingdoms of Nature that *preceed the Mineral.* All six of these Kingdoms are non-physical, for the most part, and affect our world indirectly, not having physical bodies to act through, at least as we perceive things here on Globe D earth. Besides the Kingdoms of Nature, we also have the three streams of evolution. The highest stream is that of the Architects, and the Dhyani-Chohans (and perhaps some of the highest Humans) are involved in this stream. It involves the "laws" or patterns of life or blueprints of how things are. The second stream is that of the Builders, and we are involved in this stream. The third is that of the Materials, and the Elementals and perhaps Mineral Kingdom are involved in it. I suspect that the reverting to angels, fairies, etc. came about with a move to reembrace Christian terminology that happened in the later years of CWL and AB. If we get into studying the issue of whether there could be a parallel line of evolution for the angels/devas, a number of related issues in the Teachings will need to be discussed, like there being no such thing as "group souls" or the "creation of a human through individualization out of a group soul" etc. The more detailed our discussion the more differences that we may uncover. Do we want to go into this? -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 09:43:55 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Comparing Clairvoyants >As I previously stated, I just renewed membership in the >Association for Research and Enlightenment, which I first >joined before the TS. The wrangling about the clairvoyance of >Leadbeater and Purucker (and Bailey's clairaudience) in this group >inspired me to reflect why I feel more comfortable with the Cayce >material than any of those more explicitly Theosophical >writers' work. There's no claim for clairvoyance with Purucker. He's either considered a theosophical scholar or another spokesperson for the Masters. Either is teaching from study and training, not speaking from visions. >First, there is the simple fact of honest, open investigation-- >research-- rather than promotion of authority. A.R.E. is quite >up front about admitting Cayce's many and big errors, and would >never engage in the kind of deceptive editing JHE has decried. >Neither the Bailey people nor any Theosophical admirers of >alleged clairvoyants seem to have the same commitment to >objectivity and evidence. With ARE we have a simpler framework for study. We're digging through massive files of information on a seer's materials. This is different that studing Mystery Teachings, or trying to find where they are so that we can study them. It is different that our trying to take self-responsibility for being our own source of insight into life. >Second, there is the sheer volume of relevant evidence >available. Cayce is by far the most convincing example of >paranormal abilities that I can think of. Even a brief reading >of works about him establishes this. He's done quite well with helping people in day-to-day things. I'm not sure he's done so well with metaphysics, Atlantis, the sinking of California into the ocean, etc. >Third, there is the fact of his unconsciousness. To me, this >cuts the Gordian knot of mistrust that people like Bailey and >HPB and CWL cannot cut. That is, if the seer is conscious of >the material and its source, there is abundant opportunity for >mixed motives to pollute the "revelation." Personal gain, >fame, bias, etc. all must be considered. Whereas with Cayce, >there was little or no conscious awareness of the material, and >this far less cause to suspect personal bias or motive. Of >course, the unconscious can bias and contaminate anything >anyone does, but in the case of Cayce we are dealing directly >with the unconscious. This raises the question of archetypal >patterns vs. historical reality (e.g. is Atlantis/Lemuria >really inside the collective unconscious?) rather more directly >than the other teachers mentioned. This is also the sign of mediumship. And of automatic writing. The lack of self-conscious participation by the individual means that *someone or something else* is doing the talking. But who or what is it? >The above is not offered in the spirit of "mine's better than >yours" but rather to suggest that we can be receptive to the >work of clairvoyants while remaining skeptical. For example, >how would Cayce's life readings measure up against the Lives of >Alcyone? I don't think that the real Mahatmas would write a book like "The Lives of Alcyone," because the literal, factual information about previous lifetimes would mean little to people in the present, and *became the past changes.* (I'm making something of an overstatement here, perhaps for shock value, but I do want to make a point.) The literal, physical details of the past *does not exist.* All that is carried forward into the *now* is the effects upon us; it is the living energy in our karmic bonds with the rest of life. And those bonds and the energy that they contain can and do change. An event in the past is real and lasting only so long as we carry its effects in ourselves and others along with us. We carry a lot of karmic baggage that at times should be reevaluated. There come times to "lighten the load" and leave behind things that are no longer of use to us or others. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 09:53:03 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Psychic powers David: >Many people, particularly those interested in 'spiritualism' spend a >considerable period of time in attempting to develop or improve their >psychic powers. This is especially true in the discipline of 'sitting for >development'. While this may be successful to some extent, it is surely a >powerful distraction away from more productive lines of investigation and >study. However in one lifetime or another we may all experience this >interest. This increase in pyschic powers does not appear to lead to any >great teaching or experience although the books of White Eagle are, I think, >worth looking at. The biggest ill effect of psychic development is the state of passivity that it often requires. If one has paranormal senses that arise naturally in life, without any artificial cultivation, they are there for a purpose and may be helpful. But to practice passivity is to train the mind to stay in a stupor and is training in lower astral consciousness, rather than in the higher faculties. The opposite training is taught in Theosophy: self-assertion, self-devised efforts to take charge of our lives, self-originated thought. We become *sources of thought in the world,* rather than passive receptors of paranormal visions and impressions. Paradoxically, though, we are taught selflessness, unselfishness, and the transcendence of the personality. It's a difficult subject to explore. >A rather crude quote from Stuart Wilde is:"If you are as thick as a brick >when you are alive, you are as thick as a brick when you are 'dead'." So >what is the point of trying to contact beings who are not very far removed >from ourselves, or even not as knowledgable as ourselves. Death does not >impart great knowledge. I'd agree that just because someone is now physically dead, that does not impart any special knowledge. In our theosophical literature, we learn that the person becomes unconscious, in a dream-like state. The person is first in a kamaloka, a form of purgatory where desires are burned off, then in devachan, where the spiritual energies of life (those that were not put into practical action) are lived through. The whole experience is solitary, in the womb of the Monad, apart from spheres of Action where we can self-consciously interact with others and make new karma. We are basically "letting go" of the life energies in our various higher principles, in preparation for a subsequent rebirth as a human here on Globe D earth. A dead person, then, is not generally awake and aware enough to communicate with the living. We're told in "The Mahatma Letters" to leave the dead alone, to leave them in peace, so that they can go on their way. It is hurtful to them to try to establish contact, after the first few days of their death, to reawaken their rememberances of the life that has ended. It makes it more difficult for them to forget, to let go, and to go on. We should, I'd say, let them rest in peace. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 10:00:57 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: re:theosophy historical & doctrinal > >Ann: "This is also true of Yogananda's book. There was editing done on it >by the Self-Realization Fellowship, after he died, to make it fit their >ideas. Old originals of Biography of a Yoga are highly prized." > >That BURNS MY BUTT and is very, very disturbing to me. What gives people the >right to edit without documentation? This strikes me as one of the most >arrogant things one can do, because they place themselves HIGHER than the >teacher or author, and presume to "correct" their work. > >I wish we could leave published works alone, let them stand the test of time >on their own. HPB is holding up admirably. If people have a burning need to >tinker with words, let them write their own books and see how well THOSE hold >up a century or two later! > >Rich I'd generally agree, but would suggest that there is room for some judicious editing. Like in Boris de Zirkoff's edition of "The Secret Doctrine," he corrected quotes to the orginal references, and corrected and added proper accents to Sanskrit terms. Additionally, the revision of the typography of a book, like setting off quotes so that they are more distinguishable from the words of the author, is proper, I'd say. I'd finally go one additional step, and if there were two or three completely out-of-date words, replace them with their current counterparts. (Like replacing "milliard" in "Esoteric Buddhism" with "billion".) This last step is debatable, and some would put the correction in square brackets. Which approach is correct? There are two goals that the book seeks to achived. Foremost is an accurate transmission of the author's ideas, of the author's intended communication. Secondary, but not without merit, we have the goal of a "smooth communication," the goal of making this as easy a communication as possible, using the tools at hand like the typographical layout of the book. This secondary issue will become of increasing importance in our computer era, where we're but a few years short of the time when there will be a popular acceptance of electronic books. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 10:07:19 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: re: Theosophy as religion Rich: >I almost cringe to write this, but Robert Crosbie is >spelled thus, no "y" in the last name. I am in the dark regarding the >controversy regarding Crosbie, obviously one of my heroes, I would be >interested in discussing whatever controvery may surround him and rectifying >my ignorance. That's fine. I'll try to remember the correct spelling of his name. I was going by how it sounded, because I did not remember seeing it in print for quite a while. I cannot reply to the history surrounding his split with Point Loma. Perhaps someone else can help fill in the details. (What I remember from hearing stories told me is too hazy at the moment for me to want to venture saying anything.) >I am also curious how William Q. Judge is perceived by students on this board I expect that Judge was initially rejected by Adyar because of the politics of the split in the T.S., and because there was quite conflicting directions between the two groups in the 1920's, when the Adyar T.S. was promoting Krishnamurti as the Coming Christ, and Leadbeater, Besant, and their friends as his Apostles. Such claims are not a fundamental element of the Adyar Society, and things are actually friendly between the rank-and-file members of the different theosophical groups. Judge is likely now looked on by Adyar like Sinnett is, an early writer with useful materials, for as far as he went, but perhaps sounding a bit intellectual. (This would be someone's reaction to "The Ocean of Theosophy," and not to the practical nature of his letters and articles, found published elsewhere, which Adyar people would be less familiar with.) I'd take the Point Loma view that he was one of the people in the theosophical moment that acted as a spokesman for the Masters, authorized to present some of their Teachings, although he did not try to say too much that was new. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 10:13:07 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re:psychic powers Rich: >It's not just your particular tradition, in U.L.T. also we read HPB's and >William Q. Judge's warnings that while psychic powers may or may not come to >individuals who are studying Theosophy, they must not be confused with >spiritual development, they arise from an entirely different part of our >nature. Without getting hysterical, these two authors deliver serious >warnings that we are to cultivate gentleness, compassion, altruism, and >insight, and to largely leave psychic things alone, they will come in their >own good time, perfectly naturally, all by themselves. The process of spiritual development is something useful to discuss. How do we become selfless, how do we forget ourselves and rise about the pettiness of the personality? Fundamentally, we put ourselves in the mode of *sharing*, we fill the contents of our minds and hearts with creativity. We occupy ourselves with grand things that we are working to give tangible expression to in the world, in our own, unique, personal way. The higher qualities will express themselves through us in this endeavor. We don't need to mediate on love, for instance, we just need to act in the world where we can *be lovingness.* The abstract qualities of the Virtues are unrealted to outer life and are not part of ourselves, except when we are engaged in activites in which they find themselves expression. The key, then, is to do loving things, and thereby realize the quality of love. (And to do wise things to realize wisdom, etc.) We then have no room in our minds for the petty, the personal, the selfish; we are instead filled with the excitement of creativity and sharing more and more of the unseen beauties behind outer things, beauties awaiting someone like us to act to give them expression. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 10:25:18 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: theosophical transformations from HPB to Shirley Maclaine Jerry H-E: > The distillation of >theosophical ideas from one writer to another, each adding a >twist, changing meanings and contexts so that the ideas >eventually look more like confused parodies of the originals has >been much more than a passing interest with me, and I have been >quietly trying to follow the trail for some years. The dillution of the ideas, and their change is apparent. I would suggest, though, that what Blavatsky wrote does not represent the outer bounds on what we may know, or arrive at by personal insight in our own studies. We can go beyond what she said, and still be theosophical and consistent with the Mystery Teachings which her writings perhaps came from. The problem comes when we try to share with others our insights, because there's no external, objective measure to put to our expressions, apart from a search for supporting quotes from authoritative literature. >Gregory >Tillett in his biography of CWL pointed out, for instance, that >theosophical terminology that has entered public consciousness is >understood in the same way that CWL understood the terms, not how >HPB used them. For instance "Masters" are publicly understood >according to CWL's descriptions, not HPB's. "Astral" is used the >way CWL used the term, not how HPB used it and so on. I think >the reason for this is because CWL is so much easier to read than >HPB. The terms have changed, and it is confusing to those who have studied Leadbeater first to then study "The Secret Doctrine," until they are taught the differences. I haven't noticed differences from what Purucker wrote, but would appreciate it if there are any to be pointed out for me, to assist in my studies of HPB. >After teaching SD classes for over twenty years in both ULT >and Adyar groups, I've observed that much of HPB's rhetoric is >really too sophisticated for most readers. I'm not talking about >too many "big words", but her organization of thought, her >subtleties and her flow of logic is above the level that the >average person is able to read anymore. Thus, since early in >this century, CWL and AB's books were promoted as >"clarifications" of HPB's ideas. Perhaps they thought they were clarifying the writings. Since we see that the terminology is different, and a comparative study shows a number of differences on key ideas, we would consider their statement to be sincere, perhaps, but mistaken. >Most of those early members >never thought of the possibility that some of these >"clarifications" might be misreadings. And so it goes all the >way down to Shirley Maclaine who's writings are also full of >"theosophical" ideas. If the Theosophical Society is to be the >corner stone for future new religions, it would make sense that >these new religions would be based upon distillations and >misreadings of the original material. Is that not what the >various sects of Christianity are about--misreadings of Jesus' >message, now lost in theology? We'll never know for sure until we take the additional step, and go beyond an intellectual brain-mind study of the printed page, until we awaken insides ourselves a second form of knowing. Until then, it's all a game of historic research, logic, and detective work to see if an idea is correct or not. I'd suggest that this second form of knowing things is not difficult, not far removed from our experience, and is open to any of us who would try it. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 10:28:54 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Beyond words Bee wrote: > Hi Eldon, > Many thanks for your comments on going beyond words when reading. This has > clarified something that has bothered me for a long time. Other people can > quote passages from books they have read and sound so intellegent. I have > read thousands of books but in the fashion that you describe so that to > quote anything I have to find the book and check out the actual words, yet I > know what the book was about in my own terms. Lewis: Bee, you have describe better than I could my own experience. Thanks. llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 10:32:32 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: angels >>Every plant, rock, being has an angel trying to help it.< > >This sentence is, no joke, utterly opaque to me. Could someone please help >explain it? > >Rich I don't think that there is just one life looking after each physical thing. There are a host of elementals that support the life process of a living being, including the physical principle or Sthula Sharira. The elementals could also be thought of as the Skandhas or personalized life energies that belong to the particular being that is in life. This applies to all physical beings, even those in the Mineral Kingdom (e.g. rocks). There is a form of self-consciousness in the elementals. They are pre-physical in their evolution. They "contemplate the physical", being on a downward arc of sorts in their evolution. They are not yet able to sustain physical vehicles, and so they use those of us Monads that can come into physical existence for help. (We have a sort of symbiotic relationship with them.) To call them "angels" is Christian and poetic, but harmless, and does not harm the theosophical depiction of what is going on, with the proper explaination. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 10:58:43 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: CWL and Mars Jerry H-E, I have read that observations on the inner planes are subject to distortion when impressed on the physical brain, that numbers can easily be reversed, for instance. Another idea has to do with time. CWL said it was difficult to pinpoint dates for events and described how he would have to find something with a date on it in the scene he was observering. Could it be the civilization he describes, while not presently in existence, existed or will exist? llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 12:24:49 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Daniel Eldon, God! (pun intended) I admire your patience and persistence with this guy. Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 14:25:46 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Psychic powers Liesel: >The fact that more children today are clairvoyant, or clair- >something, is probably due to that we're evolving, as you say, >but I think another factor is that the children's parents are >more likely to accept it for what it is, instead of just about >forcing the child to suppress it by their disapproval. You're probably right that more children are not being taught to repress their native abilities, and that leads to the apparent increase in clairvoyance and other psychic abilities as they grow up. This would happen as the rigid, puritanical attitude of fundamentalist religion and materialistic science loosens its grip on popular thought. I don't think, though, that it's a sign that somehow todays children are more evolved than before. That statement has been made generation after generation. Each batch of kids is seen as somehow special. When they grow up, the next batch is seen as unique, and so on. Perhaps it is just that children in general are special, that we recognize a natural closeness to the spiritual in them that we find special and often missing in us audlts. >[speaking to JRC, you say,] >I don't know whether I can say anything constructive about that >you see things differently from CWL & Hodson's pictures. But I >recently wanted to paint an aura & tried using CWL's and Dora's >aura pictures as models. I found I had to choose one or the >other, because they were very different. I couldn't make a >composite aura. So it doesn't surprise me when you say that >what you see looks different again. There must be a certain >amount of subjectivity. Seeing auras is like reading palms, checking out an astrological chart, or taking a blood sample. It is using a physical aspect of a person to diagnose or understand something happening in their life. All such approaches, I'd suggest, are second best to the most direct approach of empathy, of directly coming in touch with the mind and heart of the other person. >I don't know who the Theosophists were that you bumped into, >who told you that you were all wrong. I think the idea of not >doing anything to develop psychism is a good one, but I find it >very opinionated to give that same advice to the occasional >person who is already very psychic. I've been taught that you >fit the advice you give to the person, taking the circumstances >into consideration. And to tell a psychic person to suppress >it, well ... psychology today doesn't advise suppressing >anything, but dealing with it in other ways. It's easy for any of us to get dogmatic in speaking out about what we don't aprove of, or about what we've been taught is bad. I have to be careful myself not to sound like I'm preaching at people. The advise to "shut down the psychic" is for members of an esoteric school, and is necessarily appropriate to any and all people. It is also something that might be advised on as case-by-case basis, and not a blanket, global rule for all, regardless of personal situation. It's also difficult, for us, when writing or talking about things, to always express things in fresh words, in a clean, new, genuine way. Sometimes the old, habitual words depart our lips, and end up as something thoughtless, causing harm rather than offering healing and upliftment. >I know for a fact >that both Dora Kunz, & her brother Harry Van Gelder started >training with CWL when they were about 10 or 11, and what I've >heard is that to become a very effective psychic who can really >use their talent it is necessary to begin training at an early >age. So, to me, this theosophical group you fell into is all >wet. I don't know why someone like Dora wasn't helpful to you. >Was there a personality clash? That puzzles me. There are different kinds of "training". Purucker offered his students spiritual-intellectual training, with no emphasis on the psychical. Many things can be taught. The teachers bear the karmic responsibility for what they have given to the students. We all act as teachers, in our own, personal, limited way, and must watch what we depart to others. >[Liesel, continuing to speak to JRC,] >Lastly I can sympathize with you about what a burden it can be >to be different. I'm not psychic, but I have several talents >which most other people don't have, & I often just forget about >them, because people look at you cross-eyed if you're >different. So, I'm very circumspect about to whom I talk about >my extra talents. Like I know a few Italian opera arias from >having taken voice lessons when I was young. There's another >old lady in my building who used to be a singer, & the 2 of us, >from time to time enjoy belting out a few arias. Somebody else >sneered at us, because we are strange enough to like operas. We're all different, and the differences are good! We have unique gifts to offer the world, and what we need training in is to enhance the quality and richness of what we do! We can be better people, more kind and loving to others. We can produce greater writings, paintings, pieces of music, lectures -- whatever we are inspired to do! And we can also be better at the simple things, like driving our car in a sea of hateful drivers, at washing our dishes, and answering the phone when being bothered yet again by another pushy salesperson! -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 14:32:35 GMT From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: psychism >To JRC >PS the training given by CWL included a very strict ethic which >the pupil had to learn to work by. It included developing >certain character traits. > Liesel Liesel ... I have never heard about this ... if ya have a wee bit 'o time, and the inclination, I would very much like to hear about both the specifics as well as the philosophical foundations of this ethic. Was it, perhaps, drawn from some sort of eastern tradition that trained clairvoyants (and hence would have had to think through the many possible moral dilemmas raised) ... or did CWL derive it himself? [A by the way ... I prob'ly rather overstated the response from my first TS experiences ... there were some, but assuredly not all, that acted (IMO) somewhat poorly (or rather, simply acted - I guess you could say "theoretically" - simply spouting stuff they had probably heard early on and then just said over and over again for years ... I just took it badly because it was *not* theory to me, and I did not really appreciate people coming across with firm judgements about things that they clearly did not even vaugely understand in anything other than a purely theoretical fashion.) I also didn't mean to imply that I had any problems with Dora (who I *do* think is gifted), I just actually never met her until last year (at a Northwest Federation Meeting), and found her as delightful as I expected her to be -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 14:33:20 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Re Eldon's Direct vs Indirect Jerry: >Are you saying here that the Masters (KH?) physically >came to him at Point Loma and taught him what to say? I'm not really sure. I've seen some archival materials with notes about his experiences, but my recollection of them has faded a bit. Was his knowledge obtained through the reading and study of materials in the astral light? Did he have telepathic contact with the Masters? Did Purucker remember materials from a previous lifetime? Did he exist as another person, in another body, while asleep as Purucker? Did his knowledge arise from being in much more close, more powerful contact with the "thought currents" behind Theosophy? We might speculate, but I'm not sure I'll every know how *he* particularly received his training. When the Lodge sends out a Messanger, how is that Messanger trained? I've seen no article or materials that discuss this topic in depth. How do you think that he learned what he taught? >This is certainly implied in your "directly" while I >am at a loss to explain your "indirectly." Just how does >one get special secret knowledge from Mahatmas "indirectly" >except via what today we would call channeling? Would >you please explain how this is "entirely different" from >psychism? It would seem to me that any new idea G de P, >or anyone else, has given out was done so via their >"personal psychic and clairvoyant experiences." Except >for physical contact or physical letters, it simply has >to be through psychism. Even if the Mahatmas approached me >in their subtle body, I would need to be a bit clairvoyant >to see them and hear them. Many of the possible ways that I've just mentioned for Purucker to have obtained his knowledge might be classified as "psychism". Some would not. If the Lodge sends out a Messenger, with a specific mission to present some of the Teachings to the general public, I'd assume that they would insure that their representative was properly trained. Of what does that training consist? I'm not sure that they'd care to tell us. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 14:47:44 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Mars! Rich: >Was he [CWL] simply a deluded fool, or did he have some ennobling purpose in mind >when he penned all this stuff on Mars and how Norwegian they are? Maybe he >thought we would take comfort in hearing about beings from elsewhere who were >much like us? I read this stuff and think "good god, who IS THIS GUY?" Perhaps Jerry H-E could help answer this question. I read years ago a transcript of Besant and Leadbeater doing their psychical investigations. They were both "awake", talking out loud, and what they said was being written down. These notes would be written up as some of their psychical investigations. What they were doing sounded like directed imagination, rather than actual out-of-the-body experiences. Leadbeater would first mention something, then Besant would say something like, "Oh, yes, I see it too." This was all written up, in a quite critical manner, in an issue of the "O.E. Library Critic," although I'm not sure if it was in the 1910's or 1920's. I have a copy of the article somewhere, but could not locate it just now. We have two questions here. First, what method of investigation did they use? Was it out-of-the-body exploration, directed imagination, intellectual-intuitive, or yet some other method? Second, what was their motivation? As to the first question, we have to go by historical information to look for clues. As to the second, we can give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they had the highest motives. Perhaps they got carried away in their writings, because there were no other people to oppose them. They had too powerful an influence over the Theosophical Society, and there was no checks-and-balances in place. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 14:55:50 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Reality - Law Liesel: >"There is the collective behavior of things, called 'laws', and >those laws don't care what we think or feel. The world has a >consistent set of rules & life operates according to them" >Let's bat this around a little. I myself wonder where those >laws came from. If you believe with Rupert Sheldrake the idea >of morphogenetic fields, then the laws are a mixture of what >the Logos evolves, & what we human beings then do with them, >which also makes them evolve. It's an ongoing process. Come to >think of it, a symbiotic process. This still sounds like you consider the "laws" as something real in their own right, something that is created and stands alone from the beings that are affected. I'd say that the "laws" are patterns of life, architected by the Dhyani-Chohans, the Grand Architects, which we, as Builders use to fashion the Materials of the outer world. The laws change over time, and so do we. But they don't exist in their own right, anymore than the number "five" exists apart from actual quantites of five in the world, or the concept "circle" exists apart from things that subject themselves to circleness and appear approximately circular. >I also think that the line between objective & subjective is >very fuzzy. You realize there's something out there, but you >need to rely on your senses (your subjectivity) to give you an >idea of what it is. But you don't really know what that thing >out there is like. "Objective," I'd say, is a relative term in the manifest world. It's an relative absolute. Over this world, we might say, this is the nature of things, this is objective truth. But in a bigger picture, we find that our objective truth was subjective, and relative to a certain place and time. "Subjective" is an essential characteristic of life. Everything is relative to us. That is because we are co-creators of the world, along with the rest of living things. We enter into relationship with living things and find ourselves in existence. That interrelatedness is Buddhi, the quality of direct-connectedness. To seek absolute objectivity is to really to seek that which is behind life, beyond any relationship with living things, behind and yet embracing all, the Unknowable Mystery. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 15:12:45 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Story of Deconversion: Confession from the Snake Pit Paul: > [Comments to Art] >Herewith some of the Theosophical versions of fundamentalism as >you have portrayed it: >> exclusivity and moral superiority. >HPB is better than any modern spiritual teacher and we're >better than you. Our movement (society) is the chosen >instrument of THE Masters-- yours is some distant relation at >best. The Theosophical Movement is but a single project of a few of the Masters, and was considered doubtful to succeed. The work of the Masters goes on, through whomever is capable of carring it forward, regardless of what groups that person belongs to, and regardless of what belief that person professes. The aspect of Theosophy intended for public assimilation can change in whatever way is suitable to the highest good of society. The other aspect, that of a junior college to the Mysteries, is never claimed to be exclusive. There are many ways to approach the Mysteries, many possible doors to knock on, and that offered through Theosophy as we know it is but one such door. >> It is paradoxical that humility is one of the greatest virtues in this >> system and yet epistemological humility is completely lacking. What an >We KNOW that HPB (or whoever) always tells the truth and her writings are >always reliable. We're always required to use our better judgement to sort out the real from the unreal. We can never take the literal words of some book given us as holy and spiritually inspired, and take it on face value. And there is much to the writings that is either hidden behind blinds or veils, or requires the student to "go beyond the words" to get to the real meanings. >> Jung speaks of this as the inflation of the mana personality. Your own ego >> is so underdeveloped that you get merged with an archetype and feel its >> power and wisdom and identify that with your ego. I would even go as far as >> to say that many people do link up with the Spirit (Self Archetype) but >> when they translate that back to historic reality, they use the power and >> insights gained there to bolster a low self esteem. They appear arrogant >> but in reality are very insecure and need the strong positions to keep from >> disolving. I say this not in superiority for I lived like that for years. I Inflation is a psychological term that is an abnormal condition. It's quite possible, though, for psychologists that have based their theories upon the psyche of a typical western person to misread things when we deal with the Path. The psychology of the common man does not particularly apply to those who would go beyond the current evolution of humanity, and seek to hasten their spiritual evolution. >This is pretty much what fervent belief in/attachment to the >Masters and HPB does to people; I know from experience as well >as observation. Not everyone, but many are thus >affected/infected. Some people may have a shrine and picture of the Masters to worship. They may rely on the idea of the Masters for guidance and authority in the same manner as a Fundamentalist Christian may rely on an image of Chirst or God. It is definitely a problem for them. That is why, perhaps, the Masters have said that false but sincerely held beliefs is the biggest barrier to someone coming to them, a barrier bigger than physical "sin" like the drinking of alcohol or smoking. >> There is a theory in evangelical circles, I call it the domino effect, that >> once you let one of the fundamentals loose, you will eventually have your >> whole faith castle collape. >Once you start applying objective historical criteria to HPB's >claims about her sources, you lose your right to be considered >a real Theosophist. I think that this is too extreme a statement. Some people may be judgemental and blast you when your statements are threatening, regardless of any serious consideration of the facts. But this is true of any strong position that we may publically make; we will have those that disagree in disagreeable ways! >> objectivity based on logical rationality 3. The full plenary verbal >> inspiration of an infallible and inerrant revelation in the Holy Scriptures >> (no extra canonical revelation) >ABSOLUTELY-- and if you dare question the literal inspiration of >HPB's writings, you'll be treated as a heretic-- even if you >are Olcott, who was obliged to publish Old Diary Leaves outside >the TS because it was insufficiently respectful. > 4. the ontological (not merely functional The other consideration though is that for those of us that do consider the Masters as both real and as much more advanced than the people that you depict in your books, there's a sense of dignified respect for the lives of sacrifice that they have undertaken for the benefit of the world, for which we are grateful. >> oneness but oneness of essence) divinity of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. >The ontological status of the Masters is not to be undermined >by thinking of them as "normal" human beings-- They have to >have capitalized pronouns referring to Them to show this. >> >I used to be a Theosophical fundamentalist, but got deconverted >once I started to investigate history, and your description >applies: The capitalization is one of respect, and not to confer any sense of divinity. It also comes from a writing style that carries over from the time when the early theosophical literature was written, when much more was capitalized. We're used to reading of them as "Masters" with a capital letter and likely are biased to write the word that way. >> God, why not give also my intellect. It was the scariest step I have ever >> taken. I determined to study seriously and as much as possible without >> ideological lens what I encountered. That is chapter one abbreviated. >> >> The idea that revelation is found exclusively in Holy Scripture is the >> bulwark of the evangelical faith position. There is a claim that Jesus is >That the truth about the Masters can only be known through >Theosophical scriptures is the bulwark of Theosophical >fundamentalism. The "scriptures" are only a beginner's training manual. The self-genesis, partly through a Gnostic knowing of spiritual truths and realities, and partly through a strong emphasis upon making a creative contribution to the world, is where the Heart of Theosophy is to be found. >> history and the Christ of faith are significantly while not entirely >> different from each other. I can hear the floor boards of faith rumbling at >> that point. >People may pull them up and start beating you over the head >with them. Let's treat each other with respect! Remind me if I forget, and speak with less respect than I should. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 15:26:29 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Psychic powers Paul: >> [JRC]: >> respectfully, suggest to those that do not operate with those senses opened >> that they perhaps consider more deeply the attitudes and words they convey with >> their philosophical ideas ... simply because Theosophy *could* become a place >> where, in the future, people with abilities that are no longer "latent" might >> come to learn how to turn what is very often considered a *curse* into >> something that is not only validated, but refined into a tool for service. >John, you should write a book! All these things need to be >said, because people who approach the TS with these concerns >often get stones rather than bread. We've been told that the T.S. was not intended as a training ground for occultists. While it is true that it might be possible to offer some form of training to new people regarding the cultivation of their psychical abilities, is this a good thing? Are there really people qualified to give this training? The emphasis of theosophical groups has been to offer a different kind of training, related to the spiritual. Are these abilities a useful tool for service? Take psychometry, where someone is able to sense what has happened in the past by touching an object that was at the sceen. Would these people make better policemen? Should some be expert witnesses at O.J. Simpson's trial? Because of the unreliable nature of clarivoyance for investigating invisible worlds, we would likely not be inclined to take at face value the visions of new investigators. The whole approach of clarivoyance is to "go there and see it", which still involves the senses, of this or some other plane. It is entirely a different faculty of knowing than is available to us, that of direct insight, a spiritual-intellectual faculty (of buddhi-manas, as contrasted with prana-linga-sharira). >One theory I can't help considering is that the ES has a lot to >do with ambivalence in the Adyar society toward the paranormal >and the devotional, for that matter. If there is a secret >inner group where the life of discipleship is pursued, this >sets up a "sheep vs. goats" mindset in which some things have >to kept out of the hands of those who have not entered the >sanctuary. I've observed or felt this attitude in some people I've met at Krotona, since they know I'm not a member of their "special" groups. It's a common failing of human nature that is not particular to Theosophists. How many of us, regardless of organizational membership, talk of ourselves and our peers as those that know, and talk about hose we disagree with as the unenlightened, foolish, mislead people. Is there a flavor of this, perhaps unintended, in your depiction of Theosophists here? -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 15:27:53 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: re: story of deconversion K. Paul: >I used to be a Theosophical fundamentalist, but got deconverted >once I started to investigate history . . . Research is a great shatterer of illusion. The closer you get to something and actually look behind it to see how it works or works on others, the more you see something as it truly is. In the years since 1991, when I've done research for writing fiction, I've managed to lose my illusions about the music business, the creation of popular music and the publishing business. Close scrutiny and a dogged desire to find out "what is really going on" will take a person beyond the usual public facades. Probably something that most media, politicians and advertising agencies fear like the plague. I believe that is one of the ways the Masters got where they are. They peeked behind the curtains of Life and learned how to move the levers. Maybe you can only do that if you willing to give up your "glamour and illusions" and see things as they really are. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 15:39:38 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: re: story of deconversion Ann: > Close scrutiny and a dogged desire to find >out "what is really going on" will take a person beyond the usual public >facades. Probably something that most media, politicians and advertising >agencies fear like the plague. >I believe that is one of the ways the Masters got where they are. They peeked >behind the curtains of Life and learned how to move the levers. Maybe you can >only do that if you willing to give up your "glamour and illusions" and see >things as they really are. There's a great quote in "The Mahatma Letters", where it is mentioned that they are ordinary men, subject to the same fallibilities as the rest of us, except when their human element is temporarily paralyzed, and they are acting as Mahatmas. From all practical purposes, were we to look upon them, and perhaps were we to know them in person, we might, I'd speculate, not be able to detect that there was *something special* behind the outer man, something that transended the apparent human personality. When we outstrip external evolution, we do it internally, and can, I'd suspect, achieve faculties of insight, perception, and consciousness that can only crudely be expressed in a Fourth Round, Globe D, Human personality. On other Globes, or when apart from the outer personality, we'd be the whole person that we are, but *here* we'd find outselves frustrated in our desire to express our deepest thoughts and feelings. The evolution that is before us, the *important* part of that evolution, has to do with the unfolding of new *faculties of consciousness,* which is entirely a different thing that the unfolding of sense perception on other planes, nor with reading thoughts, seeing the astral light, nor using magic to make things happen. Like an animal hungering to develop mind, we hunger in a sense for those areas of consciousness that we lack. There are entirely different ways of experiencing and understanding life that we know! And these ways are unrelated to those of the seven principles that we are currently familiar with, including those of physical body or form, and those of sense perception. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 15:48:23 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: old post re:Viking Brenda: > [writing to JHE] >Would you agree that ordinarily people are selfish unless they fight very >hard against it? Someone reading CWL is most likely trying to want to know >what's wrong with being selfish. They're also probably interested in >self-improvement and what "paths" are open to them as concerns spiritual >development. CWL does a great job of taking us out of the "bonds of self." >I don't know of a single other "acceptable" writer within public education >who could interest us in "other worldly" material to the degree that he so >casually describes his activities in search of a more meaningful world and >more compassionate living. An entire collection of beliefs about life, which together comprise an understanding of how things are, could be called a "worldview". Leadbeater had his own unique worldview, and it does appeal to some people. It did to me at one time. A point-by-point comparison of that worldview to one more-strictly based upon the source writings of Theosophy shows many differences. If we want Leadbeater's books to be considered presentations of Theosophy, we'd need to remove glaring contradictions. If we want to let the books stand as they were, we can more clearly appreaciate how Leadbeater saw things. It's up to the publishers to decide how they will handle his books. >I know my words are not strictly sensible, but if there is a "sense" behind >what I am writing it is that you and Eldon both admit being drawn to his >writings early on in your study. I, too, began with CWL. What effect if >any do his writings have on a "new student" to the degree that we may be >asked to challenge, to question, to meditate, and to make self-discovery? >Are we (as early students) to become afraid of anything we "might" discern >because of a bold and public opinion provided by older students? It seems that both you, Brenda, and Jerry would like to leave the books intact, and not edit out any passages that might be considered by some as diagreeable. >I love CWL because I did learn through him to love theosophy and to find a >"home" here. Nothing I could think or attempt became too bizarre to be >included within my "theosophical life." Early on, during the purification >stages, strange occurrences may sometimes take place. I think it might be >hard to beat CWL's publicly written about experiences, so why try? Whatever >we personally might be experiencing early on in the path, we don't need to >necessarily make claims and draw attention to it, because it should be >viewed as something that will pass and maybe a more noble viewpoint and >experience will come later. The philosophy that Leadbeater taught can be considered on its own merits, and we can discuss the various doctrines. The books do not argue either for or against that philosophy, it needs to be considered on philosophical terms. What the book shows is the unreliable nature of the clairvoyant method of investigation. That unreliable nature is generally acknowledged, so there seems to me no reason to need to edit any of his books. Is there general agreement on 'theos-l' that Leadbeater's books should be restored to their original, unsanitized editions, with everything put back? (Not that we have any say over it actually getting done!) -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 17:25:38 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Psychic powers Dear JRC, I've been reading your post very carefully, because I'm not very sure of what to answer. But I do want to answer, because I really feel sorry that you've not gotten more support from Theosophists, & I think I have a little bit something to say that might possibly help. The fact that more children today are clairvoyant, or clair- something, is probably due to that we're evolving, as you say, but I think another factor is that the children's parents are more likely to accept it for what it is, instead of just about forcing the child to suppress it by their disapproval. I don't know whether I can say anything constructive about that you see things differently from CWL & Hodson's pictures. But I recently wanted to paint an aura & tried using CWL's and Dora's aura pictures as models. I found I had to choose one or the other, because they were very different. I couldn't make a composite aura. So it doesn't surprise me when you say that what you see looks different again. There must be a certain amount of subjectivity. I don't know who the Theosophists were that you bumped into, who told you that you were all wrong. I think the idea of not doing anything to develop psychism is a good one, but I find it very opinionated to give that same advice to the occasional person who is already very psychic. I've been taught that you fit the advice you give to the person, taking the circumstances into consideration. And to tell a psychic person to suppress it, well ... psychology today doesn't advise suppressing anything, but dealing with it in other ways. I know for a fact that both Dora Kunz, & her brother Harry Van Gelder started training with CWL when they were about 10 or 11, and what I've heard is that to become a very effective psychic who can really use their talent it is necessary to begin training at an early age. So, to me, this theosophical group you fell into is all wet. I don't know why someone like Dora wasn't helpful to you. Was there a personality clash? That puzzles me. Lastly I can sympathize with you about what a burden it can be to be different. I'm not psychic, but I have several talents which most other people don't have, & I often just forget about them, because people look at you cross-eyed if you're different. So, I'm very circumspect about to whom I talk about my extra talents. Like I know a few Italian opera arias from having taken voice lessons when I was young. There's another old lady in my building who used to be a singer, & the 2 of us, from time to time enjoy belting out a few arias. Somebody else sneered at us, because we are strange enough to like operas. Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 17:30:20 GMT From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: On the Head of a Pin ... Greetings: Thought I'd pop in w/ my own $.02 worth on the angelic discussion ... as I've been workin' with them for the better part of a decade now, and while I rarely try to put the interactions and experiences into words (mostly because the vast majority of life on that vibratory band just really can't even be vaguely reflected through the structures capable of being formed using the English languge & hence I usually sound like a flaming idiot when I try (-:). I'll try to mention a few things relevant to the current discussion & to human growth, though it is my belief that the large part of their realm has almost *no* relevance to the human kingdom. I should also preface these remarks by saying that I do not in any way universalize my experiences ... and am not making any claims that I am telling the "truth" about the angelic realm in any absolute sense. Nor have I attempted to force the experiences to fit into any particular conceptual paradigm (such as Theosophy, Kabalism, etc., etc.). Though I studied a number of such systems when I was first working with them, and some of the systems seemed to possess pieces that matched inner experience ... I ultimately determined that I needed to throw the whole lot out the window and go at it with no preconceptions ... and see if a paradigm fluid enough to fit their world could emerge from the world itself ... that is, I've attempted to do original science in the most classical sense of the word. Also (in the way of preliminary remarks), I should say that I have come to greatly dislike the terms "angel" and "deva" ... as they both carry with them centuries of connotations, most of which have almost nothing to do with the "things" I've been working with. I guess I have to use those words because they are the only ones I've been able to discover that come anywhere close, but I wish there were something else to call them ..... I first "met" them in my early twenties. I was attempting to bring some sort of discipline to an inner sense, and as such, I was strolling in Montana wildernesses and just "looking" at the inner layers of all sorts of forms of life ... plants, animals, etc., etc. Now and then, at the edge of that vision, I would catch glimpses of what seemed to be very enormous things of some sort. Sometimes they were just large waves undulating through the inner atmosphere, other times they seemed to coil into shapes like funnels or fountains. It was difficult to focus on these things (they always seemed kinda blurry, and inexplicably disturbing to turn attention to for anything more than a few minutes). They also (unlike everything else I was looking at) had no presence or appearence in the physical world ... in fact most seemed to operate entirely oblivious to it. After a time, my system got a bit more used to these things (I was not yet even seeing them as "beings" ... and thought they might just be the inner analog of weather or something). I began to see them (or notice them) in the city as well, though they were harder to see 'cause concentrations of humans ... well, raise a lot of "dust". Finally, one day in the woods, I inadvertantly found myself occupying the same space as the point of one of those "funnels", and caught an enormous sense of *awareness*, and in trying to understand this (for days afterwards ...) it finally occurred to me that these things might be some sort of being, might have some kind of consciousness and perhaps even possess intentions and purposes. It also occurred to me that they might be what so many religious traditions called "angels" (or spirits or demons ... (-:). After cookin' this over for awhile, it occured to me to attempt to find a "channel" to see whether some sort of communication was possible with them (what can I say ... it was, after all, the early eighties (-:). It took me well over a year to find someone suitable. [A brief "Channel" interlude: I have had the chance to observe the inner levels of the phenomena of channelling for a number of years. Having looked at probably a couple of hundred people trying to do it, I'd say probably three-quarters are not doing anything at all. Observing them go into a "trance" (or whatever they call it) their energy-systems appear to go through all sorts of odd permutations, sort of *re-arrange* themselves, and out comes a different "voice". I suspect what is happening in many cases is that some buried complex, or ego-state that has fractured off of the main complex of consciousness, or some bundle of subconscious awareness is simply using the opening to the surface layer of awareness provided by the person's "trance" to express itself. In maybe a quarter of the cases, an actual seperate entity of some sort seemed to be present, and to varying degrees altering the person's energy system. Two seperate questions arise at this point: First, how "clearly" is the channelling. In some cases the vast majority of the person's energy-system was untouched by the impulses flowing from the entity ... and at the surface level this would mean that what was being "channelled" was mostly aspects of the person themself, and the entity was just sort of causing the person to amplify some thoughts, supress others, and steer others in some direction. The other end of this line was when virtually the entire energy system of the person was affected ... it would change shape and even change its colors almost entirely. When this happened, almost everything being "channelled" *was* the impulses of the entity ... and this means the person's entire energy-system had become little more than a *translator* ... allowing the entity to express itself within the frequency band that other humans could understand .. i.e., human speech. The Second question, after the the clarity question, has to do with the *nature* of what was clear or unclear. There seem to be large numbers of living things in the innerland, with a vast range of relative "wisdom" and intentions. *Many* people seem to have small things periodically floating around them, and genuinely wanting to "help", but many of these things seem to be "partial" consciousnesses ... i.e., they look like they might be enormously helpful on a very narrow range of issues that they know well, partially helpful on others, and positively useless on others. These may be what people are now calling "spirit guides". (I've personally never had much use for such things and usually chase them away ... and believe that if people have serious questions about their lives, they are usually likely to get far fuller results by just sitting in a chair for an hour and bringing the full force of their own reason to the problem ... but this may just be personal predilection, as I do know people who have been greatly aided by little spookies). Out of the couple hundred "channels" in my data set, there are all of three or four that seemed actually capable of clearly translating the impulses of the really *huge* energy fields of the angelic realm ... and a few other beings that are just as huge but are not angels. I believe that these people were both born with this as an ability, and each also underwent some form of very intense discipline and training.] ANYway, after finally finding a person, and telling her of my intentions, we agreed to do some work together, and entered into nearly a year of weekly (sometimes even daily) discussions with various members of the "angelic" realm. These discussions ended when I had configured (with their help) a layer of my own energy system that permitted me direct discourse without the necessity of translation into and back out of human language (which, we discovered, could not help but introduce fairly substantial distortions into the conversation by its very nature). The first few discussions almost ended the entire project. Though from everything I could see inwardly the channel was extremely clear ... and had developed an ethic of her own that literally filled her with the intention to be precise in her translation ... a large amount of what the angels were saying made no sense. I was about to give it up as a hopeless cause (we were both quite frustrated) when it suddenly occurred to me that they were making little sense precisely *because* the channel was so clear ... she was not even distorting the translation through fundamental human assumptions about the nature of the world, and the day to day worldview of my consciousness and that of the angels were simply grounded in utterly different assumptions about the nature of life and awareness. What then followed were two significant events in the project ... first, we met a particular angel that agreed to actually "join" our project, to work consistently with us (instead of trying to find and connect with whatever was around), and second, we all agreed that the first absolute necessity was to attempt to find the "points of intersection" of our kingdoms ... i.e., to understand at least a bit about our respective (and for both of us, completely unquestioned) assumptions about what "reality" was, and to discover where there was enough of a commonality that meaningful discussions might be possible. As a for instance (and the most superficial one at that), I had been asking them what I thought was a set of basic questions, including "What is your purpose?". This question had always generated a long and hopelessly convoluted answer. After three months with our "partner", it finally became clear that the question itself sounded as hopeless and convoluted to the angels as the answer did to me ... and that in fact not only was the question not understood, it could not even make any sense even if it *was* understood .... (this may take a bit of explaining): Virtually every one of us, as humans, is born with at least some form of sensation that surfaces as a sense of "purpose". Few of us could believe we are just "randomly" here. We can rarely every fully *conceptualize* that purpose (though now and then we can articulate the current piece of it we actualizing), but we cannot help but feel as though we are here for *something*. Many on the path almost obsessively ask themselves "What is my *true* purpose ... what *should* I do?" This sensation of "purpose" is so core to human life that it is virtually unnoticed, and its almost impossible to imagine what day to day life would feel like without it. After several months, it finally became clear that the angelic realm, while most assuredly possessing a form of self-conscious awareness, had no component of that awareness that was seperate enough from purpose to be able to ask "What is it?". When the question "What is your purpose" was translated through the channel's energy-system, it was perceived by them something like we would perceive the question "What is your "I"?" ... (and our answers to that question would prob'ly be more convoluted than those I got from the angels ...(-:). To us, our purpose is something we *do* ... if you are a "healer", sometimes you are serving patients, but then again sometimes you are also at a movie. To them, purpose is what they *are* ... it is an identity question, not a career question (-:). Anyway, point is, it took close to nine months of conversations before there was enough of a common ground for real discourse to start. It was a *very* disturbing process ... it was not my ideas that were being questioned, but assumptions buried to deep that they had never been questioned, and in fact took substantial work to bring them close enough to the surface to even render them capable of being questioned ... and it was only by coming into contact with a realm that did not operate within them that they even appeared as "assumptions" ... they were *truths* before I met the angels. The sensation reminded me of the New Testament story of "walking on water" ... when belief was strong enough to keep an alternate reality configured the water was solid, but when belief faltered, it suddenly turned into *water* and the fellow started sinking ... only in this case it was not a higher reality dissolving back into human-consensus reality ... it was consensus reality itself - day to day human life - that suddenly began periodically turning back into "water". [Well, guess this is a long enough post for now ... and is still only the personal introduction. If the "angelic" thread continues and there seems to be interest I'll try, in the next post, to give words to the five or six (IMO) fundamental differences between the underlying assumptions of our two kingdoms ... which actually constitute a sort of "angelic cosmology". I *do* hope this babbling has made some sense ... and perhaps matched some inner experiences ... of some on the list.] Ta ta, and as the angels say, " ." -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 17:36:59 GMT From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: Psychic powers (Paul) >>> [JRC]: >>> respectfully, suggest to those that do not operate with those senses opened >>> that they perhaps consider more deeply the attitudes and words they >convey with >>> their philosophical ideas ... simply because Theosophy *could* >>> become a place where, in the future, people with abilities >>> that are no longer "latent" might come to learn how to turn >>> what is very often considered a *curse* into something that >>> is not only validated, but refined into a tool for service. > >>John, you should write a book! All these things need to be >>said, because people who approach the TS with these concerns >>often get stones rather than bread. . >We've been told that the T.S. was not intended as a training ground for >occultists. While it is true that it might be possible to offer some form >of training to new people regarding the cultivation of their psychical >abilities, is this a good thing? Are there really people qualified to give >this training? The emphasis of theosophical groups has been to offer a >different kind of training, related to the spiritual. Ah, yes, this is *precisely* what I was talking about. Theosophy seems full of this sort of fanatical urge to *rank* everything. The spiritual is "higher", then, is it? Higher than "psychism" which is "lower"? In people's *minds* there exist these nice neat "levels" and distinctions ... but dare I suggest that the actual reality is that life & the universe is simply one enormous *continuum*. That the *mind* introduces delusions ever bit as potent as those attributed to "psychism" by giving into its predilection to slice everything into nice discrete layers and levels ... that also forms the root assumptions necessary to say that one *person* is "higher" or "lower" than another? And, IMO anyway, *here* is what we've been *told* the TS is intended to do: 1. To form a nucleus of the universal brotherhood of humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste or color. 2. To encourage the study of comparative religion, philosophy and science. 3. To investigate unexplained laws of nature and the powers latent in man. The first *two* of these compose the vast majority of TS activity, and can be accomplished by reading & meditating and slowly but surely following the "spiritual" path. The third has been (IMO) quite ignored, because it is *far* riskier. It holds the implication of not just studying the "ancient wisdom" and learning what to call all sorts of levels of postulated awareness ... but of actively seeking to break new ground ... of *discovery*. It is damn uncomfortable, sloppy business. Is there possibly delusion? Certainly. Is there danger involved? Of course ... as in almost all scientific discovery. You may be comfortable pursuing "higher" thought, but please do not say that that version of theosophy is the only one that was intended. If numbers of people are beginning to find themselves born with a sensory apparatus that permits them to see a vibratory range outside of the current human norm, is this not something operating according to an unexplained law of nature? Is it not a power latent in man? Is not what I was suggesting *fully* in line with the 3rd Object of the TS? Especially when I am suggesting that the phenomena not only be "investigated", but integrated into the powerful service ethic implicit in the First Object? >Are these abilities a useful tool for service? Take psychometry, where >someone is able to sense what has happened in the past by touching an >object that was at the sceen. Would these people make better policemen? >Should some be expert witnesses at O.J. Simpson's trial? For what its worth, working with a partner I helped the police in western Montana catch a rapist/murderer a few years ago. And this is perhaps one of the *least* of the posibilities for service inherent in abilities. I might add that I'll never do such work again ... it necessitated entering, for a moment, fully into the subjective nature of the psyche that committed those crimes ... and I was horrified and ill for two weeks afterward - 'twas a wee bit *too* much brotherhood for me (-:). >Because of the unreliable nature of clarivoyance for investigating >invisible worlds, we would likely not be inclined to take at face >value the visions of new investigators. This, with all due respect, is an avoidance, not a reason not to explore. Are there uncertainties? Of course there are, enormous ones. could not the same objection be raised to virtually *any* new arena or technique of investigation? Is the *conscious mind* any *better* of a tool for investigating invisible worlds? Imagine Freud and Jung as they were beginning their work. They were most certainly investigating "invisible" things ... the subtle essence of the subjective human psyche ... and they used the rational mind to accomplish this ... were they often deluded? Most assuredly. Did their subjective complexes often get in the way? *Enormously* (as the criticism of their work over the years has amply demonstrated). Did they often go off on wild goose chases, follow ideas down dead-end streets? You bet. Should they have, because of this *not pursued their investigations*? Should they have stopped before they began because of the "unreliable" nature of their investigations, because many people would refuse to take "at face value" the conclusions of their uncertain and stumbling investigations? And yet no one has any problem discussing Jung in Theosophical circles. He could listen to people's *dreams*, and draw conclusions about the operations of the invisible human psyche from them (introducing the double distortion of the patient turning a dream into words ... which can never fully be done ... and the distortion that comes when those words are understood within the context of Jung's own psyche) without being accused of "psychism" or avoided because of the inherently "subjective" nature of his studies ... but take someone that *sees* what Jung could only hear about second hand and suddenly we should ignore everything coming from *that* investigative tool because there is a possibility that the seer might not be completely clear? >The whole approach of clarivoyance is to "go there and see it", which >still involves the senses, of this or some other plane. It is entirely >a different faculty of knowing than is available to us, that of >direct insight, a spiritual-intellectual faculty (of buddhi-manas, as >contrasted with prana-linga-sharira). And please tell me, having *not experienced clairvoyance* how you speak with such certainty about this. Upon what basis do you say that it is an "entirely different faculty". Did a *book* say so? I have met and spoken with a number of people who possessed abilities to varying degrees. With some, it did seem to be quite partial. With others, I have seen "clairvoyance" so thoroughly integrated into a faculty that you might call "buddhi-manas" that their clairvoyance was simply remarkable ... they were seeing, simultaneously, effect *and* cause when they looked at a person's auric field. "Clairvoyance" is not *a* thing that can just be neatly pidgeon-holed into "oh that's just prana-linga-sharira" ... there are (as far as I've been able to discover) a whole host of different forms of clairvoyance ... and in practice, it doesn't *disappear* when "buddhi-manas" becomes operative (any more, I might add, than the physical eyes suddenly go blind), it *deepens immeasurably into something even more remarkable*. "Direct insight" and clairvoyance are *not* mutually exclusive phenomena, and in fact are fully capable of not only cooperation, but integration. When you speak as though they are two "entirely different things", and even further, as though clairvoyance is *a* single thing, you demonstrate clearly that you really have no understanding of clairvoyance as anything other than a concept. Yet you speak with a tone that implies you know exactly what it is and where it fits neatly into spiritual development (which is obviously at a "lower" level than the "direct insight" that you pursue). This is *exactly* the attitude I was trying to suggest was perceived as extremely demeaning to those who *were* born with such abilities. I have reached an age and have become comfortable enough with it personally that its worth it to bitch about this attitude, in the hopes that it might alter things, but there are many who wouldn't bother ... they just wouldn't come to a second TS meeting ... and I know at least three people personally that this describes. Is it not rather bizarre that Theosophy, that actually helped introduce the concept of clairvoyance as a operative human ability to the modern western world, seems to want to avoid any of the difficulties inherent in the actual practice of it in favor of reading and "studying" what dead people wrote about it ... that the TS, of all places, as often as not unconsciously *ejects* those who possess in fact what the original Theosophists introduced conceptually to America? -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 17:37:51 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: angels Dear Rich, I'll start answering you, when you stop being insulting & provocative to people on this post. You're toning down, but you're not there yet. Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 17:43:03 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: psychism To JRC PS the training given by CWL included a very strict ethic which the pupil had to learn to work by. It included developing certain character traits. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 20:32:51 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re to Eldon & David Eldon: This brings up a point that I think needs to be discussed. All too often theosophists tend to equate spirituality with selflessness. While it is certainly true that to be spiritual, one must be relatively selfless, I feel the need to mention here that the reverse it simply not true - to be selfless does not make you spiritual. Lots of selfless folks can be found in mental hospitals who are not terribly spiritual. Someone with amnesia can be selfless. Selflessness is not enough. You also need gnosis. Buddhism, for example, insists that you need both means selflessness/ compassion) and wisdom (gnosis). The quest for gnosis alone is also not enough, and is a pretty sure road to psychism. A truly spiritual person, to my way of thinking, is a balanced person. And Eldon does, in fact, add later, that we need "to do wise things to realize wisdom." Eldon: Although I am no longer a student per se (except in the sense that we are all students in some stage of growth), I would agree with your own assessment of Judge. Eldon: I have no idea what the heck you are talking about here??? What passivity? Do you mean yogic positions such as the lotus, in which the physical body is passive? Do you mean the passivity of the human mind when thoughts are stopped in samadhi? In magic rituals, just as one example, the magician uses his/her body, speech, and mind all together and is hardly passive. Buddhist meditations are usually geared to stimulating and directing the body, speech, and mind as well (considered the three main parts of any true spiritual practice). Can you can clarify this? David:from ourselves, or even not as knowledgable as ourselves. Death does not impart great From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 21:08:35 GMT From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Subject: Re: Story of Deconversion: Confession from the Snake Pit >Art, > > Thank you for sharing that. It made me appreciate once again how >fortunate I have been in my own process of self discovery. HPB >lamented that so many set sail on the ocean of occultism without the >benefit of compass, rudder or sail! > > I came to theosophy at an early age and almost immediately (Paul, >Cayce's life story began my journey). But many times since, as a >member of the St. Petersburg lodge in Florida, I met people like >yourself who had spent their whole life searching thru various 'isms >and 'osophies and marveled at my good fortune. > > Within the "new age" movement there are those who are, as Bing >Escudero once expressed it to me, caught up in the "guru go-round." >I think it was HPB who said she preferred a good sceptic to someone >who was so guilable that they would follow anyone anywhere, like so >many flies into the boiling milk. > >Lewis I also thank you for sharing your experience with us. Here in NZ we are inclined to the conservative side of life and many times the "new age" movement is the only place many people know about other that the Spiritualist Church. I have been asked often if Theosophy is some weird religion so that, in itself, precludes sincere, non-intellectual searchers from being interested even though I do my best to explain what we really are. That is still too intellectual for many. I have been involved with these groups as a side interest and even found I could channel some sort of energy that did have sensible things to say. Most of the groups were about giving each other 'warm fuzzies' and acting as support for just those who were having psychic problems. I myself, have a Theosophical bookshelf and a "new age" bookshelf and they really do not meet very often. I have facilitated a channelling group in my home for a couple of years now and it is interesting to watch which book shelf they go to. I have mildly tried to point to the Theosophical shelf but the reaction was that they looked to hard to read. So to my mind the other book shelf is better than no reading. We need to be careful that we don't turn our noses up at all the "new age" as there are many potential Theosophist there if given a chance to develop their ideas in a suportive environment. I realise that there is some that could be considered 'over the top' but I think the famous 'discrimination' is what is required. We still have the right to refuse entry of certain persons who may just be disruptive. We have learned this lesson the hard way here and it is costing the HQ a lot of money in legal fees. Greetings. Bee> > >llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 22:37:28 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re CWL and Mars Since there are two Jerrys on theos-xxx, would anybody mind adding the "S" or the "H-E" as appropriate? I find myself getting confused occasionally as to who is being addressed. If I'm confused, it must be harder on others. Thanks. Alan Bain wrote: AB>If anyone wants to encourage me, I might have a go at scanning >the Mars material and uploading it to the list (theos-roots?). Maybe on some archive file, where it can be retrieved and used when these discussion some up. Sorry you missed the conference, I was hoping to meet you. Lewis wrote: LL> While I agree with you that "errors pervasive enough" >might make me less inclined to spend valuable time pouring over >that particular writers works, I don't understand why you feel >they would force you to "discount his writings altogether". The best example I can think of offhand concerns the O.J. Simpson case. Early in the trial detective Fuhrman testified that he has never used the "N word" in ten years. Recently, excerpts from recorded interviews with Fuhrman were televised, that not only had him using the "N word" but bragging about brutalizing minorities, and indicating that he would not be above planting evidence. While listening to these excerpts and recalling my personal experience (over forty years worth) with the Los Angeles Police, I at some point came to the realization that Fuhrman's attitudes indeed seem racist. I suppose that if I heard everything in all of the tapes, I might be able to pick out phrases and statements that are not racist, but it is doubtful that they would neutralize what was broadcast--and it appears that even the prosecution attorneys feel the same way. It is not a matter of being "judgmental" to recognize racist statements, or improbable statements about Martian civilizations. I've taken the Meyer's-Briggs test twice and both times register strongly in the "P" category. My wife will vouch for me that I'm always ready to listen when new evidence presents itself, but this is different from spending my life seeking evidence to counter that which is already condemning. My own value system demands truth over loyalty, therefore I don't go looking for and forcing implausable explanations to save a friend. Sometimes it is better for the friend and everyone involved to face the truth and go on with our lives. Further, I have almost everything CWL ever wrote here, and have read much of it over the years, and will probably read much more of it before I die. No doubt my attitudes will continue to change concerning CWL, but considering the amount of material that I have already read, it isn't likely that my attitudes will change substantially. Do you feel that I'm being unfair? In a later post Lewis wrote: LL> I have read that observations on the inner planes are >subject to distortion when impressed on the physical brain, that >numbers can easily be reversed, for instance. Another idea has >to do with time. CWL said it was difficult to pinpoint dates for >events and described how he would have to find something with a >date on it in the scene he was observing. > Could it be the civilization he describes, while not >presently in existence, existed or will exist? Anything is possible. Yet the quote I gave from CWL was clearly a present tense description, with explanations of what astronomers were presently seeing. Also, CWL claimed to be an Adept, so according to his own definition, he would be above having these time problems that you are suggesting. Also, his description suggested that they were literate and read books etc., thus would have kept track of time. If he doesn't read Martian, he could always look at the planetary positions. On the other hand, if his clairvoyant observations are subject to being indeterminably in the past present or future, and we have no way of knowing which, then of what value are they? Another explanation I heard once was that the cities are there exactly as CWL described, but the Martians did not wish to be seen so they created a mayavi over the Viking cameras so that they would only record desert. In the end, I think we have to be aware as to when we are seeking a rational explanation, and when we are reaching for explanations in order to justify a belief that we don't want to let go of. Brenda Writes and I respond: BT>My point is this: How is the average person looking into the >study of theosophy going to respond to reading CWL? Your >"personal" and selfish interest in permitting your own far wider >knowledge of theosophical study to influence your statement of >opinion to anyone who might read theosophy through CWL. Your >needs are very different than a curious-minded individual's need >to explain what is happening inside of them and to their life. I think people come to their own conclusions regardless of what anyone writes on this net. If anyone changed their attitudes about anything after reading something that I wrote, it was them, not me who did the changing. At best, I only furnished a catalyst for them to change to however they change. BT>Would you agree that ordinarily people are selfish unless they >fight very >hard against it? Someone reading CWL is most likely trying to >want to know what's wrong with being selfish. They're also >probably interested in self-improvement and what "paths" are >open to them as concerns spiritual development. CWL does a >great job of taking us out of the "bonds of self." I don't know >of a single other "acceptable" writer within public education >who could interest us in "other worldly" material to the degree >that he so casually describes his activities in search of a more >meaningful world and more compassionate living. I've stated many time before on this net that if one finds CWL inspirational--his writings make one a better person, then that's great. BT>I know my words are not strictly sensible, but if there is a >"sense" behind what I am writing it is that you and Eldon both >admit being drawn to his writings early on in your study. I said that I began studying CWL before HPB, not that I was drawn to CWL. When I joined the San Fernando Valley Lodge in 1963, the members took me under their wings and gave me CWL books to read because those were the only books that they were familiar with. BT>I, too, began with CWL. What effect if any do his writings have >on a "new student" to the degree that we may be asked to >challenge, to question, to meditate, and to make self-discovery? I've known people who are attracted to CWL's writings and others who are repelled by them. Generally those who are attracted to his writings (according to my personal observations) tend to be more of the devotional types, thus less into challenging and critical questioning. But generally they are attracted to meditation. BT>I love CWL because I did learn through him to love theosophy >and to find a "home" here. Nothing I could think or attempt >became too bizarre to be included within my "theosophical life." >Early on, during the purification stages, strange occurrences >may sometimes take place. See what I mean? BT>I think it might be hard to beat CWL's publicly written about >experiences, so why try? Who's trying? B>Whatever we personally might be experiencing early on in the >path, we don't need to necessarily make claims and draw >attention to it, because it should be viewed as something that >will pass and maybe a more noble viewpoint and experience will >come later. Besides, hiding our own paranormal or psychic >experiences can play second to some of the tongue-in-cheek >things we've read from CWL. Whose would you discuss? His or >your own? Are you suggest that when we are further along on the path, we will be seeing Martian cities too? Richard Taylor writes: RT>Was he [CWL] simply a deluded fool, or did he have some >ennobling purpose in mind when he penned all this stuff on Mars >and how Norwegian they are? Maybe he thought we would take >comfort in hearing about beings from elsewhere who were >much like us? I read this stuff and think "good god, who IS >THIS GUY?" The late E.L. Gardner, who was very close to CWL wrote towards the end of his life that CWL "absolutely believed everything he said and saw." Gardner said that Leadbeater's complete belief in his own clairvoyance inspired others to believe in him also. Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 22:39:05 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: HPB's interesting article In all this discussion of this writer, that writer, and HPB among others, I looked for something HPB wrote in her magazine LUCIFER that might shed light on the situation. This I found in her article "On Pseudo-Theosophy," a subject she was much concerned with and discussed at length: "If the "false prophets of Theosophy" are to be left untouched, the TRUE prophets will be very soon -- as they have already been -- confused with the false. It is nigh time to winnow our corn and cast away the chaff. The T.S. is becoming enormous in its numbers, and if the FALSE prophets, the pretenders ... or even the weak-minded dupes, are left alone, then the Society threatens very soon to become a fanatical body split into three hundred sects -- like Protestantism -- each hating the other, and all bent on destroying the truth by monstrous exaggerations and idiotic schemes and shams. We do not believe in allowing the presence of SHAM elements in Theosophy, because of the fear, forsooth, that if even "a false element in the faith" is RIDICULED, the latter "is apt to shake the confidence" in the whole ..." ************** One reason I admire HPB so much is her very clear vision; this paragraph, quoted from among so many astute observations, seems to lay out the entire century of the movement after her death. But we, MORE than a hundred years later, are perhaps at a unique interval to correct some of our own errors -- and I suspect we have ALL made errors -- and try to set ourselves up in the track and vibration of the Masters, who will certainly guide our "self-induced and self-devised efforts" if we ask Them to. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Sep 1995 22:42:59 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Bitterness Dear Mr. Johnson, Your bitterness surrounding the reception of your book is understandable, but your condemnation of the TS and ULT and any other Theosophical groups is very striking. You are a very able critic, and much of what you say has some merit. But can you be constructive with equal ardor? What do you see as valuable in Theosophical work today? I see you quote HPB as an authority, re: her messages to Americans on psychic development, and yet you rail against her as a hero-image. This vacillation makes it difficult to give your perspectives full consideration. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Sep 1995 00:27:46 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Insults and provocation Liesel: "Dear Rich, I'll start answering you, when you stop being insulting & provocative to people on this post. You're toning down, but you're not there yet." Two thoughts on this, brief ones: (1) I am not DELIBERATELY trying to be insulting, I hope you can see that in my posts, I truly am sincere in my beliefs. I have strong opinions, and I allow that others do too. (2) If people CHOOSE to take what I believe and what I write as personally insulting to them, that's their choice and their right. You don't NEED to answer my posts in my opinion, especially if they really anger you. I can certainly work on being gentler in tone, but I suspect it is also WHAT I think that annoys you. I can't help WHAT I think, --- it's what I think! Your pal, Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Sep 1995 00:27:56 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: old post re:Viking Eldon: "Is there general agreement on 'theos-l' that Leadbeater's books should be restored to their original, unsanitized editions, with everything put back? (Not that we have any say over it actually getting done!)" Yup, for my part. I want to find an original copy of MAN: HOW WHENCE WHITHER (or whatever the title is) and read it cover to cover. Maybe Jerry H-E has one I can photocopy, apparently it can't be bought now. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Sep 1995 00:31:40 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Angels "The more detailed our discussion the more differences that we may uncover. Do we want to go into this? -- Eldon" Yes, I would like to. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Sep 1995 00:31:42 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: William Q. Judge, modern issues Eldon: "I'd take the Point Loma view that he was one of the people in the theosophical moment that acted as a spokesman for the Masters, authorized to present some of their Teachings, although he did not try to say too much that was new." That's generally my view also, though in many of his articles, which you mention may be hard for some to find, WQJ drops quite a few gems and hints that definitely expand on HPB, though he did it within her lifetime, and she comments on it favorably. For writers after her death, it gets really, REALLY hard to know what to think. There are undoubtedly Theosophical efforts HPB and the Masters would approve of today, and undoubtedly efforts they would not approve of, and possibly a great grey area of "mixed" bag. I try to take William Q. Judge and HPB as good guides, but in fact there are a host of issues in the public arena today that they never commented on, to my knowledge: overpopulation, exploration of other planets, the United Nations, world economic issues, homosexuality, genetic engineering, quantum physics, the Buddhist idea of "transfer of merit", which political parties to belong to, etc. etc. etc. In all these areas, we as Theosophists have to think completely for ourselves. We can take the principles we've learned -- analogy, correspondence, unity, pairs of opposites, etc. and try to apply them, but here, a hundred years after the Founders' death, we are really left to our own resources in so many ways. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Sep 1995 00:31:54 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Group souls Jerry S: "Who says that there are no group souls? I thought that this was one of the "core teachings." " Well, I don't know how you define core teachings. I define them for myself as the teachings of HPB, William Q. Judge and the Mahatma Letters. In all that body of literature, I don't believe the words "group soul" ever appear, nor can I seem to locate other words which mean "group soul." All I can find is that we are each, in essence, ATMA, and that we are therefore each ultimately aspects of Brahman or the ONE. After leaving that bliss of union, it would appear we are each individuals. Am I wrong on this point, you scholarly Theosophist folks? Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Sep 1995 06:59:38 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: To Eldon On Confession from the Snake Pit To Eldon and Others: I realize that Eldon's post was addressed to Paul Johnson's application of my comments on Fundamentalism to Theosophical groups and individuals. I am in no position to speak about the content of the theosophical issues but I feel the need to connect some of the excellent comments that Eldon makes to the spiritual attitude that I was advocating in my original post. It is difficult to speak from the position of a complete novice but one of the reasons I am on the list is not only to learn about theosophy but to learn about communication and process, so, bear with me. I am sure much of what I say is not correct, and for sure not exhaustive, I offer it for discussion not proclamation. Eldon: The Theosophical Movement is but a single project of a few of the Masters, and was considered doubtful to succeed. The work of the Masters goes on, through whomever is capable of carrying it forward, regardless of what groups that person belongs to, and regardless of what belief that person professes. Art: In keeping with my goal of seeing this post in the context of an "approach to spirituality", I am reminded of the way in which the exclusive understanding of YHWH's covenant with Israel's was emphasized in the less evolved religious consciousness of Israel and was transformed in during the Exile. The contact with others, the realization of a more than provincial understanding of God, and spiritual failure and external persecution resulted in the more open perspective. Universalism and tolerance is moved forward by these principles. I would wonder if the same historical preconditions lead to a more tolerant perspective on the part of Theosophists? I have read a few hundred pages in Cranston's Biography and saw that HPB was considered a heretic and a flake my many in her 19th Century. The great imposter so to speak. This could to lead to a defensive rigidity or toward a stronger position. Acceptance by society at large is an unlikely partner to expanded consciousness. Eldon: The aspect of Theosophy intended for public assimilation can change in whatever way is suitable to the highest good of society. The other aspect, that of a junior college to the Mysteries, is never claimed to be exclusive. There are many ways to approach the Mysteries, many possible doors to knock on, and that offered through Theosophy as we know it is but one such door. Paul: >We KNOW that HPB (or whoever) always tells the truth and her writings are always reliable. Eldon: We're always required to use our better judgment to sort out the real from the unreal. We can never take the literal words of some book given us as holy and spiritually inspired, and take it on face value. And there is much to the writings that is either hidden behind blinds or veils, or requires the student to "go beyond the words" to get to the real meanings. Arthur: When there is a movement toward a higher consciousness the "sacred writings" of any group has to be filtered through a contemporary grid. It is necessary to develop and apply different interpretive tools make the necessary adaptation to culture and social change. Once the founding fathers and mothers are dead and gone, then the disciples tend to band behind one or another of them and advocate different schools of thought. Just as the Early Christians had schools such as Pauline Tradition, Jerusalem Tradition ( Peter and James), Gnostic Tradition(Apollo & Johannine), so too Theosophy appears to have Traditions: Besant, Leadbeater, Bailey, Olcott, Judge, HPB, Krishnamurti (?), Steiner, and others. In order to avoid utter chaos a movement determines what writings will consolidate the experience for the continuing group. This is called the "canon" and is like a yard stick of spiritual experience. Both leadership and the group itself works together to decide what is authoritative for themselves. There is in every group I have seen a tendency to believe that there are supernatural guides to the is process of learning Christian: Holy Spirit, Judaic: Sophia, etc Theosophy may see the Masters in this way, I am not sure. You mentioned that, "there is much to the writings that is either hidden behind blinds or veils, or requires the student to "go beyond the words" to get to the real meanings." The method of interpretation you are applying is very good and stands in the long line of allegorical interpretations that have been used in many traditions. But it is important to remember that there are principles of interpretation that we bring to the text and the discussion of these is essential to mutual understanding. Eldon: Inflation is a psychological term that is an abnormal condition. It's quite possible, though, for psychologists that have based their theories upon the psyche of a typical western person to misread things when we deal with the Path. The psychology of the common man does not particularly apply to those who would go beyond the current evolution of humanity, and seek to hasten their spiritual evolution. Arthur: I am not sure that inflation is to be seen as a pathological condition. I think it is quite common. Jung, because he was still influenced by reductionist 19th Century thought, used the language of pathology. I am not sure that is helpful. Inflation happens when the boundaries collapse and the differentiation of consciousness between an archetypal entity and a human being are not acknowledged. In the extreme cases this takes on such an abnormal state that it is deemed "insanity" like when David Koresh said he was the Messiah. He was likely caught up in the Messianic archetype to such an extend that Vernon ( his original name) lost himself. In some cultures this condition is admirable and considered "special shamanic status. Eldon, I think that your desire to distance from the term "inflation" is because of its pathological implications. I would imagine the idea is not to participate in the archetypes of transformation, (the occult world) but that the way this experience is held and brought back to living history is the central point... If I have ecstatic experience and encounter extraterrestrials or inter-dimensional, or elements and angels but have not love it is like a clanging symbol. What happened to Daniel, in my estimate, is that he so identified with The Evangelical Polemicist that he was no longer Daniel. Some identify with the Holy Spirit of Christ to such an extent that they too lose themselves. The same happens for people who identify with labels of psychology or roles in life. I am sure that it is possible and that you have probably met individuals that have merged with Masters, devas, elementals, et's etc. I don't think that they are pathological when they do I think they merely haven't been trained in spiritual life or haven't had mentoring or are not confident enough on the ego level to be dealing with such things. Art:>>There is a theory in evangelical circles, I call it the domino effect, that once you let one of the fundamentals loose, you will eventually have your whole faith castle collapse. Paul: >Once you start applying objective historical criteria to HPB's claims about her sources, you lose your right to be considered a real Theosophist. Eldon: I think that this is too extreme a statement. Some people may be judgemental and blast you when your statements are threatening, regardless of any serious consideration of the facts. But this is true of any strong position that we may publicly make; we will have those that disagree in disagreeable ways! Arthur: I am not sure how central the understanding of the Masters is to Theosophists. I am starting to think that they are essential in some way given the amount of energy expended on "defending" them. Whenever the essentials are brought into question by a new method the blood begins to be spilled in any movement. I think it is an example of the law of cycles that things periodically get upset. But woe be to the one who does the turning of the cart. Their motives are questioned, their name is maligned and there competence challenged. I have studied the church's reaction to those who started using critical methods on the Scriptures. They were driven out of the church, and by the way out of the context of those who could help refine and apply their thoughts, into the universities, where they tended to get more and more radicalized but in reaction and anger to their critics. I think revisionist views ought to be welcomed . Harder said than done though:) I feel it requires a different consciousness, one that lets go of knowing and enters the field of trusting and clarifying and trying to understand. Art":>>objectivity based on logical rationality 3. The full plenary verbal inspiration of an infallible and inerrant revelation in the Holy Scriptures (no extra canonical revelation) Paul:>ABSOLUTELY-- and if you dare question the literal inspiration of HPB's writings, you'll be treated as a heretic-- even if you are Olcott, who was obliged to publish Old Diary Leaves outside the TS because it was insufficiently respectful. Eldon: The other consideration though is that for those of us that do consider the Masters as both real and as much more advanced than the people that you depict in your books, there's a sense of dignified respect for the lives of sacrifice that they have undertaken for the benefit of the world, for which we are grateful. Arthur: I don't think there is a dispute about the value of the Masters only the basis of their "reality". What's real? I may not be understanding right but I am not sure that Paul's idea of the disjuncture between the historical as opposed to the symbolic is as great as what first appears. Kether (Spirit) is connected to Malkuth (Matter) if I read it rightly? It makes things a bit more paradoxical and harder to explain if spirit and matter completely co-exist. Honouring both seem the way forward. I am biased in the favor of disembodiment, but there are many reasons for that.:) Eldon: The "scriptures" are only a beginner's training manual. The self-genesis, partly through a Gnostic knowing of spiritual truths and realities, and partly through a strong emphasis upon making a creative contribution to the world, is where the Heart of Theosophy is to be found. Arthur: I resonate with that! I was in class one day and I started a great argument because I speculated that their would be no Bible's in Heaven. They are the rungs on a ladder but when you are at the top you honourably leave the rungs behind. Under the Mercy. Arthur Paul Patterson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Sep 1995 07:17:41 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: Group souls Rich: >Well, I don't know how you define core teachings. I define them for myself >as the teachings of HPB, William Q. Judge and the Mahatma Letters. I am with you here Rich. I don't know how Theosophist define core teachings. I have an idea about Primary Source material in Theosophy some you mentioned above. But how is the source material approached and interpreted. Like I mentioned in my long post to Eldon. Are the teachings true literally, spiritually, devotionally, for faith and practise? >In all that body of literature, I don't believe the words "group soul" ever >appear, nor can I seem to locate other words which mean "group soul." Here is an example of one of the difficulties I find. Group soul, assume hypothetically -it is not in source documents. Does that make is untrue? Are there things that point to it in the source documents. Do the source documents contain exhaustive spiritual truth? In what sense are they true. That is the central question. How can these writings be honored and utilized without being worshipped? BTW, I like the metaphor of Group Soul. I connect it to the Platonic tradition and maybe gnostic thought. Is that older tradition of Plotonius or Ammonius (Key p.5) to be considered authoritative too? Under the Mercy, Arthur Paul Patterson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Sep 1995 07:20:28 GMT From: dmcardle@opennet.net.au (David McArdle) Subject: Re: Psychic powers >When one "sits for development," what is it one expects to happen? As I understand it sitting for development involves a protracted period of simply that - just sitting (would need a good cushion :-)). According to AAB this is a very negative state and is really a direct invitation to whatever is 'out there' to come on in. I think I would like a bit more control than that. This period may go on for two - three years until such a time as contact of some sort is made with an entity (more likely from the astral). Like I said I am no expert and have no direct experience. David From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Sep 1995 12:22:27 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Karmic baggage > I don't think that the real Mahatmas would write a book like "The > Lives of Alcyone," because the literal, factual information about > previous lifetimes would mean little to people in the present, > and *became the past changes.* (I'm making something of an overstatement > here, perhaps for shock value, but I do want to make a point.) The > literal, physical details of the past *does not exist.* All that is > carried forward into the *now* is the effects upon us; it is the > living energy in our karmic bonds with the rest of life. And those > bonds and the energy that they contain can and do change. An event > in the past is real and lasting only so long as we carry its effects > in ourselves and others along with us. We carry a lot of karmic > baggage that at times should be reevaluated. There come times to > "lighten the load" and leave behind things that are no longer of > use to us or others. > > -- Eldon I can almost hear the Mahatmas rolling around on the floor with laughter at the idea of writing such a book! Thank you Eldon for some common sense here. A useful point also is that we carry a fair amount of baggage from our past *in this life* which not only needs re-evaluation, and may be easier to recognise, if we can look into ourselves honestly. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Sep 1995 12:37:20 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: theosophical transformation > > We'll never know for sure until we take the additional step, and > go beyond an intellectual brain-mind study of the printed page, > until we awaken insides ourselves a second form of knowing. Until > then, it's all a game of historic research, logic, and detective > work to see if an idea is correct or not. I'd suggest that this > second form of knowing things is not difficult, not far removed > from our experience, and is open to any of us who would try it. > > -- Eldon Yes, the intellectual study is needed, but mainly in order to help us understand the *experience* you describe as a second form of knowing. It brings to mind the 13th path of the Kabala's 32 Paths of Wisdom: "The Inductive Intelligence of Unity ... it manifest truth to every spirit." This is the "Inner light" which can be connected with the Ajna chakra, or "third eye" - though these terms have acquired a high degree of undesirable glamour over the years. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Sep 1995 12:46:27 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Definitions Eldon mentions (along with others) the problems attendant upon different interpretations of terminology, and reminds us that other serious disciplines - *disciplines* - have, of necessity, developed their own specialised terminology, eg., *metacarpal* is word to descrive particular human bones. This is why, many years back (reaches for walking stick :-)) I opted for the Kabalist approach, which defines its terms from the beginning [esoteric pun]. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Sep 1995 12:59:25 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Psychic powers > Like I know a few Italian opera arias from > having taken voice lessons when I was young. There's another > old lady in my building who used to be a singer, & the 2 of us, > from time to time enjoy belting out a few arias. > Namaste > > Liesel I wish you could shre *this* with us! :-) Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Sep 1995 13:02:22 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: copies of books Rich, RT> I want to find an original copy of MAN: HOW WHENCE WHITHER > (or whatever the title is) and read it cover to cover. Maybe >Jerry H-E has one I can photocopy, apparently it can't be bought >now. I get copies of early Leadbeater books in for sale from time to time, and I will let you know the next time I find an early edition of ~Man Whence How and Whither.~ If you are interested in photocopies, we also have multiple editions of all of CWL's writings in the library. The library and archives are open for the use of any researcher regardless of theosophical affiliation or none. The library houses about twelve thousand volumes of theosophical and related literature. The archives contain perhaps 50,000 unpublished documents concerning the modern theosophical movement. The collection has historical documents shedding light on ULT, Adyar, Pasadena, and the Hargrove TS's. We are located about 90 minutes from San Francisco. For copying requests, we charge five cents per copy plus postage. Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Sep 1995 13:49:19 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: Group souls Art Patterson writes: >Here is an example of one of the difficulties I find. Group >soul, assume hypothetically -it is not in source documents. >Does that make is untrue? Are there things that point to it in >the source documents. Do the source documents contain exhaustive >spiritual truth? In what sense are they true. That is the >central question. How can these writings be honored and utilized >without being worshipped? First, please understand that I read HPB in the same way that I would read Nietzsche's or Hegel's works--as a philosophical exposition designed to give insight into our nature and the nature of the universe around us. I believe that this is the spirit that HPB intended to be read. At any rate, I'm very clear that she did not intend for her writings to be canonized. Now, to address your question concerning group souls: as far as I know, this concept is not used in Blavatsky's writings, though it is an important concept in CWL's. I have heard it argued that HPB's writings do not contradict the group soul idea, but have never seen any supportive evidence offered to back this claim up. The problem is that the group soul idea would concern HPB's concepts of the individualization of the "soul" as it transmigrates through the kingdoms of nature. This is a very abstruse aspect of HPB's teachings, and I suspect that there are only a very small handful of people who have an understanding of it in the first place. When a teaching is as abstruse and obscure as the "individualization of the soul," lots of different misreadings will come out of it. Some will support the group soul idea and some will not. Personally, I would be interested in seeing, or even participating in a serious discussion and analysis of this idea, if there are three or four people willing to put in the hours of research and preparation required to intelligently discuss this controversy. Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Sep 1995 14:18:36 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: old post re:Viking > > Is there general agreement on 'theos-l' that Leadbeater's books should be > restored to their original, unsanitized editions, with everything put back? > (Not that we have any say over it actually getting done!) > > -- Eldon > I agree, because the original editions are not *that* scarce, especially here in the UK, where Annie Besant was so active in her support of CWL. Newcomers discovering the older versions in second-hand bookshops and comparing them with the expurgated editions will be bound to say, "These people claim to present the way to truth while at the same time their literature seeks to get rid of the lies thay have told in the past." CWL told lies about himself and his activities. From the point of view of a non-theosophical history student, his credibility would be extremely suspect. His *well-documented* biography by Gregory Tillet should, IMO, be read by all theosophical students. Maybe he said some things worth saying (or repeating) but I for one have managed very well without him. Annie Besant and CWL claimed to represent the original theosophy present by HPB and others. Concerning both of them a number of doubts have been raised over the years. So, say I (and others) - if in doubt, go to the source materials, in this case HPB and ~Isis Unveiled~ which predates the better-known SD. But *she* refers to *her* source materials, and a fuller study will lead one to investigate those as well. Elsewhere I mentioned "The Inductive Intelligence of Unity" but it is important, nay, essential, for the theosophical movement in *all* its diversities to bring forth its own scholars, using the scholarly disciplines that would be required in the university colleges. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Sep 1995 14:41:52 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: old post re:Viking > I want to find an original copy of MAN: HOW WHENCE WHITHER > (or whatever the title is) and read it cover to cover. Maybe Jerry H-E has > one I can photocopy, apparently it can't be bought now. > > Rich Try snail-mail to R.A.GIlbert, 4 Julius Road, Bristol BS7 8EU, England. Or Fax: 44 9494937. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Sep 1995 14:42:37 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Group souls or Individuality >Rich: > >>Well, I don't know how you define core teachings. I define them for myself >>as the teachings of HPB, William Q. Judge and the Mahatma Letters. > >I am with you here Rich. I don't know how Theosophist define core >teachings. I have an idea about Primary Source material in Theosophy some >you mentioned above. But how is the source material approached and >interpreted. Like I mentioned in my long post to Eldon. Are the teachings >true literally, spiritually, devotionally, for faith and practise? > >>In all that body of literature, I don't believe the words "group soul" ever >>appear, nor can I seem to locate other words which mean "group soul." > >Here is an example of one of the difficulties I find. Group soul, assume >hypothetically -it is not in source documents. Does that make is untrue? >Are there things that point to it in the source documents. Do the source >documents contain exhaustive spiritual truth? In what sense are they true. >That is the central question. How can these writings be honored and >utilized without being worshipped? > >BTW, I like the metaphor of Group Soul. I connect it to the Platonic >tradition and maybe gnostic thought. Is that older tradition of Plotonius >or Ammonius (Key p.5) to be considered authoritative too? Art, Jerry H-E and Rich, I've come to the conclusion that this idea of "Source Teachings" is wrong and I don't really know where it started, but it may become the cause of lots of dissension. You want to include certain writings within a select group and by doing so you include certain people in a select group and leave others out. This approach is so divisive and judgemental and not at all keeping with the spirit of theosophy which is to "find the source within." Who is more qualified to give a lesson in humility than C.W.L.? I don't know where anyone's writings can compare with his on such simple practical lessons and advice. Isn't it beneficial to have someone prepare us for what lies ahead? If only enough people would practice humility we wouldn't even have a need to maintain the aloofness of some writers over others. The beauty and urgency of theosophy is in its wholeness. A fair many authors have given their points of view in books and they have my thanks and awe at times for planting their feet so firmly on the path as to let no one shake them off. We can't shake off our fellow travellers on the path by denoting some writings as core or source. They're still there. They have a place right there in front of you, closer and more familiar to the teachers and the teaching. I feel as if there are people who are trying to cut ahead in line. If these people don't deserve our love and affection and even a commitment of one's life and work, then what will happen when the next generation finds us? I hate to think of it. In theosophy, I find wholeness. A fresh point of view is welcome here. It was meant to be a meeting ground of all "spiritual" points of view. Please don't try to cut out others or their ideas or inventions. It's stimulation por favour. I'm THEIR follower. I can't measure up to them even, let alone seem to meet and know Kuthumi or Morya. If humility were not essential in living and not encouraged, we'd probably be taking the hard knocks by being beat on the head by the likes of Paul Johnson. (It still bewilders me how he ever managed to do what he did. Paul, you're the greatest.) I think there's a great mystery about the other kingdoms of nature, but instead of looking at them as living around us here on this fourth globe, couldn't we try seeing them as their own kingdom (meaning they are king on the fifth globe) right ahead of us? There they reign and all life responds to their special vibratory note. Here, well, here they're just shistas and I wouldn't be surprised if it was dead men's decaying bodies which made they exist the way they do here. Group souls are a much more pleasant thought than man's body parts and remnants. Besides, the Mahatmas do teach "individuality" as a specifically human trait, so I think "group" goes quite well beside it, as an alternative sort of existence. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Sep 1995 15:38:04 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: re CWL and Mars > > The late E.L. Gardner, who was very close to CWL wrote > towards the end of his life that CWL "absolutely believed > everything he said and saw." Gardner said that Leadbeater's > complete belief in his own clairvoyance inspired others to > believe in him also. > > Jerry Hejka-Ekins > Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu I have often thought this about CWL (except wrt his date of birth). I have no doubt in my mind he really believed his own delusions. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Sep 1995 16:55:22 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: re: William Q. Judge >In all these areas, we as Theosophists have to think completely for >ourselves. We can take the principles we've learned -- analogy, >correspondence, unity, pairs of opposites, etc. and try to apply them, but >here, a hundred years after the Founders' death, we are really left to our >own resources in so many ways. Isn't it about time we think for ourselves? We can't from here to there on somebody else's theosophical, metaphysical, esoteric or philosophical coattails. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Sep 1995 20:47:24 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Various comments Art: This is exactly what I said in an earlier posting, Art. We can all sit back and say that there is no dogma or doctrine, no "core teachings" per se, but it simply is not so. Without some kind of core teachings, we would have chaos. We wouldn't be able to discuss theosophy, because we have to define something before we can discuss it intelligently. If nothing else, the core teachings are those that we each believe to be true, and thus they can vary with each member, but again this will lead to a great deal of confusion. There is nothing at all wrong with divided things up into exoteric (in words - the mind or head) and esoteric (without words - the heart, or gnosis directly perceived), and I like the idea of requiring only a belief in universal brotherhood for TS membership, but I simply have to belive that core teachings such as karma, reincarnation, and cycles, are what theosophy is all about and what separates theosophy from everything else (Eldon, for example, is always quick to point out that theosophy is different from Buddhism (and I agree) - but how can this be if theosophy has no core teachings, which Buddhism certainly does have?). Eldon: < The psychology of the common man does not particularly apply to those who would go beyond the current evolution of humanity, and seek to hasten their spiritual evolution.> I certainly agree with you on this one, Eldon. Art:< Inflation happens when the boundaries collapse and the differentiation of consciousness between an archetypal entity and a human being are not acknowledged.> This brings up a very interesting point, that I am familiar with under the banner of magic, but not as a part of theosophy. In magic, the magican deliberately inflates his/her sense of identity to that of a deity via invocation. The Egyptian Book of the Dead, for example, is full of such lines as "I am the god Tem" and so on, which modern Egyptologists are at a loss to explain. The idea is to unite with your inner divinity, or inner god (or goddess) through a ritual that allows your sense of identity to shift upward into the individuality (Jung's Self) and away from the personality or ego. This "key" explains a great deal of the Book of the Dead. But I was not aware of any theosophists doing this. Now, one of the so-called dangers of this sort of magic, is that the shift in consciousness must be temporary. Failure to properly return and sever the psychic connections via some suitable banishing ritual, can lead to the typical pathology that we see so much of. There is nothing wrong with temporary identification with divinity - so long as you know what you are doing, and you return to your own ego after. We also need to remember that everyone is inwardly spiritual and as divine as we are - this helps put our inflation into its proper perspective. Someone who says that she is a goddess and feels better than everyone else, for example, is being pathological. Arthur: I am not sure how central the understanding of the Masters is to Theosophists> It is not at all essential to me, Art. I don't care if they could walk on water, or were no more spiritual than myself. I guess this is why Paul and other historians just don't threaten me. It's what they taught us that is important, not so much who they were (which is interesting enough, I suppose). Eldon: Amen. Group Souls: "The term 'group-soul' is used in an attempt to find a word which would describe, however imperfectly, the peculiar aggregates of entities more or less on the same plane or grade of evolution and who, because of that fact, find themselves more or less reimbodying in groups or aggregates. In one repsect the term 'group-soul' is unfortunate, because it gives the idea that there is but one soul in the same plane which manifests through all the individual members of such aggregate groups; and this is inaccurate." (G de Purucker, Studies in Occult Philosophy, p 569). In the sense given by G de P, I think that even we humans have a group soul (i.e., the human life-wave of which we are each a part). In synergistics, the whole can be shown to be more than the sum of its parts - and this is where the group soul comes from. JRC: Your posting "psychic powers" was absolutely words taken from my own mouth. I agree completely. The notion that we should repress the psychic is self- defeating insofar as the third objective is concerened. I do not fault G de P here, though, because I rather agree with what I believe was his intent - to temporarily stiffle or ignore the psychic until a certain amount of compassion for others was instilled, and a sense of moral values developed. I feel that I have done this reasonable well. So, to continue stiffling or ignoring my own psychic inner voice is not only silly, but could be even more dangerous to myself than practicing psychism. The Point Loma folks seem to want to outlaw psychic investigation and use for all time, period. I do not feel that this was G de P's intent. If he was not psychic himself, then I certainly have to wonder where he got his info. JRC: Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. Eldon: I think I would know. Eldon: What "faculties of consciousness" did you have in mind? You seem to have rejected all of the ones that I would have suggested. JRC:<, I should say that I have come to greatly dislike the terms "angel" and "deva" ... as they both carry with them centuries of connotations, most of which have almost nothing to do with the "things" I've been working with> The fact that the names are silly and impractical is exactly why they SHOULD be used. Using the word Angel, for example, always brings with it a sense of the unreal and childish - which helps us from being trapped into taking them all too seriously, and actually helps us to keep our sense of control during encounters. Eldon: The Lodge itself inspires them via (dare I say the naughty p word?) psychism in the form of intuitive communications. The Messenger is stirred intuitively and made to wrestle internally with notions and doctrines that others seem not to care about, or are quite satisfied using faith. He/she sees a friend die. Or perhaps evil seems to triumph over good. One or more such experiences will trigger the inner desire to Know what the devil is really going on. The Messenger is at such a level that faith is simply not good enough. So what to do? They begin the search or quest, and go through angonizing years of study, looking for answers. This takes different amounts of time for different people, but eventually a little lightbulb sort of lights up over their heads, and it all begins to make sense. Once the Dark Night of the Soul is behind them, telepathic communication is established with the Lodge, and their mission takes form. There are a lot of missions, and a lot of Messengers (not just one during the last 25 years of the Chrisitan calendar). I think that G de P followed this general scenario fairly well, as did Judge and others. I also believe that some Messengers remain behind the scenes, and the public never sees them. Perhaps they write. Perhaps they inspire in some way. It all depends. But only a few ever go public. The burden is just too great. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 01:34:45 GMT From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Subject: Re: Angels >"The more detailed our discussion the more differences that we may uncover. >Do we want to go into this? > >-- Eldon" > >Yes, I would like to. > >Rich > This subject is very interesting to me personally as I just fell into channelling and I still haven't decided what I am channelling or if I am deluding myself. The 'energy' has said some helpfull and interesting things over the last couple of years but I still not convinced. Bee> From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 02:17:26 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Re to Eldon & David Jerry S.: >Eldon: to discuss. How do we become selfless, how do we forget >ourselves and rise about the pettiness of the personality?> > This brings up a point that I think needs to be >discussed. All too often theosophists tend to equate >spirituality with selflessness. While it is certainly true >that to be spiritual, one must be relatively selfless, I >feel the need to mention here that the reverse it simply not >true - to be selfless does not make you spiritual. Lots of >selfless folks can be found in mental hospitals who are not >terribly spiritual. Someone with amnesia can be selfless. >Selflessness is not enough. You also need gnosis. Buddhism, >for example, insists that you need both means selflessness/ >compassion) and wisdom (gnosis). The quest for gnosis >alone is also not enough, and is a pretty sure road to >psychism. A truly spiritual person, to my way of thinking, >is a balanced person. And Eldon does, in fact, add later, >that we need "to do wise things to realize wisdom." Agreed. We are selfless when we function without the sense of personality predominating our perceptions. We are functioning in a different part of our inner constitution. There can also be selflessness with a damaged sense of personality, where the personality is non-functional and therefore does not take a dominant role in our perception of life. When I speak of selflessness, I still picture someone with an active, colorful, unique personality. It is just that the personality does not act at the "prime mover" of our consciousness, it is not the seat of consciousness anymore, but rather acts as an "outer mask" to our more-deeply-seated consciousness. >Eldon:state of passivity that it often requires.> > I have no idea what the heck you are talking about >here??? What passivity? Do you mean yogic positions such >as the lotus, in which the physical body is passive? It's not the activity of the physical body that I'm thinking of. Something like zazen, for instance, I would not consider passive, although the student is completely unmoving. >Do you mean the passivity of the human mind when thoughts are >stopped in samadhi? I'm not sure that thoughts stop in samadhi. The stream of consciousness that constitutes our thought process continues, just as the physical heart beat and the flow of blood in the physical body continues. What stops is *our attention* being drawn to the mental process. We became momentarily unaware of our thoughts in the same sense as we might become unaware of our physical body, how we have our legs folded, etc. The process represents a more-complete shifting of our focus of consciousness to a part of us that is above and beyond thought. There is nothing passive, I'd say, in this. >In magic rituals, just as one example, >the magician uses his/her body, speech, and mind all >together and is hardly passive. I would not consider the practice of magic to be passive. >Buddhist meditations are >usually geared to stimulating and directing the body, speech, >and mind as well (considered the three main parts of any >true spiritual practice). When we visualize a Tibetan Deity, that is an active, self-conscious process. When we focus our mind on a Zen koan, and continue to reassert our *sense of conscious control*, we are not passive. I'd consider it passive when we lose our sense of consciousness at the moment of falling asleep. Or it would be passive if we were attempting automatic writing, allowing our hand to write things *that did not first originate in our minds*. Or if we were opening up to outside influences, attempting to psychically receive impressions from without, impressions that were not the results of using our existing senses, nor of using our mind, feelings, etc. The open, receptive, passive state would be similar to the state that a hypnotic subject is opened up to, or when a medium, in a seance, has given up control and allows other entities to take over the medium's body and momentarily speak and act. The psychic, magical, and occult arts overlap, and there are a lot of activities that perhaps could be considered either self-conscious, self-directed, self-controlled; there are others that could be considered unconscious, externally-controlled, and of a sort that weaken the person's ability to control and express his own consciousness in his vehicles. >Eldon:could be a parallel line of evolution for the angels/devas, a >number of related issues in the Teachings will need to be >discussed, like there being no such thing as "group souls" > > Who says that there are no group souls? I thought >that this was one of the "core teachings." You'll find "group souls" in the Adyar line of writings, including Besant, Leadbeater, Powell, Jinarajadasa, Arundale, etc. I'm not sure you'll find it in Point Loma or ULT basic textbooks. The basic conflict is between the idea of the birth of a Monad through fission from the group soul at a certain point in time. This idea conflicts with the fundamental idea of the eternal pilgrimage of the Monad, neither with beginning nor end! -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 02:26:54 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: HPB's interesting article Rich: > [quoting HPB]: >"If the "false prophets of Theosophy" are to be left untouched, the TRUE >prophets will be very soon -- as they have already been -- confused with the >false. It is nigh time to winnow our corn and cast away the chaff. The T.S. >is becoming enormous in its numbers, and if the FALSE prophets, the >pretenders ... or even the weak-minded dupes, are left alone, then the >Society threatens very soon to become a fanatical body split into three >hundred sects -- like Protestantism -- each hating the other, and all bent on >destroying the truth by monstrous exaggerations and idiotic schemes and >shams. We do not believe in allowing the presence of SHAM elements in >Theosophy, because of the fear, forsooth, that if even "a false element in >the faith" is RIDICULED, the latter "is apt to shake the confidence" in the >whole ..." Other quotes include the statement that a diversity of views in the Theosophical Society, *within certain bounds*, is both healthy and necessary. There are two conflicting goals that we are working towards, and it's a matter of balance and compromise, to partially achieve the two. First, we want to preserve the Teachings in a pure form, so that the original ideas are not lost in several generations of personal reinterpretations. Second, we want to preserve the Truth behind the Teachings, with requires both people around with an understanding of the philosophy, and requries that the proper process of study and inquiry be undertook. We neither want to lose the intellectual side of the Teachings, nor do we want the spirit to be lost, and the Teachings be entombed in rigid, inflexible, unyielding words. For the original Theosophy to be carried forth into the future, all of us that call ourselves Theosophists need to be clear in our discussions when we are speaking for ourselves, and when we are speaking for Theosophy itself. If we, for instance, seriously question the idea of "karma", we can discuss our doubts, but should never allow people to think that we are teaching the original Theosophy when we do so. The freedom of belief found in our groups does not imply that we can teach as Theosophy whatever our current opinions happen to be. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 02:33:58 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: William Q. Judge, modern issues Rich: >There are undoubtedly Theosophical efforts HPB and the Masters would approve >of today, and undoubtedly efforts they would not approve of, and possibly a >great grey area of "mixed" bag. I'd consider their participation in the various movements to be in proportion to the good that the groups are capable of. There's no divine charter, granted to some groups and denied others, that make some deserving of special attention. The work is done for the greatest good to all, and without concern to the petty politics that may or may not be present. >I try to take William Q. Judge and HPB as good guides, but in fact there are >a host of issues in the public arena today that they never commented on, to >my knowledge: overpopulation, exploration of other planets, the United >Nations, world economic issues, homosexuality, genetic engineering, quantum >physics, the Buddhist idea of "transfer of merit", which political parties to >belong to, etc. etc. etc. An intellectual understanding of Theosophy is the first step towards being able to deal with current issues. But without specific quotes and commentaries on issues to be dug up from the books, we are still left without precise direction. The direction or guidance comes from the second step that we are all excepted to take, the step involving "self-originated knowledge" (my own term for it), where we go beyond the words on the printed page and reach out for further understanding. >In all these areas, we as Theosophists have to think completely for >ourselves. We can take the principles we've learned -- analogy, >correspondence, unity, pairs of opposites, etc. and try to apply them, but >here, a hundred years after the Founders' death, we are really left to our >own resources in so many ways. We've really been left to our own resources from the very beginning. There's the statement, for instance, in "The Mahatma Letters," that up to the last and supreme Initiation, the Chela is left up to his own device and council. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 02:40:10 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Definitions Alan: >Eldon mentions (along with others) the problems attendant upon >different interpretations of terminology, and reminds us that >other serious disciplines - *disciplines* - have, of necessity, >developed their own specialised terminology, eg., *metacarpal* >is word to descrive particular human bones. >This is why, many years back (reaches for walking stick :-)) I >opted for the Kabalist approach, which defines its terms from >the beginning [esoteric pun]. I think that the important thing here is a consistent terminology. Each tradition of the past has its own terminology, with certain ideas grandly expressed, and others that were neglected, because not well-known in a particular tradition. We'll find the same in Theosophy, because over time it will have to settle on an agreed-to terminology, or be lost in a tower of Babel. The reason that Blavatsky used so many terms in books like "The Secret Doctrine" may be to show that the Wisdom Tradition was found throughout all peoples and times. She was trying to show its universal nature, even while at the same time present a new set of Teachings to the world. And when she wrote, she would not always agree with everything that she referred to. (It's quite possible that there are many misconceptions mixed in with the noble truths in each philosophical or religious tradition.) -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 02:49:04 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: re: William Q. Judge Ann: >>In all these areas, we as Theosophists have to think completely for >>ourselves. We can take the principles we've learned -- analogy, >>correspondence, unity, pairs of opposites, etc. and try to apply them, but >>here, a hundred years after the Founders' death, we are really left to our >>own resources in so many ways. > >Isn't it about time we think for ourselves? We can't from here to there on >somebody else's theosophical, metaphysical, esoteric or philosophical >coattails. That's precisely what the training and study is about. And it's also why I like reading Purucker, because he doesn't always come out and say things directly, but talks around them, hints at them, and leads the student to think the idea first themselves. An idea is much more part of ourselves if it originates within, rather than coming to us by way of our eyes or ears. And the higher Mysters cannot be imparted by simple telling things. The necessary conditions are required of the neophyte, the necessary state of readiness, and the student ends up teaching himself. There's still a distinction here about what we can know or come up with on our own, apart from any help from Teachers or those who have gone on before us. We can be self-taught and come up with things that are appropriate to ourselves, as we are now, Fourth Rounder humans. This is the natural state of things. But for forced evolution, where we seek to come in touch with things that are not part of our external world, things not even part of of the cultures or their associated psychological archetypes -- we need help to go beyond and learn things that are otherwise unlearnable. We need external help, and this help is only offered as part of the work of the Hierarchy of Compassion, offerred by the human Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and their helpers, the Mahatmas. Without participating in their work -- truly our work as well! -- we can be self-made, but we will be in accord with external nature, part of the natural tide or flow of things, and miss out on what Theosophy can really offer us. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 02:55:06 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Angels Bee: >This subject is very interesting to me personally as I just fell into >channelling and I still haven't decided what I am channelling or if I am >deluding myself. The 'energy' has said some helpfull and interesting things >over the last couple of years but I still not convinced. The distinction might relate to what you are actually doing while "channelling". Are you letting yourself be a vehicle for some other being, like a well-trained and useful horse, or are you developing yourself to be a wider, more-expressive channel for your own creativity? When new ideas come, are they coming as something else speaking through you, or are they ideas that arise, are considered, and used or not, all coming through your mind, which is in the controlling position? The primary focus, I'd suggest, is for each of us to refine our ability to ourselves express more beauty, truth, intelligence, love, art, music, literature, etc., in the world. We are training ourselves to be greater forces in the world for the spiritual. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 03:24:51 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Various comments Jerry S: >Group Souls: "The term 'group-soul' is used in an attempt > to find a word which would describe, however imperfectly, >the peculiar aggregates of entities more or less on the >same plane or grade of evolution and who, because of that >fact, find themselves more or less reimbodying in groups or >aggregates. In one repsect the term 'group-soul' is >unfortunate, because it gives the idea that there is but >one soul in the same plane which manifests through all the >individual members of such aggregate groups; and this is >inaccurate." (G de Purucker, Studies in Occult Philosophy, >p 569). >In the sense given by G de P, I think that even we humans >have a group soul (i.e., the human life-wave of which we >are each a part). In synergistics, the whole can be >shown to be more than the sum of its parts - and this >is where the group soul comes from. We can take ideas like that of "group souls" and put a certain twist on them that gives them a reasonable sense. But there are certain aspects of "group souls", as taught sometimes, that need to be objected to. One is that we are eternal Monads, without beginning or end, and preexist any participation in a "group soul". Another is that we do not, after a lifetime, lose our personal karma in some karmic pool shared by all in the group soul; we always make and retain our personal karma, even thought there is also something called group karma. >JRC: Your posting "psychic powers" was absolutely words >taken from my own mouth. I agree completely. The >notion that we should repress the psychic is self- >defeating insofar as the third objective is concerened. I >do not fault G de P here, though, because I rather agree >with what I believe was his intent - to temporarily >stiffle or ignore the psychic until a certain amount of >compassion for others was instilled, and a sense of >moral values developed. I feel that I have done this >reasonable well. So, to continue stiffling or ignoring >my own psychic inner voice is not only silly, but could >be even more dangerous to myself than practicing psychism. I'd say that it depends upon the individual, one's personal circumstances, and what is required about the particular esoteric training, if any, that the person is undertaking. Blanket statements like "don't eat sugar," "meat is bad," "don't smoke," "sex is wrong for teenagers," etc. are all generalizations and must be carefully considered when applied to specific individuals. >The Point Loma folks seem to want to outlaw psychic >investigation and use for all time, period. I do not >feel that this was G de P's intent. If he was not >psychic himself, then I certainly have to wonder where >he got his info. I'll agree that this tendency exists in all of the groups, the tendency to take a particular statement or approach and to over-apply it, to try to carry the rule into circumstances where it is not appropriate. >JRC:helped introduce the concept of clairvoyance as an >operative human ability to the modern western world, seems >to want to avoid any of the difficulties inherent in the >actual practice of it in favor of reading and "studying" >what dead people wrote about it > Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. This is more true, perhaps, of Adyar. I'm not sure that in Point Loma books there is any promotion of reading about psychical powers while telling people to avoid them. Rather, little is written and the practice is not encouraged. >Eldon:part of that evolution, has to do with the unfolding of new >*faculties of consciousness,* which is entirely a different >thing that the unfolding of sense perception on other >planes, nor with reading thoughts, seeing the astral light, >nor using magic to make things happen> > What "faculties of consciousness" did you have in >mind? You seem to have rejected all of the ones that I >would have suggested. Perhaps you could repeat them again. I'm talking about different ways to consciously experience life that we currently know and use. This is not taking some existing faculty, like that of sense perception, and simply enhancing it or applying it to some other plane of existence. Nor is it taking feelings or thoughts and making them richer or more powerful, or bringing them into relationship with another plane or with things invisible. It is rather entirely different ways of being conscious about life. Consider an animal considering how there is nothing to the mind and thought, and not able to understand books, intellectual activity, conversations, etc. Now consider *our* thinking there is nothing to higher forms of consciousness, not being able to understand the activities of the Dhyani-Chohans. I'd suggest that our evolutionary goal is to become aware of, then to become capable of experience in higher forms of consciousness, and not merely to enhance the powers of our existing faculties. >JRC:<, I should say that I have come to greatly dislike the >terms "angel" and "deva" ... as they both carry with them >centuries of connotations, most of which have almost >nothing to do with the "things" I've been working with> > The fact that the names are silly and impractical >is exactly why they SHOULD be used. Using the word Angel, >for example, always brings with it a sense of the unreal >and childish - which helps us from being trapped into >taking them all too seriously, and actually helps us to >keep our sense of control during encounters. Use of works has an evocative effect. The connotations and mental pictures that come with the words act as a filter that qualifies our perceptions and experience. That manner of qualification varies with the words and ideas that we bring to our experience. Appropriate terms and ideas might, I'd suggest, lead to a more useful experience. >Eldon: Messanger trained? I've seen no article or materials that >discuss this topic in depth. How do you think that he >learned what he taught?> > The Lodge itself inspires them via (dare I say the >naughty p word?) psychism in the form of intuitive >communications. The Messenger is stirred intuitively >and made to wrestle internally with notions and doctrines >that others seem not to care about, or are quite satisfied >using faith. ... eventually a >little lightbulb sort of lights up over their heads, and it >all begins to make sense. Once the Dark Night of the Soul >is behind them, telepathic communication is established >with the Lodge, and their mission takes form. I'd generally agree that the the Messanger comes in touch with ideas, with a certain "thought current" or fount of ideas that contains materials he is meant to teach. And some ideas may specifically be given emphasis, or "placed" in his mind via telepathic means. But I would not use the term "psychic" to describe this process. >I also believe that some >Messengers remain behind the scenes, and the public never >sees them. Perhaps they write. Perhaps they inspire in >some way. It all depends. But only a few ever go public. >The burden is just too great. I'd agree with you. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 04:29:35 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Psychic powers JRC: >>We've been told that the T.S. was not intended as a training ground for >>occultists. While it is true that it might be possible to offer some form >>of training to new people regarding the cultivation of their psychical >>abilities, is this a good thing? Are there really people qualified to give >>this training? The emphasis of theosophical groups has been to offer a >>different kind of training, related to the spiritual. >Ah, yes, this is *precisely* what I was talking about. Theosophy seems >full of this sort of fanatical urge to *rank* everything. The spiritual is >"higher", then, is it? In one sense, I'd agree that there is no "higher" and "lower", that are parts of our nature are equally valuable, as inseparable as the ingredients of a cake, once baked, where we cannot separate out the flour from the shortening. In this sense, reading a book, working out at the gym, and offering a warm shoulder for a friend to cry on are all equally valuable, with no activity "higher" than any other. In another sense, we speak of study at a university as a form of "higher learning," because we continue to work on things that may not have a practical bearning upon earning a living in the outer world. A third sense, closer to what you may object to, is the ordering of the seven (or ten) principles, the descriptions of them as being evolved in serial order over great periods of evolution. (That is, first a physical body, then external sense perception, life energies leading to physical motion, desires to do things, thoughts, and yet higher faculties of manifesting our consciousness.) In this model, the senses, including what we would call the psychical senses, vary in intensity. Perhaps in Atlantean times they were far more advanced and powerful than they are now. Spirituality and rising about the burden of a sense of separate self is where our *new* progress is at. Paranormal senses are nice to have, just as Olympic-class athletic powers are nice, but they are considered side issues. Whether they are side issues or key points of development depend upon one's worldview, and the differing worldviews are build upon a number of assumptions. Before we could discuss the relative merits of the differing worldviews, we have to review their key assumptions. >Higher than "psychism" which is "lower"? In people's >*minds* there exist these nice neat "levels" and distinctions ... but dare I >suggest that the actual reality is that life & the universe is simply one >enormous *continuum*. There is really, I'd suggest, a dual manner of viewing our natures. One is in terms of a stream of consciousness, which could be considered a continuum. The other is in terms of a series of centers of consciousness, where there is a definite sense of "higher" and "lower" centers, along with higher and lower planes, states of evolution, etc. >That the *mind* introduces delusions ever bit as potent >as those attributed to "psychism" by giving into its predilection to slice >everything into nice discrete layers and levels The mind, I'd agree, is far more capable of creating delusion than the external senses. But on the other hand, it is when we "explore with the mind" that we more swiftly approach the truth, rather than "exploring with the senses," even be they superphysical. .. that also forms the root >assumptions necessary to say that one *person* is "higher" or "lower" than >another? A flower in the field is as noble as the greatest Saint. But in another sense, we'd go to a professor of mathematics to learn about mathematics, and not to a cab driver. And, IMO anyway, *here* is what we've been *told* the TS is intended >to do: > 1. To form a nucleus of the universal brotherhood of humanity, without >distinction of race, creed, sex, caste or color. > 2. To encourage the study of comparative religion, philosophy and >science. > 3. To investigate unexplained laws of nature and the powers latent in >man. These are the objects of the Adyar T.S. The Pasadena T.S. and ULT have their own variations on the general theme. The idea is to provide an open place for learning and study of Theosophy. It does not discount Theosophy to only be a concatenation of the collective opinions of the present T.S. membership. >The first *two* of these compose the vast majority of TS activity, and >can be accomplished by reading & meditating and slowly but surely following the >"spiritual" path. The third has been (IMO) quite ignored, because it is *far* >riskier. It holds the implication of not just studying the "ancient wisdom" and >learning what to call all sorts of levels of postulated awareness ... but of >actively seeking to break new ground ... of *discovery*. It is damn >uncomfortable, sloppy business. Is there possibly delusion? Certainly. Is there >danger involved? Of course ... as in almost all scientific discovery. A deep study of Theosophy is not comparative religion, nor is it the practice of a fraternal order. The deep study comes from a self-actualized process that transforms the inner and outer man, a process that reaches from the external senses to the inner spirit, and changes him throughout. It is something that is engaged through a study of the central "Jewels" or core concepts, but this is but one of many approaches to the spiritual. This approach is never claimed to be exclusive. It is possible to delve into the occult and paranormal, and become a psychic explorer. That is an individual decision, one that is dangerous as you say. Because of the dangers involved, I'd suspect, the theosophical groups tend to discourage the approach. (I'm not speaking as a spokesman for any particular group, just from my impressions of the groups.) We're left, in the final analysis, to seek out our own paths, our own approaches, and must brave them despite the criticism we may arose in those who disapprove. >You may be comfortable pursuing "higher" thought, but please do not say that that >version of theosophy is the only one that was intended. If numbers of people >are beginning to find themselves born with a sensory apparatus that permits >them to see a vibratory range outside of the current human norm, is this not >something operating according to an unexplained law of nature? Is it not a >power latent in man? Is not what I was suggesting *fully* in line with the 3rd >Object of the TS? Especially when I am suggesting that the phenomena not only >be "investigated", but integrated into the powerful service ethic implicit in >the First Object? They can follow that path. I'd just hope that any risks involved are pointed out to them, and they do so with as much advice and information as possible. On the other hand, others of us should be allowed the same freedom to advocate other approaches. It's not an "either or" situation, where your approach can only be respectfully be considered at the expense of rejecting the others. >>Are these abilities a useful tool for service? Take psychometry, where >>someone is able to sense what has happened in the past by touching an >>object that was at the sceen. Would these people make better policemen? >>Should some be expert witnesses at O.J. Simpson's trial? > For what its worth, working with a partner I helped the police in >western Montana catch a rapist/murderer a few years ago. And this is perhaps >one of the *least* of the posibilities for service inherent in abilities. I >might add that I'll never do such work again ... it necessitated entering, for >a moment, fully into the subjective nature of the psyche that committed those >crimes ... and I was horrified and ill for two weeks afterward - 'twas a wee >bit *too* much brotherhood for me (-:). Again, an individual choice. Someone may train for years to learn to walk on water. Another may work for years with troubled teenagers attempting to heal them psychologically. Is one more useful with his time than the other? I'd say that we should leave everyone to their individual choices, and not pass judgement (nor pass counter-judgement upon those we perceive as judging us). We can present what we find noble, valuable, and useful to others in a general sense, and not attack anyone in the process. >>Because of the unreliable nature of clarivoyance for investigating >>invisible worlds, we would likely not be inclined to take at face >>value the visions of new investigators. >This, with all due respect, is an avoidance, not a reason not to >explore. Are there uncertainties? Of course there are, enormous ones. could not >the same objection be raised to virtually *any* new arena or technique of >investigation? When we present what we've found, as long as we are accurate in describing how we came up with it, there is no harm. The problem only arises when someone presents what they see in visions as something different, like when a theosophical writer might present a psychical perception as being something from "The Secret Doctrine," like being something from an intellectual study of a book, when it was really from another source. >Is the *conscious mind* any *better* of a tool for investigating >invisible worlds? Imagine Freud and Jung as they were beginning their work. >They were most certainly investigating "invisible" things ... the subtle >essence of the subjective human psyche ... and they used the rational mind to >accomplish this ... were they often deluded? Most assuredly. Did their >subjective complexes often get in the way? *Enormously* (as the criticism of >their work over the years has amply demonstrated). Did they often go off on >wild goose chases, follow ideas down dead-end streets? You bet. Should they >have, because of this *not pursued their investigations*? We're completely free to think up new systems of thought, and offer them to society. This is different, though, from being accurate and truthful presenters of some Mystery Tradition that has been taught us. >Should they have stopped before they began because of the "unreliable" nature >of their investigations, because many people would refuse to take "at face >value" the conclusions of their uncertain and stumbling investigations? >And yet no one has any problem discussing Jung in Theosophical circles. >He could listen to people's *dreams*, and draw conclusions about the operations >of the invisible human psyche from them (introducing the double distortion of >the patient turning a dream into words ... which can never fully be done ... >and the distortion that comes when those words are understood within the >context of Jung's own psyche) without being accused of "psychism" or avoided >because of the inherently "subjective" nature of his studies ... but take >someone that *sees* what Jung could only hear about second hand and suddenly we >should ignore everything coming from *that* investigative tool because there is >a possibility that the seer might not be completely clear? Jung put everything in a psycho-centric context. In that context, he attempts to describe everything. He has a large following, even among theosophists. I'd find him too limited, because of this bias, and would tend to disagree with some of his ideas. The ideas are useful, though, for some people in the west to understand and give meaning to their lives, so I would not, though, see any value in trying to discredit him. >>The whole approach of clarivoyance is to "go there and see it", which >>still involves the senses, of this or some other plane. It is entirely >>a different faculty of knowing than is available to us, that of >>direct insight, a spiritual-intellectual faculty (of buddhi-manas, as >>contrasted with prana-linga-sharira). >And please tell me, having *not experienced clairvoyance* how you speak >with such certainty about this. Upon what basis do you say that it is an >"entirely different faculty". Did a *book* say so? Perhaps we have a difference in terminology here. Direct insight or knowing something is certainly different than sense perception, of whatever plane. This does not need an "authoritative book." I would reject the notion that consciousness is merely sense perception on higher planes as an exoteric blind. You seem to be taking the line of argument I've most often seen in the Adyar T.S., where someone uses their paranormal experiences as an authority for what they say. I'd say that reason, logic, and philosophy are the proper grounds for considering how things work. Your experiences might count as some "raw data" for consideration by others, and we should consider it; your ideas and conclusions about what it mean, though, are open to interpretation. >I have met and spoken with >a number of people who possessed abilities to varying degrees. With some, it >did seem to be quite partial. With others, I have seen "clairvoyance" so >thoroughly integrated into a faculty that you might call "buddhi-manas" that >their clairvoyance was simply remarkable ... they were seeing, simultaneously, >effect *and* cause when they looked at a person's auric field. Certainly the aura would reflect what goes on in someone's consciousness. I'd suggest that seeing the aura is not the same thing as spiritual insight. >"Clairvoyance" >is not *a* thing that can just be neatly pidgeon-holed into "oh that's just >prana-linga-sharira" ... there are (as far as I've been able to discover) a >whole host of different forms of clairvoyance ... Agreed. >and in practice, it doesn't >*disappear* when "buddhi-manas" becomes operative (any more, I might add, than >the physical eyes suddenly go blind), it *deepens immeasurably into something >even more remarkable*. We may or may not be aware in our senses on a plane when we function deep within our natures. I'd agree that the senses don't automatically shut down when we exercise our spiritual natures. >"Direct insight" and clairvoyance are *not* mutually >exclusive phenomena, and in fact are fully capable of not only cooperation, but >integration. No two parts of our nature are mutually exclusive, since every part acts (or should act) in total accord, in total harmony and cooperation. >When you speak as though they are two "entirely different things", >and even further, as though clairvoyance is *a* single thing, you demonstrate >clearly that you really have no understanding of clairvoyance as anything other >than a concept. Agreed that "clairvoyance" refers to many different things. In a short discussion, we may use one meaning, and when the discussion goes into more detail, we then explore the differences in meanings. I would disagree with any suggestion that someone with psychic experiences therefore has a special claim to understanding them, a special right to speak with authority their ideas and opinions about what it means. I've heard the same argument made throughout politics. One person may claim that they have exclusive insight into racial persecution since their ancestors were slaves, another may say that being a woman, they have a special knowledge of child bearing (even if they've never had a child in this lifetime), etc. The argument that you have to do something in order to know about it quickly breaks down when you deal with experiences beyond what we can have. (Like when we talk about subatomic physics.) It further falls apart if you accept the idea which I would suggest that there is a second way of "knowing by experience," where we understand things through a way of knowing that corresponds to the sense of sight, as opposed to the ordinary way of understanding by experience in a manner corresponding to the sense of touch. >Yet you speak with a tone that implies you know exactly what it >is and where it fits neatly into spiritual development (which is obviously at a >"lower" level than the "direct insight" that you pursue). This is *exactly* the >attitude I was trying to suggest was perceived as extremely demeaning to those >who *were* born with such abilities. There is no intent to demean anyone. Perhaps another manner or tone of writing would be better. On the other hand, whenever someone writes about something that is inconsistent with another's worldview, it will be considered challenging, if not an affront to them personally, and perceived as an attack when none is intended. Our fundamentalist visitor probably felt attacked when we responded with various theosophical ideas, because the ideas were challenging to key assumptions about life that he considered went without question. >I have reached an age and have become >comfortable enough with it personally that its worth it to bitch about this >attitude, in the hopes that it might alter things, but there are many who >wouldn't bother ... they just wouldn't come to a second TS meeting ... and I >know at least three people personally that this describes. It's not as much an attitude as a different approach to life that is being taught. The pros and cons of the different approaches need to be discussed respectfully, without any putting down of people, nor with any of us feeling under attach when other views are expoused. > Is it not rather bizarre that Theosophy, that actually helped introduce >the concept of clairvoyance as a operative human ability to the modern western >world, seems to want to avoid any of the difficulties inherent in the actual >practice of it in favor of reading and "studying" what dead people wrote about >it ... that the TS, of all places, as often as not unconsciously *ejects* those >who possess in fact what the original Theosophists introduced conceptually to >America? There is no problem once we admit to there being different philosophies being presented under "Theosophy." Your approach is most at home with the Adyar variant, although it might be considered somewhat revisionist. Mine is most at home with the Point Loma tradition. I would suggest that it is possible for good-natured presentations of the differing approachs without any of us getting at each other's throats. Respectfully, -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 04:38:28 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: To Paul & Eldon Ann: >>With ARE we have a simpler framework for study. We're digging through >>massive files of information on a seer's materials. >As opposesd to TS, whose membership has so much more to fight over and about. >Since the ARE is primarily focussed on Edgar Cayce, they have little other >material to wrangle over, except interpretation or applications of the readings. Granted, there can be fighting and bickering in any group. >I was particularly disturbed about Eldon's and Paul's posts on the ARE. Forgive >me for saying this, but it sounded like a couple of kids fighting over whose dog >was the shiniest. I don't think that was our intend in what we wrote. I've said a number of times that there is no attempt to claim that the theosophical approach is an exclusive one to the spritual Path. Any description that I've made regarding ARE and Cayce is regarding the differences in what appears to be going on. >As to the issue of "who or what" was coming through Edgar Cayce, I'd suggest >that that one apply that critical attitude to anyone one reads or listens to. >That includes Purucker, HPB, CWL, Alice Bailey, DK, Roerich, Besant, MacLaine, >Chopra or any other heavenly mouthpiece for the truth. The essence that is >conveyed to you and what it symbolizes and works on in your life is what counts. >Either it works or it doesn't. Agreed. With Cayce, though, the conscious man was completely unrelated to what came through. I don't think he ever could, while awake, understand and arrive at the same materials? We can speculate as to who or what was speaking through his entranced body. In the final analysis, we are left with the accuracy of his materials. Many dealt with questions or problems that specific people were having. He did not organized his materials in a specific body of teaching, and act as Guru to anyone. What works in one's life, I'd agree, is important. If it is possible to become spiritually self-sufficient, to become in touch with one's inner spiritual teacher and become a creative force in the world for the good, the noble, the highest in life, and one learned to do so from exposure to Cayce's readings, that's just great! >Every endeavour on the physical plane is subject to human frailty and error. >Not to mention the problems of those who try to carry the torch after the death >of the founder or speaker. If something valueable filters down and one can use >it, fine. If we find some mistakes or even that it was their imaginings, then >we are the wiser for it. We have begun to grapple with illusion. Agreed. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 04:40:12 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: "source teachings" Brenda Tucker writes: BT>I've come to the conclusion that this idea of "Source >Teachings" is wrong and I don't really know where it started, >but it may become the cause of lots of dissension. You want to >include certain writings within a select group and by doing so >you include certain people in a select group and leave others >out. I cannot say with absolute certainty where it started, but we began using the rhetoric "core concepts" and "source teachings" in our classes around 1981, and introduced this concept at the 1984 Networking conference. We also used it in our historical slide presentation we began giving around that time in Los Angeles. We also did this historical presentation in Toronto Canada and a section of it in New York city in 1986. I was also corresponding with Linda Jo Pym around that time, and she adopted these terms into her Field Work communications that were distributed nationally. In 1990 we released our ~Perennial Wisdom~ video and handbook which also uses this rhetoric. This video is distributed through Quest books and Theosophical University press. The video continues to sell to theosophists and inquirers of all traditions, and I was recently told that it is the most requested video that the library (or dept. of education?) loans out. So, as far as we know, we may have been the source for the use of this word (By the way, I'm very interested in any accounts that others may have concerning where and how they first heard or used these terms). The fact that these terms have caught on is testimony to the need for them, though their present usage may not be exactly how we intended them. BT>This approach is so divisive and judgemental and not at all >keeping with the spirit of theosophy which is to "find the >source within." Our purpose for coining this rhetoric was precisely the opposite. It was to counter the anti-fraternal divisiveness that was already in place. For example, the Adyar policy of naming Blavatsky and Olcott as the founders of the Theosophical Society, and excluding any mention of Judge is in my opinion "divisive and judgmental." This act not only ignores an undeniable historical fact, but it excludes those theosophical traditions which recognize Judge not only as a founder, but as one who remained devoted to the theosophical movement to the end of his life. In answer to this divisive policy that excludes and rejects the legitimacy of other theosophical traditions, we simply pointed out what was already obvious--that the earliest theosophical teachings came from the founders and from the letters of the masters. Therefore, the core literature are those writings that first defined the theosophical teachings. One could also call them the first generation of theosophical writings. This body of literature would include the writings of the Mahatmas, Blavatsky and Judge. It would also include any writings of Olcott that define theosophy, and any writings of A.P. Sinnett up to 1885 (i.e. ~The Occult World~ and ~Esoteric Buddhism.~). This division is based upon historical evidence, not upon the agenda of any theosophical traditions. This core of writings are universally acknowledged as the source theosophical writings from which all later writings refer back to. Even CWL constantly alludes back to HPB (or sometimes correcting her) for authoritative backing for this or that concept he is writing about. Consequently, those writers who base their ideas upon, comment upon, or adjunct their writings to the source writings are the secondary sources. These would include Besant, Leadbeater, Jinarajadasa, Arundale, Barborka, Purucker, Tingley, Johnson, Hargrove, Crosbie, Wadia etc. This is such a commonly used distinction that it is primary in order to do any research. For instance, if one wishes to study Blavatsky's writings, Wadia may be a good commentary, but it is not a substitute for reading Blavatsky. It does not mean that Wadia is inferior to Blavatsky, it only recognizes that Wadia's writings are commentaries on and possibly extensions of HPB's writings. Therefore, we devised this rhetoric, not to divide theosophists (the Adyar policy of not recognizing Judge already did that), but to bring them together again by pointing out that they are already united by a core set of teachings from which each tradition has evolved. Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu , From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 04:51:14 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: On the Head of a Pin ... JRC: >I do not in any way universalize my >experiences ... and am not making any claims that I am telling >the "truth" about the angelic realm in any absolute sense. Here is one area where we could get into unintentional disagreement. One can take the approach of writing from personal experiences, and never to universalize. Another may be writing about a broad philosophy that is universal in nature, that describes the general patterns of life. The two approaches are almost like speaking in different languages, and from one standpoint the other would have to be rejected. > Nor have I attempted to force the experiences to fit into >any particular conceptual paradigm (such as Theosophy, Kabalism, >etc., etc.). Though I studied a number of such systems when I was >first working with them, and some of the systems seemed to >possess pieces that matched inner experience ... I ultimately >determined that I needed to throw the whole lot out the window >and go at it with no preconceptions ... and see if a paradigm >fluid enough to fit their world could emerge from the world >itself ... Again, taking the "personal experience" approach is contrary to working with an elaborate philosophical framework. But that does not discredit the philosophy; it only addresses its usefulness for one when taking the personal-experience approach. >Virtually every one of us, as humans, is born with at least >some form of sensation that surfaces as a sense of "purpose". Few >of us could believe we are just "randomly" here. We can rarely >every fully *conceptualize* that purpose (though now and then we >can articulate the current piece of it we actualizing), but we >cannot help but feel as though we are here for *something*. Many >on the path almost obsessively ask themselves "What is my *true* >purpose ... what *should* I do?" This sensation of "purpose" is >so core to human life that it is virtually unnoticed, and its >almost impossible to imagine what day to day life would feel like >without it. The search for meaning or purpose is really, I'd say, a journey of spiritual self-discovery, a journey that needs to be repeated with each lifetime. We discover meaning through finding things to to (and ways to be) that are useful, of value to the world, and that we can readily *lose ourselves in.* These are things that readily allow us to lease the sense of separate self, and to transcend the heavy burden of a sense of personality. These are also things that are unique to our essential nature, our Swabhava, things that are related to our own unique contributions we are capable of making to the world. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 04:59:40 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Group souls or Individuality Brenda: >I've come to the conclusion that this idea of "Source Teachings" is wrong >and I don't really know where it started, but it may become the cause of >lots of dissension. You want to include certain writings within a select >group and by doing so you include certain people in a select group and leave >others out. We've all tried the same, as children, where we sit in a circle, and take turns wispering a message to the child next to us. By the time that the message makes its way around the complete circle, there is nothing intelligble left of the original message. This happens when we have interpretations and changes on top of other interpretations and changes, on top of still more. Eventually the original message is lost. If there is value to people in hearing this message, then it should be preserved in its original form for people to consider. >Who is more qualified to give a lesson in humility than C.W.L.? I don't >know where anyone's writings can compare with his on such simple practical >lessons and advice. Isn't it beneficial to have someone prepare us for what >lies ahead? Examples of moral qualities like humility are useful, but different that the issue of preserving the Teachings. >If only enough people would practice humility we wouldn't even have a need >to maintain the aloofness of some writers over others. The beauty and >urgency of theosophy is in its wholeness. A fair many authors have given >their points of view in books and they have my thanks and awe at times for >planting their feet so firmly on the path as to let no one shake them off. >We can't shake off our fellow travellers on the path by denoting some >writings as core or source. They're still there. They have a place right >there in front of you, closer and more familiar to the teachers and the >teaching. No writer intentionally is aloof. That is perhaps a perception of the writers that arises when we feel critisized by something that may be said. >I feel as if there are people who are trying to cut ahead in line. If these >people don't deserve our love and affection and even a commitment of one's >life and work, then what will happen when the next generation finds us? I >hate to think of it. Each generation is expected to carry the torch, and not let it die out. >In theosophy, I find wholeness. A fresh point of view is welcome here. It >was meant to be a meeting ground of all "spiritual" points of view. Please >don't try to cut out others or their ideas or inventions. It's stimulation >por favour. I'm THEIR follower. I can't measure up to them even, let alone >seem to meet and know Kuthumi or Morya. If humility were not essential in >living and not encouraged, we'd probably be taking the hard knocks by being >beat on the head by the likes of Paul Johnson. (It still bewilders me how he >ever managed to do what he did. Paul, you're the greatest.) I'd agree that the approach should be one of presenting the best of what we have to offer, rather than playing policeman and blasting the authors and writings that we disagree with. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 05:39:11 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: "source teachings" Jerry: > Therefore, we devised this rhetoric, not to divide >theosophists (the Adyar policy of not recognizing Judge already >did that), but to bring them together again by pointing out that >they are already united by a core set of teachings from which >each tradition has evolved. > This is very good, but this is not how people are using it today. They are using it to kick out any mention of people or to poke fun at what the "second?" group might be saying. It seems selfish to call this a secondary group of writers, because they should be looked at as the product of the first group and by doing this we could maybe view their positions as closer to our position in the sense that we are trying to follow in their footsteps. People may be taking your ideas and misusing them. Even your old friend at the Lodge just wanted to laugh and disregard a point I tried to make regarding a subject that he couldn't relate to because it wasn't core enough. People are just going to laugh us away, too. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 06:08:30 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: To Eldon On Confession from the Snake Pit Art: >The contact with others, the realization of a more than provincial >understanding of God, and spiritual failure and external persecution >resulted in the more open perspective. Universalism and tolerance is moved >forward by these principles. I would wonder if the same historical >preconditions lead to a more tolerant perspective on the part of >Theosophists? Intolerance is an unfortunate trait in human nature. We can deal with it in the face of aversity, or take it on using our own initiative. An intolerant attitude in members of the theosophical groups is not something that is taught them, but is something that overtakes people while unaware. >I have read a few hundred pages in Cranston's Biography and >saw that HPB was considered a heretic and a flake my many in her 19th >Century. The great imposter so to speak. This could to lead to a defensive >rigidity or toward a stronger position. Acceptance by society at large is >an unlikely partner to expanded consciousness. I don't think she cared a bit regarding her status and public esteem. How many of us dare speak out which what we truly believe, regardless of the public outcry? >Arthur: When there is a movement toward a higher consciousness the "sacred >writings" of any group has to be filtered through a contemporary grid. It >is necessary to develop and apply different interpretive tools make the >necessary adaptation to culture and social change. Once the founding >fathers and mothers are dead and gone, then the disciples tend to band >behind one or another of them and advocate different schools of thought. That would happen in the theosophical movement when there are no people left with some sense of living connection with the Teachings. Then it's original inspiration will have departed and it will be a matter of consolidation what has been given. I'd suggest that the time has not past when any of us are able to -- if we engage the spiritual process within -- come in touch with the same source of Teachings that Theosophy sprang from. >In order to avoid utter chaos a movement determines what writings will >consolidate the experience for the continuing group. This is called the >"canon" and is like a yard stick of spiritual experience. Both leadership >and the group itself works together to decide what is authoritative for >themselves. Agreed that a definite form needs to be given to the exoteric or dead-letter side of Theosophy. But that form should not be so rigid that it precludes the student from engaging the necessary companion spiritual process. And it should be always realized that a single word-formulation of the Truths is not the final word on them. >You mentioned that, "there is much to the writings that is either hidden >behind blinds or veils, or requires the student to "go beyond the words" to >get to the real meanings." The method of interpretation you are applying is >very good and stands in the long line of allegorical interpretations that >have been used in many traditions. But it is important to remember that >there are principles of interpretation that we bring to the text and the >discussion of these is essential to mutual understanding. We'll have to explore things, and see where it takes us. >Inflation happens when the >boundaries collapse and the differentiation of consciousness between an >archetypal entity and a human being are not acknowledged. In the extreme >cases this takes on such an abnormal state that it is deemed "insanity" >like when David Koresh said he was the Messiah. Agreed. >Eldon, I think that your desire to distance from the term "inflation" is >because of its pathological implications. I tend to dislike the word because of its negative connotations. It's descriptive of a psychological process, and I don't see the main aspect of what's happening to someone being in the realm of the psychological. >But woe be to the one who does the turning >of the cart. Their motives are questioned, their name is maligned and there >competence challenged. I have studied the church's reaction to those who >started using critical methods on the Scriptures. They were driven out of >the church, and by the way out of the context of those who could help >refine and apply their thoughts, into the universities, where they tended >to get more and more radicalized but in reaction and anger to their >critics. I think revisionist views ought to be welcomed. Radical innovators are attached at first, before winning recognition and popular acceptance. Fresh thought is always welcome, of course, but its initial acceptance depends upon whether it comes in the guise of an attack or that of an evolution or enhancement. I'd see at the heart of the theosophical Teachings key concepts that are true, and would expect radical changes to be in the form of deeper understandings as to what they were about. (The deeper Truths are like ice bergs, with 90 percent hidden, awaiting discovery, rather than like trees with roots that are too short, waiting to be toppled over by a strong gust of wind.) >Arthur: I don't think there is a dispute about the value of the Masters >only the basis of their "reality". What's real? I may not be understanding >right but I am not sure that Paul's idea of the disjuncture between the >historical as opposed to the symbolic is as great as what first appears. The same is true of any idea of philosophy. But the fact that there is a dispute does not prove, per se, that there are no such people, only that their actual existence is not commonly agreed to. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 06:16:47 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: devas & elementals Liesel: >I happen to have gone looking in "Isis Unveiled" & found "... >may properly be called nature spirits" VI p.3ll ..."ordinarily >only visible to clairvoyant sight ... By their Protean power >they can ... assume such likeness as they choose." In this >classification, I've heard mention of such beings as >leprechauns. >I.U. VIp.285 "All humna races ... have their earthly bodies >evolved in the matrix out of the bodies of a certain class of >these elemental beings." >I.U. VIp.343 "The Kabalist knows by experience ... that each of >the 4 kingdoms (air, water, earth, fire) has its own perculiar >elemental spirits." >And to reiterate, I've listened to a series of tapes with Adam >Warcup lecturing on the SD, during which he says that several >lifewaves before the mineral were elemental. This all sound find to me. >I.U. VII p.159 "Devas means saints" >VII p.512 This one is confusing, but anyway "The word God >(deity) is derived from the Sanskrit word Deva, & Devil from >the Persian Daeva." As "demi-Gods", they sound more like the Dhyani-Chohans, the Kingdoms *after* the Human. >The words Deva, Devi, Devatta appear in the Hindu & Buddhist >tradition, so I tried to find an example of that. Took out >"Sakti & Sakta" by Arthur Avalon p.409 ".... Maha Sakti or >Supreme Power of many names .... (one mentioned is) ... the >Sapphire Devi." >P410 "Supreme Mother .... She is the Great Queen ... to Her >both Devas, Devis & men give worship..." >The idea of that there are individual devas, or nature spirits >.. whatever, involved in the care of certain things in nature >I gathered 1) from Geoffrey Hodson, because the angels he >depicted on the Wheaton Christmas cards are angels of certain >rocks or mountains & etc. 2) I also know that a certain very >skilled clairvoyant who needs to be nameless sees beings in >trees, & etc. I'd expect that the "care" may be applied from both directions. There is "care" in the sense of the Elementals caring over the physical forms, and the other Skandhas of living things, of whatever element or principle they consist other. The other type of "care" is by the Dhyani-Chohans, creating the archetypal patterns of life which we know as the "laws" of Nature. The Dhyani-Chohans create "treeness" and specific Elementals look over particular "trees". -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 07:15:13 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: To Paul & Eldon Eldon: >With ARE we have a simpler framework for study. We're digging through >massive files of information on a seer's materials. As opposesd to TS, whose membership has so much more to fight over and about. Since the ARE is primarily focussed on Edgar Cayce, they have little other material to wrangle over, except interpretation or applications of the readings. I was particularly disturbed about Eldon's and Paul's posts on the ARE. Forgive me for saying this, but it sounded like a couple of kids fighting over whose dog was the shiniest. As to the issue of "who or what" was coming through Edgar Cayce, I'd suggest that that one apply that critical attitude to anyone one reads or listens to. That includes Purucker, HPB, CWL, Alice Bailey, DK, Roerich, Besant, MacLaine, Chopra or any other heavenly mouthpiece for the truth. The essence that is conveyed to you and what it symbolizes and works on in your life is what counts. Either it works or it doesn't. Every endeavour on the physical plane is subject to human frailty and error. Not to mention the problems of those who try to carry the torch after the death of the founder or speaker. If something valueable filters down and one can use it, fine. If we find some mistakes or even that it was their imaginings, then we are the wiser for it. We have begun to grapple with illusion. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 08:09:49 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: Various comments At 1:01 AM 9/4/95, Jerry Schueler wrote: > This is exactly what I said in an earlier posting, >Art. We can all sit back and say that there is no dogma or >doctrine, no "core teachings" per se, but it simply is not >so. Without some kind of core teachings, we would have >chaos. We wouldn't be able to discuss theosophy, because >we have to define something before we can discuss it >intelligently. Yes,I agree with you entirely, Jerry S. Sometimes in spiritual groups there is a inclination to say that their is no dogma, no creed implicit of explicit. This is due to avoidance of sounding dogmatic or narrow minded. If no "core teachings" can be depicted there can be no dialogue. Unforturnately the process at arriving at what is "core" results in anathematizing and excluding. Another problem that arises is the tendency to reinterpret what the core means by the individual who still wants to say within the group. Elasticity of belief is admirable but the elastic snaps at certain points. I remember when I asked if I was orthodox enough to stay within my denomination as minister. I asked one of the leaders who said there was lots of room in the denomination for difference but when I asked what it would take to not be a part of this particular group he wouldn't tell me. I found out later that my views on universalism and my reluctance to agree with Inspired and revealed sources put me outside . I wish he could have been honest enough to tell me what in and out meant. There is always an in and an out and it not an insult to be excluded if you honestly do not affirm the group's views. I think in our modern society we have a problem with always wanting, or demanding to be included. If nothing else, the core teachings are >those that we each believe to be true, and thus they can >vary with each member, but again this will lead to a great >deal of confusion. There is nothing at all wrong with >divided things up into exoteric (in words - the mind or >head) and esoteric (without words - the heart, or gnosis >directly perceived), and I like the idea of requiring only >a belief in universal brotherhood for TS membership, but I >simply have to belive that core teachings such as karma, >reincarnation, and cycles, are what theosophy is all about >and what separates theosophy from everything else That's ok but then you end up with a two tiered membership.Those who believe in universal brother and the "real" theosophists who hold also reincarnation, cycles etc. Ninty percent of the human population could affirm brotherhood. I don't think that is defining enough. Perhaps there is another way to define the core and that is in a process or attitude way rather than in a belief way. What about a covenant or commitment to explore spirituality (the esoteric life) with authenticity, tolerance and historical integrity? I have seen many on this group who do this consistently and believe them to be theosophists through they disagree on various topics. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 10:01:10 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Group souls or Individuality Brenda: "I've come to the conclusion that this idea of "Source Teachings" is wrong and I don't really know where it started, but it may become the cause of lots of dissension. You want to include certain writings within a select group and by doing so you include certain people in a select group and leave others out." HPB herself gives the idea of "source teachings" and warns, as I posted yesterday, against false prophets within Theosophy giving out their own warped ideas AS Theosophy itself. Eldon too has been pointing this out very effectively. No ideas are left out, they are simply pointed out as LATER than the original stuff. No one can deny that HPB and William Q. Judge were among the Founders of Theosophy in 1875, and the Mahatma Letters were from 1880-1882. Everything after this is later, and spins off from the original teachings. Even as a U.L.T. student, I recognize that my hero Robert Crosbie (the founder of U.L.T.) is a STUDENT and giving his OWN understanding of what he learned from HPB and WQJ. His writings are not SOURCE Theosophy, neither are de Purucker's, neither are Leadbetter's. We are not playing favorites here, you see, we all trace our roots to the same place. With no source teachings, there is no Source, no direction by which we may approach the Masters and their School except our own personal wanderings. In fact, we Westerners first learned about Masters and Theosophy from HPB, and if we ignore her direction most of us will be really directionless in Theosophy, and leap from thing to thing, learning very slowly. Brenda: "This approach is so divisive and judgemental and not at all keeping with the spirit of theosophy which is to "find the source within." " It is not divisive, it is unifying. Many of us think Leadbeater was a real poop and weirdo. But I recognize that most of what he knew, he learned from HPB and the Masters. His ideas can be traced back to the "source teachings." Brenda: "Who is more qualified to give a lesson in humility than C.W.L.? I don't know where anyone's writings can compare with his on such simple practical lessons and advice." CWL had many profound reasons to be humble, as we all know given his history. Brenda, have you ever come across William Q. Judge and his work? He is rather practical, but he has one glaring defect in the eyes of many: he held to the lines laid down by HPB after her death, while most everyone else went about "developing" the ideas according to their own likes and dislikes and psychism. Mr. Judge is extremely practical and humble and readable, but most T.S. people ignore him because Besant declared he was anathema. Brenda: "If only enough people would practice humility we wouldn't even have a need to maintain the aloofness of some writers over others." The idea of Source Teachings is not about arrogance or humility. Source Teachings is an IDEA, and people are the ones who are arrogant or humble about it. Many people who recognize the TRUTH of source teachings are very humble. If I am not among them, that is my problem, not yours. Brenda: "The beauty and urgency of theosophy is in its wholeness." Yes, the philosophy of Theosophy is beautiful when it is understand as a whole, and not adulterated by later, corrupt teachings which destroy the laws of analogy, correspondences and the sevenfold constitution of Man. Brenda: "We can't shake off our fellow travellers on the path by denoting some writings as core or source. They're still there. They have a place right there in front of you, closer and more familiar to the teachers and the teaching.... I'm THEIR follower. I can't measure up to them even, let alone seem to meet and know Kuthumi or Morya." Brenda, this is the most amazing and disturbing thing I have yet seen you write. You are setting up a priesthood, where those who are historically "closer" to the teachers somehow have the right to interpret the teachings for us. There are NO INTERMEDIARIES. No one deserves our respect because they have written books or have ideas or lived a century ago. They desrve our respect when they are MORAL, ACCURATE, and HOLD TO THE LINES LAID DOWN by the Masters. Failing this, they are poor guides, and certainly not people to set up as "closer and more familiar to the teachers and the teaching." We will all come ot know the Masters by following THEIR teachings and THEIR lines, not any intermediaries. Brenda: "I think there's a great mystery about the other kingdoms of nature, but instead of looking at them as living around us here on this fourth globe, couldn't we try seeing them as their own kingdom (meaning they are king on the fifth globe) right ahead of us?" Huh? Brenda, we know that there are several kingdoms right here in globe D, namely elementals, minerals, plants, animals, humans, etc. Why would we move other kingdoms to other globes? They have their own 7-fold and 10-fold kingdoms, no doubt. Brenda: "Besides, the Mahatmas do teach "individuality" as a specifically human trait, so I think "group" goes quite well beside it, as an alternative sort of existence." Double Huh. If the Mahatmas teach "one apple," you hear "collective apples." When the Masters teach "one farmhouse" you hear "condominium." Only on that reasoning can I understand the above sentence. In my mind, whatever the Masters were silent on, on that we don't know Their opinion. We can have our OWN opinions, and of course we do, but we can't in good conscience teach our OWN ideas as the Masters ideas, and it is important to distinguish that "we see through a glass darkly" but They see clearly and certainly. I too have many ideas how Theosophy and Buddhism overlap, but those are MY ideas, inspired by the teachings, but I can't run around saying my ideas ARE the original teachings. Wow. Scary stuff on this board. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 10:04:26 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: source and secondary literature Brenda, I wrote: JHE> Therefore, we devised this rhetoric, not to divide >theosophists (the Adyar policy of not recognizing Judge already >did that), but to bring them together again by pointing out that >they are already united by a core set of teachings from which >each tradition has evolved. Brenda responded: BT>This is very good, but this is not how people are using it >today. They are using it to kick out any mention of people or >to poke fun at what the "second?" group might be saying. It >seems selfish to call this a secondary group of writers, because >they should be looked at as the product of the first group and >by doing this we could maybe view their positions as closer >to our position in the sense that we are trying to follow in >their footsteps. Then we are agreed that it is not the term, but how it is used that can hurt. Fire can warm my soup or burn down my house. Similarly, I can use "source literature" or "core concepts" rhetoric in any number of ways. I think the sting comes when someone suggests that the secondary literature might be inferior to the primary literature. That is a judgement call. Obviously there is a majority who prefer the secondary literature over the primary. It is easier to read, the concepts are generally less abstruse, stylistically much of it is more appealing to the imagination. As Tillett pointed out, it is the secondary literature that caught on in the popular culture. People talk about Masters, Astral Bodies, Astral Projection, clairvoyance etc. in the way that CWL understood these things, not as HPB understood them. So popular culture made a choice and CWL won hands down. This classification of primary and secondary literature indeed suggests that the second group of writers followed the first, but it doesn't suggest that there are no inconsistencies or that they came from a common revelation. It only indicates that the second defers to the first as the earlier literature. Whether one is better, more accurate, or superior in some way is a judgement call that can be argued either way. When the secondary literature discusses something not in the primary, or clearly contradicts the primary literature, then we have an inconsistency. For example, both HPB and the Mahatma letters writes that Mars is in obscuration. That means that there is no life evolving on Mars at the present time. However CWL's clairvoyant observations are inconsistent with the source writings. Are the secondary writings automatically wrong when they are inconsistent with the primary? No. It only means that they are inconsistent. Keep in mind also, however, that under the classification of "neo-theosophical writings", the secondary theosophical writings become the primary writings in the neo-theosophical classification. However, inconsistencies between the primary and secondary literature has created frustrations for me, because many people are reluctant to accept that such inconsistencies exist. For 20 plus years, I tried to teach HPB's philosophy using HPB's books. Without fail, I get at least one student who is well read in CWL or in Alice Bailey, and it is automatically an uphill battle to get any of HPB's ideas across, because the student almost always assumes that CWL and Bailey are consistent with HPB. Therefore, everything they read in Blavatsky, they filter through the Bailey or CWL skeins, and never can get to what HPB is trying to say. To counter this, I have to begin by telling that person that HPB does not necessarily use her terms in the same way as CWL or Alice Bailey. Automatic confusion immediately sets in because they usually never even considered that possibility before. When we begin talking about the seven principles, I have to explain that HPB's "astral body" is not what CWL means by "astral body." that HPB's "Linga Sarira" is different from CWL's "Etheric body", that the "Causal body" is not a principle per se in HPB's schemas...and the eyes begin to glaze over. It makes me want to beat my head against a wall. Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 10:09:29 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Various comments Jerry: "The Point Loma folks seem to want to outlaw psychic investigation and use for all time, period. I do not feel that this was G de P's intent. If he was not psychic himself, then I certainly have to wonder where he got his info. " I am not a member of the Point Loma tradition, but I do have to stick up for them here. They do accept psychic development, they simply put it in the back seat. Can ANYONE ON THIS BOARD distinguish psychic from noetic? Does no one understand how Purucker can be in contact with the Masters noetically and not psychically? Please, read HPB' article, "Psychic and Noetic Action." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 10:11:59 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Various comments Jerry S.: " The Lodge itself inspires them via (dare I say the naughty p word?) psychism in the form of intuitive communications. " Egad. Intuition, the REAL kind, not self-deluded, is a faculty of Buddhi. Psychism is SENSE-PERCEPTION of the Astral nature. Jerry S., I agree with you, we need the idea of "source teachings" to clear up confusions just like this one. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 10:14:02 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: re: Group souls Jerry H-E: "Personally, I would be interested in seeing, or even participating in a serious discussion and analysis of this idea, if there are three or four people willing to put in the hours of research and preparation required to intelligently discuss this controversy." Yes, let's. I will try to keep up. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 10:46:04 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Brenda; Yogananda Liesel wrote: >Dear Jerry H-E > >Are you going to start hacking around on Brenda now? > >Liesel Was I supposed to ask for your approval before responding to the messages she addressed to me? Are you going to send me to my room? Sniff.... :-) Ann writes concerning Yogananda's Autobiography: >One of the big changes that was made was that Yogananda wrote >that one had to be initiated by any authentic Kriyaban or Kriya >swami. The SRI changed it to read that one must be initiated by >a Kriyaban from the SRI. Thanks. I can think of some parallels in TS history to this one. Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 11:07:03 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: teaching HPB >Without fail, I get at least one student who is well read in CWL >or in Alice Bailey, and it is automatically an uphill battle to >get any of HPB's ideas across, because the student almost always >assumes that CWL and Bailey are consistent with HPB. Therefore, >everything they read in Blavatsky, they filter through the Bailey >or CWL skeins, and never can get to what HPB is trying to say. >To counter this, I have to begin by telling that person that HPB >does not necessarily use her terms in the same way as CWL or >Alice Bailey. Automatic confusion immediately sets in because >they usually never even considered that possibility before. When >we begin talking about the seven principles, I have to explain >that HPB's "astral body" is not what CWL means by "astral body." >that HPB's "Linga Sarira" is different from CWL's "Etheric body", >that the "Causal body" is not a principle per se in HPB's >schemas...and the eyes begin to glaze over. It makes me want to >beat my head against a wall. Well, Jerry, this is very good work if you like it and we owe you a vote of thanks, but not everyone is interested in approaching theosophy in this manner. Those who enjoy it, should do it, because we could use this information. Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 11:38:10 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: devas & elementals I wasn't going to say anything about this matter of devas & elementals, because it isn't really something cogent to daily living, but I'm just not very satisfied with the descriptions that've ben appearing on theos-l. So I went looking for some suitable quotes, & descriptions. Even if Annie Besant says at 1 point that the 2 words can be used interchangeably, it's not the way I learned it. To me, devas are a knowing, benevolent kind of being, and elementals are more mechanical, and sometimes not benevolent. I found a description of elementals building the form of a foetus before it's born, in CWL, and I remember reading that they enliven our thought forms. Their evolution =is= on a downward arc, as Eldon said, whereas ours is upwards again, so we sometimes need to restrain what the elementals do, because we're working at cross purposes. I happen to have gone looking in "Isis Unveiled" & found "... may properly be called nature spirits" VI p.3ll ..."ordinarily only visible to clairvoyant sight ... By their Protean power they can ... assume such likeness as they choose." In this classification, I've heard mention of such beings as leprechauns. I.U. VIp.285 "All humna races ... have their earthly bodies evolved in the matrix out of the bodies of a certain class of these elemental beings." I.U. VIp.343 "The Kabalist knows by experience ... that each of the 4 kingdoms (air, water, earth, fire) has its own perculiar elemental spirits." And to reiterate, I've listened to a series of tapes with Adam Warcup lecturing on the SD, during which he says that several lifewaves before the mineral were elemental. I.U. VII p.159 "Devas means saints" VII p.512 This one is confusing, but anyway "The word God (deity) is derived from the Sanskrit word Deva, & Devil from the Persian Daeva." The words Deva, Devi, Devatta appear in the Hindu & Buddhist tradition, so I tried to find an example of that. Took out "Sakti & Sakta" by Arthur Avalon p.409 ".... Maha Sakti or Supreme Power of many names .... (one mentioned is) ... the Sapphire Devi." P410 "Supreme Mother .... She is the Great Queen ... to Her both Devas, Devis & men give worship..." The idea of that there are individual devas, or nature spirits .. whatever, involved in the care of certain things in nature I gathered 1) from Geoffrey Hodson, because the angels he depicted on the Wheaton Christmas cards are angels of certain rocks or mountains & etc. 2) I also know that a certain very skilled clairvoyant who needs to be nameless sees beings in trees, & etc. OK? Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 11:45:03 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: Re: Group souls or Individuality Liesel: LD>I wonder why you guys always single out Leadbeater as the fall >guy. Because he is the source in theosophy for these ideas currently being discussed. LD>Has anyone on this post ever read IK Taimni, Jinarajadasa, >Sinnett, Hodson, Prem & Ashish's commentaries on the SD, >Baborka, Mills, Nicholson, Collins, Van der Liew, Sri Ram, >Hansen & Linton on the Mahatma Letters, the karma anthology, >Algeo on reincarnation, the Bendits on psychism? Yes. LD>These are all Theosophical writers. I know. LD>It's the ones that come to mind as I write. Why? LD>There are lots more. I know. LD>Who's going to get counted into the core teachings? The people who wrote them. Please see my post "source teachings" sent about seven hours ago. Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 11:49:49 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: psychism Dear JRC, Re the strict ethic. I realized it from watching Harry Van Gelder work. After a few years of contact with him, I had tested him enough to realize that I could trust him implicitly. Not only did he understand things that were going on much better than I did, but when he gave me some advice, it was completely with me in mind, & putting his own self aside. Also, just imagine what a responsibility it is just to be able to read other people's thoughts, without taking advantage of them. Just that one facet requires strict ethical training. The books that brought this home to me are Annie Besant's "In the Outer Court" and "The Path to Discipleship." Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 11:54:40 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: psychism To JRC PS again. You also have to be completely loving and completely fearless, the 2 go hand in glove. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 11:59:22 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Psychic powers To Eldon CWL offered spiritual/intellectual training as well. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 12:09:07 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Mars! Dear Eldon, AB and CWL's motive was that they were curious. Their mode was clairvoyance. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 12:12:32 GMT From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: JRC to Eldon Eldon: [A long pos] JRC ELDON Agreed ... except that even the Masters in the Mahatma Letters clearly both possessed and exercised a rather stunning array of what you would call "lower psychic powers". The problem I have with the opinions of some Theosophists about "psychism" is that they confuse agency with agent. Having some inner sense or ability is not, in and of itself, a "lower" or "higher" thing, and only becomes open to that sort of judgement when the question of its use arises. An Olympic physical body is not morally or spiritually lower *or* higher ... if, however, it models a pure physical vehicle, or helps build an orphanage in Africa, it is "higher" ... while if it beats the hell out of people it is "lower" - it is not an ability (be it body, "psychic" or mind) that is higher or lower, but rather the intent behind its exercise. Further, I do not believe an Olympic body and something like clairvoyance are *equally* side issues - first, because the Mahatmas (if you accept the Mahatma letters) certainly didn't bother to pump iron (-:) ... while they apparently *did* bother develop clairvoyance from latency into potency, indicating (at least to me) that they found some spiritual value to its development (as they didn't appear to expend energy on *anything* that didn't have some spiritual value), and second, because some inner abilities may *not* simply come from the "lower" vehicles, but may be the analogs of sensory apparatus possessed by the "higher" vehicles - and their possession may then be an indication of those vehicles swinging into full operation. JRC ELDON Yes, this second sort, I believe, is a *template* layed upon the continuum to make it comfortable to the operations of the mind - which by its very nature has a terrible time dealing with the universe as anything other than discrete units it can get its fingers around. In the Mahatma Letters and other "core" (tee hee) teachings, a template (or a few scraps of one) is presented (a template that seems to have, whether intentionally or not, large gaps in it) - but the template is not the continuum. I do not personally believe that the template is the truth, but is more like a means of getting people accustomed to thinking about things in different terms, of making the mind more fluid - in *preparation* for interaction with layers of being that *can* participate coherently in the continuum. As grand as the cosmology and anthropolgy in the ML & SD are, they were not even the teachings given to the Mahatmas "lowest" initiates ... they were those the Mahatmas considered safe for those who wished to prepare themselves for the first touch of *probation*. I have a good friend with a Economics PhD, and he tells a funny story about his first graduate level class; the professor began the class by telling the students to throw out everything they had learned about economics as undergrads because it would just get in the way of actually learning to *do* economics. I believe some Theosophists believe the template in the ML & SD is identical, however, with the *actual* "esoteric" wisdom, and this may at times cause them to act as though the rankingg they do according to that template is rather more absolute than it may in fact be. I am not saying there is not great value in studying that template ... it would not have been presented were there not, only that there is a danger of believing that when one understands the template one understands the "truth" of the inner worlds - and this danger may be greater than that of a clairvoyant believing his/her visions are all perfectly clear ... greater both because there are far more people alive right now claiming that their "template" is the *true* template then there are clairvoyants, and because the mind, possessing almost at its core a sort of arrogance, seems far more inclined to attempt to impose or enforce its "truths" on others. JRC ELDON Again, this is a levels vs. continuum argument, and your perspective seems to be that of the mind itself. I would call a "sense" anything that provides a doorway through which impulses may enter consciusness. Is it not possible that to the "Monad" both the mind and clairvoyance are *both* nothing other than "lower" "psychic" senses? Those whose inner predilections emphasize the mind certainly will have minds that place mind "above" many other things, and the mind would certainly be appalled to be called nothing other than yet another superphysical "sense" (in its receptive mode), and will obviously take to a system of development that says the next "step" is to develop the "higher" mind ... but (IMO) this is only one of a number of different streams of possible development. In fact many of us may have such different vectors that we would be being untrue to our highest impulses if we even tried to follow the same model of growth - I believe in either the ML or SD there are several hints about the fact that when all that can be learned on earth is learned (call it taking the "final" terrestrial initiation) there are very different directions that open before our consciousnesses - that even at this early stage of development many of us may *already* be moving in very different directions. JRC <.. that also forms the root assumptions necessary to say that one *person* is "higher" or "lower" than another?> ELDON Ah, yes, and we'd go to a doctor of medicene to learn medicene, because he/she had *done* medicene. So ... who would you go to to learn about, for instance, angels? Someone who had read about them from within a very specific theoretical construct, or someone that saw them and worked with them? And please understand, *I* am not saying that books have no use, and that theorectical constructs are "lower" (I just can't even rank things that way) - and I have certainly read virtually the entire library of a TS branch, as well as a good deal of Kabala, Buddhism, Western Occultism & etc., but I also think that if it is possible, *direct experience* is fully co-equal with theory as a tool of both personal development and service. JRC ELDON Agreed, nor does it permit any individual's opinion to achieve any sort of superiority. I affirmed the Objects only in response your statement, written not as opinion but as a fact, that a particular view of Theosophy was what we were "told" it was "intended" to be. JRC ELDON Yes, agreed that this is your personal understanding of what Theosophy is, and I do not believe I have ever said it was not valid. I obviously have a far different approach, and one aspect of that is to point out that the 3rd Object, in whatever form, has been almost completely avoided by modern Theosophy - and while I was arguing that perhaps its time to face the difficulties of re-integrating it into Theosophical thought and activity (both because it *is* present in the Objects, and beecause it could provide substantial service), you seemed to say that such activity *was* to be excluded, because it was not what we were "told" Theosophy was "intended" to be. JRC ELDON With genuine respect, please re-read the last few posts. In nothing I wrote is anything stated, or implied, about exclusivity. Nothing I said ever stated that the sort of activity you engage in and call "Theosophical" was not Theosophical, or should be in any way frowned upon or supressed, or was in any way "lower" than another kind of activity. While your intention may have been different, with your *words* you did both of those things to me. All I ever stated was that a form of activity, clreay recognized in the Objects, ought to be *added* to the Theosophical world. You were the one that rejected this and said that it shouldn't. I said "X *in addition* to Y", you said "X, *not* Y" is "intended" Theosophical activity. Further, I believe anyone who has belonged to an organization long enough to have some status within it must acknowledge that the status affects people. What I had tried to convey, using myself as a expample, was the fact that those born with abilities are as vulnerable (at least early in their lives) to the opinions of others as any other people who are "different" in some way. One of the problems I've seen with the intense intellectualism that typifies much of Theosophy is that it can easily forget that it is *humans*, not just ideas that travel the path. When a person has some inner ability, it commonly produces both an insecurity, as well as a *need* to find some way to understand it, to find a place for it in a bigger picture. These people *often* try out all sorts of spiritual, "esoteric" organizations ... because mainstream religion often rejects them. You may, if you wish, advocate any ideas you wish ... but from what you have written it seemed as though you were oblivious to the fact that for some, these are not just ideas. When a person with some ability comes to their first TS meeting, they are seeking something. When they get up the courage to mention, publically in a meeting, that they might possess some sort of ability, it is not an ideological statement, it is really the tentative sticking of a toe into the water, it is the question, "Do I *belong* here, am I *welcome* here?". If the response, especially from those with status in the group, is to say that such things are "lower", that they should be discouraged or supressed (based on a purely theoretical viewpoint), that translates as "No, you do *not* belong here". What I have been trying to convey is that the attitude you have been speaking with, as well as its normative tone, is (IMO) all too common in the current TS, and is an attitude that almost caused me to leave Theosophy, and *has* caused others to be rejected from it. I do not think you are purposely doing this ... I'm simply trying to convey to you that those born with inner traits cannot *help* but take people's opinions and ideologies about such traits as something rather more than just theoretical opinions with no more meaning than one's opinions about cats. In my view, *everyone* ought to be fully welcomed in Theosophy, not just in words but in attitudes ... and should be *fully validated* even if they are practicing the "lowest" forms of psychism or channelling. When such a person feels completely welcomed, feels unjudged, they are likely to start dropping the barriers (that everyone erects towards new groups), and will then begin being open to the Theosophical "current". Let them begin attending meetings, reading books, trying meditations, and as their energy-system refines, many of them may likely, *of their own accord* mature out of the activities they were engaging in. Others, who may very conceivably have been born with some ability *meant to be exercised in service* (in the same way as some are born healers, others born musicians & etc.) will find those abilities refine and clarify as their inner nature refines and clarifies. Point is, attitudes that place judgements upon inner abilities right off the bat can easily *unconsciously* reject people from the Theosophical current, people who may well have been *guided to Theosophy for the very purpose of outgrowing dangerous practices, or refining abilities for service*. ELDON Just because one does not use pronouns does not mean one is not attacking someone (har har). These are just our different styles of writing. You tend to frame even personal statements in universal terms ... e.g., "I'd say that we should not pass judgement (nor pass counter-judgement upon those we perceive as judging us)" ... is this *really* just a universalized statement, as its terminology seems to indicate? Or are you saying (as seems to be the case, as it would make no sense otherwise) "JRC *you* counter-judged *me* because *you* perceived me as judging *you*". Doing this, to me, is a bit disingenuous, as it allows you to always appear as though you are above it all ... allows you to always be able to stand back innocently and say that it was only ideas, it was nothing "personal" ... and even take the high road and suggest "we" do not have to "attack" anyone in the process. My particular preference is to use personal words when it is personal (in fact my generation frames anything else as "avoidance"). I'm sorry if you felt attacked ... but in my view you were not just affirming your point of view, you were affirming a point of view that at times rather pointedly rejected my point of view as not being what Theosophy was intended to be. JRC ELDON Exactly my point. How is this different than one who uses other inner abilities? Jung may not harmonize with your approach, but you would not try to discredit him, or attempt to avoid discussions of his insights, or supress the sorts of investigations he and his proponents do as something Theosophy shouldn't be engaging in, yet you seem do so with clairvoyance. ELDON Yes, but your claim to "direct insight" (implied throughout this paragraph) is every bit as much open to interpretation as anyone's clairvoyance is - and is also being used as an authority for what you say ... is it not? You say that the standard by which you judge clairvoyance does not come from either books, or from actually having the faculty, but from this thing called "direct insight", which is implied (in fact stated) to be "higher" than any sensory apparatus - and is used as a foundation for the apparent claim that your perspective is not only something more than just your opinion about it, but somehow gives a greater understanding of it than those who actually possess it have. Difference is, I am not presuming to judge what you experience as "direct insight", or in any way place it a ranking system, while you apparently feel fully comfortable do so to my experience of clairvoyance. I fully agree that my ideas and conclusions about raw clairvoyant data are open to interpretation, but this discussion hasn't mentioned any raw data (though the angelic post does a bit) - the discussion up to now has related to whether or not there is even room for the exercise of abilities within the Theosophical fold. ELDON Agreed, let's both stop. I have a tremendous amount of respect for you Eldon, and would not want the perspective you so eloquently argue to ever leave the Theosophical family. I also believe that the 3rd Object has fallen into a state approaching complete atrophy, and would hate to see that entire range of activity disappear completely from modern Theosophy, as it has produced, in the past, some of those aspects of Theosophy that to this day are among the most interesting, and have done enormous amounts of good for humanity. The use of abilities in the creation of "Theraputic Touch" - a technique that has served countless hundreds of thousands of people and extends Theosophical service far beyond its tiny membership ... Hodson's writings about his interactions with the Angels that have enormously enriched many people's lives (again, far beyond the Theosophical circle) - the people who did this, who are actually possibly responsible for introducing more people to Theosophy than any of the core writings (which are intimidating at first) - they are all now either very old, or dead. From where in current Theosophy will the next generation of Doras and Geoffreys come from ... if any exercise of such abilities has now become institutionally frowned upon? Are the difficulties inherent in their exercise so insurmountable and dangerous that the risk exceeds the enormous possible benefits? -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 12:28:16 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: HPB teachings Brenda: BT> Well, Jerry, this is very good work if you like it and we owe >you a vote of thanks, but not everyone is interested in >approaching theosophy in this manner. We know. For those not attracted to HPB, there are ample study groups elsewhere that are more to their liking. We have also solved the problem reading one philosophy through the skein or another by teaching a 26 week prelininary course in theosophy itself before beginning to teach HPB. It makes a world of difference. Thanks for the support. Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 12:53:10 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Psychic powers To JRC I learned the word "occultist" during my stody of theosophy. I was taught that some people are occultists & like to deal with unseen things scientifically, others are mystics & go only by feel. If you helped solve a crime, my Teacher Harry, was a commando during WWII. It helped that he was able to tell the others where the land mines were, and where enemy soldiers. If going into a criminal's inner self made you sick, there's a way of doing it that won't affect you, but I don't know it. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 13:18:37 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Angels Bee: >I never thought of myself as a well-trained horse in the process.There are >two aspects to it, the horse part consists of somehow standing my >consciousness to one side and allowing some energy that terms itself the >'elder brother' express its ideas. It is like live chat shows, if I do not >want to pass on any idea to be expressed that I may not agree with I have >the option of saying no and the energy will rephrase it or leave it out. I >feel perhaps I should not impose my meagre judgement so it is only rarely >that I do so but the idea is that I can do so if I wish. I also allow what >would be considered an extraterrestial energy to have a say and that one is >also informative and quite humourous as well. This is perhaps a different form of channelling than I've heard of before. With you "watching" and having the option to censor what is said, there's some degree of control over the process. Are you sure that this being is external to you, and not a complex in your own psyche that perhaps has access to psychical senses that you are otherwise unconscious of? (The analogy of a horse is useful, but limited, and should not be carried too far. In your case, the analogy of a talk-show commentator is much better.) >Then also this has developed >the ability to 'know' something in my mind that I may have been meditating >on. It just arrives in bulk and yet it is understood completely all at once. >I joined up with Spiritual Healing many years ago and the concept of energy >existing of various sorts took hold so I have the idea of opening a tube of >sorts that allows whichever energy I request to flow. Therefore Channelling >did not seem a strange thing to do. The distinction that I would come back to is that with channelling it's someone (or something) else speaking through you. That is different than enhancing your own ability to know things directly, and speaking from your own enhanced understanding. >I also think of this tube as access to >my higher self and the knowledge that it has. I can tell the difference in >the energy of either my higher self or the other beings? that come in. Again, there's the sense of communicating with someone or something else outside. In one sense, the Higher Self is not a separate being that talks to us, but rather that it is us, when we function on an higher plane of existence. In another sense, it is what we will become, when we've raised our human selves to the consciousness appropriate to its plane. With either way of looking at we, we've still got the task before us of taking on its higher qualities, of making those qualities a part of ourselves. This is different that entering into communication with it, different than treating it as a different being than ourselves. >I do >not pursue the physical chanelling so much, I enjoy the inner knowledge that >comes to answer important questions and the 'elder brother' has been known >to wake me up at night to discuss some action I am thinking of that is not >the right way to go about it. As President of our little Lodge I was getting >annoyed with something and the advise he gave me was sound and he gave me a >little chat on not using emotional blackmail to control the outcome of >decisions we were trying to make. We are selling the lodge building we have >been in since 1926 so that was a lot of attachment to it. It is no longer >suitable as it is getting old and we have a better place that became >available. I listened to the advise and let things take whatever course they >would. I have left the 'who' of channelling in the yet to be decided basket >and as long as it proves useful I shall use it but if it all gets silly then >I can put it down to an interesting experience. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 13:31:21 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Gimme that old tyme religion Ann: >Dr. Bain:>. It has, though, reminded me that >>"source teachings" received from (say) the Masters derive from >>the teaching that they themselves received form their teachers, >>who recevied it from theirs, and so on back through the >>timelines. > >Way back there! Back to India, Egypt, Atlantis, Lemuria, Venus, the Pleiades, >another galaxy perhaps . . . who knows? Yes it goes way back. We're taught that the knowledge was given to humanity about 18 1/2 million years ago, in the Third Root Race, by the Dhyani-Chohans, and preserved since then by the Masters as a living Wisdom Tradition. And that wisdom held by the Dyhani-Chohans themselves goes farther back -- who knows to what distant past! -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 13:39:39 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Group souls or Individuality Liesel: >I wonder why you guys always single out Leadbeater as the fall >guy. Has anyone on this post ever read IK Taimni, Jinarajadasa, >Sinnett, Hodson, Prem & Ashish's commentaries on the SD, >Baborka, Mills, Nicholson, Collins, Van der Liew, Sri Ram, >Hansen & Linton on the Mahatma Letters, the karma anthology, >Algeo on reincarnation, the Bendits on psychism? These are all >Theosophical writers. It's the ones that come to mind as I >write. There are lots more. Who's going to get counted into the >core teachings? I think the distinction would be if he was the first person to come up with the different ideas, and with those following him repeating the ideas. We would distinguish a split or a new variant of Theosophy with the first key individuals that start it, rather than a randomly-picked individual in the new school. It is a whole school of thought, with many reading, studying, and writing about it; there are many authors to pick from to read the same materials. Why are the materials the same? First, when we read and study something, we'll tend to write the same ideas. If our thinking gets too different, we won't be published by the organization. Second, our psychical experiences can be biased by our expectations. If we have read Sinnett's book, for instance, that tells us that Mars and Mercury are part of the Earth Chain, we'll tend to see it that way, even if Blavatsky later comes along and says that's just not right. So, having studied certain books, we'll tend to see things the way that we've read, and our experiences go to further reinforce our beliefs and those of our fellow students. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 13:45:26 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: On the head of a pin ... Murray: >>JRC: >>I do not in any way universalize my >>experiences ... and am not making any claims that I am telling >>the "truth" about the angelic realm in any absolute sense. >> >> Eldon: >> One can take the approach of writing from personal experiences, and >> never to universalize. Another may be writing about a broad philosophy >> that is universal in nature, that describes the general patterns of >> life. The two approaches are almost like speaking in different >> languages, and from one standpoint the other would have to be rejected. >> ......... >> Again, taking the "personal experience" approach is contrary to >> working with an elaborate philosophical framework. > >Eldon, I think you are overdoing the distinction between these two >approaches, here. Your're right. I've been a bit too "either or" in my description of the two approaches. >The particular is an instance of the universal, and I would see no >conflict in using examples of personal experience in a consideration of >the universal, as long as the difference was kept clear. In fact, it's >essential to look at both, to keep them both on track. Yes. We need both the universal, the philosophical basis of life, and the constant reality checks afforded us by personal experiences. We should neither discount the personal experiences nor throw out the philosophies and go only by personal experience. Both are needed. >To my mind, JRC's comment shows that he had the difference entirely >clear, and was taking care to avoid careless extrapolation or the power >game of saying "This is what I saw, so this is how it is - for all of >you!" My impression was that he was making it clear that he was not attempting to generalize his understanding of angels, and present it to us as an universal truth. I was perhaps reacting to something I remembered reading before -- perhaps incorrectly? -- where he spoke of having rejected various philosophies and concerned himself with the more direct approach to truth of personal experience. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 13:49:24 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Group souls Liesel: >For the sake of clarity someone ought to define group soul. The >concept is that the lower animals have a group soul together. >As they become more & more evolved, less individuals share 1 >group soul. When you get to human beings, individuation has >taken place & each human being has an individual soul. There are a few different descriptions possible. One is the one found in the Besant/Leadbeater teachings, in such textbooks as that by Jinarajadasa. Another is to consider animal collectives (like beehives) and try to understand how they work. A third is to study group and national karma. Whatever approach we take, we should make sure that it is consistent with the other Teachings of Theosophy, like the eternal nature of the Monad. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 13:53:57 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: re: various comments Rich: >Can ANYONE ON THIS BOARD distinguish psychic from noetic? Does no one >understand how Purucker can be in contact with the Masters noetically and not >psychically? Please, read HPB' article, "Psychic and Noetic Action." Could possibly send a passage or paragraph in the article to the mailing list? Maybe we could get into a discussion about it. Thank you, - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 13:55:29 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Group souls or Individuality Liesel: >I agree with "that the approach should be one of presenting the >best we have to offer, ratherthan ... blasting the author & >writing we disagree with." But I would suggest that we have a >panel of all factions sit down together to determine which >writings are the best we have to offer. We could do that, but it may still be necessary to group books by subject matter, and not attempt to say that all our books are talking the same thing. Although we may all recommend books like "The Secret Doctrine," there are differences of view regarding what later books should be offered to new students. This would imply that there could be a "source writings" category that we all would agree on, along with our own favorite variant categories. People in accord with a particular branch of theosophical writings could pick the best books for their category, and leave the selection for "rival" categories to students in those respective areas. Then we don't have to do battle over particular books being proper or not, except in the sense of them being assigned to the appropriate category. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 14:10:32 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: re:re: eldon and paul Eldon: >I don't think that was our intend in what we wrote. I've said a number of times >that there is no attempt to claim that the theosophical approach is an exclusive >one to the spritual Path. That's music to my ears! I may have been mistaken, but I seemed to sense a lot emotionality in Paul's and your post. I would hate to see this list go into a stage of bickering and acts of throwing intellectual tomatoes at other organizations. We've had some wonderful conversations on theos-l from which I have learned a great deal. The posts on chaos have prompted to go to a lecture by Nathan Greer this week at Olcott. I've been introduced to such topics as the Secret Doctrine, the Kabbalah, astrology, the naughty CWL. etc. I'd like to hear more of this. How about posts from the works Purucker? I never heard of him till I came here. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 14:52:10 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: re CWL and Mars Dear Jerry H-E Are you going to start hacking around on Brenda now? Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 15:19:05 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Yogananda's book Ann: >This is also true of Yogananda's book. There was editing done >on it by the Self-Realization Fellowship, after he died, to make >it fit their ideas. Old originals of Biography of a Yoga are >highly prized. Jerry:> I've heard of this. Do you know at which point (which >editions) they began to make changes? No, I've only heard this through friends that managed to pick up an early used book in New York. I could ask them, but they might be hard to get a hold of right now. One of the big changes that was made was that Yogananda wrote that one had to be initiated by any authentic Kriyaban or Kriya swami. The SRI changed it to read that one must be initiated by a Kriyaban from the SRI. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 15:19:15 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Group souls For the sake of clarity someone ought to define group soul. The concept is that the lower animals have a group soul together. As they become more & more evolved, less individuals share 1 group soul. When you get to human beings, individuation has taken place & each human being has an individual soul. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 15:55:54 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: HPB's interesting article Dear Eldon, Please define what is "true" what is "false" and what is "pure". Who is going to determine what belongs into these categories? Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 16:00:44 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: William Q. Judge, modern issues Dear Eldon, I agree with you 100% ... especially with "we've really been left toour own resources from the very beginning". I think HPB et al. showed us a way to think, rather than that she did our thinking for us. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 16:23:51 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Group souls or Individuality I wonder why you guys always single out Leadbeater as the fall guy. Has anyone on this post ever read IK Taimni, Jinarajadasa, Sinnett, Hodson, Prem & Ashish's commentaries on the SD, Baborka, Mills, Nicholson, Collins, Van der Liew, Sri Ram, Hansen & Linton on the Mahatma Letters, the karma anthology, Algeo on reincarnation, the Bendits on psychism? These are all Theosophical writers. It's the ones that come to mind as I write. There are lots more. Who's going to get counted into the core teachings? Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 16:36:14 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Psychic powers I need to say something very briefly here. It seems to me that a viable Theosophical Society is one which enables people grow spiritually according to their various gifts & talents & needs. I think our general aim is to deepen members' spirituality, but the Paths are many, even within Theosophy. They should be indicated, & then the individual should be allowed to follow the Path which best suits him or her. The individual's choice should be respected. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 16:52:25 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Group souls or Individuality Dear Eldon, I agree with "that the approach should be one of presenting the best we have to offer, ratherthan ... blasting the author & writing we disagree with." But I would suggest that we have a panel of all factions sit down together to determine which writings are the best we have to offer. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 17:23:35 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Gimme that old tyme religion Dr. Bain:>. It has, though, reminded me that >"source teachings" received from (say) the Masters derive from >the teaching that they themselves received form their teachers, >who recevied it from theirs, and so on back through the >timelines. Way back there! Back to India, Egypt, Atlantis, Lemuria, Venus, the Pleiades, another galaxy perhaps . . . who knows? - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 17:43:10 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: theosophy class Murray Stentiford: MS>As a theosophical study course organizer, I'd be interested to >see your program for the 26 weeks. Would you be able to post it? > >What sort of group processes do you use in this prelim. course? > >Murray Stentiford >murray@sss.co.nz We are very excited about the course because we are attracting a type of people who never would have looked at theosophy as it is presented today. But I don't want to say too much about content of our course for two reasons: 1. this is only our second time through and we are still making modifications, and 2. It is working so well, that we are planning to package and publish it, so we don't want to broadcast to much about it until we are ready to publish. As for the group process--that I can talk about. We use a "discovery method." Participants come to the group having already read the material. They discuss it from their own experiences and insights. I serve as moderator (traffic director), but I also have a batch of questions worked out in From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 19:34:23 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Psychism ELDON How does one "explore with the mind?" If you mean by studying, reading, and thinking about doctrinal ideas, then I have to disagree completely. I also am not sure what you mean by "exploring with the senses," and I have the uneasy feeling that you don't really know what you are talking about here (I am sure that you do, but it just isn't coming through to me). Exactly what do you think the psychic senses are? I would love for anyone to tell me the difference between "psychic senses" and "exploring with the mind" because the last time I looked, the word psychic was equivalent to mental. What "senses" do we use in yogic meditation? I always thought that the whole goal of "astral traveling" (which is a very misleading name) was to direct consciousness entirely outside of the human mind, which is limited to the third cosmic plane. Inner senses, like the ones we have in dreams, for example, are limited to the second plane. The human mind itself is limited to the direct observation of only one cosmic plane. But consciousness can "explore" all seven cosmic planes. JRC:<., but I also think that if it is possible, *direct experience* is fully co-equal with theory as a tool of both personal development and service. > Yes. In fact, Buddhism encourages it. However, when your own "direct experiences" differ from others, or from the "core teachings" then you may want to review your findings before going public. I just read an article by H.H. The Dali Lama (Tricyle Magazine) in which he comes right out and says that if science discovers that one of our teachings is wrong or impossible, then we need to change our teaching to bring it into line with science." This is exactly my own feeling. Theosophy should work closely with science, and where science shows a teacher/writer to be wrong (as in the case of Mars being inhabited) then we should change the teaching (which, I believe, is exactly what Adyar has been doing). Eldon:< The deep study comes from a self-actualized process that transforms the inner and outer man, a process that reaches from the external senses to the inner spirit, and changes him throughout.> I wish you would expound on this in more detail. I am an "at large" member in both Pasadena and Wheaton, and honestly have no idea what you mean by "deep study." All of my own deep studying has been outside of the TS. < 3. To investigate unexplained laws of nature and the powers latent in man.> The TSs are in kind of a bind here. They have an objective, but at the same time, HPB clearly stated that the TS should not be a training camp for psychics. Is it possible to "investigate" psychism and the "powers latent in man" (which to me clearly suggests kundalini, whose latency is symbolized by a coiled snake) without advocating techniques? It would probably involve treading a very fine line. But I agree with JRC that at the very least, psychics should be accepted as such, and not asked to ignore or supress their abilities. JRC:< the discussion up to now has related to whether or not there is even room for the exercise of abilities within the Theosophical fold. > From my own experiences, I would say no, there is no room. We can discuss them and "investigate" them, but we cannot exercise them. This, at least, would satisfy both the 3rd Objective, and HPB's request to keep "training" out of the TS. JRC:< From where in current Theosophy will the next generation of Doras and Geoffreys come from ... if any exercise of such abilities has now become institutionally frowned upon? Are the difficulties inherent in their exercise so insurmountable and dangerous that the risk exceeds the enormous possible benefits?> You ask a very interesting question. I suspect that Pasadena and Point Loma would both say good riddance (:-) The difficulties and dangers are up to those few individuals who Dare to Try, and not up to the TSs. As I see it, the TSs' job is to make available the "core teachings," which form much of the theoretical end of the psychic milieu. Those individuals with psychic abilities, or those who want them, can find lots of books and/or "gurus" outside of the TSs, while using the "core teachings" as their theoretical background. It works for me. Rich: > Can ANYONE ON THIS BOARD distinguish psychic from noetic? > Does no one understand how Purucker can be in contact with > the Masters noetically and not psychically? Please, read > HPB' article, "Psychic and Noetic Action." There is a technical difference, but it is very hard to describe, and basically the results are the same - both are subject to error and misreading. This might have been what Eldon what getting at with his "exploring with the mind." basically, noetic allows us to communicate with "higher" intelligences than psychic. As far as I am concerned, both fall under the category of "channeling" which itself is a rather broad umbrella term. Liesel:< If going into a criminal's inner self made you sick, there's a way of doing it that won't affect you, but I don't know it.> Its called compassion. And it really does work. Eldon:< We're left, in the final analysis, to seek out our own paths, our own approaches, and must brave them despite the criticism we may arose in those who disapprove.> Agreed. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 19:34:52 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: to Liesel on Group Souls Liesel: Liesel, in my last posting (which was long and you may have missed it), I quoted the definition given by G de Purucker. He says that your definition is inaccurate. I personally agree with G de P. Living with a cattery of Forest Cats every day, I can see individual "souls" in their eyes with no problem at all. To say that they have no individual souls is strickly in line with Christianity, which I also disagree with. Also, I take exception to your "lower animals" as being very prejudist. The main thing that they are "lower" in is technology or what we would call intelligence. But everything else is pretty much there. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 19:35:12 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: To Art Art:< Perhaps there is another way to define the core and that is in a process or attitude way rather than in a belief way. What about a covenant or commitment to explore spirituality (the esoteric life) with authenticity, tolerance and historical integrity?> Good idea. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 21:14:27 GMT From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: Psychic powers - 2nd try [I'm sending this a second time because the first didn't appear to be sent out by the list server. Apologies if you have already received it.] Replying to JRC What a neat post. Though I'm not fully clairvoyant myself, I seem to have enough awareness of other senses and other possibilities to appreciate the isolation and repression that children with these sorts of faculty generally experience. > I guess I believe that this ought to be completely re-thought, and > updated to more effectively serve a very different world. Absolutely. I'm glad you shared your more personal thoughts and feelings about the responses you got from other theosophists. I'm quietly campaigning against that sort of negativity myself, especially with regard to some of the younger people coming into the TS here. The cautions are valid, but let's identify and let go the weird repressive stuff that slips in with the good intentions. > ... what if, for instance, there were all sorts of *other* senses > that we are potentially wired for, but that fall off during those first > few months .. that, in short, the presence of "abilities" does not come > about because of something *added* to the normal human brain, but is > rather the result of something that, for some reason in some people, is > not genetically supressed? There's a faculty called "perfect pitch" in music whereby you can tell exactly what pitch a note is, from just hearing it. That is, without going to an instrument (including your voice) to test it, or without consulting your pitch memories of for example the sound of an open string of a violin. Research in acoustics has shown that there's a time window in most children's lives during which this faculty can be developed if it is stimulated and sympathetically appreciated in the environment. If not cultivated in this time, the chances of developing it are much smaller. Only about one in 10,000 adults have perfect pitch, if I remember rightly. Probably less than the number who have a bit of clairvoyance or other superphysical sensitivity. Furthermore, the phenomenon of synesthesia, where some people experience colour and form when they hear a sound, or other cross-sense couplings, would seem to be a case of neural circuits that didn't get entirely burnt away in childhood. What else are we missing out on? Murray Stentiford murray@sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Sep 1995 23:11:22 GMT From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Subject: Re: Angels >Bee: > >>This subject is very interesting to me personally as I just fell into >>channelling and I still haven't decided what I am channelling or if I am >>deluding myself. The 'energy' has said some helpfull and interesting things >>over the last couple of years but I still not convinced. > >The distinction might relate to what you are actually doing while >"channelling". Are you letting yourself be a vehicle for some other being, >like a well-trained and useful horse, or are you developing yourself to be >a wider, more-expressive channel for your own creativity? When new ideas >come, are they coming as something else speaking through you, or are they >ideas that arise, are considered, and used or not, all coming through your >mind, which is in the controlling position? The primary focus, I'd suggest, >is for each of us to refine our ability to ourselves express more beauty, >truth, intelligence, love, art, music, literature, etc., in the world. We >are training ourselves to be greater forces in the world for the spiritual. > >-- Eldon > I never thought of myself as a well-trained horse in the process.There are two aspects to it, the horse part consists of somehow standing my consciousness to one side and allowing some energy that terms itself the 'elder brother' express its ideas. It is like live chat shows, if I do not want to pass on any idea to be expressed that I may not agree with I have the option of saying no and the energy will rephrase it or leave it out. I feel perhaps I should not impose my meagre judgement so it is only rarely that I do so but the idea is that I can do so if I wish. I also allow what would be considered an extraterrestial energy to have a say and that one is also informative and quite humourous as well. Then also this has developed the ability to 'know' something in my mind that I may have been meditating on. It just arrives in bulk and yet it is understood completely all at once. I joined up with Spiritual Healing many years ago and the concept of energy existing of various sorts took hold so I have the idea of opening a tube of sorts that allows whichever energy I request to flow. Therefore Channelling did not seem a strange thing to do. I also think of this tube as access to my higher self and the knowledge that it has. I can tell the difference in the energy of either my higher self or the other beings? that come in. I do not pursue the physical chanelling so much, I enjoy the inner knowledge that comes to answer important questions and the 'elder brother' has been known to wake me up at night to discuss some action I am thinking of that is not the right way to go about it. As President of our little Lodge I was getting annoyed with something and the advise he gave me was sound and he gave me a little chat on not using emotional blackmail to control the outcome of decisions we were trying to make. We are selling the lodge building we have been in since 1926 so that was a lot of attachment to it. It is no longer suitable as it is getting old and we have a better place that became available. I listened to the advise and let things take whatever course they would. I have left the 'who' of channelling in the yet to be decided basket and as long as it proves useful I shall use it but if it all gets silly then I can put it down to an interesting experience. Bee > > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Sep 1995 00:24:29 GMT From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: On the head of a pin ... Subj: RE: On the Head of a Pin ... This is to JRC and Eldon, in turn. JRC, Please continue with your descriptions of investigations of the "angelic" kingdom. I am most interested. Eldon, >JRC: >I do not in any way universalize my >experiences ... and am not making any claims that I am telling >the "truth" about the angelic realm in any absolute sense. > > Eldon: > One can take the approach of writing from personal experiences, and > never to universalize. Another may be writing about a broad philosophy > that is universal in nature, that describes the general patterns of > life. The two approaches are almost like speaking in different > languages, and from one standpoint the other would have to be rejected. > ......... > Again, taking the "personal experience" approach is contrary to > working with an elaborate philosophical framework. Eldon, I think you are overdoing the distinction between these two approaches, here. The particular is an instance of the universal, and I would see no conflict in using examples of personal experience in a consideration of the universal, as long as the difference was kept clear. In fact, it's essential to look at both, to keep them both on track. To my mind, JRC's comment shows that he had the difference entirely clear, and was taking care to avoid careless extrapolation or the power game of saying "This is what I saw, so this is how it is - for all of you!" Murray Stentiford murray@sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Sep 1995 00:47:20 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Various comments > Jerry S.: " The Lodge itself inspires them via (dare I say the > naughty p word?) psychism in the form of intuitive > communications. " > > Egad. Intuition, the REAL kind, not self-deluded, is a faculty of Buddhi. > Psychism is SENSE-PERCEPTION of the Astral nature. > > Jerry S., I agree with you, we need the idea of "source teachings" to clear > up confusions just like this one. Yes to both comments above. It has, though, reminded me that "source teachings" received from (say) the Masters derive from the teaching that they themselves received form their teachers, who recevied it from theirs, and so on back through the timelines. In the initiation I received via the Shankaracharya school each guru was asked to assist, by name, going back, and back, and back - a very long list of names of former holders of this Himalayan office. There is still a living Shankaracharya, just as there was when HPB mentioned him and his office. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Sep 1995 01:00:04 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: JRC to Eldon JRC: > ... even the Masters in the Mahatma >Letters clearly both possessed and exercised a rather stunning >array of what you would call "lower psychic powers". The problem >I have with the opinions of some Theosophists about "psychism" is >that they confuse agency with agent. Agreed that the fact of having or not having psychic powers says nothing about the inner man. >Having some inner sense or >ability is not, in and of itself, a "lower" or "higher" thing, >and only becomes open to that sort of judgement when the question >of its use arises. An Olympic physical body is not morally or >spiritually lower *or* higher ... if, however, it models a pure >physical vehicle, or helps build an orphanage in Africa, it is >"higher" ... while if it beats the hell out of people it is >"lower" - it is not an ability (be it body, "psychic" or mind) >that is higher or lower, but rather the intent behind its >exercise. Yes, how we put our faculties to use is of utmost importance. >Further, I do not believe an Olympic body and something >like clairvoyance are *equally* side issues - first, because the >Mahatmas (if you accept the Mahatma letters) certainly didn't >bother to pump iron (-:) ... while they apparently *did* bother >develop clairvoyance from latency into potency, indicating (at >least to me) that they found some spiritual value to its >development (as they didn't appear to expend energy on *anything* >that didn't have some spiritual value), But the type of training appropriate to a Mahatma is not necessarily the best for the common aspirant. Someone would not, for instance, learn to touch type before learning the alphabet and how to spell. >and second, because some >inner abilities may *not* simply come from the "lower" vehicles, >but may be the analogs of sensory apparatus possessed by the >"higher" vehicles - and their possession may then be an >indication of those vehicles swinging into full operation. This description is more in accord with the Adyar viewpoint, and I'd tend to disagree. On each plane on which we'd exist, there's a vehicle for us. But the planes *are not* the attributes of consciousness. Mind is not "mental body" or the counterpart of a physical body for some mental plane, despite how it is described in some books. On each plane we have all the seven (or ten) principles of consciousness, including mind, and consciousness is a thing in its own right, apart from anything physical on whatever plane. >ELDON natures. One is in terms of a stream of consciousness, which >could be considered a continuum. The other is in terms of a >series of centers of consciousness, where there is a definite >sense of "higher" and "lower" centers, along with higher and >lower planes, states of evolution, etc.> >Yes, this second sort, I believe, is a *template* layed upon >the continuum to make it comfortable to the operations of the >mind - which by its very nature has a terrible time dealing with >the universe as anything other than discrete units it can get its >fingers around. I would not give a secondary status to the "quanta" view of things. We find the "particle" and "wave" descriptions of life throughout the religions and philosophies of the world. One approach may call a person a fixed, eternal Self, another may call the person a stream of consciousness with no enduring self. This duality is really two modes of experiencing life. Although both are equally true, it depends upon which standpoint we take how things appear for the moment. >In the Mahatma Letters and other "core" (tee hee) >teachings, a template (or a few scraps of one) is presented (a >template that seems to have, whether intentionally or not, large >gaps in it) - but the template is not the continuum. I do not >personally believe that the template is the truth, but is more >like a means of getting people accustomed to thinking about >things in different terms, of making the mind more fluid - in >*preparation* for interaction with layers of being that *can* >participate coherently in the continuum. If we're talking about the seven or ten principles, I'd agree that there is much more to them than initially meets the eye. Taking something like the color "red", it is something real, even though we cannot, perhaps, pinpoint the exact spot on the spectrum where "red" starts and some other color leaves off; the boundries are fuzzy even though the sense of redness is quite real. As grand as the >cosmology and anthropolgy in the ML & SD are, they were not even >the teachings given to the Mahatmas "lowest" initiates ... they >were those the Mahatmas considered safe for those who wished to >prepare themselves for the first touch of *probation*. Agreed. And we must go much deeper if we want to even scratch the surface. > I have a good friend with a Economics PhD, and he tells a >funny story about his first graduate level class; the professor >began the class by telling the students to throw out everything >they had learned about economics as undergrads because it would >just get in the way of actually learning to *do* economics. We need to do the same thing. But when we "throw out" the old, we are not putting it all in the trash can. Rather, we're putting the pieces of the puzzle on the table, then putting it together again, perhaps a bit better this time than before. We're allowing what we think we know to open to reevaluation, at risk of change in any point, but not discarding it. > I believe some Theosophists believe the template in the ML & >SD is identical, however, with the *actual* "esoteric" wisdom, >and this may at times cause them to act as though the ranking >they do according to that template is rather more absolute than >it may in fact be. It is possible for any of us to take a limited presentation of deep Truths and misunderstand them. >I am not saying there is not great value in >studying that template ... it would not have been presented were >there not, only that there is a danger of believing that when one >understands the template one understands the "truth" of the inner >worlds For most of us, I'd suggest that the "inner worlds" offer little benefit to our spiritual progress, no more than a visit to a Brazilian rainforest. I suspect that contact with other planes would be an easy thing, but that we are protected against it, so that we can focus on developing faculties of consciousness that do not involve "physical" experiences on those alternate worlds. > - and this danger may be greater than that of a >clairvoyant believing his/her visions are all perfectly clear ... >greater both because there are far more people alive right now >claiming that their "template" is the *true* template then there >are clairvoyants, and because the mind, possessing almost at its >core a sort of arrogance, seems far more inclined to attempt to >impose or enforce its "truths" on others. Arrogance and the desire to impose one's "truths" upon others is not the exclusive property of either philosophers or seers, but comes from a deficiency in necessary spiritual qualities. We all need to work on it. >ELDON delusion than the external senses. But on the other hand, it is >when we "explore with the mind" that we more swiftly approach the >truth, rather than "exploring with the senses," even be they >superphysical.> >Again, this is a levels vs. continuum argument, and your >perspective seems to be that of the mind itself. I would call a >"sense" anything that provides a doorway through which impulses >may enter consciousness. I would consider the mind as one form of consciousness per se, and the senses as one form of input to it. >Is it not possible that to the "Monad" >both the mind and clairvoyance are *both* nothing other than >"lower" "psychic" senses? All the seven principles represent to me the various ingredients that make up a fully-conscious, embodied person. I would not say that if we take a higher standpoint, that the intermediate principles seem to be themselves "senses". >Those whose inner predilections >emphasize the mind certainly will have minds that place mind >"above" many other things, and the mind would certainly be >appalled to be called nothing other than yet another >superphysical "sense" (in its receptive mode), and will obviously >take to a system of development that says the next "step" is to >develop the "higher" mind ... but (IMO) this is only one of a >number of different streams of possible development. We have much to develope in any of our seven principles. The mind is not the only part of us needing development. In fact, being in the Fourth Round, it is desire, self-initiative, the will to do things, the Kama principle, that is undergoing intensive development. The full reach and scope of the mind is something that will only become an important issue in a far distant age in the future. >In fact many >of us may have such different vectors that we would be being >untrue to our highest impulses if we even tried to follow the >same model of growth That has always been true. There is nothing that says that one should follow a path that is not appropriate. If Theosophy attempts to describe things in cosmological terms, and talk of things we learned in our far distant past, or talk of things appropriate in our far distant future, we can read them with interest, but find them of little practical value for the life at hand. >- I believe in either the ML or SD there are >several hints about the fact that when all that can be learned on >earth is learned (call it taking the "final" terrestrial >initiation) there are very different directions that open before >our consciousnesses - that even at this early stage of >development many of us may *already* be moving in very different >directions. My impression is that the earth *is the place* for us. Specifically, this is where we are in embodied existence, interact with others, and make new karma. Our after-death states are in a form of dreamlife where we are not in active interaction with others. We have a troubled sleep in kamaloka, followed by a nicer dreamlife in devachan, but we are not self-conscious and active on another plane *in a world of causes* or "objective" realm. We seek out continued existence on this earth because this is where the human lifewave is, and we belong to it. And except for Initiates, some form of temporary existence on other planes is inappropriate. >Ah, yes, and we'd go to a doctor of medicene to learn >medicene, because he/she had *done* medicene. So ... who would >you go to to learn about, for instance, angels? Someone who had >read about them from within a very specific theoretical >construct, or someone that saw them and worked with them? Analogies are always limited, and cannot be carried too far. My alternate analogy would be that in a university setting we would study the existing body of scientific knowledge first, and not just head to the labs, without any formal scientific training. >And >please understand, *I* am not saying that books have no use, and >that theorectical constructs are "lower" (I just can't even rank >things that way) - and I have certainly read virtually the entire >library of a TS branch, as well as a good deal of Kabala, >Buddhism, Western Occultism & etc., but I also think that if it >is possible, *direct experience* is fully co-equal with theory as >a tool of both personal development and service. Direct experience is useful, and it takes us further. But there are many forms of direct experience. >The third [TS object] has >been (IMO) quite ignored, because it is *far* riskier. It holds >the implication of not just studying the "ancient wisdom" and >learning what to call all sorts of levels of postulated awareness The original object was singular, to make eastern knowledge available in the west. The three objects came later on in the T.S. history. >.. but of actively seeking to break new ground ... of >*discovery*. It is damn uncomfortable, sloppy business. Is there >possibly delusion? Certainly. Is there danger involved? Of course >.. as in almost all scientific discovery.> Yes. And there are two ways of breaking new ground. One is as a seer, with personal visions offered as evidence of other worlds and beings. The second is as philosopher, with new insights into life. >Yes, agreed that this is your personal understanding of what >Theosophy is, and I do not believe I have ever said it was not >valid. I obviously have a far different approach, and one aspect >of that is to point out that the 3rd Object, in whatever form, >has been almost completely avoided by modern Theosophy - and >while I was arguing that perhaps its time to face the >difficulties of re-integrating it into Theosophical thought and >activity (both because it *is* present in the Objects, and >beecause it could provide substantial service), you seemed to say >that such activity *was* to be excluded, because it was not what >we were "told" Theosophy was "intended" to be. Perhaps there is a place for it. But I'd suggest that any consideration of it would be as a "along with" rather than an "instead of" approach. It would still be something that I'd recommend that people avoid, if they did not already have awakened psychical abilities. But for those with such abilities arising naturally, there's no harm in using the abilities to see what's "out there" and pass on what is seen. >JRC do not say that that version of theosophy is the only one that >was intended. This was the approach strongly emphasised by Purucker at Point Loma. There are a number of spiritual traditions, and no single theosophical school is attempting to claim that it is appropriate for all people of all backgrounds throughout the world. >If numbers of people are beginning to find >themselves born with a sensory apparatus that permits them to see >a vibratory range outside of the current human norm, is this not >something operating according to an unexplained law of nature? Is >it not a power latent in man? Is not what I was suggesting >*fully* in line with the 3rd Object of the TS? Especially when I >am suggesting that the phenomena not only be "investigated", but >integrated into the powerful service ethic implicit in the First >Object?> We are surrounded by countless invisible worlds. There is much that goes unseen. There come times when an increased number of people have these abilities. They need to understand how the abilities work, both in theory and in practice, and then find a useful place in their lives for the abilities. >In nothing I wrote is anything stated, or implied, about >exclusivity. Nothing I said ever stated that the sort of activity >you engage in and call "Theosophical" was not Theosophical, or >should be in any way frowned upon or supressed, or was in any way >"lower" than another kind of activity. It's good that we can coexist with mutual respect. The harder part will by to all each other's different philosophical descriptions of life to coexist. >While your intention may >have been different, with your *words* you did both of those >things to me. All I ever stated was that a form of activity, >clreay recognized in the Objects, ought to be *added* to the >Theosophical world. You were the one that rejected this and said >that it shouldn't. I said "X *in addition* to Y", you said "X, >*not* Y" is "intended" Theosophical activity. Perhaps. Sometimes we oversimplify. When I mention that in spiritual training we are told to "shut down the psychic," that applies to *a particular type of training,* and it applies to a certain approach to the spiritual. It does not mean that it is always deemphasized, nor does it mean that it applies for everyone, of all traditions and approaches. Do you, perhaps, likewise get a bit carried away in discounting the established philosophy? >Further, I believe anyone who has belonged to an >organization long enough to have some status within it must >acknowledge that the status affects people. What I had tried to >convey, using myself as a expample, was the fact that those born >with abilities are as vulnerable (at least early in their lives) >to the opinions of others as any other people who are "different" >in some way. Yes. Power corrupts, including the sense of being special in some way. Members of some esoteric group, for instance, might be tempted to feel superior to non-members, when that feeling of superiority is really a sign that they are not spiritual at all! But equally corrupting is the status and recognition that many will accord a seer, retelling otherworldly visions. By telling us of your experiences, you're opening yourself up to the same dangers of being tempted into feeling special, in feeling that you have special insight into life, that the admiration of would-be clairvoyants would accord you. >One of the problems I've seen with the intense >intellectualism that typifies much of Theosophy is that it can >easily forget that it is *humans*, not just ideas that travel the >path. True. We can become so wrapped up in ideas that we lose touch with external life. A strong bond is necessary between our ideas and our experiences of life, or we're really just making ourselves a nice devachanic dreamworld for the after-life. >When a person has some inner ability, it commonly produces >both an insecurity, as well as a *need* to find some way to >understand it, to find a place for it in a bigger picture. These >people *often* try out all sorts of spiritual, "esoteric" >organizations ... because mainstream religion often rejects them. We all have various talents. Clairvoyance may be considered one, but so is the ability to draw well, to make music, or to write grand ideas. It's important that we are encouraged to find some useful, creative endeavor to undertake in a lifetime, some personalized way of making a contribution to the world. >You may, if you wish, advocate any ideas you wish ... but from >what you have written it seemed as though you were oblivious to >the fact that for some, these are not just ideas. When a person >with some ability comes to their first TS meeting, they are >seeking something. When they get up the courage to mention, >publically in a meeting, that they might possess some sort of >ability, it is not an ideological statement, it is really the >tentative sticking of a toe into the water, it is the question, >"Do I *belong* here, am I *welcome* here?". If the response, >especially from those with status in the group, is to say that >such things are "lower", that they should be discouraged or >supressed (based on a purely theoretical viewpoint), that >translates as "No, you do *not* belong here". Yes, that does sound discouraging to someone new. But in our theosophical groups, we're not given a creed of conduct, a religious code to follow. We're taught to learn and explore and to acquire the ability to know for ourselves. The focus is on those fragments of the Mystery Teachings which we've been priviledged to have been given by the Masters. We're not in the position to tell someone how to live his life, and when we do so, we're acting like a religious authority rather than a fellow student -- and that's not good. >I'm simply trying to convey to you that those born with inner >traits cannot *help* but take people's opinions and ideologies >about such traits as something rather more than just theoretical >opinions with no more meaning than one's opinions about cats. There's a lot more meaning to theosophical ideas than personal opinions about cats. Here's where it's important to make a distinction between our personal views or insights and the Teachings in their original form, where we pass them on in an unadulterated form. We may all have our differing views, but need to devote a certain amount of the time to teaching the original Teachings, so that the new students can have a change to learn and explore them in their own way. >In my view, *everyone* ought to be fully welcomed in >Theosophy, not just in words but in attitudes ... and should be >*fully validated* even if they are practicing the "lowest" forms >of psychism or channelling. When such a person feels completely >welcomed, feels unjudged, they are likely to start dropping the >barriers (that everyone erects towards new groups), and will then >begin being open to the Theosophical "current". Yes. That is a good general rule. But when we study the core concepts, we need to put personal opinions aside and really study the materials. >Let them begin >attending meetings, reading books, trying meditations, and as >their energy-system refines, many of them may likely, *of their >own accord* mature out of the activities they were engaging in. >Others, who may very conceivably have been born with some ability >*meant to be exercised in service* (in the same way as some are >born healers, others born musicians & etc.) will find those >abilities refine and clarify as their inner nature refines and >clarifies. Yes. Let each person try their own approach to the spiritual. We can keep our advice to ourselves, unless asked for, and practice a good deal of tolerance for those with differing approaches. > Point is, attitudes that place judgements upon inner >abilities right off the bat can easily *unconsciously* reject >people from the Theosophical current, people who may well have >been *guided to Theosophy for the very purpose of outgrowing >dangerous practices, or refining abilities for service*. We all have our biases that lead us to "unconscous rejection" of those involved in things we downplay or discount in our lives. >You tend to frame even personal statements in >universal terms ... e.g., "I'd say that we should not pass >judgement (nor pass counter-judgement upon those we perceive as >judging us)" ... is this *really* just a universalized statement, >as its terminology seems to indicate? Or are you saying (as seems >to be the case, as it would make no sense otherwise) "JRC *you* >counter-judged *me* because *you* perceived me as judging *you*". >Doing this, to me, is a bit disingenuous, as it allows you to >always appear as though you are above it all ... allows you to >always be able to stand back innocently and say that it was only >ideas, it was nothing "personal" ... and even take the high road >and suggest "we" do not have to "attack" anyone in the process. We are certainly judging *our ideas*, but are we also judging each other *as people*? I'm looking at this as a philosophical discussion, not as my being on trial (or as trying you). I'm not sure that putting it in direct personal terms, and making it seem a personal confrontation, makes our exchange any more real or valid. >My particular preference is to use personal words when it is >personal (in fact my generation frames anything else as >"avoidance"). I'm sorry if you felt attacked ... but in my view >you were not just affirming your point of view, you were >affirming a point of view that at times rather pointedly rejected >my point of view as not being what Theosophy was intended to be. My alternate preference is to use general terms, rather than personal words. It may be a matter of writing style. We are both affirming points of view that may need to be expressed differently so as to not sound like an attack on other views. What I have consciously felt, in responding to you, was not something defensive, something in response to an attack, but rather that your statements provided me with an interesting situation to write about Theosophy on. Hopefully, with our exchanges, we can both refine our communication and writing skills. >Jung may not harmonize with your approach, >but you would not try to discredit him, or attempt to avoid >discussions of his insights, or supress the sorts of >investigations he and his proponents do as something Theosophy >shouldn't be engaging in, yet you seem do so with clairvoyance. Granted. But I would make a distinction between trying to discredit something and trying to understand and explain it in theosophical terms, to the best of my understanding. The theosophical description of what happens in seances, with kamarupas and shades, for instance, would sound like an attempt to discredit Spiritualism, to its sincere believers. >Yes, but your claim to "direct insight" ... >is every bit as much open to interpretation as >anyone's clairvoyance is - and is also being used as an authority >for what you say ... is it not? That is why I would have to be careful to distinguish between anything that I have come up with on my own from what I have accurately learned from the theosophical Teachings. When making a statement, I should either add "this is what I've found to be true" or add "and thus have I heard." >You say that the standard by >which you judge clairvoyance does not come from either books, or >from actually having the faculty, but from this thing called >"direct insight", which is implied (in fact stated) to be >"higher" than any sensory apparatus - and is used as a foundation >for the apparent claim that your perspective is not only >something more than just your opinion about it, but somehow gives >a greater understanding of it than those who actually possess it >have. Agreed that making any authoritative statement based upon ideas arising from such an approach can not be proven any more than clairvoyant visions. > Difference is, I am not presuming to judge what you >experience as "direct insight", or in any way place it a ranking >system, while you apparently feel fully comfortable do so to my >experience of clairvoyance. I should be allowed to make "descriptive" comments about how things work, as long as they are not unfairly judgemental. Being judgemental is really taking an intervention in someone else's life, and should be avoided except in exceptional cases. It is a form of interferring in their karma. >I fully agree that my ideas and >conclusions about raw clairvoyant data are open to >interpretation, but this discussion hasn't mentioned any raw data >(though the angelic post does a bit) - the discussion up to now >has related to whether or not there is even room for the exercise >of abilities within the Theosophical fold. Yes, they are open to interpretation. And that means that we can attempt to understand and describe the experiences, even though you may not always agree with us. We can disagree but should avoid being disagreeable. > I'm running out of time too. >ELDON presentations of the differing approachs without any of us >getting at each other's throats.> >Agreed, let's both stop. Let's keep up the discussions, but discard the judgemental stuff and belittling of other views. >I have a tremendous amount of respect for you Eldon, and would >not want the perspective you so eloquently argue to ever leave >the Theosophical family. I also believe that the 3rd Object has >fallen into a state approaching complete atrophy, and would hate >to see that entire range of activity disappear completely from >modern Theosophy, as it has produced, in the past, some of those >aspects of Theosophy that to this day are among the most >interesting, and have done enormous amounts of good for humanity. Let's see what comes of this. We should also remember, though, that the three objects of the Adyar T.S. are not an exclusive charter for spirituality in the world. What we do is primarily based upon an inner urge towards creative self-expression, and not from following some rules laid out for theosophical membership in the last century. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Sep 1995 03:18:06 GMT From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: HPB teachings Jerry H-E> We have > also solved the problem reading one philosophy through the skein > or another by teaching a 26 week prelininary course in theosophy > itself before beginning to teach HPB. It makes a world of > difference. As a theosophical study course organizer, I'd be interested to see your program for the 26 weeks. Would you be able to post it? What sort of group processes do you use in this prelim. course? Murray Stentiford murray@sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Sep 1995 05:02:16 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: to Liesel on Group Souls Jerry S: >Living with a cattery of Forest Cats >every day, I can see individual "souls" in their eyes with >no problem at all. To say that they have no individual >souls is strickly in line with Christianity, which I also >disagree with. >Also, I take exception to your "lower animals" as being >very prejudist. The main thing that they are "lower" in >is technology or what we would call intelligence. But >everything else is pretty much there. Even a rock is individual if you can pick it up and take it home, and even if it can't be moved and it's stuck somewhere it may be unlike the material it is stuck in and in that way be individual. Pull up a plant by it's root, look at it, it's individual. The point is that while mankind on its downward arc through mental, astral, and finally into physical existence is reaching toward individualization, which on this fourth globe is at its peak, so too is mankind reaching away from individualization and towards unity on the upward arc through lesser and lesser degrees of matter until we reach the seventh globe where we are the most homogeneous. Is my thinking individual? Is the cat's activity individual? See the difference? Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Sep 1995 06:32:22 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Have to say good-bye Jerry Hejka-Ekins: >However, inconsistencies between the primary and secondary >literature has created frustrations for me, because many people >are reluctant to accept that such inconsistencies exist. . . >When we begin talking about the seven principles, I have to explain >that HPB's "astral body" is not what CWL means by "astral body." >that HPB's "Linga Sarira" is different from CWL's "Etheric body", >that the "Causal body" is not a principle per se in HPB's >schemas...and the eyes begin to glaze over. It makes me want to >beat my head against a wall. I've tried to reconcile Edgar Cayce, Kriya yoga and Alice Bailey over a period of more than 20 years. I must confess that I found HPB too difficult to read and thought the Bailey material most suitable for myself. It is only in the last few years that I've attempted some of HPB's material, directly. I never owned the Secret Doctrine until this summer. As a sidebar to this, I am in working with a Gnostic Bishop at this time. I speak in Bailey terminology and he responds in gnostic. We try to meet somewhere in the middle and are learning from each other. With this post, I bid the list adieu, but hopefully, not forever. My TS study group is starting up again after a summer vacation. There are also fall lectures and workshops on the horizon, not to mention various other activities. I'll get back when it slows down or I catch up, whichever comes first! Blessings to all, - ann Send e-mail to 72723.2375@compuserve.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Sep 1995 06:35:27 GMT From: dhedrick@csn.net Subject: Re: Arguments of ... >>Argument of Change >>The premise reveals that everything that exists must at some point >>in time not exist in its current condition. The Law of Entropy drives >>this argument. You nor I existed 100 yrs ago nor will we exist 100 >>yrs from now. Our current condition will change. This change will >>always be degraded. > >This is an essential teaching of Buddhism, which is also basically >sound. Everything is subject to continual change. There can exist >nothing that is immune from being subject to change. > Except God. >>Argument of Causality >>Only that which is not bound by CAUSE/CHANGE can be the prime >>mover (whether personal or impersonal). The primemover does not >>require anything other than itself to exist, and cannot change. And >>in this only the Prime Mover can be considered an Actual infinite. >>There are no known actual infinites that exist within the bounds >>of CAUSE/CHANGE and the Laws of Thermodynamics. > >There is no prime mover. Each of us is our own "prime mover", individually >responsible for our existence. It is our inner choice to come into >existence, made in a deep part of ourselves, that motivates our coming >out into manifestation in this world. You have slipped away from the law. Which is not possible. You cannot be responsible for your own existence. You cannot create yourself. You cannot determine who your parents are. You have no evidence whatsoever for such a declaration as to assume our choice to come into existence. > > >The universe that we know from the big bang is but a grain of sand, a >speck of dust, an mere atom in yet a bigger universe. And that bigger >universe is part of a still bigger scheme of things. There is no top, >and we cannot find a "highest", no matter how high we try to go. There >are infinite levels or scales of being going upward, and *no top*. This is a declaration of the "Universe" being an actual infinite. This is outside the bounds of material logic. The universe is finite. > >Every religion and its sects have their holy books. Each tells in myth >and story grand spiritual truths. There are great truths hidden behind >the stories. The stories are not literally true. They hide deeper >truths for those with the proper "keys" to unlock them. > So the bible's Creation account is a myth? The flood? Moses? Israel? Jesus? All mythical characters attempting to reveal hidden truth. The LOUD error here is that the bible never maked claims of mythical foundations. Geneologies are presented in an effort to support ACTUAL people, places and times. >>(I am the Lord...I do not Change) >>And that He created something out of nothing. >>(In the Beginning God said "Let there be Light"...) > >This sounds like the creative intelligence that makes *a particular world >or universe*. The "God the Creator" from the Old Testament is Elohim, >plural, and refers to a host of high Archangels (called Dhyani-Chohans in >Theosophy), not to a singular being, supreme over everything, everywhere. > Elohim is the plural form of Eloah (God). So, Elohim means, in fact, Gods. It is common in Biblical Hebrew, to express something eminent in the plural form. For example, the great beast in Job 40:15 is put in the plural, behemot; not because it are more beasts, but it is a great beast. God, being exceedingly eminent, is rightly put in the plural form, to express this. In my opinion, therefore, this is the first meaning of the plural form of Elohim. This is proved by the fact, that the plural "Elohim" is connected with a singular verb. This happens very often in the Bible. For example, when we translate "God said", the Hebrew gives the plural Elohim connected with the singular "said". This shows us that God is one. Nearly all the instances of "Elohim" are so. The first and the most important meaning of Elohim is therefore not to express the Trinity, but God's manifold majesty and all other virtues. There are, however, a few texts, wherein the plural Elohim not is connected with a singular verb, but with a plural. These texts serve as proofs for the Trinity. See an example in Genesis 20:13. We read there: "And it came to pass, when God caused me to wander from my father's house..." The Hebrew original has the word "caused" in the plural form. Thus: "Elohim [plural Subject] caused [plural verb] me to wander". This texts, and the like, show us that there is some plurality in the one God. In all of the responses to the arguments that I have posed not one response has critically examined the validity of these arguments. Some have evaded and redirected the premises to there own liking but in the end... God is independent. God is unchangeable. God is Creator. Man is dependent. Man is changeable. Man is created. Daniel Evangelical Polemist 1Pet3:15 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Sep 1995 06:50:08 GMT From: dhedrick@csn.net Subject: Former Christian It is sad when one reads so many compliments to a heart felt letter from someone declaring deconvertion. It is perversion. Obviously it is clear that the same arguments that caused his redirection are the same arguments used to validate the origin of the bible. 66books. 40authors. One message. I prayed about the loss and the Lord revealed two scriptures to me. First...John 11:35 Jesus Wept. Second...Eph 6:4-5 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers with the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good Word of God and of the powers of the age to come, If they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and PUT HIM TO AN OPEN SHAME. No one here has honestly and openly investigated the validity of the New and Old Testament. And if you had, your rose colored glasses caused you to be blinded from the obvious. There is SOOOOO much evidence that it baffles the intellect. Only the depraved mind could interpret less than accurate and the reprobate less than inspired. Will anyone here ask for the evidence to be presented? Remember, FAITH is the substance of things not seen and the EVIDENCE of what is hoped for. Daniel Evangelical Polemist 1Pet3:15 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Sep 1995 07:13:16 GMT From: dhedrick@csn.net Subject: Re: Arguments of ... I have been thinking about Theos all weekend... PROVE GOD. Hmmm... The bible says that we are overcomers by the blood of the lamb and the word of our testimony. So I must testify. First....I have four children and a godly wife. I have a Systems Engineer position that brings home the bacon. I attempt to keep versed in many areas of knowledge...for me it is primarily...dealing with the occults or christian like religions. The point is what is it that separates us or makes us different besides the fact that we live in different in states/continents? The JOY of the Lord is my strength. Where does your joy come from? Have you ever taken any drugs? Well you realize the effect...because the reactions to the drugs your body goes through is opposite to normal reactions. The change is real. Without the drug there would be no change. Can I see God? I cannot see the wind....but I can see where it has been. Can I hear God? Can I touch God? The answer to all of these is yes. I have hundreds of examples that testify to the Power of God in the lives of those around which the Lord has allowed me to experience and in my life too. Can I hear God?---I was on an airplane to Colorado...sitting next to a young girl. We were chatting about nothing. I kept on hearing in the place that you know that you know you know. A quiet voice. "Tell her that she needs to hold the things of God as precious as a one carot diamond." I heard this for a while. I was running on doubt..about the origin of this message, But it persisted...so I reached out in faith and told the girl. I was not forceful...I merely explained that I believe that the Lord of Heaven has a message for you through me. She cried...a lot...I mean a lot... I thought that I had hurt her feelings or I don't know what. But in a discussion that followed she explained her reaction. She said that Her Mom and Dad just got divorced, and that her Dad gave her the wedding ring. What do you think the wedding ring was? A one carot diamond! She also stated that she was so busy with school that she felt divorced from God. She too was a christian. In the one statement (the message from God) I was a tool of which grabbed her heart. Where does your Joy come from? Even in darkness and despair. I challenge you. God created us...without his presence in our life there is no true peace...true love...true joy. If this is true then even after you get the Wife, the kids, the house, the dollars, the career, the sporting trophies, the vacation or receive wisdom and enlightenment for theos-l...there will still be emptiness. I love the life God has provided...but without acknowledging his divine actions in my life...I would not enjoy the blessings of this world as much as I do. I would come to expect them...and most likely neglect them. The more I am reminded about God's interactions in my life...the more I am reaffirmed about his power and desire to use me and mine. I have cast out devils...healed the sick...delivered men & women out of darkness...etc. But not by my strength. (I do not have the drugs to give...as an anology) There is but one divine physician. I am a tool. To be used for His glory. Another challenge...try for a moment...a season to look at everything as if the Lord's hand was directly placed apon it. Look at the ocean...as its beauty as a work of the Holy one. Look at your children as a gift from God. For a moment slide the mystical and the spooky natural aside. Simply open your eyes to the wonderous creation. Can you look apon the sunset or a heart felt smile without recognizing the Holy One? For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Daniel Evangelical Polemist 1Pet3:15 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Sep 1995 07:43:01 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Bitter/Sweet According to Richtay@aol.com: > > Dear Mr. Johnson, Please don't call me that. Either make it Paul, or hey you. I'm not here to have formal exchanges of the sort implied by use of Mr. > > Your bitterness surrounding the reception of your book is understandable, but That requires some explanation. The bitterness is only partial, given that reception of the book has been way beyond my wildest dreams. Here are some aspects of the experience of writing the book that have been decidedly sweet: 1. Three major Theosophical publishers each devoted about a year to considering the manuscript of my first book. Even though it was rejected, there is some evidence of openness in the willingness to consider it. 2. The publisher, SUNY Press, decided to publish on the basis of readers' reports from scholars unknown to me, and has promoted the book quite well. 3. 7 of 8 reviewers thus far has been favorable, including Joy Mills, Claire Walker, John Cooper, Edward Hower, all FTS. 4. A rave in the New York Times Book Review is the best possible reward for my years of labor. 5. Sales are quite respectable, with the book in its fourth (small) printing. 6. I received help and advice from a great many Theosophical scholars, named in the acknowledgments. 7. My research has been presented to Theosophical groups in D.C., Baltimore, and Oakland CA with little or no apparent objections from anyone in the audience. Indeed, in face to face encounters, Theosophists (Adyar) have always been quite marvellous to me, and I have nary a complaint. So what's to be bitter about? 1. No book on Theosophy published since I became a Theosophist in 1978 has attracted nearly the same level of negative reaction as The Masters Revealed. Angry letters to the editor, hostile letters to me, attacks on theos-l, and most recently John Algeo's two scathing reviews, all add up to an unprecedented level of opposition. 2. After 17 years in the movement, I no longer feel secure that there is any Theosophical headquarters-- Pasadena, Wheaton, Adyar, etc.-- where I can feel at home and not expect to be made unwelcome, at least by a chill in the air. > your condemnation of the TS and ULT and any other Theosophical groups is very > striking. It was on one issue, the presence of fundamentalism, that I was condemning certain aspects of the Theosophical movement. There is much to praise in all of the groups. > > You are a very able critic, and much of what you say has some merit. But can > you be constructive with equal ardor? Yes. As a matter of fact, my books are evidence of that. What do you see as valuable in > Theosophical work today? Most everything that's being done. Especially The Quest magazine and the publishing programs of the various groups. I see you quote HPB as an authority, re: her > messages to Americans on psychic development, and yet you rail against her as > a hero-image. This vacillation makes it difficult to give your perspectives > full consideration. Perhaps you could clarify that, as you're not being fully clear. I neither quote her as an authority (in fact I simply mentioned that she had predicted certain developments, as a matter of interest) nor rail against her in any way. What you take as "railing against" is my objection to the way Theosophists regard HPB and not anything she herself did. She is indeed heroic, and deserves to be regarded as such. If you had experienced some of the things I have in the last year, you would have personal reason to object to the idealization and reverence directed toward HPB. Alas, violence is the shadow of reverence. People who revere something or someone feel obliged, encouraged, or at least permitted to punish anyone who does not show the same reverence. I don't think HPB would admire many of the things that have been said to, by and about me by her self-styled defenders. Ridicule is a weapon that has no place in Theosophical discourse, and yet it has been rather abundantly heaped on my work. So there's bitterness, sure. But in fact the majority of Theosophists seem to be OK with my work-- SOMEBODY's buying it-- and it's only a handful of self-appointed avengers who feel strongly enough to speak out against it. A handful is, however, enough to inflict a large measure of pain. But there does seem to be some principle of equal and opposite reactions here, so I figure for every kind word my work receives there has to be a mean one to balance it. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Sep 1995 09:50:21 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: to Liesel on Group Souls Liesel wrote: >As for lower & higher animals, I think some are more evolved >than others. I'm not being prejudiced, because I'm perfectly >willing to let them express whatever their being needs to >express. Nevertheless, >our teaching is that cats have a group soul. There's another striking difference between mankind as a group and plants, animals, or minerals. The range of difference in the body of the animal means some of the animals couldn't possibly be found to exist in a crocodile for instance and then a flea and then a puppy dog. There's no way people would expect their puppy dog to reincarnate as a flea. Animals are in groups, but not groups that would intermingle as people do. Mankind is basically one family in a sense that animals, plants, and minerals are not. Couldn't this difference cause a theory to form that would distinguish the souls of these kingdoms from the souls of men? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Sep 1995 10:14:38 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: "source teachings" Jerry H-E: " Consequently, those writers who base their ideas upon, comment upon, or adjunct their writings to the source writings are the secondary sources. These would include Besant, Leadbeater, Jinarajadasa, Arundale, Barborka, Purucker, Tingley, Johnson, Hargrove, Crosbie, Wadia etc. This is such a commonly used distinction that it is primary in order to do any research. " Yes, Jerry, absolutely. Even the "fundamentalist" ULTers like myself recognize that our "favorite" Theosophical writers are STUDENTS and COMMENTATORS on the Masters, HPB and Mr. Judge. That distinction is critical, or the original ideas will be lost, and we will have only secondary stuff, while we will be thinking the secondary stuff IS THE ORIGINAL STUFF. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Sep 1995 10:19:36 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: "source teachings" Brenda: " It seems selfish to call this a secondary group of writers, because they should be looked at as the product of the first group and by doing this we could maybe view their positions as closer to our position in the sense that we are trying to follow in their footsteps." I disagree. The secondary writers are not simply the product of the first group of writers, they are each the product of their own undertstanding of the first group of writers. The problem is that I don't see us living today as "third" or "fourth" generation writers and students, we too are secondary. Nothing stands between us and the Masters as long as we still have their original teachings and program. We thinkers and students today are every bit as important as Mr. Crosbie (U.L.T.) Mr. de Purucker (Pt. Loma) Besant (Adyar) etc. We too can comment on the original teachings and come up with our own ideas. We can read whoever -- primary or secondary -- we want to, but we are not subordinate to them, we are thinkers in our own right. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Sep 1995 10:23:34 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: re: various comments Rich: >Can ANYONE ON THIS BOARD distinguish psychic from noetic? Does no one >understand how Purucker can be in contact with the Masters noetically and not >psychically? Please, read HPB' article, "Psychic and Noetic Action." Ann: "Could possibly send a passage or paragraph in the article to the mailing list? Maybe we could get into a discussion about it." Ann, I am away on vacation right now and borrowing a friend's computer. If no one posts stuff from that article, I'll do it later this week when I am at home. Good suggestion. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Sep 1995 10:29:20 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: On personal attacks Liesel: "Dear Jerry H-E Are you going to start hacking around on Brenda now?" Rich: This is something that is extremely annoying. A discussion of ideas is taken as a discussion of a PERSON. Why is this? Can we on this board not distinghuish a person's ideas from that person? If someone doesn't like my ideas, let them contradict me. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't like me if they met me in person. And just because someone agrees with my ideas on Theos-L doesn't mean that they WOULD like me in person. I am more than what I write here, we all are. If Jerry H-E has something to say about what Brenda wrote, let him say it without imagining that he is attacking Brenda personally. And let Brenda respond equally impersonally, responding to the points raised, and not attacking Jerry. Frankly, I don't see either one of them attacking the other personally, so why not leave off the criticism of the sharing of ideas. Why not let this board be about ideas and viewpoints, and not about persons, personalities and personal attacks? To continue to take arguments and disagreements PERSONALLY is immature and leads to no discussion at all, for fear that FEELINGS may be hurt. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Sep 1995 10:38:59 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Group souls or Individuality Liesel: "Who's going to get counted into the core teachings? Rich: The Founders of the Theosophical Society gave out the core teachings. That's why they founded the Society in the first place, to give out the basic teachings. Those Founders were, principally, two Masters of Wisdom, who worked with three volunteers, H.P. Blavatsky, H.S. Olcott, and the young William Q. Judge. Those three were the principal Founders, inspired by the Masters, on November 17, 1875. All other Theosophical writers came later, thus they are "secondary" just like we today are "secondary." Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Sep 1995 10:40:33 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: to Liesel on Group Souls (I'm sorry. This message was sent over 4 hours ago and should have been received before the last one.) Jerry S: >Living with a cattery of Forest Cats >every day, I can see individual "souls" in their eyes with >no problem at all. To say that they have no individual >souls is strickly in line with Christianity, which I also >disagree with. >Also, I take exception to your "lower animals" as being >very prejudist. The main thing that they are "lower" in >is technology or what we would call intelligence. But >everything else is pretty much there. Even a rock is individual if you can pick it up and take it home, and even if it can't be moved and it's stuck somewhere it may be unlike the material it is stuck in and in that way be individual. Pull up a plant by it's root, look at it, it's individual. The point is that while mankind on its downward arc through mental, astral, and finally into physical existence is reaching toward individualization, which on this fourth globe is at its peak, so too is mankind reaching away from individualization and towards unity on the upward arc through lesser and lesser degrees of matter until we reach the seventh globe where we are the most homogeneous. Is my thinking individual? Is the cat's activity individual? See the difference? Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Sep 1995 10:43:19 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: Group souls or Individuality > >I'm sorry, but I don't understand the differentiation you're >making. >Can you explain your idea a little more? > I was speaking about the fact that we, as men, are likely to be born anywhere in any sort of family, we could be a king or a pauper, an Indian or an Eskimo. But animals!!! They can't be as versatile. A little flea can't possibly go from being a flea to being a horse. It has to go up the grades because there's so much difference in the abilities of each. (Of course, they don't intermarry either.) Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Sep 1995 11:03:50 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Psychism Jerry S. "I would love for anyone to tell me the difference between "psychic senses" and "exploring with the mind" because the last time I looked, the word psychic was equivalent to mental." That's it. I'm going to post the whole damn article "Psychic and Noetic Action" on this board the minute I get home. There is higher and lower Manas, there is Buddhi and astral sensitivity, and we have GOT to get them straight or we will never get out of the labyrinth! If ANYONE has this article (Jerry H-E??) please start posting it, we need to hear HPB distinguish psychic from higher mental in a BIG way. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Sep 1995 11:08:11 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: HPB teachings Jerry H-E> We have > also solved the problem reading one philosophy through the skein > or another by teaching a 26 week prelininary course in theosophy > itself before beginning to teach HPB. It makes a world of > difference. Murray: "As a theosophical study course organizer, I'd be interested to see your program for the 26 weeks. Would you be able to post it? What sort of group processes do you use in this prelim. course?" I'd like to see it to, it could be EXTREMELY useful for new students at the U.L.T., many of whom come from quite diverse backgrounds (Christianity, atheism, Nichiren Buddhism, Alice Bailey, etc.) Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Sep 1995 11:11:43 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Bitter/Sweet Paul (NOT Mr. Johnson): "But in fact the majority of Theosophists seem to be OK with my work-- SOMEBODY's buying it-- and it's only a handful of self-appointed avengers who feel strongly enough to speak out against it. A handful is, however, enough to inflict a large measure of pain. But there does seem to be some principle of equal and opposite reactions here, so I figure for every kind word my work receives there has to be a mean one to balance it." The greatest protection, perhaps, which works well for many, is to receive praise and blame indifferently and impersonally, and to concentrate on ideas. If people feel the need to attack YOU rather than your ideas and work, that is their delusion. If you feel the need to perceive attacks on your works and IDEAS as attacks on you, that is YOUR delusion, and the only one you can do something about. I have taken plenty of lumps on this board -- not nearly as many as you, I'm sure -- but the point is, what do I care? People here don't know me, they only see what I write. They agree or disagree, they praise or scorn, who cares? It's just ideas, malleable, passing quickly, changing again, and yet again. A regular tide of ebb and flow, subject leading naturally into subject. It's not a personal process, but an impersonal process of discussion and discovery. I myself find your work purely theoretical and hurtful to the Movement in the sense that the public will have additional reason to suspect that H.P.B. was a liar and a charlatan, making up her Masters for purely personal and political reasons, and thus will cease to believe in or emulate Perfected Beings as real and living men who can teach and inspire. But my opinion of your work is not a personal opinion of you. You sound deeply sincere and dedicated to Theosophy, and you must truly believe that your work HELPS the Movement, or you would not have attempted it. To this I can only say congratulations for following your high motivations and noble intentions. Perhaps they will bear fruit in ways I cannot perceive. In any case, I hope you experience no more pain, and I hope that people will confine themselves to discusses the positions and attitudes you present, and leave off attacking you personally. Sincerely, Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Sep 1995 11:49:35 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Re: Psychic Powers Here's some of what I've written about my own experiences on this. " Many people fall into the trap of thinking that because they can do something that other people cannot do that they are somehow fundamentally better than those other people. Anyone who feels this way is actually less "spiritual" than the people that he is comparing himself to. Pride and vanity will send one in any direction except the truly right direction. I have known many people who could somewhat see and manipulate energies and auras but who did so out of a sense of superiority over others and thereby did the wrong energy adjustments and ended up harming themselves and those who trusted them. To relate to the world of energies one must cultivate the virtues of humility, honesty and courage. Humility will keep your motivation pure, real honesty will allow you to avoid self-deception and the deceiving of others, and courage will allow you to realize and accept the new truths which seeing and feeling energies will reveal. There are many beautiful but (unfortunately due to mistakes and corruption) some unpleasant sights in the energies around us just as there are in the dense physical world and we must learn how to deal rightly with them all. Often an energy radiation appears light on one side and dark on the other side." "Humility is an actual intuitive energy that is a part of the energy of Love which is above all other energies as far as we are concerned. Humility is an energy of the heart and relates one to the heart of the universe. Honesty is an energy of a clear mind and gradually allows one to cultivate right telepathic ability. Courage is an energy of will-power and leads to complete fearlessness." " When one begins to see energies one will discover that many things are in fact the opposite of or very different from how one has seen them before. Many apparently good people are actually not so good and many apparently good human creations (such as plastics) do more long term harm than long term good and their uses could be better served by other means (such as the new technology that we will talk about later). One must have the unselfish honesty to see how things really are, the kind courage to admit the truth to oneself and others, and the sincere humility to face and learn from one's mistakes. When these qualities are cultivated then one begins to develop the intuitive energy field and he is on the way to being able to accurately see energies and on the way to becoming a master of all physical, emotional and mental energies." >From "Seeing Auras", Copyright (c) 1995. Namaste, Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Sep 1995 11:56:16 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Re:psychic powers <> Actually, the Masters are very busy and that is why theosophical books have been written. I believe that we must today rely much more on open honest discussion among ourselves. <> Yes, and so is caustic criticism and profanity. No one is advocating forcing, and repression is just as harmful. An attitude of keeping things in their proper balanced place is the healthiest. Humanity today needs a clearer understanding of the subtle worlds. People live in a world of emotional and mental aura exchanges and do much harm (especially to children) because of ignorance. Such popular books as "The Celestine Prophecy", although certainly off on some points, are part of a whole new wave of discussion. In particular this book's emphasis on good diet and good character, calm emotions, etc., as a prerequisite before seeing energies is a great help. Namaste, Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Sep 1995 13:47:12 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Bitter/Sweet According to Richtay@aol.com: > > The greatest protection, perhaps, which works well for many, is to receive > praise and blame indifferently and impersonally, and to concentrate on ideas. > If people feel the need to attack YOU rather than your ideas and work, that > is their delusion. This is hard for people to separate, especially when they're emotionally invested in a subject. I suspect that even the most virulent personal attacks I've received have been from people in denial about what they're doing. Sort of a "I have no choice but to react this way because what you did was so awful" kind of justification. > > If you feel the need to perceive attacks on your works and IDEAS as attacks > on you, that is YOUR delusion, and the only one you can do something about. No need to interpret as personal that which is not. Sometimes people ask me "didn't you realize that you were asking for trouble in discussing this topic?" Somehow, I realized that the title was controversial, the subject was controversial-- yet was oblivious of the fact that the author was bound to become controversial too. If anything, I started out foolishly naive about the impersonality and openmindedness of Theosophists-- perhaps setting me up to become embittered. > > I myself find your work purely theoretical and hurtful to the Movement in the > sense that the public will have additional reason to suspect that H.P.B. was > a liar and a charlatan, making up her Masters for purely personal and > political reasons, and thus will cease to believe in or emulate Perfected > Beings as real and living men who can teach and inspire. Purely theoretical? No comprendo. It's a series of biographical sketches, which is not a theoretical literary form. Anyhow, my main response to this is that I never portray HPB as "making up her Masters" but rather telling as much of the truth about them as she felt she could without endangering their privacy. Beyond that, she was obliged to use blinds and to mislead people, but rather than personal and political reasons I believe that the main motivation was ORDERS-- the Masters did not wish for her to reveal their identities. The hurtfulness you cite interests me--- that this book will cause people to cease to believe in or emulate Perfected Beings. I don't think it would hurt Theosophy if people did, since the Masters never presented themselves as perfected (or deserving of capitalization). This might actually be helpful. > > But my opinion of your work is not a personal opinion of you. You sound > deeply sincere and dedicated to Theosophy, and you must truly believe that > your work HELPS the Movement, or you would not have attempted it. To this I > can only say congratulations for following your high motivations and noble > intentions. Perhaps they will bear fruit in ways I cannot perceive. > They may be well on the way to doing so. My main goal was to demonstrate (to quote the thesis as defined in my response to Dr. Algeo's TH review) that "Theosophy is genuinely derived from HPB's contacts with adepts of various religious and occult traditions, but her portrayal of them combined fact with fiction to protect their privacy and the neutrality of the TS." Heretofore, the received theory outside the ranks of Theosophists has been that she invented the Masters and their teachings. My work goes a long way toward undermining that skeptical consensus. Henceforth, I think outside writers will be much more likely to accept my approach than the Meade/Washington etc. "all lies" approach. > In any case, I hope you experience no more pain, and I hope that people will > confine themselves to discusses the positions and attitudes you present, and > leave off attacking you personally. > Thank you, Rich. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Sep 1995 14:00:42 GMT From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: Psychism Liesel: >For JRC >Liesel - I said that there was a way of sort of identifying >with this criminal, or any unsavory character, & not let it >afftect you. >Jerry S - yes, compassion >Liesel - I remembered a few possibles that I think one must add > to compassion. When Serge taught us grokking, we were told to >become whatever we were grokking 99% but to stay ourselves 1%. >People who practice healing by Therapeutic Touch try to heal >the illness with their hands, & then get rid of it by a flick >of the wrist. I don't know what great healers do, but they're >in contact with people with undesirable vibes all the time, & >I'm sure they don't absorb the undesirable vibes. It's >compassion, but you also protect yourself. Theraputic touch uses etheric - stuff I did required going a bit more inward to work. I have heard that compassion is a means of ameliorating negative side-effects of work like this ... but I never fully understood how this works in practice (and haven't really done stuff like police work in a long time) ... in this instance, I really was full of compassion for the criminal (I can think of no hell more terrible than waking every morning into the psyche capable of committing murder) ... but the compassion for the criminal proved no buffer against the horror of the crime ... fact to this day I still shudder just a bit to think of the experience. I have known a couple of people who *did* seem to have the knack ... an immunity of some sort ... but decided that for whatever reason I was simply not suited to doing this kind of work. Liesel - when you have practiced this thing you (or Serge King) call "grokking", have you found it to be possible to understand the core of another being without being subject to a personal reaction to that understanding within your own energy - system? I shur 'nuff are curious, I am (-:). -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Sep 1995 15:16:16 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Psychism For JRC Liesel - I said that there was a way of sort of identifying with this criminal, or any unsavory character, & not let it afftect you. Jerry S - yes, compassion Liesel - I remembered a few possibles that I think one must add to compassion. When Serge taught us grokking, we were told to become whatever we were grokking 99% but to stay ourselves 1%. People who practice healing by Therapeutic Touch try to heal the illness with their hands, & then get rid of it by a flick of the wrist. I don't know what great healers do, but they're in contact with people with undesirable vibes all the time, & I'm sure they don't absorb the undesirable vibes. It's compassion, but you also protect yourself. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Sep 1995 15:31:06 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: to Liesel on Group Souls To Jerry S. OK we disagree as to the definition of group soul. As for lower & higher animals, I think some are more evolved than others. I'm not being prejudiced, because I'm perfectly willing to let them express whatever their being needs to express. For instance, I notice that a lot of Chouchou's exploring is done with her nose, so I let her smell a lot of things she watches me use. Sometimes it's something that's not good to smell, so I tell her "careful" & she's careful (perhaps with my prodding). I think Chouchou has a soul too. Sometimes she expresses "I love you", but sometimes the message is "I love you. Give me something to eat." She even sometimes can tell what is the cause of an effect. Like she loves to chase the sun's reflection as it bounces off my watch onto the carpet. She also indicates to me by her actions that she realizes that the reflection comes from my watch. Nevertheless, our teaching is that cats have a group soul. What I didn't talk about in that post is how the concept of an individual human soul fits in with Jung's collective unconscious, & with the related Rupert Murdoch's morphogenetic field. The reason I didn't mention is it because I don't know how it fits in. Maybe somebody can explain it. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Sep 1995 15:32:33 GMT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: THEOS-NEWS digest 4 Thank you Jerry for an informational report with a personal touch ( the bombing and subsequent dream of your father). I would not presume to interpret this dream, but if your experience has been like mine, you got the feeling that this "archetypal war-father" was not joking and neither was the French lady! :-) Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Sep 1995 15:43:38 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Group souls or Individuality Eldon, That's ok with me, as long as the "core teachings" and the variety of later variants are presented on one list. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Sep 1995 16:24:11 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Group souls or Individuality To Brenda, Re: To Liesel on Group Souls I'm sorry, but I don't understand the differentiation you're making. Can you explain your idea a little more? Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Sep 1995 16:36:25 GMT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: Eldon on Politics in the AT A conversation overheard on this list is cut and pasted below. I think the first is K. Paul and the second is Eldon discussing Paul's books: Or combine the two in a way that is not clearly apparent to themselves or others. > They are responsible for their reactions. The other > side of the coin is your reaction to people. For an intellectual discussion > of the content of your books, if you respond in kind, both you and the other > people can learn and grow, and your can improve your knowledge and theories > for future books. And misunderstandings can be reduced. For dealing with an awful personal attack, you are in the > same situation as any of the rest of us. We all may get blasted by people > at unexpected times, and sometimes for unexpected reasons. And we have the > choice: respond in kind or respond in kindness. We can mirror the anger and > hostility or respond with how we *want to feel*. Would that there were just two possibilities. I'm usually somewhere between mirroring the negativity and feeling how I want to-- more like a steady struggle NOT to reciprocate the hostility, combined with bad feelings of a different by related sort: discouragement, isolation, humiliation. But the road is leading upward, come what may. End of quotation Keith Price: After reading Eldon's article on politics in the American Theosophist, I was struck more with what was unsaid than said. In my humble opinion it was written very well if the object was to offend no one and keep everybody happy and "in the fold". Like many articles and "exoteric" messages from the TSA, it gives the impression that theosophy offers an opporunity for personal growth, spritual seeking and light on the path and all that, but never any "stated" agenda or forced direction or guidance. THIS IS TRUE AND ALL TO THE GOOD. I am not really complaining but this seems to be a comfort for those new to the path, that is, that one can come in to the TS without there a being a cult like expectation of conforming to a dogma etc. One is always left slightly uplifted and slightly empty by this kind of thing. It isn't so much that conflict is resolved, but it is just left unspoken, hidden, concealed, "esoteric". I guess I am on a critical point in the path where anything DOESN'T go, and I am tired of trying one thing and dropping it (so easy in our fast food, drive through, buffet-style spiritual options culture). I mean we are blessed or cursed to live in a time when we can try a little Zen, a little speaking in tounges, a little Mother Teresa, a little Krishnamurti, a little David Koresh (not really) and for me not really have the satisfaction of the "true believer". Theosophy is so open it almost presumes a previous religious training(IMHO), I mean one can not go beyond language (religion) if one does not have a mother tongue (Church). This is another topic really but theosophy seems not to be only the root, but probably more the fruit of each religion (the esoteric core, no pun intended). If one allows anything, one stands for nothing. It seems like a kind of anarchism, but with the unstated assumption that if you are really spiritual (whatever that is) you will get with the program and become a vegetarian, a believer in the Masters, and hold what are today the "proper" ideals (whatever they are). If one meditates, one will eventually come round to something that approximates a good guy or girl without any clear examination of issues on the physical level (or seemingly some imply). It is not so much that one has politics or real problems in hand, but that one somehow transcends them with a kind of easy spirituality and a "don't make a fuss" attitiude. "Why can't we all just get along?" is a good question but when has it ever worked? To show the problem, I heard a tape once by Shirley Nicholson and John Algeo (?). It asked really difficult questions to reveal what people really think in practical terms about the theosophical objects, principles and ideals. For instance: "Would you let a known and self-professing Nazi or KKK member be a member of the lodge? What about president?" (I mean brotherhood without regard to creed, relgion, politics etc.) If you aren't forced to deal with these problems, it is easy to just say everybody has their own path and one path is as good as the other? I was suprised at the number of people who answered the question with a definite "no". I felt that if one was assured on one's own path, one would not be tainted by a little opposition. In fact both sides might gain and claify and even change (be transformed). It seems that this is possibly the reason for "evil". There is a quote by Malthus that the reason for evil is to drive one to action. Karma means action, of course. P.S> - this is not a criticism of Eldon's article, but just an examination of the everything is OK where it is today, but will improve (evolve) type of message the TSA gives out. Hey if it works, don't fix it! But does it work? Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Sep 1995 18:42:29 GMT From: Geraldjs@aol.com Subject: Re: Psychism When I said compassion, I meant that sincere love and respect for another person can help you remain untainted (is that a good word here?) by them. In magic, for example, compassion can be used as a protective coat of armor that covers your Body of Light (subtle body by whatever name you want). Love can form a hard protective cover over your aura so that any "low vibes" will be repelled. This is very hard for me to put into words without sounding like something out of CWL. I do it, but find it hard to describe it. Perhaps it has to do with focusing on another more than yourself? All I know for sure, is that compassion is a sure way to protect yourself in the higher planes. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Sep 1995 18:45:59 GMT From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: Former Christian Hi there! Thought you had bolted. Welcome back. >It is sad when one reads so many compliments to a heart felt >letter from someone declaring deconvertion. Sad to see people supporting one another in their own decisions? >It is perversion. It is compassion. (I seem to remember Jesus mentioning that concept somewhere, no?) It is the support that, despite our vehement arguments with one another, lies at the very root of our association as fellow travellers. It is one of the highest and noblest sentiments possible to the human heart - the spontaneous joy and pleasure that leaps from all of us when any in our family takes a stride beyong their own boudaries. The fact that he chose to share something so powerful, so personal, both moved and elevated me simply through the hearing of it. It reminded me that beyond all our differences of perspective, when any one of us takes a step, however small, achieves a larger level of awareness *however that person defines it*, we are all given the gift of sharing in the fruits of those efforts. Is *that* what your version of Christianity calls *perversion*? >Obviously it is clear that the same arguments that caused his >redirection are the same arguments used to validate the origin of >the bible. Obvious to no one here except you. >66books. 40authors. One message. And as many interpretations as there are readers. >I prayed about the loss and the Lord revealed two >scriptures to me. >First...John 11:35 >Jesus Wept. >Second...Eph 6:4-5 >For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, >and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become >partakers with the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good Word of God >and of the powers of the age to come, >If they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they >crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and PUT HIM TO AN >OPEN SHAME. Are you sure the Lord didn't reveal those scriptures as a gentle way of reprimanding *you* for your attitudes towards that fellow? That perhaps the Lord of *Compassion* is not "crucified" again anytime one with the arrogance to speak in his name engages in narrow-minded condemnation? What was that 'ol story 'bout throwing stones? >No one here has honestly and openly investigated the validity >of the New and Old Testament. And if you had, your rose colored >glasses caused you to be blinded from the obvious. In fact, many people here have honestly and openly studied both Testaments, and probably in ways that have never occured to you, and would not be permitted by your perspective. [And quite a curious Freudian slip, by the way, to say "blinded *from* the obvious" instead of blinded *to* (-:)]. >There is SOOOOO much evidence that it baffles the intellect. `Specially to minds given to being baffled. Tee hee. >Only the depraved mind could interpret less than >accurate and the reprobate less than inspired. Yeow! Then 3/4 of the world's population are depraved reprobates. God must just be beside himself. >Will anyone here ask for the evidence to be presented? Probably not, but I'm sure that won't stop you from presenting it (-:). Are you willing to be as open to us as you want us to be to you? It may not yet have occured to you, but calling the entire list of people blind and stupid and deluded may not be the best way to start a conversation (in fact, membership in a Theosophical organization is absolutely *required* before you can call other Theosophists blind and stupid and deluded har har har har har). On my front bookshelf right now is the NIV Triglot Old Testament, with the Hebrew according to the Masoretic text, the Greek according to the Septuagint, and the English translation called the New International Version. It sits next to the classic MacKenna translation of the Enneads of Plotinus, Deussen's treatise on the Upanishads, the Qabala Trilogy of Carlo Suares, Hegel's Phenomenology of Mind, the Graham translation of Chuang-Tzu's "Inner Chapters", and a series of lectures entitled Computational Solutions to Nonlinear Systems of Equations. And I am one of the youngest, *least* scholarly people on this list. While the approach you are using here may work in other places, you really must understand that using the same model here will only cause people to giggle at you, and quite soon, just ignore you completely. Perhaps you might want to take a bit of time and see if there are layers of your faith deeper than you have yet experienced, deep enough to actually take *others* into account when you express it. Maybe even consider that both the *spirit* as well as the letter of what you advocate ought to be present in your *tone* as well as your words. I've read the bible, as has virtually everyone on the list. You are preaching only one of thousands of versions of Christianity that have been preached over the last two millenia - and to most here (many of whom, with all due respect, may know considerably *more* about both theology and history than you do) your version is a very recent, and particularly narrow and judgemental one ... and the more vehement and strident your langauge becomes, the more you will likely be perceived as an spiritual adolescent stamping his feet - to those who do not simply begin deleting any post with your address on it. >Remember, FAITH is the substance of things not seen and the EVIDENCE >of what is hoped for. Yes, but there are some here who are seeking to "walk through the Death of the Shadow of the Valley" (?! he he he, get it Jerry?) and desire to deepen Faith to the point that it becomes Knowledge. -JRC Fundamentalist Taoist [Go with the flow, *or else*! (-:)] From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 00:18:04 GMT From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Channelling ... > >Bee: > > > somehow standing my > consciousness to one side and allowing some energy that terms itself the > 'elder brother' express its ideas. It is like live chat shows, if I do not > want to pass on any idea to be expressed that I may not agree with I have > the option of saying no and the energy will rephrase it or leave it out. I > feel perhaps I should not impose my meagre judgement so it is only rarely > that I do so but the idea is that I can do so if I wish. I also allow what > would be considered an extraterrestial energy to have a say and that one is > also informative and quite humourous as well. Then also this has developed > the ability to 'know' something in my mind that I may have been meditating > on. It just arrives in bulk and yet it is understood > completely all at once. This is pretty much *identical* with my own experience, even the observation that the "extraterrestrial" energy is humerous in a way that others are not! I know exactly what you mean about arriving in bulk - it once took me a week and nine pages of writing to get down what was received between one step and the next (when walking in the street). > I have left the 'who' of channelling in the yet to be decided basket > and as long as it proves useful I shall use it but if it all gets silly then > I can put it down to an interesting experience. I never got silly for me, but the need to use it receded according the the need of the recipients (apart from me, that is - I still get stuff coming through from time to time). I never found it getting silly - though often the students did. My favourite quote from an "extraterrestrial" source is still, "You humans take youselves far too seriously." Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 00:37:11 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Arguments of ... Daniel: >>This is an essential teaching of Buddhism, which is also basically >>sound. Everything is subject to continual change. There can exist >>nothing that is immune from being subject to change. >> > >Except God. It depends upon what is involved with *your* concept of God. If you picture a being, with a body, emotions, thoughts, and personal existence, than you are picturing something that *is* subject to change. Even in paying attention to a single person's prayers, such a being would have changed from the interaction. >>There is no prime mover. Each of us is our own "prime mover", individually >>responsible for our existence. It is our inner choice to come into >>existence, made in a deep part of ourselves, that motivates our coming >>out into manifestation in this world. > >You have slipped away from the law. Which is not possible. You cannot >be responsible for your own existence. You cannot create yourself. It is not only possible, but it is the only way that things could be. Consciousness is *self-initiated.* No one else is responsible for you and your existence -- or for me and my existence -- except ourselves. >You cannot determine who your parents are. If it were not for my coming into birth, and there were not someone else wanting to be born, conception would not occur. The fact of birth means that there is a life waiting to be born. Providing the opportunity for birth does not create a life. >You have no evidence whatsoever for such a declaration as to assume >our choice to come into existence. The preexistence of the soul is an ancient philosophical concept that is found in both Christian and pre-Christian traditions. >>The universe that we know from the big bang is but a grain of sand, a >>speck of dust, an mere atom in yet a bigger universe. And that bigger >>universe is part of a still bigger scheme of things. There is no top, >>and we cannot find a "highest", no matter how high we try to go. There >>are infinite levels or scales of being going upward, and *no top*. > >This is a declaration of the "Universe" being an actual infinite. This is >outside the bounds of material logic. The universe is finite. You're misreading my statement. I'm making the case that the "universe" is very definitely an finite thing. And for it to exist, it has to be hosted in a bigger finite thing, and that in something yet bigger. We have an infinite series of bigger finite things, but no *infinite thing.* >>Every religion and its sects have their holy books. Each tells in myth >>and story grand spiritual truths. There are great truths hidden behind >>the stories. The stories are not literally true. They hide deeper >>truths for those with the proper "keys" to unlock them. >> >So the bible's Creation account is a myth? >The flood? >Moses? >Israel? >Jesus? They are all "myths" in the exact same sense as the stories of The Mahabarata, the Gita, and other religions. Some stories of the life of Jesus, for instance, are illustrative of spiritual teachings that were not intended to be spoken of to the masses. >All mythical characters attempting to reveal hidden truth. Some religious characters were literal historic personages. The stories about them were embellished over the years to include various spiritual teachings. All the stories of Jesus or of the Buddha, for instance, were not literal, physical events. >The LOUD error here is that the bible never maked claims >of mythical foundations. Geneologies are presented in an >effort to support ACTUAL people, places and times. This is how the Bible *is taught* by some Christian sects. It is not a literal truth. The Bible is but one of hundreds of religious books, meant for spiritual study, and never intended to be scientific accounts of the external world. >Elohim is the plural form of Eloah (God). So, Elohim means, in fact, >Gods. It is common in Biblical Hebrew, to express something eminent in >the plural form. For example, the great beast in Job 40:15 is put in the >plural, behemot; not because it are more beasts, but it is a great beast. The "plural of majesty" argument has been used at times. It is the same with Kings, when speaking in reference to themselves, use "we" rather than "I". It is also obvious that *you* believe in a singular God of Genesis. Your belief does not make it true. >In all of the responses to the arguments that I have posed >not one response has critically examined the validity of these >arguments. You are making a number of statements that would only be true if the underlying assumptions are agreed to, which they are not. You have to first argue and support those assumptions. >God is independent. Being independent means *non-existence*, unmanifest, outside this and any universe, and not a personal being, nor in direct relationship with any particular existing thing. >God is unchangeable. Unchangeable also means not-existing, because all existing things are subject to change. >God is Creator. We all participate in creation, to the extent that we are totally responsible for our own personal existences, and for our relationships with others. There is no one outside and above us that is responsible for our existence. >Man is dependent. All living things are inter-dependent, upon one another. Any being outside of existence is by definition out of relationship with living things. >Man is changeable. All things that are subject to time are changeable. Even the ruling "Archangels" of a spiritual multiplane ecosystem. >Man is created. Man is self-created, as are all beings. We all are rooted in divinity, inseperable from the ultimate divine nature of things, and come forth into existence on our own initiative, from tanha or "hunger for life". -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 00:52:46 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Former Christian Daniel: >It is sad when one reads so many compliments to a heart felt >letter from someone declaring deconvertion. > >It is perversion. That is a your view, taken as a follower of a particular belief system. You'll never understand experiences and insights outside that belief system until you let yourself "think differently", until you let yourself stand aside from the rigid dogma that you are trained in and consider ideas on their own merit. >Obviously it is clear that the same arguments that caused his >redirection are the same arguments used to validate the origin of >the bible. Apart from your belief system, you have to concede that his experience of the deconversion was spiritual, uplifting, and a step forward in his life. Your beliefs about what happened and what it should mean are different from his actual experience. Someone with his background might suggest that you, too, would open up to the spiritual if you underwent "deconversion". >For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, >and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become >partakers with the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good Word of God >and of the powers of the age to come, I would suggest that "tasting of the heavenly gift" has nothing to do with the experiencs that may come from belonging to any particular religious sect, but rather from an inner spiritual awakening. This is something you won't find in the Bible or any church, and there's no preacher to tell you what to do. You have to *do it yourself,* with the external crutch of an external authoritative religion or deity. >If they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they >crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and PUT HIM TO AN >OPEN SHAME. It is never truly possible to fall away from the spiritual. If one strays in one lifetime, there will come corrective karma leading to a renewal of the spiritual in some future lifetime. It's too bad that the early Christian Fathers decided to remove reincarnation from the "official" belief system for the masses, because it would have provided a much better explanation of the justice in life than that of the Old Testament Jehovah, full of anger, vengance, and all sorts of ignoble traits. >No one here has honestly and openly investigated the validity >of the New and Old Testament. And if you had, your rose colored >glasses caused you to be blinded from the obvious. An honest and open investigation includes all the religious books of the world, regardless of the silly claims to absolute truth that the various followers of different religions make about their favorite books. >There is SOOOOO much evidence that it baffles the intellect. >Only the depraved mind could interpret less than >accurate and the reprobate less than inspired. I'd suggest that it would only be possible to see vast truths in a single religious text, if one keeps blinders on, and never honestly considers the obvious truths in other religious texts. One's personal view that a particular text contains exclusive truth is just that: a personal view. The universality of spiritual truth is obvious for those without the narrow focus of religious dogmatism. >Will anyone here ask for the evidence to be presented? You're asking to prove to us that one source of religous writings is an exclusive source, when we've already seen that religious truth can be found universally. >Remember, FAITH is the substance of things not seen and the EVIDENCE >of what is hoped for. Faith comes from a living connection with one's inner spiritual nature, and *not* from rigid obedience to an external religious authority. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 01:11:19 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Arguments of ... >PROVE GOD. >The bible says that we are overcomers by the blood of the lamb and >the word of our testimony. You can't use the Bible to prove "God" since we don't accord any special authority to it. First, you must define what you mean by "God", since there are dozens of possible meanings. Then you have to argue that the characterists of your description are better than what anyone else can offer. >First....I have four children and a godly wife. I have a Systems Engineer >position that brings home the bacon. I attempt to keep versed in many >areas of knowledge...for me it is primarily...dealing with the occults or >christian like religions. The term "occult" means hidden. It is similar in meaning to "esoteric" or hidden from profane eyes, or "gnostic". >The point is what is it that separates us or makes us different besides the >fact that we live in different in states/continents? >The JOY of the Lord is my strength. Where does your joy come from? I would suggest that it is your sense of joy in life itself, and you use the mental image of a "Lord" to describe that experience. I won't discount your feelings, just your description of what is actually happening. >Have you ever taken any drugs? Well you realize the effect...because the >reactions to the drugs your body goes through is opposite to normal >reactions. The change is real. Without the drug there would be no change. Anything that clouds the reason and dulls the senses could be avoided. And this includes rigid, dogmatic belief, that holds the mind as rigidly as would too much to drink. >Can I see God? >I cannot see the wind....but I can see where it has been. >Can I hear God? >Can I touch God? > >The answer to all of these is yes. You have a sense of the spiritual and choose to call it "God". Your explanation of things comes from a tightly-defined belief system that you are perhaps taught not to dare deviate from. Because of this, your beliefs get in the way of your true enjoyment of the mystery of life. >I have hundreds of examples that testify to the Power of God in the lives of >those around which the Lord has allowed me to experience and in my life too. Again, you are talking about the power of the spiritual, not the power of *your concept of "God"*. >[telling a story of a conversation] >In the one statement (the message from God) I was a tool of which grabbed >her heart. There are many ways to explain how you came to know the right thing to say. One is that you picked up on her thoughs. The experience you have does not prove your explanation. >Where does your Joy come from? Even in darkness and despair. The universe is rooted in the spiritual. There is joy throughout life. It does not come from anyone's religious dogmas, it is part of the fabric of life. >I challenge you. God created us...without his presence in our life there is >no true peace...true love...true joy. Not "without his presence," but rather without the presence of the spiritual. >If this is true then even after you >get the Wife, the kids, the house, the dollars, the career, the sporting >trophies, the vacation or receive >wisdom and enlightenment for theos-l...there will still be emptiness. Agreed that external materials do nothing for a spiritual life. But a spiritual life does not arise because of a dogmatic belief system, and membership in some church. I'd say that it's lucky, in fact, that it can happen in such an environment, which is intrincally hostile to the spiritual. >I love the life God has provided...but without acknowledging his divine >actions in my life...I would not enjoy the blessings of this world as much >as I do. I would come to expect them...and most likely neglect them. The >more I am reminded about God's interactions in my life...the more I am >reaffirmed about his power and desire to use me and mine. This sense of dependence upon an external being hampers your ability to be a force for good in the world. I'd say that you need to take more self-initiative to be a benefit to others. And providing benefit to others does not come by converting them to a particular brand or sect of an organized religon. The value comes from actual things that you do, not from maximizing some recruitment head count. >I have cast out devils...healed the sick...delivered men & women out of >darkness...etc. But not by my strength. (I do not have the drugs to >give...as an anology) There is but one divine physician. I am a tool. To be >used for His glory. The strength of the spiritual transcends our personal capabilities. But it does not come from any supreme being. The spiritual is part of life, things could not exist without it. And we can give expression to it, even though we don't fully contain or own it ourselves. >Another challenge...try for a moment...a season to look at everything as if >the Lord's hand was directly placed apon it. Look at the ocean...as its >beauty as a work of the Holy one. Look at your children as a gift from God. Everything can be considered a "gift". But the gift comes from the givers. Each of us is making a particular gift to the world, even the flowers in the field make their own gift to the beauty of the world. The give does not come externally, it is self-made. >For a moment slide the mystical and the spooky natural aside. The mystial is a more direct approach, because you are dealing with life itself, apart from any potentially confused mental concepts you use to describe it. And there's nothing "spooky" about it. >Simply open your eyes to the wonderous creation. Can you look apon the sunset >or a heart felt smile without recognizing the Holy One? We share a sense of the grandness. We don't share the same mental ideas about what it means. >For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, >being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and >Godhead, so that they are without excuse. We agree on the wonders of the spiritual and the value in sharing it. Where we part is in our philosophical frameworks that we use to describe things. Can you make this distinction: between your belief framework and your direct appreciation of life? -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 01:12:30 GMT From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: theosophy class >MS>As a theosophical study course organizer, I'd be interested to >>see your program for the 26 weeks. Would you be able to post it? >> > We are very excited about the course because we are > attracting a type of people who never would have looked at > theosophy as it is presented today. ...... > It is working so well, that we are planning to package and > publish it, so we don't want to broadcast to much about it until > we are ready to publish. ...... > So along with the course, we will also have to publish a > training and teaching manual. But students get so excited over Great! The moment you have something published, could you let us know about it? Thanks. Murray Stentiford murray@sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 01:22:07 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Former Christian Daniel: >If theosophy is interested in truth... >Then what do you do as a Theosophist, or an athesist, or deist >with the likes of one that declared "I am the Truth..." or declared >that you are either "For me or against me". I would expect that the statement "I am the Truth" would refer to the fact that Jesus, or any Guru, was speaking universal truths, speaking profound philosophy, and expecting his audience to pay careful attention. It would be silly to take a particular incarnate being and equate that being with absolute Truth, which by definition transends all things that can and do exist. The "for me or against me" argument only applies in polarized situations where there is a conflict where sides have to be taken. Some religious (portions of Christianity and the Zoroastarian faith, perhaps) take a dualistic view of life, with opposing armies of angels and devils battling for control of the hearts of men. Because the world is rooted in the spiritual, such conflicts are only "apparent", and the spiritual always wins out in the end. But the spiritual winning out is not the same thing as a particular religious sect achieving universal domination over the thoughtlife of the world. The spiritual wins when everyone's hearts are opened to it, and it becomes a power in their lives, *despite their sometimes confused and rigid beliefs.* >If the Truth reveals that such separatism is invalid then there >is no problem...you can carry on with your individualistic >approach to spiritism with the help of the masters. Any separatism comes from shutting one's mind and heart off from the spiritual. It has nothing to do with external acceptance of various dogmas and mental contructs. The dogmas and mental contructs can often be the *cause of the separatism.* >However, if Christ's teachings are valid then individual >interpretation of the spiritual are nothing but stumbling >blocks to true maturity if the Light has already been >established and the Road to Enlightment ushered by the >only Master that can keep you on the straight and narrow. The teachings are valid in the exact same sense as ar the Buddha's, and dozens of other religious teachers. They are exoteric or under blinds for the masses, to be taken as literal, which acting to hide the deeper truths for those with eyes to see. >By what authority or foundation can you declare the Master's >teaching invalid? The teachings are not declared invalid, but their literal interpretation and misunderstanding by the Christian world is rejected. Leaving out such essentail principles as reincarnation and karma, which may have been openly taught by the early Christian Fathers, we have an attemt to avoid the truth that all the Avataras, including Jesus, openly taught. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 02:08:57 GMT From: dhedrick@csn.net Subject: Re: Former Christian >Dear Daniel-- > >Are you on this list for any reason related to genuine interest >in Theosophy? If not, could you spare us the evangelism? It >is a waste of your time and ours, IMO, although some polite >Theosophists will argue politely with you until doomsday if you >like. But what's the point? > The point is simple. If theosophy is interested in truth... Then what do you do as a Theosophist, or an athesist, or deist with the likes of one that declared "I am the Truth..." or declared that you are either "For me or against me". If the Truth reveals that such separatism is invalid then there is no problem...you can carry on with your individualistic approach to spiritism with the help of the masters. However, if Christ's teachings are valid then individual interpretation of the spiritual are nothing but stumbling blocks to true maturity if the Light has already been established and the Road to Enlightment ushered by the only Master that can keep you on the straight and narrow. By what authority or foundation can you declare the Master's teaching invalid? >Exasperated, >Paul > Glad to exasperate. Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 03:14:25 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Art's Response to Daniel At 4:57 PM 9/5/95, dhedrick@csn.net wrote: >It is sad when one reads so many compliments to a heart felt >letter from someone declaring deconvertion. To Theos-l, I am sorry but couldn't help but respond on line to Daniel. I apologize in advance for the use of the particular tradition that I am assuming in the discussion. If anyone feels like translating this into your own or theosophical categories I would like to hear your response. Daniel, The greatest compliment you could have given to me would have been your compassion and open ear. You gave neither and, in this, have not witnessed to the One who gives both. >It is perversion. There were indeed many "perverted things" about the process. The perversion started when I substituted my "humanity" for a set of ideological beliefs that prevented me from being loving in any sense, and gave me the misguided opinion that I had the truth rather than the fact that the truth had me. The perversion continued, as I lied my way through the religious ranks, as I changed and did have the courage to, as straightforwardly as I ought, disassociate from the evangelical religious philosophy that I once held. The deconversion itself was a liberation, a final step in faith beyond faith, it left me reeling and insecure for a while as I struggled against old impulses but it eventually led me to believe in grace, forgiveness and a trust in the universe that I did not experience when I was busy convincing people of my opinions. >Obviously it is clear that the same arguments that caused his >redirection are the same arguments used to validate the origin of >the bible. I think you might want to spell this out a bit more. The redirection was arrived at by the dedication of my mind to God , trusting him that I was secure in God's love even though I explored ideas that might change me. Cheif of those ideas was the understanding of revelation and the process by which the Scriptures were created and inspired. So if you want to tell us more on how my redirection could have lead me to your position I would like to know. Don't forget I was in the evangelical camp for over twenty years so it was not as a result of lack of knowledge of what you are saying. >66books. 40authors. One message. No, no. Read it again. Many messages One Source. And the challenging task of listening intently to what that Source had to say in our own setting. >I prayed about the loss and the Lord revealed two >scriptures to me. > >First...John 11:35 >Jesus Wept. Yes, but did you, weep. Did you allow yourself to be touched by compassion, to enter doubt and sadness of another and the tumultuous journey out of a cherished belief that was secure - into a not awfully secure place but a place where grace is tested. Jesus wept but he also resurrects, he restores and provides a model for how to be a conscious human being. Go and do likewise. >Second...Eph 6:4-5 >For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, >and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become >partakers with the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good Word of God >and of the powers of the age to come, >If they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they >crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and PUT HIM TO AN >OPEN SHAME. Thank you for the restoring words. Here are some others that I found helpful myself. My, Friends, if anyone is detected in a transgression, you how have received the spirit should go and restore such a one with a spirit of gentleness. Take care that you yourselves are not tempted. Bear one another's burden's and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. Gal. 6:1-3 Anyone can play the quote game to their own advantage. >No one here has honestly and openly investigated the validity >of the New and Old Testament. And if you had, your rose colored >glasses caused you to be blinded from the obvious. Not even true. I suspect that many on theos-l have had some training in Christian Scripture. I know A. Bain has and I certainly have read through the text, preached on it and exegeted it sincerely. The problem is you will very likely write this off as the deception of the Dark One. >Daniel >Evangelical Polemist >1Pet3:15 Daniel did you notice v.16 of your favorite passage? "yet do it with gentleness and reverence." You are not listening to the whole text for some reason. Perhaps there is more to your agenda than faith. Your tone is venomous and in I feel that if that tone persists you will as John says be written off. I for one do not want to subject theos-l to the inanity of this sort of discussion. I really do apologize to those who are of other spiritual beliefs - that you and I have blighted their cyberspace with such particularize and parochial concerns. The Internet should be used to facilitate an exchange of ideas and perspectives, strongly held ones too, but not a means of religious campaigning. Please consider those who do not want to hear your message - of course you could invite them to join you on a Christian List or a a newsgroup of which there are many. I am not being stupid here I feel that some might even explore that option. Under the Mercy, Art From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 04:42:47 GMT From: dhedrick@csn.net Subject: Re: Art's Response to Daniel Art and to Theos I will preface this post with: Is it a compassionate response to allow someone to continue in something that destroys themself if there declaration is "I have a right to choose": as an example... A young not so spiritual lady is dumped by her boyfriend. She sinks into despair and chooses to commit suicide. "Does she have a RIGHT to die?" Yet in an act of grace(or law)...you happen to bump into her on the way home, and you discern the broken heart...and in time the young lady falls into love with your brother? Or the police arrest her and later that year she creates a widget that saves lives. What does kharma have to say about that? If you rescue someone from a tragedy...have you not just condemned them to have to repeat or undergo another tragedy? >Daniel, > >The greatest compliment you could have given to me would have been your >compassion and open ear. You gave neither and, in this, have not witnessed >to the One who gives both. > Was it compassionate for Jesus to agressively condemn those in the Temple. Was it compassionate for John to condemn the secular leaders openly? >There were indeed many "perverted things" about the process. The perversion >started when I substituted my "humanity" for a set of ideological beliefs >that prevented me from being loving in any sense, and gave me the misguided >opinion that I had the truth rather than the fact that the truth had me. Art You shall know them the know me because they Love one another. God is Love. It is clear that you have missed Jeremiah 1:5a-b. Art if YHWH did have a hand in your creation (and he did) and you look up into the Potters eyes and say "Why did you make me this way?" Or make even a more foolish determination that the Pot determines what will be contained within then that is your own personal choice which you certainly have made of which only the Potter can by grace and mercy wait for you to ask to be filled with His will. > >old impulses but it eventually led me to believe in grace, forgiveness and >a trust in the universe that I did not experience when I was busy >convincing people of my opinions. In Romans it says that they perverted the truth by worshipping the Creation instead of the Creator. By now you are all saying...the Evangelical is too much, look at him attacking and condemning.... I did not write the book of Romans or any other part. And as an Evangelical I hold the Word of God...as the Word of God. It is a perverted excuse that declares that the inspired Word of God is less than what it delcares to be. This may make you mad...but spiritual growth must be within the bounds of truth, or else you grow wild. >I think you might want to spell this out a bit more. The redirection was >arrived at by the dedication of my mind to God , trusting him that I was >secure in God's love even though I explored ideas that might change me. I respect your desire to trust Him...but I am honestly led to ask "who is Him"? >Cheif of those ideas was the understanding of revelation and the process by >which the Scriptures were created and inspired. You know that scripture interprets scripture? And that inspiration, or personal prophecy will not conflict with that which has already been decalred by God? >>66books. 40authors. One message. > >No, no. Read it again. Many messages One Source. And the challenging task >of listening intently to what that Source had to say in our own setting. > I am very aware of the different INTERPRETATIONS. However the gospel message is simple regardless of our setting. We are sinners. We cannot save ourselves. We need a Savior. Jesus is that Savior. And as to Historical Veracity...if you actually studied the foundation for biblical interpretation etc...then it is impossible to come to anyother conclusion other than the Bible is inspired or it is a joke. There is no room for luke here. What do you do with Messianic Prophecies? Who do say Jesus is? What will you say when He returns? > >>I prayed about the loss and the Lord revealed two >>scriptures to me. >> >>First...John 11:35 >>Jesus Wept. > Go and do likewise. I will admit I come on strong. If you were a follower of Jesus Christ then I certainly erred. I was wrong to not confront you first one on one. However your declarations of deconversion have caused many to fall. And I would be wrong to not openly condemn your declarations. Strong? Yes. I also spank my children. Does it hurt? You bet. Does it help? Absolutely. And I would certainly prevent by force any attack on my family or friends. If you were a follower then what I have posted would rebuke and hurt, but the fruit which is being determined by every post will be revealed. It is unfortunate that your growth has separated you from the Word. > >Thank you for the restoring words. Here are some others that I found >helpful myself. My, Friends, if anyone is detected in a transgression, you >how have received the spirit should go and restore such a one with a spirit >of gentleness. Take care that you yourselves are not tempted. Bear one >another's burden's and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. Gal. >6:1-3 Anyone can play the quote game to their own advantage. > Are you a reprobate or a follower that desires restoration? Have you transgressed? Do not use the Word to defend your position if you do not condsider it right. >>No one here has honestly and openly investigated the validity >>of the New and Old Testament. And if you had, your rose colored >>glasses caused you to be blinded from the obvious. > >Not even true. I suspect that many on theos-l have had some training in >Christian Scripture. I know A. Bain has and I certainly have read through >the text, preached on it and exegeted it sincerely. The problem is you will >very likely write this off as the deception of the Dark One. Exegete? What does that mean? Does that not mean to reveal the truth that IS found in the scripture? You and A. Bain are about 12inches off. You have answered well in declaring the prince of the power of the air has deceived you. > >>Daniel >>Evangelical Polemist >>1Pet3:15 > >Daniel did you notice v.16 of your favorite passage? "yet do it with >gentleness and reverence." You are not listening to the whole text for some >reason. There is a time and a place. And I too am learning to grow and reveal the compassion of the Lord to the lost, but you my friend have declared yourself to be not a diciple of Jesus Christ...and the reverence towards the Lord compels me to Proclaim judgement. If you know or read the Word, you can know that the saints are to judge...according to the Word. > The Internet should be used to facilitate an exchange of ideas and >perspectives, strongly held ones too, but not a means of religious >campaigning. Please consider those who do not want to hear your message - >of course you could invite them to join you on a Christian List or a a >newsgroup of which there are many. I am not being stupid here I feel that >some might even explore that option. > I can choose to listen to your last paragraph or I can choose to follow the Great Commission by the Great Master. Where is the Love and Compassion in degrading the Word and denegrating the Lord Jesus Christ? >Under the Mercy, > >Art > Under His Mercy Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 05:06:06 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Former Christian Dear Daniel-- Are you on this list for any reason related to genuine interest in Theosophy? If not, could you spare us the evangelism? It is a waste of your time and ours, IMO, although some polite Theosophists will argue politely with you until doomsday if you like. But what's the point? Exasperated, Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 05:23:17 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: On personal attacks According to Richtay@aol.com: > > Rich: This is something that is extremely annoying. A discussion of ideas > is taken as a discussion of a PERSON. Why is this? Can we on this board not > distinghuish a person's ideas from that person? Rich, I think perhaps a review of the Jungian four functions (sorry folks, but when I get interested in something it tends to last a while) will answer your question somewhat. Thinking and feeling are polar opposites, modes of judgment that rely on objective vs. subjective factors. (Is it true? Do I like it?) But when we are consciously focusing energy at one pole, there is an unconscious expression through the other. Only if we become mindful of the effects of our unconscious feeling on other people, can we be sure that when we think we're thinking objectively we aren't really conveying subjective feeling. What I'm getting at, to make it personal, is that your overt expressions about Leadbeater were thinking-oriented, focused on objective facts about his writings. But as you expressed them, a strong subjective feeling factor came through, to the effect of "Yuck! I don't like Leadbeater, and anyone who likes him is a silly fool and an enemy of true Theosophy." When Liesel reacted strongly to that, you could take refuge in saying "Why, I was merely raising an intellectual issue." That may be all you were conscious of doing. Unconsciously, you were attacking. I don't mean to single you out-- we all express things we're not conscious of-- but to generalize, that the chief danger for thinking types is obliviousness to others' feelings. > > If someone doesn't like my ideas, let them contradict me. That doesn't mean > that they wouldn't like me if they met me in person. And just because > someone agrees with my ideas on Theos-L doesn't mean that they WOULD like me > in person. I am more than what I write here, we all are. > > If Jerry H-E has something to say about what Brenda wrote, let him say it > without imagining that he is attacking Brenda personally. And let Brenda > respond equally impersonally, responding to the points raised, and not > attacking Jerry. Frankly, I don't see either one of them attacking the other > personally, so why not leave off the criticism of the sharing of ideas. > > Why not let this board be about ideas and viewpoints, and not about persons, > personalities and personal attacks? To continue to take arguments and > disagreements PERSONALLY is immature and leads to no discussion at all, for > fear that FEELINGS may be hurt. I would say that it is immature to believe that we can attack someone's ideas without attacking the person. Better to get on some other kind of energy flow than the attacking type, before even trying to deal with the issues. In the Original Programme manuscript, HPB says some very powerful things about Theosophists needing to try very hard to avoid hurting one another's feelings. I'll bring it to work with me tomorrow, to post. Your friend in the cause Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 05:45:00 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: re CWL and Mars Jerry E-H wrote: > Do you feel that I'm being unfair? > Lewis: I'd characterize it as a different way of thinking. In my own life I have told lies (although, I strive to be truthful now, as a young person I was more inclined to lie if it meant angering a parent, for instance). Should some of these lies be brought to your attention now would that invalidate all I have ever said or done? I am suggesting that CWL should be read with as open a mind as one is capable of...realizing that we all have some bias or prejudice. To demand that others be always consistent with the views expressed by themselves or others seems unreasonable to me. I would not be inclined to discount all that Mark Furman has said because he lied about some other things. I find his behavior *understandable* but do not condone it. My son is a police officer in Atlanta and has made comments to me which I consider racist. It always dismays me, and I never let them go by unchallenged. I see in them the influence of the culture he has immersed himself in (that being the police and military establishments). I try not to ridicule him, but suggest other possible motives or reasons. If you are saying there are no civilizations on Mars, CWL either was lieing or deluded, and we cannot take anything else he said seriously, then I would disagree. If I were so inclined, I doubt that I would find much in theosophy which would be "acceptable" to me since much of it contradicts the material sciences. While I cannot prove to others that what he wrote about is true, I also cannot prove them wrong either. I found his material extremely interesting and thought provoking, which all I could ask of any writer. Jerry E-H: > ...Also, CWL claimed to be an > Adept, Lewis: While I have read many of CWL's books, I don't recall him ever making such a claim. On the contrary, it my recollection is one of a humble and cautious writer who encouraged his readers to question and investigate these things for themselves. > ...so according to his own definition, he would be above > having these time problems that you are suggesting. Lewis: Maybe the problem here is one of definition. I thought another post had pointed out that even adepts are not infallable while operating on the lower planes in nature. > ...Also, his > description suggested that they were literate and read books > etc., thus would have kept track of time. If he doesn't read > Martian, he could always look at the planetary positions. On the > other hand, if his clairvoyant observations are subject to being > indeterminably in the past present or future, and we have no way > of knowing which, then of what value are they? Lewis: Here I would agree with you. I see little value in his Martian observations. > Another explanation I heard once was that the cities are > there exactly as CWL described, but the Martians did not wish to > be seen so they created a mayavi over the Viking cameras so that > they would only record desert. Lewis: HPB describes an incident in which she bets a rickshaw driver he cannot find the house he had just taken her to. She, too, believed that it was possible to hide from view places. > In the end, I think we have to be > aware as to when we are seeking a rational explanation, and when > we are reaching for explanations in order to justify a belief > that we don't want to let go of. > Lewis: This is a good point and I will try to keep it in mind. llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 06:31:51 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Re: "source teachings" >The Founders of the Theosophical Society gave out the core teachings. >That's why they founded the Society in the first place, to give out the >basic teachings. The basic Teachings were given by Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, etc. Theosophy gives more. There was also much more to give than was done and HPB passed on because of the failure of humanity, and the intelligentsia in particular, to relate rightly to theosophy. Teaching from the Masters has been given since and is just as basic, foundational and pure. The Founders of the Theosophical Society gave out the core teachings. That's why they founded the Society in the first place, to give out the basic teachings. >All other Theosophical writers came later, thus they are "secondary" just >like we today are "secondary." Actually anyone who writes for the Mahatmas is primary whether then or now. The Teaching is a living ethic of right relationships Namaste, Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 06:31:54 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Re: Bitter/Sweet To make a completely impersonal and indifferent point, it is the energy behind the words, not the words themselves which effect the person. People may say that they are discussing issues but behind this can be an attitude of personal negativity and spitefulness. It is the "attitude" which is the real substance of any relationship and discussion as this is what primarily effects the subtle energy aura of the interchange. Anyone who is spiteful, hateful, personally critical, etc. knows nothing of true theosophy. Begin with an *attitude* of kindness and a cheerful heart and then one can see truth clearly. Peace, Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 06:50:43 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: evangelism Daniel's method of speaking regarding spiritual truths is a method that has developed over the years following the life of Christ. It's useful in a setting where we sit and listen, hang our head, pray, and maybe sing a little. In other words, you are speaking very much like a man in the ministry. I also think that you carry this ministry into your meetings with people and that this is helpful to your psyche because you are able to feel the unity and the spiritual life and in this way you acquire a sense of helping and aiding in a great plan. What theosophists are trying to develop is a method which incorporates the lives and teachings of our eastern brothers. Too many people were taking what men from the east said and twisting it to suit their own needs, often times misinterpreting and perverting a very beautiful and spiritual message. The symbols used in the east are grand and beloved in their own right. If we can't communicate successfully with the eastern world, how can we hope to continue existence peacefully and without grave error? By calling for an assembly of all traditions which have aided people in overcoming their difficulties and helped them to travel freely upon the planet, we are working toward the ideal of brotherhood. I agree that you have a message that is very well accepted in the U.S. and perhaps you are wondering why we haven't also been drawn to speak this noble tongue to those whom we meet in daily living. To every time there is a season... What we wish to do is keep a peaceful, healthy planet and are calling for all earthly inhabitants to participate in this goal. We're not asking them to leave their heritage and come into ours. We only wish to find our common source and you are invited to participate in this as you are able. I enjoy your messages but don't wish the other members of our group to lose faith in our goals as an international organization. We can't just simply ignore the contributions of an eastern world or "save ourselves from damnation" by becoming so self-assured that there is only one truth. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 07:36:17 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Eldon on Politics in the AT According to Keith Price: > ------------------------------ > Keith Price: After reading Eldon's article on politics in the American > Theosophist, I was struck more with what was unsaid than said. In my humble > opinion it was written very well if the object was to offend no one and keep > everybody happy and "in the fold". Like many articles and "exoteric" messages > from the TSA, it gives the impression that theosophy offers an opporunity for > personal growth, spritual seeking and light on the path and all > that, but never any "stated" agenda or forced direction or guidance. > > THIS IS TRUE AND ALL TO THE GOOD. I am not really complaining > but this seems to be a comfort for those new to the path, that > is, that one can come in to the TS without there a being a cult > like expectation of conforming to a dogma etc. One is always > left slightly uplifted and slightly empty by this kind of > thing. It isn't so much that conflict is resolved, but it is > just left unspoken, hidden, concealed, "esoteric". For quite some time, this has been a semi-official policy not just in Adyar but throughout the movement. The most fascinating element of it is the controversy surrounding Krishnamurti. It's the biggest event in 20th century Theosophical history (or series of events-- if you will) and yet all the conflicts surrounding him are left "unspoken, hidden, concealed, esoteric." I just heard, however, from Jim Santucci, that the K. Foundation has published two pamphlets in which they admit to K.'s affairs. He has not, however, seen them and knows little about them. Anyone have any info on this? > Theosophy is so open it almost presumes a previous religious training(IMHO), I > mean one > can not go beyond language (religion) if one does not have a mother tongue > (Church). This is another topic really but theosophy seems not to be only the > root, but probably more the fruit of each religion (the esoteric core, no pun > intended). In the early days of the TS, it was understood that members were usually committed to various religious paths, and that Theosophy was above and transcendent of these-- a UN of spirituality so to speak. HSO and HPB were Buddhists, Kingsford Christian, Subba Row a Hindu, plus Parsees, Sikhs, Jains, all maintaining their religious identities but seeing Theosophy as a universal solvent that connects them all. Nowadays, most Theosophists (I think) DON'T have a primary affiliation to a religion, so Theosophy BECOMES their religion. Therefore this leads to fossilization IMHO. Something of my motivation for rejoining ARE is the sense that Theosophy "works" better for me in conjunction with something more explicitly religious, than as a stand-alone system. Have you considered this option? > > If one allows anything, one stands for nothing. It seems like a kind of > anarchism, but with the unstated assumption that if you are really spiritual > (whatever that is) you will get with the program and become a vegetarian, a > believer in the Masters, and hold what are today the "proper" ideals (whatever > they are). Which equates to "the ES contains the REAL Theosophists" --an attitude that leaves the rest of us in the cold. Keith, this is a thought provoking post to which I hope others may give more attention. Cheers PJ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 07:57:29 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: Art's Response to Daniel Daniel appears to have responded to my post I haven't received it on my server yet. Paul could you sent it my way so I could respond to him, or not:) This brings us to what the limits of tolerance of this list are. Daniel is certainly boarderline but then again there is alot of latitude here. Personally I am not ready to suggest we bar Daniel, I just suggest to him that it might not be advantageous for his goals if he needs to wipe the dust off his feet and leave I take no exception. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 08:13:31 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: New address To whom it may concern-- I finished moving this weekend. The new address is Rt. 3, Box 273-C, South Boston, VA 24592. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 10:22:25 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Art's Response to Daniel According to dhedrick@csn.net: > > Art and to Theos > > I will preface this post with: > Is it a compassionate response to allow someone to continue in something > that destroys themself if there declaration is "I have a right to choose": It is not your right to allow or not allow people to be Theosophists. It's our business. > > By now you are all saying...the Evangelical is too much, look at him attacking > and condemning.... It's not just your attacking and condemning, but your total incomprehension of what we are here to discuss, and your lack of interest in learning anything, that is TOO MUCH. Please go away. > other than > the Bible is inspired or it is a joke. There is no room for luke here. SO YOU SAY. Can't jokes be inspired? > > However your declarations of deconversion have caused many to fall. > And I would be wrong to not openly condemn your declarations. You are clearly violating the purpose and spirit of this list. Please go away. > > I can choose to listen to your last paragraph or I can choose to follow the > Great Commission by the Great Master. Go and sin no more. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 11:54:41 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Art's Response to Daniel Dear Art-- I erased it, but have asked the listserv to repost all today's messages. Not sure I remember how to do that, however. If I can retrieve it, will forward. Don't like to be the heavy here, but this guy is violating our space in my opinion, and there's nothing to be gained by talking to him. Maybe I'm less tolerant than most of y'all. Regards Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 11:55:56 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Re: Psychism >If ANYONE has this article (Jerry H-E??) please start posting it, we need to >hear HPB distinguish psychic from higher mental in a BIG way. Higher psychism is the faculties of the higher self (Soul and the Monad), and lower psychism is the faculties of the personality (physical, emotional and mental senses). These lower faculties can be used for good or bad. When one is pure, of good character and pursuing a path of meditation and service then the higher faculties become available and control the lower one's for use in good. Dangers arise when the lower (which most animals have to some degree) are focussed on without the requisite purity and good values -- and with the right purity and values all faculties unfold naturally if and as needed for the good work. Being psychic or not in the lower sense says nothing about a person's spirituality and advanced souls may or may not use these faculties during an incarnation. I believe that this issue has arisen today because of the increased etheric resonance of humanity and the recapitulatory prevalence of etheric vision. This in and of itself can be used for good or bad but certainly we can hope that good will come and work for this. Peace, Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 13:01:48 GMT From: Geraldjs@aol.com Subject: Re: Art's Response to Daniel Art: I, for one, used to be a Sunday School teacher, as well as church treasurer. Yes, I have read the Bible several times over, and agree with everything Jesus teaches. No, I am not a Christian today. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 13:05:34 GMT From: Geraldjs@aol.com Subject: Re: "source teachings" Patrick:< Actually anyone who writes for the Mahatmas is primary whether then or now. The Teaching is a living ethic of right relationships> Very true. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 13:16:31 GMT From: Geraldjs@aol.com Subject: Re: Psychism Rich:< There is higher and lower Manas, there is Buddhi and astral sensitivity, and we have GOT to get them straight or we will never get out of the labyrinth!> From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 13:32:32 GMT From: Geraldjs@aol.com Subject: Re: Psychism Rich:< There is higher and lower Manas, there is Buddhi and astral sensitivity, and we have GOT to get them straight or we will never get out of the labyrinth!> Actually, I read this particular article over 20 years ago, and am very familiar with the technical distinctions that you have noted. I wonder though, just how many theosophists do? Who knows, for example, when they have an experience of some kind, whether it is within their higher or lower manas? Most people think in terms of "mental" which equates to "psychic." Its just plain ol English, and I am sorry, but the old technical theosophical termonology is outdated today and seldom even used. Someone in a past message mentioned that CWL's termonology is more prevalent and popular than HPB's. This is true. I myself prefer the termonology of CWL (my apologies to all of you CWL-haters in the audience). If I get a "message" - say an esoteric idea that is difficult to put into words - how do I tell whether it is from my Buddhi, my "higher manas" or my "lower manas" (which is not always connected to sex or violence or the gutter, BTW)? It takes training, my friend. Years of training and study. There are few who have done this, and probably fewer who would even want to try. So in my discussions of psychism, I am using the word in its normal, everyday, usage, and not in the technical theosophical sense of "lower manas." Apparently this causes some problems. But, exactly how do you think I should be phrasing my postings - with HPB's terminology (which itself changed as she matured)? With Judge's. With G de Puruckers? I have a very sore point on this subject (like a burr under my saddle) and early on told everyone on Theos-l that I was using CWL termonology or possible New Age, but that I wouldn't use theosophical termonology until someone could tell me exactly what it is. So far, no one has been able to do this, although some of Eldon's postings come close. My personal feeling is that until you directly experience Buddhi, and even Atman, they are just words that you use without any comprehension. Once you have experienced them then, yes, you can use them in your writings and messages. But, who will understand you then? Jerry S. PS. Sorry about the earlier posting without a message. I am posting these from AOL, and am new to its editor. Its a long story, but the gist is that with all of the 10-cent postings from theos-l, CompuServe charged my charge-card folks more than they were willing to pay. I have since paid the credit card folks, but it will take several days before CompuServe will let me back on. So, meanwhile, I am at AOL (when I can get on, that is). From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 14:31:45 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: to Liesel on Group Souls To Brenda, Yes, Our homogeneity in the 7th Round is an act of the individual wills which decide to act in unison. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 14:34:08 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Group souls or Individuality Brenda, OK, now I getcha. Thanks. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 15:00:36 GMT From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: Psychism Liesel: >Jerry S. >"Compassion is a sure way to protect yourself on the higher >planes." On second thought, I think you're right. While I was >reading what you said, I rmembered that Serge taught us not to >"protect" something against something else, because it sets up >negative vibes. He taught us to send "thought forms" or >whatever (he always put a whole ritual around what he taught) >of harmony & peace to surround the person with it. I do it with >Chou chou every time I go out. But then the question still >remains how does JRC keep himself from getting bowled over by >someone else's rotten vibes? Maybe what I wrote just before >about being subjective & objective in turn while viewing them >would do the trick. Maybe best to ask Serge, especially since >someone on the scene has told JRC to keep away from that stuff. >Liesel Couple things ... the question was a bit more than that of staying free of someone's vibes. Jerry's post re: the body of light that serves as a protection in magical ritual does make some sense, as I did make experiments with western ceremonial a few years ago. At present, during those hours when I am inward and engaged with angels, or even in physical surroundings that are less than delightful it rarely occurs to me to "protect" myself or anything like that ... (I have some new age friends that wrap themselves "in the light" several times a day, but this seems to me to be a subtle form of seperatism, of affirming duality). I suppose I believe (theoretically (-:)) that as the human energy system matures as the result of spiritual living it not only becomes wiser, but more powerful as well - and tends of its own accord to elevate its surroundings rather than being dominated by them. It also makes sense to me that one can only resonate with something in the environment if there is a place within oneself receptive to it ... and to me surrounding myself with light seems to be an avoidance of sorts: If someone I'm in contact with gets quite angry, and the energies generated by the emotional state provokes anger in me, buffering myself with shells of light or "techniques" of some sort avoid the (IMO) real issue, which is that some layer of my system is still capable of that particular vibrational frequency - and the negative outer situation serves as a kind of diagnostic, something that exposes (one of the thousands of remaining) flaws in my own system, and invokes it to the surface layers of awareness where it can be operated upon. The question I was raising earlier had to do with a specific kind of work ... attempting to aid the police in the discovery of a particular person. The "white light" and other forms of "protection" couldn't really be used, because the means of doing the work had to do with connecting with the inner fabric of the crime itself, and tracing the lines from it to the one that committed it ... meaning delibrately attempting to become aware of precisely those vibrations that "the light" would protect one from ... sort of like walking into a swamp on purpose because that's where something is - no matter how much protective clothing one wears, its still a swamp, and will still smell like a swamp, and look like a swamp, and to find what one seeks the senses will have to be fully open to the swamp. While I do not have anything resembling a refined energy system, it at least has gotten beyond the point where there are any layers left dense enough to resonate with murder ... so for a moment it was necessary to resonate fully with a very dense and unnatural frequency range, and the rest of my system reacted as though it was clubbed in the head. I never resolved the conumdrum (and hence stopped playing detective years ago) but it still does puzzle me now and then as a kind of theoretical problem. (By the way, thanks for the SK address Liesel, I may write him). -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 15:29:32 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: psychic powers Patrick writes "An attitude of keeping things in their proper balance ... is the healthiest." second the motion. ".... The Masters are very busy and that is why theosophical books have been written. I believe that we must today rely much more on open honest discussion among ourselves." I think that this works up to a certain point, until one is quite advanced. Then, I think some sort of oral instruction or guidance is needed, not necessarily by a Master right away, who I think is needed for people who are spirtually very advanced, but by a Chela, or someone who's had at least some training in the right direction. If one comes across such a person before one is quite advanced, I think it helps as well. Speaking for myself (in the latter category), I understood some things as they were being taught to me, & others by observing, & then lateron, as I read, or listened to tapes, realizing what I'd seen. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 15:44:12 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Psychism JRC Re Grokking. I don't think I ever went quite as deeply as to get to the core of the thing I grokked, except in 1 instance, so my answer may not be terribly valid. You're experiencing this thing or person you're grokking with something akin to empathy, but then you also stand back & look at it sort of objectively, from your own point of view. Maybe you'd like to ask Serge. He answers valid questions, as he has time, which is not very often. They'll also send you material for Serge's courses, which are very instructive but also very expensive, but I think he'll answer your questions whether you attend or not. Dr. Serge King % Aloha International Box 665 Kilauea, Hi. 96754 Mark clearly on the outside of your envelope that it contains a question for Serge. Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 15:48:04 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: "source teachings" Rich, I would think that HPB & WQJudge would consider themselves "students" as well. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 16:03:57 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Psychism Jerry S. "Compassion is a sure way to protect yourself on the higher planes." On second thought, I think you're right. While I was reading what you said, I rmembered that Serge taught us not to "protect" something against something else, because it sets up negative vibes. He taught us to send "thought forms" or whatever (he always put a whole ritual around what he taught) of harmony & peace to surround the person with it. I do it with Chou chou every time I go out. But then the question still remains how does JRC keep himself from getting bowled over by someone else's rotten vibes? Maybe what I wrote just before about being subjective & objective in turn while viewing them would do the trick. Maybe best to ask Serge, especially since someone on the scene has told JRC to keep away from that stuff. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 16:07:57 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Group souls or Individuality Rich They are not the originals, but still worth studying & learning from, some appeal to one person more, & others to someone else. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 16:15:05 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Bitter/Sweet Rich, I agree with your assessment of K. Paul. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 17:07:24 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: "source teachings" Seems to me that the Teaching must also be presented in a form that can be understood and worked with by the generation & the culture of the people reading it in the present, whenever that present is. I think that, since mankind evolves, & the Universe evolves, the Teaching must as well. It's difficult to understand the "Tibetan Book of the Dead" unless one has studied that culture, & knows who all those gods & godesses are. I've leafed around in the "Hymns of Orpheus", which is supposed to be very ancient wisdom, & I don't see too much wisdom in it. Maybe because I again don't understand all those gods & godesses, Orpheus wrote the hymns to. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 17:32:54 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Art's Response to Daniel Art Paul, I think if anyone has a way of reaching Daniel, you do. In that sense I'd like to see you continue for a while, unless & until you think it's hopeless. Theosophists are also interested in bringing people to a more spiritual life, & if Daniel can accept some of the ideas & ideals you're offering him, it'd make him a more spiritual & better person. Besides, I was interested in reading your post. It was anything but dull. I can't speak for the others but you're not intruding with anything we can't accept, or don't want to listen to. I say "go on", unless you get to where you'd like to stop. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 21:02:19 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Eldon on Politics in the AT Keith: "Theosophy is so open it almost presumes a previous religious training(IMHO), I mean one can not go beyond language (religion) if one does not have a mother tongue (Church). This is another topic really but theosophy seems not to be only the root, but probably more the fruit of each religion (the esoteric core, no pun intended)." Well, this may be the Theosophy (or, non-Theosophy) you've been taught in the Theosophical Society or some branch thereof, but the entire discussion on this board the past two weeks (at least) has been WHAT IS THEOSOPHY? In my opinion, in in the opinion of quite a few, Theosophy is not "anything goes" but it has become that over the last century in the T.S. For many other groups, like ULT and TS (pasadena) it is a strict path, with specific teachings taught and specific other stuff rejected. It is a very carefully crafted path, and only draws on other traditions by way of example or parallel, it has it's own fully developed ideas and practices. HPB herself wrote enough material to keep most of us going for at least a lifetime. She rejects PLENTY, and teaches a very positive, well-defined path. Many on this board do not like this view of Theosophy, and they are welcome to their view. But I strenuously disagree that Theosophy is a hodge-podge of this and that, and I hold to the lines laid down by the Masters and the original teachings. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 21:55:08 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: "source teachings" Liesel: "Seems to me that the Teaching must also be presented in a form that can be understood and worked with by the generation & the culture of the people reading it in the present, whenever that present is. I think that, since mankind evolves, & the Universe evolves, the Teaching must as well." I partially agree and partially disagree. I agree that the presentation of the teaching need to be in the language of the people, accessible and understandable. And I agree that that's our job, to keep the teaching available in that way. But I don't agree that the Teaching evolves. If Theosophy is truly "truth" based on facts in nature, then it simply IS and does not change. However the PRESENTATION of those truths may vary from culture to culture, time to time. I don't ever think we will outgrow the original stuff taught by HPB and William Q. Judge, but I do think their written English will differ more and more from the spoken and written vernacular as the decades, and centuries go by. The question is: how do we keep ourselves based firmly on the tradition handed down to us -- that tradition of eternal truths -- while keeping it current, at the same time avoiding the pitfall of "pandering" to popular prejudices, like and dislikes, thus altering or losing the essential truths. It seems to me the only way to prevent this decay is to really KNOW and MASTER the original stuff, and be able to rephrase it in our OWN WORDS at any time, differently for every audience (scientists, scholars, Christians, Buddhists, housewives, business people, farmers, kids, etc.) Learning the original stuff well also allows one to spot other people's interpretations and see of they are on track or not. Just my opinion, which I know wasn't asked for. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 22:56:30 GMT From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: CWL and Mars Recent discussions on CWL and his visions of Martian life seem to have assumed the the edited versions are the later editions of ~Man, Whence How and Whither~ - which cannot be the case. I have just obtained access to a first edition copy of this work, published in 1913 by the then TPS in London. The only references to life on Mars relate to root races and such, and it is a joint venture with Annie Besant. THe book that contains the Mars Inhabitants material is vol. 2 of ~The Inner Life~ published in 1911, of which I also have access. Vol. 1 was published in 1910. I am working on a complete text of the Mars material, together with some biographical details about CWL. I had hoped to scan it in, but the old books reproduce badly for this purpose, and so I am having to type it in by hand. Watch this space ..... Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Sep 1995 23:42:09 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Former Christian > > No one here has honestly and openly investigated the validity > of the New and Old Testament. And if you had, your rose colored > glasses caused you to be blinded from the obvious. > > Daniel > Evangelical Polemist > 1Pet3:15 WRONG. How can you presume such a thing? Have you met each one of us in person? Do you know our individual backgrounds intimately? What is the expression "the validity of the Old and New Testament" supposed to mean? The Catholic OT has more books than the Protestant; the Peshitta NT has less books than the Greek. There are a number of recensions of all the texts in the original tongues. Can you tell me what the Peshitta text (of both Old and New testaments actually says, or what language it is in? Its version of 1Pet is shorter than yours - did you know that? It is in use every day by thousand of Christians in the East, most of whom would think you were out of your tree. If you tried to take your "message" to some of the places where they worship, you could even get them murdered - did you know that? "Scripture" means, as I have said before, "Writings" - that's all. And these writings are without any doubt the writings of men. (This has been directly revealed to me by the Holy Spirit of God.) Answer these questions, please, as soon as possible, every one, line by line, without selective quoting from *any* source. We are seekers after truth here, not polemical evangelists for *any* cause. AB. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 00:25:59 GMT From: dhedrick@csn.net Subject: Re: Art's Response to Daniel >Art:training in Christian Scripture.> > >I, for one, used to be a Sunday School teacher, as well as church treasurer. > Yes, I have read the Bible several times over, and agree >with everything Jesus teaches. No, I am not a Christian today. > > Jerry S. > Another one that is 12inches off. Jerry... You do not believe what Jesus taught. He taught "...the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth". then Jesus declared "I am the Messiah" John 4:23:26 Jerry do you need a Savior? Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 00:43:16 GMT From: dhedrick@csn.net Subject: Eldon Eldon you wrote that we choose to come into existence. Our pre-incarnate life causes a choice or chance to become earth-bound. You also said that this was a Christian teaching. First why did I choose to enter into the conception of a man and a woman named Molly & Deke? Why did I not choose to be the child of Bill & Hillary? Why would anyone choose to be the child that is born addicted to cocaine or born into a society that does not want me like China as a baby girl. I assume you also believe that my spirit is genderless, so now DNA determines what type of human I would be. It is evident in all societies that boys are more rough and girls more observant. So does DNA, my parents, society etc...form who I really am? What happens if the likes of Einstein's spirit gets placed in a deaf mute in a third world country? We and Einstein have to wait for round two, or three...? As to Chistian teachings... It is clear that God knew us before we were born. It is also clear in biblical teachings that we were not formed until we were in the womb. Jeremiah 1: is a good example. Paul taught "It is given unto man Once to die and then judgement". There is no room here for second chances. No reincarnation. The Gospel of Thomas "Gnostic" tried to arouse reincarnation and rightfully was not included in canon. Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 01:01:05 GMT From: dhedrick@csn.net Subject: A Christian & the Bible Knowledge regarding the Bible. Lets start for those that do not really undertand the origin of the bible. And for those that do, you can critique the following: Before we actually study Canonicity , which determines how each book became included, lets first look at the Names and Divisions of the=20 Bible .=20 (1) The Names of the Bible=20 The word "Bible" comes from the Greek word "biblos" which means"a little book."=20 It comes from the word given to the inner pulp of the=20 papyrus reed that ancient books were written on. Here are two scriptures in the New Testament that use this word "biblos":= =20 Matt 1:1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David', the Son of Abraham: =20 Lk 4:17 And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah . And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was=20 written: =20 Other names besides Bible are used in the New Testament. For example:=20 Mark 15:28 So the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "And He was numbered with the transgressors." =20 Lk 24:27 And beginning at Moses' and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. =20 Rom1:2 which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures,= =20 Rom 3:2...Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. =20 Rom 10:17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.=20 (2) The Divisions of the Bible=20 The Bible has an Old Testament and a New Testament. The word "testament" means a covenant that God made with His people. There are=20 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament.=20 A. The Old Testament=20 The Hebrew Old Testament was divided into 3 sections:=20 -The Law (Torah), 5 books:=20 Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy.=20 -The Prophets (Nebhim), 8 books:=20 Former Prophets - Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings=20 Latter Prophets - Isaiah, Jeremiah , Ezekiel, The Twelve=20 -The Writings (Kethubim), 11 books:=20 Poetical Books - Psalms, Proverbs, Job=20 Megilloth - Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Esther, Ecclesiastes=20 Historical Books - Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles.=20 B. The New Testament -Biography of Jesus (4 books):=20 Matthew , Mark, Luke, John=20 -Historical (1 book): Acts -Epistles (21 books): Romans - Jude -Prophetic (1 book): Revelation'=20 It is very important to realize that the Bible wasn't originally divided into chapters and verses=20 as we know it today. In fact, they were first=20 introduced by Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, around 1201 AD.=20 The first Bible to be published which was divided into chapters=20 and verses was the Geneva Bible of 1560. =20 Nevertheless, we have to remember that chapters and verses werenot inspired, though they=20 are helpful. They can mislead us if they come right in the middle of a subject being dealt with.=20 (3) The Canon of the Bible=20 The word "canon" comes from the Greek "kanon" which means "a measuring rod or reed,"=20 and signifies a rule, a standard. Therefore, canon means those books which have been=20 measured, found satisfactory, and approved through the decision of Rabbis or a church=20 council to be inspired of God and, therefore, a standard for men.=20 Notice that these Ecclesiastical councils did not give these books their divine authority,=20 but merely recognized that these books already possessed canonicity.=20 1. The Canonicity of the Old Testament.=20 The Bible reveals when the Old Testament canon began,=20 but is never clear about when it was complete. The law was written down by Moses =20 and periodically read to the people. For example:=20 Deut 31:9-11 9 So Moses wrote this law and delivered it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel. 10 And Moses commanded them, saying: "At the end of every seven years, at the appointed time in the year of release, at the Feast of Tabernacles, 11 "when all Israel comes to appear before the LORD your God in the place which He chooses, you=20 shall read this law before all Israel in their hearing. =20 This marks the very earliest beginning of the Old Testament Canon. Also:=20 Deut 31:24-26 24 So it was, when Moses had completed writing the words of this law in a book, when they were finished, 25 that Moses commanded the Levites, who bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying: 26 "Take this Book of the Law, and put it beside the ark of=20 the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there as a witness against you; =20 Samuel also wrote certain events of his day in a book, as it says:=20 1Sam 10:25 Then Samuel explained to the people the behavior of royalty, and wrote it in a book and laid it up before the LORD. And Samuel sent all the people away, every man to his house.=20 Later on in Old Testament history the prophets wrote books, as it says:=20 Is 30:8 Now go, write it before them on a tablet, and note it on a scroll, that it may be for time to come, forever and ever: =20 Jer 36:2 "Take a scroll of a book and write on it all the words that I have spoken to you against Israel, against Judah, and against all the=20 nations, from the day I spoke to you, from the days of Josiah even to this day. =20 Hab 2:2 Then the LORD answered me and said: "Write the vision and make it=20 plain on tablets, that he may run who reads it. =20 Zech 7:12 "Yes, they made their hearts like flint, refusing to hear the law and the words which the LORD of hosts had sent by His Spirit=20 through the former prophets. Thus great wrath came from the LORD of hosts. = =20 Even Daniel searches "in the books" to discover God's will about Jerusalem and the people of God in Babylon:=20 Dan 9:2 in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, understood by the books the number of the years specified by the word of the LORD through=20 Jeremiah the prophet, that He would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.=20 There is no doubt that the Old Testament Scriptures were recognized during those times as the very Word of God. Many scholars, inluding=20 Norman Geisler, and Gleason Archer, who are foremost among the scholars of our day in these subjects, believe that the Old Testament=20 Canon was completed and recognized as authoritative during the time of Ezra (444 BC). This was confirmed by the famous Jewish=20 historian Josephus in many of his ancient writings, especially "Against Apion" and also by the historian Philo. What is most important is that the Old Testament Canon was, no doubt, complete at the time of Christ. Jesus had some very interesting=20 things to say about the absolute authority of the Old Testament Canon as we Know it today:=20 2. Jesus and the Old Testament Canon.=20 Jesus referred to it as the "Scriptures" when He said:=20 Jn 5:39 "You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. =20 Lk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. =20 In the Hebrew Bible, Genesis is the first book and 2 Chronicles is the last book. Jesus made a remarkable statement that would not only put=20 His seal of approval on the entire Old Testament, but gave us exact knowledge that the entire Old Testament books were in existence, and=20 were approved at the time He was here on earth. This is spoken of in Luke= 11,=20 Lk 11:51 "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be=20 required of this generation. =20 Jesus was referring to the martyrs of the Old Testament. Abel was the first, recorded in Gen 4, and Zechariah was the last, recorded in 2 Chr.=20 24. Wow, what an amazing verse to substantiate the authority of the Old Testament Canon and spoken by Jesus Christ Himself.=20 Jesus many times authenticated people and events in the Old Testament to show His belief in the literal interpretation and authorship, such=20 as:=20 Adam & Eve - Matt 19:4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning `made them=20 male and female,' =20 Noah & the Flood - Matt 24:37 "But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. =20 Jonah in the Whale - Matt 12:40 "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be=20 three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. =20 Many other examples could be given such as the lives of David , Daniel, Abraham, Lot's wife, Moses, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Elijah, etc. Events like=20 Sodom & Gomorrah, the lions den, the burning bush, manna, etc. all were mentioned by Jesus. He either quoted from or alluded to every=20 book of the Old Testament.=20 3. The Apocrypha .=20 The word "Apocrypha", refers to the 14 "Apocryphal Books" which have been added to the Old Testament by the Roman Catholic Church,=20 who believe them to be part of the Old Testament Canon. The books are as follows:=20 1 & 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, The Rest of Esther, The Wisdom of 'Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, with the epistle of Jeremiah, The Song of=20 the Three Holy Children, The 'History' of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Prayer of Manasses, 1 & 2 Maccabees.=20 These books were written during the first two centuries BC. and fill the gap between the Old Testament (which ended about 400 BC.) and=20 the New Testament. The question is...Should we accept these books as Scripture along with the Old Testament? Most Christians and Jews=20 would definitely say, "No," though they do have historical value. Roman Catholics since the Council of Trent (1546) have held these books to=20 be canonical, as quoted at Trent,=20 "If anyone receives not as sacred and canonical the said books (including Apocrypha) entire with all their parts...let him be anathema".=20 There are several reasons for rejecting these books. Here are a few:=20 External Reasons:=20 a. They were never considered canonical by Christians or Jews until the Council in 1546, which was an obvious lash at Martin Luther.=20 b. They were never accepted as canon by Jesus, or the N.T. writers.=20 c. Virtually all of the early Church leaders rejected their canonicity.=20 d. Jerome , the great Hebrew scholar and translator of the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate , strongly rejected the Apocrypha.=20 Internal Reasons:=20 a. The Apocrypha doesn't claim to be the Word of God.=20 b. It doesn't speak with God's authority as the O.T. books.=20 c. It contains historical errors (see Tobit 1:3-5 and 14:11).=20 d. It contains theological heresies such as praying for the dead (2 Mac), and intercession to the saints.=20 e. It doesn't contain any prophesy and adds nothing to the messianic hope.= =20 4. The Canonicity of the New Testament=20 There is much more evidence for the canonicity of the New Testament than that of the Old. The 27 books of the New Testament were written=20 during the last half of the first century AD. The Christian Church was being formed and they had the Old Testament Scriptures as the basis=20 for their faith, as well as the teachings of Jesus, passed on through the word of the apostles, and also the authoritative teachings of the=20 apostles. It was not long until the Gospels and the words of the apostles were placed alongside the Old Testament. The authority of the=20 apostles of Christ is revealed:=20 1 Jn 1:3 that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with=20 the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. =20 2 Pet 1:16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but=20 were eyewitnesses of His majesty. =20 Acts 2:42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. =20 The same was immediately true of the apostle Paul's writings:=20 1 Thes 5:27 I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read to all the holy brethren. =20 Col 4:16 Now when this epistle is read among you, see that it is read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you likewise read the=20 epistle from Laodicea. =20 Even in Peter's epistle, he recognizes Paul's writings as equal to the Old Testament Scriptures when he writes:=20 2 Pet 3:15-16 15 and account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation-- as also our beloved brother Paul , according to the wisdom=20 given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand,=20 which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.=20 The process of collecting authentic apostolic literature began in the first century. Though many books were written, there were tests to prove=20 a books canonicity. The following principles were used to determine this:=20 a. Apostlicity. Was the book written by an apostle, or one who was closely associated with the apostles?=20 b. Spiritual Content. Was the book read in the churches and did its contents spiritually edify the body?=20 c. Doctrinal Soundness. Were the contents of the book doctrinally sound?=20 Any book containing heresy, or any teaching contrary to the already accepted canonical books was rejected.=20 d. Usage. Was the book universally recognized in the churches, and was it widely quoted by the church leaders?=20 e. Divine Inspiration . Did it claim or give true evidence of divine inspiration? This was the ultimate test!=20 By the second century all but 7 of the 27 books were included in the canon. these books were: Hebrews, 2 & 3 John, 2Peter, Jude, James,=20 and Revelation . The process was rushed when Emperor Diocletian (302 AD) ordered that all the Scriptures be burned with fire. Within 25=20 years, Constantine, the new Emperor, had embraced Christianity and ordered Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea and church historian, to prepare=20 and distribute 50 copies of the New Testament. Athanasius (born about 298 AD), in one of his pastoral epistles, lists all 27 books used by=20 Eusebius as Scripture, the same 27 that are in our New Testament today. =20 There were literally hundreds of books to be considered during the first four centuries. One group worth mentioning is called the=20 pseudepigrapha. These writings are clearly heretical. Many heretical doctrines, such as those held by the Gnostics , who denied the=20 incarnation of Christ; the Docetics , who denied the reality of Christ's humanity; and the Monophysites , who rejected the dual nature of=20 Christ, are found in these books. Fortunately, there were great influential leaders and councils that maintained the purity of the New=20 Testament Canon and it has maintained that same purity up to the present day, despite what the higher critics of the Bible might say. =20 Amen.=20 =A91995 The Bible Knowledge Accelerator Created by Rusty Russell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 01:05:16 GMT From: dhedrick@csn.net Subject: Re: Former Christian As to the Peshitta NT I will present my findings ASAP. Ancient Materials and Manuscripts Skeptics for so long have said, "Moses could not have written the first parts of the Bible because writing was unknown at that time"(1500 BC).=20 But recent discoveries in archaeology have shut the mouths of those skeptics by uncovering writings thousands of years before the time of=20 Moses . Sumerian writings dating as far back as 3500 BC(about 2000 years before Moses) ancient Hieroglyphs of Egypt , and the incredible=20 writings of the Babylonians dating almost as far back, have been uncovered. Writing was a hallmark of civilization and progress even leading= =20 to the development of the alphabet.In this study we will be looking at Ancient Writing Materials, Writing Instruments, and Manuscripts .=20 =20 (1) Ancient Writing Materials=20 a. Stone . Many famous inscriptions have been found in Egypt and Babylon inscribed on stone. The 10 commandments were written on two=20 tables of stone=20 (Ex 31:18). Two other examples are the Moabite Stone (850 BC), and the= Siloam=20 Inscription found in Hezekiah's tunnel by the Pool of Siloam (700 BC).=20 =09 b. Clay . The predominant writing material used in Assyria and Babylonia was clay, formed into small tablets and impressed with=20 wedge-shaped symbols called cunieform writing and then baked in an oven or dried in the sun. Thousands of clay writing-boards have been=20 uncovered by archaeologists. (Ez 4:1; Is 8:1).=20 =20 c. Wood . Wooden tablets were used extensively by the ancient writers. For many centuries, this was the common writing material in Greece=20 and Rome. They were made of wood or ivory with a recess to hold a wax surface (Is 30:8; Hab). Even Ancient Egypt made use of wood.=20 d. Leather . The Jewish Talmud specifically required that the Scriptures should be copied on the skins of animals, on leather. It is most certain,=20 that the Old Testament was written on leather. Rolls or Scrolls were made by sewing skins together that were from 3 to 100 feet or more in=20 length. The text was written in columns perpendicular to the roll. The rolls were 18-27 inches high and rolled on one or two sticks.=20 e. Papyrus . It is almost certain that the New Testament was written on papyrus=20 because it was the most important writing material at that time. Papyrus is made by shaving thin sections of the papyrus reed into strips,=20 soaking them in several baths of water, and then overlapping them to form sheets. One layer of the strips was laid cross ways to the first. Then=20 these were put in a press that they might adhere to each other. The sheets were made 6-15 inches high and 3-9 inches wide, pasted together,=20 forming rolls that were usually 30 feet long, though one was found to be 144 feet in length. Our English word "paper" comes from the Greek =20 word for papyrus.=20 f. Vellum or Parchment . Vellum was developed in Pergammum (180 BC) when the king was refused any more Papyrus from Egypt to build=20 his library. So he developed a new type of writing material through a new process for the treatment of skins. This was called vellum or=20 parchment. From the skin of sheep or goats a fine quality of leather was specially and carefully prepared for writing on both sides. Most of the=20 known manuscripts are on vellum. Later they were glued into book form, this was called a Codex . The codex made it possible to have much=20 more Scripture in one place.=20 (2) Writing Instruments=20 Black ink was made from soot or lampblack and gum, diluted with water. The Essenes, who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, used burned lamb=20 bones and oil. It is remarkable how well the writing has been preserved to this day. The ancient writing instruments were a chisel, for use on=20 stone; a stylus made of metal or hard wood, for use on the clay tablets; and a pen, for use on papyrus or vellum. These pens were made from the=20 hollow stalks of coarse grass or reeds. The dry reed was cut diagonally with a knife and shaved thin at the point, which was then split. In order to= =20 keep these in good condition, scribes carried a knife with them, a= "penknife".=20 We need to realize that, as far as we know, none of the original manuscripts are in existence. Some may very well be discovered, but who=20 knows? No material Biblical object has yet been found.=20 (3) Manuscripts=20 The word "manuscript", as it is used today, is limited only to those copies of the Bible which were made in the same language as it originally=20 written. At the time the Bible was first printed (1455 AD), there were over 2,000 manuscripts (copies of the original) discovered. Only some are=20 complete, and some contain only small portions of the text, but put together a full text can be seen. At the present time, there are over 4,900=20 manuscripts of the New Testament. What is really amazing is that professors of Religion and History' at Universities throughout the world=20 discredit the Bible as history while they accept works with comparitively less copies. For example:=20 Homer's "Iliad" (900 BC) - 643 copies; first copy found (400BC). =20 Titus Livy's "History of Rome" (40 BC) has only 20 copies.=20 Caesar's "Gallic Wars" (65 BC) - 10 copies; first copy found (900 AD). Thucydides "Peloponnesian War" (410 BC) - 8 copies; first found (900 AD).=20 Plato's "Tetralogies" (400 BC) - 7 copies; first copy found (900 AD).=20 Aristotle's "Works" (350BC) - 49 copies; first copy found (1100 AD).=20 New Testament (40-100 AD) - 4,969 copies; first copy found (125 AD).=20 =09 a. Old Testament Manuscripts=20 The Masoretes . Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 the earliest Old Testament Manuscript was dated at 895 AD. But the=20 Dead Sea Scrolls reveal that the 895 AD. manuscript was virtually perfect. This means that the scribes copied perfectly, year after year, the Old=20 Testament Scriptures. Let me briefly mention an interesting word about scribal customs:=20 After the Jews returned from Babylon, they formed communities of scribes to preserve and circulate the precious Scriptures. These scribes,=20 later called "Masoretes" were so careful that they wouldn't write a word or even a letter from memory. They would be seated in full Jewish dress=20 after having washed their bodies, and if a king should come in and address him he was not to look up. After the scribe finished copying a=20 particular book, he would then count all the words and letters it contained. Then he checked this number with the count for the manuscript he was=20 copying. If they didn't match, the copy was immediately burned. In fact, the Masoretes destroyed all other manuscripts except their own and that=20 is why we have so few Old Testament manuscripts. This is also why the Dead Sea Scrolls were so important. The main manuscripts that have=20 been discovered are:=20 = =20 - The Leningrad Codex or St. Petersburg Codex, written in 916 AD. =20 - The Cairo Codex or Codex Cairensis, written in 895 AD.=20 - The Aleppo Codex, written in 930 AD.=20 - The British Museum Codex, written in 950 AD.=20 The Dead Sea Scrolls =20 In 1947, young Bedouin shepherds, searching for a stray goat in the Judean Desert, entered a long-untouched cave and found jars filled with=20 ancient scrolls. That initial discovery by the Bedouins yielded seven scrolls and began a search that lasted nearly a decade and eventually=20 produced thousands of scroll fragments from eleven caves. During those same years, archaeologists searching for a habitation close to the=20 caves that might help identify the people who deposited the scrolls, excavated the Qumran ruin, a complex of structures located on a barren=20 terrace between the cliffs where the caves are found and the Dead Sea.=20 Within a fairly short time after their discovery, historical, paleographic, and linguistic evidence, as well as carbon-14 dating, established that the= =20 scrolls and the Qumran ruin dated from the third century B.C.E. to 68 C.E. They were indeed ancient! Coming from the late Second Temple=20 Period, a time when Jesus of Nazareth lived, they are older than any other surviving biblical manuscripts by almost one thousand years.=20 There have been about 350 rolls uncovered and this discovery has been considered one of the greatest archaeological finds of the twentieth=20 century. Since their discovery nearly half a century ago, the scrolls and the identity of the nearby settlement have been the object of great=20 scholarly and public interest, as well as heated debate and controversy. Why were the scrolls hidden in the caves? Who placed them there? =20 Who lived in Qumran? Were its inhabitants responsible for the scrolls and their presence in the caves?=20 Portions of every book of the Old Testament, with the exception of Esther, have been found. What's really interesting are the scrolls of Isaiah ,=20 because one of the two that have been found gives the entire book of this great prophet, and it dates to before Jesus was born. Thats=20 incredible! Here is a Hebrew manuscript of Isaiah 1,000 years older than our oldest manuscript (Masoretic) and confirming the accuracy of the=20 Masoretic text of the Old Testament.=20 b. The New Testament Manuscripts.=20 There is much more abundant and accurate manuscript evidence for the New=20 Testament than for any other book from the ancient world. Lets examine a few of these manuscripts:=20 - The John Rylands Fragment (125 AD). This is a very small piece of papyrus only two and a half by three and a half inches in size. It=20 contains 5 verses' from the gospel of John and is the oldest manuscript of any part of the New Testament. It was obtained in 1920.=20 - Papyrus Bodmer II (200 AD). These contain most of John and Luke, along with the books of Jude, and 1 & 2 Peter'. These manuscripts=20 contain the earliest complete copies of New Testament books and are in substantial condition.=20 - Codex Sinaiticus (340 AD). It is considered one of the two most important manuscripts in existence. In 1844 Dr. C. Tischendorf, a German=20 Bible professor and scholar, at the monastery of St. Catherine at Mt. Sinai, found monks lighting their fires with this manuscript. When he=20 rescued it, it contained the whole New Testament and half of the Old Testament in Greek. In 1933, the (USSR) sold it to the British Museum for=20 100,000 pounds ($500,000) where it is today.=20 - Codex Vaticanus (350 AD). This manuscript as well as Sinaiticus were written on vellum. It contains most of the New and Old Testaments in=20 Greek and the Apocrypha . It was discovered in 1475 and was brought to the Vatican Library where it is today. It is considered to be highly=20 accurate and one of the two most important manuscripts in existence.=20 - Codex Alexandrinus (450 AD). It contains much of the Old and New Testaments. Although it is one of the three greatest uncial (large capital= =20 letters) manuscripts, it does not measure up to the high standard of the other two, the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts. It is now in the British=20 Museum in London. =20 - The total count of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament is now close to 5,000. The New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger counts: 76=20 Papyri, 250 uncials, 2,646 miniscule, and 1,997 lectionary (special reading) manuscripts. This would total 4,969. No other book in antiquity even=20 compares, and thats not even counting the different ancient versions such as the Septuagint , Samaritan Pentateuch, Syriac, and Latin versions,=20 as well as the Jewish Targums, Talmud and Midrash. The evidence is overwhelming.=20 - In fact, just the quotations of many of the church leaders who wrote during the first and second centuries AD. could compile an entire New=20 Testament. Church leaders gave their testimony to authoritative books in the New Testament Canon: =20 Clement of Rome (95),=20 Ignatius (110),=20 Polycarp (120),=20 Irenaeus (150),=20 Tertullian (190),=20 Origen (200),=20 Not every book is quoted by every leader, but every book is quoted as canonical by some leader. Norman Geisler said, "Five fathers alone=20 possess almost 36,000 quotations from the N.T."=20 =20 In Conclusion=20 The Bible is trustworthy. If anyone says, "How can we know if what we are reading today was really in the original?" you can know for sure that=20 there is overwhelming evidence for the historicity of both the Old and New Testaments. Besides, God is fully able to preserve for us a pure and=20 accurate account of the Word of God, and He has.=20 Matt 5:18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is=20 fulfilled.=20 Amen.=20 =A91995 The Bible Knowledge Accelerator Created by Rusty Russell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 03:30:43 GMT From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: Former Christian I don't think it's time to ask Daniel to leave the group. The proximity of somebody thinking very differently from ourselves is a challenge to try and find common truth under the outwardly different words and concepts, hard as it might be, in the midst of the cut and thrust of ideas. > No one here has honestly and openly investigated the validity > of the New and Old Testament. And if you had, your rose colored > glasses caused you to be blinded from the obvious. > These two assertions are a bit rash. I have long had, and still have, a strong interest in evidence regarding the validity of the NT and OT, though do not have the circumstances to have been a biblical scholar. Theosophy has deepened my appreciation and understanding of these scriptures, as well as those of other traditions. And when I say appreciation, I'm not just talking about some warm fuzzy glow. > The JOY of the Lord is my strength. Where does your joy come from? The same source. I just call it different names, from time to time. I believe there is only one source of real joy. > Another challenge...try for a moment...a season to look at everything as if > the Lord's hand was directly placed apon it. Look at the ocean...as its > beauty as a work of the Holy one. Look at your children as a gift from God. Sounds very like something I do myself, often. > For a moment slide the mystical and the spooky natural aside. > Theosophy helps you to realise that non-physical things, which I gather you're referring to by "spooky natural" are as much part of nature as physical things. All are parts of the whole, from the One Source. > Simply open your eyes to the wonderous creation. Can you look apon the > sunset or a heart felt smile without recognizing the Holy One? I can look upon the sunset or a heartfelt smile and recognise the Holy One. This idea is found in other cultures, too. > If theosophy is interested in truth... > Then what do you do as a Theosophist, or an athesist, or deist > with the likes of one that declared "I am the Truth..." or declared > that you are either "For me or against me". > I wonder how Daniel would explain how a person could say "I am the Truth?" It seems a strange admission of mysticism into the supposedly mysticism-free zone of evangelicism. Theosophy gives you a framework that helps you to understand such a thing. One of the meanings of "For me or against me" is, to my mind, that we can choose to align ourselves with truth and the divine will, or against it. An area well elaborated on in theosophy whick comes out resoundingly on the side of being FOR, not against. > interpretation etc...then it is impossible to come to any other conclusion > other than > the Bible is inspired or it is a joke. > I certainly think the Bible is inspired, as are certain other scriptures in the world. A wise parent would know what kind of food to offer their children to suit their age and dietary needs - an analogy that can help you to be more comfortable with the idea of the validity of other scriptures and religions. Mind, I'm not saying that everything about every religion is wonderful and true. They have all suffered distortions and gathered barnacles. Culture-centric religious views, rigidly held, have been a principal cause of wars and violence down through history. It is time to let territorial exclusivity slip behind us into the past, as humanity moves through its collective adolescence. When we realise more fully that much of the evil we see in others is projected from within, we might become a less destructive life form. Murray Stentiford murray@sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 04:36:30 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Toward an Inclusive Dialogue At 4:56 PM 9/6/95, Brenda S. Tucker wrote: >Daniel's method of speaking regarding spiritual truths is a method that has >developed over the years following the life of Christ. It's useful in a >setting where we sit and listen, hang our head, pray, and maybe sing a >little. In other words, you are speaking very much like a man in the >ministry. I also think that you carry this ministry into your meetings with >people and that this is helpful to your psyche because you are able to feel >the unity and the spiritual life and in this way you acquire a sense of >helping and aiding in a great plan. Art: Brenda, since you have put this on line I felt compelled to add my voice in contradiction to your encouragement of Daniel. I am a hundred percent in favour of the the beautiful sentiment that I think motivate your upbuilding of our new arrival. While I know that he has attack me and it may look like it is a person matter, I would like to say that Daniel needs to confronted by his denial of the fundaments of his own self professed faith. Grace, love and forgiveness are central to the Christian message and to encourage him in his misguided understandings of how to express that message to others is to go amiss. There are just too many power and ego needs being met by Daniel in his constant haranguing to attribute his fervour to devotion to Christ alone. If he is a minister at all he is of the ilk of Ian Paisley, Bob Jones, Iatolah, ect. I think this message not only hurts people who do not share his faith perspective but hurts those who do share his perspective. The gospel of Christ is damaged when the tone of it is so strident and opinionated. Jesus was no milksop and he did attack his enemies but he did it when he knew them and understood their position. If you look at the texts Jesus attacked religious hypocrites more than fallen people like the adulterer or misguided people, or broken people. The humble or weak are not condemned by Christ only the arrogant and self assured. In Daniel's post to me he said he would take one tact if I were a unbeliever and another if I were a believer. This is Scriptural but he had it wrong, if I were an unbeliever he should leave the judgement to God, at least according to Paul the Apostle, who said: (in the context of sexual misconduct) For what have I to do with judging those on the outside? Is it not for those on the inside that you are to to judge? God will judge those on the outside. 1 Corinthians 5:12,13. What Paul is saying is that judgement begins in the Church and the world's judgement is taken care of by God. That is why I suggest that Daniel stop judging the outsider, if that is what he considers Theosophists, and move to take stock of the situation closer to home, starting with himself and his attitudes. I however to not find an intrinsic contradiction between the teachings of Theosophy and the normative teachings of the Biblical Tradition. There are differences and there are ways of interpreting that are unfamiliar to each other but a respectful dialogue is entirely possible. The central word here is "repectful". I would like to hear from other theosophists a brief understanding of how Theosophy has been approached and reacted to by other faiths including Christianity. I recall reading that in the early years HPB and others in the movement encountered Christian intolerance. How did they handle it. I think the karma wheel has gone around and we have another opportunity to evaluate how to dialogue with others and what some of the ground rules ought to be. Brenda: What theosophists are trying to develop is a method which incorporates the >lives and teachings of our eastern brothers. Too many people were taking >what men from the east said and twisting it to suit their own needs, often >times misinterpreting and perverting a very beautiful and spiritual message. >The symbols used in the east are grand and beloved in their own right. If we >can't communicate successfully with the eastern world, how can we hope to >continue existence peacefully and without grave error? Arthur: If I may presume, just a little... I would venture a guess at Daniel's reply but of course he will make it himself. That is that in Christ there is no East and West all will bow their knee to Christ either willingly in this life or unwillingly in the next. I would suggest that the East has another agenda. The common Western problem has to do with guilt and anxiety. The East is not the same it stresses suffering and epistemology. I think that the message that has spiritually evolved in Christianity especially through Paul and the Protestant Reformation is geared to sin and anxiety which is answered by the idea of a "substitutionary atonement" with a legal cast to in in Latin theology. The questions we are asking today are different and have more in common with those asked by the East - what is the nature of ultimate reality and how do I live in relation to that Reality without ignorance and without illusion. Two different questions, I think equally valid and answerable in different ways but not contradictory intrinsically. In order to explore this we must get down to sources and how they are related. Personal opinions about the other person's ideology will not do. In biblical terms we must be Bereans those who search the scriptures to see what is true. So search the writing of Theosophy, not for what is wrong with them according to your perspective but for what they have in common. Perhaps the Theosophist who is totally turned off of the evangelical intolerance perspective might want to see if that attitude is normative in the biblical text itself, or at least the spirit and evolution of the text itself. Otherwise we are talking past each other. I would suggest that we take what Daniel is saying seriously. What is it: 1. That there is only one exclusive path to salvation 2. that this path is revealed in Jesus Christ as presented in Scripture alone, 3. That acceptance of the offer of substitutionary atonement is the experiential means of liberation 4. that all other spiritual attempts to have union or reconciliation lead to deception and ruin. Very clear set of assumptions. What are the core assumptions of the Theosophical perspective? After asking those two questions I would then go on to wonder if the core is actually in sync with the primary sources of theosophy or the Bible. If there are requirements of character that are needed to interpret the core effectively? I would also ask what filters (secondary sources) we are viewing the primary source? How does that effect what we see there. Then I would ask myself about my current situation and its effect on the way I see spirituality. Can a first century message be really applicable to a twentieth century world? If so how is it applied? Same holds true in Theosophy. What do we think terms like Masters do to a secular humanist or intellectual in the twentieth centure. Masters sounds pretty paternalistic, dependent, and not in sync with the collective consciosness of humans today. Lots to discuss about interpretation and communication there. Brenda: >I enjoy your messages but don't wish the other members of our group to lose >faith in our goals as an international organization. We can't just simply >ignore the contributions of an eastern world or "save ourselves from >damnation" by becoming so self-assured that there is only one truth. Art: I can't say that I enjoy Daniel's posts. They don't make me angry they make me very deeply sad. I am sad because I know that spiritual perspectives can greatly enhance humanity and that the message of the Bible is miscontrued and distorted in a hideous form of intolerance . I guess due to my love for the tradition and for the primary sources, I find myself overwhelmed when I see it being gnarled into something so unattractive. I guess this is how some theosophists must feel when they see the same intolerance coming up in there circles. I do however enjoy the possibility inherent in our on line dialogue to move the discussion to a higher level than polemics into a level of devotion to what binds us, however we define that. In my zeal I hope I haven't given the impression of a know it all. I am asking questions more than providing answers. I hope that I have set a stage for a deeper dialogue. I do not want to exclude Daniel but I don't want to forever be grappling with his fundamentalist agenda. Art Patterson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 04:44:59 GMT From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Subject: Re: Channelling ... >In message <199509042311.LAA06632@nethost.whanganui.ac.nz> theos-l@vnet.net writes: >> >Bee: >> > >> somehow standing my >> consciousness to one side and allowing some energy that terms itself the >> 'elder brother' express its ideas. It is like live chat shows, if I do not >> want to pass on any idea to be expressed that I may not agree with I have >> the option of saying no and the energy will rephrase it or leave it out. I >> feel perhaps I should not impose my meagre judgement so it is only rarely >> that I do so but the idea is that I can do so if I wish. I also allow what >> would be considered an extraterrestial energy to have a say and that one is >> also informative and quite humourous as well. Then also this has developed >> the ability to 'know' something in my mind that I may have been meditating >> on. It just arrives in bulk and yet it is understood >> completely all at once. > >This is pretty much *identical* with my own experience, even the >observation that the "extraterrestrial" energy is humerous in a >way that others are not! I know exactly what you mean about >arriving in bulk - it once took me a week and nine pages of >writing to get down what was received between one step and the >next (when walking in the street). > >> I have left the 'who' of channelling in the yet to be decided basket >> and as long as it proves useful I shall use it but if it all gets silly then >> I can put it down to an interesting experience. > >I never got silly for me, but the need to use it receded >according the the need of the recipients (apart from me, that is >- I still get stuff coming through from time to time). I never >found it getting silly - though often the students did. My >favourite quote from an "extraterrestrial" source is still, "You >humans take youselves far too seriously." > >Alan >-- >Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk >----------------------------------------------- > >Thank you for that confirmation. I get a bit hesitant to mention E T's because of the strange looks I get. We had an interesting experience where a clairv. member of our group saw the E T's in the room on the space station and I channelled the conversations. Very different. I do agree with what has been said that one has to remain detached and as pure as it is possible to be, to avoid the risks that HPB outlines so well in Isis Unveiled. It has given me food for thought and I have stepped back a bit to reevaluate the situation. I have been told that my higher self is the relay station, so to speak, through which the channelling takes place. If it comes from the personality then it soon gets 'silly'. The hows and wheres have been explained to me and it makes sense so when the need arises, I respond. Greetings, Bee. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 05:01:54 GMT From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Subject: Re: Psychism >Liesel: > >>Jerry S. >>"Compassion is a sure way to protect yourself on the higher >>planes." On second thought, I think you're right. While I was >>reading what you said, I rmembered that Serge taught us not to >>"protect" something against something else, because it sets up >>negative vibes. He taught us to send "thought forms" or >>whatever (he always put a whole ritual around what he taught) >>of harmony & peace to surround the person with it. I do it with >>Chou chou every time I go out. But then the question still >>remains how does JRC keep himself from getting bowled over by >>someone else's rotten vibes? Maybe what I wrote just before >>about being subjective & objective in turn while viewing them >>would do the trick. Maybe best to ask Serge, especially since >>someone on the scene has told JRC to keep away from that stuff. >>Liesel > Couple things ... the question was a bit more than that >of staying free of someone's vibes. Jerry's post re: the body of >light that serves as a protection in magical ritual does make >some sense, as I did make experiments with western ceremonial a >few years ago. At present, during those hours when I am inward >and engaged with angels, or even in physical surroundings that >are less than delightful it rarely occurs to me to "protect" >myself or anything like that ... (I have some new age friends >that wrap themselves "in the light" several times a day, but >this seems to me to be a subtle form of seperatism, of affirming >duality). > I suppose I believe (theoretically (-:)) that as the >human energy system matures as the result of spiritual living >it not only becomes wiser, but more powerful as well - and tends >of its own accord to elevate its surroundings rather than being >dominated by them. It also makes sense to me that one can only >resonate with something in the environment if there is a place >within oneself receptive to it ... and to me surrounding myself >with light seems to be an avoidance of sorts: If someone I'm >in contact with gets quite angry, and the energies generated by >the emotional state provokes anger in me, buffering myself with >shells of light or "techniques" of some sort avoid the (IMO) >real issue, which is that some layer of my system is still >capable of that particular vibrational frequency - and the >negative outer situation serves as a kind of diagnostic, something >that exposes (one of the thousands of remaining) flaws in my own >system, and invokes it to the surface layers of awareness where >it can be operated upon. Very true. I have come to realise that we create our own reality with our thoughts and that if, eg, the concept of burglars does not enter into ones reality, then burglars do not feel a like vibration as they pass by intent on a crime. I try to cultivate only thoughts that create a caring environment around myself and hopefully it will become a habit of thought. I like A Besant's book on Thought Power. Bee> > The question I was raising earlier had to do with a >specific kind of work ... attempting to aid the police in the >discovery of a particular person. The "white light" and other >forms of "protection" couldn't really be used, because the means >of doing the work had to do with connecting with the inner >fabric of the crime itself, and tracing the lines from it to >the one that committed it ... meaning delibrately attempting to >become aware of precisely those vibrations that "the light" >would protect one from ... sort of like walking into a swamp on >purpose because that's where something is - no matter how much >protective clothing one wears, its still a swamp, and will still >smell like a swamp, and look like a swamp, and to find what one >seeks the senses will have to be fully open to the swamp. > While I do not have anything resembling a refined energy >system, it at least has gotten beyond the point where there are >any layers left dense enough to resonate with murder ... so for >a moment it was necessary to resonate fully with a very dense and >unnatural frequency range, and the rest of my system reacted >as though it was clubbed in the head. > I never resolved the conumdrum (and hence stopped playing >detective years ago) but it still does puzzle me now and then as >a kind of theoretical problem. > >(By the way, thanks for the SK address Liesel, I may write him). > -JRC > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 06:24:04 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Re: Channelling ... Below are some quotes from previous posts about channelling. Peace, Patrick "According to the research I have done a "channelled" writting can actually be from many different types of sources -- some good but some intent on deception. The criteria to determine this seems to be whether or not the so-called channeller is conscious or unconscious. If the person is conscious (awake with eyes open) then it generally would be good. If the channeller is unconscious (eyes-closed) with some entity using the body then definitely not good (despite apparent good information). I believe that truth itself is its own authority (in the Gospels and in the Bhagavad Gita there is enough for many lives) and any spiritual truth can be demonstrated as such through practical living by each of us." " In each of us there is a higher spiritual self (the Christ consciousness, Divine Angel, etc.) and, accordingly, our spiritual evolution is to come closer and eventually be one with that higher self in full consciousness. The unconscious rendering of our bodies for the use of other entities separates us from this spiritual evolution -- this is the reason that so-called possession is a bad thing. " "Any true spiritual being, living on spiritual planes, communicates with us through our spiritual self in full consciousness. The use of someone's unconscious body by another entity is always being done on some lower level and thus (although those involved may believe that they are doing the right thing) there is no access by the person to spiritual information. Also, unconscious body possession sets up a very unhealthy chemical vibration in the brain cells which usually leads to some form of debility. " "The maxim says "The eyes are the window to the soul", and someone who refuses to make eye-contact should not be trusted -- this is as universal and as old a truth as there is. If someone wants to charge you money to give you spiritual information and then avoids looking at you then hmmm....." "I belief that truth itself is its own authority (regardless of the source) and I know of no greater truths (from any source) than those already given in the Gospels and in the Bhaghavad Gita. What we need to do now is apply and live these truths." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 06:40:39 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Posting Test Posting Test From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 06:59:53 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Scholars Alan wrote: > ... it is important, nay, > essential, for the theosophical movement in *all* its > diversities to bring forth its own scholars, using the scholarly > disciplines that would be required in the university colleges. > Lewis: I can see your point, that for theosophy to gain more acceptance and credibility it would seem it could benefit from the work of scholars in theosophy, but this reminds me of a Mahatma letter to Sinnet in which they tell him they were not interested in establishing a school for western intellectuals, that they had not broken the silence of centuries for the benefit of a few western european scholars. They were interested in reaching the masses. Are you familiar with this reference? I wonder what your take on it is. To be more specific, how do we balance (us Librians are always seeking balance) the need for scholarly research with the challenge of making theosophy more available to the masses? llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 07:23:43 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: Toward an Inclusive Dialogue Grace, love and forgiveness are central to the Christian message and >to encourage him in his misguided understandings of how to express that >message to others is to go amiss. I don't understand the difference between complimenting his finding of the spiritual and attempt at sharing it, but at the same time reserving another method for discussion here rather than lecture AND the tactics which we use with the other people who differ in opinion with us. Say we have a friend who we can discuss theosophy because this is the only tradition they have developed well. We disagree with that friend and slowly attempt over a period of time to make points hoping that they will add up to a new, more "theosophical" way of looking at life for both parties. Both the evangel and theosophical methods require patience. Both methods require listening. To be too offended at what someone is saying when you are able to view their "righteous living" and general success at finding their "essential self" is denying yourself the opportunity to put up a shield, hide a little bit of your true position in order to encourage someone. If you look at the >texts Jesus attacked religious hypocrites more than fallen people like the >adulterer or misguided people, or broken people. The humble or weak are not >condemned by Christ only the arrogant and self assured. That is why I suggest that Daniel stop judging the outsider, if >that is what he considers Theosophists, and move to take stock of the >situation closer to home, starting with himself and his attitudes. I think Daniel does view us as insiders because we are serious about believing in our own abilities to teach a "way of seeking truth" or at least to study one. >I however to not find an intrinsic contradiction between the teachings of >Theosophy and the normative teachings of the Biblical Tradition. There are >differences and there are ways of interpreting that are unfamiliar to each >other but a respectful dialogue is entirely possible. The central word >here is "repectful". I don't feel that other people here are any more "respectful," and instead take great pleasure in shouting each other down. Polemical is a procedure common to both methods. >I would like to hear from other theosophists a brief understanding of how >Theosophy has been approached and reacted to by other faiths including >Christianity. I recall reading that in the early years HPB and others in >the movement encountered Christian intolerance. How did they handle it I'll repost this from Paul's "original programme" by H.P.B.: >(1) The Founders had to exercise all their influence *to oppose >selfishness of every kind*, by insisting upon sincere, >fraternal feelings among the Members-- at least outwardly; >working for it to bring about a spirit of unity and harmony, >the great diversity of creeds notwithstanding; expectying and >demanding from the Fellows, a great mutual toleration and >charity for each other's shortcomings; mutual help in the >research of truths in every domain-- moral or physical-- and >even, in daily life. >(2) They had to oppose in the strongest manner possible >anything approaching *dogmatic faith and fanaticism*-- beleief >in the *infallibility* of the Masters, or even in the very >existence of our invisible Teachers, having to be checked from >the first. On the other hand, as a great respect for the >private views and creeds of every member was demanded, any >Fellow criticising the faith or belief of another Fellow, >hurting his feelings, or showing a reprehensible >self-assertion, unasked (mutual friendly advices were a duty >unless declined)-- such a member incurred expulsion. The >greatest spirit of free research untrammeled by anyone or >anything, had to be encouraged. . So search the writing of Theosophy, not for what is wrong >with them according to your perspective but for what they have in common. >Perhaps the Theosophist who is totally turned off of the evangelical >intolerance perspective might want to see if that attitude is normative in >the biblical text itself, or at least the spirit and evolution of the text >itself. Otherwise we are talking past each other. This man is my research. This is a great opportunity for me to understand how to appreciate and live alongside of his approach. It's possible that you don't ever attempt it yourself, but what do you expect me to do in order to gain this understanding? Go out and join a church again?! You don't view this man as attempting to join us. Is he a card-carrying member? Would it make a difference to you if he was? One of his points which I can appreciate is this idea of "objective" living. Theosophists rattle off their theories of Non-objectivity. All he's hoping for is a discussion of what we are doing in our daily lives to influence "the masses." What powers have we gained in our seeking for knowledge and wisdom and how can we interest others in our movement inward? His display of "telepathic" knowledge on the airplane may have been astounding to someone young and inexperienced. Do we do these things, too? Can we speak about it? No. Instead we try to criticize his method of looking into our souls. Paul said, " Church organizations, Christian and Spiritual sects were shown as the future contrasts to our Society." Just because we allow one interested party with energy and love to occasionally write and suggest (or largely manufacture) critical issues doesn't mean he's taking over the Society. He might be asking for membership. I don't think he's asking for control. If Arthur is able to study the theosophical writings and find "truth and goodness" and promote this understanding rather than the opposite of "opposing misconceptions," why isn't he able to do this with Daniel? Read Daniel's posts to find something you are akin to. Answer only these areas. Ignore or refuse comment on things which seem inflammatory. We don't know where Daniel is going with his posts. Could there be a lead in to the scientific area? He is a scientist as engineers go. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 07:41:06 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: post test post test From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 07:41:06 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: post test post test From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 07:59:31 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Re: Channelling ... Below are some quotes from previous posts about channelling. Peace, Patrick "According to the research I have done a "channelled" writting can actually be from many different types of sources -- some good but some intent on deception. The criteria to determine this seems to be whether or not the so-called channeller is conscious or unconscious. If the person is conscious (awake with eyes open) then it generally would be good. If the channeller is unconscious (eyes-closed) with some entity using the body then definitely not good (despite apparent good information). I believe that truth itself is its own authority (in the Gospels and in the Bhagavad Gita there is enough for many lives) and any spiritual truth can be demonstrated as such through practical living by each of us." " In each of us there is a higher spiritual self (the Christ consciousness, Divine Angel, etc.) and, accordingly, our spiritual evolution is to come closer and eventually be one with that higher self in full consciousness. The unconscious rendering of our bodies for the use of other entities separates us from this spiritual evolution -- this is the reason that so-called possession is a bad thing. " "Any true spiritual being, living on spiritual planes, communicates with us through our spiritual self in full consciousness. The use of someone's unconscious body by another entity is always being done on some lower level and thus (although those involved may believe that they are doing the right thing) there is no access by the person to spiritual information. Also, unconscious body possession sets up a very unhealthy chemical vibration in the brain cells which usually leads to some form of debility. " "The maxim says "The eyes are the window to the soul", and someone who refuses to make eye-contact should not be trusted -- this is as universal and as old a truth as there is. If someone wants to charge you money to give you spiritual information and then avoids looking at you then hmmm....." "I belief that truth itself is its own authority (regardless of the source) and I know of no greater truths (from any source) than those already given in the Gospels and in the Bhaghavad Gita. What we need to do now is apply and live these truths." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 07:59:35 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Re: Psychism >If ANYONE has this article (Jerry H-E??) please start posting it, we need to >hear HPB distinguish psychic from higher mental in a BIG way. Higher psychism is the faculties of the higher self (Soul and the Monad), and lower psychism is the faculties of the personality (physical, emotional and mental senses). These lower faculties can be used for good or bad. When one is pure, of good character and pursuing a path of meditation and service then the higher faculties become available and control the lower one's for use in good. Dangers arise when the lower (which most animals have to some degree) are focussed on without the requisite purity and good values -- and with the right purity and values all faculties unfold naturally if and as needed for the good work. Being psychic or not in the lower sense says nothing about a person's spirituality and advanced souls may or may not use these faculties during an incarnation. I believe that this issue has arisen today because of the increased etheric resonance of humanity and the recapitulatory prevalence of etheric vision. This in and of itself can be used for good or bad but certainly we can hope that good will come and work for this. Peace, Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 08:28:19 GMT From: dhedrick@csn.net Subject: euswr@xs4all.nl I tried to send this earlier but it kicked back. So theos will get this for you. Although I sent a few other messgaes to this list earlier this morning. Dunno where day be? >To: euswr@xs4all.nl >From: dhedrick@lynx.csn.net >Subject: Re: Evangelism and dogmatism > >>Daniel, >> >>Your tone of writing is demeaning and shows a complete lack >>of understanding of what True Christendom is. > >What is true? > >>Remember that Christ spoke to the masses in parables and allegories, >>so taking his words literally is contradictory to what Christ Himself >>(and St. Paul) says. Also, if you have any bit of commonsense left in you, >>you would start to critically think over some ideas stated in the Bible, >>which, BTW is a selection of texts only, and probably not the best selection >>too! (and also has been tampered with..) > >I posted a complete write up this morning on the history of the bible, >yet it has not appeared on theos. > >> >>One example: you refer to the genealogy in the Bible; taking this >>literally leads to the preposterous conclusion that our earth was created >>an odd 6,000 years ago, a conclusion that has been clearly refuted >>by science long ago. Deny the facts of science and you will be declared >>pathetic, or, a dogmatic pur sang, a blinded man. >>BTW, the genealogy of the Bible is an emblem for certain cycles of nature >>and more..(see Isis Unveiled II, HP Blavatsky). >> > >If you take the time to study recent happenings of Mt. St. Helen, >I think you would be surprised. Evolution on a macro devlopment >scale in unproveable. As to geneologies...the names represented >prove actual people,places and times. > >> >>You seem to know nothing >>of the history of Christianity and the fabrication of the dogmas >>of the several churches. In one word: you show complete IGNORANCE >>of the background of your own religion! > >I am very aware that Religion will send you to Hell, but a >relationship with Jesus reaps Heaven. > >>Willfully closing your eyes and shutting your ears for sincere opinions >>of others is a SIN against the Holy Ghost. >> > >You do not know the Holy Ghost. You can see where He has been, >but you do not know where He is going. > >Daniel > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 09:50:47 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Original Programme Here are the thought-provoking passages from HPB that I promised yesterday-- from CW VII:146-8: But if the two Founders were not told *what they had to do*, they were distinctly instructed about *what they should never do*, what they had to avoid, and what the Society should never become. Church organizations, Christian and Spiritual sects were shown as the future contrasts to our Society. To make it clearer-- (1) The Founders had to exercise all their influence *to oppose selfishness of every kind*, by insisting upon sincere, fraternal feelings among the Members-- at least outwardly; working for it to bring about a spirit of unity and harmony, the great diversity of creeds notwithstanding; expectying and demanding from the Fellows, a great mutual toleration and charity for each other's shortcomings; mutual help in the research of truths in every domain-- moral or physical-- and even, in daily life. (2) They had to oppose in the strongest manner possible anything approaching *dogmatic faith and fanaticism*-- beleief in the *infallibility* of the Masters, or even in the very existence of our invisible Teachers, having to be checked from the first. On the other hand, as a great respect for the private views and creeds of every member was demanded, any Fellow criticising the faith or belief of another Fellow, hurting his feelings, or showing a reprehensible self-assertion, unasked (mutual friendly advices were a duty unless declined)-- such a member incurred expulsion. The greatest spirit of free research untrammeled by anyone or anything, had to be encouraged. In a note to the first para quoted, HPB quotes from a Master: "one who has reached to the full comprehension of *the name and nature * of a Theosophist will sit in judgment on no man and action... (asterisks substitute for italics) > Date: 07 Sep 1995 09:51:59 GMT > From: "STEPHAN H.-R. CLERC" Dear Participants, Recently I came across the Hebrew alphabet. There each letter corresponds to a number. Interestingly enough to mention in this context is the fact that the letter W (vau) represents the number six. So the cute abbreviation for "Das Welten-Weite-Weben", kurz WWW, is the number of the beast: 666. Stephan Clerc, Dornach..............................................clerc@psi.ch J.....................................Vive la France! Boumm Boumm............B From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 11:03:54 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Jesus in the air Here's a sincere query which is likely to produce opposing answers if anyone cares to hazard an opinion. In the last 6 months or so I have been practicing Surat Shabd Yoga, as taught in the Radhasoami movement, with some modifications of my own. It consists of three practices, only two of which I have done: 1) Simran-- repetition of the Divine Names (Nam, Radhasoami, etc.) while focusing attention at the Eye Center (3rd that is). 2) Bhajan-- hearing the Sound Current and concentrating attention on listening to this vibration. 3) Dhyan-- contemplating the physical form of the Master. In doing Simran, I've found various words work equally well at producing an altered state--- e.g. "Theosophia," "Atman/Brahman," "Christ the Lord." With Bhajan, the inner sound is pretty much independent of any cultural context, as far as I can tell. Here's the question/problem. The more I have practiced this yoga, the more I find myself receptive to various forms of Christian devotion. Getting hymns stuck in my brain for a while, for example, or various spontaneous mantras with Christian themes. All this despite the fact that I have no particular conscious preference for Christianity over any other faith. My theory for this is that Christianity permeates the psychic atmosphere here in the rural South; anyone who tunes into a devotional frequency ("You turn me on I'm a radio" to quote an old song) is likely to pick up some of the symbols and words with which devotion is expressed by those around one. The house I lived in for the past two years was near a black church with wonderful music, which perhaps had a subliminal effect. One could also suppose that early childhood programming comes to the surface during trance states, which Simran and Bhajan may induce. But my question to you all is: how right or wrong is it to go with the flow of such images, sounds, etc., rather than resist them? I think a highly orthodox Theosophist would say something like "you're just becoming a passive medium for other people's retrograde spirituality, and this is a fate worse than death, so stop." On the other side, a more tolerant minded Theosophist might say "use whatever environmental factors are available in your spiritual practice, regardless of how politically correct they might be." A fundamentalist might say "Jesus is calling you to abandon the wicked occultists" for that matter. All opinions welcome. BTW, as a sidenote, when I went to India in 1990, I found the spiritual/psychic atmosphere of Hindu temples to be something more powerful than I'd ever experienced in a Christian church in America or Europe. But during several trips to Mexico in the early 1990s, I found that the Catholic cathedrals there had something even more evocative and moving. What I concluded from this is that the difference wasn't in the formulae of belief (after the India trip that's what I thought-- that Hinduism was somehow more powerful than Christianity) but rather in the fervor of devotion. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 11:12:55 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Latest FAQ for What should I read? Information regarding books is available from either of the libraries listed below. OLCOTT@DUPAGELS.LIB.IL.US Olcott Library TSTEC@AOL.COM Theosophical Library & Headquarters The e-mail address of The Theosophical Society in America is available for people with questions regarding membership. The Olcott Library and The Theosophical Society in America share the same building. THEOS@NETCOM.COM Theosophical Society In America Quest Books is a theosophical book store operated by The Theosophical Society in America with locations in Ojai, California; New York, NY; Wheaton, Illinois; Seattle, Washington and Miami, Florida. The Theosophical Publishing House, Theosophical University Press and Point Loma Publications market their titles in a wide variety of bookstores. There may be other e-mail addresses similar in importance to the three above which are not listed at this time. Many articles and 'electronic pamphlets' are available at Theosophy Lodge Online by telneting to theosophy.org. TLO also offers a sophisticated messaging system and live discussions, both impromptu (by paging the hosts or other users) and pre-arranged (every Wed. night at 10pm Eastern). The program of live theosophical discussions on TLO is posted every month to theos-news@vnet.net. Here are sources for more articles available through computer networking: Furthermore, there are a number of articles on theosophy available on the world wide web: see URL: http://spirit.satelnet.org/Spirit/mysteries.html (click on Theosophy keyword) The theos-l archive also has some articles on theosophy, besides containing the theos-l log-archive. Theosophical archive: FTP to char.vnet.net Login as anonymous Password: your E-mail account change directory to: /pub/theos-l and get the file you want If you order by mail, 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, Post Box 270 Wheaton, Illinois 60187 1-800-669-9425 The Theosophical University Press, Postoffice Bin C, Pasadena, Cal. 91109 - 7107 USA tel. (818) 798-3378 email: tupress@aol.com Point Loma Publications, P.O. Box 6507 San Diego, Calif. 92106 1-619-222-9609 Impossible Dream Publications P.O. Box 1844 Tucson, Arizona 85702. postage for the one book is $2.00. It is possible to find many of the following titles on sale through any of the publishing companies. Just because a company publishes the book does not mean they are the only company to sell the book. They each may have a different version of the book or at times they may make available another publisher's work in their own sale catalog. Feel free to attempt to purchase books from one or all of the companies listed. Following are three suggested reading lists from subscribers to theos-l. 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. Available from The Theosophical Publishing House. (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. Availalbe from Point Loma Publications. (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. (4) The Voice of the Silence translated by H.P. Blavatsky. Paper, $5.00. Available from Theosophical University Press. Another good edition of The Voice of the Silence is the centenary edition with a historical introduction published by The Theosophical Publishing House. 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. (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. 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. (8) The Occult World of Madame Blavatsky compiled and edited by Daniel H. Caldwell. $13.95, paper. Available from Impossible Dream Publications 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 have been compiled by Daniel H. Caldwell. Another suggested reading list is this one by Naftaly Ramramkar: LOTS OF REFERNCES AND BOOKS ARE AVAILABLE. HERE ARE A FEW OF THOSE 1. BASIC THEOSOPHY : GEOFFREY HODSON 2. SELF CULTURE / WAY OF SELF DISCOVERY : I.K. TAIMANI 3. SEEKING WISDOM : N. SRI RAM 4. KEY TO THEOSOPHY: H.P. BLAVATSKY THERE ARE ALSO LOTS BASIC BOOKS BY BEASANT/ LEADBEATER. THERE ALSO SOME BY JUDGE. The next list is provided by Martin Euser. 1. The Key to Theosophy. H.P.Blavatsky. An excellent intro to Theosophy. 2. The ocean of Theosophy. W.Q. Judge. A concise intro to Theosophy. 3. Echoes of the Orient. W.Q. Judge. (3 volumes) Contains many excellent magazine articles (vol. 1 ,2) and comments & suggestions about esoteric teachings (vol.3) 4. Theosophy and Christianity. H.T. Edge This is one manual out of twelve in a series of small booklets on key teachings of Theosophy 5. Esoteric keys to the Christian Scriptures & the universal mystery language of myth and symbol. H.T. Edge 6. Fundamentals of the Esoteric Philosophy. G. de Purucker. A good introduction to The Secret Doctrine (H.P.Blavatsky's masterwork). 7. The Esoteric Tradition (2 volumes). G. de Purucker. A thorough work on many theosophical teachings. Contains also comments on science in the thirties. 8. Fountain-Source of Occultism. G. de Purucker. An advanced book on esoteric topics. 9. The dialogues of G. de Purucker Very diverse, but offers valuable insights on practical human problems and also profound themes of Theosophy. 10. Man in evolution. G. de Purucker. (TUP) A book that analyzes Theosophy in relation to science. (The favored publisher for Purucker's books is Point Loma Publications.) 11. Blavatsky Collected Writings series 12. The Mahatma Letters (compiled by A.T. Barker) #1 and #2 of this list provide a good reference frame for Theosophy. #3 gives many clear thoughts on a great variety of spiritual topics. These provide an excellent background for the other books, which are more or less put in order of degree of difficulty. Also, it could be useful to order a catalogue from the publishers mentioned in this list. Martin Euser euser@xs4all.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 12:00:15 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: Toward an Inclusive Dialogue Brenda tolerance can lead to "co-dependence". Daniel is clearly insincere in his attempt to dialogue he as Martin says prefer monologue and "proclamation". I didn't think this list serv encouraged that. He can state anything he wants but his tonality must change or the whole group suffers. About the implication that I have not encountered, studied and listened intently with understanding to fundamentals - you might like to check that out with my history. If you can get something scientific out of his intolerance then do so. I am about fed up with his intolerance. Intolerantly Tolerant, Art :) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 12:25:08 GMT From: Geraldjs@aol.com Subject: Re: Former Christian Murray: From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 12:29:14 GMT From: Geraldjs@aol.com Subject: Re: Psychism Liesel: Personally, what bowls me over is the inner suffering that I sense and feel in others. There are a lot of people with what could be called twisted or deformed auras, and I don't even like to be around them. I think I tend to see things in terms of happiness vs suffering rather than good vs evil(?). So-called evil people are actually in a lot of mental pain. Anyway, from everything you have said about Serge, it sounds like he is pretty sharp and knows his stuff. Unfortunately, I have never met him. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 12:43:43 GMT From: Geraldjs@aol.com Subject: Re: Psychism >If someone I'm >in contact with gets quite angry, and the energies generated by >the emotional state provokes anger in me, buffering myself with >shells of light or "techniques" of some sort avoid the (IMO) >real issue, which is that some layer of my system is still >capable of that particular vibrational frequency - and the >negative outer situation serves as a kind of diagnostic, something >that exposes (one of the thousands of remaining) flaws in my own >system, and invokes it to the surface layers of awareness where >it can be operated upon. Extremely perceptive. I wish more folks could understand this one. I agree with you completely. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 12:47:18 GMT From: Geraldjs@aol.com Subject: Re: Psychism Liesel: Bee<(I have some new age friends that wrap themselves "in the light" several times a day, but this seems to me to be a subtle form of seperatism, of affirming duality).> Right! The very concept of "protection" indicates a fear or need within yourself. If you truly have a sincere compassion for others, this will cause your fear to dissipate - "perfect love casts out fear" - see, I DO know the Bible :-) and the whole idea of protection is seen as silly. But this ability takes time to master, and most students can't just jump into it. For them. building up a protective shield (rather like a magic circle) is necessary. For Initiates and Adepts, magic circles are no longer really necessary, and if done at all, are only done for effect. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 13:05:36 GMT From: Geraldjs@aol.com Subject: Re: Former Christian Murray: The problem here is that you each have far different goals (hidden agendas, that in this case are not so hidden). Other than having a little fun, I doubt that anyone will convert or change anyone else. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 13:06:35 GMT From: Geraldjs@aol.com Subject: Re: "source teachings" Rich: This from the person who wants me to talk about upper and lower manas, buddhi, kama-manas, buddhi-manas, atma-buddhi-manas, etc., etc..? Who in today's society has ever heard of such things except a handful of theosophists, and how many of them really understand the terms? Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 13:21:49 GMT From: Geraldjs@aol.com Subject: Re: "source teachings" Rich: This is a hard nut to crack. I rather see theosophy as a presentation of truth (and only one of many such presentations), and would never never say theosophy *is* truth (nor would I say *anything* is truth per se, because I believe that truth is infinite and eternal and incapable of labeling). You use theosophy with a capital T, which is usually meant to imply the current movement and its attendant organizations. I don't know if you meant it this way or not. Anyway, HPB very clearly admitted to holding back some information ("truths" if you will). She said that the time was not ready yet. So, theosophy as presented in the Source Teachings or Core Teachings (and I rather like Jerry H-E's definition of HPB, The MLs, and Judge as a definition of core teachings) is incomplete as given out. Evolution has nothing to do with it. So, here is the real problem for us - when someone comes along and says "Look, here are some more of the Teachings that were not given out in the core teachings" how are we to receive this? Do we reject it out of hand as being "secondary?" Perhaps we must ultimately each answer this question in our own way. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 13:38:05 GMT From: Geraldjs@aol.com Subject: Re: Eldon on Politics in the AT Rich: I agree that she rejects plenty (most all of exoteric Christianty, BTW), but I have a hard time swallowing the idea that she gave us a clear and well-defined path to tread. In fact, I have found very little that she offered us as a path. Be compassionate toward others, and do good deeds, and so forth, and so on. She also said that Raja Yoga was helpful. What else? She did give us a long laundry list of do's and dont's for "chelas" who serve "Masters" as taught in Eastern occultism, but this is of little help to us in the mid-nineties in the USA. What else? I would suggest that her teachings in fact go the other direction - they are deliberately vague to allow a great deal of flexibility, because the Path must be tread by each individual in his or her own way, and there are no "right" rules to follow. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 13:42:21 GMT From: Geraldjs@aol.com Subject: Re: Eldon on Politics in the AT Rich: Me too. (I'd like to think) Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 13:57:44 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Eldon on Politics in the AT According to Geraldjs@aol.com: > > Rich: > I agree that she rejects plenty (most all of exoteric Christianty, > BTW), but I have a hard time swallowing the idea that she gave us a clear and > well-defined path to tread. In fact, I have found very little that she > offered us as a path. Be compassionate toward others, and do good deeds, and > so forth, and so on. She also said that Raja Yoga was helpful. What else? > She did give us a long laundry list of do's and dont's for "chelas" who > serve "Masters" as taught in Eastern occultism, but this is of little help to > us in the mid-nineties in the USA. What else? I would suggest that her > teachings in fact go the other direction - they are deliberately vague to > allow a great deal of flexibility, because the Path must be tread by each > individual in his or her own way, and there are no "right" rules to follow. > > Jerry S. Perhaps we need to break down "the path" into several constituent meanings to get at the heart of this. At one level, HPB definitely does not offer a well-defined path. How and when should we meditate? What about diet? Which forms of psychic experimentation are most dangerous? Safest? HPB provides clues. If by "path" we mean "personal spiritual evolutionary practice" then I think HPB tells us that Theosophy is a meeting place for people following many different paths. But if by "path" we mean guidelines for the TS, what it should stand for and do; or the direction of human evolution at the collective level, then she does provide plenty of guidance. It just takes a lot of work to extrapolate individual practice from the general guidance she does provide. I've found many other teachers-- Gurdjieff, Jung, Cayce, astrological writers-- to be more helpful at the level of daily life. > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 14:00:01 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Eldon on Politics in the AT According to Geraldjs@aol.com: > > Rich: this and that, and I hold to the lines laid down by the Masters and the > original teachings.> What if the lines laid down by the Masters and the original teachings were "a hodge-podge of this and that?" Does that ennoble hodge-podges or lower the dignity of the Masters and their teachings? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 14:03:53 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Daniel on Reincarnation At 7:03 PM 9/7/95, dhedrick@csn.net wrote: >Eldon you wrote that we choose to come into >existence. > >Our pre-incarnate life causes a choice or chance to >become earth-bound. You also said that this was >a Christian teaching. There are Christians who have suggested reincarnation although is hasn't been a primary belief. There are actually two understandings in Scripture concerning afterlife actual three if you consider the Hebrew Covenant. One view holds that we are immortal and have an intrinsic existence after death. Another suggestion is that we are resurrected after death when the end of the age comes. The early hebrew did not believe in afterlife at all except in the collective tribal sense. There is an evolution of the doctrine. The doctrine of reincarnation was accepted by Alexandrian Christians who were trying to synthesize Scripture with Platonic thought. > >First why did I choose to enter into the conception >of a man and a woman named Molly & Deke? I ask that question too Daniel. My mom and dad were not the greatest , my dad whom I loved dearly died when he was 39 and my mom was not at all the sort of person I could get along with very well. She was fairly abusive. But the idea of reincarnation inspires me to think that I am experiencing these parents because who they are could teach me the lessons I have to learn in this life time. I think it is a parallel to the idea of providence. > >Why did I not choose to be the child of Bill & Hillary? Because you are a republican? :) > >Why would anyone choose to be the child that is born >addicted to cocaine or born into a society that does >not want me like China as a baby girl. because comfort is not the souls greatest value > >I assume you also believe that my spirit is genderless, >so now DNA determines what type of human I would >be. It is evident in all societies that boys are more >rough and girls more observant. So does DNA, my parents, >society etc...form who I really am? No you probably have a source beyond human factors in the Unity that is manifesting itself in creation. >As to Chistian teachings... >It is clear that God knew us before we were born. It is also >clear in biblical teachings that we were not formed until >we were in the womb. > Jeremiah 1: >is a good example. This assumes a personal conception of God. Which not all here share but I do not rule out at all. I am working on the assumption that God is both personal and impersonal like light is a wave and a particle. > >Paul taught "It is given unto man Once to die and then judgement". >There is no room here for second chances. If you want to explore CS Lewis I think he hold out the possiblitity of second chance as does John Stott and English Evangelical. I am not as consumed with the idea of life after death. I am more absorbed in life before death some people never get to realize the wonder of life what I mean is that they never get to experience the joy of grace and union with all that is. No reincarnation. >The Gospel of Thomas "Gnostic" tried to arouse reincarnation >and rightfully was not included in canon. The gospel of Thomas is interesting reading. Daniel Thanks for addressing the issues I really do appreciate this post. > >Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 14:12:46 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Emerson a Western Theosophist I am teaching a course in Emerson and thought that this weeks reflections may be of interest to our group in relation to the topic of integration of Christian and Theosophical thought. I share this with no intent that you agree but in order to share the fact that both biblicial tradition and eastern ideas including the Platonic roots of Emerson can be brought together for our benefit. This is an informal paper written not to be published but to be discussed. Enjoy it. Oversoul: Consciousness as Mysticism When we have broken our God of tradition and ceased from our God of rhetoric, then may God fire the heart with his presence. Emerson is a mystic. Not particularly a mystic of any one tradition but a mystic in temperament and practise. He contends that when a person is living in union with the Oversoul all of nature takes on a supernatural hue and tone. His is a mysticism of the Everyday. Emerson slightly deviates from the typical mystic by his struggle to articulate the experience in words. He doesn't devalue language, he instead, uses it in a devotional manner to evoke in his readers, or hearers, the experience he is talking about. Emerson is therefore a Poet in addition to being a Mystic. The soul that ascends to worship Oversoul is plain and true; has no rose-color, no fine friends, no chivalry, no adventures, doesn't not want admiration; dwells in the hour that now is, in the earnest experience of the common day- by reason of the present moment and the mere trifle having become porous to thought and bibulous of the sea of light. 248 For all his apparent radicalism against institutional forms of Christianity , the more I read in Emerson, the more I find him in deep agreement with much of what I have read in Christian Scriptures. Oversoul's emphasis on spiritual wisdom has much in common with Pauline literature in the New Testament. So I add a third nomenclature to Emerson; Emerson is a Preacher. For instance compare the meaning of 1 Corinthians 1: 19 ff. ( obviously I have replaced the term God with Emerson's Oversoul to illustrate) with the quotes from Oversoul on what spiritual wisdom is and functions like. 1 Corinthians 1:19 ff I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart . Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of the age? Has not Oversoul made foolish the wisdom of the world? ... For Oversoul's foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and Oversoul's weakness is stronger than human's strength... Consider your own call, brothers and sisters: not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But Oversoul chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; Oversoul chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong. Oversoul chose what low and despised in the world, things that are not, to reduce to nothing the things that are, to that no one might boast in the presence of Oversoul. Those who are spiritual discern all things, and they are subject to no one else's scrutiny. For who has known the mind of the Oversoul (Lord) so as to instruct him? But we have the mind of (Oversoul) Christ. - The Apostle Paul Oversoul If we will not interfere with our thought, but will act entirely, or see how the thing stands in God, we know the particular thing, and every man. For the Maker of all things and all persons stands behind us and casts his dread omniscience through us over things. 243 - The Concord Sage Emerson This sounds much like the idea of having the "mind of Christ" mentioned by Paul. Also, the idea that nothing can judge the spiritual person because the union they have with Oversoul enables them to discern aright. Both in Paul and in Emerson there is a confidence in spiritual wisdom that is dangerous but exciting to contemplate. It has to do with the ability to know instinctively what is true if we are "in" the atmosphere of the spirit. It is helpful to remember that Emerson said the norm was to be in the condition of habitual vice. My question is how do we discern whether we are in one of those moments of grace or in our normal habitual egocentrism. 1. Humility and Mutual Submission to Oversoul Emerson is not an exclusivist. He believes that the ability to live at the level of Oversoul is accessible to the simple, the young, the unacknowledged as well as those who are recognized as wise in our society. It is however acknowledged by him that the "violence of direction" that really means the vested interests of the intelligent make is very difficult to sustain the level of consciousness of Oversoul. The learned and studious of thought have no monopoly of wisdom. Their violence of direction in some degree disqualifies them to think truly. We owe many valuable observations to people who are not very acute or profound, and who say the thing without effort which we want and have long been hunting in vain. 241-42 Whoever acknowledges Oversoul finds themself unified with all others who are living from this center. The sophistication of language may differ but that is insubstantial compared with the oneness that results from submission to that which is greater than our differences and unifies us. In dealing with my child, my Latin and Greek, my accomplishments and my money stead me nothing; but as much soul as I have avails. If I am wilful, he sets his will against mine, one for one, and leaves me, if I please, the degradation of beating him by my superiority of strength. But if I renounce my will and act for the soul, setting up that as umpire between us two, out of his young eyes looks the same soul; he reveres and loves with me. 242 This admonition advocates a non-coercive approach to those you consider less mature or talented or intelligent than yourself. Setting your will against someone will only lead to warfare and the inevitability of "the might as right tactic". This doesn't have to be related to physical strength but even evolutionary development of consciousness. To use your ability to achieve the submission of another is denigrating. Mutual submission to reality, or the Oversoul, leads to coparticipation in adoration and to gratitude. 2. The Discern but Do Not Judge There is a paradox in the Bible around judging. On the one hand there is the apparently simple straight out, rarely obeyed, imperative to not judge. Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in the passing of judgement on another you condemn yourself, because you the judge do the very same things... Romans 2:1 In another letter to a different situation Paul gave what appears to be opposite advise, Those who are spiritual discern (judge) all things, and they are themselves subject to no one's scrutiny. 1 Corinthians 2:15 If this advise were taken out of the context of being spiritually submitted to reality and humble, it would open the flood gates to unbridled arrogance and narrow mindedness. And it has been taken like this as we are very aware of. Emerson's mysticism of consciousness manages to bring the two side of discernment and judgement together in a unifying center.He says, We are all discerners of spirits. That diagnosis lies aloft in our life or unconscious power. The intercourse of society, its trade, its religion, its friendships, its quarrels, is one wide judicial investigation of character. In full court, or in small committee, or confronted face to face, accuser and accused, men offer themselves to be judged. Against their will they exhibit those decisive trifles by which character is read. But who judges? and what? Not our understanding. We do not read them by learning or craft. No; the wisdom of the wise man consists herein, that he does not judge them; he lets them judge themselves and merely reads their own verdict. 245 The ability to make a discernment is the ability to remain in passive receptivity to the actions of others. This does not mean that we must compromise or become "passive" in the psychological sense but passive in the epistemological sense of allowing freedom of self disclosure to take place. I have often commented that you can't hide anything from a person who is not longer concerned about himself. Self disclosure is going on all the time and those with the eyes to see can see all of us. To live out this principle is to live before the blazing yet compassion eye of God (Oversoul). Psychologically it is the equivalent of the apocalyptic unveiling at the end of time where all of our deeds will be displayed from the roof tops. And yet because this is done in totality it will be done in compassion. 3. Recognize a Transcendent Source of Identity Emerson alludes to the fact that our character is the central criterion for discernment as to who we are, Character teaches over our head. The infallible index of true progress is found in the tone the man takes. Neither his age, nor his breeding, nor company, nor books, nor actions, nor talents, nor all together can hinder him from being deferential to a higher spirit than his own. if he have not found his home in Oversoul, his manners, his forms of speech, the turn of his sentences, the build, shall I say, of all his opinions will involuntarily confess it, let him brave it out as he will. If he has found his center, the Deity will shine through him, through all the disguises of ignorance, of uncongenial temperament, of unfavourable circumstance. The tone of seeking is one and the tone of having is another. 246 Character is determined by our relationship to the Oversoul. Having our identity in God (Self or the Oversoul) enables a person to live beyond the particularities of their own egocentrism. Again, parallels can be found in the Pauline material of the New Testament. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth, for you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life is revealed, they you also will be revealed with him in glory. Col. 3: 2,3 Here, as in Emerson, there is a hidden identity that is transcendental and of more durability and substance than the temporal personalities we struggle with. The Apocalypse ( The Unveiling) speaks of the new identity give us at another time and another place. To anyone who conquerors I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give a white stone, and on the white Stone is written a new name that no one knows except the one who receives it. Revelation 2:17 I can not help but think of this as anything but the individuated Self that Carl Jung speaks about as the new center of consciousness discovered through the initiation of therapy. 4. Live in the Hope that We are Being Guided In order for spirituality to avoid degeneration into arrogant egocentrism and ideology, it imperative to live with a sense of reliance on revelation. But what is revelation? The orthodox evangelical says that it is the inerrant word of God.The orthodox Catholic says revelation is in form of sacrament and tradition. The orthodox rationalist says that revelation comes through logical consistency and adherence to the scientific model.Revelation for Emerson concerns experience. We distinguish the announcements of the soul, its manifestions of its own nature, by the term, Revelation. These are aways attended by the emotion of the sublime. For this communication is an influx of the Divine mind into our mind. It is an ebb of the individual rivulet before the flowing surges of the sea of life... In these communications the power to see is not separated from the will to do, but the insight proceeds from obedience, and the obedience proceeds from a joyful perception. 243 Revelation is link intricately to the will and the emotions. I would rephrase it as the movement of the transcendent source on the historical particular in such as way as to result in moral action. This movement is constantly speaking and leading us to new insights that we need to make to progress in consciousness. O, believe, as thou livest, that every sound that is spoken over the round world, which thou oughtest to hear, will vibrate on thine ear! every proverb every book , every byword that belongs to thee for aid or comfort, shall surely come home though open or winding passages. Every friend whom not thy fantastic will but the great and tender heart in thee craveth, shall lock thee in his embrace. And this because the heart in thee is the heart of all; no valve, not a wall, not an intersection is there anywhere in nature but one blood rolls uninterruptedly an endless circulation through all men, as water of the globe is one sea, and truly seen, its tide is one. 249 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 15:07:11 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re to Paul's Meditations I am posting this response to Paul again. I don't think it went through the first time. If it did, then please disregard this (I'll get the way to do mail on AOL down yet). Paul: In terms of yoga, your question has no right or wrong answer. You can go either way, because both can be yogas to practice. If your objective is stopping thought (one of the higher yogas), then observing these images and sounds is wrong and you need to ignore them. If your objective is watching your thoughts, then you need to simply go with the flow and observe without emotion what is happening. I used to practice both of these types of yoga. As a suggestion, try to follow the thoughts and sounds for awhile without being critical or worrying about where they come from. Then, at some point, look between any two of them. The space between any two thoughts or sounds is the Voidness or Emptiness that Buddhism talks so much about. The emptiness (formlessness) between your thoughts is much more important than the thoughts themselves. Just a suggestion. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 15:27:27 GMT From: euser Subject: Evangelism and dogmatism Daniel, Your tone of writing is demeaning and shows a complete lack of understanding of what True Christendom is. Remember that Christ spoke to the masses in parables and allegories, so taking his words literally is contradictory to what Christ Himself (and St. Paul) says. Also, if you have any bit of commonsense left in you, you would start to critically think over some ideas stated in the Bible, which, BTW is a selection of texts only, and probably not the best selection too! (and also has been tampered with..) One example: you refer to the genealogy in the Bible; taking this literally leads to the preposterous conclusion that our earth was created an odd 6,000 years ago, a conclusion that has been clearly refuted by science long ago. Deny the facts of science and you will be declared pathetic, or, a dogmatic pur sang, a blinded man. BTW, the genealogy of the Bible is an emblem for certain cycles of nature and more..(see Isis Unveiled II, HP Blavatsky). Study your Bible again, with the aid of Theosophy and you will see a brilliant Light be thrown upon it, the Light of the Holy Ghost. You seem completely unaware of the early Gnostic gospels and the pearls of wisdom that can be found in them. You seem to know nothing of the history of Christianity and the fabrication of the dogmas of the several churches. In one word: you show complete IGNORANCE of the background of your own religion! Further on, I would suggest that you comply with the rules of this list, which were sent to you at the time of your subscription or else draw your conclusion: that this list is not the right place for you.. Dialogue is ok, monologue is for the fundamentalists.. Willfully closing your eyes and shutting your ears for sincere opinions of others is a SIN against the Holy Ghost. Martin A fundamental anti-fundamentalist | Martin Euser | Man is a Divine Spark. | | euser@xs4all.nl | Realize your potential! | | http://spirit.satelnet.org/Spirit/mysteries.html | | See: theosophy corner | From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 16:03:42 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Former Christian According to Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"@vnet.net: > > True. The challenge arises when trying to carry out the spirit of one of > our primary and hopefully least-hidden agendas. The Original Program > statement puts it well with regard to members, and I don't think it has > much less relevance to non-members. Doesn't that cut both ways, Murray? I don't think you are taking into account the aspect of HPB's quote which emphasizes the expulsion of people who refuse to recognize the rights of others to their own beliefs. No one here is interested in refusing Daniel's right to believe whatever he wishes; but his own words make it clear that he has no such respect for us. When he calls Art and Alan tools of Satan ("misled by the Prince of the Air" was his phrase I think) then he has gone over the edge IMHO, and should be asked to leave. Cyberspace is a world in which any fanatic can wander into any discussion and disrupt it with vituperation and denunciation. It's just a sad fact of life that lines have to be drawn. Perhaps I'm wrong about where the line should be, but it irks me to see someone as cherished as Art being used as a punching bag by a fundamentalist. PJ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 16:12:53 GMT From: Deodars@aol.com Subject: New E-mail addresses The International Headquarters of The Theosophical Society (Pasadena) and Theosophical University Press now have the following e-mail addresses with America On Line. TS Headquarters: tstec@aol.com Theosophical University Press: tupress@aol.com For mail to individual staff members, please add the addressees name in the Subject: line. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 17:01:50 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Psychism Dear JRC, I think in trying to say something to you that might be of help, I've gone in way over my depth, for the simple reason that I myself am not psychic, & that I've only experienced the very fringes of what you describe, & sometimes I've only heard mention. So I'll try to be a little more circumspect from here on in, so as not to becloud the issue. I was trying to remember why Serge told us to harmonize the person & fill them with peace, or what Jerry S. does use compassion, rather than throw a protective white light around them. It was something like if you're protecting them from something, you've got to keep making the protection stronger & stronger for it to work. Also, being afraid of something is not the way to avoid it. In conjunction with this, and as far as your statement with resonant vibes in & outside of a person is concerned, the 2 shamans I've had contact with, Harry VG and Serge K., are (were) both completely loving people, & that love for everyone makes (made) them not afraid of anything. They are (were) completely fearless, as far as I could tell. You can, for instance, notice it in the way Serge walks. It wasn't only because he'd been a Marine. Maybe their wives know their flaws. They must have some, being human, but they weren't apparent in the loving & being fearless department.. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 17:30:50 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: "source teachings" Dear Rich, To me, "tradition" is synymous with "fossil". Let me name a few traditions: a man doffs his hat when he goes to church, a woman leaves hers on; Islamic women cover themselves from head to toe except for their eyes; very Orthodox Jewish men don't shave, & the women wear whigs; anyone who isn't baptized goes to hell; widows jump on the husband's funeral pyre; the practice of Hari Kiri. If you want to believe in tradition, that's ok with me, but leave me out of it, & since I'm also a Theosophist, please be so kind as to leave space for me & my kind in your narrow traditionalist outlook. I don't know how it is in the Absolute, but I've been taught, & I believe, because it makes sense to me that, in manifestation, both nature & truth evolve. To me, It's again like the story of the blind men who each is touching a different part of an elephant & each one is getting a different impression of what an elephant is like. The whole elephant is the absolute, of which human beings can only see part. I don't think I can see the whole, the absolute Truth. Maybe you can. Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 17:45:50 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Scholars Dear Lewis, Simple, you produce both ... scholarly research & literature for the general public... I think both are needed. Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 18:38:34 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Toward an Inclusive Dialogue Frankly, this board is about Theosophy, and anything that relates to Theosophy. If some contributors do not care to discuss Theosophy, cannot relate their concerns to Theosophy, and are unwilling to learn about Theosophy, I don't see what the point is. There are lots of boards for discussion of fundamentalism, Daniel won't be homeless. I for one have busily deleted most messages without reading them, but I am getting TIRED of this, and it takes up my time and disk space and I pay for the extra minutes of downloading. I enjoy reading what people have to say about THEOSOPHY whether I agree with that perspective or not. But having just completed my M.Div. at Harvard Divinity School, I am sick to death of hearing about the salvation brought about by the Bible, it's the literal truth of God, blah blah blah. If Daniel were truly interested in learning more about the Bible I could name well over a hundred books written by both scholars and practising Christians which shed light on the history and content of the Bible. I won't bother, because it is obvious Daniel has an entirely different agenda, one which doesn't include us (unless we convert). So let's call it a day and get back to Theosophical pursuits. Like an alcoholic, Daniel will have to bottom out (and most fundamentalists do, it's an average of 7 years' stay) before he is willing to listen to ANYONE outside of his denomination. And if we are taking guesses, I would guess Daniel is a member of the Boston Church of Christ, one of the most authoritarian and scary cults around. I recognize the particular flavor of rhetoric I think. We were constantly assaulted with this at Harvard (by non-students), I can't take anymore. For interested parties, the number for the Cult Awareness Hotline is (312) 267-7777. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 18:44:21 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Original Programme Dear Paul, 'S a very good quote to try to conduct business by. I'm sure I don't stick to it 100%. I think now that you've posted it, we should all try to stick to what HPB proposes. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 19:11:31 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: "source teachings" >>Patrick: Actually anyone who writes for the Mahatmas is primary whether then or now. The Teaching is a living ethic of right relationships>> > Jerry: Very true.< Yes, and anyone who CLAIMS to write for Mahatmas is sure to get a following, whether those claims are true or false. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 19:25:12 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: At last, psychic and noetic action (1) I only have a little time tonight, I have TONS of schoolwork due tomorrow. But, skipping over some preliminary criticisms of 19th century science, I will start in with the good stuff. ******************************** HPB "PSYCHIC AND NOETIC ACTION" Thus the whole conclave of psycho-physiologists may be challenged to correctly define Consciousness, and they are sure to fail, because Self-Consciousness belongs alone to man and proceeds from the SELF, the higher Manas. Only, whereas the psychic element (or KAMA-MANAS or what the Kabalists call NEPESH, the "breath of life") is common to both the animal and human being--the far higher degree of its development in the latter resting merely on the greater perfection and sensitiveness of his cerebral cells--no physiologist, not even the cleverest, will ever be able to solve the mystery of the human mind, in its highest spiritual manifestation, or in its dual aspect of the PSYCHIC and NOETIC (or the MANASIC), or even to comprehend the intricacies of the former on the purely material plane--unless he knows something of, and is prepared to admit the presence of this dual element. This means he would have to admit a lower (animal), and a higher (or divine) mind in man, or what is known in Occultism as the "personal" and the "impersonal" EGOS. For, between the PSYCHIC and the NOETIC, between the PERSONALITY and the INDIVIDUALITY, there exists the same abyss as between a "Jack the Ripper," and a holy Buddha. Unless the physiologist accepts all this, we say, he will ever be led into a quagmire. We intend to prove it. ********************* It's all I can do tonight, maybe I can muster more on the weekend. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 22:18:14 GMT From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: Former Christian Replying to Jerry S. > Murray: a challenge to try and find common truth under the outwardly different words > and concepts, hard as it might be, in the midst of the cut and thrust of > ideas.> > The problem here is that you each have far different goals (hidden > agendas, that in this case are not so hidden). True. The challenge arises when trying to carry out the spirit of one of our primary and hopefully least-hidden agendas. The Original Program statement puts it well with regard to members, and I don't think it has much less relevance to non-members. > Other than having a little > fun, I doubt that anyone will convert or change anyone else. A little is about all there seems to have been of fun on this topic, sofar. I don't think we'll see any conversions either, but change has already happened. Murray Stentiford murray@sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Sep 1995 23:54:53 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: to Liesel on Group Souls Brenda: >There's another striking difference between mankind as a group and plants, >animals, or minerals. The range of difference in the body of the animal >means some of the animals couldn't possibly be found to exist in a crocodile >for instance and then a flea and then a puppy dog. There's no way people >would expect their puppy dog to reincarnate as a flea. Animals are in >groups, but not groups that would intermingle as people do. Mankind is >basically one family in a sense that animals, plants, and minerals are not. >Couldn't this difference cause a theory to form that would distinguish the >souls of these kingdoms from the souls of men? Because of our particular stage of evolution, we have established ties with kindred Monads and tend to come into birth in a certain "group". We are Human Monads because our stage of evolution had taken us to the point where that form of experience is suitable for us. The Human Kingdom, though, is like a grade in a school. Students may come and go, but the grade remains. A few years from now, none of the same students will be in that grade. The grade is not made up of the students, they participate in its structure. When we are talking about a particular class of beings, it is in this sense. The nature of the class is determined externally to its members, it acts as an collection of archetypes that its members are subject to. So far, the idea of a group is fine. The idea falls apart when we attempt to consider the group and all its participants as a single being, with a common pool of shared karma. It is silly to say that a Monad, having justed experienced a lifetime as a cat, will merge back into a group soul, sharing all its karma and personal experience with all the other members of such a soul. A Monad is eternal, both into the future and into the distant past. A new Monad is no more created at the birth of a human child than it is from "fission from a group soul at the point of individualization." Both are misconceptions that arise from a lack of a proper appreciation of the distinction between finite and infinite things. We learn in our study of Theosophy that evolution proceeds through the Kingdoms of nature, with successive unfolding of consciousness and the powers to express oneself in life. The order is not arbitrary, but is due to the structure and essential nature of consciousness. We acquire certain qualities as Elementals, then Minerals, Plants, Animals, Humans, then Dhyani-Chohans. Even before we started this evolution as Monads in the lowest Elemental Kingdom, we existed, apart from any association with any Plant or Animal "group soul". -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 00:03:50 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: to Liesel on Group Souls Brenda: >Even a rock is individual if you can pick it up and take it home, and even >if it can't be moved and it's stuck somewhere it may be unlike the material >it is stuck in and in that way be individual. Pull up a plant by it's root, >look at it, it's individual. True. We can find some sense of the individual in even the lowest Kingdoms. The individual nature of consciousness, though, is not derived from a distinct and obviously independently acting physical form. It depends upon the consciousness of a particular being, and where that being's evolution is focused, if there will be a recognizable form on our Globe D earth. The fact, for instance, that we may look on a mass of rock and be unable to tell how many Mineral Monads may be associated with it does not mean that they are, in their inner natures and consciousness, as indistinct as the material rock is itself. In its consciousness, there is clarity, and perhaps on another Globe, where the Mineral Lifewave is located, there is distinction and activity among the forms of its Monads. The point is that while mankind on its >downward arc through mental, astral, and finally into physical existence is >reaching toward individualization, which on this fourth globe is at its >peak, so too is mankind reaching away from individualization and towards >unity on the upward arc through lesser and lesser degrees of matter until we >reach the seventh globe where we are the most homogeneous. I would describe the sweep of evolution as going from (1) homogeneous unity, to (2) hetrogeneous disunity and apparent chaos and individualism, returning to (3) heterogeneous unity. A return from (2) to (1) would be regressive rather than a completion of the evolutionary sweep. We continue to individualize as we return to a new form of unity that allows our growing differences of self-expression to cooperatively harmonize. >Is my thinking individual? Is the cat's activity individual? See the >difference? Your thinking *is individual* as you make it your own. Ideas are first but a parroting of collective opinions. As we put them into our own words and assimilate them into our lives, they become our personal property, and we can give them our own individual coloring. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 00:12:18 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Group souls or Individuality Rich: >The Founders of the Theosophical Society gave out the core teachings. > That's why they founded the Society in the first place, to give out the >basic teachings. >Those Founders were, principally, two Masters of Wisdom, who worked with >three volunteers, H.P. Blavatsky, H.S. Olcott, and the young William Q. >Judge. Those three were the principal Founders, inspired by the Masters, on >November 17, 1875. >All other Theosophical writers came later, thus they are "secondary" just >like we today are "secondary." This is only true from the model that the Theosophical Movement was a single, initial impulse of the Masters, where the core teachings are what was given in that one-time revelation. With that view, all later writers are just fellow students of these materials that have been given us. Another standpoint would suggest that the Masters are always at work, and are not limited to that one chance of giving out Teachings to the materialistic western world. We could say that the Masters themselves are the primary source, and that any representative of theirs, authorized to publically teach, is a primary source. Secondary sources would be people who write from their personal studies and psychical investigations, people speaking for themselves rather than passing on knowledge given to them from the Treasury of knowledge safeguarded by the Masters. For myself, at least, I'd consider Purucker as a primary source in exactly the same sense as someone else may consider Blavatsky one. Why do we limit things to Blavatsky and "The Mahatma Letters"? For the sake of polite discussion, to avoid arguing competing claims of others. Since we all tend to agree that our favorite teachers are in the same lineage as Blavatsky's, we have her and her writings as an area of commonality, a source of materials which we can all agree to study. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 00:44:41 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Psychism Jerry S: >How does one "explore with the mind?" If you mean >by studying, reading, and thinking about doctrinal ideas, then >I have to disagree completely. Purucker speaks of this in several places. The quote which I most quickly found goes: "So it is with spiritual clairvoyance. What the physical eye sees, you must be perfectly assurred is something quite other than spiritual clairvoyance. Spiritual clairvoyance is the faculty of vision, of seeing, with the inner eye; and it is not so much a seeing of forms and of things, as a getting of knowledge, and because this getting of knowledge comes in a way whhich has a close parallel to seeing with the physical eye, it is called spiritual 'clairvoyance' --direct vision. (The Esoteric or Oriental School: Steps in the Initiatory Cycle, 77) >I also am not sure what you >mean by "exploring with the senses," and I have the uneasy >feeling that you don't really know what you are talking about >here (I am sure that you do, but it just isn't coming through >to me). I'm not speaking of a second form of *external, physical experience* that can be had by the use of the mind, apart from the actual act of "going there and doing it." My reference is to a second way of *knowing by experience* through a higher faculty of mind, a form of knowing that does not require the external physical event. It's a difficult subject to write about, and I'm probably need to write an article to clairfy what I'm trying to write about. >Exactly what do you think the psychic senses are? >I would love for anyone to tell me the difference between >"psychic senses" and "exploring with the mind" because the >last time I looked, the word psychic was equivalent to >mental. Purucker uses "psychic" differently than "mental", and I think that HPB did too. We cannot always consult our dictionaries for the proper theosophical usage of a term, if we want to understand what we're reading in our theosophical books. We can understand atomic physics through reason, experimentation, and flashes of intuition. This did not require any psychical senses or "occult chemistry". Those "flashes of intuition" become over time a more continuous experience of mind, where we have on tap a source of hints, inspirations, and actual information on tap. >What "senses" do we use in yogic meditation? I >always thought that the whole goal of "astral traveling" >(which is a very misleading name) was to direct consciousness >entirely outside of the human mind, which is limited to >the third cosmic plane. Most of the books that I've read do not promote astral travel as a goal. I don't think we try to take our consciousness out of the human mind. The goal is to shift the awareness away from the mind, to go higher within, and become aware of other manners of consciousness. The mind continues, the stream of thoughts continue. And so do those of feelings and sense perception. We are looking deeper within for untapped ways of being aware of life and appreciating it. The goal is not to escape our physical world, and merely be an embodied being on some other plane, it is, I'd say, to awaken yet higher parts of our nature, which to this point are dormant in our physical lifes. >Inner senses, like the ones >we have in dreams, for example, are limited to the second >plane. The human mind itself is limited to the direct >observation of only one cosmic plane. But consciousness can >"explore" all seven cosmic planes. This description depends upon our model of globes, planes, principles, etc., which can be quite an involved discussion. I'd say that on any plane that we may come into existence, we take on all seven principles, which represent the complete ingredients of consciousness. This includes both an other form, senses, feelings, thought, etc. But our evolution *is here*. We are working on bringing our higher principles into consciousness in and through our human personalities. >Eldon:< The deep study comes from a self-actualized process >that transforms the inner and outer man, a process that reaches >from the external senses to the inner spirit, and changes him >throughout.> >I wish you would expound on this in more detail. I >am an "at large" member in both Pasadena and Wheaton, and >honestly have no idea what you mean by "deep study." All >of my own deep studying has been outside of the TS. This is another topic for an article. There are also come good Purucker quotes that I may be able to find. >[Speaking regarding future Hodson's and other psychical explorers:] >The difficulties and dangers are up to those few >individuals who Dare to Try, and not up to the TSs. When we take a theosophical group as a seekers' club, then any and every approach is appropriate, and such a goal might be put forth. When we take a particular approach to the spiritual, like that promoted by Purucker, we would find ourselves told that such an approach is counterproductive, that it has no more to do with the awakening of the spiritual than taking a trip to Africa. >As I see it, the TSs' job is to make available the "core teachings," >which form much of the theoretical end of the psychic milieu. A study combined with the attempt to live a spiritual life is practical, not theoretical. It is a tried-and-proven approach. It could be argued that the intellectual-spiritual approach is the direct one, and an emphasis on the psychic abilities leads people to avoid it, rejecting it as theoretical because it may seem less tangible than an experience of the senses. Apart from approaches to spiritual development, it might be argued that having psychic abilities is a gift that allows someone do to exceptional good in the world. Any faculty we have can be a gift, if used to help others. What are we doing with what we already have? >Those individuals with psychic abilities, or those who want >them, can find lots of books and/or "gurus" outside of the >TSs, while using the "core teachings" as their theoretical >background. It works for me. It seems to work that way. But we have much more to offer than training in psychic abilities. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 01:03:19 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Bitter/Sweet >> Rich: & > Paul: >> The greatest protection, perhaps, which works well for many, is to receive >> praise and blame indifferently and impersonally, and to concentrate on ideas. >> If people feel the need to attack YOU rather than your ideas and work, that >> is their delusion. >This is hard for people to separate, especially when they're >emotionally invested in a subject. I suspect that even the >most virulent personal attacks I've received have been from >people in denial about what they're doing. Sort of a "I have >no choice but to react this way because what you did was so >awful" kind of justification. There's always a difference between theory and practice. We have an ideal that a discussion deals with ideas, philosophy, and logic. But feelings are involved, and people can feel hurt. Should people feel hurt when their ideas are attached? No. Can they help it? Can they avoid letting themselves feel hurt? Sometimes. We have two goals to achieve, and have to do a balancing act. We cannot be hurtfully cold with "the truth" without regard for how it affects others. But on the other hand, we cannot allow allow someone's feelings to muzzle the truth. >> If you feel the need to perceive attacks on your works and IDEAS as attacks >> on you, that is YOUR delusion, and the only one you can do something about. >No need to interpret as personal that which is not. Sometimes >people ask me "didn't you realize that you were asking for trouble in >discussing this topic?" Somehow, I realized that the title was >controversial, the subject was controversial-- yet was >oblivious of the fact that the author was bound to become >controversial too. If anything, I started out foolishly naive >about the impersonality and openmindedness of Theosophists-- >perhaps setting me up to become embittered. We have to be careful about what we say. Sometimes we are required to step on a few toes. We shouldn't therefore harden our hearts and always step on toes, though, without considering each situation on a case-by-case basis. There are a number of issues that have surfaced from time to time on 'theos-l' that get some of us seeing red. I just, a few moments ago, started to write a list, and I erased the words. I could tell, from looking at it, that I would engender severe anger by even mentioning certain subjects. To not bring up the subjects, though, is a form of censorship, and is saying, in a say, that certain topics need to be kept esoteric or hidden from the public eye. It is a sign, in one sense, of disrespect to people in general, in saying that they are not ready to hear of certain things, and so the things will be kept from them. Perhaps this is necessary? It's a hard call at times, to speak up or keep silent. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 01:17:05 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Scholars > Alan wrote: > > ... it is important, nay, > > essential, for the theosophical movement in *all* its > > diversities to bring forth its own scholars, using the scholarly > > disciplines that would be required in the university colleges. > > > Lewis: > I can see your point, that for theosophy to gain more > acceptance and credibility it would seem it could benefit from > the work of scholars in theosophy, but this reminds me of a > Mahatma letter to Sinnet in which they tell him they were not > interested in establishing a school for western intellectuals, that > they had not broken the silence of centuries for the benefit of a few > western european scholars. They were interested in reaching the > masses. > Are you familiar with this reference? I wonder what your take on > it is. To be more specific, how do we balance (us Librians are always > seeking balance) the need for scholarly research with the challenge > of making theosophy more available to the masses? As Librarians, you should stock *both* - but obviously more of the "material for the masses". The important thing is, I think, that those who wish to can go to more serious and scholarly works if they want to check out the sources of theosophical ideas and teachings. Let's face it, the SD hardly reads like a popular novel, but we'd be in a real fix without copies on the shelf. (1) IMO ~Isis Unveiled~ is an easier read, but again, not for the beginner. Oh - and scholarship is not necessarily only an intellectual activity :-). (1) Ever tried checking out HPB's footnotes and sources quoted in the text? Oh boy! Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 01:25:20 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Channelling ... > >In message <199509042311.LAA06632@nethost.whanganui.ac.nz> theos-l@vnet.net > writes: > Bee: > I do agree with what has > been said that one has to remain detached and as pure as it is possible to > be, to avoid the risks that HPB outlines so well in Isis Unveiled. It has > given me food for thought and I have stepped back a bit to reevaluate the > situation. I have been told that my higher self is the relay station, so to > speak, through which the channelling takes place. If it comes from the > personality then it soon gets 'silly'. The hows and wheres have been > explained to me and it makes sense so when the need arises, I respond. > Greetings, > Bee. That's how I would put it, too. BTW, it seems that some of the contacts are themselves "relay stations" in [say] a kind of objective 'mental plane' - but that is my *subjective* interpretation! :-) Just keep the work going, when it is needed, and leve it alone when it isn't seems to be the best approach in my experience. Enjoy it! Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 01:27:12 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Eldon on Politics in the AT Keith: >Keith Price: After reading Eldon's article on politics in the American >Theosophist, I was struck more with what was unsaid than said. In my humble >opinion it was written very well if the object was to offend no one and keep >everybody happy and "in the fold". Actually, it was first posted on 'theos-l', and John Alego asked me if I'd mind if it was used in the American Theosophist. It was written with the Oklahoma bombing event in mind, and other discussion on political activism and Theosophy that also was happening on the list at the time. >Like many articles and "exoteric" messages >from the TSA, it gives the impression that theosophy offers an opporunity for >personal growth, spritual seeking and light on the path and all that, but never >any "stated" agenda or forced direction or guidance. Yes. We're not given a religious creed or code of conduct or set of rules to live our lives by. There is not a church to join. This is the polar opposite of an approach like the orthodox Jewish, where they are even required to silly things like keep separate pans and kitchen setups for meat and dairy products. >THIS IS TRUE AND ALL TO THE GOOD. I am not really complaining but this seems to >be a comfort for those new to the path, that is, that one can come in to the TS >without there a being a cult like expectation of conforming to a dogma etc. It's not a comfort, since people *want to be told what to do.* It rather leads many people to quit, when they found they've not been given a replacement for some dogmatic religion which they may have recently rejected. >One is always left slightly uplifted and slightly empty by this kind of thing. >It isn't so much that conflict is resolved, but it is just left unspoken, >hidden, concealed, "esoteric". >I guess I am on a critical point in the path where anything DOESN'T go, and I am >tired of trying one thing and dropping it (so easy in our fast food, drive >through, buffet-style spiritual options culture). The state of readiness or hunger for something else to open up in life never goes away. What happens, though, is that a sense of creative self-expression also arises, and far out-shadows any sense of personal suffering also going on. >I mean we are blessed or >cursed to live in a time when we can try a little Zen, a little speaking in >tounges, a little Mother Teresa, a little Krishnamurti, a little David Koresh >(not really) and for me not really have the satisfaction of the "true believer". >Theosophy is so open it almost presumes a previous religious training(IMHO), I >mean one >can not go beyond language (religion) if one does not have a mother tongue >(Church). There are many "brands" of spiritual training offered us. None can give us spirituality. Regardless of approach, we still end up doing the work ourselves, using one technique or another, but doing the work on our own initiative. >If one allows anything, one stands for nothing. It seems like a kind of >anarchism, but with the unstated assumption that if you are really spiritual >(whatever that is) you will get with the program and become a vegetarian, a >believer in the Masters, and hold what are today the "proper" ideals (whatever >they are). One can allow anything *to others,* while being quite discriminating when dealing with one's own beliefs and life. It is a different matter when one chooses to open his mouth and share what he has learned. Then a combination of tact, diplomacy, and knowing when to speak and when to keep the mouth shut is highly important. >If one meditates, one will eventually come round to something that approximates >a good guy or girl without any clear examination of issues on the physical level >(or seemingly some imply). If one ripens inwardly, the other life will tend to rearrange itself accordingly, and one remains rooted in the spiritual. If one merely rearranges external things in his life, the inner center remains untouched, and life is not truly changed. >It is not so much that one has politics or real problems in hand, but that one >somehow transcends them with a kind of easy spirituality and a "don't make a >fuss" attitiude. "Why can't we all just get along?" is a good question but >when has it ever worked? We have to make hard decisiions in our external lifes. But we cannot use politics or social programs to awaken people. The awakening is self-initiated, when the appropriate state of ripening has arrived. >To show the problem, I heard a tape once by Shirley Nicholson and John Algeo >(?). It asked really difficult questions to reveal what people really think in >practical terms about the theosophical objects, principles and ideals. For >instance: "Would you let a known and self-professing Nazi or KKK member be a >member of the lodge? What about president?" (I mean brotherhood without regard >to creed, relgion, politics etc.) Sometimes things are easy to decide. Othertimes, there are boarderline situations where the decision is easy. Disruptive and hostile people may be thrown out of groups if it is necessary, but each decision is individually made. >If you aren't forced to deal with these problems, it is easy to just say >everybody has their own path and one path is as good as the other? Each person is the ultimate judge of their own path, the ultimate judge as to if theya re following the proper course, or deluding themselves. We cannot decide this for them without an intervention in their lives and karma, which is not generally a good thing to do. It is a different question when we attempt to teach Theosophy. We have a responsibility to distinguish the good from the bad for others -- in a general sense, since we cannot personally take charge of their lives. In this case, we are also responsible to pass on the Teachings, from the Mahatmas, in a pure, unaltered form. >I was >suprised at the number of people who answered the question with a definite "no". >I felt that if one was assured on one's own path, one would not be tainted by a >little opposition. In fact both sides might gain and claify and even change (be >transformed). It seems that this is possibly the reason for "evil". There is a >quote by Malthus that the reason for evil is to drive one to action. Karma means >action, of course. When we get judgemental, we start calling others that get in our way in life to be "evil", and those that are in accord with us as "good". It's not objective, but is a psychological maya that we sometimes give in to. >P.S> - this is not a criticism of Eldon's article, but just an examination of >the everything is OK where it is today, but will improve (evolve) type of >message the TSA gives out. Hey if it works, don't fix it! But does it work? Agreed that there's a lot that we could do better in both awakening people to the spiritual and in passing on the Teachings intact to others, to share the Treasury of wisdom that we have been fortunate enough in life to have been put in touch with. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 02:55:35 GMT From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: Former Christian Replying to Paul J. > [Murray] > True. The challenge arises when trying to carry out the spirit of one of > our primary and hopefully least-hidden agendas. The Original Program > statement puts it well with regard to members, and I don't think it has > much less relevance to non-members. PJ Yes, it does, Paul, but to my eyes there are signs - small ones, but signs nevertheless - of a dialog process, and while I don't expect any wondrous conversions, as said before, I think it is worth pursuing a while yet. The communication will probably die of its own accord when the possibilities have been exhausted, anyway. I have been in numerous dialogs with various sorts of evangelical Christians in my life, and have found that sometimes a degree of mutual respect and understanding can emerge, and other times it is just a bruising encounter. Sometimes, I have been pleasantly surprised when the other person didn't fit my stereotype of them. PJ < I don't think you are taking into account the aspect of HPB's quote which emphasizes the expulsion of people who refuse to recognize the rights of others to their own beliefs. ... etc> No, that's part of the picture, a necessary protection when all else has failed. PJ Yes, I felt that keenly. Daniel spoke of people getting wild, but it was he who seemed to be wild at the prospect of a fundamentalist walking away from it all. We all know that being confronted with somebody apparently hostile towards us is a significant challenge. The TS claims often enough to see the common threads of wisdom in different religions, and I am just trying to give light to the idea that here we have an opportunity to actually *do* it, even if the common ground seems to us fairly slender and in the middle of a swamp. When we identify and put energy (by replying) into the positive or non-hostile aspects of posts like Daniel's, we help to lift the tone of the whole dialog, or at least give it a chance to lift. I appreciate very much what Art is doing, responding from his rich fund of knowledge and experience. Murray Stentiford murray@sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 06:27:13 GMT From: "Deborah Brazo" Subject: Re: Art's Response to Daniel > From: dhedrick@csn.net > Subject: Re: Art's Response to Daniel > >Art: >training in Christian Scripture.> > > > >I, for one, used to be a Sunday School teacher, as well as church > >treasurer. > > Yes, I have read the Bible several times over, and agree > >with everything Jesus teaches. No, I am not a Christian today. > > > > Jerry S. > > > > Another one that is 12inches off. > > Jerry... > > You do not believe what Jesus taught. > > He taught "...the hour is coming, and now is, > when the true worshippers will worship the > Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking > such to worship Him. "God is Spirit, and those who > worship Him must worship in spirit and truth". > > then Jesus declared "I am the Messiah" John 4:23:26 > > Jerry do you need a Savior? > > Daniel > To All: I have been watching this list for a week or so to get a handle on the way conversations are going before I jump in. I would have to say that although I do not (will not) label myself that my "beliefs" come closest to Theosophy and Gnosticism. I have seen this same distraction caused by fundamentalist Christians on every list that involves Spirituality. I call it a distraction because that is what it is. I learned to not argue. I will state my understandings and leave it at that. Daniel: You are not allowing others their path to the divine. You feel that Christianity is the only way. It is not. There are many ancient religions that have been around before the advent of Christianity. Just because many Christians (and I realise many don't) feel that all other paths are wrong does not make it so. Your comment to Jerry as to whether he needs a "savior" is arrogant and shows your belief system for what it is ... EGO. Your saved and others are not. Well, Daniel, you are in for a big surprise when all is said and done. You said: "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth". It is obvious that you think that your brand of Christianity only is capable of this. Get real and grow up! If you really worship God in Spirit and Truth then maybe it's time for you to start listening to God instead of the Church. The Church has twisted much of what you believe to be Gospel in order to control the masses and you are a fine example of that process. This kind of narrow minded thinking is what keeps this world in a state of constant war. There will be no peace until those who are fettered by restricted thinking are loosed from their fetters. There will be no peace until you can look at your brother (sister) and love them for who they are instead of calling them a sinner. Sin is a concept of the Church not God. The Church has drummed it into your head that we are all guilty and that only they can save us by bringing us the Christ scenario. Oh, I believe in Jesus and the Christ energy but I also know he did not come here for the reasons your would have all believe ... to save you. Only you can save you by connecting to your own Christ energy (higher self). When you come into your knowing then you have a different view on all this. You understand that the rantings of the fundamentalist faction are just that ... rantings of souls who themselves are lost. They cling to a picture of salvation fed to them by the "great" Church which became corrupt along the way. So everyone ... back to Theosophy. I don't have a grasp yet on all the Theosophic concepts but would like to continue learning from the conversations. In Light, Deborah Deborah Brazo aka Athara __________________________________________ "If relativity is proved right the Germans will call me a German, the Swiss will call me a Swiss citizen, and the French will call me a great scientist. If relativity is proved wrong the French will call me a Swiss, the Swiss will call me a German and the Germans will call me a Jew." -Albert Einstein- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 06:42:32 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re:Jesus in the Air Paul Johnson Writes: Here's a sincere query which is likely to produce opposing answers if anyone cares to hazard an opinion. Art: Love to. It is a very welcome diversion from recent conversations on Jesus. Paul: In the last 6 months or so I have been practising Surat Shabd Yoga, as taught in the Radhasoami movement, with some modifications of my own. It consists of three practices, only two of which I have done: 1) Simran-- repetition of the Divine Names (Nam, Radhasoami, etc.) while focusing attention at the Eye Center (3rd that is). Art: What precisely is this Eye center. Is it a chakra point or a metaphor for perceiving? 2) Bhajan-- hearing the Sound Current and concentrating attention on listening to this vibration. Art: This sound current sounds beyond the actual vocalisation of the name itself. If so there is a clue there I think. You are in the South and as you say the name that is in the air is Jesus. 3) Dhyan-- contemplating the physical form of the Master. Art: This would be very different, since, there are no historically accurate representations of the physicality of Jesus. The best book I have even encountered on this is called The Faces of Jesus by Frederick Buechner where there are artistic renditions of visual theologies of Jesus. My favourite are the oriental ones. Paul: Here's the question/problem. The more I have practised this yoga, the more I find myself receptive to various forms of Christian devotion. Getting hymns stuck in my brain for a while, for example, or various spontaneous mantras with Christian themes. All this despite the fact that I have no particular conscious preference for Christianity over any other faith. Art: I am presuming that this is not a recent phenomena brought on by the current discussion? I hope not. But the emergence of the Christ archetype in your unconsciousness may, as you say, be related to the collective unconsciousness of the area. At least, you are not crushing out the emergence of the themes because of the negative connotations that the uncreative unconsciousness of the southern fundamentalist collect is involved in. I admire your spiritual courage and openness. Paul: One could also suppose that early childhood programming comes to the surface during trance states, which Simran and Bhajan may induce. But my question to you all is: how right or wrong is it to go with the flow of such images, sounds, etc., rather than resist them? Art: Right now I am discussing that with one of my tutorial students. He is asking it in reference to Blake's non-analytical approach. Too much structure crushes direct religious experience. No critical or analytic perspective can lead to being taken over by the contents of the collective unconsciousness. I tend to think that both approaches must be viewed in tandem. To experience and withhold analysis momentarily is the best bet as long as you are not drawing conclusions about what you are experiencing. I like to see life as metaphor and capable of change so I see whatever I experience as true mythically but not immune from analytical critique. Go with the flow, trusting in the Source to guide you, and then use your analytical perspectives to form hypothesis concerning what you experience. Paul:I think a highly orthodox Theosophist would say something like "you're just becoming a passive medium for other people's retrograde spirituality, and this is a fate worse than death, so stop." Art: That doesn't sound too enlightened to me. Paul: On the other side, a more tolerant minded Theosophist might say "use whatever environmental factors are available in your spiritual practice, regardless of how politically correct they might be." Yes! As long as the rationality it brought to bear upon primary experience at some point. The actual contents of that rationality will be what you have discovered so far and are trusting. Paul: A fundamentalist might say "Jesus is calling you to abandon the wicked occultists" for that matter. And he would be right if your were following a "wicked" occultist but I haven't met as many of them, perhaps none, that would be called wicked. I like the idea that you can judge an experience by the fruit it produces. If you encounter the Buddha or Jesus was is the qualitative moral quality that is produced? How are you altered? This to me is very important. I don't like the spiritual hedonism of the New Age idea that you just ride the experiential roller coaster and never subject your experience to any principle of self critique. Well that's my opinion as it stands today. Under the Mercy, Art From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 06:44:53 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re:Jesus in the Air >> Art: This sound current sounds beyond the actual vocalisation of the name >> itself. If so there is a clue there I think. You are in the South and as >> you say the name that is in the air is Jesus. > >Paul: The current you are supposed to hear is a ringing radiance, >devoid of words or musical form. So it's sort of a comedown to >fall into hearing "stuff" instead of the pure shabd (voice). Paul, I Corinthians xiii: 1 "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." This could happen to you. Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 06:55:21 GMT From: Geraldjs@aol.com Subject: Re: Eldon on Politics in the AT Paul:< I've found many other teachers-- Gurdjieff, Jung, Cayce, astrological writers-- to be more helpful at the level of daily life.> Exactly. You said it well, Paul. It all depends on how we want to define the "path." I was speaking of an individual path towards spirituality or Gnosis. I think that she was deliberately vague on this because she did not want the TS to become "halls of magic" or a training ground for occultists. So far, it hasn't. Would-be occultists and psychics must go elsewhere for their training, but theosophy does provide an abundance of theoretical material, as well as the emphasis on moral development. For a personal approach, I see the first step of the Path as moral development, followed by the second step - development of compassion. After that, it becomes very personal and can vary quite a bit. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 06:55:50 GMT From: Geraldjs@aol.com Subject: Re: "source teachings" Rich: Anyone who CLAIMS to write for the Mahatmas will likely be laughed out of town by the theosophists themselves. HPB's reincarnation will have a hard go of it, I am sure. Like Jesus says, everyone wants signs and wonders or "proofs." As I have said many times, truth and falsehood are both within yourself - we must each look within ourselves to see the truth or falsity of any teaching, regardless of source. For this very reason, every Messenger will have some followers and some detractors. This is an occult law, and each Messenger accepts it as a given. They may not like it, but they accept it. HPB clearly did. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 06:59:19 GMT From: Geraldjs@aol.com Subject: Re: Former Christian Paul: Ditto. Art is handling it well, but I think that this is an effort in futility. You have to be ready for truth, within yourself, before the light can enter and Daniel simply isn't ready yet. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 06:59:34 GMT From: Geraldjs@aol.com Subject: Re: Eldon on Politics in the AT > Rich:hodge-podge of this and that, and I hold to the lines laid >down by the Masters and the original teachings.> Paul: Theosophy teaches material that can be found, here and there, scattered throughout the world's religions, all tied together with some new materials. How can it help from being "hodge-podge" in that sense? HPB quotes Montaigne as saying "I have here made only a nosegay of culled flowers, and have brought nothing of my own but the string that ties them" (SD, Vol I, p. xivi). A "nosegay of culled flowers" is, in a sense, a hodge-podge. However, the "string" that links them is the real key that theosophy offers. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 06:59:49 GMT From: Geraldjs@aol.com Subject: Re: Emerson a Western Theosop... Art: Art, first of all, thank you for the nice posting on Emerson. Here you mentioned Jung and the Self, which is an interesting topic. Jung taught that the Self was itself an archetype; the central archetype of the psyche, of which the other contents of the psyche are but expressions, pulled together by the power of attraction of the Self. He calls the archetypal Self a "psychoid factor" which implies that the Self is as substantial and "real" as the body, albeit in a different continuum - what Jung calls the psychic continuum. Anyway, Jung talks about the sacrifice made by the Self to lower itself down into conscious awareness in order for the ego to become aware of it. His description makes the Self seem a lot like the inner god/goddess of theosophy which sacrifices itself too (ala the Hanged Man of the Tarot). And his individuation process is much like the spiritual path, because its goal is the union of the ego (personality) with the Self (individuality). He says that individuation is an endless process, just like occultism says that the Path never ends. It is interesting how Jung, who was very familiar with Eastern concepts, was able to put these concepts into the dress of modern psychology, and no wonder that Jungian psychology is still not accepted by mainstream psychologists, who are virtually all materialistic in their worldviews. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 07:00:04 GMT From: Geraldjs@aol.com Subject: Re: Psychism Patrick: Well, I will at least agree with you here. Ramakrishna, for example, was initiated into the Kali sect and was considered an Adept at psychic powers, but throughout his life he refused to use them for any reason. Instead he spent a great deal of his time in samadhi or in teaching his disciples (such as Vivekanada). He was a "real" theosophist, I think. Your posting is full of good and evil, and right and wrong, and I am always saddened when I see this in theosophists. Compare your posting to some of Daniel's postings and you will see the similarity. Just as fear can be dissipated by love, so can the very notion of evil and the fear of it that you seem to keep expressing. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 07:04:55 GMT From: "Deborah Brazo" Subject: Re: Psychism > From: Geraldjs@aol.com > Subject: Re: Psychism > >If someone I'm > >in contact with gets quite angry, and the energies generated by > >the emotional state provokes anger in me, buffering myself with > >shells of light or "techniques" of some sort avoid the (IMO) > >real issue, which is that some layer of my system is still > >capable of that particular vibrational frequency - and the > >negative outer situation serves as a kind of diagnostic, something > >that exposes (one of the thousands of remaining) flaws in my own > >system, and invokes it to the surface layers of awareness where > >it can be operated upon. > > Extremely perceptive. I wish more folks could understand this one. > I > agree with you completely. > > Jerry S. > I would agree with Jerry .... extremely perceptive. Your explaination give a little more depth to the idea that we see sometimes in others that which we fear in ourselves. There is one person in my life I am always trying to avoid (because of their negativity). Your explaination gave me great insight as to why I do not wish to be around this person. Ah, lessons! explaination helps me to understand why There are many things happening on subtle levels. When I become aware of this I call it a niggle. I have found the niggles are best tended to as soon as we have them. Thanks for the wisdom. In Light, Deborah Deborah Brazo aka Athara __________________________________________ "If relativity is proved right the Germans will call me a German, the Swiss will call me a Swiss citizen, and the French will call me a great scientist. If relativity is proved wrong the French will call me a Swiss, the Swiss will call me a German and the Germans will call me a Jew." -Albert Einstein- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 07:07:54 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: the seeing eye >> Art: What precisely is this Eye center. Is it a chakra point or a metaphor >> for perceiving? > >Both, in a way. It is called the brow chakra, located slightly >above the bridge of the nose. But it symbolizes illumined >perception of spiritual reality. The Seer trains himself to open the seeing eye, and Nature speaks to him in tones which grow with each year more entrancing, more wonderful, because he is growing great inside. His understanding is broadening and deepening. The whispering of the trees, the susurrus of the leaves, their rustling, the boom of the waves on the shingle of the shore, the chirp of the cricket, the cooing of the dove, the sound of a human voice-strident though it often is-contains marvels for him. He recognizes his kinship with all that is, he realizes that he is but one element in a most marvellous mosaic of life in which he is inseparably bound, and that as the vision grows it becomes ever more beautiful and sublime; and he knows that the Vision Sublime is there and strives to see it ever more clearly. Every tree, every flower, every atom of the mineral crunched under your feet as you tread the surface of the earth; everything that is, had you the seeing eye, you could learn from. Have you never looked into the bosom of a flower? Have you never studied the beauty, symmetry, glory, around you? Have you never looked at the rising or the setting sun, and marvelled at the paintings on the eastern or western horizon? Have you never looked deep into the ey of a fellow human being, looked with a seeing eye on your own kind? Have you never found marvels there? What a wonderful world we are surrounded with!" G. de Purucker, GOLDEN PRECEPTS from The June, 1995 Theosophist. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 07:27:03 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Milti Posts - Sorry Sorry about the multiple posts, some havn't gone through so different options have been tried. P From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 07:27:03 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Milti Posts - Sorry Sorry about the multiple posts, some havn't gone through so different options have been tried. P From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 07:53:51 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Re: "source teachings" >>Patrick: Actually anyone who writes for the Mahatmas is primary whether then or now. The Teaching is a living ethic of right relationships>> > Jerry: Very true.< >>Rich: Yes, and anyone who CLAIMS to write for Mahatmas is sure to get a following, whether those claims are true or false.<< One can write for the mahatmas without ever saying that one is doing so -- and given the glamours today this would most likely be the way for a true Chela. Truth is its own authority and The Teaching as living ethics is the same. Peace, Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 10:04:38 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Re: PSYCHIC and the NOETIC Yea, a wonderful topic. I like to talk about this in terms of planes, the psychic being from the etheric to the lower mental and the Noetic being from the higher mental through the atmic above which is the Monad. Thoughts? I've drawn diagrams about this that I can post in MIME format. Does anyone know if this would work our listprocessor? Cheers, Patick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 10:04:38 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Re: PSYCHIC and the NOETIC Yea, a wonderful topic. I like to talk about this in terms of planes, the psychic being from the etheric to the lower mental and the Noetic being from the higher mental through the atmic above which is the Monad. Thoughts? I've drawn diagrams about this that I can post in MIME format. Does anyone know if this would work our listprocessor? Cheers, Patick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 10:14:28 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Multi Posts Been having problems posting to theos-l so I've tried multiple options of sending. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 10:14:28 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Multi Posts Been having problems posting to theos-l so I've tried multiple options of sending. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 10:14:34 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Re: "source teachings" >>Patrick: Actually anyone who writes for the Mahatmas is primary whether then or now. The Teaching is a living ethic of right relationships>> > Jerry: Very true.< >>Rich: Yes, and anyone who CLAIMS to write for Mahatmas is sure to get a following, whether those claims are true or false.<< One can write for the mahatmas without ever saying that one is doing so -- and given the glamours today this would most likely be the way for a true Chela. Truth is its own authority and The Teaching as living ethics is the same. Peace, Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 10:55:14 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re:Jesus in the Air According to Arthur Paul Patterson: > > Art: What precisely is this Eye center. Is it a chakra point or a metaphor > for perceiving? Both, in a way. It is called the brow chakra, located slightly above the bridge of the nose. But it symbolizes illumined perception of spiritual reality. > listening to this vibration. > > Art: This sound current sounds beyond the actual vocalisation of the name > itself. If so there is a clue there I think. You are in the South and as > you say the name that is in the air is Jesus. The current you are supposed to hear is a ringing radiance, devoid of words or musical form. So it's sort of a comedown to fall into hearing "stuff" instead of the pure shabd (voice). > > Art: I am presuming that this is not a recent phenomena brought on by the > current discussion? I hope not. But the emergence of the Christ archetype > in your unconsciousness may, as you say, be related to the collective > unconsciousness of the area. At least, you are not crushing out the > emergence of the themes because of the negative connotations that the > uncreative unconsciousness of the southern fundamentalist collect is > involved in. I admire your spiritual courage and openness. There's a fair amount of ambivalence about it, although I never bought into HPB's anti-Christianity to the extent that some Theosophists do. However, had I gone through Rich's experience of divinity school, it might well have produced a lifelong distaste for all things Christian. > > Art: Right now I am discussing that with one of my tutorial students. He is > asking it in reference to Blake's non-analytical approach. Too much > structure crushes direct religious experience. No critical or analytic > perspective can lead to being taken over by the contents of the collective > unconsciousness. I tend to think that both approaches must be viewed in > tandem. To experience and withhold analysis momentarily is the best bet as > long as you are not drawing conclusions about what you are experiencing. I > like to see life as metaphor and capable of change so I see whatever I > experience as true mythically but not immune from analytical critique. Go > with the flow, trusting in the Source to guide you, and then use your > analytical perspectives to form hypothesis concerning what you experience. Thank you and Jerry. I think this aspect of your counsel blends well with his; that is, try to alternate between immersion and detachment, learning something from the juxtaposition. > is produced? How are you altered? This to me is very important. I don't > like the spiritual hedonism of the New Age idea that you just ride the > experiential roller coaster and never subject your experience to any > principle of self critique. That's perhaps a swing of the pendulum to the opposite extreme of formalized, fossilized religion that isn't open to experience outside a narrow range of approved ones. Ideally, we are headed to a balance point at which the raw experience can be cooked by analysis without losing its flavor. Namaste From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 11:23:03 GMT From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Fundamentalism A curious phenomena - has the theos-l list actually attracted the first manifestation of its shadow? -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 12:43:16 GMT From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: Toward an Inclusive Dialogue Liesel- Couldn't agree with you more. While Daniel prob'ly appears to most here to be the spiritual equivilent of a child (albiet a somewhat nasty, arrogant one), it occurs to me that this is a judgement that is quite relative to one's state of development - in fact, I wonder whether to the eyes of *our* "elder brothers" our arguing, understandings and interpretations of their philosophy don't seem every bit as narrow and judgemental from their perspective as Daniel does from ours. In fact, throughout the Mahatma Letters there are subtle hints of the almost superhuman patience it took to deal with western humans - especially some of those who really *did* believe they had a complete grasp of what the Masters "wanted". Thank the stars their patience was as long as their wisdom is deep. Even better, it occured to me today that it may not be altogether a coincidence that Daniel would appear right around the time when this list seems to be greatly intensifying its activity - almost really coming to life - and that further, one of the dominant threads concerned discussions about what "core" teachings are, about what ought to be properly considered Theosophy and what ought to be *excluded* ... Daniel really does, to me, appear to be an almost classic shadow figure, and as the reactions to Theosophy's light vary widely, so too do reactions to its shadow, spanning the range between attempting to approach him as though he was a complete equal to wanting him to disappear altogether (neither of which, (IMO), are adequate approaches). My own original reaction was to regard him as a wonderful bit of comic relief, then over time he started to get kinda dull and tedious and more than a little mean, and I was about to agree that maybe it was time to just shove him out the cyberdoor .... but it suddenly occured to me what a marvelous gift this fellow is: He has forced the list beyond the very comfortable realm of abstract intellectual and spiritual discussion and posed a question of a far more difficult nature - how does our exalted philosophy reify into *attitudes and behaviour* when confronted by a person and a set of beliefs that appear to be far narrower (and incapable of expansion) than we consider ourselves and our beliefs to be? Must this very dilemma not be solved by the Masters every time they wish to attempt to deal with humans? Has not Daniel (as those who carry shadows tend to do) not been remarkably successful at ... exposing us to ourselves? Even further (while I'm on this inspired (tee hee) line of thought) - were I to envision the Masters, sitting in the Himalayas, listening to the many voices of our race, and desirous of keeping the spiritual currents that manifest to our eyes as the world's great religions clean and uplifting ... might it not appear that the huge rise in fundamentalisms across the world was a profound and disturbing problem for our race - as a sort of acid eating away at and degrading some of the most beautiful religious sentiments we are fortunate to possess (and that, perhaps, some of *them* labored to inspire)? And just perhaps (though I do *not* claim to speak for the Masters) because their perspective and compassion *does* embrace *all* of humanity - to effectively work, *they* cannot banish those who are uncomfortable from *their* planetary "listserv" - they must (in my perhaps fanciful and deluded view of them) attempt to *solve* the problem. So, were you in their place, looking at the great damage fundamentalisms were doing to the world's religions, and attempting to solve this problem (*without* being able to in any way step on the free will of humans) ... how might you do this? Might you not cast your vision across the globe towards those many individuals and groups that claim to wish to serve you, that have been enriched by the gifts you've offered, and might you not *delibrately* place them in contact with some of these fundamentalisms ... thereby to perhaps discover the models by which those densities called fundamentalisms might be expanded ... and hence dissipated? Postulating this, what does our list have? A classic fundamentalist taking his shots, a world of the wisdom of the Masters to draw from, and even, at the very beginning of the process, a most remarkable and inspired post from one of our members that (looked at from the right angle) is nothing less than a *precise* inner roadmap of the path that must be travelled to expand a fundamentalism into a beautifully compassionate viewpoint. It might be far more comfortable to simply boot the fellow and return to the world of the study of esoteric writings - but the huge rise in intense fundamentalisms is (IMO) a *serious* and growing spiritual problem in human civilization (perhaps as dangerous at the end of *this* century as the Masters saw the rise of rational, materialistic thought to be at the end of the last) and I cannot help but feel that trying to get rid of Daniel (whether though technological banishment or total avoidance) would be a decision to decline an opportunity for each of us to do some serious self- examination, and even further, an opportunity to serve humanity in a way that it *needs*. Fundamentalism won't (IMO) just go away, it is not a mood, but a *problem*, a profound spiritual problem, that must be solved - and very few people seem up to the task of seeking to discover those solutions. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 14:47:01 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: RE: CWL on Mars RE: CWL and Mars: It appears that several people have assumed that the CWL material on Mars that I posted was taken from ~Man Whence How and Whither~. This is not the case. The material was transcribed from 1917 edition of ~The Inner Life~, but it is also found in the first (1910) edition, though removed from the edition published around 1986. My earlier comments concerning the extensive editing of ~Man Whence How and Whither~ was not in reference to Mars material, but to material concerning the world teacher (i.e. Krishnamurti) and other subjects. My apologies for any lack of clarity in my original post that may have led to this confusion. Lewis Lucas wrote: LL>I am suggesting that CWL should be read with as open a mind as >one is capable of...realizing that we all have some bias or >prejudice. We agree on this. LL>To demand that others be always consistent with the views >expressed by themselves or others seems unreasonable to me. I >would not be inclined to discount all that Mark Furman has said >because he lied about some other things. I find his behavior >*understandable* but do not condone it. Self consistency is not the issue I was addressing. I was only describing my thought process for determining that Fuhrman is a racist, which we agree that he is. I agree that we not necessarily discount *all* that he says, however, whatever he says concerning O.J. Simpson's arrest must be viewed in light of his racist attitudes and activities. In the case of CWL, we know that he lied about his age, his family circumstances, about having a brother etc. I agree that this does not mean that we discount everything he says, but it tells me that CWL is capable of and does sometimes lie. LL> If you are saying there are no civilizations on Mars, CWL >either was lying or deluded, and we cannot take anything else >he said seriously, then I would disagree. I'm saying that CWL's clairvoyant observations of Mars are not what the Viking cameras observed. For me, this fact throws question upon CWL's clairvoyant abilities. Over the years I have accumulated many more examples of CWL's clairvoyant observations which do not stand up to what we now know. Each incident throws greater doubt upon his abilities. I know of no incidents of clairvoyant observations of something that he could not have known in advance that have been confirmed though our growing knowledge of our environment. But please advise me if you know of any. LL>While I cannot prove to others that what he wrote about is >true, I also cannot prove them wrong either. Proof is a difficult word. For instance, there is no proof for those who are not open to it. Perhaps "reasonable evidence" might be a better word. What would be reasonable evidence for a group of people judging CWL's writings who do not have a vested interest one way or another. That, for the sake of argument disqualifies us and probably most people on this board. For those who are not vested in this question, I would suggest that the fact that the Viking landers and orbiters found no evidence of Martian canals, forests, cities etc. would be reasonable evidence that CWL's clairvoyant observations were wrong in this case. LL> While I have read many of CWL's books, I don't recall him >ever making such a claim. [i.e. of being an adept]. This was E.S. material--not public. Find an E.S. member who goes back to about 1930 and ask about CWL's occult status. LL> Maybe the problem here is one of definition. I thought >another post had pointed out that even adepts are not infallible >while operating on the lower planes in nature. Can you find the reference? JHE>> Another explanation I heard once was that the cities are >>there exactly as CWL described, but the Martians did not wish >>to be seen so they created a mayavi over the Viking cameras so >>that they would only record desert. LL> HPB describes an incident in which she bets a rickshaw >driver he cannot find the house he had just taken her to. She, >too, believed that it was possible to hide from view places. Yes HPB has lots of stories about psychologizing people so that they don't see what is in front of them. The Indian rope trick works on this principle. But how do you psychologize a camera? As I mentioned, we need to be careful about reaching for explanations in order to hold on to a cherished belief. Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 15:17:59 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: source teachings RE: Source teachings: >I claim to write for Mahatmas. Send $100 for further details. >:-)))) > >Alan I claim to be the Mahatma that Alan writes for. Send $200 for further details. :-))))) Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 16:31:57 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Toward an Inclusive Dialogue Dear Rich, When Daniel first wrote us those great love notes, I said "what's the use". Trying to persuade a fanatic is like banging your head against the wall. What's more I have a thing against people like that, because I've watched them become dangerous. We all have. The Senate's Waco hearings were just last week aired again on C-span. I changed my mind, when I read Art P.'s replies, because here was a chance to maybe help a human being hurt himself a little less & maybe hurt others a little less as well. I think it's worthwhile to try to ameliorate these kinds of vibes afoot in the world, if one can, & I think maybe Art 's talking from a standpoint which understands Daniel better than we do, might help. So as long as Art is willing to talk, I'm willing to give him theos-l space. I don't think it's untheosophical. For 1 thing, we are our brother's keeper, & for another, to be of service is one of our basic aims. To me, trying to get Daniel off his narrow & restricted & utterly bigoted view is also self preservation. In Communist Russia, Theosophists were sent to Siberia. When Art gets tired of it, or when Daniel does, then let's quit. maybe they'll get somewheres before then. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 16:41:08 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Former Christian So nu, Daniel. Are you saying that Moses was a Schmo because he didn't go to schul? He wasn't such a Schmo because as a Prince of Egypt he was, for sure, taught how to read & write, even if it wasn't from the Torah yet. Even I know that & I have yet to read the Bible. Liesel Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 16:53:59 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: euswr@xs4all.nl Jerry, I too think he knows his stuff. I learned a lot from him. His workshop was packed full of much more material than you could absorb. I spent the money for 13 tapes of the workshop, & have gone over these several more times. Each time I learn something more. Glad you said that you like him, because when I wrote that his courses are expensive, I know that turns some Theosophists off as to his validity. He said he lives off the money his writings make, & the money from the courses accrue to Aloha International, whose aim is to train shamans all over the world. Serge thinks the time is ripe & that such healers are needed. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 17:48:12 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: scholarship > I can see your point, that for theosophy to gain more > acceptance and credibility it would seem it could benefit from > the work of scholars in theosophy, Amen >but this reminds me of a > Mahatma letter to Sinnet in which they tell him they were not > interested in establishing a school for western intellectuals, >that they had not broken the silence of centuries for the >benefit of a few western european scholars. They were interested >in reaching the masses. I can't be sure, but I think you might have put two different statements together: "The Chiefs want a Brotherhood of Humanity, a real universal fraternity started; an institution which would make itself known throughout the world and arrest the attention of the highest minds." (ML 6) and "But a "hot bed of Magick" we never dreamt of. Such an organization as mapped out by Mr. Sinnett and yourself is unthinkable among Europeans; and it has become next to impossible even to India..." (ML 28) Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 17:53:54 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Jeremiah > > As to Chistian teachings... > It is clear that God knew us before we were born. It is also > clear in biblical teachings that we were not formed until > we were in the womb. > Jeremiah 1: > is a good example. > > Daniel > It is no such thing. The writing claims to be Jeremiah's account of Jeremiah's experience of what God said to Jeremiah. Even if the text is accepted at face value, God states *only* that Jeremiah was known before he was born. (Verse 4). Clearly you cannot properly read your own source material. By all means "search the scriptures" as Paul advises, but do not dare to presume thst *your* interpretation is superior to that of (say) the author of the book of Jeremiah. How do you interpret Matthew 19:10ff I wonder? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 18:03:25 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Psychism Jerry, PS I like "Happiness vs. suffering rather than good vs evil". I hadn't thought of it in exactly that way. It fits in nicely with my Buddhist belief in Ignorance rather than evil. Thanks. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 18:07:21 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Self and Jung's View of Spiritual Reality Thanks Jerry S. for your post on Jung and Self. Here are some additional insights into Jung's understanding of the self and its relationship to the spiritual life (experiential religion). I was studying the journal keeping methods of Ira Progoff when I discussed the following question. I am not sure that Jung is a theosophist but I have come to agree with Hoeller that Jung is definitely a gnostic. 4. What is Jung's conception of religion and how does it relate to his concept of the Self? When I first began reading Jung's works as a graduate student I believed that I had come across a depth psychologist who affirmed the existence of God. I read Jung to support my particular brand of religiosity, neo-evangelicalism. I was please when I read of Jung's apparent pietism, expressed in the sculpting of the words, "Summoned or unsummoned God is there.", over his door in Zurich. I was encouraged as I read how he would direct his analysand's back to their traditional roots, and that he was convinced that the religious attitude is the key to working with dysfunction beyond middle age. Jung spoke glowingly of religious experience, especially symbolic experience and how it lead to a transformation which I could only interpret spiritually. I was especially stuck when I discovered his emphasis on the transformed psyche, In this way there arises in consciousness which is not longer imprisoned in the petty, oversensitive, personal world of the ego, but participates freely in the wider world of objective interests.. bring the individual into the absolute, binding, indissolvable communion with the world at large. The goal of spirituality "the transcendence of the ego" echoed the Pauline promise that humankind has become a new Creation, old things have passed away. Over time, while still realizing that Jung appreciated the symbolic in the Christian system of thought, I discovered that he also had a deep and pervasive criticism of Christianity which, although hard to catch on to at first, resulted in a shift of my own understanding of faith and religious experience. The tension between Jung's faith enriching and debunking approach caused me to remember his challenge to theologians and pastors which he wrote to William Temple the Archbishop of Canterbury, Please send me an intelligent young theologian, I will lead him into the night of the soul so that one of them at least may know what he is actually dealing with. I did not expect that inwardly taking up the challenge would have such an effect on my life. Through the influence of Jung and other Jungians such as Edinger and Dourley, I had modified my revelationally based understanding of religion to a modern perspective of faith as an experience of inwardly felt trust in a universal process of transformation that Jung called Individuation. The question I am to answer concerning the religious implications of the Self has been far from strictly theoretical since Jungian insights transformed my religious perspective. When Jung spoke of "religion" he did not have in mind a tradition such as Christian, Buddhist etc., but a category of experience. Religion is described empirically and experientially. He says, I want to make clear that by the term religion I do not mean a creed. It is however true that every creed is originally based on the one hand upon the experience of the numninosum and on the other hand upon faith, that is to say, trust or loyalty, faith and confidence in a certain experience of a numinous nature and in the change consciousness that ensues. The nature of this numinous experience is described in terms very similar to such thinkers as Meister Eckhart, Paul Tillich, Rudolf Otto, William James and Teilhard De Chardin, Religion appears to me to be a peculiar attitude of mind which could be formulated in accordance with the original use of the word, religio, which means a careful consideration and observation of certain dynamic factors that are conceived as "powers": spirits, daemons, gods, ideas, ideals, or whatever name man has given to such factors in his world as he has found powerful dangerous, or helpful enough to be taken into careful consideration, or grand and beautiful and meaningful enough to be devoutly worshipped or loved... We might say that religion designates the attitude peculiar to a consciousness which has been changed by experience of the numinosum. What is true of religion is equally true of his empirical approach to the Self the organizing, compensating, and guiding archetype of human wholeness. Intellectually the self is no more than a psychological concept, a construct that serves to express an unknowable essence which we cannot grasp as such, since by definition it transcends our powers of comprehension. It might equally well be called the God within us. The beginnings of our whole psychic life seem inextricably rooted in this point, and all our highest and ultimate purposes seem to be striving toward it. Jung writes in Memories, Dream and Reflections, God-image is a term derived from the Church Fathers... the imago dei is imprinted on the human soul. When such an image is spontaneously produced in dreams, fantasy, visions, etc., it is from a psychological point of view, a symbol of the self, or psychic wholeness. It is in this clear distinction between God in and of Godself and the image of God as a psychological construct threatens those inclined to orthodox Christianity. Jung explains his approach to God, It would be a regrettable mistake if anybody should take my observations as a kind of proof for the existence of God. They prove only the existence of an archetypal God-image, which to my mind is the most we can assert about God psychologically. But is it an important and influential archetype, its relatively frequent occurrence seems to be noteworthy fact for any theologia naturalis. What is true of God is also applicable to the Self, Progoff attests to the empirical and thereby non-metaphysical nature of the self, as he finally developed his conception, however, it does not depend at all on metaphysical or philosophical substructure. Actually it derives from empirical material to a much greater extent than the abstract, semi-religious formulation might suggest. The Self being a symbol is therefore multi-valent and like God or the unconscious itself can be approached from several directions. Frank Bockus summarizes the many ways the Self is viewed in the collected writings of Jung, >From one point of view , the self is the total system of the psyche. It is the superordinate system in relation to which the various structures and subsystems of mind stand. From a second viewpoint, the self is a centralizing tendency of the psyche as a whole. It is the central point and function around which are clustered and integrated all structures and dynamics. As one moves toward selfhood, one moves toward self hood, one moves toward greater integrity and individuality. One becomes the unique center of one's personal history. From yet another standpoint, the self is the whole within which and in relation to which progressive differentiation and complexity proceed. The distinct structures of the self must be viewed in relation to the larger ground to which all are related. From a fourth vantage point the Self can be understood as the goal of human development. But this goal, grounded in a collective base, can be reached from a variety of developmental histories. Finally, the self, in yet another aspect, is an archetypal tendency which predisposes us toward human development. The Archetypal Self The Self is then the ground out of which all archetypes emerge as well as the goal of wholeness toward which the human organism strives. It is the raw material and guiding purpose. Progoff is right in quoting Jung's phrase as being extremely revealing as to the nature of the Self, "Jung uses the idea of an acorn having a dream in which the future development of the tree was symbolized." The similarity of approach between the archetype of the Self and God is revealed by comparing two quotes the first is from Jung and applies to the Self. The second is from the seventeenth Century German hymnist Angelus Silesius. Jung says, the Self is the ordering and unifying center of the total psyche (conscious and unconscious), while at the same time the Self is the whole sphere - the Self is both the center and the circumference of the psyche. The Self incorporates all the other archetypes into a paradoxical unity, transcending any attempt to contain or define it. Silesius, probably expanding on Bonaventure's phrase, "God is a circle whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere.", says, "God is my center when I close him in, and my circumference when I melt in him." The similarity between the God-Image and the Self is arresting. Both are considered to be the center and the circumference of life. Roman Catholic priest John Dourley poignantly reveals the dilemma of exchanging the Self and the God image freely, The possibility of a deity-engendering faculty with in the psyche is understandably a threat to a Christianity still largely committed to living the burden of its religious projections understood for the most part literally and historically. Specifically, the direct connection between the Self and God or the God-Image is a threat to any exclusivity of traditional revelation as the definitive understanding of God. Secondly it questions the long held tradition of God being "totally other than Creation". Filtered through Jungian thought the God-Image of the Bible like the Self needs to be made conscious thereby revealing a less than prefect deity who is in need of his creation for his own redemption. This conception has parallels in both the mystical panentheism of Eckhart as well as the recent Process theological views of Whitehead and Cobb. To put it in Progoff's terms Jung's insights potentially contain not only the seeds of the death and rebirth of psychology but also the death and rebirth of religion and spirituality. To use an offshoot of James Hillman's idea there needs to be a Revisioning of Religion based on the empirical understanding of the ground of the Self in the human psyche, and beyond it, rather than merely revealed religion which is not universal enough to be an adequate symbol for modern seekers. Christianity is a likely candidate to move beyond creedalism in that it propounds as a central thesis that "unless a grain falls into the ground it cannot bring forth fruit". The breaking of the wineskins no longer applies to its original referent first century Judaism but is now in a position to critique Christianity itself. Dourley comments on this possibility, In the face of this problem, Christianity, with its central symbol of death and resurrection, could be the candidate among the monotheisms to break the impasse and to affirm itself by transcending itself - to die in its present configuration in order to rise in some form of more inclusive consciousness. Jung himself believed that Christianity had a unique role to play in the psycho-spiritual life of modern people, It is therefore well to examine carefully the psychological aspects of the individuation process in the light of Christian tradition, which can describe it for us with an exactness and impressiveness far surpassing our feeble attempts... As I continue my studies on the religious implications of the Self in the future, I feel that I must come face to face with the question that Jung posed in Aion about Christ as the Symbol of the Self. Modern psychology is therefore confronted with a question very like the one that faced the alchemists: Is the self a symbol of Christ or is Christ a symbol of the self? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 18:12:19 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: "source teachings" > > Yes, and anyone who CLAIMS to write for Mahatmas is sure to get a following, > whether those claims are true or false. > > Rich > I claim to write for Mahatmas. Send $100 for further details. :-)))) Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 18:16:14 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: "source teachings" > Rich, > > I would think that HPB & WQJudge would consider themselves > "students" as well. > > Liesel So would I. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 18:17:56 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Wrong group GO AWAY - THIS IS A LIST FOR DISCUSSIONS ON THEOSOPHY. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 18:24:00 GMT From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: source teachings >>I claim to write for Mahatmas. Send $100 for further details. >>:-)))) >> >>Alan > I claim to be the Mahatma that Alan writes for. Send $200 >for further details. :-))))) > >Jerry Hejka-Ekins I claim to be a humble student of their writings. Send help! :-))))))))))))) [Oh, yeah, and I insist that nothing other than *their* writings can be considered valid and *true*heosophy. :-))) ] -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Sep 1995 23:03:32 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Eldon on Politics in the AT Jerry: "I have a hard time swallowing the idea that she gave us a clear and well-defined path to tread. In fact, I have found very little that she offered us as a path. " You can't be serious? There is the VOICE OF THE SILENCE, which is pretty explicit in its directions, and LIGHT ON THE PATH, which she didn't write personally, but HPB indicated that it was dictated by a Master, and judging from the contents, I would say it strikes me that way too. The "laundry list" for chelas is not just for officially accepted chelas, but for all of us who would like to enter into contact with the Masters. Things like not touching people or animals are probably not helpful at our stage, granted, but many of the other requirements are certainly within our grasp, if we try. HPB's articles talk about abortion and suicide and meditation and food, and a hundred other practical things. She warns against many things, like exoteric Christianity, hypnotism and selfish thinking, and she reinforces many things, such as the pursuit of wisdom as a path in itself (JNANA-Yoga). We also can't forget that HPB had a partner in the work for the public, a founder of the T.S. from the beginning, an accepted chela of K.H., someone HPB called "my best and ONLY friend," her representative in America and the Head of the Esoteric Section after her death: that person was William Q. Judge. HPB called his magazine in America ("the Path") the Buddhi of the movement, while hers was the Manas ("Lucifer"). When you take Mr. Judge's writings with HPB's, there is an even more rounded-our practical path. Mr. Judge teaches about applying such ideas as karma, reincarnation and cycles universally and practically in daily life. He speaks of concentration, meditation and will, and he gave us the Bhagavad-Gita in great translation for meditation and study. He laid out lines of work for Theosophical branches, and lines for work that bring one closer to the Adepts. He was the epitome of the perfect student, and that was perhaps one of the primary reasons he was sent to us, as a role model for us who are the students of HPB. If these two parts of the Theosophical teachings aren't practical and laying down a path (which granted is personal and tread in individual ways) I guess I don't know what "practical" means. For me, it is not an intellectual path most of the time, but a minute-by-minute consideration of my dharma or duty, and an acceptance of karma or conditions. What is the best, most spiritual way to be and to work when we accept where we find ourselves? How can we best serve humanity, and approach the state of the Masters? Because as HPB indicates, we can't expect to drag Them down to our level, we need to raise ourselves up to Theirs, where we can have free and unhindered intercourse with that Divine source of strength and insight. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Sep 1995 01:23:24 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Toward an Inclusive Dialogue JRC: I appreciate your patient approach, but there is also the fact that time is precious, life is short, and people make their own choices. Daniel has made his, and I for one really have no hope of taking up dialogue. As for what the Masters may think (Daniel will *love* this one ...) the "Master" Jesus said "resist not evil" and that's a good tack. Let others do their worst, even if you think it's really quite evil (and I have had ample experience to prove to me the utter destruction off fundamentalism to the psyche and morale). The energy you spend RESISTING the evil could have been better spent doing PRODUCTIVE GOOD. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Sep 1995 01:27:22 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Mish-mash or no mish-mash? Jerry: "Theosophy teaches material that can be found, here and there, scattered throughout the world's religions, all tied together with some new materials. How can it help from being "hodge-podge" in that sense? HPB quotes Montaigne as saying "I have here made only a nosegay of culled flowers, and have brought nothing of my own but the string that ties them" (SD, Vol I, p. xivi). A "nosegay of culled flowers" is, in a sense, a hodge-podge. However, the "string" that links them is the real key that theosophy offers." No, no, and again I say no. Theosophy is a distinct path, it is the practice and study of the Great lodge through all time, at least if we are correctly understanding HPB. Theosophy does not teach Buddhism or Christianity PER SE, but mentions certain aspects of them as helpful comparisons to what the Masters intended to teach. The REASON that HPB and her teachers bothered to bring in stuff from all other religions and cultures was that no one would bother to study Theosophy in such a skeptical age if it couldn't be shown to have some objective legitimacy. IF HPB were to say "just follow this path I show, in 25 years you will be a chela and understand everything" in 19th century Europe, would a single person have signed up? Rather, traces of past Theosophical thinkers and workers needed to be shown, in every culture, in every epoch. This is the single greatest mistake newcomers make with Theosophy as well. They think "synthesis" means "eclectic." It doesn't. (Try a dictionary if you doubt it.) A synthesis is harmonizing what truly is from a homogeneous source. And that is the thesis of the Masters -- all religions are sprung from a common trunk ("Pre-Vedic Buddhism and Brahmanism") and must now be made to merge back into their parent source. The Masters preserve and practice that esoteric parent source which has existed unchanged through the millenia -- or so Theosophy teaches. Theosophy is not constructed A POSTERIORI (after the fact) from bits and pieces that HPB happened to run across. It is a LIVING tradition among the Adepts, and not a theoretical jargon and mish-mash thrown together just to make the Secret Doctrine publication. Theosophy is A PRIORI the philosophical study of Nature, its laws and processes, and it forms the VEHICLE of attaining our highest natural state. Wherever the Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, Neo-platonists, Brahmins etc. have been successful in this, HPB quotes with approval. She also criticizes all these traditions harshly for their blatant and not-so-blatant failures. What is her yardstick to judge? If Theosophy is truly a hodge-pode, how then can all organized religions be criticized? This is a nonsensical idea. The Masters do not live and teach some vague consortium of religious practices, doing puja one day, Catholic Mass the next, and attending a bar-mitzvah the third. Their path is what lies behind all exoteric paths, that white light out of which all colored light comes. Insofar as Theosophy is the truth, of course it can be found here and there -- IN PART. But it is much, much more than a compilation and comparison of world tradition -- this was merely an exercise to show us little moles that there is a pursuit here and a discipline worth studying. But beyond exoteric Theosophy, there is Occultism, that single, certain knowledge of nature's mysteries, which again, are not a hodge-podge but a single, organic whole. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Sep 1995 01:27:27 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: "source teachings" Alan, I won't send you $100 but I MIGHT send you a special hat to wear when your "Class Clown" mood strikes you ... Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Sep 1995 01:27:44 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: More PSYCHIC AND NOETIC (2) Let's see if I can't do any better this time. Skipping ahead to a good part (in a LONG article) ******************************* HPB, "Psychic and Noetic Action" Having explained in what particulars, and why, as Occultists, we disagree with materialistic physiological psychology, we may now proceed to point out the difference between psychic and noetic mental functions, the noetic not being recognized by official science. Moreover, we, Theosophists, understand the terms "psychic" and "psychism" somewhat differently from the average public, science, and even theology, the latter giving it a significance which both science and Theosophy reject, and the public in general remaining with a very hazy conception of what is really meant by the terms. For many, there is little, if any, difference between "psychic" and "psychological," both words relating in some way to the HUMAN soul. Some modern metaphysicicans have wisely agreed to disconnect the word Mind (PNEUMA) from Soul (PSYCHE), the one being the rational, spiritual part, the other--PSYCHE--the living principle in man, the breath that animates him (from ANIMA, soul). Yet if this is so, how in this case refuse a soul to ANIMALS? These are, no less than man, informed with the same principle of sentient life, the NEPHESH of the 2nd chapter of Genesis. The Soul is by no means the Mind, nor can an idiot, bereft of the latter, be called a "soul-less" being. To describe, as the physiologists do, the human Soul in its relations to senses and appetites, desires and passions, common to man and the brute, and then endow it with God-like intellect, with spiritual and rational faculties which can take their source but in a SUPERSENSIBLE world--is to throw for ever the veil of an impenetrable mystery ove the subject. Yet in modern science, "psychology" and "psychism" relate only to conditions of the nervous system, mental phenomena being traced solely to molecular action. The higher NOETIC character of the Mind-Principle is entirely ignored, and even rejected as a "superstition" by both physiologists and psychologists. Psychology, in fact, has become a synonym in many cases for the science of psychiatry. Therefore, students of Theosophy being compelled to differ from all these, have adopted the doctrine that underlies the time-honored philosophies of the East. What is is, may be found further on. To better understand the foregoing arguments and those which follow, the reader is asked to turn to the editorial in the September LUCIFER ("the Dual Aspect of Wisdom," p. 3), and acquaint himself with the DOUBLE ASPECT of that which is termed by St. James in his Third Epistle at once--the DEVILISH, TERRESTRIAL wisdom, and the "wisdom from above." In another editorial, "Kosmic Mind" (April, 1890), it is also stated, that the ancient Hindus endowed every cell of the human body with consciousness, giving each the name of a God or Goddess. Speaking of atoms in the name of science and philosophy, Professor Ladd calls them in his work "supersensible beings." Occultism regards every atom (one of the names of Brahma is ANU or "atom") as an "independent entity" and every cell as a "conscious unit." It explains that no sooner do such atoms group to form cells, than the latter become endowed with consciousness, each of its own kind, and with FREE-WILL TO ACT WITHIN the limits of law. Nor are we entirely deprived of scientific evidence for such statements are the two above-named editorials well prove. More than one learned physiologist of the golden minority, in our own day, moreover, is rapidly coming to the conviction, that memory has no seat, no special organ of its own in the human brain, but that it has SEATS in every organ of the body. "No good ground exists for speaking of any special organ, or seat of memory," writes Professor G.T. Ladd. "Every organ indeed, every area, and every limit of the nervous system has its own memory." (p. 553 loc. cit.) The seat of memory, then, is assuredly neither here nor there, but everywhere throughout the human body. To locate its organ in the brain is to limit and dwarf the Universal Mind and its countless Rays (the MANASA-PUTRA) which inform every rational mortal. As we write for Theosophists, first of all, we care little for the psychophobian prejudices of the Materialists who may read this and sniff contemptusously as the mention of "Universal Mind" as the Higher NOETIC souls of men. But, what IS memory, we ask. "Both presentation of sense and image of memory, are transitory phases of consciousness," we are answered. But what is Consciousness itself?--we ask again. "We cannot define Consciousness," Professor Ladd tells us.... Hypothesis for hypothesis, then, we may as well hold to the teachings of our Seers, as to the conjectures of those who deny both such Seers and their wisdom. ... Now, since the metaphysics of Occult physiology and psychology postulate within mortal man an immortal entity, "divine Mind," or NOUS, whose pale and too often distorted reflection is that which we call "Mind" and intellect in men--virtually an entity apart from the former during the period of every incarnation--we say that the TWO sources of "memory" are in these two "principles." These two we distinguish as the Higher MANAS (Mind or Ego), and the KAMA-MANAS, i.e. the rational, but earthly or physical intellect of man, incased in, and bound by, matter, therefore subject to the influence of the latter: the all-conscious SELF, that which reincarnates periodically--verily the WORD made flesh!--and which is always the same, while its reflected "Double," changing with every new incarnation and personality, is, therefore, conscious but for a life-period. The latter "principle" is the LOWER Self, or that, which manifesting through our ORGANIC system, acting on this plane of illusion, imagines itself the EGO SUM, and thus falls into what Buddhist philosophy brands as the "heresy of separateness." The former, we term INDIVIDUALITY, the latter, Personality. From the first proceeds all the NOETIC element, from the second, the PSYCHIC, i.e. "terrestrial wisdom" at best, as it is influenced by all the chaotic stimuli of the human or rather ANIMAL PASSIONS of the living body. The "Higher Ego" cannot act directly on the body, as its consciousness belongs to quite another plane and planes of ideation; the "lower" SELF does: and its action and behavior will DEPEND ON ITS FREE WILL AND CHOICE as to whether it will gravitate more towards its parent ("the Father in Heaven") or the "animal" which it informs, the man of flesh. ****************** All for now kids, it's 2:30 AM and it's been a long day. Probably more tomorrow. Is ANY of this article interesting for our discussion? --FEEDBACK REQUESTED-- Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Sep 1995 15:36:08 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Re: PSYCHIC and the NOETIC >I don't >think a diagram of planes will be of practical value in our study of >ourselves and our own consciousness, high and low. It is as good a way as any of representing the different levels or vibrations of consciousness. The use of illustrations has proven of great value in the understanding of these matters. - Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Sep 1995 15:40:18 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Re: Psychism Were you referring to me in this?: >Your posting is full of good and evil, and right and wrong, and I am >always saddened when I see this in theosophists. Compare your posting to >some of Daniel's postings and you will see the similarity. Just as fear can >be dissipated by love, so can the very notion of evil and the fear of it that >you seem to keep expressing. My word! The ideas expressed are no different than those expressed by HPB as to the healthiest approach to the path. As far as human evolution goes there is right and wrong/good and evil, but the promotion of fear is evil while the promotion of love and compassion and right solutions is good. >I like "Happiness vs. suffering rather than good vs evil". I >hadn't thought of it in exactly that way Works beautifully. Peace, Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Sep 1995 16:08:05 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Planes: PSYCHIC and the NOETIC I went to my trusty SD index and found about twenty references to "planes" from the "four and three" to the "noumenal", "kosmos", etc. A wonderful way to express the ideas of psychic and noetic. It seems, in relation to humanity, that the noetic would operate on the higher when we have attained sufficient awareness or realization of those planes. - Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Sep 1995 16:09:38 GMT From: Geraldjs@aol.com Subject: Re: to Liesel on Group Souls Eldon: Eldon is speaking the party line here, but I have to differ. I see the whole thing as a vast cycle with evolution on the downward Arc of Descent, and involution on the upward Arc of Ascent. I would say that your (1) is, in fact, also a heterogenous unity, although I can't even imagine what a "heterogeneous unity" would be. It would appear to be a contradiction of terms (a paradox, no doubt). Perhaps (1) and (3) are both homogenous and heterogenous depending on how you want to look at it (?). Whatever the case, I can't see how (1) can possibly differ from (3). But I know that this particular thought (which seems to give the whole peregrination business some kind of deep progress) is cherished by many theosophists including G de P (with whom I seldom take exception). This notion (which I have to assume comes from an ignorance of what "outside space-time" means) tells us that at the end of each manvantara, we are "higher" than when we started. Perhaps we will find ourselves on a higher subplane, but how this fits in with spacelessness and timelessness I can't imagine. Perhaps Eldon can answer this question: Is our manvantaric progess an evolution or an involution? This kind of a legitimite question cannot be answered, because there is no answer. For every involution there must be a corresponding involution somewhere. I don't think that theosophists have fully thought this one out. Perhaps the early theosophical writers were just echoed the human desire for some kind of an objective or meaning to a manvantara. My own belief is that we do it to express ourselves because self-expression is an inherent divine quality, and we simply need no other reason. But, perhaps I am being too mystical here, and so I won't fault anyone who wants to think that manvantaras are spiral. But I do want to let everyone know that I, at least, think that they are cyclical, the circle being the ancient symbol for existence, not the spiral. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Sep 1995 16:09:41 GMT From: Geraldjs@aol.com Subject: Re: Channelling ... Alan: You offer a very practical methodology. I use it myself. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Sep 1995 16:09:49 GMT From: Geraldjs@aol.com Subject: Re: Group souls or Individuality Eldon: While I agree with you here, once again we can raise the question of just how we can tell who is legitimite from who is not. Certainly the idea of Masters, both embodied and disembodied, is of long-standing tradition in the East. HPB used the term nirmanakaya for a disembodied Master (which is not the Tibetan, or even the Mahayana, definition). I certainly agree with the teaching, and when uplifting ideas or inspirational thoughts come to my mind, I like to think that such a One is sending them out into the world for our benefit (I suppose Daniel would say that they are proofs that Jesus lives. To each his own). Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Sep 1995 19:04:34 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Hat Alan -- ---- Yes --- Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Sep 1995 19:04:49 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: A higher manvantara Jerry S. "This kind of legitimate question cannot be answered, because there is no answer. [???] For every involution there must be a corresponding involution somewhere. I don't think that theosophists have fully thought this one out. Perhaps the early theosophical writers were just echoed the human desire for some kind of an objective or meaning to a manvantara. at the end of each manvantara, we are "higher" than when we started... Perhaps we will find ourselves on a higher subplane, but how this fits in with spacelessness and timelessness I can't imagine. " ******************** Well, H.P.B. is not alone in her "error," all the Tibetan Buddhists and Hindus believe that each evolution gains greater and greater awareness, in the same way each reincarnation is said to evolve the inner person. People are fixated with the idea of "planes" and "subplanes" lately and I can't figure out why. Planes are just grades of matter. The statement "at the end of each manvantara ... Perhaps we will find ourselves on a higher subplane" has no meaning. A manvantara is the evolution on, of, and in all planes and grades at once. The souls do not have individual existence at the end of a manvantara, but merge into the great One Life, which does not exist at all, on any plane or grade, let alone sub-planes. It is Be-ness, behind all existence. At the succeeding manvantara, ALL the planes and grades of matter manifest according to what transpired in the preceeding cycle, with the energy re-emerging from laya to seek involution and evolution once more. "We" as the One Life do not evolve, but our vehicles and self-awareness evolve with each manvantara on each and every plane, and the planes themselves become more refined as well. What this has to do with the price of tea in China I couldn't say. Is this somehow practical to us? Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Sep 1995 19:08:36 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Planes and diagrams Patrick: "I went to my trusty SD index and found about twenty references to "planes" from the "four and three" to the "noumenal", "kosmos", etc. A wonderful way to express the ideas of psychic and noetic. It seems, in relation to humanity, that the noetic would operate on the higher when we have attained sufficient awareness or realization of those planes." No, that is not what HPB is saying, read the next installment. The noetic operates on ALL planes and does not depend on our awareness. What does matter is if we can make the psychic receptive to the noetic or not. Are you reading the article or just coming up with your own stuff? The human principles CORRESPOND to planes, but they are not identical with them. You will not find the human principle "manas" only on the "Manasic" cosmic plane or Globe "E" of the earth, for example. Manas is a principle which pierces up and down through all the planes, and has an analogue in every one of the seven states of consciousness, in every grade of matter, and in every Globe. A diagram of the planes will illuminate the cosmic (I mean here "solar) manifestation, but the human system is quite another matter and probably needs to be considered separately at first before trying to draw parallels and correspondences with the cosmic. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Sep 1995 19:09:02 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: PSYCHIC and NOETIC (3) Some more: ******************** HPB, "Psychic and Noetic Action" The "Higher Ego," as part of the essence of the UNIVERSAL MIND, is unconditionally omniscient on its own plane, and only potentially so in our terrestrial sphere, as it has to act solely through its ALTER EGO--The Personal Self. Now, although the former is the vehicle of all knowledge of the past, the present and the future, and although it is from this fountain-head that its "double" catches occasional glimpses of that which is beyond the senses of man, and transmits them to certain brain cells (unknown to science in their functions), thus making of man a SEER, a soothsayer, and a prophet; yet the memory of bygone events--especially of the earth eathy--has its seat in the Personal Ego alone. No memory of a purely daily life function, of a physical, egotistical, or of a lower mental nature--such as, e.g., eating and drinking, enjoying personal sensual pleasures, transacting business to the detriment of one's neighbor, etc., etc., has aught to do with the "Higher" Mind or Ego. Nor has it any direct dealings on this physical plane with either our brain or our heart--for these two are the organs of a power higher than the PERSONALITY--but only with our passional organs, such as the liver, the stomach, the spleen, etc. Thus it only stands to reason that the memory of such-like events must first be awakened in that organ which was the first to induce the action remembered afterwards, and conveyed it to our "sense-thought," which is entirely DISTINCT FROM THE "SUPERSENSUOUS" THOUGHT. It is only the higher forms of the latter, the SUPERCONSCIOUS mental experiences, that can correlate with the cerebral and cardiac centers. The memories of physical and SELFISH (or personal) deeds, on the other hand, together with the mental experiences of a terrestrial nature, and of earthly biological functions, can, of necessity, only be correlated with the molecular constitution of various KAMIC organs, and the "dynamic associations" of the elements of the nervous system in each particular organ.... Indeed, every organ in our body HAS ITS OWN MEMORY. For if it is endowed with a consciousness "of its own kind," every cell must of necessity have also a memory of its own lind, as likewise its own PSYCHIC and NOETIC action. Responding to the touch of both a physical and a metaphysical Force, the impulse given by the PSYCHIC (or psyscho-molecular) Force will act from WITHOUT WITHIN; while that of the NOETIC (shall we call it Spiritual-dynamical?) Force works FROM WITHIN WITHOUT. For, as our body is the covering of the inner "principles," soul, mind, life, etc., so the molecule or the cell is the body in which dwell its "principles," the (to our senses and comprehension) immaterial atoms which compose that cell. The cell's activity and behavior are determined by its being propelled either inwardly or outwardly, by the noetic or the psychic Force, the former having no relation to the PHYSICAL cells proper. Every human organ and each cell in the latter has a keyboard of its own, like that of a piano, only that it registers and emits sensations instead of sounds. Every key contains the potentiality of good or bad, of producing harmony or disharmony. This depends on the impulse given and the combinations produced; on the force of the touch of the artist at work, a "double-faced Unity," indeed. And it is the action of this or the other "Face" of the Unity that determines the nature and the dynamical character of the manifested phenomena as a resulting action, and this whether they be physical or mental. For the whole of man is guided by this double-faced Entity. If the impulse comes from the "Wisdom above," the Force applied being noetic or spiritual, the results will be actions worthy of the divine propeller; if from the "terrestrial," devilish wisdom" (psychic power), man's activities will be selfish, based solely on the exigencies of his physical, hence animal, nature. The above may sound to the average reader as pure nonsense; but every Theosophist must understand when told that there are MANASIC as well as KAMIC organs in him, although the cells of his body answer to both physical and spiritual impulses. **************************** (more later) Rich: It seems to me that any clairvoyant who can see his (or anyone else's) past lives in detail, see what one looked like, what clothes one wore, etc., can only be operating on the PSYCHIC level, not the NOETIC, because the Noetic doesn't register such mundane details. It retains, according to HPB in this article, only the spiritual essence and meaning of events, not the outer details of the events themselves. The higher Manas or NOETIC action has no connection to the body directly, and can only operate through the EMBODIED lower manas or PSYCHIC action. Under this view, almost all clairvoyants and other unusually gifted people today are PSYCHIC and not NOETIC. This would seem to apply to CWL as well. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Sep 1995 19:38:00 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Re: Planes and diagrams >The noetic >operates on ALL planes and does not depend on our awareness. In an absolute sense yes, but for us in consciousness it does so only as we become aware of these faculties in our realized expression. This realization begins as identity or awareness of the higher vibrations/qualities/planes is developed. >What does >matter is if we can make the psychic receptive to the noetic or not. This occurs in consciousness as awareness of the higher planes comes about. >Manas is a principle which pierces >up and down through all the planes, and has an analogue in every one of the >seven states of consciousness, in every grade of matter, and in every Globe. Yes 7 overlapping interpenetrating planes within 7 circles or spheres -- makes a beautiful symbolic illustration. >A diagram of the planes will illuminate the cosmic (I mean here "solar) >manifestation, but the human system is quite another matter and probably >needs to be considered separately Actually the human system can be superimposed within the cosmic physical plane as points or atoms of life with a presence all planes. - Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Sep 1995 19:38:03 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Re: PSYCHIC and NOETIC (3) >The higher Manas or NOETIC action >has no connection to the body directly, Actually the direct connection develops on the path until the Noetic can express itself or use the psychic at will. >Under this view, almost all >clairvoyants and other unusually gifted people today are PSYCHIC and not >NOETIC. This would seem to apply to CWL as well. Well, all those of Noetic realization would certainly be able of using the psychic as needed. But, true, just because one is psychic does not mean that one is noetic. CWL was to a degree noetic, he just didn't know it all yet. - Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Sep 1995 20:21:19 GMT From: Geraldjs@aol.com Subject: Re: PSYCHIC and the NOETIC Patrick:< I like to talk about this in terms of planes, the psychic being from the etheric to the lower mental and the Noetic being from the higher mental through the atmic above which is the Monad. Thoughts?> I am not sure what you mean here. Dion Fortune uses the terms "upper mental" and "lower mental." Is she your source for this? Also, your last statement that "the atmic above" is equal to the "Monad" is unclear to me. Is monad with a capital M intended to be a name for God? I have never come across anyone using the term Noetic as a way to describe the higher cosmic planes. Usually the term "spiritual" suffices. When you say "upper mental" do you mean causal? In any case, I think you are proposing that we group the lower three planes as "psychic" with a little p, and the higher four planes as "Noetic" with a captial N. Is this your proposal, or am I missing something. The reason I ask, is that Qabalistic tradition divides the planes into the lower four and the upper three with a big dividing line between them called the Great Outer Abyss. HPB follows this tradition by placing her 7 Globes on the lower four planes. Hopefully you can describe your intentions in more detail, or make them a little more clear to me. thank you, Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Sep 1995 20:21:45 GMT From: Geraldjs@aol.com Subject: Re: Self and Jung's View of S... Art:< I read Jung to support my particular brand of religiosity, neo-evangelicalism> You are not alone. You may or may not know, but my wife and I both attended courses at Liberty University in an attempt to get a Masters in Counseling. Jung is very popular there, perhaps tying with Adler. Art: Yes, he does criticize Protestants, largely because of their throwing out some of the traditional (and psychologically important, to Jung) symbolisms retained by Catholics. Interesting that you say this, because one of my own cricitisms was that I found him to be overly Christian sometimes. I didn't like the way he said the East should remain East and the West should remain West. He was against yoga being practiced in the West, for example, and thus against one of the three TS objectives. He also criticises theosophists for "lazy thinking" which I think was true back when he said it (we have cleaned up our act a lot lately, I think). Art: The power of faith is truly awesome. And, it doesn't even matter what your have faith *in* - the power is in the faith itself. Art: In this sense the Self comes very close to what theosophy calls monadic essence or divine monad. Art:<...the dilemma of exchanging the Self and the God image freely,> I think that this dilemma comes about by (1) the insistence of separating the outer from the inner as if what was outside was objective and thus "real" while what is inside is "merely" subjective and thus "unreal", and (2) the insistence of separating man from God. From a mystical view, they are two ways of looking at the same thing, and so a mystic sees no dilemma here. Art:<...the mystical panentheism of Eckhart ...> I love Eckhart. If more Christians were like him I could think of returning to Christianity. Art: This, incidently, would help explain fundamentalism and our friend Daniel. When I was a teenager in Sunday School, my teacher once said "at night, the lion roars the loudest just before the dawn." I have never forgotten this. Art:< Is the self a symbol of Christ or is Christ a symbol of the self?> Am I a man dreaming I am a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming I am a man? I want to thank you for your very interesting post. I just completed a good book by Robert Aziz called C.G. Jung's Psychology of Religion and Synchronicity (State University of New York Press, 1990). If you haven't read this, I highly recommend it. I am just now reading Hillman. His ideas are quite radical, but some are very interesting - such as his saying that Jung's Self reflects Jung's monotheism, while Hillman himself sees the psyche as reflecting polytheism. His idea that we are each a collection of others was taught in Tibetan Buddhism according to Alexandra David-Neel. Personally, I see monotheism and polytheism as two views of the same thing. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Sep 1995 20:22:13 GMT From: Geraldjs@aol.com Subject: Re: Eldon on Politics in the AT Rich: Yes. These contain excellent guidence for the first step of the Path. Rich:< The "laundry list" for chelas is not just for officially accepted chelas, but for all of us who would like to enter into contact with the Masters. Things like not touching people or animals are probably not helpful at our stage, granted, but many of the other requirements are certainly within our grasp, if we try. > If her list of do's and don't's turn you on and make you a better person then use them. But when you select certain ones to do and disregard others, you are, in fact, choosing your own Path. This is in accordance with what I said we need to do at the third step. Rich: Her articles are all geared to the first two steps - ethics and compassion. As to meditation, she only condoned Raja Yoga, which is basically a form of mind control (which is, I agree, an important aspect of the Path) and Karma Yoga which is so slow it crawls. She warns against Kundalini Yoga, for example, which is a much steeper and quicker Path. As to Jnana Yoga, only a few people understand it. If you think that it is a "pursuit of wisdom" in which we acquire knowledge by reading and studying until we arrive at Gnosis, then my friend, you also don't understand Jnana Yoga. The goal of ALL yogas is to overcome/eliminate the human condition - the physical body and the thinking process. You will never never do this by slowly accumulating book-knowledge. Rich: ..etc etc I have read everything Judge wrote, and just about everything that HPB wrote (and they wrote a lot). I still say it all pertains to the first two steps on the Path. This in no way is meant to belittle their writings, nor to belittle the first two steps. These steps are very important - they represent the chief difference between the Path as taught in theosophy and that taught by magic or occult schools. My argument is simply that they are only the first two steps. While most folks may take their whole life with these, some of us may want to go on to step 3 at some point. Neither HPB nor Judge gave us a very firm ground for step 3. I rather think that they both considered it unnecessary, since the first two steps had to be mastered first anyway and only a very few students would likely be ready for step 3. Rich:< He was the epitome of the perfect student, and that was perhaps one of the primary reasons he was sent to us, as a role model for us who are the students of HPB.> It would seem that you like Judge a lot. Thats OK. I like him too. But you have to remember that both HPB and Judge were ordered not to give out certain higher teachings. It is clear to me from reading certain passages of HPB and Judge, that both were Initiates in the sense that they had experienced samadhi in some degree - a mystical experience, if you will. But neither ever gave out any techniques that students could use, other than certain relatively safe meditations. Treading the Path is largely about techniques. Rich: Yes, they are very practical, and it sounds like you are following them quite well. A question, however, comes to my mind about this whole business. Doesn't a path take us somewhere? When we walk along a path, aren't we going somewhere? Don't we usually have a destination in mind? I think that what path we choose to take, largely depends on where we want to go. Some of us may just like the walk for its own sake, while others may have somewhere they want to go. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Sep 1995 20:23:02 GMT From: Geraldjs@aol.com Subject: Re: Mish-mash or no mish-mash? Rich: Theosophy is a distinct path in exactly what way? Please don't come on with a lot of "no no" stuff. Give me a few examples of where it is unique and I might agree with you. BTW, if you think that theosophy is the only teaching given to humanity by the Great Lodge, then you are in for a rude shock. It is "a" path, not "the" path. Grace Knoche once told me this, and I have never forgotten it. Rich: Where did you get this idea? Sources please. Rich:< IF HPB were to say "just follow this path I show, in 25 years you will be a chela and understand everything" in 19th century Europe, would a single person have signed up?> I can't believe HPB would ever say such a silly thing. Rich: Please take a look at your own logic here. This passage (which I agree with) completely contradicts your earlier passage (which I don't agree with) that theosophy is unique. You can't have it both ways, Rich. Sorry Rich, but I quit reading your posting before it ended. It sounds too much like Daniel's for me to stomach in one sitting. Both you and Daniel think you've got truth all wrapped up in a box and tied with a pretty blue ribbon. I can understand this, because I have been there myself. But I learned, and grew out of it. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Sep 1995 20:25:15 GMT From: Geraldjs@aol.com Subject: Re: Jesus in the Air > Art: This sound current sounds beyond the actual vocalisation of >the name itself. If so there is a clue there I think. You are in the > South and as you say the name that is in the air is Jesus. Paul >The current you are supposed to hear is a ringing radiance, >devoid of words or musical form. So it's sort of a comedown to >fall into hearing "stuff" instead of the pure shabd (voice). > Sounds like the Eck ala Eckancar. Paul Twitchal (hope I spelled it right??? its been awhile since I read his books) talked a lot about the "sound current." Also, the well-known word AUM is spoken aloud letting the final M trial off into nothingness - the sound current or shabda. The trailing off of a final M-sound is also well known in Tibetan Yoga (HUM amd AM, for examples). Incidently, occult tradition says that hearing is the highest of the five senses, and the last to go after death. As an aside, when you drift off to sleep, you usually hear sound, generally a voice speaking, immediately before losing waking consciousness - a sure sign that you are switching from waking to sleeping. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Sep 1995 20:26:55 GMT From: Geraldjs@aol.com Subject: Re: Psychism Eldon quotes G de P: <"So it is with spiritual clairvoyance. What the physical eye sees, you must be perfectly assurred is something quite other than spiritual clairvoyance. Spiritual clairvoyance is the faculty of vision, of seeing, with the inner eye; and it is not so much a seeing of forms and of things, as a getting of knowledge, and because this getting of knowledge comes in a way whhich has a close parallel to seeing with the physical eye, it is called spiritual 'clairvoyance' --direct vision. (The Esoteric or Oriental School: Steps in the Initiatory Cycle, 77)< Eldon, I have no problem at all with G de P. He is talking here about "direct vision" or Gnosis. This is NOT done with the human mind or manas but with atma-buddhi. Eldon: This seems to be another area of conflict brought about by the problem of termonologies. I was using psychic and mental as synonyms in the Jungian sense. When I think of "psychism" I think of any expriences or data coming through the mental senses or human mind or manas (high or low). Rich is trying to clear this up by introducing the term Noetic for the higher. All in all, this kind of stuff demonstrates the termonology problem that theosophy is burdned with today. Eldon: Technically you are right. However, one man's intuition is another man's psychism. If I told you that some of the material that I used in my magic books was from my intuition, you may not agree, and might say that I channeled it via psychism. How can I prove it, one way or the other? Also, intuition is no more "real" or accurate than anything else. We all sometimes have intuitive flashes that are plain wrong. Eldon: Agreed. It is a technique, a means to a goal. Eldon:< I don't think we try to take our consciousness out of the human mind. The goal is to shift the awareness away from the mind, to go higher within, and become aware of other manners of consciousness. The mind continues, the stream of thoughts continue.> I think that you are playing word games with me here. I don't see much difference between "take" and "shift." Eldon:< The mind continues, the stream of thoughts continue.> They may at a lower samadhi, but the higher (nirvkalpa, I think) samadhi is one in which the human mind stops thinking - its stream of thoughts does come to a stop. I still say that every Path needs a goal or purpose or destination. The goal of yoga is to shift consciousness out of the human mind and bring that mind to a halt. Most people (including Jung) think that this equates to death, but the yogi knows that it is existence itself, pure consciousness itself. Now this goal may or may not be the goal of a theosophist. It really depends on his or her "mission" or task in any one life. It is one of my goals, but perhaps not yours. Thats OK. Eldon: Agreed as long as the knowledge gained is used to help others in some way. Eldon:< I'd say that on any plane that we may come into existence, we take on all seven principles, which represent the complete ingredients of consciousness.> I think that you are a bit confused here. We don't come into existence on any one plane - we do so on all of them. We are not just on the physical plane right now. Parts of each of us are on all seven cosmic planes right now this instant. We don't "go" to another plane, we merely shift consciousness to that part of ourselves that is already there. Eldon: Your confusion continues. We don't "bring our higher principles into consciousness" in the physical body which "*is here*." Your seem to be confounding the physical and mental. When you say "our evolution is here," I will agree only if your "here" refers to this planetary chain of 12 Globes. If you are referring to Globe D, then I strongly disagree. Globe D is only for evolving our physical bodies. I think that this goes back to earlier discussions on this subject, in which we are using totally different models of the planetary chain. I take the model given by HPB in the SD as appended by G de P, which is a slight variant of the Qabalistic Tree of Life. I am not sure where your model comes from. Eldon: You seem to have entirely missed my point. I said that we should do our seeking outside of any TS. How does this make the TS a "seeker's club?" In your response, you seem to totally disregard the third objective of the TS. Would you care to write an article on just how we should accomplish the third objective? Eldon: I think I follow your point here, but my argument is that it all depends on how you define "spiritual life." Eldon: Perhaps. But I don't know of anyone who would fit this description at all. Most people avoid the intellectual-spiritual approach and seek psychism because it is the easier road. People in general are lazy and don't want to be told that the Great Work is one of many lifetimes. Many magicians accept HPB's work as a treasure of theory and study it, rather than rejecting it. However, they follow a different "path" in that they prefer a faster (and more dangerous) route to the slow (but safe) route described in theosophy. Personally, I have nothing at all against such a personal choice, as long as this choice is taken at step 3 - after ethics and compassion are firmed developed. Eldon: Agreed. I am, after all, still a theosophist. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 00:51:32 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Bailey, PSYCHIC and NOETIC Rich: > >The higher Manas or NOETIC action > >has no connection to the body directly, > Patrick: > Actually the direct connection develops on the path until the Noetic can > express itself or use the psychic at will. Patrick, I really tire of arguing with you the Bailey viewpoint endlessly. We cannot meet, I fear, because you fail to recognize that you (I mean Bailey) are not teaching source THEOSOPHY, but instead quite a different system, with its own rules and ideas. So I give up. No more rebuttals from me, it's useless. You can argue with Blavatsky instead and leave me out of it. And so I quote, from Psychic and Noetic Action, p. 21 in "Theosophical Articles" Vol. 2 from Theosophy Company: "The 'Higher Ego' [noetic] cannot act directly on the body, as its consciousness pertains to quite another plane and planes of ideation: the 'lower' SELF [psychic] does: and its action and behavior depend on its free will and choice as to whether it will gravitate more toward its parent ("the Father in Heaven") or the "animal" which it informs, the man of flesh. The 'Higher Ego' x has to act solely through its ALTER EGO--the Personal Self." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 00:55:46 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Globe D Jerry: > If you are referring to Globe D, then I strongly > disagree. Globe D is only for evolving our physical bodies. I think that > this goes back to earlier discussions on this subject, in which we are using > totally different models of the planetary chain. I take the model given by > HPB in the SD as appended by G de P, which is a slight variant of the > Qabalistic Tree of Life. If your model is HPB, Jerry, I'm afraid I must disagree with you about Globe D. Globe D may be the physical globe, but all seven of our principles have incarnated here with us on it, and all seven are in process right now, hopefully for the good. According to HPB, there will be seven great races on this Globe during this Round, and there is much more to be accomplished than evolving the physical body. HPB's primary concern during her incarnation among us (on Globe D) was to evolve us morally and mentally, not to help us build better bodies. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 01:26:25 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: source teachings > RE: Source teachings: > > >I claim to write for Mahatmas. Send $100 for further details. > >:-)))) > > > >Alan > > I claim to be the Mahatma that Alan writes for. Send $200 > for further details. :-))))) > > Jerry Hejka-Ekins > Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu > Damn! Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 01:30:56 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Hat > Alan, I won't send you $100 but I MIGHT send you a special hat to wear when > your "Class Clown" mood strikes you ... > > Rich A tall pointed one with "D" on it? Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 01:31:54 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: source teachings Dear Jerry, Alan was funny. You're not. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 01:52:26 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Question to Jerry S. Jerry S., Several months ago, Adam Warcup asked you about your understanding concerning the relationship between the globes of the Earth chain and kamaloka and devachan. Did you ever reply to Adam's query? IF I remember the details of his question (I can't say that I do!), he was of the opinion that your understanding of the globes did not dovetail with what is said by HPB and the Mahatmas in their writings. I don't want to speak for Adam since I may not be recounting accurately what he posted. What does Globe D consists of? Does it have seven principles? Is Kamaloka within Globe D? or is kamaloka "located" on Globe E or.....? Would appreciate your comments. Maybe Adam will repost his original question and add some comments. etc. Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 01:58:15 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Hat I don't believe you guys. Are you for real? Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 02:00:41 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: A higher manvantara Rich, How about planes are vibes which set up fields? Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 02:07:52 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: New book to be soon published Hopefully be the end of 1995, Point Loma Publications will be publishing the second, revised edition of THE INNER GROUP TEACHINGS OF H.P. BLAVATSKY. In my book THE OCCULT WORLD OF MADAME BLAVATSKY(pp. 320-321), I commented as follows on the first edition of the INNER GROUP TEACHINGS: "Very valuable material not included in Volume XII of the *Collected Writings* series. Unfortunately, the most complete, authentic text of HPB's "Inner Group Teachings" has never been published although several copes of this text are extant." The second, revised edition of THE INNER GROUP TEACHINGS is now based on this "complete, authentic text." Watch for the announcement of this new edition in the pages of THE ECLECTIC THEOSOPHIST. Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 02:44:39 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: What doe we study, what do we teach? I'm just now getting around to reading my AT, & particularly John Algeo's lead article. Since John's article discusses the matter of "source material", & since what he says makes a lot of sense to me, I'm taking the liberty of quoting parts of the article for those of you who don't get the AT: "It is a noteworhty fact that Theosophy is nowhere mentioned in the Objects of the Theosophical Society" ... this "was not. I believe, an oversight. The early Theosophists, and Blavatsky in particular, were worried about the danger of dogmatism.... So they framed the Objects in such a way that there's no crack for dogmatism to seep through.... "Theosophy clearly exists as a fairly well-defined tradition of ideas & practices. Theosophy is broad enough to have something to say on almost every issue, but that does not make Theosophy out of everything that can be said on the issue. "Theosophy is certainly not limited to 1 statement of it, not Annie Besant's, not Helena Blavatsky's, not even Brother KH's. Certain statements are especially valuable because they are wellsprings: Blavatsky's writings & the Mahatma Letter are the most notable of those. They are the seeds from which all else has come.... "Every generation has to find its own voice. Every generation has to articulate the Ageless Wisdom in its own tones. The Teaching is timeless, but the teaching is temporal. if Theosophy is not to be a fossil in a musem, its expression must change and adapt to the times. To live is to change. The Buddha & other wise teachers have pointed that out..... "We can't put Theosophy into a creed, & we mustn't try to do so.... But a Theosophical concensus exists, grounded in the works of HPB and the Mahatma Letters and elaborated by interpretations of those sources... The hallowed 3 Objects encourage the study of whatever we like.... To do so as Theosophists, however, implies that we will study and investigate from a Theosophical foundation, that we will loook at things from a Theosophical perspective. that we will see how the Ancient Wisdom applies to everything..... "ATheosophical group is one that does Theosophy, both directly by studying and teaching the tradition and indirectly in everything else it practices." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 03:11:33 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: hat >> Alan, I won't send you $100 but I MIGHT send you a special hat >>to wear when your "Class Clown" mood strikes you ... >> >> Rich > >A tall pointed one with "D" on it? No No! That will make him a ma-HAT-ma! Jerry From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 04:58:00 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Rumi's Mathnawi What is Rumi's Mathnawi? Rumi lived A.D. 1207-73. Read THE July, 1995 THEOSOPHIST to find out. An article by K. Khosla says, "Man must not be proud. Not only he, but all grades of being, the stone and mineral, the plant and the animal, have heard and understand the speech of God, and praise him according to their nature, mourn their separation from him and long to return to him, though we may be ignorant of their method of mourning and glorification. Not without reason does the greatest Arab Sufi writer, Ibnu'l 'Arabi, say that the mineral which is the lowest form of soul-life to our eyes is the highest form of creation as, lacking external sensibility, it is an implicit glorifier." Man comes last and the "veils he has to rend on his way to Him are numberless." A couple of other interesting points are these: 1. In Persian, Rumi mentions three stages of descent of the Absolute - stages of separation of man and his soul from their source. The first stage concerns a world of Non-Existence ('adam). This is a realm of pure abstract ideas and of barest potentiality. 2. The article mentions another masterpiece of philosophical literature which I had not heard of. It is ENNEADS by Plotinus where the "planes of descent are planes of emanation, each arising out of the contemplation of its predecessor. The first is the nous. It is a unity of the archetypes of the present, past and future, the total content of the creative Divine Mind. >From this plane emanates the Universal Soul or the All-Soul. From that emanates its image, Nature, which possesses the last of the Reason-principle. And from that Nature emanates the sensible world patterned on the eternal original." Khosla advises us of the similarity between these two classics of literature: the ENNEADS and MATHNAWI. The Mathnawi has six books and a Proem. Would anyone like to study these works? I think I can help with the "involution-evolution" mixup. I, too, have heard this taught both ways and I think I know why. Let's simplify the words to mean "into" and "out of." Why? Well, think of it like immigration and emigration. We do both. We both leave a country and enter a country. The use of the terms, I suggest, should be geared to the audience. If you determine that most of the listeners are new members or that new members deserve extra-special consideration and so you attempt to speak primarily to them, then you might try to speak as if the "self" regards our existence in the material world. If we agree that by "I" we mean this physical-emotional-mental vehicle than involution occurs as we go inward into matter. Likewise evolution occurs as we go out of matter and into the life of the spirit. I agree with this method because while I was on the staff at The Theosophical Society we always tried to gear things to new members as they should be receiving the easiest material. This may make the subject more difficult for advanced students, but so what? An advanced student would prefer to think, "I am a soul, existing beyond manifest earth life." In which case evolution occurs as we go outward from the soul and involution occurs on the inward path back to the soul. I don't agree with an advanced (or soul view) because I don't think theosophy can be understood in a helpful way when this is presented to a group. I think the whole group would be more likely to agree that they "all" identify with their lower vehicles as an aspect of the self and therefore speaking should be from this point of view when discussing involution and evolution. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 05:24:10 GMT From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: New book to be soon published Daniel- When it hits the market, be sure to mention it on this list. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 06:49:15 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Re: PSYCHIC and the NOETIC >Also, your >last statement that "the atmic above" is equal to the "Monad" is unclear to >me. The monad is above the atmic in a vibrational sense. All planes overlap and interpenetrate but there are different vibrations which we relate to or include in consciousness as we evolve. - Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 06:49:18 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Re: Bailey, PSYCHIC and NOETIC >Patrick, I really tire of arguing with you the Bailey viewpoint endlessly. Ok, we're discussing ideas, but please feel free to remain silent. If I recall, I have not mentioned her except in response to your negative statements. I like to discuss issues, principles and our experiences in applying theosophy to our lives. >We cannot meet, I fear, We are all brothers as spiritual souls. >because you fail to recognize that you (I mean >Bailey) are not teaching source THEOSOPHY, There are many sources through which the Mahatma's work, Bailey is one of many. >but instead quite a different >system, with its own rules and ideas. HPB and AAB taught the same principles and rules of the path. On this list these principles are enjoyably discussed. Peace, Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 06:49:20 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Re: A higher manvantara >How about planes are vibes which set up fields? Aha, how many dimensions? Peace, Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 07:32:30 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Belated replies >Thank you Jerry for an informational report with a personal >touch ( the bombing and subsequent dream of your father). I >would not presume to interpret this dream, but if your >experience has been like mine, you got the feeling that this >"archetypal war-father" was not joking and neither was the >French lady! :-) > >Keith Price Yes, between the three, I would probably have a better chance with the bomb. :-) >That's ok with me, as long as the "core teachings" and the >variety of later variants are presented on one list. > >Liesel That would be a verrry long list. :-) >Great! The moment you have something published, could you let us> >know about it? > >Thanks. > >Murray Stentiford >murray@sss.co.nz You bet! >Yes, Jerry, absolutely. Even the "fundamentalist" ULTers like >myself recognize that our "favorite" Theosophical writers are >STUDENTS and COMMENTATORS on the Masters, HPB and Mr. Judge. > >That distinction is critical, or the original ideas will be >lost, and we will have only secondary stuff, while we will be >thinking the secondary stuff IS THE ORIGINAL STUFF. > >Rich Yes, and it concerns me that many responses on this net concerning source teachings keep retreating back to doctrinal viewpoints that ignore the historical facts and only serve to justify the various society's claims to superiority over the others. Historically we have originators and commentators. The commentators cannot be the originators, unless we want to count them as originators of new theosophies. If so, that's fine with me. We have Platonism and Neo-Platonism. Using the same guidelines, we have Theosophy and Neo-Theosophy. >If ANYONE has this article (Jerry H-E??) please start posting >it, we need to >hear HPB distinguish psychic from higher mental in a BIG way. > >Rich Sorry, I was in the middle of writing a paper at the time. I think however that you chose a difficult article. In our classes, students usually read and discuss this article at least three times before I'm satisfied that they have grasped the concepts. >Don't like to be the heavy here, but this guy is violating our >space in my opinion, and there's nothing to be gained by >talking to him. Maybe I'm less tolerant than most of y'all. > >Regards >Paul Perhaps John will set up a theos-christ for those who wish to discuss fundamentalism and theosophy? :-) >Rich, > >I would think that HPB & WQ Judge would consider themselves >"students" as well. > >Liesel Why not? They referred to themselves as students. >Dear Lewis, > >Simple, you produce both ... scholarly research & literature >for the general public... I think both are needed. > >Namaste > >Liesel Amen Rich:< There is higher and lower Manas, there is Buddhi and >astral sensitivity, and we have GOT to get them straight or we >will never get out of the labyrinth! Or once the teachings get confused enough, we can all go out and dig our own tunnels. >THe book that contains the Mars Inhabitants material is vol. 2 >of ~The Inner Life~ published in 1911, of which I also have >access. Vol. 1 was published in 1910. I am working on a >complete text of the Mars material, together with some >biographical details about CWL. I had hoped to scan it in, but >the old books reproduce badly for this purpose, and so I am >having to type it in by hand. Watch this space ..... > >Alan I'm looking forward to it. Thanks in advance. >A curious phenomena - has the theos-l list actually attracted >the first manifestation of its shadow? > -JRC Yep. One orthodoxy meets another. >>>I claim to write for Mahatmas. Send $100 for further details. >>>:-)))) >>> >>>Alan >> I claim to be the Mahatma that Alan writes for. Send $200 >>for further details. :-))))) >> >>Jerry Hejka-Ekins > I claim to be a humble student of their writings. Send >help! :-))))))))))))) > [Oh, yeah, and I insist that nothing other than *their* >writings can be considered valid and *true*heosophy. :-))) ] > >-JRC Spoken as one who is inspired by the Maha Chohan. ;-) Jerry HE >Alan, I won't send you $100 but I MIGHT send you a special hat >to wear when >your "Class Clown" mood strikes you ... > >Rich Can I have one too? I want a propeller on mine. Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 07:51:44 GMT From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: Rumi's Mathnawi Brenda- I've not read the Rumi text you mention, but the Enneads of Plotinus are perhaps my single favorite spiritual text - the one book I'd take to a desert island if I could only take one ... and I'd love to see them discussed on the list. Plotinus was perhaps the last great philosopher of the classical Greek tradition, and within the Enneads (written by him mostly for his students) is not only a remarkably complex picture of spiritual life and spiritual reasoning, but Plotinus also wrote philosophy in a fashion that (IMO) merged the philosophical with the poetic - and there are times when the writing reaches points of almost breathtaking beauty ... I would recommend the translation by Stephen MacKenna - he was both a self-taught Greek translator, and an Irish poet ... and I believe to really capture Plotinus the skills of both translator and poet working together are probably necessary. A quote ... for the sake of the beauty within it: "Withdraw into yourself and look - and if you do not find yourself "Withdraw into yourself and look - and if you do not find yourself beautiful yet, act as does the creator of a statue that is to be made beautiful: he cuts away here, he smoothes there, he makes this line lighter, this other purer, until a lovely face has grown upon his work. So do you also: cut away all that is excessive, straighten all that is crooked, bring light to all that is overcast, labour to make all one glow of beauty and never cease chiselling your statue, until there shall shine out on you from it the godlike splendour of virtue, until you shall see the perfect goodness surely established in the stainless shrine. When you know you have become this perfect work, when you are self-gathered in the purity of your being, nothing now remaining that can shatter that inner unity, nothing from without clinging to the authentic man, when you find yourself wholly true to your essential nature, wholly that only veritable Light which is not measured by space, not narrowed to any circumscribed form ... ever measurable as something greater than all measure and more than all quantity - when you perceive you have grown to this, you are now become very vision: now call up all your confidence, strike forward yet a step - you need a guide no longer - strain, and see." [From Ennead I.6.9] -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 13:56:04 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Eldon Daniel: >Eldon you wrote that we choose to come into >existence. Yes, but it is our essential desire for existence that leads us into coming into being. We do not choose in the sense of a person making a decision, because our personality of the previous lifetime is gone and the personality of the future lifetime is not yet formed. >Our pre-incarnate life causes a choice or chance to >become earth-bound. You also said that this was >a Christian teaching. The choice to come into existence is not unique to being born on earth, but is true of any plane of existence. >First why did I choose to enter into the conception >of a man and a woman named Molly & Deke? >Why did I not choose to be the child of Bill & Hillary? "Choice" is a helpful word in understanding what is happening, but it has its limits. We are drawn to suitable parents. Why those particular parents? Because of karmic ties we have established with them in former lifetimes. The word "choice" can be misleading, because the process of coming into birth is as natural and automatic as our taking a breath. We breathe becaue we must, and we will do so often without thinking about it. But we also "choose" to breathe. A strong desire for life leads to the natural process of coming into birth. This process is both chosen and desired by us, and it is also something that we do without being fully conscious and in control of how it works. >Why would anyone choose to be the child that is born >addicted to cocaine or born into a society that does >not want me like China as a baby girl. Our spiritual nature is indifferent to personal pleasure or pain. It has a sense for what is appropriate circumstances for our next lifetime. There is justice to life that we may not always be aware of, because it is automatic, built into the fabric of life itself, and working despite our ability to understand the lesson in things at times. >I assume you also believe that my spirit is genderless, >so now DNA determines what type of human I would >be. Yes, we are genderless as spiritual beings. Sometimes we are born as men, othertimes as women. And the DNA exists as a "holding pattern" for the image of the life that we will live. It maintains the initial image we gave to that life. The particular pattern that arose is not random, due to luck, but is appropriate to the life that we are about to live. The physical process of conception does not cause a life; rather, it is made possible by the life seeking birth. >It is evident in all societies that boys are more >rough and girls more observant. So does DNA, my parents, >society etc...form who I really am? No. Although we are influenced as we grow up by our parents, the type of parenting they give us, and by our education and environment, these influences do not make us. We are each uniquely ourselves, the way that we have made ourselves through countless lifetimes. Coming into birth, we are either stifled or encouraged to be ourselves again by the circumstances of that new life. In a sense, we made the DNA, we picked the parents, we brought ourselves into a particular environment to live our new life. We did so because of who and what we are. >What happens if the likes of Einstein's spirit gets placed in >a deaf mute in a third world country? We and Einstein >have to wait for round two, or three...? The placement is not random, there is a purpose to it, and that placement is not due to the "plan" of some outside deity. It is due to our own "plan", one which we have engineered for ourselves through countless lifetimes. We have made ourselves what we are today, and because of who and what we are, and because of our existing ties to others, we are naturally drawn into birth with certain parents, in particular situations that are appropriate to us. >As to Chistian teachings... >It is clear that God knew us before we were born. It is also >clear in biblical teachings that we were not formed until >we were in the womb. Our human personality of a particular lifetime starts to form in the womb. But it is not our first such personality, nor will it be the last. We are eternal, though, in our essential natures, and the experience of being John or Mary in a particular lifetime is but a passing moment in eternity. > Jeremiah 1: >is a good example. Since we don't consider the Bible as the final word in religous or philosophical authority, a biblical quote is not a useful approach in a discussion. If you make a point in your own words, words that are clear and show that you have a good grasp of your idea, we could discuss the pros and cons of particular points. >Paul taught "It is given unto man Once to die and then judgement". >There is no room here for second chances. No reincarnation. Reincarnation is not a "second chance," but is merely the natural continuation of our lives on earth, the most appropriate place for us to learn and grow, until we have spiritualized ourselves to the point that some other, higher plane of existence will be appropriate for us. The idea is something that can be considered on its own merits. We can talk about what reincarnation is, and why reincarnation, along with karma, provides us with the most just, sound, and satisfying explanation of life. An appeal to biblical authority, though, is not helpful in a discussion, because there is no authority to the Bible, and because the basic issues in the discussion, the pros and cons of the ideas in question, are evaded, rather than explored in open minded discussion. >The Gospel of Thomas "Gnostic" tried to arouse reincarnation >and rightfully was not included in canon. I'll leave it to someone else to bring up the evidence for reincarnation in the early Christian tradition. The presence of it there -- how established it was in the early Christian times -- is not related to the truth of the idea. When we talk about how much such key ideas as reincarnation and karma appear in various stages of Christianity, we are talking about how much light and spiritual truth is present or missing from one particular religion during its different historic periods. It will be hard to have a discussion until we leave aside any attempt to "prove" something by quoting our favorite authorites, and just discuss the philosophical ideas on their own merits. That means that we leave aside authoritative quotes like "God said ..." or "the Bible says ..." and just talk philosophy. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 14:16:15 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Psychism Jerry S.: >Liesel:getting bowled over by someone else's rotten vibes? > > Personally, what bowls me over is the inner suffering that I sense and >feel in others. There are a lot of people with what could be called twisted >or deformed auras, and I don't even like to be around them. I think I tend >to see things in terms of happiness vs suffering rather than good vs evil(?). > So-called evil people are actually in a lot of mental pain. I'd agree with what you say, but also put another slant on the sense of pain. The "lower parts" of us hurt when we're blissfully engaged in some higher type of activity. In jogging, the legs may hurt, but we're oblivious to the pain, because we're enjoying what we are doing from a higher standpoint. The difficult long hours and self-sacrifice that one endures in a creative process can likewise be a painful process, but our seat of awareness is deeper within, and we are really enjoying ourselves, and feeling fulfilled in a deeper sense. We can say from the above that pain per se is not bad, and may accompany something good that is going on. It is not something simply to be avoided. On the other hand, if we do something that sickens ourselves in a deep way, we'll feel a higher sense of "pain", regardless of the plesant external surroundings. With the people we meet with the suffering that you refer to, how do we help them? Not by ending the surface pain. And we cannot make them take the self-initiative to heal themselves in their spiritual natures. All we can to is be ourselves, to offer kindness and support, and through some sense of sympathetic vibration hope that we can offer a beneficial influence to the other person. The choice to change one's life and step out of darkness is one that the other person has to make for himself, we cannot do it for them. But we can offer moral support and make the external environment sympathetic to that person's taking the step and correcting his life. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 14:24:47 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Eldon on Politics in the AT Jerry S: >Theosophy teaches material that can be found, here and there, scattered >throughout the world's religions, all tied together with some new materials. >How can it help from being "hodge-podge" in that sense? While "The Secret Doctrine" was presented in that manner, there was a definite philosophy being taught. Some things were argeed with; other things were rejected by HPB as false. The approach of the book was both to expound the Wisdom Tradition and to show its nearly-universal nature. When you say "hodge-podge", you're right as regard to the terminology that has been coined for us to use. It is borrowed, and sometimes changed, from various philosophies and religions. But the philosophy itself, the ages-old Teachings of the Masters, is not a hodge-podge, although I'm not suggesting that you ever said it was. >HPB quotes >Montaigne as saying "I have here made only a nosegay of culled flowers, and >have brought nothing of my own but the string that ties them" (SD, Vol I, p. >xivi). >A "nosegay of culled flowers" is, in a sense, a hodge-podge. > However, the "string" that links them is the real key that theosophy offers. She may be referring to how she is passing on what she has been given, without anything of her own added to detract from the intrinic beauty of the Teachings themselves. Her only addition or embellishment is the string that ties the "flowers" together, or her manner of presentation. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 14:43:03 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: "source teachings" Liesel > [Writing to Rich:] >To me, "tradition" is synymous with "fossil". Let me name a few >traditions: a man doffs his hat when he goes to church, a woman >leaves hers on; Islamic women cover themselves from head to toe >except for their eyes; very Orthodox Jewish men don't shave, & >the women wear whigs; anyone who isn't baptized goes to hell; >widows jump on the husband's funeral pyre; the practice of Hari >Kiri. If you want to believe in tradition, that's ok with me, >but leave me out of it, & since I'm also a Theosophist, please >be so kind as to leave space for me & my kind in your narrow >traditionalist outlook. The type of tradition that you are writing about here is the silly and sometimes harmful customs of various cultures of the past. The Mahatmas have a "tradition" in a sense, a living understanding of a Treasury of Wisdom that they pass on, from one generation to the next. And they have time-proven techniques for the development of the spiritual. This knowledge and these practices are also "tradition," but are not harmful or useless as are the examples of tradition that you've given. >I don't know how it is in the Absolute, but I've been taught, & >I believe, because it makes sense to me that, in manifestation, >both nature & truth evolve. Agreed. What we understand about the workings of life has to change, because life itself, including its laws and rules, are in a state of constant change. Any understanding that we have, if it becomes fixed and static, will get stagnant and die. We need to freshly rethink that we belief, to continually review what we consider true, if we are to stay alive in our minds and hearts. >To me, It's again like the story of >the blind men who each is touching a different part of an >elephant & each one is getting a different impression of what >an elephant is like. The whole elephant is the absolute, of >which human beings can only see part. I don't think I can see >the whole, the absolute Truth. An analogy can only go so far in conveying truth. Because of being blind, the men have to rely on the sense of touch, and have a limited and inaccurate picture of the elephant. When they are able to use their eyesight and gaze upon the complete elephant, then they see the bigger truth that was always there. We too have higher senses of comprehension that will allow for us to someday see the bigger picture. And after that bigger picture, there will eventually come yet another bigger picture, and yet again. There's always yet a higher way of knowing things! -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 15:08:48 GMT From: ZFenton@aol.com Subject: HPB and the Seven Rays This list raised the question about the origin of the theory of the seven rays, and about whether HPB knew of this theory. I am mainly a passive reader on this list, but in this case I have some pertinent information to share. HBP does refer to the seven rays at least seven times in the Secret Doctrine: 1) On page 80 of Volume I: "the emanation of the primordial ray ... contains in itself the other seven procreative rays or powers." 2) On page 120 of Volume I: on the "Seven Rays hang the Seven Worlds of Being. Truly so, since these are the Seven Lights, whose reflections are the human immortal Monads--the Atman or the irradiating Spirit of every creature of the human family." 3) On page 573 of Volume I: "... the Primeval Seven Rays. Humanity, occultism teaches us, is divided into seven distinct groups and their subdivisions, mental, spiritual, and physical." 4) On page 515 of Volume I: "the names of the Seven Rays--which are ..." 5) On page 605 of Volume II: "The seven rays of Surya (the Sun) are made therein parallel to the Seven Worlds (of every planetary chain), to the seven rivers of heaven and earth, the former being the seven creative Hosts, and the latter the Seven men, or primitive human groups." 6) On page 604 of Volume II: According to "... the oldest and best preserved gospel of the Gnostic, Pistis Sophia ... the human entity is the Septenary ray from the One." 7) On page 492 of Volume II: "the radical key-note in Nature which gives birth to the seven notes--the septenary scale of the creative Forces, and to the seven prismatic aspects of colour, all born from the one white ray, or Light" Rich mentioned that the Boston (Besant) Lodge was involved in a bitter lawsuit with Wheaton (wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars gained from the sale of the old building to Boston University) and that this lodge was expelled by Wheaton. I am a member of the Boston Lodge but am still a member of the Wheaton organization. The Boston Lodge now calls itself "The Theosophical Society in Boston"; it is still a vibrant organization, with about 80 members and a new building in the center of Arlington, which is a suburb of Boston. Zack From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 15:16:06 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: living traditions Liesel: >Dear Rich, > >In your mish-mash note you say > >"It is a living tradition among the Adepts..." > A little above you say "The Masters preserve & practice that >esoteric parent source which has existed *unchanged* through >the millenia - or so Theosophy teaches" > >I wonder where theosophy teaches this. Couldn't be in the >"Mahatma Letters", because the Masters were Buddhists and the >Buddha is the one from which I learned that the one thing in >life that is certain, is that things will change. If it's a >*living* tradition, it will change. Those 2 go hand in glove. Your disagreement with Rich may be with the words "unchanged". It can be used in more than one sense. The Masters have a living tradition, a body of knowledge that they hold, preserve, and pass down from one generation to the next. I suspect that this knowledge is a combination of an oral tradition and spiritual training. Whatever it is, it is preserved and passed down in a pure form. But it's also true, as you change, that life is always subject to change. What they know and pass down is also subject to change, to adjustment as life itself progresses. Getting a bit closer to home, we can talk about ourselves and what we know. Do we pass on what we have learned from the Teachings in an unchanged form, or do we embellish and change it? Our personal insights and experiences are useful to others, but we do have a responsibility to pass on in a pure form whatever fragments of Mystery Teachings that we have been fortunate enought to have seen in our lifetime. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 17:05:56 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: A higher manvantara Patrick, Harrry was always talking about 7 dimensions. I fail to understand how that works. can you explain it? Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 17:19:46 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: HPB and the Seven Rays Zack Glad to hear that Boston is alive & well. Do you know what happened to Lou DeLucca? He came down to speak to our lodge once & i thought he was quite knowledgeable. But then he disappeared. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 17:30:32 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: living traditions Dear Rich, In your mish-mash note you say "It is a living tradition among the Adepts..." A little above you say "The Masters preserve & practice that esoteric parent source which has existed *unchanged* through the millenia - or so Theosophy teaches" I wonder where theosophy teaches this. Couldn't be in the "Mahatma Letters", because the Masters were Buddhists and the Buddha is the one from which I learned that the one thing in life that is certain, is that things will change. If it's a *living* tradition, it will change. Those 2 go hand in glove. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 18:05:50 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Toward an inclusive dialogue Dear JRC, Thank you for a very thoughtful & thought provoking post. I think you're right. Aside from trying to convince or ignore Daniel, it would be enlightening, if each of us examined their own attitude towards him. For instance, i realized that my attitude towards fanatics is influenced by the fact that I was involved, even if from afar, with the Nazi fanatics in Germany. Other Theosophists must have other motives for their attitudes towards Daniel, other ways of grappling with their shadow, or our Theosophical shadow. But, just as, from a distance of continents & years, I can sometimes be compassionate & understand that Nazis suffered as well as Jews , Gypsies & homosexuals, so can I sometimes feel compassionate towards Daniel. I can see that he also hurts, with his hell fire & brim stone, with his insulting attitude, & in that vision of him dimly see ways to try to get him to become more reasonable & less hurting. I think Art's spiritual/religious approach may be one way to help him grow up & come to. Maybe one can also look at him with some psychological healing in mind, wherever his abrasiveness & his straight as a ramrod beliefs which won't bend no way come from; but search me as to how you would do that with a group of fanatics - with group therapy? (I'm dreaming, of course, because it would have to be presented under a different name to be accepted.) I'm thinking of Serge King, who's also a clinical psychologist. He comes dressed in a beautifully flowered Hawaiian shirt, a straw hat, & a ukelele, and then you watch him stand there, with a grin on his face, & sing a corny tune he's made up himself "Be aware of what you are, & what you want to be, You can turn your life around from A to Z." You're right, very few people are up to the task. I hadn't really thought about that fundamentalism "is a profound spiritual problem of our time". Maybe we can bat around this post a little ideas as to how we as Theosophists can tackle the problem. Lastly, I got a good giggle out of the picture of the Masters that emerged from what you wrote. Of course we're more obtuse. We also came from an entirely different culture than theirs. I can just visualize them silently tearing their hair out, trying to get us to understand. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 18:22:56 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Fllpdoodle Rich:< The noetic operates on ALL planes and does not depend on our awareness. > What flapdoodle! Everything that enters our consciousness, through whatever door, has to depend on our awareness. This sentence makes no sense at all. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 18:23:27 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: The Manasic Rich: Rich, you are starting to sound like Eldon here, and I have trouble making sense out of either one of you. As far as I am concerned, yes I will find *human* manas only on the manasic plane. To think otherwise is rediculous. "human manas" only exists for us humans, and it is our thinking principle or "human mind" - and it and all *human* thoughts exist on the mental (manasic) plane, and only on that plane. You are "confounding the planes" and unless you can make sense out of this kind of stuff, I won't and can't buy it (and neither should anyone else). The "seven principles" exist on each plane, but there is only one *human* manas that I know of. I don't agree with Eldon on a lot of this, but at least Eldon makes some sense of it. BTW, HPB says in a footnote that the word noetic "suggests no definite meaning" (you should read her Psychic and Noetic Action, Rich). She prefers the term "Manas (Mind)." In short, she equates "noetic" with the human mind (although I think that she really meant buddhi-manas) and "psychism" with kama manas. This is exactly what Eldon has said. I have already admitted to using the term "psychic" in its more generally accepted sense of "human mind" or "mental" or just plain manas. Many of today's problems with theosophists in their interface with non-theosophists lies in the antiquated theosophical termonology that we, as theosophists, are stuck with. We must to be able to see through each other's terminology or semantics, in order to grasp what is actually being said. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 18:23:57 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Evolution Rich: Dear, dear, Rich. Would you please, just for me, give one (yes, just one) quote from a Buddhist (especially Tibetan) text that clearly asserts such a notion. I would love to read it. Buddhists don't even believe in monads, Rich. How could they possibly believe in 'evolutionary progress' without a monad or soul or 'entity' that is progressing? Only a person's 'skandas' reincarnate. Remember the famous Zen koan that suggests what happens to a person after death is exactly what happpens to a fist when the hand is opened? Both ego and soul are social fictions - they are no-thingness or as the Buddha taught, they are aggragates. Anyway, I don't want to belabor this point, but what I am saying here is that the human mind desires some kind of meaning from a life of mortality. Evolution through reincarnation is a model that gives the mind a meaning. I personally find HPB's Divine Breath of evolution and involution to be a satisfactory model. But to suggest (as the early theosophists did) that such evolution--involution leads to a "higher" or more developed monad (how can perfection ever become more perfect?) is a fiction (albeit a nice one - I too believed it for years). And, it is pure theosophy - not found in any religion or philosophy that I am aware of (and certainly not in Buddhism). I don't think that you will find it in Taoism, Hinduism, or Vedanta, either. It is purely a Western idea, born out of the desire of ego to have some kind of meaningful purpose to existence. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 18:24:35 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Comments to Rich & The Globes Rich:< Planes are just grades of matter.> Thank you for this wonderful (and surprising) information. Until now I had thought them a bit more than that. Rich: If you had been reading my postings with manas instead of kama, you would have realized that this is exactly what I have been trying to say. "at the end of each manvantara perhaps we will find ourselves on a higher subplane" is a theosophical notion that I object to as being against all evidence, against all experience, and a product of the human desire for meaning when none is needed. G de P, unfortunately, champions this idea, and who am I to gainsay G de P? Believe what you like, I am only giving out some ideas for everyone to think about. Rich:< The souls do not have individual existence at the end of a manvantara, but merge into the great One Life, which does not exist at all, on any plane or grade, let alone sub-planes. It is Be-ness, behind all existence.> If you really believe this kind of stuff, then I think I will ignore further postings on this subject, and spend my time on something more productive. I have to agree with you that souls have no individual existence at the end of a manvantara simply because they have no individual existence now either. I think you have taken Arnold's Light of Asia way too literally, Rich. His picture of millions of souls dissipating into Beness like drops of water entering the ocean, etc. etc. makes good copy, but has lousy content. BTW, Rich, Beness as defined by HPB does exist and it does so on the first plane - that of divinity. What do you think the first (highest) cosmic plane is? Your statements are so terribly dualistic and your logic is so confounded that I can't really say more. I can't tell if you are simply new to theosophy, or are deliberately trying to agitate me. Your postings are not in the spirit of friendly dialog, and you keep quoting scripture out of context without understanding what you are saying but rather you imply that you have been there and seen for yourself what the truth is and that I simply need to do some refresh-reading to see the light. If you are new, then I will bear with you yet awhile. But if not, then as far as I am concerned, you will hear no more from me on this subject until you are ready to carry out a more logical discourse. It seems to me that there are few theosophists on theos-l who understand what the Globes really are. Alan is one, because he knows what the Sepheroth (ala Globes) are from his own personal experience. I am not saying that I am "right" and everyone else is "wrong" here. I am, however, saying that so far I have not seen much logic or insight to HPB's model of our planetary chain of globes from anyone, but rather on the contrary, all I get is a lot of theosophical scriptural quotations. Eldon is the sole exception, and at least he has formed a working model of the Globes, even if I don't agree with it. We need to either rationally discuss this subject to arrive at working models (differences are certainly accepted, and expected, but so long as they work, who cares?) or lets forget it and begin discussing something else. My main objective to all this is to get people to think about these things, especially the Globes, which are supposed to form the cornerstone of a new "western occultism." Someday in the future, HPB's model will be considered equal or superior to the Tree of Life, IMHO (I already consider it so). But how are we to do this, if there is so little understanding or agreement at the very outset between us? Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 18:25:00 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Clairvoyants >Under this view, almost all >clairvoyants and other unusually gifted people today >are PSYCHIC and not >NOETIC. This would seem to apply to CWL as well. I am not sure who wrote the above quote, but it was apparently an Adept. Who else can make such broad and sweeping descisions? The distinction between higher and lower, between psychic and noetic, between kama-manas and buddhi-manas is sometimes obvious and sometimes not so obvious, but to claim that "almost all" such activities are the lower, or psychism in the theosophical sense of kama-manas, is absolutely ridiculous (and very egotistical). I think it much more probable that every true psychic, including CWL, receives some information through kama-manas and some through buddhi-manas. It is up to us, as readers and discerning students, to tell which is which. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 18:25:33 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: The 12th Annual Gathering The 12th Annual Gathering in northern (and very rural) Maryland on the 9th, went very well. I think Paul's talk went over nicely - it was extremely good. If it were written down, I would ask him to post it here. He also presented his main thesis and used Jungian models of psychological types to explain why some theosophists are happy while others are angered by his books. Ed Abdill gave a very nice, and informative, talk on the Masters. He quoted a lot from the MLs, and spoke a lot of beginner stuff, but he is a good speaker and kept it interesting and lively. All in all, everyone had a good time. No one was anger at Paul and no one directed any "pointed" questions. Everyone was friendly and remained so (Paul was surprised at this, but I wasn't). Anyway, I was glad to have a chance to see Paul again, and I wanted to let everyone know that it went well. BTW, I ran into several people who listen in on theos-l, and Paul and I both introduced a new member to our online dialog who should be signing on soon. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 19:54:19 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Re: A higher manvantara >Harrry was always talking about 7 dimensions. I fail to >understand how that works. can you explain it? In a way each plane relates to a dimension. Animals in a peculiar sense have two dimensional consciousness while humans have three and above on higher planes there is four and five dimensional awareness. All these overlap and the higher includes the lower. Peace, Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 22:17:35 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: living traditions Liesel (to Rich): > In your mish-mash note you say > > "It is a living tradition among the Adepts..." > A little above you say "The Masters preserve & practice that > esoteric parent source which has existed *unchanged* through > the millenia - or so Theosophy teaches" > > I wonder where theosophy teaches this. Couldn't be in the > "Mahatma Letters", because the Masters were Buddhists and the > Buddha is the one from which I learned that the one thing in > life that is certain, is that things will change. If it's a > *living* tradition, it will change. Those 2 go hand in glove. Again, it seems fruitless to get ourselves into an argument over this kind of thing. Like I told Patrick, the arguments are not really directed at me, so you can argue with Blavatsky, if you wish. At the end of *THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY* she writes, "Enquirer: Tell me, what do you expect for Theosophy in the future? Theosophist: If you speak of THEOSOPHY, I answer that, as it has existed eternally throughout the endless cycles upon cuycles of the Past, so it will ever exist throughout the infinitudes of the Future, because Theosophy is synonymous with EVERLASTING TRUTH." One couldn't ask for a clearer or stronger statement. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 22:21:38 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Boston Lodge > I am a member of the Boston Lodge but am still a member > of the Wheaton organization. The Boston Lodge now calls itself "The > Theosophical Society in Boston"; it is still a vibrant organization, with > about 80 members and a new building in the center of Arlington, which is a > suburb of Boston. > > Zack Yes, Zack, I remember working with you on the board. To be honest, though, the Arlington T.S. (The old Besant Lodge) is not called "The Theosophical Society in Boston" but rather "of Boston." It is not a branch of Wheaton any longer. You are a member-at-large of Wheaton, are you not? The Arlington branch has no official connection to the Wheaton HQ or the greater Theosophical Society in America, and thus exists as an independent organization pursuing not only HPB but also Bailey, Agni Yoga, etc. When I was there, very little emphasis was placed on study groups. I offered the only one, on the Secret Doctrine, and there were all of 3 members, including me. Most all the emphasis was on the "festivals" where palm reading, tarot cards, auras and channeling were the attractions. There were also high holidays (Easter and Wesak among others) and observations of the full and new moon. Also lectures on extra-terrestials, etc. This was what caused the rift with Wheaton, that very little of the core Theosophical teachings were being studied, and the lawsuit was brought on by the Regional Director of New England, one of the 9 members of Wheaton's top council. Please correct me if my memory serves me wrong. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 22:21:47 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Manas, planes, Be-ness Jerry, I will do my best to respond to your last two insulting and personally aggressive posts, in which you call my beliefs "ridiculous," and degrade me, saying "If you had been reading my postings with manas instead of kama." I don't understand your hostility and anger at my posts, I am surprised and hurt by it. I guess we all take our lumps in the Work? You also sarcastically suggest that perhaps I might read HPB's "Psychic and Noetic Action," which you know I have been posting in installments for a week: > BTW, HPB says in a footnote that the word noetic > "suggests no definite meaning" (you should read her > Psychic and Noetic Action, Rich).  I did refer to the article "Psychic and Noetic Action," and found no footnote which suggests what you say. Perhaps she says this elsewhere? It is curious that if the word noetic "suggests no definite meaning" to HPB that she would choose to title her article Psychic and NOETIC Action? I did learn from that article that the noetic has ANALOGUES on every plane, and is not confined to a single plane. For instance, the brain and heart are "noetic" organs, associated with the Higher Mind, while the liver, spleen, stomach etc. are associated with Kama-Manas, animal mind. Likewise the astral body has "noetic" centers and also those corresponding to the Kama-Manas. Every plane of action appears to have noetic and psychic centers and aspects. HPB remarks pointedly that "every Theosophist must understand when told that there are MANASIC as well as KAMIC organs in him ..." If physical organs can be kamic or manasic, then it is clear that Manas and Kama and ALL the principles are present and have analogues on every plane. So I will repeat again the statement you thought was so ridiculous, "Manas is a principle which pierces up and down through all the planes, and has an analogue in every one of the seven states of consciousness, in every grade of matter, and in every Globe." Regarding planes and Be-ness, > Rich:< The souls do not have individual existence at > the end of a manvantara, but merge into the great One > Life, which does not exist at all, on any plane or > grade, let alone sub-planes. It is Be-ness, behind > all existence.> Jerry S.: > BTW, Rich, Beness as defined by HPB does > exist and it does so on the first plane - that of > divinity. What do you think the first (highest) > cosmic plane is? Your statements are so terribly > dualistic and your logic is so confounded that I > can't really say more. Well, what does HPB say about Be-ness in the S.D.? She seems to say that Be-ness does NOT exist, on any plane, as we find on page 14 of the S.D. Vol. 1: "This Infinite and Eternal Cause--dimly formulated in the "Unconscious" and "Unknowable" of current European philosophy--is the rootless root of "all that was, is, or ever shall be." It is of course devoid of all attributes and is essentially without any relation to manifested, finite Being. It is "Be-ness" rather than Being (in Sanskrit SAT), and is beyond all thought or speculation." If Be-ness is out of all relation to manifested Being, how can it form the first plane? Perhaps this can be explained to me, for indeed I am a relative newcomer compared to many I'm sure. If I am confused, I should be set straight, rather than insulted, no? Insults won't help clear up my confusion, if such it is. Finally, I have never met Eldon, and he associates with a different "wing" of the movement than I do, but I find his posts clear, insightful, and right on track. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Sep 1995 22:21:52 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Buddhism on monads Jerry S.: > Dear, dear, Rich. Would you please, just for me, > give one (yes, just one) quote from a Buddhist > (especially Tibetan) text that clearly asserts such a > notion. I would love to read it. > Buddhists don't > even believe in monads, Rich. How could they > possibly believe in 'evolutionary progress' without a > monad or soul or 'entity' that is progressing? Only > a person's 'skandas' reincarnate. Well, it so happens that in my PhD program in Buddhist studies at UC Berkeley last year we discussed this subject in some detail. The Pali texts do indeed teach that only the skandhas reincarnate, like a stream of flowing water, ever changing but caused by whatever went on up stream. There are many schools of Buddhism, though, and I did find many texts and many schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism that teach we are in essence "Pure Mind" or "Clear Light" that is ever above all of our incarnations. Our incarnations, and universal manifestations, are approaches to this "monad." This quote is from *THE CRYSTAL AND THE WAY OF LIGHT* by Namkhai Norbu, one of the Dalai Lama's close associates, from page 12: "The teaching of Dzogs-chen is in essence a teaching concerning the PRIMORDIAL STATE OF BEING that is each individual's own INTRINSIC nature from the very beginning. To enter this state is to experience oneself as one is, as the center of the universe -- though not in the ordinary ego sense." *************************** There is also the Yogachara or Cittamatra of Mind-Only School, which teaches that we are pure consciousness from the beginning, changless throughout all our incarnations. >From *MAHAYANA BUDDHISM: THE DOCTRINAL FOUNDATIONS* by Paul Williams, page 92, "When the substratum consciousness ceases there remains, shining in its own purity, a ninth consciousness, the "immaculate consciousness" (AMALAVIJNANA). This consciousness is the PERMANENT, ultimate, true reality." Sounds like "monad" to me, but I could be wrong ... ************************ Buddhist texts which teach this idea of a permanent conscious essence in all beings include: Samdhinirmocana sutra Aksayamatinirdesha sutra The Abhhisamayalamkara The Madhyantavibhaga The Dharmadharmatavibhaga etc. There are related Mahayan and especially Tibetan traditions which teach the inherent "Buddha-essence" of all beings (tathagata-garbha), and these texts and schools are too numerous to name. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 00:22:13 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Art's Response to Daniel Daniel: >Is it a compassionate response to allow someone to continue in something >that destroys themself if there declaration is "I have a right to choose": The choice to intervene in someone else's free will and how they live their life is not one lightly taken. In the past, false but sincerely-held beliefs have led men to undertake such horrors as the Inquisition. The strong-arm tactics are also sometimes used in politics, like the political indoctrination that Chinese were subject to in their cultural revolution. Generally speaking, I would suggest that any attempt to intervene in the lives of others is wrong, harmful to the people involved, and arises out of arrogance on the part of the person who would intervene. >as an example... > >A young not so spiritual lady is dumped by her boyfriend. She sinks into >despair and chooses to commit suicide. "Does she have a RIGHT to die?" Suicide is selfish and not only hurts oneself, but also hurts the people left behind. The problem, though, is not in preventing people from making stupid decisions, but from not teaching them to think for themselves, so that they can understand things. The problem arises from any rigid, dogmatic belief system that tells people what to believe in, rather than training people in their own ability to think. >Yet in an act of grace(or law)...you happen to bump into her on the way home, >and you discern the broken heart...and in time the young lady falls >into love with your brother? Or the police arrest her and later that year >she creates a widget that saves lives. >What does kharma have to say about that? Sometimes fortunate "chance" events bring people together, and helpful words are spoken and someone is affected for the better. The decision, though, is still that of the other person to make. And in a universe ruled by spiritual law rather than randomness and luck, there was a purpose for that apparently "chance" encounter. The working of that law of justice, I'd say, is best described under the idea of karma, and not by grace or the passing whim of some supreme being. >If you rescue someone from a tragedy...have you not just condemned them to >have to repeat or undergo another tragedy? You haven't condemned them to repeat anything. They make their own choices. You can have a positive influence on the other people, but they still are responsible for their own decisions. It's wrong to expect to tell people what to do. >Was it compassionate for Jesus to agressively condemn those in the Temple. The idea that money should not be involved with spiritual teachings is a fairly common one, and not unique to the *story* of Jesus condeming those in the temple. >Was it compassionate for John to condemn the secular leaders openly? If you want to speak out against something, you have to explain why it is not good, and explain what you would suggest is a better approach. Simply attaching something you don't like serves no useful purpose other than polarizing people and arousing anger. >You shall know them the know me because they Love one another. Love of others is a universal ideal that is promoted throughout the various religions of the world. The opposite of it is to hate those that are different, belong to a different religion or political party, etc. >God is Love. Love is one of many universal virtues, virtues that stand as universal truths throughout life, everywhere and at all times. It is not the personal or exclusive attribute of any particular being, however supreme you would consider that being, for all beings are subject to law and the rules of existence. >It is clear that you have missed Jeremiah 1:5a-b. When you are talking to Art, if you find a biblical passage that seems to say something that disagrees with him, it really has nothing to do with a discussion of the beliefs that you and he hold. It doesn't really matter what the Bible says, since it's only one of countless religious texts, and it is a partial description of some spiritual truths. The Bible is not truth itself, nor is it complete and entirely accurate. For purposes of a discussion, you need to speak your own ideas, and present them clearly enought for them to seem defensible. A biblical adds nothing to a discussion. >Art if YHWH did have a hand in your creation (and he did) and you look >up into the Potters eyes and say "Why did you make me this way?" Or >make even a more foolish determination that the Pot determines what >will be contained within then that is your own personal choice which >you certainly have made of which only the Potter can by grace and mercy >wait for you to ask to be filled with His will. Theosophists would generally disagree with the idea that we are but clay fashioned out of some potter's hand. That is a story for children's sunday school, not for people who want to think and understand how life really works. We *made ourselves*, we are our own potters. >In Romans it says that they perverted the truth by worshipping the Creation >instead of the Creator. We are *collectively* the Creator, all of us participate in the work of creation of the world and what is in it. Our responsibility is to do great, noble works of intellectual and spiritual value in the world. >By now you are all saying...the Evangelical is too much, look at him attacking >and condemning.... You are picturing yourself as carrying out a certain role. This role is based upon a certain cosmology or creation myth which you believe in. As an actor, playing out an role, scripted by the minds of others, are you free to think for yourself? Can you personalize the script in your own life? >I did not write the book of Romans or any other part. And as an Evangelical You didn't, but other men did. >I hold the Word of God...as the Word of God. It is a perverted excuse that >declares that the inspired Word of God is less than what it delcares to be. The "word of God" is not letters on a printed page. It is a living voice within one, a voice that directly speaks spiritual truth. This voice is really the ability of one to directly preceive and live the spiritual. And there is no single, highest, personal being that personifies the spiritual. The highest that we know is our essential natures, deeply rooted in the divine, and inseparable from the Root of all. >This may make >you mad...but spiritual growth must be within the bounds of truth, or else >you grow wild. The fear of letting go from fixed dogma and thinking for yourself may make it seem so. But a fixed external anchor, attaching to a body of dogmatic teaching, does not protect from "going wild". It rather stifles and smothers the spiritual, which is a living tradition, a living sense of connectedness with life itself. >I respect your desire to trust Him...but I am honestly led to ask "who is Him"? One can personify the universe or spiritual side of things. One can even give his car a name, if that makes him feel more comfortable in driving it. But that act of personalizing the spiritual and divine, puts a mask over its living reality, a mask that distorts and degrades its essential beauty. >You know that scripture interprets scripture? And that inspiration, or >personal prophecy will not conflict with that which has already been >decalred by God? There is no individual person that can be called "God" that is individually responsible for scripture. Scripture is the remnants of spiritual writings of the past, misunderstood, with much of the teachings lost. People willing to think for themselves wrote scripture, not the "believers" of some bygone age, for those "believers" would also not let themselves deviate from the then existing dogmas of their age. >I am very aware of the different INTERPRETATIONS. However the gospel >message is simple regardless of our setting. I would disagree with the term "message" as misleading. >We are sinners. We are "sinners" when we turn the back on the spiritual, when we fail to take responsibility for our lives. >We cannot save ourselves. We cannot be saved, except for our own self-initiated efforts. We cannot control the spiritual, but we make it a part of our lives. >We need a Savior. In the final analysis, we are our own saviors. There are, though, periodic attempts from the Buddhas and Avataras to counteract spiritual darkness and turn the world back from darkness. That darkness can come both from a materialism that denies the spiritual as well as from religious dogmatism that is so rigid as to block out the light of the spirit. >Jesus is that Savior. As an Avatara, he was one such savior, one of many, and not the last. >And as to Historical Veracity...if you actually studied the foundation for >biblical >interpretation etc...then it is impossible to come to anyother conclusion >other than >the Bible is inspired or it is a joke. There is no room for luke here. It is neither. It is inspired by spiritual writers in the same sense as dozens of other texts of major religions. It contains many errors, errors in what is said or because of what is left out. It is one of many inperfect sources of religous materials that we can draw upon in our contemplation of the divine. >What do you do with Messianic Prophecies? Something is true or not based upon if it is rooted in the living reality of life. It does not matter whether someone, perhaps hundreds of years ago, had a lucky guess and seemed to predict something or not. >Who do say Jesus is? He is a man, inspired by *a* divinity, living out the role of a spiritual renewer for the people of his culture and age. >What will you say when He returns? "Hi." I don't expect that he will recognize much of the spiritual truths that he knew in any modern-day Christian sect. Things degrade over time, including religious organizations. They need continual revision and regneration to stay fresh and keep the living tradition alive. Without this, they become fossils. >[to Art:} >I will admit I come on strong. If you were a follower of Jesus Christ >then I certainly erred. I was wrong to not confront you first one on one. Those leading a spiritual life are not "followers" of any particular deity myth, nor are they followers of a single guru of the past. They are rather pioneers, explorers, and sometimes teachers of spiritual truth. They connect with the *living source* of truth, rather than some word-image of deity. >I also spank my children. Does it hurt? You bet. Does it help? Absolutely. >And I would certainly prevent by force any attack on my family or friends. But you would not want a Moslem to kill you as an infidel? Protecting children and defending family from harm are different situations than trying to win converts to one's favorite religious sect. >[to Art:] >It is unfortunate that your growth has separated you from the Word. The "word" is a living voice or way of directly knowing truth, apart from anything in writing or told one by this or any church. It has nothing to do with a dogmatic religious text. >Are you a reprobate or a follower that desires restoration? Have you >transgressed? Do not use the Word to defend your position if you do not >condsider it right. Art is someone having freed himself from preprogrammed beliefs, and learned to take responsibility for his own spiritual life. You could learn much from him. >Exegete? What does that mean? Does that not mean to reveal the truth that >IS found in the scripture? You and A. Bain are about 12inches off. Nothing at all is found in printed words. What is found is in one's own mind and heart. The words of the Bible are one of many sources of spiritual study, although I'd find them poor in inspiration and prefer other, less censored writings about the spiritual. >You have answered well in declaring the prince of the power of the air has >deceived you. This is something *you* believe in. It's not true, but is used as a technique to keep "believers" in the fold. The carrot is the promice of a special place in heaven, the stick is the the false construct of some devil out to get you. Both beliefs are off the mark. >There is a time and a place. And I too am learning to grow and reveal >the compassion of the Lord to the lost, We would respectfully disagree about whom is "lost." There is much that you exclude from your spiritual life by the narrow adherance to a rigid belief system. Your experience of the spiritual is stifled and limited by the mask that you continue to put over it. > but you my friend have declared >yourself to be not a diciple of Jesus Christ...and the reverence towards >the Lord compels me to Proclaim judgement. If you know or read the Word, >you can know that the saints are to judge...according to the Word. The judgement passed on any of us is that of karma. Whatever we do has its consequences. This is quite apart from any belief in Christian theology. >I can choose to listen to your last paragraph or I can choose to follow the >Great Commission by the Great Master. You're still picturing yourself as someone following a certain role. This role is scripted for you by your belief system. Can you step outside that role and belief system and gaze directly on truth itself? >Where is the Love and Compassion in degrading the Word and >denegrating the Lord Jesus Christ? The "word" is degraded when we put up "masks" over it, masks or graven idols of words, idols of our own beliefs, which keep us from gazing upon the divine side of things. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 00:26:27 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: On Planes Patrick: >Just a note on planes (there are some more posts on theos-l about this): > >The holistic nature of consciousness and beingness being true, there are >about twenty references to planes in the SD. There is distinction of >vibration while there is integrated relationship of all levels in a planetary >sense. For us as human beings the distinction between planes in >consciousness is important in learning on the path. Apart from the references, we need to put the ideas in our own words for us to understand them and use them properly. There's a distinction regarding planes that I'd like to make, and expand upon in a future post. We could distinguish between "planes of consciousness" and "planes of existence". Perhaps some of the confusion regarding planes could be resolved if we apply this distinction to our review of planes, globes, spheres of cause and spheres of effect, the manifest and unmanifest, etc. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 00:45:03 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Bailey, PSYCHIC and NOETIC Rich: >Patrick, I really tire of arguing with you the Bailey viewpoint endlessly. >We cannot meet, I fear, because you fail to recognize that you (I mean >Bailey) are not teaching source THEOSOPHY, but instead quite a different >system, with its own rules and ideas. This is probably for the best. No one is going to give up a belief in the Bailey materials simple upon being told that it is inconsistent with the source teachings of Theosophy. As we discuss the various teachings, there will be differences that come up, and we can deal with them on an idea-by-idea basis. There will be points where we cannot agree with what Bailey has said, and we'll present the best case for our contrary ideas, and leave it up to everyone to judge for themselves the best ideas. In our on-going theosophical class at our house, which has been studying various books by Purucker for several years, there are people that come that are into the Bailey materials. They say at times things that I would consider as "off the wall," though the ideas seem to make sense to them. Sometimes I can explain what we are studying in different words and it is appreciated; other times we just let it pass and move on. >So I give up. No more rebuttals from me, it's useless. You can argue with >Blavatsky instead and leave me out of it. It quickly tires us to be doing battle with the beliefs of others, when we disagree with a favorite writer or teacher. A better approach is to ignore the authority figures and speak from the compelling logic and beauty of the Teachings themselves. Leave the rating and analysis of the various personages to the historians among us. >And so I quote, from Psychic and >Noetic Action, p. 21 in "Theosophical Articles" Vol. 2 from Theosophy >Company: >"The 'Higher Ego' [noetic] cannot act directly on the body, as its >consciousness pertains to quite another plane and planes of ideation: the >'lower' SELF [psychic] does: and its action and behavior depend on its free >will and choice as to whether it will gravitate more toward its parent ("the >Father in Heaven") or the "animal" which it informs, the man of flesh. The >'Higher Ego' x has to act solely through its ALTER EGO--the Personal Self." This passage could be confusing without some explanation. We have the dual concepts of the seven principles of consciousness intertwined with the concept of the centers of consciousness within us (the spiritual ego, human ego, animal-nature, etc.) There is both a center of consciousness in us that personifies the noetic aspect, functioning on its own plane, as there is the noetic aspect of consciousness which is part of the seven principles that we have -- on this or on any plane that we come into existence on. Things like the princples and the centers of consciousness are related, sometimes spoken of as though they were the same thing -- which they are not -- and defined in differing manners depending upon the discussion. (Sometimes, for instance, the seven principles are Atman to Sthula-Sharira, others they are Auric Egg to Linga-Shirara.) The intermingling of the ideas is partly due to a lack of evolving the expression of the ideas. When first spoken of, there is not a clear, ready manner of talking about the teachings, and a terminology needs to be evolved. The ideas may be intermingled to not make it too easy for the student to learn them, as a teaching technique. And the intermingling may be somewhat of a blind, to keep the deeper truths from eyes not ready to see what is there before one. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 01:08:03 GMT From: dhedrick@csn.net Subject: One last bone...(of contention?) I am so pleased that many of you are concerned about my spiritual condition. I am even pleased that some of you consider me a challenge. A few quick answers to previous posts: As to Matthew 19:12 This passage is a reference to mans impotence whether born impotent, castrated or by choice to not procreate. The passage was used to question our creation. Let me refocus this to Romans 9:18:23 These are clear passages that indicate that God creates man in to His own vessels of honor or dishonor. As a layman of biblical theology and one who TRUELY respects the Word, I find it necessary to counter or refute teachings that do not line up with biblical theology. If you are aware of the bible and its contents you would find that the bible does not teach preexistence of man, only foreknowledge of a living God. There is no declaration of reincarnation in the Old or New Testaments. Quite the contrary. Pauls assertion that we die once then judgement, Davids declaration that He would be with His son in the future (after death). Paul said "...to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Paul even said that it would be better for him if he were dead... Is this because he knew he would be reincarnated or emancipated? As a man who chooses to follow the teachers such as Paul and then I am confronted by the teachings of Zen or any other New Age beliefs and they are at absolute contradiction to my established faith and established truth then what is a man in time supposed to do? Can anyone tell me who Jesus is? And if he is not God declaring Himself Savior of a broken people that are destined to HELL if they do not accept the advocates declaration of emancipation through the shed blood of Jesus Christ...then he is an idiot with delusions of grandeur. Why can't anyone on this list tell me who Jesus is? And how do you know what you say about Him is the truth? Hmmm? Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 01:11:14 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Manas, planes, Be-ness Rich: >Jerry, >I will do my best to respond to your last two insulting and personally >aggressive posts, in which you call my beliefs "ridiculous," and degrade me, >saying "If you had been reading my postings with manas instead of kama." I >don't understand your hostility and anger at my posts, I am surprised and >hurt by it. I guess we all take our lumps in the Work? >Regarding planes and Be-ness, The sudden taking off of 'theos-l', its turning into a dynamic center of discussion, has motivated many of us to be more interested and involved in it. With Jerry, using Compuserve, the dropping of the per-message fee may have further encouraged him to write more. With both you, Jerry, and myself, among others, we have very definite ideas that we would like to communicate. There is not always agreement. Over time, we will soften the harsh edges to our communications and deal with the disagreement better. This happens with all of us. JRC and I, for instance, have been recently sandpapering ourselves and may come off less abrasive in the future. We have a useful learning experience in these discussions, where we can refine our writing and communication skills, which can later be put to use in articles, books, and other forms of writing. I think that we can do this respectfully, and not end up either being overly defensive or offensive. Our intentions are good, but sometimes quick anger clouds our words and the intended effect of our words is lost. >> Rich:< The souls do not have individual existence at >> the end of a manvantara, but merge into the great One >> Life, which does not exist at all, on any plane or >> grade, let alone sub-planes. It is Be-ness, behind >> all existence.> >Jerry S.: >> BTW, Rich, Beness as defined by HPB does >> exist and it does so on the first plane - that of >> divinity. What do you think the first (highest) >> cosmic plane is? Your statements are so terribly >> dualistic and your logic is so confounded that I >> can't really say more. Jerry: "so terribly dualistic" and "logic is so confounded" is rather strong language for a discussion of one of the holiest of things. I would use "be-ness" in two senses. In one regard, it is the perception of the pure quality of existing, without regard to any sense of other beings. We experience the essential "flavor" of existing in a universe or world, its essential swabhava. This is equalvant to Atman or the atmic consciousness, and could be called the first plane of consciousness. In a second sense, "be-ness" could be considered the essence of being, apart from any form of existence. In this case, we are talking about an attribute of consciousness while non-existing, non-manifest, above and beyond the manifest universe. An attempt to define some of the qualities and nature of the unmanifest nature of things is undertaken by Purucker, and is described as three planes above the seven, or five unmanifest globes above the seven that are manifest, making a twelvefold scheme -- the unmanifest above the manifest. In the unmanifest, "be-ness" could be considered the essential nature or quality of being, above and beyond our having come into any form of existence. This is a difficult topic, and requires much to be said to make it clear, and I don't thing we'll be able to do more than talk around it. >Well, what does HPB say about Be-ness in the S.D.? She seems to say that >Be-ness does NOT exist, on any plane, as we find on page 14 of the S.D. Vol. 1: >This is the >"This Infinite and Eternal Cause--dimly formulated in the "Unconscious" and >"Unknowable" of current European philosophy--is the rootless root of "all >that was, is, or ever shall be." It is of course devoid of all attributes >and is essentially without any relation to manifested, finite Being. It is >"Be-ness" rather than Being (in Sanskrit SAT), and is beyond all thought or >speculation." This is going a bit deeper than the "be-ness" that is an aspect of our consciousness and part of the experience of life. The unknowable ultimate would be, from my thinking, the highest of our principles of consciousness, when considering the twelvefold scheme, or as above the principles of consciousness in the sevenfold scheme. To understand or get an appreciation for it, though, we'll have to use words that carry a sense of respect for its Mystery, a sense of majesty, awe, and feeling of the divine and holy nature that it represents. >If Be-ness is out of all relation to manifested Being, how can it form the >first plane? There are unconditioned qualities or virtures or absolutes. They act behind all that is, but do not particularly relate to a specific world or universe and direct things. Absolute time, for instance, does not itself become conditioned time in a particular world. Absolute duration does not become this or that particular manvantara. But conditioned time, with finite limits and attributes does participate in a particular universe. And I would suggest that there is "conditioned be-ness", as well as "unconditioned be-ness", and the former does participate as the highest or guiding principle of consciousness in a particular world scheme. >Perhaps this can be explained to me, for indeed I am a relative >newcomer compared to many I'm sure. If I am confused, I should be set >straight, rather than insulted, no? Insults won't help clear up my >confusion, if such it is. The best way to deal with perceived insults is to act as if they didn't happen. A response to them makes the other person defensive. Ignoring them and going on in a friendly manner allows them to quickly be forgotten. We're fortunate that we aren't in the position of having to fend attacks on a on-going basis, like Paul Johnson in defense of his books. We can usually anticipate a hostile reaction coming our way, because we've just done or said something that is controversial to others. >Finally, I have never met Eldon, and he associates with a different "wing" of >the movement than I do, but I find his posts clear, insightful, and right on >track. Some would say that is because we tend to think along similar lines, and it's not that I have a special claim on writing skills or an inner track to the deeper truths. What I've found is that the more I write, the better I get at writing. And the more that I attempt to share Theosophy, the more that I have to share. This is something that we all can do. And with practice, we can write without the rough edges, we can write in a manner that shares more of the heart and spirit of what we would share, and become of greater benefit to others with the words that we use. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 01:12:12 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: More PSYCHIC AND NOETIC (2) I for one am following this, even if not responding at this stage, so yes, old pal, keep it going! Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 01:22:49 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: "source teachings" Jerry S; >Anyone who CLAIMS to write for the Mahatmas will likely be >laughed out of town by the theosophists themselves. HPB's reincarnation will >have a hard go of it, I am sure. Sometimes, depending upon if the person is an independent or has political control of the theosophical group. There are many groups within and outside of the theosophical mainstream that proclaim their direct inspiriation, if not continued direction, from the Masters. >Like Jesus says, everyone wants signs and wonders or "proofs." I cannot help feeilng concerned that when we talk about our psychic experiences, that we're both offering people "wonders" and implicitly setting ourselves up as authorities on matters spiritual. People tend to be more impressed with what someone says if they can recount stories of their visions and out-of-the-body experiences, than if they simply talk philosophy. >As I have said many times, truth and falsehood are both >within yourself - we must each look within ourselves to see the truth or >falsity of any teaching, regardless of source. Quite true. And this is one of the points that I've tried to make with Daniel. >For this very reason, every >Messenger will have some followers and some detractors. This is an occult >law, and each Messenger accepts it as a given. They may not like it, but >they accept it. HPB clearly did. I'd agree, but also say that any "false messanger" will also have detractors: people like us, students of Theosophy, speaking out for what we consider as right in the face of error and falsehood. We just need some practice among ourselves in being more agreeable. I've noticed perhaps a dozen sources of conflict and disagreement between individuals on 'theos-l', including the two of us, at times, and we need to talk about the relative merits of our respective ideas without losing patience and getting into fighting words. With time, we've all seemed to improve, but we're not perfect, and always have room for improvement. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 01:23:27 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Hat > I don't believe you guys. Are you for real? > > Liesel > Probably not ... Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 01:33:45 GMT From: dhedrick@csn.net Subject: Real Teachers make Real Men Have you ever read writings from any of the following? Walter Martin John Bunyan Ron Rhodes Norman Geisler John Owen Frank Beckwith CS Lewis John Ankerburg To name a few. The above scholars are men of integrity and who certainly maintained their faith in Christ Jesus and would have strongly condemned any faith that did not soley reside with Christ and biblical theology. They are or were considered the best of the apologists that have ever served the one and only Master Jesus Christ. Were these men disalussioned, deceitful or destined? Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 01:55:03 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: Bailey, PSYCHIC and NOETIC Frankly I would like to hear a bit more about Bailey. I was reading the article on Suffering in the latest issue of Quest and her history came up. She was a fundamentalist and made the shift to something else. I am very interested in transitions like that so whatever you think will imform me would be helpful. Art Patterson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 03:01:44 GMT From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Subject: Rumi Hi Brenda, Thanks for thinking of the newies. I have borrowed some terminology from another place and refer to the physical,astral and mental bodies that our soul has to operate through in this life as the 'ground crew'. That refers to the lot so then I can think of my higher whatnots doing their thing within this framework. I realise that this may be a bit simplistic but I leave the intricate details to them what have studied it more that I have. I enjoy reading the oodles of mail on the varied subjects. Love and light, Bee From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 03:02:10 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: One last bone...(of contention?) >As a man who chooses to follow the teachers such >as Paul and then I am confronted by the teachings >of Zen or any other New Age beliefs and they are >at absolute contradiction to my established faith >and established truth then what is a man in time >supposed to do? I think what you are doing is just fine. You are continuing in the path that you have found. Yet you are questioning the satisfaction that others have found. I think this is the correct approach. Here you are sharing and wondering despite all of the criticism and ridicule. I myself am very happy that you are here on theos-l and I hope you can continue (that the other members will permit you to write). > >Can anyone tell me who Jesus is? And if he is not >God declaring Himself Savior of a broken people >that are destined to HELL if they do not accept the >advocates declaration of emancipation through the >shed blood of Jesus Christ...then he is an idiot with >delusions of grandeur. > >Why can't anyone on this list tell me who Jesus is? >And how do you know what you say about Him is >the truth? It's true we don't say much about Jesus and I suppose as long as there is a group, i.e., the Christians, who prefer an exclusive right to know Jesus, then we will continue to investigate in other ways. I would like you to know though that Jesus is considered to be the teacher, master, and friend of many theosophists. However, they do prefer something more scientific in terms of blood and saving. I think I have been saved. My life was a wreck even though I knew what I wanted to do with it. Through the outreach of many "good samaritans" I was able to get on my feet and make some progress towards my goals. Where did these good samaritans come from? Many of them learned how to live from Christian upbringings. Jesus is an inspiration and an example of wisdom and compassion. Two of my dearest theosophical friends are members of a church that is largely composed of theosophists or theosophical-minded. The church is called The Liberal Catholic Church and many among our numbers have an acquaintance with it. However, as you have probably seen, The Theosophical Society doesn't limit our choices. "Worship, service and study" are the mottos of many. Worship is done in many forms. Right now I still working on the preparation of a description of holidays in other religions. I am particularly interested in the Jewish holidays because in my 40 years of living, I was never really exposed to what it is their holidays are about. I profess ignorance of a great tradition in today's world and wish to learn more. I don't know how many people are also interested in these holidays, but I imagine they will at least try to look at what I have to say objectively. How do you feel about our Jewish population? Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 03:06:33 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: Real Teachers make Real Men Daniel, CS Lewis? Author of the CHRONICALS OF NARNIA? Thanks for the list. I will try to save this and take a look at what they have written. >They are or were considered the best >of the apologists that have ever served the >one and only Master Jesus Christ. > >Were these men disalussioned, deceitful or >destined? > I mentioned Judaism which I would like to know more about in my last post. Did you ever take a look at the Koran. Mohammed had so much love and respect for Jesus, Mary and the Christian teachings. There are constant references to Jesus and how to approach "the infidels." In fact, I think all Muslims recognize Jesus and Moses as their "saviors" or as superior beings. Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 04:08:45 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: A Cloud of Witnesses to Truth At 9:45 AM 9/11/95, dhedrick@csn.net wrote: >Have you ever read writings from any of the following? Unfortunately I think you may believe that many of us haven't explored the evangelical tradition but you are wrong. Some have live it explored and moved on honoring but not holding to it. >Walter Martin Art: Martin wrote Kingdom of the Cults which refuted false doctrine of many movements. I found it interesting that he included Charismatic movement and Roman Catholicism as a cult. >John Bunyan Art: I have taught two courses on Bunyan's Pilgrim's progress and was a student under a famous scholar of Puritanism JI Packer. Love the symbolism love, the allegory, the passion and the universal appeal of Bunyan. Including his commitment. >Ron Rhodes Art: ? >Norman Geisler Introduction the Bible Norman and a fellow called Nix wrote an evangelical rebuttal to scholarly critical work.It was a very abrasive book and you could tell that the authors only read for what they found missing in authors they reviewed. I studied with Nix at Seminary for a full term course. In class I remember asking myself the question, "If this man (Nix) has the truth then why does it sound like a lie when I know some of it is true." It had to do with his intolerant tone and denigration of others who didn't think like him. >John Owen On Sin and Temptation This work was challenging from a language point of view 17th Century English is hard to read. He was undoubtedly a genius and had some insights concerning the human condition that even outstrip Freud in their depth of psychological wisdom. I want to re-read him. That I found difficult was his understanding of limited atonement to those elected by God for salvation. But with historical empathy he can be read to great benefit. >Frank Beckwith ? >CS Lewis Mere Christianity, Till We Have Faces etc. I find Lewis' apologetics to be rationalistic and defensive but his mythological work to be superb. He holds some very enlightened views concerning universal redemption which include the salvation of the sincere seeker in other traditions than Christianity. >John Ankerburg > >To name a few. >The above scholars are men of integrity and who >certainly maintained their faith in Christ Jesus >and would have strongly condemned any faith >that did not soley reside with Christ and biblical >theology. They are or were considered the best >of the apologists that have ever served the >one and only Master Jesus Christ. > >Were these men disalussioned, deceitful or >destined? Since I have studied most pretty thoroughly I say they were great people, well most of them. And they had very interesting perspectives that demand our attention. I don't think that they were super-beings or infallible, or even the smartest individuals that walked the planet. But they are people of faith and I respect that. What could be done on this list is to look at the people we are indebted to. I am only name dropping now with very little research but I think I would add to Daniel's names of important people to consider: Ralph Waldo Emerson (my current mentor and master of sorts) Helena P. Blavatsky Alice Bailey C. Leadbeater Rudold Steiner Gurdjieff Dali Lama Anne Besant And then more close to home: Jerry E Jerry S A. Bain Paul Johnson Liesel Brenda T. Patrick Rich and the rest of Theos-l All these people, the people on all these lists, have something of the Master (s) in them. Never are they to be taken as infallible, inordinately authorative but each with gifts differing. Thankfully, Arthur Paul Patterson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 04:38:32 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Unity of Traditions >As a layman of biblical theology and one who >TRUELY respects the Word, I find it necessary >to counter or refute teachings that do not line up >with biblical theology. While I usually have difficulty with the word layman I do understand what you are are trying to say. There is no doubt about the love you have for the light you have been given in the Word. I am not sure but I think most of us would affirm that desire for truth. Your respect for the Word is inconspicuous. What I don't get is that while not a trained Biblical Theologian you would take it upon yourself to make the necessary corrections concerning the beliefs of Theos-l. Biblical theology is one step removed from exegesis or from direct Biblical Interpretion. It relies on an understanding of the history, languages, and literary forms of the text. You have a lot of training to do before you could be competant to deal with this issue. I accept whole heartedly your passionate desire to serve God but I am not as confident in your interpretations. I know that laymen and women can have deep insights into faith and I would never put that down but I would not attribute to the untrained person a professional status as an interpreter. There is however another level on which anyone can be the carrier of true and that is when someone has lived with his faith, regardless of what faith it is, with intergrity and love in such as way as their words have authenticating value. In my best estimate you can tell this by their compassion, love and service to all people. >If you are aware of the bible and its contents you >would find that the bible does not teach preexistence >of man, only foreknowledge of a living God. In my opinion while the Bible does contain truth it is not exhaustive truth. There is no mention of computers in the bible but it wouldn't take us a lot reflection to see that we are using one right now. It is not a driving question to Paul who used scrolls. Pre-existence was not a driving issue for the Biblical writers although there are some interesting suggestions that imply different models of existence within the text. Pre-existence was a huge idea in Platonic thought and whenChristians who were influenced by Plato throught about preexistence they could affirm it as a good metphor too. Origen, Clement and the Alexandrian school did just that. >As a man I have an idea of your gender but why do you not say as a "person"? Is there something intrinsically masculine in the perspective you are trying to get through to us? who chooses to follow the teachers such >as Paul and then I am confronted by the teachings >of Zen or any other New Age beliefs and they are >at absolute contradiction to my established faith >and established truth then what is a man in time >supposed to do? Explore both. > >Can anyone tell me who Jesus is? When we try to do this you are not satisfied. During the Scriptural times they asked the quesiton who am I? It is a burning question down through history. Lewis framed it as Liar, Lunatic or Lord? But the issue is Christ is who he is and even the historial Jesus didn't always know the full impact of that. In my estimate Jesus Christ is a historical manifestation of hope and New Being, a human who was so conscious of Transcendence that he was enlightened and could not be tolerated because his consciousness was beyond the collective. I have sought to learn from him how to live and sought to identify the same spirit in other great teachers as I have encountered in him. And if he is not >God declaring Himself Savior of a broken people >that are destined to HELL if they do not accept the >advocates declaration of emancipation through the >shed blood of Jesus Christ...then he is an idiot with >delusions of grandeur. Jesus only spoke of hell twice, or rather Matthew had Jesus speak about hell twice. Paul never mentioned it at all. Why so much emphasis on a minor teaching. > >Why can't anyone on this list tell me who Jesus is? We thought you knew. >And how do you know what you say about Him is >the truth? For me I don't trust truth language like that. How do I know anything is a big question. Ask Plato, Hegel, and others. Of course this discussion is as open to others as it is to Daniel. Personally I am not convinced that Daniel can or will hear what I am saying at all. I wouldn't mind others joining the dialogue, not so much to refute Daniel, but, to take seriously the issues he brings up. Then again this may not be the place for this sort of discussion. It might be through. Since the issues Daniel raises are of the spiritual nature and Theosophy claims to be the underpinning of the traditions it would be good to hear from the Theosophical perspective a response to our discussions. If however there are some who are offended or feel that this discussion is not in keeping with our goals I would be glad to accomodate and shift topics. Art From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 05:11:06 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: One last bone...(of contention?) Daniel: >I am so pleased that many of you are concerned >about my spiritual condition. I am even pleased that >some of you consider me a challenge. You are someone to talk to like anyone else. >As to Matthew 19:12 ... The passage was used to question our creation. Can you say something about what you believe in your own words, rather than giving references to some religious book that *you* hold as authoritative. What are *your* ideas? >These are clear passages that indicate that God >creates man in to His own vessels of honor or dishonor. >As a layman of biblical theology and one who >TRUELY respects the Word, I find it necessary >to counter or refute teachings that do not line up >with biblical theology. Books like the Bible are not "the Word", but are a "graven image" that hides the voice of the spiritual. If you put aside the book as a mask that covers over the experience of the higher side of life, and gaze directly upon the spiritual, you'll have more to offer to others. >If you are aware of the bible and its contents you >would find that the bible does not teach preexistence >of man, only foreknowledge of a living God. >There is no declaration of reincarnation in the >Old or New Testaments. Quite the contrary. >Pauls assertion that we die once then judgement, >Davids declaration that He would be with His son >in the future (after death). We can debate what fragments of spiritual truth made it into the Bible, and what were left out. That discussion is entirely different than the one of directly considering the truths themselves, apart from any particular religious text. >As a man who chooses to follow the teachers such >as Paul and then I am confronted by the teachings >of Zen or any other New Age beliefs and they are >at absolute contradiction to my established faith >and established truth then what is a man in time >supposed to do? There is only the appearance of a "contradiction" when the literal words are adhered to. All the approaches attempt to describe the same living realities of life. >Can anyone tell me who Jesus is? He is one of many great spiritual teachers, partly misunderstood by his would-be followers. His life and teachings were appropriate to his historic time and place. Only that part of Christianity that grows and changes with the times continues to remain relevant in this day. And of that modern Christianity, only that part which allows its followers the flexibility of mind to *directly perceive the spiritual,* continues to be of value to modern society. >And if he is not >God declaring Himself Savior of a broken people >that are destined to HELL if they do not accept the >advocates declaration of emancipation through the >shed blood of Jesus Christ...then he is an idiot with >delusions of grandeur. He is not. People are not broken, though they may choose to blind themselves to the light of the spiritual. The threat of a Christian "hell" is unreal, since there is no such place. And the sacrifice made for mankind by every spiritual teacher is properly appreciated. We must show our appreciation through leading others to open up to the spiritual. (And that does not mean "conversion" to our favorite religious sect.) >Why can't anyone on this list tell me who Jesus is? Do you really want to know what Jesus is, or just want to hear people echoing back to you a certain formula of religious dogma? >And how do you know what you say about Him is the truth? How do we know the truth in philosophical and metaphysical matters? It's an on-going, never-ending search, where we explore the great truths offered us, learn and grow in understanding, and make what we know a genuine part of our minds and hearts. That means that we can easily put ideas that are true to us in our own words, and explain them clearly. We don't need the authority of some citation to someone else's writing to make our own ideas any more clear. Nor do we need the words of someone else to better say the ideas, for they come from our heart and inner nature. "Philosophy" means the love of wisdom, and it is what we practice. This exploration is the opposite approach to the learning of rigid dogma, the exacting quoting of scripture, and the giving up of one's independent thought. But it leads to truth and a direct experience of the spiritual, whereas the other approach leads to a deadening of the mind, and a sense of emotional devotion, at best. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 05:19:06 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Bailey, PSYCHIC and NOETIC Patrick: >There are many sources through which the Mahatma's work, Bailey is one >of many. >HPB and AAB taught the same principles and rules of the path. On this >list these principles are enjoyably discussed. Discussing the basic philosophy is a good approach. There won't be complete agreement. There are a number of points that I might make that you would likely disagree with. But there are others that you would find interesting and useful. I understand that Bailey students appreciate the book "The Divine Plan" by Geoffrey Barborka. He was a Point Loma student and wrote what would be considered source Theosophy. There are shared interests in our studies on 'theos-l', and we will get to them over time. I know one long-time student of Bailey and HPB, who later gave up his belief in the Bailey materials. One key point that he mentioned to me was the stress on a sense of an occult hierarchy as world government, ruling what goes on in the world. This might be an example of where the Bailey materials diverges from the source writings, and I would tend to disagree with the idea. (In fact, about two years ago on 'theos-l', I wrote something about the idea.) Assuming that there are such differences, can we acknowledge and explore them without having to denounce anyone nor go to extreme lengths to try to show that Blavatsky somehow supported the idea? -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 05:21:28 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Eldon on Politics in the AT Jerry S: >For a >personal approach, I see the first step of the Path as moral development, >followed by the second step - development of compassion. After that, it >becomes very personal and can vary quite a bit. This is a very good statement that we should repeat from time to time, so that someone new does not think that the various things that we are discussing, and sometimes arguing about, are more important. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 05:43:22 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: "source teachings" Rich: >[Writing to Liesel:] >I partially agree and partially disagree. I agree that the presentation of >the teaching need to be in the language of the people, accessible and >understandable. And I agree that that's our job, to keep the teaching >available in that way. The Teachings need their exoteric garb overhauled from time to time. They need to replace their tattered, worn clothing when it becomes unusable. >But I don't agree that the Teaching evolves. If Theosophy is truly "truth" >based on facts in nature, then it simply IS and does not change. However the >PRESENTATION of those truths may vary from culture to culture, time to time. The Teachings, as they relate to absolute things, things that are timeless, channot be definition change, except in their outer garb. But the Lessor Teachings, if I may coin a term, that relate to the way things are *in our particular world or universe,* are subject to change. Our particular laws of nature, as they change, need to be described differently, for the world that we live in is living, growing, and subject to change. >I don't ever think we will outgrow the original stuff taught by HPB and >William Q. Judge, but I do think their written English will differ more and >more from the spoken and written vernacular as the decades, and centuries go >by. The Teachings that they gave out won't get stale, although we may need to put the ideas into our own words, if the ideas are to be genuine on our lips. And the terminology needs to grow, from the makeshift terms that HPB and Judge had to coin. >The question is: how do we keep ourselves based firmly on the tradition >handed down to us -- that tradition of eternal truths -- while keeping it >current, at the same time avoiding the pitfall of "pandering" to popular >prejudices, like and dislikes, thus altering or losing the essential truths. We do so by establishing and maintaining our own *living connection* with the Wisdom Tradition, a connection made in our hearts and minds that allows us to recognize and appreciate the Wisdom whereever we find it. >It seems to me the only way to prevent this decay is to really KNOW and >MASTER the original stuff, and be able to rephrase it in our OWN WORDS at any >time, differently for every audience (scientists, scholars, Christians, >Buddhists, housewives, business people, farmers, kids, etc.) Learning the >original stuff well also allows one to spot other people's interpretations >and see of they are on track or not. Agreed. But when we say so, we also have to point out, for the record, that we are not talking about an exclusive approach to the spirituall, just about our role as helpers with a particular presentation of the Mystery Teachings. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 06:04:25 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: On Planes Just a note on planes (there are some more posts on theos-l about this): The holistic nature of consciousness and beingness being true, there are about twenty references to planes in the SD. There is distinction of vibration while there is integrated relationship of all levels in a planetary sense. For us as human beings the distinction between planes in consciousness is important in learning on the path. Cheers, Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 06:37:14 GMT From: Ruben Cabigting Subject: Re: One last bone...(of contention?) On Mon, 11 Sep 1995, Eldon B. Tucker wrote: > Daniel: > > >I am so pleased that many of you are concerned > >about my spiritual condition. I am even pleased that > >some of you consider me a challenge. > > You are someone to talk to like anyone else. > > >As to Matthew 19:12 ... The passage was used to question our creation. > > Can you say something about what you believe in your own > words, rather than giving references to some religious > book that *you* hold as authoritative. What are *your* > ideas? > > >These are clear passages that indicate that God > >creates man in to His own vessels of honor or dishonor. > > >As a layman of biblical theology and one who > >TRUELY respects the Word, I find it necessary > >to counter or refute teachings that do not line up > >with biblical theology. > > Books like the Bible are not "the Word", but are a "graven image" > that hides the voice of the spiritual. If you put aside the > book as a mask that covers over the experience of the higher > side of life, and gaze directly upon the spiritual, you'll > have more to offer to others. > > >If you are aware of the bible and its contents you > >would find that the bible does not teach preexistence > >of man, only foreknowledge of a living God. > > >There is no declaration of reincarnation in the > >Old or New Testaments. Quite the contrary. > >Pauls assertion that we die once then judgement, > >Davids declaration that He would be with His son > >in the future (after death). > > We can debate what fragments of spiritual truth made it into > the Bible, and what were left out. That discussion is entirely > different than the one of directly considering the truths > themselves, apart from any particular religious text. > > >As a man who chooses to follow the teachers such > >as Paul and then I am confronted by the teachings > >of Zen or any other New Age beliefs and they are > >at absolute contradiction to my established faith > >and established truth then what is a man in time > >supposed to do? > > There is only the appearance of a "contradiction" when the > literal words are adhered to. All the approaches attempt to > describe the same living realities of life. > > >Can anyone tell me who Jesus is? > > He is one of many great spiritual teachers, partly > misunderstood by his would-be followers. His life and > teachings were appropriate to his historic time and place. > Only that part of Christianity that grows and changes with > the times continues to remain relevant in this day. And of > that modern Christianity, only that part which allows its > followers the flexibility of mind to *directly perceive > the spiritual,* continues to be of value to modern society. > > >And if he is not > >God declaring Himself Savior of a broken people > >that are destined to HELL if they do not accept the > >advocates declaration of emancipation through the > >shed blood of Jesus Christ...then he is an idiot with > >delusions of grandeur. > > He is not. People are not broken, though they may choose to > blind themselves to the light of the spiritual. The threat of > a Christian "hell" is unreal, since there is no such place. > And the sacrifice made for mankind by every spiritual teacher > is properly appreciated. We must show our appreciation through > leading others to open up to the spiritual. (And that does not > mean "conversion" to our favorite religious sect.) > > >Why can't anyone on this list tell me who Jesus is? > > Do you really want to know what Jesus is, or just want to > hear people echoing back to you a certain formula of religious > dogma? > > >And how do you know what you say about Him is the truth? > > How do we know the truth in philosophical and metaphysical matters? > It's an on-going, never-ending search, where we explore the great > truths offered us, learn and grow in understanding, and make what we > know a genuine part of our minds and hearts. That means that we can > easily put ideas that are true to us in our own words, and explain > them clearly. We don't need the authority of some citation to someone > else's writing to make our own ideas any more clear. Nor do we need > the words of someone else to better say the ideas, for they come > from our heart and inner nature. "Philosophy" means the love of > wisdom, and it is what we practice. This exploration is the opposite > approach to the learning of rigid dogma, the exacting quoting of > scripture, and the giving up of one's independent thought. But it > leads to truth and a direct experience of the spiritual, whereas > the other approach leads to a deadening of the mind, and a sense of > emotional devotion, at best. > > -- Eldon > To Eldon, BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! IMHO, your answers above are excellent, it reflects the ideal approach to the study of religion. I always encourage the clergy and members of the congregation in my church to think for themselves and discover the truth within. They can study the Bible and any other religious books/material but they have to meditate and discover for themselves the inner meaning or significance of what they read or heard. The truth is, I can use a thousand words to describe the taste of sugar but I am doomed to failure because nobody can learn the sweetness of sugar unless they experience it themselves. Nobody will ever learn who Jesus is or was until he/she will reach His spiritual stature and experience what He realy is, until they become what Jesus is. + Ruben From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 08:13:13 GMT From: dhedrick@csn.net Subject: Re: One last bone...(of contention?) >> >>Why can't anyone on this list tell me who Jesus is? >>And how do you know what you say about Him is >>the truth? > > I would like you to know >though that Jesus is considered to be the teacher, master, and friend of >many theosophists. However, they do prefer something more scientific in >terms of blood and saving. Is there science in history? Is Jesus a historical figure that was thought of as more than a man? Did He calim to be God? Did others claim that He was God? >I think I have been saved. Saved from what? Your own innate foolishness. And now you have a desire to treat others as you would be treated...etc? The salvation I speak of is eternal. Not from one incarnation to another. > Jesus is an inspiration and >an example of wisdom and compassion. Yet His own claims extend far beyond any of the other masters. > >Right now I still working on >the preparation of a description of holidays in other religions. I challenge you to find some reading examples of the Messiah in the Passover Seder. > I am >particularly interested in the Jewish holidays because in my 40 years of >living, I was never really exposed to what it is their holidays are about. >I profess ignorance of a great tradition in today's world and wish to learn >more. I don't know how many people are also interested in these holidays, >but I imagine they will at least try to look at what I have to say objectively. > >How do you feel about our Jewish population? > As any learned Christian, we are to respect the Nation of Israel. After the Lord's second coming there will be the reaping of the 144,000 jews who will be martyred and be great witnesses during the great tribulation. Beware the Mark of the Beast & When you see the Temple being built in Jerusalem...remember that the prophecies are continuing to be fulfilled. Time is short. 40 months? 40 years? Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 08:18:38 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Re: Bailey, PSYCHIC and NOETIC >Frankly I would like to hear a bit more about Bailey. There is a book called "The Unfinished Autobiography" by her available through most new age and regular bookstores. >I was reading the >article on Suffering in the latest issue of Quest and her history came up. >She was a fundamentalist and made the shift to something else. Yes, she read the SD and taught classes on it. >I am very >interested in transitions like that so whatever you think will imform me >would be helpful. The adventures that brought about her realizations of theosophy are written about the autobiography. She had several experiences early on with the Mahatmas and later had on-going communication with them (including D.K. sending a package by normal post). She wrote about fifteen books over thirty years but it was not publically known that D.K. was authoring most of them until some years into the work. Cheers, Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 09:19:51 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Unity of Traditions Art: >Of course this discussion is as open to others as it is to Daniel. Anything posted should be considered "fair game" for discussion. Otherwise we have one or two people preaching at us, and find ourselves disallowed from making our own comments on what is said. >Personally I am not convinced that Daniel can or will hear what I am saying >at all. He knows what he is trying to say. It's up to him to decide to listen to us or not. If he can sense the holy or spiritual in wht we say, he may listen, if not blinded by the words he feels necessary to clothe things in. >I wouldn't mind others joining the dialogue, not so much to refute >Daniel, but, to take seriously the issues he brings up. I'm still waiting for him to get into issues. Most of what I've seen are authoritative statements with biblical quotes given in an attempt to justify them. I'd like to see him state some of his own ideas, in his own words, and explain why he considers them useful. >Then again this >may not be the place for this sort of discussion. It might be through. >Since the issues Daniel raises are of the spiritual nature and Theosophy >claims to be the underpinning of the traditions it would be good to hear >from the Theosophical perspective a response to our discussions. It can be fun in a sense to respond to his assertions with some of our one. This is in a good natured way, where we are descriptive of our differing beliefs, and not in a mean-spirited way of attaching each other for being different. It will only become a problem if the discussion gets too circular, where we continue to repeat and repeat the same things, with nothing new said at each iteration of the conversion. When nothing new gets to be said, that we've come to an end to dialog and need to move on. >If however >there are some who are offended or feel that this discussion is not in >keeping with our goals I would be glad to accomodate and shift topics. The offense that we take to beliefs we don't like is not unique to Daniel's comments, but is equally true of other things that have been said. It's a spiritual practice for us to work on not feeling a sense of offense at ideas that we don't like. I don't think that the discussions with Daniel will come to an end because of some of us feeling any sense of offense. They will end because there is nothing new for him or us to say to each other, because our discusssions have gotten too repetitive. Or they can continue and be productive because Daniel takes the courageous step to speak with his own tongue, to clothe his thoughts in his own words, and speak as a philosopher rather than simply parrot the authoritative words of another. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 12:24:17 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Eldon to Daniel >>Daniel: Art if YHWH did have a hand in your creation (and he did) and you look >>up into the Potters eyes and say "Why did you make me this way?" Or >>make even a more foolish determination that the Pot determines what >>will be contained within then that is your own personal choice which >>you certainly have made of which only the Potter can by grace and mercy >>wait for you to ask to be filled with His will. > >Eldon: Theosophists would generally disagree with the idea that we are but >clay fashioned out of some potter's hand. That is a story for >children's sunday school, not for people who want to think and understand >how life really works. We *made ourselves*, we are our own potters. Eldon, you are missing the point here entirely. I like this illustration a lot because this is a gray area of which we have little information. Where did the soul come from? Where did the mind come from? When we individualized, the teaching suggests, we received a soul? Didn't God (or natural law) provide us with this soul? Is this soul a temporary apparatus which becomes filled to a point, but then replaced? Perhaps the soul is another life form which benefits greatly by aiding us, but then when we are capable of living without it and a more direct line of transmission from the Monad to the Personality takes place, where does this being that was our soul go to? Does it repeat this work somewhere else in the universe? The same thing occurred with the mind. When we were ready to eixst in a gross material sense, some great dhyani chohans quickened our minds? What does this mean? Did they provide us with a temporary apparatus until ours could become more useful? Did our lives contribute to the growth of this temporary presence or did our lives go towards our own minds becoming more operable at the required level? I think Daniel is right in saying we don't choose what becomes built into our auric aid. Karma does this. It is God's divine plan which makes certain qualities eternal and which associates those qualities with our activities, mental, emotional and physical. Once this buddhic body is developed, what does it do? Leave us to a fate similar to Christ dying on the cross perhaps? When I look up and address the potter I want to say it is good to be unselfish and even though I am living for the benefit of another "being" I can be fulfilled. By furthering the life which has aided me I can repay that life and bring benefit to the universe as a whole. We find so many references in our literature regarding forgetting the self, becoming selfless, etc. In Buddhism, doesn't the soul or the buddhic vehicle pop when it is no longer needed? What do we have in place of this when this happens? Just a direct stream? I might be a different being than the one built by all of my lives. I might be a person who DOES really choose what to have built into my consciousness at this buddhic level. >>This may make >>you mad...but spiritual growth must be within the bounds of truth, or else >>you grow wild. > >The fear of letting go from fixed dogma and thinking for yourself may >make it seem so. But a fixed external anchor, attaching to a body of >dogmatic teaching, does not protect from "going wild". It rather stifles >and smothers the spiritual, which is a living tradition, a living sense >of connectedness with life itself. I'd like to provide this quote from the HOW TO STUDY THEOSOPHY pamphlet mentioned earlier: "This mode of thinking (she says) is what the Indians call Jnana Yoga. As one progresses in Jnana Yoga, one finds conceptions arising which, though one is conscious of them, one cannot express nor yet formulate into any sort of mental picture. As time goes on these conceptions will form into mental pictures. This is a time to be on guard and refuse to be deluded with the idea that the new found and wonderful picture must represent reality. It does not. As one works on, one finds the once admired picture growing dull and unsatisfying, and finally fading out or being thrown away. This is another danger point, because for the moment one is left in a void without any conception to support one, and one may be tempted to revive the cast-off picture for want of a better to cling to. The true student will, however, work on unconcerned, and presently further formless gleams come, which again in time give rise to a larger and more beautiful picture than the last. But the learner will now know that no picture will ever represent the TRUTH. This last splendid picture will grow dull and fade like the others. And so the process goes on, until at last the mind and its pictures are transcended and the learner enters and dwells in the World of NO FORM, but of which all forms are narrowed reflections." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 12:26:54 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Where are the vessels? Daniel: >>These are clear passages that indicate that God >>creates man in to His own vessels of honor or dishonor. > >>As a layman of biblical theology and one who >>TRUELY respects the Word, I find it necessary >>to counter or refute teachings that do not line up >>with biblical theology. > Are these passages in the Bible? Does God make us into vessels good and bad? Can you tell me where you found this? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 12:51:13 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: What authenticates what we Believe? >Arthur: Or perhaps some one would like to argue from >personal experience. For instance Why is it important that the Masters >exit? Because Blavatsky tells me so? Or do I believe in the Masters because >it is a revered tradition with Tibet or other esoteric places? Are we >capable of direct personal contact with the Masters, Emerson speaks of a >direct relationship to Divinity or Higher Consciousness not dependant on >second hand accounts. Lastly, is there a logical necessity to believe in >the Masters? Well, I tried to do it based on what I had read, THE YOGA SUTRAS OF PATANJALI, but I was kind of glad to find The Theosophical Society because it wasn't just me taking steps towards them. They had taken steps to find me. So, there they were and we could just wait for the next step. Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 14:00:39 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Jesus in the air Paul: >Here's a sincere query which is likely to produce opposing >answers if anyone cares to hazard an opinion. We've got quite a mix of personalities and backgrounds, and it's only natural to expect a variety of replies. >In the last 6 months or so I have been practicing Surat Shabd >Yoga ... >Here's the question/problem. The more I have practiced this >yoga, the more I find myself receptive to various forms of >Christian devotion. Getting hymns stuck in my brain for a >while, for example, or various spontaneous mantras with >Christian themes. All this despite the fact that I have no >particular conscious preference for Christianity over any other >faith. The important thing with your practice is the nature of your experience, and its affect on you. You're the one to judge how you are changed by the experience; we should not project our own expectations on what might happen and put words in your mouth. Sometimes we have experiences that are higher that what we are used to. Or perhaps these experiences are of an entirely different nature. Not having previous experiences of the same kind to draw upon, we attempt in our mind to clothe the experiences in words and images that we are familiar with. >My theory for this is that Christianity permeates the psychic >atmosphere here in the rural South; anyone who tunes into a >devotional frequency ("You turn me on I'm a radio" to quote an >old song) is likely to pick up some of the symbols and words >with which devotion is expressed by those around one. The >house I lived in for the past two years was near a black church >with wonderful music, which perhaps had a subliminal effect. These images may be available about you to draw upon. The images are not your experience, they are handy symbols and signs that the unconscious may have drawn upon to help explain the unknown. >One could also suppose that early childhood programming comes >to the surface during trance states, which Simran and Bhajan >may induce. With a continued study of what is coming to you, the images may change or drop away. Perhaps you'll come up with other ways of perceiving what is happening. In a way, the experience is one where the mind is at a loss for words, and has to fill in with whatever content is available. It may be a sign of something profound. Only you can fantom the experience, and take it to its depths. >But my question to you all is: how right or wrong is it to go >with the flow of such images, sounds, etc., rather than resist >them? Forgetting the images for the moment, consider what is it in life that is behind them? It is something especially rich, valuable, worthy of exploration? If you detect gold, start digging! >I think a highly orthodox Theosophist would say >something like "you're just becoming a passive medium for other >people's retrograde spirituality, and this is a fate worse than >death, so stop." The stream of images before you is no more important than what happens to be on TV, were you to sit on the sofa and read a book with it left turned on. You cannot be denounced for being a couch potatoe, unless watching the TV is all that you are doing. And I don't think that is the case. I suspect that there is a stirring of the spiritual nature that you deeply feel, and whatever external images you perceive cannot do it justice. >On the other side, a more tolerant minded >Theosophist might say "use whatever environmental factors are >available in your spiritual practice, regardless of how >politically correct they might be." The practice is not the images, nor is it in avoiding the images. It is exploring the deep stirring of the soul, the movements felt deep within one's heart. A fundamentalist might say >"Jesus is calling you to abandon the wicked occultists" for >that matter. This would be a somewhat silly image. There's nothing to belittle or make fun of here. >All opinions welcome. Yes, but don't cringe in anticipation of "opposing answers" before we've had a chance to reply! >BTW, as a sidenote, when I went to India in 1990, I found the >spiritual/psychic atmosphere of Hindu temples to be something >more powerful than I'd ever experienced in a Christian church >in America or Europe. But during several trips to Mexico in >the early 1990s, I found that the Catholic cathedrals there had >something even more evocative and moving. What I concluded >from this is that the difference wasn't in the formulae of >belief (after the India trip that's what I thought-- that >Hinduism was somehow more powerful than Christianity) but >rather in the fervor of devotion. We pick the external forms that suit our inner life. As we change during the years, we may change the outer forms that we use, because a different part of ourselves is wanting its chance to be appreciated and honored in our lives. The sense of honoring, reverence, and silent respect for the divine stirrings within our heart is what is important. It's the sweetness of how our hearts sing, not the external piece of music we relate to, that is utmost in life. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 14:01:04 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Re to Paul's Meditations Jerry S. > [writing to Paul:] >As a suggestion, try >to follow the thoughts and sounds for awhile without being >critical or worrying about where they come from. Then, at >some point, look between any two of them. The space between >any two thoughts or sounds is the Voidness or Emptiness that >Buddhism talks so much about. This sounds like working on manas-atma, on the essential nature of thought, above and beyond the relation of a particular thought to any object of thought. Another approach is to forget the mind. Let it be. It can continue on its own noisy way, but we're listening or enjoying with intense interest *another manner of appreciating life*. Our consciousness is multi-spectrum, it exists in many continuous flows or streams. We can simply enjoy another stream than that of thought, without having to dam it up, to stop the flow, or to divert or mess with it in any way. >The emptiness (formlessness) >between your thoughts is much more important than the >thoughts themselves. Your suggestion to Paul is good. Any visual image is helpful for hints as to what to do. But the hints are only to help us to pay attention *to something already going on in ourselves.* None of the hints are literal truth about what is going on, they are just mental images to point our attention in the right direction. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 14:23:55 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Evolution Jerry S: > ... the human mind desires >some kind of meaning from a life of mortality. >Evolution through reincarnation is a model that gives >the mind a meaning. I personally find HPB's Divine >Breath of evolution and involution to be a >satisfactory model. But to suggest (as the early >theosophists did) that such evolution--involution >leads to a "higher" or more developed monad (how can >perfection ever become more perfect?) is a fiction >(albeit a nice one - I too believed it for years). > ... It is purely >a Western idea, born out of the desire of ego to >have some kind of meaningful purpose to existence. If look at life, things start off simple, acquire a growing degree of complexity, and eventually have to die. We grow up, age, then die. It is like with certain fractals that after a certain number of interations break apart and dissappear. If we're writing a book, there is the start of the work on the project, the experience of doing it, then the completion and moving on to other things. If we were doing a painting, we'd start with a blank canvas, and with each added brusk stroke we'd come nearer the end and having to start over. From the standpoint of the painting, there is a beginning, a period of growth, then completion. The same, I'd suggest, is true of our "evolution." We start off with nothing, acquire faculties of consciousness and self-expression, and eventually reach "completion". And *then we start over again.* There are small cycles within bigger ones within still bigger ones. We have no biggest cycle. Our evolution through the seven or twelve kingdoms of nature is a big cycle, but is only seven days in the 36,000 of the lifetime of Brahma. I wound not suggest that there are 36,000 Kingdoms to go through! Rather, we go through the seven or twelve kingdoms *many times.* And thus we should speak respectfully of the Elementals, for some may be far "older" than we are! How does the idea of a fresh start to things fit in with that of evolution? No matter how big a cycle that we have ended, and are starting again, it is but a moment in a still grander cycle of evolution that is still underway. There is an ultimate sweep to evolution in which there is no "biggest cycle." The wheels of life are grand beyond conception, and transcend our highest vision to perceive. We do not, in the ultimate sense, get "higher". But there is a part of us that is beyond the experience of time, it is our Ideal Nature, which I'd like to call Swabhava, and it draws us forth into existence, to ever approach, but never reach it. It is our essential nature, and we are drawn continually into time and existence, striving to give it more perfect expression. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 14:34:15 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: "source teachings" Jerry S: >I rather see theosophy as a presentation >of truth (and only one of many such presentations), and would never never say >theosophy *is* truth (nor would I say *anything* is truth per se, because I >believe that truth is infinite and eternal and incapable of labeling). We have the dual nature to things: the virtues and qualities that are absolute, unconditioned, beyond manifestation, eternal, and perfect, and qualities that are relative, conditioned, in relation to the manifest, mortal, and imperfect. The absolutes have their mortal counterparts. The same is true with Theosophy or Divine Wisdom. There is *our experience* of absolute truths, and there is the mortal, finite, but still respectable knowledge of the Mahatmas, some of which they have shared with us. > HPB very clearly admitted to holding back some >information ("truths" if you will). She said that the time was not ready >yet. So, theosophy as presented in the Source Teachings or Core Teachings >(and I rather like Jerry H-E's definition of HPB, The MLs, and Judge as a >definition of core teachings) is incomplete as given out. Most of us would agree that what HPB gave out were crumbs of the grand Teachings that she had access to. >So, here is the real problem for us - when someone >comes along and says "Look, here are some more of the Teachings that were not >given out in the core teachings" how are we to receive this? Do we reject it >out of hand as being "secondary?" Perhaps we must ultimately each answer >this question in our own way. >From a purely historical standpoint, someone might say that later materials were secondary. But that is looking at the external shell of things, looking as HPB as the source of what she said, and later writers as people that elaborated on her writings. There are other ways of considering the situation in which later writings are not "secondary." That is if we consider the source not as HPB, but as her Masters, and anyone thru whom they speak as being primary sources in exactly the same way as HPB was, while anyone they did not speak through as secondary. (My perference is to consider Purucker as primary in this sense, but that is *my* preference and I won't try to "convert" anyone to "believe" in Purucker.) It's not as much a matter of answering this question in our own way, as it is, I'd say, each of us considering the situation in terms of what beliefs we are comfortable with. If someone wants to stick with a strictly historic account, stay to physical events, and discount the Masters themselves in their appreciation of what happened, that's fine. For myself, I see their involvement as significant in what happened, in the effort to put some of the Mystery Teachings before the western public. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 14:39:48 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Bailey's conversion Art, >Frankly I would like to hear a bit more about Bailey. I was >reading the article on Suffering in the latest issue of Quest >and her history came up. She was a fundamentalist and made the >shift to something else. I am very interested in transitions >like that so whatever you think will inform me would be helpful. > >Art Patterson Yes, I think Bailey is one of the most extraordinary people of the TM. and I recommend that you read her ~Unfinished Autobiography.~ She was raised in a wealthy fundamentalist family, married and lost her wealth. She moved to California and worked for a cannery in Monterey when around 1912 she became interested in an upper class woman living in Pacific Grove who was teaching theosophy. In her autobiography, Bailey admits having no interest in theosophy at the time, but was attended the Lodge to satisfy her social needs. Eventually she got interested in theosophy and later came to Krotona (National Headquarters of the TS at the time) where she "recognized" a portrait of one of the masters as someone she had seen in her childhood. Politics around this time resulted in Bailey and her new husband to be pushed out of Krotona, but she also began to receive clairaudiant messages that resulted in the writing and publication of her books. I share your fascination in her change from fundamentalism to theosophy, and look forward to your reading her autobiography and sharing your insights. I believe there are lots of character clues in her autobiography that beg exploration. My feeling is that she was writing from almost a childlike honesty. I sensed no fabrication, but only a simple, honest retelling of her experiences. The other "insight" that I feel that I have discovered about her, concerns the nature of the theosophical teachings that she was exposed to at the time. They were quite different from those of HPB's day, and also different from what theosophists of today are exposed to. She came into theosophy when new revelations came in almost every issue of the theosophical journals and ES journals. Krishnamurti was promoted at this early date as the "coming of the Lord" or the return of Christ. There was an atmosphere of Christian fundamentalism at that time that was later toned down as they approached the twenties--perhaps because of rising protests from the Christian communities--I'm not sure yet. So Bailey's conversion was not a very big step at the time. It is too bad that we don't have diaries from this early period where we could read about her outlook as she was experiencing it. Remember her Autobiography was written near the end of her life and is retrospective of events 30 and more years in her past. Another "insight" I have is from closely reading her this book was dictated by Djual Kul. I experienced the book to be a restatement of ES teachings published between 1908 and 1918. I took at look at ~Treatise on Cosmic Fire~, published some years after she began teaching ~The Secret Doctrine.~ Bailey claims that this book is the "psychological key to ~The Secret Doctrine.~" Though I did not do a close reading of every page, I did closely read much of it, and experienced it to be a confusion of ~Secret Doctrine~ teachings syncretised with her earlier teachings that she got in the ES. One of my students became interested in this project and also did a close reading of basically the same conclusions as I had, with of course, even more insights. Based upon my experiences with her writings, I feel that her conversion was more of a syncretism of neo and classical theosophy. However, it was a major step from her earlier fundamentalism. Certainly the church of her childhood would not have tolerated reincarnation and karma, let alone her seven rays and inner government of the world, even though Jesus holds a high position in it. It all leaves me to wonder if Bailey would have had any attraction at all to Blavatsky's teachings if she had run into them first. Blavatsky gives no special status to Jesus in the really push any one religious system over any other. At any rate, she certainly does not stress Christianity. My guess is that she would not have been attracted to it. People come into beliefs when they have needs to be filled. Bailey tells us that her need was in the beginning social. Perhaps the Christian tenor of theosophy in 1912 found little conflict with her beliefs of the time and allowed an easy transition. Theosophy of that period was very attractive to many thousands who were drawn into the Order of the Star, and was characterized by an imminent expectation of the return of Christ. Not so different from fundamentalism, I would think. As HPB once wrote to Sinnett: "Jesus loves you.' Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 14:57:52 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: to Liesel on Group Souls Jerry S: >Eldon:unity, to (2) hetrogeneous disunity and apparent chaos and individualism, > returning to (3) heterogeneous unity. A return from (2) to (1) would be >regressive rather than a completion of the evolutionary sweep. We continue to >individualize as we return to a new form of unity that allows our growing >differences of self-expression to cooperatively harmonize. >I see the whole thing as a vast cycle with evolution on the downward Arc of >Descent, and involution on the upward Arc of Ascent. I would say that your >(1) is, in fact, also a heterogenous unity, although I can't even imagine >what a "heterogeneous unity" would be. It would appear to be a contradiction >of terms (a paradox, no doubt). What I'm describing is that during an entire cycle of evolution, we are evolving forth forms to express ourselves. By the midpoint of the evolution, we reach the bottom or turning point, and our energies then focus upward. In the first half of evolution, we are "matter bound," seeking increasing concrete material expression. By the halfway point, we've established ourselves on the lowest plane that we will be on, and our attention turns inwards. We continue to develope our external forms on all the planes, to grow and evolve more expressive manners of expressing our lives. But *in our consciousness* we are striving upwards again, until at the end, we have, while fully manifest on all the planes, achieved *while in manifest form* the same consciousness that we had before we began our descent. I don't see the physical forms loosing their distinct nature as we evolve past the midpoint, the turning point, when we again seek the spiritual in an evolutionary cycle. What we do is to raise our awareness, so that we become less and less focused in the physical body and human personality, and we move *the seat of consciousness* up the principles, one at a time, until it is again firmly rooted in Atman again. Perhaps (1) and (3) are both homogenous and >heterogenous depending on how you want to look at it (?). Whatever the >case, I can't see how (1) can possibly differ from (3). In terms of chaos, I'd say that as we undergo repeated iterations, we find increasing complexity arising. There is not a point when we start undoing the interations, they continue up to the end. The descent into matter and the reascent into spirit is really the first building up of forms on all the planes, suitable rays of the consciousness of the Monad, then the growing of consciousness in and through those forms. We don't, I'd think, build them up for half the time, then tear them down the other half. Rather, we build them up, going as low on the planes as our tanha or desire for life takes us, then we spend the remainder of the time enfilling them with our consciousness. >But I know that this >particular thought (which seems to give the whole peregrination business some >kind of deep progress) is cherished by many theosophists including G de P >(with whom I seldom take exception). This notion (which I have to assume >comes from an ignorance of what "outside space-time" means) tells us that at >the end of each manvantara, we are "higher" than when we started. There is a part of us that is outside space and time. That part is still essentially "us", but unchanging. It acts as an eternal ideal that is the driving force during our evolutionary experiences. We strive to regain what it is and never has lost. We periodically descent into existence and then are driven by this motivating force. After a time, our evolution ceases for a while, and we withdraw into our perfect natures, tiring of the limitation of existence. But then we get "hungry" again, and reappear into manifestation. >Perhaps we >will find ourselves on a higher subplane, but how this fits in with >spacelessness and timelessness I can't imagine. Perhaps Eldon can answer >this question: Is our manvantaric progess an evolution or an involution? The terms "evolution" and "involution" mean going out or going back in again. We have both types of cycles happening at once. If I remember it right, in terms of cosmic subplanes, in a planetary manvantara, the cycle is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 -- a progression outward. And with cosmic subsubplanes, we have 1, 2, 3, 4, 3, 2, 1 -- a progression outwards then back in again. Both types of cycles are happening at different levels of being. In one since, every step of the way is "evolution"; in the other sense we have "evolution" followed by "involution". Which way does it work? It depends upon which scale we are talking about. > This kind of a legitimite question cannot be answered, because there is no >answer. For every involution there must be a corresponding involution >somewhere. I don't think that theosophists have fully thought this one out. One variation on this question is: Are we any closer to absolute perfection now that we were at the start of the Surya Manvantara, at the beginning of the life of Brahma, about 150 trillion years ago? The answer would have to be "no", because there is no way for conditioned existence to get "closer" to the absolute or unconditioned. > Perhaps the early theosophical writers were just echoed the human desire for >some kind of an objective or meaning to a manvantara. My own belief is that >we do it to express ourselves because self-expression is an inherent divine >quality, and we simply need no other reason. But, perhaps I am being too >mystical here, and so I won't fault anyone who wants to think that >manvantaras are spiral. In conditioned existence, they are "spiral". The second hand of the clock complete a cycle, and the minute hand has moved forward a notch. It is only when we step outside of conditioned time that the sense of "spiral" dissapears and we experience pure durtion. But I do want to let everyone know that I, at least, >think that they are cyclical, the circle being the ancient symbol for >existence, not the spiral. The descriptions that we use are valuable for discussion certain points. No few paragraphs that any of us may write, though, completely reveal the truth. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 15:23:30 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: What authenticates what we Believe? >>I wouldn't mind others joining the dialogue, not so much to refute >>Daniel, but, to take seriously the issues he brings up. > >I'm still waiting for him to get into issues. Most of what I've seen >are authoritative statements with biblical quotes given in an attempt >to justify them. I'd like to see him state some of his own ideas, in >his own words, and explain why he considers them useful. Art: He does bring up the issue of what becomes "authoritative": Tradition, Reason, Revelation or Experience. I am fully aware that the arguement for the authenticity of a statement resides in its self authentication in a persons Experience. That is one view point. Daniel tends to use Tradition and Scripture to authenticate what is true. Daniel has come for whatever reasons to mistrust human experience as a means of coming to truth. You may have come to mistrust "Revelation" in any body of tradition as the means, and I am sure you have reasons for that. Others on the list seem to appeal to Theosophical tradition in a manner not unlike Daniel, however not with the tone of a Daniel. Answers seem to be decided by what HPB says or Judge, or the M.L. There is a fourth authenticator on the list and that seems to be the use of Reason with a scientific flavour to it perhaps something of a methodology. Personally I try to work out authentication as a blend of these things. But as the early greeks said, Give me a place to stand and I will move the world. Daniel is rather aggressively advocating that we stand in one particular place which he considers sure footed. This is why he quotes Scripture. I don't know if it is entirely helpful to tell him to come up with his own ideas since he has made a concerted effort to find his authority outside of himself. I don't agree with him that authority rest exclusively on the outside. Eldon: >The offense that we take to beliefs we don't like is not unique to >Daniel's comments, but is equally true of other things that have been >said. It's a spiritual practice for us to work on not feeling a sense >of offense at ideas that we don't like. Art: I am not sure of this. I am very offended by real racism of the nazis, I am offended when by totalitarianism. And fundamentalism, in any form whether Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or Theosophic which limits the freedom of others and degrades them is in fact offensive as well. There are limits to tolerance, not where Daniel sets them, but there are some limits to what can be tolerated by any group no matter how enlighted. >I don't think that the discussions with Daniel will come to an end >because of some of us feeling any sense of offense. They will >end because there is nothing new for him or us to say to each other, >because our discusssions have gotten too repetitive. Or they can >continue and be productive because Daniel takes the courageous step >to speak with his own tongue, to clothe his thoughts in his own >words, and speak as a philosopher rather than simply parrot the >authoritative words of another. Art: I agree with you only I feel to that the admonition ought to be leveled at all of us. We need to personally own our position even if that position is one rooted in Tradition or Revelation. I would like to hear the perspective of others who feel that they root their authority in revelation of some other sort than Daniel so that we could learn how this style is differentiated. Or perhaps some one would like to argue from personal experience. For instance Why is it important that the Masters exit? Because Blavatsky tells me so? Or do I believe in the Masters because it is a revered tradition with Tibet or other esoteric places? Are we capable of direct personal contact with the Masters, Emerson speaks of a direct relationship to Divinity or Higher Consciousness not dependant on second hand accounts. Lastly, is there a logical necessity to believe in the Masters? In no way am I dishonoring the tradition, experience or revelation by asking these questions. I am genuinely interested in the perspectives theos-l people have on these issue which for me have been stimulated by conversation with Daniel in the Lion's Den. Arthur Paul Patterson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 15:42:00 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re Psychic & Noetic As quoted by Pyschic & Noetic Action: >"The 'Higher Ego' [noetic] cannot act directly on the body, as its >consciousness pertains to quite another plane and planes of ideation: the >'lower' SELF [psychic] does: and its action and behavior depend on its free >will and choice as to whether it will gravitate more toward its parent ("the >Father in Heaven") or the "animal" which it informs, the man of flesh. The >'Higher Ego' x has to act solely through its ALTER EGO--the Personal Self." While the Higher Ego (buddhi-manas) cannot act on our physical body directly, yet it can (and does) act indirectly through the personality or ego. This is in accord with HPB's statement that nothing can jump or bypass a plane, but must always go in serial order through each plane. The only way for something on a higher plane to act on the physical plane is to somehow go through all of the intervening planes. Thus the Higher Self must go through the Lower Self. When does it do this? well, as one example, when we lift consciousness to a samadhi, a "bliss" (ananada) often (but not always) pours forth into our physical body. This bliss (called amrita in Tibetan Yoga) is the indirect result of the Higher Self acting on our physical body. The Lower Self, on the other hand, can act directly via the emotions (kama). Eldon, I cannot see what your explanation of 7 "principles" has to do with this? The idea of 7 principles for each body - making a total of 49 principles - is very confusing for most of us, and your attempt to explain the above quote merely makes it more confusing to me. Could be just me. Thanks for the attempt, anyway. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 15:42:29 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Cosmic Planes Eldon:< We could distinguish between "planes of consciousness" and "planes of existence". Perhaps some of the confusion regarding planes could be resolved if we apply this distinction to our review of planes, globes, spheres of cause and spheres of effect, the manifest and unmanifest,> I would be happy to hear your definitions of these. However, it may muddy the waters more so than clearing them. Since I have no idea what you mean here, some additional discussion does seem to be in order. As I understand it via G de P's writings, every plane of consciousness must correspond to a plane of existence. He says somewhere that consciousness has an appropriate vehicle for every plane. Our consciousness can only focus on the physical plane via a physical body with appropriate senses. It can only focus on the astral plane via an astral body with appropriate senses, and so on. This in in line with mainstream occultism, and also jives well with common sense and experience. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 15:43:03 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re Evolution Rich:<"When the substratum consciousness ceases there >remains, shining in its own purity, a ninth consciousness, >the "immaculate consciousness" (AMALAVIJNANA). This >consciousness is the PERMANENT, ultimate, true reality." > >Sounds like "monad" to me, but I could be wrong ... > >Buddhist texts which teach this idea of a permanent >conscious essence in all beings include: > >Samdhinirmocana sutra >Aksayamatinirdesha sutra >The Abhhisamayalamkara >The Madhyantavibhaga >The Dharmadharmatavibhaga >etc.> Thanks for all the nice quotes, Rich. I did, after all, ask for a quote. However, I rather was more interested in a quote having to do with your notion of evolution. Perhaps, you forgot what your argument was all about? Perhaps you forgot what we were talking about? I don't know. I am happy to hear that you have a Ph.D. in Buddhist Studies. But you still haven't answered by point. All of your quotes tell us that Buddhism teaches that consciousness can rise above the cosmic planes of manifestation into timelessness and spacelessness. I think that this is a true teaching. But what on Earth does this have to do with the idea of evolution? Lets go back to your original post to which I made my request for a quote: Rich wrote: Granted each reincarnation "evolves the inner person" at least during the upward Arc of Ascent. But your posting, as I understand it, says that at the end of each manvantara (which I think was the title of your post) we end up higher than before. This is the "error" that we were talking about, anyway. I was asking for you to give me a quote that says manvantaras are spirals rather than circles. None of your quotes do this. There is also your suggestion that pure consciousness is monadic. Basically, I support this idea and would agree. Where Buddhism and theosophy part company is the theosophical teaching about all of the other monads - the human monad, the animal monad, and so on. This is pure theosophy, and is not found anywhere in Buddhism. Eldon gets around this saying it is a matter of viewpoint, and I think that this is a good way of reconciling the whole issue. But again, this is not my original point - which had to do with beginning a new manvantara on a "higher" plane than the previous one. You asserted that "Tibetan Buddhists and Hindus" believe this, and I simply asked for a quote - but your quotes were all directed at another teaching, one that I do agree with. In fact, it is the teaching expressed in your quotes - that pure consciousness leaves behind all manifestation and thus all time and space - that leads me to conclude the idea of "higher" manvantaras to be in "error." Because in that divine region, higher and lower no longer exist, so how can we logically say we begin on a higher subplane? Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 15:43:39 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: To Rich Rich: Sorry about the hostility, but I really thought you were deliberately trying to agitate me, and was angry because it was working so well. It is more likely that we are involved in semantics problems, which Eldon and I went through awhile back. I don't mind having different viewpoints, but personally I felt that you were insulting me first, and don't care to get into emotional battles. HPB's article Psychic and Noetic Action, that I was reading, is in STUDIES OF OCCULTISM by TUP. I got it somewhere in the late 70s (there is no copyright or pub date). The article has lots of footnotes, on almost every page. The footnote that I was referring to says: "The Sanskrit word Manas (Mind) is used by us in preference to the Greek Nous (noetic) because the latter word having been so imperfectly understood in philosophy, suggests no definite meaning." She seems to be saying here that noetic is a poor word and so theosophy uses manas instead, but she uses noetic in her article because there she attributes her own definition to it. I just assumed that you knew this and were testing me. Sorry. And I have no objection at all to using the terms psychic and noetic here on theos-l. But probably kama-manas and buddhi-manas could do as well. Here is my problem - whatever termonology we decide on, who is to say if someone's writing is from the one or the other? If I, for example, post an article on this list and tell everyone that it was given to me via the noetic rather than the psychic, will all of you readers sigh with relief and believe what I say in the article? Probably not. In other words, HPB's terminology and fine-line distinctions are all technical and theoretical. They tell us where information or data *can* come from - but it is up to each one of us as readers to make that determination. And I can guarantee you that some readers will think my article is from the noetic realms, while others will think it is from the psychic realms, based on their own understanding and worldview. There just aren't any easy answers to this psychic vs noetic business. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 15:51:41 GMT From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: Toward an inclusive dialogue Liesel: >I think you're right. Aside from trying to convince or ignore >Daniel, it would be enlightening, if each of us examined their >own attitude towards him. For instance, i realized that my >attitude towards fanatics is influenced by the fact that I was >involved, even if from afar, with the Nazi fanatics in Germany. The conversation with Daniel has shown me several exceedingly valuable things - perhaps the greatest being that of the time-scales of service: it was amazing how quickly frustration with him built ... both in myself and (seemingly, tho I wouldn't speak for anyone else) on the list in general. Several have taken the time to write somewhat extended posts to him, but it is also quite clear that there is no sudden alteration that is going to come about immediately because of our words. It began occuring to me that no one will gain the pleasure of seeing their efforts find any fruit (i.e., I hardly expect Daniel to say "oh, I get it now - ok I'm not a fundamentalist anymore") - it seems far more likely that he'll probably be gone in a month or two (especially as he will probably become as impatient as we are, and has virtually no chance of "saving" a single infidel here (-:); but then comes the question, how will he be affected by his slight exposure to Theosophy? Perhaps five, or ten, or twenty years from now, when events perhaps have conspired to bring about a state of receptivity - whether through a crisis of faith or simply a gradual expansion of his energy- system - perhaps of his own accord he *will* begin looking earnestly for a wider spiritual life ... will he remember Theosophy? (And throughout this I keep remembering that he *is* what Art *was* just a short time ago - that out of his current state could quickly grow a mind as broad and a heart as beautiful as Art's). What will he remember of us? Will we have left him with an impression that Theosophy truely *is* a place of "Universal Brotherhood", where all are accepted as valid regardless of what stage of their path they are on (and by "acceptance" I by no means mean "agreement"). It occurs to me that in the short run, we are quite involved with our words and ideas, but in the long run, a decade from now, he will not remember a single word, but *will* still have a general impression of Theosophy. What do we wish his (or for that matter, anyone's) impression to be? What *then* occured to me was to try (as I do every so often) to envision the scale at which the Masters work - imagining what it would be like to think not in terms of moments, of years, of decades, but in terms of centuries, of millenia - to labor with total devotion and intensity of focus in the present on projects whose initial effects may be ages away, and whose final culmination is aeons in the future. Boy howdy ... talk about not being attached to the fruits of one's actions (-:) It has occured to me more and more strongly as the Daniel conversations have unfolded that perhaps the "Theosophical" attitude towards the situation lies far less in the words we say than it does in the consistant radiation of a genuinely open attitude - of not trying to persuade him of anything, but simply of continuing to offer him avenues through which the expansion out of his current constrained perspective might be accomplished - and whether he sees them now, or ten years from now, or ten lives from now means less than the fact that we took the time and the trouble to offer them. If the path many of us believe we are following reaches, in us, its final fruition, and the Masters are any indication of what that state is - the picture of spiritual growth reduces, finally, to ever increasing scales of service ... what individuals are to us, so are entire nations to the Masters; what individual ideas are to us, so are whole schools of philosophy to the Masters. And if we cannot then show patience and understanding towards one individual for a few weeks, how can we then expect to (perhaps aeons in the future) have reached the point that we can shoulder the responsibilies of true Masters ... showing the ability to take humans where they currently exist, and showing patience and understanding towards hundreds of thousands for centuries. This may be a bit fanciful, and I by no means want to say that I know how a Master looks at the world - but I've been subject to increasingly strong intuitive sensations over the past few days - that Daniel, for a whole host of reasons (though for none of those that *he* envisions) is an exceedingly valuable gift to this list - [though I don't believe my intuition perceptions are any more universal than my clairvoyant ones (-:). >Other Theosophists must have other motives for their attitudes >towards Daniel, other ways of grappling with their shadow, or >our Theosophical shadow. Yes! A powerful point, and another valuable contribution from Daniel - IMO fundamentalisms are often the shadows of major religions and ideologies ... and Daniel is a *powerful* reality check for Theosophy ... that certainly *does* have a shadow, and can be every bit as rigid and orthodox as any fundamentalism is .. a thing difficult to see from the inside, as no one operating from *within* an orthodoxy believes they are being rigid - they generally (as Daniel does) downplay any rigidity or exclusionary sentiments and instead claim that they are within a "living" tradition that *needs* to exclude things, *needs* a certain amount of exclusion, to keep the tradition pure and intact. >But, just as, from a distance of continents & years, I can >sometimes be compassionate & understand that Nazis suffered as >well as Jews , Gypsies & homosexuals, so can I sometimes feel >compassionate towards Daniel. I can see that he also hurts, with >his hell fire & brim stone, with his insulting attitude, & in >that vision of him dimly see ways to try to get him to become >more reasonable & less hurting. Ah, dear friend ... while this list is often a wild free- for-all, and we all hold very different orientations towards, well, towards just about everything, now and then almost everyone will (IMO) touch a point of inner alignment and out of the din of endless spiritual verbiage will arise some single, shining sentiment, some gorgeous paragraph that seems to glow with a life of its own. So much is said here, simply, sweetly, and with no self- importance .... what a tremendous struggle it must have been for a Jewish woman to have reached the place of understanding capable of grasping the suffering inherent in *being* a Nazi - but to go even further and expand that understanding to the point where it actually becomes an organ of vision - allowing you to see (however "dimly") the potential means of aiding a fellow human ..... such an attitude (IMO) encompasses "the Good the True and the Beautiful" ... and merely by thinking about it the tree outside my window looks a bit greener, and the mountains in the distance a bit more elegant. >You're right, very few people are up to the task. I hadn't >really thought about that fundamentalism "is a profound >spiritual problem of our time". Maybe we can bat around this >post a little ideas as to how we as Theosophists can tackle the >problem. Yes ... I wonder how many agree? If the Mahatma letters are any indication, while the Masters do understand an "ancient" wisdom, they were also deeply involved in the current issues of the time. (((***IMO***))), if I were to name the most profound issues of *our* time (who knows ... maybe others have opinions about this ... might be an interesting thread) ... they would be (in no particular order): 1. The severe and growing damage our population is doing to the environmental systems composing the biosphere. 2. The huge imbalance between the masculine and feminine principles - both at the philosophical and personal levels. 3. The massive growth of fundamentalisms that are the equivilent of cancers eating away at the world's religions. 4. Greed. Greed pursued at a scale and by greater numbers than anything in recorded history. >Lastly, I got a good giggle out of the picture of the Masters >that emerged from what you wrote. Of course we're more obtuse. >We also came from an entirely different culture than theirs. I >can just visualize them silently tearing their hair out, trying >to get us to understand. For some reason the frustration towards Daniel made me think of the Masters trying to deal with Hume ... who in his own head did believe he was in their favor, in fact thought he was doing them remarkable service (as Daniel, IMO, really does believe he is doing for Jesus). Whoops, just realized this post was about twice as long as I thought it was gonna be. Great post Liesel ... wonderfully thought-provoking. With true respect, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 18:22:13 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: living traditions Dear Rich, "Theosophy is an everlasting truth" which changes each time it is being studied and absorbed through somebody else's perspective. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 19:00:24 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: One last bone...(of contention?) Brenda, What do you want to know about the Jewish holdays. If it's the large outlines, I can help you. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 21:50:20 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Re Psychic & Noetic Jerry S.: "Eldon, I cannot see what your explanation of 7 "principles" has to do with this? The idea of 7 principles for each body - making a total of 49 principles" Jerry, what are you referring to as the seven "bodies"? I have never heard that as a Theosophical theory before. I have heard that we possess seven ways or modes or aspects on each plane of consciousness, but I have never heard about these bodies. Also, I am aware that HPB refers to the seven principles with their own seven subdivisions, making 49 sub-principles, but still only seven primary principles. This would seem to correlate with the 49 fires spoken of in the S.D. and the Theosophical Glossary. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 21:54:33 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Re Evolution Jerry, If I remember your question correctly, you doubted BOTH that Tibetan Buddhists believed in "higher" manvantaras in the future, as well as the idea that there is a monad. You mentioned that they "don't even believe in a monad, Rich." I happened to have no cosmological sutras/tantras near me at the time, (I still don't) and so I merely answered the monadic part of your question, namely that the Buddhists do not merely hold to the theory of 5 skandhas, but also (in Mahayana and Vajrayana) teach a pure, "unstained" (amala) essence of clear light, or "original mind" that reigns above any and all incarnations and manifestations as our true "essence." This is VERY much like HPB's "atma" (or Greek "monad") even though "atma" is a Hindu term, used to great effect by Shankaracharya in his Bhasya (commentary) on the Bhagavad-Gita. You mention that "Where Buddhism and theosophy part company is the theosophical teaching about all of the other monads - the human monad, the animal monad, and so on." I am not aware that HPB teaches anything other than THE monad, meaning usually Atma-buddhi as the imperishable individuality throughout the manvantara. That monad may be experiencing embodied life through the vehicle of a human, an animal, a vegetable, etc. but it is the SAME monad throughout. They are not different monads, just experiencing different kinds of embodiments. I have occasionally seen HPB use the term "astral monad," meaning I think that lower manasic seat of the personality, which forms a "unity" (monad) for one lifetime only. It is not THE monad of the Secret Doctrine. I believe the teachings regarding different "human monads" "animal monads" etc. are from later, secondary sources, including Besant and Leadbeater, and I do not defend them. They may contradict Buddhist teachings if in fact they teach the permanence of anything other than consciousness, but it is not clear exactly what "human monad" might mean except in HPB's definition. Perhaps you can enlighten me. As for manvantaras, the Buddhists rarely give public consideration to cosmology whatsoever, and prefer instead to focus on practical instructions for liberation. Cosmological studies appear to be reserved for the VERY elite. Many of the tantras with their esoteric explanations have not come to light in the West yet, and I fear we do not have access yet to extremeley critical texts. However, the law of correspondence, which the Tibetan Buddhists and most other mystics accept, would strongly imply a universal evolution towards the absolute as well as a personal one. I haven't come across a quote recently, but if I do, be sure I will surrender it to the board. If you prefer to analyze HPB's teaching of evolution proceeding through each manvantara through a modern, Western psychological model -- a need for the ego to feel some meaning in life -- so be it. I can only say that HPB had a very profound knowledge of inner Buddhist teachings well over a century before they even became known to Western Buddhologists in the West. If you think she has made a critical error, okay. I suspect that, as in many other things, she had an "inside track" and worked with "Those Who Know." I'm aware that many do not share with me that devotion to one's guru (guru-yoga) that I have for Blavatsky and her Master, and that is part of what makes Theosophy a great tradition -- we are free to think for ourselves. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 23:16:59 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Manas, planes, Be-ness Rich: > > If Be-ness is out of all relation to manifested Being, how can it form the > first plane? Perhaps this can be explained to me, for indeed I am a relative > newcomer compared to many I'm sure. If I am confused, I should be set > straight, rather than insulted, no? Insults won't help clear up my > confusion, if such it is. I have not followed all of this, but Kabalistically I would perceive Be-ness as the first plane *per se* - it cannot *form* itself. Be-ing is a condition of *existence* where, from the Latin [I think] to ex-ist means to stand out (as in bas-relief, analogously) from a background, in this case, the "ground of Be-ness" which IS the "Eternal Now." Confusing, sometimes, I agree ..... Alan :-) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 23:25:36 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Real Teachers make Real Men > Have you ever read writings from any of the following? > > [list] > > To name a few. > The above scholars are men of integrity and who > certainly maintained their faith in Christ Jesus > and would have strongly condemned any faith > that did not soley reside with Christ and biblical > theology. They are or were considered the best > of the apologists that have ever served the > one and only Master Jesus Christ. > > Were these men disalussioned, deceitful or > destined? > > Daniel > It is perfectly possible to produce similar lists of Jewish scholars, Buddhist scholars, Moslem scholars, Hindu scholars, all of whom would argue that your list was of people who were at the least mistaken. Kindly credit us with common sense. PLEASE GO AWAY AB (Biblical scholar, no longer Christian). From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Sep 1995 23:30:48 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: One last bone...(of contention?) > > A few quick answers to previous posts: > > As to Matthew 19:12 > This passage is a reference to mans impotence whether > born impotent, castrated or by choice to not procreate. > > The passage was used to question our creation. Who said? You? As the *text reads* it is a recommendation to self-mutilation - as practised by quite a number of the earliest followers of Matthew's gospel. Origen (2nd century) is of course a famous example. > Let me refocus this to Romans 9:18:23 No. > As a layman of biblical theology and one who > TRUELY respects the Word, I find it necessary > to counter or refute teachings that do not line up > with biblical theology. Wrong. As a layman - a fact which is painfully evident - you *choose* to attempt to refute teachings which do not agree with your own limited perspective. > There is no declaration of reincarnation in the > Old or New Testaments. Nor is there the contrary. They are silent on the subject. > As a man who chooses to follow the teachers such > as Paul and then I am confronted by the teachings > of Zen or any other New Age beliefs and they are > at absolute contradiction to my established faith > and established truth then what is a man in time > supposed to do? Seriously ask yourself whether what you consider established faith and truth actually IS what you think it is. > Can anyone tell me who Jesus is? And if he is not > God declaring Himself Savior of a broken people > that are destined to HELL if they do not accept the > advocates declaration of emancipation through the > shed blood of Jesus Christ...then he is an idiot with > delusions of grandeur. In the theos-l archives somewhere is my work, ~The Nazarenes, a Speculative Enquiry into Christian Origins.~ This discusses who Jesus was in some detail. > Why can't anyone on this list tell me who Jesus is? The Jesus of history and the New Testament and other 1st century literature appears to have been a Galilean Israelite. > And how do you know what you say about Him is > the truth? And how do you know, layman? > Hmmm? > > Daniel Hmmm? PLEASE GO AWAY, YOU ARE SOWING YOUR SEEDS ON STONY GROUND HERE, WHERE THEY WILL NEVER GROW. IF YOU WISH TO INVESTIGATE THEOSOPHICAL IDEAS WITH AN OPEN MIND, THEN PLEASE RETURN. AB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 00:16:12 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Re Evolution Rich: >[writing to Jerry:] I have a number of comments that may help answer your questions to Jerry S. >I am not aware that HPB teaches anything other than THE monad, meaning >usually Atma-buddhi as the imperishable individuality throughout the >manvantara. That monad may be experiencing embodied life through the vehicle >of a human, an animal, a vegetable, etc. but it is the SAME monad throughout. >They are not different monads, just experiencing different kinds of >embodiments. Each particular being is the manifestation of an individual Monad. The Monad sends out a ray of itself into manifestation. That ray of consciousness evolves over time through the various Kingdoms of nature. When evolving through the Animal Kingdom, we'd call it an Animal Monad; when in the Human Kingdom, we'd call it the Human Monad. The Monad per se, though, does not enter manifestation. It exists in its pure state, above and apart from things, overlooking existence but only participating through that ray or portion of itself that it projects onto the plane of manifesttion. >I believe the teachings regarding different "human monads" "animal monads" >etc. are from later, secondary sources, including Besant and Leadbeater, and >I do not defend them. They may contradict Buddhist teachings if in fact >they teach the permanence of anything other than consciousness, but it is not >clear exactly what "human monad" might mean except in HPB's definition. Purucker uses the terms "Divine Monad", "Spiritual Monad," "Human Monad," etc. to refer to various parts of the human constitution. In one sense, he is referring to the componsite nature of our being, while fully embodied. We have different Monads coming together to participate in this composite being. In another sense, we have a reference to our own innate consciousness at the corresponding levels or scales of being. The Divine Monad correlates to our parent star and to a scale of being that perhaps encompasses the galaxy. The Spiritual Monad refers to the Dhyani-Chohanic level of experience, and to a scale of being that encompasses our universal solar system. And the Human Monad refers to the ordinarly human level of experience, as a being on a globe of a planetary chain. At each such scale of being, we have the *latent* capability of experiencing life. And we also have a being acting in something of a godfather or parent role to us, participating in our constitution in a sense. Consider the Manasaputra. We have both another being or Monad "in" our constitution acting as a Higher Self or mentor. And at the same time we have the capability of being a Manasaputra one day ourselves. At that point, we don't need that "mentor" role from that other Monad, which will also have progressed upward itself. While Purucker uses terms like "Spiritual Monad" or "Higher Human Monad" to refer to the different centers of consciousness in our constitution, Blavatsky might use "soul," like "Spiritual Soul" for Buddhi. The same part of our constitution is being referred to. It's just that Purucker is further refining the description of what makes up each center of consciousness. Instead of just "soul's", we have "Monads," "Egos," and "Souls," where a Monad indicates that the center of consciousness is a being in its own right, Ego refers to the currently-evolved ray of consciousness from that Monad, and Soul refers to the current form or embodiment of that Ego. Does this involve a different use of "Monad" that Blavatsky's? Not exactly. Each center of consciousness or being participating in our constitution is a being in its own right, and the evolved-forth ray of consciousness of a distinct Monad. In that sense, the use of the term is the same. It's just that when we consider the composite nature of our embodied being, when the Shandhas (and the Monads) come together as we come into birth, that we talk of multiple Monads making up man. But this is not saying that *we* are composed of multiple Monads. Our constitution is so componsed, during life, but *we* are the Human Monad in that constitution. The other Monads are related to us in a "family" way that is extremely close, but there is no attempt to say tht *we* are a collection of Monads. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 00:37:43 GMT From: dhedrick@csn.net Subject: Re: Where are the vessels? Pls read Romans Chapter 9: and I believe the book of Proverbs declares that God created the wicked for the day of evil, to test the righteous. Interesting? >Daniel: >>>These are clear passages that indicate that God >>>creates man in to His own vessels of honor or dishonor. >> >>>As a layman of biblical theology and one who >>>TRUELY respects the Word, I find it necessary >>>to counter or refute teachings that do not line up >>>with biblical theology. >> >Are these passages in the Bible? Does God make us into vessels good and bad? >Can you tell me where you found this? > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 00:38:23 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Eldon to Daniel Brenda: >>Eldon: Theosophists would generally disagree with the idea that we are but >>clay fashioned out of some potter's hand. That is a story for >>children's sunday school, not for people who want to think and understand >>how life really works. We *made ourselves*, we are our own potters. >Eldon, you are missing the point here entirely. I like this illustration a >lot because this is a gray area of which we have little information. Where >did the soul come from? Where did the mind come from? When we >individualized, the teaching suggests, we received a soul? Didn't God (or >natural law) provide us with this soul? Is this soul a temporary apparatus >which becomes filled to a point, but then replaced? Perhaps the soul is >another life form which benefits greatly by aiding us, but then when we are >capable of living without it and a more direct line of transmission from the >Monad to the Personality takes place, where does this being that was our >soul go to? Does it repeat this work somewhere else in the universe? There's a lot that could be said if we went into the subject in detail. The basic point is that in the final analysis we are responsible for our own growth and evolution. We were not "made" by some other being, like clay being fashioned into pottery, except in the sense that we are the potter ourselves. >The same thing occurred with the mind. When we were ready to eixst in a >gross material sense, some great dhyani chohans quickened our minds? What >does this mean? Did they provide us with a temporary apparatus until ours >could become more useful? Did our lives contribute to the growth of this >temporary presence or did our lives go towards our own minds becoming more >operable at the required level? We are all interrelated in life. We must take responsibility for ourselves and offer assistance to others as well. With Theosophy, we have a spiritual ecosystem that spans all the planes of existence, with higher Kingdoms of Nature in interaction and helping the lower Kingdoms. But that "helping" is not a "fashioning out of clay," it is assistance and stimulation, but does not take away the free will or self-initiative of the beings that are helped. >I think Daniel is right in saying we don't choose what becomes built into >our auric aid. Karma does this. It is God's divine plan which makes certain >qualities eternal and which associates those qualities with our activities, >mental, emotional and physical. We *do* choose, because our karma is not some external mechanism to ourselves, it is the essential nature of our our being. Karma is not like a bank account that someone else manages for us, where we make deposits and withdrawals. It is a metaphysical way of describing that we are made up of living connections with the rest of life, and it is what we put in those connections that comes back to us. >Once this buddhic body is developed, what >does it do? Leave us to a fate similar to Christ dying on the cross perhaps? With the awakening of each faculty of consciousness, we have a greater enjoyment and appreciation of the experience of life. With Buddhi, we have a living awareness of our relatedness to the rest of life, a sense of ethical and moral consciousness, a sense of how we are not distinct from others, but are inseparably linked with the rest of life. >When I look up and address the potter I want to say it is good to be >unselfish and even though I am living for the benefit of another "being" I >can be fulfilled. Being concerned for others, and enfilled with compassion, is a good quality. But we are not a potter for others, each is their own potter. >By furthering the life which has aided me I can repay that >life and bring benefit to the universe as a whole. We find so many >references in our literature regarding forgetting the self, becoming >selfless, etc. >[quoting from "How to Study Theosophy":] >"As one progresses in Jnana Yoga, one finds conceptions arising which, though >one is conscious of them, one cannot express nor yet formulate into any sort >of mental picture. As time goes on these conceptions will form into mental >pictures. ... As one works on, one finds the once admired picture growing dull >and unsatisfying, and finally fading out or being thrown away. This is >another danger point, because for the moment one is left in a void without >any conception to support one, and one may be tempted to revive the cast-off >picture for want of a better to cling to. The true student will, however, >work on unconcerned, and presently further formless gleams come, which again >in time give rise to a larger and more beautiful picture than the last. But >the learner will now know that no picture will ever represent the TRUTH. >This last splendid picture will grow dull and fade like the others. And so >the process goes on, until at last the mind and its pictures are transcended >and the learner enters and dwells in the World of NO FORM, but of which all >forms are narrowed reflections." This is something that we've talked about at times. With each understanding we have of the Teachings, it has a useful period, then we must move on to a deeper understanding. The process is on-going, and never ends. We must freshly rethink our ideas each time we consider them, and eventually we come up with something different, deeper, more insightful than before. There are two sides to this. We have the evolving content, our current ideas about things. And wew have the process itself, equally important, where we do not allow that content to stagnate and become rancid, through the lack of continual reevaluation. How do we pass beyond specific ideas and approach the formless? By really looking *in another direction*. Apart from the process of evolving, fluid, flexible mindwork, we can come to some direct understanding of things that does not involve the use of words and mental concepts. We do not do this by killing out or stopping the jnana yoga process of mental or manasic growth. It is just *a different thing to do*. How do we do this? Talking about it would make an interesting topic of discussion. Perhaps you could start off with your own ideas? -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 00:59:03 GMT From: dhedrick@csn.net Subject: From the Heart... As I begin to ponder the workings of today both within and outside of my heart, I am compelled to express who I am to those that do not know me. Truth rather elusive and during most of my youth not wanted. Or at least I determined to create and form my own brand of truth which declared that if I stole or hurt, it would be the system and hopefully not a person that would be the victim. Out of the abundance of the heart...the mouth speaks. Little did I realize that I was the one that was the victim. As age increased my knowledge increased and my foolishness increased. I was living a double minded life. At two score and four a line was drawn in the sand. I had experienced the power of the mystics and the elusion of the tarrot. I had successfully crushed men who were twice my size and stature through the power of Chi. The material needs were met and the authority of the government rested on my shoulders. I was a man with power, money and authority. Ahh success. But the truth unfolds clearly in a password for the tippy top secrets that I have access to. Daniel's desired password used to read the traffic of the world was LOSTLOST. Ohh yes. Power, money and authority provide no avenue for true security, peace or happiness. I was as empty as I could be. At the same time that I could drink Yukon Jack with a 7-up back and never leave the pool table, was the same time that emptiness was devouring me. The line was drawn. An unknown friend challenged me. If you were to die today. Do you know whether or not you would go to heaven? Without a tradition or biblical wisdom I responded to the affirmative. I believed God was good God and that I was at least 51% pure. I'm in. The response was clear. The cross was revealed. Christ's salvation presented and the blood poured over my life. In one instant of a faithfilled prayer, I asked Jesus to forgive me, and to cleanse me. I was not seeking truth, I was needing love. It is clear to me that He chose me. As I type this letter, you will respond in a manner which I do not subscribe. You may be saying that my interpretation or my desire of fulfilling the spiritual is gathered in a tradition or an idol, but that inner truth and enlightenment occured and occurs simularly in all people regardles of culture, time or tradition. But as I have said before...Jesus lives in me. I hear Him, clearly, not as often as I would like, but none the less I hear Him. The evidence of faith ...(to be continued) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 01:00:58 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: From the Heart... Daniel: It's good to start hearing what *you* think and have experienced. It's much harder to relate to a series of citations or quotations. >As I begin to ponder the workings of today both within >and outside of my heart, I am compelled to express who I am >to those that do not know me. The first step in a dialog is to express where one is coming from. >Truth rather elusive and during most of my youth not wanted. >Or at least I determined to create and form my own brand >of truth which declared that if I stole or hurt, it would be the >system and hopefully not a person that would be the victim. We are all searching for Truth. The search for Truth is compromised when we have inconsistencies in our lives that we want to cover up. If we steal, we would attempt to "justify" it in our thinking, but we're fooling ourselves, and eventually will realize it. >Out of the abundance of the heart...the mouth speaks. Little >did I realize that I was the one that was the victim. Not everyone realizes this yet. When we harm others, we are the greatest victims. >As age increased my knowledge increased and my foolishness >increased. I was living a double minded life. Pure intellectual knowledge without a rich spiritual life is barren, and permits one to lead a cold, heartless life. >At two score and four a line was drawn in the sand. I had >experienced the power of the mystics and the elusion of the >tarrot. I had successfully crushed men who were twice my >size and stature through the power of Chi. The material >needs were met and the authority of the government >rested on my shoulders. I was a man with power, money >and authority. >Ahh success. At this point, you reached a turning point in life. You experienced a crisis of meaning. >But the truth unfolds clearly in a password for the tippy top >secrets that I have access to. Daniel's desired password used >to read the traffic of the world was LOSTLOST. >Ohh yes. Power, money and authority provide no avenue >for true security, peace or happiness. Some are fortunate enough to see the emptiness of material pursuits. Others lead empty lives. >I was as empty as I could be. At the same time that I could >drink Yukon Jack with a 7-up back and never leave the pool >table, was the same time that emptiness was devouring me. You were ripe for something more to life. >The line was drawn. An unknown friend challenged me. >If you were to die today. Do you know whether or not >you would go to heaven? And now an event happened in your life that later led to where you are today. >Without a tradition or biblical wisdom I responded to the >affirmative. Most people think so, without having given the matter much thought. >I believed God was good God and that I was at least 51% >pure. >I'm in. >The response was clear. The cross was revealed. Christ's >salvation presented and the blood poured over my life. >In one instant of a faithfilled prayer, I asked Jesus to >forgive me, and to cleanse me. >I was not seeking truth, I was needing love. It is clear >to me that He chose me. You were ripe for the spiritual, and had a transformation in your life. It was real and no one would disagree with it. Apart from the experience itself, though, we would use different words to describe it. You may not agree with our explanation of what happened to you. But there is no lack of respect for the genuineness of what you felt and what happened in your life. >As I type this letter, you will respond in a manner which >I do not subscribe. You may be saying that my interpretation >or my desire of fulfilling the spiritual is gathered in a >tradition or an idol, but that inner truth and enlightenment >occured and occurs simularly in all people regardles of >culture, time or tradition. This sounds a bit like what we might say, our words to describe the experience. Considering how beautiful the experience was to you, you certainly would want others to have it too. I would suggest that others do, using different words and mental images. People can connect to the spiritual through a multitude of ways. It is not the particular approach that they take, nor is it the philosophical way they describe it -- what is important is that we actually have the experience. >But as I have said before...Jesus lives in me. I hear Him, >clearly, not as often as I would like, but none the less >I hear Him. This is the form that the Divine takes in order to communicate *with you*. It takes on other forms to other people. >The evidence of faith ...(to be continued) Reply also to be continued. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 01:10:32 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: One last bone...(of contention?) Daniel: >Is there science in history? Is Jesus a historical figure that was thought >of as more than a man? Did He calim to be God? Did others claim that >He was God? The claims for/against Jesus vary with religion and philosophy. Theosophy would consider him an Avatara or a culture-specific spiritual reformer. >The salvation >I speak of is eternal. Not from one incarnation to another. I would consider there being nothing to be "saved" from. Rather, we are in life as "artists," we are here to give creative expression to the spiritual through our lives. We go on from one experience and life to the next, as eternal beings, with never an end to things. >Yet His own claims extend far beyond any of the other masters. Not that I've seen. Various spiritual teachers will sometimes, for purposes of illustrating a philosophical point, attribute to themselves universal qualities. One may say "I am Love" or "I am Truth". This is intended to show people that the universal qualities are behind life, and can be directly realized *by any of us*. >As any learned Christian, we are to respect the Nation of Israel. After >the Lord's second coming there will be the reaping of the 144,000 jews >who will be martyred and be great witnesses during the great tribulation. These ideas sound like a carry-over from tribal Jewish times. The "Lord" or an Avatara comes from time to time to renew the spiritual impulse in society. There is no "first" or "second coming". Rather we have had "comings" throughout time into the past, and for eternity into the future. >Beware the Mark of the Beast & When you see the Temple being built >in Jerusalem...remember that the prophecies are continuing to be fulfilled. We'd disagree with these "prophecies". >Time is short. 40 months? 40 years? More like billions of years. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 02:43:48 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Group Project Proposed Jerry E. Once again you are an excellent resource in my study of Theosophy! I was wondering if we could experiment with book or article reviews (or more specificly book-article reactions) - informal and I would hope somewhat applicable to some books of theosophy. What I envision would be for us to select a book to read say in the next four weeks and then write a response to it along with discussion questions for the group. I know that this could be very vulnerable especially for those who know very little Theosophy like me?:) but I feel that others could enhance our perspectives. I am particularly interested in how reading material intersects personally with the reader. I know that our schedules may not permit this sort of exchange but it is an idea to keep us moving. A person could then focus in on their personal areas of interests. Some of the reveiws could be responses to source documents and other others might want to interact with artilcles in theosophical journals. Whatever. It is a suggestion. Should we proceed? No offence taken if it doesn't fit:) Arthur Paul Patterson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 05:47:04 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Mid-Atlantic Gathering The Delaware Study Center of the TS (Adyar) was host for the gathering at Bueno Mano Farm on the Maryland/Pennsylvania line. Rather than preparing a formal talk, I asked the Study Center to come up with 5-10 questions that I could mull over in advance, and planned to open up to general discussion after responding to those questions. In preparation for my own talk, I had made handouts giving lists of the casts of characters of my two SUNY books, as well as six descriptions from GIFTS DIFFERING of various functions and orientations (Introverted and extraverted thinking, feeling and intuition-- the sensing function didn't seem very relevant to the topic). The latter were distributed prior to breaking up into small group discussions, where we spent 40 minutes or so discussing: 1) How DO we see the Masters? (We being members of the TS) 2) Is the concept of the Masters of importance today? If so, why? 3) Should we have a relationship with the Masters today? If so, why? These and four other questions were the basis for my talk, and I'll post on each separately. As I have said before here, in face-to-face contact with Theosophists across the US and in Europe and India, I have found them to be consistently cordial, open-minded and reasonable. Yet in print (as in reviews and letters to the editor) and online, some Theosophists have come across as quite hostile to my work and person. As Jerry mentioned, I had some anxiety that the always-friendly Mid-Atlantic Theosophists would have become less friendly in the wake of recent controversy. Far from it; the entire gathering was the epitome of Theosophical brotherhood. Ed Abdill and I spoke from very different points of view, and this was clear to all. But we both made an effort to give everyone the space to adopt whatever of either perspective was useful to him/her. It was as if the distance between our points of view created a trine rather than a square, so the energy flowed harmoniously and everyone felt as if they were in a welcoming, non-threatening space in which to share their own unique outlooks. Next post-- question 1. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 05:49:56 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: What authenticates what we Believe? Art: >He does bring up the issue of what becomes "authoritative": Tradition, >Reason, Revelation or Experience. This is a topic that we too could consider in a review of what we believe about Theosophy. >I am fully aware that the arguement for >the authenticity of a statement resides in its self authentication in a >persons Experience. That is one view point. Daniel tends to use Tradition >and Scripture to authenticate what is true. Daniel has come for whatever >reasons to mistrust human experience as a means of coming to truth. When we quote Blavatsky to "prove" something, and cannot put the same idea in our own words, and make it sound genuine, then we're doing the same thing as Daniel. This appeal to authority, though, is not without merit. If we can make a reasonable case for the more advanced knowledge that our "authority" has, we should consider it carefully. This giving special consideration to someone with expert knowledge is what Jerry H-E would call "reasoned certitude." The materials presented by the Masters could be considered as being along the same lines. >You may >have come to mistrust "Revelation" in any body of tradition as the means, >and I am sure you have reasons for that. In the theosophical schema, I would consider "revelation" as applicable to the imparting of Wisdom from the Dhyani-Chohans to the Mahatmas in the far distant past. Tht "revelation" was put into practical use, learned by experience, and made into the knowledge of experience by the Mahatmas, and preserved as such to this day. >Others on the list seem to appeal >to Theosophical tradition in a manner not unlike Daniel, however not with >the tone of a Daniel. Answers seem to be decided by what HPB says or Judge, >or the M.L. Quoting scripture of any kind, even theosophical, does not prove a point. In a genuine dialog, it is the materials that we have assimilated, the ideas that we have made a part of our lives, that we can speak with conviction. On the other hand, locating good materials for study can be useful, when presented in the form of study materials rather than as authoritative pronouncements. >There is a fourth authenticator on the list and that seems to >be the use of Reason with a scientific flavour to it perhaps something of a >methodology. The use of reason starts with basic assumptions. Those assumptions come from conviction or "faith" based upon personal experience. We are then working out the logical consequences of what we have already accepted as "true". >Personally I try to work out authentication as a blend of >these things. But as the early greeks said, Give me a place to stand and I >will move the world. We can't really pin it down precisely, and say "this way is right" and reject other ways. That is because our language will always be inprecise in describing the living reality. >Daniel is rather aggressively advocating that we stand >in one particular place which he considers sure footed. This is why he >quotes Scripture. I don't know if it is entirely helpful to tell him to >come up with his own ideas since he has made a concerted effort to find his >authority outside of himself. He is in a spiritual "comfort zone" where it's easy to stay. But even if his beliefs are based upon tradition and scripture, he *has no beliefs* except to the extent that he has studied his materials and has some ideas about them. Until there is something in his own words, we're not hearing any of his ideas apart from the belief in biblical authority. We may find the same thing among Theosophists at time, where they're quick to quote their favorite authorities but uneasy in saying what their quotes mean. There is nothing wrong with authority and tradition as sources of materials for our study. It's just how we approach and use them that determines their affect on our lives. >Eldon: >The offense that we take to beliefs we don't like is not unique to >>Daniel's comments, but is equally true of other things that have been >>said. It's a spiritual practice for us to work on not feeling a sense >>of offense at ideas that we don't like. >Art: I am not sure of this. I am very offended by real racism of the >nazis, I am offended when by totalitarianism. And fundamentalism, in any >form whether Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or Theosophic which limits the >freedom of others and degrades them is in fact offensive as well. There are >limits to tolerance, not where Daniel sets them, but there are some limits >to what can be tolerated by any group no matter how enlighted. You're right. I was talking about different beliefs or word-pictures about the spiritual, the good, the noble in life. It's entirely a different thing to take offense with evil, the hateful, the monsterous in life. We just should not confuse the two and call "evil" those approaches to the spiritual that differ from our own. >>I don't think that the discussions with Daniel will come to an end >>because of some of us feeling any sense of offense. They will >>end because there is nothing new for him or us to say to each other, >>because our discusssions have gotten too repetitive. Or they can >>continue and be productive because Daniel takes the courageous step >>to speak with his own tongue, to clothe his thoughts in his own >>words, and speak as a philosopher rather than simply parrot the >>authoritative words of another. >Art: I agree with you only I feel to that the admonition ought to be >leveled at all of us. We need to personally own our position even if that >position is one rooted in Tradition or Revelation. Yes, regardless of the basis for our beliefs, we should have the courage or conviction to voice them. It is only in giving expression to what we believe that we have a chance to let it grow, change, and be influenced by an interaction with others. >I would like to hear >the perspective of others who feel that they root their authority in >revelation of some other sort than Daniel so that we could learn how this >style is differentiated. The difference between some theosophical viewpoints and Daniel's is the philosophical basis for the "revelation". How sound is the philosophical description of what is going on? Is it as easy to accept as "someone more learned, more experienced, is passing on the fruits of their experience to others less experienced," or does it require a more extreme, difficult to accept belief to justify and explain its source? >Or perhaps some one would like to argue from >personal experience. For instance Why is it important that the Masters >exit? Because Blavatsky tells me so? Or do I believe in the Masters because >it is a revered tradition with Tibet or other esoteric places? I would find the idea central to the philosophy. We are engaged in spiritual evolution over countless lifetimes. Some have run ahead in their evolution, they are the Mahatmas. They can teach us things that we have not yet learned ourselves. They are like teaching assistants in college, helping their classmates. >Are we capable of direct personal contact with the Masters. Yes, but it would mean nothing particular, not any more than, say, meeting a movie star and getting an autograph. The people that we know in our lives are our teachers. Our friends and teachers change as we change, and we are changed in no way simply by coming in contact with a holy man of whatever status. >Emerson speaks of a >direct relationship to Divinity or Higher Consciousness not dependant on >second hand accounts. Sounds true to me. We are rooted in the divine, and it is our essential nature. We can make this living connection conscious and self-aware, or we can leave it as an unconscious "background feeling" to life. This connection, though, is a source of inspiration for us. But it is not practical knowledge of the world. We still learn and grow by an interaction with other living beings, and those far ahead of us, the Mahatmas, lead the way. >Lastly, is there a logical necessity to believe in the Masters? I would say that the idea is inseparable from that of reincarnation, karma, and spiritual evolution over time. The only possible point of disagreement among us is as to where on the evolutionary spectrum that HPB's Teachers are. Some would view them as demigods; others would view them as extraordinary men. My view is a bit different, putting them as men like us while functioning in their human personalities on this earth, and as highly-advanced humans in their consciousness and when apart from their human personas. >In no way am I dishonoring the tradition, experience or revelation by >asking these questions. I am genuinely interested in the perspectives >theos-l people have on these issue which for me have been stimulated by >conversation with Daniel in the Lion's Den. We all should feel more comfortable about talking about our views without getting defensive and feeling that we have to "prove" and fight to support them with various appeals to authority. This is different, of course, than when we attempt to *teach Theosophy,* when we are trying to pass on what we have heard without introducing our personal opinions in the guise of theosophical teachings. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 06:12:22 GMT From: "Deborah Brazo" Subject: Re: Real Teachers make Real Men > From: dhedrick@csn.net > Subject: Real Teachers make Real Men > Have you ever read writings from any of the following? > > Walter Martin > John Bunyan > Ron Rhodes > Norman Geisler > John Owen > Frank Beckwith > CS Lewis > John Ankerburg > > To name a few. > The above scholars are men of integrity and who > certainly maintained their faith in Christ Jesus > and would have strongly condemned any faith > that did not soley reside with Christ and biblical > theology. They are or were considered the best > of the apologists that have ever served the > one and only Master Jesus Christ. > > Were these men disalussioned, deceitful or > destined? > > Daniel > Why are you trying so hard to convince people that your Faith is the one and only True Faith? Have you read: Plato HP Blavatsky The Gnostic texts JJ Hurtak JFC Fuller GRS Mead The Urantia Rabbi Levi Luria Do my authors have any less integrity than yours? Don't you understand that your approach to life is narrow minded? Christians are not the majority in this world. Far from it. You ask if anyone can tell you about Jesus. Is it really important? Any relationship I have with a Master is personal. You would not agree with the opinions of this group anyway. Hell is not a place we go when we die if we did not accept Jesus in this life. Hell is living in a negative mode here and now. Hell is not letting the lesser light or dark control your life. forces. Hell is when your life is out of control because these dark forces have confused you. The one sure way out of hell is to discover WHO you are and know that these forces are not greater than you. We are all fragments of God and may call upon the limitless energy of God at any point in time. We do not need "someone" to save us. In fact that would be a direct violation of God's own Law of Freewill. It is our personal obligation to open our eyes to the truth. Bottom line, Daniel, you have run into a group of people who are beyond being beaten on the head with threats of going to hell if they don't turn to Jesus. You are in a room of old souls who know better than that. Such things are for the younger souls. Eventually they grow out of it (after many lifetimes). And please stop lumping all groups that are non christian into the new age catagory. In Light, Athara Deborah Brazo aka Athara __________________________________________ "If relativity is proved right the Germans will call me a German, the Swiss will call me a Swiss citizen, and the French will call me a great scientist. If relativity is proved wrong the French will call me a Swiss, the Swiss will call me a German and the Germans will call me a Jew." -Albert Einstein- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 06:47:17 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: A. Bailey & World Government Eldon: I know one long-time student of Bailey and HPB, who later gave up his belief in the Bailey materials. One key point that he mentioned to me was the stress on a sense of an occult hierarchy as world government, ruling what goes on in the world. Patrick: The phrases of "occult hierarchy" and "world government" are certainly used throughout the books but what is emphasized most strongly is that there is never any coercion in any spiritual work and all people are always free to follow their own conscience. A spiritual government or "rule by the enlightened" is a way of describing the vast responsibilities in relation to planetary evolution that are incurred as one evolves toward the next kingdom or the hierarchy (which is a way of expressing the organization of activity in spiritual realms -- all done in complete freedom). AAB writes specifically that humanity is not ready for a world government as it cannot yet produce sufficient unselfish people who would be able to do such. The emphasis is on local control with the U.N. being a place for the protection of human rights on a global scale and the prevention of wars. There is also a specific statement that the U.N. made a serious mistake in allowing a dictatorship (USSR) to be a member and that the organization should only be made up of relatively free nations who should use economic means to free people from dictatorships. Freedom, kindness, honesty and the other qualities of right human relationships flow throughout AAB's writings. Eldon: This might be an example of where the Bailey materials diverges from the source writings, and I would tend to disagree with the idea. Patrick: I read both and have not found such divergence on any topic. As the Bailey writings are also source I suggest a careful perusal before concluding that there is such. Eldon: Assuming that there are such differences, Patrick: Happily, there are only agreements. Eldon: can we acknowledge and explore them without having to denounce anyone nor go to extreme lengths to try to show that Blavatsky somehow supported the idea? Patrick: Impersonal discussions are best and both HPB and AAB supported the same principles and rules of the path. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 07:08:33 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: A. Bailey & World Government In the previous post I wrote: AAB writes specifically that humanity is not ready for a world government as it cannot yet produce sufficient unselfish people who would be able to do such. To be clear let me rephrase as: AAB writes specifically that humanity is not ready for a world government in the way that we have exoteric governments today as it cannot yet produce sufficient unselfish people who would be able to do such. Cheers, Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 07:13:51 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: One last bone...(of contention?) >Daniel: Is there science in history? Is Jesus a historical figure that was thought >of as more than a man? Did He calim to be God? Did others claim that >He was God? > >>Brenda: I think I have been saved. > >Saved from what? Your own innate foolishness. And now you have >a desire to treat others as you would be treated...etc? The salvation >I speak of is eternal. Not from one incarnation to another. I just am trying to say that I like the idea. I perhaps am not aware of the "fullness of the idea," but I did attent Baptist church services in Chicago and people could go up to the front of the church and give personal stories about their lives and how Jesus had made a difference to them. They used to say they were saved to. >> Jesus is an inspiration and >>an example of wisdom and compassion. > >Yet His own claims extend far beyond any of the other masters. How do you know? I remember reading about the possibility that one of the masters was actually working through Jesus. That Jesus was a fourth initiate and that the master who occupies the office within the hierarchy of the Christ was working through Jesus to carry out the historical activities, but more importantly to bring about a new religion for humanity. The same office of the Christ is supposed to be responsible for the founding and operation of "most" religious activity on earth, past and future. >> >>Right now I still working on >>the preparation of a description of holidays in other religions. > >I challenge you to find some reading examples of the Messiah in >the Passover Seder. I don't know where to find the Passover Seder. I thought the Seder was the food that decorated the table and tells a story of the historical event. I've taken my books back to the library already. >> I am >>particularly interested in the Jewish holidays because in my 40 years of >>living, I was never really exposed to what it is their holidays are about. >>I profess ignorance of a great tradition in today's world and wish to learn >>more. I don't know how many people are also interested in these holidays, >>but I imagine they will at least try to look at what I have to say objectively. >> >>How do you feel about our Jewish population? >> > >As any learned Christian, we are to respect the Nation of Israel. After >the Lord's second coming there will be the reaping of the 144,000 jews >who will be martyred and be great witnesses during the great tribulation. > >Beware the Mark of the Beast & When you see the Temple being built >in Jerusalem...remember that the prophecies are continuing to be fulfilled. >Time is short. 40 months? 40 years? > Daniel, Thank you for speaking to me personally about these things. I really feel honored that you shared your story and that you attempted to discourse with me. Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 07:18:18 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: "How DO we see the Masters?" Five small groups deliberated on three questions, and the one I was in spent most of its time on the first. I had hoped that my list of characteristics of extraverted thinking, introverted feeling, etc., would help people focus on one preferred mode of approaching the Masters. Instead, it seemed to backfire in a way, but lead in a fruitful direction, as people embraced all the modes. That is, it is important that the Masters teach the truth and that they truly existed historically (thinking); but also that we see them as ideals of goodness (feeling) and necessary links in the structure of life in the cosmos (intuition). Generally, I got the feeling that intuitive responses to the Masters outweighed thinking and feeling. That is, the meaningfulness of the ideal gives inspiration, independently of the specifics of any particular Masters. People seemed generally to lack interest in a devotional focus on the Masters (feeling) and not to be too concerned with historical questions about them (thinking) compared to the meaning they find in their teachings and example. It was widely agreed that no two people approach the subject from exactly the same point of view, and that the TS allows maximum space for the individual to develop his/her unique understanding. (Jerry, Guy if you're there, please correct any misperceptions you see here based on your own group's discussions.) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 07:20:22 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Monad Rich: >You mention that "Where Buddhism and theosophy part >company is the theosophical teaching about all of the other >monads - the human monad, the animal monad, and so on." > >I am not aware that HPB teaches anything other than THE monad, meaning >usually Atma-buddhi as the imperishable individuality throughout the >manvantara. That monad may be experiencing embodied life through the vehicle >of a human, an animal, a vegetable, etc. but it is the SAME monad throughout. >They are not different monads, just experiencing different kinds of >embodiments. > >I have occasionally seen HPB use the term "astral monad," meaning I think >that lower manasic seat of the personality, which forms a "unity" (monad) for >one lifetime only. It is not THE monad of the Secret Doctrine. Oh, you should see the way Purucker gets quite liberal with "monad" -- if you ever get around to that kind of reading. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 11:04:38 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: living traditions > Dear Rich, > > "Theosophy is an everlasting truth" which changes each time it > is being studied and absorbed through somebody else's > perspective. > > Liesel Liesel, in all honesty I don't understand what you are writing. We may indeed change Theosophy, but that is because we don't reallly understand it and so we dilute it. The Masters are not so deluded as we are, it would seem, and preserve the teachings perfectly. How can one and the same thing be changeless and still change? Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 11:04:42 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Soul? Brenda, your last post was very confusing and unsettling for me. > Perhaps the soul is > another life form which benefits greatly by aiding us, but then when we are > capable of living without it and a more direct line of transmission from the > Monad to the Personality takes place, where does this being that was our > soul go to? Does it repeat this work somewhere else in the universe? I never understood that Theosophy teaches we HAVE a soul, rather WE ARE THE SOUL. ("Soul" here in HPB's sense of human soul or MANAS) The soul "goes" nowhere, I would think, because it is simply a mode of consciousness, and it is everywhere, i.e. there were are. Or do you mean a soul besides Atma-buddhi-manas? I am not aware of what "soul" then might mean. Again, you write, > In Buddhism, doesn't the soul or the buddhic vehicle pop > when it is no longer needed? Buddhism, to my knowledge, doesn't teach a vehicle called "buddhi" exactly, but rather that we have several temporary aspects to ourselves (skandhas), and then Absolute consciousness. The skandhas don't "pop" or go away, they are simply our vehicles in manifestation. If we cease to meanifest at all, i.e. enter into Nirvana, then they cease to operate until we manifest again. They never disappear entirely if we are manifested, but they may be perfectly purified. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 11:25:50 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: living traditions According to Richtay@aol.com: > Liesel, in all honesty I don't understand what you are writing. We may > indeed change Theosophy, but that is because we don't reallly understand it > and so we dilute it. The Masters are not so deluded as we are, it would > seem, and preserve the teachings perfectly. How can one and the same thing > be changeless and still change? > > Rich > While not posing as one who knows what Liesel intended, I can offer an answer to your question. One and the same thing is not at issue here. What changes is human understanding (adepts being no exception); what doesn't change is the essential workings of the cosmos. In the former sense, there are many theosophies; in the !atter sense, there is only one. In my view (and regardless of how much chapter and verse you can muster on this) it is a category error to treat the verbal formulations of HPB, her teachers or anyone else as equivalent to the transcendent truth. The Theosophy that is unchanging is not something that is or can be contained by words. If you treat any particular attempt to formulate Theosophy as if it were Theosophy itself, you mistake the finger for the moon. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 14:02:11 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: "source teachings" Liesel: >It is my considered opinion that you take, from >theosophical writers, that which you can use, that which helps >you to become a more spiritually fulfilled human being. That's >my compeletely subjective yardstick. Does it further my >evolution? Yes, we take what we can use or assimilate from the theosophical Teachings. But there is more there than we have the capacity to partake of. And we don't just fill our plates once, but can come back again and again for additional servings. >Sometimes my sources aren't theosophical at all, but then they >need to jive pretty closely with my theosophical belief system. When we've made Theosophy a part of our lives, anything else that we take in tends to be consistent with it, or have some way of coexisting in harmony. Otherwise we create a discord in ourselves that leads us to walk away from Theosophy, or to drop the other materials. There also comes a time where we don't just come to take bits and pieces for ourselves, but where we are so filled with love and appreciation of the wonders that we've been afforded that we are driven to some form of creative sharing. That sharing is not one of running out to win converts to our favorite theosophical writers, it is rather more directly attempting to give concrete expression to the feelings, insight, and sense of majest that we are filled with. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 14:10:32 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Group Souls and Spirals Murray: >Eldon <the clock complete a cycle, and the minute hand has moved forward a >notch. It is only when we step outside of conditioned time that the sense >of "spiral" dissapears and we experience pure durtion. > >But I do want to let everyone know that I, at least, >>think that they are cyclical, the circle being the ancient symbol for >>existence, not the spiral.>> > >Reminds me that the 2-dimensional spiral is quite a common symbol in some >cultures, often portrayed with 3 and a half turns or circuits around the >center. We can combine mathematical symbols and get others that contain more meanings. A spiral is the combination of a circular motion combined with a movement inward (or outward, depending upon which direction the spiral is going). Another symbol is the three-dimensional torus. We have a circle that does not change size, but it's center point spins around a circle in another dimension. We end up with a "donut" shape. In this case, from the standpoint of two dimensions, we have a circle that does not change. But looking at it from a higher dimension, we see that the circle moves *in its entirety* in yet another direction. The book "Turbulent Mirror", which goes into chaos, gives a quite wonderful collection of mathematical and geometric symbols. One that is new, that was not popularly known in Blavatsky's time, is that of the fractal. We have a line, for instance, that moves so much that it is no longer one-dimensional; it takes on a fractional dimension. It might be 1.33374 dimensions. Or we have a surface that is more than two dimensions but less than a three dimensional solid. And things like fractals are used in science and describe real-world processes! Considering that we use simple geometric shapes for spiritual symbolism, certainly fractals, things like the mandelbrot set and bifurcation curve, should prove to be even richer sources of intuitive insight into the mathemtical (and spiritual) side of life! -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 14:18:18 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: "How DO we see the Masters?" Paul: >Generally, I got the feeling that >intuitive responses to the Masters outweighed thinking and feeling. >That is, the meaningfulness of the ideal gives >inspiration, independently of the specifics of any particular >Masters. ... >It was widely agreed that no two people approach the >subject from exactly the same point of view, and that the TS >allows maximum space for the individual to develop his/her >unique understanding. What you write makes me think of an important aspect to teaching Theosophy that we (or at least I) tend to forget at times. Based upon a person's psychological temperament, the approach to teaching them needs to be adjusted in an appropriate manner. I'd consider each psychological slant on the Teachings to be like the blind men feeling the elephant: one feels a leg and pictures a trunk, another the trunk and pictures a snake, etc. A certain perspective to Theosophy initially appeals to us. We need, though, to see things from the other perspectives too, in order to eventually get a unbiased view of the Teachings, to get a standpoint that is not personality-centric. This doesn't mean putting down any one approach, but somehow achieving a unified personal approach that embraces all the different slants. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 14:23:43 GMT From: ZFenton@aol.com Subject: Re: Boston Lodge Since disclosing my membership in the "outlaw" Boston Lodge, I received two questions: Liesel: L>Glad to hear that Boston is alive & well. Do you know what L>happened to Lou DeLucca? He came down to speak to our lodge L>once & i thought he was quite knowledgeable. But then he L>disappeared. I have been associated with the Boston Lodge during only the past 4 years; I have not met Lou DeLucca and do not know where he is. Rich: R> To be honest, though, R>the Arlington T.S. (The old Besant Lodge) is not called "The Theosophical R>Society in Boston" but rather "of Boston." According to the official stationery, the full name of the lodge is now: "The Theosophical Society in Boston, Besant Lodge, Inc." It is not a very good name since the lodge is now located in Arlington. R>IIt is not a branch of Wheaton any R>longer. You are a member-at-large of Wheaton, are you not? The Arlington R>branch has no official connection to the Wheaton HQ or the greater R>Theosophical Society in America, and thus exists as an independent R>organization pursuing not only HPB but also Bailey, Agni Yoga, etc. That is correct. R>When I was there, very little emphasis was placed on study groups. I offered R>the only one, on the Secret Doctrine, and there were all of 3 members, R>including me. Most all the emphasis was on the "festivals" where palm R>reading, tarot cards, auras and channeling were the attractions. There were R>also high holidays (Easter and Wesak among others) and observations of the R>full and new moon. Also lectures on extra-terrestials, etc. This was what R>caused the rift with Wheaton, that very little of the core Theosophical R>teachings were being studied, and the lawsuit was brought on by the Regional R>Director of New England, one of the 9 members of Wheaton's top council. R>Please correct me if my memory serves me wrong. Your memory is pretty good but some clarifications are in order. The purpose of the monthly (largely psychic) festivals was simply to raise money during the dark days of the expensive lawsuit initiated by Wheaton. During that time, the T.S. in Boston hired a first-rate lawyer, contested the lawsuit in court, and eventually won! There were no monthly festivals prior to the lawsuit while I was a member of the lodge, there have been no festivals during the past year following the lodge's victory, and there are no plans to hold more festivals in the future. In my opinion, the lawsuit was fought over the issue of money: who would control the proceeds gained from the sale of the old building to Boston University. There has been a Secret Doctrine class during the past year at the T.S. in Boston, and it included people from your old group. Although I can think of at least five serious students of the Secret Doctrine, it is likely that more members are studying AAB's writings than HPB's writings. We (those of us who met you) valued your presence in the lodge while you were here, appreciated your strong clear voice on the issues, and wish you well in your present endeavors at Berkeley. Zack From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 14:29:13 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: group project proposed Art Patterson, Your suggestion of writings responses and discussion questions to books and articles germane to theosophy sounds inviting and I think would be a growing experience for us all. One the one hand, I'm very tight for time and spend more than I should on theos-xx already. On the other hand, you are one person I can't say no to. As a compromise, let's try to stay with books I already have read, and short articles. For long articles and other books, I would hope that you might exercise patience while I try to get through them. Deal? Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 15:48:21 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Manvantaric Evolution I have been discussing manvantaric evolution for some time, but I don't think I have been getting my position through very well. Let me try one more time. The Esoteric Wisdom Tradition, I believe, teaches that all manifestation is a huge circle. Within this circle are a great many spirals. HPB says it best when she says "The first lesson taught in Esoteric philosophy is, that the incognizable Cause does not put forth evolution, whether consciously or unconsciously, but only exhibits periodically different aspects of itself' to the perception of finite' Minds" (SD Vol II, p 487). She also show a picture of our previous manvantara or planetary chain, the Moon, compared with our present, the Earth, on page 172 of Vol I. This picture shows a direct horizontal crossover. She says, and show, that the Moon and the Earth are on the same plane. They would seem to be cycles. To me, this implies that THE DIVINE MONAD DOES NOT EVOLVE. Why? Because it is outside of time, and evolution and growth are time-dependent concepts. There is, of course, relative evolution in the sense of growth along the upward Arc of Ascent. Evolution and involution are spirals within the Great Breath, which is a very large circle. However, this evolution and involution has to do with the temporary expressions of the divine monad, such as the human monad. Not the divine monad itself. OK, so far so good. But then G de P comes along and says: "This is the destiny of all evolving lives, man included: endless growth, endless duration in which to learn ... throughout future time... etc" (The Esoteric Tradition, p 198). And then a few pages later goes even further and says: "When one speaks of the relative perfection that may be and certainly will be in due course of the revolving ages attained by the evolving Monads, this term perfection' must not be misunderstood to imply either static immobility after its attainment, or, on the other hand, the reaching of an absoluteness in evolutionary unfoldment beyond which further evolution is impossible. Such attaining of a purely hypothetical absolute' ultimate is impossible .. How can an evolving Monad reach an end, whence there is nothing further in the way of growth or farther progress?" (p 213). On the surface, these views seem to conflict. Not only does G de P's view conflict with HPB's view, but it also conflicts with mysticism and esoteric occultism - both of which he was very familiar. I think that these views can be reconciled by suggesting that HPB is viewing manvantaric manifestation from the viewpoint of the divine monad, which is to say from spirit looking downward into matter. From this viewpoint, there is no real evolution, and the divine monad simply self-expresses in a large circle through the cosmic planes of manifestation, with lots of spirals in between. G de P, on the other hand, is viewing manvantaric expression from the viewpoint of the human monad, which is to say from matter upward into spirit. From this viewpoint, the human monad evolves without seeming end, while growing forever. If we remember that HPB defines eternity as the length of a manvantara, then there is no real conflict between these two views. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 16:07:49 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: What authenticates what we Believe? Art Paul, You want to know how individual Theosophists view the belief system. I can tell you about myself. In the beginning, I picked out ideas from Theosophical texts which appealed to me, either because they made sense, appealed to my emotions, or both. I still try to adopt that which appeals to me, but now over the years, another reason has been added, & that is that it fits in with what I already believe. This doesn't include the practicality of the theosophical belief system as I've adopted it. I have found, over the years, that Theosophical wisdom is a tremendous help over the rough spots in life. Just at this moment, I'm struggling, but I'm sure I'll find my footing again somewhere in my Theosophical beliefs. I always have. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 17:04:58 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: "source teachings" Eldon, It is my considered opinion that you take, from theosophical writers, that which you can use, that which helps you to become a more spiritually fulfilled human being. That's my compeletely subjective yardstick. Does it further my evolution? Sometimes my sources aren't theosophical at all, but then they need to jive pretty closely with my theosophical belief system. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 17:29:05 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: From the Heart... Daniel, If you truly love Jesus, then it follows that you also truly love your fellow human beings, as He did. Do you think you could try to become more loving? You're trying to shout us down, & that isn't very loving. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 17:32:59 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Scholars Lewis: > > Are you familiar with this reference? I wonder what your take on > > it is. To be more specific, how do we balance (us Librians are always > > seeking balance) the need for scholarly research with the challenge > > of making theosophy more available to the masses? > Alan: > As Librarians, Lewis: Well, as it happens, I am a librarian, but also one born under the sign of Libra to which I was refering. Alan: > the beginner. Oh - and scholarship is not necessarily only an > intellectual activity :-). > > (1) Ever tried checking out HPB's footnotes and sources quoted > in the text? Oh boy! > Lewis: I saw where that lead Boris Z and have avoided it! :})> For a short time had the key to the room full of books he consulted and on occasion tried to find one for someone at the Olcott Library.llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 17:33:31 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: to Paul Paul:<(Jerry, Guy if you're there, please correct any misperceptions you see here based on your own group's discussions.)> I think you got it right, Paul. My group was also divided. Two said that they "worshipped" the Masters, while another said that they were living human beings with more knowledge and understanding than most. So I think that the field on Masters is very wide open. One idea that I think everyone there agreed on, including myself, is that they are significant role models for us to follow (the imitation of christ approach). I think the importance of them being living human beings is much the same as it is for Jesus and Buddha being living human beings. Ed Abdill was strongly of the opinion that there is nothing special about the TS Masters, and that there are Masters like them in every age. I agreed with this. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 17:34:15 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re to Art on Revelations Art:< Daniel tends to use Tradition and Scripture to authenticate what is true> I agree with Eldon, that we all tend to do this. The Masters themselves said that no new ideas were accepted into their Teachings unless they could be substantiated by others. To me, this implies that they value substantiated experience as much as traditional knowledge or "scripture." Art: This can be said for many theosophists as well. Art:< Others on the list seem to appeal to Theosophical tradition in a manner not unlike Daniel, however not with the tone of a Daniel> Agreed. Sometimes this is necessary and proper, but I do think that it is sometimes overdone. Art: Many theosophists do the same, and for much the same reason. Just a different scripture. I usually enjoy hearing personal experiences, or personal interpretations of the "core teachings" born from experience. Art, I entirely agree with you that authority cannot rest only on the outside - it is like a house made on sand. Knowledge will only become living truth after it is internalized. Art:< There are limits to tolerance, not where Daniel sets them, but there are some limits to what can be tolerated by any group no matter how enlighted.> There is a point of diminishing returns, yes. Art:< Or perhaps some one would like to argue from personal experience.> I don't know about arguing, but in the late 70s I had a mystical experience that I have not been able to forget or repeat in its intensity. This was just before joining the TS. I think that my 25+ years in Theosophy has largely been an effort to come to terms with this one experience. This one short experience was a personal revelation to me, a gift which has allowed me to tread the Path in my own way, at my own speed, and in my own direction. I was a good Christian until my early 20s, when my brother died in a gun accident. I came face to face with death (the Lord of Death is not a pretty sight) and Christianity simply failed me. In fairness, let me admit that the rest of my family were comforted within it. I went through an agonizing Dark Night of the Soul which lasted for many years. During this time I was very bitter toward Christianity for letting me down. More than anyone else, my wife and James Long (past Leader at Pasadena) helped me out of it - largely by my finally realizing the answers were within myself and not without. I was an avid reader, to the point of obsession, looking for truth outside while it quietly rested within me all the time. After this realization, my obsessive reading dissipated and my misdirected anger at Christianity also dissipated. Art:< Why is it important that the Masters exit? Because Blavatsky tells me so? Or do I believe in the Masters because it is a revered tradition with Tibet or other esoteric places? Are we capable of direct personal contact with the Masters> It is important because they (now) are us (in the future). I would not expect to see a Master in the flesh in the USA today or any time soon. However, we can contact them through buddhi-manas (the noetic or higher mind) whenever we open this component of ours up to them. But, and here is the rub - anyone who opens up their higher facilities and simply "listens" will receive some very valuable ideas. Yoga works, even for atheists. Theosophists say that this comes from Masters. Christians may think it comes from the Saints, or from Jesus himself. Other groups may see other sources. So, while we all can get results, we are at odds over the source of inspiration and revelation that can come to us in quite and receptive moments. So, being inspired and obtaining revelations does not, in itself, prove the existence of Masters. I sometimes wonder if it really matters what the source is. When revelation comes to me, it usually hits more like a brick than a feather - and I know it and assimilate it, with gratitude to Whomever. I usually refer to them as "the powers that be" and leave them generalized and nameless. Art:< Lastly, is there a logical necessity to believe in the Masters?> I agree with Eldon here. It is logical for anyone who believes in reincarnation. Incidently, Ed Abdill said exactly this during his talk at the 12th Annual Meeting last weekend. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 17:37:49 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: living traditions Dear Rixh, I can't explain it to you any better. Let's just agree to disagree, because we'll never see eye to eye on that one. OK? Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 17:42:34 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: living traditions Thank you, Paul Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 17:52:43 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Toward an Inclusive Dialogue John, I agree with your assesment of fundamentalism as possibly as big a problem as rational materialism was at the end of the last century. You may recall I raised the question of fundamentalism on this list some time ago, as it's rise both puzzles me and worries me. The analogy of the Masters not being able to banish us from the listserv which is this planet (big grin :) gave me pause. I, too, was first amused, but growing tired of David's posts. Didn't HPB suggest that T.S. lodges and members should be found where there was injustice, ignorance, etc.? Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 18:07:22 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: (none) Examples of the Messiah in a Seder. Passover is celebrated around a dinner table & a Seder meal is part of the procedings. it is customary to put an extra glass of wine on the table for the "Eliahu", the Messiah. At a certain point in the ceremony the door is opened to let the Messiah in. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 18:10:05 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: scholarship > > I can't be sure, but I think you might have put two > different statements together: "The Chiefs want a Brotherhood of > Humanity, a real universal fraternity started; an institution > which would make itself known throughout the world and arrest the > attention of the highest minds." (ML 6) and "But a "hot bed of > Magick" we never dreamt of. Such an organization as mapped out > by Mr. Sinnett and yourself is unthinkable among Europeans; and > it has become next to impossible even to India..." (ML 28) > > Jerry Hejka-Ekins > Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu > I probably mixed up even more than two! I am without any resource as I write this from my feeble memory. My sources all to quickly sink into the fog I search in so diligently. Was my point equally obscured? Pun intended.:) Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 18:21:27 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Cayce if we can have a Christian fundamentalist on board, we can sure have someone from the Cayce group. Do You belong to ARE ? We may not always see eye to eye, at least some of us, but let's talk, & welcome. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 18:55:05 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Boston Lodge Zack: > During that > time, the T.S. in Boston hired a first-rate lawyer, contested the lawsuit in > court, and eventually won! I wish I saw some winners. The court did NOT decide in favor of one group over the other, but rather how best to divide the resources between the two factions. The Besant-Bailey contingent was considerably larger numerically and so was awarded $400,000, while the Blavatsky folks were awarded $200,000. That is out of one million or so, meaning that about $400,000 was given up to lawyers and courts. Sad. > In my opinion, the lawsuit was fought > over the issue of money: who would control the proceeds gained from the sale > of the old building to Boston University. I wish I could agree. Rather, the lawsuit was fought over ideology, and the money issue caused the ideology issue to become more pressurized than it already was. The lawsuit was about who HAS and who HAS NOT the right to call themselves Theosophists, WHAT IS Theosophy, etc. The court, of course, had no insight into these issues, and the product of the wrangling was VERY HOSTILE feelings on both sides, and a great loss of resources. To present the outcome as a "victory" for EITHER side is inaccurate, self-serving and MAINTAINS the polarized, hostile feelings in an "us versus them" mentality. I think the whole question of who "won" the lawsuit should be dropped, particularly by those Theosophists who have the misfortune of living in the Boston area. > Although I can think of at least five serious students of > the Secret Doctrine, it is likely that more members are studying AAB's > writings than HPB's writings. That you can think of 5 serious S.D. students out of your 80 or so membership is itself revealing. At the present time, according to my friends still participating at (your) Besant lodge, there is no Secret Doctrine class at all, rather a (small) Bailey class (5 people or so) made up of my old (large) S.D. class (15 people or so) held at Harvard University. It really upsets me that no Secret Doctrine presence is maintained now either at Harvard University nor at the Arlington T.S., because so much work was put into building those centers up for the study of the original teachings and the infusion of Theosophical thought into the mainstream public and into a prestigious Univesrity. It was a grand experiment, and it collapsed quite ignobly. I am very sad about this, but I suppose that is the karma of all of us involved. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 18:55:05 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Cayce > My introduction to Theosophy came via the writings about Edgar Cayce. Do > I belong on this board or not? I don't know if anybody has the right to judge whether you belong or not. Do YOU want to be here? That is the question, and if you do, then I and many others are eager and happy to welcome you. Tell us about you, if you like -- what brought you to the board, what you are interested in now? Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 18:59:44 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Change or changelessness Regarding whether Theosophy is changless through the ages or evolves and changes with time: > Dear Rixh, > > I can't explain it to you any better. Let's just agree to > disagree, because we'll never see eye to eye on that one. OK? > > Liesel Okay. Deal. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 19:23:37 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Cayce > My introduction to Theosophy came via the writings about Edgar Cayce. Do > I belong on this board or not? > > Jason > Yes Jason, both Paul and I have strong ties to Cayce. Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 20:31:40 GMT From: "Jason" Subject: Cayce My introduction to Theosophy came via the writings about Edgar Cayce. Do I belong on this board or not? Jason From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 23:34:33 GMT From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Group Souls and Spirals Eldon <think that they are cyclical, the circle being the ancient symbol for >existence, not the spiral.>> Reminds me that the 2-dimensional spiral is quite a common symbol in some cultures, often portrayed with 3 and a half turns or circuits around the center. When you look at a spiral where the line is as thick as the space, you have 3 1/2 turns of white and 3 1/2 of dark. Further, sometimes the dark part is drawn with a line defining its edges. This line makes 3 1/2 turns in and then 3 1/2 turns out, if you trace it from the outside. Is this a symbol if involution and evolution, or is it a symbol of involution and evolution? And with an implied septenary system! Murray murray@sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 23:49:27 GMT From: "Jason" Subject: Re: Cayce > if we can have a Christian fundamentalist on board, we can sure > have someone from the Cayce group. Do You belong to ARE ? I've had no association with the ARE for over 25 years. But, I was very deeply influenced by the contact I did have many years ago. I'll tell you some more when I respond to the other note I received a few minutes ago. Jason From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Sep 1995 23:49:27 GMT From: "Jason" Subject: It began with Cayce Rich, Yes, I definitely want to be here. I need a place where I can be open and honest about some of what I believe. I was raised Roman Catholic. I entered a Benedictine monastery when I was 19 and was a monk until I was 30. I later left the Catholic Church and became a Lutheran pastor. I have no trouble believeing all the basics of Christianity. But, my problem comes from the fact that I think there has to be more than what we teach. I've never been able to accept the idea that tragedy is "the will of God" or that everything that happens is "part of God's plan". While I can't say that I definitely believe in the concepts, the idea of reincatination and karma make a lot more sense to me. I find it much more acceptable to see that tragic life circumstances were chosen for karmic reasons than to see them as the whim of a loving God. In addition, I had a very strange experience in my 20s. I had an aunt, by marriage, who I absolutely detested. The lady was from Boston, so I had a natural dislike for Boston. I was an Ohio boy and had never been to Boston in my life. But, during my early monastic days, I was sent to Boston to study theology. The day I arrived in town via bus, it was like I was coming home. I couldn't believe the feeling of peace that surrounded me once the bus was in the Back Bay area. At the time I had no idea where I was. For the entire year I was there, there was there tremendous sense of having been there before. I KNEW what was inside building before I ever entered them. At the time, I knew nothing of Cayce or any of this. But once I learned about reincarnation, the whole Boston experience and feeling took on a new meaning for me. I can't talk about these things with my congregation or my Christian friends because they would be shocked. So, I want to be here where I know there will be openness to these ideas. And I want to explore them with others. It's 11:47pm here now and I need to get to bed. I've got an early day tomorrow and need some sleep. But, I wanted to write, to introduce myself, and to get the ball rolling for whatever discussion might come out of my participation in this group. Jason > Do YOU want to be here? That is the question, and if you do, then I and > many others are eager and happy to welcome you. Tell us about you, if > you like -- what brought you to the board, what you are interested in > now? > > Rich > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 00:11:52 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Manvantaric Evolution Jerry S: >The Esoteric Wisdom Tradition, I >believe, teaches that all manifestation is a huge >circle. Within this circle are a great many >spirals. I've heard it sometimes called a "circle", but with something more added each time around. What is added? The part of us that is subject to change, and able to come into relationship with the manifest, is affected by the experience. With each circle, it is like starting off with a blank sheet of paper to write an article. There is nothing *on the paper* that carries over from the previous article. It is only *in the writer himself* that the previous experiences add to his ability at self-expression and make him a better writer than before. What is the "writer" in us? That part of us that stands above manifest existence, but is still subject to time, because of being in relationship to the existing, because of its "gazing downward". >HPB says it best when she says "The first lesson >taught in Esoteric philosophy is, that the >incognizable Cause does not put forth evolution, >whether consciously or unconsciously, but only >exhibits periodically different aspects of >itself' to the perception of finite' Minds" (SD >Vol II, p 487). True. There is a ultimate since of perfection that does not need existence. It is the highest part in all of us. It is higher than that part that "gazes down" upon existence. That Unknowable is perfect, beyond manifestation in any form, and completely unchanging in any way, including changes that result from an interaction with or relationship with that part of us that comes into existence. >She also show a picture of our >previous manvantara or planetary chain, the >Moon, compared with our present, the Earth, on >page 172 of Vol I. This picture shows a direct >horizontal crossover. She says, and show, that >the Moon and the Earth are on the same plane. >They would seem to be cycles. The same plane, but perhaps a higher cosmic subplane. >To me, this >implies that THE DIVINE MONAD DOES NOT EVOLVE. >Why? Because it is outside of time, and evolution >and growth are time-dependent concepts. I would say the Divine Monad evolves at its own level and in its own scale of being, much as the Human Monad does on its scale, the globes of a planetary chain. Technically, of course, a Monad does not evolve, but sends forth a ray of conscousness into existence which evolves. But the Monad is still in relationship with the existing; the relationship arises because of its participation through the sending forth of that ray. Higher than any Monad within is our rootedness in Mystery, the Unknowable. This is not a Monad or is there any sense of personal identity or even of things that participate in existence. It is simply too perfect, too pure, too absolute. These words, though, are not really attributes of it, for it is without attribute as we know it. >There >is, of course, relative evolution in the sense of >growth along the upward Arc of Ascent. Evolution >and involution are spirals within the Great >Breath, which is a very large circle. There are two models of "evolution" and they both work in different ways. One is like that of the tides. There is an outbreathing and an inbreathing, a going out of the tide and a coming in of the tide. In this sense, we have evolution followed by involution, following the tide into then out of matter. There is also the idea of a continual unfolding unto completion, when nothing more simply can be done, and we need to wipe the external slate clean and start over. This is like putting a julia set through a series of iterations, until it "blows up" or dissapears into a cantor dust (falls away from our sight or our ability to manifest it in the media of a particular world). From this standpoint, I would think the external forms, as vessels for our consciousness, continue unfolding through all the Seven Rounds, even though our cousciousness reaches a most material point, and beings its ascent on the second half of the Rounds. >However, >this evolution and involution has to do with the >temporary expressions of the divine monad, such >as the human monad. Not the divine monad itself. The two manners of evolution, I'd say, have to do with the process of existing, the process of the manifestion of consciousness through a cycle of existence. >But then G de P comes along >and says: "This is the destiny of all evolving >lives, man included: endless growth, endless >duration in which to learn ... throughout future >time... etc" (The Esoteric Tradition, p 198). When we consider that we are rooted in the Divine, we will always be around to continue our evolution or existences on one world, then another, with no final experience as the absolute end to our experience of life. >And then a few pages later goes even further and >says: "When one speaks of the relative perfection >that may be and certainly will be in due course >of the revolving ages attained by the evolving >Monads, this term perfection' must not be >misunderstood to imply either static immobility >after its attainment, The part of us that is subject to existence is by definition non-static, forever subject to growth and change. That part does not become the Timeless, it is ever striving towards it, but is simple a different part of our constitution. > or, on the other hand, >the reaching of an absoluteness in evolutionary >unfoldment beyond which further evolution is >impossible. Our evolution does not take us from participation in time, from being manifest beings, and from that somehow become the absolute, the timeless, the ever-perfect. That part by definition is already within us, perfected, and ever-present. The goal of evolution is not to try to somehow convert the mortal part into the immortal, it is to "dance the dance of life". That is, when we come out into existence and seek evolution, we are taking on that experience *in addition to* our never-ending experience of Mystery. >Such attaining of a purely >hypothetical absolute' ultimate is impossible >.. How can an evolving Monad reach an end, >whence there is nothing further in the way of >growth or farther progress?" (p 213). Technically, the Monad is not evolving, it is its ray that evolves. And yes, we never reach an end to participating in manifest existence, because of having somehow externally become too perfect to continue. >On the surface, these views seem to conflict. >Not only does G de P's view conflict with HPB's >view, but it also conflicts with mysticism >and esoteric occultism - both of which he was >very familiar. It's not really a conflict since we are really talking about conflicting natures of *two different parts of ourselves.* >I think that these views can be reconciled by >suggesting that HPB is viewing manvantaric >manifestation from the viewpoint of the divine >monad, which is to say from spirit looking >downward into matter. From this viewpoint, there >is no real evolution, and the divine monad simply >self-expresses in a large circle through the >cosmic planes of manifestation, with lots of >spirals in between. Agreed, but I would put the Unknowable as qualitatively different than any Monad, however high. >G de P, on the other hand, >is viewing manvantaric expression from the >viewpoint of the human monad, which is to say >from matter upward into spirit. Not just matter evolving upward to spirit, but including the learning, growth, and inner treasury gathered through experience over one manvanatara after another. This karmic treasure cannot completely come out in any one manvantara, much less any one lifetime, but it is still a living part of us. This is why I would say that the first "layer" of the unmanifest is that karmic treasury, our storehouse of experience, something that is a living part of us even though only partially able to come into existence at any time. In this sense, it comprises the essential nature of the Monad itself, as a changable being subject to time, in its role in looking down upon the manifest planes of existence. But that part of us is lower, of course, than the timeless nature, our essential Self or Ideal which is distinctly *us* but does not participate in time. >From this >viewpoint, the human monad evolves without >seeming end, while growing forever. If we >remember that HPB defines eternity as the length >of a manvantara, then there is no real conflict >between these two views. It quickly gets hard to talk about these things. Especially when we need to make distinctions and talk about different layers or levels to the unmanifest or non-existing, and talk about how those parts of us relate to the part that is in existence and subject to evolution and the tides of life. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 00:46:56 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Psychism Jerry S: >However, one man's intuition is another >man's psychism. If I told you that some of the material that I used in my >magic books was from my intuition, you may not agree, and might say that I >channeled it via psychism. How can I prove it, one way or the other? Also, >intuition is no more "real" or accurate than anything else. We all sometimes >have intuitive flashes that are plain wrong. Yes. All our faculties are subject to error. And it is not always apparent via which one someone used to come up with their ideas. The final proof, apart from any argument for/against the authority of anyone that would teach us, is our own developing insight. >Eldon:< I don't think we try to take our consciousness out of the >human mind. The goal is to shift the awareness away from the mind, >to go higher within, and become aware of other manners of >consciousness. The mind continues, the stream of thoughts continue.> >I think that you are playing word games with me here. I don't see >much difference between "take" and "shift." What I mean is that the stream of thoughs continue, although we don't pay attention to it. Generally speaking all our principles are interrelated, and don't function independently. We can't stop the mind anymore than we could stop Atman. >Eldon:< The mind continues, the stream of thoughts continue.> >They may at a lower samadhi, but the higher (nirvkalpa, I think) >samadhi is one in which the human mind stops thinking - its stream of >thoughts does come to a stop. This happens if we'd stopped our practice in our Globe D human ego, passed through an inner laya center, and are now functioning in an entirely different ego within, perhaps the Globe E human ego. From the standpoint of the Globe D center of consciouss the mind has "stopped", but so have all the rest of the principles. But now we are a different version of ourselves, with its own respective seven principles, and the manas or mind of that ego is now functioning. So when *this* minds stops, we're simply continuing to experience *that* mind. >I still say that every Path needs a goal or >purpose or destination. The goal of yoga is to shift consciousness out of >the human mind and bring that mind to a halt. That would be a practice that emphasizes getting out of our Globe D human ego, the focus of our human evolution, and to shift away to another center of consciousness. It is a different goal than a spiritual practice that fosters the unfolding of the higher principles in and through that Globe D ego, which is working on the completion of its current evolution. >Most people (including Jung) >think that this equates to death, but the yogi knows that it is existence >itself, pure consciousness itself. Now this goal may or may not be the goal >of a theosophist. It really depends on his or her "mission" or task in any >one life. It is one of my goals, but perhaps not yours. Thats OK. It is pure consciousness if we shift our focus into the higher principles. It is an other-plane adventure if we shift away from the Globe D human ego, into another ego or center of consciousness in our constitution. >Eldon:< I'd say that on any plane that we may come into existence, we take on >all seven principles, which represent the complete ingredients of >consciousness.> >I think that you are a bit confused here. We don't come into existence >on any one plane - we do so on all of them. We are not just on the physical >plane right now. Parts of each of us are of all seven cosmic planes right >now this instant. We don't "go" to another plane, we merely shift >consciousness to that part of ourselves that is already there. The planes are like a spectrum of spirituality to materiality, or a spectrum of consciousness. We come into existence at discrete points along that spectrum based upon our inner constitution. This is much like when we break apart a star's sunlight, we see in a spectragraph lines at certain frequencies, which indicate the presence of certain elements. We're not in existence at every point along the spectrum. While I would say that we partake of an unconscious appreciation of the "background radiation" of the higher planes, we don't have an embodied existence on each and every higher plane. There are an infitite number of them, with no topmost plane. We don't come into existence in this world by an infinite number of finite steps; we come into existence directly from the non-existing, from our essential nature, apart from any scheme of things. >Eldon:our evolution *is here*. We are working on bringing our higher principles >into consciousness in and through our human personalities.> >Your confusion continues. We don't "bring our higher principles >into consciousness" in the physical body which "*is here*." Not in the physical body, but in the Globe D human ego. The physical body is not our center of consciousness, it is one of our principles or basic ingredients of consciousness. Our monadic ray of consciousness clothes itself in all seven principles here on Globe D. >Your seem to be confounding the physical and mental. When you say "our >evolution is here," I will agree only if your "here" refers to this planetary >chain of 12 Globes. There is a part of ourselves for which that is true. That part is higher than the Globe D human ego or what we know as the personality. It is the "individuality" or the higher human ego. It is a higher ray of consciousness that we also have active, and exists on its larger scale of being, spanning the entire planetary chain. >If you are referring to Globe D, then I strongly >disagree. Globe D is only for evolving our physical bodies. Yes, here is where we disagree, because I would include with Globe D all our seven principles as we know them, as they combine to form our human personalities, who and what we know as ourselves. >I think that >this goes back to earlier discussions on this subject, in which we are using >totally different models of the planetary chain. I take the model given by >HPB in the SD as appended by G de P, which is a slight variant of the >Qabalistic Tree of Life. I am not sure where your model comes from. I think that both our models are initially based on the same source, but have taken different turns as we attempted to further understand how they worked. >Eldon: > You seem to have entirely missed my point. I said that we should do >our seeking outside of any TS. My reference is to people coming to lodge meetings to share their individual spiritual quests, and so it was perhaps off the subject of psychical investigations. > In your response, you seem to totally disregard the third objective of the >TS. Would you care to write an article on just how we should accomplish the >third objective? The objects of a Theosophical Society are not words of divine revelation, but simply an attempt to formulate a useful purpose for the organization as a particular project of the Masters. We can do or not do anything that is spiritually appropriate. >Eldon:the direct one, and an emphasis on the psychic abilities leads >people to avoid it, rejecting it as theoretical because it may >seem less tangible than an experience of the senses. > >Perhaps. But I don't know of anyone who would fit this description at >all. Most people avoid the intellectual-spiritual approach and seek >psychism because it is the easier road. The psychic is fun, seductive, glamorous, and ego-gratifying. Having experiences or paranormal abilities impresses others much more than knowing some deeper philosophical truths that may be difficult to talk about. Why would people want anything different? There comes an inner hunger for something more to life, and that hunger leads to the path of wisdom and self-transformation. > People in general are lazy and don't want to >be told that the Great Work is one of many lifetimes. So we don't tell them. Laziness is from a lack of interest. If you were extremely hungry, you would not find it bothersome to get food. >Many magicians accept >HPB's work as a treasure of theory and study it, rather than rejecting it. > However, they follow a different "path" in that they prefer a faster (and >more dangerous) route to the slow (but safe) route described in theosophy. Their path is quicker to other planes, but slower, I'd feel, to awakening the consciousness of their higher principles. >Personally, I have nothing at all against such a personal choice, as long as >this choice is taken at step 3 - after ethics and compassion are firmed >developed. We each make our own choices, appropriate to our own lives and needs. And we cannot force a choice on others that aren't ready to benefit by it. All we can do is give some form of concrete expression to our inner life, and discovering how to give this expression is an individual thing. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 00:50:20 GMT From: dhedrick@csn.net Subject: Re: Daniel ..? I am a fundamentalist... more sepcifically a Evangelical Polemic. >From the Author's list I gave earlier...I would say I attempt to emulate Walter Martin the most...He was a Southern Baptist, although I have never really attended any baptist church more than once. Walter is my lind of guy. A fundamentalist. He died in 1989...but has hundreds of hours of tapes do listesn to. Daniel >Daniel, > >Do you mind being called a fundamentalist, or is it not how you see >yourself? > >Several in the list have called you that and I haven't seen yet whether >it's acceptable to you. > >Murray >murray@sss.co.nz > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 02:46:02 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Welcome Tracey Tracey Wrote > >Well I hope that you can extend that welcome to me also. My name is >Tracey and I'm interested in the influence that the TS had on various >stains of >Australian Art during the inter war period, particularly via the medium >of radio. I am enjoying some of the the stimulating and energetic >discussions going on. I am relatively familar with some writer's >connected with women's spirituality; Starhawk, Vicky Noble and Karen >Vogle, Margot Adler,Pinkola Estes. I am, though, very unfamilar with HPB, >but have found a copy of TSD and hopefully in the future be able to make >a contribution, be it minor, to this lively group. Welcome to Theos-l. I am really glad that we are attracting the diversity of people that are coming around here lately. I am especially interested in you views on mythology as it related to the women's issues material. I finished reading Drawing Down the Moon - an early history of the Neo-pagan movement. While I am not engaged in pagan spiritituality per se, my heart is with much that is included there. Adler's father is a bit hit on my list of ex-mentors and I was surprized to see Margot move from her fathers rationalism into a more spiritual mode. Anyway I look forward to your input. I don't suppose you are interested in the Motherpeace Tarot since you mentioned Nobel and Vogel:) Arthur Paul Patterson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 02:59:04 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: re: group project proposed At 12:54 AM 9/13/95, Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote: >Art Patterson, > > Your suggestion of writings responses and discussion >questions to books and articles germane to theosophy sounds >inviting and I think would be a growing experience for us all. > > One the one hand, I'm very tight for time and spend more >than I should on theos-xx already. On the other hand, you are >one person I can't say no to. As a compromise, let's try to stay >with books I already have read, and short articles. For long >articles and other books, I would hope that you might exercise >patience while I try to get through them. Deal? I imagine that alot of people on this list feel the same but I am sure that there is a lot that has aready been read even written on in the past and could be very helpful to what we are doing here. Pressure is not a good thing but focus might help help us a bit. I was thinking that the book article responses don't have to be directly theosophical but that the interaction around them could be. For instance I was reading Jerry S material on manvantaric evolution and saw much in common with that and the work I completed only yesterday on Emerson and Circles. So submiting our interests for theosophical input might be a grand idea way to learn with out having to be an adept theosopher for some. I am a terrible organizer when it comes to details but could I suggest that maybe we could have one of these responses a week starting on Monday where one of us offers up what they have written (for sacrifice :) and then we allow for feedback until the next Monday. Just in order for us to get started maybe Jerry E. would like to offer a topic (for next Monday or sooner), like I said it could be something already done or just a quick informal comment, then we could respond. I imagine it would be best if the topic we wrote on was something that we wanted a theosophical sort on from others in the group. I am not an academic and would really perfer it to be very informal sort of stuff. Any other comments? of suggestions? Hope it flies. Arthur Paul Patterson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 03:13:08 GMT From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: What authenticates what we believe? (This is a long post, but I hope it's easy to read.) Art: >>>I wouldn't mind others joining the dialogue, not so much to refute >>>Daniel, but, to take seriously the issues he brings up. >> .... > Art: He does bring up the issue of what becomes "authoritative": > Tradition, Reason, Revelation or Experience. .... > I am genuinely interested in the perspectives theos-l people have ... > I see a lot of facets to this and will try to touch on the main ones as I see them. The basic thing about authority in the spiritual/religious arena is that you need to give some kind of assent to it before it can have power in your life, whatever the intrinsic value of the source. Then the circuit is completed, so to speak; the connection is made. There has been an act of will in choosing, even if unconsciously. But on what is this assent based? Why and how do we come to feel "This is it for me"? Well, as I see it, the pathway to assent and feeling "This is it for me." involves a mixture of:- Intuitive rightness. It has to sit right and have the ring of truth. I seem to make a reference to a kind of internal standard available within my consciousness. (I won't analyse this further because it involves many of the other factors below and this is not the place for a discussion of intuition in its technical theosophical sense.) Recognition Along with the intuitive feeling of rightness, there is often a recognition experience. For example, when I first came across the idea of reincarnation, aged about 10, I had a strong sense of "Yes, this is how it is!" It was more than a nice idea; it was somehow familiar once it was brought to my attention. Creativity I'm thinking of how most people recognize the greatness of certain works of art, music or literature. We seem to have enough of the seeds of that kind of creativity in ourselves to repond to it when we meet it, even if we're lightyears from being able to conceive it and procuce it on our own. Similarly, we can be sparked to a creative response in building our world view when we encounter a description of a revelation or a tradition. Love, Faith and Trust I see love as manifesting in several ways, like splitting white light into colours of the spectrum. Some of those colours are understanding, forgiveness, deep caring-for, compassion, admiration, tenderness, and sheer outgoing light. I don't mean faith as intellectual belief, here; it is a deeper thing that humans can have regardless of their belief system. A once read a biblical scholar who said that the word meaning believe in the New Testament meant basically trust. I go for spirituality systems that embody these three qualities and draw them out in me. I find that many different religions do that, in varying ways, and theosophy in its many forms does it in a big way. This is an experience that no-one can take away from me or gainsay. Richness and Scope Certain spirituality/thought/feeling systems seem much more rich and comprehensive than others. Once you've seen a larger view, you become wary of claims that the smaller is the truth. An example is the idea of planes of nature. present in many religions even if only as one or more heavens, or a many-faceted creation story such as that of the Hopi Indians who portray several races of humanity, each destroyed because it failed in some way. The biblical story is pretty clearly a subset of this, allowing for differences of detail. Affinity of Personal Outlook I'm thinking here of the whole personal area of complexes, ingrained beliefs and emotions, both positive and negative. Stuff that's picked up from family and society often, eg beliefs and feelings that we are bad and unworthy, for example, and that lead to the control dramas that we habitually use with people. I think we tend to choose a religion or belief system that carries similar qualities to our own in this area, even if they are not openly recognized by the adherents themselves. I find a pretty strong negative component in fundamentalist systems. On the other hand, I recognize a lot of love, faith and trust in them too. I don't know any human spirituality systems that are entirely free from the negative, at least as embodied in their followers. Logical consistency Though not by any means the only factor, it is an important one. The caution is that we can build a logical picture based on assumptions that themselves are not well grounded or are only partially true. When there's a fundamental difference of interpretation, then the logical structures built on them will differ widely. Another caution is that at deeper levels, logic is left behind - it's no longer the right tool for the job. Experience Experience and direct perception at all levels is a powerful determiner of our views. The catch is that what we experience can often be distorted by our senses and our psychic makeup. This is one reason for the wide differences in people's world views and choices of religion, and why I place a lot of importance on development and purification processes like those in yoga. Explanatory Value This is when the ideas of a worldview have power to explain things around you and in the cosmos, independently of whether you can observe them yourself or not. For example, Ian Stevenson wrote a paper in a medical journal called "The Explanatory Value of the Idea of Reincarnation" where he reviewed the evidence he had and showed how it could be used to construct a reasonable and coherent picture. It is exactly because the direct observation or experience of the statements in religious scripture are often beyond us (at present, anyway) that we have to use the more indirect tools listed here, to build a consensus or best estimate. Relating all this to original question of the authoritativeness of Tradition, Reason, Revelation and Experience, I believe we all build a world view as we go through life, a kind of pyramid of trust where we put blocks in place according to whether they seem to fit. Some things are well established, others are maybes or hypotheses, but we connect these ones in tentatively when and where they seem to belong and hopefully move them or throw them out if they're later shown to be untrue. Tradition, Revelation and Experience are sources that we draw from in building this pyramid of trust. Reason is one of the tools we use in building and checking logical consistency. Tradition and Revelation come to us via books, conversations and even discussion lists! I feel that Tradition, Reason, Revelation and Experience influence most people, the difference being in the relative proportions. I personally employ all of them about equally, in building my structure of trust. With Tradition, I usually subject it to a piercing scrutiny, trying to get below any light-obscuring encrustations there might be. But then, I do that to the Revelation and Experience as well; they all need scrutiny and discernment, to the sharpest degree we're capable of. In using Revelation and Tradition, I try to keep them in balance with what is experienced within. In the end, the experience of DOING it and BEING it is what counts, the difference between reading a map and travelling the road. The words and images of a scripture or a theosophy are but symbols and pointers, very like a map, albeit filled with living power. Many others have said similar things on this list from time to time. Recognition of Authority depends on all the above, plus an assessment of the source itself, so I would try to weigh up the quality and depth of the prophet or teacher or mystic as well as the experiences or revelations they try to convey. Finally, I have to attest to a sense of belonging to the all-embracing life process, even if felt only dimly most of the time. A taste, even a hint of a taste of this changes your sense of identification so that it's no longer a clear cut question of a Source Out There and Me In Here. It's no longer just Me Doing This On My Own. This changes the whole nature of Authority to a more universal, less self-oriented concept. As if a common Authority dwells within all of us, gradually emerging into view, to our own individual timetables. This leads inevitably to some picture I can only begin to conceive of, of energy flows of inspiration from some to others, and on again, in a vast network of the body of humanity. So saying, I bid you adieu. Murray murray@sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 04:22:02 GMT From: dhedrick@csn.net Subject: Re: One last bone...(of contention?) > >I just am trying to say that I like the idea. I perhaps am not aware of the >"fullness of the idea," but I did attent Baptist church services in Chicago >and people could go up to the front of the church and give personal stories >about their lives and how Jesus had made a difference to them. They used to >say they were saved to. > Baptists are well lnown for teaching the Gospel message of Salvation. >> >>Yet His own claims extend far beyond any of the other masters. > >How do you know? Because those that knew Him, wrote about HIm. And those writings are well recorded and preserved. Take a look at John 8:48-59. Did Jesus make any claims of Divinity? The resuly of His claims is very apparent in vs 59. John 1: Col 1: Eph 1: Heb 1: All very strongly indicate that Jesus was more than a man, more than a master, but THE KURIOUS, THE MASTER and CREATOR of the universe. NOT a part of the universe but Creator. The Theosophical approach is that Jesus drew nearer to the Truth than others and was able to say that He embodied TRUTH, or became TRUTH, or presented TRUTH...but these are not biblical teachings. Jesus said He was the Truth, and that the only way to the FATHER was by Him. What does theosophy have to say about Paternalistic Anthropomorphism? Is it misplaced spiritual discernment by the traditional students of that time and period as Eldon and others espouse? Why is it that 99% of all recorded societies are Paternal? > I remember reading about the possibility that one of the >masters was actually working through Jesus. This is an inaccurate statement about the GOD man Jesus Christ. There is a difference between the pre-incarnate Christ and the incarante Christ and also the resurrected Christ, yet He remains Christ. Not a christ. But singular Christ. The term Christ means annointed ONE. >That Jesus was a fourth initiate >and that the master who occupies the office within the hierarchy of the >Christ was working through Jesus to carry out the historical activities, but >more importantly to bring about a new religion for humanity. He did not come to create a new religion. He came to fulfill the Law of Moses and the religion of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I have a great write up on the Law if you would like to read it. > >I don't know where to find the Passover Seder. I thought the Seder was the >food that decorated the table and tells a story of the historical event. >I've taken my books back to the library already. > I will send the seder info in another message. > >Daniel, > >Thank you for speaking to me personally about these things. I really feel >honored that you shared your story and that you attempted to discourse with me. > >Brenda > Brenda, thanks for taking the time to read posts from a Seven yr old fundamentalist. Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 05:08:01 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Cayce According to Jason: > > My introduction to Theosophy came via the writings about Edgar Cayce. Do > I belong on this board or not? > > Jason > Dear Jason, That makes two of us, sort of. I discovered the Theosophical literature in the ARE Library in Virginia Beach, and joined the TS while an active participant in a Search for God group. Just recently I rejoined ARE. Welcome aboard. Lewis Lucas also recently mentioned that he started towards Theosophy with the Cayce teachings. Is there some aspect of Cayce you'd like to discuss? Namaste Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 05:16:07 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: "How DO we see the Masters?" Paul: >What was surprising and uplifting about the failure of my >little exercise was this sense of aiming for a unified >approach. That is, when asked to select thinking, feeling or >intuition, introverted or extroverted, as the main way they >approach the Masters, no one was ready to do so. All >acknowledged that their own approach partook of several >functions. But more than that, there seemed a general >acknowledgment that we should all strive for a balanced >approach to the topic that would as you say "embrace all the >different slants." We can learn from one another's diverse >outlooks as a means of approaching the integrated state. Yes, and there's different ways that we can approach an unified viewpoint. One is over many lifetimes, with our personalities slanted this way that that way. A second is to try to combine qualities from different approaches into a single practice, like combining a private time of intense devotion with the contemplation of intellectual imagery. And a third is by being aware of different approaches as different, being aware of more than one at the same time, and distancing oneself from them, using two or more approaches to pinpoint the unknown using "parallex". (This is like taking two sightings of an object from different locations, and where their lines cross on the map, we've accurately marked a location that neither line, by itself, could precisely say. Each individual line *gives a direction but not a distance*. By combining two directions, we also get a distance or precise location of the distant object.) -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 05:21:13 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: "source teachings" According to Eldon B. Tucker: > > When we've made Theosophy a part of our lives, anything else that > we take in tends to be consistent with it, or have some way of > coexisting in harmony. Otherwise we create a discord in ourselves > that leads us to walk away from Theosophy, or to drop the other > materials. > I may be a minority of one on this issue, but my experience is almost 180 degrees away from the above observation. Let me rewrite it my way: When we've made Theosophy a part of our lives, any conflicting paradigm we encounter can be a source of creative tension from which we grow in understanding. It is an absolutely necessary part of spiritual/intellectual maturation to face apparent discord and integrate diverse viewpoints. Once we have been deeply touched by Theosophy, we can never walk away from it; other materials provide an unending series of opportunities to better understand Theosophy through comparison and contrast. Either/or avoidance of other viewpoints does a disservice to the universality of Theosophy. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 05:23:16 GMT From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Daniel ..? Daniel, Do you mind being called a fundamentalist, or is it not how you see yourself? Several in the list have called you that and I haven't seen yet whether it's acceptable to you. Murray murray@sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 05:39:30 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: "How DO we see the Masters?" At 11:26 AM 9/13/95, K. Paul Johnson wrote: >What was surprising and uplifting about the failure of my >little exercise was this sense of aiming for a unified >approach. That is, when asked to select thinking, feeling or >intuition, introverted or extroverted, as the main way they >approach the Masters, no one was ready to do so. All >acknowledged that their own approach partook of several >functions. Art: Undoubtedly all the functions co-operated in arriving at the conclusions that the participants held but in what order and in what sort of weight. This is what type theory is about ordering and weighing of judgement and perception. If intuition is a dominant function then sensing will not be ordered first but maybe third or last. If Feeling (that is valuing for human effect) is first then sequential logic will not be weighed until later. ect. People like to think they are balanced when they claim to use all functions equally but it very unlikely that they do so unless your participants were very elderly worked through most of their shadow and were what Jung described as individuated. All the functions must be weighed and valued and to arrive at a wholistic evaluation each must be given its due. But wholistic evaluation is usually transpersonal, done in groups, and rarely do we as individuals have the capacity to be that balanced. It is a great goal but only acheivable in my opinion by group inter-dependence. I think that in group you probably arrived at a better understanderstand than you ever would as individuals. But more than that, there seemed a general >acknowledgment that we should all strive for a balanced >approach to the topic that would as you say "embrace all the >different slants." We can learn from one another's diverse >outlooks as a means of approaching the integrated state. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 05:41:17 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Boston Lodge According to Richtay@aol.com: > > It really upsets me that no Secret Doctrine presence is maintained now either > at Harvard University nor at the Arlington T.S., because so much work was > put into building those centers up for the study of the original teachings > and the infusion of Theosophical thought into the mainstream public and into > a prestigious Univesrity. It was a grand experiment, and it collapsed quite > ignobly. I am very sad about this, but I suppose that is the karma of all of > us involved. > > Rich > And more than that, the karma of the Theosophical Movement. For some reason (and I look to the 11/17/75 natal chart for clues) it is destined to erupt in periodical purges of dissidents. Or rather, schisms by them, depending on who initiates the action. I've heard that Bailey adherents were the reason the Danish TS was expelled a few years back; is that so? Anyhow, a model for reconciling the tensions occurred to me last Saturday when Ed Abdill was speaking. Astrologically, tense relationships include squares and oppositions, while relaxed aspects are trines and sextiles. The Baileyites and the Blavatskyites aren't opposed, but squared IMO. They share about half of the same assumptions and material, but look at that half from completely inharmonious angles. Thus, intense conflict. A totally opposed viewpoint would be like that of Marion Meade: superficial skepticism. The Cayce material, OTOH, seems to "trine" Blavatskyan Theosophy in that one can simultaneously hold both in mind without feeling much tension. His trance methods make no claim to contact the same source as HPB (unlike Bailey) so all the parallels in their teachings are less threatening. The point of this is that when two people or factions find themselves miles apart on an issue, they have some control over how much tension erupts. Ed and I more or less consciously agreed (without previous discussion) to place ourselves at a fairly wide distance in terms of outlook, but to also be relaxed about it and promote a relaxed feeling among those present about the existence of diverse views. This is something like consciously making a trine of energies that could have erupted into conflict if we'd approached the topic from slightly different angles. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 06:46:05 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Locating the Changeless Truth Since reading the exchange yesterday between Rich and Liesel about change and Theosophy, I've been pondering. Let me admit up front that there's something about Rich's point of view that just doesn't sit right with me intuitively. I perceive a meaning in all the claims about Masters' changeless eternal wisdom that perhaps he misses in taking it literally. Those Theosophists (most in the ULT, some in Pasadena and Adyar) who take literally the idea of a single brotherhood preserving a single Gnosis/Theosophia/Gupta Vidya would locate said brotherhood and Gnosis right here on earth. Somewhere, we know not where, there are underground libraries in caves. If only we could see the records in them, we'd see that the Kabbalah, the Vedanta, Mahayana Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, all rest on the Single Ancient Occult Tradition that has been written down in unknown languages and preserved in unknown places. In those places are works in Senzar that contain all that the adepts know. This all too respectable literalism makes Theosophy appear ridiculous to the scholars of religion who know better than to believe any such myth. Sure, there may be plenty of unknown words containing adept wisdom, hidden away somewhere or other, but that is NOT WHERE THE MASTERS' TRUTH IS LOCATED. And we look as silly as the Mormons with their Book of Mormon or the JW's waiting for Armageddon when we talk as if Theosophy is something stored in a secret place by secretive people whose existence is dubious. It's not-- Theosophy is in everyone. The TRUTH is IN US, and those who have been enlightened can read truth about the divine and the spiritual and the mental and the emotional and the psychic-- IN THEMSELVES AND OTHERS. The Bodhisattva is one whose very being is enlightenment. That's what a Master IS. All the fantasies about a single truth in a single language preserved by a single brotherhood are METAPHORICAL for something that is real at a spiritual level. Such is the conviction I have reached, for what it's worth. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 06:52:41 GMT From: dhedrick@csn.net Subject: The END I know you thought I was leaving and a moment of relief came to you. But verily I say that the heat is turning up. Is there any writings that you consider authoritative regarding the end times? Or is there an absence of this topic from theosophic writings? I bring the subject up because I was pondering the concept of darkness and was curious if there was an anti-theosophy. The simularity I am looking for is the difference between Christ and the Anti-Christ. Matthew 24:5-51 declares there is a time coming when the world will be destroyed and that great tribulations will occur and that the anti-christ will setup his throne in Jerusalem. I realize that the tendencies on this list will cause some to immediately cry HOAX, or at least fall into simple denial. What do HP Blavatsky, JJ Hurtak, and JFC Fuller have to say about Matthew 24:5-51? There is certainly evidence to the fulfillment of many end-times prophecies recorded in the bible. SmartCards (Get your Mark) Embedded Micro-chips Infra-red tatoos World Order One currrency 1000% Increase in 100yrs of the number of destructive earthquakes. #1 cause of Black Teenager death is Murder. 90,000 AIDS cases recorded in 1994. Millions of babies mudered every year. Epidemic Chaos rules our planet. The END is near. Heaven & Earth will pass away... Where will your peace come from? Some real bad kharma goin on here. What does Theosophy do with DOOMSDAY? Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 07:16:58 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: It began with Cayce According to Jason: > Boston to study theology. The day I arrived in town via bus, it was like > I was coming home. I couldn't believe the feeling of peace that > surrounded me once the bus was in the Back Bay area. At the time I had no > idea where I was. For the entire year I was there, there was there > tremendous sense of having been there before. I KNEW what was inside > building before I ever entered them. > This kind of experience has struck me both in France (vividly) and India (diffusely). What you don't mention is a certain parallelism or overlap that I think is a key part of the experience. Boston was to be a highly significant place in your life in THIS incarnation, and it appears to have been in some OTHER incarnation. Just as in my French and Indian experiences, returning to the scene of one's previous lives (assuming that's what caused the deja vu) seems to unleash some creative changes in the present one. You meet yourself in a whole new way. It would seem you've never been able to shake off a sense of a whole other level of reality, ever since that Boston year, n'est-ce pas? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 07:24:51 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: "How DO we see the Masters?" According to Eldon B. Tucker: > > I'd consider each psychological slant on the Teachings to be like > the blind men feeling the elephant: one feels a leg and pictures > a trunk, another the trunk and pictures a snake, etc. A certain > perspective to Theosophy initially appeals to us. We need, though, > to see things from the other perspectives too, in order to eventually > get a unbiased view of the Teachings, to get a standpoint that is > not personality-centric. This doesn't mean putting down any one > approach, but somehow achieving a unified personal approach that > embraces all the different slants. What was surprising and uplifting about the failure of my little exercise was this sense of aiming for a unified approach. That is, when asked to select thinking, feeling or intuition, introverted or extroverted, as the main way they approach the Masters, no one was ready to do so. All acknowledged that their own approach partook of several functions. But more than that, there seemed a general acknowledgment that we should all strive for a balanced approach to the topic that would as you say "embrace all the different slants." We can learn from one another's diverse outlooks as a means of approaching the integrated state. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 07:26:59 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Living the Myth of Eternal Truth At 10:47 AM 9/13/95, K. Paul Johnson wrote: >Since reading the exchange yesterday between Rich and Liesel >about change and Theosophy, I've been pondering. Let me >admit up front that there's something about Rich's point of >view that just doesn't sit right with me intuitively. I >perceive a meaning in all the claims about Masters' changeless >eternal wisdom that perhaps he misses in taking it literally. Art: I agree but it is disconcerting when Blavatsky herself talks about Eternal Truth in ways that at least at first sound very similar to what you are feeling strange about. I believe in the fact of some Eternal truth that knows me but I will not ever reverse the equation to say that I know Eternal Truth. It is like when Daniel asks "Do you know Jesus?" Well, yes I have had several encounters with what I take to be at least the spirit of Christ but to say I know Jesus is in my estimate arrogant. But to say that The Christ knows me that's another matter. I am willing by sheer hope and faith to say that. So the same holds with the Masters or whatever they point to. > >Those Theosophists (most in the ULT, some in Pasadena and >Adyar) who take literally the idea of a single brotherhood >preserving a single Gnosis/Theosophia/Gupta Vidya would locate >said brotherhood and Gnosis right here on earth. Somewhere, we >know not where, there are underground libraries in caves. Art: That reminds me of what happened to Christians when the Nag Hammadi and the Gnostic gospels were found. Most of us would have said before this find,"Boy I wish we could have access to some primary documents closer to the events in the life of Jesus. We got them and they said things that burned many orthodox opinions. This is especially true of material like the Gospel of Thomas which advocates that salvation is about a change of consciousness. (See Stephan Hoeller. Jung and the Lost Gospels. Quest. 1989.) So much for wanting historical authenticity it screws up our myths too much. We want the historical evidence when it confirms our mythology but if it contradicts it well you know what happens. Living the Myth Art From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 07:29:13 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: A. Bailey & World Government According to Aprioripa@aol.com: > > Eldon: > This [world government by the Masters] might be an example of where the > Bailey materials diverges from the source writings, and I would tend to > disagree with the idea. > > Patrick: > I read both and have not found such divergence on any topic. As the Bailey > writings are also source I suggest a careful perusal before concluding that > there is such. > > Eldon: > Assuming that there are such differences, > > Patrick: > Happily, there are only agreements. > > Eldon: > can we acknowledge and explore them without having to denounce anyone > nor go to extreme lengths to try to show that Blavatsky somehow supported > the idea? > > Patrick: > Impersonal discussions are best and both HPB and AAB supported the same > principles and rules of the path. But Eldon is right that there are indeed differences, not "only agreements." There is a formalized bureaucracy in AAB's occult schemes, with the Manu, Mahachohan, Maitreya, etc. having roles that define their place in the hierarchy of the world. HPB has no such bureaucracy in her view of the cosmos, no carriers of titles, only individual adepts striving to uplift humanity and working with others as they can. > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 07:39:30 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Re: Manvantaric Evolution Thanks Jerry for your posting on manvantaric evolution and the human and divine monads. Certainly food for thought. Also, did you read my posting of a day or so ago, asking if you had responded to Adam Warcup's query concering the earth chain of globes and "kamaloka" and "devachan"? Adam, if you're reading this, could you repost your question and, and Jerry S, if you posted an answer would you please repost it for me. Thanks. Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 09:07:34 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: SD quotes re: The END >What does Theosophy do with DOOMSDAY? >Daniel SECRET DOCTRINE, Vol II, p. 222 (an ISIS UNVEILED passage) "In consequence of this, war was declared, the story of which would be too long to narrate; its substance may be found in the disfigured allegories of the race of Cain, the giants, and that of Noah and his righteous farnily. The conflict came to an end by the submersion of the Atlantis, which finds its imitation in the stories of the Babylonian and Mosaic flood. The giants and magicians '=85 and all flesh died =85 and every man.' All except= Xisuthros and Noah, who are substantially identical with the great Father of the Thlinkithians in the Popol-Vuh, or the sacred book of the Guatemaleans, which also tells of his escaping in a large boat like the Hindu= Noah-Vaivasvata. If we believe the tradition at all, we have to credit the further story that, from the intermarrying of the progeny of the hierophants of the island and the descendants of the Atlantean Noah, sprang up a mixed race of righteous and wicked. On the one side the world had its Enochs, Moseses, various Buddhas, its numerous 'Saviours, and great hierophants; on the other hand, its 'natural magicians' who, through lack of the restraining power of proper spiritual enlightenment, =85 perverted their gifts to evil purposes.= =85" >From THE SECRET DOCTRINE, Vol II, p. 332-333 (b) Now, how could those records have been preserved? we may be asked. Even the knowledge of the Zodiac is denied to the Hindus by our kind and learned Orientalists, who conclude that the Aryan Hindus knew nothing of it, before the Greeks brought it into the country. This uncalled-for slander was so sufficiently refuted by Bailly, and what is more, by the clear evidence of facts, as not to need very much additional refutation. While the Egyptians have on their Zodiacs irrefutable proofs of records having embraced more than three-and-a-half sidereal years=97or about 87,000 years=97the Hindu calculations cover nearly thirty-three such years, or 800,000 years. The Egyptian priests assured Herodotus that the Pole of the Earth and the Pole of the Ecliptic had formerly coincided. But, as remarked by the author of the Sphinxiad, "These our benighted Hindoos have registered a knowledge of Astronomy for ten times 20,000 years since the (last local) Flood (in Asia), or Age of Horror," in the latitude of India. And they possess recorded observations from the date of the first Great Flood within the Aryan historical memory=97that which submerged the last portions of Atlantis, 800,000 years ago. The floods which preceded are, of course, more traditional than historical. The sinking and transformation of Lemuria beginning nearly at the Arctic Circle (Norway), the Third Race ended its career in Lanka, or rather on that which became Lanka with the Atlanteans. The small remnant now known as Ceylon is the Northern highland of ancient Lanka, while the enormous island of that name was, in the Lemurian period, the gigantic continent described a few pages back. As a MASTER says (See "Esoteric Buddhism," p. 65):=97" Why should not your geologists bear in mind that under the continents explored and fathomed by them. There may be hidden, deep in the fathomless, or rather unfathomed ocean beds, other and far older continents whose strata have never been geologically explored; and that they may some day upset entirely their present theories? Why not admit that our present continents have, like Lemuria and Atlantis, been several times already submerged, and had the time to re-appear again and bear their new groups of mankind and civilisations; and that at the first great geological upheaval at the next cataclysm, in the series of periodical cataclysms that occur from the beginning to the end of every Round, our already autopsied continents will go down and the Lemurias and Atlantises come up again? " The first continent, or island, if so preferred, ~- the cap of the North Pole," has never perished; nor will it to the end of the Seven Races. SD Vol II, p. 420 "Dionysus is one with Osiris, with Krishna, and with Buddha (the heavenly wise), and with the coming (tenth) Avatar, the glorified Spiritual Christos, who will deliver the suffering Chrestos (mankind, or Prometheus, on its trial). This, say Brahminical and Buddhistic legends, echoed by the Zoroastrian and now by the Christian teachings (the latter only occasionally), will happen at the end of Kaliyuga." (In short, then will the God such as Brahma, Zeus, Jehovah, Ahura-Mazdha and all their likes be gone.) Continuing with the quote, "And along with these will vanish their shadows, the dark aspects of all those deities, ever represented as their "twin brothers" and creatures, in exoteric legend; their own reflection on earth-in esoteric philosophy. The Ahrimans and Typhons, the Sammaels and Satans, must be all dethroned on that day, when every dark evil passion will be subdued." SD Vol II, Footnote p. 500 "The Secret Doctrine teaches that every event of universal importance, such as geological catalcysms at the end of one race and the beginning of a new one, involving a great change each time in mankind, spiritual, moral and physical=97is pre-cogitated and preconcerted, so to say, in the sidereal regions of our planetary system. Astrology is built wholly upon this mystic and intimate connection between the heavenly bodies and mankind; and it is one of the great secrets of Initiation and Occult mysteries. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 10:58:35 GMT From: Tracey Benson Subject: Re: Cayce On Tue, 12 Sep 1995 LIESEL@delphi.com wrote: > if we can have a Christian fundamentalist on board, we can sure > have someone from the Cayce group. Do You belong to ARE ? > We may not always see eye to eye, at least some of us, but > let's talk, & welcome. > > Liesel > hi, Well I hope that you can extend that welcome to me also. My name is Tracey and I'm interested in the influence that the TS had on various stains of Australian Art during the inter war period, particularly via the medium of radio. I am enjoying some of the the stimulating and energetic discussions going on. I am relatively familar with some writer's connected with women's spirituality; Starhawk, Vicky Noble and Karen Vogle, Margot Adler,Pinkola Estes. I am, though, very unfamilar with HPB, but have found a copy of TSD and hopefully in the future be able to make a contribution, be it minor, to this lively group. Tracey From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 11:44:54 GMT From: dhedrick@csn.net Subject: Re: In the Lion's Den >but their evil >wisdom may start creeping into your soul through hidden cracks in your mind >(that are unknown even unto yourself!) and you may find yourself (gasp!) >beginning to actually question your *own* beliefs! Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil. For you are with me Lord. > > 1. You demand that we refute the claims of Christianity ... but isn't >it more reasonable to assume that they need to be demonstrated before they >must be refuted? The historicity of the Scriptures provide ample evidence for even a doubting Thomas. > Thesis: Jesus is the only Son of God, and is the Lord of the World, >and the Master of Masters. > Proof: Jesus says he is, and *since* he is the Son of God and >*says* he is the light and the truth, therefore He is. Not only did he make those declarations but so did many others. Also you should make yourself more keenly aware of fulfilled prophecies. > > Thesis: The "Bible" is the "Word" of God, and in it is the only >real truth, and anyone who believes in it is right, and anyone who does >not believe in it is wrong. > Proof: The Bible *says* it is the word of God, and *since* therefore >it says it is, *because it is the Word of God, it *must* be. When the Lord demands respect for His written word...respect is given. Read John 8:48-59 > > 2. I've also been puzzled by the apparently bizarre misunderstanding >of *scale* that appears to run throughout evangelical thought. Imagine >a Being called God, a Being of such inconceivable stature that it is capable >of creating, out of nothing, the entirety of the universe - the operative >scale being literally billions of years of time and a space so large that >it cannot even be measured with units as enormous as light-years - attempt >for a moment to grasp (as impossible as it is to do) how almost unbelievably >brief and immeasurably tiny the planet earth and the little specks on it >that consider themselves immensely important and call themselves civilized; This is one of the condsideration I make when you realize the the Omnipotent God limits His creation and relationships to a speck of dust called Earth. Granted there are different types of Angesl that He receives worship... but there are no other earths, and no other civilizations. Read the Fingerprint of God, by Dr. Hugh Ross and you will find some very interesting thoughts on God's choice to limit Himself. Although Dr. Ross is a Old Earth Creationist, I find His work appealing. > Having postulated a being such as this, as evangelicals seem to do, >does it then make sense to then say (as I've recently heard) that this Being >actually thinks that it is desperately important that one political party >gets elected instead of another? That it *cares* whether I have gone through >a formal ceremony before I sleep with someone? That it not only *cares* >whether or not I go to church on Sundays, but even judges some churches to >be "right" and others "wrong"? Error flows abundant in your declarations here. Politics? Marriage? Worship? Rigtheousness? Quick answers. King God created Adam & Eve not Adam & Steve. & the Institution of Marriage. He wants your Praise & Worship not your ATTENDANCE. His judgement is based on His Word...and God is a discerner of the Heart. > While such assertions certainly have afforded me much mirth over >the years (and hence serve a valuable function!), it certainly would be >quite difficult to actually take such preposterous thought *seriously*. > The Cross of Christ is foolishness to those that are perishing. > 3. The "Bible" ... which is, by the way, short for the Latin >"biblia" or "books". Evangelicals, as I understand them, seem to insist >that this is not simply *a* collection of books of religious metaphor >(and as such, IMO, a very worthwhile contribution to humanity's wonderful >storehouse of religious and spiritual exploration) - but is *the* book, that it contains completely accurate historical truth, and that its words and >injunctions must be taken as absolutes beyond question or interpretation. It is this bible that declares that you are either for God or against God. It is also this same bible that declares that you are in need of a Savior and that that one Savior is Jesus Christ. > Unfortunately, even a wee bit of research seems to raise some >rather serious probleems with this. The "bible" is not *a* book, but is >a rather more like an anthology - a collection of stories written by wildly >different people over the course of (if the Old Testament is included) This does not cause a break down, on the contrary it further establishes its validity. >several thousands of years - translated and re-written so many hundreds of >times that the chances that any of the books even vaugely resembles the >true "original" version are slim to none. What is to be followed exactly? >The King James version? Why that one? How many evangelicals can read >the original Greek, the various Aramaic dialects, the unpointed Hebrew of >the OT? Yes I know what the Tetragrammaton is. I also know what Sola Scriptura, is, and many other considerations for biblical interpretation. You are commiting eisegetical error in assuming less than that which is clearly exegetical. > How much depth have your studies taken you into? Have you >discovered that there are two almost completely discrete creation stories >in Genesis (for instance) - that the first mention of what is translated >as "God" is not IHVH (Jehovah), but ALHIM (Elohim) ... a word that is a >*plural* and suggests both masculine *and* feminine gender ...? > >CREATION > > The creation of man was left for the sixth and final day of creation because man was special and was to rule over the rest of creation. "Then God said, 'Let us make man in Our image, according to our likeness' ". This statement has fascinated thinkers for centuries. Just what does the image of God in man mean? Since God is spirit-- not a material substance-- it must mean more than physical resemblance. To be created in God's image means that man, though a creature, is akin to God. > God is Creator-- the only being capable of making something from nothing. Yet, on a lesser level, man also has capacity to be creative. This is one distinct meaning of the truth that we are created in God's image. God is speaker and a ruler. Man was also told to have dominion over the creation. God is holy, a moral and ethical God who is righteous. Man is also morally and ethically responsible and must make moral choices. God has revealed that he is a social being (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Man also is a social being who needs relationship with others. Human experience and the biblical record suggest that these are some ways in which man reflects the image of God. > The Genesis writer also declared that God created humanity as "male and female" . This account of creation does not give priority to either male or female. Both are needed to reflect the image of God. The most fundamental difference in humanity is not race but sex. The Greeks said man once was androgynous-- both male and female. Somehow he lost the female half and ever since has been looking for his other half. But the writer of Genesis pointed out that sex is an order of creation which is good and proper in God's sight. > contains what some scholars call a second creation account. But others point out that it sets the stage for what follows in the accounts of man's temptation and sin. A major emphasis of is the creation of woman as a companion for man. Man's incompleteness apart from woman is shown in his loneliness and frustration. None of the animals could meet Adam's need. Then the Lord created woman from Adam's rib. > Bible students have long seen symbolic truth in this rib imagery. Woman was taken from under man's arm to symbolize his protection of her. She was taken from near his heart that he might love and cherish her. She was not made from a head bone to rule over man, nor from his foot to be trampled on and degraded. Like the man, she reflects God's image. Together they formed the blessed pair needed to replenish and subdue the earth. > Many Bible students wonder about the six days of creation. Were these 24-hour days or indefinite periods of time? It may help us in our interpretation if we remember that we use the word "day" in several ways, even as the ancient Hebrews did. We speak of the day of reckoning, the day of opportunity, and the day of trouble. These may signify more than a 24-hour day. In similar fashion, the biblical writers spoke of the "day of the Lord" and "day of visitation." > Skeptics have ridiculed the creation story in Genesis because it reports that the creation occurred in six days. But the indefinite meaning of day takes care of this objection. Besides, Scripture says that with the Lord, "A day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day" <2 Pet. 3:8>. The biblical writer was not writing a scientific journal. He was moved by God's Spirit to give a revelation of spiritual reality. His primary emphasis was not on the process by which the world was created but on the Creator and His purpose. > Many of the pagan nations of the ancient world had their own creation stories. But in these stories, their gods evolved out of natural processes connected with the world itself. They believed the material universe was eternal, and it brought their gods into being. But Genesis declares that God existed before creation and is in full control of the physical universe. He called the world into being by His word. His power is absolute. He does not have to conform to nature and cannot be threatened by it. God is sovereign and does not have to share His power with other supernatural beings. > Since God created the universe out of nothing, it is His and will always serve His purpose. As He shaped creation without any interference from anyone, He will bring creation to its desired end. No power can frustrate God in His purpose to complete the process started in creation and revealed in Scripture. Our hope rests in the sovereign power of Him who created the world and then re-created us through the saving power of His Son, Jesus Christ. >(from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary) >(Copyright (C) 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers) > > > Well, 'nuff of this. You came here (apparently) on a mission, >but perhaps you'll stay because ... well ... this is just a damn >interesting group of people - *none* of whom believes the know the "whole" >truth - all of whom are engaged in pursuing personal quests that range >through almost eevery science, religion and art, past and present, on >planet earth ... and even further, you may find (if you perhaps really >decide to listen for awhile) that there are some on this list that have >studied both the Old and New Testaments at levels of depth and with an >independance of thought that perhaps surpasses many of those in the >circles of evagelical fundamentalism. 12 inches of error. > Even further, one of the most remarkable aspects of this list >(and one that differs greatly from evangelical circles) is this: No one >here will dispute your right to hold your beliefs, nor will doubt the >intensity of your passion - and no one will try to "convert" you to >anything. If you state strong positions, and even further, demand that >those positions are the "only" true positions, those positions *will* >be questioned - not because you're a "Christian" in a "Lion's Den" >(with the somewhat disturbing hint of a martyr complex that such a >position suggests), but because we *all* question one another, we all >put one another's ideas through the testing of the alchemical hotfire: The lat alchemist I met was fool for Talismans. Anyway... You beliefs are vaild and real, but when they collide with Truth, then you owe it to truth to change your belief other wise you cintinue to teach and believe a lie. > This is a place were metal is refined, the dross burnt off of it, >the hidden flaws in its structure revealed. If you remain with us (as I >personally, would invite you to do (-:) you will find that you will not >accomplish the goal you came here with (if, as it seems, that goal is >to "convert" "unbelievers" to the "truth"), and you may wind up entering >the inner turmoil that invariably accompanies genuine spiritual >maturation, but if you have the tremendous courage (and few things in >life require greater courage) to throw open to question beliefs you >hold as the very foundation of your life - you may find that you emerge >with your beliefs deepened, broadened, and *strengthened* beyond >anything you currently imagine ... may find that the spiritual concepts >you currently hold are actually the *seeds* of a much larger spiritual >world - and that this strange list may actually supply the heat capable >of germinating those seeds. > >-JRC >Evangelical Economist & Chaos Theorist >[(-:)] > Interesting... Do not neglect the security of your own soul. Daniel Daniel K. Hedrick WebGold General Manager From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 12:44:41 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: To Eldon Eldon: This is one area, as we discovered some time ago, in which we simply have different opinions. To me, your desire for evolving monads is a natural result of your desire for meaning in this seemingly-illogical world. Hey, if it makes you happy to think something perfect can grow to be more perfect, then fine. I am not trying to argue with anyone here. Just trying to say that I see evolution as always opposed by involution. We live in a dualistic world where everything is polar. If the Earth is on a "higher subplane" than the moon, then the Earth too must be evolving, and if everything is growing and evolving, there must have been an origin point somewhere in the distant past. The Masters, I think, realized that origins are big trouble (i.e., God made it all from nothing or the current Big Bang theory, etc) and developed the involution-evolution Arcs as a logical way out of the problem. So if the Arc of Ascent in this manvantara is longer than the Arc of Descent (which is what you are saying here, I think) then at some point it had better balance out, or your theory will have a big origin problem which has no logical answer. BTW, it seems to me that the only way the human monad can evolve (Which G de P has as the Arc of Descent) is if it later involves (along the Arc of Ascent) like everything else during these 7 Rounds. Our human monads are currently involving. If you stop to think about it, it seems to me to be illogical to assume something can involve (G de P uses the phrase unfoldment from within) more than it starts out with. But as I say, it sounds to me like you have more faith than logic (faith is often better than logic anyway). I am more interested in understanding your position than in arguing, so if I sound like I am arguing, I am sorry, but I do want you to see where I am coming from. Eldon: Perhaps this is the crux of my problem trying to understand your position - you seem to be placing the divine monad within space-time here. I am placing it outside. I am equating the "divine monad" with your "Unknowable" and to me, the divine monad is as high as it gets. This could well be a large part of my confusion with your responses. BTW, HPB says "The essential or supreme Spiritual-Divine Monad is our ultimate source or root" (CW Vol VII, p. 531 - E.S. Instruction 1) and then in the list of monads on the same page she calls the Spiritual-Divine Monad, Atman. Eldon: Whoa! Of course I agree with the first, which is described in the SD. But where did your second model come from? Not only am I unfamiliar with it, but I can't follow you at all. What does 'wiping the external slate' mean? Eldon: Here, at least, I can agree again. I think that after this manvantara, we will willingly undergo lots more, but not to "learn" anything or to "grow" in the time-restricted sense in which we understand the term evolution. Rather, we will do so out of the sheer joy that such self-expression brings to us, much like a painter will continue painting even after completing a masterwork. Elson: God, Eldon. Everytime I think I am beginning to understand you, you drop a bomb on me and mess up my mind. This sentence is exactly what I have been saying all along, while you (I thought) were taking the more serious approach of learning and progressing and evolving into better and more perfect monads and stuff. Now I am really confused. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 14:32:49 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: One last bone...(of contention?) At 7:06 PM 9/13/95, "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"@vnet.n wrote: >Daniel << >>Yet His own claims extend far beyond any of the other masters. Art: One of the greatest difficulties in this is that both Daniel, and even the way that Murray is using the Scripture here - assume that we have the actual words on Jesus in the Johannine comments. This is called the ipsa verba or the very words. What I think we have here are the reconstructed words of Jesus taken from the 30 AD and placed in the 90 AD. Probably they are transported across a cultural barrier or two as well. So some words of Jesus are taken up and used to address the situation in life of the later community. This community the later one, was struggling to formulate its Christology in distinction from that of the early church. So we have theological intention being expressed not the very words of Jesus. Yet I believe that these words placed in Jesus mouth by the gospel writer could well have been the words of the "living Christ" given for that precise time and place. For a variety of reasons the Johannine community needed to know that Christ was pre-existent but were slightly ambiguous about the complete identity of Jesus with YHWH or God - this development did occur when Athanasius 296 ad.-373 ad contested with Arius who held that Christ while the eternal logos was not equal with the Father - Athanasius with a little help from Constantinian politics won the day. What I fear is that when we just read the Scripture from our presuppostions we end up in grief of interpretation. The first rule in my opinion is to hold our interpretaion lightly including the one I just gave concerning Christ. >> >>How do you know? > >Because those that knew Him, wrote about HIm. And those writings are >well recorded and preserved. Take a look at John 8:48-59. Did Jesus >make any claims of Divinity? The resuly of His claims is very apparent in >vs 59.>> Art: John may very well have been written in 100 Ad so John the Disciple is probably not the author more than likely it is John the Elder from Antioch who remembered the Beloved Disciples teaching or had it past on to him. Not as straightforward a story as first imagined. >I see this as an example of how there can be an apparently big difference >of interpretion, yet the possibility of a strong common ground of >spiritual understanding, between a fundamentalist view and a theosophical >one. Art: The fact that others have come to realize a certain oneness with God or the Oversoul does allow for a common experience and thus dialogue. But the evangelical doesn't usually appeal to direct experience for authority. Some, the more charismatic do hold that they have had a unifying experience with the Spirit but unity with God is not a main factor. Catholic mystics on the other hand have an easier time in dialoguing especially with Eastern religions. Personally I think that we would have an easier time dialoguing about direct experience than we would dogmatics anyday. Thanks Murray for your input it once again reminded me of the need to learn from each other in group. Arthur Paul Patterson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 15:59:26 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Boston Lodge Rich, If makes you feel any better, the Miami Lodge also has quite an active program, & Sy Ginsburg wrote not too long ago that their SD class isn't the most popular class either. It's a difficult study, & I think most people would rather tackle something easier. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 16:23:31 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: It began with Cayce Jason, We'll, for sure, listen to what you have to say, & maybe will at times give you a good interchange, and/or be able to add something to your knowledge. There are 2 ministers on board, Arthur Paul & Alan ... I think neither one of them practicing. I would imagine that you'll find lots of common ground with them. Also a week or so ago someone on the board aired his problems with having ESP & we were batting that around for a few days. All this, to let you know that I think you'll feel at home with theos-l. Liesel Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 16:34:05 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: "source teachings" Eldon, Right you are ... I didn't mention sharing. Of course that's part of learning Theosophy. It's why I wanted to be on this list. Maybe it's a bit of sophistry now, but 1 of the things I learned from Rupert Sheldrake is that when someone learns something, it makes it easier for others to learn the same thing .... Sharing is fun. I was in a position for a number of years where I didn't have a soul to share my Theosophical beliefs with. I kept on studying with the motivation that whatever I was able to absorb would accrue to mankind. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 16:59:50 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: To Eldon Eldon: Your response is in line with your view of the Globes, which is certainly not my understanding of them. I think that you (and Rich, apparently) misunderstand (in the sense of making a relatively simply idea overly- confusing) the idea of the principles, but at least you are consistent. I also have a problem with your idea that "all the rest of the principles" have stopped. If the prana (life-energy) stops, then you die, I would think. Alan can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the Qabala teaches that we need an entirely new ego (i.e., 7 new principles) in order to experience each Sephirah. Eldon: Only if we use your model of the Globes. This is not true using my model. I do not believe that we have a Globe D ego, and a Globe E ego, and so on. I see this as an unncessary complication. I see Globe E on the astral plane as already including my astral body, and Globe F on the mental plane as containing my mental body, and so on. Perhaps my model is closer to CWL's than yours, but it works well, and is a lot easier to understand. I'm using Occam's Razor here :-) Anyway, raising consciousness into the spiritual Globes does not have "a different goal" than the one you state. Its a way of "unfolding the higher principles" without recourse to multiple personalities. Eldon: It is just here where our different models give us wholly different interpretations of what is going on - and shows the importance of models per se. As far as I am concerned, when someone shifts their consciousness into their "higher principles" they are de facto shifting consciousness to a higher plane and Globe. I do not for one moment think that we sense spirituality on Globe D, but rather on the higher Globes, which are not off in space somewhere, but right here all around us. When we go to sleep, we enter Globe E. Death is equivalent to entering Globe F, and so on. Globe D is physical and on the physcial plane - and we can only be aware of it (i.e. have our consciousness focussed on Globe D) via the senses of the physical body - the waking state. In the same way, we focus consciousness on Globe E via our astral senses on the astral plane (in the dream state) and so on. To me, this is theosophical. It may not be to you. Eldon: Agreed. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 17:00:40 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: To Daniel Re The Gupta-Vidya Model Daniel: I am afraid that I must have missed his posting. I did not reply, because I did not read his post (at least I can't recall it anyway). I missed several weeks postings a month or two ago. Daniel: As far as I know, my understanding of the Globes dovetails with HPB exactly. She describes the Globes in terms of the Qabalistic Sephiroth, but placed them in a different order (circular but still with 7 below the Abyss). G. de P. added 2 more to make 12 - and he places them right square in the Abyss itself. I am not aware of saying anything that contradicts her or his writings. True, I would add five horizontal connecting paths along each of the inner five planes, but this in no way contradicts anything they taught. Daniel: Globe D consists of our planet Earth on which we, as human beings, are born, live, and die. It equates closely with Malkuth, the lowest and most physical Sephiroth. Yes, it has 7 principles, one acting on each of its 7 subplanes, but these are not the same 7 that we have as human beings - Globe D's manas is not human manas or human mind. The principles of each Globe correspond to those of the 7 human principles, but they are certainly not equal. Is Kamaloka within Globe D? or is kamaloka "located" on Globe E or.....? Kamaloka is on the astral plane - the second upward from the physical and thus cannot be located anywhere on Globe D, which is entirely localized on the physical plane. The astral plane is the plane of emotions - our emotions are substantial there. In Kamaloka, we slough off these emotions alias the "astral body" and go on to Devachan. I would say that Kamaloka is located somewhere on the pathway between Globes E and C. It is not really a "place" so much as a process. Devachan, BTW, is localized somewhere on the pathway between Globes F and B, and it is not a location or place either, but rather a state of consciousness much like a peaceful but emotionless dream. Daniel: Anytime. If you find something in any of my model's descriptions that clearly conflict with HPB, the MLs, or Judge (which I believe theos-l agrees constitute the theosophical core teachings) than please quote the original for me - and if you differ in personal opinion, that please state that as well just for fun. But as far as I know, I am in complete agreement with the core teachings (though I admit to using a little of CWL's terminology). "My" model, BTW, can be found in Fountain-Source of Occultism by G. de P. See page 141 where there are 7 Globes below the Abyss and 5 above. This model differs from the Tree of Life in two main ways. (1) there are 12 Globes/Sephiroth instead of 10, and (2) they are arranged in a large circle (a planetary chain) rather than the tree-shape of the Qabala. Thus "pathworking" or exploration via what I call the Gupta- Vidya Model is a lot different than pathworking the Qabala. But I have to be honest here - I prefer the theosophical model. Another version of this model is shown on page 323 of Fountain-Source. Here G de P shows the 10-plane version of the model. HPB only gave out the 7-globe 4-plane version. G de P gave out the 7-plane 12-globe version of the model, as well as the 10-plane version. On page 323, the 10-plane model clearly shows the dividing lines between each of the lower 7 planes. Each of the 5 inner cosmic planes has 2 Globes, while each of the two outer planes have only one. There is a harmonious balance to this which the intuition can appreciate, that simply doesn't exist with the Tree of Life. Besides, the theosphical model clearly is arranged to address the doctrine of cycles, which cannot be said for the Tree of Life. Alan might not agree with me here, but I think that HPB's model (or at least, my own interpretation of it) better reflects the esoteric tradition than the Tree of Life, which does pretty well. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 17:02:56 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Cayce Dear Tracey, Welcome to our "lively group". Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 17:55:05 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: The END Daniel, We don't believe in doomsday. We believe that the spirit goes on eternally, and takes on many forms in its journey. One day, the earth will be destroyed, but then there'll be another habitat for humanity whatever humanity is then. It's one continual creating & destroying, & creating something better out of what's been destroyed, etc. We don't believe in sin either. People do the wrong thing, we think, because they don't know any better. "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." So since we don't believe in sin, we don't believe in hell. We can create hell on earth, with all the dumb things we can get tangled up in, with all the meanness people do to each other, & to themselves. We believe that we will work out some of our mistakes at the beginning of our heaven-life. Then we believe we experience something similar to the Christian heaven, which we call Devachan, & then there's the slow descent back into the next physical body, and the cycle begins all over again. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 18:38:20 GMT From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: JRC to Eldon: Inner Abilities Eldon: [To other theos-l'ers ... this might be a long post - worthy of deletion if the issue has not interested you (-:)] As several posts have gone by with continued concerns being raised about inner abilities, and as I've withheld any comment until I had thought through our previous interaction, I s'pect its time again to speak ... only this time perhaps with a different tone. I've spent years in Theosophy hearing the same, oft-repeated warnings (only, however, from what Jerry would call the "intellectual" type - most of the feeling and intuitive types seem to have little problem with the subject), and at this point will not try to convince anyone to hold other ideas than they do, but have decided that I also can't simply let these ideas be perpetuated without answering them - as I will continue now to do whenever I hear them mentioned. That said, I also think it was a mistake to have simply reacted to your posts - instead of taking the trouble to build the foundation that underlies my perspective, I instead reacted with little pieces of it, and hence became frustrated and a wee bit short with you - and further, may have lead you to believe that I was simply reacting to personal affronts from an poorly conceived position - and this is my fault. What I'd like to relate here, then, is the philosophical and spiritual foundation for the position I've been advocating - and while I do not expect to change your mind about the issue, I do hope that you may acknowledge that, while conflicting with yours, it is at least as viable, worthy of respect, and as well thought out as your own. I'll begin by responding to a couple of comments from two recent posts (by way of introduction - as they seem to fairly sum up some dominant thoughts in the Theosophical world) and then move to generalized themes. JERRY ELDON While this is true, it also sums up (IMO) a large problem in current Theosophy. By analogy, the US Constitution is not divine revelation either ... but rather a crystallized form of the Democratic thought of the time in which it was written. Certainly there is an enormous body of literature from that time, and it is even possible to, for instance, use various writings in the Federalist Papers to argue *against* many parts of the Constitution - but ultimately, precisely *because* almost anyone could find justification for *any* position by quoting the writings of the US founders, it is ultimately the Constitution .. as much of a compromise as it is ... that defines the US. When an organization publishes its *Objects*, it is publishing its stated goals. While the TS Objects are not divine, they can neither be dismissed as arbitrary statements that were not subject to much thought and conversation and that hence can be lightly dismissed as holding no weight, especially in discussions of what activities are or are not appropriate in Theosophy. I believe it possible for you to justifiably hold that you frame Theosophy in much different, or larger terms than those stated in the Objects (as many Americans hold democracy to be something different or larger than what is written in the Constitution). I also believe, however, that if I suggest a type of activity that seems not only not at odds with one of the Objects, but even further (IMO) actively furthers that Object (which really *is* supposed to be a *goal*) ... in fact is nothing but a means of expressing that Object - that it is somewhat disingenuous to respond to this by seeming to downplay the relevance of the Objects themselves. As you have expressed your ideas of what Theosophy is, and what appropriate Theosophical activity is composed of, I can see clearly where in Theosophical writings you draw your perspective from and would not claim that perspective to be in any way invalid - but much of what you say seems a very personal reading of Theosophy, and is not necessarily indicated anywhere in the Objects ... and when we come to speaking of what Theosophy is, or ought to be, or do, ... it is not your perspective, but the Three Objects that we *publically* state, with every issue of the AT, to be what the Theosophical Society *is*. If, as some members seem to feel, the Third Object is too discomforting, or contains too many potential problems, then I'd like to see those members make a case for *getting rid of it* (though, as I'll try to argue later, I believe it to be an integral part of a much larger philosophy that is embedded in the Three Objects). So long as it remains, however, I would claim that it is every bit as solid a foundation to build an argument for "correct" Theosophical activity as any personal reading of source literature is. * * * * * * * * * * ELDON Those to whom inner abilities are "fun, seductive, glamorous, and ego-gratifying" (and I've certainly met a number) are almost inevitably in the midst of either playing games, or being subject to a few tiny and partial glimpses of some ability. It is precisely *because* not only the general public, but even some Theosophists lump *all* manifestations of abilities into this catagory, and even further, implicitly draw univeral conclusions about those who possess and use them, that anyone who *doesn't* fit that picture is likely to clam up. I know a number of people, some of whom I work in concert with on projects and experiments, who would be appalled at how inapplicable your statement is to them. There is an alternative, and equally valid view of these abilities, that applies (at least in my circle of friends) to as many people as yours does: to this "group" these abilities are anything but fun, or glamorous, or ego-gratifying .. in fact the discipline required to turn them into tools for service is hard, torturous and boring work (learning multivariate calculus was *nothing* compared to the continual work of vision clarification and stabilization); exercising them is not fun, but often quite draining; and I believe they are only "glamorous" to those that do not possess them - as fame of any sort is to those that don't have it. Far from being ego-gratifying, the overwhelming urge in this "second" group is to keep absolute silence about them - *you* may worry about people confusing the spiritual with the "merely" psychic, but neither I or my co- workers have any such confusion, and frankly the cheap thrill of wowing people who would overevaluate what such abilities really are is not only not sought, but is rather a distraction that is vigorously avoided. I personally have not spoken a word of this even to many of my nearest and dearest friends. Your second statement here, that having experiences or paranormal abilities impresses people more than knowing some "deeper" philsophical truths that are "harder" to articulate requires a response ... but I must be careful here. This idea is one I've heard around Theosophy since I've been a member, and was used to shut me up in the past. It is the idea I wish to address, however, and not *your* (Eldon's) motives. At least a couple of members I came in contact with said the same thing - and frankly, the motives came down to this: *They* were accustomed to having respect and veneration, were used to *impressing people* with those "deeper" philosophical truths, and whenever I started talking, even a bit, about a few things I had seen, *they* no longer seemed as impressive ... in fact, *a source of *their* "ego-gratification" had been removed from them*. (And again, I am *not* saying this is your motive). My motives for speaking were not, however, to do this. I hope you can understand what prompted me, when I first joined a TS and *read its Objects* - its a dynamic that is (curiously enough) remarkably similar to one that a gay friend of mine had when he finally found a gay/lesbian outdoor club ... the feeling that *finally* one has entered a room where one *no longer has to pretend to be only part of what one is*. Speaking of abilities and experiences was not even remotely connected to trying to impress anyone, or attempt to imply I was "spiritual", or to in any way discount spiritual study, contemplation and meditation, but just kind of happened when I thought I had finally found a place where they would be accepted as *Matter-of-fact* things, neither pedestaled (as some new agers seem to do), or condemned as dangerous (as some Christians - and for that matter Theosophists - seem to do). Well enough on this point - I just hope you will consider that there is a whole seperate set of attitudes than those you seem to believe motivate everyone with abilities, and they are held by perhaps as many as hold those you rightfully complain about - but so long as any manifestation is lumped into one generalized catagory, most of the people holding that alternative set of attitudes will simply keep their mouths shut - feeling (as I have off and on in the last week or two) that it just isn't worth it. * * * * * * * * * * ELDON Several points here. First, it is not talking about abilities and experiences that composes setting oneself up as an authority - but the *attitude of setting oneself up as an authority* ... a trait that I, with you, think is not that good of an idea. But if you are concerned about it, consider this: Looking for a moment just at this list, while there are a number of people that have had great numbers of inner experiences, and a few that really do have abilities in some stage of development, has there *ever* been a post in which such a person used such experiences as a foundation to claim authority in matters "spiritual"? In fact most have offered such experiences very tentatively ... and often, in fact, went out of their way to make it clear that while they believed what they were expressing had value, they were explicitly *not* claiming it to be a foundation for some high spiritual wisdom. In fact, surveying both this list and recent Theosophical journals ... there *have* been people setting themselves up as authorities on matters spiritual, but they have *not* been psychics using inner abilities as a foundation, but rather intellectuals using either their knowledge of Theosophical literature or the implied claim of a deeper wisdom that had come from study and meditation as a foundation. If someone has studied the SD for 50 years, I'll fully acknowledge them as more knowledgeable than I about the SD. If someone integrates the entire "map" of globes and rounds into their worldview, I'll acknowledge that they can speak with more authority than I about that map. (Just as I *will* claim that while I by no means understand the totality of what clairvoyance is, I *can* speak with more authority about it than someone whose has never experienced it.) Point is, I don't consider *any* of these things to be foundations of *spiritual authority*. If there *is* such a thing as genuine spiritual authority, it is (IMO) a condition of the energy-system of the person as a *whole*, and has almost nothing to do with any individual abilities, any body of knowledge or philosophical perspective. [In fact, if you don't mind a bit of "claivoyance - with no claim to absolute truth (- :), the largest and most beautiful aura I've ever seen belonged to a housewife who had no particular ties to religion, and wouldn't be able to tell you the difference between the Buddha and Brahma - but as I watched her now and then (she was a neighbor for awhile) I was absolutely awed ... she would walk into a restaurant and sit at a table next to a arguing couple, and in all of five minutes harmony would be reigning ... her mere presence in a room altered the entire environment, and as far as I could tell, she never had any idea she was doing anything ... and people had no idea why they unconsciously felt so much pleasure in her presence]. I *am* concerned about the fact that Theosophy, and the TS, has such a tiny membership in an age increasingly full of (IMO) genuinely advanced, compassionate souls - and that I believe many of these people touch Theosophy and are chased away by what seems to be incredibly arrogant and condescending attitudes present in the Theosophical current, by people setting themselves up as authoroties in matters spiritual, by the pervasive attitude that holds that most people are too lazy, or too desirous of cheap thrills to do the *real* spiritual work that *real* Theosophists do (as though spiritual growth is some sort of gawdammed *macho* thing (-:) ... but at least in recent times, the vast majority of this arrogance has not come from "psychics" saying "I see things you don't" ... but by intellectuals saying "I *know* things that you don't". The second point is what you mentioned about "wonders". In this attitude, as in your concern about people setting themselves up as authorities, I seem to see an attitude that assumes we're dealing with children that are incapable of putting things in perspective. Precisely what is *wrong* with offering a few "wonders" ... in fact, I must say that I consider the sense of awe, of wonder, the very *foundation* of my own personal spiritual orientation. It is not "fear of the Lord" (as Daniel might say), but a continually growing awe at the enormity, the complexity, the absolute beauty of this 'ol universe that drives me ... and all clairvoyance has done has opened yet another avenue through which to glimpse this. In some stupid old movie (I think Joe vs. the Volcano), a character says something like "Most people spend their days fast asleep, they walk in their sleep, work in their sleep, and play in their sleep, but for those few who are awake, life is spent in a state of continual and utter amazement" - and I don't think this is at odds with spiritual philosophy. In fact, not only do I believe wonders are not negative, they can provide substantial boosts - a personality incapable of resonating with joy, with wonder, incapable of saying "wow! that's remarkable!" is (IMO) *unfit* to touch higher states of awareness. I would agree with you that there may be some who might initially overevaluate "signs and wonders" ... but they are far more likely to be found in Fundamentalist churches than in Theosophical circles. I have certainly done my share of study, of meditation, of discipline and character reformation ... but if HPB walked into my house today and asked me if I'd like her to manifest a letter from the Masters, I'd say "hell *yes* what are you waiting for?!" .. and the wonder I felt at the manifestation would not cause me to downplay or miss the actual words of the Masters in the letter. In short, I see absolutely no conflict between the possession and exercise of inner abilities and the pursuit of "genuine" spirituality ... and in fact consider the pursuit of some sort of path absolutely *essential* for anyone born with some sort of ability. I do not believe anyone (for instance) on this list confused anything I said about the angels with some transcendent spiritual insight, or in fact as anything other than simply another avenue of input, another perspective, in a conversation. You seem to imply that to simply mention an ability and report input gained through it is synonymous with setting oneself up as a spriritual authority, and even further that somehow many people cannot handle the task of evaluating such input. Where are these people? Sure as heck not on this list ... and in fact the only people in Theosphical circles who seemed (IMO) to overevaluate such things have been those of the intellectual type who felt in some way threatened. There were problems in the history of the TS with this sort of stuff ... but we have grown substantially - the Krishnamurti fiasco *could not happen in today's Theosophy* ... I believe we have grown beyond such things. It is not too much belief unbalanced by reflective thought that threatens us, but the urge to institutionalize, to make solid decisions about what is permissable and what is not, to *shrink* Theosophy into a controllable form composed of little other than quiet "deep" study that is our greatest (IMO) threat. Headquaters is currently locked up by a little group of people absolutely determining (or attempting to) what Theosophy is or is not ... passing laws that increase control ... and would love to squeeze out *any* mention of actual abilities (expect in historical accounts), any mention of people who believe the Masters work with them, in their attempt to make Theosophy "acceptable" to the mainstream academic and philosophical worlds. That dynamic balance between the ordered and chaotic, between known and the unknown, between the existant and the possible, seems to have swung far to the side of order and form. 40 years ago, I would have agreed with *everything* you've said, but I believe that today we could use some fresh life, we could use something to upset the applecart. We could use a few *wonders*. As with abilities in general you *seem* (and I may be wrong) to be implying that it either has to be the "psychic" *or* the spiritual, that one can *either* experience wonders *or* do the hard and long work of the path ... and I just don't get this, as these thing not only don't seem mutually exclusive to me, but actually seem to quite harmonious when integrated and kept in balance. Well, I've gone on too long as it is here, and will have to save the case I wished to make about the Objects until a "Part 2" of this post. [And by the by, I s'pect your right about the "sandpaper" .. I've noticed your language and tone have altered ... and hope that mine has as well (-:)]. w/ real love & respect, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 18:56:31 GMT From: Thom Nelson Subject: Introduction / Comments Hi all, I've been lurking here for what seems like months, since before the system crashed. At times things have been slow, but lately I've really been enjoying the conversations here. My name is Thom Nelson, I'm owner of an herb and perennial nursery in Virginia. I first heard of theosophy my freshman year of college at UC Santa Cruz when my friend was doing a term paper on masonry for his "Ways of Knowing" class. He was reading a lot of Manly P. Hall (_Secret Destiny of America_), and other stuff, I'm not sure what. Anyway, I remember doing two interesting searches in the library, one with the Subject "Theosophy" and the other with the Keyword "Time". Theosophy led me to books, probably by Blavatsky or Judge, which had chapters like "Karma", "Reincarnation", which I was interested in at the time through participation in a kind of Hippie- Buddhist world-view. But I didn't read the book, probably because I'd lost my school ID, and never seriously read Theosophy until 5 year later. All through college, conspiracy theory (Masonry, secret societies and such) and spirituality (like _Be Here Now_) attracted me, but it never drew me to read HPB and the like. Another friend once was reading a "33rd degree" book on masonic theories (I forget the name of it, some of you probably have it) and M.P. Hall's Secret Teachings of All Ages (sic) and had claimed to have read _Ulysses_ in two nights taking speed. He said that it had a religious key which made it a Masonic parody of Catholicism, or something to that effect. I was definitely interested, but for some reason, held back on reading any of it. I'd even reserved myself a copy of the Masonic book at Bart's Books in Ojai, but never got around to picking it up. Anyway, about two years ago, my wife and I were living in a house that was at that time owned by a friend of ours who was an acupuncturist and into some pretty interesting philosophies, and in the mail kept coming Share International, addressed to Elaeteged Yamwadyam, or something close to that anyway (I'd never know anyone by that name to be a resident there). For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about (most probably do), this is the publication put out by Benjamin Creme which proclaims the coming of Maitreya, the Messiah, etc. etc. , but also uses the Bailey teachings / "Ageless Wisdom" as it's philosophical cornerstone. So one night I read this article on the Antahkarana (Antaskarana) which really interested me. "The Rainbow Bridge of Light" -- sounded very cool to me, right? And I never really buy Creme's whole salvation rap, but I definitely stay interested in the Bailey material. Next thing I know I'm at a flea market in Soquel and I see a copy of _The Rays and the Initiations_, water damaged, picked it up for $0.75. Don't know what the hell he/she's talking about for at least six months. Then it all starts to resonate really strongly, so strongly that it starts reshaping my whole perspective on things. Energy, initiation, cosmic and solar influences -- all following on similar lines of thought which I had been working on for some time. Then I got _Treatise on Cosmic Fire_ and that stimulated me to a similar degree. So I considered myself as someone who was "into" Alice Bailey, not really theosophy. I became a student of the Arcane School recently, and only now, with access to their library and some books from Virginia Tech, am I really starting to delve into H.P.B. and Leadbeater and Besant, etc. So here I am, not really feeling comfortable with the source teachings, familiar but not intimate with Bailey's material. Rich and I have had discussions in the AOL Alice Bailey group, where we had some lively interactions. Rich: I respect your viewpoint immensely after reading all your posts here on theos-l. But as has been said here, attempted conversion of people who are into a specific teacher or school is useless and often counter-productive; please remember this when posting to groups which don't really represent your viewpoints. I have also had some private e-mail interaction with Paul, a fellow Virginian. I've been reading your book (from the Virginia Tech library) and am enjoying it immensely. Some great historical material and insights, though I don't really go for your thesis. I think you need to integrate the esoteric with the exoteric in order to get a more "holistic" view of H.P.B.'s contacts and interactions with Adepts and others. In other words, if it's at all possible, try to find out more about who Blavatsky saw in her inner life as well as her outer life. (I know it's hard to get published that way, though.) Anyway, just wanted to say hello and a "bit" about myself (more like 4746 bytes so far). Love and Light, Thom Nelson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 19:30:04 GMT From: Thom Nelson Subject: Monads Hi, I'm going to jump in here and say what I think Monads are, and it might not be the PC, "Blavatskyan" take, but I consider what I've read of SD to be a source, nonetheless. What we call Monads or what Heindel calls Virgin Spirits, the beings which make up a "life wave" in a chain of globes, linked into an entire scheme and with other schemes in a solar system. These are _individual_ sparks of life , which are evolving in space-time in several dimensions at once. From this Monad (Virgin Spirit or Spiritual Self) comes the Soul (Higher Self) which is a synthesis on the "higher" (inner?) Mental plane of Atma-Buddhi-Manas. That Soul projects itself into the physical, astral, and lower (outer?) mental planes as a personality. This process has taken place in other rounds and on other chains and in other schemes, and on a more cosmic level with solar systems, constellations, and such. This manifestation is, as Eldon says, "the dance of life", the way by which a piece of the Unknowable All breaks off into form and then dissolves back again into the Unknowable. And this is a HUGE thing, not just something happening in our little system. H.P.B. may have said "the essential or supreme Spiritual-Divine Monad is our ultimate source or root" But she may have meant a higher Monad then the Human Monad or "Virgin Spirit", that of a Solar System, a Galaxy, or whatever huge monstrous endless being we're living inside. Or she could have meant The Unknowable Source of All, which could also be a Monad. Monad simply connotes unity, be it human, planetary, solar, or galactic. But whatever we're talking about, we're talking about synthesis, whether you call that synthesis evolution or involution, it is a great synthesis, with infinite Pralayas and Periods of Activity until all is absorbed into the Great Unknowable All. Something then splits off again and forms yet another unfathomable eternity of space and time. Are we better for it? No, we're perfect. Did we gain experience? I would say yes, but who knows if all isn't just forgotten when everything is finally reabsorbed. Love and Light, Thom Nelson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 22:00:44 GMT From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: Cayce Hi, Tracey. Welcome aboard! Glad your'e enjoying the lively discussions. I'm interested in what you said about the influence the TS had on Australian Art during the inter war period, and wonder if the radio broadcasts I believe were done by Geoffrey Hodson and others are what you have in mind. Murray Stentiford murray@sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 23:00:30 GMT From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: One last bone...(of contention?) Daniel << >>Yet His own claims extend far beyond any of the other masters. > >How do you know? Because those that knew Him, wrote about HIm. And those writings are well recorded and preserved. Take a look at John 8:48-59. Did Jesus make any claims of Divinity? The resuly of His claims is very apparent in vs 59.>> Daniel, let us all look at what Jesus says in John 8:48-58. I'm quoting from the New English Bible 1970: 'I am not possessed," said Jesus; ' I am honouring my Father, but you dishonour me. I do not care about my own glory; there is one who does care, and he is judge. In very truth I tell you, if anyone obeys my teaching he shall never know what it is it die.' ..... Jesus replied, 'If I glorify myself, that glory of mine is worthless. It is the Father who glorifies me, he of whom you say, "He is our God", though you do not know him. But I know him; if I said that I did not know him I should be a liar like you. But in truth I know him and obey his word.' .... In very truth I tell you, before Abraham was born, I am.' This is not, IMO, far beyond the claim of any other Master. It is similar in content and tone to what others with fully awakened spiritual consciousness would say and have said. The last sentence is like the well-known phrase of Hinduism "I am That", which is referring to the same kind of timeless consciousness which goes beyond the ordinary mind. I'm not belittling it by saying this; it is a wonderful an amazing thing, but let's avoid being exclusive about it, especially when the same sort of thing can be found in other cultures, other religions. There are people in the world who *recognize* in those words their own unassailable experience, to whom other meanings are secondary. Also, the passage above makes it quite clear that Jesus does not equate himself with the "Father", even though in the glory of conscious communion with Him. I see this as an example of how there can be an apparently big difference of interpretion, yet the possibility of a strong common ground of spiritual understanding, between a fundamentalist view and a theosophical one. Murray murray.sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 23:38:42 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: The END Daniel: >I know you thought I was leaving and a moment of relief >came to you. But verily I say that the heat is turning up. Relief? Heat turning up? The heat that you feel is likely your own passion in trying to convert people of other beliefs into the views of your own religious sect. But we know too much, and have had too many direct experiences of our own of the Spirit to fall for the argument you might make that your approach is an exclusive one. Salvation is attained by one's own efforts, by one's own self-initiative, and any religious approach that takes away one's confidence in taking charge of his life and attaining it stands in opposition to the Good. No one else can save one, no external spiritual teacher or deity, despite the claims of some religious groups. >Is there any writings that you consider authoritative >regarding the end times? Or is there an absence of this >topic from theosophic writings? There are no end times with a big "E". Everything in life is impermanent, subject to change, and eventually comes to an end. But then it begins again. Life is ever-renewing, and there will never be a final end to things. Our general idea is that our earth and our human experience on it has a few billion years to go, but even after the death of the earth, it will "reincarnate" and we'll have the reborn earth to continue living on in some further age in the future. The idea that the earth is a few thousand years old, and does not have long to live, may have been satisfying to some nomadic tribal peoples, but is far too simple a story of life to explain things to people better educated in the spiritual traditions of the world. >I bring the subject up because I was pondering the >concept of darkness and was curious if there was an >anti-theosophy. Our biggest "enemy" is inertia, the difficulty of getting people moving in the direction of the spiritual. This is sometimes caused by a lack of spiritual feelings and a presence of Holiness in their lives. It is othertimes caused by a rigidity of mind, keeping people from seeing the obvious in life and remaining stuck in play acting the roles written for them by others in life. >The simularity I am looking for is the difference between >Christ and the Anti-Christ. The two figures, when considered as myths or parables to teach spiritual things, represent the teaching that there is a direct path to the Holy, followed by those who take the necessary steps, and a turning of one's back on that path, a refusal to take those steps. There are contrary attractions that we feel. For every initiative that we take in our lives to widen our horizons and enoble ourselves and others, the forces of inertia oppose our efforts. But we make the effort and succeed. The important thing is the self-initiative, the active voice of the divine *within one* that urges us to give it expression. >Matthew 24:5-51 declares there is a time coming when the world >will be destroyed and that great tribulations will occur and >that the anti-christ will setup his throne in Jerusalem. That's certainly a good example of something in the Bible that is either an parable, attempting to teach some philosophical truth, or if intended to be taken literally, simply one of many factual errors that have crept into that particular religious work, human errors of a work crafted by human hands, however "inspired" some may have considered them. >I realize that the tendencies on this list will cause some to >immediately cry HOAX, or at least fall into simple denial. I don't think that there's a deliberate attempt by the human writers of the Bible to deceive anyone, to create a hoax. Rather, they, as religiously-inclined men, are as subject to error as any theosophist of this day. (It would have to have been, I'd think, the people who were the equalivant of theosophists of their day, who would dare to take the spiritual initiative and write things like the religous books of the Bible. They may have not called themselves by that name, but they would have been the ones to have dared step beyond the religous orthodoxy of their day and explore uncharted territory. >What do HP Blavatsky, JJ Hurtak, and JFC Fuller have to say >about Matthew 24:5-51? Does it matter? What did they have to say of a particular passage of *any* religious book? We can examine what they said when we take up the study of the respective books. Here, we're not studying the Bible, although you're fond of quoting it. We're discussing what *you believe* and what *we believe*. >There is certainly evidence to the fulfillment of many >end-times prophecies recorded in the bible. You seem to be reading into the Bible things that its various human authors would not have been able to know about. >SmartCards (Get your Mark) >Embedded Micro-chips >Infra-red tatoos >World Order >One currrency >1000% Increase in 100yrs of the number of destructive >earthquakes. >#1 cause of Black Teenager death is Murder. >90,000 AIDS cases recorded in 1994. >Millions of babies mudered every year. >Epidemic Chaos rules our planet. These are apparently examples of things you are taught are wrong in the world. With some points, we might agree they are wrong, but only when we discuss *why*, and the *why* is based upon a careful examination of their respective merits, their ethical, moral, and philosophical aspects. >The END is near. Heaven & Earth will pass away... Not for a few billion years. By then, we will have learned much of what it is to be human, and be ready to experience existence as Dhyani-Chohans, what you might call Archangels or demigods. Eventually along the path of saintliness, we pass beyond the necessity of human experience, and will seek rebirth in higher realms. >Where will your peace come from? It has always come *from within*. For we are rooted in the exact same divinity that you call "God" and that you ascribe to Jesus. >Some real bad kharma goin on here. The problem is that you misunderstand our philosophy because you won't think about it. You're not really thinking about any of the ideas that we mention to you when you just translate them into the framework of your belief system. We would agree that there is evil in the world, and we all need to work to make it a better place. Where we would disagree is as to how to bring people to the spiritual path, so that they can become forces for good in their own right. >What does Theosophy do with DOOMSDAY? We're not holding our breath. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Sep 1995 23:38:47 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: One last bone...(of contention?) Daniel: Continuing to discuss some of your ideas that you've expressed ... >All very strongly indicate that Jesus was more than a man, more than a master, >but THE KURIOUS, THE MASTER and CREATOR of the universe. NOT a part >of the universe but Creator. We would say that in the lower part of our natures we are mortal, impermanent, and corruptible. But in the higher parts we are rooted in the divine. Each of us partakes of being creator of the universe in the same manner as a flower in the field, a stranger you meet on the bus, or Jesus or other religious figure does. >The Theosophical approach is that Jesus drew nearer to the Truth than others >and was able to say that He embodied TRUTH, or became TRUTH, or presented >TRUTH...but these are not biblical teachings. Jesus said He was the Truth, >and that the only way to the FATHER was by Him. We would have to study the Bible carefully to see what basic philosophical truths are readily contained in it. It certainly does not contain all truth, only what its human writers were able to capture in words. And it's not always necessarily correct in what it says. Jesus was one of many Avataras, divinely-inspired spiritual teachers with the mission to spiritually reform the people of a certain culture and time. Whatever of his original message that is still useful in these different times is that which *has changed* to speak to the people of today. >What does theosophy have to say about Paternalistic Anthropomorphism? Is it >misplaced spiritual discernment by the traditional students of that time and period as Eldon and others espouse? The work of the spiritual in the world, carried out by the holiest of mankind and the archangels (Dhyani-Chohans), could be considered as paternalistic, since part of the spiritual work is like "parenting". It would be inaccurate to consider this collective host of beings as a deity. Some people, though, may perfer to consider the holy work as being done by "my parent" or "my father" rather than by "my schoolteachers". Either way of considering it, though, it by using mental images that we have constructed to explain things that go beyond our personal experience. >Why is it that 99% of all recorded societies are Paternal? Until people arrive at a point where there is civilized respect for the rights of others -- material, monetary, political, and religious rights -- there will be conflict. This conflict needs to be controlled by society for the common good. That common good must be defined by laws and enforced by police. >There is a difference between the pre-incarnate Christ and the >incarante Christ and also the resurrected Christ, yet He remains >Christ. Not a christ. But singular Christ. The term Christ means >annointed ONE. That is how you put it. We might put it differently. We are all children of "God", if you use the term "God" to mean the divine root of all things. We are self-annointed, when we take a postive action in our lives to partake of the spirit. Our experience of divinity, when looking within, is singular, our inner spirituall root is not a multitude of beings. But there is not an external singular being that somehow represents Divinity and its actions for all beings. >He did not come to create a new religion. He came to fulfill the Law of >Moses and the religion of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. We might disagree on this point, without further discussion as to what you mean regarding "fulfilling the Law". -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 00:15:50 GMT From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Subject: Psychic and Noetic I have been pondering over the last paragraph that Rich wrote on 9/9/95. It caused me to created great waves in my thought world. He said: "It seems to me that any clairvoyant who can see his (or anyone else's) past lives in detail, see what one looked like, what clothes one wore, etc., can only be operating on the PSYCHIC level, not the NOETIC, because the Noetic doesn't register such mundane details. It retains, according to HPB in this article, only the spiritual essence and meaning of events, not the outer details of the events themselves. The higher Manas or Noetic action has no connection to the body directly, and can only operate through the Embodied lower manas or Psychic action. Under this view, almost all clairvoyants and other unusually gifted people today are Psychic and not Noetic." I would be pleased to have corrections or comments on my thoughts. Remember that this is my synthesis of what I have read and may not be very technical. When an incarnation is over, the elements of the Groundcrew (physical, astral, mental bodies we use while in incarnation) are reabsorbed into the pool of elemental essence and do not retain the specifics of the life, only the general tone established by the soul in that life. If that soul had made spiritual gains then there is an uplifting effect on the essence and it is reabsorbed into higher vibrations than it was before. The soul then spends time whereever it goes and when the desire to reincarnate comes over it, it may have increased its spiritual content more that last incarnation. It then picks up a Groundcrew that is a little finer in essence than the last incarnation but certainly no memory of the previous life. As you said, the soul is only interested in the spiritual essence and the meaning of events. So I pondered on where these past lives seen by clairvoyants were located and the logical answer to me was, the Akashic records. All we do, think and experience is imprinted in the akasha. So if I was able and wanted to review some previous life, I could consult the Akashic records for the details that my soul could not supply directly. Is this where we also consult in our soul state, the details necessary to organise our next life? There are clairvoyants, I am sure, who only think they see past lives and others who really do and perhaps they actually check the Records for the details of past lives of people rather that get them from the person. Then how can the clairvoyant be sure that it is the lives of that particular person that they see? It seems to make what is seen rather chancy and it is mostly impossible to prove if they are right or wrong. Personally I have no really pressing urge to know what I was before. I have had some personal impressions of one or two but they are interesting but of little bearing on what I am about this time. They would appear to point to reasons for some of my peculiarities but who knows. The psychic abilities probably operates through the lower manas and connects with the manas of the other person and thereby a path to the location in the Akasha is opened at the 'correct page', so the speak. We all have our unique signature sound and this may be what is used as a guide. Hope this makes sense but I have been thinking about this for the last few days and would appreciate some suggestions. Iam very interested in the elemental essences and their function in our lives. Thank you for your patience, Bee From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 00:24:38 GMT From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: Group Souls and Spirals Eldon: >Murray:>Reminds me that the 2-dimensional spiral is quite a common symbol in >>some cultures, often portrayed with 3 and a half turns or circuits around >>the center. > >We can combine mathematical symbols and get others that contain more meanings. >The book "Turbulent Mirror", which goes into chaos, gives a quite wonderful >collection of mathematical and geometric symbols. One that is new, that was >not popularly known in Blavatsky's time, is that of the fractal. > ..... certainly fractals, things like the mandelbrot set and bifurcation >curve, should prove to be even richer sources of intuitive insight into the >mathemtical (and spiritual) side of life! > Yes, I agree about fractals etc. Along with the hologram, I think the fractal is a great symbol of the universe itself, especially the way its main characteristic features can be discerned at different scales or viewing magnifications. In its many forms, the fractal is a graphical demonstration of 1 how the properties of the whole can be found in the parts, 2 a unity of similarity throughout, 3 "As above, so below", and 4 the profound beauty that can arise from the application of "law", in this case mathematics. Must read that book, too. Thanks Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 00:27:16 GMT From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Subject: Re: "source teachings" >According to Eldon B. Tucker: >> >> When we've made Theosophy a part of our lives, anything else that >> we take in tends to be consistent with it, or have some way of >> coexisting in harmony. Otherwise we create a discord in ourselves >> that leads us to walk away from Theosophy, or to drop the other >> materials. >> >I may be a minority of one on this issue, but my experience is >almost 180 degrees away from the above observation. Let me >rewrite it my way: >When we've made Theosophy a part of our lives, any conflicting >paradigm we encounter can be a source of creative tension from >which we grow in understanding. It is an absolutely necessary >part of spiritual/intellectual maturation to face apparent >discord and integrate diverse viewpoints. Once we have been >deeply touched by Theosophy, we can never walk away from it; >other materials provide an unending series of opportunities to >better understand Theosophy through comparison and contrast. > >Either/or avoidance of other viewpoints does a disservice to >the universality of Theosophy. > Hear, hear!! I use my love of Theosophy as a background through which I filter much of the other viewpoints I subscribe to. Sometimes it isn't easy but in the end the feel of truth is what wins. If it doesn't quite fit into Theosophy as I understand it now, then I hold it in another place until I get it sorted out. Bee From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 00:30:23 GMT From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Messiah > Examples of the Messiah in a Seder. > Passover is celebrated around a dinner table & a Seder meal is > part of the procedings. it is customary to put an extra glass > of wine on the table for the "Eliahu", the Messiah. At a > certain point in the ceremony the door is opened to let the > Messiah in. > > Liesel I have shared this privelege, as also the 'Haburah [Chaburah] supper, which is so similar to a Christian Eucharist to be uncanny. And ... the extra glass is not quite so full as when we began, is it ..... Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 00:37:40 GMT From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Welcome Welcome aboard, Tracey! Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 00:37:47 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Psychic and Noetic Bee: Here are some of my comments to your general questions that you posed in response to what Rich had said. >[Rich] said: "It seems to me that any clairvoyant who can see his (or anyone >else's) past lives >in detail, see what one looked like, what clothes one wore, etc., can only >be operating on the PSYCHIC level, not the NOETIC, because the Noetic >doesn't register such mundane details. Seeing the physical details of a previous life has to do with sense perception, and the natural extensions to the physical senses are their psychical counterparts. Clairvoyance, for instance, is an extension of the sense of sight. There's nothing wrong with it per se, calling something "psychic" does not immediately mean that it's lower, bad, etc. What do we see? The past no longer exists, except as images in things that continue to exist in the present, it has no existence of its own. Just as we have film that can record and preserve images, in the astral light there are records of images of things that have been. The psychical senses, in "seeing into the past", are looking at these images, I'd say, and not literally looking somewhere where the past currently exists. >[The noetic] retains, according to HPB in this >article, only the spiritual essence and meaning of events, not the outer >details of the events themselves. Yes. Just as the astral light, out of which our physical senses ultimately arise, record "sensory history", there is also "mindstuff" and "spiritstuff" that records the spiritual essence and meaning of events. And just as we use extensions to our senses to see the phsyical images of the past, we can use extensions to our spiritual faculties to "see" the "spiritual images" of the past. The "recording" of what is going on at the various levels is done in what corresponds to the Skandhas of the world in which we live. >The higher Manas or Noetic action has no >connection to the body directly, and can only operate through the Embodied >lower manas or Psychic action. Under this view, almost all clairvoyants and >other unusually gifted people today are Psychic and not Noetic." This is just saying that our seven principles are interdependent. Each depends on the lower ones to help it find expression in the world. The higher principles cannot directly act on the physical without "going through" the intermediate ones. But this statement can be misleading, because there's not so much a sense of going from one principle to the next, in a sequence in time, as there is of all of them acting in concert, as an inseparable unity. >When an incarnation is over, the elements of the Groundcrew (physical, >astral, mental bodies we use while in incarnation) are reabsorbed into the >pool of elemental essence and do not retain the specifics of the life, only >the general tone established by the soul in that life. During the after-death states, we give up being fully manifested on this plane. Our seven principles represent the basic ingredients of consciousness. We give up the most-physical ones first, and eventually have ceased to exist as the human personality that we had known ourselves as. Upon the death of each of our lower principles, its respective lifeatoms and energies (Skandhas) return to the elements; they go back to mother nature to await our return. >If that soul had made >spiritual gains then there is an uplifting effect on the essence and it is >reabsorbed into higher vibrations than it was before. The essence of our previous life is absorbed. The abstract skills of heart and mind are retained. What is left behind is literal details of what we had done in the life. It's like having written an article, we now are faced with a blank sheet of paper, to start over again. But we retain the skills and memory of what we have written before, so we're better writers than before. The skills are retained, the previous personality we build and used with them is left behind for a fresh start. >The soul then spends time whereever it goes and when the desire to >reincarnate comes over it, it may have increased its spiritual content more >that last incarnation. I would say that the time is not spent in new learning or experiences on higher planes. Rather, the unfulfilled energies of the previous life need to be dissipated before we can momentarily "drop" our seven principles, then reclothe ourselves in them again. In the kamaloke, we dissipate the unfulfilled desire energies. In the devachan, we dissipate the unfulfilled spiritual energies. The length of both experiences is not based so much on how evil or spiritual we are as it is based upon how much has been left unfulfilled at the moment of death. A very spiritual person, for example, perhaps a Chela, may have a very short devachan, because *he lifes out his spiritual impulses.* On the other hand, a person inspired by the spiritual, with grand intentions to do good in the world, may have a devachan of thousands of years, if those intentions remain unexpressed in that person's life. >It then picks up a Groundcrew that is a little finer >in essence than the last incarnation but certainly no memory of the previous >life. The groundcrew is the same Shandhas or life energies that we left behind during the death and after-death processes. We are at birth making a fresh start with what we left off with. We are a little finer in essence, in a sense, than we were at the start of the previous lifetime. But at birth, we pick up where we left off from the previous life. >As you [Rich] said, the soul is only interested in the spiritual essence and >the meaning of events. The soul in this context refers to the spiritual part of us, and it relates to things of its nature. >So I pondered on where these past lives seen by >clairvoyants were located and the logical answer to me was, the Akashic >records. All we do, think and experience is imprinted in the akasha. So if I >was able and wanted to review some previous life, I could consult the >Akashic records for the details that my soul could not supply directly. We also call this the astral light. In it are the images of the past. This is not a "recording" in an abstract, perfect sense. The astral light is "living substance" out of which physical things come into being. Its lowest ranges might be called "the etheric" by Leadbeater, since that term was popular in the scientific community of his age. The "recording" of events in the astral light is not mathematically perfect in some absolute sense. It is a process of life, subject to the finite nature and limitations of manifest existence. >Is this where we also consult in our soul state, the details necessary to >organise our next life? I'm not sure that we can exactly say that the process involves our reviewing spiritual details to organize and plan our future lifetime. Our urge to exist draws us into birth, and we are ourselves, and naturally are and life a certain way. The "choice" involved in what we become is primal, immediate, directly part of life, and not preplanned in the way that we plan things. We "choose" the details of our next lifetime in the same way as we "choose" our next set of parents. That choice is something different than what we usually consider "choise" as meaing. >There are clairvoyants, I am sure, who only think >they see past lives and others who really do and perhaps they actually check >the Records for the details of past lives of people rather that get them >from the person. People can be trained to read the astral light. How reliable is it as a recording media? I'd say that it varies, and the information recorded in it is of differing quality. How reliable are the readings from it? That varies greatly depending upon the skills of the psychic. Are we really getting the details of the past lives of people? Yes in the sense of some physical facts. But no in the sense of what happened in terms of their internal, personal, subjective experience that they had. That experience cannot be "read" by another, and is not fixed, since when we change inwardly, we also change our personal past, which we carry within ourselves. I would venture to say that there is no external, objective, fixed, unchanging past, but only its effects that carry forward, as retained in the present. >Then how can the clairvoyant be sure that it is the lives >of that particular person that they see? They see bits and pieces of external images of the person's past. >It seems to make what is seen >rather chancy and it is mostly impossible to prove if they are right or >wrong. Only the person involved is the absolute source of their past. It is carried deep within, and *changes* in a way as they change. >Personally I have no really pressing urge to know what I was before. >I have had some personal impressions of one or two but they are interesting >but of little bearing on what I am about this time. They would appear to >point to reasons for some of my peculiarities but who knows. When writing an article, if we stop and admire our previous writings, we've really put aside for the moment our current writing task. We could find something helpful to reuse in the current work, but it's best to stick to fresh writings, without recycling second-hand words. It really doesn't matter what were the external physical details of some previous life of ours. Our living connection to the past is carried inside ourselves. In fact, we are the sumtotal of all that we have done before, we are the totality of our past. How do we know that past? By looking at ourselves, and working on self knowledge. >The psychic abilities probably operates through the lower manas and connects >with the manas of the other person and thereby a path to the location in the >Akasha is opened at the 'correct page', so the speak. We all have our unique >signature sound and this may be what is used as a guide. The mind is used to direct the attention of our senses, as we gaze into the astral light. We have the mental ability, mostly latent, of putting ourselves in touch with other things and beings. We can establish a conscious link with the other, and relate to them through that link. This is what we do in our devachan, when we populate it with people that we knew in life. They are not "really" there with us, but there is an element of them in the images we have created. It is the same when gazing upon the astral light. We make an image of the other person, and it is partly populated or enlivened by the life energies of the other person. >Hope this makes sense but I have been thinking about this for the last few >days and would appreciate some suggestions. I am very interested in the >elemental essences and their function in our lives. Perhaps there are other comments too? Jerry S. is usually good at offering an alternate view to many of the things that I suggest. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 01:43:12 GMT From: dhedrick@lynx.csn.net Subject: Re: The END >>Daniel, >> >>We don't believe in doomsday. > OK. You don't. One more reason to throw the bible away. Do you have any idea what Matthew 24:5-> Is all about. Is it just more ramblings on from the unaware or paranoid? Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 01:46:06 GMT From: dhedrick@lynx.csn.net Subject: Power in the Name I used to use mantras and mystic chants both for pleasure and harm. Now I pray in the Name of Jesus. (...continued) I attended a church that taught heavily that the Gifts of God were to be manifested in our daily lives for the encouragement and exhortation of the body. Prophecy, laying on of hands, healing, etc...were almost common place. I have on many occasions as the Lord willed spoke with power and authority messages to the hearer that only the hearer could know was from God. In other words the words I spoke had an impact that was divine. I told you about the DIAMOND story. Well there are so many others that I could write for the next 8hrs and not get it all posted. I have prayed for the sick and on many occasions seen results immediately. Once a father of a friend came over. He hobbled into my home, he had severe back pain. The next day he had to go to a Police Academy obstacle course. He went on and on about how he had been a childrens pastor and how well he knew the bible and other unimportant matters especially when at the time of his son's call to me I was laying on the floor with one of the most painful headaches I had ever had. Anyway I was in no mood to hear babbling, but I certainly wanted to pray for Him and see restoration come into his body. Well to make it short...He is now a policeman and I ddin't have to take an aspirin. I too received healing while praying for him. I personally have experienced healing for a disease that is incureable according to doctors of our day. Yet I am healed. Here is a real example of power. My son was brought into the emergency ward because of seizures. The doctor insisted on immediate surgery. But I heard clearly from the Lord "NO" surgery. The doctors and one nurse came to me and told me I was not making the right decision. I prayed with my wife and she too received confirmation that Daniel Elijah was not to be operated on. (I am no fool, I would most certainly want the doctors to operate to save my son but I could not allow it with such a strong impression from the Holy Spirit) We prayed over our son in the Name of Jesus. Well within 2 minutes after the last prayer .He arose and said "Mommy...I want to go home". The doctors did not know what to say. We left two hours later and I had a hard time keeping pace with my three yr old boy racing to the car. I could tell you of a few times where demons were casted out etc... But I really want to focus on a simple fact. The Name of Jesus Christ. Whether it be Esau Krist or JesuCristo... All I know is that in a myriad of situations I have said "In the Name of Jesus Christ... be healed (and there was healing) be delivered (and there was deliverance) I have been in very confrontive situations where I was being verbally and physically attacked...yet by uttering the name of Jesus Christ the situation calmed. I have even been attacked by those yielding powers of the demonic. Just a local alchemist chanting and attempting to use the talismans for my destruction. Yet again in the name of Jesus there was silence. Why? Are you telling me that my spiritual dose of the heavenly is more significant than those that are about my destruction, or more powerful than human frailities? The bible declares "There is no other name by which men can be saved except by the Name of Jesus Christ" "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" "Every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord" There is no power whatsoever in the name of Daniel K. Hedrick. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 01:55:52 GMT From: dhedrick@csn.net Subject: Re: The END >Daniel: > >>I know you thought I was leaving and a moment of relief >>came to you. But verily I say that the heat is turning up. > >Relief? Heat turning up? The heat that you feel is likely >your own passion in trying to convert people of other >beliefs into the views of your own religious sect. But we >know too much, and have had too many direct experiences of >our own of the Spirit to fall for the argument you might >make that your approach is an exclusive one. The heat I was speaking of was Fire from heaven. Nothing like 70lbs Hail of fire raining on your party. No need to be concerned. It is not like anyone who defied God got swallowed up by the earth or anything. Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 02:37:15 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: 3 re:s in one, see masters, project, funda Re: Labelling You can call me a fundamentalist. I read the Fundamentals of the Esoteric Philosophy. Re: Group Project >Just in order for us to get started maybe Jerry E. would like to offer a >topic (for next Monday or sooner), like I said it could be something >already done or just a quick informal comment, then we could respond. I >imagine it would be best if the topic we wrote on was something that we >wanted a theosophical sort on from others in the group. I am not an >academic and would really perfer it to be very informal sort of stuff. Any >other comments? of suggestions? Is this idea that we all find an interesting passage or give a little talk of our own on a topic that lasts for one week? We are then allowed to choose whichever writer we like (or disagree with) or from anything that pertains to that topic? RE: How do we see the Masters Art, When you speak about placing intuition first and using the senses as least important, I began to think about the feelings I had when so many new people began to introduce themselves. I began to withdraw all of my energy from what I was occupied in on the list and to reorganize my thinking in order to better serve the group. It almost seemed like I was feeling shy, but that wasn't it exactly. It was more like I was changing from one level of awareness to another. I am suggesting that every time a new influence is discerned, the total picture changes, and my thought processes begin to work differently. What you decide to be a workable order today may not be workable tomorrow given a different set of circumstances. Also, my idea of fundamentals would be: 1) begin to purify the physical body by abstaining from meat, alcohol, drugs, and by practicing continence in one's sex life. Of course, don't miss the bigees of: Do not lie, Do not steal, Do not kill, etc., and 2) practice silence and meditation. 3) Purifying the speech is to be emphasized at some point. 4) Purification of the mind and emotions likewise, but these are more difficult to describe, using methods such as non-attachment, unselfishness, humility. Anyway, it's a long process and it takes many years to complete. Don't try to accomplish too much too fast because you can throw yourself for a loop. It might help to associate with a group for awhile in order to learn purification methods. The Esoteric School of Theosophy is there if this is your purpose. Then, as you continue to study and make progress in this direction, you'll find out more later. Seven year periods in life are time periods relative to the time it takes for Saturn to go a quarter of the way around the zodiac and is a cycle of Mars as well. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 03:13:11 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: The END Eldon writes: >Salvation is attained by one's own efforts, by one's own >self-initiative, and any religious approach that takes away >one's confidence in taking charge of his life and attaining >it stands in opposition to the Good. No one else can save >one, no external spiritual teacher or deity, despite the >claims of some religious groups. > Eldon, This is not entirely true, and I don't understand where you are coming from with the rest of your post either. Karma can be looked at as one form of salvation. Take my family for instance. I have an older brother who married right out of high school and was rather difficult to speak intelligently with. He didn't like intellectual life. I really didn't think he'd be very successful. Often times when I was with him, I would be made to feel base and he would easily ridicule. When I look back on how we both fared in life, I would say he had a family and a home while I was still wondering where to turn next. I did sometimes ask myself why he and others like him were so successful and somebody who was actively seeking "spiritual truth" so abandoned. It's very possible that our karma placed us in these positions. My brother has a religious wife and his children are grown and doing very well with their lives, too. When one person does so well with so little, isn't it fair to say there are other forces at work besides our own self-initiative. I don't think people are addressing the questions that Daniel raised at all. I think they're just ranting at him. Why don't you look at the teachings sometime? Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 03:15:50 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Welcome Thom writes: >I've been lurking here for what seems like months, since before the system >crashed. At times things have been slow, but lately I've really been >enjoying the conversations here. Hi Thom: It's great to hear from one of the "numbers" out there, especially one with your degree of interest. Since you've been here for awhile, I feel like I already know you are at least that you must already know a bit about us. Your post on the Monad is very nice. Thanks. Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 03:38:09 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: evolution >So if the Arc of Ascent in this >manvantara is longer than the Arc of Descent (which is >what you are saying here, I think) then at some point it >had better balance out, or your theory will have a big >origin problem which has no logical answer. This conversation seems silly to me. I have two examples I'd like to present as illustrative of the "life evolving." Let's take the situation of the soul and also look at what happens in a department store. 1) The soul puts out a "portion" of itself which then incarnates and comes into earth existence. Let's say the soul has in the past developed its musical talents, but this life it purposely tries to get by without music. It reaches somewhere in its depth into undeveloped areas. Likewise, the other souls coming into incarnation with this particular soul are working out parts of their being. The life which was a musician is being asked to look for other work. So this person tries different kinds of work to be happy. They try construction and building. They only are able to attain the level of a "hanger of drywall" but make enough to live and are happy with family life. So the next life, they try construction again and this time they become a general contractor and are responsible for the construction of skyscrapers. Next life they graduate again to being an architect, but the soul desires to stop here and return to balance. It's music is good. It's building is good. What's next? Teaching. Next the soul begins learning and teaching. The idea is that only a part of its work in any one area is done at any one time. It keeps reaching into its inner recesses until there is no more darkness to bring to light and then it is reborn as a higher being. 2) Let's say I own and operate a department store. I'm trying to make a profit. I notice I'm low on men's clothing, but have an overstock in children's, so I put the children's clothing up for sale. Now I have the money I need to purchase menswear. People come to the store, buy the menswear and give me their cash. You might say my store never changes. I always have the same departments and the same amount of cash, but this isn't so. My store develops depending on who the vendors are and what their merchandise is and also depending upon who the shoppers are and whether they appreciate my products. My store doesn't just succeed as other stores fail. My store is constantly trading and things are coming in and things are going out. Even if I make ONE appropriate sale which enhances the comfort and prestige of ONE man at an appropriate time in their professional life, who has the right or the gaul to say I failed. I did my job and others are testimony to it. The store continues to live and to exhibit its wares for an indefinite? amount of time, or does it depend upon the "astrological time of its birth? Anyway, I don't get the gist of "perfect" returning to "perfect" or "imperfect" becoming more "perfect" or life is higher than it once was. Part of me is useful at one time and part of me is latent. Mankind is still dependent upon karma for its growth. One day we will be able to use "self-initiative" in living and not just have to hope for the best. Life is full of surprises because we're not totally involved at any one time and because we're investigating the mystery that is us. I'd much rather be a totally conscious being who has successfully come into contact with the soul and knows exactly what it is I am trying to accomplish. However as things stand now there is still a "forgetting" and a "remembering" taking place and not any continuity of purpose. Even the man who has to work in construction, if he is terribly unhappy, has the right to try to open himself up to the wonder of his "inner being." Through doing so maybe he would come upon his success in music again and through music again become a happy, productive person. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 03:51:01 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Globes!?!?! Rich writes to Jerry S.: >Wow. I had no idea that's what you were putting forth. I have NEVER heard >this approach before, and I am startled. Is this something you have >developed entirely on your own, or something you read in Theosophical >teachings somewhere? If it's in the teachings I would be very interested in >looking at it myself. Rich, Glad to see you're settling in. We've been writing to Jerry S., on and off, for about three years, almost four. It's been just about as long that Eldon and I first encountered his exposition of the Globes and have been working on this idea with him, on and off, whenever we can. I think you are showing a lot of patience and kindness in your post and am pleased that you have toned down a bit. We love you. Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 04:04:03 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: Power in the Name Daniel, I agree with everything you've said (and your right to say it) except this: >There is no power whatsoever in the name of Daniel K. Hedrick. You may not feel it's power now because Daniel K. Hedrick is immersed in activity, but let's say that after death and after those spiritual energies of yourself (which you through your actions have generated by making this world a better place) become acclamated by your soul or by the Christ force when you become one with Christ. Now there is power which should continue to exert an influence on any other activity you may find yourself in (such as a future life). Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 05:01:11 GMT From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: One last bone...(of contention?) Arthur Paul Patterson wrote: > The first rule in my opinion is to hold our interpretaion lightly ... That's very much my own view, too. I was highlighting the fact that one of the quotes that Daniel used to support his position didn't actually do it very well, on examination, but connected better with a theosophical view. But more important than that is the reaching out to find common ground and trying to understand, if not to agree. > Personally I think that we would have an easier time dialoguing > about direct experience than we would dogmatics anyday. Yes, and dialoguing about direct experience is hard enough! > Thanks Murray for your input it once again reminded me of the need to learn > from each other in group. I appreciate your input very much indeed. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 07:59:48 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Psychic and Noetic Bee: > There are clairvoyants, I am sure, who only think > they see past lives and others who really do and perhaps they actually check > the Records for the details of past lives of people rather that get them > from the person. Then how can the clairvoyant be sure that it is the lives > of that particular person that they see? It seems to make what is seen > rather chancy and it is mostly impossible to prove if they are right or > wrong. I think yo make a really good point here. There is another point. According to the original teachings, the astral light in general (and it is a BIG place) is what receives impressions from action and thought on this, our plane. There are seven layers or aspects to this astral plane, high and low, corresponding (but not the SAME AS) our own principles, because both draw on the laws of nature. Mr. Judge likens the astral light to the retina of the eye, which retains an image passing through the eye for a very short time in proportion to a person's life. The astral light retains an image for the exact same proportionate time, relative to the "life" of the manvantara. (Someone else can do the math ...) So even in the astral light, in the lower levels, the events recorded fade out eventually (though it may be a long long tim ein our measurements). The Akasha, as used by HPB (not the Hindus) has two primary meanings (1) a cosmic "element" and (2) the higher (noetic) aspect of the astral plane. It takes one extremely pure to rise to such a refined plane, and there NOT the details but the MEANING and SPIRITUAL ESSENCE of events are retained. It would seem that when people speak of going to the Akashic Records, they very often mean only the lower planes of the astral, where they see passing images, filtered through their own (often encrusted and foggy) auras and minds. Clairvoyance is an exceedingly tricky business, ever confusing and disorienting, as Bee suggests. Still, it is easier than seeking Adeptship, "the hardest task known to man," where the sure vision of the Buddhi is developed. Between astral clairvoyance and piercing Buddhi there would seem to be a huge gulf. ******* As for elementals, Mr. Judge has about 12 articles on them, written as dialogues between Master and student (probably himself earlier in his life), which are very helpful and insightful. They are usually printed under "conversations on occultism" and can be found, for example, in the 2 volume set of Judge articles put out by Theosophy Company, 245 W. 33rd St., Los Angeles, CA 90007. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 07:59:53 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: True Progress "TRUE PROGRESS" an article by William Q. Judge ******************* Perhaps those who have engaged in discussions about whether it is more advisable to become acquainted with the Astral Plane and to see therein than to study the metaphysics and ethics of theosophy, may be aided by the experience of a fellow student. For several years I studied about and experimented on the Astral Light to the end that I might, if possible, develop the power to look therein and see those marvellous pictures of that plane which tempt the observer. But although in some degree success followed my earnest efforts so far as seeing these strange things was concerned, I found no increase of knowledge as to the manner in which the pictures were made visible, nor as to the sources from which they arose. A great many facts were in my possession, but the more I accumulated the farther away from perception seemed the law governing them. I turned to a teacher, and he said, "Beware the illusions of matter." "But," said I, "is this matter into which I gaze?" "Yes; and of grosser sort than that which composes your body; full of illusions, swarming with beings inimical to progress, and crowded with the thoughts of all the wicked who have lived." "How," replied I, "am I to know aught about it unless I investigate it?" "It will be time enough to do that when you shall have been equipped properly for the exploration. He who ventures into a strange country unprovided with needful supplies, without a compass and unfamiliar with the habits of the people, is in danger. Examine and see." Left thus to myself, I sought those who had dabbled in the Astral Light, who were accustomed to seeing the pictures therein every day, and asked them to explain. Not one had any theory, any philosophical basis. All were confused and at variance each with the other. Nearly all, too, were in hopeless ignorance as to other and vital questions. None were self-contained or dispassionate; moved by contrary winds of desire, each one appeared abnormal; for, while in possession of the power to see or hear in the Astral Light, they were unregulated in all other departments of their being. Still more, they seemed to be in a degree intoxicated with the strangeness of the power, for it placed them in that respect above other persons, yet in practical affairs left them without any ability. Examining more closely, I found that all these "seers" were but half-seers--and hardly even that. One could hear astral sounds but could not see astral sights; another saw pictures but no sound or smell was there; still others saw symbols only, and each derided the special power of the other. Turning even to the great Emmanuel Swedenborg, I found a seer of wonderful power, but whose constitution made him see in the Astral world a series of pictures which were solely an extension of his own inherited beliefs. And although he had had a few visions of actual everyday affairs occurring at a distance, they were so few as only to be remarkable. One danger warned against by the teacher was then plainly evident. It was the danger of becoming confused and clouded in mind by the recurrence of pictures which had no salutary effect so far as experience went. So again I sought the teacher and asked: "Has the Astral Light no power to teach, and, if not, why is it thus? And are there other dangers than what I have discovered?" "No power whatever has the astral plane, in itself, to teach you. It contains the impressions made by men in their ignorance and folly. Unable to arouse the true thoughts, they continue to infect that light with the virus of their unguided lives. And you, or any other seer, looking therein will warp and distort all that you find there. It will present to you pictures that partake largely of your own constitutional habits, weaknesses, and peculiarities. Thus you only see a distorted or exaggerated copy of yourself. It will never teach you the reason of things, for it knows them not. "But stranger dangers than any you have met are there when one goes further on. The dweller of the threshold is there, made up of all the evil that man has done. None can escape its approach, and he who is not prepared is in danger of death, of despair, or of moral ruin. Devote yourself, therefore, to spiritual aspiration and to true devotion, which will be a means for you to learn the causes that operate in nature, how they work, and what each one works upon." I then devoted myself as he had directed, and discovered that a philosophical basis, once acquired, showed clearly how to arrive at DISPASSION and made EXERCISE therein easy. It even enables me to clear up the thousand doubts that assail those others who are peering into the Astral Light. This too is the old practice enjoined by the ancient schools from which our knowledge about the Astral Light is derived. They compelled the disciple to abjure all occult practices until such time as he had laid a sure foundation of logic, philosophy, and ethics; and only then was he permitted to go further in that strange country from which many an unprepared explorer has to return bereft of truth and sometimes despoiled of reason. Further, I know that the Masters of the Theosophical Society have written these words: "Let the Theosophical Society flourish through moral worth and philosophy, and give up pursuit of phenomena." Shall we be greater than They, and ignorantly set the pace upon the path that leads to ruin? PATH magazine, July, 1890 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 07:59:58 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Globes!?!?! Jerry S: > I do not believe that we > have a Globe D ego, and a Globe E ego, and so on. I see > this as an unncessary complication. I see Globe E on > the astral plane as already including my astral body, > and Globe F on the mental plane as containing my mental > body, and so on. Wow. I had no idea that's what you were putting forth. I have NEVER heard this approach before, and I am startled. Is this something you have developed entirely on your own, or something you read in Theosophical teachings somewhere? If it's in the teachings I would be very interested in looking at it myself. In the meantime, my understanding of the globes is that they are NOT planes, but rather the 4 lower principles of the Earth, corresponding to our own four lower principles. The three higher "globes" are "formless" like our own three higher principles, and so they are not represented as "globes" (because globes have form and embodiment.) Globes besides globe D are entirely different grades of matter, and would certainly require different physical bodies and almost certainly different astral bodies, different prana and a different lower manas. Whether our three higher principles would remain mostly intact it an interesting theoretical issue, but since humanity (OUR humanity, at least) has millions of years before we are done on GLobe D and move on to Globe E for new and different experiences, I see it as purely theoretical for the moment. What I think is startling is to equate globe E with the astral plane and the astral body. This is nowhere in the teachings, they are very distinct ideas and concepts. If HPB wanted to indicate that Globe E was simply the astral plane, she would have said so. So a question for you Jerry: if Globe E is simply the astral plane, what might be Globe C? Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 11:22:27 GMT From: Tracey Benson Subject: Re: Welcome Tracey > > Welcome to Theos-l. I am really glad that we are attracting the diversity > of people that are coming around here lately. I am especially interested in > you views on mythology as it related to the women's issues material. I > finished reading Drawing Down the Moon - an early history of the Neo-pagan > movement. While I am not engaged in pagan spiritituality per se, my heart > is with much that is included there. Adler's father is a bit hit on my list > of ex-mentors and I was surprized to see Margot move from her fathers > rationalism into a more spiritual mode. Anyway I look forward to your > input. I don't suppose you are interested in the Motherpeace Tarot since > you mentioned Nobel and Vogel:) > > Arthur Paul Patterson Dear Arthur, Yes, my friends and I use the Motherpeace Tarot and respond to the beauty of the images, and the considered and sensitive writings about each of the cards. The mythological sources are quite comprehensive and empowering, especially the detailed explanations of the Major Arcana.The circle form of the cards allows for a slippage from a binary opposition, I especially enjoy this aspect of the Motherpeace cards. I also liked Noble's book "Shakti Woman", how she applies her knowledge of myth to life situations, using this knowledge to reevaluate gender roles and encourage a higher awareness of self. These cards and books were really my introduction to occult ideologies (besides an interest in astrology), for a long time I found it hard to let go of my Anglican upbringing and my fear of "joining the devil", by my interest in alternative philosophies. How Vogle and Noble reclaim the crone for example, by rightfully giving her the role of healer and wise woman instead of evil old witch certainly is more positive, as this represented a dissolving of the fears that were a part of my identity as being "brought up in a strict Anglican enviroment". On a more negative note, I can't help finding some of their writing too grounded in the body, I do think that women do need to reclaim their bodies but not at the expense of choice; their position in regard to issues pertaining to contraception and childbirth are not suitable for every woman. I have problems with the limitations of a mother earth/father sky philosophy, I like the gaps better :-). As for Adler, Drawing Down the Moon is a fantastic source book, particularly the index at the back, very comprehensive, it is used at the University of Queensland, in an Arts Faculty subject titled "Witches, Pagans and the New Age" as one of the required texts, this course has had an overwelming popularity, though it is a shame that the majority of academics at U.Q still find reasearch into these areas largly invalid. Thankyou for your interest, what do you think about Vogle and Noble? Tracey From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 12:02:39 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: JRC to Eldon: Inner Abilities According to jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu: > In fact, surveying both this list and recent Theosophical > journals ... there *have* been people setting themselves up as > authorities on matters spiritual, but they have *not* been > psychics using inner abilities as a foundation, but rather > intellectuals using either their knowledge of Theosophical > literature or the implied claim of a deeper wisdom that had come > from study and meditation as a foundation. If someone has studied Let's allow for more than a twofold division between psychics and intellectuals. I'd say dogmatists are not real intellectuals, because there is no real respect for intellectual inquiry, only intellectual justification of positions reached non-intellectually. There are intellectuals in the movement, but IMO it's dogmatists masquerading as intellectuals who set themselves up as authorities. > thing (-:) ... but at least in recent times, the vast majority of > this arrogance has not come from "psychics" saying "I see things > you don't" ... but by intellectuals saying "I *know* things that > you don't". Again, is this "knowing" intellectual or kama-manasic? I'd call it pseudo-intellect if it manifests as authoritarianism. > In fact, not only do I believe wonders are not negative, > they can provide substantial boosts - a personality incapable of > resonating with joy, with wonder, incapable of saying "wow! > that's remarkable!" is (IMO) *unfit* to touch higher states of > awareness. I would agree with you that there may be some who > might initially overevaluate "signs and wonders" ... but they are > far more likely to be found in Fundamentalist churches than in > Theosophical circles. There's a psychological phenomenon called evoked potential which is measured by eeg, showing brainwave pattern response to stimuli like lights flashing, etc. Some people, "reducers," tend to have reduced brain wave frequencies in such situations, while others, "enhancers," show increases. IMO this relates to Theosophists and their behavior in response to new ideas or ways of expressing things. "Reducers" want to diminish the impact of the new and unfamiliar, while "enhancers" make the most of it. > intellectual type who felt in some way threatened. There were > problems in the history of the TS with this sort of stuff ... but > we have grown substantially - the Krishnamurti fiasco *could not > happen in today's Theosophy* ... I believe we have grown beyond > such things. It is not too much belief unbalanced by reflective > thought that threatens us, but the urge to institutionalize, to > make solid decisions about what is permissable and what is not, > to *shrink* Theosophy into a controllable form composed of little > other than quiet "deep" study that is our greatest (IMO) threat. Isn't there a cause and effect relationship, though? Isn't the urge to institutionalize and define what's acceptable a result of belief unbalanced by reflective inquiry? > Headquaters is currently locked up by a little group of people > absolutely determining (or attempting to) what Theosophy is or is > not ... passing laws that increase control ... and would love to > squeeze out *any* mention of actual abilities (expect in > historical accounts), any mention of people who believe the > Masters work with them, in their attempt to make Theosophy > "acceptable" to the mainstream academic and philosophical worlds. John, I'd have to say there's another side to this. The Masters Revealed was the first book on HPB ever published by a university press, the first one by a Theosophist to get a rave in the New York Times Book Review, has generally been quite well received outside the TS-- and as you know has received two recent blasts from Wheaton. One of my greatest joys has been seeing the book impact the "mainstream academic and philosophical world" in the direction of accepting the reality of HPB's Masters and the authenticity of her sources. Having attained this to some extent, I'd have hoped for more support from within the TS; or at least a less sweeping condemnation. There are other motives than desire for academic respectability afoot in the TS. > That dynamic balance between the ordered and chaotic, between > known and the unknown, between the existant and the possible, > seems to have swung far to the side of order and form. 40 years > ago, I would have agreed with *everything* you've said, but I > believe that today we could use some fresh life, we could use > something to upset the applecart. We could use a few *wonders*. Amen. and Namaste. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 12:46:22 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Questions from Mid-Atlantic Here are some questions addressed to me as well as to the group last Saturday, with my replies summarized: 2. Is there any circumstantial evidence for Paul's perspective? Evidence is for or against particular hypotheses, rather than for the entire perspective, which is an intuitive reading of the historical situation. The only evidence that is NOT circumstantial is eyewitness testimony or confession (in the absence of physical evidence). As regards my 32 Master nominees, only 2 are supported by "confession": Swamis Dayananda and Sankaracharya are clearly treated as Master figures in letters by HPB and Olcott. The rest of the evidence for various identifications of pseudonymous adepts is circumstantial. 3. Of the four functions, which is is orthodox view? In his longer review of TMR, Dr. Algeo says that one's view of the Masters is based on metaphysical beliefs and personal experience, not documented fact and reason. He also says that what is important about HPB's Masters is not who they were, but what they have been in the experience of Theosophists. In light of the model submitted for consideration, this looks like introverted feeling claiming to be THE correct way to approach the Masters, and rejecting extraverted thinking as a path to them. So one might say that from this signal, feeling is considered to be the orthodox way to approach the Masters. 4. Assuming you believe in reincarnation, are perfected humans possible? The word perfected implies completed, which is the context of earth life means having attained liberation. Anyone who is incarnate is by definition imperfect, being clothed in imperfect vehicles. The Bodhisattva chooses to live in the world of imperfection rather than escape it, unlike the Pratyeka Buddha. Generally, referring to the Masters as perfected is not what I think they or the Founders would want us to do. 5. Is there a paradigm into which you can fit the concept of Adept? Awareness/Consciousness? My current paradigm is that of initiation. One who has sufficient understanding and experience to help faciliate the unfolding of others, is to that extent an adept in the field under consideration. If he/she influences others in ways that are initiatory, there is a genuine spiritual transmission going on and thus a genuine Master/chela link has been made. 7. Is the concept of the Masters of importance today? If so, why? More now than ever, because thanks to the Theosophical impetus (among other things) there is a far greater presence of alleged Master figures in the West than there were in HPB's time. Many are making profound contributions to world thought, such as the Dalai Lama; others epitomize the worst pitfalls of the path (Rajneesh). 8. Should we have a relationship with the Masters today? If so, why? To the same extent that we should with the Founders. They are the spiritual parents of the TS (both Masters and Founders) and therefore serve as a continuing source of inspiration. But a relationship of worship and wonder is not what the Masters or the Founders wanted us to develop; rather a relationship of gratitude and respect. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 14:09:05 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: JRC to Eldon: Inner Abilities JRC: > [To other theos-l'ers ... this might be a long post - worthy >of deletion if the issue has not interested you (-:)] We could always write back-and-forth less material, using shorter messages, more frequently. > As several posts have gone by with continued concerns being >raised about inner abilities, and as I've withheld any comment >until I had thought through our previous interaction, I s'pect >its time again to speak ... only this time perhaps with a >different tone. The expression of concerns is not in itself a problem. The question is how serious are the concerns, and are their other concerns in other areas that aren't getting voiced. It would be unfair to pick on one favorite target for our concern, as though it were the only area in which we face various risks. >I've spent years in Theosophy hearing the same, >oft-repeated warnings (only, however, from what Jerry would call >the "intellectual" type - most of the feeling and intuitive types >seem to have little problem with the subject), Granted, we have a bias on things based upon our personality type. I'm not sure I agree with the Jungian typology, but that's another matter. An ideal approach would have us approaching a subject outside of such biases. >and at this point >will not try to convince anyone to hold other ideas than they do, >but have decided that I also can't simply let these ideas be >perpetuated without answering them - as I will continue now to do >whenever I hear them mentioned. We've all been in this situation. We may be silent on the list for a while, then when've read enough of what we disagree with, we feel compelled to "set the record straight." It could be that we disagree with the ideas presented, or perhaps the disagreement is with the choice of words used and the language in which someone clothes their ideas. Jerry S. has stepped in at times to respond to what I say. Rich lets us know when we're out of line from the standpoint of the source teachings. I could go on and list many names ... >That said, I also think it was a mistake to have simply >reacted to your posts - instead of taking the trouble to build >the foundation that underlies my perspective, I instead reacted >with little pieces of it, and hence became frustrated and a wee >bit short with you When there's something we want to say, we can take a stray word, phrase, or idea that someone mentions and use it as our cue to come in with our ideas. This is not really responding to the other person, but sometimes that was not our intention. The ideas that we are dealing with are complex, and it takes more than one writing to come up with a fair presentation of them. > - and further, may have lead you to believe >that I was simply reacting to personal affronts from an poorly >conceived position - and this is my fault. I don't think that the position is poorly-conceived. I see is as strongly felt, and you have sometimes rushed to its defense rather than concentrating on its explanation and philosophical exploration. The reaction was simply political rather than educational, and your shifting of emphasis will help our our communication. >What I'd like to >relate here, then, is the philosophical and spiritual foundation >for the position I've been advocating - and while I do not expect >to change your mind about the issue, I do hope that you may >acknowledge that, while conflicting with yours, it is at least as >viable, worthy of respect, and as well thought out as your own. Our manner of communication determines if we become defensive, confrontational, and polarized in our positions, or if we let our barriers down and become more sharing. The latter is best and I'm glad that we can try it. We may not change our minds to a great degree, but presumably in an open communication we learn something new and are affected. Our positions may slightly change, and we can become more skillful in presenting our respective philosophies. One question that we will have to answer is how we might make a strong case for our respective positions *without coming across as though attaching other positions*. I don't think that we can say that Theosophy is anything that anyone wants to believe, and there will always people that either of us meet who will disagree with us on various points. >ELDON divine revelation, but simply an attempt to formulate a useful >purpose for the organization as a particular project of the >Masters. We can do or not do anything that is spiritually >appropriate.> >While this is true, it also sums up (IMO) a large problem in >current Theosophy. By analogy, the US Constitution is not divine >revelation either ... but rather a crystallized form of the >Democratic thought of the time in which it was written. Certainly >there is an enormous body of literature from that time, and it is >even possible to, for instance, use various writings in the >Federalist Papers to argue *against* many parts of the >Constitution - but ultimately, precisely *because* almost anyone >could find justification for *any* position by quoting the >writings of the US founders, it is ultimately the Constitution >.. as much of a compromise as it is ... that defines the US. But I'd say that we need to consider the reality of the moment, the sense of what is appropriate at this period of time. If we become too fixed in an organizational charter in the past, and use it as a blueprint for action, we are, in a way, like Daniel and his biblical quotes. I don't think that it really matters if there is a third object in the Adyar T.S.'s agenda, nor what it says. We don't need organizational permission to explore or avoid psychical exploration. Return-Path: From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 14:20:48 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: The END Daniel: >>Relief? Heat turning up? The heat that you feel is likely >>your own passion in trying to convert people of other >>beliefs into the views of your own religious sect. But we >>know too much, and have had too many direct experiences of >>our own of the Spirit to fall for the argument you might >>make that your approach is an exclusive one. >The heat I was speaking of was Fire from heaven. Nothing like >70lbs Hail of fire raining on your party. The only fire that comes from heaven is that which warms the heart in compassion for others. >No need to be concerned. It is not like anyone who defied God >got swallowed up by the earth or anything. We may question your mental-image of the spiritual, where you call it "God" and give it your own description. It is the same divine life to be found in the hearts of all beings. We see and recognize it everywhere. You refuse to look on the face of "God" except when it appears behind a mask of your own choice. I'd suggest that your approach is the one in defiance of the divine, refusing to honor it when it appears before you in life. The above is not intended to be in any way disrespectful of your own deeply-felt religious experiences, but only to comment on the words you use to describe things, words that act as blinders keeping you unaware of the universality of the spiritual. If you take literally those words and worship them instead of the living presence of the divine itself, you have made for yourself graven images and are doing worship to them! -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 14:25:06 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: To Eldon >> Jerry S: >> Alan can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think >> the Qabala teaches that we need an entirely new ego (i.e., 7 >> new principles) in order to experience each Sephirah. > Alan: >No, it doesn't - what an extraordinary idea. The Sephiroth are, >basically, laws of being. I only need one *me* to experience laws! Yes, and that seems to indicate that on any particular world on which we may come into existence, that these laws of being would apply. And for each world, we have evolved a particular set of Skandhas, and corresponding ego or center of consciousness. We are not any one of these particular ego's, but experience consciousness in and through them. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 14:38:35 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: The END Brenda: >>Eldon: >>Salvation is attained by one's own efforts, by one's own >>self-initiative, and any religious approach that takes away >>one's confidence in taking charge of his life and attaining >>it stands in opposition to the Good. No one else can save >>one, no external spiritual teacher or deity, despite the >>claims of some religious groups. >This is not entirely true, and I don't understand where you are coming from >with the rest of your post either. This describes the central idea of spiritual evolution. You'll have to explain where you disagree with it. >Karma can be looked at as one form of salvation. Karma is not something that comes to you from outside. It is the results of your past and present actions. It represents the fruit of your self-initiative. >Take my family for >instance. I have an older brother who married right out of high school and >was rather difficult to speak intelligently with. He didn't like >intellectual life. I really didn't think he'd be very successful. Often >times when I was with him, I would be made to feel base and he would easily >ridicule. >When I look back on how we both fared in life, I would say he had a family >and a home while I was still wondering where to turn next. I did sometimes >ask myself why he and others like him were so successful and somebody who >was actively seeking "spiritual truth" so abandoned. >It's very possible that our karma placed us in these positions. My brother >has a religious wife and his children are grown and doing very well with >their lives, too. It is possible to lead a normal, somewhat happy life without feeling the sense of divine discontent that leads us to seek out the Path. Suffering and problems in life are often the best teacher, and I would expect to find them in the lives of seekers. >When one person does so well with so little, isn't it fair to say there are >other forces at work besides our own self-initiative. Is he really doing so well? Or could a deep part of himself be hungry for things that he cannot put into words, things that you, at least, are active in searching for? >I don't think people are addressing the questions that Daniel raised at all. He's making statements about how he sees things and where he sees us in life. We resonding to those statements in a mostly respectful manner. >I think they're just ranting at him. Why don't you look at the teachings >sometime? I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm writing my understanding of the basic position of Theosophy, in simple language, in response to his statements. If you think that I've missed the point on any particular thing that I've said, I can look it over, and see if it's actually an acurate depiction of the Teachings, or something that is my own idea, going beyond what I've learned from the books. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 14:43:48 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Globes!?!?! Liesel: >Is Harry's fields what you're talking about when you talk >globes? >From a quick reading of them, I'd call them his attempt at describing the seven principles in his own words. I'd call the globes the actual places on higher planes where we can come into full existence, including all of our seven principles. They are the "spheres of causes", as opposed to the "spheres of effects" or states of subjectivity that are experienced between them. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 14:53:40 GMT From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: True Progress >"TRUE PROGRESS" an article by William Q. Judge Always good to go to the source of current ideas. > Perhaps those who have engaged in discussions about whether >it is more advisable to become acquainted with the Astral Plane >and to see therein than to study the metaphysics and ethics of >theosophy, may be aided by the experience of a fellow student. Error 1: Who says it must be either "astral *or* "metaphysics"? >For several years I studied about and experimented on the Astral >Light to the end that I might, if possible, develop the power to >look therein and see those marvellous pictures of that plane >which tempt the observer. But although in some degree success >followed my earnest efforts so far as seeing these strange >things was concerned, I found no increase of knowledge as to the >manner in which the pictures were made visible, nor as to the >sources from which they arose. Error 2: An apparent attempt to force an opening of abilities that had not begun arising naturally and of their own accord. What *other* than confusion could come from this? >A great many facts were in my possession, but the more I >accumulated the farther away from perception seemed the law >governing them. Yes? And even current 1990's science is at the bare beginning of understanding the laws governing purely *physical* perception. Shall we all close our eyes until it does? >I turned to a teacher, and he said, > "Beware the illusions of matter." > "But," said I, "is this matter into which I gaze?" > "Yes; and of grosser sort than that which composes your >body; full of illusions, swarming with beings inimical to >progress, and crowded with the thoughts of all the wicked who >have lived." Thus it often happens when abilities are force-developed: only the crudest of layers are available. But just because one always turns one's radio to the polka station doesn't mean polkas are *all* the radio can receive. (And, doncha just love "teachers" that say things like "Beware the illusions of matter"? How very profound!) > "How," replied I, "am I to know aught about it unless I >investigate it?" "It will be time enough to do that when you >shall have been equipped properly for the exploration. He who >ventures into a strange country unprovided with needful >supplies, without a compass and unfamiliar with the habits of >the people, is in danger. Examine and see." Following that same advice, our entire species would still be living in Africa ... where it originated ... and from where, apparently, no explorer should have attempted to leave. > Left thus to myself, I sought those who had dabbled in the >Astral Light, who were accustomed to seeing the pictures therein >every day, and asked them to explain. Not one had any theory, >any philosophical basis. All were confused and at variance each >with the other. Nearly all, too, were in hopeless ignorance as >to other and vital questions. None were self-contained or >dispassionate; moved by contrary winds of desire, each one >appeared abnormal; for, while in possession of the power to see >or hear in the Astral Light, they were unregulated in all other >departments of their being. Still more, they seemed to be in a >degree intoxicated with the strangeness of the power, for it >placed them in that respect above other persons, yet in >practical affairs left them without any ability. Error 3: He prob'ly should have talked to people other than those who would now work at Dion Warwick's "Psychic Friends Hotline". There are a good number of theoretical and philosophical systems that attempt to map the inner worlds and inner abilities - from the ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead to the Kabala (to name two off the top of my head). Apparently his friends had never heard of such things - which is more an indictment of his friends than of abilities themselves. All were confused and at variance with each? And precisely how does that differ from the *non*-psychic Theosophists of the time? Intoxicated by the strangeness of the powers - maybe those who are first using such things ... but many new Theosophists become just as "intoxicated" by the strangeness of Theosophical *philosophy*. Besides, all WQJ seems to be arguing for here (without realizing it) is the need for a bit of discipline, emotional and ethical, in the use of abilities. > Examining more closely, I found that all these "seers" were >but half-seers--and hardly even that. One could hear astral >sounds but could not see astral sights; another saw pictures but >no sound or smell was there; still others saw symbols only, and >each derided the special power of the other. Turning even to the >great Emmanuel Swedenborg, I found a seer of wonderful power, >but whose constitution made him see in the Astral world a series >of pictures which were solely an extension of his own inherited >beliefs. And although he had had a few visions of actual >everyday affairs occurring at a distance, they were so few as >only to be remarkable. So most inner abilities manifest only partially? The physical eyes see but a miniscule range of the solar spectrum, is this an argument against using them? > One danger warned against by the teacher was then plainly >evident. It was the danger of becoming confused and clouded in >mind by the recurrence of pictures which had no salutary effect >so far as experience went. So again I sought the teacher and >asked: > "Has the Astral Light no power to teach, and, if not, why is >it thus? And are there other dangers than what I have >discovered?" > "No power whatever has the astral plane, in itself, to teach >you. It contains the impressions made by men in their ignorance >and folly. But then again, that's all economic, sociological, and antropological data contains (-:) - so it shouldn't be studied? If WQJ was actually looking for a *teacher* in the astral sewer that is apparently the only range he or his "teacher" could see, then the teacher was right ... he *should've* stayed far away. > Unable to arouse the true thoughts, they continue to infect >that light with the virus of their unguided lives. And you, or >any other seer, looking therein will warp and distort all that >you find there. It will present to you pictures that partake >largely of your own constitutional habits, weaknesses, and >peculiarities. Thus you only see a distorted or exaggerated copy >of yourself. It will never teach you the reason of things, for >it knows them not. Yes, the mistake here is in WQJ's intentions - what a preposterous idea - to think the "Astral Light" (whatever the devil that is) is some *guru*. Its a realm of existance existing on a range of vibration outside of that accessable to the physical eyes. No more, no less. If WQJ walked around in a *meadow* believing that simply by walking in it some great wisdom was going to be departed, or that it was going to "teach" him something, he would be similarly in error. But that doesn't mean a biologist, with perhaps a more realistic set of assumptions and attitudes, might not discover a multitude of very interesting things about the nature of life and the world in that same meadow. >"But stranger dangers than any you have met are there when one >goes further on. The dweller of the threshold is there, made up >of all the evil that man has done. None can escape its approach, >and he who is not prepared is in danger of death, of despair, or >of moral ruin. Geez, I sure wish I would bump into this mysterious "dweller" that everyone keeps warning about (in tones remarkably similar to when fundamentalists say "Satan"). In what way does this paragraph not apply as well to the physical plane? I know a number of people in danger of danger of death, fighting despair, and in what could certainly be called "moral ruin" - and having cruised a few worlds, the physical seems by far to hold more temptation, more opportunites for danger and moral decay, than any other - point is, 'tis not the "plane", each of which has its dangers, but the character of the person that is what determines safety. Thing is, as far as I've been able to tell through experimentations, *purity of intent* is capable of keeping one out of most danger in the inner worlds ... because to at least some degree, it is the nature of *who one is* that to a large extent determines *where you go*, but in the physical world, purity of intent doesn't protect anyone from despotic rulers, or chemical or nuclear weapons, etc., etc. *Life* for God's sake, is *not safe* on *any* level - and to travel a spiritual path (IMO) *increases* rather than decreases risk. The motto of the path is most assuredly *not* "Safety first". >Devote yourself, therefore, to spiritual aspiration and to true >devotion, which will be a means for you to learn the causes that >operate in nature, how they work, and what each one works upon." > I then devoted myself as he had directed, and discovered >that a philosophical basis, once acquired, showed clearly how to >arrive at DISPASSION and made EXERCISE therein easy. It even >enables me to clear up the thousand doubts that assail those >others who are peering into the Astral Light. This too is the >old practice enjoined by the ancient schools from which our >knowledge about the Astral Light is derived. They compelled the >disciple to abjure all occult practices until such time as he >had laid a sure foundation of logic, philosophy, and ethics; and >only then was he permitted to go further in that strange country >from which many an unprepared explorer has to return bereft of >truth and sometimes despoiled of reason. This seems to indicate that WQJ is rightly warning against several huge mistakes: He tried to force open inner abilities before his "higher self" had begun to unfold them, and apparently attempted to do this before he had even begun developing a "philosophical basis" within which to understand either what he was doing or what he was seeing. It would be hard to argue, however, that *his* experience should form some sort of general principles regarding the exercise of abilities (which apparently reduces to "don't mess with that stuff at all", or, as the "teacher" might frame it in a snappy little aphorism, "Beware then, the darkly swirling mists of the netherworld, from whence all who seek therein must return herein the illusion of the dangerous dweller wherein one's sentences may perchance become morally and gramatically confused, doncha know?" (-:) >Further, I know that the Masters of the Theosophical Society >have written these words: "Let the Theosophical Society flourish >through moral worth and philosophy, and give up pursuit of >phenomena." Shall we be greater than They, and ignorantly set >the pace upon the path that leads to ruin? Which Masters were these again? Oh, yeah, the same ones that themselves *began* the interest in abilities and senses outside of the norm by *themselves* being prolific producers of "phenomena". >PATH magazine, July, 1890 -JRC, 1995 - a slightly different era From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 15:03:40 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: theosophical discussions on the internet Question for Everyone: Someone mentioned to me that there was a theosophical discussion section under "New Age" in the new Microsoft System Network. Is anyone familiar with it? I'm just curious. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 15:10:49 GMT From: dhedrick@csn.net Subject: Re: Jeremiah >In message <199509071243.GAA12018@lynx.csn.net> theos-l@vnet.net writes: >> >> As to Chistian teachings... >> It is clear that God knew us before we were born. It is also >> clear in biblical teachings that we were not formed until >> we were in the womb. >> Jeremiah 1: >> is a good example. >> >> Daniel >> >It is no such thing. The writing claims to be Jeremiah's >account of Jeremiah's experience of what God said to Jeremiah. >Even if the text is accepted at face value, God states *only* >that Jeremiah was known before he was born. (Verse 4). > >Clearly you cannot properly read your own source material. By >all means "search the scriptures" as Paul advises, but do not >dare to presume thst *your* interpretation is superior to that >of (say) the author of the book of Jeremiah. > >How do you interpret Matthew 19:10ff I wonder? > >-- >Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk >----------------------------------------------- > Daniel K. Hedrick WebGold General Manager From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 15:42:45 GMT From: Thom Nelson Subject: Re: True Progress "TRUE PROGRESS" an article by William Q. Judge This is a great article, and I think it really shows how much Judge was able to keep a sense of what true Theosophy was in the midst of all the sensationalism surrounding H.P.B. I really admire what I've read of his work, though I don't think it adds a whole lot to H.P.B.; rather, it is true to her and the T.S.'s real mission. I find that I haven't really been given full access to the astral plane, though at times in my life I have really desired it. I haven't had any Out of Body Experiences or really lucid dreams or definite psychic experiences. I consider myself lucky, in a way, because these things are more dangerous than they are informative, IMHO. "Devote yourself, therefore, to spiritual aspiration and to true devotion, which will be a means for you to learn the causes that operate in nature, how they work, and what each one works upon." I interpret this as meaning true devotion to the Soul or Higher Self, since this should be everyone's first and true master. By practicing this, the buddhi-manasic aspect eventually takes over the Personality and brings to it divine knowledge. Exploration of the astral plane merely accentuates the kama-manasic aspect, obscuring more than liberating the Personality, if this makes any sense at all. Thom From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 15:43:18 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: To Eldon Jerry S: >To me, your >desire for evolving monads is a natural result of your >desire for meaning in this seemingly-illogical world. Hey, >if it makes you happy to think something perfect can >grow to be more perfect, then fine. Technically, the Divine, Spiritual, Human, Animal, etc. Monads don't evolve. They remain in their state of perfection. What evolves is the "ray of conscousness" that they project into the evolutionary scheme of existence. The higher Monads are named differently depending upon what scale of being that they participate in (e.g. the lower Human Monad on the scale of a Globe, the higher Human Monad on the scale of a Planetary Chain, the Spiritual Monad on the scale of a solar system, etc.) A further distinction is made depending upon which *stream of evolution* that they participate in. They are called "Gods" when they participate in the stream of the architects, "Monads" as builders, and "Atoms" as materials. We're really, of course, referring to their *rays* that participate in one of these streams of evolution. >I am not trying to argue with anyone here. Just trying to >say that I see evolution as always opposed by involution. We have two models to describe things by. One is as a process of "going out" then of "coming back". The other is as of working through to completion of a work of creation, followed by its end and the start of a new work. If we look at the life of a man, we can see both happening. From one standpoint, there is a growing interest and level of activity in life, reaching its apex in middle age, then declining in old age. This is the process of the outer man, subject to age and death. The other process is a continued growth of consciousness and inner experience, a growth that can continue right up to the end of life. This is a "filling to completion" rather than a "filling then emptying". >We live in a dualistic world where everything is polar. >If the Earth is on a "higher subplane" than the moon, >then the Earth too must be evolving, and if everything is >growing and evolving, there must have been an origin point >somewhere in the distant past. Every living and growing thing has, as a particular thing, a origin point. But it came from a previous existence of the life behind it. And there was no first such existence. Time is as infinite into the past and it is into the future. > The Masters, I think, >realized that origins are big trouble (i.e., God made >it all from nothing or the current Big Bang theory, etc) >and developed the involution-evolution Arcs as a logical way >out of the problem. Origins apply to particular instances of things, to this finite thing or that finite thing. Our known universe, for instance, as a finite beginning and a finite end. And then it will disappear. But after a period time, it'll be back again. >So if the Arc of Ascent in this >manvantara is longer than the Arc of Descent (which is >what you are saying here, I think) Not with the moon. It died on its own subplane. What we have on our cosmic subplane is its *fossil*. The living substance is gone, replaced long ago by "inert matter" of this plane. There is a sense of a kamarupa to it, since the image in the astral light is preserved, and there is likely, I'd assume, some lingering images in its astral light of things that had existed on it. >then at some point it >had better balance out, or your theory will have a big >origin problem which has no logical answer. There are always bigger cycles to contain the ones that we know. When we see things going up, they had to have gone done in some earlier time period. > BTW, it seems >to me that the only way the human monad can evolve (Which G >de P has as the Arc of Descent) is if it later involves >(along the Arc of Ascent) like everything else during these >7 Rounds. My idea is that its ray or human ego continues its evolution to the very end. I would not call the change of emphasis from seeking the material in the earlier Rounds to seeking the spiritual in later Rounds as evolution followed by involution. Why? Because there is an continual unfoldment of faculties of consciousness the whole time. Additional iterations are made in life, we don't start "uniterating" in the Fourth Round, to undo them until we come back to our orgin in our first iteration by the end of the Seventh Round. >Our human monads are currently involving. If >you stop to think about it, it seems to me to be illogical >to assume something can involve (G de P uses the phrase >unfoldment from within) more than it starts out with. I would avoid the word "involving" because I think it may mislead people. >But as I say, it sounds to me like you have more faith than logic >(faith is often better than logic anyway). I find the position that I've taken as logical and satisfying in my own thinking. Some of what I say that you interpret as confused is just where I disagree with your model, and you are attempting to interpreting what I say as though it fit in with that model. Perhaps we'll just have to settle on the fact that for now, at least, we are working with different models of the globe chains. >I am more >interested in understanding your position than in arguing, so >if I sound like I am arguing, I am sorry, but I do want >you to see where I am coming from. Good. I don't mind hearing about yours as well. We just need to remain polite and come in with our alternate theories at times, rather than come in with any attempt to point out the other's "nonsense". >Eldon:Mystery, the Unknowable. This is not a Monad or is >there any sense of personal identity or even of things >that participate in existence. It is simply too perfect, >too pure, too absolute. These words, though, are not >really attributes of it, for it is without attribute >as we know it.> >Perhaps this is the crux of my problem trying >to understand your position - you seem to be placing >the divine monad within space-time here. I am placing the Divine Monad with any other Monad, just outside space and time, but looking down upon it, and entering into relationship with it. The only thing that distinguishes a Divine Monad from any other is the particular scale of being in which its ray of consciousness exists in. >I am placing >it outside. I am equating the "divine monad" with your >"Unknowable" and to me, the divine monad is as high as >it gets. Here's a difference. I would put the Unknowable higher than *any* Monad, of whatever type, because it goes beyond direct participation in time, which is an attribute of the Monads. >This could well be a large part of my confusion >with your responses. Yes, because I make no qualitative distinction between one Monad and another. >BTW, HPB says "The essential or >supreme Spiritual-Divine Monad is our ultimate source >or root" (CW Vol VII, p. 531 - E.S. Instruction 1) and >then in the list of monads on the same page she calls >the Spiritual-Divine Monad, Atman. There's a lot of things to comment on in that quote. As our source or root, it is the highest Monad *that we know of* in our constitution, but we are the human Monads, and are directly our own source. The Divine Monad functions at the atmic level, the Spiritual at the buddhic, the higher Human Monad at the buddhi-manasic, the lower Human Monad at the kama-manasic, etc. Each Monad has its own level that it functions at. >>Eldon: >>There is also the idea of >>a continual unfolding unto completion, when nothing more >>simply can be done, and we need to wipe the external slate >>clean and start over....etc> >Whoa! Of course I agree with the first, which is >described in the SD. But where did your second model >come from? Not only am I unfamiliar with it, but I can't >follow you at all. What does 'wiping the external slate' >mean? Like when a person dies, the human personality has reached an end to its growth, and will, in time, be rebuilt afresh in a new lifetime. This follows the analogy of writing an article, finishing it, then starting anew with a blank sheet of paper. It is another model of unfoldment that I'd suggest applies in certain ways in life. >>Eldon: >>When we consider that we are rooted in the Divine, we >>will always be around to continue our evolution or >>existences on one world, then another, with no final >>experience as the absolute end to our experience of life. >Here, at least, I can agree again. I think that >after this manvantara, we will willingly undergo lots more, >but not to "learn" anything or to "grow" in the time-restricted >sense in which we understand the term >evolution. Rather, we will do so out of the sheer joy >that such self-expression brings to us, much like a painter >will continue painting even after completing a masterwork. It depends upon your model of cycles and infinity how our learning can be retained. Consider the analogy of a clock. Each time the second hand has gone around, it is starting afresh, with nothing retained *at its level* on the next time around. But the minute hand has moved a notch. In a deeper part of ourselves there is an evolution. And when the minute hand has gone completely around, the hour hand has but moved a notch. And as we look upward within, until we can see no further, there are deeper and deeper parts of us that "retain" the experiences that were apparently lost in the lower parts. >Eldon:the mortal part into the immortal, it is to "dance the dance >of life". > >God, Eldon. Everytime I think I am beginning to >understand you, you drop a bomb on me and mess up my mind. >This sentence is exactly what I have been saying all along, >while you (I thought) were taking the more serious approach >of learning and progressing and evolving into better and >more perfect monads and stuff. Now I am really confused. Isn't this fun? Both views are true at the same time. It depends upon which mode of consciousness that we are in the perspective we take. We can identify with the "second hand" and be dancing the dance again, without any residuals from the past. Or we can identify with the "higher hands" and be aware of the forward sweep of things. It is the same as with the kayas. We can in nirmanakaya be clearly aware of the distinction of subject and object. In samboghakaya we merge with the object and are blissfully aware of oneness with everything and everyone in the particular situation we are participating in. Or in nirmanakaya we merge with the root of life and are no longer aware of being in a particular situation. Which viewpoint is real? They *all are* and they all exist at every moment in time. It's just, that *for us*, as particular beings experiencing life, we view things through that perspective with which we momentarily identify ourselves. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 16:09:51 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Welcome Tracey Dear Tracey, Are you anywhere near Brisbane? or rather I'm looking for an e-mail connection near Noosa Heads which is North of Brisbane. I have a dear friend there with whom I'm trying to find a line of communication faster than the snail mail & cheaper than the phone, ie someone, who wouldn't mind passing on a message now & then, & for whom it wouldn't be an extra expense. Her husband was my shaman, before he passed over this past Spring. She's also a Theosophist. We want to keep in touch. E-mail would be the least cumbersome. Please let me know Thanks Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 17:23:50 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Globes!?!?! I'm also confused about globes. What I read, long time ago, I think is more like Rich's, but it never made too much sense to me. Anyway, this AM, I was going through some pamphlets Harry wrote up for his "Temple of Noetic Science", and I wonder whether he's talking about the same thing from a different perspective. "... the principles underlying human nature.... are the basis for our field theory, which states that the body is really part of a field (the elctro-somatic field), 3 dimensional in nature, which in turn, is integrallly a part of a 4-dimensional field ( the electro-psychic field), which constitutes our personality, and because of this interrelatedness, our theory is relevant to all the problems of mankind .... If we identify ourselves as being our personalities and bodies, then we are them, & we suffer accordingly. All suffering is based on such identification. However, if we realize that our personalities and bodies are merely manifestations for the purpose of gaining knowledge through experience, then we have a better chance of understanding our problems. It is therefore essential that we see, that experience in the world of manifestation is the means by which we gain knowledge.... "In our theory, Man or Woman as Being consists of a 5-dimensional field of Cognition, which can be regarded as being composed of a series of archtypes,which have to be developed in order for the being to function in manifestation. This archetypal cognitive field is a manifestation of another field, 6-dimensional in nature - Plato's Nous, in Indian philosophy, Buddhi- which is the synthesis of all being. We can become aware of this field, and function in it, by developing our archetypal field to its fullest extent." Is Harry's fields what you're talking about when you talk globes? Liesel "... Our electro-somaitic field ... is divided into several subfields which the Chinese identify as acupuncture meridians, &this knowledge can be used to balance out the fields, so as to create peace & harmony...." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 17:52:14 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: The END Daniel, Who's throwing the Bible away. It's 1 of the sacred books of the world. All we are saying is that there's more than 1 way to interpret what it says in the Bible. Each one can interpret it to suit their own thinking, but who knows which way is really right? I'd like you to explain Matthew 24:5 to me ... your way ... if you would, please. Daniel, you talk about having the gift of healing in the name of your Lord. I think you're blessed to be able to use this, as you do, for the good of other people. Healing is something we Theosophists try to do as well, so we have finally something in common. Daniel, I wish you could have a more optimistic view of the future. I wish you could see that there's not only evil in the world, but also lots of good. We theosophists are an optimistic lot. We believe that everyone is born with a conscience & is evolving very slowly & painfully towards Spirit, which contains the Good, the True & the Beautiful ... also peace, and brother loving brother (& sister). We think that thousands upon thousands of years from now we'll all be like that. We're also a very hugging bunch. The first day of one of our conventions people are hugging old friends all over the place. so a big hug to you, Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 17:58:04 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: (none) JRC: >not subject to much thought and conversation and that hence can >be lightly dismissed as holding no weight, especially in >discussions of what activities are or are not appropriate in >Theosophy. Granted, that in joining the Adyar T.S., one now belongs to an organization that as its stated goal advocates the exploration of the unknown, and the powers latent in man. The wording of the object is open to interpretation. Are these powers of the spirit or of the lower siddhis? I'm not trying to interpret the object in a particular way in order to impeach it as a justification for psychical investigations within the Adyar T.S. >I believe it possible for you to justifiably hold that you >frame Theosophy in much different, or larger terms than those >stated in the Objects (as many Americans hold democracy to be >something different or larger than what is written in the >Constitution). Yes, within the Adyar T.S. we have quite a liberal situation; we can practice many different approaches without being considered too out of line. But there have been explusions at time, both at the lodge and national section level. Sometimes people are considered as having gone too far. Where is that dividing line? I suppose it's up to the current T.S. leadership to decide. For myself, how should I limit my practice? I belong to the Los Angeles Lodge of the Adyar T.S. I also have an Associate Card on file at the Santa Barbara ULT and am a member of the Pasadena T.S. Each group has their own guidelines. Is my personal practice to be limited to the specialized agenda of any one of these groups? Should it be restricted to only what any of the three groups define as acceptable exploration? >I also believe, however, that if I suggest a type >of activity that seems not only not at odds with one of the >Objects, but even further (IMO) actively furthers that Object >(which really *is* supposed to be a *goal*) ... in fact is >nothing but a means of expressing that Object - that it is >somewhat disingenuous to respond to this by seeming to downplay >the relevance of the Objects themselves. When I'm writing, I don't picture myself as a good, card-carrying theosophist of a particular theosophical group, living within its stated guidelines and fighting to defend its particular "faith". I see no reason to want to impose any restrictions upon you based upon any organizational guidelines, when I don't limit myself to them. >As you have expressed your ideas of what Theosophy is, and >what appropriate Theosophical activity is composed of, I can see >clearly where in Theosophical writings you draw your perspective >from and would not claim that perspective to be in any way >invalid And I should be free to communicate it and promote it as an useful path to the spiritual. - but much of what you say seems a very personal reading >of Theosophy, and is not necessarily indicated anywhere in the >Objects I'm trying to asimilate the theosophical ideas by taking them to heart, putting them in my own words, and working them out as far as I can take them. I don't want to hold myself back to what I can find quotes for. Then I'd be like Daniel, not, perhaps, daring to stray from his biblical quotes for something to believe in. > ... and when we come to speaking of what Theosophy is, or >ought to be, or do, ... it is not your perspective, but the Three >Objects that we *publically* state, with every issue of the AT, >to be what the Theosophical Society *is*. True, the Adyar Theosophical Society is a framework for study and shared spiritual growth within the guidelines of its stated objectives. This is quite independent of what any of us personally know of Theosophy, either from an intellectual study of the source Teachings nor from our own personal insights into it. >If, as some members >seem to feel, the Third Object is too discomforting, or contains >too many potential problems, then I'd like to see those members >make a case for *getting rid of it* (though, as I'll try to argue >later, I believe it to be an integral part of a much larger >philosophy that is embedded in the Three Objects). That's up to them to decide. I would say that a good case can be made for an approach to the spiritual that stresses an initial avoidance of the psychical. That approach is not exclusive, and can coexist with other approaches that either are indifferent to it or encourage it. The approach is one I subscribe to, at least at this point in my life, and I feel that there is value to my writing about it. Can my writing about that approach in a positive manner be done in such a way as to not seem an attach on other approaches that take a different direction? >So long as it >remains, however, I would claim that it is every bit as solid a >foundation to build an argument for "correct" Theosophical >activity as any personal reading of source literature is. True, as an activity in the Adyar T.S. I'm not sure it would find acceptance in the Pasadena T.S., but I haven't asked anyone there what they personally think of the question. >It is precisely *because* not only the general public, but even >some Theosophists lump *all* manifestations of abilities into >this catagory, and even further, implicitly draw univeral >conclusions about those who possess and use them, that anyone who >*doesn't* fit that picture is likely to clam up. That's true. We may have a tendency to over-generalize, and ascribe a motivation to everyone when it only applies to some. >I know a number >of people, some of whom I work in concert with on projects and >experiments, who would be appalled at how inapplicable your >statement is to them. They shouldn't be appalled. It should be clear that it is an over-generalization, and not a personal attach directed at them. If they react that way, they are making an equally big mistake of reading motives into the actions of others that simple aren't there. > ... and I believe [these abilities] they are only "glamorous" to >those that do not possess them - as fame of any sort is to those >that don't have it. That's true, and it applies to both those who might like to take a path towards their development, and those who might be candidates for the approach that I prefer to follow. Are we "competiting for converts"? >Far from being ego-gratifying, the >overwhelming urge in this "second" group is to keep absolute >silence about them I can see this. Especially when one is growing up and does not have other people to talk to whom are either knowledgable about what is going on or having similar experiences. > - *you* may worry about people confusing the >spiritual with the "merely" psychic, but neither I or my co- >workers have any such confusion, I can take your statement on this, and also go by what you write to evaluate where you're coming from and what you seem to understand. The term "merely" would be used when the psychic is given primary emphasis, with the spiritual either ignored, unknown, or not considered important. With some people, the psychic may be an "instead of" situation, with others it would be an "in addition to" situation. I would be opposed to the former and in sympathy with, but not an active supporter, of the later. >and frankly the cheap thrill of >wowing people who would overevaluate what such abilities really >are is not only not sought, but is rather a distraction that is >vigorously avoided. I'm glad to hear this. Not all people are this way, though, and if you are lumped in with them, you've been unfairly critized through an over-generalization. >Your second statement here, that having experiences or >paranormal abilities impresses people more than knowing some >"deeper" philsophical truths that are "harder" to articulate >requires a response ... but I must be careful here. Oops >This idea is >one I've heard around Theosophy since I've been a member, and was >used to shut me up in the past. It is the idea I wish to address, >however, and not *your* (Eldon's) motives. The basic intent with most people, in voicing the idea, I assume, is to direct people in one direction, to follow one approach, and to avoid the other. Better reasons should be used, so that the seeker can make an informed choice. >At least a couple of >members I came in contact with said the same thing - and frankly, >the motives came down to this: *They* were accustomed to having >respect and veneration, were used to *impressing people* with >those "deeper" philosophical truths There's the statement: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit." Some do this. It's a trap that all of us can fall into if we're not careful. I'm sure I've had my share of off-the-wall obscure, dogmatic-sounding comments. It's true that people can sometimes put down things that they don't have or can't do, as a form of ego defense, to keep themselves seeming more important than others. It's certainly a trait that we should try to avoid. >and whenever I started >talking, even a bit, about a few things I had seen, *they* no >longer seemed as impressive ... in fact, *a source of *their* >"ego-gratification" had been removed from them*. (And again, I am >*not* saying this is your motive). This reminds me of a theosophical class that I was giving in San Diego perhaps 10 to 15 years ago. We were reading from "The Mahatma Letters." For some reason, I got talking, and started getting into Buddhist themes, and ended up speaking for about 45 minutes. (This was the first and only time that ever happened to me in a class.) An older man in the class, a long time conservative student, then stood up, and blasted me nonstop for about fifteen minutes, telling me in half-a-dozen ways how what I was saying had nothing to do with Theosophy. He concluded with the pronouncement that he, his wife, and their friends would never attend that class again. And then they left. >My motives for speaking were not, however, to do this. I >hope you can understand what prompted me, when I first joined a >TS and *read its Objects* - its a dynamic that is (curiously >enough) remarkably similar to one that a gay friend of mine had >when he finally found a gay/lesbian outdoor club ... the feeling >that *finally* one has entered a room where one *no longer has to >pretend to be only part of what one is*. We all need a place where we can feel "at home". That is part of the process of seeking, where we find a set of supporting friends and a school of the spiritual to associate with. >Speaking of abilities >and experiences was not even remotely connected to trying to >impress anyone, or attempt to imply I was "spiritual", or to in >any way discount spiritual study, contemplation and meditation, >but just kind of happened when I thought I had finally found a >place where they would be accepted as *Matter-of-fact* things, >neither pedestaled (as some new agers seem to do), or condemned >as dangerous (as some Christians - and for that matter >Theosophists - seem to do). True. We should not give any special status to people for having different, more advanced senses than we do. And we should not condemn them either. But at the same time, some spiritual practices are more tolerant of the active use of the psychic than others, and the particular approach that I would follow may make different recommendations than the approach that you may follow. Perhaps I should say "if you take this particular approach, you will be told to stop using the psychic, but there are many approaches, some of which don't make this recommendation." We should both express things in a way that indicates that we are talking about one of many differing approaches and not the one and only exclusive way. >Well enough on this point - I just >hope you will consider that there is a whole seperate set of >attitudes than those you seem to believe motivate everyone with >abilities, and they are held by perhaps as many as hold those you >rightfully complain about I'll concede this. You might likewise concede that thare are perhaps experiences from the approach that I advocate that are equally difficult to communicate, equally of value, and to be found in the direction of spiritual-intellectual practices. >but so long as any manifestation is >lumped into one generalized catagory, most of the people holding >that alternative set of attitudes will simply keep their mouths >shut - feeling (as I have off and on in the last week or two) >that it just isn't worth it. This works both ways. There are perhaps some readers from the Pasadena T.S. that keep their mouths shut for a similar motivation, not wanting the spiritual-intellectual approach lumped in with religious dogma, false teachers, and countless theories of speculative philosophy. The two of us may be exceptions to our respective groups, daring a bit to come out in the open and write about things that most would rather keep secret. >It is not talking about >abilities and experiences that composes setting oneself up as an >authority Unless one states or implies that only by having such experiences can one really *know*. (I'm not saying that you have made such claims.) >but the *attitude of setting oneself up as an authority* Agreed. This is what a preacher does when using the words "God says" to back up his own personal religious opinions. >a trait that I, with you, think is not that good of an idea. Yes. >Looking for a moment just at this list, while there are a number >of people that have had great numbers of inner experiences, and a >few that really do have abilities in some stage of development, >has there *ever* been a post in which such a person used such >experiences as a foundation to claim authority in matters >"spiritual"? No one has explicitly made such a claim. We sometimes tend to react to statements about such abilities as an implied claim to authority when none is intended. And "inner experiences" and "abilities in some stage of development" can refer to psychic, noetic, and higher faculties, not to one particular kind of development. >In fact most have offered such experiences very >tentatively ... and often, in fact, went out of their way to make >it clear that while they believed what they were expressing had >value, they were explicitly *not* claiming it to be a foundation >for some high spiritual wisdom. That's a good thing to do. >In fact, surveying both this list and recent Theosophical >journals ... there *have* been people setting themselves up as >authorities on matters spiritual, but they have *not* been >psychics using inner abilities as a foundation, but rather >intellectuals using either their knowledge of Theosophical >literature or the implied claim of a deeper wisdom that had come >from study and meditation as a foundation. It is quite possible to also use that claim to set oneself up as an authority too. You're probably referring to me a bit, in a less confrontational manner, here, and I'm not entirely without blame in this respect. But it should be possible to speak with conviction and certainity, without having to also establish oneself as an authority, requiring others to follow or believe in what one says merely on one's say so. I would never try to claim that I'm special, and that what I say should be believed *because I said it*. The theosophical ideas stand or fall on their own merits, and all I can do it work on being better able to express those that I believe that I know. I would say that speaking with conviction and a feeling of certainity (though not finality) is not necessarily wrong, and does not imply the assertion of personal authority. >If someone has studied >the SD for 50 years, I'll fully acknowledge them as more >knowledgeable than I about the SD. If someone integrates the >entire "map" of globes and rounds into their worldview, I'll >acknowledge that they can speak with more authority than I about >that map. I don't accept "authority" as primary, but rather the integration of understanding in one's life and the ability to clearly share or express that understanding. This doesn't mean that I won't respect more advanced students, like HPB, and give serious study to her works. The use that I'd put to "authority" is in terms of deciding what to study, not in accepting anything "on faith" or simply on someone's say so. >(Just as I *will* claim that while I by no means >understand the totality of what clairvoyance is, I *can* speak >with more authority about it than someone whose has never >experienced it.) You can speak from personal experience of it. But I would suggest that there are ways of understanding things without having to do them, and that I can also have some understanding of them without being psychic myself. >Point is, I don't consider *any* of these things >to be foundations of *spiritual authority*. True. But authority in a spiritual sense is when we trust a guru to tell us what to do, when we're not in "self-training." We don't need spiritual authority as much as we need spiritual influences and teaching. >If there *is* such a >thing as genuine spiritual authority, it is (IMO) a condition of >the energy-system of the person as a *whole*, and has almost >nothing to do with any individual abilities, any body of >knowledge or philosophical perspective. We are genuine when we act from wholeness, when we act from all our principles without any part of us supressed or left out of the equation. > [In fact, if you don't >mind a bit of "claivoyance - with no claim to absolute truth (- >:), the largest and most beautiful aura I've ever seen belonged >to a housewife who had no particular ties to religion, and >wouldn't be able to tell you the difference between the Buddha >and Brahma - but as I watched her now and then (she was a >neighbor for awhile) I was absolutely awed ... she would walk >into a restaurant and sit at a table next to a arguing couple, >and in all of five minutes harmony would be reigning ... her mere >presence in a room altered the entire environment, and as far as >I could tell, she never had any idea she was doing anything ... >and people had no idea why they unconsciously felt so much >pleasure in her presence]. >From what you say, she seems to have a positive effect on others. I'm not sure that we can, though, judge her spiritual status from either the attributes of her current personality, nor of the visible size of her aura. >I *am* concerned about the fact that Theosophy, and the TS, >has such a tiny membership in an age increasingly full of (IMO) >genuinely advanced, compassionate souls Yes, we could do more good work and reach more people. >and that I believe many >of these people touch Theosophy and are chased away by what seems >to be incredibly arrogant and condescending attitudes present in >the Theosophical current, by people setting themselves up as >authorities in matters spiritual This is possible for some people. And it is true of many, if not most spiritual organizations. But if the newcomer loves what he finds in the theosohical teachings, he won't really mind, and will go at the books, and establish close ties with fellow students, despite any organizational arrogance. >by the pervasive attitude that >holds that most people are too lazy, or too desirous of cheap >thrills to do the *real* spiritual work that *real* Theosophists >do (as though spiritual growth is some sort of gawdammed *macho* >thing (-:) That attitude results from pride and lazy thinking. When you're deeply involved in something that you really love, there's no sense of pride nor of judgement of others who take a different path. ... but at least in recent times, the vast majority of >this arrogance has not come from "psychics" saying "I see things >you don't" ... but by intellectuals saying "I *know* things that >you don't". In the Adyar T.S., this would be the backlash against the pro-psychic tilt of the 1920's. It's too bad that we cannot establish a balance without having to tilt things in either direction. >The second point is what you mentioned about "wonders". In >this attitude, as in your concern about people setting themselves >up as authorities, I seem to see an attitude that assumes we're >dealing with children that are incapable of putting things in >perspective. When we simple say "don't do that" and leave it at that, you're right. But I hope that we don't simple tell people what to do, but offer explanations and some philosophical basis for what we would advise. >Precisely what is *wrong* with offering a few >"wonders" ... in fact, I must say that I consider the sense of >awe, of wonder, the very *foundation* of my own personal >spiritual orientation. It is not "fear of the Lord" (as Daniel >might say), but a continually growing awe at the enormity, the >complexity, the absolute beauty of this 'ol universe that drives >me ... and all clairvoyance has done has opened yet another >avenue through which to glimpse this. It's not having the wonders or not that is important, but how you use them in your life. If it spices things up, and special weight is not put upon seeking "wonders", then as a general rule I would say "that's fine." But I would want to discourage people from anything that they use as an excuse for not taking the self-initiative in their own spiritual quest, and that includes the dependency on psychic wonders for external validation of something they should readily *sense* and *know* within. >In some stupid old movie (I >think Joe vs. the Volcano), a character says something like "Most >people spend their days fast asleep, they walk in their sleep, >work in their sleep, and play in their sleep, but for those few >who are awake, life is spent in a state of continual and utter >amazement" - and I don't think this is at odds with spiritual >philosophy. The sense of amazement is wonderful, and we can go through phases where it colors our events. Buddhism also tells us about the value of boredom, that boredom brings great insights too. I don't think we should expecially seek either, but be equally open to enjoy either as it comes in our lives. > In fact, not only do I believe wonders are not negative, >they can provide substantial boosts - a personality incapable of >resonating with joy, with wonder, incapable of saying "wow! >that's remarkable!" is (IMO) *unfit* to touch higher states of >awareness. Yes. But a wonder can be a baby's smile, an unexpected phone call, or simple a general other-worldly sense of amazement during a day when one breezes through life as though in a world of magic. >I would agree with you that there may be some who >might initially overevaluate "signs and wonders" ... but they are >far more likely to be found in Fundamentalist churches than in >Theosophical circles. And we can say the same of people that make philosophical and religious pronouncements, and overevaluate their own cognative powers. >I have certainly done my share of study, of meditation, of >discipline and character reformation ... but if HPB walked into >my house today and asked me if I'd like her to manifest a letter >from the Masters, I'd say "hell *yes* what are you waiting for?!" >.. and the wonder I felt at the manifestation would not cause me >to downplay or miss the actual words of the Masters in the >letter. I'd say "yes" too. It would be like visiting a factory and seeing how something is manufactured, or going to an observatory and looking in the telescope, or visiting the offices of a newspaper. We get a glimpse into an area of life that we don't ordinarily visit. >In short, I see absolutely no conflict between the >possession and exercise of inner abilities and the pursuit of >"genuine" spirituality ... and in fact consider the pursuit of >some sort of path absolutely *essential* for anyone born with >some sort of ability. There's at least one guru that takes the approach of using wonders to encourage the faithful, Sai Baba, using materialization after materialization to stimulate his followers enthusiasm. And yes, it's especially for anyone born with some sort of ability to seek a spiritual path, regardless of the nature of the ability, be it of the mind, heart, or senses. >I do not believe anyone (for instance) on >this list confused anything I said about the angels with some >transcendent spiritual insight, or in fact as anything other than >simply another avenue of input, another perspective, in a >conversation. Perhaps. But outside the list may be another story. And we all -- myself included -- can be tempted to write at times as though we were warning people in general of dangers that we may be too mature to fall prey to. Is it possible that you are also tempted to warn us of the dangers of being caught up in the dogmatic thoughtlife of the past? Could we all be warning each other of dangers we don't really face, because we're so used to warning non-Theosophists of them? >You seem to imply that to simply mention an ability >and report input gained through it is synonymous with setting >oneself up as a spriritual authority, and even further that >somehow many people cannot handle the task of evaluating such input. >input. Probably an automatic reaction on my part to warn people of such a danger. Most of us certainly know too much to fall prey to it. >Where are these people? Sure as heck not on this list ... >and in fact the only people in Theosphical circles who seemed >(IMO) to overevaluate such things have been those of the >intellectual type who felt in some way threatened. We may all threaten each other in different ways. What is your reaction when told that there are other avenues to direct experience of the spiritual, based upon an spiritual-intellectual approach, avenues that are just as real and substantial in our lives as the psychical? >There were >problems in the history of the TS with this sort of stuff ... but >we have grown substantially - the Krishnamurti fiasco *could not >happen in today's Theosophy* ... I believe we have grown beyond >such things. History often repeats itself. I would keep an eye out for any type of human failing leading to damage in the theosophical movement. >It is not too much belief unbalanced by reflective >thought that threatens us, but the urge to institutionalize, to >make solid decisions about what is permissable and what is not, >to *shrink* Theosophy into a controllable form composed of little >other than quiet "deep" study that is our greatest (IMO) threat. As a specific spiritual practice, we can formulate approaches that work for some of us. These approaches can coexist with others in the greater framework of theosophical groups. We do not "shrink" Theosophy when trying to understand and explain in greater detail one such approach. On the other hand, we're not trying to be everything to everyone. Other groups may make a stronger appeal to particular people, and they should participate in the one that makes the biggest impact in their lives for the good. >Headquaters is currently locked up by a little group of people >absolutely determining (or attempting to) what Theosophy is or is >not ... passing laws that increase control ... The control is probably well-intentioned, although I cannot speak for the motivation of other people. I would have to ask them their motives. There's always the question of what is taught within the T.S., and how much latitute in personal views is tolerated under the unwritten charter of the organization. (This is what I would consider as preserving the theosophical philosophy intact, *as the current leadership understands it*.) We quickly get into issues of power and control that sometimes cannot be resolved, and then there are organizational splits. >and would love to >squeeze out *any* mention of actual abilities (expect in >historical accounts), any mention of people who believe the >Masters work with them, in their attempt to make Theosophy >"acceptable" to the mainstream academic and philosophical worlds. When this happens, we see an attempt to formalize things into an orthodox religion, where "revelation" and direct experince of the spiritual is not possible, except through the second-hand pronouncements of the organizational authorities. I would suggest that "revelation" and direct insight is not only possible, but readily available *to any of us*. >That dynamic balance between the ordered and chaotic, between >known and the unknown, between the existant and the possible, >seems to have swung far to the side of order and form. Time for some turbulance? Making waves won't work execpt at crucial points when there is the traditional "sensitive dependence on initial conditions," and small causes bring about big effects. >40 years >ago, I would have agreed with *everything* you've said, but I >believe that today we could use some fresh life, we could use >something to upset the applecart. We could use a few *wonders*. Fresh life is needed, but we have both *wonders of the mind* as well as *wonders of the senses* possible to us. We need both amazing, miraculous events as well as breathtaking words that thunder wisdom into our souls. >As with abilities in general you *seem* (and I may be wrong) >to be implying that it either has to be the "psychic" *or* the >spiritual, that one can *either* experience wonders *or* do the >hard and long work of the path There *are* different approachs, and the one that I prefer downplays the psychic, when not actually calling for its supression. But that doesn't mean I can't openly allow you to take a different path. It's not really an either/or situation, but different approaches have their own emphasis. And the alternate to the psychic and its wonders is the spiritual-intellectual with its own wonders. And its wonders include the same intensity of amazement and awe at life that you may feel in and through your approach. >... and I just don't get this, as >these thing not only don't seem mutually exclusive to me, but >actually seem to quite harmonious when integrated and kept in >balance. Again, it's a difference of approach. In the approach that I would take and promote to others, we seek the highest spiritual within, and the outer life naturally rearranges itself on its own accord. This includes the eventual natural occurence of the psychic, in due course, at some unspecified time in the future, but it does not focus on fine-tuning the attributes and failings of the personality. > Well, I've gone on too long as it is here, and will have to >save the case I wished to make about the Objects until a "Part 2" >of this post. And this has taken quite a while to reply to. > [And by the by, I s'pect your right about the "sandpaper" >.. I've noticed your language and tone have altered ... and hope >that mine has as well (-:)]. Yes. The only other thing to remember with that analogy is that the sandpaper is appropriate when we put on our armor, it works fine on softening its rough edges. But when we take off the armor and open up, the sandpaper will only tear into skin and draw blood. The approach in communication that is taken should be appropriate to the other person. I've seen on 'theos-l' this forgotten at times, with resulting ill will between people that's hard to heal. Look forward to part two, hopefully shorter than this one. Respectfully, Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 20:31:00 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Inner Abilities Dear JRC, Maybe Murray said it all in his short post. I want to try to respond to some of the things you said, for whatever good it is. The only people I know with ESP are 3 well known healers, so all I can talk about is what I've observed from them. They're all 3 middle aged or older, & they've somehow established their credibility within the TS, I really don't know by whose authority or whose standards, but there seem to be some. Until you began to speak up, I had no idea that younger people had such trouble being accepted. I can understand how you felt, having thought that you'd found a place where you could come "out of the closet" & be yourself, & then found that it wasn't so. I know that there's an abhorrence in the TS of people who are "frauds" in this direction, that seems to be mostly applying to mediums. I don't see that it should include people who aren't geniuses at ESP, such as the few we've had in the TS. We do have a Third Object, & I myself think it's a most vibrant one, to poke into all sorts of corners to find out what's new. I remember how much fun it was, years ago, when biofeedback was new, & I researched the topic for a talk to my group. I think that in the TS people with ESP should at least be allowed to be able to express what they are, & if some are not quite as skilled as others, well, some singers get to the Met, & some only get to sing in Cicinnati, but they all have a contribution to make. I think it's in keeping with what I've seen from our psychics, that you & your group are working at turning your abilities into tools for service. I think sometimes you can have a little fun with it too. HPB did. Now that you mention it, I can see that this ability should be developed for use along the spiritual Path, just as any other. I was thinking of the warning in "The Voice of The Silence", & it seems to me it's a warning not to be side tracked by ESP, rather than a warning against using it. I'm familiar with the notion that it can be dangerous, & I really don't quite know how that works. I can see it could be dangerous if someone starts predicting for others, & then the others are thus influenced to make the prediction come true. Or if the psychic isn't very skilled, & the other person acts on the psychic's cockeyed say so. Or if the psychic is an immoral person, & like for instance uses what he/she sees to black mail. I would think thorough training in both psychic ability & in ethics are absolutely essential. HPB used her abilities in bringing us "The Voice", I believe, certainly the SD, & the Masters used it to communicate with Sinnet & Hume. Again, the present day psychics I know use it to heal 1 way or the other... But they also use it in a capacity as spiritual teachers. In that instance I don't agree with what you said. For example I have heard that 1 of them was able to teach meditating more effectively, because the psychic could see the effect of meditation on the learner's aura. I think that Harry's description of force fields rather than bodies, (which I copied onto Theos-l before) was partly due to what he could see, partly to that he was an engineer. It made sense to me, so I adopted that point of view, even though I'm not psychic. I think one can gain spiritual insights because one is psychic which one can't gain if one isn't. During the first few years of my dealings with Harry I tested him a number of times. I often didn't believe him. Little by little I came to trust him. He was a Theosophist from when he was little. He'd put his own imprint on what he believed. So as a spiritual teacher, which he was to a goodly number of us, he taught from a long & thorough contact with Theosophy. One facet of his own imprint came from the fact that he was a very skilled & powerful psychic. But I think it would be pure foolishness to just follow blindly everything psychics say. Some people are authorities & others aren't, psychic or not. Lastly the little clique at headquarters... I don't know. The ES is supposed to train our leaders, but I'm not sure that it isn't just training an elitist clique. Every time I run up against 1 of those guys I have to start proving all over again that I know something about Theosophy, even though I'm not 1 of them. Several friends & acquaintances one day just disappeared behind the ES curtain. I get from them that they're very busy. I don't know at what because I haven't the faintest idea of what most of them are doing. I think they've cut off because they're not allowed to say what they're doing. If they're running the TS, they're running it as if it were a puppet theater - unseen. I'm also of the opinion that members of the TS who are not in the ES should have a voice & a hand in TS's activities, if they want to . If you don't participate, you soon lose interest, & that might be one of the reasons for our small membership. I don't know that any of this will change any time soon. I have the impression that things aren't quite as cliquish under John Algeo, but I haven't been to Wheaton lately. I don't know how many people are floating around there who sincerely believe they're as spiritual as God, and look down in pity & compassion at the rest of us poor peons. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 21:39:04 GMT From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Astrology Can anyone help? I saw this week an Astrology program called simply "Astrologer" which the man using it told me had come via the net and a group connected with alt.astrology, but this list seems to consist of hundreds of "I am Virgo, what are you" type messages. Has anyone come across this program? Or better, has a copy? It looks good, and seems to allow setting orbs for cusps, which my current program(s) do not. TIA. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 22:21:47 GMT From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: K.H. = E.O. In ~The Story of the Mahatma Letters~ published from Adyar in 1946 by the then President, C. Jinarajadasa, he identifies the Master K.H. as the commentator found in other similar letters and writings by the initials E.O. as being one and the same person. He particularly states: "A little known contribution by Mahatma K.H. appears in a work published in 1883 ..." (referring to a then unpublished work of the French Occultist Eliphas Levi, called in part, ~The Paradoxes of the Highest Science.~) Jinarajada goes on: "The French manuscript was translated by Mr. A.O.Hume ... intended presumably to be published in ~The Theosophist~ (though not published in it), has as comments footnotes signed "E.O." (for "Eminent Occultist")... "At my suggestion the Theosophical Publishing Society reprinted ~The Paradoxes of the Highest Science~ for the sake of the footnotes of Mahatma K.H., and especially for the last footnote, with the message which it gives to the Theosophical Society concerning a work for mankind *which only Theosophists can do.* I have placed a line at the margin of that part of the letter to which I desire to draw the attention of all members of the Theosophical Society ..." I reproduce below the section of the footnote by K.H./E.O. to which Jinaradasa refers: "... But the authors of the Perfect Way [Anna Kingsford and Edward Maitland - A.B.] are right: woman must not be looked upon as only an appanage [sic] of man, since she was not made for his benefit or pleasure any more than he for hers; but the two must be realized as equal powers though unlike individualities. "Until the age of 7 the skeletons of girls do not differ in any way from those of boys, and the osteologist would be puzzled to discriminate them. Woman's mission is to become the mother of future occultists - of those who will be born without sin. On the elevation of the woman the world's redemption and salvation hinge. And not till woman bursts the bonds of her sexual slavery, to which she has ever been subjugated, will the world gain an inkling of what she really is and of her proper place in the economy of nature. Old India, the India of the Rishis, made the first sounding with her plummet line in this ocean of Truth, but the post Mahabaratean India, with all her profundity of learning, has neglected and forgotten it. "The light that will come to it and the world at large. when the latter shall discover and really appreciate the truths that underlie this vast problem of sex, will be "like the light that never shone on sea or land," and has to come to men through the Theosophical Society. That light will lead on and up to the *true spiritual intuition.* Then the world will have a race of Buddhas and Christs, for the world will have discovered that individuals *have it in their own powers* to proctreate Buddha-like children or- demons. When that knowledge comes, all dogmatic religions and with these the demons, will die out. - E.O." I guess this really belongs on theos-roots, or *also* there. Maybe JM could put it in the archive? Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Sep 1995 23:53:08 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: To Eldon > Alan can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think > the Qabala teaches that we need an entirely new ego (i.e., 7 > new principles) in order to experience each Sephirah. > > Jerry S. No, it doesn't - what an extraordinary idea. The Sephiroth are, basically, laws of being. I only need one *me* to experience laws! Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Sep 1995 00:10:45 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Globes!?!?! >> Jerry S: >> I do not believe that we >> have a Globe D ego, and a Globe E ego, and so on. I see >> this as an unncessary complication. I see Globe E on >> the astral plane as already including my astral body, >> and Globe F on the mental plane as containing my mental >> body, and so on. >Rich: >My understanding of the globes is that they are NOT planes, >but rather the 4 lower principles of the Earth, corresponding to our own four >lower principles. There is a correspondence between the principles and the centers of consciousness in man and in our planet, and the terms are sometimes used interchangably, but I would make a distinction here. The principles are the basic ingredients of consciousness, the elements of selfhood, perception, and ego that we take on when coming into existence. We have an assertion of existence (atma), a sense of "other" and relatedness (buddhi), a personal ego or awareness of being different than others (manas), a desire to act in the world (kama), the life energies to take action (prana), sense perception (linga-shirira) and the outer physical housing for our consciousness (sthula-shirara). (This is, of course, one of several ways to describe the seven principles.) In coming into existence, we clothe ourselves in these principles, which in one sense are our Skandhas returning to us *from outside*, and in another sense are latent karmic seeds coming forth *from inside* outwards. Wherever we can exist, and take on full embodiement, we need all the seven principles. The globes are the "places" where existence can happen. They are situated on different planes. When we come into incarnation, fully clothed in our seven principles, on a particular plane, it is on one of them. We cannot come into existence on an arbitrary plane, nor in an arbitrary place in space. It is only on the globes where we can exist. The globes are to the planet what our centers of consciousness are to us. Some are on higher, more spiritual planes. Our earth as we know it is the lowest globe of our planetary chain, so it represents the lowest plane *that we can know.* We're told, though, that there are still lower planes (In "Inner Group Teachings," by HPB, where she mentions that we're on the fourth subsubplane of the lowest cosmic plane, the lowest that our earth can go.) Your statement that the globes are some of the principles of the Earth is correct when we speak interchangably of principles and egos or centers of consciousness. When we make a distinction between them, we would describe it differently. >The three higher "globes" are "formless" like our own >three higher principles, and so they are not represented as "globes" (because >globes have form and embodiment.) Purucker also calls the higher globes formless. But he uses a twelvefold scheme, where the five higher, formless globes are on the three highest planes, and the seven lower, globes of form are on the four lower planes. Even with the "formless" globes, though, there is a sense of "form" and embodiment. Even on them, we're beings with our full seven principles, including the sthula-sharira, or what corresponds to one on the plane that the higher globe exists on. What distinguishes a "formless" existence from one of form? Not, I'd say, a literal absense of form, not the lack of objects and sense perception. Rather, I'd say that *for us*, we'd experience the ability to act directly upon the outer world without having to have a body or external form as *our proxy*. We perceive what is there and make things happen directly from our desire and will. The commands do not have to direct a form, a body, to take the action for us. A formless world, in my view, is populated with a rich array of forms, and a richness of sensory experience. What differs in it is that the beings participate by direct action upon what exists in the world. It is somewhat like what we picture happening in our devachan, except the world is teeming with life, whereas in our devachan we populate things out of the content of our own consciousness. What, then, is our sthula-sharira or "physical body" on a formless plane? It is the images or forms projected directly out of our consciousness at a particular moment in time. The externalized content of our consciousness, given tangible, physical, sensory expression, is our "body" of the moment. The "this is me acting" is not a body doing something, but these externalized contents of conscousness. >Globes besides globe D are entirely different grades of matter, and would >certainly require different physical bodies and almost certainly different >astral bodies, different prana and a different lower manas. Yes, the globes, being on different planes, are composed of a different spirit/matter combination. Some are more concrete, material, gross, unresponsive to our life energies, others are the opposite. >Whether our >three higher principles would remain mostly intact it an interesting >theoretical issue, but since humanity (OUR humanity, at least) has millions >of years before we are done on GLobe D and move on to Globe E for new and >different experiences, I see it as purely theoretical for the moment. Here you're speaking of the centers of consciousness that correspond to our three higher principles. Each has its own field of action. The lower human center has a scope of a single globe; it corresponds to the personality. The higher human center has a scope of the entire planetary chain; it corresponds to the individuality or the reimbodying ego. And the spiritual ego has a scope that spans the solar system. I would say that the lower human ego, which is what we know ourselves as, has been evolved particularly for Globe D, and that we have different personas for the different Globes. It is higher within, in the individuality, the higher human ego, where we have a form of awareness that spans the Globes. When do we go to the other Globes? As the human lifewave slowly moves its way from one globe to the next, we find ourselves involved in rebirth on the globe on which the lifewave is on. It has many millions of years left on Globe D before it moves on to Globe E. Is this the only time that we visit the other globes? In spiritual training, we may find rebirth on the other globes, on our way towards becoming a Fifth Rounder or Mahatma. In death, initiation, and sometimes in sleep it also may be possible to pass through the globes, but that is generally done in a sense of "passing through", in transit to higher planes. We don't stop at the globes, generally, long enough or completely enough to engage the process of coming into "incarnation" on those globes. >What I think is startling is to equate globe E with the astral plane and the >astral body. This is nowhere in the teachings, they are very distinct ideas >and concepts. The globes are "on the planes", but they aren't the planes themselves. And although there is a correspondence between globes and principles, there's not a sense of identity. It's just that on a particular globe, one of the principles may act as the "prime mover" or first cause of action both in external nature and in our internal functioning of consciousness. > If HPB wanted to indicate that Globe E was simply the astral >plane, she would have said so. True. There are often many teachings spoken of behind the same set of terms. But also, the seven principles, I'd say, are not the planes, but are qualities or attributes of conscousness on any plane. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Sep 1995 00:34:02 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: A. Bailey & World Government Ptrick: >AAB writes specifically that humanity is not ready for a world government in >the way that we have exoteric governments today as it cannot yet produce >sufficient unselfish people who would be able to do such. There are different purposes to a government. One is to make laws. The Masters certainly have their own code of conduct, their own rules. But these rules don't need the fine detail, because the Masters have a highly-developed ethical conscousness, where they are able to directly perceive what is right in a situation. Another is to initiate projects for the public good, like to collect taxes and use that money to build roads, libraries, schools, etc. They are certainly using their resources in a multitude of projects for the betterment of humanity. I don't think, though, that they have any interest in governing us, since we're at an entirely different phase in our development, and need different social orders than would be appropriate among them. There's also the basic question: What do the Masters do with their time? Some effort is made in keeping the human lifewave from getting derailed in its evolution, in protecting us from disaster. More effort is made to nurture our spiritual inclinations, and to foster the spiritual awakening of as many of us as can be ripened early in the season. A third area of work which we've been told about is that they maintain the equalivant of a spiritual university, where they study and preserve the wisdom of mankind. This wisdom is learned and passed on from generation to generation *as a living tradition*, something that is taught and trained, rather than something that is simply read, since it cannot be put down in written words. I suspect that there's a fourth area of activity, although I don't recall seeing it written about in our source literature. This is one of "highly-advanced creativity." That is, they too can be artists, poets, philosophers, musicians -- anything at all that is creative! And with heightened faculties and ability to express the deeply divine, most may feel compelled to do their best to give the fullest expression to it. Why don't we see it? They are not doing it for public presentations to humanity, since we would be unable to comprehend much of it. It's just that they feel the same hunger as any of us, a hunger to give deeper, fuller, richer expression to the inexpressible. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Sep 1995 01:40:36 GMT From: dhedrick@csn.net Subject: Where the rubber meets the road. >>The heat I was speaking of was Fire from heaven. Nothing like >>70lbs Hail of fire raining on your party. > >The only fire that comes from heaven is that which warms >the heart in compassion for others. > If God or Truth is just, there must be a penalty for the unjust. You declare that judgement is revealed through Karma. I declare that judgement is God's alone. Many of you have a very STATUS QUO opinion about the Old Testament. You think the God of the OT is a mean and brutel dictator. Just so you are not without excuse... The OT declares That MERCY has victory over judgement. And for those biblical scholars on this list who have selective memory, let me remind you of Ninivah. The compassion of the Lord is very definately revealed. If there is no penalty for the wicked then unrighteousness will reign. The biggest problem with teens today is that they do not respect, they do not fear, they do not trust the LAW. Go about your spooky spiritual beliefs then go and attempt to minister to those that live on the street. When a broken man (and contrary to Eldon's declaration of man not being broken) comes to you and reaches for guidance and love...what are you going to give. Jesus made it very simple, cloth, feed and then present the Gospel. I have had the oportunity to minister to the youth of this day, and they are an unruley, unwanted, hopeless generation. Where will there help come from? Its a karmatic condition. They deserve to be cocaine babies...they earned it. They deserve having to be kids who take care of kids, who take care of there parents, who take care of themselves. I guess in a past life they must not have cared. Wake up! The sea of humanity does not share these grand illusions of the spiritual. I'll bet 99% of those that follow theosophy are well educated, well nourished, and far above the poverty line. Ok maybe you go to the soup kitchen now and then, but what words can you pass to the less fortunate that will save them? What do you say to a young man that carries a firearm, a 100 dollar bill, a 40bag of cocaine and no boundaries. Lawlessness rules his heart. This young man believes that his life expectancy is around 20yrs. And killing you for the cloak you wear would not even cause a memory in him a week later unless the cloak you wore had an unfound tear. Would you even place yourself within earshot of him. Westcoast? (What does west coast mean? Clue:It is not a place) The Gospel of Mark: Those that save their own life will lose it, but those that lose there life for Jesus Christ will gain it. The same God of the OT, that declared the Law to Moses is the same God that loved the World so much that He gave His ONLY Son, that to whoever would believe in Him would not perish but have everlasting life. I have 4 kids. I would not allow anyone of my children to be a sacrifice for you. Yet that is exactly what God did. Yea right...God is incompassionate. If I could only be half as incompassionate. >We may question your mental-image of the spiritual, where you >call it "God" and give it your own description. It is the same >divine life to be found in the hearts of all beings. We see and >recognize it everywhere. You refuse to look on the face of "God" >except when it appears behind a mask of your own choice. I'd >suggest that your approach is the one in defiance of the divine, >refusing to honor it when it appears before you in life. > The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom. I know that God is not mocked. I know that for whatever a man sows he will also reap. What comes around goes around. >The above is not intended to be in any way disrespectful of >your own deeply-felt religious experiences, but only to comment >on the words you use to describe things, words that act as blinders >keeping you unaware of the universality of the spiritual. If you >take literally those words and worship them instead of the living >presence of the divine itself, you have made for yourself graven >images and are doing worship to them! > >-- Eldon No disrepect taken. God is Spirit...and those that worship HIM, must worship HIM in spirit and TRUTH. Daniel Street Walker & Talker for Jesus. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Sep 1995 02:03:47 GMT From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Introduction / Comments Subject: Introduction / Comments Thom Nelson: > I've been lurking here for what seems like months, since before the system > crashed. At times things have been slow, but lately I've really been > enjoying the conversations here. > .... > Anyway, just wanted to say hello and a "bit" about myself (more like 4746 > bytes so far). Welcome, Thom! Look forward to hearing more from you. Murray Stentiford murray@sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Sep 1995 02:27:30 GMT From: dhedrick@csn.net Subject: Re: The END >Daniel, > >Who's throwing the Bible away. It's 1 of the sacred books of >the world. All we are saying is that there's more than 1 way to >interpret what it says in the Bible. Each one can interpret it >to suit their own thinking, but who knows which way is really >right? > >I'd like you to explain Matthew 24:5 to me ... your way ... if >you would, please. It is totally unacceptable to think that we can interpret to suit our own thinking. I think backwards...so while we drive on the highway at 55 we are both interpreting just fine...but when I see a sign... Speed Limit 15mph...I rev my engine to a cool 51. I told the policeman I thought it said 51. and as to Matthew 24:5 I guess I should start with verse 4. JESUS answered "Take heed that no one deceives you" So that We would not be deceived he makes several declarations so that we will have a solid backdrop for what the future holds. So that you will not be deceived. OK. So some OBJECTIVE truth follows. Which means that regardless of our suit...the truth will remain. vs 5 For many will come in My name, saying "I am the Christ and will deceive many" Has this happened? Has anyone declared that they can become or are Christ? vs9 Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you and you will be hated by all nations for MY name's sake. And I thought UPS meant United Peace Society. Don't worry though this only applies to those that believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior. v14 Power scripture. And the gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come. The internet, satellite communication, translators... v15 "abomination of desolation" The false-prophet & anti-christ will declare in the, as of this moment unbuilt temple "That he is to be worshipped" He will bring peace to the World, he will be healed from wounds that caused him to lose his right arm and his right eye. v21 For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world... There will those on this list that will become members of the elect and will endure to the end, your choice to follow Jesus will not come until after you recognize that those that believed on the Lord Jesus are now suddenly gone. Hopefully along with the other prophetic declarations such as the Mark, the re-building of the temple you will finally lay your own spirituality on the cross. v25 See, I have told you BEFOREhand. So you will not be decieved!!! v35 Heaven and Earth will pass away, but MY words will by no means pass away. It is what it is. No symbolism whatsoever. v37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. v39 And did not know until the flood came... Interestingly enough Noah was building the Ark for 100 yrs in a place where no rain had ever rained. There was not a large body of water near either. Every carved piece of wood SCREAMS of the eventual judgement of God. v40 Two men will be working in the field (or posting on the internet) : one will be left the other taken. You stay...I go. v51 ..there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. The greek indicates that the gnashing is so hard that the teeth will crumble. Ouch that hurts. Romans 10:9 If you will confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord and believe with your heart that God rose Him from the dead YOU will be saved. Daniel Enjoying a little rapture practice. Lifting Holy hands to worship Him. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Sep 1995 02:36:53 GMT From: dhedrick@csn.net Subject: It is so inconvenient... >Daniel, > >Who's throwing the Bible away. It's 1 of the sacred books of >the world. All we are saying is that there's more than 1 way to >interpret what it says in the Bible. Each one can interpret it >to suit their own thinking, but who knows which way is really >right? > >I'd like you to explain Matthew 24:5 to me ... your way ... if >you would, please. It is totally unacceptable to think that we can interpret to suit our own thinking. I think backwards...so while we drive on the highway at 55 we are both interpreting just fine...but when I see a sign... Speed Limit 15mph...I rev my engine to a cool 51. I told the policeman I thought it said 51. and as to Matthew 24:5 I guess I should start with verse 4. JESUS answered "Take heed that no one deceives you" So that We would not be deceived he makes several declarations so that we will have a solid backdrop for what the future holds. So that you will not be deceived. OK. So some OBJECTIVE truth follows. Which means that regardless of our suit...the truth will remain. vs 5 For many will come in My name, saying "I am the Christ and will deceive many" Has this happened? Has anyone declared that they can become or are Christ? vs9 Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you and you will be hated by all nations for MY name's sake. And I thought UPS meant United Peace Society. Don't worry though this only applies to those that believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior. v14 Power scripture. And the gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come. The internet, satellite communication, translators... v15 "abomination of desolation" The false-prophet & anti-christ will declare in the, as of this moment unbuilt temple "That he is to be worshipped" He will bring peace to the World, he will be healed from wounds that caused him to lose his right arm and his right eye. v21 For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world... There will those on this list that will become members of the elect and will endure to the end, your choice to follow Jesus will not come until after you recognize that those that believed on the Lord Jesus are now suddenly gone. Hopefully along with the other prophetic declarations such as the Mark, the re-building of the temple you will finally lay your own spirituality on the cross. v25 See, I have told you BEFOREhand. So you will not be decieved!!! v35 Heaven and Earth will pass away, but MY words will by no means pass away. It is what it is. No symbolism whatsoever. v37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. v39 And did not know until the flood came... Interestingly enough Noah was building the Ark for 100 yrs in a place where no rain had ever rained. There was not a large body of water near either. Every carved piece of wood SCREAMS of the eventual judgement of God. v40 Two men will be working in the field (or posting on the internet) : one will be left the other taken. You stay...I go. v51 .there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. The greek indicates that the gnashing is so hard that the teeth will crumble. Ouch that hurts. Romans 10:9 If you will confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord and believe with your heart that God rose Him from the dead YOU will be saved. Daniel Enjoying a little rapture practice. Lifting Holy hands to worship Him. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Sep 1995 02:40:42 GMT From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: JRC to Eldon: Inner Abilities JRC: > ... most of the people holding > that alternative set of attitudes will simply keep their mouths > - feeling (as I have off and on in the last week or two) that it > it just isn't worth it. PLEASE continue. Be encouraged. I appreciated your latest post a great deal, as also the others of yours on this theme. >From a semi-intellectual, semi-feeling, semi-intuitive (yes I know that's 3 halves) type whose aura is glowing a good bit more now than before he read it. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Sep 1995 02:52:07 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: Where the rubber meets the road. >The biggest problem with teens today is that they do not respect, >they do not fear, they do not trust the LAW. Daniel, Tuesday night our neighborhood held a community meeting at one of the local schools where a mother and father who had founded an organization called MARC came to speak to the "block captains." MARC stands for Mad Against Rising Crime and it was begun as a protest sometime after the couple's son lost his life to a gang-related shooting. She has since studied the gangs, their behavior, and their whereabouts in the city. The husband and wife presented their findings by slide show and "show and tell," and were asking for any interested neighbors to join them by forming MARC local groups who could either 1) do public speaking on the issue or 2) promote greater awareness of the need in their area for citizen support. Is this the kind of information you are seeking here? Wouldn't it be better and easier just to read a newspaper? Why choose theosophists to hear this tale of woe? There's a great bond within the Christian community to provide this type of charity, with greater funds, and greater manpower to produce change. We're only 5000 in this country and while social service is one of the areas which our Theosophical Order of Service does encourage active work in, it isn't a very feasible growth activity for "writers" and "students" who are participating on the Internet. I don't feel that it is necessary to share every detail of my life with people who participate here, just perhaps what I am studying and learning or thinking. >Wake up! The sea of humanity does not share these grand >illusions of the spiritual. I'll bet 99% of those that follow >theosophy are well educated, well nourished, and far above >the poverty line. What is the percent of impoverished in the U.S.? Isn't it close to 15%? I'm sorry, I have to plead ignorance here. A great heart is one that feels the suffering of his fellow man and does everything within his power to "wipe the tear from the sufferer's eye." Suffering does not end when poverty ends and we are fed and clothed. Suffering takes place in greater than 99% of the people on earth unfortunately. We say it is the human condition, but by promoting a "unified" and "holistic" way of living, perhaps we can lift a little of the world's karma on a one-on-one basis. I wouldn't try to restrict this one-on-one to the world's impoverished as other's have apparent need as well. Any skills which can be acquired by dealing with my neighbor, for instance, have a far greater range of application by the force of sheer numbers, than what I might be able to learn and apply to the homeless, lost, wanderer on the street. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Sep 1995 03:11:02 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: The END I don't think that everyone should interpret the Bible for themselves. I think we should listen to the opinions of others and determine for ourselves who might be speaking from a vantage point. If you hear an opinion from someone you respect, you might be more likely to accept their view as your own in hopes that in other ways you could grow more like this person, too. >and as to Matthew 24:5 > >I guess I should start with verse 4. >JESUS answered "Take heed that no one deceives you" A man currently living in Great Britain has taken excerpts of all he could find of HPB's commentaries on the New Testament. His name is Spierenburg and his book is called THE NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARIES OF H.P. BLAVATSKY. I read this book and when I looked to see if she had commented upon Matthew 24 she had. She calls this portion "The Eschatological Discourse." Alongside of Matthew verses she places Mark 13:3-8 and Luke 21:7-11 (or let's see, I guess this is Spierenburg's doing) then Mark 13:13-23 and Luke 21:17-24 and Luke 17:37. The New Revised Standard Version says 23-27: Then if any one says to you "Lo, here is the Christ!" or "There he is!" do not believe it... So, if they say to you, "Lo, he is in the winderness", do not go out; if they say, "Lo, he is in the inner rooms", do not believe it. For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of man." My own interpretation of this makes me think Christ will return as a presence evident in all of life. Don't look for him to occupy one space, but all space. HPB says "Two things become evident to all in the above passages, now that their false rendering is corrected in the revision text: a) 'the coming of Christ', means the presence of CHRISTOS in a regenerated world, and not at all the actual coming in body of 'Christ' Jesus; b) this Christ is to be sought neither in the wilderness nor 'in the inner chambers', nor in the sanctuary of any temple or church built by man; for Christ - the true esoteric SAVIOUR - is no man, but the Divine Principle in every human being. He who strives to resurrect the Spirit crucified in him by his own terrestrial passions, and buried deep in the 'sepulchre' of his sinful flesh; he who has the strength to roll back the stone of matter from the door of his own inner sanctuary, he has the risen Christ in him. The 'Son of Man' is no child of the bond-woman - flesh, but verily of the free-woman - Spirit, the child of man's own deeds, and the fruit of his own spiritual labour." >From this passage I might say that perhaps you are looking for Christ in the "wilderness" and perhaps that other people here are looking for Christ in "the inner chambers." Both of these methods are to be avoided. What HPB and Matthew are hoping is that each one of us begin the pilgrimmage to control sin and matter (or body) and by crucifying the lower passions, perform loving deeds which is another side to what you are proposing. Loving deeds being the reaching out to the destitute on the street. This is also spiritual labor in my mind, but too often what you propose falls on deaf ears because the gap between you and that man on the street is too large. Isn't it more sensible that the third and fourth graders share their experiences in a meaningful way than to expect the college student to assess and rectify the position of the infant? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Sep 1995 05:00:18 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: RE: Living the myth Art wrote: >Art: That reminds me of what happened to Christians when the Nag >Hammadi and the Gnostic gospels were found. Most of us would >have said before this find,"Boy I wish we could have access to >some primary documents closer to the events in the life of >Jesus. We got them and they said things that burned many >orthodox opinions. This is especially true of material like the >Gospel of Thomas which advocates that salvation is about a >change of consciousness. (See Stephan Hoeller. Jung and the Lost >Gospels. Quest. 1989.) > >So much for wanting historical authenticity it screws up our >myths too much. We want the historical evidence when it confirms >our mythology but if it contradicts it well you know what >happens. > >Living the Myth > >Art You have such a wonderful way of summarizing into a few words an entire dynamic. When I was studying Theosophy with my teacher from 1963-1980, she used to often compare the Modern Theosophical Movement with Christianity (her expertise was in the history and teachings of the Greek Orthodox Church). She would often comment that the failure of Christianity took three hundred years to achieve, while the Theosophical Society failed in less than thirty. HPB always made a distinction between ultimate Truth and personal truths (See her article "What is Truth?"). Ultimate truth is a Platonic concept that our post-modern philosophers have now put into question. It is an unchanging immortal reality that Blavatsky says is beyond normal human perception to realize. Personal truths, on the other hand are all of the others that we have left over. Some truths may be grander than others, but all are less grand than ultimate Truth, and are always subject to change. So perhaps the failure of the Modern Theosophical Movement, Christianity, and every religious movement within recorded history, lies in the shortcoming of the followers to recognize the relativity of the truths within their own system of belief. If Jesus, Moses, the Buddha, Krishna, or even Blavatsky glimpsed ultimate Truth, are we so naive to think that they could have put this understanding into words?--that such a reality could be reduced to the printed word in the Bible; the Rig Veda; or the Secret Doctrine? Blavatsky never claimed to do any more than point in a direction--the rest was up to us. Whether or not Jesus really uttered the words "I am the way the truth and the life", I would question how such a thing would be possible without some kind of alchemical merger into the body of Christ as symbolized in the Mass. For me this only makes sense if we are taking about the Christos, which is not a historical person, but what we call in theosophical parlance, the Higher Self, or Atma- Buddhi (See "The Esoteric Character of the Gospels). Such a concept--that the Truth, i.e. the Christos is within us, is for me utterly profound. Yet the idea of a historical figure, whether it be Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, or the Masters being able to lift us to some superior spiritual position simply through our belief in this person and/or their doctrines is (IMHO) one of the most destructive myths that humanity clings to. It is the background myth that made the Inquisitions of the middle ages and its resulting human misery possible. But the Church does not have an exclusive monopoly to this kind of destructive behavior. Every religion embraces those loyal to its orthodoxy and distinguishes itself from those who do not hold the proper beliefs. Even the relatively insignificant Theosophical Society, participates in this pathology through the routine marginalization of those who march to a different drummer. Such behavior is even exhibited on this net. Therefore, concerning the discussions between the Christian and Theosophical camps of belief, I would say, let the pox fall upon both of their houses. It is simply one orthodoxy fencing (pun intended) against another. All of these little truths that we find in Christianity and Theosophy are wonderful only when they are used to guide us towards greater truths, but when we mistake them for Truth itself, we have automatically assumed a spiritual arrogance that insulates us from the discovery of any greater truths and separates us from our fellow humanity. There has been much talk that the reason it has taken so many years for Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi Library to become available to the public had to do with concerns that these documents might reveal some truth that would threaten the Christian orthodoxy. As typically happens in most shady dealings, there is a lot of a** covering, and what is really going on remains obscured under the ferment of accusations and counter accusations. But whatever the reasons, we finally have the Nag Hammadi Library after twenty five or thirty years. Now, fifty years later, the light has appeared at the end of the tunnel for all of the Dead Sea Scrolls to be published. These documents have created an industry of books, some claiming that they confirm orthodox Christianity, while others claim that they tell a very different story. Some of these books represent genuine scholarship, while others are apologies designed to shore up the faith. Are we to expect a different story for theosophy when (or if) the historical documents concerning the history of the modern TM finally become available to the public? We will have the Scholars and the apologist writers working diligently to produce what their respective audiences want to hear. For those of us who are aspiring to be theosophists, I think we need to take another look at the phrase H.N. Stokes (Editor of the infamous O.E. Library Critic) coined back in 1918: "...Back to Blavatsky." It is a phase that has been misunderstood from the day that it was published, and even today is used as a pejorative by "theosophists" against "theosophists" who primarily study Blavatsky's writings. Stokes was not advocating the dumping of every piece of theosophical literature since Blavatsky, nor was he advocating the canonizing of Blavatsky's writings into some kind of holy scripture. He was advocating that we move away from the present (i.e. of 1918, but vestiges of it remain today) atmosphere of revelations from the Masters through their mouth pieces, and go back to the days of Blavatsky when the study of theosophy was an exercise in the pursuance of Truth, not the revelation of Truth itself. And the Myth lives on.... Peace Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Sep 1995 05:51:23 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Globes!?!?! Rich: >>The globes are the "places" where existence can happen. They >>are situated on different planes. When we come into >incarnation, >>fully clothed in our seven principles, on a particular plane, it >>is on one of them. >If so, why are all 6 of the "higher" globes on 3 planes? Purucker draws a correspondance between the twelve globes and the lokas and talas. There is a globe on the highest plane, pairs of globes on the five intermediate planes, and a single globe on the bottom plane. On the highest and lowest planes the lokas and talas act in concert and we have singular globes, making twelve rather than fourteen. On the downward arc, we pass through the downward-looking globes, corresponding to the talas. On the upward arc, we pass through the upward-looking globes, the lokas. The seven globes of HPB are the bottom-most ones, on the four planes of form. The higher five are on the formless realms, on the three highest planes. A plane is not so much a place as it is a state of being, and each of the globes is a center of conscousness in the Earth in the different states that are possible. >I agree with you that the globes are "on" planes or matter, but all 7 globes >are on the FOUR lower planes. Agreed. >This seems to me to be describing principles >"on" planes rather than the planes themselves, and they are DIRECTLY parallel >to the human principles. It describes, from my viewpoint, centers of consciousness on planes, rather than the planes themselves, and I try to make a distinction between centers of conscousness and the various principles, of which each center has its own set of. >Still, I acknowledge that a lot about the globes is misty to me, I need a lot >more study and pondering. It's a useful "koan" to work on. As we continue to think about it, we end up exploring many of the theosophical teachings, and having a good time. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Sep 1995 06:18:39 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: A. Bailey & World Government Paul: >> I don't think, though, that they have any interest in governing us, >> since we're at an entirely different phase in our development, and >> need different social orders than would be appropriate among them. >What do you mean by "entirely different?" How do you know? We're working on the kama principle, as Fourth Rounders, and have yet to undertake substantial work on our true humanness, the manasic principle, for some time to come. As Fifth Rounders, they have undergone and become capable of experiences that are not afforded to us at our stage of development. >> There's also the basic question: What do the Masters do with their time? >> Some effort is made in keeping the human lifewave from getting derailed >> in its evolution, in protecting us from disaster. More effort is made >> to nurture our spiritual inclinations, and to foster the spiritual >> awakening of as many of us as can be ripened early in the season. >How do you think these things are done? On what do you base >the above description? >From my studies, enhanced by my own thinking. I don't personally know one. >Somehow I get the impression that you >see them as all wafting occult vibes around rather than getting >involved in the nitty gritty of societal and personal transformation. The work of protecting us against disaster is usually termed the "Guardian Wall". Efforts like the Theosophical Society are attempts to awaken as many of us that are ripe for something more, when speaking of the deeper Teachings, and are aimed at a general nurturing of humanity in a more general sense. Would you say that putting the right thought in someone's mind is any less real than showing up in person to argue before a legislature for some particular law? Are things without apparent physical means untrue and not really working in life, until proven? >Adepts may have a global vision, but don't you think they act locally? Certainly I'd agree with you. >> A third area of work which we've been told about is that they maintain >> the equalivant of a spiritual university, where they study and preserve >> the wisdom of mankind. This wisdom is learned and passed on from >> generation to generation *as a living tradition*, something that is >> taught and trained, rather than something that is simply read, since >> it cannot be put down in written words. >Is this on planet earth? Where have you seen it described? >This is unfamiliar to me. There's the idea of Shambala. And the Tower of Infinite Thought. And the passage in The Secret Doctrine talking about how from one generation of Adepts to the next, their wisdom is tested and reproven by personal experience. This organized effort for learning and perserving wisdom could reasonably be called a "spiritual university" even if we cannot identify a physical campus, with classrooms and labs. >I'm aware of HPB's comments about >adepts scattered around the world, doing what they can to >facilitate evolution. That all these adepts around the world >somehow maintain a university strikes me as another serious >literalization of a spiritual meaning. Perhaps I should be more careful in wording the idea so that it is not interpreted too literally. >> I suspect that there's a fourth area of activity, although I don't >> recall seeing it written about in our source literature. This is one >> of "highly-advanced creativity." That is, they too can be artists, >> poets, philosophers, musicians -- anything at all that is creative! >> And with heightened faculties and ability to express the deeply >> divine, most may feel compelled to do their best to give the fullest >> expression to it. Why don't we see it? They are not doing it for >> public presentations to humanity, since we would be unable to >> comprehend much of it. >What's your basis for this conclusion? Starting off with "I suspect," I'm expressing the idea that follows as my own, based upon what I've studied and thought about. Given that the Masters are engaged in an on-going activity of learning, study, and the passing on of knowledge from one generation to the next, we'd expect that their "knowledge" includes all the creative endeavors, and not simply metaphysical truths. And there's certainly nothing wrong with assuming that however hard it may be for them, it is yet fun, creative, and fulfilling to them. A study of the deepest that they know would necessarily be something that is kept among themselves, since it would go far beyond anything that they could share with the common man. > It's just that they feel the same hunger as >> any of us, a hunger to give deeper, fuller, richer expression to >> the inexpressible. >Eldon, somehow you give me the impression of talking as if you >are basing your descriptions of adepts on personal knowledge. Not personal knowledge from meeting them and their telling me these things. >Aren't all your generalizations in fact based on a deductive >process using postulates from Theosophical literature, rather >than an inductive process based on observing real adepts? My approach is based upon the theosophical literature, and upon my attempt to take it further, in my own understanding, subject, of course, to corrections from better ideas or further studies of the source literature leading me to rethink these things. >Does it not therefore seem highly likely that it is too neat, too >oriented to categorizing and labelling, too focused on "higher" >and "lower" levels-- i.e. elitist? I see no difference in what I've said about the Masters than were I to talk about a graduate college student studying deeper things in *his* classroom than he talks about, when working as a teaching aid in a grade school. It is not elitist to talk about stages of development and attempt to understand what lies ahead for us. I'd rather find it a helpful thing to do. >Deductive processes without a trace of inductive input tend to run that way. It's possible to get "too neat" theory from either approach, one that becomes dogmatic, rigid, crystallized, and with no room for growth and expansion. This is precisely why I cannot accept the Jungian typology, for instance; it is too neat, too rigid, too complete, too much of appearing to be a final answer. >This is relevant to me because in a recent post you commented >that the Master nominees in my book are far below the ideal >Theosophists hold of Masters, lacking the requisite qualities, etc. There is a difference in where we might place the Masters on the evolutionary scale between the depiction in your books and in typical theosophical textbooks. So there may be a disagreement with where to place them on the scale, but perhaps not a disagreement on the existence of the scale itself, and the ability of some to race ahead in their spiritual evolution. I won't deny that there are many failings and human limitations to the Masters, *as we know them as Globe D men of flesh and blood.* But there is also something more to them than apparent in the human personality that most of us see, something that goes far beyond! >This reminds me of the old Groucho line, "I wouldn't want >to belong to any club that would accept someone like me as a >member." In the orthodox Theosophical version, "I wouldn't >accept anyone as a genuine Master who appeared to be a normal >human being." No, they would generally *appear* as normal human beings, and even function as such, at least part of the time. >In fact, as HPB and the MLs make clear, they all >DO appear to be normal human beings to those around them. Agreed. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Sep 1995 07:29:07 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: A. Bailey & World Government According to Eldon B. Tucker: > > I don't think, though, that they have any interest in governing us, > since we're at an entirely different phase in our development, and > need different social orders than would be appropriate among them. What do you mean by "entirely different?" How do you know? > > There's also the basic question: What do the Masters do with their time? > Some effort is made in keeping the human lifewave from getting derailed > in its evolution, in protecting us from disaster. More effort is made > to nurture our spiritual inclinations, and to foster the spiritual > awakening of as many of us as can be ripened early in the season. How do you think these things are done? On what do you base the above description? Somehow I get the impression that you see them as all wafting occult vibes around rather than getting involved in the nitty gritty of societal and personal transformation. Adepts may have a global vision, but don't you think they act locally? > > A third area of work which we've been told about is that they maintain > the equalivant of a spiritual university, where they study and preserve > the wisdom of mankind. This wisdom is learned and passed on from > generation to generation *as a living tradition*, something that is > taught and trained, rather than something that is simply read, since > it cannot be put down in written words. Is this on planet earth? Where have you seen it described? This is unfamiliar to me. I'm aware of HPB's comments about adepts scattered around the world, doing what they can to facilitate evolution. That all these adepts around the world somehow maintain a university strikes me as another serious literalization of a spiritual meaning. > > I suspect that there's a fourth area of activity, although I don't > recall seeing it written about in our source literature. This is one > of "highly-advanced creativity." That is, they too can be artists, > poets, philosophers, musicians -- anything at all that is creative! > And with heightened faculties and ability to express the deeply > divine, most may feel compelled to do their best to give the fullest > expression to it. Why don't we see it? They are not doing it for > public presentations to humanity, since we would be unable to > comprehend much of it. What's your basis for this conclusion? It's just that they feel the same hunger as > any of us, a hunger to give deeper, fuller, richer expression to > the inexpressible. Eldon, somehow you give me the impression of talking as if you are basing your descriptions of adepts on personal knowledge. Aren't all your generalizations in fact based on a deductive process using postulates from Theosophical literature, rather than an inductive process based on observing real adepts? Does it not therefore seem highly likely that it is too neat, too oriented to categorizing and labelling, too focused on "higher" and "lower" levels-- i.e. elitist? Deductive processes without a trace of inductive input tend to run that way. This is relevant to me because in a recent post you commented that the Master nominees in my book are far below the ideal Theosophists hold of Masters, lacking the requisite qualities, etc. This reminds me of the old Groucho line, "I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would accept someone like me as a member." In the orthodox Theosophical version, "I wouldn't accept anyone as a genuine Master who appeared to be a normal human being." In fact, as HPB and the MLs make clear, they all DO appear to be normal human beings to those around them. Namaste Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Sep 1995 08:25:40 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: The END >Karma is not something that comes to you from outside. It is the results >of your past and present actions. It represents the fruit of your >self-initiative. Eldon, Karma is not just something we've done!!! It is a direction to our soul lives. Like behavior modification, what we haven't learned successfully has to be relearned. A soul that has no direction can't be determined to be fulfilling its self-initiative. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Sep 1995 09:30:00 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: The END Brenda: >>Eldon: >>Karma is not something that comes to you from outside. It is the results >>of your past and present actions. It represents the fruit of your >>self-initiative. >Karma is not just something we've done!!! Yes. From a lower point of view, that of having a personal, fixed self, apart from others, it is something we do. From a higher standpoint of not being separate from anything else in life, it is *our living connections* with others. And from yet a higher standpoint, *there are no others*, just unity, and it is the content of our consciousness. >It is a direction to our soul lives. True. From a deep part of ourselves, we *cause* the events around us. They are the exteriorizations of our conscousness. We bring about the circumstances of our lives through selectively activating protions of our storehouse of karma. >Like behavior modification, what we haven't learned successfully has >to be relearned. >From one viewpoint, karma could be considered as learning. But what we are learning is not an externally-planned lesson. We are learning about life by doing it. We interact with others, and both they and we are changed. That change "lives" in the karmic link between them and us. >A soul that has no direction can't be determined to be >fulfilling its self-initiative. Yes, our focus of consciousness should be deep within, where the motivating factor is from the spiritual, rather than the desires and passing fancies of the corruptible personality. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Sep 1995 09:36:48 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: True Progress Thom-- I agree with you that William Q. Judge mostly holds to HPB's mission, but in many articles, like his series of 12 "Converstations on Occultism," he gives out a lot more on elementals and a few other topics. Reading his entire body of literature is not only, as you seem to suggest, helpful for the student to discern the true lines laid down, but it also adds a lot of detail to the broad outlines (some have said too broad) with HPB laid down. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Sep 1995 09:53:15 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: True Progress JRC: It is hard for me to read your latest round of posts, because I have been told a number of times by encouraging members of this board to watch my tone. I don't see others making similar efforts: JEC: > Thus it often happens when abilities are force-developed: >only the crudest of layers are available. But just because one >always turns one's radio to the polka station doesn't mean polkas >are *all* the radio can receive. (And, doncha just love >"teachers" that say things like "Beware the illusions of matter"? >How very profound!) Perhaps you aren't familiar with William Q. Judge. He was a founder of the T.S., and the principal Messenger of the Masters in America for many years. He was not a casual student, nor a little dabbler in occultism and the astral, but spent 13 years earning chelaship, and went on to become the single greatest force for Theosophy in America. You need not like him or respect him, you may point out his "errors" and consider that he was unconcious of his motives, etc. But it may help to be aware that your dismissive tone makes you difficult to read, and your emotional sniping at a student of the Masters makes you difficult to take seriously. He trained with the Masters and is teaching "source Theosophy." If you are so upset about what he says, it may be worthwile to consider what kind of Theosophy you are a student of? I would merely throw in my own comment, that blinded by ONE aspect of the teaching (be it globes or psychic development or whatever) we may miss the greater picture, and end up drawing a caricature of those who came to teach us. Mr. Judge did not "force" his psychic development, he was following a program of development of the Mahatmas (according to his statements-- perhaps he lied or was deluded). Under that program, apparently, one is left alone most of the time to find one's own way. It is also easier to understand, given the current climate on this board, why Mr. Judge was so viciously and mercilessly attacked by many second-generation Theosophists during his life, because he stuck to HPB's lines, which the others WOULD NOT. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Sep 1995 10:08:37 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Globes!?!?! Eldon: >The globes are the "places" where existence can happen. They >are situated on different planes. When we come into >incarnation, >fully clothed in our seven principles, on a particular plane, it >is on one of them. If so, why are all 6 of the "higher" globes on 3 planes? I agree with you that the globes are "on" planes or matter, but all 7 globes are on the FOUR lower planes. This seems to me to be describing principles "on" planes rather than the planes themselves, and they are DIRECTLY parallel to the human principles. Still, I acknowledge that a lot about the globes is misty to me, I need a lot more study and pondering. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Sep 1995 10:09:56 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: The END Eldon writes: >Yes. From a lower point of view, that of having a personal, fixed self, >apart from others, it is something we do. From a higher standpoint of not >being separate from anything else in life, it is *our living connections* >with others. And from yet a higher standpoint, *there are no others*, just >unity, and it is the content of our consciousness. This still sounds like gibberish. Karma has to be expanded to mean more than the reaping of the fruit of our actions at some future date. An action is also more than a momentary impulse. We as a being HAVE to become an example of the LAW at work. We don't have any choice, but to grow in the Light of Ideals. >>It is a direction to our soul lives. > >True. From a deep part of ourselves, we *cause* the events around us. >They are the exteriorizations of our conscousness. We bring about the >circumstances of our lives through selectively activating protions of >our storehouse of karma. If the above is true, then how can you assert that the law isn't written to produce a binding between some souls that represents a surrendering of one's life to a greater good. >>Salvation is attained by one's own efforts, by one's own >>self-initiative, and any religious approach that takes away >>one's confidence in taking charge of his life and attaining >>it stands in opposition to the Good. No one else can save >>one, no external spiritual teacher or deity, despite the >>claims of some religious groups. Another person such as a teacher could make quite a big difference in how we choose to live, and this is the idea of salvation. Do you remember that "the wages of sin is death." and that Jesus saved us from "death." We aren't the "walking dead" because someone was able to get a message through to us that we have a higher self and that there is a path to living within its light. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Sep 1995 10:19:13 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: A. Bailey & World Government Paul wrote: "Is this on planet earth? Where have you seen it described? This is unfamiliar to me. I'm aware of HPB's comments about adepts scattered around the world, doing what they can to facilitate evolution. That all these adepts around the world somehow maintain a university strikes me as another serious literalization of a spiritual meaning." Paul, with all your research into Theosophy, are you telling me you've never heard of the School of the Adepts? You've never heard of Damodar being called away to train at the Master's ashram? HPB speaks often of there being various "branches" of this school in various countries -- she mentions Syria, South America, Tibet and others by name -- and that taken together, they are "the great brotherhood." She even describes the great "temple" structure she was taken to. Theosophy teaches that the Masters have an active, *living* tradition, with Hierophants, chelas of all grades, and trainees or *lay chelas*. This has all been spoken of often, and in some detail. If you choose to take it as myth, great. But HPB seems to have taken it in deadly earnest. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Sep 1995 10:42:51 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Daniel-social reform and HPB on Matthew I don't think that everyone should interpret the Bible for themselves. I think we should listen to the opinions of others and determine for ourselves who might be speaking from a vantage point. If you hear an opinion from someone you respect, you might be more likely to accept their view as your own in hopes that in other ways you could grow more like this person, too. >and as to Matthew 24:5 > >I guess I should start with verse 4. >JESUS answered "Take heed that no one deceives you" A man currently living in Great Britain has taken excerpts of all he could find of HPB's commentaries on the New Testament. His name is Spierenburg and his book is called THE NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARIES OF H.P. BLAVATSKY. I read this book and when I looked to see if she had commented upon Matthew 24 she had. She calls this portion "The Eschatological Discourse." Alongside of Matthew verses she places Mark 13:3-8 and Luke 21:7-11 (or let's see, I guess this is Spierenburg's doing) then Mark 13:13-23 and Luke 21:17-24 and Luke 17:37. The New Revised Standard Version says 23-27: Then if any one says to you "Lo, here is the Christ!" or "There he is!" do not believe it... So, if they say to you, "Lo, he is in the winderness", do not go out; if they say, "Lo, he is in the inner rooms", do not believe it. For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of man." My own interpretation of this makes me think Christ will return as a presence evident in all of life. Don't look for him to occupy one space, but all space. HPB says "Two things become evident to all in the above passages, now that their false rendering is corrected in the revision text: a) 'the coming of Christ', means the presence of CHRISTOS in a regenerated world, and not at all the actual coming in body of 'Christ' Jesus; b) this Christ is to be sought neither in the wilderness nor 'in the inner chambers', nor in the sanctuary of any temple or church built by man; for Christ - the true esoteric SAVIOUR - is no man, but the Divine Principle in every human being. He who strives to resurrect the Spirit crucified in him by his own terrestrial passions, and buried deep in the 'sepulchre' of his sinful flesh; he who has the strength to roll back the stone of matter from the door of his own inner sanctuary, he has the risen Christ in him. The 'Son of Man' is no child of the bond-woman - flesh, but verily of the free-woman - Spirit, the child of man's own deeds, and the fruit of his own spiritual labour." >From this passage I might say that perhaps you are looking for Christ in the "wilderness" and perhaps that other people here are looking for Christ in "the inner chambers." Both of these methods are to be avoided. What HPB and Matthew are hoping is that each one of us begin the pilgrimmage to control sin and matter (or body) and by crucifying the lower passions, perform loving deeds which is another side to what you are proposing. Loving deeds being the reaching out to the destitute on the street. This is also spiritual labor in my mind, but too often what you propose falls on deaf ears because the gap between you and that man on the street is too large. Isn't it more sensible that the third and fourth graders share their experiences in a meaningful way than to expect the college student to assess and rectify the position of the infant? In another post Daniel wrote: >The biggest problem with teens today is that they do not respect, >they do not fear, they do not trust the LAW. Daniel, Tuesday night our neighborhood held a community meeting at one of the local schools where a mother and father who had founded an organization called MARC came to speak to the "block captains." MARC stands for Mad Against Rising Crime and it was begun as a protest sometime after the couple's son lost his life to a gang-related shooting. She has since studied the gangs, their behavior, and their whereabouts in the city. The husband and wife presented their findings by slide show and "show and tell," and were asking for any interested neighbors to join them by forming MARC local groups who could either 1) do public speaking on the issue or 2) promote greater awareness of the need in their area for citizen support. Is this the kind of information you are seeking here? Wouldn't it be better and easier just to read a newspaper? Why choose theosophists to hear this tale of woe? There's a great bond within the Christian community to provide this type of charity, with greater funds, and greater manpower to produce change. We're only 5000 in this country and while social service is one of the areas which our Theosophical Order of Service does encourage active work in, it isn't a very feasible growth activity for "writers" and "students" who are participating on the Internet. I don't feel that it is necessary to share every detail of my life with people who participate here, just perhaps what I am studying and learning or thinking. >Wake up! The sea of humanity does not share these grand >illusions of the spiritual. I'll bet 99% of those that follow >theosophy are well educated, well nourished, and far above >the poverty line. What is the percent of impoverished in the U.S.? Isn't it close to 15%? I'm sorry, I have to plead ignorance here. A great heart is one that feels the suffering of his fellow man and does everything within his power to "wipe the tear from the sufferer's eye." Suffering does not end when poverty ends and we are fed and clothed. Suffering takes place in greater than 99% of the people on earth unfortunately. We say it is the human condition, but by promoting a "unified" and "holistic" way of living, perhaps we can lift a little of the world's karma on a one-on-one basis. I wouldn't try to restrict this one-on-one to the world's impoverished as other's have apparent need as well. Any skills which can be acquired by dealing with my neighbor, for instance, have a far greater range of application by the force of sheer numbers, than what I might be able to learn and apply to the homeless, lost, wanderer on the street. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Sep 1995 12:43:24 GMT From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: K.H. = E.O. Alan: Thank you! what an *exceedingly* interesting post ... and one that confirms an intuition I've had for years - that the balancing of the genders (and the principles behind them) is a significant spiritual process. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Sep 1995 12:45:43 GMT From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: JRC to Eldon: Inner Abilities Murray - Thanks ... and I ought to say that several people have posted me privately (including some that I've never heard speak a word of this list) - and were also encouraging. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Sep 1995 15:46:15 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: K.H. = E.O. Dear Alan, Aha! that's vedy interesting. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Sep 1995 16:06:16 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: JRC to Eldon: Inner Abilities One word about the 3rd Object Eldon "Are these powers of the spirit or of the lower siddhis?" Liesel - to me, your intepretation of "Unexplained phenomena &etc" is much too narrow. To me, the 3rd Object includes the study of fractiles, biofeedback, therapeutic touch, strange attractors, black holes, neutrinos, healing with music, Jung, Assagioli, Kahuna healing, entropy, Darth Veder, near death experiences ... anything at the frontier of human knowledge worth looking into, because it might help, or just because I'm a curious human being, one of several millions. I'm fascinated by these things, even though sometimes I only understand part of what I'm reading about them. Doesn't that make more sense? Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Sep 1995 16:12:41 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Globes!?!?! Dear Eldon, Huh? Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Sep 1995 16:48:51 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Where the rubber meets the road. Daniel, Let me try to explain to you our belief in Karma. Karma is a very neutral law of nature. It's like if you bounce a ball against the sidewalk, it'll bounce back. If you act a certain way, Karma will react a certain way. It's up to you, up to all of humanity, to figure out how Karma works & to work with it, rather than against it. If the ball bounces back, you need to learn to catch it rather than let it hit you in the face. The penality for making an error is that the ball will hit you right smack dab in the face. No judgement, you did something, you get the consequences. Sometimes it looks like the unrighteous *do* reign. Our belief in reicarnation includes that if your wrongdoing doesn't catch up with you this life, it will next life. But on the other hand, what you've done well accrues to you too. You reap what you sew. Daniel "When a broken man comes to you.... clothe, feed & then present the Gospel". A broken man needs clothes & food, & so he'll listen to what you have to say about the Gospel. He may even say "yes, yessuh, I'm an angel now." At the same time, do be careful because the minute you turn your back, he'll just as soon filch your wallet out of your hip pocket, & walk around the corner where the pusher is waiting to sell him the next fix. You're right, we Theosophists are a well educated, well nourished lot, but I for one spent most of my working life trying to help people below the poverty line. I've had my wallet disappear out of my desk, & my purse taken from me at the point of a knife held to my side, & I've had a drunk point a gun at me. I've also lent many a client enough money to get to the job, & I must say I got my money back 99% of the time. So don't tell me about the poor. The poor, most of all need some self respect. Jesse Jackson teaches kids to say "I am somebody." That's good. They need it. They also need a chance to make a living & that means a lot more vocational training. With a job to support themselves they'll have more self respect, & they'll be more amenable to having families when they can afford them, shooting each other less (they also need to learn how to get along with each other without resorting to fisticuffs, knives & guns right away), & maybe shooting up less as an escape, & going to jail less. The Gospel can help with all this, for sure, but I don't think most of them 'll take it seriously until their several hungers are taken care of at least partly. Some of them will come to you because they need the punitive discipline you offer. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Sep 1995 16:54:20 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Globes!?!?! Dear Rich, What you write makes more sense to me than what Eldon writes. But now I'll address the same question to you. Couldn't what early TS writers call "globes" be forcefields in more modern parlance? Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Sep 1995 17:28:30 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: The END Dear Daniel, As long as you say "It is totally unaceptable to say that we can interpret to suit our own thinking," we don't have much of a basis for a dialogue, because I believe that people must do their own thinking, & come to their own decisions. I don't find it very fruitful to just parrot a Truth that somebody else has told them is the Truth. I myself need to know first how the other person arrived at this great Truth. Is he (or she) other than a human being? Can he ( or she) perceive the entire Universe at a glance, & thus realize what Truth is? You might say that Jesus is able to do this, & I'll agree with you, but you're not Jesus ... only a human person using Jesus as a role model, trying to make Jesus' words come alive, as they're recorded in the NT. That brings me to my 2d point. Your role model is too bloodthirsty for me. He is peace, & but He also comes to destroy the earth, & the wicked, & is a figure to be feared. Why must He be so to you? I think of my role model as being kind, gentle, loving, healing, protective. Were I a follower of Jesus, I would see these qualities in Him, & I would try to imitate Him in these ways. The Jesus of the Bible had these qualities. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Sep 1995 17:33:30 GMT From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Messiah > Alan, > > No, at the end, the extra glass isn't quite so full. The kids > get grape juice, instead of wine, & when the grown ups are busy > doing something else, the kids sneak little sips from the > Eliahu's cup, or did you think the Eliahu came & partook of > some of the evaporated alcohol?. I've heard it said ..... and the family I shared with had no kids at that time ..... Alan :-) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Sep 1995 17:59:10 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: True Progress Dear Rich, Re your post about William Q. Judge, I need to make several comments. 1.) You write of him as having become "the single greatest force for Theosophy in America." That may be true from your ULT point of view, but I wish to state, especially for those new to this list, that Adyar considers several other Theosophists of Judge's generation to have also been great forces for Theosophy in America. I'm not going to name names here, because I'm trying to say this very peacefully. But I need to raise my voice. 2.) I'm glad to hear that somebody else was viciously attacked by their fellow Theosophists. I don't know a lot about Judge at this point, but from your post I think I should read him some to know what he stands for, & what he did. 3.) I'd like to suggest that all these attacks are over 100 years old, & that I really think the time has come to bridge these gaps, & heal up these wounds. I think our talking here on this post, all of us together, is one step in the right direction. I think we're well on the way to acomplishing some sort of harmony in diversity, of being able to dialogue without killing each other. I think our leaders are also heading in this direction, & I heartily approve. There aren't that many of us, & we have a very postive & dynamic outlook to offer. I think it would help the Theosophical movement if we could all move forward together, not forgetting our diferences, but still acting in concert. That's what hopefully will one day happen to the whole human race ... that out of all our differences will come one gigantic unified accord. Wouldn't it be nice if Theosophists could be one of the spearheads of accord? Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Sep 1995 06:24:38 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: Question 001 Mikhail Moiseikin, Welcome to the discussion group, and allow me to express my personal delight at having someone from the Kiev as a part of this group. I hope that we will be hearing from you often and that you will be telling us about yourself and about your theosophical activities in Russia. Regarding Roerich, I very much admire his work and have most of his and his wife's writings. We also have a copy of one of his paintings over the fireplace (a place of honor) in our living room. We have also visited the Roerich museum in New York, and we were completely absorbed and delighted over the magnificent subtleties of color in the originals. He had a way of creating contrasts of light and shadow that cannot be reproduced in a photograph. Concerning the development of Theosophy after Blavatsky's death, the story is rather complicated, and theosophy began to develop in several main directions. After Blavatsky's death in 1891, Henry Steel Olcott (the International President) remained influential in India, while Annie Besant was primarily important in Europe and William Quan Judge was the primary figure in the United States and Canada. In 1895, the American Section (United Sates and some European Lodges) became a separate Organization, beginning what people call "the Judge line." Many more theosophical Organizations came out of the Judge line. This original American section--now separate Organization still exists and has its headquarters in California, and is usually called the "Pasadena Theosophical Society." Godfried de Purucker (1875- 1942) is perhaps the most important theosophical writer from this movement. An important member of this organization was Boris Mihailovich de Zirkoff (1902-1981). He was the Grand Nephew of Blavatsky, and as far as he knew, her only surviving blood relative. His mother's was a von Hahn, as was Blavatsky's name at birth. Boris de Zirkoff was primarily responsible for collecting together Blavatsky's writings, which are now published in 15 volumes by the Adyar Theosophical Society. This was a fifty year labor for him. Sometimes we refer to the Pasadena Society that Boris was a member as the "Point Loma line", or "Point Loma Tradition" because they at one time had a community in Point Loma, near San Diego in California from 1897 until 1942. Another line that may interest you was begun in New York in 1897, called the "Hargrove line." An important member of this Organization was Charles Johnson, who married HPB's niece, Vera Zhelihovsky. Johnson was an orientalist, translated and commented many important Indian scriptures. This Organization disappeared around 1942. The United Lodge of Theosophist is another very important Organization coming out of the Judge tradition. They have remained very loyal to Blavatsky and Judge's original writings and have kept them available in their original forms. B.P. Wadia is an important figure that ultimately gained prominence through this line. He founded the U.L.T. in New York and Bombay India, published a Journal called ~The Theosophical Movement~ and a journal for world culture called ~The Aryan Path.~ Another theosophical Organization that began in New York in 1897, is called the "Halcyon Theosophical Society" An important person in this Organization was Francia LaDue, a clairvoyant who published several more Stanzas of Dzyan. Besides the Judge line, there is also what we call the Besant/Leadbeater line. Annie Besant and Charles Leadbeater were the two most important figures rising from the Adyar Society, published many books, and were very influential in this country concerning what Theosophy is understood to be by the general population. From this Besant/Leadbeater line several more Organizations broke away. Of note is the Arcane school founded by Alice and Foster Bailey around 1920. They are, by the way, as a whole, very sympathetic to Roerich and the Agni Yoga school. There is also the Anthroposophical Society founded around 1912 by Rudolf Steiner, which tried to develop theosophical philosophy into more practical lines. There are many more developments than those I have mentioned here, but I don't wish to make things more complicated. In a simplified graph form the developments might look like this: Theosophical Society (1875) [Adyar India founded by Blavatsky, Olcott, Judge] _________________________________________________________________ | Universal Brotherhood and TS (1897) | |--- T.S. (Hargrove) 1897-1942 | |--- Halcyon 1897-Pres. |-- Anthroposophical Society (1912 |--- U.L.T. (1909-pres) | -pres) | |--- Arcane School (1920-pres) | | | | | | | | (Long)---|---(Hartley) 1951 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |--- Yugoslavian T.S. (1984) | | | | | |--- Canadian T.S. (@ 1993) | | |--- Danish T.S. (@1993) | | (Present) (Present) Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Sep 1995 08:09:59 GMT From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: True Progress >JRC: >It is hard for me to read your latest round of posts, because I >have been told a number of times by encouraging members of this >board to watch my tone. I don't see others making similar >efforts: I haven't said a word about your style of communication, and this is the second time you have seen fit to critique mine. I invite you to delete my posts if you wish. But actually I got a good belly laugh out of your post. You, of all people are going to shake your finger at me about *tone*? Didn't one of your first posts contain the memorable sentiment `doesn't ANYBODY on this list understand the difference between the PSYCHIC and the NOETIC?' - this to a list containing people that have been studying, meditating upon and working for Theosophy for more years than you've been alive. >Perhaps you aren't familiar with William Q. Judge. He was a >founder of the T.S., and the principal Messenger of the Masters >in America for many years. "Principle Messenger" is questionable, and in fact has been vehemently debated for years. He may have been one of the main proponents of Theosophy ... but I'm not even sure if Theosophy was the principle vehicle for the interaction between the Masters and America - sure doesn't seem to be today. The Masters (IMO) seem to be interested in large scale service to humanity as a whole, and attempting to create movements that cause the elevation of whole populations ... not in tiny little cults whose inclusivity and range of resonance is so narrow that the barest fraction of one percent of the population even finds it vaugely relevant. >He was not a casual student, nor a little dabbler in occultism >and the astral, but spent 13 years earning chelaship, and went >on to become the single greatest force for Theosophy in America. According to the *article*, he dabbled for just a little bit with the "astral", and then decided to leave it alone. "Single greatest force for Theosophy in America" is most *definately* questionable. >You need not like him or respect him, you may point out his >"errors" and consider that he was unconcious of his motives, >etc. But it may help to be aware that your dismissive tone >makes you difficult to read, and your emotional sniping at a >student of the Masters makes you difficult to take seriously. Then please, do not take me seriously. I have been subject to "dismissive tones" from Theosophical "leaders" for years, been subject to traditionalists running things and talking down to anyone who sees things other than the way they do. Of all those on the list, your tone most closely resembles that of Daniel in the Lion's Den - an almost constant attitude that you know what Theosophy *really* is, and everyone else either agrees with you or is still waiting to see the light. The tone of my post about WQJ pales in comparison to your comments about CWL, for instance - You posted the WQJ article, apparently not just arbitrarily but as a statement meant to support a position you hold - and that you apparently believe is the *real and only correct* position to hold on the use of abilities. I had never read that particular WQJ article, and in it found a half-dozen major reasons why he had a bad experience, and also saw that he was willing to universalize that bad experience into a general warning to stay away from such things altogether. And the very stature you represent him as having means that his generalization could do damage to people to whom his experiences do *not* apply. You seemed to be using his article for a purpose of your own, and now you presume to castigate me for not holding what you have determined to be the appropriate amount of respect. I would prefer people made their own arguements. I have no desire to enter into a sort of quoting match in which we all go to "source" documents to make our points - as Theosophy contains even more source literature than Christianity - and we could all endlessly quote sources to back up our own positions ... but they are, finally, nothing but our own positions. >He trained with the Masters and is teaching "source Theosophy." >If you are so upset about what he says, it may be worthwile to >consider what kind of Theosophy you are a student of? I'm not upset about what he says, in fact I must admit I was chukling while writing the response ... but you seem to be upset that people are not simply bowing to your own point of view. Your definition of "source Theosophy" is nothing other than .. your definition. It has no authority in my world. And, by the way, you have a charming rhetorical style - in the middle a letter critisizing me for my "dismissive" tone, you actually manage to take a thoroughly demeaning shot. Why don't *you* tell me then, what kind of Theosophist *am* I? A *lesser* one than you? A *lower* one perhaps? Because I don't measure up to *your* standards of what Theosophy is? *I* never questioned the spiritual stature of WQJ, only the correctness of his ideas and the (IMO) substantial flaws in his methods of approach to the opening of inner senses. Nor have I questioned your stature - though I have a distinctly different view of Theosophy than you do. You, however, in a letter complaining about my tone, adopt a tone of almost utter condescension because I don't measure up to your standard of what real Theosophy is. I gave me a good giggle (I've been judged by so many people that the last thing I am concerned with is your evaluation of my own "kind" of Theosophy). But suggesting that because I'm not on my knees in front of WQJ I ought question what kind of Theosophy I am a student of - you have gone well over a line I've never seen *anyone* on this list cross: with all our battling, our vehemently held and vastly differing opinions and approaches, I have never seen one of us question the *Theosophy* of another. We battle often over our *ideas* about Theosophy - as I have been involved in a substantial discussion with Eldon recently - but the thought of ever even implying that because Eldon does not and will never agree with my approach he should therefore question whether his "kind" of Theosophy itself is valid, or is even Theosophy ... well such a thing would be unthinkable to myself or anyone else on this list. In fact my personal esteem for Eldon has risen enormously throughout the last discourse, precisely *because* his foundations are so different from mine, precisely *because* he argues his points so strongly and so well - and from the very core of his own thoughts rather than through the intermediary of quotations. I will never adopt his perspective (though I have learned from the discussion ... and perhaps he has as well) but I would never, because of our differences, question whether he was a Theosophist, or whether what he was doing was Theosophy - and in fact would never so with you either. That you would do this, in post in which you are not answering my critisisms of the WQJ article, but my tone, is extraordinary and even a little bizarre. >I would merely throw in my own comment, that blinded by ONE >aspect of the teaching (be it globes or psychic development or >whatever) we may miss the greater picture, and end up drawing a >caricature of those who came to teach us. Believe it or not, I am perhaps every bit as well read as you are, meditate with as much discipline and perseverance, and pursue the activation of far more than what you dismiss as "psychic" senses. In the current argument, I am emphasizing *one* aspect of Theosophy that I believe has a valid place in the totality of Theosophy, and has been systematically and institutionally suppressed, and has come to be spoken of in quite a condescending way by people uncomfortable with it. I have *never* argued that a study of the writings, "source" or otherwise, shouldn't be pursued; never held that meditation, moral development, the continual aspiration to widen and deepen one's service, and the attempt to bring intuitive faculties into full-blown operation are not all valid and necessary aspects of the Theosophical path - but I am not arguing those things here .. only that *in addition* something can be added that was a significant part of early Theosophical activity, and that is now being almost completely ignored. Nor did I "miss" the bigger picture of who WQJ is. I have read a good deal of him, and the article you posted is, IMO, one of the weaker things I've seen. *You* posted an article by him as part of *your* argument ... and I answered the article as my response to *you*. I was not commenting on the entire body of WQJ's writings in a discussion of WQJ, but on a specific article in a discussion of inner abilities. >Mr. Judge did not "force" his psychic development, he was >following a program of development of the Mahatmas (according to >his statements-- perhaps he lied or was deluded). Under that >program, apparently, one is left alone most of the time to find >one's own way. Simply because WQJ was a pupil by no means indicates he was free of mistakes. It is my own personal belief that souls incarnate with something like a specific set of parameters within which their growth and development may best occur - and that these parameters are very specific to the individual. I believe, because of observation and discussions with a good number of people over the years, that a whole host of inner abilities lie latent in the human constitution, and that these are selectively either suppressed or activiated according to the parameters chosen for that particular life. I believe it's probably not that good of an idea to attempt to artificially activate (as "occult" techniques can do) such things, because to do such is to use the conscious mind to override choices made by the higher aspects of being (a mistake his Masters allowed WQJ to make - and the resulting experience WQJ describes is *remarkably* similar to that of a number of people I've talked to who have tried the same thing). I also, however, think it equally in error, equally an attempt to override the soul's "programming", to ignore, degrade, or refuse to acknowledge and develop abilities that arise naturally as part of the soul's intent for a specific life. The problem I've been having is with people, and the TS as whole, voicing an attitude that believes there can be a "general rule" about inner abilities - and that the "general rule" is to avoid. It is *not* (IMO) an issue about which there can *be* a "general" rule. As wrong as it is for an individual to override the foundational parameters for the life set by the higher self - either in the direction of suppression or artificial activation - doubly arrogant and wrong it is for an "spiritual" movement to institutionalize a general rule about it. WQJ was *not* born with active abilities. He clearly tried to force them, was permitted by the Masters to make this mistake, and to form his own conclusions about it. HPB, on the other hand, seems to have been born with a good number of inner abilities, that she also, with the permission of the Masters, developed - and her experience is quite different ... they became abilities she used throughout her life and in the service of her cause. Who are *you*, or for that matter *any* currently living Theosophist, to determine what is appropriate in the path of another? It seems that a certain (and possibly growing) percentage of the population of every generation will be born with some ability or set of abilities. I have never said Theosophy should try to teach people to force open what does not naturally occur - but because among the majority of its founders existed both a theoretical construct and a substantial amount of exercise of abilities, I do think the exercise and development of such things in those in which they *do* naturally occur *does* have a place in Theosophy, and that to open to this would not only allow Theosophy to serve an additional group of people, but would also both contribute much to the movement and widen its potential service. >It is also easier to understand, given the current climate on >this board, why Mr. Judge was so viciously and mercilessly >attacked by many second-generation Theosophists during his life, >because he stuck to HPB's lines, which the others WOULD NOT. Welcome to the list! So one of your favorites appears to have been attacked. Perhaps you now have a hint of the pain felt by others when you (as you most assuredly have) seem to speak in vicious and merciless tones about *their* favorites. I gotta tell ya, I'm pleased you're on the list - as I do love the intense diversity of perspective here - and it gives me great pleasure to travel a wee bit of my path with others whose intensity and committment to their path is as strong as mine (a thing ultimately far more significant to me than *any* current ideas or abilities held by someone ... as ideas will change multiple times in the travelling, but the intensity of committment is the constant that perseveres through lifetimes - and is why I'm even pleased to see Daniel here ... his ideas are appalling to be, but by gum the boy sure has the Fire). I must say, however, that you'll prob'ly be wasting your time if you continue to try to sit in judgement about how I choose to express myself. I do not at all like what seems to me to be the high- handed self-righteous attitude that is present in virtually all of your posts ... but I also haven't made an issue of it because you have every freedom to speak in whatever way you wish. Neither, however, am I in the least bit concerned with your evaluations of me. -JRC . From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Sep 1995 09:00:02 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: to Tracey Dear Tracey, My service has conked out twice now in 10 minutes. I've lost your address and my reply. Please write me once more. Meantime I'm going to try to put on a short message, before this thing conks out a third time. It's noon here now. I'lll be going out, & I'll try again to write you a decent reply this evening, when hopefully this dumb service will have settled down. Namaste Liesel I'm really happy you're willing to help me out. It would mean passing on messages either by pohone or mail every now'n dso often. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Sep 1995 11:22:24 GMT From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: Where the rubber hits the road Daniel Hedrick: > >>The heat I was speaking of was Fire from heaven. Nothing like > >>70lbs Hail of fire raining on your party. > > > >The only fire that comes from heaven is that which warms > >the heart in compassion for others. > > If God or Truth is just, there must be a penalty for the unjust. You > declare that judgement is revealed through Karma. I declare > that judgement is God's alone. > Isn't the idea of God's judgement about consequences? That's what karma basically is - action and reaction - consequences. Hardly spooky. Just looking at the universe as it is. Karma is just a word from Sanskrit for the sowing and reaping of consequences; physical, mental and spiritual, and covers everything from the trivial to the cosmic. It's not just about things from former lives; it covers the present one too. > The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom. I know that > God is not mocked. I know that for whatever a man sows he > will also reap. What comes around goes around. > Seems a pretty clear reference to karma to me. There are others in the bible, too. Try Matthew 7:1-2. Perhaps you are content to say that these things are God's judgement. Fair enough. If others like to look at the principles and processes involved, that should be fair enough too. Daniel, I respect a great deal the fact that you are motivated to get out and work with people in all sorts of miserable situations, but please refrain from pouring scorn on others who choose other ways to give service. Many people in the TS believe that the life of spiritual aspiration is not complete without some PRACTICAL expression in service. For me, the ideal is a balance of head, hand and heart. Murray murray@sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Sep 1995 12:08:38 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: True Progress John, You took Rich's comments really hard. I thought his words were improving, but maybe that means you took the full brunt of his accusations in instead of spreading them around. I agree with you that Judge's evaluations are good for his path and not everyone's. I also would like you to ask you a question regarding a point I tried to get Eldon to make, but he wouldn't do it. >From Eldon I got the impression that he is trying to present his view and not just "respond to your view." I also get the impression that you won't go ahead with the data you've been collecting regarding your clairvoyant experiences unless everyone on the list sends you a post saying, "Please, by all means, tell us more" which by the way I am saying. The point I am referring to above is that your data is bound to be somewhat one-sided, unless you write to Paul Johnson who claims some ability also. Wouldn't it be great if you and Paul could compare what you've found? My point again is that you and Eldon won't be able to discuss what you've learned to any degree. I won't be able to discuss clairvoyance with you and other people are bound to find the same problem. This leaves everyone without the ability to their "listening." Sure we may be able to form comments, questions, hints, and ideas for future direction, but are you sure this is what you want? Again, isn't it true that anyone who wishes to present clairvoyant experiences is letting their words fall on "deaf ears?" What should we do to encourage you? If we act defensive about your approach, wouldn't it be due to a wish to involve people in discussions regarding currently available material, material which everyone may become familiar with and assess at their own level. This material is made available to us by very prestigious individuals who we are not forced to judge because other people have judged them for us. What your difficulties are in terms of people opening up to what you potentially could make available to us, is that we don't know how to react. I've never had anyone else ever tell me their experiences before. What do I say? Do I just congratulate myself that I have a rare opportunity to fulfill the third object? Or should I, like Liesel suggests, see this opportunity regarding the third object as available in all of the ways she lists? In any case, what if no one is able to discuss your findings? Won't you feel bad that people didn't even respond to you? We could just read it and store it for the future, but you always seem to take their separate approaches as directed at you when they are really directed more to the group. Any discussion which your material might produce would have to be what we have read and unfortunately these are the statements you are getting from others, but taking as "your most-often-found response." I think you should just post your material, avoid feeling confronted by "typical responses" and see what happens. Maybe there will be a more advantageous outcome than I can foresee or expect. Maybe there will be others here who can compare what you are writing in a positive manner with something in their history. I, myself, would like to go find Steiner's book on the subject and give you some of his thoughts. I thought he wrote an excellent book, but I can't recall the name. This would be my offering of help to you. I don't think it's very remarkable to quote from a book, but what's left? We both know that what's left is what you are so used to getting and the only reason that's what's left is that that's just about all there is. Do you want us to be your students in a new school? If you want intelligent responses, what would those be? Maybe something like, "John, this is remarkable. Everyone should want to read about this because you seem to be getting a lot out of it and it is our third object. Publish. Definitely try to publish." Please try to show me what kind of responses are open to us. Maybe for advice we could try, "John, when you sit down with these angels in the forrest have you ever tried to communicate telepathically with a friend and found it easier to do in the presence of the angel." ...you know, make a list of things to try which would make for better science. Would that help? Unfortunately, I'm not sure that we have any well-trained research scientist. Don't they rely heavily on statistics? In which case, my advice could be: repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat. Does this help? I hope you're getting my point in writing this post. I guess a discussion group doesn't find it easy to discuss your experiences because all discovery is by you. If we work with our intellect, discovery is among all those who participate. How can a one-sided conversation help us in our study of theosophy? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Sep 1995 12:25:55 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: Question 001 >Does somebody in modern America read books of Roerich family >and knows about their Culture Pact or Roerich museum in N.Y.? Yes, I like the material in the Roerich books and would invite you to join the discussions as you are able to. Sharing the Agni Yoga Society ideas with us here on theos-l would make you unique, because until now no one has used these books frequently. Pleased to meet someone within Russia who has spiritual interests. Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Sep 1995 12:28:50 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: A letter from W.Q. Judge on Psychic Powers Following is a letter by W.Q. Judge which offers his opinion on a number of topics that I have discussed with JRC. I have more to say, but happened to stumble across this letter, and found it relevant. -- Eldon September 9, 1890 Dr. J.S. Cook, Sacramento, California Dear Brother Cook: I have yours in which you speak of a desire to study the third object of the Theosophical Society. You ask me for my sincere advise, and although I am in years a younger man I will give it, as it is based upon a very wide experience in the matters to which you refer. You having seen many days are able to receive the truth frankly, and the very first thing to state is this, which has been not only asserted by learned sages but also proved in my experience, that, after a man passes forty, it is not only difficult but dangerout to study in the line of psychic effort. This line is surrounded with deception and danger. The deception is within and therefore extremely difficult to understand. Besides that it s an absolute law and absolute fact that psychic attainments disappear when the body dies, and for that reason even a lifetime spent in that pursuit is to some extent wasted. Psychic powers are not and never were the object of those who may be called Adepts and who possess such powers, but are mere incidentals occurring from the exercise of knowledge and the centre of power. They are just the same as the movements of the joints, of the muscles, and the nerves when we walk or otherwise act. Now such movements are not our object, but our object is the accomplishment of an act, the movements being incidental to that accomplishment. But the sincere study of the spiritual philosophy (I do not mean spiritualism) is actual progress, because all that is acquired in that is never lost with death but remains and comes back on rebirth. Furthermore, I scarcely believe that you have an idea of the tremendous difficulty in pursuing psychic studies, per se, of the discrimination, the power, the determination, the bodiy force, the energy, the clearness of sight required for such practice. These things called mediumship, clairvoyance, and so on, as commonly exhibited, are only little specks on the whole, mere fleeting illustrations of what the real thing is, and as you know, almost always occurring with untrained persons who do not understand them. My sincere advice therefore is to continue in the path which leads to spiritual knowledge, for as Krishna says in the "Bhagavad Gita," "Spiritual knowledge includes every action without exception." Fraternally yours, Willaim Q. Judge >From "Practical Occultism," Theosophical University Press, p. 210-11. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Sep 1995 12:47:28 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: JRC to Eldon: Inner Abilities Liesel: >One word about the 3rd Object >Eldon "Are these powers of the spirit or of the lower siddhis?" >Liesel - to me, your intepretation of "Unexplained phenomena >&etc" is much too narrow. I wasn't really trying to define the object, but show that the way that it is worded is open to differing interpretations. Why? To show that we cannot use the object as a justification in itself for any particular approach. Various types of studies may be useful, but each should be considered on its own merits. >To me, the 3rd Object includes the >study of fractiles, biofeedback, therapeutic touch, strange >attractors, black holes, neutrinos, healing with music, Jung, >Assagioli, Kahuna healing, entropy, Darth Veder, near death >experiences ... anything at the frontier of human knowledge >worth looking into There's nothing wrong with exploring all these avenues of learning and experience. It's find to explore the unknown, to try to discover new things. We wouldn't want, though, to experiment with drugs without first knowing what they do. Or stand by while teenagers explore their sexuality without knowing about the risks involved. Or fly an airplane without ground school and some in-flight training. Not all areas of exploration are without risk, without prior instruction and training. And we are warned against forced psychic development. (It may be a different situation for people with naturally-occurring abilities.) Should we say nothing in warning, based upon what we've learned from Theosophy? What to say about the subject, and the appropiate and diplomatic way to say it, are difficult at time to discern. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Sep 1995 12:58:35 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: the Judge letter JRC: I just started reading your reply to Rich, and having myself just posted a Judge letter, I want to state that it is for purpose of discussion, and to illustrate some of the views that are found in the traditional theosophical literature. I try to state my views in my own words, are am somethings critized for not "backing up" what I say with quotes. The letter that I came across mentioned several items that appeared in our discussion, and I'm adding it as further input into our discussion -- and not an attempt at a "final word" on any of what we are talking about. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Sep 1995 13:07:00 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Globes!?!?! >> Eldon: >>It describes, from my viewpoint, centers of consciousness on >planes, rather >>than the planes themselves, and I try to make a distinction >between centers >>of conscousness and the various principles, of which each >center has its >>own set of. >Eldon, I've never heard this before and it would be great if you could go on >a bit more about centers of consciousness and how they are different from >principles. References to original material would help me also, if you can >get to them easily. One place where I recall reading about the distiction was in the Corresponding Fellows Lodge Bulletin, put out by Elsie Benjamin, in England, a few decades ago. She put out two issues of her newsletter devoted to the topic. The materials from her newsletter were later published by Point Loma Publications as "A Study of the Whole of Man", including "The Significance of the Seven Principles of Man" and "The Significance of the Monad", ISBN 0-913004-41-3. In Europe, the book can be ordered through Gazelle. I'll try to look into some other references as I have time. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Sep 1995 13:46:48 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: JRC to Eldon: Inner Abilities Paul: > [Paul commenting to JRC] >I'd say dogmatists are not real >intellectuals, because there is no real respect for >intellectual inquiry, only intellectual justification of >positions reached non-intellectually. Being dogmatic means that one refuses to reopen the discussion and explore ideas in areas that one has already arrived at a final opinion in. Doing this is certainly somethat that we are repeatedly warned against. One practice of keeping one from getting trapped in rigid opinions Purucker was fond of calling "breaking the molds of mind." When are we dogmatic? When we say "The subject is closed. Period. I won't talk about that anymore." When we won't discuss things with people with considerably different views, with an open mind and willingness to change our outlook every point of the way. I'm trying this with JRC. Is this something that you and Daniel Caldwell could do? None of us are free of the tendency to be dogmatic, and I'm making no claim to be an exception myself. How do we tell when it's affecting us? When we fill with anger and want to strike out at others, upon hearing their differing views and differing values of what we hold dear. Being dogmatic, though, says nothing of how we initially arrived at our opinions. Being dogmatic means being "frozen in thought" or closed to new inquiry. But it does not mean that what we have already learned in life is without value. >There are intellectuals >in the movement, but IMO it's dogmatists masquerading as >intellectuals who set themselves up as authorities. I would find various motives behind people setting themselves up as authorities. Some people may be sincere but misguided. Others may have mixed motives. We cannot really tell what is going on inside another, without actually asking them, and most of our "authorities" are long since dead. >Again, is this "knowing" intellectual or kama-manasic? I'd >call it pseudo-intellect if it manifests as authoritarianism. Presenting something in an authoritarian manner is not helpful for purposes of teaching. Even in teaching something like mathematics, the instructor teaches the student to learn and think through the problems himself. Assistance is given, but things aren't simply asserted on the personal authority of the instructor. This would only apply to the most basic area of teaching, where students memorize the numbers, counting, the multiplication tables, etc. And this basic area of study is percisely what the theosophical textbooks provide us. >>Isn't the >urge to institutionalize and define what's acceptable a result >of belief unbalanced by reflective inquiry? It could be due to narrowness of mind, due to people being unable to appreciate ideas outside the limited scope of their beliefs. But it also could be due to the attempt to define a focus to a group, in order to be effective in teaching or training the public in a specific body of material. It's like with a theosophical lodge. Certainly anybook randomly taken off the shelf from a bookstore could be a topic for study. But then the students that come to the lodge don't learn anything about Theosophy, and might as well not have come. Is is narrowness of mind or clarity of focus that leads groups dedicated to preserving and teaching a special body of knowledge to maintain some emphasis on those teachings? >The Masters Revealed ... One of my greatest joys has been >seeing the book impact the "mainstream academic and >philosophical world" in the direction of accepting the reality >of HPB's Masters and the authenticity of her sources. The closer that you make the Masters seem like common people, the more popular their acceptence in the academic mainstream. >From what I've read in "The Mahatma Letters," though, I'm lead to believe that they did not particularly want to provide the general public with proof of their existence and powers. They refused, for instance, to materialize a current issue of "The London Times" for Sinnett in India. >Having >attained this to some extent, I'd have hoped for more support >from within the TS; or at least a less sweeping condemnation. There are things that people don't want to hear, much less talk about, if it conflicts too much with their closely-held beliefs. We all do this. The questioning of an authority figure upon which a person's beliefs may be based is often taken as a personal attack. That's why we have to get beyond the reliance upon spiritual authority figures, and open the dialog with our own inner teacher, our own connectedness with the Teachings, our own rudimentary ability to know things directly. Until we can know these things directly, and open up avenues of exploration *within*, we are at the mercy of external authority figures and the pronouncement of others, at the mercy of the dead letter of the printed page, photograph, and historic document, and remain unable to directly perceive with the mind. >There are other motives than desire for academic respectability >afoot in the TS. There's probably little motive for academic respectability within the T.S. Some seek this as a goal. Others couldn't care less for book-learning, being primarily devotional types. Others may be concerned with religious respectability in their favorite religous circles. In a theosophical class, if this subject came up, I'd suggest that we forget the "respectability" of any community and forget what people may think of us, and simple go after truth, wherever it may lead us, because we love the truth, and the rest really doesn't matter that much by comparision. Respectfully, Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Sep 1995 14:07:08 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Globes!?!?! >Dear Rich, >What you write makes more sense to me than what Eldon writes. >But now I'll address the same question to you. Couldn't what >early TS writers call "globes" be forcefields in more modern >parlance? >Liesel Liesel, I think science is stumbling upon force fields casually, and don't yet know much about them. They may well relate to astral and other phenomena on THIS globe, but I have a hard time believing that they have tracked down matter from other globes, which are RADICALLY different that this one, and probably cannot be detected with current PHYSICAL instruments. The truth is, however, I don't know for sure, and I don't think science knows for sure yet either what it is dealing with. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Sep 1995 14:17:12 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Globes!?!?! Eldon: >It describes, from my viewpoint, centers of consciousness on >planes, rather >than the planes themselves, and I try to make a distinction >between centers >of conscousness and the various principles, of which each >center has its >own set of. Eldon, I've never heard this before and it would be great if you could go on a bit more about centers of consciousness and how they are different from principles. References to original material would help me also, if you can get to them easily. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Sep 1995 14:50:08 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: It is so inconvenient... Daniel: It's interesting to see how the degree of contrast between our different beliefs, when we both talking about the same divinity behind all of life. >It is totally unacceptable to think that we can interpret >[the Bible] to suit our own thinking. That is how you have been taught. We might think differently. The intent is not to allow everyone to make up any belief that they want, but so that they can take the basic truths contained in a religous book and make those truths a living part of their lives. Until the truths are in *your words*, and are *your ideas,* freshly thought up as you think about a subject, you are parroting, without understanding, the dead words of another. The spirit requires an awakened mind to speak for it, not a "tape recorder." >I think backwards...so >while we drive on the highway at 55 we are both >interpreting just fine...but when I see a sign... >Speed Limit 15mph...I rev my engine to a cool 51. >I told the policeman I thought it said 51. We can delude ourselves when studying spiritual teachings. We can cling to cherished beliefs and allow them to keep us from freely thinking about things, from coming to them with an open mind. When we force things to be a certain way because of our prior beliefs, we are saying the sign is "35" (or whatever we've been taught), without even opening our eyes and reading what it says. We already know how to interpret the sign, and so what it actually says is of no consequence. >JESUS answered "Take heed that no one deceives you" This also refers to ourselves. We have to beware of self-deception. >So that We would not be deceived he makes >several declarations so that we will have a solid >backdrop for what the future holds. There may be several statements of philosophy clothed in "the words of Jesus," by the man or men that wrote that book of the Bible. >That regardless of our suit...the truth will remain. True, and regardless of our religious beliefs, and regardless of what our church teaches us. >For many will come in My name, saying "I am the Christ >and will deceive many" Yes, there are many rival claims to the path to spiritual truth. Some are true, others are misguided. None are sponsored by the Christian devil, which many people consider to be yet another myth to scare people into obedience to their particular religious authorities. >Has this happened? Has anyone declared that they can >become or are Christ? Few are so vain. But many claim to be or represent an exclusive approach to God or the spiritual or to salvation. They don't claim to be divinity itself, but to be its exclusive representative. >Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you >and you will be hated by all nations for MY name's sake. This sounds lacking in compassion, a quality that is always a part of the divinity behind things. But every body of religious teachings has inconsistencies. >And the gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all >the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the >end will come. The real teaching of the kingdom of God should sound, I'd say, something like "and the kingdom of God was already here on earth, but they had not eyes to see it." >The internet, satellite communication, translators... >"abomination of desolation" It is precisely because of the free access to information that governments and political systems that rely on thought control are failing. The governments can no longer sequester their population from news, other ideas, and an open discussion of the truth. I suspect that this is happening in the area of religion as well. >The false-prophet & anti-christ will declare in the, >as of this moment unbuilt temple "That he is to be >worshipped" Worship is always of the divinity that is in and behind all things. It doesn't matter what saint we may worship, or what holy words we contemplate. We're gazing upon "the face of God" behind all of them. This is the *same divinity* regardless of outer form. >He will bring peace to the World, he >will be healed from wounds that caused him to lose >his right arm and his right eye. Peace comes from love, respect, and tolerance of all views, while working for the betterment of all. No group has exclusive claim to working for peace, and no group is without fault. >For then there will be a great tribulation, such as >has not been since the beginning of the world... There do come times when the world is shaken up, and a new spiritual order is established. In Hindusim this is described as Krishna coming to restore the spiritual order of things in dark times. There is the idea that an Avatara is sent out as a spiritual lightbringer. Jesus was one such Avatara. He is not the last. Christianity is not the only religion with such a start, and future Avataras won't especially limit their work through support of modern Christian churches. >There will those on this list that will become >members of the elect and will endure to the >end, your choice to follow Jesus will not come >until after you recognize that those that >believed on the Lord Jesus are now suddenly gone. Being "saved" comes when we rise about our mortal selves, and are "born again" in the spirit. The Sanskrit word for this is "dwija," twice-born. The idea is not new to Christianity, and the spiritual practice is as old as the world. >Hopefully along with the other prophetic >declarations such as the Mark, the re-building >of the temple you will finally lay your own >spirituality on the cross. We would not agree with your prediction regarding the future events of the world, as taught you in your particular branch of Christianity. The theosophical scheme has a near-endless series of human lifetimes before us, an almost unending opportunity to grow and learn and give expression to the holy and sacred in outer life. We also have heaven, too, and that is experienced *between lifetimes*. Our future does not seem as dark as the world that you have been taught to expect. >Heaven and Earth will pass away, but MY words will by no means pass away. Yes. All things are mortal will perish in due time. But with each end is a new beginning. Life renews itself, and that includes us too. The highest spiritual truths, though, are eternal in the sense that they are not subject to corruption, and remain true throughout the life of the universe itself. >It is what it is. No symbolism whatsoever. We can take any idea and interpret it literally, or look for deeper meanings. Sometimes it takes a key or special training and understanding to see behind the apparent literal meaning to a great spiritual truth. >But as the days of Noah were, so also >will the coming of the Son of Man be. >And did not know until the flood came... True, there are occasional diasters when whole societies are destroyed. This is never, though, a final end, but only the making of room for a new order to be established, a new society to take root in place of the old. This has happened countless times in the past and will continue billions of years into the future. >Interestingly enough Noah was building >the Ark for 100 yrs in a place where no >rain had ever rained. There was not a large >body of water near either. Every carved >piece of wood SCREAMS of the eventual >judgement of God. By simply being alive, we are subject to risks and dangers. Sometimes we cannot avoid them, and are harmed or killed. But we are reborn in due time and continue where we left off. We cannot life our lives in fear of our mortality -- such fear clouds the mind and heart and distracts us from our primary duty of being agents of beauty and truth in the world, mouthpieces for the divine. >Two men will be working in the field >(or posting on the internet) : one will >be left the other taken. Yes, that's karma. Life is not random, by happenstance. There is meaning behind the apparently chance events that happen to us. >You stay...I go. We each continue in life, according to our respective merits and responsibilities. Perhaps you will spend a large period of time in your after-life *picturing* in your spiritual vision the ideas and images of the Christian heaven that you've been taught and spent your lifetime thinking about. And then, if it should happen, it would be ironic if you are reborn as a devout Muslem! >there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. This sounds like when we might hope that someone speeding on the freeway faster than we are will get pulled over and ticketed. It is not a compassionate, loving thought. We can do better than that. >If you will confess with your mouth that >Jesus Christ is Lord and believe with your >heart that God rose Him from the dead >YOU will be saved. If you approach a path to the spiritual with utter conviction and sincerity, and grasp hold of the inner life as though your very life depended upon it, you will be saved. That is, you will have opened a living link to the divine within your heart. And then, for each of us, we have the responsiblity to give expression to it in the world, or we will lose it and our natures corrupted again. What is important is that "grasping hold of," and it comes with the same feeling as a man, with head held under water, wants the air again to breathe. It is this action that *we take*, and not the mental image -- be it Jesus or Krishna or Kwan Yin -- that we use as a mask for describing the experience. You are telling us of the value of this experience. Many of us may already be aware of this experience. It's just that we give it different masks, we call it by different names, names foreign to your ears. In order for an open sense of brotherhood to exist in the world, both us and everyone else, including us, need to accept each other without regard for the other's belifs. It's an admirable goal that hopefully we can all oneday work towards. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Sep 1995 15:40:46 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: True Progress Rich: >"TRUE PROGRESS" an article by William Q. Judge My chance to add a few comments. >Perhaps those who have engaged in discussions about whether it is more >advisable to become acquainted with the Astral Plane and to see therein than >to study the metaphysics and ethics of theosophy, may be aided by the >experience of a fellow student. This is posing the question: is it better to become acquainted with the astral plane than to study the metaphysics and ethics of Theosophy? The question would apply to someone *without a naturally awakened psychic ability*, since with awakened psychic sight is is not in an either/or situation. >For several years I studied about and >experimented on the Astral Light to the end that I might, if possible, >develop the power to look therein and see those marvellous pictures of that >plane which tempt the observer. It should be noted that Judge is framing his personal experience in the guise of a beginning student. He is also considered to be an advanced Chela, with the power of avesa, and to have existed in the body of an easterner, at times. His reply mentions nothing of his real (be they controversial) abilities, because he does not want to draw special attention to himself. >But although in some degree success followed >my earnest efforts so far as seeing these strange things was concerned, I >found no increase of knowledge as to the manner in which the pictures were >made visible, nor as to the sources from which they arose. He is giving a "textbook answer" to what happens for a beginner in forced psychical development, and not a complete disclosure of his own experiences and status. >A great many facts >were in my possession, but the more I accumulated the farther away from >perception seemed the law governing them. I turned to a teacher, and he said, > > "Beware the illusions of matter." We can laugh at the simplicity of such a statement, but sometimes the greatest truths sound like platitudes. It's interesting to note that the term "platitudes" were a negative reference to Plato and his approach, a put down of the Platonic. > "But," said I, "is this matter into which I gaze?" > "Yes; and of grosser sort than that which composes your body; full of >illusions, swarming with beings inimical to progress, and crowded with the >thoughts of all the wicked who have lived." What is said hear is nothing new. We hear it frequently as we read the source writings. > "How," replied I, "am I to know aught about it unless I investigate it?" We all wonder this. Especially if we have some natural-born abilities. But without a spiritual teacher, with actual knowledge of the abilities that we have, we're guessing at the true nature of what we see. > "It will be time enough to do that when you shall have been equipped >properly for the exploration. He who ventures into a strange country >unprovided with needful supplies, without a compass and unfamiliar with the >habits of the people, is in danger. Examine and see." This is just stating the obvious again. We need to properly equip ourselves for a journey of any time. And how to we equip ourselves? Through an awakened spirituality, the ability to sense what is true, and a clear, penetrating moral insight into life. > Left thus to myself, I sought those who had dabbled in the Astral Light, >who were accustomed to seeing the pictures therein every day, and asked them >to explain. Not one had any theory, any philosophical basis. All were >confused and at variance each with the other. Nearly all, too, were in >hopeless ignorance as to other and vital questions. Yes. I'd expect that it would require someone of the status of a theosophical Chela, appropriately trained, to provide us with useful training. >None were self-contained >or dispassionate; moved by contrary winds of desire, each one appeared >abnormal; for, while in possession of the power to see or hear in the Astral >Light, they were unregulated in all other departments of their being. The point here is that a growth in spiritual, intellectual, and ethical faculties is needed to qualify one to properly interpret such experiences. Anyone with psychic faculties that were far in advance of the rest of their nature would be an unreliable source or teacher. >Still >more, they seemed to be in a degree intoxicated with the strangeness of the >power, for it placed them in that respect above other persons, yet in >practical affairs left them without any ability. This sense of "intoxication" is perhaps the numinous nature of being possessed by unconscious contents. There is a sense of magic and wonder and excitement and other-worldliness. Is this bad? It depends upon the individual person when the line between enthusiasm and intoxication is crossed and one is out of control. > Examining more closely, I found that all these "seers" were but >half-seers--and hardly even that. One could hear astral sounds but could not >see astral sights; another saw pictures but no sound or smell was there; >still others saw symbols only, and each derided the special power of the >other. The faculties are partially developed. In future Root Races, they may represent fully-deveolped senses that we all have. Presently, we have physical vehicles with a particular sense apparatus and brain chemistry, and corresponding psychical senses. Our outer and inner natures have a certain structure to them. Various mutations will occur over time in the outer and inner structures, changes in form, brain chemistry, and psychic and psychological apparatus, until some, then many of us will have the forms suitable for membership in a future subrace. Theosophy tells us of another manner of evolution, though, that is not simply riding the crest of the human lifewave as it sweeps through the rounds and races. It is *racing ahead inwardly,* where we experience within, and on the other Globes, the lessons of life that lead to unfolding our Fifth Round natures. This is the path that the Mahatmas followed, and it is also open to any of us as well, if we will take it. >Turning even to the great Emmanuel Swedenborg, I found a seer of >wonderful power, but whose constitution made him see in the Astral world a >series of pictures which were solely an extension of his own inherited >beliefs. And although he had had a few visions of actual everyday affairs >occurring at a distance, they were so few as only to be remarkable. We find this with many seers. Leadbeater saw mars and mercury as part of our earth chain, for instance, after having read Sinnett's books which contained that misconception. Apparently he did not read Blavatsky's correction to that mistake in "The Secret Doctrine". It is in the nature of psychical sight itself, that our expectations can cloud what we perceive, and not anything particular to the failings of Leadbeater or anyone that writes from such forms of investigation. > One danger warned against by the teacher was then plainly evident. It was >the danger of becoming confused and clouded in mind by the recurrence of >pictures which had no salutary effect so far as experience went. So again I >sought the teacher and asked: > "Has the Astral Light no power to teach, and, if not, why is it thus? And >are there other dangers than what I have discovered?" Given the nature of the media, I'd expect that through the astral light we are working out the logical conclusions of the ideas that we hold, much in the same manner that we would in devachan, or in thinking through the ideas. We see what we expect, so we're really working with *our own unconscious contents*. > "No power whatever has the astral plane, in itself, to teach you. It >contains the impressions made by men in their ignorance and folly. Unable to >arouse the true thoughts, they continue to infect that light with the virus >of their unguided lives. And you, or any other seer, looking therein will >warp and distort all that you find there. It will present to you pictures >that partake largely of your own constitutional habits, weaknesses, and >peculiarities. Thus you only see a distorted or exaggerated copy of yourself. Yes, we are looking into a mirror, and often having a dialog with our own personal unconscious, rather than actual other beings. How do we tell when something is a complex in our unconscious, as opposed to an actual astral being? It's hard to say. Perhaps both are elementals at some stage? >It will never teach you the reason of things, for it knows them not. It is not a teacher, but rather a plastic media which is readily influenced by both the conscious and unconscious contents of our minds. > "But stranger dangers than any you have met are there when one goes >further on. The dweller of the threshold is there, made up of all the evil >that man has done. None can escape its approach, and he who is not prepared >is in danger of death, of despair, or of moral ruin. There are psychic corpses there, the decaying remnants of kamarupas. These are aggregates of elementals that still contain something of the life energes of a departed person. These bundles of Skandhas eventually dissipate. The higher depart first, and the lowest take the longest to decay or break apart. The "dweller on the threshold," though, refers to something that we would not generally meet. A chance meeting of one may not be likely. They are the psychic corpses of particularly evil men, with sufficient energy that they take incredible periods of time to decay. Until they have decayed, they can have an influence upon us, if we were to meet them, and we certainly wouldn't want one to follow us home! (consider a smiley face at this point) >Devote yourself, >therefore, to spiritual aspiration and to true devotion, which will be a >means for you to learn the causes that operate in nature, how they work, and >what each one works upon." This is talking about the path, with Judge taught, and Purucker after him, of the spiritual-intellectual approach. > I then devoted myself as he had directed, and discovered that a >philosophical basis, once acquired, showed clearly how to arrive at >DISPASSION and made EXERCISE therein easy. It even enables me to clear up the >thousand doubts that assail those others who are peering into the Astral >Light. Conviction and certainty comes *from within*, from a study and learning that we do, with hard intellectual work in combination with a directed spiritual insight. >This too is the old practice enjoined by the ancient schools from >which our knowledge about the Astral Light is derived. They compelled the >disciple to abjure all occult practices until such time as he had laid a sure >foundation of logic, philosophy, and ethics; and only then was he permitted >to go further in that strange country from which many an unprepared explorer >has to return bereft of truth and sometimes despoiled of reason. This is exactly the approach that I have been attempting to describe, with a writing style that hopefully improves over the years. It is not exclusive, it is not for the elite, it does not make any claims to specialness or to its followers being better than others. It rather fosters an attitude that downplays a sense of ego, that downplays the personality, that leads one to fill his mind and heart with the glories of the spiritual path. There is no thought of the personal acquisition of powers of any kind. One's awareness is filled with wonder and excitement, filled with the inspiration of the divine within our hearts, and bathed in the continued presence of our Inner Gods! >Further, I >know that the Masters of the Theosophical Society have written these words: >"Let the Theosophical Society flourish through moral worth and philosophy, >and give up pursuit of phenomena." This statement indicates the opposite goal to what the third object of the Theosophical Society seems to advocate. But again, apart from the general approach of the organization, we have the case-by-case discernment of what is right for particular individuals. What is right for JRC may not be right for Eldon. And what is right as a general policy of the T.S. may not be appropriate for either of us, as individuals, with our own goals to life. >Shall we be greater than They, and >ignorantly set the pace upon the path that leads to ruin? This last line does sound like Daniel, referring to the Bible. An appeal to authority only carries weight to people that acknowledge that authority. We're not required to accept any authority with HPB or WQJ, but confer or deny that sense of authority based upon our own individual studies and respect or lack of respect for their writings. I confer respectful authority, in the sense of considering them as writing on behalf of the Masters. Becaue of this, I would read and consider what they said with especial care. But I still reserve the right to disagree with what they appear to say, when it does not ring true to me; I reserve the right to be the final authority as to what I accept as true and take to heart. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Sep 1995 15:58:25 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: JRC to Eldon: Inner Abilities PS I forgot 2 which I think are important parts of our 3rd object - pain management, & stress management - both are being researched at the forefront of human knowledge. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Sep 1995 16:02:38 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Messiah to Alan, OK accepted. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Sep 1995 16:09:19 GMT From: mmoiseikin@attmail.com (Mikhail Moiseikin) Subject: Question 001 I am Roerich's follower and read a lot remarks of Helene Roerich about Helene Blavatsky. This two resourses have different Energetics and form but I couldn't found any contradiction between. Could somebody of present US teosophysts tell me who continue development theosofy after Blavatsky till our days (my be main direction) or H.B. got full portion of God's wisdom for our century? Does somebody in modern America read books of Roerich family and knows about their Culture Pact or Roerich museum in N.Y.? Because I could found only old bibliografy (through Internet) in US Congress library but no one modern book -> my be about theosofy situation we have the similiar situation ? Regards from Kiev Mikhail mmoiseikin@attmail.com mmoiseikin@attmail.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Sep 1995 16:41:47 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: True Progress I find the W.G.Judge business very odd. Many years ago, when I had my original teeth, I read his ~Ocean of Theosophy~ along with HPB, CWL, Annie Besant, Jinarajada and others, and saw nothing at the time that seemed that different from the rest. I still have a copy of his book. Some of the claims of CWL have, in the course of time, proved to be suspect, but it is also true to say that they seem to be in areas where the other writers are largely silent. Bewars Dogmatic Theosophy *of any kind*! I.m sure HPB would agree. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Sep 1995 17:06:09 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Question 001 Hello Mikhail in Kiev, Glad to hear from you. I have heard of Roerich & the Roerich Museum in New York City, from my friends in Wheaton, the headquarters of the Theosophical Society in America connected with Adyar, India. I know Wheaton made a video tape which includes Roerich's art some time ago, I also think that the Wheaton Library has books on Nicholas Roerich .. I'm not so sure about Helena. I don't recall a Roerich book being published by the Theosophical Publishing House, but I'll ask them on Monday. I correspond with a Theosophist in Kaluga, who's sent me several cards with Roerich paintings. I have them up on my television shelf. There are many theosophical writers, whose books we can get in this country who have continued the development of Theosophy from the time of Helena Blavatsky to the present day. I've sent some of them to my friend in Kaluga. We have a Publishing House in America, in Wheaton, but there's also an international Theosophical Publishing House in Adyar, India. Are you in familiar with the Theosophical Society in Moscow? In 1993 their address was 4, Vostochnaya Str., Moscow 109280 The e-mail address of our Library is Olcott@dupagels.lib.il.us Would like to hear from you again. Mir Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Sep 1995 18:04:17 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Reconciling tensions Paul wrote: Anyhow, a model for reconciling the tensions occurred to > me last Saturday when Ed Abdill was speaking. Lewis: This is idea reminded me of one of my own concerning the periodic tensions and splits which I have been involved in over the years as a Federation and branch president. I, too, think the TS needs a model which is would nuture the creation of new groups. In a grad class on group dynamics I came across the idea of size as an element in the effectiveness of a group. This was more specifically being discussed in relation to committees and what sizes seemed to function best. I saw groups grow rapadily. As more people became involved and interests broadened the group subdivided, like a cell. BUT, that was viewed as unhealthy, disloyal and discouraged. Struggles intensified until clicks formed and the group broke up under the stresses. If groups were expected to foster new groups and when the group reached a size capable of supporting a subdivision, new groups could come into existence without disrupting the current groups. llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Sep 1995 18:45:47 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Psychic and Noetic Bee, I like you non-technical "Ground Crew". I see in your description and idea I came across in my early readings of theosopy about skandas (sp?). These were the accumulated tendicies of the personality which were picked up by the reincarnating individuality. Have read of the akashic records, and your theory seems plausible to me as I understand it (very limited).:) Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Sep 1995 18:49:45 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: to: Tracey Hi, Tracey, It seems to be behaving this evening, so let's try again. I was really happy that you said you'd accept an occasional message to my friend Marie. I've been asking around the Theosophical internet for half a year now, without any success. I've been phoning Marie about once a month, which is expensive. So then I tried writing snail mail, & that takes forever, very unsatisfactory! I thought that, if it's ok with you, you could relay messages, probably by printing them out & mailing them on. She's interesting to talk to, but very often doesn't answer her phone, & lets the answering machine record a message instead. I'd rather tell you details about her when I have your address again, to protect her privacy, which she values. I'd be only too happy to reimburse you for any expenses you'll incur. It'll still be lots less than phone calls from here. Are you a student, do you work, or are you a homemaker? I gather that you're into female spirituality, a subject I'm keenly interested in, but don't know enough about. I took down the names of the 2 books you mentioned, & expect to borrow them from the Library. I've taken a course called "History of American Women", a real eye opener. For 1 thing I learned that very often when I couldn't understand why my parents did such stupid things, my parents were just following the norms of the culture of their times. I took the course at the neighboring Onondaga Community College, where retirees are allowed to audit courses without paying a fee. I took 1 Art course, & for the rest, tried to catch up on subject matter which wasn't as yet being taught when I went to school. I have a few books dealing with women's matters, & in my files there's an unfinished short story whose heroine in a nurse practitioner whose project is called Outreach Isis. One women's thing I haven't found a satisfactory answer for is the fact that we are said by some to be more in tune with the earth.... It makes sense that our center of creation is the womb, but there isn't enough literature on whether all this means we should meditate differently than do men. I was taught to meditate to Beethoven's music, & at 1 point went looking for some women composers to use for this purpose. Impossible. They were afraid to best their husbands. They also thought of themselves as angels made of lace & whipped cream, & the music I found sounds just like that ... frilly with not much depth. Fannie Mendelssohn I thought was about as good as any. It was a disappointment. I'm new to Tarot. A discussion on theos-l about it, 2 months ago, sparked an interest. I purchased a deck of gypsy tarot cards at our local esoteric store, "The 7 Rays", but found the 2d purchase "Jungian Tarot" more to my liking. I'm trying to learn the cards little by little. To conclude, I live in Syracuse, NY. It's a university town about 4 hours by car NW of New York City, & 1 hour away from the Canadian border. I live in a Senior Citizen apartment complex. When I was working I was a supervisor in a State office which tried to find employment for people. My husband died many years ago. One of my sons is a veterinarian, & the other is a diplomat. I have twin grandchildren who're almost 15. They were born in Johannesburg, RSA, where their father was working at the time. Looking forward to hearing from you again Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Sep 1995 19:03:00 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: True Progress JRC I wasn't aware of what Brenda says here, that you're thinking of putting your findings on theos-l. If I were you, if you really want to do it, & boy, would I love it, I would take just a little bit & send it off as a trial baloon. I'm saying this, because I have the impression that some of us are friendly, & some of us are not. You must still remember some of the real dirty, nasty posts Jerry H-E sent off last year re Leadbeater. Do you want to expose yourself to that kind of garbage? Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Sep 1995 19:08:13 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Orgin/end blind Jerry S.: > ...if everything is > growing and evolving, there must have been an origin point > somewhere in the distant past. The Masters, I think, > realized that origins are big trouble (i.e., God made > it all from nothing or the current Big Bang theory, etc) > and developed the involution-evolution Arcs as a logical way > out of the problem. Lewis: This logical problem is one I think Jung calls a blind of the finite mind. We are using a finite mind to try to understand the infinite, so it thinks everything, like it, has to have a beginning and end. Probably attributing to the wrong source and mixing my sources up, but do you see the point? llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Sep 1995 19:14:03 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: A letter from W.Q. Judge on Psychic Powers quoting WQJudge "as Krishna says in the .... Gita 'spiritual knowledge includes every action without exception.'" .... how true! Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Sep 1995 19:18:26 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: JRC to Eldon: Inner Abilities I don't know Eldon, as far as I'm concerned, you might as well be talking Greek. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Sep 1995 20:15:37 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: JRC to Eldon: Inner Abilities John, First let me tell you how much I am enjoying your "valiant defense of those who are unjustly attacked." I have been printing your posts and showing them to my wife, who is quite interested in them, unlike most of the "intellectual stuff" she says I have shown her. > .. in fact the discipline required to turn them into tools for > service is hard, torturous and boring work (learning multivariate > calculus was *nothing* compared to the continual work of vision > clarification and stabilization); exercising them is not fun, but > often quite draining; and I believe they are only "glamorous" to > those that do not possess them This is a point I had picked up reading CWL, and those I have met who used their psychic faculties have required periods of rest away from the demands of others before and after using them. > :), the largest and most beautiful aura I've ever seen belonged > to a housewife who had no particular ties to religion, and > wouldn't be able to tell you the difference between the Buddha > and Brahma - but as I watched her now and then (she was a > neighbor for awhile) I was absolutely awed ... she would walk > into a restaurant and sit at a table next to a arguing couple, > and in all of five minutes harmony would be reigning ... her mere > presence in a room altered the entire environment, and as far as > I could tell, she never had any idea she was doing anything ... > and people had no idea why they unconsciously felt so much > pleasure in her presence]. What a great story! It was stories like these that so fascinated me when I first found theosophy. > I *am* concerned about the fact that Theosophy, and the TS, > has such a tiny membership in an age increasingly full of (IMO) > genuinely advanced, compassionate souls Something which also concerns me. But, I have considered the problem more from an organizational perspective. Olcott and HPB played different roles. The Masters considered both important to the success of their efforts, as I recall. > - and that I believe many > of these people touch Theosophy and are chased away by what seems > to be incredibly arrogant and condescending attitudes present in > the Theosophical current, by people setting themselves up as > authoroties in matters spiritual, by the pervasive attitude that > holds that most people are too lazy, or too desirous of cheap > thrills to do the *real* spiritual work that *real* Theosophists > do (as though spiritual growth is some sort of gawdammed *macho* > thing (-:) ... but at least in recent times, the vast majority of > this arrogance has not come from "psychics" saying "I see things > you don't" ... but by intellectuals saying "I *know* things that > you don't". Yes, I have seen some of this, altough I tend to take a more charitable view of them. Most of those members are unaware of the impact they have on our more sensitive members. The society attracts individuals who had to have a certain amount of independence of thought (which easily translates to being opinionated) to explore these ideas. So strong minded, strong willed fellows are frequently encountered in the groups. > ... Precisely what is *wrong* with offering a few > "wonders" ... in fact, I must say that I consider the sense of > awe, of wonder, the very *foundation* of my own personal > spiritual orientation. It is not "fear of the Lord" (as Daniel > might say), but a continually growing awe at the enormity, the > complexity, the absolute beauty of this 'ol universe that drives > me ... and all clairvoyance has done has opened yet another > avenue through which to glimpse this. The glimpse one gets into this "other world" which HPB, Sinnett, and CWL describe in their books raises (or at least awakens in) my consiousness out othe mundane world. It gives me a chance to escape the maya, the grand illusion, and reminds me there so much more to our world and for me to discover and understand! > ...In some stupid old movie (I > think Joe vs. the Volcano), a character says something like "Most > people spend their days fast asleep, they walk in their sleep, > work in their sleep, and play in their sleep, but for those few > who are awake, life is spent in a state of continual and utter > amazement" - and I don't think this is at odds with spiritual > philosophy. Have this movie on laser disc. It is one my wife and I's favorites. I seem to recall someone saying HPB described the crowds of people walking the streets of London as the "walking dead", because they were asleep to what they were. > Headquaters is currently locked up by a little group of people > absolutely determining (or attempting to) what Theosophy is or is > not ... passing laws that increase control ... and would love to > squeeze out *any* mention of actual abilities (expect in > historical accounts), any mention of people who believe the > Masters work with them, in their attempt to make Theosophy > "acceptable" to the mainstream academic and philosophical worlds. I think you judge them to harshly. I worked there and still know several people there. I can see how you could get this impression, but they, too, like you and your friends you mention have private lives. Their interests are not as hostile to your views as you may think. > That dynamic balance between the ordered and chaotic, between > known and the unknown, between the existant and the possible, > seems to have swung far to the side of order and form. 40 years > ago, I would have agreed with *everything* you've said, but I > believe that today we could use some fresh life, we could use > something to upset the applecart. We could use a few *wonders*. > Here I tend to agree. It does seem the pendulum has swung to far to the conservative right! Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Sep 1995 20:54:24 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: K.H. on women Alan wrote: > I reproduce below the section of the footnote by K.H./E.O. to > which Jinaradasa refers: > > "... But the authors of the Perfect Way [Anna Kingsford and > Edward Maitland - A.B.] are right: woman must not be looked upon > as only an appanage [sic] of man, since she was not made for his > benefit or pleasure any more than he for hers; but the two must > be realized as equal powers though unlike individualities. > > "Until the age of 7 the skeletons of girls do not differ in any > way from those of boys, and the osteologist would be puzzled to > discriminate them. Woman's mission is to become the mother of > future occultists - of those who will be born without sin. On > the elevation of the woman the world's redemption and salvation > hinge. And not till woman bursts the bonds of her sexual > slavery, to which she has ever been subjugated, will the world > gain an inkling of what she really is and of her proper place in > the economy of nature. Old India, the India of the Rishis, made > the first sounding with her plummet line in this ocean of Truth, > but the post Mahabaratean India, with all her profundity of > learning, has neglected and forgotten it. > > "The light that will come to it and the world at large. when the > latter shall discover and really appreciate the truths that > underlie this vast problem of sex, will be "like the light that > never shone on sea or land," and has to come to men through the > Theosophical Society. That light will lead on and up to the > *true spiritual intuition.* Then the world will have a race of > Buddhas and Christs, for the world will have discovered that > individuals *have it in their own powers* to proctreate > Buddha-like children or- demons. When that knowledge comes, all > dogmatic religions and with these the demons, will die out. - E.O." > > ------------------- > I guess this really belongs on theos-roots, or *also* there. > Maybe JM could put it in the archive? > Thanks for bringing up a topic I have been thinking about. The current world conference on women's rights in China has had me wondering if this is one of those events said to take place at the end of each century inspired by the Masters and designed to push forward the evolution of humanity. Regardless of ones views on them, it does seem the views expressed in this letter would have a profound impact on the next century if they could be realized. This may also be part of the promised new mission for the society. Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 17 Sep 1995 04:01:44 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: True Progress;LFD & JRC & others >Firstly, regarding the research of powers latent in man: >I think that the research of psychic powers _is_ in agreement >with the third object of the TS, though one can ask oneself >what would be the proper setting/condition for this to be >fruitfully done. At least a careful comparison with the clairvoyant >findngs of others would be necessary & the proper atmosphere,i.e. >an understanding and acceptance by other fellow-theosophists >why this research is valuable and in which context it has its place. I think it would be agreeable for everyone to research "latent" powers, which means if they have some power that they are able to use and have already activated, they have to research those which they aren't able to use. If everyone were working on what is latent in themselves, then no one would be able to claim that they had already achieved the goal in our third object. If psychism is real, then it's here. Similarly, if some people are born gifted, then they are a select group which deserves appreciation. If we appreciate psychism, we could 1) go to watch it, 2) pay money to support it, and 3) be aware of what is currently being done with it. Once you have a "power" and know how to use it, why do you need to "investigate" it any further? Those who have the powers should be content with their processes and try to continue them. For instance, if I find out that I am able to "purify the water element" then I should try to apply the same principles and attempt to "purify the air element." Keep purifying, more and different things. Continue to ask questions about how can I next purify the government? How can we purify the courts? How can we purify accountants? More and more and more with new vistas. This would be investigating. If though, I expect to stay with the purification of water and stop any further investigation of my nature, this would be like the damning up of a stream just to produce the results: purified water. So why can't we all investigate unknown areas of our psyche. If an area is in use, we can use it and appreciate it, but how will we further its value by insisting that others acknowledge our accomplishment. If we do this, we are desiring fruit and are hoping to stop our work and enjoy ourselves, called "basking in the sunlight." If we keep working, we grow in awareness. Are we after results or are we after an activity? If people are after the results of power, then it might be like Rapunzel spinning straw into gold under lock and key. This is an unfair world. High prices would be paid for an ability, maybe even one's freedom. Think how HPB hated hypnosis, yet today it's treated so off-handedly. I would rather try to please her and prevent a spread of hypnotism then just proceed in ignorance. HPB knows the dangers which I have tried with all my power to imagine and appreciate. They are: 1) criminal activity and 2) perverting the will of another human being. Innocent people can be misused and abused because of hypnosis. I would almost be willing to deny it works at all then to subject its laws of practice to the masses and have it inordinately in use among the unsuspecting. Hypnosis can be used to make one steal, even for the theft of military secrets, theft of armaments, etc. So, here we >have CORE theosophy asking the same questions as JRC is.. >Any ideas? Actually, I don't like the word CORE at all. I'm too holistic. Theosophy should be holistic and look at the total picture. I throw the "core" of my apple away. It's the juicy fruit around it which has value. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 17 Sep 1995 04:16:49 GMT From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Daniel H. and gifts Daniel Hedrick, Looking back over your last few messages, without quoting any particular bits:- I have noted the way you have "come out" considerably since your first cryptic entry to the list. I like it better this way - you speak more directly from the heart now, and have shown us amongst other things, a little of the suffering in your life and those you deal with. However, in one place, you rather contemptuously wonder if theosophists could do anything really useful for people who are down and out, if I remember your thoughts correctly. The fact that I can't talk to street kids for example (are they called that in the USA too?) in their own way doesn't mean I don't care about them. However, I'd be a presumptious do-gooder to wade into their midst without having the humility to just listen and learn from them before trying to do anything, and then my usefulness would be limited by the fact that my background is a lot different. It is more natural for people closer to them to try do any direct helping. In New Zealand the few good drug education programs are run by people who have done the drug thing and come out the other side. The best people to counsel cancer patients are those who have had it and are leading normal lives again. It can't really be any other way. The Theosophical Movement (TM) may seem intellectual to the point of disappearing up its own chakras, but its members have often done their share of suffering too, and I don't mean not having enough credit cards to go around. I'm thinking of drug addiction, incest, loss of marriage partner after long illness etc - and that's just within my circle of acquaintances. The TM is a service organization intended to help relieve suffering in the world by working at the level of insights and understanding. It is NOT meant to convert people from their religions, though from some of the items on this list, you might wonder. In the beginning of the modern theosophical movement, 1 The Masters and HPB wanted the TS to help humanity by applying and extending the initial spiritual insights. 2 They were also strongly against the TS becoming a cosy little school for a select few to study occultism and magic in intellectual comfort without regard for the needs of people at large. As it has turned out, the TM has done less of 1 than was wanted, and more of 2 than was wanted, but there are nevertheless many people within it who feel a deep commitment to trying to relieve suffering in general as well as in their immediate environment. The potential for good in working at the level of insights and understanding is enormous, especially if powered by dedication to what is highest and best. So much of human and animal suffering is due to the way people think (or don't think). Isn't this partly why you are so keen to share your own religious views? I did animal welfare work for a few years, and sometimes saw people who worked in child welfare organizations, for instance, get snotty and derogatory about people who worked for animals, and vice versa. Not very productive, and not really true to the spirit of their own organizations. I feel the same way about people in one religious/philosophical group having a go at those in another. There are many organizations working at practical levels, and it would be good if we could be free of sniping between them and those that work at the level of ideas and insights. Daniel, I love the commitment and enthusiasm that are not too hard to read between your lines, even if I don't always like the channels they flow through. And I believe the suffering that you have gone through, is ultimately a priceless gift in your quest to find ways to help others who are going through extreme inner pain in their lives. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 17 Sep 1995 04:57:02 GMT From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Letter from AB "A Greeting from Mrs. Annie Besant" [Written by invitation for the first issue of The International Psychic Gazette.] "Dear Mr. Knowles, I heartily wish success of your new Journal, which should be most useful to our Club. So much interest is going on today in all matters of the `Borderland' that there is ample material for a Journal such as you propose. In the Gazette, as in the Club itself, the note of full liberty of opinion and of research in all directions will be sounded, I am sure. That unfettered liberty of thought and speech seems to me to be as necessary to progress in psychical science as in all other branches of human knowledge. The petrifying of knowledge already obtained, and then the building up of newly made stones as a barrier against further advance, has been a consistantly recurring phenomenon in the history of thought: then comes the necessity for iconoclasts to shiver the obstacles to pieces, and re-open the road. If new knowledge were plant as a seed instead of being fossilized, then each such fragment of knowledge would grow into a tree on the side of the road which leads to Truth, and that road would remain an ever-open avenue, with unlimited prospects in front and fair vistas behind. If we make no barriers out of what we have learned, the younger generation will be able to walk on unhindered, and "what our fathers and mothers believed" will no longer be a barrier across the way, but an interesting milestone on the road of infinite progress. For myself, the eager welcome of new truth is as joyous at nearly sixty-five as it was at twenty-five; nay, far more joyous, for then the new truth was was an earthquake, shattering old beliefs, whereas now I know that Truth's earthquakes can only shatter error, and lay bare virgin soil which shall repay human culture. Let the young ones, then, march forward fearlessly, and let us cheer them on; they will win new countries for us to live in when we return." -JRC . From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 17 Sep 1995 07:42:12 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: True Progress, JHE and CWL Liesel wrote to JRC: >I wasn't aware of what Brenda says here, that you're thinking >of putting your findings on theos-l. If I were you, if you >really want to do it, & boy, would I love it, I would take just >a little bit & send it off as a trial baloon. I'm saying this, >because I have the impression that some of us are friendly, & >some of us are not. You must still remember some of the real >dirty, nasty posts Jerry H-E sent off last year re Leadbeater. >Do you want to expose yourself to that kind of garbage? > >Namaste > >Liesel If John wants to talk about his psychic experimentation then I hope that he will feel perfectly free to do so. Long before you began subscribing to this board, I had posted descriptions of my own psychic experiences and had extensive interchanges with others concerning mine and theirs. Regarding CWL, I should point out to you that I distinguish between historical and personal discussions. I hope you will make this distinction too. Peace Jerry HE From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 17 Sep 1995 07:58:13 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: The Great Work The Great Work Psychism is defined in theosophy as incoming data via kama-manas. HPB, the Masters, Judge, and many others have given us strong warnings about forcing any development of psychism via kama-manas. They suggest that we develop ethics and morals, together with compassion for others first. This teaching is not unique to theosophy. Jesus once said "Seek ye first the kingdom of heaven and all these will be given unto you." In other words, if we develop spiritually first, our psychic senses will develop naturally, without force. This allows incoming data via buddhi-manas, which is not only safer, but more reliable. As far as I know, this "core teaching" (which is eternal insofar as this manvantara is concerned) is unique to theosophy today. Western magical schools simply do not address it, and students are allowed to jump right in to such things as pathworking and channeling. The theory there is that if moral development is not sufficient, the student will get "burned" and learn the hard way. Part of the reason for this, is that it is devilishly hard to say when moral development for any particular student is "sufficient." And of course, another reason is that most students today want instant gratification (many think that Truth can be found from one or more books, for example). Many students of Theosophy leave after a year or so largely because they do not find instant gratification within the theosophical community. Many do the same in magical schools, because even there the Great Work is hard and long. What is the Great Work? It is sometimes called Treading the Path. The Great Work is that undertaken by all true magicians or yogis. Its goal is the ultimate goal of magic, occultism, and yoga. Bascially, it is establishing a union (which is what yoga means) between the human and the divine. There are many Paths toward this goal, and several theories, and a multitude of techniques. But all schools teach that it is the work of many lifetimes, and that the personal ego must ultimately be cast aside - these two teachings are not unique to theosophy, and for that very reason can be called "core teachings" as well (we can define "core teachings" as those which have been taught throughout the world and throughout history and are therefore relatively universal and eternal). The Great Work is sometimes likened to a mighty mountain. Its students and practitioners are likened to mountain climbers. Many climb over the grassy foothills, basking in the sunlit flowers and sparkling lakes. A few charge up the steeper forest-covered slopes, taking more risk to themselves, but getting closer to the top. Everyone is at a different level, and most are on different paths, but all are approaching the lofty peak of the mountain at their own speed and in their own way. The ultimate goal is reaching the top of the mountain. However, there are other worthy goals too. One of these is helping fellow climbers over some of the rough spots. Another is warning fellow students of pitfalls and dangers. Every climber must carefully weigh each danger along the many possible paths against their own inner desire to reach the top. There is a special point along the slopes of this mountain, when climbers will rise to the very tops of the clouds, and to the uppermost edge of the forest. At this point all paths tend to merge into a circle around the mountain. There is a chasm at this point. It appears wide and deep, and impassible. On the other side of this gap, climbers rise above the clouds, and above the tree lines, and are able to see at vast distances. This vantage is not given to those below owing to the heavy clouds, trees, and other obscurations. Many climbers return below to tell their fellows about the wonderful sights awaiting them above, but few really understand. Some of those on the lower slopes are able to catch glimpses of these majestic sights by climbing a tree or jagged hill. They think that they have obtained the same view, and report their observations to the others with seeming authority. In this way, those climbing the lower slopes are given two sets of data about the mountain, its peaks, and its surroundings. Sometimes the data are conflicting and some climbers leave the mountain in disgust and confusion. Some climbers try out the trees and hills in futile efforts to also glimpse the peaks of the mountain. Some find glimpses, and are reassured. Others merely waste their time. Only a few keep climbing ahead, one step at a time, with determined effort and will. These climbers will eventually climb all the way to the chasm. Most see the chasm as an impass. They think that this must be the peak itself, since no further progress is possible. Some return to help others at this point. Only a few will dare to leap over the chasm, find purchase on the other side, and continue their journey. Those who jump while carrying their backpacks or any other personal equipment, will die in the jump. Only those who put aside all of their belongings and jump naked across the chasm (a true leap of faith) can succeed. When those who wish to return, do so, they usually find their belongings are right where they left them, waiting for them. The observations made on the lower slopes are via kama-manas. Those observations made on the higher slopes are via buddhi-manas. The importance of developing compassion and selflessness while still on the lower slopes, is to enable the naked leap of faith required to cross the Abyss. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 17 Sep 1995 09:23:50 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: CORE teachings >> So, here we >>have CORE theosophy asking the same questions as JRC is.. >>Any ideas? > >Actually, I don't like the word CORE at all. I'm too holistic. >Theosophy should be holistic and look at the total picture. I >throw the "core" of my apple away. It's the juicy fruit around >it which has value. Indeed it is the "juicy fruit" that brings delight, yet it is the seeds within the core that make this fruit possible. Rather than throwing away the core, we must plant those seeds within the fertile areas of our minds so that we will have new delights for the future. Peace Jerry HE From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 17 Sep 1995 11:57:18 GMT From: Tracey Benson Subject: Re: K.H. on women On Sun, 17 Sep 1995, Lewis Lucas wrote: > Alan wrote: > > > I reproduce below the section of the footnote by K.H./E.O. to > > which Jinaradasa refers: > > > > "... But the authors of the Perfect Way [Anna Kingsford and > > Edward Maitland - A.B.] are right: woman must not be looked upon > > as only an appanage [sic] of man, since she was not made for his > > benefit or pleasure any more than he for hers; but the two must > > be realized as equal powers though unlike individualities. > > > > "Until the age of 7 the skeletons of girls do not differ in any > > way from those of boys, and the osteologist would be puzzled to > > discriminate them. Woman's mission is to become the mother of > > future occultists - of those who will be born without sin. On > > the elevation of the woman the world's redemption and salvation > > hinge. And not till woman bursts the bonds of her sexual > > slavery, to which she has ever been subjugated, will the world > > gain an inkling of what she really is and of her proper place in > > the economy of nature. Old India, the India of the Rishis, made > > the first sounding with her plummet line in this ocean of Truth, > > but the post Mahabaratean India, with all her profundity of > > learning, has neglected and forgotten it. > > > > "The light that will come to it and the world at large. when the > > latter shall discover and really appreciate the truths that > > underlie this vast problem of sex, will be "like the light that > > never shone on sea or land," and has to come to men through the > > Theosophical Society. That light will lead on and up to the > > *true spiritual intuition.* Then the world will have a race of > > Buddhas and Christs, for the world will have discovered that > > individuals *have it in their own powers* to proctreate > > Buddha-like children or- demons. When that knowledge comes, all > > dogmatic religions and with these the demons, will die out. - E.O." > > > > ------------------- > > I guess this really belongs on theos-roots, or *also* there. > > Maybe JM could put it in the archive? > > > Thanks for bringing up a topic I have been thinking about. The > current world conference on women's rights in China has had me > wondering if this is one of those events said to take place at the > end of each century inspired by the Masters and designed to push > forward the evolution of humanity. > > Regardless of ones views on them, it does seem the views > expressed in this letter would have a profound impact on the next > century if they could be realized. > > This may also be part of the promised new mission for the society. > > Lewis > > llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu > Please pardon my ignorance, but could you please elaborate on your source, as I don't understand the abbreviations of where this quote came from. It is a fantastic statement and I would like to include part of it in an essay I am currently in the process of writing. Thankyou for sharing it. Tracey From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 17 Sep 1995 13:42:12 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Several Comments by Daniel Caldwell (1) Concerning the pamphlet "The Story of the Mahatmas Letters" by Jinarajadasamentioned by Alan Bain, I believe this pamphlet is still in print. Those in America or Canada who would like copies should probably call Theosophical Publishing House, Wheaton, Illinois. They have a toll free number at 1-800-669-9425. If it is out of print, maybe Jerry HE has copies for sale? (2) Those interested in obtaining a copy of PARAdoxes of the Highest SCience in which K.H.'s remarks on the role of women occurs can obtain a copy of the 1931 (?) TPH Adyar Edition from Health Research in California. I don't have their address in front of me. Jerry HE can you help out? Also call your local library and ask them to look up the publishers address (Health Research) in Books In Print. (3) Conerning Paul Johnson's comments about the myth of the Adept Brotherhood and university, I agree with what Eldon and Rich have said. Why is it so difficult to believe that these Adepts would have an association worldwide, with physical locations for their activities; ashrams, etc? Buddhist monks have their monasteries, etc. etc. Why could not the adepts also communicate with one another by letter, phone, telepathy, out of the body communications, etc. etc.? It seems to me that Paul is overly concerned with what a group of religious scholars and professors may "in their great wisdom" deem to be only myth. These same scholars may consider Atlantis and Lemuria, paranormal powers, other planes of existence, reincarnation, etc. etc. to be "just myths", too. Maybe these religious scholars have their own areas of ignorance and do not know everything? As early as 1882, Henry Olcott wrote: "I know the Brothers to be living men and not spirits, and they have told me that there are schools, under appointed adepts, where their Occult science is regularly taught." Why is this so difficult to believe if you also acknowledge the existence of such living men? I realize that after HPB's death, later theosophical and occult writers have written almost "mythical" accounts of the Great White Brotherhood and the Inner Government, but what I read in HPB's writings and in the Mahatma Letters ,etc. is much more realistic (at least to me). The opinions of religious scholars with PhDs do not impress me if they show little familiarity with Theosophical history and teachings and show little if any knowledge of primary source documents of Theosophy. If they show some knowledge and understanding of Theosophy and Theosophical history, great but even then just because they have PhDs, does that mean that these scholars' opinions are more reliable ,etc than the opinions of students of Theosophy? Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 17 Sep 1995 14:21:39 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Group Project Last week Art Patterson suggested that I might post or suggest a book or article that we might focus on for a week. Along with posting the article or subject he also suggested that I might perhaps give an informal response and/or pose some questions. In repose to Art's suggestion, I'm posting the text of a very scarce theosophical pamphlet written by J.J. van der Leeuw and published in 1930. The subject concerns the conflict between revelation and realization that has existed in the Theosophical Society since the beginning, which van der Leeuw (and I) believe is at the root of the failure of the Theosophical Society. For those who are part of the ULT and Point Loma traditions, I would suggest that the issues in this pamphlet also apply to these organizations, though he is only addressing Adyar theosophical history here. To give a little background, the Adyar Theosophical Society was undergoing a crises at the time this pamphlet was published. Krishnamurti had been for some time contradicting the Master's revelations and orders as given through Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater, and by the end of 1929 Krishnamurti ordered the dissolution of the Order of the Star and resigned from the Theosophical Society. The text I am posting was originally a talk given by J.J. van der Leeuw, where he analyses the Theosophical Society in order to discover what went wrong. Though this pamphlet is over sixty years old, I believe that van de Leeuw's insights are as relevant today as they were then. I believe that the underlying problems that plagued the TS in 1930 are the same today. Johannes Jacobus van der Leeuw (1893-1934) joined the TS in 1914 and quickly became a valued member of the inner circle. By 1921 he became a Priest of the Liberal Catholic Church and won the Subba Row Metal for ~The Fire of Creation~, a theosophical classic that I believe is still in print. He also published ~A Dramatic History of the Christian Faith~; ~The Conquest of Illusion~; and ~Gods in Exile~. Tragically, like many before him who questioned the actions of the wrong people, J.J. van der Leeuw lost his standing in the inner circle after privately publishing this pamphlet. Of course, this pamphlet has never been reprinted and has become very scarce. If anyone is interested in a copy of the pamphlet, I have xerox copies available for $1 or for a one pound note (just to cover costs). I believe this pamphlet to be the most important theosophical document published at the time, and one of the most important theosophical documents ever to be published. Van der Leeuw struggles with the issue of revelations and realization in the TS and how this conflict brought about a crises, which is still with us today, and is (IMHO) primarily responsible for the poor state of affairs of not only the Adyar TS, but for all theosophical Organizations. I believe that it is only when the TS's are able to come to grips with this issue that they will ever have a chance to take their position as an important movement in the world. Concerning questions; I have a few that might help to stimulate more ideas, and hopefully others will raise more: 1. van der Leeuw offers four definitions of Theosophy, all of which are used in our theosophical literature. Do you feel that distinctions are made between these four definitions among most theosophists? What problems do you see arising out of having four definitions for this single word? 2. van der Leeuw argues that the world has changed considerable since the 19th century--that there was an antithesis between spirit and matter that no longer exists in the 20th century. Do you agree? Do you feel that the Present TS still operates under this antithesis? Do you feel that Blavatsky's writings expressed this antithesis? The Mahatma Letters? 3. van der Leeuw says that "...a thinker is always a disturbing influence." and that there has been no place for thinkers in the Theosophical Society. Do you agree with van der Leeuw's assessment? What about the great thinkers who joined during HPB's time but soon left after she died: i.e. Yeats; Gandhi etc. Why did they leave? 4. van der Leeuw says that the "brotherhood" offered by the TS actually creates a barrier. What does he mean by this? Do you agree? 5. van der Leeuw says that Lodge life breeds mediocrity. What has been you experience in Lodges? Do you find anything familiar in van der Leeuw's description? 6. What is your evaluation of van der Leeuw's central argument that revelation and Authority have worked disharmoniously in the TS? How can the TS conquer this duality? The next two posts will be the text of the pamphlet in two parts. The entire text is about 15 pages. Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 17 Sep 1995 14:26:23 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: van der Leeuw text 1 REVELATION OR REALIZATION The Conflict in Theosophy by J.J. van der Leeuw, LL.D. [Lecture delivered to the London Federation of the Theosophical Society on June 15th, to the Dutch Convention on June 21st, and to the Geneva Congress of the European Federation on June 30th, 1930.] There was a time when no doubt seemed possible about the future of the T. S. We had been told that the Masters of the Wisdom had founded it and that it was to be the key stone of the religions of the future. Consequently the possibility of its failure hardly occurred to members; empires might crumble, churches might cease to be, but the Theosophical Society would continue throughout the ages. Of late, however, very serious doubts have arisen in the minds of many concerning this future. The world at large is no longer as interested in theosophy or the theosophical movement as it was forty years ago. Then the Society was opposed as a dangerous pioneer movement, now it is regarded with indifference and looked upon as a relic of the past rather than a promise of the future. In almost every Section there is a serious falling off of book sales showing that the literature which once appealed to the public, is no longer desired. More serious even than the indifference of the modern world with regard to the movement is the conflict within it. I am not speaking about a conflict between personalities; these do not matter. The conflict is one between different standpoints, views of life. I would define these as the conflict between revelation and realization. This conflict has been inherent in the theosophical movement from its inception, and has become acute since 1925. It was then that on the one hand revelation became fantastic and thereby questionable and on the other hand realization was emphasized by Krishnamurti as the way of life. A system of revelation is only possible when there is one oracle, or channel of revelation, the authority of which is not to be questioned. A plurality of oracles is death to revelation. When in I 925 it was announced that the World Teacher would have twelve apostles as before in Palestine and when Krishnamurti himself denied having any apostles or disciples at all it was inevitable that members should begin to ask whether this revelation as well as previous ones was to be trusted or not. Previously the ceremonial movements had gained their adherents largely because they were announced as a preparation of the work of the coming teacher. In his name and on his authority were they launched forth and those who took part in them felt they were doing the teacher's work. When he began his teaching and denied the value of ceremonial, calling it an obstacle to liberation, there were again many who asked themselves how this contradiction could be explained. Many and ingenious were the explanations put forward, but the fact remained that the faith in revelation had been shaken forever. The consequence of this has been that the work and self-sacrifice of members in so far as these were based on such faith in revelations, has fallen off considerably. In the hearts of many doubt and despair have taken the place of unquestioning belief. The inevitable result is a process of disintegration, in which many of the most serious members leave a movement in which they no longer have confidence. It is my intention in this lecture to seek out the causes of this disintegration and, if possible, to find a cure. I shall therefore criticize quite frankly. Now criticism has always been exceedingly unpopular in the Theosophical Society. In theory our platform is free, but in practice one who thinks differently from the rest, though perfectly free to do so, will find no platform to express his thoughts. There has always been fear of any idea that might disturb the harmony among the members. Criticism, however kindly expressed, was immediately branded as "cruel and unjust attacks", as "unbrotherly" and in the last resort as being under the influence of the Dark Powers. It is the mediaeval attitude of mind where the sulphur smell of satanic activity is detected whenever an opinion is expressed different from its own. I speak for love of truth, not to attack theosophy. The one thing I should like to ask you is to credit me at least with the sincere desire of helping our members in the present state of confusion and not to suspect me of sinister intentions. I feel like a doctor at a patient's bedside; he must look for the organs that are diseased and can only help the patient by seeking out every cause of ill health. When a doctor says that the patient's heart is diseased we do not call him unbrotherly or say that he is attacking the patient most cruelly; we do not tell him that he should look only for the good in the patient and not for the evil, and that he should rather emphasize the sound state of the lungs than the diseased condition of the heart. I have to speak of the unhealthy symptoms in the theosophical movement and it is only by a thorough criticism that we can hope to analyze them. In criticizing theosophy we must first of all ask: which theosophy? Historically the word means the experience of the divine, in distinction to theology which is discussion about God. This experience of the ultimate, of reality, of life, of truth, is beyond all discussion. It exists wherever a man has it and cannot be criticized or denied. Secondly, the word has been used in an early theosophical manifesto as "the archaic system of esoteric wisdom in the keeping of the brotherhood of adepts." I shall refer to this conception later on, but at present I am not dealing with it. Thirdly, theosophy is taken to mean the system of doctrines put forward in literature or lectures since the beginning of the Theosophical Society. This is what the world at large knows as theosophy. Finally, there is the practice in important centres of theosophical work, where, in the work actually done and in the aims held before people, we can see what is looked upon as valuable. At the moment I am speaking only about these last two forms of theosophy, that is to say, about that which has been presented to the world in books or lectures or can be seen in centres of theosophical work. This theosophy was born in the Victorian Era. The end of the nineteenth century was a period divorced from life. Man had lost the sense of vital relations and had made objective absolutes out of things which have meaning only as living relations. Thus he looked upon the world surrounding him as an objective universe standing opposite him, independent of his consciousness. Actually what we call the world surrounding us is the way in which we interpret the reality that affects our consciousness. This interpretation in terms of our consciousness is our world-image which is real only with relation to the consciousness of which it forms part. As long as this relation is recognized all is well; life or reality affects man and through him is externalized as a world-image in his consciousness. Man is the focus through which this process takes place, and there is an unimpeded flow of life, reality affecting him and, through him, becoming world-image. When however, man forgets that he is only a focus of reality and feels himself as a separate being, a soul or a spirit, all changes. Instead of recognizing that what he calls the world is his interpretation, in terms of consciousness, of the reality that affects him, he objectivates that world-image and makes it into an absolute, opposite him: the world of matter. In a similar way he separates himself from that life which creates the world-image in him, he objectivates that too and calls it God or Spirit. Thus he finds himself isolated between two worlds: a world of gross matter outside and a world of subtle spirit within. This duality henceforth rules his life and in practice he has to choose between its two elements. This choice is one between materialism and idealism. In the 19th century this antithesis was a very real one, and theosophy, based on that dualism, identified itself with the idealistic world-view as against the materialistic. It fought the materialism of its day and was frankly idealistic or spiritual in its philosophy. It still is; in theosophical doctrine the spiritual world is looked upon as the real world in which man, the higher Self has his true home. From that world he descends into these lower worlds of matter where through his "lower bodies" he gathers experience. When, through this experience his- Self has become perfected, it returns to that world beyond, whence it came. Thus theosophy is a philosophy of the Beyond; its ultimate reality is not this physical world but a world removed from it by several stages, its fulfilment is not in the present but at a future time when perfection shall be reached. Thus, in space and time, it is a philosophy of the Beyond. The world has changed considerably since the 19th century. The greatest change has been that it has rediscovered life and thereby re-established the vital relations which were lost in a period of dualism. Thus modern man no longer recognizes a duality of spirit and matter or, in scientific terms, force and mass, but sees these two as convertible quantities which appear as one or the other according to the position of the observer. A new outlook on life has been born which is neither idealistic nor materialistic, still less a compromise between the two. We can define it as a new realism in the light of which idealism appears as out worn as materialism. Its reality is not a world or worlds beyond, but the meaning of this world as of any other world, man being as near to reality in the physical world as in any other world in which he i might live. Similarly the fulfilment of life is not seen as a far off apotheosis of ultimate perfection but in the realization of life here and now. Man himself is the open door to reality, he is the focus through which reality becomes world-image and in his own actual experience of the moment he can therefore find the open door to all life. This is no mystic state, no "merging into the absolute", if such a thing were possible; it is a process taking place in the actual common experience of the actual present moment at the actual place where man finds himself. The experience you have at this actual moment at this place is the open door to reality-nothing else. It is in the here and the now that the way of life is to be found. The men and women of the new age have therefore no time for a dualistic philosophy which preaches an outworn idealism, they have no interest in a philosophy of the Beyond. And such, in their eyes, is theosophy. It was born in an age of dualism, it allied itself with one of its two elements, the spiritual, it elements, its reality in a world beyond and its perfection at a future date and is in that respect a relic of the past rather than a promise of the future. Unless its philosophy becomes one of the here and the now, recognizing that reality or life can only be approached through the actual experience of the moment, and nowhere else, there is no future for it and it will cease to have other than a historical interest. Another characteristic of the 19th century was its fear of life. Where man has disconnected himself from life he is afraid of it and seeks a shelter or refuge. He looks for a final certainty, a system which will solve all problems of life so that Life, which he dreads, shall not be able to take him unawares or upset his comfortable existence. A system of philosophy therefore which claims to solve the problems of life and to be able to explain all that happens has a very strong appeal for such a, man. Theosophy was such a philosophy; it claimed to have an answer to the problems of life, to have solved its riddles. Even its enemies must acknowledge that theosophists are unequalled in explaining all that happens, how ever contradictory. With a true virtuosity they perform the mental acrobatics by means of which they can assert or believe one thing and yet find an explanation when the facts of life contradict it. Here the desire for truth is not so great as the desire to make life fit in with a preconceived system. Man feels safe only when nothing that happens to him in daily life escapes the system of rational explanation which he has built up. When something happens to him he wants to explain why it happened and what it is "good for" ultimately. Thus he fits it in into his system of thought; he has rationalized the event. When Krishnamurti began his teaching the difficulty for most theosophists was not so much that they could not understand the teaching as that they could not fit it into their system of thought. The question was not: What does he mean? but: How can this be reconciled with what we have been taught before? Life, however, can never be reconciled to preconceived thoughts, neither can it be rationalized. Life is not an intelligence, therefore it is neither rational nor logical; it has no cause and no purpose. The attempt to rationalize the suffering that comes to us in life, to show that we have deserved it, and that it is "good for something" ultimately, is therefore doomed to failure; we cannot tame life in this way. It is curious to see how man dreads the thought of life being beyond explanation. He wants consolation, a drug which will dull his suffering or a soothing sleeping draught which will give him Return-Path: From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 17 Sep 1995 14:31:04 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: van der Leeuw text 2 II So far I have dealt with the causes of the decline of the Theosophical Movement in its relation to the world at large. Now we must consider the more serious causes of disintegration within the movement. >From its very beginning the Society has suffered from an internal conflict which I characterized as that between realization and revelation. In its historical meaning theosophy means realization, the experience of the Divine within man. In that sense, it was used in Neo-Platonic philosophy and by mediaeval philosophers. This conception of Theosophy has been present in theosophical teaching from the beginning. Alan was to find the higher self within him and thereby come into conscious unity with the Life in all things. At the same time, however, theosophy is characterised as "the archaic system of esoteric truth in the keeping of a brotherhood of adepts." Here Theosophy is not a truth to be experienced by man in himself, it is a body of doctrine possessed and guarded by a group of Adepts in whose power it lay to reveal it to others. Thus the way of knowledge became one of discipleship; only by becoming a pupil of one of the Masters could man hope to partake of the esoteric truth. The aim was to gain initiation into the Brotherhood, to enter the Hierarchy that guarded the esoteric wisdom. This way of knowledge is one of revelation; the divine Wisdom is received by the pupil from his Master and handed on again by him to those less enlightened than himself. Thus a hierarchic system of revelation arises in which the authority of superiors is not be questioned and the slightest hint is an order not to be criticised but to be obeyed. The spirit is that of a spiritual army where obedience and efficiency are greater virtues than individual creative activity and genius. The way of realisation is the way of the individual; its highest product is the creative genius. The way of revelation is the way of the group; its highest product is the perfect channel, obediently transmitting orders and power from above. We must sharply distinguish revelation from authority. Authority is a fact in nature; where a man is superior in wisdom or power he will automatically have authority over others. That this authority can lead to abuse of power or to tyranny and impede the freedom of others does not invalidate the fact that superiority in any respect means authority. But when I speak of revelation, I mean all information claiming to come from an unseen source, from an inaccessible authority. Primitive man looked upon some few as being intimately related to the gods he feared and being able to reveal their will and power. Thus the priest was a channel through whom the will, the knowledge and the grace of the deity could be transmitted to the masses. Man sought for guidance of his own life by the revelations coming to him through the appointed oracle. The priesthood thus gained power over men's souls and were able to enforce their own will by clothing it in the garment of revelation from above. Therefore, revelation in the meaning in which I use it here, is a message from an unseen authority coming through an appointed channel. In ordinary speech, we sometimes talk of things being "a revelation to us," but that is not the sense in which the word is used here. I can say that the Einstein theory is a revelation to me, but it will be clear that no scientific work ever partakes of the element of revelation. It does not speak in the name of an unseen authority, the scientist speaks in his own name and what he says can be questioned, criticised, proved or disproved. The authority is always available, the source of knowledge is accessible and, even though not every man has the means to prove whether the Einstein theory is true or not, he knows that Einstein's brother scientists have done their utmost to discover a flaw in it. The bulk of our theosophical literature does not partake of the element of revelation. If a theosophist writes a book describing his experiences in this or other worlds, or expounding his ideas on life and its problems, there is no revelation in such a work. The one who wrote it is available, can be questioned and criticised, the argument of the book can be discussed and contradicted; the entire subject remains within the realm of reason. Yet even in the time of H.P.B. the element of revelation was present in the Theosophical Society. Thus, in the Mahatma Letters we find messages coming from an unseen authority through an appointed channel. Later on, when letters were no longer forthcoming, messages came directly through certain recognized theosophical authorities. In these messages, the Masters would express their desires as to what should be done or not done, what activities undertaken or opposed, and give hints guiding the lives of prospective pupils. Here we find real revelation: messages from an unseen authority, inaccessible to others. Theoretically, of course, the unseen authority is accessible to all who succeed in raising their consciousness to its level; practically it is not, and should any claim to have come into touch with the same authority from whom messages were previously received through another. that authority usually speaks through him with a very different voice. We only need to compare the letters from the Master K.H. produced in the time of H.P.B. and written in her Bohemian manner interspersed with French expressions, often somewhat racy in style, with the messages revealed as coming from that same Master in recent years. They breathe an utterly different spirit; where the former denied the existence of God in any form, seen or unseen, personal or impersonal, the latter have reintroduced him in a very personal way indeed. Where in the Mahatma Letters the Master K.H. speaks of religion as being the greatest evil in human civilisation, and denounces all churches, priesthoods and ceremonials in definite terms, his more recent messages speak with great reverence about religion and church and endorse ceremonial and priesthood most vigorously. One is therefore inclined to think that the source of unseen authority for each is a strictly individual and subjective one, an exteriorisation of their own unconscious motives. This is still more evident with regard to all messages revealed as coming from the World Teacher during the last fifteen years. When Krishnamurti began speaking in his own authority, and in his own name as the World Teacher, the things he said were widely different in spirit and purpose from all messages thus received. First of all, he emphatically denied being the vehicle of another consciousness or being used by anyone who spoke through him or inspired him. He claimed to be the World Teacher, not because some other intelligence possessed or used him, but be cause he had gained liberation and become one with life, which is the only Teacher. He utterly denied having any apostles or even disciples and rejected ceremonial, however and wherever used, as an obstacle on the path to liberation. Neither would he have anything to do with the occult path of discipleship and initiation, characterising all these as "unessentials". It was therefore inevitable that theosophists all over the world, should have begun to doubt all previous revelations and to suspect that these were more in the nature of subjective opinions. It takes the mental acrobatics of trained theosophical students to reconcile the contradictory facts contained in the earlier revelations and the subsequent teaching of Krishnamurti. Even though he himself strongly denies being used by another consciousness, they claim to know better than he does what is actually taking place in his own consciousness, and still maintain that there is another person, the "real" World Teacher, living in the Himalayas, who occasionally speaks through Krishnamurti. This real World Teacher entirely endorses all previous revelations, he has apostles and approves the ceremonial movements, especially the Liberal Catholic Church. The fact that Krishnamurti denies the value of all these is then explained by the fact that he, being "only a vehicle", cannot express fully the "glorious consciousness" which they, the speakers, know so much more intimately than he. Thus it means nothing that he should contradict things previously revealed, it only shows that at that time, it was not the World Teacher speaking-but only Mr. Krishnamurti. The interesting situation arises that a few people are to be credited with the ability to tell us when Krishnamurti speaks and when the World Teacher is speaking. The result would seem to be that when the opinions agree with their own, it is the World Teacher speaking, while otherwise it is Mr. Krishnamurti. The only one who evidently is not to be believed, when he says the World Teacher is speaking, is Mr. Krishnamurti himself. It is needless to expound further the length to which theosophical casuistry can go; the tragical fact remains that there appears to be less desire to understand what Krishnamurti says than to fit it in with revelations previously given. It would be far simpler to recognize the previous revelations to have been erroneous. But this, of course, would discredit the cause of revelation. Enough, however, has been said to show how fatal the effects of revelation arc in any movement. The fact that revelation is a message coming from an unseen authority, inaccessible to others, places it beyond the realm of reason and makes it impossible to criticise or discuss its value. In all discussions, which I have ever had on the subject, the adherents of revelation would always end by saying, "Well, all I can say is that the Master told me to do this, and so I do it." This ends any discussion, and puts the question beyond reason. Thus I maintain that the evil effects of revelation are caused by the fact that revelation can only be accepted or denied, but never criticised in the light of reason. I know that theoretically this can be done, and whenever the subject is brought up, we are told that theosophical leaders have always urged their disciples to judge for themselves and not accept anything because they said it. This, however, is theory; in practice, one who ventured to criticise or doubt a message coming from the Master, would suffer the silent excommunication of the heretic, and be made to feel that he was unfit to be of the elect. Of what value is the freedom to criticise and to judge for oneself when, in the rare cases, where some brave soul has ventured to do so, we are told that "in incarnations to come, he will, through untold suffering, grope in vain for the light which he thus wilfully rejected"? This is but Eternal Damnation in another form. It is the threat and fear of punishment to come which terrorises the would-be critic back into an attitude of obedient submissiveness. In the Mahatma Letters and the correspondence between H.P.B. and Sinnett, we can read what is said about those who do not take a hint once given, or who dare to argue about an order coming from above. Even Sinnett himself was repeatedly threatened with the breaking off of all further intercourse with his Master if he did not follow the orders given. And there is no doubt that, if a theosophist at any time criticises or rejects a message coming to him from the Master through an appointed channel, he will thereby be said to have cut himself off for a long time to come from any further such privileges. Where simultaneously discipleship and a drawing nearer to the Master are held up as the goal of life, it is clear that the theoretical freedom of criticism means the giving up of all that is held dearest and highest in the life of theosophists. I wish to make it perfectly clear that I am in no wise denying the existence of the Masters or the possibility of communion with them. If I think that the Master has spoken to me, this fact implies no revelation, but only experience: I have an experience which may or may not be of value to me. Revelation only begins when I transmit to others the messages thus received as coming from that unseen authority. I should like to suggest that anyone who thinks he or she has received a message or order from a Master or higher authority should first see whether he himself agrees with it, whether it awakens a response in his own soul. If so, let him, when speaking about it to others, speak in his own name and say, "I think this, and I will this". But never let him say, "The Master thinks this or the Master wills this". Should he himself not agree with the communication thus received, let him say nothing at all. But let him never speak in the name of an unseen authority. Revelation is still more fatal when it interferes with the life of the individual and attempts to guide his life, to tell him what to do or where he stands. It has been the custom in theosophical centres to look to a few as being able to tell others where they stand in their spiritual evolution, whether they have taken a step forward or not. Thus spiritual progress is made to depend on revelation, and power is given to a few to tell others where they stand. The consequences of this are always fatal. The absurdity of the situation becomes clear when we consider that if these few people, supposed to be able to tell us where we stand, were to die, we should be lost in uncertainty. Again, if the appointed channels should disagree, as has happened before, we have to choose whom we are going to believe and whom not! It is inevitable that where such power in placed in the hands of the few, their own personal likes and dislikes will unconsciously influence the occult standing they confer on others. These, on the other hand, may be afraid to contradict or oppose one who has the power to bestow or withhold steps, but will try to keep in good standing, and do what they are asked to do. Thus a host of spiritual inquiries are born, detrimental to the individual and to the cause he serves. But above all, the fact remains that it is impossible at any time for any one to tell another where he stands in spiritual progress. No one can reveal that to you but the life that is in you. Each individual is as a ray going forth from the centre of the circle; he can only enter the centre of life along the ray that is his own being, never along another. Life expresses itself in each one of us in a way which we alone, and no one else, can know; there is a sanctuary of life in each of us where we alone can enter and hear the voice of we cannot enter that sanctuary by the backstairs of revelation; there is only the royal road of our own daily experience of life. No one can tell you what to do in life, what work to serve but the voice of life that is within you, your own inner vocation, your individual uniqueness. To go to another, and to ask him what you should do or where you stand. is to violate the life that is within you, and to shut yourself off from it. I wish to emphasize that I do not deny the existence of the occult path or the steps on it such as discipleship or initiation. Their existence or non-existence lies outside the subject I am dealing with. The element of revelation only enters where any one, in the name of an unseen and inaccessible authority tells others where they stand and what steps they have taken, so that no one is supposed to have taken a step unless one of the few acknowledged channels of revelation has affirmed him to have done so. Nothing would be lost if this practice with all its fatal consequences were discontinued. If the taking of a step means an expansion of life within, that expansion will be there and show itself whether anyone else says you have taken a step or not. What would it avail you if everyone acknowledged you as having taken a step and the expansion of life were not within you, and on the other hand, what do you lose if everyone should agree in saying you have not taking a step and the expansion of life is in you and shows forth in your daily life? The telling or not telling is wholly unessential and wholly mischievous in its consequences. It makes for a spiritual snobbery in which the elect sit in the seats of honour, while the common herd are despised. Though the results of revelation are always fatal, and opposed to the spirit of theosophy, which is realisation, it is most dangerous where it interferes with the individual lives of people and attempts to make them cease from work they are doing or undertake work they have no intention of doing. Especially where young people are concerned such interference is inexcusable. I know cases where, on the basis of revelation, young people have been taken out of their university studies in order that they might dedicate themselves to "the Work". As if the Work for each one were not that which the life within him urges him to do, instead of the revelation coming from another! In modern education, especially in the Montessori method, it is fully recognized that the way of life is the way of realization. The child is surrounded by didactic material, the only purpose of which is to draw out its faculties and to enable it to learn by experience. In this way the child will spontaneously grow into that which the life within it means it to be. Opposed to this spirit of life is the army spirit where orders come from above and have to be obeyed without argument or delay. It is this spirit which inevitably accompanies revelation; a spiritual hierarchy is like a spiritual army where orders are obeyed and not questioned. In this army-spirit individual uniqueness and creative genius are crushed out. We cannot therefore wonder why there has been so little creative work in the Theosophical Society; it is because the ideal of the "band of servers" has been obedience to revelation, and not self- expression through realization. There is no reason why anyone should not occasionally seek the advice of those wiser than himself, and discuss with them his difficulties. There is no reason why we should not try to learn as much as we can from teachers and books, so long as we realize that we have to make our decisions in our own name and that it is weakness to shift the responsibility on to others. We must have no fear to guide our own lives. Better to perish in the attempt than go safely along the way of another. There is no future for the Theosophical Society unless the evil of revelation be shaken off, never to return. It is wholly incompatible with Theosophy which is essentially experience of the Divine, or realization. It is not another "path" or "aspect"; superstition is no path, but an error. There is a pseudo-tolerance which agrees with the most conflicting views, admiring them all impartially, and trying to get "some good out of each one". This tolerance is in reality a lack of backbone, an absence of vigorous life. Let no one say that in my address I have denied occultism. There is a future for occultism if it will conform to strictly scientific methods, and submit to tests and proof. It can only develop if it renounces entirely all spiritual or religious claims; it has as little to do with these as ordinary science. Just as science could not develop until it shook off the mystical and spiritual glamour with which it was enveloped in the Middle Ages, so the condition of progress for occultism as a science is that it should likewise discard the halo of mystery in which it is enveloped. When the question is asked: Has the Theosophical Society a future?, I can only answer that I do not know. But what I can say with utter certainty is that iv has no future unless it breaks free from the outworn mentality that still permeates it and is born anew in the spirit of the new age. That spirit is one of love of life instead of fear of life, one in which life is welcomed even though it may destroy the beliefs in which we found refuge hitherto. Theosophy must cease to be a philosophy of the Beyond; it must conquer the duality in which it is still rooted and realize that the open door to reality lies in the here and the now, in man's actual daily experience and nor in some higher world or some distant future. None can open this door for us and none can close it. It is no mystical experience for the few alone; it is for all and it is only our fear of life that makes us incapable of seeing it. Theosophy has to realise that its claim of being a philosophical system, explaining the problems of life, has no appeal to modern man who knows that life is not a problem to be solved; to whom it is a search and an ever increasing experience. The Society must cease to be a brotherhood with the exclusion of less desirable brethren; it must break down the barriers which make it possible to speak of an "outside world", and create a new form of membership which does not involve sectarian allegiance. Above all, theosophists must learn to recognize the conflict that has been inherent in theosophy from the beginning: that between realization and revelation. Theosophy, as the realization of life by each man in his own consciousness, is incompatible with a hierarchic system of revelation where truth and enlightenment come to us through others and where the guidance of our life rests on orders received from superiors. Modern man no longer desires a shelter or a refuge, consolation or security. Rather than stagnate in the false repose and happiness which these can give, he will go out alone and face the storm of life in his own strength. The aim of theosophy is to breed, not weaklings, but strong men. N.V. Theosofische Vereeniging Uitgevers Maatschappij, Amsterdam Copyright 1930 by the Author Originally printed in Holland by Firma H. Tulp, Zwolle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 17 Sep 1995 15:11:20 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: JRC to Eldon: Inner Abilities Eldon, To me, authorities are people whose opinions we value, & most of whose ideas sond good to "our own inner Teacher" as you call it. If we don't value what they say, they're not authorities to us. To Daniel in the Lions' Den certain Bible passages are The Authority. My yardstick is different. As for being set in one's beliefs, I think everyone gets set in them, after a while, & I think that is as it should be. But being firm in one's own beliefs shouldn't keep one from listening to someone else's with an open ear, & from trying to be receptive to where they're coming from. Shanti Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 17 Sep 1995 15:11:32 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Re: Source Teachings, Core Teachings of Theosophy In several postings over the last few weeks, I have seen reference to the "source teachings" of Theosophy as consisting of the writings of H.P. Blavatsky, the letters of the Mahatmas, and the writings of William Judge. >From a historical perspective, I would say that HPB's writings and the letters of the Mahatams constitute such "source teachings" but I would not include Mr. Judge's works. In saying this I am not attemtping to cast aspersions on Judge's character or writings, etc. Mr. Judge was a remarkable man and did so much for Theosophy. He died when he was only 44 years old; almost 45! He is surely one of the 3 original founders of the T.S.etc. etc. Nevertheless, I agree with one PhD of religion: Dr. Robert Ellwood, when he writes in his book THEOSOPHY, p. 217: "H.P. Blavatsky...is regarded by all modern theosophical movements as the most important theosophical writer and teacher of the modern era." Serious Blavatsky students that I know would agree with Dr. Ellwood's statement. Some of these Blavatsky students would also put Judge in that categroy but other equally serious Blavatsky students would not. Instead of Judge, some Blavatsky students believe that Annie Besant would be in that category with HPB. Other students believe that G. de Purucker has given the world the best commentaries, etc. on HPB's Secret Doctrine. etc. etc. But if there had been no other Theosophical writers, other than H.P. Blavatsky, Theosophists and other interested seekers, would have a huge Blavatsky corpus of writings to read, study, research, etc. Add to all these writings (more than 20 volumes!) the Mahatma Letters (3 volumes) and you have more than 10,000 pages of source material and source teaching. How many Theosophical students have taken advantage of this source material? In 1891, at HPB's death, she was the most prolific Theosophical writer. She had written approximately 1000 articles in a public career of 17 years and had published the following books: Isis Unveiled (1877) 2 large volumes The Secret Doctrine (1888) 2 large volumes The Key to Theosophy (1889) The Voice of the Silence (1891) [1891 should be 1889!] Transactions of the Blavatsky Lodge (2 volumes, 1890 and 1891) etc. etc. She had written for private E.S. use 3 Esoteric Instructions and given verbally to her Inner Group a body of teachings. Soon after her death, her works The Theosophical Glossary and Nightmare Tales were pubishled and in 1897 the third volume of the Secret Doctrine was published. Even in 1900, HPB was probably still the most prolific Theosophical writer of modern times. In 1995, we have 14 volumes of her Collected articles and miscellaneous works. More unpublished MSS are still to be published, etc. When we add the 3 volumes of the letters of the Masters, we have a large body of source teachings which first emanated *through* H.P. Blavatsky beginning on Oct. 27, 1874 and ending on April 27, 1891. She wrote more than 10,000 pages in longhand. And if we are to believe HPB's critics, she also penned by hand the vast majority of the letters from the Masters! Did this lady ever sleep or do anything else but write? In the preface to her first major work ISIS UNVEILED, she says: "The work now submitted to public judgment is the fruit of a somewhat intimate acquaintance with Eastern adepts and study of their science.... we came into contact with certain men, endowed with such mysterious powers and such profound knowledge that we may truly desinate them as the sages of the Orient. To their instructions we lent a ready ear." And if we are to believe what Master K.H. says in one of his letters: "This state of hers [HPBs] is intimately connected with her occult training in Tibet, and due to her being sent out alone into the world to gradually prepare the way for others. After nearly a century of fruitless search, our chiefs had to avail themselves of the only opportunity to send out a European *body* ......." etc, etc. And we could quote other statements of Koot Hoomi and Morya to the same effect. And as I said at the beginning of this posting, I am not denigrating W.Q. Judge's writings. But in historical fairness, should we not, at the very least, also include Annie Besant's early Theosophical writings if we want to include Judge's in the "source teachings" category. HPB thought very highly of Judge. But she also thought very highly of Besant. I could give quotes from HPB about Judge and Besant, but will not at this point. Mrs. Besant wrote at an early stage of her Theosophical career three remarkable books *The Seven Principles of Man (1892), *Reincarnation (1892) and *Death and After? (1893). If Mr. Judge's book The Ocean of Theosophy is considered "source teaching" material, why not these three works by Mrs. Besant? And why not the writings of T. Subba Row, who was a pupil of Master M. and highly regarded by HPB? And why not the writings of Damodar, a pupil of the Master K.H.? And after HPB's death, Annie Besant and William Judge in a joint E.S. communication (dated May 27, 1891) write: "The departure of our Teacher, H.P.B........We who write to you claim over you no authority save such as she delegated to us. We are your fellow students, chosen by her---the Messenger of the Masters of the Wisdom---as Their channels to the measure of our ability.....For the use of all of us, there are written teachings left by HPB in our hands that will give food for study and thought for many a year to come......" And even in July-August, 1894 when there had developed serious tensions and difficulties between Judge and Besant, they signed an E.S.T. document of which I give a brief extract: "...we have our fundamental unity and channel in the Masters and in Their mouthpiece---our Teacher in this School---our recognized Head H.P.B...... We remain throughout the world the one School....founded by H.P.B., recognizing her as our Teacher and the Masters as our foundation, having in common her Headship, the Instructions she left, and the Rules of the School." In light of all of the above and much I have not gone into, I believe it would be proper from not only a historical perspective but from an esoteric perspective to view H.P.B.'s writings and the Mahatma letters as "source teachings" of Theosophy. Possibly other Theosophists (including Judge, Besant, Subba Row) added greatly to that original foundation. Let each student decide for himself or herself. But for the student who believe in HPB's bona fides (and that doesn't mean that one has to blindly accept in some fundamentalist fashion HPB's and the Master's writings as some dogmatic scripture) would it not be a wise course of action to not only read, but also to study, ponder, meditate, etc. on this marvelous 10, 000 plus pages of writings emanating from this strange Russian woman and her Teachers? "...we have broken the silence of centuries...." K.H in 1884. I hope nothing I have said in this posting will be misunderstood. I am not attacking William Q. Judge whom HPB said in 1888 was a "chela of thirteen years" and a hard, very hard worker for Theosophy. Neither am I advocating some sort of blind, dogmatic belief in HPB's words as though what she said was infallible. What I am suggesting and encouraging is a new and possbily renewed appreciation of her writings. I am certainly suggesting that students (old and new to Theosophy) should undertake the careful reading, study, etc. of what HPB originally wrote and what the Masters originally wrote in their efforts to break "the silence of centuries." Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 17 Sep 1995 15:25:01 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: focus on core? Rich writes: >So why not focus on the CORE which makes Theosophy in our lives possible >today, and see what light is shed on our paths, rather than rail against how >conservative our Founders were, or how much more enlightened we are than >they. > You still don't get my point that I don't think we need to exclude people because 1) we don't have time to read further, 2) we don't enjoy the books that are written by the other authors or 3) someone tells us that studying "all kinds of writing" can't be done within the context of theosophy and that it is divisive. It has nothing to do with light from core or making theosophy possible or railing about the better job done by some than others. It has to do with seeing the steps to wisdom and not just walking the ladder yourself. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 17 Sep 1995 16:27:10 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: True Progress;LFD & JRC & others Dear Martin, I really like your proposal as to how to handle ESP within the TS. I also like all the projects you mention at the end, into which Theosophists could branch out. I have 3 suggestions in that direction. 1.) Serge King wrote "Earth Energies" in which he describes experiments done with Prana, vril, chi, ... it comes under many names. Serge also mentions areas in which research hasn't been done, & could profitably be undertaken. That would be a project for a study center. 2.) I started a group last year. At this point, things are a little wobbly & I'm not sure it's going to survive. But the plans are to do what Miami did last year ... to study Itzak Bentov's "Stalking the Wild Pendulum". I'm just now reading the intro & have leafed around in it, but the general idea is to get to experiments with the unseen. 3.) There's also a newer book, about chaos theory, which lends itself to dicussion. It mixes science & mysticism, & sometimes touches on the arts.. "Turbulent Mirror" by John Briggs & F. David Peat. Lastly, I know for sure that Adyar has an ES. Shanti Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 17 Sep 1995 16:27:44 GMT From: euser Subject: Re: True Progress;LFD & JRC & others Liesel, John & others, I would like to comment a little on the various issues that have arisen lately. Firstly, regarding the research of powers latent in man: I think that the research of psychic powers _is_ in agreement with the third object of the TS, though one can ask oneself what would be the proper setting/condition for this to be fruitfully done. At least a careful comparison with the clairvoyant findngs of others would be necessary & the proper atmosphere,i.e. an understanding and acceptance by other fellow-theosophists why this research is valuable and in which context it has its place. Not so much is taught about the astral realms in core theosophy. Probably, the old mode of teaching intended to focus people upon the spiritual realms first and give the necessary ethics first. Nowadays, this approach seems still valid to me, although there seems to be a need for theosophists who are able to guide young people with psychic experiences. My guess is, that there is certainly room for people like JRC who can guide these yougsters by his own experience. These youngstes should be taught how to integrate their faculties with the spiritual ones. In principle, this is not that difficult, when the service ethic becomes integrated within their minds. [JRC- now I am speaking out of my own humble experience] Of course, it is repulsive when other theosophists are denigratory about clairvoyant abilities- a funny note: HPB invited Massey into the TS & got into trouble with this guy (a passive medium)- although they certainly have a right to warn for passive mediumship (which is not the same as people whose astral senses occasionally & naturally (spontaneously) give them some glimpses into some layer of the inner worlds). Maybe some *reliable* info about the astral senses & the control of them can be developed by cooperative effort of clairvoyant theosophists, supported with written material from the core teachings about these matters, including the spiritual senses and service ethic. This might be a controversial project, though.. BTW, I remember HPB (?) spoke of the rise of the psychic abilities in America this century, and she was concerned how theosophy could guide people in the process of how to deal with these abilities. So, here we have CORE theosophy asking the same questions as JRC is.. Any ideas? As to *chela's*, this is quite another thing according to Point Loma, Pasadena & ULT tradition (and I may have to include Adyar too nowadays) They are not permitted to pay much attention to these faculties, unless they have a fair amount of control of them, through the development of the spiritual faculties. Whether there is a *real* esoteric section today in any of the TSs I don't know, I doubt it (at least as regards my own country). There's an additional problem nowadays of people looking upon such a section as 'elitist', possibly shutting out people who want to be a member of it; so, I don't know if this kind of sections are alive or not (or are a viable thing nowadays) within the ranks of the TSs. Regarding JHE's 'nasty postings' on CWL, I think we all agreed to restrict such material to theos-roots, isn't it? I might add that I expect little to come out of it- mostly dissension - if continued on this board. It would probably best if we restricted the use of the term core-theosophy to the MLs & HPB's writings & Judge and see all the other writers as possible extensions of the teachings- subject to our own discrimination. BTW, there are so many controversial figures in the theosophical history including many of the leaders of most TSs, that it seems totally useless to me to discuss any of them. Rather, I would like us to concentrate on our understanding of core theosophy and it's extensions in the light of contemporary needs. Some ideas: what about a laboratory for doing scientific experiments (in the early days of the TS some were doing experiments with self-devised machinery); trying to develop some useful terminology in the interfacing of theosophy and science; studying the old manuscripts of religions (is this being done nowadays?); developing courses on ahimsa (non-violence) based on theosophical ethics; writing letters to scientists & science-popularizing journalists, in a Socratic way, challenging their opinions & beliefs; What about social action? One important trend today is the emergence of a new type of banks: banks that only invest in environmentally friendly projects and lend money (on a very low or zero interest rate) to poor people in order to facilitate them to start their own small business or farming. Theosophists could support such an effort of changing the flows of money. Etc. Etc. Very practical! Martin | Martin Euser | Man is a Divine Spark. | | euser@xs4all.nl | Realize your potential! | | http://spirit.satelnet.org/Spirit/mysteries.html | | See: theosophy corner | From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 17 Sep 1995 17:08:10 GMT From: Thom Nelson Subject: Library Books It was great to discover that there was a pretty good selection of = Theosophical Literature at the Virginia Tech Library (Tech is pretty = science-oriented, though many major in liberal arts). The SD is listed = as available, but I haven't been able to track it down yet. Recently I = checked out Paul's _The Masters Revealed_, _The Key to Theosophy_, = something called _Outline of Evolution in Eastern Texts_(sic?) which had = H.P.B. listed as the author by the library but was actually written by = another person as an abridgement / retelling of the SD, Leadbeater's = _The Inner Life_, A.A.B.'s _Light of the Soul_, and Judge's _The Ocean = of Theosophy_. After returning those I took another approach of just = looking at all the books around BP560 and ended up getting a larger = variety. I've been looking at _The Findhorn Garden_, _Beloved Son_ by = Steve Allen (a book about religious cults which was right next to the = Theosophy), and _Theosophy:The Path of the Mystic_ by Katherine Tingley, = who'd I'd never heard of before. I'd like to know of others' opinions = on the Findhorn Community and Tingley, both of whom I admire from their = books. Tingley's book is very poetic, which I don't find much in = Theosophical literature; it's almost corny at times but is very = inspiring, yet practical. I read _The Findhorn Garden_ three years ago = and fell in love with it. Working with plants, I have tried to use the = devas' advice, but it takes a lot of commitment and perserverance, not = only in getting the information, but believing it will work as well. = Besides the plants, their whole spirituality, in the early days at = least, was extremely high and loving. They really opened themselves up = to a strong force for change; whether it was initiated by the devas, = their own higher selves, or some unknown Adept who knows, but their = whole beings were consumed by creating this beautiful place practically = in the middle of a desert -- truly magical. BTW, I also got _Man = Visible and Invisible_ by Leadbeater; might have some relevance to the = discussion on psychic phenomenon going on right now. Love and Light, Thom From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 17 Sep 1995 20:41:02 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: True Progress;LFD & JRC & others Brenda wrote: > Actually, I don't like the word CORE at all. I'm too holistic. Theosophy > should be holistic and look at the total picture. I throw the "core" of my > apple away. It's the juicy fruit around it which has value. Okay, but that yucky old core is the solid frame around which the "juicy fruit" forms. There would be no fruit possible without the stable, boring old core. Likewise, psychic stuff only has meaning and value when seen in the light of a great philosophy of Life which sheds light on every problem known to man. I suspect we all agree on this, no one is arguing for psychism just for the hell of it. So why not focus on the CORE which makes Theosophy in our lives possible today, and see what light is shed on our paths, rather than rail against how conservative our Founders were, or how much more enlightened we are than they. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 17 Sep 1995 20:42:09 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: van der Leeuw text (con'd) an illusion of bliss. The theosophist had such consolation and such soporifics. No suffering could come to him, but he would soothe his outraged humanity by a rationalizing process in which he proved to himself that the suffering had to come to him, and that it would be good for him. These attempts at explanations, however, blind man to the true meaning of things that happen to him; they tempt his attention away from the event itself, which again is the here and the now, and lead it to some imaginary cause or result. Thus the meaning of the event which lies in the actual experience, escapes him and he is no richer, no wiser for his suffering. In a similar way, theosophy claims to have an explanation of the great problems of life: why the world was created and how, what happens after death, why man lives and what he will become. Here again, the process of rationalizing leads the attention away from the mystery of life which can only be experienced in the present. Life is not a problem to be solved but a mystery to be experienced. It is the consummate ease with which theosophy explained all problems and all events that has ever made true artists and thinkers fight shy of it. They know too well that life cannot be contained in any system, and that the purpose of thought is not to explain life but to understand it, by experience. A system of thought always brings about a state of mental certainty and repose in which there remains only one fear, that of being disturbed by doubt. That is why there has been no place for thinkers in the Theosophical Society; a thinker is always a disturbing influence. Theosophy, by claiming to offer a system of thought that would explain life and its problems, has not only scared away thinkers and artists, but has attracted the mediocre mind that seeks intellectual comfort and not truth. This explains why the theosophical movement, in the fifty years of its existence, has been so singularly lacking in creative or original thought; these were excluded automatically. Once again, the great change that has taken place in the world has passed by the Theosophical Society completely. Modern man has rediscovered life and has consequently lost faith and interest in any systems of thought claiming to explain life or solve its riddles. He knows but too well that life can only be understood by the realisation that comes through experience, not by any solutions or doctrines. Our modern age has emerged beyond that narrow conscious life which previously was all that man recognized in his speculations. He is now aware of the unconscious without which the conscious remains unintelligible. He knows that life, not being consciousness, is irrational and neither logical nor just. It is therefore in vain to look for ethical explanations of its happenings or moral results of the sufferings it inflicts on us. These can neither explain nor justify the events that take place. The meaning of the event can only be approached through the actual experience of it, and all search for shelter, refuge or consolation leads man away from it. Modern man, therefore, has no interest in a system of thought, however ingenious and elaborate, that would allay his fears and offer him a false repose by its attempts at explaining life. He does not want to be protected; he does not seek the warm and drowsy comfort of the fireside, he would rather go out naked and alone into the storm of life than be safe in a shelter that excludes it. He would rather perish in that storm than live in a false security. He does not seek happiness, but life itself, reality. Therefore, a philosophy which offers him the supposed security of explanations and solutions has no appeal to him, it is no longer valid. He who in these modern days claims to have solved the problems of life only succeeds in compromising himself. If there is to be any future for the Theosophical Society, it will have to renounce utterly its claim of having solved the riddles of life and being a repository of truth; instead it will have to unite those who search for truth and for reality whatever these may bring by way of suffering and discomfort. The seeker after truth welcomes disturbance and doubt, the very things which were and are feared most by theosophists. In yet another respect does the Theosophical Society breathe the atmosphere of last century. It is in the desire to unite in one brotherhood all who think or feel alike. Thus the theosophical Society aimed at forming a nucleus of brotherhood. Such a nucleus however always defeats its own ends. It cannot escape becoming a brotherhood with the exclusion of less desirable brethren. The moment we unite a number of people in such a nucleus we have created a sect, a separate group walled off from the rest of the world and there by from life. We show the truth of this each time we speak, as we so often do, of the "outside world". The words imply that we ourselves are inside something. Inside what? Inside some thing that keeps that "outside world" outside that same something! Inside a barrier which we have erected around us and by means of which we have shut out those who think differently. That barrier of elaborate beliefs and doctrines has so efficiently shut out the dreaded "outside world" that no fresh air from that world has succeeded in penetrating its inner fastnesses, and the Society has breathed for fifty years nothing but the atmosphere of its own thoughts and beliefs. At its meetings it was always theosophists who told other theosophists about the theosophical doctrines which they all knew already. The one thing that was prevented unanimously was the introduction of foreign ideas which might challenge or doubt the established doctrines. This exclusion of the outside world has been most manifest in the lodge life. It was in the snug and stuffy intimacy of lodge life that theosophical orthodoxy could breed; there, in a small circle of mediocre minds, all thinking and believing alike, a warm brotherliness could arise, uniting all in the delightful certainty of possessing the esoteric truth while the outside world lived on in darkness. On my last lecture tour I visited a lodge, the president of which told me that his lodge was "just one happy family". This roused my misgivings, for I know what such happy families are like. Then he continued saying that a few years back there had been a member who was always questioning and challenging everything, causing disturbance at their otherwise harmonious meetings. But now that member had left their lodge, and all was harmony again. He meant, of course, that the blissful drowsiness of their intellectual slumbers which had for a while been disturbed by the one member who happened to be alive had been re-established. It is quite true that, theoretically, our platform is free, that we have no dogmas, and that everyone is free to criticise. But if he does, he will suffer a silent ex-communication which will effectually cold-shoulder him out of the nucleus of brotherhood. He will be made to feel that his conduct is scandalous and unbrotherly, that he is in the throes of the lower mind, that he is attacking theosophy, and laying himself open to the influence of the Dark Powers. And this attitude holds good not only among groups of ignorant members; I have found it right up to the highest authorities. Therefore, the talk about a free platform and the perfect freedom of thought does not impress me; I know that there is no such freedom, but rather an unconscious orthodoxy that has almost succeeded in killing out the critical faculty among theosophists altogether. If the Society, in its pride, had not been so certain that it walked in the light and had been called to bring this light to a world in darkness, it might have noticed that the barriers, which it built up between itself and the outside world, prevented the light of life from coming in, so that it lived in darkness, while in the outside world a new and great light had arisen. That world has rediscovered the life about which theosophists talked, and consequently, it will not suffer any more barriers. Therefore truly modern men and women will no longer be come members of any Society, so long as they feel that its brotherhood is a sect and its freedom of thought an orthodoxy. The "outsider" feels that, by entering the theosophical Society, or any other spiritual movement, he subscribes to a creed which excludes him from the rest of the world, and enters a brotherhood which will make him different from all who do not belong to it. If the Theosophical Society is to survive, if it is to attract those whom it has always endeavoured, and generally failed, to attract, it will have to change its ways entirely. Above all, the traditional lodge with its traditional meetings should be abolished. There is no more dreadful mutual burden than that of the lodge which has to meet every Tuesday night and then think of something to do. The result must be a burden or an artificial semblance of life. Once again, if the theosophical Society is to continue, the old form of membership which implies the silent acceptance of a creed, must go, and a loose organisation take its place in which membership no more makes a man part of a sect than would, for instance, membership of the National Geographic Society. Modern man will suffer no barriers that shut life out in a supposed "outside world"; he seeks the free and unimpeded contact with life. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 17 Sep 1995 21:24:13 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: What authenticates what we Believe? > Art: He does bring up the issue of what becomes "authoritative": Tradition, > Reason, Revelation or Experience. Lewis: Been contemplating this for a few days and enjoyed the earlier post from Murray on this topic. The woods are full of trails. Trails arise from repeated experience of travelers. This way leads to here that way leads you somewhere else. *Tradition* is somewhat akin to these trails. They are the accumulated experiences of others. But just as trails in the woods sometimes lead to places that no longer exist traditions can loose their revelance to todays traveler because they were for a different age and time. The trading post is no longer there. Joseph Campbell made the arguement that myths had to be updated for our times. We live in an age so rich and full of experiences. Centuries ago it would have requried several lifetimes in widely separate geographical areas and cultures to have the same amount of experience now available to us in a single lifetime--which is also twice as long as it once was. Art: > I am fully aware that the arguement for > the authenticity of a statement resides in its self authentication in a > persons Experience. That is one view point. Lewis: Learning from our own experience is such a mystery. How often do we have to repeat the same mistakes before we finally catch on, begin to see the cause/effect relationships? Learning from others experience I think can be done, but is even more challenging. We can vicariously experience the casue/effects of some action or activity, but we often tend to discount it as not applying to us. "Oh, that will never happen to me...I'd never do that!" Art: > Daniel tends to use Tradition and Scripture to authenticate what is > true. Daniel has come for whatever reasons to mistrust human > experience as a means of coming to truth. Lewis: This point puzzles me. This sounds confused. Tradition and scripture *is* human experience. I doubt anyone could ignore their own experiences for long if they contradict the traditions and scriptures they are using for guidance. We may suspend our judgement temporarily, but can't do so for very long. Life forces us to reconcile our ideas with our experiences, and if we don't we usually experience a mental or emotional breakdown. Art: > You may have come to mistrust "Revelation" in any body of > tradition as the means, and I am sure you have reasons for that. Lewis: In sports we recognize the importance the coach plays in the success of the athelete. Still the athelete must perform the tasks. The coach can't do that for them. The coach can point out the way, show us how it should be done and sometimes we will have a moment of *revelation*. Revelations can occur when we suddenly understand what the coach has been trying to get us to see or do. There is a momentary leap forward in understanding, but that is followed by a lot of *work* to develop the skill, the idea and bring it under our full control and understanding (a term I like better than "reason"). I think revelation is like the blooming of a flower which we have faithfully watered. We don't exactly know when it will occur. It doesn't usually happen while we are watering it either. Art: > Others on the list seem to appeal > to Theosophical tradition in a manner not unlike Daniel, however not with > the tone of a Daniel. Answers seem to be decided by what HPB says or Judge, > or the M.L. Lewis: Yes, I see your point, but it is because these traditions and scriptures have been and are being validated by our own experiences. Art: > There is a fourth authenticator on the list and that seems to > be the use of Reason with a scientific flavour to it perhaps something of a > methodology. Lewis: Reason, science, the rational mind, manas I see as the bridge between the limited understanding of our personal self and the much wider knowledge/understanding of our inner spiritual self--the accumulated wisdom of our lives. Art: > Personally I try to work out authentication as a blend of > these things. > But as the early greeks said, Give me a place to stand and I > will move the world. Lewis: This idea is also in the biblical mustard seed isn't it? Art: > Daniel is rather aggressively advocating that we stand > in one particular place which he considers sure footed. This is why he > quotes Scripture. I don't know if it is entirely helpful to tell him to > come up with his own ideas since he has made a concerted effort to find his > authority outside of himself. I don't agree with him that authority rest > exclusively on the outside. > Lewis: Good point. I agree authority must come from within. > Eldon: >The offense that we take to beliefs we don't like is not unique to > >Daniel's comments, but is equally true of other things that have been > >said. It's a spiritual practice for us to work on not feeling a sense > >of offense at ideas that we don't like. > > Art: I am not sure of this. I am very offended by real racism of the > nazis, I am offended when by totalitarianism. And fundamentalism, in any > form whether Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or Theosophic which limits the > freedom of others and degrades them is in fact offensive as well. There are > limits to tolerance, not where Daniel sets them, but there are some limits > to what can be tolerated by any group no matter how enlighted. > Lewis: Annie Besant said that righetous indignation was a step in the right direction. At a later step there is said to come "a peace that passeth understanding" which is based on a far-seeing and circuspective view of things. When we can see more clearly the casue/effect relationships and how they work themselves out. Then we develop compassion for those who, ignorant of the law of harmony, do things which will bring suffering to them in the future. But, I ain't there yet, so I share your limited tolerance! Eldon: > >I don't think that the discussions with Daniel will come to an end > >because of some of us feeling any sense of offense. They will > >end because there is nothing new for him or us to say to each other, > >because our discusssions have gotten too repetitive. Or they can > >continue and be productive because Daniel takes the courageous step > >to speak with his own tongue, to clothe his thoughts in his own > >words, and speak as a philosopher rather than simply parrot the > >authoritative words of another. > > Art: I agree with you only I feel to that the admonition ought to be > leveled at all of us. We need to personally own our position even if that > position is one rooted in Tradition or Revelation. I would like to hear > the perspective of others who feel that they root their authority in > revelation of some other sort than Daniel so that we could learn how this > style is differentiated. Or perhaps some one would like to argue from > personal experience. For instance Why is it important that the Masters > exit? Because Blavatsky tells me so? Or do I believe in the Masters because > it is a revered tradition with Tibet or other esoteric places? Are we > capable of direct personal contact with the Masters, Emerson speaks of a > direct relationship to Divinity or Higher Consciousness not dependant on > second hand accounts. Lastly, is there a logical necessity to believe in > the Masters? > Lewis: In one of my favorite mantras--The Golden Stairs--there is a verse which says, "...a willingness to give and receive advice and instruction, a willing obedience to the behests of truth once we have placed our confidence in and believe that teacher to be in possesion of it..." I think this goes back to my comments earlier of the value of a coach/teacher. We all have blind spots in our reasoning and a good teacher's sage advise and instruction can be an important aide. Progress can be made without this aide, but it is a much more difficult path. However, the sage advice of one who has been there, so to speak, can be a real advantage--enter the teacher, the Master. Art: > In no way am I dishonoring the tradition, experience or revelation by > asking these questions. I am genuinely interested in the perspectives > theos-l people have on these issue which for me have been stimulated by > conversation with Daniel in the Lion's Den. > > Arthur Paul Patterson llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 17 Sep 1995 21:38:49 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Buddhist WEB page > > > Thank you for your interest. You may be interested in a really interesting > site I have found on the Internet. These are transcripts from Dzoghen > meetings of Tibetan Buddhism by Lama Surya Das in Cambridge, MA. There are > quite a few great things there. he has a way of bringing the teachings into > the modern setting. http://www.kei.com/homepages/surya Well worth a visit. > There is one devoted to the skandas>that is good. > Bee > Thanks, I'll check it out. Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 00:20:21 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Letter from AB JRC: Following are some comments on Annie Besant's letter. > In the Gazette, as in the Club itself, the note of full liberty of >opinion and of research in all directions will be sounded, I am sure. That >unfettered liberty of thought and speech seems to me to be as necessary to >progress in psychical science as in all other branches of human knowledge. That freedom of thought and speech should be encouraged, both on 'theos-l' and within the Theosophical Societies. We don't want to force anyone to pay unwilling lipservice to ideas that they either don't understand or disagree with. Each of us should be free to say "this is my experience" or "this is what I've come up with in my thinking" and not be condemned. An open exploration of the merits of the ideas should be approached in a friendly, open, non- judgemental manner. >The petrifying of knowledge already obtained, and then the building up of newly >made stones as a barrier against further advance, has been a consistantly >recurring phenomenon in the history of thought: then comes the necessity for >iconoclasts to shiver the obstacles to pieces, and re-open the road. The problem happens when we think that we've arrived at the final word on a subject, and close it to further discussion. When we get theories or models or ideas that are too smug, too complete, too closed to further refinement, our thinking becomes brittle, and has to be smashed into pieces. If we can keep it fluid, open, flexible, it will remain plastic enought to change as necessary, and no smashing is necessary. >If new knowledge were plant as a seed instead of being fossilized, then >each such fragment of knowledge would grow into a tree on the side of the road >which leads to Truth, and that road would remain an ever-open avenue, with >unlimited prospects in front and fair vistas behind. Do we nurture our new seeds, or only work with already-established saplings? We have to look at the particular person, and what phase of life he is in, in order to say what is right. There is a time for sowing of seeds, a time for nurturing and growth, and a time for harvest. Working to give tangible expression to what we've learned from Theosophy comes under "harvest". >If we make no barriers out of what we have learned, the younger >generation will be able to walk on unhindered, and "what our fathers and >mothers believed" will no longer be a barrier across the way, but an >interesting milestone on the road of infinite progress. Speaking of different generations, we have two forces in play here. There is the seeking and search for self-identity of a person in the 20's that is based upon a certain stage of life. This is something that particular age group always experiences, and it not unique to any one generation. And there is also the something new that each generation brings to the world. Each generation is like another iteration of a great Fractal, and things are forever changed. >For myself, the eager >welcome of new truth is as joyous at nearly sixty-five as it was at >twenty-five; nay, far more joyous, for then the new truth was was an >earthquake, shattering old beliefs, whereas now I know that Truth's earthquakes >can only shatter error, and lay bare virgin soil which shall repay human >culture. At each stage of life, we have wonderful experiences, that would be of considerable value if we were able to retain them into our older years. The utter amazement at life of a infant, the eagerness to learn of a young child, the undaunted idealism of a teenager, the open search for meaning in life of a young adult in the 20's, the committment to building structure in life of the 30's, ... and it goes on through one stage to the next. Can we return with innocence to these earlier qualities that we found so important in our earlier years? >Let the young ones, then, march forward fearlessly, and let us cheer >them on; they will win new countries for us to live in when we return. Yes. Let's openly encourage the courage and initiative *of all generations*. Even our older folk have wonders they could do in the world, if only a certain fire could be lit anew in their hearts and the spirit of creativity reawakened in their lives! -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 00:31:16 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Several Comments by Daniel Caldwell Daniel Caldwell: >Why is it so difficult to believe that these Adepts would have an association >worldwide, with physical locations for their activities; ashrams, etc? >Buddhist monks have their monasteries, etc. etc. Why could not the adepts >also communicate with one another by letter, phone, telepathy, out of the >body communications, etc. etc.? Our discussion about what organization the Mahatmas may have brings up an important aspect of the study of Theosophy. We have fragments of information buried in our source writings. Further ideas are presented by later writers, some may make sense, others we may question. In a study of Theosophy, when we try to understand it, to clothe the ideas in our own words and see where it leads us in life, we are undertaking a personal spiritual practice. What we come across in our own explorations may often be personal, and not authoritative in the same sense as writings in "The Secret Doctrine". We need to keep clear the distiction between our views and that which we have been directly taught, and to be open about what sources our views are based upon. But in embracing the ideas, and going into this "practice" we are working through many of the fragments of knowledge, given us, to their logical conclusions. We are unconsciously putting pieces together that we may not have seen connected in writing. We are, in a sense, working through a great puzzle which is itself akin to a Koan or puzzle that can function as a spiritual exercise. Talking about the Masters and their organization, it would be interesting to use what information we have been given, and some reason, common sense, and understanding of other theosophical Teachings, to put together a better under- standing about what they do, and what their life is about. This could be called "speculation" in a sense, but it is not idle speculation, nor random speculation, but perhaps "reasoned speculation" or an attempt to work out as a plausable explanation things which we haven't been plainly told. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 00:39:40 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Question 001 Mikhail: >I am Roerich's follower and read a lot remarks of >Helene Roerich about Helene Blavatsky. >This two resourses have different Energetics and form but >I couldn't found any contradiction between. I haven't read Roerich myself, but have heard good things said about him. I noticed that the Roerich Museum is on the internet: roerich@igc.apc.org >Could somebody of present US teosophysts tell me who >continue development theosofy after Blavatsky till >our days (my be main direction) or H.B. got >full portion of God's wisdom for our century? Blavatsky was a single individual sent out by the Masters with certain spiritual teachings to introduce to the general public. Original ideas and spiritual insight is possible to any sincere person, and certainly is found in other writers as well. What is different for Blavatsky is that she is one of the rare people send out by the Masters who was permitted to say she represented them. The ideas that she presented include many that are useful to western society, and these ideas are also presented through numerous spiritual teachings and spiritual groups. Other ideas that she presented include deep occult truths that few will be able to understand, and these deeper ideas could be lost and forgotten unless the various theosophical groups are true to their sacred trust. Regards from Los Angeles Eldon Tucker From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 00:48:03 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: JRC to Eldon: Inner Abilities >Eldon, >To me, authorities are people whose opinions we value, & most >of whose ideas sond good to "our own inner Teacher" as you call >it. If we don't value what they say, they're not authorities to >us. To Daniel in the Lions' Den certain Bible passages are The >Authority. My yardstick is different. True. We give special attention to books by our favorite authors, becase of a sense of trust and feeling of respect for them. We may like their writing style. What they say may appeal to us. We may even have Jerry H-E's "reasoned certitude" about them, granting them authoritative status in the sense of having ascertained that they have certain credentials, certain qualitifications that entitle them to speak with authority. >As for being set in one's beliefs, I think everyone gets set in >them, after a while, & I think that is as it should be. We cannot help it, and it's not entirely bad. But to maintain our ability to directly experience life, we have to continually exercise our ability to "step aside from our beliefs", and appreciate what is before us apart from our mental constructs. It's easier for us to see in others than with ourselves. Looking at Daniel with his pro-biblical stance, for instance, we can see how fresh an outlook on life that he would experience if only he would loosen his grip on his beliefs and just *look at things.* We (and I) should follow that advice ourselves, and we could greatly benefit from it! >But being firm in one's own beliefs shouldn't keep one from >listening to someone else's with an open ear, & from trying to >be receptive to where they're coming from. JRC and I are hopefully still trying to do this. Hopefully he will come back with his next long message with a softer tone, ready to compare views and arrive at a formula for cooperative coexistence, rather than with guns drawn, ready to shoot it out! With Peace, Harmony, etc. --Eldon > >Shanti > >Liesel > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 01:09:29 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: A. Bailey & World Government Paul J.: [I'm writing about Masters as Fifth Rounders] >This "map" of human development is an interesting one, but if >we define the Masters deductively according to such a scheme, >it might hurt our ability to perceive them as living realities. Agreed. It is descriptive of a certain aspect of them, like one blind man feeling the elephant's tail. Certainly there's a lot to the Masters that we don't understand. >>Are things without apparent physical means untrue and not really >>working in life, until proven? >No, but I'd say that an unbalanced Theosophical focus on such >unconfirmable activities of the adepts leads to a fantasy world. You're making an important point here. There is a subtle dividing line between working out the logical conclusions of what we know, and of the use of intuition and a budding mental insight, and with simply weaving an imaginative tale. It would be possible, for instance, we we were steeped in Christianity, to using Christian imagery to elaborate on the inner structure of the world, assigning "rulerships" to the seven rays, and making a rigid hierarchical structure to the inner organzation of the Mahatmas. Someone could attempt to model them after the structure of the Catholic Church, for instance, and make a false analogy. >> There's the idea of Shambala. >Pretty well understood to be mythical, no? It would be difficult for it to exist as a physical city, somehow hidden from both the eyes of men and from infrared sensing satellies, which have mapped the surface of the earth, capable of detecting the heat patterns that would identify cities. Is it nonphysical, on another Globe, or could it be "underground" in the sense of being scattered, hidden, not openly organized into a city in the way that we think? Until we're actually told, or have some dramatic insights are are real, and not speculation, we're left guessing. Is it wrong to guess? Not if we aren't presenting a particular idea as the final truth, but only as a part of an on-going discussion or study of the subject. There's also the other aspect to Shambhala. We have various instances where there are several meanings or truths presented under a single phrase or term. There may be more than one meaning to Shambhala, and I'm not convinced that all the meanings are psychological or metaphoric. >> And the Tower of Infinite Thought. And >> the passage in The Secret Doctrine talking about how from one generation of >> Adepts to the next, their wisdom is tested and reproven by personal >> experience. This organized effort for learning and perserving wisdom could >> reasonably be called a "spiritual university" even if we cannot identify >> a physical campus, with classrooms and labs. >Fine, as long as we're clear about not taking it literally. We do need to make sure that we're clear about what we're writing about, and perhaps I used words that made it seem too literal. >> It is not elitist to talk about stages of development and attempt to >> understand what lies ahead for us. I'd rather find it a helpful thing to do. >It really depend on how we apply the idea of stages to our own >experience. An elitist distortion of the idea seems more the >rule than the exception, when organizations start to get >crystallized around the concept. The problem rears its ugly head when one is presumed to be advanced, *because of membership*. The idea of spiritual progress, of stages of development, of a Path to follow, I would say, is fine, but it is not measured by external trappings, certainly not by something as mundane as a membership card. >> This is precisely why I cannot accept the Jungian typology, for instance; it >> is too neat, too rigid, too complete, too much of appearing to be a final >> answer. >Yet infinitely expandable. The subject of typology and the varieties of personality is another one that we could bring our iconoclasm to, to break it apart and put it together again in perhaps a better form than the orginal. >> I won't deny that there are many failings and human limitations to the >> Masters, *as we know them as Globe D men of flesh and blood.* But there >> is also something more to them than apparent in the human personality that >> most of us see, something that goes far beyond! >But there's something more to *everyone* than most of us see! Agreed. But that "something more" may be potential, rather than realized spirituality. >Glad we have cleared up some misunderstandings. Many misunderstands arise through the limited power of a few written words to fully convey an idea. This is why 'theos-l' is good, in that it provides us with a way to clarify, re-clarify, and clarify yet again what we would say, eventually, we hope, leading to an understanding and agreement. Sometimes, though, agreement is not possible on all points. This may be the case in my discussions with JRC. Even though when we don't come to agreement on all points, we can still can respectfully disagree, and come up with some guidelines for peaceful coexistence. >Eldon, you are an excellent discussion partner-- precise, cordial and >thorough. Thanks for a few kind words. I need more practice adding them to my writings, and when I get a few, I'm reminded of this shortcoming. Hopefully I will learn, in addition to writing in a civil, balanced manner, to add words of encouragement to others as well. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 02:12:08 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: K.H. on women > [Quoting Lewis]: Thanks for bringing up a topic I have been thinking about. The current world conference on women's rights in China has had me wondering if this is one of those events said to take place at the end of each century inspired by the Masters and designed to push forward the evolution of humanity. > Regardless of ones views on them, it does seem the views expressed in this letter would have a profound impact on the next century if they could be realized. > This may also be part of the promised new mission for the society. > > > Please pardon my ignorance, but could you please elaborate on your > source, as I don't understand the abbreviations of where this quote came > from. It is a fantastic statement and I would like to include part of it > in an essay I am currently in the process of writing. Thankyou for > sharing it. > > Tracey Dear Tracey, K.H. is the Mahatma Koot Humi whose writings appear in ~The Mahatma Letters to A.P.Sinnett~ - source material from the late 19th century - Olcott Library can advise I am sure, and likely Wheaton will have a copy via Quest Books. E.O. (Eminent Occultist) is said in the work I quoted to be one and the same Mahatma - i.e., K.H. [sic] is used to indicate a direct quote from the original author when, as sometimes happens, an unusual word or form of it is used, as in "appanage" in the piece I posted. The complete text is to be found in ~The Story of the Mahatma Letters~ written by C. Jinarajada, President of the Adyar Theosophical Society in 1946, and is a 26 page booklet published by the Theosophical Publishing House in Adyar, Madras, India. Its original price was 12 annas. Reference is made to letters sent to Mr. H.S.Olcott prior to those received by Sinnet. How you would get hold of a copy of this I do not know, but it is possible I could photocopy mine and send it by snail mail - depends how far away you are and how much it will cost. I am, alas, of very limited means (sobs bitterly) and cannot afford high postage costs and such. I would try Olcott Library first if you are a member of the TS in America. Best wishes, Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 02:56:40 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: go away??? Alan or Dr. Bain or AB: >It is perfectly possible to produce similar lists of Jewish scholars, Buddhist scholars, Moslem scholars, Hindu scholars, all of whom would argue that your list was of people who were at the least mistaken. Kindly credit us with common sense. PLEASE GO AWAY >PLEASE GO AWAY, YOU ARE SOWING YOUR SEEDS ON STONY GROUND HERE, >WHERE THEY WILL NEVER GROW. IF YOU WISH TO INVESTIGATE >THEOSOPHICAL IDEAS WITH AN OPEN MIND, THEN PLEASE RETURN. This is not the sort of thing we tell people to go away for. Does he make you feel denigrated? Does he defile? Does he commit gross crimes against humanity? Please fit the punishment to the crime. If a mind isn't open to you, then open it. Test your own abilities at providing information which can be appreciated. I am gaining in understanding myself by writing with this gentleman. I am thoroughly enjoying what you consider an unapproachable dilemma. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 05:15:25 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: some suggested discussion guidelines Following are some assorted ideas that I've been thinking about when communicating with JRC. Perhaps, with some enhancements, they could form some optional guidelines for discussing Theosophy. (I'm trying to describe here something that I find myself tending to follow, and not asserting these are rules that we all have to follow.) * Don't attack someone with natural-born psychic faculties for exploring them. * Do not pass judgement on people involved with the psychic. * Defend the core concepts of Theosohpy against people that deny any value to them or deny that they exist. * Openly describe the spiritual-intellectual path of study and defend its value and approach as something different than the psychical, and equally real. * Keep clear the distinction between individual views and a balanced description of the core concepts. * Ask questions and state my own views in response to things that I disagree with. Don't flatly say "that's wrong" or attach someone's motives for saying something. * Don't try to banish people with views that I don't like, either "off the list" like has been suggested with Daniel and his biblical writings, or "to theos-roots siberia," with historic discussions. We can not read postings that we don't like without any prior form of censorship. If we're posting something on a sensitive topic, we can label it at such in the subject line. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 05:19:39 GMT From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Subject: Re: Psychic and Noetic >Bee, > > I like you non-technical "Ground Crew". I see in your description >and idea I came across in my early readings of theosopy about skandas >(sp?). These were the accumulated tendicies of the personality which >were picked up by the reincarnating individuality. > > Have read of the akashic records, and your theory seems plausible >to me as I understand it (very limited).:) > >Lewis >llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu > Thank you for your interest. You may be interested in a really interesting site I have found on the Internet. These are transcripts from Dzoghen meetings of Tibetan Buddhism by Lama Surya Das in Cambridge, MA. There are quite a few great things there. he has a way of bringing the teachings into the modern setting. http://www.kei.com/homepages/surya Well worth a visit. There is one devoted to the skandas>that is good. Bee From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 05:42:02 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Question 002 multipart Mikhail: >1. How can you describe middle portrait of modern theosophyst: (Note spelling: "theosophist".) > Which class he belongs to? (middle, high or low) I don't think that the typical Theosophical Society member is from a particular economic class. There have been wealthy members and those that cannot even affort the membership dues. I'd expect there are slightly less members among the poorest people, because it's hard to belong, buy books, travel to attend meetings, etc., if one is without money, and perhaps having to work two jobs in order to keep the family fed. > How old is he? (young, middle age) The typical Adyar T.S. member is in the late 30's or early 40's. A large percentage of the membership fails to renew, and drops out within the first few years. > What about education (social science, technic or ?) People from all backgrounds are attracted. The same is true of members of our list. We have educators, computer specialists, librarians, historians, homemakers, authors, college students, etc., all interested. The call of the spiritual quest is not limited to a particular line of work or role in outer life; we all feel the call, regardless of outer circumstances. >2. In your mind what about relation young people to theosophy? An interest can be felt at any age in life. It's up to a person's individual karma when in life that person opens up to a higher life. We do as much good in attracting a 70-year-old to the Philosophy as a 15-year-old. The particular way that Theosophy has been presented may tend to appeal to people at a certain stage in life, perhaps in their 30's and 40's, but there is nothing wrong with that. It might be possible to change our approach and attract an interest in younger people. This does not necessarily mean that we'll reach more people. The same 20-year-old that we attract today may be the 40-year-old that we attract 20 years from now. Some theosophists are working on new and different ways to present the Philosophy to appeal to younger people. That work is useful to do. For myself, I would not want to specialize my writings and presentations of Theosophy in that particular way. >3. I ask, because it not clear for me how widely and powerful > this movement now or during last 100 yers? It's hard to tell its effects, because some work is in sowing seeds that may not germinate for several lifetimes. Some work is not immediately to be seen. Also, the work is not exclusive, the Masters work through whatever organizations and people that are useful. > HPB gave a lot for westman but what about results? They are hard to measure, although it is possible to give names of important people who were influenced by her writings, the real impact of what she did is behind the scenes. > Ideas must work for more and more people if they alive or There are many basic ideas that are working their way into public thought, like reincarnation and karma. Over time, more and more eastern ideas will win public acceptance. > should the Secret goverment in Shambala must do everythig for us? There is no "secret government," because the Mahatmas do not attempt to rule things. They are more like college professors or gurus than like lawmakers or politicians. And they cannot do things for us, only inspire us in different ways, and offer educational and spiritual assistence. >On my country example there was great peak of theosopy interest in >Gorbachev's times, when power of communist ideology was destroyed. Her books do appeal to the desire of people to think for themselves; they appeal to intellectual freedom. >In first HPB books standed accesseble for ordinary people. Or to the right of every person to freely think, independent of what the state or church would dictate to us. >Later during capitalist invasion people much more thinking about everyday >needs then about secret knowledges but all who wanted received neccesary >knowledges for futher inside development. It's easy to become caught up in the pursuit of material things, especially when new opportunities to prosper and get rich are available. Suffering and poverty provide easier circumstances to contemplate the spiritual. Rich or poor, though, we still can feel an inner calling and look for higher things. >And second aspect for >Russions/Ukr. Now we can shoose literature according own interests. >It good time and I very glad that in own 37 I reach it. It's a wonderful time when we can read books and think for ourselves. We have to work to preserve this freedom, even in America, where there are some political forces to censor and restrict the right to free speech. -- Eldon Tucker From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 05:46:51 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: reply to dan Dan Caldwell writes: >(1) Concerning the pamphlet "The Story of the Mahatmas Letters" >by Jinarajadasa mentioned by Alan Bain, I believe this pamphlet >is still in print. Those in America or Canada who would like >copies should probably call Theosophical Publishing House, >Wheaton, Illinois. They have a toll free number at 1-800- >669-9425. If it is out of print, maybe Jerry HE has copies for >sale? Sorry, no copies on hand for sale. However, if the pamphlet is out of print, we will be happy to supply xerox copies to anyone interested for .05 per page plus postage. For this pamphlet, that would be $1.35. Our archive copy is dated 1946, and published in Adyar. We will do this for any other pamphlet on file also. >(2) Those interested in obtaining a copy of PARAdoxes of the >Highest SCience in which K.H.'s remarks on the role of women >occurs can obtain a copy of the 1931 (?) TPH Adyar Edition from >Health Research in California. I don't have their address in >front of me. Jerry HE can you help out? Health Research was bought out about three years ago and now has an address in Las Vegas: P.O. Box 19420 Las Vegas NV 89132 >From a historical perspective, I would say that HPB's writings >and the letters of the Mahatmas constitute such "source >teachings" but I would not include Mr. Judge's works. [bunch deleted) >And as I said at the beginning of this posting, I am not >denigrating W.Q. Judge's writings. But in historical fairness, >should we not, at the >very least, also include Annie Besant's >early Theosophical writings if we want to include Judge's in the >"source teachings" category. I think the concept of source writings can be defined in any number of ways--each one as valid as the other, and yours is a good one too. A further supporting argument to your definition that leaves off Judge might be argued that he did not add significantly to the body of theosophical teachings given out by HPB and the Mahatmas, but rather mostly restated what was already published. On the whole I would agree with this, but he also did (IMHO) make some significant contributions, particularly in his writings concerning psychism. Accepting your argument that including Judge also means including Besant's early writings, I would add that we might also then be obliged to include Sinnett's early writings, since they were based upon the Mahatmas. Also, as you already hinted, each organization may also define a canon of source writings: for instance the Pasadena Society would include Purucker as source for their Organization, but would reject Besant. ULT would reject Purucker but accept Judge. Adyar would accept Besant but has had a long standing policy of rejecting Judge. As I had argued in an earlier post, the motivations behind these definitions are obviously political. By defining a canon, each organization in effect affirms the validity of their line thus implying the error of the others. Therefore in 1984, we tried to promote the definition of source writings to be those of the founders;. i.e. Blavatsky, Mahatmas, Judge, Olcott (for what ever he might have contributed to the theosophical philosophy), and theoretically to the fourteen others as far as what they may have contributed to the teachings. By doing this, we were affirming the very group of writers that every organization has in common in their historical roots. The definition has historical validity, and at the same time underlies the elements of unity of the TM rather than the fragmentation as defined by the secular organizations. In the name of networking, we have been proposing that we adopt this usage, not because it is necessarily more valid than another definition, but because it would bring us another step towards solidarity in the TM. Glad to see you back on line. Peace Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 06:08:33 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: A. Bailey & World Government According to Richtay@aol.com: > > Paul, with all your research into Theosophy, are you telling me you've never > heard of the School of the Adepts? Having heard of it many times, I am still astonished that it taken literally in the way that it is. Eldon, apparently, does not really do so, but you seem to. You've never heard of Damodar being > called away to train at the Master's ashram? I write about it in my new book. This place was somewhere within a few hours of Jammu, which I visited in the course of my research. > > HPB speaks often of there being various "branches" of this school in various > countries -- she mentions Syria, South America, Tibet and others by name -- > and that taken together, they are "the great brotherhood." She even > describes the great "temple" structure she was taken to. If you think that the *place* in Jammu/Kashmir is the *school* of which various other "lodges" are branches, then I suggest that you are way way off the mark due to literalism. *School* is not a *place* but a spiritual reality as I understand it. > > Theosophy teaches that the Masters have an active, *living* tradition, with > Hierophants, chelas of all grades, and trainees or *lay chelas*. This has > all been spoken of often, and in some detail. If you choose to take it as > myth, great. But HPB seems to have taken it in deadly earnest. There are many Masters with many Hierophants, chelas, etc., with whom HPB came into contact and about whom she wrote. That's no myth. The homogenized, trans-cultural, meta-human "Lodge of the Adepts" that exists only in Theosophical imagination-- is the literalization of a spiritual reality. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 06:18:51 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Library Books Dear Thom-- I'm glad to see you de-lurking, and want to take a moment to comment on your reaction to The Masters Revealed. The question of what's really going on inside HPB in relation to the Masters is, as you note, quite untouched by my research in that book. The methods appropriate to a university press study do not allow for much speculation into such concerns. However, the sequel does present a promising angle for investigation, although I go into it only briefly. The Radhasoami movement, which emerged in India not long before the TS, teaches the practice of Surat Shabd Yoga, which involves telepathic communication with the Masters (mostly north Indians named Singh, which resonates with my book). The Voice of the Silence, in its first section, reads like a Radhasoami text. I'm interested in the possibility that the means HPB used to communicate with her Masters are a variation on what Radhasoami teaches. Stephan Hoeller noted the importance of this line of inquiry in his recent, stimulating article on the Masters in Gnosis magazine. Cheers Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 06:27:56 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: A. Bailey & World Government According to Eldon B. Tucker: > > >What do you mean by "entirely different?" How do you know? > > We're working on the kama principle, as Fourth Rounders, and have yet > to undertake substantial work on our true humanness, the manasic > principle, for some time to come. As Fifth Rounders, they have undergone > and become capable of experiences that are not afforded to us at our > stage of development. This "map" of human development is an interesting one, but if we define the Masters deductively according to such a scheme, it might hurt our ability to perceive them as living realities. > Would you say that putting the right thought in someone's mind is any less > real than showing up in person to argue before a legislature for > some particular law? Are things without apparent physical means > untrue and not really working in life, until proven? No, but I'd say that an unbalanced Theosophical focus on such unconfirmable activities of the adepts leads to a fantasy world. > > There's the idea of Shambala. Pretty well understood to be mythical, no? And the Tower of Infinite Thought. And > the passage in The Secret Doctrine talking about how from one generation of > Adepts to the next, their wisdom is tested and reproven by personal > experience. This organized effort for learning and perserving wisdom could > reasonably be called a "spiritual university" even if we cannot identify > a physical campus, with classrooms and labs. Fine, as long as we're clear about not taking it literally. > It is not elitist to talk about stages of development and attempt to > understand what lies ahead for us. I'd rather find it a helpful thing to do. It really depend on how we apply the idea of stages to our own experience. An elitist distortion of the idea seems more the rule than the exception, when organizations start to get crystallized around the concept. > This is precisely why I cannot accept the Jungian typology, for instance; it > is too neat, too rigid, too complete, too much of appearing to be a final > answer. Yet infinitely expandable. > I won't deny that there are many failings and human limitations to the > Masters, *as we know them as Globe D men of flesh and blood.* But there > is also something more to them than apparent in the human personality that > most of us see, something that goes far beyond! But there's something more to *everyone* than most of us see! Glad we have cleared up some misunderstandings. Eldon, you are an excellent discussion partner-- precise, cordial and thorough. Namaste. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 06:31:32 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Johnson agrees with Caldwell(!) On the question of W. Q. Judge as an author of source material. There is no justification I can think of for claiming Judge to be more "source" than Besant, except for his status as a founder. But that criterion would make Emma Hardinge Britten source material, so it doesn't suffice. But here's a question for Daniel and others-- why not Olcott as source material? I'd put Old Diary Leaves very close to the top of my list of *source* writings. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 06:44:05 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Valve stuck? Here's a bit of personal experience that relates to the third object in a way: Last Friday was the closing date for my purchase of a house in the country. I'd moved in some time before. It's 19 miles from South Boston, which is not a very big town, and not closer to any other. Since moving there, I've been in a state of exaltation from experiences like sitting on the back porch at night and looking at the Milky Way, driving to work through 20 miles of gorgeous Piedmont Virginia countryside with very little traffic, listening to the silence at night, etc. So far so good; it's as if some center had opened that allowed me to see nature as divine, humanity as blessed (everyone waves when you drive by out there), life as marvellous. Then Friday night I drove up to DC for the weekend because an old friend was visiting there. On Saturday I went kayaking with another friend, and had a long, long detour from our route looking for a gas station. Traffic was intense, drivers were rude, and I found myself in a dreadful state of rage, exasperation, etc., due to the stress. When it got really explosive, I sort of "woke up" to the situation, separated from it, and went on to have a fun kayak trip. But what I realized was that my reaction to urban stress had gotten much more extreme after only two weeks of life in the country. It was as if the same valve that opened to the stars and the scenery and the nice country people, was stuck in an open position in DC traffic, and became a valve through which negative energies started to pour. Although I was able to shut down the flow, the question remains: does becoming more sensitive in a rural retreat actually make one less able to adapt to an urban setting? Don't the Mahatma letters imply this occasionally? And yet, if one were really unfolding properly, wouldn't one acquire the ability to control one's own receptivity and function effectively in no matter what environment? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 07:40:24 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Re: Johnson agrees with Caldwell(!) Paul Johnson writes: >On the question of W. Q. Judge as an author of source >material. There is no justification I can think of for >claiming Judge to be more "source" than Besant, except for his >status as a founder. But that criterion would make Emma >Hardinge Britten source material, so it doesn't suffice. I think I covered this in my last post. If Mrs. Britten contributed to the body of theosophical teachings then why shouldn't it suffice? But her writings are concerned with spiritualism rather than theosophy aren't they? >But here's a question for Daniel and others-- why not Olcott as >source material? I'd put Old Diary Leaves very close to the >top of my list of *source* writings. I included Olcott in my last post. His ~Old Diary Leaves~, however are memoirs, not teachings. I would call them source writings for theosophical history, but not much use for teachings. For source writings on theosophical teachings, one would have to explore his lectures and articles and make a determination as to what degree he had contributed to the theosophical teachings. Cheers Jerry HE From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 07:49:00 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Ergates This weekend I received the September issue of Ergates, a new project of the San Francisco ULT lodge. Perhaps my posting my address here is already reaping benefits, and I thank Rich who I presume put me on the mailing list. Every new Theosophical journal is reason for celebration, and I am glad to receive this one. However, the lead article gives some advice that I think can be/has been harmful to perception of the Theosophical movement: (quote) Many associates of U.L.T. are aware that in the May 1995 issue of Smithsonian magazine, an article by Edward Hower portrayed H.P.B. and Colonel Olcott as dubious characters out to deceive others with their Theosophical Society and spiritualistic pretensions. PJ- From my correspondence with the article's author, I never got the sense that this was his intention, nor does the article itself confirm such an accusation. Some of the captions were disrespectful, and Hower is no Theosophical fundamentalist. However, he is a TS (Adyar) member, and feels respect for the Founders. I have been accused of similar "character assassination" by a ULT associate. Perhaps at the root of this misunderstanding is the idea that any work which conflicts with the ULT interpretation of the Founders is an attack on them. The article goes on to say that Smithsonian received 33 letters from Theosophists about the article, and several times that number might have been sent had Theosophists been "organized and informed in a timely manner. Therefore, Ergates hopes to keep track of misleading and unfair publications on Theosophy and its Founders, and to keep its readership informed." The article then goes on to announce a new article in Wired for July, which is offensive to Ergates, and encourages readers to send letters of protest. Theosophists who write letters denouncing books and articles should understand several things which the Ergates writer seems to ignore. The effect of an onslaught of orchestrated protest letters is to alienate the publication in question and to make Theosophists look like anti-intellectual cultists. Smithsonian, no doubt, it well on the way to seeing Theosophists as akin to Scientologists, Christian Scientists, Eckists, etc., cults which try to intimidate any publication that discusses them in less than worshipful terms. When I wrote a piece for Gnosis, when I got a good review in the Quest, and when another came in the NYTBR, ULT associates rushed to the fore with letters of denunciation. In the case of Gnosis, I know what impression the editors got; in the case of NYTBR it cannot have been helpful for a ULT Theosophist to take out a large ad denouncing the publication itself, in its own pages, as well as two reviewers and two authors. Those who feel called to write letters in response to recent books and articles should ask themselves, "what kind of impression of the Theosophical movement does my letter convey?" If it conveys the impression of a bunch of fanatics who want to control all discussion of their favorite topic, who feel justified in attacking anyone who has a different approach, who have no respect for the literary or scholarly virtues of works they disdain for sectarian reasons-- then it hurts the cause. What cause? The cause of productive effort to increase appreciation for HPB and her teachings. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 07:50:09 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: Group Project >Concerning questions; I have a few that might help to stimulate >more ideas, and hopefully others will raise more: > > 1. van der Leeuw offers four definitions of Theosophy, all >of which are used in our theosophical literature. Do you feel >that distinctions are made between these four definitions among >most theosophists? What problems do you see arising out of >having four definitions for this single word? I don't think theosophists use these four definitions. What you find happening at the lodge and what you find in the collection of writings are attempts at best to approach what is meant by theosophy. I also don't agree with van der Leeuw's analysis of revelation and realization. While realization may be a primary definition, this doesn't rule out the use of revelation, which only becomes a more rarified form of response to a need as it may arise within the Great White Brotherhood. I really believe that people in the E.S. are at times asked to work in ways of which they are capable to bring about a furthering of the Great Plan for humanity. > > 2. van der Leeuw argues that the world has changed >considerable since the 19th century--that there was an antithesis >between spirit and matter that no longer exists in the 20th >century. Do you agree? Do you feel that the Present TS still >operates under this antithesis? Do you feel that Blavatsky's >writings expressed this antithesis? The Mahatma Letters? A 1920 new age? This is the first I've heard of it. I would like to beleive that an abundance of books have solved the problem of gross materialism and in this way today's America would have both kinds of reading available. I think Blavatsky's writings express a three-way antithesis existing between body, soul, and spirit. We may be used to thinking in terms of am I satisfying the whim of the lower self or listening to my higher self, but lately I've been studying the question of how only one of these three can reign. If we subdue the lower self, we are creating a pleasant circumstance for the soul, but this doesn't seem right completely. When the purification of the lower self reaches a certain level then neither the body nor the soul can be said to be suffering. The body receives some degree of inflicted pain, but to give the soul pain we must sacrifice what we believe to be necessary for the soul to evolve. What we are sacrificing is the pain of the lower self. By removing obstacles within the lower self and not permitting an over abundance of austerity to entice the soul's reign, what remains? Once the lower and higher self operate in harmony we can be as van de Leeuw suggests, immersed in the moments of our life and living those moments to the fullest. The Mahatma letters (and Paul Johnson) suggest communication with the Mahatmas as a possible "advanced method of living." Van de Leeuw discourages this. > 3. van der Leeuw says that "...a thinker is always a >disturbing influence." and that there has been no place for >thinkers in the Theosophical Society. Do you agree with van der >Leeuw's assessment? What about the great thinkers who joined >during HPB's time but soon left after she died: i.e. Yeats; >Gandhi etc. Why did they leave? In THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE, the advice ends with the idea of blocking out thoughts but feeling oneself one with all thought. If you can become one with a universal mind, you would have no need to permit single thoughts to enter and disturb the vibrations. Once you are immersed in a universal mind, you have won the prize. Whether or not people remain within the TS is of no importance. That they are fulfilling their dharma and making significant contributions is of more value. > 4. van der Leeuw says that the "brotherhood" offered by the >TS actually creates a barrier. What does he mean by this? Do >you agree? Again, people being admitted and excluded is a circumstance that is only appreciable below the consciousness of unity. If alaya soul (one mind) can be realized, why not alaya brotherhood? > > 5. van der Leeuw says that Lodge life breeds mediocrity. >What has been you experience in Lodges? Do you find anything >familiar in van der Leeuw's description? Sometimes we may be on other roads than in pursuit of truth, so by not claiming to be acting theosophical necessarily, we are giving ourselves more freedom to be the best we can at any particular point in time. My t-shirt says, "A theosophist is who theosophy does." I would say a lodge is not always acting along the lines of theosophy, but sometimes they are. > > 6. What is your evaluation of van der Leeuw's central >argument that revelation and Authority have worked >disharmoniously in the TS? How can the TS conquer this duality? > I don't agree. I think his approach to this subject is less than what it could be and for this reason is challenging others to think beyond what he has said to a better and more satisfying attitude. The T.S. can just keep trying to be the best it can be. Thanks for listening. Sure was fun. Bye. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 09:48:52 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Question 002 multipart According to Mikhail Moiseikin: Dear Mikhail-- May I echo the previous welcomes. It has been a source of great happiness in the Theosophical community to see a reawakening of interest in Russia and Ukraine. I look forward to learning from you about the present situation. > That why I want ask the next questions of the beginer: > > In your opinion: > > 1. How can you describe middle portrait of modern theosophyst: > > Which class he belongs to? (middle, high or low) > How old is he? (young, middle age) > What about education (social science, technic or ?) Most Theosophists are middle class, but that's true of America in general; I'm not sure that we vary greatly from the wealth distribution of the society at large. However, Theosophists are considerably older than Americans in general. At 41, I'm still one of the young ones. Most are 60 and up, I think. > > 2. In your mind what about relation young people to theosophy? It is rather common for Theosophical parents to have children with little or no interest in the subject. We could speculate on reasons for this, but generally I don't think Theosophists have been very successful at attracting younger people, event their own kids. > > 3. I ask, because it not clear for me how widely and powerful > this movement now or during last 100 yers? The influence of the movement in the last 100 years is extremely powerful and wide, but even more diffuse. From the reawakening of Western astrology, to the Indian independence struggle, to modern art, literature, and psychology, Theosophy has been a keynote of 20th century culture. There are multiple fields of influence, but most important has been the dissemination of Eastern religious ideals in the West, which Theosophy affected strongly. Yet Theosophical influence has often been "underground" and thus unacknowledged; lately this has begun to change. > HPB gave a lot for westman but what about results? > Ideas must work for more and more people if they alive or > should the Secret goverment in Shambala must do everythig for us? Nothing taught by HPB even points to the existence of a secret government in Shambhala, but regardless, we are expected to work for Theosophy to get the ideals more widely known. > > It good time and I very glad that in own 37 I reach it. > I am hungry but don't want return to quit communist last :) If your finances do not allow you to acquire many Theosophical books, I think some of us would be glad to help you out. But we have also heard that the mail system is unreliable and books sent may not reach you. Looking forward to your future posts, Fraternally, Paul Johnson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 10:48:25 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: Question 002 multipart >1. How can you describe middle portrait of modern theosophyst: > > Which class he belongs to? (middle, high or low) > How old is he? (young, middle age) > What about education (social science, technic or ?) >2. In your mind what about relation young people to theosophy? > >3. I ask, because it not clear for me how widely and powerful > this movement now or during last 100 yers? > HPB gave a lot for westman but what about results? > Ideas must work for more and more people if they alive or > should the Secret goverment in Shambala must do everythig for us? Great minds and literary figures have done work with the T.S. here and also at an international level. Many of the teachers are occupied with careers at universities. The speakers have to become really devoted to the Society to continue teaching among its members because the members raise many difficult questions and are very critical and selective of whom they wish to listen to and support. It doesn't matter what level of education you have, just so you have an inquiring mind. Most of the reading material is very available, even at libraries, but especially at occult bookstores. If you expect to become a leader you have to work very hard and make a big impression on many people, and not just the few people who are in power. Our group has to compete with many different "wisdom schools" plus traditional methods of cleric and monastic training. Most people find out about The Theosophical Society by reading a book either published by our Publishing House or associated with the movement. Eastern methods of worship abound in big cities, but in rural settings mostly churches are found. Parapsychology can be studied at universities. Do you follow the trends in the paranormal research done in Russia? Do you have reading material in English as well as Russian? What is your career? I am a mother of a five year old girl and a 1 year old boy. My husband, Eldon, works with computers. My neighbor's husband has travelled to Russia four times and is trying to start a business there. She has told me that people in Kiev live on $40 a month and a stick of butter is $1. She said that if her husband had to ship 100 toolboxes there, they would have to have the shipment met at the docs and guns would have to guard the shipping trucks, etc. She doesn't think you would get anything that we could send to you through the mail. My neighbor's friend has a penpal in St. Petersburg who they occasionally give money to, but it has to be only "brand new bills" and it could take months even with contacts who are paid to deliver it. She said that you must pay someone even for travel directions. What is the news about progress in these areas? Do you own your own computer? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 11:18:35 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: van der Leeuw and the new age >Concerning questions; I have a few that might help to stimulate >more ideas, and hopefully others will raise more: > > 1. van der Leeuw offers four definitions of Theosophy, all >of which are used in our theosophical literature. Do you feel >that distinctions are made between these four definitions among >most theosophists? What problems do you see arising out of >having four definitions for this single word? I don't think theosophists use these four definitions. What you find happening at the lodge and what you find in the collection of writings are attempts at best to approach what is meant by theosophy. I also don't agree with van der Leeuw's analysis of revelation and realization. While realization may be a primary definition, this doesn't rule out the use of revelation, which only becomes a more rarified form of response to a need as it may arise within the Great White Brotherhood. I really believe that people in the E.S. are at times asked to work in ways of which they are capable to bring about a furthering of the Great Plan for humanity. > > 2. van der Leeuw argues that the world has changed >considerable since the 19th century--that there was an antithesis >between spirit and matter that no longer exists in the 20th >century. Do you agree? Do you feel that the Present TS still >operates under this antithesis? Do you feel that Blavatsky's >writings expressed this antithesis? The Mahatma Letters? A 1920 new age? This is the first I've heard of it. I would like to beleive that an abundance of books have solved the problem of gross materialism and in this way today's America would have both kinds of reading available. I think Blavatsky's writings express a three-way antithesis existing between body, soul, and spirit. We may be used to thinking in terms of am I satisfying the whim of the lower self or listening to my higher self, but lately I've been studying the question of how only one of these three can reign. If we subdue the lower self, we are creating a pleasant circumstance for the soul, but this doesn't seem right completely. When the purification of the lower self reaches a certain level then neither the body nor the soul can be said to be suffering. The body receives some degree of inflicted pain, but to give the soul pain we must sacrifice what we believe to be necessary for the soul to evolve. What we are sacrificing is the pain of the lower self. By removing obstacles within the lower self and not permitting an over abundance of difficulty to entice the soul into satisfaction with its progress, what remains? Once the lower and higher self operate in harmony (periodic pain and discomfort followed by moments of joy and contentment) we can be as van de Leeuw suggests, immersed in the moments of our life and living those moments to the fullest. The Mahatma letters (and Paul Johnson) suggest communication with the Mahatmas as a possible "advanced method of living." Van de Leeuw discourages this. > 3. van der Leeuw says that "...a thinker is always a >disturbing influence." and that there has been no place for >thinkers in the Theosophical Society. Do you agree with van der >Leeuw's assessment? What about the great thinkers who joined >during HPB's time but soon left after she died: i.e. Yeats; >Gandhi etc. Why did they leave? In THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE, the advice ends with the idea of blocking out thoughts but feeling oneself one with all thought. If you can become one with a universal mind, you would have no need to permit single thoughts to enter and disturb the vibrations. Once you are immersed in a universal mind, you have won the prize. Whether or not people remain within the TS is of no importance. That they are fulfilling their dharma and making significant contributions is of more value. > 4. van der Leeuw says that the "brotherhood" offered by the >TS actually creates a barrier. What does he mean by this? Do >you agree? Again, people being admitted and excluded is a circumstance that is only appreciable below the consciousness of unity. If alaya soul (one mind) can be realized, why not alaya brotherhood? > > 5. van der Leeuw says that Lodge life breeds mediocrity. >What has been you experience in Lodges? Do you find anything >familiar in van der Leeuw's description? Sometimes we may be on other roads than in pursuit of truth, so by not claiming to be acting theosophical necessarily, we are giving ourselves more freedom to be the best we can at any particular point in time. My t-shirt says, "A theosophist is who theosophy does." I would say a lodge is not always acting along the lines of theosophy, but sometimes they are. > > 6. What is your evaluation of van der Leeuw's central >argument that revelation and Authority have worked >disharmoniously in the TS? How can the TS conquer this duality? > I don't agree. I think his approach to this subject is less than what it could be and for this reason is challenging others to think beyond what he has said to a better and more satisfying attitude. The T.S. can just keep trying to be the best it can be. Thanks for listening. Sure was fun. Bye. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 15:33:40 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: haiku by Oemaru Squatting like Buddha But bitten By mosquitoes In my Nirvana. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 15:36:56 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: abortion >Assuming that reincarnation is the rule, and assuming that we all have duties >to fulfill, and assuming that the pain and suffering of our lives reflect our >personal karma, how does a theosophist view the issue of abortion. > Logically, given these assumptions, I can argue that there is karmic justice >served for the aborted fetus, that the abortionist is only doing his duty, >and that any injustice in this act will be worked out in the next >incarnation. I do not understand the difference between killing a combatant >in war and killing an unborn fetus. How is this theosophy? Are you attempting to balance all karma in your life in order that you may be liberated from rebirth? Have you ever heard of that karma which requires a soul to live one more time? It is told in instances when a newborn baby dies. As long as the soul is within the form for one day, the requirement is fulfilled. Where did I hear this story? Anyone? >With apologies to Brenda, I repeat that this is not my position in this life, >and I am not asking this question to have my opinion changed. I am trying to >understand the concepts of karma, darmha, and reincarnation, and within this >arguement, I perceive a conflict. How do you all see the issue of abortion >within the framework of theosophy? Birth control isn't a current issue within the Society. Try just putting up your own musings because it sounds to me like you would prefer for men to go to war rather than have women do family planning. Would you also like to know how theosophists view war? I just can't see any dilemma within karma, dharma, and reincarnation. I read somewhere that people can take birth again right away after death. This is a common belief. Does this help? Do you want to know where they are going to be born? Perhaps the waiting list is like in immigration. More people want birth in the U.S. than there are available families for. Did you ever hear the strange idea from de Purucker that before the baby is conceived, there is a portion of the permanent ego (for want of a better term) present in the aura of the man and also present in the aura of the selected woman? Before conception!!!! Sounds like a little baby's planning ahead for a little nooky. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 15:38:04 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: (none) My studying this AM consisted to listen to part of a tape of Harry Van Gelder talking at Orcas in the Summer of '94. Harry was a Theosophist already from before he was born. Here's a paraphrase of a recurring theme. Don't believe anything. If you come across something you like, it's a theory. Test it out. Ask why? why? why? Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 16:06:39 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Library Books Thom, Leadbeater's writing sure do have relevance to the discussion on psychic phenomena, a lot of it. I'm sure JRC has read a goodly number of them. Relevant also are some of the writings of his pupils. Our ex President, Dora Kunz, wrote "The Personal Aura", & "The Christmas of The Angels", & edited "The Spiritual Aspects of The Healing Arts", which was just republished under a different title. If you're looking for some more poetic, inspiring yet practical writings, maybe you can find Geofffrey Hodson's "The Brotherhood of Angels & of Men", or Leadbeater's "The Masters & The Path". Then there's always the little classic translated by HPB - "The Voice of The Silence". To me that's the most beautifully inspiring & practical one of all. Theosophists love to quote it. I read the story of Findhorn a while ago, & agree with you. What they accomplished was a miracle. It's a mystery how they did it ... one can speculate as you did, but the story is truly beautiful. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 16:13:20 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: K.H. on women Tracey, The Olcott Library will answer e-mail questions. I think they'd also xerox off passages for you, & snail mail, but they only lend books by mail in the United States. olcott@dupagels.lib.il.us I'd love to hear what your paper is about, if you're able to share it. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 16:25:46 GMT From: mmoiseikin@attmail.com (Mikhail Moiseikin) Subject: Question 002 multipart Thanks to all for warm answers to me. Now I know more about present theosophy organization around world and about Roerich in US. That why I want ask the next questions of the beginer: In your opinion: 1. How can you describe middle portrait of modern theosophyst: Which class he belongs to? (middle, high or low) How old is he? (young, middle age) What about education (social science, technic or ?) 2. In your mind what about relation young people to theosophy? 3. I ask, because it not clear for me how widely and powerful this movement now or during last 100 yers? HPB gave a lot for westman but what about results? Ideas must work for more and more people if they alive or should the Secret goverment in Shambala must do everythig for us? On my country example there was great peak of theosopy interest in Gorbachev's times, when power of communist ideology was destroyed. In first HPB books standed accesseble for ordinary people. Later during capitalist invasion people much more thinking about everyday needs then about secret knowledges but all who wanted received neccesary knowledges for futher inside development. And second aspect for Russions/Ukr. Now we can shoose literature according own interests. It good time and I very glad that in own 37 I reach it. I am hungry but don't want return to quit communist last :) Regards from Kiev Mikhail mmoiseikin@attmail.com mmoiseikin@attmail.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 16:45:34 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Source Teachings, Core Teachings of Theosophy Daniel, On first reading, what you write makes good sense. I'd like to think about it a little more. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 16:59:34 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Question 002 multipart Paul, I've been sending books to Russia for several years now. They've always arrived. Postage is very high, even by surface. My theosophical penpal gets my mail, but I very rarely get his anymore. It was better in the beginning. But with Mikhail, he could tell you by e-mail that the books got there. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 17:56:20 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: JRC to Eldon: Inner Abilities Eldon, OK, I think we agree. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 18:15:13 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Astrology Alan, No, I don't have a copy but would be interested. I am using one put out by a company called NOVA, however the version I have is several years old. It is rather expensive ($300+) so haven't updated it. I have been happy with it. It offers more options than I know how to use. Does calculations, but not interpretation, which I think is better left to the intuition of the individual and is what makes it an art, as well as, a science. Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 18:32:24 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Valve stuck? Paul, I have read CWL complaining about the sounds of the city and even of others whistling which caused him much discomfort because of the highten state of sensitivity brought on by his spiritual practices. In contrast, (on the other hand) I have also read of a buddhist teacher who was able to move through the crowded streets of Tokyo unfazed. He he entered his inner sanctuary during his morining meditation and never left it throughout the day. This also reminds me of CWL's assertion that there were two ways to protect oneself from unwanted influences and he tells the story of two priest he had observed (I think they were priest, but it's immaterial). One surrounded himself with a shell of sorts that acted as a filter. The other radiated love with such power that all contrary "vibes" were cancelled out. I wonder if JRC has done in experiements along these lines. Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 19:29:32 GMT From: FRDHVY@aol.com Subject: abortion Hi everyone, Now that the dust seems settled, I would like to repeat a question I asked earlier. Assuming that reincarnation is the rule, and assuming that we all have duties to fulfill, and assuming that the pain and suffering of our lives reflect our personal karma, how does a theosophist view the issue of abortion. Logically, given these assumptions, I can argue that there is karmic justice served for the aborted fetus, that the abortionist is only doing his duty, and that any injustice in this act will be worked out in the next incarnation. I do not understand the difference between killing a combatant in war and killing an unborn fetus. With apologies to Brenda, I repeat that this is not my position in this life, and I am not asking this question to have my opinion changed. I am trying to understand the concepts of karma, darmha, and reincarnation, and within this arguement, I perceive a conflict. How do you all see the issue of abortion within the framework of theosophy? Love and light, Fred From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 19:46:00 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: What authenticates what we Believe? > Jerry S.: Here I have to differ. I do not believe that the rational > finite mind can ever obtain an inner spiritual understanding > of the infinite, unless you mean in the Jnana Yoga sense. Lewis: I agree the limitations of the finite mind make it incapable "of the infinite." I think of the bridge aspect more along the lines of a scientist working on a problem who uses his rational mind to do the ground work then suddenly awakes in the middle of the night with the answer. In brain stroming sessions participants are encouraged to throw every idea that occurs to them immediately into the discussion, not editing them in any way. The more creative ideas seem to only come once we have run through all the more "logical" or rational ideas. Jerry S.: > Few theosophist seem to understand Jnana Yoga. In > Jnana Yoga, the human rational mind is deliberately pushed > past its limits until it crumbles, Lewis: I have to confess to being one of those who knows little of Jnana Yoga. I am sure you are not suggesting we should push are selves to a point of a mental breakdown. It is true the brain can be overtaxed which can lead to some paranormal experiences. I met a man who said that he had a religious experience while studying for long hours the texts of different religions. He said Jesus appeared to him and told him he was going to far and should stop. He interpreted this as a warning that his interest in these other religions was getting him into trouble. He is now a devoted Christian. Some TS writers have a less "revelational" point of view on these type experiences. Jerry S.: > and then the pure light > of spirituality shines over its ashes (so to speak). HPB > and many others have mentioned the fact that many respected > Adepts are totally illiterate. Lewis: This reminds me of the genius who has surpassed us in his area of expertise, but lacks other simple attributes readily found in others. I think it is a matter of time and the -- I was going to say perfection, but that word has some loaded connotations -- mastery of all our faculties will come but not all at once. Naturally, we may achieve mastery of some before others. Jerry S.: > Knowledge in the sense of book-learning > is not a requirement to Gnosis, and can even be an obstacle > to it. The trick to Gnosis, is to bring the thinking process > to a stop - spiritual light can be seen between thoughts, > much like the light of the sun can be seen between clouds > passing overhead. Look between two thoughts, not at > the thoughts themselves. We can make our thoughts as > pretty, as complex, as "good," and attractive, as we want, but > they are still thoughts obscuring the light of truth from our > consciousness. Lewis: I agree there is a difference between knowledge as you are using it and Gnosis or wisdom. Our thoughts are tools which can be put to great service, but require much practice and training. This reminds me of the a meditation technique in which the student disassociates himself first from the physcial body, then the emotions, then the thoughts thus slowly withdrawing his consciousness form the vehicles of normal activity. It was very difficult for me to accept the notion that "I am not this body." Then I discovered the opposite correlation which approaches this exercise by having the student recognize the body as a part of himself, but that he is more than just the physcial body. He also has an emotional and mental component. This accepts rather than rejects these elements of our complex being and was for me much more satisfying. Lewisllucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 22:11:39 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: A. Bailey & World Government Paul writes, > If you think that the *place* in Jammu/Kashmir is the *school* > of which various other "lodges" are branches, then I suggest > that you are way way off the mark due to literalism. *School* > is not a *place* but a spiritual reality as I understand it. Paul, come on! A lot of us have been to India and seen the "historic" places of Theosophical history! Why do you think we are foolishly locate "Masters School" in a single place or building? Eldon DOES IN FACT take the idea of the Brotherhood literally, along with its schools, I believe. He also takes it, as I do, on other levels, including the "spiritual" level you are indicating. We must beware of taking the idea of schools TOO LITERALLY and wandering into foolishness, which you appropriately warn about. But it is a fact that the Syrian Mandeans have their underground meeting places, Buddhist monks are known to meditate at times in caves, there are secret societies meeting in private all over the world. Why is it so hard to believe that the Masters, in their different regional areas, congregate from time to time, as well as train students? We must not, I hope, feel the need to capitulate to modern worldly skepticism, and place all of our truths safely and neatly in the romantic realms of "spirit." Blavatsky was an adept at symbolism and metaphor, and used it readily. She was also blunt about things when she wanted to be. She taught that there were ACTUAL SCHOOLS of Adepts, whether they are stationary or move around from century to century, and I have every reason from my own studies in religion and travels to believe this is perfectly possible. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 22:15:36 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Ergates When one writes a letter to a publication, protesting the treatment of Theosophical history, figures, or philosophy, one need not write as an egomaniac or "fundamentalist." When writing such letters to the editor, one can point out the things one liked as well as the things one did NOT like about the article, and I myself never say that I am a Theosophist or with the ULT. I just write as MYSELF. The goal is not "control" of a publication or discussion, but a fair portrayal, with words which are obviously biased, like "charlatan" etc. called into question. For example, in the Smithsonian article, the author of that article quoted from the 1884 Report of the Society for Psychical Research, but did not bother to mention that the same Society WITHDREW that report in the mid-1980's. That's what I call unfair. One can at least present BOTH SIDES of a hotly debated issue! As for letters on the Smithsonian article, my understanding was that the editor there had received 33 letters IN GENERAL, not necessarily letters of protest or letters from Theosophist. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 22:15:39 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Source Teachings, Core Teachings of Theosophy Daniel Caldwell wrote: > I hope nothing I have said in this posting will be misunderstood. I am > not attacking William Q. Judge whom HPB said in 1888 was a "chela of thirteen > years" and a hard, very hard worker for Theosophy. I certainly don't hear you attacking WQJ, nor would I particularly care if you did. As you say, it's a personal choice. But there are compelling reasons to understand that Mr. Judge's teachings were part of the "core" of the teachings. He had a connection to the Masters which no one else besides HPB had -- he was a direct chela, and accepted over 500 letters from the Mahatmas, which he was prepared to produce for the benefit of those Theosophists who attempted to put him to "trial" in London. Mr. Judge was -- at the time HPB wrote -- an accepted chela of 13 years standing, as you wrote. He was not only a hard worker, but a FOUNDER, and a direct teacher and messenger of the Masters. No one else did or could have done the teaching and working he did, because he was specially appointed for the work even before he took over the body of the 7-year-old Irish boy. Mr. Judge describes the process of being "pushed" into the body of the dying Irish boy ("William Quan") by his Master, and then for years living the double life of an Indian prince in the Eastern hemisphere when it was daylight there, and as an Irish "boy" when it was daylight in the Western hemisphere. (This can all be read about in LETTERS THAT HAVE HELPED ME.) Mr. Judge was not merely a hard worker, but a direct student of the Mahatmas and their mouthpiece, in just the same way HPB was, and he NEVER DEVIATED from the lines laid down, whether during HPB's life or after her death. We can say all these things of no other student in that first generation. All of this is meant not as a "defense" of Mr. Judge nor an "attack" on Danny's position, but merely my statement of why many consider Mr. Judge's works "source" material -- because it came directly from THE SOURCE. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Sep 1995 22:15:43 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Question 002 multipart Mikhail, I want to respond to your post although I already read the one by Paul Johnson. I agree with his statement on number 3., regarding the wide and diffuse influence of the Theosophical movement, but I would answer 1. and 2. differently. > 1. How can you describe middle portrait of modern theosophyst: > > Which class he belongs to? (middle, high or low) > How old is he? (young, middle age) > What about education (social science, technic or ?) I think Paul is right that many Theosophists in America are middle-class, but I also know of a great many who are quite poor and a few who are wealthy. In my tradition of Theosophy (United Lodge of Theosophists, or ULT) there are many old people, but also quite a few young ones. I am 26 years old, and I am friends with quite a few serious associates who are in their early 20's. We don't have many teenagers. The education level in ULT seems quite high, with a college degree being pretty standard, and a number with professional or master's degrees. A few have PhD's, and I know of a few of our yougner associates who are working on PhD's. > > 2. In your mind what about relation young people to theosophy? In this branch of Theosophy (ULT) most everyone I know in the lodges wh ohave children, raise them to be Theosophists, and probably half of our associates grew up in Theosophical households. I know of quite a few families who have been in Theosophy for 4 and 5 generations, going back right to Madame Blavatsky's and Mr. Judge's time. We also attract people with no Theosophical history in their family. I come from a family that was vaguely involved with the Adyar T.S., but I chose to associate primarily with the ULT. The new generation of kids in my family are also being raised as Theosophists and attending meetings just as I did when I was little. So -- I suspect your questions will bring very different answers from different Theosophical Societies and different regions of the world. In the Phillipines, for example, Theosophy is BOOMING among the young people, and they are building something like 4 or 5 lodges a year. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 00:47:08 GMT From: dhedrick@csn.net Subject: 666 He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast (AntiChrist) or the number of his name. This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666. Just look at the Smart Card... In Colorado several hundred wolves had microchip transmitters embedded in their paws. Criminals wear tracking collars. GPS can accurately follow transmitters to within 10meters. Infrared tattooing. The UPC code has three sets of two bars. This also represents 666. C'mon theosophists...just try and blow this off as mere circumstance. Jesus is coming back soon... >Dear Participants, > >Recently I came across the Hebrew alphabet. There each letter corresponds to a >number. Interestingly enough to mention in this context is the fact that the >letter W (vau) represents the number six. So the cute abbreviation for >"Das Welten-Weite-Weben", kurz WWW, is the number of the beast: 666. > >Stephan Clerc, Dornach..............................................clerc@psi.ch >J.....................................Vive la France! Boumm Boumm............B > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 01:47:00 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: CWL & Mars The complete text of C.W.Leadbeater's description of Mars and its inhabitants from ~The Inner Life~ has been posted to theos-roots with a short biographical piece preceding it. I would *not* but a used car from this man ..... Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 01:57:43 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Adepts > Why is it so difficult to believe that these Adepts would have an association worldwide, with physical locations for their activities; ashrams, etc? Buddhist monks have their monasteries, etc. etc. Why could not the adepts also communicate with one another by letter, phone, telepathy, out of the body communications, etc. etc.? Not difficult at all to believe. A bit of each, really. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 03:18:42 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: What authenticates what we Believe? To Lewis and Theos-l > The woods are full of trails. Trails arise from repeated >experience of travelers. This way leads to here that way leads you >somewhere else. *Tradition* is somewhat akin to these trails. They are >the accumulated experiences of others. But just as trails in the >woods sometimes lead to places that no longer exist traditions can >loose their revelance to todays traveler because they were for a >different age and time. The trading post is no longer there. Lewis, I am grateful to you for using this image. I have been so wrapped up in the theological and philosophical image of what revelation is and how it functions that I have missed the simplicity of the trail. I once tried to talk to a seminary professor I had in Boston about the fact that Revelation is rooted in experience. What I think happens is what Emerson calls a settling for a secondary and not a direct experience with the Universe. If I travel the ancient trail of Christianity I find that it dead ends for me around the time just after the Reformation when emphasis on dogma and facile logic were applied to faith. The very Ancient path can still be walked to good effect I think but the trading post must be in the now. > >Art: >> Daniel tends to use Tradition and Scripture to authenticate what is >> true. Daniel has come for whatever reasons to mistrust human >> experience as a means of coming to truth. > >Lewis: This point puzzles me. This sounds confused. Tradition and >scripture *is* human experience. I doubt anyone could ignore their >own experiences for long if they contradict the traditions and >scriptures they are using for guidance. We may suspend our judgement >temporarily, but can't do so for very long. Life forces us to >reconcile our ideas with our experiences, and if we don't we usually >experience a mental or emotional breakdown. Art: I wish you were right here Lewis, I have experienced the power of dogmatic ideology and it can take years (20 in my case) before you take your experience seriously. Part of the dogma is that you can't trust the human perception because it is intrinsically corrupted and depraved, set toward evil. So when your experience begins to question anything in the tradition the thought that you are being tempted immediately comes up and the cycle begins again. I agree of with you about the nearness of mental breakdown when you have dishonored your own perception for so long. I had a terrible transition from evangelicalism to faith -the structure had collapsed and it has taken a few years to build a small cabin for faith (Walden Pond) to live in. I was used to living in a basilica:) (Christian Tradition) now I am in this cabin of faith looking out the window meeting strangers who pass by and enjoying the company of fellow seekers. Endless Seekers. >Lewis: > > In sports we recognize the importance the coach plays in the >success of the athelete. Still the athelete must perform the tasks. >The coach can't do that for them. The coach can point out the way, >show us how it should be done and sometimes we will have a moment of >*revelation*. This image makes me think about the difference between revelation as a traditional concept and revelation as an inbreaking of new experience. Traditional revelation is a coach in your analogy, whereas, inbreaking occurs when we are on our own in a state of receptivity. I like your comments about revelation. > Revelations can occur when we suddenly understand what the coach >has been trying to get us to see or do. There is a momentary leap >forward in understanding, but that is followed by a lot of *work* to >develop the skill, the idea and bring it under our full control and >understanding (a term I like better than "reason"). > > I think revelation is like the blooming of a flower which we have >faithfully watered. We don't exactly know when it will occur. It >doesn't usually happen while we are watering it either. >Art: > >> Others on the list seem to appeal >> to Theosophical tradition in a manner not unlike Daniel, however not with >> the tone of a Daniel. Answers seem to be decided by what HPB says or Judge, >> or the M.L. > >Lewis: Yes, I see your point, but it is because these traditions >and scriptures have been and are being validated by our own >experiences. Art: This may be true but I don't hear too much about that on line. Abstraction and theory seem to prevail. I am not at all adverse to that it is just that I would like to see how theosophical philosophy is authenticated in experience. For instance, has anyone directly and unequivically meet any of the Masters or are they a guiding "construct" a helpful idea? > >Lewis: In one of my favorite mantras--The Golden Stairs--there is >a verse which says, "...a willingness to give and receive advice and >instruction, a willing obedience to the behests of truth once we have >placed our confidence in and believe that teacher to be in possesion >of it..." I think this goes back to my comments earlier of the value >of a coach/teacher. We all have blind spots in our reasoning and a >good teacher's sage advise and instruction can be an important aide. >Progress can be made without this aide, but it is a much more >difficult path. > > However, the sage advice of one who has been there, so to speak, >can be a real advantage--enter the teacher, the Master. Art: Mentor is a word that I think makes some sense in my life. A mentor is a guide. I have had very few contemporary mentors perhaps a few professors and others but ultimately I have never found a Master in those I have bumped into. Aspects of mentoring, I have been graciously given through others in combination with others. My main experience of mentoring has been with people who have left a legacy people like: Jesus Christ, CG. Jung (who I considered mentored me from beyond the grave for about 10 years); currently I have discovered a new mentor Ralph Waldo Emerson. I feel as if there is a relationship between myself and these people that is not rooted in history but in spirit and that I am called in some way to their guidance. I think of them as inner wisdom figures even though they have had an external existence which, of course, I am very interested in as well. Lewis, thank you for your comments they were clarifying and encouraging. Arthur Paul Patterson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 04:05:43 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: What authenticates what we believe? Murray : >The basic thing about authority in the spiritual/religious arena is that >you need to give some kind of assent to it before it can have power in >your life, whatever the intrinsic value of the source. Then the circuit >is completed, so to speak; the connection is made. There has been an act >of will in choosing, even if unconsciously. > >But on what is this assent based? Why and how do we come to feel "This is >it for me"? Well, as I see it, the pathway to assent and feeling "This >is it for me." involves a mixture of:- 1. Intuitive rightness. > >It has to sit right and have the ring of truth. I seem to make a >reference to a kind of internal standard available within my >consciousness. (I won't analyse this further because it involves many of >the other factors below and this is not the place for a discussion of >intuition in its technical theosophical sense.) > 2. Recognition > >Along with the intuitive feeling of rightness, there is often a >recognition experience. For example, when I first came across the idea of >reincarnation, aged about 10, I had a strong sense of "Yes, this is how >it is!" It was more than a nice idea; it was somehow familiar once it was >brought to my attention. Art: I can't help but recall what Plato said about learning being recollection. Recognition reminds me of recollection - "Oh yes I recall that even though I can't recall being taught it before!" 3. Creativity >I'm thinking of how most people recognize the greatness of certain works >of art, music or literature. We seem to have enough of the seeds of that >kind of creativity in ourselves to repond to it when we meet it, even if >we're lightyears from being able to conceive it and procuce it on our >own. Similarly, we can be sparked to a creative response in building our >world view when we encounter a description of a revelation or a >tradition. Art: I have a difficulty with exactly what creativity is. I guess I think of it as linkage and synthesis. When a revelational option links to the world I operate in then the expression of that can be creative. Creativity also brings together things that are generally separated. The revelation of fundamentalism does that look at the creative interpretation we have just seen on the list of the ancient apocalyptic prophecy concerning Nero and 666 with internet and the cyber tatooing of cattle. That is creative however true of untrue. The problem is that the linkage is sloppy- what is required is disciplined creativity that takes the original idea of 666, or any other concept serious first. A knowledge of Hebrew letter correspondences to letters is helpful, a historical literary appreciation of the times is essential and a tentativeness of conclusion is demanded of creativity. 4. Love, Faith and Trust >A once read a biblical scholar who said that the word meaning believe in >the New Testament meant basically trust. Faith comes from the word pistis which means leaning into relying on or trusting. It is the active expression of belief. When people make it into an noun it comes to mean a body of dogma and is prefaced by the word "The" faith. If we could use the word in its relying sense then a lot of suffering would be ameliorated. Murray, I am thinking about the remaining aspects of authentication and will likely respond later. But I did want to say I really appreciated the effort you made to answer my questions. Thank you very much. Arthur Paul Patterson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 04:22:27 GMT From: dhedrick@csn.net Subject: Re:666 Steiner has made a serious mistake. Matt 24:21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no ,nor ever shall be. Rev 16:21 And great hail from heaven fell upon men, each hailstone about the weight of a talent... Christ will return with power and he will come for His church. Woe to those that do not heed these prophetic warnings. Daniel >On 19-SEP-1995 14:59:24.93 someone [who? --- I am not able to see the full >header] wrote here under the subject "666" in part: > ><> > >As far as I know from Steiners Anthroposophy, Christ is already back on earth >(in the etherical world) since 1933-40. Steiner said repeteadly that this fact >("Damaskus Ereignis") is one of the most important fact in our time. When he >said this (1910?) he hoped that humankind does not oversleep this....People do >attain now (after the Kali Yuga) in the next few 100 years a certain degree of >supersensibility in order to meet Christus on the aetherical plan. > >clerc@psi.ch Stephan Clerc, Dornach > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 05:10:39 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: censoring Rich: I, for one, think that we shouldn't slander anyone on theos-l and that name-calling and other similar associations with slander should be censored. It's illegal to slander, isn't it? Even today there are people who are reading and discovering theosophy through CWL. I'm only hoping that people here will have this chance. His work should be presented without someone becoming so forcefully anti-CWL that all hope of choice is annihilated. I don't think there's any danger of this happening regarding Mars, but someone is already refusing to buy a car from him. (This is meant in fun, I hope.) Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 05:14:17 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: does Jesus live etherially? >Steiner has made a serious mistake. > >Matt 24:21 >For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since >the beginning of the world until this time, no ,nor ever shall be. > >Rev 16:21 >And great hail from heaven fell upon men, each hailstone about >the weight of a talent... > >Christ will return with power and he will come for His church. There's a passage in the Bible which I was shown by a Jehovah's witness (I'm sure you could verify this by calling their organization). The passage includes the year that the anti-christ shall be dethroned. My friend, the Jehovah's witness, had this passage calculated out to be 1917 or something. I can't remember. There were quite a few "powerful" battles being fought at this time, what with the World Wars, but as long as they believe something good, I'm for it. This doesn't contradict your prophecies, just shows that they were already fulfilled. Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 05:19:54 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: abortion >My view: It would seem that abortion is murder, whatever may be the age of >the fetus. It may be the karma of the incoming soul (manas) to lose the >vehicle INTO WHICH IT HAS NOT YET INCARNATED, but it is not justifiable to >bring on that karma. It is never right to cause pain or suffering to another >being, least of all out of self-interest. Murder is an awfully strong word to use in such exceptional circumstances. Do you believe your own government upholds "murder"? You have so little trust in the judicial and lawmaking bodies. You don't mention even a hint of "Leave the decision to those who are more learned in this area." I really wish there was this much concern for animals and this much fight directed towards living a vegetarian life. Not only the animals would benefit here, but the people who refrain from accumulating this karma. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 05:34:10 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Ergates According to Richtay@aol.com: > > The goal is not "control" of a publication or discussion, but a fair > portrayal, with words which are obviously biased, like "charlatan" etc. > called into question. For example, in the Smithsonian article, the author of > that article quoted from the 1884 Report of the Society for Psychical > Research, but did not bother to mention that the same Society WITHDREW that > report in the mid-1980's. That's what I call unfair. One can at least > present BOTH SIDES of a hotly debated issue! Edward Hower told me that he got 65 letters of protest, virtually every one of which repeated the same misinformation that you do above. It seems to me that the U.L.T. and both T.S.'s are promoting a false idea of Vernon Harrison's study and its relation to the S.P.R. 1) At the time of its publication, Dora Kunz acclaimed it in the AT as a "vindication" of HPB by the SPR. When I met Vernon Harrison that summer of 1986 in London, I asked him whether this was appropriate. His response was that it was MOST DEFINITELY NOT A VINDICATION, but rather a condemnation of Hodgson's methods and a verdict of "not proven" for his charges against HPB. That does not mean that Harrison has proved HPB innocent of the charges, which he would heartily dispute. 2) The S.P.R. never "withdrew" the Hodgson report, which for 100 years it had been saying was the responsibility of the author and not the society. They simply published Harrison's attack on it, and the editor commented that HPB had indeed been mistreated by Hodgson. But the society takes no position on the matter. 3) In a review of In Search of the Masters for the very same SPR journal, Harrison said he found my portrayal of HPB "entirely plausible" and went on to detail the ways in which he considered her unreliable in her claims. So it is not quite fitting that the same people who would exalt Harrison into a defender of True Theosophical Orthodoxy also attack my work as "character assassination" etc. > > As for letters on the Smithsonian article, my understanding was that the > editor there had received 33 letters IN GENERAL, not necessarily letters of > protest or letters from Theosophist. Good. But if Hower got 65, all of them Theosophists saying "Hodgson's been discredited and why didn't you say so?" that argues for a semi-organized campaign to intimidate an author who does not see HPB their way. If I had seen the piece before publication I'd have recommended that Hower say something about the Harrison report, and the specific flaws he finds in Hodgson. But I would not portray Harrison's work as total vindication, nor as an official action on the part of the SPR. Nor would I fail to point out the many parts of Hodgson's report that are not discussed by Harrison. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 05:44:34 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: source teachings Paul Johnson writes: >"Source" material is not so much an either/or category as >rather a series of degrees of distance from the main source-- >which we'd agree is HPB and her teachers. To restate my point for the fourth time on this net (doesn't anybody hear me?), there are probably as many ways to categorize what is and what is not source material as there are people to do the categorizing. My concern is that the categorizations used by the Organizations have the effect of holding one organization as more valid than another. To avoid this we tried to promote a historically based general definition of source material that focuses upon the period before the splits, when this material was being given out for the first time. Therefore, this period is common history for everybody. Looking at source material in terms of a "series of degrees of distance from the main source" is a very useful way of looking at the different writings, and of course, those degrees will differ with the eye to the viewer. I think this kind of inquiry is healthy and can bring further insights into the Theosophical Movement, and I hope to see more of this kind of inquiry. But to return to my original point: my concern is with the agenda behind such logic that holds, for instance, that John Algeo is a source writer but William Q. Judge is not. Such stands are not (IMHO) constructive to the Theosophical Movement and they trouble me deeply. >Not much, but his historical contributions are like our four >gospels, in that although they give a narrative of events >rather than a formal doctrinal presentation, they also contain, >interwoven in the narrative, elements crucial to the >contemporary Theosophical worldview-- even in the ULT. I think we have been down this trail in private communications before. I agree that Olcott is one of our primary sources of information concerning the history of the TM. Ialso agree that Olcott had a tremendous influence in the formation of the contemporary "Theosophical worldview." However, ~Old Diary Leaves~ is not the only historical source, nor is it necessarily the most reliable. These are not Olcott's diaries, but his memoirs. People have personal motivations for writing memoirs. Let's face it, all autobiographies are really fiction because they are not so much about what happened, as they are about what the writer wishes to think happened, and what that writer wants you to think had happened. There is a certain arrogance in the subtitle embrazened in gold foil on the covers of the original editions of ~Old Diary Leaves~: THE............ TRUE HISTORY OF THE......... THEOSOPHICAL .......SOCIETY Though for the first volume, Olcott toned down a bit by printing on the title page, the sub-title: THE TRUE STORY OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY but by volume two onward, his arrogance re-asserts itself with the new title page that reads: THE ONLY AUTHENTIC HISTORY OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY Yes, Olcott is an important source, but using him without consulting the surrounding documents, is not research, but perpetuating his private myth. Cheers Jerry HE From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 06:08:14 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Johnson agrees with Caldwell(!) According to Jerry Hejka-Ekins: > Paul Johnson writes: > > >On the question of W. Q. Judge as an author of source > >material. There is no justification I can think of for > >claiming Judge to be more "source" than Besant, except for his > >status as a founder. But that criterion would make Emma > >Hardinge Britten source material, so it doesn't suffice. > > I think I covered this in my last post. If Mrs. Britten > contributed to the body of theosophical teachings then why > shouldn't it suffice? But her writings are concerned with > spiritualism rather than theosophy aren't they? I wrote before yours came through. Hardinge-Britten's version of spiritualism owes something to the occult synthesis of the late 19th century, but not directly to HPB, its primary writer. Joscelyn Godwin's excellent The Theosophical Enlightenment gives more detail about her and her adepts (Chevalier Louis, most importantly) than we have had before. Her claims of association with living adepts able to communicate at a distance clairvoyantly are closer to Theosophy than Spiritualism-- but her adepts deny reincarnation. "Source" material is not so much an either/or category as rather a series of degrees of distance from the main source-- which we'd agree is HPB and her teachers. > > I included Olcott in my last post. His ~Old Diary Leaves~, > however are memoirs, not teachings. I would call them source > writings for theosophical history, but not much use for > teachings. For source writings on theosophical teachings, one > would have to explore his lectures and articles and make a > determination as to what degree he had contributed to the > theosophical teachings. Not much, but his historical contributions are like our four gospels, in that although they give a narrative of events rather than a formal doctrinal presentation, they also contain, interwoven in the narrative, elements crucial to the contemporary Theosophical worldview-- even in the ULT. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 06:13:23 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: some suggested discussion guidelines According to Eldon B. Tucker: > discussing Theosophy. (I'm trying to describe here something > that I find myself tending to follow, and not asserting these > are rules that we all have to follow.) > > * Don't attack someone with natural-born psychic faculties > for exploring them. or intellectual faculties, or artistic ones? > > * Do not pass judgement on people involved with the psychic. or other spiritual movements, or disciplines? > > * Defend the core concepts of Theosohpy against people that > deny any value to them or deny that they exist. a fruitless exercise, other than for developing patience > > * Openly describe the spiritual-intellectual path of study > and defend its value and approach as something different > than the psychical, and equally real. OK > > * Keep clear the distinction between individual views and > a balanced description of the core concepts. If we could all live up to that, we wouldn't need theos-l. Rubbing up against one another's diverse ideas helps us sort out the essentials from the nonessentials, but the distinction is less than clear > > * Ask questions and state my own views in response to things > that I disagree with. Don't flatly say "that's wrong" or > attach someone's motives for saying something. OK > > * Don't try to banish people with views that I don't like, > either "off the list" like has been suggested with Daniel > and his biblical writings, or "to theos-roots siberia," > with historic discussions. We can not read postings that > we don't like without any prior form of censorship. If > we're posting something on a sensitive topic, we can label > it at such in the subject line. Those of us who would like Daniel shown the door feel that way not because of not liking his views, but rather his attitudes, his behavior, and his reasons for being here. But you who enjoy debating him have overruled. That's OK, enjoy! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 06:24:48 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: School and Schools Having deleted Rich's post on the occult schools by accident, I reply to his comments as I can remember them. We seem to converge on the idea that there are indeed many esoteric schools around the globe, and that HPB was familiar with many. This I not only believe but know as the result of research in her writings and other material. Those specific schools are not imaginary, not symbolic, but actual physical locales where adepts of various traditions study. But there is also, above the specific schools, the idea of The School. Here is where I think Rich and I part company on the issue of literalism. It is historically false to assert that the various "schools" frequented by HPB are "branches" of "One School" that exists as an organization on planet earth run by embodied human beings. The "One School" is an abstraction, not an entity on this plane. But I am perfectly happy to grant it "existence" in the realm of Platonic Ideas, where it acts as an Archetype that is invoked in the activity of any particular school. In other words, we are talking about a word that has meanings at more than one level, and I argue that popular understanding of it has conflated these levels, with lamentable results. True schools of the adepts are present on every continent, now as in HPB's time and far back into antiquity. The One School of the Universal Brotherhood is a spiritual reality that lies beyond the separate, specific socio-religious entities called "schools." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 06:34:29 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Re: Ergates, Hodgson, S.P.R, Hower and Paul Johnson (1) Heavens forbid! Here I go agreeing with Paul Johnson! (2) Over the last 25 years I have done a great deal of research on the S.P.R.---Hodgson Report on HPB. I believe I have read all the primary source documents on the Hodgson Report (including this report) plus all the criticisms and praise of the Hodgson Report. And I must agree with Paul J. that, as far as I know, the S.P.R. did not withdraw this report. And even if they had, would that mean that the Hodgson Report is invalid? Unless the officials of the S.P.R. were knowledgeable of the details of the case (which is probably not reasonable to expect) why should such an official withdraw mean any thing. As a librarian, this would seem to me to smack of some kind of censorship. Even if the S.P.R. officially withdrew the case (whatever such a withdrawal would mean), the question would still remain: Did Richard Hodgson, Eleanor Sidgwick and the other members of the S.P.R. committee know what they were talking about in this Report? I really wonder how many of the Theosophists who wrote letters of protest about the Hower article, have even read the Hodgson Report? I remember years ago writing to Geoffrey Barborka and telling him that he had misstated certain things about the Hodgson Report in one of his books on HPB. He wrote back and said no, he had not read the Report. Why should he, since Adlai Waterman in his Obituary book had showed Hodgson to be wrong in his case against HPB. After reading Barborka's reply I didn't know whether to laugh or cry!!! From my point of view, the Hodgson Report is a very valuable primary source on various aspects of HPB's life. In my opinion any really serious HPB student should want to read the Hodgson Report. Mr. Barborka should have read the report or should not have been writing in his book about something he had not properly studied. When I read what Hower said in the Smithsonian article about Hodgson's Report I mused to myself: Has Hower read the report himself? And if you really want to understand the report, you have to study the report and also consult dozens of other documents to see if Hodgson's statements are true and accurate. A superficial reading of the Hodgson Report, in my opinion, is worthless since the causual reader cannot be in a position to really determine what's true, false or whatever. Also did Hower also consult the criticisms of the Hodgson Report by Sinnett, Judge, Besant, Endersby, Waterman, Hastings, VAnia, etc. as well as Harrison's article? Did Hower read the 1st S.P.R. 1884 Report on HPB and compare it with the later Hodgson Report? etc. etc. If Hower has not done at least some of this research, as far as I'm concerned his opinion is worthless unless he could give me detailed reasons that would show me that he has a grasp of issues and facts. It's too bad that he felt had had to give some brief opinion of the worth of Hodgson's Report. Why not just inform the reader of this report and the controversy surrounding it and then list a number of books both pro and con that the interested reader could consult if interested in so doing? Overall, I like Hower's article although I did make a list of errors of facts that he made indicating to me that he only had a very general knowledge of HPB's life. But the article wasn't really that bad and I thought that the article was good advertisement for Blavatsky. Possibly some of the Smithsonian readers have searched out a book on Blavatsky and Theosophy. I also agree with Paul J. that Vernon Harrison's article doesn NOT destroy the Hodgson Report. Dr. Harrison addresses only two specific areas of the Report: the Coulomb Letters and the Mahatma Letters. And Dr. Harrison's expertise in handwriting was most relevant to the Mahatma Letters sine he was able to go to the British Library and actually examine the handwriting of the letters and compare with HPB's handwriting, etc. Harrison's comments on the handwriting aspect of the Mahatma Letters was thought provoking and was a valuable contri- bution to assessing Hodgson's claims about who wrote the MLs. Nevertheless, as Paul J. rightly comments there are many issues and areas surrounding Hodgson's Report that Harrison did not address. These issues have been addressed by the list of authors I mentioned several paragraphs ago. So I agree with the statement made that many students of Theosophy have very mistaken ideas as to what Harrison's article accomplishes. And did any Theosophical students read the criticisms of Harrison's article by a Mr. Coleman in the pages of the Jl of the S.P.R. in 1986-1988? I could say much more on this Harrison issue but will stop at this point. Far too many students of Theosophy (just like critics and skeptics of Theosophy) make statements about these controversial issues when they haven't even read all the relevant material! I guess it is human nature to want to have opinions even when we don't know too much about the subject area! I sometimes joking say to myself: There is no TRUTH higher than MY opinion. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 07:20:24 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Concerning Daniel H. and censorship I agree with Brenda. If Daniel H. wants to post on theos-l, that's okay with me. Now I may not take what he says very seriously and from time to time, I may just skip right over his posting without reading it, but that's may choice and does me little harm or inconvience to just skip. I do believe that Daniel H. needs to realize that if he wants to post on theos-l, then he should realize that for fruitfuly discussion and learning to occur between him and other members of theos-l, he needs to open himself up to seeing a different point of view, maybe several points of views! Are you willing to challenge your own assumptions, Daniel? Maybe just maybe you don't have a monopoly on truth? Hoping that you might challenge your own assumptions and the foundations of your open belief system, I will offer you a series of questions adapted from a book by Arthur W. Osborn: The Cosmic Womb: An Interpretation of Man's Relationship to the Infinite. (1) How are we to know that the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Vedas or any other so-called "holy" book from the various world religions are anything other than the records of the personal experiences and thoughts of individuals? (2) If we say the Bible or some of these other scriptures are inspired, what do we mean by inspired? (3) Is the inspiration from "God" and if we say so, HOW DO WE KNOW? (4) More pertinent to the modern situation is: Who are the people claiming to know just which books are or are not the word of God? (5) How do you know that God has not spoken in other religious books other than the Bible? (6) And what do you mean when you speak of "God"? (7) Furthermore, how much do you know about other religions of the world? About Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, etc? I would suggest that you read a textbook on comparative world religion such as *A History of the World's Religions*, 9th edition by David S. Noss and John B. Noss of read *The Eliade Guide to World Religions* by Mircea Eliade, Ioan P. Couliano and Hillary S. Wierner. (8) Also how many other sacred scriptures have you read? Have you read the Rig-Veda, the Bhagavad Gita, the Adi Granth, the Koran, the Nag Hammadi Gnostic texts, etc.? Find a copy of *Sacred Texts of the World: A Universal Anthology* Edited by Ninian Smart and Richard D. Hecht and expose yourself to religious ideas East and West down through thousands of years. (9) Also if you have had a personal experience with Jesus Christ, are you aware that there are other sincere religious seekers who have had personal encounters with Krishna who says in the Bhagavad Gita: "I am the Self seated in the hearts of all creatures.....I am the beginning, the middle and end of all creation." Are you aware that there are many Buddhists who have a personal experience with the Universal Buddha? How do you know, how can you be sure that your experience with Christ is valid and their encounters with Krishna or Buddha are false? Maybe, just maybe, Daniel H., your encounter is not better or worse than their encounters. Think about....ask yourself in the privacy of your own thoughts....these questions. (10) Do you seek Truth, Reality (whatever you want to call it) or do you seem comfortable beliefs? (11) And how much to you know about mysticism, peak experiences, etc.? About the great mystics not only of Jewish and Christian traditions but in other religious traditions in Asia, Africa, South America and elsewhere? (12) There are probably 30 good books in print on mysticism (universal, worldwide) that show that people of many different religions, cultures, etc. have experience the DIVINE. One of my favorite books is The Teachings of the Mystics by W.T. Stace. It is out of print , but borrow a copy from your local library or through interlibrary loan. (13) And how much do you know about Esoteric Christianity? I would highly recommend to you Daniel H and to every other member of Theosl- to read IN SEARCH OF THE PRIMORDIAL TRADITION AND THE COSMIC CHRIST by Father John Rossner, Phd. It's in paperback for 12.95. Ask your local bookstore to order it. THis is a remarkable work and every student of Theosophy, in my opinion, should read it. Also have you read these works on Esoteric Christianity: The Gnosis or Ancient Wisdom in the Chrisitian Scriptures by William Kingsland. The Hidden Wisdom in the Holy Bible, 2 vols. by Geoffey Hodson. Theosophy and Christianity by H.T. Edge Paperback, 71 pages, $3.00 Esoteric Keys to the Christian Scriptures and the Universal Mystery Language of Myth and Symbol by Henry T. Edge. And just to open your mind up to a completely sceptical view of Christianity and religion, I suggest you read: The Transcendental Temptation by Paul Kurtz. (This I would recommend as good reading even for others on Theos-l) and Jesus in History and Myth edited by R. Joseph Hoffman and Gerald A. Larue and duction edited byristianity: A CRitical Introu The Origins of Christianity: A Critical Introduction edited by R. Joseph Hoffman. Here's food for thought! I wish you well in your exploration of these areas! Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 07:27:00 GMT From: "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ" Subject: RE: censoring Brenda: I agree with you, I personally know a lot of people who found theosophy by being first attracted to the works of CWL. I myself am very grateful to his books which I ran across when I first found Theosophy. And have learned a lot from two of his former students (Dora and Harry). Slander doesn't do anyone good and brings us away from the higher ideas we are trying to understand and ideals we are trying to experience. Nick Porreco > > Rich: > > I, for one, think that we shouldn't slander anyone on theos-l and that > name-calling and other similar associations with slander should be censored. > It's illegal to slander, isn't it? Even today there are people who are > reading and discovering theosophy through CWL. I'm only hoping that people > here will have this chance. His work should be presented without someone > becoming so forcefully anti-CWL that all hope of choice is annihilated. I > don't think there's any danger of this happening regarding Mars, but someone > is already refusing to buy a car from him. (This is meant in fun, I hope.) > > Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 08:07:06 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: CWL and Mars Alan Brain wrote concerning Leadbeater: >He was, at one time, expelled from the Adyar based Theosophical >Society in consequence of the homosexual allegations made >against him, but was later re-admitted to the fold. The allegations at this time (1906) were not that he committed any homosexual acts as one normally thinks of them, nor that he was even homosexual. The issue was that the parents felt betrayed that CWL was giving sexual counseling to their children and making them swear secrecy from their parents concerning his counsel. This, understandably, created feelings of fear, guilt and shame in the children. In light of the above, I feel that the standard explanation that CWL was charged with advising children concerning masturbation to be an obscuring of the issue. This refocus was done by Annie Besant in 1908 when she announced that CWL had promised her that he would never again advise masturbation to children, therefore she was bringing CWL back into the Theosophical Society. Of course, his admissions of "touching", "sleeping with" and "bathing" the children have been completely ignored. Later sworn police testimony by Oscar Kollestrom and the collaborating eye witness testimony of Mrs. Martin that CWL masturbated Oscar did not occur until 1914. Yet, I question whether the label "homosexual" fits CWL in light of what we know about his activities, and I would not use this term. I appreciate your interest in putting the facts concerning CWL's life and his teachings on the internet and hope that there is sufficient interest to continue this exploration. CWL is one of the most visible figures in the theosophical movement, yet his writings are the most subject to being edited, and the facts of his life suppressed. It is ironic that an Organization with a motto such as "There is no religion higher than truth" can find justification in these actions. Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu ps, I would not buy a used car from him either, but I think he could have been a great car salesman. :-)) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 08:37:35 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: abortion My view: It would seem that abortion is murder, whatever may be the age of the fetus. It may be the karma of the incoming soul (manas) to lose the vehicle INTO WHICH IT HAS NOT YET INCARNATED, but it is not justifiable to bring on that karma. It is never right to cause pain or suffering to another being, least of all out of self-interest. We might as well say it is okay for various dictators to exterminate parts of their populations -- it must be the karma of the natives to be exterminated! No, rather, it may be their karma to be born under an evil dictator, but it does not mean it is right for the dictator to produce such suffering. We are always responsible for our own actions, and we cannot justify our actions with the thought that it must be others' karma which makes us do them. The karma of others is THEIR business, our dharma (duty) is OUR business, and we must try to do good and help nature and protect helpless beings whenever we can. HPB's view: In her article "Is Foeticide a Crime?" HPB indicates that abortion "shortens [the mother's] life on earth to prolong it with dreary percentage in Kama-loka." She goes on, "The crime committed lies precisely in the willful and sinful destruction of life, and interference with the operations of nature, hence -- with KARMA -- that of the mother and the would-be future human being." HPB also mentions that there is no more of spirit or soul in a fetus or a small child than there is "in any other small animal," and that the soul (manas) does not settle in until the child reaches self-consciousness [which for most people seems to be about age 7, we read elsewhere]. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 08:37:46 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: CWL and Mars Alan, Why is it that your CWL and Mars post was put on Theosophy roots? Are we afraid to discuss it on the regular list? Was some decision made that CWL was not to be discussed, and therefore a separate list was made to discuss him? It strikes me as odd that if the answer to the last 2 questions is "yes," that a decision was reached some time ago without the discussion of the current members of the list. I assume that the list has grown CONSIDERABLY in the past year or so, and I wonder if everyone on the list agree now that we may not discuss CWL? This sounds like censorship. No? Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 09:06:44 GMT From: Aki Korhonen Subject: WWW, A forwarded message from STEINER-L Hello All, I came across a quite interesting note from STEINER-L about the abbreviation of World Wide Web. Any Thoughts? Peace. Aki Korhonen Rovaniemi, Finland. Here is the original post: From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 11:59:15 GMT From: Stephan.Clerc@psi.ch (STEPHAN H.-R. CLERC) Subject: Re: abortion Fred wrote in part: <> Well, Firstly: --- I'm new here. Greetings to all!! [Sorry for my bad german-made English!] Does one introduce here oneself by means of several lines? As far as the question concerns, the answer depends a little bit on the knowledge of karma and reinkarnation. If it does make sense to someone, the idea of karma and reincarnation, then it could also explain many things. Thinking about abortion would cause the idea, that the individualities which would incarnate here on earth are searching the best way to fullfill their duties decided in the spiritual world. If she/he fails due to abortion he will seek another possibility. Now since the abortion industry in Africa for instance is not as advanced as here in the industrialized hemisphere it would be a consequence to come there and to decide may be to study in europe or USA etc. later ... or what about adoption? Or another fact: Since in China only boys are allowed to come, the girls will come elsewhere. Here in Switzerland for example more girls are coming than boys! Interesting eh? So, an individuality will come, if we want it or not. But the question is: Has the soul finally met the right situation? Why do we have a dramatical increase of Autism (Ausismus ). Is it because many souls are not incarnated in the right family and everything seems then a little bit strange? clerc@psi.ch Stephan Clerc, Dornach From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 12:37:48 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Armenian book This one's a long shot, but perhaps Mikhail can advise. I see a new book on Theosophy listed on OCLC, and it's from Armenia. The author is Pargew Martirosian, the title/subtitle is Es em chanaparhe: kristoneutean ew iogayi, teosofiayi, atroposofiayi astutschanachoghakan hamakargeri endhanur uruagtser ew knnakan-hamematakan tesutiun. Published in Erevan by Gandzasar astuatsabanakan kentron in 1995. 1) Can anyone read the above? 2) Does anyone know anything about the Theosophical presence in Armenia? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 13:28:38 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: Welcome Tracey Tracey I teach courses in the symbology of the Tarot and find that Vogle and Noble are perhaps the most knowledgeable mythologists on the tarot scene barring the Matthews team who have work on the Arthurian Tarot. You critique of the over emphasis on body is a correct one I think . In fact, I see this kind of adulation of the body distinct from the spirit and mind leads right back to biology is destiny for women. I totally disagree with that. The emphasis is tends to be on motherhood a wonderful theme but not the only valid one for women. I also detect not just an anti- patriarchy perspective but perhaps a anti-male approach in some of their writing. I would say look out you don't become your shadow. These criticisms notwithstanding I enjoy their work and use it in my courses on a limited basis. I am teach a fall course on Tarot and have just completed my outline if you want it I will send it to you off line. Art From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 13:37:06 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Re: Source Teachings Thanks Paul, Rich, Liesel and Jerry HE for your comments on my posting concerning Theosophical Source Teachings. I would like to explore this just a little bit more in depth. I guess Jerry HE is right when he says that there are many different ways to define the source teachings. But I will try to explain my approach which is based on an analysis of early Theosophical history (1874-1891). A study of Theosophical history indicates that H.P. Blavatsky is the pivotal figure of the modern Theosophical movement. It was Madame Blavatsky who first proclaimed to the world the existence of the Theosophical Masters and said she was their agent, messenger and started giving out certain Theosophical teachings. In October, 1874, she met Henry Olcott in Vermont. This meeting changed the course of Olcott's life. He became her student and co-worker. Then on Oct. 27, 1874, she finished her first article. As early as Feb. 1875, she wrote to Dr. Corson: "I am here in this country [America] sent by my Lodge on behalf of Truth in modern spiritualism, and it is my most sacred duty to unveil what is, and expose what is not....When I became a spiritualist, it was not through the agency of the ever-lying, cheating mediums, miserable instruments of the undeveloped Spirits of the Rochester knockings, and spring out from the same source of information that was used by Raymond Lully, Pcus della Mirandola, Cornelius Agrippa, Robert Fludd, Henry More...etc, all of whom have ever been searching for a system that should disclose to them the `deepest depths' of the Divine nature, and show them the real tie which binds all things together. I found at last, and many years ago, the cravings of my mind satisfied by this theosophy taught by the Angels." This is a fairly concise statement by HPB and it was made (in a private letter) only about 3 months after her public career started. Notice that she defines "this theosophy taught by the angels" as "a system that should disclose...the `deepest depths' of the Divine nature, and show... the real tie which binds all things together." That's a pretty good definition even for 1995. In another early letter of 1875 to General F.J. Lippitt: "I am but a slave, an obedient instrument in the hands of *my Masters*. I cannot even write good English, unless they dictate me every word." And in a month or so Olcott was receiving letters from "the Master of the Masters"----Serapis. In one of these early letters, Serapis assures the Colonel: "I am not a disembodied spirit, brother. I am a living man, gifted with such powers by our Lodge as are in store for thyself someday. I cannot be otherwise with thee but in spirit, for many thousands of miles separate us at present." In July, 1875, HPB wrote an article---which she called her "first *Occult*** Shot"...."by express orders from S***." This is a remarkable article in which HPB writes of "the primitive Oriental Cabala" and goes on to say tht"the Oriental Cabala, the practical, full, and *only* existing copy, is carefully preserved at the headquarters of this Brotherhood in the East....the existence of the mysterious Lodge, on account of its secrecy, [may be] doubted; but it does exist and has lost none of the primitive secret powers of the ancient Chaldaeans. The lodges, few in number, are divied into sections and known but to the Adepts; no one would be likely to find them out, unless the sages themselves found the neophyte worthy of initiation." HPB says much about the Adeptic Brotherhood in this article entitled "A Few Questions to `Hiraf'. Then in August, 1875, in New York City, William Judge came to meet HPB for the first time at her apartment at Irving Place. Judge's life was also totally changed by this meeting with "our beloved teacher and friend" as Judge called her soon after her death. In that same article, appearing in *Lucifer* for June, 1891, Judge also calls HPB "the teacher and the guide." Then during Sept, Oct and Nov, 1875, the Theosophical Society was formed. And from as early as the summer months of 1875 through Aug.-Sept. 1877 she was writing, rewriting, proofreading, etc. her first major work in 2 large volumes----*Isis Unveiled* in which she told of the "sages of the Orient" and spoke of their Brotherhood and the Science of the Adepts. Continued in Part II Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 14:24:46 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Re: Source Teachings Part II Then in Dec., 1878, HPB and Olcott left New York for India. In August (I believe), 1879, Damodar Mavalankar came to visit HPB and his life was totally changed by this meeting. Then in Dec., 1879, HPB went to Allahabad where she meet Alfred Sinnett. This meeting with HPB also changed the course of Sinnett's life. T. Subba Row, I believe, started corresponding withHPB in 1879. She and Olcott went to Madras in May, 1882 and meet him. Subba Row's life was also changed. Olcott writes later: "....his mother...told me that her son first talked metaphysics after forming a connection with the Founders....It was as though a storehouse of occult experience, long forgotten, had been suddenly opened to him....; he recognized his Guru, and thenceforward held intercourse with him and other Mahatmas....He told his mother that H.P.B. was a great Yogi.. ." In a letter dated July 1, 1885, Subba Row writes to a correspondent: "...she [HPB] happens to be the only agent that can be employed by the *Mahatmas* for the purposes of the T.S." In 1881, there was only one major Theosophical work in existence---*Isis Unveiled* although from October 1874 up to Dec. 1880, HPB had written a steady stream of articles that now fill two large volumes of her *Collected Writings*. Just a few months earlier (October, 1880), the Mahatmic correspondence with A.P. Sinnett had started. Based upon these letters from the Masters KH and M., Sinnett wrote his two early theosophical classics---*The Occult World* (1881) and *Esoteric Buddhism* (1883). Sinett and A.O. Hume recieved over a period of 4 1/2 years (1880-1885) more than 140 letters and notes from these Masters. It is in these letters of the Masters that we find statements indicating the unique status of HPB and her mission: "But, imperfect as may be our visible agent...yet, she [HPB] is the best available at present...." "[The Master M. describes HPB as} a woman of most exceptional and wonderful endowments. Combined with them she had strong personal defects, but just as she was, there was no second to her living fit for this work...." "This state of hers [HPB] is intimately connected with her occult training in Tibet, and due to her being sent out alone into the world to gradually prepare the way for others. After nearly a century of fruitless search, our chiefs had to avail themselves of the only opportunity to send out a European *body*...." >From 1881 through 1887, HPB continued to write articles on Theosophy, the occult, the esoteric, etc. These articles fill 6 volumes of her Collected Writings. In April, 1884 in London, HPB meet Charles Leadbeater. This meeting with HPB changed the course of his future. In Oct-Dec. 1888, HPB's magnum opus THE SECRET DOCTRINE was published in London. In early 1889 Annie Besant went to HPB's house in Lodon to meet the Russian Theosophist. Mrs. Besant's life was totally changed by this meeting with HPB. >From Jan. 1888 till HPB's death in May, 1891, articles from her pen fill 5 more volumes of her *Collected Writings*. Included in Vol. 12 of these writings are her Esoteric Instructions. Books published after the SD, include The Key to Theosophy, the Voice of the Silence, Transactions of the Blavatsky Lodge, and Gems from the East. Within a year of her death, her *Nightmare Tales* and her *Theosophical Glossary* were published. This list does not include the complete, unabridged version of THE INNER GROUP TEACHINGS. Dr. H.J Spierenburg estimates that HPB wrote "nearly 10,000 pages" of printed material in the 16 years and 6 months of her public career. This was almost all written in longhand except for her verbal teachings which were transcribed in shorthand. And I don't believe this estimate of 10,000 pages includes her volumes private correspondence which numbers now more than 1,000 letters and will be published in 3 large volumes. Last year I also discovered several hundred pages of HPB manuscripts in longhand that have never been published. If 10,000 plus pages is a good estimate of her liteary output, then she wrote on the average of 50 plus pages of printed pages each month of her public career. We also have 3 volumes of Mahatma letters recieved by various individuals from 1875 through 1891. Continued in Part III Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 15:00:42 GMT From: Stephan.Clerc@psi.ch (STEPHAN H.-R. CLERC) Subject: Re:666 On 19-SEP-1995 14:59:24.93 someone [who? --- I am not able to see the full header] wrote here under the subject "666" in part: <> As far as I know from Steiners Anthroposophy, Christ is already back on earth (in the etherical world) since 1933-40. Steiner said repeteadly that this fact ("Damaskus Ereignis") is one of the most important fact in our time. When he said this (1910?) he hoped that humankind does not oversleep this....People do attain now (after the Kali Yuga) in the next few 100 years a certain degree of supersensibility in order to meet Christus on the aetherical plan. clerc@psi.ch Stephan Clerc, Dornach From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 15:21:53 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: 666 Aki writes to Daniel: >I also want to corrrect your logic when you compare this numerological >interpretation of WWW to your other examples - they are rumours, I >suppose, and you present them in a such manner, at least they are not >verified facts. But this abbreviation needs no proofing, it is in use, >and you can see it and you can also interpret is as suggested - this all >is common knowledge, facts. As I said, it is a different question whether >this is signifigant or not. My reason why I cross-posted Stephan's post >was that to my astonishment nobody has remarked this before, because this >is quite obvious to see as many peoples know something about numerology. It doesn't really matter what the letter stands for in Hebrew, because World Wide Web is English and in English the W = 5 numerologically. 555 isn't demonistic, so don't worry. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 15:25:54 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: valve stuck Hi, Paul, Lots of good luck in your new home. Glad you're finding it such a rewarding experience. I was thinking that maybe your reaction to the hassle in DC could be compared to jet lag. Maybre if you'd stayed in DC for a couple of days, you would have gotten used to it again. I suppose that a Master might have more control, & just be able to change ...presto. I wonder. There's such a difference between living in the hinterlands of Tibet with horses & mules for transportation, & let's say experiencing the DC Metro, or airport, or traffic such as you got stuck in. Their home, & your home sound a darn sight more conducive to positive experiences than the DC one. Incidentally, one of my sons works in DC, & lives in Va. ... Falls Church, so I've experienced the trafic you speak of. Namaste, Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 16:00:05 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Source Teachings Part III Correction: In Part I, in typing HPB's letter of Feb., 1875, I left out some of the text! It should read: "I am here in this country [America] sent by my Lodge on behalf of Truth in modern spiritualism, and it is my most sacred duty to unveil what is, and expose what is not....When I became a spiritualist, it was not through the agency of the ever-lying, cheating mediums, miserable instruments of the undeveloped Spirits of the lower Sphere, the ancient Hades. My belief is based on something older than the Rochester knockings, and springs out from the same source of information that was used by Raymond Lully, Picus della Mirandola, Cornelius Agrippa, Robert Fludd, Henry More...etc., all of whom have ever been searching for a system that should disclose to them the `deepest depths' of the Divine nature, and show them the real tie which binds all things together. I found at last, and many years ago, the cravings of my mind satisfied by this theosophy taught by the Angels...." Sorry that I made part I and II so long. I was not intending to put an outline of HPB's life in this essay but I wanted to show the output of HPB's writings and point out that Olcott, Judge, Damodar, Sinnett, Subba Row, Leadbeater, Besant (as well as other individuals) had their lives changed and transformed by their meetings with H.P. Blavatsky. All of them (with the possible exception of Subba Row) acknowledged HPB as their Teacher and Guide (as Judge and Besant said in 1891 of her: "the Messenger of the Masters of Wisdom). They considered themselves HPB's students. As such, H.P.B. was the channel, the source through which the Esoteric teachings of her Masters flowed. Therefore, it seems to me that the 10,000 plus pages of the Blavatsky corpus represent the "source teachings" of modern Theosophy. Of course, the letters of the Mahatmas also belong to these "source teachings." In this sense (as defined above in Part I, II and III) HPB's writings and the Masters' letters alone belong to the "source teachings. In the American Heritage Dictionary, the word "source" is defined as follows: "The point at which something springs into being or from which it derives or is obtained. The point or origin, such as a spring, of a stream or river. See Synonyms at *origin*." The synonyms are: "origin, inception, source, root. These nouns signify the point at which something originates." Now, of course, each student of Theosophy must decide what value they place upon HPB's writings and the Masters' letters. Does the student accept HPB's claims? etc. etc. But from a historical perspective, it should be fairly obvious that the "original teachings" of modern Theosophy emanate *from* and *through* HPB who claimed that she was transmitting those teachings from her Masters. Furthermore, the Masters used her as their "instrument" through which they worked. For example, William Judge in a letter of 1881 to A.P. Sinnett recounts: "While H.P.B. was here [in New York City], they [the Masters] came many and many a time and spoke with Olcott and myself. But their identity was secure because neither of us at that time could pierce the wall of matter [i.e. HPB's physical body] and see the true occupant. We had to depend entirely upon changes of expression." See Henry Olcott's *Old Diary Leaves* Volume I for similar accounts. And even in 1886, Mr. Judge would write HPB and ask: "Now as to me will you ask [here is the triangle of three dots standing for Master Morya] if there be anythign to say to me. I work all the time. How does he [Morya] explain the meaning of his message through you that I `showed intuition by leaving India'?...." And later that same year, HPB writing from Ostende, Belgium to Judge says: "The trouble with you is *that you do not know the great change* that came to pass in you a few years ago. Others have occasionally their *astrals* changed and replaced by those of Adepts (as of Elementaries) & they influence the *outer*, & the *higher* man. With you, it is the NIRMANAKAYA not the `astral' that blended with your astral. Hence the dual nature & fighting. Fakir? Fakir be damned. The man knows not the difference between a *Nirmanakaya* of an Adept & his *astral*." And in a later letter to W.Q. Judge, Blavatsky writes: "Yes, there are `two persons' in me. But what of that? So there are two in you; only mine is conscious and responsible---and yours is not...." And in another letter to WQJ, Madame Blavatsky writes: "Affairs and events may be turned off by unseen hands into such a groove that you will be unanimously elected for life---just as Olcott and I were--- to go on with the work after our deaths. Do you understand what it means? It means that, unless you consent, you force me to a miserable life and a MISERABLE DEATH, with the idea preying upon my mind that there is an end of Theosophy. That for several years I will not be able to help it on, and steer its course, because I will have to act in a body which will have to be assimilated to the *Nirmanakaya*, because even in occultism there are such things as a failure and a retardment and a misfit...." HPB's references to "Nirmanakaya" may be better understood by what Judge himself says in two letters: Sept. 3, 1889: "My dear [James] Pryse, ...Your vision that when you looked at HPB and saw no old woman but a *God* is correct. You were privileged to see the Truth---For the Being in that old body called HP Blavatsky is a mighty Adept working on his own plan in the world...." Sept. 9, 1889: "But as to HPB you cannot judge her by any rule. There is a great Adept there and he uses that body for His own purposes , both for use and for trial of others." James Pryse's vision of HPB is described in great detail by Pryse himself in an article entitled "Memorabilia of H.P.B." published in *The Canadian Theosophist*, March, 1935. William Judge knew that a "Nirmanakaya" used the HPB *body* to channel, among other things, the original Theosophical Source Teachings for the benefit of the world. I am using the word "channel" in the since HPB uses the word "mediatorship" in *Isis Unveiled*. [Correction: "since" should be "sense"!] Continued in Part IV Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 16:44:34 GMT From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: 666: A Kabalistic Interpretation The Number of the Beast: An intuitive interpretation by a mediocre Kabalist [With apologies to Alan (-:) - who could probably do a far clearer exposition of the topic]. "He that has understanding, let him count the number of the beast, for it is the number of man, and this number is six hundred sixty six". Probably one of the best known lines from the New Testament, and probably one of the single most misinterpreted. The Revelation of John, received by him on the island of Patmos in 68-69 AD, was written as Nero's brutalizations of the Christians were at their peak and is full of all the fire of a true mystic, combined with the intense paranoia of the persecuted. It also, however, seems to have something beyond its particular time - a transcendent quality that has caused people in virtually every generation to read it as though it applied precisely to the times *they* were living in ... and to attempt to apply its metaphorical imagry to the particulars of the times (hard to resist - in fact once, after a particularly expensive tune-up, I figured out a permutation of my mechanic's name that added up to 666, and thereby attempted to convince him that *he* was, in fact, the beast (-:). Like Ezekial, Song of Songs, Genesis and etc., there is the implication of some sort of key throughout the text. To say "666" seems to imply that there is a system of numbers within which the statement will make sense - else it is simply an arbitrary piece of lunacy ... why 666, why not 777, or 23? What follows here is a stab at a possible interpretation. It's hard, I s'pect, in modern times, to fully understand languages in which number and letter are integrated concepts ... it implies a whole different way of understanding meaning. Beginning with the Greeks (in the western world at least), mystery schools emphasized the study of mathematics as a means training the minds of pupils. To think in numbers orients the mind at a particular angle towards the world, and seems to be able to reveal patterns in the world that thinking with words blurs. Perhaps, to some of those old mystics, numbers were more than the means to count objects or measure spaces, but were actually philosophical *concepts*, and mathematics not a means of simply solving problems, but of making philosophical arguments. This mode of thought still survives in (for instance) the Tarot .. Every situation, for instance a relationship (which would be the suit of cups), has an "Ace", or one ... the entirety of the relationship; a "two" ... the duality, the man and the woman; a "three"... the interaction between the two; a "four" ... the patterns those interactions inevitably begin to form and which form the structure of the relationship; a "five" ... the catabolic energy that periodically upsets those structures (uncomfortable, but necessary ... or else permutations of the first form of a relationship would be all that was ever possible); a "six" ... or the harmony achieved between the structuring of the "four" and the dissolving effects of the "five" (and healthy relationships always have some aspects that are growing and some that are dissolving).... etc., etc. Point is, thinking in terms of numbers allows patterns to be glimpsed at multiple scales. This, I think, may be the first relevent part of the verse: The text instructs the reader to "count the number...", but then just states the number (666), which would be analogous to a math teacher saying "solve this problem" and then in the next breath mentioning the solution - unless the injunction to "count" meant something else ... perhaps to "count" might mean to *engage in the thinking process associated with numerical philosophy*. That is, it is not arriving at the answer that is the point, but rather the subjective state induced by unpacking the philosophical "statement" named by "666". Here's my shot at "counting" ... 666: Two different concepts to unfold here ... the fact of the "6", and the fact that the 6 is extended into the hundreds. The 6: the number of tension between opposites having achieved equality ... but not resolution. It is the interlaced triangles that form "Solomon's Seal" ... the triad pulling upward towards the spiritual, and that pulling downward towards the flesh; it is the incomplete dialectic - thesis and antithesis with no synthesis; it is the apparently irreconcilable tension between the rock and the hard place, between extropy and entropy, between the mortal and the immortal, between matter and spirit. The extension into the hundreds: The Kabalists speak of four worlds (roughly translated) the Archetypal, the Creative, the Formative, and that of physical manifestation. The Archetypal is measured in single digits (1,2,3, etc); the Creative in tens (10, 20, 30, etc.) the Formative in the 100's (100, 200, etc.) and the terrestrial in the 1000's. This means, for instance, that when a Hebrew God name is mentioned in the Kabala, both a name *and* the *philosophical statement inherent in the number* (as in Hebrew every letter has a number associated with it) is being stated. IHVH, for instance, is also the number 26. A means of grasping the scales (1's, 10's, 100's, and 1000's) purely at the physical level might be to see the scale at which the Sun works as the Archetypal, the scale of planetary events as the Creative, the scale of (on earth) local and regional systems as the Formative, and the scale of individual lifeforms as the Terrestrial. To see the system in motion, imagine, for instance, one huge solar flare shooting out from the sun (a "single digit" event). This will cause, as it hits the planets (and in this example, earth) dozens of alterations in the immense biosperic systems (global electromagnitism, weather patterns, the catalysis of faster chemical reactions in the atmosphere, the alteration of the nitrogen, carbon and oxygen cycles, etc.) ... which are at the scale of "tens". These dozens of changes in the Creative world leads to hundreds of changes at the scale of individual ecosystems ... individual lakes alter, forest ecosystems alter their food webs etc. Finally, these hundreds of changes produce thousands of changes at the Terrestrial (individual) level ... individal plants, animals (and humans) find their individual lives affected. Now if this general idea, instead of being looked at "horizontally" (i.e., all within the physical world) is instead imagined *vertically* ... we might imagine (for instance) one "action" (incomprehensible as it is to us) in the present moment by the Dhyani Chohans causing dozens of "actions" by those we term "Masters" (each voluntarily embodying one aspect of originating impulse - and perhaps, for instance, initiating a current like the Theosophical Society, or an ideology like democracy, or a particular movement in the arts etc.) - which causes hundreds of actions, unfolded over centuries, on the part of the leadership of the human kingdom, which finally manifests as the final effects on thousands of individual lives. *Now*, what does it mean that "666" is the number of the beast *and* the number of man? In this scheme, 666 is the statement of the ideas embedded in "6" on the scale of hundreds ..i.e., the "Formative" world, or, the scale above the Terrestrial (that of individual lifeforms completely subject to their environment), and beneath that of the Creative (the scale at which huge planetary impulses work). It suggests a type of consciousness that stands in the midst of the struggle between the sprirtual and the physical, and expresses this duality at the scale of the Formative world. In pragmatic terms, this type of consciousness could well be called the *human rational mind* ... which was really only being born at the time John was writing (the vast majority of most populations were still illiterate, largely unschooled, and not trained to do what a modern human would term "reasoning" - and John clearly caught a glimpse of the ramifications of this becoming widespread). The rational mind (probably could be related to the "lower manas" in Theosophical terminology) sits *precisely* between spirit and matter. It is the ceiling under which the animal lives, and the floor upon which the Spirit stands. John, I believe, was seeing the immanent rise of this mind, and understood that it would accomplish the transformation of the human kingdom from a kingdom living largely in the Terrestrial world (i.e., totally subject to local environmental, cultural, and spiritual conditions) to one claiming control over the *Formative* world ... i.e., capable of imposing *control* over the Terrestrial world. And as he so poetically put it, the number "666" is *both* the number of the "beast *and* the number of "man". When that mind is used *by the animal for animal ends*, it becomes beastly beyond conception ... because the animal has access to powers of the Formative world (which the animal kingdom does *not* have). For an animal to battle with its own kind, to generate focussed violence, to battle to get the greatest amount of food, is not "evil" in any sense of the word ... it is the animal being an animal. When, however, those same impulses are given access to the reasoning mind, territorial disputes come to be fought with chemical, biological, and even nuclear weaponary; the urge for "more food" turns into greed, and causes environmental devastation far beyond anything an animal species (with the limited abilities of the Terrestrial world) is capable of. In this sense, "666" truely *is* the "number of the beast". 666 also, however, is the number of "man" ... and becomes so when the concrete human mind, and the powers of the Formative world it has access to, *assumes the responsibilities appropriate to its position in the great Chain of Being*. It implies that the *planetary* Formative world has achieved self-consciousness, and is hence capable of evolutionary leaps, because the collective concrete human mind can also choose to *delibrately respond to the impulses transmitted to it from the Creative world* - to give the final *form* to the pure impulses of spirit generated by the Dhyani Chohans and formulated by the "Masters" ... and hence the planet as a whole becomes sort of "tuned" by a tuning fork, and thus becomes not a battleground, but a smoothly unfolding manifestation of the Grand Design. In short, human reason can allow spiritual impulses to manifest with far greater and more refined precision than they could without that mind, but can also permit the beast to achieve devastation on a scale beyond the conception of even the most paranoid among us. So, it is rather a waste of time to try to find a *person* whose name "adds up" to 666 ... or to point to actual physical things that happen to the number 6 associated with them (frreeeoooo! *damn* good thing Social Security numbers are nine digits instead of six, or the conspiracy theorists would be having coronaries right now (-:) - because this was *not* the level at which John was writing. The "revelation" does not refer to a *particular* time with particular events caused by a specific individual person, but rather refers to an *ongoing* revelation unfolding on the scale of centuries. This is perhaps the final point. I believe John had reached the mode of consciousness associated with the Creative, rather than the Formative world - he was thinking at the *scale* of the Masters, and was doing his damndest to attempt to express this enormous scale of thought in the terms of human language ... a product of the *Formative* world. And this means it is nothing less than gross distortion to *interpret* the revelation at the Formative or Terrestrial scales ... that is, it is not about a revolution in a particular religion or culture (the Formative level - at which, for instance, it will be taken to mean that "Christians" are saved while all others suffer tortures) nor is it about tiny events at the individual scale (the Terrestrial level - at which, for instance, microchips embedded in animals to help pet owners find lost pets is somehow construed as being related to the mark of the beast). John is speaking *from* the Creative world about the *effects*, on the *entirety* of the Formative world, of the rise and widespread distribution of the human reason. John is not telling us to find a guy whose name adds to 666, he is telling us to "count the number", i.e., to engage in a particular sort of contemplation that of its own accord directs the mind itself towards thinking *about* becoming responsive to the Creative world ... which prepares it to actually *become* responsive - that is, to *enter* the revelation. The last thing to mention here may be one of the most bizarre ramifications of the revelation. The Revelation *itself*, and even the number 666, is coming to be used by *those driven by cloaked animal impulses - fear, territorialism, "us vs. them" mentality - to further the ends of those impulses*. The revelation itself is being used by fundamentalists to get *money from followers* ("its the end times! our mission needs your help! send money today!") - used by people who wish to degrade others, by people wanting their particular religion to *win* over all other religions (i.e., to *expand its territory*). That is (and few paradoxes are as positively wonderful as this one!) ... there are growing numbers of people who, by virtue of the way they are *using* the concept of 666, are becoming perfect *manifestations* of the very beast *described* by the concept. YeeeHaaaaaaa, as we say in Montana (-:). -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 17:08:14 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Van der Leeuw Got the 1st 2 parts so far. Makes interesting reading. I agree with some of it, & not with some of it. Will just go along the letter & comment. VDL - The world ... is no longer .. interested in theosophy LFD - well I'm not so sure. They may not know theosophy by name, but our ideas have sure taken hold in the New Age. VDL - There is a serious falling off of book sales. LFD - not true. Checked with the TPH in Wheaton. They're selling just fine. VDL talks a lot about revelation. LFD - One of the first things I was taught by Bill Nicholson, my 1st theosophical contact, was to try to use my then dormant intuition (which is a first step to "receiving messages"). He taught me to check whatever intuition I'd had against what was reasonable. If the 2 coincided to use the intuition. If they didn't, then to forget it. In other words I am the boss of what I think do & believe, & no one else. VDL - in practice one who thinks differently from the rest, though perfectly free to do so, will find no platform to express his thoughts. LFD - I'm not sure of that one. It, for sure, was JRC's experience. I found that some people accepted my different points of view & some didn't. VDL - he should rather emphasize the sound state of the lungs than the diseased condition of the heart. LFD - Again, yes, & no. There is a tendency not to harp on illnesses, because it is said then everyone else thinks of you as ill, & that reinforces the thought forms. I think that's true. But I haven't found anyone who hides their head in the sand & denies either the illness or the treatment. The illness is just talked about lightly. VDL (the section beginning with) Actually what we call the world surrounding us is the way in which *we* interpret the reality that affects our consciousness. LFD - I agree with that whole outlook. VDL - Theosophy is a philosophy of the Beyond ... modern man .... (sees) the fulfillment of life ... in the realization of life here & now.... The men & women of the new age ... have no interest in a philosophy of the Beyond. LFD - that's not totally true anymore. They're interested in the material here & now, but they're also looking towards enriching their spiritual life, rather at the present moment than with the idea you've got to be a good girl (boy) so you'll go to heaven. VDL - Theosophy ... claimed to have an answer to the problems of life .... Here the desire for truth is not so great as the desire to make life fit in with a preconceived system LFD - The preconceived system I was taught is very fluid. I think you can't exist without some sort of a belief system. For instance we all say that 1+2=3. But this is not an absolute truth. It's a convention we all agreed on, because it's very useful to us. The preconceived sytem I was taught states that life & everything in it changes; also that if I tried to solve a problem one way & it didn't work, I was to try another approach, until I found one (an ethical one) that works - (that's part of the teachings of both Harry and Serge). What I have found is that very often when I'm in a bind & don't know what to do, something I've learned somewhere along the line during my studying theosophy helps me solve my problem. So preconceived system, yes, but a very flexible one for me, & one that leaves room for the other person to follow their own system. VDL pits realization against revelation, ie discipleship. LFD these 2 may work hand in glove. I think discipleship is a form of learning. It's needed, because some knowledge/wisdom can only be passed on from one person to another. There is no other way. Maybe at times this is done psychically. But where does it stand written that you must accept whatever your teacher tells you hook line & sinker without ever questioning its veracity or applicability? If anyone did that HPB's ghost would rise up & spank them. I think theosophists follow HPB when she makes sense & often take on the Buddha's sayings, like "Be ye lamps unto yourselves" or "work out your own salvation with diligence." I'll end with something I heard Harry tell his group at Orcas last year (I heard it on tape). "CWL never taught me anything. I learned!" If any Theosophist is obedient to "power from above", she (he) does so because she(he) thinks that what the "power from above" tells her (him) makes sense. Anyone who does otherwise, is a darn fool, in my opinion. I'm going to put the rest on another message Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 18:02:22 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: VAn der Leeuw part II VDL - Man sought for guidance of his own life by the revelations coming to him through the appointed oracle. The priesthood thus gained power over men's souls and were able to enforce their own will by clothing it in the garment of revelation from above. LFD - Agreed + 1/2 VDL - lateron when letters (from the Masters) were no longer forthcoming, messages came directly through certain recognized theosophical authorities. In these messages, the Masters would express their desires as to what should be done or not done, what activities undertaken or opposed, & give hints guiding the lives of prospective pupils. Here we find real revelation: messages from an unseen authority, inaccessible to others. LFD - If you got a message from a Master to go jump off the Empire State Building, would you do it? I realize that it would be difficult to question a message from our revered Masters, but I still think one should examine whether the message made sense, & whether one would like to do what it said to do, & go by that. I also think that at the time VDL wrote this letter, people were going a bit half cocked with the revelations they believed hook, line & sinker, including some who were higher ups, & whom I otherwise love dearly. LFD now we get down to Krishnamurti. I think we can look at him from a bit more distance than did Van der Lieew, who wrote right in the middle of all that brouhaha. I think that Kirshnamurti was an offspring of theosophy just as was Alice Bailey & Rudolph Steiner. All 3 of them explained their missions in life in their own way, & their followers believed they were, whatever they wanted to believe they were. Whether Kirshnamurti was the World Teacher remains to be seen. Christianity developed several hundred years after Jesus walked the earth. I happen to be eclectic. I put together my belief system a little bit from all over. My Lodge did K's "The Flight of The Eagle" at 1 time, & we all got a lot out of it. Just quickly something Krishna J. taught me, that I failed to understand from others, including Freud. "What was your face before you were born?" Much later, I found part of that face when I took a course in 'American Women's History". Some of the qualities I had before I was born, & carried over into my earth life, were passed on to me by women who lived in the centuries before me. I don't consider the occult path & initiations as "unessentials". If the Ancient Wisdom is what was practiced in Egypt, Greece, Atlantis, Tibet, the Gnostics, the Kabbalists & etc., then it must also be relevant to our life today. Of course, if someone's going to sit there & practice channeling... I don't think that theosophists today doubt theosophy. I don't think anyone on this list does. We differ about its components but not about that it's a belief system we want to live by. VDL - I maintain that the evil effects of revelation are caused by the fact that revelation can only be accepted or denied, but never criticized in the light of reason. LFD - That's true, if you don't expose revelation to the light of reason. Something non hysterical needs to tell you that the revelation is true for you. VDL - Where simultaneously discipleship and a drawing nearer to the Master are held up as the goal of life, it is clear that the theoretical freedom of critcism means the giving up all that is held dearest & highest in the life of theosophists. LFD - I once was drawing nearer to the Master, & I criticised. At the time it felt like "the freedom of criticism meant giving up all that is held dearest & highest in the life of theosophists." It wasn't easy, but I still, to this day, think that my criticsm was right. I can tell you that my path since then may not have been the conventional one to draw nearer to the Masters, but I have gained a lot in esoteric knowledge going my own way. Sometimes certain books came my way. Some of it was transmitted orally, some of it I learned from watching a role model. I'm not saying that I've gotten past the foothills, but I've grown spiritually of that there is no doubt. And sometimes I feel that something I cannot see is guiding me. Having said that I need also to say that if ever it doesn't feel right & not make sense I'll discard it. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 18:08:12 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: abortion Theosophists come down on both sides of abortion... some on 1 side some on the other. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 18:54:02 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: abortion Gruess Gott Stephan, You can just start writing to our list, if you want to. We're very informal. But it would also be nice to know a little bit about who you are. Do you belong to a theosophical group in Switzerland? Where do they meet & what kinds of things do you talk about? What theosophical books have you read? I have some very definite ideas on abortion, but they don't have much to do with theosophy, just with what I think is practical for living. I'm for leaving the decision to the woman, her husband, if any, & her doctor. I'm "eine alte Dame", and, in my lifetime i've seen the tragedies which can occur when women go for illegal abortions, & some of them will do that, whether the whole world decides to believe in abortions or not. Has nothing to do with theosophy, except that I don't like to see people risk their lives, or their health needlessly. I've visited your beautiful country once, a while ago. I used to have an Aunt in Basel. Now I've only got a cusin, Rolf, who lives in the country somewhere near there, but I haven't heard from him in many years. My son & grandchildren went skiing in your Alps, when they lived in Paris. I myself was born in Frankfurt am Main, but I came to the States when I was 11. I still remembr my German, but it's a bit rusty. Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 19:00:30 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: 666 vive la Suisse Boum boum Vive tous les numeros de un a mille y inclus le numero 666 Vive la grande barbe qui s'appelle Daniel Allons enfants de la patrouille! Salut Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 19:01:34 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re re: CWL and Mars Rich writes to Alan: >Alan, > >Why is it that your CWL and Mars post was put on Theosophy >roots? Are we afraid to discuss it on the regular list? Was >some decision made that CWL was not to be discussed, and >therefore a separate list was made to discuss him? > >It strikes me as odd that if the answer to the last 2 questions >is "yes," that a decision was reached some time ago without the >discussion of the current members of the list. I assume that >the list has grown CONSIDERABLY in the past year or so, and I >wonder if everyone on the list agree now that we may not discuss >CWL? > >This sounds like censorship. No? > >Rich I think Alan was just joining this list when all of this came down, so assuming that nobody minds, I'll chime in on this one, since I was in a sense part of the circumstances that brought about the situation. Originally Liesel, who had just joined the list, went after Paul for writing something that she seemed to feel reflected upon CWL negatively. At first I tried to mediate the situation but eventually found myself being challenged to offer documentation for the accuracy of Paul's statement. I did, which in turn resulted in both Paul and I being flamed. Two or three others also made comments expressing a non-interest in theosophical history discussions of any kind and/or feeling offended about anything negative being said about CWL. John Mead intervened by suggesting that since theos-roots was originally set up for historical discussions, that it might be best to move all of them there. It seemed like a good solution at the time, since those who have no interest in theosophical history could just not subscribe to theos-roots. I feel that it is a fair compromise, and everyone expressed satisfaction with the decision at the time--even Liesel announced that she canceled theos-roots. Other historical discussions might do well to move to theos-roots also. Personally, I don't feel that it is censorship to have historical discussions on theos-roots any more than it is censorship for one to post announcements and reports of meetings and events on theos-news, which I do occasionally. These four boards were set up for this purpose long before the CWL issue ever arose. This way Paul, Dan, Alan, Eldon, you and I and all of the other history buffs can all talk theosophical history to our hearts content without offending or boring anyone on theos-l. So lets go for it! Maybe, John can set up a theos-christ for Daniel :-) Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 19:06:17 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Johnson agrees with Caldwell(!) Daniel Caldwell, I think the list should include Olcott & Sinnett Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 19:10:54 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: some suggested discussion guidelines Dear Paul, I was just thinking, How are you going to show Daniel the door? Have you thought of a way of sending him an exit door through cyberspace? Are the Masters helping you? If you've figured it out, please inform. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 19:21:47 GMT From: FRDHVY@aol.com Subject: abortion Hi everyone, Thank you's to Brenda, Stephen, and Rich for your thoughtful responses to my enquiry. It is obvious that the topic of abortion is emotional, but it also brings some of our theosophical view into the real world. Welcome to the list, Stephen. Stephen suggests that the individual incarnating may have some choice in the selection of a situation that will speed them on their path toward fulfillment. Have I paraphrased your comments correctly? If I have, then one might conclude that the fetus which is aborted actually chose to be aborted (perhaps in order to rectify some guilt?) I am not sure that I understand all of the implications of this statement, but it is not unlike the concept we encounter in medicine with some frequency where individuals are self destructive in their behaviors. One can also look at the idea of choice, and see that the individual has a choice to enter into a more loving situation, where the infant is wanted. (recall the earlier post, sorry I don't know who said it, why didn't you choose Bill and Hillary as parents?...,cause I'm a republican.) Rich suggests that abortion is murder. I believe that in the Gita, Arjuna balks before battle because he realizes he is about to murder his opponents. Krishna teaches then of duty. Brenda suggests that I might want to know what theosophists think about war as well, and I would. I, for one, do not see any difference in the act of killing by abortion, the act of killing by murder, and the act of killing by war. I do, however, think there may be some differences in the moral position of the warrior, the murderer, and the abortionist. Does theosophy speak to this difference? Brenda suggests that family planning might be an alternative to warfare. Interesting concept. Actually, family planning is not the sole domain of females, as men can be part of the process, and should be, in my opinion. Brenda suggests that balancing all the karma in one's life may liberate one from rebirth. As I understand karma, it may be viewed within the ideas of cause and effect. Abortion, for the fetus, may be the effect of an act in a past life. The abortionist may only be the agent, again acting out his own personal path. Thus, perhaps the fetus needs to die in order to continue its path, ultimately learning or gaining from the abbreviated physical existence, and approaching liberation from rebirth sooner. I am not familiar with dePurucker, however the idea suggested by Brenda from that source would seem to go against the the idea suggested by Rich from HPB that the soul does not settle into a body until later in life. I am inclined to reconcile these two opposing comments by thinking in terms of CWL's view of the relation between the physical, astral, mental, and causual bodies. I am inclined to think in terms of potential expression of the higher levels, which is dependant on experience in life, education, and enlightenment. The fetus has the potential, but until the potential is watered, fed, and groomed, the potential is unexpressed. I look forward to hearing all your opinions on this cental theme in theosophy which arises as we consider the mundane issue of abortion. I was surprised no one has raised another point of view which we have all neglected. What of the effects of abortion on the life of the mother-to-be? The issue is very complex. If, as HPB is quoted to say, abortion is a crime, who is the criminal? Who is the victim? Is the abortionist to be seen as a villan or as a servant? Rich suggests that we are responsible for our own actions, that we cannot exercise our dharma with the thought that the karma of another makes us do the act. I would ask, is there a greater plan which balances the lives of all men through the synergistic interaction of individuals, so that one man's dharma supports anothers karma? Throughout all of the comments in response to my enquiry so far, I sense another issue. It seems we are judging the act of abortion by some moral standard. perhaps, here, we see a way to investigate one of my earlier comments. Is there a difference between the act of killing in war, the act of murder, and the act of abortion at some moral level? If so, what is the moral standard? Do we, as individuals, have the right to judge? Liesel has given us an important hint in his post today. I believe we should all keep it in mind: Don't believe anything. if you come across something you like, it's a theory. Ask why, why, why... So I ask, Why? Why do men kill their fellow men? (be it abortion, murder, or warfare?) The conflict I see within the ideas of Karma, Dharma, and Reincarnation seems clear to me. There is enough misunderstanding of the terms, that they may be tied together, as we have within this discussion, and used to justify actions in the physical life which seem to be repugnant, and opposed to the idea of the pursuit of the welfare of all mankind. I thank you all for your input into this discussion, and I hope there will be more, as I think we all can learn from the studied discussion of the application of our fundamental philosophical concepts to our mundane world. Love and light, Fred From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 19:27:14 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: CWL and Mars Dear Rich, I'm perfectly willing to discuss CWL, if all participants to the discussion can refrain from flaming. Since that seems to be rather difficult to do for some people, & we've had untoward experiences about this matter in the past, we're avoiding talking about CWL> Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 19:46:11 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Re:666 Dear Daniel, I wish I knew why you think that we're all sinners who need to be severely punished. I've made some bad mistakes in my time, but I don't feel the least bit contrite about it. I take my lix for them, that's punishment enough & then I go on with my life. You're a bit heavy on the mea culpa. How can you enjoy life that way? How can you believe that a loving Lord would be that vindictive? Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 20:16:02 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: K.H. on women Hi, Tracey, I'm interested in your essay, but please wait to write until you have time. Thanks for phoning Marie. Glad you found her at home. If it was a long distance call, please let me know what I owe you. I'd rather you didn't have any expenses. Namste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 20:28:17 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: What authenticates what we Believe? Art: > The very Ancient path can still be > walked to good effect I think but the trading post must be in the now. Lewis: Yes, I agree the Ancient path can still be walked. It is surprising how much remains the same in spite of all that has changed. I like the analogy of humanity as a teenager, who thinks he knows everything and sees things in simplistic terms. As the average life span gets older and we (humanity) have a chance to mature we may discover more value in the ancient traditions of all cultures. > >Art: > >> Daniel tends to use Tradition and Scripture to authenticate what is > >> true. Daniel has come for whatever reasons to mistrust human > >> experience as a means of coming to truth. > > > >Lewis: This point puzzles me. This sounds confused. Tradition and > >scripture *is* human experience. I doubt anyone could ignore their > >own experiences for long if they contradict the traditions and > >scriptures they are using for guidance. We may suspend our judgement > >temporarily, but can't do so for very long. Life forces us to > >reconcile our ideas with our experiences, and if we don't we usually > >experience a mental or emotional breakdown. > > Art: I wish you were right here Lewis, I have experienced the power of > dogmatic ideology and it can take years (20 in my case) before you take > your experience seriously. Part of the dogma is that you can't trust the > human perception because it is intrinsically corrupted and depraved, set > toward evil. So when your experience begins to question anything in the > tradition the thought that you are being tempted immediately comes up and > the cycle begins again. Lewis: It is freightening how insidious the power of these ideas are enslave and control those fall under their influence. Yet, I hope their power fades over a series of lifetimes, as the soul accumulates the necessary strength break the bonds. In *At the Feet of the Master* there is a passage about the superstition and the need to rid ourselves of its many forms. > I agree of with you about the nearness of mental > breakdown when you have dishonored your own perception for so long. I had a > terrible transition from evangelicalism to faith -the structure had > collapsed and it has taken a few years to build a small cabin for faith > (Walden Pond) to live in. I was used to living in a basilica:) (Christian > Tradition) now I am in this cabin of faith looking out the window meeting > strangers who pass by and enjoying the company of fellow seekers. Endless > Seekers. Lewis: Your experience fills me with gratitude for my good fortune, having found this tradition so quickly--almost without effort! So glad to have come upon your cabin.:}) > >Art: > > > >> Others on the list seem to appeal > >> to Theosophical tradition in a manner not unlike Daniel, however not with > >> the tone of a Daniel. Answers seem to be decided by what HPB says or Judge, > >> or the M.L. > > > >Lewis: Yes, I see your point, but it is because these traditions > >and scriptures have been and are being validated by our own > >experiences. > > Art: This may be true but I don't hear too much about that on line. > Abstraction and theory seem to prevail. I am not at all adverse to that it > is just that I would like to see how theosophical philosophy is > authenticated in experience. For instance, has anyone directly and > unequivically meet any of the Masters or are they a guiding "construct" a > helpful idea? > Lewis: I can't claim to have met any Masters, but I have met many fine people whose lives have been greatly affected by their long association with the ideals and principles in theosophy. I think to meet the Masters we have to come out of our world and go into theirs, which can be quite a journey. One which may stretch over many lifetimes. For me I have so much work to do on myself that I already know about! In the Pythagorean school a student had to prove worthy of the teachers time and energy by attending the classes for two years without being allowed to so much as speak, according to one account I have read. Even at our current level of understanding we require students to take some courses before others...for their benefit, as well as the teachers. > > > >Lewis: In one of my favorite mantras--The Golden Stairs--there is > >a verse which says, "...a willingness to give and receive advice and > >instruction, a willing obedience to the behests of truth once we have > >placed our confidence in and believe that teacher to be in possesion > >of it..." I think this goes back to my comments earlier of the value > >of a coach/teacher. We all have blind spots in our reasoning and a > >good teacher's sage advise and instruction can be an important aide. > >Progress can be made without this aide, but it is a much more > >difficult path. > > > > However, the sage advice of one who has been there, so to speak, > >can be a real advantage--enter the teacher, the Master. > > Art: Mentor is a word that I think makes some sense in my life. A mentor is > a guide. I have had very few contemporary mentors perhaps a few professors > and others but ultimately I have never found a Master in those I have > bumped into. Aspects of mentoring, I have been graciously given through > others in combination with others. My main experience of mentoring has been > with people who have left a legacy people like: Jesus Christ, CG. Jung > (who I considered mentored me from beyond the grave for about 10 years); > currently I have discovered a new mentor Ralph Waldo Emerson. I feel as if > there is a relationship between myself and these people that is not rooted > in history but in spirit and that I am called in some way to their > guidance. I think of them as inner wisdom figures even though they have had > an external existence which, of course, I am very interested in as well. > Lewis: Yes, I have much the same feeling regarding being mentored from beyond the grave. When I first came into the theosophical literature I read hundreds of books within the first year or two. I used to dream at night I was in class with HPB and other authors I was reading teaching the class. Thank you for your kind words. Perhaps we will meet on the trail. llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 21:14:16 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Group Project Jerry, I found the J.J. van der Leeuw article you posted very, very interesting indeed. I didn't agree with all of it, maybe about half, but each and every paragraph made me think -- HARD -- about where ULT is, and where the movement as a whole is going. First off, J.J. van der Leeuw is certainly right about the difference between Theology (he defines it as "discussion" about the divine) and Theosophy ("experience" of the divine). That is a good distinction, and emphasizes that Theosophy is to be applied, and not just studied and then we all sit around saying How Marvellous, How Beautiful! It's so lovely! I also think J.J. van der Leeuw's point about pseudo-tolerance is a good one. We cannot refuse to criticize, and simply say "I'll take the good and leave the bad." That means the bad is accepted, allowed to remain, and probably to grow. For instance, we apparently have blackballed discussion of CWL's "bad side" from this board, which I find perfectly ridiculous. If we can't hold up ideas and events to scrutiny, then we have no right to say "we pursue the truth." What I didn't appreciate about J.J. van der Leeuw's article was his demand, a very scholarly one, that we make everything verifiable to reason. Theosophy is certainly reasonable, and much in it is perfectly logical, uniform under the law of analogy, etc. But if there is anything truly SPIRITUAL in Theosophy, we cannot expect it fo conform to the logical constraints of the lower mind. This doesn't mean that we have to fall prey to constant revelations, Lo! here and Lo! there. It means we can be sensitive to intuition and mysticism and personal growth (a point J.J. van der Leeuw himself makes) and not expect everything to be publicly verifiable. If I get a flash during meditation or whenever, it is worth looking at even if not verbally expressible. But I don't have to go around parading before everyone Look At Me, I Got A Flash! It Must Be From The Masters! We must not force our own mysticism upon others -- including our psychic adventures! I also question J.J. van der Leeuw's idea that life is meaningless and has meaning only in the experience. Reflection is valuable, I believe, to understand our experience. He is right, I think, to help us avoid being controlled by OTHER PEOPLE's systems, to let Theosophy dictate to us what single thing our experience means. But the ideas of Karma and Reincarnation, for instance, help explain many things to me, and I don't need a dictator or a prophet to apply them to myself. J.J. van der Leeuw is surely right in criticizing the constant revelations of the old Adyar Society, and even though much of that has stopped, and the Krishnamurti INSANITY is over, there is still the distinct air that the teachings have all been given, all we need to do is ingest what has been delivered. There is little space for individual creativity and insight. That's really a shame. At the same time, revelation is not ALWAYS contradictory to self-knowledge. J.J. van der Leeuw presents the Masters as demanding complete, unquestioning obedience. I don't read that at all in HPB and Mr. Judge's works. The guidance of the Masters is hardly continuous, rather a chela is left alone for years at a stretch with no communication at all. HPB was continually left to her own resources as to how to found a society for Theosophy, she had to organize everything herself, she and Mr. Judge and Olcott spent countless long evenings considering options, going over plans, wracking their brains figuring out how to make the movement successful. Of course they weren't alone, and knew they had Master's help, but it wasn't as if the Masters told them what to do each morning. Working with the Masters does NOT mean giving up self-reliance or self-knowledge. The problem is that today, perhaps we rely overly, not on the Masters, but on their substitutes, our LEADERS, letting them do our thinking for us. J.J. van der Leeuw is very insightful and I very much appreciated the study and hearing people's comments. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 21:18:21 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: abortion Fred wrote: > ... I, for one, do not > see any difference in the act of killing by abortion, the act of killing by > murder, and the act of killing by war. I do, however, think there may be > some differences in the moral position of the warrior, the murderer, and the > abortionist. Does theosophy speak to this difference? Lewis: One idea I have picked up from theosophy which might apply to this topic is "motive is everything to us" written in one of the Mahatma letters and discussed in other places as well, I think. llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 23:23:46 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Source Teachings Part III Danny wrote: > And later that same year, HPB writing from Ostende, Belgium to Judge says: > > "The trouble with you is *that you do not know the great change* that came to > pass in you a few years ago. Others have occasionally their *astrals* changed > and replaced by those of Adepts (as of Elementaries) & they influence the > *outer*, & the *higher* man. With you, it is the NIRMANAKAYA not the `astral' > that blended with your astral. Hence the dual nature & fighting. Fakir? > Fakir be damned. The man knows not the difference between a *Nirmanakaya* > of an Adept & his *astral*." It is true that Judge did not have the Initiatic standing of HPB, but if the Masters are the Source of Theosophy, and Judge had within him the Nirmanakaya, as you just wrote above, then it seems inescapable that his work is source material, even if he was the junior partner to HPB. No one ever said they were equal, merely that Judge was as much a partner to the Masters directly as HPB was, and he gained in strength every year after he passed probation in 1886. He received 500 communications from the Masters directly after HPB's death, this seems like "Source" material to me! Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 23:27:24 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: censoring Brenda wrote: > I, for one, think that we shouldn't slander anyone on theos-l and that > name-calling and other similar associations with slander should be censored. > It's illegal to slander, isn't it? Well, we need not "slander" CWL just because we want to talk about him. Name-calling is useless in the pursuit of truth, but hiding from facts is useless as well. And yes, slander is illegal if it defames character, causes a loss of income, or other "material" damage. There is one more thing to note about slander: legally, only the living can be slandered. HPB sued the New York Sun for printing Elliot Coues' slander against herself and the T.S. in 1890, but the case was dropped when she died the following year. (It seems the dead cannot suffer material damage.) Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 23:27:29 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: School and Schools Paul wrote: > But there is also, above the specific schools, the idea of The > School. Here is where I think Rich and I part company on the > issue of literalism. It is historically false to assert that > the various "schools" frequented by HPB are "branches" of "One > School" that exists as an organization on planet earth run by > embodied human beings. The "One School" is an abstraction, not > an entity on this plane. How in the world can ANYONE who is not a top initiate in one of those Schools know this? If there are in fact, as Paul says, many such esoteric schools, how are we to know that at the top level they are not all aware of each other and co-operating? Putting the Masters and the Brotherhood in the Platonic realm is quaint and safe, but yet another unprovable assertion from Paul. Likewise, HPB's assertion that there IS a single esoteric network is unprovable, but SHE DOES ASSERT IT, and that is SOURCE THEOSOPHY. We are free to agree or disagree, but Paul cannot convince me that Theosophy does not teach Masters and this Brotherhood as a FACT in nature. I don't see the reason we should attack this "myth" as Paul calls it of the esoteric brotherhood. What damage is done? Until any one of us can know for sure, it seems like a useful devotional belief, and not dangerous to the world at large. So Paul, why do you really care if people like me and Art are "living the myth"? What's it to you? Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 23:35:04 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Concerning Daniel H. and censorship Daniel Caldwell: We could also consider your questions turned our way. (I'm writing this partly for us to think about, and partly for fun.) (1) How are we to know that The Secret Doctrine, the Voice of the Silence, the Mahatma Letters, or any other so-called "source literature" are anything other than the records of the personal experiences and thoughts of individuals? (2) If we say that The Secret Doctrine is inspired by the Masters, what do we mean by inspired? (3) Is the inspiration from the Mahatmas, and if we say so, HOW DO WE KNOW? (4) More pertinent to the modern situation is: Who are the people claiming to know just which books are are are not the word of the Mahatmas? (5) How do we know that the Masters have not spoken in other books that those by Blavatsky? (6) And what do we mean when we speak of "Masters"? (7) Furthermore, how much do we know about other religious philosophies? About Neo-Platonism, Buddhism, the Vedas, Tibetan Buddhism, etc? (8) Also how many other sacred scriptures have we read? (9) Also if we have had a personal experience with a Master, are we aweare that there are other sincere religious seekers who have had personal encounters with Masters. How do we know, how can we be sure that our experiences are vaild and those in other groups are false? (10) Do we seek Truth and Reality or do we seek comfortable beliefs? (11) And how much do we know about mysticism, peak experiences, etc.? -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Sep 1995 23:46:10 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: go away??? > Alan or Dr. Bain or AB: > > >It is perfectly possible to produce similar lists of Jewish > scholars, Buddhist scholars, Moslem scholars, Hindu scholars, > all of whom would argue that your list was of people who were at > the least mistaken. Kindly credit us with common sense. > > PLEASE GO AWAY > > >PLEASE GO AWAY, YOU ARE SOWING YOUR SEEDS ON STONY GROUND HERE, > >WHERE THEY WILL NEVER GROW. IF YOU WISH TO INVESTIGATE > >THEOSOPHICAL IDEAS WITH AN OPEN MIND, THEN PLEASE RETURN. > > This is not the sort of thing we tell people to go away for. We have a party line on this? Does he make > you feel denigrated? Does he defile? Does he commit gross crimes against > humanity? Please fit the punishment to the crime. If a mind isn't open to > you, then open it. Test your own abilities at providing information which > can be appreciated. I am gaining in understanding myself by writing with > this gentleman. I am thoroughly enjoying what you consider an unapproachable > dilemma. I asked this man a number of questions which he completely ignored, but he continues to ask us questions to which he replies with quotes from (probably) the protestant bible (catholic bibles, as you know, are different). I am NOT enjoying his postings one bit, and see no reason not to say so loud and clear. He clearly has no other interest than to convert others to his viewpoint. I want him to go away, so I ask him to. If you enjoy him, fine, but I see no unapproachable dilemma, as you put it. I have, via my questions to him, provided him with the opportunity to acquire considerable information in which he clearly has no interest whatever. Do carry on your enjoyment (you are writing to him for *fun*?) but when I see his posts I just reach for the delete key. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 00:04:51 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: WWW, A forwarded message As readers may note from my header, I subscribe via Demon.co.uk. All access phone numbers now end in '666' - Demon's bit of fun, I am sure! Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 00:05:50 GMT From: dhedrick@csn.net Subject: Re: 666 The game you play here will certainly effect you there. Daniel Blessed are those that are persecuted for my name's sake. Thanx!!! >vive la Suisse Boum boum > >Vive tous les numeros de un a mille y inclus le numero 666 > >Vive la grande barbe qui s'appelle Daniel >Allons enfants de la patrouille! > >Salut >Liesel > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 00:17:47 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: School and Schools Rich: >How in the world can ANYONE who is not a top initiate in one of those Schools >know this? If there are in fact, as Paul says, many such esoteric schools, >how are we to know that at the top level they are not all aware of each other >and co-operating? When we talk about universities or schools, we are making analogies to social structures that we know and experience. There would be correspondances, but I'd expect that the organization may not directly correspond to some form that we know. I like the analogy of a university, because the organization is based upon learning, teaching, and advancing the frontiers of knowledge, all of which we understand the Masters to be doing. In a university, there are grades of professors. They teach or instruct the public in extension courses; they teach regular classes; they teach graduate seminars for those nearing professorship. The Masters have the dual responsibilities of classroom instruction and research and publication. Within an university, it may be organized into colleges, where there are certain specialities. We could have a college of law, one of business, one of medicine, one with a scientific slant. And there are admissions requirements. One has to have taken the necessary studies in lessor schools, the necessary preparations before admission is granted. There is, of course, limits to analogies. When we extend them too far we end up with imagination and fancy. How far can we extend this one? I wonder. There *is* a definite sense of hierarchy, of leadership and obedience to one's teachers. We hear, for instance: "But still if he choice lies between our disobeying the lightest injunction of our Chohan as to when we may see either of you, or what we may write, or how, or where, and the loss of your good opinion, even the feeling of your strong animosity and the disruption of the Society, we should not hesitate a single instant. It may be considered unreasonable, selfish, huffish and ridiculous, denounced as jesuitical and the blame all laid at our door, but law is LAW with us, and no power can make us abate one jot or tittle of our duty." [Mahatma Letters, 3rd ed., p. 223] >Putting the Masters and the Brotherhood in the Platonic realm is quaint and >safe, but yet another unprovable assertion from Paul. It is possible to reduce anything to psychological terms. It's one way to relate to things. There is a living reality to the Masters and the work that they are doing, that is quite independent of any of our perceptions or beliefs. >Likewise, HPB's assertion that there IS a single esoteric network is >unprovable, but SHE DOES ASSERT IT, and that is SOURCE THEOSOPHY. We are >free to agree or disagree, but Paul cannot convince me that Theosophy does >not teach Masters and this Brotherhood as a FACT in nature. I'm not sure that we can call it a "network", anymore than we can call it a "hierarchy." It's a network in the sense that everyone works with others regardless of level. It's a hierarchy in the sense that there are grades or levels and those on the higher levels tend to be teachers, mentors, gurus, and project leaders to those on lower levels. One way to picture a hierarchy is the figure of a pyramid, with each level getting smaller, until we get to the point at the top. Where the idea of hierarchy is misleading, though, is in assuming that there's something like a king or son of god or whatever at the top. The topmost grade is composed of a class of advanced souls, not of a single person, with a job or title or position in an organization that gives him special authority. Rich, what you've said is much closer to source Theosophy, what we have been literally taught in the classic literature. It might be more forceful, and evoke a more thoughtful response with some choice quotes. I've written at times of the need to put things in our own words, and try to do that myself most of the time. When I'm doing that, I'm required, by necessity, to take a softer tone in my statements, even when I'm trying to write about the original Theosophy, and not introduce my own additional insights. This is because, when using my own words, I'm "unarmed"; I'm speaking from my understanding and have no accompanying "proof" of what I say. When taking a strong position to advocate a particular idea, without the quotes, I can only *assert* what I believe, but not prove anything. I can write things in a way that makes the ideas appealing and attract people to consider them, but there is no to my words apart from their own power to persuade a reader. >I don't see the reason we should attack this "myth" as Paul calls it of the >esoteric brotherhood. We can attempt to understand the organization of the Masters. What I find more interesting, though, is what they actually do with their time. My speculation earlier was that it was in creative endeavors, with teaching humanity as a useful sideline but not the primary focus. The primary focus, I've suggested, is that of perserving the wisdom imparted to them by the Dhyani-Chohans, and that preservation is by teaching and training each generation so that the knowledge is passed on. And they would seek to gradually extend that knowledge as well, since it is not the sumtotal of all that can ever be known. How do they extend it? How do we really know the deeper spiritual things? By a combination of inner exploration and insight, *followed by giving tangible expression to what we've discovered*. The giving of tangible expression is an important step in learning and truly knowing the deeper truths. Because of this, I'd expect that the Masters are engaged in both learning and in *acts of creativity*, acts which are not necessarily meddling in the affairs of humanity, as it muddles along. They help us out as much as our karma allows, but that helping may occupy only a fraction of their time. >Until any one of us can know for >sure, it seems like a useful devotional belief, and not dangerous to the >world at large. We don't need to defend the idea of the Masters as just being a useful devontional belief. We can make a philosophical argument for the logical necessity of their existence. We can describe how the source Teachings consider their role in the evolutionary scheme and their place in the spiritual ecology of the world. There is much that we study that we cannot know by direct, external personal experience. How many of us has "seen" Fohat? Or the waters of space? Or our Manasaputra? >So Paul, why do you really care if people like me and Art >are "living the myth"? What's it to you? Paul has a particular view on the Masters that he wants to keep before us. But we all tend to respond when things have been said that we don't agree with, coming in with our views, feeling that we need to speak up "to set the record straight" from our point of view. Hopefully we are tolerant and agreeable in our exchanges, so that each of us has a respectful airing of our respective views. Our discussion list, 'theos-l', is not a controlled environment, where a particular approach to the source Teachings is being taught. Most of what is posted is personal views, often in conflict with the source Teachings. That's fine. At some point we could have different lists or discussion groups that are moderated and given a specific focus. That would be fine. This is a place, though, where we can have fun and speculate and hopefully not bear terrible karma for the many times that we err in what we say, through our enthusiasm. Your attempt to keep some focus on the source Theosophy is valuable for us, because sometimes we can get too far off the mark. But given the free-wheeling nature of our group, and given the fact that we may have readers unread in the basic materials, skillful means are necessary to keep us pointed "true north." -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 00:23:23 GMT From: dhedrick@csn.net Subject: Re: 666 Let me tell you that when I first accepted the Lord into my life I was prompted to stay away from eschatology (study of end times) and to focus more on the matters of the heart. May 3rd 1988, was a solid, permanent, and remarkable day in my life. From a man of absolute destruction to a man desirous of truth and fellowship with His Maker. 7yrs later my interest has peaked to have somewhat of a grasp on what the END will bring according to biblical prophecy. 666 The Mark of the Beast, Daniel 9, Ezekial, Thessalonians, Matthew 24, and Revelation...all scream out of a certain future. It becomes more clear everyday that His return is eminent. Orthodox Christians have interpreted the scriptures to indicate that there will be what is called a RAPTURE. 1Thess4:16 Some believe that it will come before this terrible TRIBULATION. PRE-Tribulation Rapture. Some believe that believers will endure 3 1/2 yrs of trib. Mid-Trib and yet others believe that the saints will endure all of this terrible time before Jesus returns. Post-Trib You won't have to worry about missing it. It will be obvious. The RAPTURE of those that believe will cause them to meet the Lord in the air. You see regardless of my understanding of these certain events I remain PAN-Trib. However it pans out in the end that is what I am for. The warnings in scripture can be forgotten, blown-off, or neglected but just as a sign on the road indicates "Cliff Ahead", if you remain in denial and press on...off the Cliff you will go. I am simply waiving my hands attempting to create a diversion here so that you will not fall into your own disaster. There is a way which seems right to a man, but the end is destruction. Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 00:35:11 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Source Teachings Part III Rich: >It is true that Judge did not have the Initiatic standing of HPB, but if the >Masters are the Source of Theosophy, and Judge had within him the >Nirmanakaya, as you just wrote above, then it seems inescapable that his work >is source material, even if he was the junior partner to HPB. The question of the occult status of Judge is quite apart from any assignment given him by his teachers, the Masters. The materials that he wrote for the general public were not terrible esoteric. His work was more directed towards the common aspirant. He was working to awaken some interest in the spiritual in America back in the "cowboy and indian" days. His work was long, hard, and often unappreciated. He did not go around making grand claims for himself, saying that he was a high Initiate, Apostle of the Coming Christ, etc., but devoted himself to simple, humble, selfless work. He provides us with a good role model for our theosophical work. Since Judge did not write advanced books like "The Secret Doctrine," we would not call him a Teacher, where we use that term to imply someone authorized by the Lodge to openly write new religious texts or advanced works of philosophy on its behalf in the world. Some of us would consider him in the other role, as Messanger, as someone authorized to work in the world as a representative of the Lodge, permitted to speak openly of that connection. In this respect, I think that he was allowed to speak of his work on behalf of the Masters because in America in the time making such a statement enhanced his work. In today's society, any such claim would certainly be a detriment. >No one ever said they were equal [HPB & Judge], merely that Judge was as much >a partner to the Masters directly as HPB was, and he gained in strength >every year after he passed probation in 1886. We really don't know how many agents that the Masters have in the world then, nor today. There were a few associated with the early Theosophical Society. Are there any with the theosophical groups of today? Elsewhere in society, where can they be found? We can wonder, but there's not much information in our literature. The lack of information in our books does not mean there aren't Chelas at work throughout society, not any more than the lack of something in the Bible proves that it cannot be. >He received 500 >communications from the Masters directly after HPB's death, this seems >like "Source" material to me! True. The "source" is the body of knowledge taught in the Masters' "university", fragments of which is offered to the general public, as conditions permit. It is found with anyone trained in this knowledge, and we can read of it in those rare cases where the pledge of secrecy taken by these Initiates is waived, and they are permitted to speak. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 00:37:31 GMT From: dhedrick@csn.net Subject: Abortion Mills Planned Parenthood Pro-Choice Ohhh boy. Planned Parenthood is a organization bent on performing millions of abortions for one reason "MONEY". Pro-Choice? 99.9% of all preganancies were determined by prior choices. You make the choice when you lay down. Selfishness is the arm behind the sword on this one. When is a baby a human? Is a zygote human? The answer is soooo simple. Answer this question. When is the DNA formed to create the unborn? DNA determines what type of life will be formed and DNA is formed immediately during conception. The genes are permanent. The natural choice is life. Wake up... A third tri-mester abortion is gruesome. SHOW me one unwanted baby and I will show you one hundred wanting parents. ABORTION is MURDER. And abortionists should be put to death. Daniel Life--The Natural Choice From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 00:52:00 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: CWL and Mars Rich: There have been a few times in discussions where an attempt to move certain topics to theos-roots was suggested. The move was voluntary. It basically came done to certain topics getting too hot, and the people that were angered wanted the topics moved to a list where they wouldn't have to read about them. Earlier this year, Daniel Caldwell put up some historic postings that some readers did not like, and basically told him to keep it off "theos-l", to keep that stuff on "theos-roots". That time, no one came to his defense, and the comments suggesting that he post there were left unopposed. He subsequently started posting some messages there. Other times when it was suggested that certain topics be moved off of "theos-l", I've had time to respond in defense of openness. If some of us don't like the psychical, we could say "keep that off theos-l, put it on theos-psychic." If others don't like talk of the Masters, they could tell people to keep it on theos-myths. And we could banish people to theos-source when they stick to the source Theosophy. What we really have is an attempt to tell people that we don't agree with to shut up. We can simply use the "delete" key, and not read messages we don't like. What is simply needed is adequate labelling in the subject line, where someone does not have to start reading a message before deciding to delete it or not. This could apply to any sensitive topic that could inflame the passions of a reasonable number of readers. For myself, I think that Daniel Caldwell should not have given in to pressure to move some of his postings off of "theos-l", but stayed here with the rest of us. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 01:07:09 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: abortion Rich: >It would seem that abortion is murder, whatever may be the age of >the fetus. It may be the karma of the incoming soul (manas) to lose the >vehicle INTO WHICH IT HAS NOT YET INCARNATED, but it is not justifiable to >bring on that karma. It is never right to cause pain or suffering to another >being, least of all out of self-interest. The biggest argument against abortion would be made by those with the Christian notion that a new soul is created for each physical birth, and therefore we are cheating someone out of their chance for a one-and-only existence in the physical world. We know better with Theosophy, there is near-immediate rebirth in the circumstances of an abortion or miscarriage. One comparison that we can make is to suicide. When a person is ready to die, should their death be assisted in any manner? Is it too much to offer them poison or a gun? Could we draw the line at their decision to stop eating food? One member of the Los Angeles T.S. was dying of cancer, and when he knew that his time had came, stopped eating, and quietly passed away that day. Was this wrong? There is a natural end to life. On a inner level, when we have completely readied ourselves, we could almost do like some Tibetans, to sit in meditation, close our eyes, and consciously participate in our physical death. The time has come and our life energies departed and it happened naturally, without physical intervention. Could the same be said of an incoming birth that is proving to be a mistake? The initial birth was attracted by what was in the minds and hearts of the parents, perhaps before the time of the sex act and of the actual physical conception. The incoming person's life energies interacted with the process and "caused" the particular set of genes that the new body will have. A process of coming into birth has been engaged. After the start of the birth process, it may later prove to be a mistake. Perhaps something has changed in one or both of the parents, where the situation is no longer suitable for rearing of the child. The change could be inner, or in outer circumstances. If the change is deeply felt, perhaps we would find a natural miscarriage happening. The mother's body reacts to the changing situation, reponding to the now unsuitable birth circumstances. Certainly, in this day and age, there is no such "natural miscarriage," but perhaps in a future age when our bodies are more responsive to the changes that happen in us, it may appear. In this day and age, an abortion is like a physician-assisted suicide. We are using medicine to help out with the termination of a life. We have decided that it would be the best thing to do. One big question is: Are we really sure of our decision? We can't change our minds after the fact. And: Is there a general rule wherein we can always say that a particular decision is right, or always is wrong? And with this, I'd say "no," that we need to carefully evaluate each situation on a case-by-case basis, sometimes with incredible insight required of us, in order to know what is the right way to proceed. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 01:26:38 GMT From: dhedrick@csn.net Subject: Re: Concerning Daniel H. and censorship In response: >Hoping that you might challenge your own assumptions and the foundations of >your open belief system, I will offer you a series of questions adapted from >a book by Arthur W. Osborn: The Cosmic Womb: An Interpretation of Man's >Relationship to the Infinite. > >(1) How are we to know that the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita, the >Vedas or any other so-called "holy" book from the various world religions >are anything other than the records of the personal experiences and thoughts >of individuals? Because the Holy Spirit teaches me that which is truth. As for the Bible vs the other "holy" books...The foundation of the Holy Bible is the most valid. If you have studied its origin and its progression you can only conclude that the Bible is remarkable and unique. > >(2) If we say the Bible or some of these other scriptures are inspired, what >do we mean by inspired? > Inspired means "God Breathed". Not mans interpretation of what he cannot perceive. When I type "Thus says the LORD...." Who am I speaking of? Did you ever notice that Moses came to Pharoah and said "The LORD says...." Did Pharaoh know Moses's God? >(3) Is the inspiration from "God" and if we say so, HOW DO WE KNOW? Truth IS. When we live a life of denial against the truth, we reap the rewards of denial. Prophets were sent by GOD for the specific purpose of getting us TO KNOW. We can know because Jesus did come, died, and resurrected. The scriptures make incredible prophetic claims and the scriptures teach fulfillment of those claims. As a man wanting to KNOW, we are set before the Holy Scriptures with many claims and are left to our freewill to determine for ourselves what truth is. Amazingly enough once a true confession and belief is poured out from the one who wants to know God reveals Himself to the believer. This does not mean that man determines TRUTH. It means he has a choice to follow truth. Jesus said He was the Truth. So to know truth is to know Him. > >(4) More pertinent to the modern situation is: Who are the people claiming >to know just which books are or are not the word of God? > You are aware that Jews deny the New Testament. Are the Jews the ones to determine what is Holy? Jesus declared that the Old Testament was HIS word. And the New Tetsament is filled about the life of the one that claimed He was God. Has any other Man ever claimed to be God, provided evidence of his divinity and remained as a Man of Truth and a Great Teacher? God in the OT said that Israel was his chosen nation. Where are the Hittites? What happened to the Amorites? The Jewish nation is now a nation and was propecied to be a nation again. What happened in 1948? You see prophecy is a certain method for examining TRUTH. >(5) How do you know that God has not spoken in other religious books other >than the Bible? > TRUTH is not twisted. Scripture interprets scripture. Truth interprets truth. If I had no opportunity to read the the Holy Bible, that would not change the TRI-UNE nature of God or man's need of a Savior. >(6) And what do you mean when you speak of "God"? > Here O Israel the Lord Our God is One. Omniscient Omnipotent Omnipresent Personal >(7) Furthermore, how much do you know about other religions of the world? >About Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, etc? I would >suggest that you read a textbook on comparative world religion such as >*A History of the World's Religions*, 9th edition by David S. Noss and John >B. Noss of read *The Eliade Guide to World Religions* by Mircea Eliade, Ioan >P. Couliano and Hillary S. Wierner. > I enjoy comparitive studies. Why do all major religions deal with Jesus? Many make claims that are contrary to first hand evidence as written in the New Testament which is the only valid history of Jesus of Nazareth. It is also interesting that ALL cults deal with Jesus. What they deal rarely aligns with known truth about Jesus. The reason is simple...an attempt to dillude the truth. >(8) Also how many other sacred scriptures have you read? Have you read >the Rig-Veda, the Bhagavad Gita, the Adi Granth, the Koran, the Nag Hammadi >Gnostic texts, etc.? Find a copy of *Sacred Texts of the World: A Universal >Anthology* Edited by Ninian Smart and Richard D. Hecht and expose yourself to >religious ideas East and West down through thousands of years. > Yes...Yes...and Yes.... The Urantia is another fine work of a fool. Fortunately the Concordex was written so that they kind find their foolishness more quickly. As for the Gnostics...they didn't know. >(9) Also if you have had a personal experience with Jesus Christ, are you >aware that there are other sincere religious seekers who have had personal >encounters with Krishna who says in the Bhagavad Gita: "I am the Self seated >in the hearts of all creatures.....I am the beginning, the middle and end of >all creation." Are you aware that there are many Buddhists who have a personal >experience with the Universal Buddha? How do you know, how can you be sure >that your experience with Christ is valid and their encounters with Krishna >or Buddha are false? Maybe, just maybe, Daniel H., your encounter is not >better or worse than their encounters. Think about....ask yourself in the >privacy of your own thoughts....these questions. > Jesus is not the Beginning, the Middle and End of Creation...He is the Creator. And Angels of Light appear to many... Mormon's have a burning in their bosom to validate their spirituality. How do they know that it is not just indigestion? I remember an acid trip that caused me to meet Satan himself. Does this invalidate my experience? This is the primary reason why experience cannot be our foundation. Jesus made UNIQUE claims. And fulfilled them. Did Buddha and Krishna claim to be GOD or to be TRUTH? >(10) Do you seek Truth, Reality (whatever you want to call it) or do you >seem comfortable beliefs? > Where is there comfort in persecution? I have had my life threatened on three occasions for my confessions of faith. I was however comforted by the presence of the Holy Spirit. >(11) And how much to you know about mysticism, peak experiences, etc.? About >the great mystics not only of Jewish and Christian traditions but in other >religious traditions in Asia, Africa, South America and elsewhere? > Whether I know 5% of that which you spew before me or 95%, it does not change the OBJECTIVE truth that man is broken and needs a Savior and that ONE Savior is Jesus Christ. >(12) There are probably 30 good books in print on mysticism (universal, >worldwide) that show that people of many different religions, cultures, etc. >have experience the DIVINE. One of my favorite books is The Teachings of the >Mystics by W.T. Stace. It is out of print , but borrow a copy from your local >library or through interlibrary loan. > There is ONE book that declares that Satan is the Prince of the Power of the Air. Demonology is an interesting study. Why is it that Demons become powerless in the Name of Jesus? >(13) And how much do you know about Esoteric Christianity? > Enough to know that to remove the real historic Jesus is to have no Jesus. And that Special revelation is not unique. The scriptures were written so that ALL may come to the knowledge of Jesus Christ. In all your readings and your reading list...the question remains. Who is Jesus? If you utter some nonesence about him as one of many Savior Christs, who at different times have come into the world to enlighten each generation or culture than you deny the UNIQUE claims and validity of Jesus of Nazareth. Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 01:36:04 GMT From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: What authenticates what we believe? Arthur Paul Patterson wrote: >>Murray: 2. Recognition >>Along with the intuitive feeling of rightness, there is often a >>recognition experience. > > Art: I can't help but recall what Plato said about learning being > recollection. Recognition reminds me of recollection - "Oh yes I recall > that even though I can't recall being taught it before!" > In the psychology of memory, it is said that the field of recognition is greater than that of unprompted recall. It's possible that on one level, the Recognition aspect of authentication could be due to memories of knowledge held in a former life, that made enough impression on the skhandas to be accessible in the new life. Another angle on this is that if we are brought close enough in consciousness to an archetype, we recognize it because in our deeper self we "fan out" to embrace the universe, so that the archetypes (some of them, anyway) can be found within our awareness. Perhaps this is the reference standard I mentioned in my previous post. This idea seems to tie in with Plato. There's a whole lot that could be discussed here. > 3. Creativity > >... art, music or literature. We seem to have enough of the seeds of that > >kind of creativity in ourselves to repond to it when we meet it, even if > >we're lightyears from being able to conceive it and procuce it on our > >own. > > Art: I have a difficulty with exactly what creativity is. I guess I think > of it as linkage and synthesis. > Yes, it's hard to pin down to one thing. I'm thinking of creativity as the experience and process of thought, here, so it would not give authority in itself, but rather is the discovery and building of concepts in our "pyramid of trust". The point is, we can be creative but wrong. In fact, our inner life is really a sequence of discoveries and discardings as we move to something nearer the ever-elusive truth. Only some of us find it hard to let go of a position, once occupied. >>4. Love, Faith and Trust > Faith comes from the word pistis which means leaning into relying on or > trusting. It is the active expression of belief. When people make it into > an noun it comes to mean a body of dogma and is prefaced by the word "The" > faith. If we could use the word in its relying sense then a lot of > suffering would be ameliorated. > Oh, I agree so much on that one. > Murray, I am thinking about the remaining aspects of authentication and > will likely respond later. But I did want to say I really appreciated the > effort you made to answer my questions. Thank you very much. > You are more than welcome. - It was fun too. Murray Stentiford From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 01:59:11 GMT From: dhedrick@csn.net Subject: Re: does Jesus live etherially? Don't get me started...OK...I am already going. The WatchTower Organization and Founders have made many false declarations that Armegeddon would begin and Jesus Christ would return in 1873, 1874, 1914, 1917, 1925, 1957 and 1975. When Charles Taze Russell first began preaching in the 1870s, he came upon the idea that Christ would return invisibly. He seems to have adopted this from the dispensationalists, who to this day believe in some sort of "two stage coming" doctrine, in which Christ returns invisibly and does certain things, then returns visibly and completes the description of events in the Gospel accounts at the Battle of Armageddon. This idea was also adopted by a fringe Second Adventist named Nelson Barbour. Barbour developed a great many ideas about Bible chronology related to the Second Coming, predicting in 1869 that Christ would return in 1873. When that didn't happen he changed the date to 1874. After that didn't happen either, he decided to adopt the "invisible presence" doctrine and then claimed that Christ had indeed returned in 1874; we just needed "the eyes of faith" to see it. Barbour also said that the Battle of Armageddon began in 1874, and that the "times of the Gentiles" (of Luke 21:24) would end in 1914. In 1876 Russell learned about all this, adopted Barbour's ideas lock, stock and barrell, and began teaching them himself. Barbour wrote a book, which Russell financed and more-or-less co-authored, in 1877 called _Three Worlds and the Harvest of this World_, in which all these ideas were set forth in detail. After a doctrinal split, Barbour changed many of these ideas and went off into obscurity. Russell began publishing _Zion's Watch Tower_ magazine in 1879 to more fully expound these ideas, which included one that "the Harvest" began in 1874 and would end in 1914 when God would destroy the Gentile nations. Russell also referred to this period as "the day of the Lord" and "the day of Jehovah." Over the course of time Russell modified his beliefs, as various minor events he predicted did not occur, but he retained his belief that "the Gentile times" would end in 1914. In 1914, WWI broke out and Russell took this as a sign that all of his hopes were fulfilled. Two years later he died, and the Watchtower Society, under the direction of Joseph F. Rutherford, began making major changes in doctrine and policy. Over the next thiry years, all of the ideas Russell pinned to 1874 were changed to 1914, including the idea that Christ returned invisibly. This last idea was not changed until the year 1943. During this time the ideas about "the day of the Lord" and "the day of Jehovah" changed a number of times, and I don't know much about it. The notion remained that "the Gentile times" ended in 1914, and the "signs in sun, moon and stars" of Luke 21:25-28 began to be seen at that time. They also applied Luke 21:29-33 as beginning in 1914, and pointed to the many problems mankind suffers from as proof. It is this latter idea that was changed in 1993. As you can tell I have done alot of study in this area and I could go on for hours. I can simply wrap it up with: The Scriptures have not yet been fulfilled. Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 02:27:27 GMT From: dhedrick@csn.net Subject: 666.html http://www.secis.com/truth/666.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 02:54:02 GMT From: Tracey Benson Subject: Re: Welcome Tracey On Tue, 19 Sep 1995, Arthur Paul Patterson wrote: > Tracey I teach courses in the symbology of the Tarot and find that Vogle > and Noble are perhaps the most knowledgeable mythologists on the tarot > scene barring the Matthews team who have work on the Arthurian Tarot. You > critique of the over emphasis on body is a correct one I think . In fact, I > see this kind of adulation of the body distinct from the spirit and mind > leads right back to biology is destiny for women. I totally disagree with > that. The emphasis is tends to be on motherhood a wonderful theme but not > the only valid one for women. I also detect not just an anti- patriarchy > perspective but perhaps a anti-male approach in some of their writing. I > would say look out you don't become your shadow. These criticisms > notwithstanding I enjoy their work and use it in my courses on a limited > basis. > > I am teach a fall course on Tarot and have just completed my outline if you > want it I will send it to you off line. > > Art > Dear Art >Thankyou for replying to my message,I agree with you on most points, particularly the anti male perspective of V and N . My male companion has difficulty maintaining interest in these cards for that precise reason. Do you think that this is perhaps due to the fact that when Motherpeace was written Vogle and Noble were living as companions. I do believe that this is a problem in a number of writers coming from that perspective. It is certainly a problem for me, as it constitutes a form of reverse sexism, as a feminist and mother of a man child, I do not want to limit my childs potential, or make him feel guilty for events not of his doing. The article online lately: KH on Women is a more considered perspective, by assessing the importance of feminsm for all humanity. I would be very interested in a copy of your tarot course outline, and thankyou for offering it to me. > > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 03:08:33 GMT From: Tracey Benson Subject: Re: abortion On Tue, 19 Sep 1995 LIESEL@delphi.com wrote: > Theosophists come down on both sides of abortion... some on 1 > side some on the other. > > Liesel > Abortion is a matter for careful consideration and meditation. Perhaps a foetus that has been terminated has been spared a painful existance, for varied reasons: the circumstances of the conception,ie-rape, the possible lack of financial and emotional means, and the resentment that faces this unwanted child. The child planned for been given what they need from their parents: love, security, warmth. I certainly cannot agree with the notion that an unformed, preindependant feotus is the same as a man who goes to war. The soul that may or may not have arrived in the body, has not formed consiousness through separation from the mother. A man who knows he exists, and is aware of the existance of his soul is of no comparision to the former. This is a topic which will never find a suitable outcome to all concerned. Tracey From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 03:27:32 GMT From: Tracey Benson Subject: Re: K.H. on women On Mon, 18 Sep 1995 LIESEL@delphi.com wrote: > Tracey, > > The Olcott Library will answer e-mail questions. I think they'd > also xerox off passages for you, & snail mail, but they only > lend books by mail in the United States. > > olcott@dupagels.lib.il.us > > I'd love to hear what your paper is about, if you're able to > share it. > > Liesel > Dear Liesel, I phoned Marie today, she sounds very nice, I gave her my phone number so she could pass on messages for you. The mathematical information you were seeking is unfortunately lost. Marie said to tell you that she has been treating you on the machine for spasms of the broncial, for your emotions and mind. She hopes you are feeling better. I,m sorry for the short response but will send a lengthy post in the next couple of days, re essay if your interested. take care Tracey From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 04:39:40 GMT From: Aki Korhonen Subject: Re: 666 Hello dhedrick? and the others. On Tue, 19 Sep 1995 dhedrick@csn.net wrote: > > The UPC code has three sets of two bars. This also represents 666. > > C'mon theosophists...just try and blow this off as mere circumstance. > > Jesus is coming back soon... > Thanks for your opinions and a quote from The Bible. My native language is finnish, so you may forgive my poor english - now I'm a little uncertain of your use of word 'circumstance', but I interpret that you mean coincidence? My opinion is that there are no coincidences. If you can find out a single 'coincidence' you please inform me? Everything, that happens or occurs, has some reason behind it. Because of our limitations of perceptive faculties and our intelligent, we usually can't know and observe all the reasons. But they are there. Nothing 'just' jumps out of vacuum. The another question is; what is the meaning of some phenomenon. So if you suggest that this particular matter is insignifigat - I don't argue, I don't know. I also want to corrrect your logic when you compare this numerological interpretation of WWW to your other examples - they are rumours, I suppose, and you present them in a such manner, at least they are not verified facts. But this abbreviation needs no proofing, it is in use, and you can see it and you can also interpret is as suggested - this all is common knowledge, facts. As I said, it is a different question whether this is signifigant or not. My reason why I cross-posted Stephan's post was that to my astonishment nobody has remarked this before, because this is quite obvious to see as many peoples know something about numerology. Fraternally, Peace. aki korhonen Rovaniemi, Finland. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 04:57:43 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Source Teachings Part IV For those of you have waded through Parts I, II and III, I hope Part IV will be more concise and to the point. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 05:07:18 GMT From: dhedrick@csn.net Subject: Re: Abortion Mills >Theos-l > >Perhaps what I said about tentative tolerance could apply here. This post >boarders on cyber-terrorism. It advocates an action which is totally >immoral no matter what you believe about abortion. My opinion is not made >up ultimately, and I do not want to be dogmatic either way, but my mind is >made up about this sort of language on the net. > Murder,Abortion & Death? Hmmm....? Strong Language? OK how about... The removal of fetal tissue from the womb is pre-emptive to sustaining life. And those that remove fetal tissue should be prevented permanently from these actions. Did you know that Jesus & Paul were for the death penalty? Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 05:26:27 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: Abortion Mills Theos-l Perhaps what I said about tentative tolerance could apply here. This post boarders on cyber-terrorism. It advocates an action which is totally immoral no matter what you believe about abortion. My opinion is not made up ultimately, and I do not want to be dogmatic either way, but my mind is made up about this sort of language on the net. As much as I appreciate the subject matter that Daniel is bring up for us I do not appreciate this sort of material at all and feel that some sort of limits must be established. >ABORTION is MURDER. >And abortionists should be put to death. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 05:32:19 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Abortion Mills Daniel: If your intent is to offer a position, and make an appealing case for that position, you need to present your ideas in a form that invites discussion. Extremist language invites people to react to you in an equally extreme fashion. >Planned Parenthood is a organization bent on performing >millions of abortions for one reason "MONEY". You cannot attribute motives to other people. You can guess at motives, but the final authority on why someone does something is the person themselves. It is true that Planned Parenthood may charge money. Churches also collect money, often in the form of offerings and pledges. Are they solely in the business of making money? Or do they consider themselves as performing a public service, and find it necessary to charge a fee in order to meet expenses? >Pro-Choice? >99.9% of all preganancies were determined by prior >choices. You make the choice when you lay down. Often there is some attempt to not get pregnant, where some form of birth control is used. Then the pregnancy is by chance, an accident, and not intentional. When we drive a car, we try to avoid crashing into other cars. If we're involved in a freeway accident, did we *intend* to crash, because we were on the road and slightly at risk, despite our best efforts to drive safely? >Selfishness is the arm behind the sword on this one. Is it selfish to drive on the freeway when you know there's a slight chance of an unavoidable accident? >When is a baby a human? The soul has been human for countless lifetimes. The process of coming into incarnation again starts before conception. If the birth into one particular family fails, the soul can try again, or try other parents. >Is a zygote human? Is your fingernail human? It's an outer aspect of your life, but *you*, the inner person, are the Ego, which survives many lifetimes, each with its own body and personality. When you lose a body, if it is premature and early in life, you may simply start again. >The answer is soooo simple. Answer this question. >When is the DNA formed to create the unborn? It is formed by the interaction between the soul seeking incarnation and the physical process going on. This is much in the same way as thought, in the mind, influences the brain, rather than simply being a byproduct of neural activity. >DNA determines what type of life will be formed >and DNA is formed immediately during conception. It does not *cause* us, it is the physical mechanism by which our *pattern* for the new lifetime is maintained, so that we can maintain a certain appearance and certain disposition over that lifetime. >The genes are permanent. The natural choice is life. I recall reading in "Turbulent Mirror" a reference to a situation where a creature changed its genetic structure in adaptation to a hostile external environment. (This is an individual creature, not a species, over multiple generations.) If it's true, and can happen, it shows that it's possible to change the personality/body structure that we make for ourselves at the time of physical conception. >Wake up... You're calling us to wake up to a problem that is not as serious as you seem to think. Your concern comes from an incomplete philosophical grasp of what is happening. >A third tri-mester abortion is gruesome. Any form of death is gruesome. It's not something that would be considered lightly. Certainly if an abortion has to be done, it should be done earlier, except in perhaps extreme circumstances. The question for a particular case is: Why was it done? And we have to realize that the soul that was denied birth will still get its nearly-immediate repeat chance at human life, with perhaps new parents. Situations in life are never so clear-cut that you can apply a single moral prnciple, like "don't kill" and apply it with qualification. Why is this? Because there are many moral principles that come into play in a situation, and sometimes they are in conflict, where we make a choice based upon which action has the most overall good to it. >SHOW me one unwanted baby and I will show you >one hundred wanting parents. True, there are many infertile parents in America seeking babies, and unable to have them. But is also a single factor to weigh in making a decision, and not a deciding factor. Perhaps the same soul will be happer with different birth parents that want it, which it may achieve through the abortion, than being put up for adoption and never knowing its birth parents? We cannot make a general rule, based upon a single factor that enters into our decision. >ABORTION is MURDER. And abortionists should be put to death. I hope that this is just rhetoric where you're using extreme language in order to make a strong emotional impact. Otherwise, someday you may find yourself in jail if you take these words too literally, and act on them. An appeal to emotion is not helpful, though, since you then give people the impression that you lack the necessary logic and rational arguments to support your position. One thing that we learn in Theosophy is that false, but sincerely held beliefs is the biggest obstacle that we face in following the spiritual path. We are taught to continually review what we believe in, to look it over and freshly rethink our positions. In this case, I think that you can learn from us. This is something useful for all of us to do -- including you -- and it is not done often enough. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 05:41:29 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: School and Schools According to Richtay@aol.com: > > Paul wrote: > > > But there is also, above the specific schools, the idea of The > > School. Here is where I think Rich and I part company on the > > issue of literalism. It is historically false to assert that > > the various "schools" frequented by HPB are "branches" of "One > > School" that exists as an organization on planet earth run by > > embodied human beings. The "One School" is an abstraction, not > > an entity on this plane. > How in the world can ANYONE who is not a top initiate in one of those Schools > know this? If there are in fact, as Paul says, many such esoteric schools, > how are we to know that at the top level they are not all aware of each other > and co-operating? If your sole argument for a proposition is that "you can't prove it's false," that's pretty weak, especially for something fundamental to your worldview. What do you mean "at the top level"? If you mean in their buddhi-manases, you're right, we can't know. But if you mean "aware of each other and cooperating" at the level of anything historically verifiable-- the burden of proof is on him who makes an extraordinary claim. As to the question, how can I know that you are making a category mistake and treating a spiritual reality as a physical one-- all I can tell you is, intuitively. When I read what you write about Masters and Theosophy, I perceive literalism galore. Which is not to say that SOME brotherhoods aren't aware of and cooperating with others-- they are. But to leap from that fact to the presumption that somehow they're all part of the same organization, and that Theosophy is in some privileged position in the eyes of this global organization of secret adepts-- that's mythological thinking worthy of an Eckist or follower of E.C. Prophet. > > Putting the Masters and the Brotherhood in the Platonic realm is quaint and > safe, but yet another unprovable assertion from Paul. > > Likewise, HPB's assertion that there IS a single esoteric network is > unprovable, but SHE DOES ASSERT IT, and that is SOURCE THEOSOPHY. We are > free to agree or disagree, but Paul cannot convince me that Theosophy does > not teach Masters and this Brotherhood as a FACT in nature. Nor would I ever dream of so doing. What I am trying to convince you of is that your understanding of this FACT of nature is distorted by literalism, fundamentalism, dogmatism. > > I don't see the reason we should attack this "myth" as Paul calls it of the > esoteric brotherhood. What damage is done? Rich, no one on this list has complained longer and louder than you about the damage it has done in the Adyar TS. If you look within yourself as a ULT person or examine the average Pasadena TS member's view of the Masters, the same thing is present. People's heads are in the clouds. Instead of being alive in the present moment to the reality of adepts in myriad traditions carrying on the Work in many ways, Theosophists tend to live in an imaginary timeless realm where adepts are perceived as some great Cosmic Board of Directors. It gets crazier and more distorted the further you get from HPB in time-- Bailey, Prophet, etc.-- as people are less and less interested in human members of adept brotherhoods and more and more interested in cosmic supermen. That devalues and desacralizes human life on earth while exalting some imaginary realm of Mahatmic hegemony. Until any one of us can know for > sure, it seems like a useful devotional belief, and not dangerous to the > world at large. So Paul, why do you really care if people like me and Art are "living the myth"? What's it to you?> Live whatever myth you like, but when you start to assert it as historical fact, expect a challenge. People who believe in that myth as historical fact have been attacking my work for two years now. From my POV this is prima facie evidence that it motivates people to oppose free and fearless investigation of history. That's harmful, I've felt it keenly, and that's "what's it to me." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 05:44:38 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Groups vs. Aggregates Paul: I can see the distinction between groups and aggregrates, as you define the terms. One is a collection of individuals with active karmic ties, with some form of interaction with the others. The second is all individuals with a shared characteristic, whether they know each other or not. While there can be Masters that work together in groups, and not directly involved with those outside their group, we have to consider other ways that they are related. If the number of Masters is very small, there's a good chance that over hundreds of lifetimes they will come to know each other, regardless of what groups they work in. On the other hand, if there are so many of them that they cannot possibly know all the others, even over millions of years, then there will be some that are outside a particular Master's immediate circle. I would expect that the Masters are related by organizations and some structure to the work that they do. Through the activities of the organization or organizations they interact with each other; they are not all free agents, only connected with their immediate friends and peers. Like in a university, the policies, resources, curriculum, and supporting staff of their organization(s) are available to the Masters. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 05:48:09 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: to daniel on liberation >You see regardless of my understanding of these certain >events I remain PAN-Trib. However it pans out in the end >that is what I am for. > >The warnings in scripture can be forgotten, blown-off, or >neglected but just as a sign on the road indicates "Cliff Ahead", >if you remain in denial and press on...off the Cliff you will go. > >I am simply waiving my hands attempting to create a >diversion here so that you will not fall into your own >disaster. > >There is a way which seems right to a man, but the end >is destruction. You know the idea of destruction isn't really that unpleasant, is it? It's more the idea of having to live painfully embroilled in life after life that becomes unbearable. This is what at first motivated me to find out more about truth. The threat of having to live again seemed so merciless. How could I have to go through life again with the possibility of being born anywhere in the world where suffering can so easily come? Not only that but the thought of what we must have been like in the past and the build up of all that negative karma which would make relationships with past acquaintances like a "doomsday." This is my personal doomsday. Having to meet people and pay off what I owe them. Pay with pain. I am very fond of the idea of liberation. If I work hard and follow the instructions given to me, perhaps some of this negative karma can be avoided - FORGIVEN - because I have willingly gone forward and amended my ways, for one, but also because I hope I am more valuable to those who are seeking to make earth a better place and who are adept at it. Duty and service and sacrifice are my choice for the replacement of living life in the wrong way resulting in one contact after another proving to be there just to "do us in" for what we have done. I'm not afraid of doomsday, only of the thought that I have to return to earth and search in hopes of finding the esoteric wisdom again. JRC: Thank you so much. I really enjoyed your post. Mr. Caldwell: I appreciate your support in opening ourselves to Daniel. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 05:52:24 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: RE: does Jesus live etherially? Stephan: >What about 3*666 = 1998? Your comment makes me think of something important about numerology that is not usually pointed out. We have to be careful of numerology. An important distinction that we don't always make is between numeric attributes of things and artificial constructs. Calling this year "1995" is an artificial construct, for instance, since we could just as well call it any other number. It has not been 1995 years since the start of the earth, nor since the start of time, just 1995 years since the particular year that we wanted to call zero. Real numbers or attributes are like natural numbers, where we clearly see there are three oranges on the table before us, or the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle. With numerology of names, if there is some actual, consistent relationship between the written letters and the sounds spoken in sounding the name, numbers might be applied to the name. On the other hand, if there are many ways of spelling a particular name, a name that sounds the same on the lips regardless of spelling, the written name is an artificial construct and the numbers do not particularly indicate something. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 05:58:05 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: School and Schools Paul: >True schools of the adepts are present on every continent, now >as in HPB's time and far back into antiquity. The One School >of the Universal Brotherhood is a spiritual reality that lies >beyond the separate, specific socio-religious entities called >"schools." We agree about the different schools being present on different parts of the globe. Regarding the existence of an overall school that ties them together, certainly I'd expect some organizational structure, if not cross communication among the adepts. Our idea of a global community with internet and satellite communication is certainly the stuff of beginners compared to their faculties of communcation. In a sense, there are *two* schools. We read of the Sons of Will and Yoga, a group of Dhyani-Chohans that remain behind on earth after the incarnation of the Manasaputras. If they reside on our globe, they certainly are doing something. Again, there must be some sense of culture, community, and organization to them, perhaps separate and apart from that of the Mahatmas and human Bodhisattvas and Buddhas. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 05:59:39 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: does Jesus live etherially? Daniel writes: >As you can tell I have done alot of study in this area and I could go >on for hours. I can simply wrap it up with: > >The Scriptures have not yet been fulfilled. Thanks for sharing this. Theosophists and astrologers tell of the coming of the Aquarian age, but I have never seen the exact date for this happening. An age, such as the Piscean lasts 2000 years approximately, so the question whether the Aquarian age is here or not is not one I can answer. Does anyone know the answer to this question? P.S. I especially love all of the little books that are associated with the Jehovah Witnesses. These are really easy reading and are delightfully illustrated. They are wonderful aids in teaching children religion, etc. There is so much study material, I think it would take me a decade to get through most of it. Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 06:01:48 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: re Group Project Rich wrote: >Jerry, > >I found the J.J. van der Leeuw article you posted very, very >interesting indeed. I didn't agree with all of it, maybe about >half, but each and every paragraph made me think -- HARD -- >about where ULT is, and where the movement as a whole is going. I feel gratified to know that this article made you rethink about ULT and the Movement as a whole. It seems that this is exactly what van der Leeuw wanted us to do with his pamphlet. Remember it was issued in crises times. Of course, van der Leeuw was speaking from his experience in the Adyar Society and was really addressing Adyar issues, so a lot would not apply to ULT or Pasadena, yet a lot of the same dynamics were going on--It seems that in some ways, the three Organizations have led parallel lives. >First off, J.J. van der Leeuw is certainly right about the >difference between Theology (he defines it as "discussion" about >the divine) and Theosophy ("experience" of the divine). That is >a good distinction, and emphasizes that Theosophy is to be >applied, and not just studied and then we all sit around saying >How Marvelous, How Beautiful! It's so lovely! Yes, and perhaps there is some instinctive rebellion about this. I've noticed that participants on this net listen to the "messenger", whoever they think that is (i.e. HPB, AB, CWL etc.), but someone like you or Eldon who are only repeating the message meet with resistance. Interesting dynamic. >I also think J.J. van der Leeuw's point about pseudo-tolerance >is a good one. We cannot refuse to criticize, and simply say >"I'll take the good and leave the bad." That means the bad is >accepted, allowed to remain, and probably to grow. For >instance, we apparently have blackballed discussion of CWL's >"bad side" from this board, which I find perfectly ridiculous. >If we can't hold up ideas and events to scrutiny, then we have >no right to say "we pursue the truth." Reading between the lines concerning pseudo-tolerance, I think van der Leeuw is alluding to the subtle techniques that were used by the ES to control criticism and undesirable independent thinking. There are lots of instances of this, but only an historian would be aware of them at this point. Yet, this same dynamic continues on into the present. An important technique used today in the ES, (and also effectively used to control Lodge discussions) is to inform the independent thinking offender that what they expressed is only their opinion. For instance, in a Lodge meeting I might make an unwelcome statement such as: "Judge was one of the founders of the TS." I would be told "that is only your opinion." If I shut up, the damage is stayed and status quo is kept. If I protest and say that I am not expressing opinion but historical fact, I would be told: "you are being dogmatic." Further argumentation on my part would bring the added charge that I'm bring dis-harmony to the Lodge, etc. Believe me it is very effective, and I have watched many many Adyar meetings over the years being controlled this way. Perhaps others might share control techniques used in ULT and Point Loma groups. Gosh, I hope honest discussion about CWL is not banned. That would be hypocrisy at its highest as I see it. Surely, I have noticed a bias here about what may be discussed. For instance, comments that HPB smoked hashish appeared three or four times on this board that I'm aware of, and I was the only person who responded to the allegations. I wasn't at all offended, nor did I express any offence. I just evaluated the evidence. I have done the same with CWL and even defended him on an occasion or two. Yet whenever something negative about CWL is posted, there is usually someone to protest that they are offended. Yet these same people never expressed any offense concerning the postings about HPB. There was only silence. I think that if the issue was really based upon principle, the same people who express indignation over CWL would express the same indignation over HPB. Since they have not, it leads me to believe that the issue is not saying negative things about theosophical leaders, but saying negative things about CWL. What do you think? So, my understanding is that we can still talk critically about CWL, HPB etc. on theos-l, but historical discussions should be on theos-roots. For instance, it would be fair game for us to discuss CWL's Mars observations on theos-l, but a discussion of the 1906 CWL scandal, or the Coulomb conspiracy, or the Hodgson Report, or the Judge case should go on theos-roots. >What I didn't appreciate about J.J. van der Leeuw's article was >his demand, a very scholarly one, that we make everything >verifiable to reason. Theosophy is certainly reasonable, and >much in it is perfectly logical, uniform under the law of >analogy, etc. But if there is anything truly SPIRITUAL in >Theosophy, we cannot expect it fo conform to the logical >constraints of the lower mind. This doesn't mean that we have >to fall prey to constant revelations, Lo! here and Lo! there. I agree, if this was van der Leeuw's point. My reading of this is that he was making the old faith verses reason argument: That we need to subject what we learn to reason and experience rather than taking it on faith on the authority of the Masters or their mouth pieces. Once again there was a very historical reason for this that would be clearer to someone living at that time, or to someone who had studied this historical period. Besant, Leadbeater and Arundale were making regular proclamations in those days. Leeuw gave some examples, such as the establishment of the Liberal Catholic Church and Co-Masonry to do the World Teacher's work, and the establishment of twelve disciples. But Krishnamurti protested these things. Leeuw pointed out than whenever Krishnamurti made a statement that contradicted the theosophical leaders, it was explained that Krishnamurti was speaking his own opinion (sound familiar?), and the world teacher was not speaking through him. As van der Leeuw observed: The interesting situation arises that a few people are to be credited with the ability to tell us when Krishnamurti speaks and when the World Teacher is speaking. The result would seem to be that when the opinions agree with their own, it is the World Teacher speaking, while otherwise it is Mr. Krishnamurti. The only one who evidently is not to be believed, when he says that the World Teacher is speaking, is Mr. Krishnamurti himself. So I think Leeuw is trying to say that we need to put reason and experience above blind faith. >It means we can be sensitive to intuition and mysticism and >personal growth (a point J.J. van der Leeuw himself makes) and >not expect everything to be publicly verifiable. If I get a >flash during meditation or whenever, it is worth looking at even >if not verbally expressible. But I don't have to go around >parading before everyone Look At Me, I Got A Flash! It Must Be >From The Masters! We must not force our own mysticism upon >others -- including our psychic adventures! Yes, and this kind of nonsense was running rampant at the time. >I also question J.J. van der Leeuw's idea that life is >meaningless and has meaning only in the experience. Reflection >is valuable, I believe, to understand our experience. He is >right, I think, to help us avoid being controlled by OTHER >PEOPLE's systems, to let Theosophy dictate to us what single >thing our experience means. But the ideas of Karma and >Reincarnation, for instance, help explain many things to me, and >I don't need a dictator or a prophet to apply them to myself. As I read him, I think you are both saying much the same thing. >J.J. van der Leeuw is surely right in criticizing the constant >revelations of the old Adyar Society, and even though much of >that has stopped, and the Krishnamurti INSANITY is over, there >is still the distinct air that the teachings have all been >given, all we need to do is ingest what has been delivered. >There is little space for individual creativity and insight. >That's really a shame. I Think the Adyar Society is still open to progressive revelation. It seems that they go in the other direction and embrace everything that "sounds theosophical." On the other hand, and ironically, there is a rigidity that protects a block of doctrine as "Theosophy", while the rest is "theosophy." That seems to be why the Boston Lodge was challenged--those who control the "Theosophy" lost the lodge to "theosophy". But you know more about that than I do. >At the same time, revelation is not ALWAYS contradictory to >self-knowledge. J.J. van der Leeuw presents the Masters as >demanding complete, unquestioning obedience. I don't read that >at all in HPB and Mr. Judge's works. I think van der Leeuw was critically talking about the attitudes about the Masters at the time rather than what the Masters expected in reality. I found an article in the that those who were devoted to the Masters were like soldiers who were to take orders without question, because the Masters are so superior in their understanding. Of course CWL and AB were the mouth pieces for the Masters, so in effect he was asking the membership to follow his orders and revelations without question. This attitude still dominates in the ES today. >Working with the Masters does NOT mean giving up self-reliance >or self-knowledge. The problem is that today, perhaps we rely >overly, not on the Masters, but on their substitutes, our >LEADERS, letting them do our thinking for us. I think van der Leeuw would agree. >J.J. van der Leeuw is very insightful and I very much >appreciated the study and hearing people's comments. And thanks for yours. Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 06:05:01 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: Abortion Mills >>Theos-l >> >>Perhaps what I said about tentative tolerance could apply here. This post >>boarders on cyber-terrorism. It advocates an action which is totally >>immoral no matter what you believe about abortion. My opinion is not made >>up ultimately, and I do not want to be dogmatic either way, but my mind is >>made up about this sort of language on the net. >> > >Murder,Abortion & Death? > >Hmmm....? >Strong Language? > >OK how about... > >The removal of fetal tissue from the womb is pre-emptive to sustaining life. >And those that remove fetal tissue should be prevented permanently from >these actions. > >Did you know that Jesus & Paul were for the death penalty? > >Daniel Daniel, This is still the woman's choice no matter how much you men think you are being so gallant in defending the little children. It's so easy for the men to decide on an issue which will never really involve anything that they have to do. I don't hear you speaking out against pre-marital sex and I also don't hear anyone speaking out for vegetarianism which traditionally IS a more theosophical issue than birth control. Does everyone here protect the lives of animals and refuse to eat meat? Every time I refuse to have sex and germinate an ovum I am denying life to an individual. Shall we go back to the days when women, especially Catholics, had one baby after another until they died or were unable to bear? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 06:12:59 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Ergates, Hodgson, S.P.R, Hower and Paul Johnson According to MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU: > > (1) Heavens forbid! Here I go agreeing with Paul Johnson! As long as we are focusing on what the facts are, rather than what they mean, agreement is easy. I salute your factual knowledge of Theosophical history and literature as superior to mine. As for seeing how it fits into the wider picture of late 19th century intellectual, spiritual and political history... > said no, he had not read the Report. Why should he, since Adlai > Waterman in his Obituary book had showed Hodgson to be wrong in > his case against HPB. After reading Barborka's reply I didn't > know whether to laugh or cry!!! Similarly, when asked about Washington's Madame Blavatsky's Baboon, Ed Abdill said something like "I haven't read it and won't." (The question was for both of us). Surely Washington is worth reading due to the popularity and literary merits of his book, as well as due to its scholarly flaws. But at least it's not a primary source. > want to read the Hodgson Report. Mr. Barborka should have read the report or > should not have been writing in his book about something he had not properly > studied. While agreeing with you in part, I would suggest that "properly studied" is a more subjective judgment than "read." In other words, you can often accuse an author of not properly studying sources, based on your own definition of proper, which may or may not be relevant to the work in question. To simply say that Barborka should not have written about a report he had not read is, however, unchallengable IMO. > > When I read what Hower said in the Smithsonian article about Hodgson's Report > I mused to myself: Has Hower read the report himself? Yes, but... > > Also did Hower also consult the criticisms of the Hodgson Report by Sinnett, > Judge, Besant, Endersby, Waterman, Hastings, VAnia, etc. as well as Harrison's > article? Did Hower read the 1st S.P.R. 1884 Report on HPB and compare it with > the later Hodgson Report? etc. etc. I don't think so. > > If Hower has not done at least some of this research, as far as I'm concerned > his opinion is worthless unless he could give me detailed reasons that would > show me that he has a grasp of issues and facts. Daniel, you were away when I discussed Jungian functions and how they affect the way we approach Theosophy and Masters etc. What you say above sounds like an expression of introverted thinking. I get the impression of you as someone who gathers information and then goes over and over it, analyzing and evaluating. My thinking is extraverted, meaning I'm your inferior at analyzing what I already know, but perhaps superior in the ability to reach out and incorporate new, relevant information. My point of all this is that to say someone's opinion is worthless implies that it must be based on your primary function (pardon my guessing it) to have value. Hower is a novelist, and has said some highly intriguing things about Olcott and HPB and their relationship to me, things I'd never thought of. I expect his novel about them to be wonderful. But if it is, it will be due to Hower's intuitive ability to read new meaning into the Founders' relationship, not due to his introverted thinking analysis of facts. That's not what makes a novel. > > It's too bad that he felt had had to give some brief opinion of the worth of > Hodgson's Report. Why not just inform the reader of this report and the > controversy surrounding it and then list a number of books both > pro and con that the interested reader could consult if interested > in so doing? Agreed. > > Overall, I like Hower's article although I did make a list of errors of facts > that he made indicating to me that he only had a very general knowledge of > HPB's life. But the article wasn't really that bad and I thought that the > article was good advertisement for Blavatsky. Possibly some of the Smithsonian > readers have searched out a book on Blavatsky and Theosophy. The propensity to see such things as damaging to HPB and Theosophy is somewhat surprising to me. It is clearly beneficial in most senses I care about, regardless of the flaws. Compared to the almost total public ignorance of the subject when I joined the TS in 1978, I'd say Theosophy is on a roll in the mid-90s. > > and compare with HPB's handwriting, etc. Harrison's comments on > the handwriting aspect of the Mahatma Letters was thought provoking > and was a valuable contribution to assessing Hodgson's claims > about who wrote the MLs. I still wonder if HPB was in a trance state overshadowed by one of the Masters, whose handwriting would she write in? Would any handwriting expert be able to judge such a complex case? > > And did any Theosophical students read the criticisms of Harrison's article > by a Mr. Coleman in the pages of the Jl of the S.P.R. in 1986-1988? This is the first I've heard of it. Can you summarize any of it for us? > > Far too many students of Theosophy (just like critics and skeptics > of Theosophy) make statements about these controversial issues when > they haven't even read all the relevant material! I guess it is > human nature to want to have opinions even when we don't know too > much about the subject area! I sometimes joking say to myself: > There is no TRUTH higher than MY opinion. > Touche. Fine post, illuminating. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 06:24:45 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Source Teachings Part IV (the complete version!) For those of you who have successfully waded through Parts I, II and III, I hope Part IV will be more concise and to the point. Thanks for the input on Parts I, II and III from Rich and Eldon. In light of all that I have written in the first three parts, I would now like to quote what Jerry HE previously wrote: >...we tried to promote a historically based general definition of source material that focuses upon the period before the splits, when this material >was being given out for the first time. Therefore, this period is common >history for everybody. Jerry HE writes:"...when this material was being given out for the first time" When was this? I believe in the previous 3 parts I have somewhat shown that it was HPB who shows up on the public scene in late 1874 and starts the process of giving out the "source material" which she said emanated from her Lodge, from her Masters. In July, 1875, when she wrote her "first occult shot" Olcott knew virtually nothing about the "source teachings" except what HPB had started to give him. Judge, Mavalankar, Sinnett, Subba Row, Leadbeater and Besant had not even meet HPB! Each in turn had a fateful day when they heard of and met HPB. She was the source, the channel through which each of them obtained their initial knowledge and understanding of Theosophy and the Masters. And during all these 16 and 1/2 years of her public work, HPB was giving out the "source teachings" of Theosophy. Furthermore, had for example Annie Besant never become a Theosophist, we would still have Theosophy as given by HPB. If Judge or Sinnett had never come into contact with HPB or if they had become students of Theosophy but had never written a word on the subject, we would still have "the souce teachings" as given through HPB. This should be totally obvious to everyone on theos-l and some may wonder why I am belaboring the point. Historically speaking, HPB was the source, i.e. "the point at which something springs into being", for Theosophy as we know it in modern times. Moving on..... HPB came first; each of the individuals name above came later. Now I am not saying that Olcott, Judge, Mavalankar, Sinnett, Leadbeater and Besant did not make contributions to the Theosophical work that HPB had originally started. But they built on her original foundation, they followed in her footsteps.In theory at least, had none of these individuals ever written any thing on Theosophy, the "source teachings" as given by HPB would still be available. Jerry HE writes: "...we tried to promote a historically based general definition of source material that focuses upon the period BEFORE [caps added] the splits [occurred]....] When did the splits occur? One split that Jerry HE is probably referring to is the split between Besant and Judge. But there was a split as early as 1886 when A.P. Sinnett sought communication with the Masters through a *source* other than HPB. Basically, Sinnett was put into contact with the Masters through letters in Oct. 1880. But in 1884, he started to resent what the Masters were telling him in their letters. He began to have doubts about HPB and sought in 1886 to hypnotise Maude Travers and gain access to Master K.H. through this woman. Actually Sinnett had tried this very same thing in the summer of 1884 with Laura Holloway! Sinnett's seeking for a source to the Masters other than thorough HPB, lead finally to that famous K.H. letter to Olcott in August, 1888. (See Letter 19 in *The Letters of the Masters of the Wisdom*First Series.) Yes, I agree that Olcott, Judge, Mavalankar, Sinnett, Subba Row, Leadbeater and Besant may have made valuable contributions to Theosophy BUT whatever they accomplished was built upon the foundation of "source teachings" FIRST given by H.P. Blavatsky. And when the split between Judge on one side and Besant/Olcott on the other side started and culminated in 1893-1995, both sides claimed contact with the Masters and the deceased HPB. Then the Theosophical Society was splintered. Who was in the right and who was in the wrong, is not easy to determine. I have file folders of letters from serious Blavatsky students. Some believe Besant and Olcott fell by the wayside and Judge remained faithful to the Source. Others believe Judge fell by the wayside as well as Olcott and Besant. Others say Judge failed but Besant continued the orginal Blavatsky tradition. etc., etc., etc. etc. Claims and counter claims....what a mess! And I believe HPB foretold this in her Letter to the Fifth Annual Convention of the American Section of the T.S just before she died. See the very bottom of p. 171, the full page 172 and ending on p. 173 of HPB's Collected WRitings, Vol. 13. Jerry HE writes: "Therefore, this period [before the splits] is common history for everybody." I would amend this to read: Therefore, this period BEFORE HPB died is common history for everybody. HPB was the first to come on the public stage and give the source teachings in 10,000 + pages of writings plus the letters of the Masters during HPB's life. The Theosophists I have mentioned above came on the scene sometime after HPB. They may have all been sincere, truth seeking individuals and all may have made to a greater or lesser degree valuable contributions (literary or otherwise) to HPB's work, but especially after her death, claims and counter claims arose. Those who believe in HPB's claims and teachings have a common source teaching to focus on, regardless of the truth and validity of the secondary "sources" and claims of some of HPB's students. Now, I am not implying or saying that the source teachings and the Masters only spoke through HPB. After her death and even today other agents *may* have come forth. That is, genuine agents from HPB's Masters. Unfortunately, you cannot get a room of serious Blavatsky students from diverse Theosophical backgrounds to agree on who that person or agent was or is! I would prefer to focus on the writings of HPB and the Letters of the Masters which from the perspective I have been outlining above I consider the SOURCE Teachings of modern day Theosophy. Here is a body of material that contains more than enough for serious inquirers, seekers and Theosophists. Later Thesophists *may* have made valuable additions to that source material. I will stop at this point. I probably have repeated myself too much! All of the above is written as food for thought. Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 06:31:05 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Thanks Eldon Thanks Eldon for rewording my questions to focus on Blavatsky, the Masters and Theosophy. These are worthwhile questions to ponder. And I thank Daniel H. for indirectly being the catalyst for all these questions! Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 06:34:16 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: numerology >Your comment makes me think of something important about >numerology that is not usually pointed out. > >We have to be careful of numerology. An important distinction >that we don't always make is between numeric attributes of >things and artificial constructs. Calling this year "1995" is >an artificial construct, for instance, since we could just as >well call it any other number. It has not been 1995 years since >the start of the earth, nor since the start of time, just 1995 >years since the particular year that we wanted to call zero. > >Real numbers or attributes are like natural numbers, where we >clearly see there are three oranges on the table before us, >or the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle. >With numerology of names, if there is some actual, consistent >relationship between the written letters and the sounds spoken >in sounding the name, numbers might be applied to the name. >On the other hand, if there are many ways of spelling a particular >name, a name that sounds the same on the lips regardless of >spelling, the written name is an artificial construct and the >numbers do not particularly indicate something. > Oh, Eldon, but they do. We only have to have agreement and common usage of such "artificial construct" for it to bring images to our mind. Our house number will not change just because someone counted houses from the end of the block. Our true number is the number upon it and the number everyone uses when they address us. This is where our associations dwell. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 06:34:58 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: To Daniel H. To Daniel H: I hope you will think about the questions I asked you in my pevious [previous!] posting to you. I put them together in total sincerity and I hope that you may stop and take stock of these questions and ponder your own answers to them. I also would like to hear what your answer might be and some of the other people on theos-l may also be interested. Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 06:39:25 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Re: Globes To Jerry S., Rich and Eldon and others Thanks Jerry S for your answer to my question on the globes, kamaloka and devachan. Also thansks to Richa dnd Eldon for your responses. I was also hoping Adam Warcup would enter the discussion. Adam are you out there in cyberspace??? I will try to post a few thoughts on this in the next week. I want to reread all of the relevant theos-l postings and do a little study before I type something up. Thanks once again for everybody's input. Daniel Caldwell P.S. I hope we all value this Internet and theos-l technology! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 07:06:04 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Question 003 important According to Mikhail Moiseikin: > > Be carefull to the new editions from Russia: > > For example yesterday I was shocked: I bought roman-essay of ukrainian > author Ury Kanygin The "Arien's way" Kiev "Ukraine" 1975 > (subtitle: Ukraina in spiritual history humanity) . > There much more facts about theosophy that usual writer use for simple > fiction literature. snip> > I can't check all this position but consider it as > special falsification. Indeed so, special in that it appears to go beyond any weirdo conspiracy view of HPB ever published in English. > I don't know aim of this falsification. To discredit all occult groups by associating them with the worst elements of 20th century history? > > Earlier I also contacted with one Christian women through > alt.religion.newage. She also wrote me about connection > theosophy and fascism. She advised me to read book/videotape > "Occult and III reich". I could reach it. > > Could somebody explaine me nature of such speculations. There is indeed a Theosophical influence on fascism, but rather remote. In the early 20th century, an offshoot of Theosophy called Ariosophy was promoted by a German writer, who combined Blavatsky's teachings about racial evolution with his own racist ideology. Ariosophy later influenced some who became leaders in the Third Reich. That, to my knowledge, is the slim basis on which HPB has been attacked as somehow being the inspirer of Nazism. That's sort of like blaming Jesus for what happened in Waco. Any crackpot can take any religious teachings and turn them into something evil and horrible; that does not justify blaming the original teachings. Dan Caldwell has the video you mention and perhaps will comment on it. Regards Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 07:35:14 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Question 003 important Mikhail Moiseikin, dear friend, Ury Kanygin, with his lurid imagination, hasn't recovered yet from living under the thumb of the KGB for such a long time. He twists around everything he says to suit his purpose, whatever that is. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 07:55:57 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Question 003 important PS Mikhail Moiseikin I guess I didn't finish answering you question, because I was angry. "Occult and III Reich" is more of the same garbage. "Could somebody explain to me the nature of such speculations" In our newspapers today there's a story of a little girl sitting peacefully in a car, riding through a poor neighborhood. Somebody shot at the car & killed her. Nobody can explain that either. I think we Theosophists try our best to be a counterbalance, & try to act for the good in this world. We're not the only group. There are many others. I'm hoping that our efforts will help. I've been trying to teach myself to be peaceful & loving within. And I also try to develop good qualities outside myself. I don't know anything that works any bettter. Do You? Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 08:06:08 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Groups vs. Aggregates In hopes of shedding some light on the School/schools distinction, I would like to point out a distinction made by sociology. A social group is a number of people associated together, in interaction, connected in time and space, with particular group dynamics. It can be short-lived or permanent, but the ingredient of mutual interaction must be present to meet the definition of a group. An aggregate, on the other hand, is a number of people defined by a common characteristic, rather than by any relationship among them. Examples of groups: a bridge club, the Knights of Columbus, a teenage gang, a professional association. Examples of aggregates: people making more than $75,000/yr, Scorpios, geniuses, the obese. As best I can make out, HPB freely switches back and forth between groups and aggregates when she talks about Masters or The Masters. Sometimes, as in the Mahatma letters as well, "the Masters" seems to mean "Morya, Koot Hoomi and their immediate colleagues" rather than the whole range of HPB's inspirers including those in Egypt and Europe. Sometimes it appears to mean "all the Masters encountered by HPB in her life" whether or not they knew one another. Sometimes, she uses "the Masters" to mean, really, just "Masters" i.e. the aggregate of all spiritually advanced souls whether or not they were personally known to HPB. Where we get into trouble, in terms of misunderstanding history, is in confusing groups and aggregates. Things said by HPB about specific orders are taken to refer to Masters in general, and vice versa. Theosophists tend to confuse the Theosophical Masters, i.e. HPB's specific teachers, with Masters in general-- and this gets more pronounced in later writings like those of Leadbeater, Bailey and Prophet. This confusion goes along with the general human tendency to concretise the abstract. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 08:06:51 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: Abortion Mills >Murder,Abortion & Death? > >Hmmm....? >Strong Language? No irresponsible language. >OK how about... > >The removal of fetal tissue from the womb is pre-emptive to sustaining life. >And those that remove fetal tissue should be prevented permanently from >these actions. That is considerably better since it doesn't advocate how to permanently prevent abortion. Your first post could be taken to imply murdering those who perform abortions. Permanent prevention could relate to lawful means through legistlation and professional monitoring. >Did you know that Jesus & Paul were for the death penalty? No I didn't but I knew that the Mosaic law in its early form did. I don't don't think Jesus saying that you should love your enemies rather than extract an eye for an eye would lead to his advocating a death penalty. Anyway thank you for rephrasing your comment to include "the possibility" of a more moral response to abortionists. Arthur From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 09:42:00 GMT From: mmoiseikin@attmail.com (Mikhail Moiseikin) Subject: Question 003 important >This one's a long shot, but perhaps Mikhail can advise. I see >a new book on Theosophy listed on OCLC, and it's from Armenia. >The author is Pargew Martirosian, the title/subtitle is Es em >chanaparhe: kristoneutean ew iogayi, teosofiayi, atroposofiayi >astutschanachoghakan hamakargeri endhanur uruagtser ew >knnakan-hamematakan tesutiun. Published in Erevan by Gandzasar >astuatsabanakan kentron in 1995. >1) Can anyone read the above? >2) Does anyone know anything about the Theosophical presence in >Armenia? Unfurtunately I haven't any information about modern situation with theosophy movement in former USSR (if it neccesary I try to collect it). I can only say: Because all respublics of USSR were and are closely connected it is no different where author live. Maybe only in muslims parts interest to the theosophy is absent. How exactly modern authors are folowing "conditional" canons of HPB theosophy - it is a "big" question. As I could read many authors who mixed ideas and created surrogat books. Be carefull to the new editions from Russia: For example yesterday I was shocked: I bought roman-essay of ukrainian author Ury Kanygin The "Arien's way" Kiev "Ukraine" 1975 (subtitle: Ukraina in spiritual history humanity) . There much more facts about theosophy that usual writer use for simple fiction literature. Here are several sentenses in my bad translation: P.20 - In Tibet exept Lama budhism exist more anchiet ariens religion. This is light religion of arients God Mitra, which supported by spiritual centre Agarti - which is antipod of Shambala. Agarty's intellectual base concentrate in Asja-Rishi. P.21 - Big Mahatma Loria from monastery Galaring-Sho /Guru of EPB/ carried big harm ariens school and bacame adept of Shambala. P.64 -The main sense spiritual confrontation show simbols Agarti and Shambala... Symbol Agarty - Iakov's ladder, Symbol of Shambala - Vavilon's tower...Iakov is Arians, the third Bible hero after Avraam and Moses. P.66 - Shambala is substitution God by people and Satana. ...Shambala's delegates always support extremists idiologist and politics - Marks, Engels, Lenin, Stalin. P.67 ... HPB was nearest helper of Marks...All Shambalist are very militant. Example is Helena Roerich. P.112 - Fascist ideology based on theory "ice pole" which include ideas from Shambala, Gurdgiev, Nicolay and Helene Roerich and other big masons.The main theoretic was proffessor Gorbinger. P.116 - Blavatsky adept Gurdgiev want to meet with Gitler and Stalin. ... All masons at the end to fall into hands of ateists, bolshevics, fascist, which spiritual bacground is in Shambala. (That why all of them are attracted to Tibet). P.122 - The "White Brotherhod" was created as bufer between masons and theosopists. HPB was declared as envoy of mason's "White lodge" and her substitute A. Besant was general masons inpector of 33 degree initiation. Enough more for 225 pages book. I can't check all this position but consider it as special falsification. I am sure that author have access to KGB closed materials. The book was printed for authors money (it impossible for simple ukrainian scientist) and number of circulation is not shown. I don't know aim of this falsification. Earlier I also contacted with one Christian women through alt.religion.newage. She also wrote me about connection theosophy and fascism. She advised me to read book/videotape "Occult and III reich". I could reach it. Could somebody explaine me nature of such speculations. Regards Mikhail From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 10:01:34 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: CWL and Mars Liesel, > I'm perfectly willing to discuss CWL, if all participants to > the discussion can refrain from flaming. This is what I'm asking for too. The question is, are certain things in our history going to be considered flaming efven if they are written without that intent? For examle, if we are discussing CWL and someone bring's up predictions he made or clairvoyances he had, which turned out not to be accurate, is that flaming? Or can we discuss his errors as well as his good work for Theosophy in a calm, cool tone? Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 10:02:20 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Question 003 important Mikhail -- What you write about distortions and falsifications is very disturbing. Do many people in Russia know where to find the SOURCE TEACHINGS of HPB and the Masters, so that they can compare the later distortions and lies with the original teachings? For example, reading HPB's books, it is clear she is not at all militant, has a strong distaste for socialism and communism, and she certainly is no atheist. It seems to important to keep the source material alive to defend ourselves against such ignorance and lies. Thanks Mikhail for bringing out some of the quotes. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 11:19:58 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: abortion Brenda wrote: > Murder is an awfully strong word to use in such exceptional circumstances. > Do you believe your own government upholds "murder"? You have so little > trust in the judicial and lawmaking bodies. You don't mention even a hint of > "Leave the decision to those who are more learned in this area." Surely, Brenda, you are NOT saying that I should not have an opinion, because older and wiser people know more than I do, and I should let them think for me? As for those "who are more learned," you neglected to mentio that I also quoted HPB's opinion on abortion, and she seemed dead set against it in general, called it an attempt at "double suicide," because often the mother will die too, or have her life dramatically shortened. > I really wish there was this much concern for animals and this much fight > directed towards living a vegetarian life. Not only the animals would > benefit here, but the people who refrain from accumulating this karma. There is, at least in Theosophical circles I am aware of. Most Theosophists I know are vegetarians, like myself, and we belong to many, many organizations to help animals, end laboratory testing, and end the practise of injecting farm animals with chemicals and hormones. If I remember correctly, HPB was also very concerned for animals' welfare, and the MahaChohan himself mentioned approvingly Anna Kingsford's efforts to work for animals' welfare in England last century. Life is life, it is all sacred. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 11:20:10 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: More thoughts on abortion Fred, I think you are right to question why we as humans kill each other -- it's not for food as the animals do. And if the goal of Theosophical work is the welfare of humanity, as you say, then why not use that moral standard in judging all action, our own and that of others? Whose welfare is furthered through abortion? Do we do it for the baby? But we know that any baby comes to incarnate with us because it has karmic ties with us. I does not come to us randomly. So we are rejecting the fulfillment of that karma when we kill the vehicle of that incoming soul. Perhaps we rationalize it and say the baby will do better elsewhere. Will it? Or will it's karma just bring it back to us later, this time with a much darker edge? And if the baby comes to us in part because of it's karma with our race, social and economic status, etc., in short, the kind of life it would lead with us, then when we abort the fetus, he baby will still have the same karma it alsways had, and will seek a similar birth elsewhere, no? How has it gained through the process? I don't see how the welfare of the baby is served by abortion. Nor do I see how the welfare of the mother or parents is served either. Because of sexual activity, a responsibility has arisen. The responsiblity is denied, it is stated the the time or conditions are not right (as if Nature doesn't bring things at the appropriate time), and it would be too difficult or too dangerous to bring out the soul in that body. This seems self-serving and is therefore on the face of it selfish, and not concerned for the welfare of all concerned. Rather, abortion seems destructive all around. Does this mean we should go around making women who have had or will have abortions feel miserable? No, this would be cruel. What's done is done, but education is what is necessary to reduce this unfortunate crime. It is a crime against Nature, and Nature's processes, so let Nature punish if she will, not us. And let the mother-to-be make her own decision, but with all the FACTS in hand. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 11:26:36 GMT From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: 666: A Kabalistic Interpretation Greetings: Apologies if this was mailed twice ... it didn't seem to work on the first try .... -JRC The Number of the Beast: An intuitive interpretation by a mediocre Kabalist [With apologies to Alan (-:) - who could probably do a far clearer exposition of the topic]. "He that has understanding, let him count the number of the beast, for it is the number of man, and this number is six hundred sixty six". Probably one of the best known lines from the New Testament, and probably one of the single most misinterpreted. The Revelation of John, received by him on the island of Patmos in 68-69 AD, was written as Nero's brutalizations of the Christians were at their peak and is full of all the fire of a true mystic, combined with the intense paranoia of the persecuted. It also, however, seems to have something beyond its particular time - a transcendent quality that has caused people in virtually every generation to read it as though it applieed precisely to the times *they* were living in ... and to attempt to apply its metaphorical imagry to the particulars of the present (hard to resist - in fact once, after a particularly expensive tune-up, I figured out a permutation of my mechanic's name that added up to 666, and thereby attempted to convince him that *he* was, in fact, the beast (-:). Like Ezekial, Song of Songs, Genesis and etc., there is the implication of some sort of key throughout the text. To say "666" seems to imply that there is a system of numbers within which the statement will make sense - else it is simply an arbitrary piece of lunacy ... why 666, why not 777, or 23? What follows here is a stab at a possible interpretation. It's hard, I s'pect, in modern times, to fully understand languages in which number and letter are integrated concepts ... it implies a whole different way of understanding meaning. Beginning with the Greeks (in the western world at least), mystery schools emphasized the study of mathematics as a means training the minds of pupils. To think in numbers orients the mind at a particular angle towards the world, and seems to be able to reveal patterns in the world that thinking with words blurs. Perhaps, to some of those old mystics, numbers were more than the means to count objects or measure spaces, but were actually philosophical *concepts*, and mathematics not a means of simply solving problems, but of making philosophical arguments. This mode of thought still survives in (for instance) the Tarot .. Every situation, for instance a relationship (which would be the suit of cups), has an "Ace", or one ... the entirety of the relationship; a "two" ... the duality, the man and the woman; a "three"... the interaction between the two; a "four" ... the patterns those interactions inevitably begin to form and which form the structure of the relationship; a "five" ... the catabolic energy that periodically upsets those structures (uncomfortable, but necessary ... or else permutations of the first form of a relationship would be all that was ever possible); a "six" ... or the harmony achieved between the structuring of the "four" and the dissolving effects of the "five" (and healthy relationships always have some aspects that are growing and some that are dissolving).... etc., etc. Point is, thinking in terms of numbers allows patterns to be glimpsed at multiple scales. This, I think, may be the first relevent part of the verse: The text speaks first to one who "has wisdom", i.e., one who has been trained (perhaps in a wisdom school) to think within the construct of numerical philosophy, and then instructs the reader to "count the number...", but then just states the number (666) - which would be analogous to a math teacher saying "solve this problem" and then in the next breath mentioning the solution - unless the injunction to "count" meant something else ... perhaps to "count" might mean to *engage in the thinking process associated with numerical philosophy*. That is, it is not arriving at the answer that is the point, but rather the subjective state induced by unpacking the philosophical "statement" named by "666". In short, he is talking to a particular group of people, and conveying to them the key to the meaning of what he is talking about ... "666". 666: Two different concepts to unfold here ... the fact of the "6", and the fact that the 6 is extended into the hundreds. The 6: the number of the tension between opposites having achieved equality ... but not resolution. It is the interlaced triangles that form "Solomon's Seal" ... the triad pulling upward towards the spiritual, and that pulling downward towards the flesh; it is the incomplete dialectic - thesis and antithesis with no synthesis; it is the apparently irreconcilable tension between the rock and the hard place, between extropy and entropy, between the mortal and the immortal, between matter and spirit. The extension into the hundreds: The Kabalists speak of four worlds (roughly translated) the Archetypal, the Creative, the Formative, and that of physical manifestation. The Archetypal is measured in single digits (1,2,3, etc); the Creative in tens (10, 20, 30, etc.) the Formative in the 100's (100, 200, etc.) and the terrestrial in the 1000's. This means, for instance, that when a Hebrew God name is mentioned in the Kabala, both a name *and* the *philosophical statement inherent in the number* (as in Hebrew every letter has a number associated with it) is being stated. IHVH, for instance, is also the number 26. A means of grasping the scales (1's, 10's, 100's, and 1000's) purely at the physical level might be to see the scale at which the Sun works as the Archetypal, the scale of planetary events as the Creative, the scale of (on earth) local and regional systems as the Formative, and the scale of individual lifeforms as the Terrestrial. To see the system in motion, imagine, for instance, one huge solar flare shooting out from the sun (a "single digit" event). This will cause, as it hits the planets (and in this example, earth) dozens of alterations in the immense biosperic systems (global electromagnitism, weather patterns, the catalysis of faster chemical reactions in the atmosphere, the alteration of the nitrogen, carbon and oxygen cycles, etc.) ... which are at the scale of "tens". These dozens of changes in the Creative world leads to hundreds of changes at the scale of individual ecosystems ... individual lakes alter, forest ecosystems alter their food webs etc. Finally, these hundreds of changes produce thousands of changes at the Terrestrial (individual) level ... individal plants, animals (and humans) find their individual lives affected. Now if this general idea, instead of being looked at "horizontally" (i.e., all within the physical world) is instead imagined *vertically* ... we might imagine (for instance) one "action" (incomprehensible as it is to us) in the present moment by the Dhyani Chohans causing dozens of "actions" by those we term "Masters" (each voluntarily embodying one aspect of originating impulse - and perhaps, for instance, initiating a current like the Theosophical Society, or an ideology like democracy, or a particular movement in the arts etc.) - which causes hundreds of actions, unfolded over a centuries, on the part of the leadership of the human kingdom, which finally manifests as the final effects on thousands of individual lives. *Now*, what does it mean that "666" is the number of the beast *and* the number of man? In this scheme, 666 is the statement of the ideas embedded in "6" on the scale of hundreds ..i.e., the "Formative" world, or, the scale above the Terrestrial (that of individual lifeforms completely subject to their environment), and beneath that of the Creative (the scale at which huge planetary impulses work). It suggests a type of consciousness that stands in the midst of the struggle between the sprirtual and the physical, and expresses this duality at the scale of the Formative world. In pragmatic terms, this type of consciousness could well be called the *human rational mind* ... which was really only being born at the time John was writing (the vast majority of most populations were still illiterate, largely unschooled, and not trained to do what a modern human would term "reasoning" - and John clearly caught a glimpse of the ramifications of this becoming widespread). The rational mind (probably could be related to the "lower manas" in Theosophical terminology) sits *precisely* between spirit and matter. It is the ceiling under which the animal lives, and the floor upon which the Spirit stands. John, I believe, was seeing the immanent rise of this mind, and understood that it would accomplish the transformation of the human kingdom from a kingdom living largely in the Terrestrial world (i.e., totally subject to local environmental, cultural, and spiritual conditions) to one claiming control over the *Formative* world ... i.e., capable of imposing *control* over the Terrestrial world. And as he so poetically put it, the number "666" is *both* the number of the "beast *and* the number of "man". When that mind is used *by the animal for animal ends*, it becomes beastly beyond conception ... because the animal has access to powers of the Formative world (which the animal kingdom does *not* have). For an animal to battle with its own kind, to generate focussed violence, to battle to get the greatest amount of food, is not "evil" in any sense of the word ... it is the animal being an animal. When, however, those same impulses are given access to the reasoning mind, territorial disputes come to be fought with chemical, biological, and even nuclear weaponary; the urge for "more food" turns into greed, and causes environmental devastation far beyond anything an animal species (with the limited abilities of the Terrestrial world) is capable of. In this sense, "666" truely *is* the "number of the beast". 666 also, however, is the number of "man" ... and becomes so when the concrete human mind, and the powers of the Formative world it has access to, *assumes the responsibilities appropriate to its position in the great Chain of Being*. It implies that the *planetary* Formative world has achieved self-consciousness, and is hence capable of evolutionary leaps, because the collective concrete human mind can also choose to *delibrately respond to the impulses transmitted to it from the Creative world* - to give the final *form* to the pure impulses of spirit generated by the Dhyani Chohans and formulated by the "Masters" ... and hence the planet as a whole becomes sort of "tuned" by a tuning fork, and thus becomes not a battleground, but a smoothly unfolding manifestation of the Grand Design. In short, human reason can allow spiritual impulses to manifest with far greater and and more refined precision than they could without that mind (666 as the number of "man"), but can also permit the animal to achieve devastation on a scale beyond the conception of even the most paranoid among us (666 as the number of the "beast"). Note here the enormity of this concept - humans are not just considered as individuals (in fact, aren't even important as individuals), but rather, John is speaking of the human *kingdom*, as a planetary principle, becoming the *means* through which the planet itself (considered as an evolving spiritual entity) achieves conscious awareness of itself at the scale of the Formative world. So, it is rather a waste of time to try to find a *person* whose name "adds up" to 666 ... or to point to actual physical things that happen to have the number 6 associated with them (frreeeoooo! *damn* good thing Social Security numbers are nine digits instead of six, or the conspiracy theorists would be having coronaries right now (-:) - because this was *not* the level at which John was writing. The "revelation" does not refer to a *particular* time with particular events caused by a specific individual person, but rather refers to an *ongoing* revelation unfolding on the scale of centuries. This is perhaps the final point. I believe John had reached the mode of consciousness associated with the Creative, rather than the Formative world - he was thinking at the *scale* of the Masters, and was doing his damndest to attempt to express this enormous scale of thought in the terms of human language ... a product of the *Formative* world designed to express the concepts and perceptions of the Terrestrial and Formative worlds. And this means it is nothing less than gross distortion to *interpret* the revelation at the Formative or Terrestrial scales ... that is, it is not about a revolution in a particular religion or culture (the Formative level - at which, for instance, it will be taken to mean that "Christians" are saved while all others suffer tortures) nor is it about tiny events at the individual scale (the Terrestrial level - at which, for instance, microchips embedded in animals to help pet owners find lost pets is somehow construed as being related to the mark of the beast). John is speaking *from* the Creative world Cabout the *effects*, on the *entirety* of the Formative world, of the rise and widespread distribution of the human reason. John is not telling us to find a guy whose name adds to 666, he is telling us to "count the number", i.e., to engage in a particular sort of contemplation that of its own accord directs the mind itself towards thinking *about* becoming responsive to the Creative world ... which prepares it to actually *become* responsive - that is, to *enter* and play one's part in the revelation ... which is not a "thing" written in stone 2000 years ago, but rather is a process first *described* 2000 years ago, but still unfolding today. The last thing to mention here may be one of the most bizarre ramifications of the revelation. The Revelation *itself*, and even the number 666, is coming to be used by *those driven by cloaked animal impulses - fear, territorialism, "us vs. them" mentality - to further the ends of those impulses*. The revelation itself is being used by fundamentalists to get *money from followers* ("its the end times! our mission needs your help! send money today!") - used by people who wish to degrade others, by people wanting their particular religion to *win* over all other religions (i.e., to *expand its territory*). That is (and few paradoxes are as positively wonderful as this one!) ... there are growing numbers of people who, by virtue of the way they are *using* the concept of 666, are becoming perfect *manifestations* of the very beast *described* by the concept. YeeeHaaaaaaa, as we say in Montana (-:). -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 12:19:02 GMT From: Stephan.Clerc@psi.ch (STEPHAN H.-R. CLERC) Subject: RE: does Jesus live etherially? "Brenda S. Tucker" 19-SEP-1995 21:28:18.56: +There's a passage in the Bible which I was shown by a Jehovah's witness (I'm +sure you could verify this by calling their organization). The passage +includes the year that the anti-christ shall be dethroned. My friend, the [...] What about 3*666 = 1998? Further reading: Solowjeff's "Kurze Erzaehlung vom Antichristen" clerc@psi.ch Stephan Clerc, Dornach From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 12:47:14 GMT From: Stephan.Clerc@psi.ch (STEPHAN H.-R. CLERC) Subject: Re: abortion Hi Liesel, +about who you are. Do you belong to a theosophical group in +Switzerland? Where do they meet & what kinds of things do you +talk about? +What theosophical books have you read? I belong not to a theosophical group. I can vaguely remember having read some chapters from a thick book from H.P.B. I don't know now the title of the book but one chapter made a great impression to me, it was the chapter "Die kommende Kraft". Do you know whick book it was? It was also mentionned a man named John Worell Keely who made very interesting investigations in amerika in the time of 1880. I have also studied a little bit Heindels Astrology and Karma book. Another theosophical book which I've studied is Steiners Theosophy and many other books and lectures from this wise man. I've heard that there was unfortunately a sepatation between him and the theosophical movement due to Chrishnamurti... Is this "conflict" now considered always in the same way like in the beginning of the century? What about an unification of theosophy and anthroposophy? Or are there too many contradictions? Do both streams know of each other and do they leave the others in peace with no further initiatives? I live in Dornach where the Goetheanum, the center of the anthroposophical movement is staying. It's a huge impressionating building -- you might have seen it if you were already in Basel. Now I'm finishing my PhD in Physics and am underway to investigate how the spirit has formed matter... in order to extend the natural science towards spiritual science. Om shanti, Stephan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 13:10:18 GMT From: Stephan.Clerc@psi.ch (STEPHAN H.-R. CLERC) Subject: RE: abortion Fred wrote on 20-SEP-1995 13:23:27.76 in part: +Stephen suggests that the individual incarnating may have some choice in the +selection of a situation that will speed them on their path toward +fulfillment. Have I paraphrased your comments correctly? Yes and now...Normally - with no possibility of abortion - the choice of the baby was decided as the best choice in the spiritual world. But in any destiny there is also place for freedom and n e w impacts like accidents and so on. Then another choice will be seeked...And any pain which is not caused from former lives will have it's equalization in the future. There are indications that for example poeples died in an earthquake this is not forseen for some peoples. But the fact of the pain at the same time at the same place will bring together them in former life. They will then have many "happy" moments toghether as equalizaiton...Strong groups are possible in this way. Om mani padme hum, Stephan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 15:13:35 GMT From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: re re: CWL and Mars > > Maybe, John can set up a theos-christ for Daniel :-) > > Jerry Hejka-Ekins > Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu YES! YES! YES! Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 15:28:29 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: love that CWL > >Brenda: > >I agree with you, I personally know a lot of people who found theosophy by >being first attracted to the works of CWL. I myself am very grateful to his >books which I ran across when I first found Theosophy. And have learned a >lot from two of his former students (Dora and Harry). Slander doesn't do >anyone good and brings us away from the higher ideas we are trying to >understand and ideals we are trying to experience. > >Nick Porreco Nick: I always have such an "odd" response to the constant reiteration of "facts" (for what purpose I don't think I'll ever understand). My response to date has been this: "I really love that CWL." This makes no sense. It's not what people are looking for as a response, I don't think, but he had a style and an ability and I'm so AMAZED, like the Mars passages that AB put up. I loved it!! And I remember this is how I fell in love with theosophy and knew it was right for me. It is SOOO attractive. Wow! That this could actually be us one day.... Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 15:28:35 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: censoring Dear Rich, But the living followers can be injured, if not materially than metaphysically, whatever. Thoughtforms can injure too. Nasty thought forms do harm to both the sender & the receiver. Incidentally, is WQ Judge yours? I forget whose he is now. I was previewing a video tape this AM for my next theosophical meeting. The tape was an explanation of the basics of Theosophy as presented at the Parliament of World Religions. Tony Lysy of Adyar was presiding, & he quoted Judge 3,4 times. The ULT representative was an Indian lady in a sari, who gave a really interesting talk about the history of the Wisdom Religions. All TS societies either spoke or were represented in the audience, & commented from there. John Algeo was in the audience & made a few comments, & Grace was there (must've been Grace K.) & I think commented too. I was very pleased to note that our leaders are getting together just as we are. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 15:31:56 GMT From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: CWL and Mars Rich ... John Mead was kind enough to create a list precisely for historical discussions. I do hope the same battle isn't fought all over again. No one tried to shut Daniel up or banish him or anything like that ... they simply said discuss history on the list designed to discuss history. And theos-l is now much bigger and more active than it was then, hence even a stronger reason to keep historical discussions on theos-roots. (To this day I'm not sure why this was even an issue ... save that Daniel was critiquing KPJ's book and I s'pect (though I may be wrong) that he wanted a wider audience than is present on theos-roots). If there are subscribers that are on theos-l, and not on theos-roots, doesn't that mean they are stating that they are not interested in historical discussions? This was never censorship, rather simple Internet list definition ... without which we'd all have ten times as many posts to delete. Cheers, JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 15:45:31 GMT From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Numbers > > What about 3*666 = 1998? > > Further reading: Solowjeff's "Kurze Erzaehlung vom Antichristen" > > clerc@psi.ch Stephan Clerc, Dornach Good grief. '666' in Hebrew (as represented by the book of revelation) would not be WWW [Vav,Vav,Vav] but something quite different. I'll try and work it out sometime. Along with much of the Christian Church until around 500 c.e. (and still so for a few) I do not 'receive' the Book of Revelation as part of the canon. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 15:50:50 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: re re: CWL and Mars Harumph! I'm just wondering who got flamed around here that time. Were his initials CWL, maybe? huhn? just maybe? Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 17:11:58 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Abortion Mills Daniel, Did you ever hear it said "Thou shalt not kill"? Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 17:20:02 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: CWL and Mars Rich, CWL was not a god. I don't think anyone would object to finding fault with his writings or his research. I myself would like to see them discussed quietly & with some common sense. After all, my Teacher, Harry Van Gelder, was a pupil of CWL. My membership is with Wheaton, & just about everyone belonging to Wheaton studies Leadbeater & Besant. But many of us do object to CWL being libeled, dead or alive. Please leave it alone. You're going to start it up again. It wasn't funny. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 17:46:54 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: abortion Hi, Stephan, You sound like an interesting person.... doing your PhD in an investigation about how spirit formed matter. Maybe you can tell us a little about it by & by, or does it need to be copyrighted first? I majored in French, but, since I'm a Theosophist, I try as best I can to keep up with the sciences somewhat. Just lately read a book for amateurs about chaos theory. We have a couple of scientists on this list, who can talk to you about these things lots better than I can. They'll write you, I'm sure. I haven't the faintest idea what book of HPB's you read. No matter. You're an anthroposophist. We don't have anyone who follows Steiner on this list yet, so you can be the Vertreter for that point of view. We have just about all other factions of Theosophists represented, & we agree at times, & at times we disagree. We're getting to feel like a community though. I myself belong to Wheaton, which is Adyar. I don't think there's too much contact between the Steiner people in the US and other Theosophists. The only beautiful little settlement I know of was downstate New York, on the border with New Jersey. I used to live near it in New Jersey, & my Theosophical study group made an Ausflug there once. They have a nice drug store. I was also at the time looking for a place to retire to, & took a tour of their buildings. They grew some of their own vegetables, had a Doctor who knew homeopathy and allopathy, had a school for the kids. It was quite a place. But then I decided to move to upstate New York to be near my son, so I never lived there. Of course, having been born in Frankfurt /Main, I know something about Goethe. I learned a lot about him in my 4 years of Volksschule. My teacher loved him. We learned some of his poems & went for an outing to the Goethehaus. Of course, we didn't learn about all the things Goethe studied in relationship to plants & apothecary, but I know that he did this from his biography. I read some of his books for my German courses at the university. Stephan, I'm looking forward to hearing from you again. Om Shanti Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 17:58:44 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Concerning Daniel H. and censorship Good questions, Eldon. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 18:28:04 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: CWL and Mars Eldon wrote: > Earlier this year, Daniel Caldwell put up some historic postings that some > readers did not like, and basically told him to keep it off "theos-l", to > keep that stuff on "theos-roots". That time, no one came to his defense, > and the comments suggesting that he post there were left unopposed. He > subsequently started posting some messages there. ....... > What we really have is an attempt > to tell people that we don't agree with to shut up. Yes, well I don't agree with a LOT of what I read on Theo-L. Too bad for me! I still use the delete key whenever I see a post to or from our fundamentalist friend, and whenever I get bored with a post I can delete it right in the middle. It is a pain, but so is freedom and democracy! Daniel Caldwell has a slightly different opinion of "source" Theosophy than I do, Eldon and JRC have different views on psychic exploration, etc. etc. That's why it's called DISCUSSION and not "ditto." If we are all content to let "Daniel Who Irritates the Lions" to discuss whatever he likes, then it seems equally fair to allow historical discussions to continue unimpededly. Daniel Caldwell, if you read this and would like to open up some discussions of history, this time I feel some people WILL back you up. Go for it, and if I don't agree with what you write I'll be sure and speak up (or delete it!) Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 19:11:02 GMT From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: The Work "THE WORK FIRST AND LAST" "We have to stand alone, seemingly; it is in order that we may be utterly devoted to the Work first and foremost, and not to our Personalities however great. Our highest aspect, the Atmic, expresses itself as work. If karma leaves us lonely and isolated, it is in order that we may discover, through steady plodding on at a work, the Atmic aspect in ourselves. No one who goes on working steady and faithfully is alone, really; the Masters are one with him in his most spiritual aspect, though barriers may exist between Them and him on lower planes." C. JINARAJADASA Adyar, 1926. "I am only one Theosophist sailing out in a tiny boat into a vast sea. All the same I think that my sail is set right and that Ihave a rectified compass. But my theories and solutions are not binding on any other Theosophist, and are in no way the declared doctrine of the world-wide Theosophical Society. Yet since all Theosophists are pledged to make Universal Brotherhood a realitym and since there can be no Brotherhood without a just economical order, everyone must come forward with his solution, even if of it on;y ten per cent (perhaps even less!) is found to be true in the end." C.J. December 9, 1944. The above quotes are taken from Jinaradasa's ~Economics and Theosophy~ published by Adyar in 1944. He was Vice-President of the International Adyar-based Society from 1921-1928. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 22:51:38 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: CWL and Mars JRC: > This was never censorship, rather simple Internet list > definition ... without which we'd all have ten times as many posts to delete. Okay, where would we like to place discussions about fundamentalist Christianity? I'm TIRED of deleting those! Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Sep 1995 23:53:36 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: CWL and Mars JRC: >Rich ... >John Mead was kind enough to create a list precisely for historical >discussions. I do hope the same battle isn't fought all over again. After a few months of operation in the Fall of 1993, John Mead created theos-news, theos-buds, and theos-roots, and suggested that our postings be divided among the groups according to subject matter. This did not take on, and everyone basically preferred to continue posting to theos-l. The theos-l list was the general discussion list, with no restriction on what is said. People have tended to post to theos-l because it has the widest readership. Some readers subscribe to that list, and are not on the others. The content on any of the lists is open, and John Mead has showed both common sense and much patience in allowing postings to be uncensored both by viewpoint and by subject matter. >No one >tried to shut Daniel up or banish him or anything like that ... they simply >said discuss history on the list designed to discuss history. The theos-l list is the one that we are using for unrestricted discussion. Telling someone not to post there, because one prefers not to read about history, and would rather have it on another list, is a form of banishment. We could likewise say that discussions of psychical experiences should be on theos-buds. >And theos-l is >now much bigger and more active than it was then, hence even a stronger reason >to keep historical discussions on theos-roots. It's still banishment, because theos-l is the general discussion list, where everything goes. If you want to read things appropriate to the topics that theos-buds outlines, you could stick to that list, but nobody posts to it. (Or it's rarely, if at all, used.) >(To this day I'm not sure why >this was even an issue ... save that Daniel was critiquing KPJ's book and I >s'pect (though I may be wrong) that he wanted a wider audience than is present >on theos-roots). The subject has come up a number of times and only once has someone been pressured off of theos-l. After moving his postings to theos-roots, Daniel Caldwell noted how Paul Johnson had continued on theos-l with some comments on the historic discussion going on at that time (e.g. something like saying "I had to move, why didn't you do so too?") >If there are subscribers that are on theos-l, and not on >theos-roots, doesn't that mean they are stating that they are not interested in >historical discussions? No. Because theos-l was the first and continues to be the general discussion group. If someone is interested in theos-buds materials only, and not wanting to see an open discussion of everything, they'd subscribe to theos-buds and/or theos-roots, and not to theos-l. A few people have, at times, actually done this, until they noticed that we have collectively, by our actions, chosen theos-l as the place to do all our postings. You can ask most of the people on the list how they consider their postings. Each time you post a message, do you carefully consider which of four topical areas it should go to, and post appropriately, or change the 'reply-to' field to point to when you reply to something? >This was never censorship, rather simple Internet list >definition ... without which we'd all have ten times as many posts to delete. It basically comes down to something like "get that stuff out of here, I don't want to read it", and we're picking one particular area of discussion we don't like and saying "put this on a list I don't read so I won't have to be bothered to delete it from my email". -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 00:13:25 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: re re: CWL and Mars Jerry H-E: >John Mead intervened by >suggesting that since theos-roots was originally set up for >historical discussions, that it might be best to move all of them >there. It seemed like a good solution at the time, since those >who have no interest in theosophical history could just not >subscribe to theos-roots. >I feel that it is a fair compromise, and everyone expressed >satisfaction with the decision at the time--even Liesel announced >that she canceled theos-roots. Other historical discussions Here you are talking about one situation, where some participants in a discussion that was getting too hot move off the general discussion list. That was a different time then when Daniel Caldwell and Paul Johnson were in a discussion and Daniel was told by several people to move his postings to theos-roots. There's a difference between a group of people, discussing a topic, to agree to move the discussion to another list, and some people on theos-l *telling* someone to post elsewhere. >Other historical discussions might do well to move to theos-roots also. One can choose to post there, or choose to post to the general discussion list. If you decide that all comments regarding theosophical history that you post are to go there, that's fine, because it's your choice. >Personally, I don't >feel that it is censorship to have historical discussions on >theos-roots any more than it is censorship for one to post >announcements and reports of meetings and events on theos-news, >which I do occasionally. It is not censorship to decide to post to the different lists. It is censorship to tell people to not post to the general list on topics that one personally prefers not to read. >These four boards were set up for this purpose long before the >CWL issue ever arose. We've grown and accomplished a lot on theos-l by the very fact that we are a single, hetrogeneous mailing list. Everything shows up in one place, and we're all exposed to a greater diversity of views and information than we would have been otherwise. As we get bigger and bigger, we may start to choose to post topics and have discussions on side lists in order to better follow them, so that our discussions aren't lost in hundreds of unrelated messages. But this is something that will arise naturally and voluntarily as we continue to grow, and is not the result of structure being imposed upon us because someone does not like a particular topic. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 00:21:59 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Globes To Jerry S., Rich and Eldon and others Daniel Caldwell: >Thanks Jerry S for your answer to my question on the globes, kamaloka and >devachan. Also thansks to Richa dnd Eldon for your responses. >I will try to post a few thoughts on this in the next week. I want to >reread all of the relevant theos-l postings and do a little study before I >type something up. I have a number of quotes that I will post from "The Mahatma Letters" as time permits. The model of the Globes and the relationship of the seven principles to them that I read there matches what I've also read by Purucker. What I've read basically says: After our physical death, on Globe D, a sphere of causes, our 6 lower principles return to their elements and we rest in a sphere of effects. When that rest period is over (e.g. the end of devachan), a current sweeps us on to an existence on the next sphere of causes (e.g. Globe E) or back again to our sphere of causes (Globe D). Devachan is a state, and not a place, and is experienced in the sphere of effects between Globes D and E. Manas is left like a crushed rose at our second death, as we drop our principles, as they return to their elements in the sphere of effects. My understanding is that if we do find rebirth on Globe E, although this is not generally the case, that we would clothe ourselves in a set of seven principles or Skandhas appropriate to that Globe, and we would be functioning in the particular self or ego that we have evolved within our nature that is appropriate for existence on that world. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 01:21:19 GMT From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: 666 post Say ... I've tried to post something called "666: A Kabalistic Interpretation" to the list twice ... and it doesn't seem to be working ... has anyone gotten it? (My University's mainframe has beeen acting strangely lately). Thanks, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 01:53:50 GMT From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: To Alan ... Say Alan, am curious, what *do* you think of John's Revelations? Did you mention you didn't consider it part of the NT? (I may have misinterpreted your message). It certainly seems rife with Kabalistic imagry ... but ...? -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 03:05:30 GMT From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: 666: A Kabalistic Interpretation Dear Jerry, YeeeHaaaaaa! OK? As a matter of interest, in OT and NT times, gematria* does not seem to have been used in any real sense. *Playing with numbers where letters are used for numbers, and producing often silly results. Concerning the Book of Revelation, it's author, according to the best scholarly opinion, is not the John of the Gospels, but another John, as his Greek is lousy in comparison. The gospel John wrote good Greek, whereas this guy wrote awful Greek, and was probably a native Hebrew or Aramaic speaker (Like Jesus). If he is using Gematria in the famous passage, it would be most likely an Aramaic or Hebrew "Name" except that one cannot produce one from that period by this method. For example, a Bible search for "six hundred" in the OT text reveals 64 (yep) texts where the words used are "six" and "hundred" just like we do it! The use of letters as numbers seems not to have come into general use until later times. In (say) third or fourth century Aramaic, six hundred would be represented (in India, at least, where my sources are for this) by adding four hundred to two hundred. The result of 666 by this method produces Tau Resh Samek Vau (Teresa?) :-). It has no meaning that I can figure, even with Payne-Smith's Syriac Lexicon plus the usual Henrew study aids. Maybe there is in fact a version of the Greek Gematria which would yield something. Cf. the late Fred'k Bligh Bond on this - I forget the book title. I see the men in white coats approaching ..... Peace, Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 04:01:34 GMT From: Daniel Subject: Who is God? Let me try to explain who God is. If as a man I can imagine who God is and I come up with a God who is the Master of all of Colorado. He is the Great Ruler of Colorado. And yet another determines that his Great God is the God of the North American Continent, then the second man's God is superior than the one I imagined. If you carry the progression to its logical end you end up with a God that is OMNIPOTENT, OMNIPRESENT, and OMNISCIENT. There is no other God more anything than this God. The God of Gods. Also I think that it is more powerful to be a personal God that desires relationship with His creation than one that is not. If this God as described above does not exist, then man's imagination is greater than the actual God. This is a strange conclusion. That the created is greater than the Creator. Intrestingly enough...the bible declares GODS omni's and He is very personal. The bible declares that He is unchangeable and that He existed before all that is Created. It also declares that He is self-sufficient. Yet all of creation changes and is reliant. Again the greater God being revealed. If your God is less than the Most High God then you are worshipping a lesser God. And obviously the God that exists is greater than the one that does not. Yet regarding matters of the heart...many follow a God that does not nor never will exist. Daniel TRI-HIM From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 04:39:36 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: To Daniel H on Questions Given by Daniel Caldwell Daniel H: I hope that you will take the time and effort to consider the series of questions I gave you a day or so ago. I also hope that you will feel moved to take the time and effort to post some answers or replies on Theos-l to these questions. I feel (from my perspective) that a fruitful dialogue (a 2 way discussion) cannot occur between you and most members of theos-l without frank, honest discussion of the subject matter raised in the questins I initially posted. As I read your postings, I am impressed with the thought that you are like a person on the 26th story of a building who is concerned with only the structure of that 26th floor but is possibly blissfully unaware of the 25 floors below not to mention the foundation of the building. In other words, you assume a GREAT DEAL that needs to be discussed. You quote the Old and New Testaments as though this is your only authority or source. If this statement is true, why do you ignore other religious scriptures such as the Bhagavad-Gita, etc? A Jew might also question why you quote from the New Testament. etc. etc. etc. Also since for whatever reason you have decided to become a member of theos-l, are you interested in knowing more about the Theosophical view on many of the subjects you write on? What did HPB say on the subject of God or the belief that only the Christian Bible can be considered as inspired by God and all other so-called religious scriptures are only the works of mortal men or that they are "inspired" by Satan and his legion of demons? etc. etc. etc. etc. Daniel Caldwell P.S. I look forward to replies to my series of questions. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 05:16:27 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Great White Brotherhood, etc. I just subscribed to another metaphysical mailing list, and the very first message that I got sounds like discussions that we've had before. Perhaps others might also be interested in looking into this other list. >Sender: ARCANA Discussion and Study of the Occult > >From: "Eric S. Dye" >Subject: Great White Brotherhood, etc. > >>It is interesting that the last post on this topic gave refererences to >secondary materials (Jinarajadasa and Alice Bailey) while ignoring SOURCE >material. The first person to discuss the concept of a Great Brotherhood in >terms you are asking......was the Founder of the Theosophical Society, Helena >P. Blavatsky...........HPB started the Theosophical Society in 1875, and she >died in 1891. After that, Theosophy went kind of crazy with a >thousand and one splinter groups, much like early Christianity. > >Are we to ignore all sources of Theosophy (as well as all theosophical and >non-theosophical authors) following the death of Blavatsky? What do >current-day Theosophical authorities say about this viewpoint? Do they give >warning to those acquiring Theosophical publications, authored after the >death of Blavatsky, not to accept them as reliable sources or authorities? >Should we ignore the knowledge that comes from other Ascended Masters from >India/Tibet/etc. passed on to those other than Blavatsky. Many of Blavatsky's >works are Included in our library, but are certainly not the only ones. >Perhaps, however, you could give us a synopsis of Blavatsky's thoughts on >this topic, since it is of interest to many. We'd appreciate your insight on >this and your specific objections to Manley P. Hall. Thanks > > Eric and Michael-(Shihan) > Dye2@aol.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 05:21:45 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: A few comments on the Globes Eldon, I'm glad that you have decided to post several quotes from the Mahatma Letters. I would suggest that you might post them in chronological order. Based upon my (limited) understanding of the Doctrine of the Globes, Globe D consists of two parts: (1) an objective globe or world of causes and (2) a subjective globe or world of effects. Globe D's "sphere" or "world of effects" contains Kamaloka, Rupaloka and Arupaloka. These are (to quote Master KH) "the three spheres of ascending spirituality in which the several groups of subjective entities find their attractions." "Devachan" occurs within the field or world of effects of Globe D. The Devachanic state will last "until Karma is satisfied in that direction, the ripple of force reaches the edge of its cyclic basin, and the being moves into the next area of causes. This, it may find in the same world [for example, the world of causes of Globe D, physical life as we know it] or another [world of causes, such as Globe E], according to his or her stage of progression through the necessary rings and rounds of human development." ML # 25 in 2nd and 3rd editions. Globe D has seven principles and each human being residing "on" this Globe D has seven principles. See ML # 13 (2nd and 3rd eds.), third questions and answer. Morya says: "Thus the [physical] body of man is wedded to and remains for ever with the [physical] body of his planet [Globe D in this case]. etc. etc. When Eldon is finished posting the ML quotes, I will add a few more comments. Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 05:45:52 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: oops After just subscribing to a new mailing list, where there are similar things to 'theos-l' being discussed, I got my first message and decided to pass it on to theos-l so that the rest of you could know of the Arcana list. I then read the guidelines for Arcana, which prohibit the reposting of messages without the advance permission of the writer(s). I wrote the writer of the message to indicate my mistake. It should be understood that the message I posted is not to be reposted without its writer's permission. (I should take time to read instructions before going ahead with things.) - Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 07:14:31 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: theos-roots and censorship Rich writes: >Daniel Caldwell has a slightly different opinion of "source" >Theosophy than I do, Eldon and JRC have different views on >psychic exploration, etc. etc. >That's why it's called DISCUSSION and not "ditto." > >If we are all content to let "Daniel Who Irritates the Lions" to >discuss whatever he likes, then it seems equally fair to allow >historical discussions to continue unimpededly. What Rich is saying here, is what I understood this board to be about in the first place. If we are to be truly democratic and represent and discuss a variety of views then we can't be pushing people off of this board because they have a different or unpopular opinion, or one makes others angry. Personally, I don't mind if we have a separate board for historical discussions. I understand that such discussions are boring for most participants. If one doesn't already have a good historical background in the first place, these interchanges would be difficult if not nearly impossible to follow. Furthermore, my own observations concerning the nature of the discussions on this board is that most participants are not historically minded anyway. For instance, past comments concerning my own and other historical contributions have made it clear that many on this board make absolutely no distinction between historical discussion and gossip. For those who take this positions, there is nothing to say except--if you don't like it, delete it. Yet, theos-l is becoming like a crowded room with a different conversation going on at every table. New people coming in might find that navigating through the conversations before finding something they resonate with to be a difficult task. For this reason, I see some justification of having a separate room for historical discussion to be a fair thing to do. But is the motivation to avoid congestion or is it censorship? Ever since these divisions were made, only theos-l gets any significant use. Theos-news comes in at a very distant second and I don't remember the last time I've seen anything come over theos-buds. If we are to break theos-l into categories, then let's be consistent about it. ALL historical discussions should go to theos-roots: that would include Alan's posts on Christian Origins; Dan's, Paul's and my posts on source theosophy; any discussions concerning Blavatsky's, Judge's, Crosbie's, Purucker's, Leadbeater's, Besant's, etc.'s historical role in the Theosophical Society; etc. I think this would make theos-roots a very busy place. Further, ALL discussions on fundamentals should go to theos-buds. That would include Eldon's monologues on theosophical teachings; Eldon's and Jerry S.'s discussions on globes and principles, Brenda's S.D. posts, etc. I think theos- buds would be a busy place too. Finally, ALL announcements of new journals and books, upcoming conventions and gatherings, and reports concerning the same would go to theos-news. Now that leaves theos-l with a lot of room for Daniel (unless you want to set up a theos-christ for discussions on theosophy and christianity); many of Art Patterson's general discussions; and occasional inquiries from such people as our new correspondent from Kiev. What I'm saying is if we are going to have these departments, then let us use them in the spirit they were created. If Rich should go to theos-roots, then everyone else should also go to their respective departments also. Let's all go where we belong or all stay here on theos-l. Any halfway measures is hypocrisy and censorship. Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 07:15:29 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: Love that CWL Brenda Wrote: >I always have such an "odd" response to the constant reiteration >of "facts" (for what purpose I don't think I'll ever >understand). My response to date has been this: "I really love >that CWL." This makes no sense. It's not what people are looking >for as a response, I don't think, but he had a style and an >ability and I'm so AMAZED, like the Mars passages that AB put >up. I loved it!! And I remember this is how I fell in love with >theosophy and knew it was right for me. It is SOOO attractive. >Wow! That this could actually be us one day.... Brenda, this is what I always loved about you. I have never met a person who operates through the feeling function as perfectly and as consistently as you do. Since my functions are opposite to yours (i.e. thinking-intuition), I often find much of what you write difficult to follow, but I want you to know that I always deeply appreciate it, and you for doing what you do so well. Thanks Jerry From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 07:16:28 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: Who is God Daniel H. wrote: >If this God as described above does not exist, then man's >imagination is greater than the actual God. > >This is a strange conclusion. That the created is greater >than the Creator. This is essentially Anselm's perfect Island argument, and was exploded centuries ago. Among other things, the reasoning is circular--that is, it begins with the assumption of the existence of God then by the use of that assumption seeks to prove it. Can't you do any better then resorting to medieval theology? >Intrestingly enough...the bible declares GODS omni's and >He is very personal. > >The bible declares that He is unchangeable and that He existed >before all that is Created. It also declares that He is >self-sufficient. This argument carries no weight unless one assumes the divinity of the Bible. Try again. Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 07:26:06 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Daniel and the Bible Daniel writes: >Because the Holy Spirit teaches me that which is truth. As for the Bible >vs the other "holy" books...The foundation of the Holy Bible is the most valid. >If you have studied its origin and its progression you can only conclude that >the Bible is remarkable and unique. Daniel, I am so happy. I've just been looking at THE SECRET DOCTRINE which I am able to search using the computer and have found a few ideas which may interest you. It has to do with how the Bible has been so widely read, written and re-written and contained so much that had to be considered relevant to men from the birth of Jesus Christ until now. My idea is this. The Bible was considered law and light to European man during the medieval ages. Those people, though far from being blind and ignorant, did live their lives with very little science. In fact I have a 17th century article re an ancestor of mine who was punished for practicing witchcraft when all that his activity mounted to was stirring a pot of milk with "an iron rod" because for some unknown reason the milk from cows in a certain area would not gell into cheese. This constituted witchcraft in those days. The point I am leading up to is that while science may indeed have been considered perverted living by Christians and Bible worshippers, today science conflicting with the Bible (if in fact it does) leaves everyone unconcerned. What we learn from scientists is "in addition" to the teachings which we believe and practice as found in the Bible. >Inspired means "God Breathed". Not mans interpretation of what he cannot >perceive. When I type "Thus says the LORD...." Who am I speaking of? Did you >ever notice that Moses came to Pharoah and said "The LORD says...." Did Pharaoh >know Moses's God? People who were entrusted with the Bible's usage during the Middle Ages were certainly learning to live "brotherly," but there where many things which the Bible did not teach. Theosophists who are trying to live their lives through the study of religion, philosophy and science object to some of the ideas in the Bible because they find more satisfactory expositions along certain themes in other classic and religious literature. For instance, physicists today are finding teachings in Buddhism which confirm current scientific findings of today. If in fact, man had great learning available to them down through the ages of Buddhist study, how was this not known to western man? Blinders!! It could behoove modern man to penetrate eastern studies for other available knowledge which could then be tested and verified. >Truth IS. When we live a life of denial against the truth, we reap the rewards >of denial. Prophets were sent by GOD for the specific purpose of getting us >TO KNOW. We can know because Jesus did come, died, and resurrected. The >scriptures make incredible prophetic claims and the scriptures teach fulfillment >of those claims. As a man wanting to KNOW, we are set before the Holy >Scriptures with many claims and are left to our freewill to determine for >ourselves what truth is. Amazingly enough once a true confession and belief >is poured out from the one who wants to know God reveals Himself to the >believer. This does not mean that man determines TRUTH. It means he >has a choice to follow truth. Jesus said He was the Truth. So to know truth >is to know Him. > >You are aware that Jews deny the New Testament. Are the Jews the ones >to determine what is Holy? Jesus declared that the Old Testament was HIS >word. And the New Tetsament is filled about the life of the one that claimed >He was God. Has any other Man ever claimed to be God, provided evidence >of his divinity and remained as a Man of Truth and a Great Teacher? > >>(7) Furthermore, how much do you know about other religions of the world? >>About Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, etc? I would >>suggest that you read a textbook on comparative world religion such as >>*A History of the World's Religions*, 9th edition by David S. Noss and John >>B. Noss of read *The Eliade Guide to World Religions* by Mircea Eliade, Ioan >>P. Couliano and Hillary S. Wierner. >> > >I enjoy comparitive studies. Why do all major religions deal with Jesus? >Many make claims that are contrary to first hand evidence as written >in the New Testament which is the only valid history of Jesus of Nazareth. >It is also interesting that ALL cults deal with Jesus. What they deal rarely >aligns with known truth about Jesus. The reason is simple...an attempt to >dillude the truth. >Enough to know that to remove the real historic Jesus is to have no Jesus. >And that Special revelation is not unique. The scriptures were written >so that ALL may come to the knowledge of Jesus Christ. The Bible is a certain key into the life of Jesus which helps all of us to live more Christ-like, but its validity is in some ways objectionable because of the difficult, somewhat ignorant times which man lived through while holding the Bible dear to his heart. Today great learning is under way in so many different fields that we should give ourselves access to the ideas as they were presented and preserved historically. For instance, there are some Egyptian manuscripts which were preserved practically just as they existed during the dynasties. Do these offer any teaching which we may find useful? Can we break the codes? If a text is preserved in its pristine purity, can it be understood in a unique fashion separate from a text such as the Bible which was in heavy use and interpretation over the 2000 years since Jesus and even before Jesus? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 07:41:06 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Source Teachings Part IV (the complete version!) Hello, >Now, I am not implying or saying that the source teachings and the Masters >only spoke through HPB. After her death and even today other agents *may* >have come forth. That is, genuine agents from HPB's Masters. This is certainly the case, as the Mahatmas are always working - although often in ways different than expected. >Unfortunately, >you cannot get a room of serious Blavatsky students from diverse Theosophical >backgrounds to agree on who that person or agent was or is! This is very interesting as there is always a quality of buddhic/intuitive energy around all the Mahatmas' work that can be recognized with the "eyes of the heart." There are indeed many claim-makers today as in the past and it would be good for us to discover ways to tell the difference. >I would prefer to focus on the writings of HPB and the Letters of the Masters >which from the perspective I have been outlining above I consider the >SOURCE Teachings of modern day Theosophy. Yes, but also the ideas given out by the Mahatmas evolve as humanity evolves and any past Teaching is always updated as regards the needs of the time. As the Mahatmas continue to Teach today I hope that we can become able to recognize new source Teachings that have become available to us. As said previously I see the Teachings of Theosophy as a living flow of right relationships beginning with the principles of kindness and honesty which would show through all source Teachings. Namaste, Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 09:19:33 GMT From: Aki Korhonen Subject: Antroposofy/Theosophy, Reply to Stephan Hello Stephan and the others. On Wed, 20 Sep 1995, STEPHAN H.-R. CLERC wrote: > read some chapters from a thick book from H.P.B. I don't know now > the title of the book but one chapter made a great impression to me, A thick book, could be the SECRET DOCTRINE. > which I've studied is Steiners Theosophy and many other books and lectures > from this wise man. I've heard that there was unfortunately a sepatation > between him and the theosophical movement due to Chrishnamurti... Krishnamurti is a one reason to Steiner's departure from Theosophical Society - Steiner was a leader of the German section - but I think it is the positon and the meaning of Christ/Jesus which is now the main dividing concept betveen Antr. and TS? > Is this "conflict" now considered always in the same way like in the beginning > of the century? What about an unification of theosophy and anthroposophy? > Or are there too many contradictions? Do both streams know of each other > and do they leave the others in peace with no further initiatives? My opinion is that they both work for same goals. I see them as a different sides of a coin. Antroposofy seems to be more 'practical' oriented - they have all these fine practical applications such as; antr. medicine, pedagogy, biodynamical cultivation, etc. Theosophy seems to be more on the idea-level. My opinion is that co-operation and exchange of ideas would be beneficial to both organizations. > > I live in Dornach where the Goetheanum, the center of the anthroposophical > movement is staying. It's a huge impressionating building As an architect-student I know Goetheanum from pictures, and some of my collagues have visited it, they told that it was creepy, impressing, some were even a little bit scared, they also told that they met some antroposophist with dark hair and dark eyes who made them uneasy by their stare... I would like to visit such a place! Peace. aki korhonen Rovaniemi, Finland. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 10:39:00 GMT From: "Daniel K." Subject: Re: To Daniel H on Questions Given by Daniel Caldwell If you are talking of the 13 questions... I responded to everyone...didn't I? I switched to PRONTO MAIL and I may have lossed the sent post. Pls resend your questions, but honestly I am certain I responded. Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 11:06:29 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: go away??? Alan, I agree with you. This board is for Theosophy and discussion of Theosophy. We do not need to tolerate continual distractions from the discussions. It is a waste of time to write to this fellow, but occasionally it is necessary to CORRECT the mis-information he is posting for the benefit of the readership. I should relax, however, I don't think most people on Theos-L are ignorant enough to believe that he writes anything factual, least of all about Theosophy. I also say, PLEASE GO AWAY. (Or we might find other alternatives. Is there a procedure to REMOVE someone from the board?) Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 11:10:23 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Concerning Daniel H. and censorship Daniel H. >Did Buddha and Krishna claim to be GOD or to be TRUTH? Yes, they did. Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gita claims he is the god beyond god, and the creator, preserver and destroyer of this whole universe. The Buddha claimed to be the fully enlightened one, higher than any creature or god. > I enjoy comparitive studies. Why do all major religions deal with Jesus? > Many make claims that are contrary to first hand evidence as written > in the New Testament which is the only valid history of Jesus of Nazareth. > It is also interesting that ALL cults deal with Jesus. Your depth of ignorance is ASTONISHING, the moreso because you seem entirely unaware of how ridiculous your statements are. "All major religions deal with Jesus." I can think of two major religions that even mention the name Jesus outside of Christianity, namely Islam and Ba'hai. Maybe you could include the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) as a separate religion. Now for a list of religions that don't even MENTION THE NAME OF JESUS: Sumerian religions Assyrian religions Hittite religions Pythagoreanism 30+ Greek Mystery religions Egyptian religions Vedism Jainism Shaivism Vaishnavism Lamaism Zen Confucianism Buddhism Sikhism Taoism Shinto Zoroastrianism Norse religion Mayan religion etc. I might add that these are the religions of EMPIRES, either former or current. If we are to include other religions which are not imperial world religions, the list gets much longer 500+ Native American religions 300+ Native African religions 200+ Indigenous Australian religions etc. Where is the Mighty Jesus? Looking at world history of religions as a whole, perhaps as a time-line, Jesus is not even a dot. "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 11:21:55 GMT From: John R Crocker Subject: Re: theos-roots and censorship On Thu, 21 Sep 1995, Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote: > Ever since these divisions were made, only theos-l gets any > significant use. Theos-news comes in at a very distant second > and I don't remember the last time I've seen anything come over > theos-buds. If we are to break theos-l into categories, then > let's be consistent about it. ALL historical discussions should > go to theos-roots: that would include Alan's posts on Christian > Origins; Dan's, Paul's and my posts on source theosophy; any > discussions concerning Blavatsky's, Judge's, Crosbie's, > Purucker's, Leadbeater's, Besant's, etc.'s historical role in the > Theosophical Society; etc. I think this would make theos-roots a > very busy place. Further, ALL discussions on fundamentals should > go to theos-buds. That would include Eldon's monologues on > theosophical teachings; Eldon's and Jerry S.'s discussions on > globes and principles, Brenda's S.D. posts, etc. I think theos- > buds would be a busy place too. Finally, ALL announcements of > new journals and books, upcoming conventions and gatherings, and > reports concerning the same would go to theos-news. Now that > leaves theos-l with a lot of room for Daniel (unless you want to > set up a theos-christ for discussions on theosophy and > christianity); many of Art Patterson's general discussions; and > occasional inquiries from such people as our new correspondent > from Kiev. > > What I'm saying is if we are going to have these > departments, then let us use them in the spirit they were > created. If Rich should go to theos-roots, then everyone else > should also go to their respective departments also. Let's all > go where we belong or all stay here on theos-l. Any halfway > measures is hypocrisy and censorship. I agree completely. Having the seperate lists is a wonderful thing that would allow us all many more options if they began to be used. Probably most people would subscribe to all of them, so the discussions probably wouldn't be hampered ... but for those that really did have no interest in one area (or *only* had interest in one area), selective membership would be an option. Further, it would allow those who were active posters in one area but not very active in others to use the "digest" option for some lists but not for others. This didn't make much difference until recently, but (IMO) the list seems to be in the middle of a phase shift, and has suddenly become extremely active ... hence perhaps posting to the different lists (rather than keeping everything on theos-l) would be a timely thing to do. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 12:07:00 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: go away??? Rich writes: I should relax, however, I don't think most people on Theos-L >are ignorant enough to believe that he writes anything factual, least of all >about Theosophy. Rich, I think everything this man says is theosophy. He was moved by some form of theosophy just as we were. He just needs a little more encouragement to embrace the whole. You were speaking so positively about your ability to use the delete key. What happened? You were just kidding, I guess. Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 12:24:52 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: To Liesel and Eldon Liesel, I'm sorry you didn't get Part IV of Source Teachings. Did any one else on theos-l receive it? I know I wrote it and thought I sent it. But I have deleted it from my files. Eldon, If you have a copy of Part IV, please send a copy to Liesel. Thanks in advance Daniel P.S. I also didn't get a copy of DAniel H.'s reply to my questions. Do you have a copy of that, Eldon, that you could send me. Sorry to bother you. Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 12:29:57 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: To Daniel H. Daniel, I read part of your reply to my questions from exerpts of it being commented upon by Brenda and Rich. I have a few other questions for you: (1) You say you have read or done studies on comparative religion. Could you please name a few of the books you have read on the religions of the world? (2) What do you know about Theosophy? What books on Theosophy have you read? Could you please post a short account of what you think Theosophy is all about? You might divide you account into 2 parts: (1) give a brief account of what Theosophy teaches and (2) then own opinions on those teachings. Thanks in advance, Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 12:45:34 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Source Teachings Part IV Daniel C. We haven't seen Source Teachings here. Brenda Tucker P.S. I forwarded Daniel H's answers to your questions. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 12:46:02 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: From the spring to the pond This morning I had my first chance to hike in the woods behind the acre on which I live. My neighbor has 21 acres of sloping woodlands, which contain two springs that create streams. The two streams feed a pond that is just beyond the woods on the next property. There's no point in boring everyone with details of how beautiful the hike was, or how peaceful it was down at the pond, or how wonderful I felt hiking through these woods that start near my back door. But there are two thoughts that struck me coming back from the pond. First, there's something wholly new about living where one can directly walk into wilderness. Living in the city and driving to nice rural spots created a sense of distance and deprivation. Nature was not continuous with the reality in which I lived; it was something you had to escape to. Moving to the edge of the woods feels like opening a direct link to Nature itself. Seeing the Milky Way at night adds to that sensation. Something about moving to the country is powerfully evocative of a new level of nature- mysticism. And feeling enveloped and inspired by Life itself out in the woods is a deeply healing and encouraging experience. It does wonders in terms of making one see that all one's worries about who thinks and feels what-- are nothing but flapdoodle. Called away by a minor crisis at work-- Namaste Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 14:17:04 GMT From: John R Crocker Subject: Alert! Greetings: I'm not sure whether this post will make it to everyone, but here seems to be a problem with the listserver at vnet.net: I was getting a few posts from theos-l for the last couple of days, but not all of them (as I wasn't even getting some of my own back) - and I just talked to Liesel, and she has gotten a few that I didn't get, and has not gotten some that I did get ... so I presume its theos-l and not my University's mainframe. I'm gonna cc: this to John Mead tell him ... but maybe until it gets cleared up, we should hold off a bit ..... there are a couple of threads I'm quite interested in and that I think I'm missing people's posts on, and I fear many of us many be only receiving parts of conversations (I wonder if there is a cosmic principle operating that is determining who is getting what ... (-:) - interesting that we all may be seeing different fragments of the conversations ...). -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 14:58:58 GMT From: Thom Nelson Subject: RE: oops Eldon, What is the Arcana mailing list and how do we sign up? Thom From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 15:43:10 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Concerning Daniel H. and censorship According to Richtay@aol.com: > > Where is the Mighty Jesus? Looking at world history of religions as a whole, > perhaps as a time-line, Jesus is not even a dot. Now, Rich. Let's not let our disgust with Daniel's exclusivism lead to a mirror-image exclusion of Jesus from history. Christianity is the largest world religion in terms of membership, approximately double that of its nearest competitor, Islam, which also honors Jesus. Those two yield approximately 3 billion members, with Hinduism a distant third and Buddhism an even more distant fourth. In light of HPB's anti-Christian sentiments, Theosophists may wish things to have turned out otherwise-- but they didn't. JESUS RULES! (statistically speaking, that is :) Geographically, Christianity and Islam dominate the greater part of the globe, too. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 15:58:06 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Antroposofy/Theosophy, Reply to Stephan Stephan, I agree with Aki about followers of Steiner & other Theosophists being able to work together. I think, correct me if I'm wrong, that your Christ is the Christ within, who is the same as the Buddha within, or any other kind of nomenclature Spirit within. Or else it is the holy universal figure whom all worship, again under different names, but with the same idea. If we have studied according to our second Theosophical Object, we should be able to see the likenesses underneath the differences. To me, that's the good old Theosophical way. I think the leaders of the various factions are making attempts to work together now; so are we on theos-l, & I don't know who else is trying .. Dick Slusser with his "High Country Theosophist". I'm all for it. Whenever I read some literature, from whatever faction, I can always recognize it as Theosophical, even if the slant is different. I see no reason why, with a little bit of effort & good will we can't all work together harmoniously instead of throwing epithets at each other. We're all more alike than we are different. Nowadays we need a hausliche Federkrieg like we need a hole in the head. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 16:25:24 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: love that CWL Dear Brenda & Nick Count me in "Love that CWL" Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 16:33:26 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: re re: CWL and Mars Dear Jerry, John, & Rich, Since you don't want to listen to Daniel, & Daniel H. doesn't listen to anyone but himself, hardly, why not use your delete buttons, & make the listening to himself a reality in still another sense. As Harry & Serge taught ... "effectiveness is the measure of truth" , or stated another way, if 1 thing doesn't work, try a different tack. They said You use whatever works, as long as it's ethical. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 16:35:58 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: The Work Alan, Those quotes are neat! Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 16:43:35 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Art: Group Project Question 1 Jerry HE & Theos-L Thanks Jerry for posting the Van Der Leeuw's article as well as your focusing questions. It is a fairly long article and I think worth the time and energy looking into. Perhaps, if we stuck with it for one more week and respond to the responses, we could do it justice. Here, I was anticipating a small review response and here you go and give a seminal piece of thinking for theosophists to ponder. I really appreciate your grasp of the historical background to the movement. Jerry gave me this article right when I started looking into theosophy. While it did not deal with basics per se, it oriented me to my own tradition and the things I have experienced there. Almost every sentence took me aback - the work shocked me into a profound recognition of things I once erroneously assumed. I came to realize ways I guided that were indeed misguided. The work did what any classic should do and that is to point you back to the experiential ground of your life with a renewed understanding. Reading and reflecting on it furthered my "realization". In my opinion, this little tract ought to be re-published and sent to any spiritual group desiring growth. As a matter of fact, I sent the tract to several people in our Watershed community in Winnipeg to consider at a "lodge" community meeting next week. What I will be doing is writing on Jerry HE's questions over a few postings. I haven't the time to write a continued narrative but want to see how far I get in considering these question from a Theosophical *beginner's mind* perspective. 1. van der Leeuw offers four definitions of Theosophy, all of which are used in our theosophical literature. Do you feel that distinctions are made between these four definitions among most theosophists? What problems do you see arising out of having four definitions for this single word? Leeuw: "Historically the word means the experience of the divine, in distinction to theology which is discussion about God. This experience of the ultimate, of reality, of life, of truth, is beyond all discussion. It exists wherever a man has it and cannot be criticized or denied." Art: If that is the understanding of the word "Theosophy" then there has never been a time when I has not a theosophist. I usually understand the experience in classical mystical terms. That beneath all our language is a reality, a unity in which we all participate and express- this reality is the background of our Being. In this definition Plato, Eckhart, Swedenborg, Blake, Tillich, Jung, and many others are my chief thesophical interpreters. I feel much more comfortable with these figures because I am familiar with them. The word I would put on this sort of definition would be "essentialist". In my old terminology I would call this the "universal body" of spiritual seekers. The emphasis is on the spiritual somewhat invisible quality of this fellowship - in distinction to the local historic manifestation. Leeuw: "Secondly, the word has been used in an early theosophical manifesto as "the archaic system of esoteric wisdom in the keeping of the brotherhood of adepts." Art: This I am only beginning to understand and can't comment definitively except to say that I am a bit concerned about the hidden tonality of the esoteric tradition. I am not at all the sort of person who gravitates toward what Blavatsky calls "blinds" etc. I am not at all oriented toward hierarchy but believe in a sort of participatory democracy of the spiritual life in which there are those who are advanced but they are not in any sense authoritarian or intrinsically superior to others. Secrecy and hierarchy seem to me to support a teired approach to membership which Leew seems to be against. In the church this has expressed itself in the phrase "counsels of perfection" or monaticism, or the special status of priest or minister - full time Christian worker is another way this status has been discussed. I have hear of Masters, Adepts, and ES (?) which seems to be for the truly committed. As little a I know of the Theosophic movement, I can not help but see it as schismatic as that of denominationalism in Chrisitianity. Leeuw: "Thirdly, theosophy is taken to mean the system of doctrines put forward in literature or lectures since the beginning of the Theosophical Society. This is what the world at large knows as theosophy." Art: This is I think the "conceptual core" teachings of Theosophy as represented in the various factions of the movement. (Creedal or Doctrinal Theosophy) There seems to me to be some difference as to what bodies of literature compose these core teachings. The group I have decided to start my exploration with is Adyar -- I don't however know exactly what distinquishes the various emphasis' of the different varieties of Theosophy. I have detected that this list is trying to function ecuemenically that is going beyond the sectarian interests, even though we bump into one another sensitive spots. Leeuw: "Finally, there is the practice in important centres of theosophical work, where, in the work actually done and in the aims held before people, we can see what is looked upon as valuable. At the moment I am speaking only about these last two forms of theosophy, that is to say, about that which has been presented to the world in books or lectures or can be seen in centres of theosophical work. " Art: This seems to be refering to the organizational "service values" of the societies. The praxis of theosophy in local situations. What is interesting to me is that I have never meet a theosophist in the flesh. "Lodges" to me seem akin to fellowship groups. I also get the idea that service to humanity is a vital part of the theosophical lifestyle. This has come out in many posts. Good Theory is the basis of Good service. Looking Forward to the Next Section, Arthur Paul Patterson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 16:45:05 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Who is God? Who Is Sylvia? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 16:57:56 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Source Teachings Part IV (the complete version!) Dear Patrick, I don't see that this back & forth about who got direct messages from the Masters & who's really a fake, even though they don't know it, is very relevant. Maybe that's because I'm eclectic. I take to heart any messages which sound genuine to me, which are useful & seem dynamic in a way I wish to be dynamic, and I really don't care where they came from. Of course, I try to read people I think have been inspired, rather than someone who seems to be wallowing in the mud, and/or has a negative outlook. I'm not psychic, so I can't tell on that level who has genuinely been in touch with the Masters, so I use the means that are available to me. I'd much rather use your sentence as a yardstick "I see the Teachings of Theosophy as a living flow of right relationships." That's nice, & I accept it, whether you made it up, or whether you quoted it from someone else who says they're in touch with the Masters. "When the pupil is ready, the Teacher will appear". Which Serge King turned around to "When the Teacher is ready, the pupil will appear." Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 16:58:59 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: 666 post JRC Yes, I got it Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 17:19:26 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: To Daniel H on Questions Given by Daniel Caldwell Dear Daniel, Did you ever put on Part IV of your series. I was really interested in what you wrote, but I'm missing part IV. Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 17:42:14 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: theos-roots and censorship Dear Jerry, I think you've got a point, even though I'm not really interested in most historical dialogue. I like to live in the here & now, & I like to read material useful for the here & now. However, I can see that it's hard to sift out where to put what. I for one would be willing to have most everything appear on theos-l, with 2 provisos: 1.) that what you post is really historical & not hysterical. 2.) Since you're talking about being "truly democratic" that includes, as is also stated in the theos-l rules, consideration for the other fellow's feelings. Just for instance, someone just a few days ago said something that indicated that Adyar is old hat. Adyar happens to be in full bloom, & putting out more blossoms every day, and what's also to the point I'M A MEMBER OF ADYAR. This also goes for what's been expressed on this list time and again which goes something like "well Annie Besant or Leadbeater wrote that, so we'll just discount it.". To me, & to many others, AB & CWL are role models & it doesn't feel good to have your role models talked about disparagingly. Unless provoked, which I am right now, I wouldn't dream of saying on this list that I find "The Ocean of Theosophy" and the pamphlets of Elsie Benjamin dull reading. But if I respect other people's reverence for WQ Judge and Elsie Benjamin, I expect other people to respect my feelings for Annie Besant and CWLeadbeater, my role models. Under those conditions, I'll say ok everybody use theos-l. If not, then lets divide it up into different sections. Shalom Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 18:24:00 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: re concerning Daniel H and censorship Paul Johnson Wrote to Rich: >Now, Rich. Let's not let our disgust with Daniel's exclusivism >lead to a mirror-image exclusion of Jesus from history. >Christianity is the largest world religion in terms of >membership, approximately double that of its nearest >competitor, Islam, which also honors Jesus. Those two yield >approximately 3 billion members, with Hinduism a distant third >and Buddhism an even more distant fourth. In light of HPB's >anti-Christian sentiments, Theosophists may wish things to have >turned out otherwise-- but they didn't. JESUS RULES! >(statistically speaking, that is :) Geographically, >Christianity and Islam dominate the greater part of the globe, >too. On the other hand, taking into consideration the doctrine of the Kali Yuga, it is the dross that rises to the top and the gold remains hidden. So your numbers are following the expectations of the times--materialistic religions grown in popularity while those closest to true spirituality fall towards obscuration. Thanks for the numbers Jerry HE From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 18:26:35 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: re theos-roots and censorship Dear Liesel, Thanks for your post. >I for one would be willing to have most everything appear >on theos-l, with 2 provisos: 1.) that what you post is really >>historical & not hysterical. Who will determine which is which? >2.) Since you're talking about >being "truly democratic" that includes, as is also stated in >the theos-l rules, consideration for the other fellow's >feelings. I'm aware of the rule, agree with it and try to follow it. However, I don't allow that rule to abridge the subject matter, nor do I believe it was intended for that purpose. >Just for instance, someone just a few days ago said >something that indicated that Adyar is old hat. Adyar happens >to be in full bloom, & putting out more blossoms every day, Sounds like you two have different view points. That might make for a good discussion. >and what's also to the point I'M A MEMBER OF ADYAR. So am I. >This also goes for what's been expressed on this list time and >again which goes something like "well Annie Besant or Leadbeater >wrote that, so we'll just discount it." You never heard that from me. >To me, & to many others, AB & CWL are role models & it doesn't >feel good to have your role models talked about disparagingly. I agree >Unless provoked, which I am right now, I wouldn't dream of >saying on this list that I find "The Ocean of Theosophy" and the >pamphlets of Elsie Benjamin dull reading. I think you just did. But that kind of talk doesn't offend me anyway. >But if I respect other people's reverence for WQ >Judge and Elsie Benjamin, I expect other people to respect my >feelings for Annie Besant and CWLeadbeater, my role models. That's the trouble with people, they have so many points of view. On the other hand, that is what makes people so interesting. You see, I wouldn't mind at all if you posted critical information about Judge, Benjamin, HPB or anyone else. But I would expect the information to be accurate and that you can back it up with documentation. It is the lie that provokes me, not whether it is negative or not. >Under those conditions, I'll say ok everybody use theos-l. If >not, then lets divide it up into different sections. I think we should divide, but that would require an honest commitment on everyone's part to make their postings where they belong. John Mead might even find it necessary to make more sections. Peace Jerry From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Sep 1995 18:47:55 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Globe/Plane Confusion I think that this posting, together with several others - all with different views - clearly demonstrates the unsettled condition of the Globes left to us by HPB. Even after several books of descriptions by G de P, we still can't get any agreement. Oh well, maybe there is a Globe for each of us somewhere out there :-) I had no idea before theos-l that the doctrine of the Globes had so many many different interpretations). I am now beginning to understand why so many theosophists today prefer the Qabala ... Let me say, that I have no problem at all with the MLs, including ML 25 on Devachan. But I interpret what is being said quite differently than Daniel or Eldon. Part of the confusion must certainly be laid at the feet of HPB and her Adepts, who gave us some strange terminology. The kama, rupa, and arupa worlds or spheres, for example, include several cosmic planes each. See G de P's Fountain-Source of Occultism, p. 323, for a good picture of these areas, which he calls "Dhatus." The lowest is kama (desire), then comes rupa (having form, but without desire, otherwise spiritual), and arupa (having neither desire nor form, the formless planes of divinity which are beyond human conception). This is the traditional Buddhist view of the planes. Compare G de P's figure on p. 323 with HPB's on page 200 of SD Vol 1 and you will see the Buddhist view compared with the Qabala. In all cases, the Globes are equivalent to the Sephiroth. When KH says "Deva Chan is a state, not a locality. Rupa Loka, Arupa-Loka, and Kama-Loka are the three spheres of ascending spirituality..." etc, as in ML 25, he is not referring to the after-death state of Kamaloka, but to the four cosmic planes below the Abyss, and so to the Dhatus, as G de P, rightly calls them. However, in the very next sentence he says "in the Kama-Loka (semi-physical sphere) dwell the shells, the victims and suicides ... the glorious "Summer-land" of the Spiritualists .." etc, where he is, in fact, referring to the after-death state of Kamaloka. So a large part of the misunderstanding must rest with KH here, for making things so confusing (this may have been intentional, with a "he who has ears, let him hear" attitude (?) I don't know, but the reader needs to separate the two. Near the end of the same paragraph, he is back to the three Dhatus again, calling them Sahalo-Kadhatu (Saha-loka-dhatu), where he admits that within these are "many regions of which but three can be given out to the outside world" etc. However, this entire paragraph says nothing whatever of the Globes. To add to the confusion, note that in a following paragraph KH says "the sensations, perceptions and ideation of a 'devachanee' in Rupa-Loka, will, of course, be of a less subjective nature than they would be in Arupa-Loka, in both of which the devachanic experiences will vary ..." etc. This sentence suggests that Devachan can occur anywhere in the 6+ cosmic planes above the physical, right up into and including the divine. The statement "There are seven objective and seven subjective globes ... the worlds of causes and effects" is from KH in letter XIV and has only to do with the 7 Globes below the Abyss, which is to say Globes A through G. The objective Globes refer to "planets" in the sense that they seem to exist all by themselves, with or without us. The subjective Globes refers to these same Globes, but viewed as worlds which are completely dependent upon us humans as observers. This is, in effect, two ways of looking at the very same thing. The Globes as objective are worlds of causes, and the Globes as subjective are worlds of effects. This largely has to do with the workings of karma. We are not really talking about 14 different Globes, but 7 Globes each seen in two ways - as dependent (the Buddhist view) and as independent (the "normal" or materialistic view). We make new, or receive the results from old, karma depending on how we view ourselves and the world(s) around us. Hope this helps. I don't know if we will ever get ourselves out of the woods on this subject. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Sep 1995 00:30:36 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: theos-roots and censorship JRC: >Having the seperate lists is a wonderful thing that >would allow us all many more options if they began to be used. Probably >most people would subscribe to all of them, so the discussions probably >wouldn't be hampered ... but for those that really did have no interest >in one area (or *only* had interest in one area), selective membership >would be an option. Further, it would allow those who were active posters >in one area but not very active in others to use the "digest" option for >some lists but not for others. There's really no conflict with the status quo, if people decide to start posting to theos-buds and/or theos-roots instead of theos-l. I would still try to make a strong case for theos-l remaining the general discussion list, where there is at least one place where there is completely unrestricted discussion. Restrictions by either topic (don't write about that on this list) or by opinion (we can write about that -- except for so-and-so whose ideas are not liked) should be avoided. >This didn't make much difference until recently, but (IMO) the list seems >to be in the middle of a phase shift, and has suddenly become extremely >active ... hence perhaps posting to the different lists (rather than >keeping everything on theos-l) would be a timely thing to do. The explosive growth in the list is because the large number of postings are self-sustaining in the sense that they generate an on-going volume of participation. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Sep 1995 02:36:06 GMT From: Daniel Subject: What is New Age? New Age sampler... New Agers generally do one of two things with the teachings of Jesus. Some merely reinterpret the gospel sayings of Jesus to make it appear that Jesus was actually teaching New Age "truth." Others add that long-lost (New Age) sayings of Jesus have been rediscovered. These "rediscovered" sayings can have one of two sources: reputed ancient extracanonical writings (like the "Gnostic gospels" which were allegedly suppressed by the early church and rediscovered at Nag Hammadi in 1945) and the Akashic Record. Let us now consider samplings of each of these. The Gospel Sayings of Jesus. According to New Agers, we must all seek first the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 6:33), recognizing that the "kingdom" has reference to our inner divinity.[31] For indeed, Jesus said "Ye are gods" (John 10:34). The parable about those who foolishly build a house on sand (Matt. 7:24-27) teaches us that those who fail to recognize their divinity will not be able to stand against the storms of life. But if we come unto Jesus, we will find rest, for his yoke (i.e., _yoga_) is easy and his burden is light (Matt. 11:28-30). "Newly Discovered" Sayings from Extracanonical Sources.* Jesus taught a form of pantheism according to The Life of Saint Issa, for he said that "the Eternal Spirit [God] is the soul of all that is animate." He also taught that all humans have unlimited potential: "I came to show human possibilities....that which I am, all men will be." And, according to the Gnostic gospels, Jesus spoke of "illusion and enlightenment, not of sin and repentance." Indeed, man can save himself: "If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you." "Newly Discovered" Sayings from the Akashic Record.* According to Levi's Aquarian Gospel, Jesus was just a way-shower: "And all the people were entranced, and would have worshipped Jesus as God; but Jesus said, I am your brother man just come to show the way to God; you shall not worship man." Jesus also taught pantheism and monism: "The universal God is one, yet he is more than one [i.e., he takes many forms]; all things are God; all things are one." Jesus also tells us that "the nations of the earth see God from different points of view, and so he does not seem the same to every one." THE ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN RESPONSE A Christian response to the New Age rendition of Jesus may begin with the observation that the accounts of Jesus going East have irreconcilable contradictions. This fact alone should make any objective investigator suspicious of the reliability of these documents. This list has revealed some of these problems. Each of the accounts differ, for example, regarding the beginning of Jesus' trek. The Life of Saint Issa portrays Jesus departing secretly from his parent's house with some merchants on their way to India so he could perfect himself by studying the laws of the great Buddhas. Levi's Aquarian Gospel depicts Prince Ravanna from India asking Jesus' parents if he can escort Jesus to India where he can learn Indian wisdom. Cayce's reading of the Akashic Record has an Essene teacher sending Jesus to India to study astrology and other psychic disciplines. What is particularly revealing is that both Cayce and Levi allegedly obtained their "revelations" by reading the Akashic Record, yet their readings blatantly contradict each other. Since both Cayce and Levi are highly respected in New Age circles, how do New Agers account for the obvious failure of at least one of them to properly "read" the Akashic Record? I'll press on with more...but I have spent too much time on these last two posts...I shall return. Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Sep 1995 02:36:16 GMT From: Daniel Subject: What is Theosophy? > (2) What do you know about Theosophy? What books on Theosophy have you read? > Could you please post a short account of what you think Theosophy is all > about? You might divide you account into 2 parts: (1) give a brief account of > what Theosophy teaches and (2) then own opinions on those teachings. I thank my friend Ron Rhodes who helped me with the following research. "Who do you say I am?" The question was first asked of Peter by Christ nineteen centuries ago, and has continued since then to the present day to be the litmus test of spiritual authenticity. Perhaps never in the history of the Christian church has this question been more relevant than it is today. One reason for this is that Theosophists have taken the New Testament sculpture (if you will) of Christ, crafted an esoteric/mystical chisel, and hammered away at this sculpture until a completely new image has been formed. The new sculpture is one that fits nicely on a display shelf with sculptures of Buddha, Krishna, and other "holy men." This Christ is broad-minded and non-judgmental. He is a "Master" among "Masters," who -- with the others -- is leading the human race into a New Age of enlightenment and harmony. I know that an Avatar is One who "descends" into human form from above, never having gone through reincarnation. Such a one is considered a manifestation of divinity and seeks to reveal divine truths especially important to a particular age. Theosophy teaches an escoteric form of Christianity with no true foundation whatsoever. P.P. Quimby certainly has revealed his mind. Theosophy and Quimby's teachings are two trees which grew side by side, having been planted close to the same time (the mid to late 1800s) in the same soil, fertilized with common ingredients (nineteenth-century transcendentalism, the philosophy of Emmanuel Swedenborg, the influx of Hindu monism, etc.). Certainly, in many respects these two have distinct beliefs and different goals, but they both took root and flourished in the same mystical climate. Taken together, these represent an appropriate starting point for a study in New Age Christology. The Aryan rootrace and other "races" were declared by Blavatsky's reception of some type of revelation experience. I wonder which Christ entered her? Maybe an angel of light. Anyway...The five incarnations of Christ in the five subraces of the Aryan rootrace were Buddha, Hermes, Zoroaster, Orpheus, and Jesus. Theosophists reject any suggestion that Jesus died on the cross to pay for man's sins. May I remind you that the Holy Scripture declares the the Cross of Christ is foolishness to those that are perishing. Man supposedly saves himself through continual reincarnations. This spiritual evolution leads men further and further away from the physical plane and closer and closer to spiritual planes of existence. Because of this process, every human being -- regardless of race or religion -- is a potential "Christ". Sixth Messiah Annie Besant first announced the coming of this Messiah in 1906. Her aim was to groom Jiddu Krishnamurti for the role of World Teacher or Messiah. In 1925 she claimed for this young Indian man the title of "Messianic Leader and Reincarnation of the World Teacher." But by 1929, Krishnamurti became convinced it was all a MISTAKE. On November 20 of that year, he "refused to receive further adoration, 'I am not an actor; I refuse to wear the robes of a Messiah; so I am again free of all possessions.'" Theosophy's Christ remains to appear. And of course I too look for the Sixth coming of Christ...but objectively it will be the second and final. Theosophy where friends can be friends. Dr. Rudolf Steiner was an active member of the Theosophical Society and headed the German charter of the group. However, when a Theosophical subgroup, the "Order of the Star of the East," began promoting Krishnamurti as the new incarnation of the Christ, Steiner threatened to expel any member of the German charter who joined the Order. Annie Besant retaliated by cancelling Steiner's charter. Steiner then founded the Anthroposophical Society in 1912, and most of the German membership of Theosophy joined with him. >From the foundation you now have Steiner reading the Akasha records where he was able to establish the significance of Christ on the human Jesus. And this is where I first encountered the difference between the physical earth and the etheric earth. Jesus's purpose is to be the mediator between the two realms. Steiner believes that Christ's crucifixtion and resurrection was the avenue for success of this mediation. You probably don't want to know what he thought about the blood. As for Alice... She eventually became critical of the organization's policy that one could not become a disciple of a Master (which Bailey believed she already was) unless one was notified by Annie Besant (who seemed to have overlooked Bailey in this). This led to her dismissal from the Society, and shortly thereafter in 1923, she and her husband Foster founded the Arcane School. Like Theosophy and Anthroposophy, Bailey believed that Jesus was a medium who allowed the Christ to use his body. But Bailey distinguished her beliefs from Anthroposophy by arguing that the "second coming" referred to the Christ coming in a single Avatar, not in all humanity. Then there is Guy and Edna...but I have not yet heard much on theos-l about I AM so I will refrain from posting here. I must admit that the terminology you all use is complex but it certainly reveals the foolishness of man regarding the simple truth about Christ. I aslo haven't heard much about Benjamin Creme on this list. I suppose because He has been proven a false prophet. Then you have Spangler who who described what the Christ accomplished through Jesus. For example, Spangler says that the Christ was occultly crucified (which resulted in placing his cosmic presence within the cross of matter, space, and time). The Christ was laid in a tomb (the tomb representing a level of life characterized by "great density" [i.e., the physical world], as opposed to the "low density" spiritual realm he was accustomed to). There he would stay until the resurrection (the outflowing of Christ-energies from the etheric earth) and ascension (the ascension of Christ-consciousness in humanity). Through this sacrifice, the cosmic Christ became a savior in that he no longer stood outside the evolution of the earth, but entered into that evolution by becoming incarnate into the earth. There he would function as a guide of man's spiritual evolution. Then you have Quimby which I have not read much about on this list. Anyway here is a start...to MY understanding about theosophy. Pls correct me where the above is in error. Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Sep 1995 04:18:24 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: go away??? >I think everything this man says is theosophy. He was moved by some form of >theosophy just as we were. He just needs a little more encouragement to >embrace the whole. You were speaking so positively about your ability to use >the delete key. What happened? You were just kidding, I guess. > >Brenda Brenda, There is sense in which I admire your patience with Daniel but I am sincerely wondering what gives you the incentive to defend his approach so vigorously? I am assuming you may be seeing something I can't see in his posting. I find it hard to justify encouraging his continued posting because of his attitude of extremely exclusivity, proselyzation, and even violence at times. If everything that Daniel says is theosophy then anything anyone says is. I understand that you are saying that he, like all of us, is on a journey and will eventually be united with Reality. This is to look beyond the personality into the future Daniel who will be wise and kind and tolerant but for now there is a historical Daniel who must, like all of us, struggle with the idiosyncratic nature of our personality. Hopefully by setting some limits to the inflation of his ego will further that potential. The idea of limits is not repressive since all on the list have subscribed to some form of netiquette and occassionally have to be reminded of that. Like I have stated before I enjoy the subject matter that Daniel brings to us but the brutality and narrowness of his ideology doesn't lead to enlightened dialogue but to argumentation, irritation and frustration. Lastly, I don't see the same latitude given to Rich as you give to Daniel. Is that because Rich is further along in the theosophical journey? I agree with you that Rich is wrong to say that nothing of Daniel's perspective contains seeds of theosophy in them but I identify with Rich's inability to relax when he reads Dan's posts. Daniel believes in a prince of peace - would that he could further the goal of peace through respecting others and their spiritual paths. I know how hard it will be for him because I held views very much like Daniel many years ago. Anyway Brenda, I would like to hear what your views are on this, I am asking not to continue a flame but if there is a better way to approach Daniel and others like him I would like to learn it. Under the Mercy, Arthur Paul Patterson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Sep 1995 04:33:58 GMT From: "Daniel K." Subject: Re: Concerning Daniel H. and censorship Ahhh geee. It is so nice to hear from you. I guess you didn't enjoy my response to you. Silence is golden, but you must have been fed with a silver spoon! ++++++++++++++++++++++++ To make a my "all religions" statement more clear...(lack of clarity is an error on my part) I was attempting to deal with the Major religions. Such as Islam...not the weak following of zorastrianism. As I said before. REGARDLESS of having a PHD in stupidity or a masters in the school of hard knocks either Jesus of Nazareth is UNIQUELY everything He said he was or He is not. And if He is not then He and His followers are the greatest disciples of ignorance ever. Rich why do you persecute me? A word from the Lord. Who did Pharaoh think Moses was talking about? Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Sep 1995 04:50:08 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: words that inspire, including science >Brenda, > >There is sense in which I admire your patience with Daniel but I am >sincerely wondering what gives you the incentive to defend his approach so >vigorously? I am assuming you may be seeing something I can't see in his >posting. I find it hard to justify encouraging his continued posting >because of his attitude of extremely exclusivity, proselyzation, and even >violence at times. I think partly because as an engineer he made a noteworthy contribution to society, but also because I remember my own experience with theosophy. When I found theosophy it wasn't simply reading, discussing, and "romantically" growing in wisdom. If something inside of Daniel tells him to hit the trail, and he's listening to that inner voice, it's because through what we "know" we will reach the "unknown." My years before working at Olcott were filled with terrors that I can only dwell on scientifically. What happens to someone as they begin to embrace the teaching of the Masters? We each are deciding that we must give up the way of life we were taught in school, by our parents (to some extent), and which we perceive many of those around us living. We have to divorce society in order to enter a "wise" society. The tearing away from my friends and family and school was significant enough for me at college age, but imagine how much more desperate the event is for a man who has dwelled peacefully enough for thirty or forty years (in this case I don't know how man). Shouldn't he ask himself how many delusions is he still encountering? The proper answer would be none. He is throwing off delusion or has succeeded in throwing it off and found what to him is now the most precious thing in life. Here on theos-l he is able to speak to other people who have also an association with "wise" society, who have gone beyond what the world has to offer in order to find their true home, and he's only speaking about what he knows and holds dear. > >If everything that Daniel says is theosophy then anything anyone says is. I >understand that you are saying that he, like all of us, is on a journey and >will eventually be united with Reality. This is to look beyond the >personality into the future Daniel who will be wise and kind and tolerant >but for now there is a historical Daniel who must, like all of us, struggle >with the idiosyncratic nature of our personality. Hopefully by setting some >limits to the inflation of his ego will further that potential. The idea of >limits is not repressive since all on the list have subscribed to some form >of netiquette and occassionally have to be reminded of that. Setting limits might be useful. It's okay with me if we make a list and call it theos-christ or whatever. After dealing with delusions which he ignored for x number of years, this man is fairly triumphant in wacking and putting asunder any further claims of "sociable" mankind. I want to join him in wailing against delusion. We, too, are not safe from it. Some people feel that as long as they stick to a form of theosophy which is not arguable that they have safeguarded themselves against ever being deluded. I don't agree with this. Ensnared by mara, we go along until we break the bonds or "crucify the lower passions." If it were up to me, I would encourage Daniel to attempt some purification which would include no alcohol or drugs and if he could attempt it, no meat consumption and a hold on the sex-life. These limits are here for all of us to work with or ignore. >Like I have stated before I enjoy the subject matter that Daniel brings to >us but the brutality and narrowness of his ideology doesn't lead to >enlightened dialogue but to argumentation, irritation and frustration. I don't have the words, let alone the thoughts, to raise issues that might interest Daniel, but I do have my resources and I have faith in Blavatsky's teachings and ability to address any interested enquirers. For some reason those feelings aren't really able to reach me through the internet. I'm so thankful that I'm not physically in the presence of people as their feelings would cause me concern on being able to continue coping non-hysterically. Our feelings are so far apart that the feeling world doesn't reach me through the computer and that's why I think it is possible to discuss here in ways that it isn't possible to do when we meet in person. >Lastly, I don't see the same latitude given to Rich as you give to Daniel. >Is that because Rich is further along in the theosophical journey? I agree >with you that Rich is wrong to say that nothing of Daniel's perspective >contains seeds of theosophy in them but I identify with Rich's inability to >relax when he reads Dan's posts. Daniel believes in a prince of peace - >would that he could further the goal of peace through respecting others and >their spiritual paths. I know how hard it will be for him because I held >views very much like Daniel many years ago. Rich has as firmly accepted theosophy as Daniel has accepted Christianity. Rich is set upon continuing a course of study which is all that he really needs. He doesn't need to hear about what other people are doing because he distracts him from his course. I feel myself becoming better qualified and better prepared to discuss theosophy with anyone who might enter upon it in the way that Daniel did and for this I can thank him. >Anyway Brenda, I would like to hear what your views are on this, I am >asking not to continue a flame but if there is a better way to approach >Daniel and others like him I would like to learn it. > >Under the Mercy, > >Arthur Paul Patterson I think the best way to study with Daniel is to open your heart to him, hear his pleas, hear his longing for eternal truth, and if you're unable to identify with him in this, shut him out of your discussions. It's a cruel world when we find we love something so much and it's so essential in our lives, but we have had to live without it for so many (even a few childhood) years. When we come to realize that others have found somewhat the same potential within themselves and within their field of study that we have found, then we become more settled with the idea that we are not here to prevent them from their chosen path, only that we hope to be allowed to continue alongside of them in our chosen paths which would include what HPB has given to us in the way of raising science to see its goals as fulfilling of the Divine Plan and seeing truth in any form. Since he is certain of The Bible he should stick to it until his nature can be refined enough for his studies to continue or if he has the right social support until he finds some peace and cooperation with his fellow Christians. I don't really have a prediction of the outcome of our discussions. Because science has found importance alongside of religion and as well as philosophy, I am resting asured of receiving truth from many parallel disciplines. However, Daniel may still feel betrayed by science, as an engineer he did not receive the guidance he needed or longed for. Only due to the efforts of Christians like himself has he been willing to open his heart and speak his own worth. It's natural to want to attract others. I'm only sorry that we as an organization still don't have enough outreach to have provided him with the kind of life he would choose if he could. It's really related to karma, I'm sure. When we decide to learn more and reach for the light is probably due to our past experiences. Theosophy is still to me the best possible solution to my own dilemma. He may prefer not to study rounds, consciousness, the theosophical teachings regarding "powers in man," etc., but I feel we have something to offer and that we are working to reach people wherever they might be in their path if they wish to ask us for our opinion. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Sep 1995 05:29:11 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: current holidays-Jewish and Hindu Jewish Holidays 9-25 & 26 Rosh Hashanah- day of Adam's creation, beginning of Jewish calendar, Adam repented and was forgiven. (2 days in length) Isaac is born(Genesis 21), Abraham tested by sacrifice (Genesis 22) First day regarding Adam, second day regarding Isaac. Celebrated by New Year's Cards and visit to lake to throw bread crumbs as symbol of desire to cast away sins. 10-4 Yom Kippur - last day of the Ten Days of Repentance (Leviticus 16 & 25) A day of fast (most holidays are two days, but two days fast is considered an undue hardship) Holiday cards are used to make a decoration for the sukkah. 10-9 through 15 Sukkot - Fall harvest and pilgrimage festival. The sukkah is a booth which the wandering tribes lived in while on the desert. Nine days (first two holy days, five middle days, last two holy ending with Simhat Torah) Celebration similar to Thanksgiving. (Ecclesiastes is read) Four plants have special meanings. Their leaves decorate and form the roof of the booth where eating and "dwelling" are done symbolically. A combination of nature and history. By right Shemini Atzeret should follow Sukkot after 50 days, but since travel is difficult in Winter, it is the eighth day of Sukkot. It is a day on which they pray for rain in Israel. All other festivities continue also. 10-16 &17 Simhat Torah - Joy of the Torah, this day is the conclusion of the cycle of Torah reading. Torah reading on this day (Deuteronomy 14:22-16:17) deal with laws and a description of the three pilgrimage festivals - Pesach, Shavuot, and Sukkot. Hindu Festival Sep 25 Navratri Begins Oct 1 Durga Puja - Oct 2 Maha Navami - On this day there is a celebration and worship of all types of tools belonging to technical workers. Buses, trucks and huge machines are decorated and worshipped in the sense that "work is worship." It is the National Labor Day of Bharat. There is also a national celebration of the rejuvenation and reorganization of the Hindu Nation, as of 1925. Oct 3 - Navrati finale Vijay Dasami - This is an auspicious day and the finale of Navaraatri. It is a festival of victory or Victory Day. Worship of the Goddess of Learning (Saraswati) and the Goddess of Strength (Durga) precedes this day. Processions of gods and goddesses signify the victory of righteousness over wickedness. Another name for Durga is Mahishaasura Mardini and this Goddess was born to help against the onslaught of demoniac forces headed by Mahishaasura. In answer to the prayers of the Gods who felt helpless and prayed for protection, an order came for each to part with a portion of their divine power and these were combined to form into a new Goddess. The combined might of 33 crores of Gods took physical form and was successful in slaying the dreaded demon after a ceaseless fight of nine days and nights. The lesson is this: the good and the righteous can only succeed when they come together in an organized endeavor. They say, "Organization holds the key to strength in Kaliyuga." The Hindus strength is called nigrahaanugraha shakti and this is not aggression, it is the protection of the good and the destruction of the wicked. The Hindus take pride in their nation living up to a saying of Jesus Christ, "I have come to fulfill and not to destroy." and have a history without barbaric invasion of other nations. Sri Rama's fourteen years of banishment and hardship followed by triumphant return to Ayodhya is celebrated on this day. As Sri Rama stopped to worship the Shami tree on his way to Ayodhya, and as the Paandavas take out hidden arms to win a great victory in the war of Kurukshetra, the leaves of the Shami tree are distributed as an auspicious omen and the tree is worshipped. Great kings saluted vast armies on this day. Buddhism 8-15 Bon Festival or Obon - ancestral spirits return home Obon is derived from a Sanskrit word meaning "hanging upside down" and refers to how human ignorance can cloud one's appreciation of life. Celebrations might include martial arts, dancing and singing, food decorating, concerts, artful stone formations, bonsai and flower arranging. Obon dancing is a life-celebrating ritual in Japan. Obon is similar to All Soul's Day in Catholicism and is intended as an expression of filial piety for deceased family members. 10-5 Bodhidharma Memorial Day - Bodhidharma coming into Japan and change of robes 10-23 Does anyone know what the Buddhist holiday, Higan is? I tried to find it on the internet, but didn't receive any responses to my questions. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Sep 1995 05:31:36 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Concerning Daniel H. and censorship Daniel: >As I said before. REGARDLESS of having a PHD in stupidity >or a masters in the school of hard knocks either >Jesus of Nazareth is UNIQUELY everything He said he was >or He is not. Unless you were there to hear him speak (e.g. by a remembered previous lifetime), you don't know what he said. You have the word of others regarding what writings are attributed to him. There's a couple of not's here. He is not unique in that he was one of many Avataras or great spiritual teachers that came to renew spirituality *in a particular age.* We cannot accept everything that is attributed to him as literally true, because some of it may have been intended as parables to teach spiritual truths, and not literal historic events. >And if He is not then He and His followers >are the greatest disciples of ignorance ever. Ignorant of certain spiritual truths about life like reincarnation and karma. Somewhat experienced in a feeling of the spiritual, a feeling that is understood with incorrect words. Not guilty of ignoring the spiritual, but rather of a narrowness of outlook that blinds one's eyes to the presence of divinity behind everything, only looking for the divine in certain places and shutting the eyes to the rest of life. >Rich why do you persecute me? There are different ways that you can be interacted with. On an emotional level, we can share an appreciation of the spiritual, leaving all words and concepts aside. On a philosophical and intellectual level, you and many of us may not be able to communicate, unless you are willing to discuss ideas on their own merit, considering their pros and cons without regard to an appeal to a claimed biblical authority. I cannot speak for Rich, but I can say that I'm not particularly interested in the Bible, and apart from any of your own ideas that you offer for discussion, there gets to be less and less to talk with you about. >A word from the Lord. When you take something *you* believe in, and say that your idea is from the Lord, you are using the Lord's name for your personal vanity (e.g. your personal ideas are divinely inspired). Each of us speaks for himself, and not for some God or divinity or ultimate source of life. >Who did Pharaoh think Moses was talking about? We always plan ahead for hard times. That is the responsible way to manage our resources. We can save grain for a possible future famine. We can accumulate good merit through unselfish deeds in the world. Or when we take a less-selfish position, we can work for the general betterment of humanity, without regard for personal reward. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Sep 1995 05:54:33 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Who is God? Daniel K.: >Let me try to explain who God is. You mean: Let me try to explain my idea of God, what I mean by that word. >If as a man I can imagine who God is and I come up with >a God who is the Master of all of Colorado. He is the Great >Ruler of Colorado. And yet another determines that his >Great God is the God of the North American Continent, then >the second man's God is superior than the one I imagined. >If you carry the progression to its logical end you end up with >a God that is OMNIPOTENT, OMNIPRESENT, and OMNISCIENT. You assumtion is that with each increasing scale in size, the ruler of that larger world or universe comes closer to God, and eventually, if you get big enough, you have the topmost guy. I would find two problems with this. First, I would say that there cannot be a *biggest*, because however big you may pick, there is always something bigger. The number of scales is infinite, so there cannot be a "top" in this direction. The other problem I have with this idea is that at any particular level the rulership is a single being, rather than a class of beings or archangles (Dhyani-Chohans). I would disagree with the rulership being from a singular being. >There is no other God more anything than this God. If you pick a scale or size and a particular world that exists at that scale, there is a genuine spiritual rulership. There are definite spiritual laws of nature that cannot be escaped, along with spiritual beings that oversee the functioning of the rest of life in that world. >The God of Gods. Chief node of a particular subtree, in a tree which has no root node, because there are always higher nodes. >Also I think that it is more powerful to be a personal God that >desires relationship with His creation than one that is not. The divine seeks expression in outer life, through us and all creatures, as fully as we are capable. We have a very personal relationship, a much closer relationship than we would have *with an external being.* The relationship is one of *identity*. We are that divinity itself in our inmost natures, and cannot be separated from it, though we may at times turn our backs on it and forget it's there. >If this God as described above does not exist, then man's >imagination is greater than the actual God. We set the limites on what we can know. As we grow in learning, grow in our ability to think for ourselves, the limits expand and we know more and more. >This is a strange conclusion. That the created is greater >than the Creator. Each of us is that creator, we co-create the universe, and that creation arises out of our innate divinity. The creatures are less than the creators. That is, our external personal selves do not do justice to the potential that exists deep within us. >Intrestingly enough...the bible declares GODS omni's and >He is very personal. For a particular world, it is possible to be "omni" to it, if you have spiritually transcended it, and operate from a higher perspective, from the standpoint of a being in a higher world. >The bible declares that He is unchangeable and that He existed >before all that is Created. It also declares that He is self-sufficient. For our particular world, our personalities are mortal and perish. There is a part of us that is *relatively* unchangeable and exists long before this world. It is *relatively* self-sufficient. >Yet all of creation changes and is reliant. >From one perspective, from one scale, we have the changeable and corruptible. From a higher perspective, from the next scale of being, we have the relatively changeless and incorruptible. We rise from level to level, attaining relative perfection, but never absolute perfection, because absolute perfection does not exist. >Again the greater God being revealed. >If your God is less than the Most High God then you are >worshipping a lesser God. Pick a "most high" and I'll pick a "yet higher". You're just looking in the wrong direction for "most high". It is not bigger, more powerful, higher in a physical sense. It is rather behind and outside of all things. >And obviously the God that exists is greater than the one that >does not. The divinity that *is*, yet does not "exist", is highest. >Yet regarding matters of the heart...many follow a >God that does not nor never will exist. The root of all does not exist, because it transcends all attributes and measurements. Any attempt to describe it or to give qualities to it, however grand, only do it shame. It is unknowable to the mind because all words hide rather than reveal its face. And it is a living part of all that lives, inseparable from even the lowest in life. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Sep 1995 06:36:32 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: SD quotes re: space & other Maybe some of these quotes will relate to the discussion going on now. Hopefully, Eldon's post can be related to the following idea of Space. Quotes from THE SECRET DOCTRINE, Vol I, P. 10 There is no difference between the Christian Apostle's "In Him we live and move and have our being," and the Hindu Rishi's "The Universe lives in, proceeds from, and will[8] return to, Brahma (Brahm=E2):" for Brahma= (neuter), the unmanifested, is that Universe in abscondito, and Brahm=E2, the manifested, is the Logos, made male-female in the symbolical orthodox dogmas. The God of the Apostle-Initiate and of the Rishi being both the Unseen and the Visible space. Space is called in the esoteric symbolism "the Seven-Skinned Eternal Mother-Father." It is composed from its undifferentiated to its differentiated surface of seven layers p.20 Space is called the "Mother" before its Cosmic activity, and Father-Mother at the first stage of re-awakening. (See Comments, Stanza II.) In the Kabala it is also Father-Mother-Son. But whereas in the Eastern doctrine, these are the Seventh Principle of the manifested Universe, or its "Atma-Buddhi-Manas" (Spirit, Soul, Intelligence), the triad branching off and dividing into the seven cosmical and seven human principles, in the Western Kabala of the Christian mystics it is the Triad or Trinity, and with their occultists, the male-female Jehovah, Jah-Havah. In this lies the whole difference between the esoteric and the Christian trinities. The Mystics and the Philosophers, the Eastern and Western Pantheists, synthesize their pregenetic triad in the pure divine abstraction. The orthodox, anthropomorphize it.=20 P. 124 Belief in the "Four Maharajahs"=97the Regents of the Four cardinal points=97was universal and is now that of Christians, who call them, after= St. Augustine, "Angelic Virtues," and "Spirits" when enumerated by themselves, and "Devils" when named by Pagans. P. 242 " When Matronitha, the Mother, is separated and brought face to face with the King, in the excellence of the Sabbath, all things become one body," says verse 746, in chapter xxii. of " Ha Idra Zuta Kadisha." "Becomes one body " means that all is reabsorbed once more into the one element, the spirits of men becoming Nirvanees and the elements of everything else becoming again what they were before protyle or undifferentiated substance. " Sabbath " means rest or Nirvana. It is not the seventh day after six days but a period the duration of which equals that of the seven " days" or any period made up of seven parts. Thus a pralaya is equal in duration to the manvantara, or a night of Brahm=E2. is equal to this "day." If the= Christians will follow Jewish customs they ought to adopt the spirit and not the dead letter thereof: i.e., to work one week of seven days and rest seven days. That the word " Sabbath " had a mystic significance is shown in the contempt shown by Jesus for the Sabbath day, and by what is said in Luke xviii. 12. Sabbath is there taken for the whole week. (See Greek text where the week is called Sabbath. " I fast twice in the Sabbath.") Paul, an Initiate, knew it well when referring to the eternal rest and felicity in heaven, as Sabbath; " and their happiness will be eternal, for they will ever be (one) with the Lord and will enjoy an eternal Sabbath." (Hebrew iv. 2.)=20 P. 257-258 Nature is never stationary during manvantara, as it is ever becoming*, not simply being; and mineral, vegetable, and human life are always adapting their organisms to the then reigning Elements, and therefore those Elements were then fitted for them, as they are now for the life of present humanity. It will only be in the next or fifth Round that the fifth Element, Ether-the gross body of Akasa, if it can be called even that-will, by becoming a familiar fact of Nature to all men, as air is familiar to us now, cease to be as at present hypothetical, and also an " agent" for so many things. And only during that Round will those higher senses, the growth and development of which Akasa subserves, be susceptible of a complete expansion. As already indicated, a partial familiarity with the characteristic of matter=97permeability=97which should be developed= concurrently with the sixth sense, may be expected to develop at the proper period in this Round.=20 A footnote to the above is this: *According to the great metaphysician Hegel also. For him Nature was a perpetual becoming. A purely esoteric couception. Creation or Origin, in the Christian sense of the term, is absolutely unthinkable. As the above-quoted thinker said: " God (the Universal Spirit) objectivizes himself as Nature, and again rises out of it.'"=20 p. 311- 312 Chapter XVII I. of the Book of the Dead which seems to contain the exposition of the system of the world as it was understood at Heliopolis during the time of the first dynasties, is known to us only by a few copies of the eleventh and twelfth dynasties. Each of the verses composing it was already at the time interpreted in three or four different ways; so diffcrent, indeed, that according to this or another school, the Demiurge became the solar fire=97Ra-shoo, or the primordial water. Fifteen centuries later, the number of readings had increased considerably. Time had, in its course, modified the ideas about the universe and the forces that ruled it. During the hardly 18 centuries that Christianity exists, it has worked, developed and transformed most of its dogmas; how many times, then, might not the Egyptian clergy have altered its dogmas during those fifty centuries that separate Theodosius from the King Builders of the Pyramids?" From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Sep 1995 09:09:54 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Concerning Daniel H. and censorship According to Daniel K.: > or a masters in the school of hard knocks either > Jesus of Nazareth is UNIQUELY everything He said he was > or He is not. What evidence do you have for this? It strikes me as an entirely arbitrary assumption. What about "greater things than these shall ye do" and "why call me good, there is none good but the Father in Heaven" for starters. And if He is not then He and His followers > are the greatest disciples of ignorance ever. Again, this is an entirely arbitrary assumption. You live in a black/white either/or world. But the real world is filled with myriad shades of many colors. Jesus was unique. Jesus is just like many others. These are both true statements, depending on what you mean by the terms. > > Rich why do you persecute me? Daniel, why do you persecute theos-l? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Sep 1995 09:17:59 GMT From: Daniel Subject: Reincarnation Is it a foundational belief with theosophists to hold that all men/women that ever lived have been reincarnated? In other words everyone used to be someone else? So everyone used to live 100yrs ago or 300yrs ago and before that they lived 1000yrs ago or 3000yrs ago? Being part of each rootrace and pregressing innumerable times or for some digressing. Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Sep 1995 15:11:46 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Art: Group Project Question 1 Art wrote: > ...The work did what any classic should do and that is to point you > back to the experiential ground of your life with a renewed > understanding. Lewis: I know it was me who recently called attention to the importance of experience, but I was listening to a song by Jimi Hendrix on the radio called "Are you experienced." It is talking about his LSD experiences in the '70's. That raised a question in my mind about the value of experience--their quality and not just their quantity. I would be interested in your thoughts. > Leeuw: "Secondly, the word has been used in an early theosophical manifesto > as "the archaic system of esoteric wisdom in the keeping of the brotherhood > of adepts." > > Art: This I am only beginning to understand and can't comment definitively > except to say that I am a bit concerned about the hidden tonality of the > esoteric tradition. I am not at all the sort of person who gravitates > toward what Blavatsky calls "blinds" etc. Lewis: I am confused. Aren't "blinds" a very useful window cover?:) > I am not at all oriented toward > hierarchy but believe in a sort of participatory democracy of the spiritual > life in which there are those who are advanced but they are not in any > sense authoritarian or intrinsically superior to others. Lewis: One of the things which impressed me about the Mahatma letters was their humility. "The mark of wise man is a humble man" the old adage goes. What I get from my theosophical studies is confirmation of the *intrinsic* worth of each individual, the necessity for each of us to become the path (*participate* in the spiritual way of life), and to respect others paths as each approaches from a unique position in life (their *authority* over their lives). I would like to suggest that the Mahatmas are not the culprits, but only the chagrined recipients of the adulation heaped upon them by those who were impressed (and rightfully so, I think) by their wisdom, humor, and compassion. It seems to me sometimes we complain to much about heirarchy and authority, as if it were some shackle forced upon us. Might it be us and not them who create these heiarchies and give Them their authority. As we become more centered, stronger, knowledgeable doesn't the need/desire for outside authority atrophy? Maybe we are railing against a natural law which has its place in the scheme of things, but falls away or diminishes because (to paraphrase another of J.J. van der Leeuw's works) we are all gods in the becoming. If we accept HPB, the Mahatmas, Jesus, or some other teacher as an authority it is, in part, a recognition by us of Their valuable experiences. As children we often look up to our parents and other adults for guidance and support until we grow strong and wise enough to support and counsel others. llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Sep 1995 16:05:05 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: What is Theosophy? Daniel, What is Rogaine? Art From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Sep 1995 16:49:38 GMT From: John R Crocker Subject: Re: From the spring to the pond KPJ: >There's no point in boring everyone with details of how >beautiful the hike was, or how peaceful it was down at the >pond, or how wonderful I felt hiking through these woods that >start near my back door. Oh, I don't know ... about either point. I don't think its boring, and have myself made major sacrifices (in the eyes of what modern society considers to be important) to live in the midst of scenic splendour. And I also sometimes think that perhaps if we are to create the nucleus for a "universal brotherhood (and I still like "universal family" better) of humanity" - perhaps if we occaisionally spoke of those many parts of ourselves that are deeply important to us, yet not necessarily overtly "spiritual" there might be far better communication between us about intellectual things. We are all far more than just our ideas, but such a large amount of who we are is lost when we use this medium (the Internet) that it is easy to forget that only certain fragments of our prisms can be refracted though cyberspace - perhaps a bit of gushing about the magnificence of a hike, the tenderness in a friendship, or the accomplishments in our (often seemingly) mundane jobs, would serve to humanize this medium ... to make it easier to remember that we are not all just ideas that are either clashing or in harmony, but whole humans who travel the path with the entirety of our beings. >But there are two thoughts that struck me coming back from the >pond. First, there's something wholly new about living where >one can directly walk into wilderness. Living in the city and >driving to nice rural spots created a sense of distance and >deprivation. Nature was not continuous with the reality in >which I lived; it was something you had to escape to. Moving to >the edge of the woods feels like opening a direct link to Nature >itself. Seeing the Milky Way at night adds to that >sensation. Oh, yes, yes, a thousand times yes! I grew up in suburban Detroit, and moved to Montana 15 years ago, and the sensation was the same - how remarkable to live where human presence is dwarfed by the natural world; where it is but a hop skip & a jump to be alone and facing the immensity of the galaxy. Where it is possible to actually understand what *Silence* is (which is more than just the "lack of noise" in the same way as wilderness is far more than just the "lack of humans"). In some way or another (IMO) ... your move must inevitably cause profound changes in your entire energy system - perhaps it is indeed even an outcome of a transformation? Do you find that some sort of reintigration of the civilized with the deeply natural aspects of your being happened prior to its outward, physical manifestation as a move to where you now live? (Actually, I'm kinda curious about this if its not too personal of a question). >Something about moving to the country is powerfully evocative of >a new level of nature - mysticism. Yes, and I wonder what Art thinks of this (since he is reading Emerson so fully). I believe it is far more than simply coincidence that almost every renowned mystic and prophet recorded in history has spent at least some, if not considerable amounts of time in huge, open natural places. There are, I think, whole ranges of awareness available in nature that just aren't among concentrations of human populations. (I would start mentioning a few reasons for this related to clairvoyant observations, but maybe 'tis best to let that rest for a bit(-:). A couple of things might be worth mentioning here (can't help it - because I work some of the time for a wilderness organization and do a considerable amount of writing about the wilderness experience (-:). First, it occurs to me that in a modern world with an exploding population and telecommunications links tying the populations together, human civilization seems increasingly full of vast numbers of perspectives on virtually any topic one can think of. We certainly have seen this recently on the list, but it goes well beyond differences between viewpoints on Theosophy - the varience of perspective exists in every arena of human life. When I was first doing long hikes and learning rock climbing (to get to *really* inaccessable places) I began noticing that a sort of meditative state was being induced with no conscious effort - a whole distinct perspective is generated by the interaction between the human energy system and the natural world - and I think this is far more than just "another" perspective, it is the *orginal* perspective, the one that was the first possessed by our ancestors, the one so enormous and ageless that even whole civilizations are as blinks of an eye. Second - a personal event ... that happened shortly after I joined the TS and was in the middle of contemplating the First Object. I was considering exactly what the nature of "depth" was .. of what it was, at the root, that links us as humans - that is what was the nature of the *bond* that would tie together the "nucleus". With these thoughts, I happened to be on a vacation, and was taking a week long solitary hike into the heart of the Bob Marshall wilderness (an immense wildeness in Montana - where its possible to walk for two straight weeks without seeing a sign of human civilization, and where the liklihood of running into bear and moose is greater than that of running into people). Anyway, I was sitting on the side of a ridge, looking out over a panoramic view of several hundred miles of mountain pine forests, and my attention was drawn to a little speck some miles distant, that I knew without a doubt to be another person. As I came down from the ridge, I was walking in the general direction, but noticed that I sort of veered towards that spot. Sometime later in the day I ran into him (he had apparently seen me too). We chatted for awhile, decided to have dinner together, spoke about completely unremarkable things, and went our seperate ways the next day. As I thought about this, however, it occured to me that something almost transcendental lurked in the event - that embedded within it was exactly that bond, that foundation for the nucleus I was thinking about: *Recognition*. That in the midst of a landscape as large as the eye was capable of seeing my eyes would have been drawn to the one other speck of humanity within it; that we both would have, as though by a spiritual magnetism, slightly altered our steps so as to meet; that there was a sensation, a very fundamental sensation, that existed prior to any of the layers upon which religion, or politics, or spiritual orientation, or career, social standing or past; a sensation that might be stated simply as "There is another *like myself*". The foundation for a universal family, the bond needed to tie such a thing together, does not need to be created ... but rather *revealed* - and for some strange reason, the larger the concentration of people, the more that sensation recedes into unconsciousness ... leading even the most minor differences to loom enormous, while surrounded by the enormity and beauty of the natural world, that bond of its own accord seems to unfold itself gently, but so strongly that *all* differences, however great, become of secondary relevance. Well, this has become longer than intended. I, for one, would be interested in hearing, over the next few months what changes you observe in your energy, in your perspective, in your spiritual practices, as your system integrates (or reintegrates) into surroundings that you must feel immensely blessed to be living in. Cheers, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Sep 1995 17:23:14 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: Art on van der Leeuw Liesel, Thanks for the great feedback you are a real delightful resource to this newbe! Art From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Sep 1995 17:27:45 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: What is Theosophy? Daniel, "What is Theosophy ?!" On this mailing list this is the $64,000.- question, and your answer makes whatever Theosophy is seem even more like Grandma's weekly leftover hash. What makes you so sure that you're right? Are you the Delphic Oracle? Even the Buddha said he wasn't sure. How come you are? Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Sep 1995 17:33:09 GMT From: OSMAR DE CARVALHO Subject: Re: Jesus et al Aloha, Daniel! Br> As you can tell I have done alot of study in this area and I could go Br> on for hours. I can simply wrap it up with: Br> The Scriptures have not yet been fulfilled. I've been pondering if you could shed some light on a question I found reading the testaments. Confronting both, we see a great problem to us which believe in Jesus: He admits, accordingly with the book of revelation 22:16, to be the "star of the morning", the bright star Venus, the fallen and "adversary" angel, as we see in others books. In the old testament, in the Book of Isaiah, King James Version, we gather more information on this: ISA 14:12 "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, SON OF THE MORNING! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! ISA 14:13 "For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: ISA 14:14 "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. ISA 14:15 "Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. ISA 14:16 "They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;" In my native language (portuguese) I see different translations to these passages, but the meaning is the same. The "Star of the Morning" is Lucifer. And Jesus states to be this "Star"! Did you belive this is true, my dear brother? Please, don't send me too quickly to hell, because I live down the equator, and things right here is alread very HOT. Meanwhile, I arrived to the conclusion that HPB was not so anti-christian as the appearences may show. If was this the case, why she would give the title "Lucifer" to her most famous magazine?! :-) []s and Shanti! Osmar .. Reality-ometer: [\........] Hmmph! Thought so... From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Sep 1995 19:20:30 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Art on van der Leeuw Dear Art, A few comments back on what you stated Re the ES: It *is* hierarchical, & I too prefer a concensus atmosphere. I think it does create a schism between those who belong & those who don't. Some of them are among our leaders, & some of them work at I don't know what, behind the scenes. They're a secret organization, and no one is allowed to acknowledge that they're a member. That means that they can't come out & speak up for themselves. Annie Besant was a founder, & since she was such a sensible, practical lady otherwise, I must assume that the ES was established for valid purposes. I know 2 of them ... to be of service, & to have access to an inside track to quicker spiritual development. That ain't hay. They might even have changed their organization not to be that hierarchical anymore. Who knows. ... Incidentally, I once asked one ES member how they could belong to an organization in which they were told what to do, & the answer was "I chose to join"... It's the exclusivity, & the secrecy, & perhaps the hierarchy that one must question nowadays. Art - I don't however know exactly what distinguishes the various emphasis' of the different varieties of Theosophy. Liesel - That makes 2 of us. I only know what distiguishes the ULT. They confine their studies to the works of HPB. That's really narrow. But even HPB by herself presents a tremendously wide panorama. Later Theosophists just followed along in her footsteps. I only just realized it when I viewed that tape yesterday & heard the ULT member speak of all the civilisations that had gone before and had taught & lived by the Ancient Wisdom. I'm sure her talk was based on HPB's writings. You ask about local Lodges. Most of them are small & are called Study Centers. Lodges, the current name for them is "Branches", are large centers. They sometimes own a house, (New York owns 2 brownstones side by side), they have a Quest book store, & they have activities going on all week long. They are places where Theosophists study & discuss together. I think about half our membership conists of members-at-large, like yourself. We do have a service branch, the Theosophical Order of Service. The departments I can remember just offhand are Peace, Animal Welfare, Parents', Healing, the Arts, Social Welfare, Environmental concerns. People can belong to them & do projects, mostly individually, it seems. Many Theosophists give service as individuals, as volunteers, often also with the work they do, as you do, & as I did when I was working. I was just thinking that Shirley Nicholson put out a real nice manual on how to lead a spiritual life (I forget the exact title). One of the components of a spiritual life she mentions is service. 3 others are self-improvement, meditation, study. Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Sep 1995 23:47:43 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: words that inspire, including science Brenda wrote: > Rich has as firmly accepted theosophy as Daniel has accepted Christianity. > Rich is set upon continuing a course of study which is all that he really > needs. He doesn't need to hear about what other people are doing because he > distracts him from his course. I thank you for your kind analysis of me, my path, and my methods, but I must (lightly) protest. I do need to hear FROM others, and I like to hear ABOUT others. I have learned tremendously from people on this board, most notably from Jerry H-E, from your husband Eldon, from Alan Bain, and most recently from Daniel Caldwell. They have a grasp of the source material, the history, the documents, and the TEACHINGS which I deeply admire and wish to emulate. What I do not admire nor wish to emulate are the nasty spewings of someone who has no interest in Theosophy, the teachings of Blavatsky, or the Theosophical path. In many ways Christian fundamentalism is diametrically OPPOSED to the principles of Theosophy, including Universal Brotherhood and tolerance of diversity. I feel no compunction whatsoever in speaking up for Theosophy and its central place on this board. After all, what would it be like to go to a church service with Daniel, stand up in the middle of worship, singing, praying, sermon, whatever, and start reading aloud from the Mahatma Letters? Wouldn't that be a little "off-topic"? Or to insult the Christians gathered at coffee hour and mock their Scripture and revile Jesus? He has places to go and study, he is not some waif out in the cold. And we here have our study and work and sharing. Daniel should certainly be allowed to share, compare, discuss, etc. but he is not availing himself of the opportunity, is he? I agree with Art's more generous position re: Daniel that there may indeed be "seeds" there, which may sprout. Certainly, there are worse things than following the literal words of Jesus in the Bible (although a lot of the OTHER words in there we could do without). However, the delete key is not always appropriate when misinformation is being spread, or when people are being verbally assaulted (remember the abortion post??) I agree with Art here too, we need to set limits and encourage POSITIVE growth, not self-indulgent spewing completely off-topic for the board. A note for Daniel H: Please don't confuse "dissociation" with "persecution." Persecution involves harm of some sort, or at least wishing harm would come to someone. I don't wish you harm at all, I just wish you would come here to learn and share about Theosophy, or leave us alone. Your attempt to present my arguments and contradictions to your silly posts as "persecution" demeans and degrades the experience of those martyrs who truly WERE persecuted and died horrible deaths. In a word, get over yourself. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Sep 1995 23:51:35 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Concerning Daniel H. and censorship Paul writes: > Now, Rich. Let's not let our disgust with Daniel's exclusivism > lead to a mirror-image exclusion of Jesus from history. > Christianity is the largest world religion in terms of > membership, approximately double that of its nearest > competitor, Islam, which also honors Jesus. Those two yield > approximately 3 billion members, with Hinduism a distant third > and Buddhism an even more distant fourth. In light of HPB's > anti-Christian sentiments, Theosophists may wish things to have > turned out otherwise-- but they didn't. JESUS RULES! (statistically > speaking, that is :) Geographically, Christianity and Islam > dominate the greater part of the globe, too. Paul, I was speaking about the history of human religion in general, taking as a starting point the teaching of the Secret Doctrine that man has been (roughly) in his present form on this globe 18 million years. In that light, Jesus and Christianity are merely a speck, which is difficult to see among the throngs of religion. Christian numerial superiority is recent (last 500 years or so) and not so surprisingly about to fade quickly as various colonized countries shake off that distasteful reminder of previous oppression by Europeans. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Sep 1995 23:51:43 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: All those Christians! Paul, I also want to compare your figures. Where are yours from? From the World Almanac, 1994, the figures for Protestants is 400 million. For Catholics, 650 million, and 300 million Orthodox. That makes 1.35 billion. And those are Christians by birth, not by "confession." I don't think we can count Muslims as people who in general think much abot Jesus, the tradition honors him mostly as a figure in history, the way Christians honor Ezekiel. Does that make Jesus in any way central? No. So out of 5.6 billion people, we can count 1.35 billion as Christian. It is also very interesting to me that after 300 years of missionary activity, 2% of India is Christian, 1% of Japan, and ZIP among Tibetans. I wonder why so little luck? Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Sep 1995 02:36:50 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: What is New Age? & What is theosophy? Daniel, Both of these posts are to be congratulated. This is much closer to what the people on this list are looking for in their studies. Excellent job! (However, I don't have the answers to all of your questions. Sorry.) Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Sep 1995 02:38:54 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: words that inspire, including science >Brenda wrote: > >> Rich has as firmly accepted theosophy as Daniel has accepted Christianity. >> Rich is set upon continuing a course of study which is all that he really >> needs. He doesn't need to hear about what other people are doing because >he >> distracts him from his course. >I thank you for your kind analysis of me, my path, and my methods, but I must >(lightly) protest. I do need to hear FROM others, and I like to hear ABOUT >others. I have learned tremendously from people on this board, most notably >from Jerry H-E, from your husband Eldon, from Alan Bain, and most recently >from Daniel Caldwell. They have a grasp of the source material, the history, >the documents, and the TEACHINGS which I deeply admire and wish to emulate. Rich, You are to be congratulated to. You have some very decent goals in "emulation." Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Sep 1995 05:10:56 GMT From: Thom Nelson Subject: RE: Art: Group Project Question 1 Art: > I am not at all oriented toward > hierarchy but believe in a sort of participatory democracy of the spiritual > life in which there are those who are advanced but they are not in any > sense authoritarian or intrinsically superior to others. Lewis: >It seems to me sometimes we complain to much about heirarchy and authority, as if it were some shackle forced upon us. Might it be us and not them who create these heiarchies and give Them their authority. As we become more centered, stronger, knowledgeable doesn't the need/desire for outside authority atrophy? Maybe we are railing against a natural law which has its place in the scheme of things, but falls away or diminishes because (to paraphrase another of J.J. van der Leeuw's works) we are all gods in the becoming.< Thom: I think also that the idea of hierarchy has way too many emotional constructs attached to it in our society. Instead of thinking of a hierarchy as a bureaucracy, as it has become in the modern world, think of it in energetic terms. A hierarchy is merely a system of energy exchange, which generally takes the form of a pyramid. And a pyramid must have a "keystone". This keystone isn't a dictator, s/he is the one who holds everything together, who provides the coherent vision and will of the group. "Authority" doesn't even enter into things when one becomes an adept; there is simply energy. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Sep 1995 08:51:17 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: Art: Group Project Question 1 At 7:21 PM 9/22/95, Lewis Lucas wrote: >Art wrote: >> ...The work did what any classic should do and that is to point you >> back to the experiential ground of your life with a renewed >> understanding. > >Lewis: > I know it was me who recently called attention to the importance >of experience, but I was listening to a song by Jimi Hendrix on the >radio called "Are you experienced." It is talking about his LSD >experiences in the '70's. That raised a question in my mind about the >value of experience--their quality and not just their quantity. I >would be interested in your thoughts. Experience psychedelic, or otherwise, has as much authority as we give it. Since consciousness is the means of apprehension it is important. But what we allow ourselves to be exposed to in my opinion is the key. They are plausibilty structures - you will only experience that which it is possible for you to conceive of. What Hendrix was getting at, along with many other experimenters of more repute than he (Aldous Huxley, Timoth Leary, Stanislav Grof) , is that psychedelics can stretch those possibilities and allow for what was then called and expanded consciousness. I experimented with psychedelics in the sixties and found that they worked to alienate from the collective consciousness - ie called droping out. I have never quite dropped into the collective in the same way again. Psychotropic drugs can also contract consciousness if mishandled and used wrongly. I am fortunate that I walked through this experiment relatively unscathed. But I have as Jim says been experienced. Unfortunately Hendrix and other voyagers of consciousness take a improper pride in what they experienced and the fact that others have not . This does not lead to enlightment but arrogance. Spiritual hedonism is no better than material hedonism. >Lewis: I am confused. Aren't "blinds" a very useful window cover?:) No blinds seem to be intentional distractions from the truth so that those of lesser evolved spirituality can not see what is going on. > I would like to suggest that the Mahatmas are not the culprits, >but only the chagrined recipients of the adulation heaped upon them >by those who were impressed (and rightfully so, I think) by their >wisdom, humor, and compassion. Of course you are right that the mahatmas themselves are not the culprits for spiritual evolution I think precludes the idea of arrogance and pride. It is the stewards of the mahatmas that I think very well might be making a mess of their teaching. Van der Leeuw warns against trusting those who claim to interpret the Masters. I remember reading in Christology the different portraits of Jesus Christ that have emerged through the history of the church. Christ for the early romans was a Caesar, for the liberal 19 Century he was a kind of Teacher Servant not unlike Schwiezter who wrote the Quest for the Historial Jesus - he ended up projecting his culture on Christ. The same I am sure holds true for the interpretations of the Mahatmas. I bet they have a very New Age hue in some quarters today:) > It seems to me sometimes we complain to much about heirarchy and >authority, as if it were some shackle forced upon us. Might it be us >and not them who create these heiarchies and give Them their >authority. As we become more centered, stronger, knowledgeable >doesn't the need/desire for outside authority atrophy? Maybe we are >railing against a natural law which has its place in the scheme of >things, but falls away or diminishes because (to paraphrase another >of J.J. van der Leeuw's works) we are all gods in the becoming. > > If we accept HPB, the Mahatmas, Jesus, or some other teacher as >an authority it is, in part, a recognition by us of Their valuable >experiences. As children we often look up to our parents and other >adults for guidance and support until we grow strong and wise enough >to support and counsel others. Perhaps this could be construed as arrogant but I don't like the idea of men and women in the Twentieth and Twenty First Century thinking of themselves as children - I don't mind childlike but childish and immature too undeveloped to take responsibility then I have a reaction. I can image that some take the master to be the mom and dad they never related to and want to be cuddled into consciousness by a benevolent higher being. That is regression not progression. I am in no way saying that a sophisticated and well won understanding of the Masters would lead to this infantilism but it is certainly a danger. It takes more than a good brain to acquire esoteric knowledge - the character as Blavatsky tells us needs forming first. Art. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Sep 1995 11:04:58 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: The E.S. Liesel wrote ragerding the E.S.: > They're a secret organization, and no one is allowed to > acknowledge that they're a member. That means that they can't > come out & speak up for themselves. Annie Besant was a founder, > & since she was such a sensible, practical lady otherwise, I > must assume that the ES was established for valid purposes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't HPB and Mr. Judge found the E.S. in 1888, after several months of discussions? I don't see how Annie Besant could have been a founder, brilliant woman though she was, because she was just joining the Society in 1888, and had not yet met HPB when the E.S. was formed -- I believe in the summer of tht year. While I was at Harvard University a few years back attending the Divinity School, the librarian called my attention to sealed letters from HPB to Mr. Judge, which had been sitting there, waiting for the expiration date. That date just happened to be January 1, 1992, during my second year there, so I opened them, made photocopies, and arranged for them to be circulated among Theosophists at large. A ULT member paid for their restoration, and a Theosophical scholar is now publishing them in THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY, edited by James Santucci. The 18 letters which I opened, dating from 1885 to 1890 or so, contain many interesting things, including extensive discussion of the formation of the E.S. HPB practically BEGS Judge to be the head after she is gone, and he finally accepts, though he is very worried about the terrible karma and attacks he will suffer. It's all there in the letters, and strangely, no mention of Annie Besant. The truth appears to be that Annie Besant was so articulate, so learned and so dedicated, that she quickly rose through the ranks, and by the time of HPB's death, Besant was very well known, and had become not only a member of the E.S., but a member of HPB's "Inner Group." After HPB's death, there were extensive discussions within the top leadership of how to handle the E.S., and while Besant had one plan, Mr. Judge had another. Finally, Mrs. Besant discovered within her papers a Mahatma Letter that said "Judge's plan is best" (or words to that efect) and they went with his plan -- that Mr. Judge and Annie Besant would be co-Outer heads, although the inner head was always supposed to have been HPB and the Master she represented. Now, though, what has become of the E.S.? After Mr. Judge and Annie Besant had their "problems," Annie formed her own and different E.S., with its own rules, regluations, and goals. It is not clear what, if anything, remains of the E.S. today. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Sep 1995 11:09:17 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: ULT Liesel wrote, > I only know what distiguishes the > ULT. They confine their studies to the works of HPB. That's > really narrow. But even HPB by herself presents a tremendously > wide panorama. No, the ULT was formed for the study and promulgation of the teachings of HPB and William Q. Judge. ULT associates tend to be relatively well-informed about the history of the T.S., even if the feeling is generally that the history has not been a bed of roses. Many ULT students are well-read in Besant, Leadbeater, T. Subba Rao, G. de Purucker, Katharine Tingley, etc. We also have writers from our own tradition, including Robert Crosbie, B.P. Wadia, Raghavan Iyer, etc. We do not somehow "censor" other things from being studied. In fact we publish a monthly magazine explicitly to study and compare HPB and WQJ's teaching with trends in the modern world, in philosophy, science, arts, religion, etc. And our own associates -- anonymously -- write for the magazine their own ideas on the philosophy of Theosophy and its practical application. One of the primary goals of ULT is to REDUCE emphasis on personality and to study and stick to the PRINCIPLES taught by our teachers. The United Lodge of Theosophists exists for the study and preservation of the "original, pure teachings," even if associates study whatever they want to on their own. We are not confined to just HPB. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Sep 1995 11:40:19 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Group Project Art: Part 2 2. van der Leeuw argues that the world has changed considerable since the 19th century--that there was an antithesis between spirit and matter that no longer exists in the 20th century. Do you agree? Do you feel that the Present TS still operates under this antithesis? Do you feel that Blavatsky's writings expressed this antithesis? The Mahatma Letters? I was amazed to hear that as early as Leeuw there was a synthesis being formed between natural science and spirituality. I know that it is implied in many writers but the synthesis between Materialism and Idealism is quite surprising to find in 1930. Reductionistic scientism was the root of many 19th Century and early 20 C. approaches to psychology and spirituality. Baron von Hugel a spiritual guide in the 18 C. suggested that science and spirituality should not be separated and the integration of such would lead to a mature spirituality. I just got my copy of quest as Jerry's question came. Rupert Sheldrake has written an excellent article connecting physical and spiritual reality, "Spiritual Practise and Morphic Fields". Since Quest is a Theosophical journal, I think of the finest quality, I see that the idealism charge of van Leeuw has to be at least modified. On line I have tried to follow the dialogue especially between Jerry S. and Eldon on physics subjects, and I have heard of Liesel's interest in new physics so I conclude that a change has occurred. I am by temperament not a scientist so much of this is beyond me. I find that in the integration I am slow and immature in my spirituality. It the Karma of being a grade nine drop out:) 3. van der Leeuw says that "...a thinker is always a disturbing influence." and that there has been no place for thinkers in the Theosophical Society. Do you agree with van der Leeuw's assessment? What about the great thinkers who joined during HPB's time but soon left after she died: i.e. Yeats; Gandhi etc. Why did they leave? What van der Leeuw is driving at is the rejection of creativity by the collective, even the enlightened collective. I just finished writing to a friend about Emerson's take on Thinkers. Here is a snippet of that discussion. Usually we evolve as a world community when creative individuals have done their job. Where would South Africa be without Nelson Mandela or Scotland without William Wallace (Braveheart)? These are radical individuals who because they are at the right place at the right time - evoke world change. They are history makers. Listen to what Emerson says about them: Beware when the Great God lets loose a thinker on this planet. Then all things are at risk.. The very hopes of man, the thoughts of his heart, the religion of nations, the manners and morals of mankind, are all at the mercy of a new generalisation. Generalisation is always a new influx of divinity into the mind. Hence the thrill that attends it. p. 138 The generalisation Emerson speaks of is the message that is incarnate in these people. The message is one that is timely and transforms the consciousness of the world. It breaks history out of its current circle or ripple and plunges it toward a new one with great pain. I wonder as we approach the twentieth century if a new individual or group of individuals will be the ones to more us to the next circle. Right now the pain is here but the message is not as clear. On a personal note, I am very reluctant to be very involved in any theosophical or spiritual organization that is formalised in any way. I realise that I gain from the organisations that promote the materials but the fact that I am a questioner of all tradition and adhere to my own version of epistemological agnosticism buts me at great risk. Perhaps, as I get further away from the sad events of my evangelical past this approach will modify. 4. van der Leeuw says that the "brotherhood" offered by the TS actually creates a barrier. What does he mean by this? Do you agree? 5. van der Leeuw says that Lodge life breeds mediocrity. What has been you experience in Lodges? Do you find anything familiar in van der Leeuw's description? First off it is impossible today to ignore the word "brotherhood" it must be translated into human community or siblinghood or something but it is distracting and tones the discussion with a flavour of undue patriarchy which was never the intention of the early Theosophist. I am particularly sensitive to this because the movement I was a part of was called the Mennonite Brethren. At every gathering I had to always say that I was not in a men's religious club. Although with the antiquated views of women I may as well have been. Seeing the TS as a family has the advantage of a sense of deep connection and also the danger of unconscious collectivity. Families are both wonderful and dysfunctionally horrible to generalise concerning them is truly dangerous. All this "family values" rhetoric I hear is subject to an purely instinctual identification not unlike the blood and soil doctrines of the Germans. So it is not the mere nomenclature that creates brotherhood. I paid my $35.00 to Adyar am I in the family? I read Quest magazine regularly and am learning about Blavatsky and Theosophical history. Does this make me a family member? I enjoy, learn from, and struggle with the cyber community of Theos-l. Does that make me a part of the Theosophical family. If I am a sort of fringe person I will receive a latitude that many do not have. The explanation will be oh, he's new and doesn't know any better, poor sot. Indulge him. On the other hand as the Theosophical movement takes up a deeper residence in my heart and mind then more will be expected of me. Like a family I will be expected to reflect group values and not to miss the family gatherings and not to dishonour the family by being different. Interesting, that this is precisely what Van Der Leeuw is getting at in the third and fourth definitions of Theosophy. A concept of siblinghood that is not broad enough to include all genuine spiritual seekers is too small for Theosophy - it would eventually lead to an us/them dichotomy of exclusivity. On the other hand what happens when there are no levels of commitment or deepening - there is something extremely insipid about collective democracy where every one regardless of skill, dedication, or commitment have the same input in decision making ect. This is why right now I prefer to stay deeply committed to definition number one and avoid the historical local relationship to theosophy. Any ideas how to over come that dilemma? Or is it something that ought not to be overcome. 6. What is your evaluation of van der Leeuw's central argument that revelation and Authority have worked disharmoniously in the TS? How can the TS conquer this duality? I see both revelation and realisation working in our theo-l group.This is the only "lodge" I have to go by. The most outspoken advocates of realisation in my estimate seem to be Jerry EH, Paul Johnson, Liesel, Lewis, and Eldon Tucker. I don't know what I am stepping into as I suggest that but from the posts and my impressions these people are geared toward Experience as a root. Again this is just impression, but I shall share it anyway, Daniel H. Jerry S. maybe Rich and some others tend toward a Traditional/Experiential modality. Patrick and Brenda while blending the above approaches appear to me to have a revelational cast to their posts. None of these perspectives are superior or inferior intrinsically, in my opinion, since all can work together to form a balancing corrective to one another. The only problem, as I see it, is when we get too identified with our opinions. In a book I am reading on the Esoteric Emerson, the author Geldard writes:" Our philosophical and theological speculations are often passionately debated, as if our lives depended on them. What creates the passion is being wedded to these speculations and opinions, so that our personal worth and identity is bound up with them." Esoteric Emerson p. 125. I passionately state the things I believe but I hope that beneath this impassioned energy that propels me forward is a centred Self that observes and is disinterested in the circumstances I find myself embroiled. Incrementally, this paradox of passion and disinterestedness might combine to form a spiritual character, I live hopefully live toward that realisation. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Sep 1995 13:57:24 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: authority figures >Brenda wrote: > >> Murder is an awfully strong word to use in such exceptional circumstances. >> Do you believe your own government upholds "murder"? You have so little >> trust in the judicial and lawmaking bodies. You don't mention even a hint >of >> "Leave the decision to those who are more learned in this area." >Rich wrote: >Surely, Brenda, you are NOT saying that I should not have an opinion, because >older and wiser people know more than I do, and I should let them think for >me? > It might help. >As for those "who are more learned," you neglected to mentio that I also >quoted HPB's opinion on abortion, and she seemed dead set against it in >general, called it an attempt at "double suicide," because often the mother >will die too, or have her life dramatically shortened. Ah, you caught me. I thought of this, too, and you are right you did quote HPB. Do you think her opinion is really valid today though, what with the medical procedures being what they are? >> I really wish there was this much concern for animals and this much fight >> directed towards living a vegetarian life. Not only the animals would >> benefit here, but the people who refrain from accumulating this karma. >There is, at least in Theosophical circles I am aware of. Most Theosophists >I know are vegetarians, like myself, and we belong to many, many >organizations to help animals, end laboratory testing, and end the practise >of injecting farm animals with chemicals and hormones. One more reason I love you, Rich. This is a really important discussion for us all to improve our skills on. How many people can really give a presentation on vegetarianism which would appeal to "new members?" Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Sep 1995 14:05:55 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: vicarious judgement Rich, It's nice to see you are still wondering and analyzing the woman's point of view. Maybe you'll think this through for everyone. I might mention a very nice hierarchy I encountered today while studying. It's called the Octave of Light and it has seven steps. They are: crime (not as thick of a layer as one might suppose), hate, anger, criticism and condemnation, tolerance, joy, and love. When you reach the love layer of the octave you reach Perfect Happiness. I think this is because you finally realize that everything which happens has a divine purpose and that we are all capable of working and improving through the use of the above design. The highest three layers correspond with the abstract principles in man. The lower four correspond with the lower four planes of form: physical, etheric, astral, and lower mental. Some might suppose that through "love" we come to realize that "hate" can attract people out of crime. Does this make sense? Good luck Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Sep 1995 14:36:08 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: idea on becoming organizational Art writes: 1a> The explanation will be oh, he's new and >doesn't know any better, poor sot. Indulge him. 1b> On the other hand as the >Theosophical movement takes up a deeper residence in my heart and mind then >more will be expected of me. Like a family I will be expected to reflect >group values and not to miss the family gatherings and not to dishonour the >family by being different. Interesting, that this is precisely what Van Der >Leeuw is getting at in the third and fourth definitions of Theosophy. At times, our leadership will present the view that they are not always right, that there are other viewpoints than theirs, and that each person within the society is important in their own unique way. They do not pretend to be all-knowing. They do LISTEN to our opinions, INVITE our participation, and do not try to monopolize our individual learning experiences. They encourage us to form our own opinion because they (in my experience) are always asking us to bring in material which we find relevant or particularly meaningful (in any one instance) and to share it with the group. They might even encourage our presentation of material. At Olcott, we used to take turns speaking or giving our view on different subjects. Everyone could be included and you didn't have to conform, only be bold enough to "form" an opinion. 2a>A concept of siblinghood that is not broad enough to include all genuine >spiritual seekers is too small for Theosophy - it would eventually lead to >an us/them dichotomy of exclusivity. Boy, we still have this and it's approached as a "fact of life." No other organization's tenets are welcome, because we are not a "part" of any organization. In order for our life to continue as an organization, we have to repel the idea of "joining" with any and all other organizations. 2b>On the other hand what happens when >there are no levels of commitment or deepening - there is something >extremely insipid about collective democracy where every one regardless of >skill, dedication, or commitment has the same input in decision making >etc. Who knows what might be needed down the road? As "unqualified" as you may think yourself at any one time, there may come those times when you are the "most qualified" among the group you are with. This puts you in the spot of leadership "theosophically," and we are individually viewed as leaders as soon as the "real leaders" sense the commitment within us. This is because everyone who receives training is made to feel needed in order for the organization to continue. By each individual member here going out and forming a group, we grow. What could be better than honest growth? It may be hard work and occasionally mistakes may be made, but theosophists are problem-solvers and try to make themselves available for consulting on difficulties when they arise. I've seen enough "teacher training" and "leadership training" seminars to see this attitude firmly engrained. > This is why right now I prefer to stay deeply committed to definition >number one [REALIZATION] and avoid the historical local relationship to theosophy. Any >ideas how to over come that dilemma? Or is it something that ought not to >be overcome. My idea on how to overcome this dilemma would be to make you feel quilty by telling you how much you are worth to us. To tell you that leniency is the rule with "new leaders" as well and that we never know "into whose hands the cards may fall." Life is a bit of a mystery. Maybe, though, there's even a clairvoyant who can convince you that you do have a future role of some importance. Just by treating you with respect for no apparent reason, one might discern this. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Sep 1995 14:52:51 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: passage re: who adepts are Thom, Your post refers to "The Tibetan" and I think it's interesting because in Johnson's books (as well as elsewhere) I keep running into the quote that "our best, most learned, and holiest adepts are of the races of the 'greasy Tibetans' and the Punjabi Singhs." I've seen plenty of Punjabi Singhs in Paul Johnson's two books: IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS and THE MASTERS REVEALED, but I haven't seen many Tibetans. Does anyone (including Paul) know of other Tibetans (besides the obvious) who could be included as adept? Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Sep 1995 15:08:09 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Re: Globe/Plane Confusion Thanks Jerry S. for your posting on Globes and Planes. I certainly may be confused on such abstruse subjects, but I am even more puzzled by some of your own comments. For example, you write: "When KH says 'Deva Chan is a state, not a a locality. Rupa Loka, Arupa-Loka, and Kama-Loka are the three ascending spirituality...' etc, as in ML 25, he is not referring to the after-death sate of Kamaloka, but to the four cosmic planes below the Abyss, and so to the Dhatus, as G. de P. rightly calls them. However, in the very next sentence he says `in the Kama-Loka (semi-physical) sphere dwell the shells, the victims and suicides...the glorious `Summer-land' of the Spiritualists..." etc, where he is, in fact , referring to the after- death state of Kamaloka. So a large part of the misunderstanding must rest with KH here, for making things so confusing (this may have been intentional, with a `who who has ears, let him hear' attitude (?) I don't know, but the reader needs to separate the two....." Now before I make a comment or two, I will quote the relevant passsage you are quoting from plus the clause you deleted. Here is the passage by KH: "Deva Chan is a state, not a locality. Rupa Loka, Arupa-Loka, and Kama-Loka are the three spheres of ascending spirtuality in which the several groups of subjective entities find their attractions. In the Kama-Loka (semi-physical sphere) dwell the shells, the victims and suicides; and this sphere is divided into innumerable regions and sub-regions corresponding to the mental state [should be "states"] of the comers at their hour of death...." You say that the word "Kama-Loka" in the second sentence of this passage does not refer to the "after-death state of Kamaloka, but to...." whereas the work "Kama-Loka" in the third sentence of the passage does refer to "the after-death state of Kamaloka". But in the second sentence above as quoted by you, you left out the clause: "in which the several groups of subjective entities find their attraction." What are the "several groups of subjective entities"? and what does KH mean by "find their attraction." I would suggest that a careful reading of this whole passage would show that KH is referring to the after death state of Kamaloka when he uses the term Kamaloka in both sentences. " "The shells, the victims and suicides" are among "the several groups of subjective entities" who "find their attractions" in Kama-Loka. As far as I can read English, KH is referring to the same subject in all these sentences. And one sentence with its meaning flows in the next sentence with its meaning with no confusion whatsoever. You claim that "...a large part of the misunderstanding must rest with KH here, for making things so confusing...". but is possible that maybe the "the mis- understanding" is of your making, and that you have made "things so confusing"? Is there a "Kama-Loka" within Globe D's "sphere of effects"? I agree that there may be more than one "kama-loka" but let us not increase the number by seeing "misunderstanding" where there is none. Hoping that you will not take personal offense by what I have said above. I also hope Eldon is working on the posting of relevant passages from the Mahatma Letters. Relevant passages from the Mahatma Letters and the Secret Doctrine on this subject have been collected together and published in Adam Warcup's *Cyclic Evolution: A Theosophical View*, See pp. 6-9 and 57-62 on "The Planet". Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Sep 1995 15:33:28 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: From the spring to the pond Paul, I liked your lyrical description. I put a printout of in in my folder marked "keepsakes", where I also keep Eldon's lyrical description of Ojai, which he wrote last year on his laptop, & some of Alan's priceless quips. JRC I like your idea of us putting in some personal details once in a while. Now that you mention it, we sound mostly business ... but in a business people do occasionally talk about their private lives, or their likes & dislikes. Like I remember having Lunch with my colleagues, Angelo & Ken. They played chess sometimes. Before my twin grandsons were born, I made both of them baby blankets. One of them had a complicated popcorn stitch, which took forever & a day, & I kept on complaining about it. If Angelo hand't kept on nudging me on with "come on, you can do it", Benjamin would never have gotten his blanket. Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Sep 1995 15:37:31 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Concerning Daniel H. and censorship Dear Rich, How do you know that Christianity is about to fade quickly. Did you get a letter? (that's a German saying), meaning "what makes you so sure?" Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Sep 1995 15:52:39 GMT From: Thom Nelson Subject: Inclusiveness This might be cause some controversy, but I'm going to post it anyway. = It is a speech by Jan Nation from the London Arcane School Conference = held June 10-11, 1995. For those of you who might be inclined to skip = this, look at the last paragraph -- that's the zinger. "It's easy to be dogmatic about this orthat aspect of esoteric = teahcings. Our reflection on the keynote [Let the group intuit the Plan = as it exists in the heart of love, for only love reveals the plan.] = should warn us against this. Only in the moments of true intuitive = insight do we know for certain, do we see without distortion. = Everything else, even if it is our best and highly skilled effort to = express the inner truth, will be relatively flawed because of the = vehicles of human thought and languages are so limiting. "The Tibetan [Alice Bailey] emphasises the need for us to be resolute in = our spiritual commitment and yet so flexible in its expression. = Disciples adapt and modify insights on the Plan to make them more = relevant and useful in the worlds of human experience. This calls us to = practise the art of spiritual compromise. What does that mean? In its = highest expression it is the art of relating a perfect and divine = perception, an intuitive perception of truth, to the real needs of the = world in such a way the this intuition can be useful to people of = goodwill who face the practical tasks of meeting those needs. "This art relates to the more mystical or idealistic perceptions in the = everyday world. To give a simple example: I attended a seminar Marilyn = Ferguson held in London years age. (As you probably know, she wrote the = book _The Aquarian Conspiracy_). She asked the audience to visualise = peace and then called on some to say what image had come to them. Many = saw light. Now that is no surprise -- it's the symbolic language often = used by our higher Self. However, the esoteric server who is inspired = by the light of peace would then penetrate the light, intuit the = significance in order to deepen human understanding of peace. For = instance, we might recognise that same light in the effort of leading = world servers who are active in the peace process and support them = subjectively; or see initiatives that are precipitations of that light = -- for example, conflict resolution initiatives, and send light to them; = or realise beyond doubt how the light of peace depends upon goodwill, = and be so inspired with direct spiritual energy to those who foster = goodwill in any particular crisis area. The inner impression of light = is adapted and modified to make it more useful. "I'd like to quote what the Tibetan says about how important it is for = us to be open to new and higher truths, to be receptive to the inner = reality that lives in our souls and unfolds as we allow it. The Tibetan = urges a 'spiritual fluidity, a willingness to let all pre-conceived = ideas and ideals go, as well as all beloved tendencies, cultivated = habits of though and every determined effort to make the world conform = to pattern which seems to the individual the best because to him, the = most enticing -- these must all be brought under the power of death. = They can be relinquished with safety and security and no fear of = results, if the motive of the life is a real and lasting love of = humanity.' "Love of the Plan, love of humanity, love of the group of all true = servers -- these are the constants. They inspire actions by all human = beings which can carry the highest intuitions down to the physical = plane. But in order to serve with true esoteric insight we, the = esoteric builders, have to be willing to let our prejudices, our = criticisms and our personal dreams die, so that the voice and the vision = of the Ashram can take their place. Light and love must be made = manifest in form in the world. We need to consciously and = wholeheartedly co-operate in the process of inner transformation if we = are going to become conscious agents of the Ashram in the work of = planetary redemption. "Courage and daring are needed to 'let go' in the way DK [Alice Bailey] = urges. Let's take one example, the challenge to be more inclusive. = Inclusiveness isn't an easy value to live by. It means we accept how = our thoughts and feelings influence others. It means we have to always = include more than is comfortable in our circle of love, and in our = definition of group. To practise inclusiveness, with wisdom, calls for = a wise heart and a trained discrimination. Always we need to accept the = oneness of life and of the human family -- that is the primary = experience of inclusiveness for the esoteric server. Yet to demonstrate = and serve that oneness, we need to identify our place and purpose within = the whole, and focus our efforts in a particular contribution. = Discrimination will define appropriate boundaries that usefully help to = concentrate energies for a time but we always need to be ready to move = (or remove) those boundaries when they no longer help, but hinder, = unity. We are always challenged to be more inclusive, be daring in how = we expose ourselves to the good, be open to new ways to strengthen unity = and express the community of shared effort with others who may be = serving in our own field or in very different ways. =20 The Tibetan gives us so many practical examples to show how important it = is that we become ever more inclusive. For instance, in _The = Externalisation of the Hierarchy_, He talks about the way in which all = of the different groups which have their roots in the trans-Himalayan = Lodge need to recognise 'their real unity in goal, guidance and = technique' and must increasingly co-operate and recognise themselves as = members of 'the one school ... linked together in a basic subjective = unity'. DK offers the vision that some day this recognition and = understanding will bring them to the point where 'they will endeavour to = supplement each other's efforts, exchange ideas with each other, and so = in truth and in deed constitute one great college of esotericism in the = world". And He indicates how the separatism that prevails amongst the = different esoteric groups inspired by the trans-Himalayan Lodge is = From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Sep 1995 17:09:25 GMT From: John R Crocker Subject: Re: Art group prject I & II On Sat, 23 Sep 1995 LIESEL@delphi.com wrote: > "As we become more centered, stronger, knowledgable, doesn' t > the need/desire for outside authority atropy? I think it does, > when you're talking of your own evolution & spiritual growth, > but how about in an organizational setting? Do you need a > hierarchy there? Someone to be the boss? Attempts have been > made that I've read about, to give everyone in the organization > a voice, but there was still always a boss at the top in the > material I read.. Say, did you ever hear Oscar Wilde's opinion about socialism? He said the only thing wrong with it was that it took up so many free evenings (-:). I've been involved in several activist organizations that attempted to operate purely by consensus, with everyone's opinion presumed to equal ... but this worked with only mixed results. There were some in which Wilde's quote was absolutely true ... I remember once spending nearly two hours on an *agenda* for a meeting - the meeting itself lasted close to 6 hours and accomplished very little, but everyone *felt* as though they were acknowledged and recognized. Certainly wasn't a format capable of getting a lot done. I've also seen consensus groups that did seem to work, but almost inevitably the surface "equality" had just driven the hierarchical structure into the group subconscious, and in fact there seemed to be more power games operating than there are in overtly hierarchal structures - where at least the power games are out in the open. I think one of the problems with spiritual and religious organizations (and Theosophy is no exception) is that most are founded by either one individual or a small group of individuals who do have virtually unlimited authority while alive, but after they go, their spiritual descendants then institutionalize that original authority (or at least attempt to) - but the personal magnetism of the founder(s), from whence their authority derived, is not present. Several different foundations are then generally claimed as a replacement. 1. The personal link: In which the founder is claimed to have directly given authority to another, who passes it down ... this is the grounds for the claim of "Apostolic Succession" in the Catholic Church (for instance), and operates in Theosophy as well. Problem is even in the first generation after the founder several claims may be made, and each succeeding generation sees those claims branching exponentially. 2. The pure interpreter: In which the claim is made that the writings or sayings of the founders(s) are the sole grounds upon which authority can rest, that the founder's definitions of the organization are absolute (as far as the organization goes), and that these should be followed precisely and questions about virtually anything should be answered by refering to the original writings. Christian fundamentalists attempt to do this, and there are Theosophists who do this as well. The problem with this is that it often becomes kind of narrow and domineering, boundaries are carefully drawn, and even many within the larger circle of the organization are seen as being "less than" the purists (as Daniel's recent posts in which he continually refers to people as being "twelve inches off", and has harshly critiqued even a number of branches of the Christian community itself as being simply "wrong" because their interpretations do not match his). 3. The "inner" descendent: In which a person or small group claims to have access to the same inner source that motivated the founder(s). In Christianity, the Pentacostals (for instance) claim direct contact with the Holy Spirit, and (to take it to an extreme) there was the case of Oral Roberts, several years ago, claiming that God had told him that if he didn't raise a certain sum of money by a certain date (for a medical facility) he would be "taken up to heaven". Many Theosophists also believe, perhaps to varying degrees, that the "Masters" speak to them, or overshadow them, or somehow guide them, and now and then in Theosophical history some have believed this strongly enough to try to claim authority over the larger organization based on this foundation. Problem with this is not so much the personal belief (as, after all, belief in the "source" is to some degree required for membership - even in Theosophy the vast majority of the Secret Doctrine must be taken purely on faith ... as most of it is of a nature that defies anything like empirical testing) as it is any claim that this personal contact with the "inner source" is a strong enough claim to achieve authority over the direction of the organization. Generally the people who go for this are those that miss the personal magnetism of the founders, and are attracted to another who also seems to have this magnetism. This claim, more than any other, is most likely to cause schisms in the organization. 4. The "non-authority" authority: This is the pure consensus perspective, in which either consensus or democracy of some sort is settled upon, because it is believed that after the death of the founders no one has any claim to authority. Most obvious problem with this is that it opens up that immense Pandora's box of power struggles and behind-the-scenes machinations that composes the messy business of democracy. 5. The "humbly wise" authority: A sort of partial democracy, a partially democratic (and alledgely benevolent) authoritarianism, in which an inner circle "humbly" believes it knows what is best for the organization, and uses its control over the resources of the organization (including publishing & control of information flows, control of voting mechanisms, etc., etc.) to functionally choose leaders. (There may be a surface appearance of "voting" or some such thing, but if, [as a for instance using the TS, but similar things happen in many other groups] one candidate seems to have an article in every other issue of the AT and Quest, and suddenly goes on a nationwide "national lecturer" tour - paid for by Headquarters - in the months prior to the election; if bylaws are passed by the Board severly restricting the number who can run for the higher offices, etc., etc., then "voting" sort of loses its meaning.) This form of authority usually seems benevolent, as it generally doesn't claim either direct authority or inspiration and hence must preserve the appearance of openness, and will often be quite open to *individuals* expressing opinions at odds with the dominant ideology - so long as the individual doesn't start affecting the larger power base (see the interesting response out of Wheaton to KPJ's book, for instance). The most basic problem with spiritual organizations is that none of these foundations for authority really has enough power to be compelling, each is shaky in its own way, each is insecure in its own way, and each must continually fend off those for whom authority is based on the other foundations. And in this age when individuals are becoming stronger and stronger, *no* leader or ideology is above question any longer. In fact, authority may be one of the single most vexing problems to resolve as spirituality moves into the 21st century. Just musing (I certainly have no solutions (-:)- -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Sep 1995 17:47:41 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Art group prject I & II "As we become more centered, stronger, knowledgable, doesn' t the need/desire for outside authority atropy? I think it does, when you're talking of your own evolution & spiritual growth, but how about in an organizational setting? Do you need a hierarchy there? Someone to be the boss? Attempts have been made that I've read about, to give everyone in the organization a voice, but there was still always a boss at the top in the material I read.. "I can imagine that some take the master to be the mom & dad they never related to & want to be cuddled into consciousness by a benevolent higher being." I don't agree with that point of view, & will refer to 2 books I've read & followed up on. Serge King, in one of his suggests imagining a huge anthropomorphic God, who holds you in his arms, & makes you feel safe. I tried that. It's the most wonderful feeling. The other book was about healing the relationship between mother & daughter. The writer was of the opinion that one could profit from adopting a surrogate father and/or mother at any age to heal out whatever had been neglected in one's childhood. Following this, I found me a surrogate father & a surrogate mother, because I felt I needed both. It was a very healing experience, even though I rarely saw either one & most of our contact was over the phone. Now to part II "A thinker is always a disturbing influence" Agreed. To take the thought a little further anyone who's different is a disturbing influence. And it's really strange that among Theosophists, who are mostly rebels, more thinkers than the avergae person, who don't just believe what everyone else does, the thinker & the different person can still sometimes be felt as being an unwanted presence. "Beware when the Great God lets loose a thinker on this planet. Then all thing are at risk. As an aside, I don't consider the present Republican Congress men & Senators to be great thinkers, even though they' re "Putting everything on the table... ie all things are at risk." Art I can understand that you're reluctant to become involved in another spiritual organization. It is, no doubt taking a risk. But I'm hoping that bit by bit you'll come to understand how beautiful & how life enhancing Theosophy is. To convey that understanding, to a true Theosophist, is goal enough, whether you get more involved, or whether you choose to stay on the side lines. No matter that I say to you "I hope you'll get more involved". I think Theosophy has something to gain from your presence, but if you choose in the long run to stay on the side lines, then so be it. Get what good you can. There's lots of it. One thing you say is really very funny "I am a questioner of all tradition." That happens to be the hue & cry of all Theosophists, at least of the Adyar section, at least of my generation. "Brotherhood". A number of us have agitated against that nomenclature as outdated. I think the word stands thus, because people in Adyar won't move. They're known to be slow. For instance, they lose communications, when you write to them. I don't know what else they lose or snarl up. I'm not that familiar with Adyar, but I've heard tell. I think you're a member of the theosophical family, when & if you feel that you are. I can only tell you of my own experiences. I nevr felt coerced by group values, or to go to conventions. I went when I wanted to & when I could afford it. For a long time, I didn't accept reincarnation. & I felt a bit of inner pressure because I wanted to belong. Lateron it made sense to me, so then I accepted it. For a while I was vegetarian. When I moved to Summerfield I had a choice, cook & eat for myself in my apartment, or eat at least chicken & fish & eat in the dining rom, where I could socialize a bit. I chose the latter. That makes my body not quite as susceptible to the finer vibes, but I chose what I thought was the best thing for me to do, & I don't feel any less a Theosophist. I didn't agree with what was happening under the Presidency preceding John Algeo's. I think I was excluded out, as were others, because I voted for the presidential candidate who lost the elections. & I also thought that the TS was being poorly run. One of the reasons being that the then President never tried to heal the rift between herself & the loser. It had been quite a close election ... twice. At that point, I asked first to be made an international member attached to Adyar. Adyar never answered, so then I became a member in Canda. Good thing. If you drop out, it's said that you lose your connection formed to the masters. Whatever truth there is in that, my TS membership was too dear to me to want to drop it. Ther is the beauty of it, but ther is also politicking. If we have wise & stable leadership, as we had under Dora Kunz and now have under John Algeo (who's also a man with a great imagination, & a sometime twinkle in his eye), then I for one am willing tontake the necessary politcking. But if the leadership detriorateds, I'm not willing to take it. OK now that's very clearly & honestly one person's experience. I can't find just what you said here, but I wrote down to tell you that we say there are 2 esoteric paths, that of the Mystic who goes by feeling & visions, & that of the Occultist who goes the reasoning scientific route. But at one point, the 2 meet. You end with "Incrementally, this paradox of passion and disinterestedness might combine to form a spiritual character, I live hopefully toward that realisation." It seems that the combination of passion & disinteresstedness to lead to greater spiorituality. One of the things Harry teaches to do when you meditate (to Beethoven's music) is to observe your feelings. That's not as poetic as what you said, but the meaning is the same. Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Sep 1995 18:00:49 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: abortion Rich, I'm not disputing your beliefs, even though they don't agree with mine, but this time, I need to correct your knowledge of history. If HPB wrote (can you quote chapter & verse?) "The mother will die too, or have her life dramatically shortened." This was true in HPB's days, but is no longer true now. Our medical knowledge has advanced a lot in the intervening 100+ years. At HPB's time bearing a child was also a very risky undertaking, during which many women either died or were injured so that it shortened their lives. This is no longer the case. Women very rarely die in childbirth anymore. Shalom Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Sep 1995 18:12:24 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Art group prject I & II PS. There are a lot of spelling mistakes in that post. Sorry. My machine started to jam, so I sent it off when I could, without bothering to correct it. 3 times now delphi jammed on me, & I lost my message. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Sep 1995 19:26:07 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: From the spring to the pond John, Thanks for another glimpse into your world. Could I add a few comments? Lewis JRC: > perhaps if we occaisionally spoke of those many parts > of ourselves that are deeply important to us, yet not necessarily > overtly "spiritual" there might be far better communication > between us about intellectual things. We are all far more than > just our ideas, but such a large amount of who we are is lost > when we use this medium (the Internet) that it is easy to forget > that only certain fragments of our prisms can be refracted though > cyberspace - perhaps a bit of gushing about the magnificence of a > hike, the tenderness in a friendship, or the accomplishments in > our (often seemingly) mundane jobs, would serve to humanize this > medium ... to make it easier to remember that we are not all just > ideas that are either clashing or in harmony, but whole humans > who travel the path with the entirety of our beings. Lewis: I agree with you that this medium does a lot of filtering, but as Brenda pointed out that can also work in a positive way. Our biases and prejudices don't have as much opportunity to distort our perspective. You are right though in suggesting this medium needs humanizing. One of theosophy's gifts to me was the idea that the entirety of my being was not just my body, emotions or thoughts. I did was not a body with a soul to save, but a soul with bodies in training. JRC: > Yes, and I wonder what Art thinks of this (since he is > reading Emerson so fully). I believe it is far more than simply > coincidence that almost every renowned mystic and prophet > recorded in history has spent at least some, if not considerable > amounts of time in huge, open natural places. Lewis: Having moved from Chicago to foothills and mountains of northeast Georgia a few years ago, I can relate to the sense of peaceful power one finds in nature. JRC: > There are, I think, > whole ranges of awareness available in nature that just aren't > among concentrations of human populations. (I would start > mentioning a few reasons for this related to clairvoyant > observations, but maybe 'tis best to let that rest for a bit(-:). Lewis: Hope you don't wait to long as I am very interested in hearing more about this and would be grateful for any glimpse into that world you would care to share. JRC: > A couple of things might be worth mentioning here (can't help > it - because I work some of the time for a wilderness > organization and do a considerable amount of writing about the > wilderness experience (-:). Lewis: Are you familiar with Tom Brown's work? He hasn't published several books, the first of which was "The Trakker." His philosophy seems very theosophical. JRC: > The foundation for a universal family, the bond needed to tie > such a thing together, does not need to be created ... but rather > *revealed* - and for some strange reason, the larger the > concentration of people, the more that sensation recedes into > unconsciousness ... leading even the most minor differences to > loom enormous, while surrounded by the enormity and beauty of the > natural world, that bond of its own accord seems to unfold itself > gently, but so strongly that *all* differences, however great, > become of secondary relevance. Lewis: Interesting idea. It occurs to me that maybe we should send people to the woods instead of to prison, and our politicians be required to "retreat" with them instead of feeding on the mistrust, fear, and supicion fostered by the seperation of the personality from consciousness of this foundation. llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Sep 1995 19:37:57 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: words that inspire, including science Rich wrote: > I feel no compunction whatsoever in speaking up for Theosophy and its central > place on this board. After all, what would it be like to go to a church > service with Daniel, stand up in the middle of worship, singing, praying, > sermon, whatever, and start reading aloud from the Mahatma Letters? Wouldn't > that be a little "off-topic"? Or to insult the Christians gathered at coffee > hour and mock their Scripture and revile Jesus? He has places to go and > study, he is not some waif out in the cold. And we here have our study and > work and sharing. Daniel should certainly be allowed to share, compare, > discuss, etc. but he is not availing himself of the opportunity, is he? Lewis: Thought you made a good point here. It continues to amaze how unChrist like some can act while professing to be his follower! > > I agree with Art's more generous position re: Daniel that there may indeed be > "seeds" there, which may sprout. Lewis: Have you ever run across a story about HPB concerning her giving members of the royal court in England applications for membership? As I recall it some questioned the value, saying it was like casting pearls before the swine. Didn't she realize that they were only interested because they had heard the queen was? She said that the seed had been sown, the link created even though it might be lifetimes before they benefited from it. llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Sep 1995 20:21:10 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Art: Group Project Question 1 Art: > Unfortunately Hendrix and other voyagers of consciousness take a improper > pride in what they experienced and the fact that others have not . This > does not lead to enlightment but arrogance. Spiritual hedonism is no better > than material hedonism. Lewis: Yes, I agree. > >Lewis: I am confused. Aren't "blinds" a very useful window cover?:) > Art: > No blinds seem to be intentional distractions from the truth so that those > of lesser evolved spirituality can not see what is going on. Lewis: I can think of a couple of reasons why "those of lesser evolved spirituality" might be kept ignorant of certain laws in nature. Knowledge is power. Can't you? Lewis: > > It seems to me sometimes we complain to much about heirarchy and > >authority, as if it were some shackle forced upon us. Might it be us > >and not them who create these heiarchies and give Them their > >authority. As we become more centered, stronger, knowledgeable > >doesn't the need/desire for outside authority atrophy? Maybe we are > >railing against a natural law which has its place in the scheme of > >things, but falls away or diminishes because (to paraphrase another > >of J.J. van der Leeuw's works) we are all gods in the becoming. > > > > If we accept HPB, the Mahatmas, Jesus, or some other teacher as > >an authority it is, in part, a recognition by us of Their valuable > >experiences. As children we often look up to our parents and other > >adults for guidance and support until we grow strong and wise enough > >to support and counsel others. Art: > Perhaps this could be construed as arrogant but I don't like the idea of > men and women in the Twentieth and Twenty First Century thinking of > themselves as children - I don't mind childlike but childish and immature > too undeveloped to take responsibility then I have a reaction. I can image > that some take the master to be the mom and dad they never related to and > want to be cuddled into consciousness by a benevolent higher being. That is > regression not progression. I am in no way saying that a sophisticated and > well won understanding of the Masters would lead to this infantilism but it > is certainly a danger. > > It takes more than a good brain to acquire esoteric knowledge - the > character as Blavatsky tells us needs forming first. > Lewis: Yes, I agree we are not children and are responsible for own spiritual growth. I was trying to communicate the value of mentors, which I think we have already agreed upon. The word "master" carries a lot of baggage for you and many others. These "mentors" of HPB said the goal was "childlike" and not childishness. I think this point is made in "At the Feet of the Master" by Alycone. They also say in their letters that their chelas are left to their own devices because an Adeptship is won by our own hard won efforts. It is not something which can be given, and if it could be it would be of little value. I understand your concerns, as did HPB, about making a paternal god to whom we abdicate all responsibility and authority to and become "infantile". llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Sep 1995 21:59:10 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: abortion Liesel, I will happily quote HPB chapter and verse, although I think it makes my opinion no stronger or weaker to do so. I posted this once before, so please bear with me, folks. >From THEOSOPHICAL ARTICLES by H.P. Blavatsky, Volume 2, p. 336, under the article "Is Foeticide a Crime," HPB writes, "Theosophy in general answers: 'At no age as under no circumstances whatever is a murder justifiable!' and occult Theosophy adds:--'yet it is neither from the stand-point of law, nor from any argument drawn from one or another orthodox ISM that the warning voice is sent forth against the immoral and dangerous practice, but rather because in occult philosophy both physiology and psychology show its disastrous consequences.' In the present case, the argument does not deal with the causes but the effects produced. Our philosophy goes so far as to say that, if the Penal Code of most countires punishes attempts at suicide, it ought, if at all consistent with itself, to doubly punish foeticide as an attempt to DOUBLE SUICIDE. For, indeed, when even successful and the mother does not die just then, IT STILL SHORTENS HER LIFE ON EARTH TO PROLONG IT WITH DREARY PERCENTAGE IN KAMA-LOKA, the intermediate sphere between the earth and the region of rest, a place which is no "St. Patrick's purgatory," but a fact, and a necessary halting place in the evolution of the degree of life. The crime committed lies precisely in the willful and sinful destruction of life, and interference with the operations of nature, hence--with KARMA--that of the mother and the would-be future human being. The sin is not regarded by the occultists as one of a RELIGIOUS character,--for, indeed, there is no more of spirit and soul, for the matter of that, in a foetus or even in a child before it arrives at self-consciousness, than there is in any other small animal,--for we deny the absence of soul in either mineral, plant or beast, and believe but in the difference in degree. But foeticide is a crime against nature. Of course the skeptic of whatever class will sneer at our notions and call them absurd superstitions and "unscientific twaddle." But we do not write for skeptics. We have been asked to give the views of Theosophy (or rather of occult philosophy) upon the subject, and we answer the query as far as we know. THEOSOPHIST, August, 1883 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Sep 1995 22:03:21 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Concerning Daniel H. and censorship Leisel wrote, > Dear Rich, > > How do you know that Christianity is about to fade quickly. Did > you get a letter? (that's a German saying), meaning "what makes > you so sure?" > > Liesel Well, I am not playing the Prophet here, but when you look at Christianity in this country, it's pretty pathetic. The Catholics don't know which crisis is worse: the swarms of priests getting convicted for molesting little boys, the clamor the women are making to get let in to the priesthood, or the celibacy issue. Even the archbishops are openly contradicting the Pope no some issues. Then there is mainline Protestantism, which Daniel H. has been so kind to point out is dramatically losing membership. This has been going on for 25 years now, and shows no sign of abating. They have little to offer a public in search of WISDOM, not dead-letter. Finally, the growth of fundamentalism. The bacteria always move in on a corpse. And that's what we're looking at -- the big dead body of the Church. Jesus of course will survive unscathed, but the Church is literally disintegrating. Finally, HPB, speaking as the Messenger of her Teachers, made it clear that Christianity is on its way out. Just an opinion. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Sep 1995 22:56:49 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: The E.S. > > It is not clear what, if anything, remains of the E.S. today. > > Rich I am told there is an English section based at TS HQ in London. Membership is said to be by invitation ..... Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Sep 1995 00:23:57 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: RE: oops >Eldon, > >What is the Arcana mailing list and how do we sign up? > >Thom > To subscribe to the Arcana list, fill out the folloiwng form, and send the request to: arcana-request@brownvm.brown.edu -- Eldon ------8<--------8<---------- Cut Here --------8<---------8<------- o Name: o Location: o E-mail Address: o Send profile to list? o Topics of interest: From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Sep 1995 01:13:08 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: What is Theosophy? Daniel: >"Who do you say I am?" The question was >first asked of Peter by Christ nineteen centuries ago, and has >continued since then to the present day to be the litmus test of >spiritual authenticity. Wondering about what we really are, about the origin of ourselves and of life, is as old as the hills. What you mean here is when is the question first posed in Christian literature? >Perhaps never in the history of the >Christian church has this question been more relevant than it is >today. The question is not more relevant now. It is always one of the questions that we ask ourselves, once we begin to seek, to question the beliefs given us by our society, and start to look for Truth. >One reason for this is that Theosophists have taken the New >Testament sculpture (if you will) of Christ, crafted an esoteric/mystical >chisel, and hammered away at this sculpture until a completely new >image has been formed. We're not particularly concerned with the New Testament, nor with any particular religious book. You're giving it too much importance in our eyes, perhaps because of the extreme significance that you give it in our own views. Our ideas are not based upon any biblical interpretation, nor do we look to twisting what is said in the Bible for support for any of our beliefs. >This Christ is broad-minded and non-judgmental. He is a "Master" among >"Masters," who -- with the others -- is leading the human race into >a New Age of enlightenment and harmony. He is a particular teacher for a particular age. Not master of Masters, but one culture-specific spritual Teacher. He is only relevant to our present day to the extent that Christianity has changed since his day to be responsive to modern times. >I know that an Avatar is One who "descends" into human form from >above, never having gone through reincarnation. Such a one is >considered a manifestation of divinity and seeks to reveal divine truths >especially important to a particular age. Agreed. >Theosophy teaches an escoteric form of Christianity with no true >foundation whatsoever. Theosophy teaches the same spiritual Teachings that have come out from age to age in different cultures in different ages. Theosophy is not a form of Christianity, Christianity is one of many masks that attempt to interpret Truth "for the flocks," for those unable to take self- initiative in their lives and follow the spiritual. >Theosophy and Quimby's teachings are two trees which grew side by >side, having been planted close to the same time (the mid to late >1800s) in the same soil, fertilized with common ingredients >(nineteenth-century transcendentalism, the philosophy of Emmanuel >Swedenborg, the influx of Hindu monism, etc.). Theosophy is not a product of Western thought. It's presentation in the 1800's was appropriate to that time, but it is not a product of that time. >Certainly, in many >respects these two have distinct beliefs and different goals, but >they both took root and flourished in the same mystical climate. >Taken together, these represent an appropriate starting point for >a study in New Age Christology. I'm not sure we can use the term "New Age Christology" since there is no special emphasis given to any particular religion, including the Christian. And much of what is today called "New Age" is really a mix of theosophical ideas and a mass of contradictory opinions. >The Aryan rootrace and other "races" were declared by Blavatsky's >reception of some type of revelation experience. I wonder which >Christ entered her? Maybe an angel of light. >Anyway...The five incarnations of Christ in the five subraces of the >Aryan rootrace were Buddha, Hermes, Zoroaster, Orpheus, and Jesus. The terminology in Theosophy is borrowed from various religons and philosophies. The terms had to be newly coined, since there was not a preexisting body of thought in the west to borrow terms from. (The spiritual and metaphysical thought-life in the west was impoverished at the time.) Terms like "root race" could have been better chosen, because they refer to a culture and cultural experience, and not particularly to the physical bodies and races of individuals. There are Avataras as needed, appearing at key points in the history of humanity. Jesus was one. There were many. >Theosophists reject any suggestion that Jesus died on the cross >to pay for man's sins. True. No one else can pay the price for what you have done. It's not like a creditor forgiving a bank loan. The "banking model" of justice is overly-simple, and there are much better ways to describe the law of karma. Basically, you do something and suffer the consequences. Why? Because the consequences are the direct results of your actions. You and the others are changed by a particular act, and those changes lead to further actions. Those changes are the karma, and they cannot be forgiven anymore than you can go backwards five minutes into the past and undo what you have just done. >May I remind you that the Holy Scripture >declares the the Cross of Christ is foolishness to those that are >perishing. You can refer to the Bible as long as you're aware that it is not authoritative, and when you use it to back up something you're saying, you're seen as coming from a weak position, a position where you do not have the necessary words to support what you say. >Man supposedly saves himself through continual reincarnations. >This spiritual evolution leads men further and further away from the >physical plane and closer and closer to spiritual planes of existence. >Because of this process, every human being -- regardless of race or >religion -- is a potential "Christ". True as far as it goes. >Sixth Messiah >Annie Besant first announced the coming of this Messiah in >1906. Her aim was to groom Jiddu Krishnamurti for the role of World >Teacher or Messiah. In 1925 she claimed for this young Indian man >the title of "Messianic Leader and Reincarnation of the World >Teacher." But by 1929, Krishnamurti became convinced it was all a >MISTAKE. On November 20 of that year, he "refused to receive >further adoration, 'I am not an actor; I refuse to wear the robes of a >Messiah; so I am again free of all possessions.'" Theosophy's Christ >remains to appear. Those claims were clearly in error. The world is not saved by looking for an external savior, it is saved through the individual efforts of all of us to make the spiritual a living reality in our lives. Theosophy is not looking for a Christ to some and make things better. >And of course I too look for the Sixth coming of Christ...but objectively >it will be the second and final. More like one of thousands, with that many more to come. We are talking about a time period of billions of years, not about a world mistakenly thought to be a few thousand years old. >Theosophy where friends can be friends. Huh? >Dr. Rudolf Steiner was an active member of the Theosophical >Society and headed the German charter of the group. However, when >a Theosophical subgroup, the "Order of the Star of the East," began >promoting Krishnamurti as the new incarnation of the Christ, >Steiner threatened to expel any member of the German charter who >joined the Order. Annie Besant retaliated by cancelling Steiner's >charter. Steiner then founded the Anthroposophical Society in 1912, >and most of the German membership of Theosophy joined with him. And both the Point Loma Theosophical Society and the United Lodge of Theosophists did not find this idea particularly appealing. There was a bias to add some Christian-like ideas into the theosophical literature at the time with the Adyar Theosophical Society, causing it to lose for a which its strong philosophical foundation. >>From the foundation you now have Steiner reading the Akasha records >where he was able to establish the significance of Christ on the human >Jesus. Yes, he also took a strong Christian tone to his materials. I find that tone misleading, because it introduces a culture-specific mask (the Christian) over a direct study of the spiritual Teachings. >And this is where I first encountered the difference between the >physical earth and the etheric earth. Jesus's purpose is to be the >mediator between the two realms. I'm not sure about this. Perhaps Steiner said it? I wouldn't not myself agree with it. >Steiner believes that Christ's crucifixtion and resurrection was the >avenue for success of this mediation. You probably don't want >to know what he thought about the blood. Since Jesus has nothing to do on our behalf, it really doesn't matter. The appearance of Avataras are to combat cultural trends towards evil and darkness, not to somehow save specific individuals from having to work out their own salvation. >As for Alice... >Like Theosophy and Anthroposophy, Bailey believed that Jesus >was a medium who allowed the Christ to use his body. But Bailey >distinguished her beliefs from Anthroposophy by arguing that the >"second coming" referred to the Christ coming in a single Avatar, >not in all humanity. We find in any group of people, that the came dynamics come into play. Followers become leaders of their own break-away groups. There is always a question we must ask of each such person: What is the basis for their differing ideas and approaches? We cannot rely on some external authority, like a Bible or church or guru to simply tell us. Ultimately, we have to rely on our own ability to distinguish right from wrong, truth from fiction, the spiritual from the material, and *know* for ourselves. >Then there is Guy and Edna...but I have not yet heard much on theos-l >about I AM so I will refrain from posting here. And dozens of others. And the same in the Christian sects, and of any religion or philosophy over time. This is due to the limitations of human nature. >I must admit that the terminology you all use is complex but it certainly >reveals the foolishness of man regarding the simple truth about Christ. It's not a "simple truth". The confusion is with regard to different people, both inside traditional Christianity and outside it, trying to find some symbol of authority, be it Christ, God, Buddha, the Masters, etc., to give special weight to what they say. When a theosophical student says that he is speaking for the Masters, it is no different than when you say that you are speaking for Jesus or God. In either case, there is the use of an external authority to give special weight to one's personal views. >I aslo haven't heard much about Benjamin Creme on this list. >I suppose because He has been proven a false prophet. Except to his followers. The problem is not that there are so many claimed authorities. The problem is *with us* (including Theosophists and you and others with your background). The problem is with wanting to be a follower, rather than an independent thinker. >Then you have Spangler who who described what the Christ >accomplished through Jesus. ... We can go into a bookstore and find perhaps hundreds of different opinions about such things. And every author has a following. How do we tell the real from the unreal, and make sense of it? By unfolding our own innate ability to directly know life, apart from any would-be teachers, be they gurus of fundamentalist Christianity, or the writers of fairy tales. How do we *know*? We look within and *look*. >Anyway here is a start...to MY understanding about theosophy. I'm glad to see you start to write, but not sure this directly addresses what Theosophy is about. Theosophy is the fundamental philosophy, first found clearly described in Blavatsky's writings, that attempts to deal with the occult or hidden side of life, apart from the culture-specific religions and philosophies of different times. As its ideas work their way into mainstream thought, they change and become culture-specific. That makes them more relevant to modern times, but also dates them, causing such particular expressions of the Esoteric Philosophy to become out-of-date and in need of revision. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Sep 1995 01:13:25 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: K.H. on women Hi, Tracey, Didn't realize that you were waiting for me to get you KH on women. I'll ask the library to e-mail it to you directly, if they can, or else send it to me & I'll e-mail it on to you. There isn't any charge I don't think. I'm also going to tell our library the subject of your essay, in case they have something in the way of leads to contribute. If they give me something long to send you, I might ask you for your snail mail address. But e-mail is much faster & more satisfactory. Meantime, I got a snail mail letter from Marie. Between that & your message I know how things are going with her, & just as important let her know how things are going with me. She's a good friend, even at this distance. She's used to having lots of people around. At times, she & Harry traveled to different corners of the globe to talk Harry's brand of Theosophy & to heal people. She acted as Harry's assistant, a role which took on more & more responsibilities, as Harry grew older. He was 89 when he passed over. She's quite a person. They were quite a pair. Anyway, we matured part of our way in life together, and are good friends. Do you work at the university? My senior citizen apartment complex is having a Fall festival today. There'll be handicraft booths, with things for sale, games for kids, food & I don't know what else. I invited my cleaning lady with her family. She's really a college student, majoring in Human Services, who's looking to earn a bit of change. I've found that college students make the best cleaning ladies. She was born in Soweto, South Africa (I've been there), & has lived variously all over Africa. They've been in this country for 4 years, & know more about how to get around town than people born in Syracuse. They're coming for a meal first, & I guess the kids'll have fun playing afterwards. The little boy loves my cat, Chou chou. He's also 3, and very polite. When he met me, he shook hands. We don't do that, do you? it's European. Glad to get your message. Don't feel you have to write. You seem to have a very busy existence. Write when you can. Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Sep 1995 01:43:11 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: words that inspire, including science Lewis, I particularly like your idea of sending the politicians into the woods. If they don't get attuned, maybe they'll get lost. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Sep 1995 01:51:14 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Art: Group Project Question 1 Lewis Agree on abdicating to a god all resonsibility & authority. Theosophy teaches that you're responsible for maneuvering your own Karma. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Sep 1995 02:18:03 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: The E.S. Rich: >While I was at Harvard University a few years back attending the Divinity >School, the librarian called my attention to sealed letters from HPB to Mr. >Judge, which had been sitting there, waiting for the expiration date. That >date just happened to be January 1, 1992, during my second year there, so I >opened them, made photocopies, and arranged for them to be circulated among >Theosophists at large. A ULT member paid for their restoration, and a >Theosophical scholar is now publishing them in THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY, edited >by James Santucci. Are these the HPB letters that John Cooper is also preparing for publication? Could you post some of the more interesting extracts for us to read? >Now, though, what has become of the E.S.? After Mr. Judge and Annie Besant >had their "problems," Annie formed her own and different E.S., with its own >rules, regluations, and goals. >It is not clear what, if anything, remains of the E.S. today. My understanding is that each of the three theosophical groups had their E.S. In the Point Loma Society, there were numerous grades under Purucker, and when Long became President the E.S. was ended, merged back into the mainstream T.S. In The Adyar T.S. it continues to this day, with people learning of it mostly be word-of-mouth. In The ULT, it is nearly-totally underground, with its members forbidden to talk about it to outsiders. We're also taught of a different "school", which any of us could approach in our hearts and minds, and be admitted based upon our sincere interest in the spiritual. That school does not issue membership cards, and we may never meet a teacher or fellow student. Or if we meet them, we may never know that they belong to it. We can read about it in "The Mahatma Letters" in a general sense, as we read about the requirements of chelaship. And it's something that we join *by changing ourselves*. With the major theosophical organizations, their esoteric sections are, I'd say, extensions of the same work that the lodges and study classes promote. The work is with the public, with inquirers and aspirants, it is with those that seek external stimulation and moral support in order to be drawn towards the Path. The need for the schools is not felt, though, after we become self-motivated, and have awakened in ourselves some sense of telling the real from the unreal, good from evil, truth from falsehood, and seeing which paths lead up the mountainside. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Sep 1995 02:55:48 GMT From: Tracey Benson Subject: Re: K.H. on women On Wed, 20 Sep 1995 LIESEL@delphi.com wrote: > Hi, Tracey, > > I'm interested in your essay, but please wait to write until > you have time. > > Thanks for phoning Marie. Glad you found her at home. If it was > a long distance call, please let me know what I owe you. I'd > rather you didn't have any expenses. > > Namste > > Liesel > Dear Liesel, I thought I'd make a quick reply to your message, as I haven't been home for a few days and must go off again and look after a gallery for a friend for a few hours. I phoned Marie at work so the expense was incurred by the university and not me, I will try to do that as much as I can to save us both a lot of fussing around. Are you able to get a copy of "KH on Women"? I remember you saying that it costs $1.35, was that right? Could I ask a favour if you are able to locate a copy, and I will reimburse you. The essay I am in the process of writing is about the influence of TS in Australia during the interwar years. I am specifically interested in the number of women involved and for what reasons. Via Annie Besant, I would also like to look at connections with socialism, radio as a medim and the resulting influence on the arts community, particularly the surrealists. At the moment I'm looking at Bergson, Jung and Lacan for relative discussions. At this stage this writing won't be finished until next year sometime, perhaps I will post it in several sections for you to look at. I seem to be spending a lot of time reading at the moment and not a lot of time writing, but the reading is definately the fun part. I started reading something last night in TSD about speech and the mind, when I finish today perhaps would like to present a question to the group re this and radio. Sorry, I seem to be thinking through my fingers. Anyway, must go and catch my train, take care Namaste Tracey From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Sep 1995 02:56:28 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: To Daniel Hedrick Thanks Daniel for answering my series of questions. I see that you have your own set of answers. That's okay, too. (You don't need my permission to believe whatever you want to believe!). I, too, appreciate the Old and New Testaments. But I don't limit myself to those two collections of texts. And by the way, who collected the various books of the New Testament together and said: "Only these books are to be considered as "holy" and "inspired"? And if I remember correctly the Book Of Revelations was debated for several cen- turies as to whether it was part of the canon or not. Have you ever sat down and pondered deeply on these questions of the writing of the various Biblical books and how the canon of the Old Testament and New Testament was determined? My whole series of questions was asked in the hope that you might put aside (temporarily) your present belief system and take a new and hard look at some of your assumptions and their truth or falsity. Only you can do that. If you want to beleive in some sort of literal, orthodox Christianity, that's fine, but I and I suspect most if not all of the members on Theos-l have discovered a wider or different perspective than that of orthodox Christianity. Here is what H.P. Blavatsky wrote in one article on the Bible: "...the Bible is *not* the `Word of God," but contains at best the words of fallible men and *imperfect* teachers. Yet read *esoterically*, it does contain, if not the *whole* truth, still, `nothing but the truth,' under whatever allegorical garb. "No more than any other scripture of the great world-religions can the Bible be excluded from that class of allegorical andsy mbolical writings which have been, from the pre-historic ages, the receptacle of secret teachings of the Mysteries of Initiation, under a more or less veiled form... "...the more one studies ancient religious texts, the more one finds that the ground-work of the New Testament is the same as the ground-work of the Vedas, of the Egyptian theogony, and the Mazdean allegories." (From HPB's article entitled "The Esoteric Character of the Gospels." And my favorite quote from HPB on the Christ is: "`...the coming of Christ,' means the presence of *Christos* in a regenerated world, and not at all the actual coming in body of `Christ' Jesus; this Christ is to be sought neither in the wilderness nor `in the inner chambers' nor in the sanctuary of any temple or church built by man; for Christ---the true esoteric *Saviour---is no man*, but the *Divine Principle* in every human being. He who strives to resurrect the Spirit *crucified in him by his own terrestrial passions*, and buried deep in the `sepulchre' of his sinful flesh; he who has the strength to roll back the *stone of matter* from the door of his own *inner* sanctuary, he *has the risen Christ in him*." (Also from "The Esoteric Character of the Gospels") I may be wrong but I prefer "Esoteric Christianity" to "Orthodox Christianity". Again, I suggest that you read (and also study) the following works which I previously recommended on the esoteric side of Chrisitianity: *Theosophy and Christianity* by H.T. Edge. *The Gnosis or Ancient Wisdom in the Christian Scriptures* by William Kingsland *The Hidden Wisdom in the Holy Bible* by Geoffrey Hodson (the new 2 vol. ed.) and *In Search of the Primordial Tradition and the Cosmic Christ* by Father John Rossner. This book by Dr. Rossner is a remarkable work and all students of Theosophy would, no doubt, find it full of food for thought. Unless you challenger your own assumptions and educate yourself in the literature of the world religions, etc. I find it hard to take you very seriously although, no doubt, you are a sincere individual. Maybe I need to challenge my own assumptions and educate myself and I have been trying to do both for the last 25 years or so. We can all expand our horizons and deepen our understanding butI don't know exactly what you intend to accomplish on theos-l unless you are willing to educate youself on Theosophy and related subjects. If you are on theos-l to preach to the lost and to try to convert the heathen Theosophists to your orthodox Christianity, you may not accomplish much. Daniel Caldwell PS: And here are more quotes from the Bhagavad-Gita: Krishna says: "I am the source of the forth-going of the whole universe and likewise the place of its dissolving....I know the beings that are past, that are present, that are to come...but no one knoweth Me....By Me all this world is pervaded in my unmanifested aspect; all beings have root in Me, I am not rooted in them...I am the Self, seated in the heart of all beings; I am the beginning, the middle, and also the end of all beings...And whatsoever is the seed of all beings, that am I...nor is there aught, moving or unmoving, that may exist bereft of Me.....Whatsoever is glorious, good, beautiful, and mighty, understand thou that to go forth from a fragment of My splendor.... Having pervaded this whole universe with one fragment of Myself, I remain...." Remember that a rose by any other name is still a rose! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Sep 1995 03:26:58 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: interference with nature Rich quotes HPB: The crime committed lies precisely in the willful and sinful destruction >of life, and interference with the operations of nature, hence--with >KARMA > But foeticide is a >crime against nature. May I ask a common sense question here? Do we interfere with the operations of nature? Under what circumstances? When is it correct to do so? Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Sep 1995 04:18:46 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: interference with nature >Rich quotes HPB: > The crime committed lies precisely in the willful and sinful destruction >>of life, and interference with the operations of nature, hence--with >>KARMA > >> But foeticide is a >>crime against nature. > >May I ask a common sense question here? Do we interfere with the operations >of nature? Under what circumstances? When is it correct to do so? Here's one additional comment regarding whether nature cooperates with the process of abortion. Many, many miscarriages take place at all stages of fetal development. There are souls subjected to this process "naturally." How much more difficult would it be to include "assisted" miscarriages in the karmic lot? Maybe nature could slow down on her "natural" abortions and just incorporate the number of "assisted" ones. For instance, one neighbor had seven miscarriages before her child was born. One neighbor had five. If you ask around, there are lots and lots. You guys just don't always know about these. Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Sep 1995 05:51:56 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: School and Schools Paul: >Instead of being alive in >the present moment to the reality of adepts in myriad >traditions carrying on the Work in many ways, Theosophists tend >to live in an imaginary timeless realm where adepts are >perceived as some great Cosmic Board of Directors. There are people working for the spiritual in the various traditions of the world. What status we accord them, what rank we give them is according to our own way of understanding Theosophy. If we look about us, there are definite laws of nature which living men are subject to. We are told: "(1) An adept -- the highest as the lowest -- is one *only during the exercise of his occult powers*." "(2) Whenever these powers are needed, the sovereign will unlocks the door to the *inner* man (the adept,) who can emerge and act freely but on condition that his jailer -- the *outer* man -- will be either completely or partially paralyzed as the case may requre ..." [Mahatma Letters, 3rd ed, p 177] It is clear from this that they are ordinary men most of the time, when incarnate in Fourth Round human bodies here on Globe D. To "paralyze the jailer" implies stepping aside from the human personality of the present lifetime and functioning in a higher center of consciousness. It would seem that while alive on earth as flesh-and-blood men, they are like us. It is just when they function apart from that human personality, including the exterior form, that they are something more, something that we are not. >It gets crazier and more distorted the further you get from HPB in >time-- Bailey, Prophet, etc.-- as people are less and less >interested in human members of adept brotherhoods and more and >more interested in cosmic supermen. The problem is in confusing the flesh-and-blood men, which are the Mahatmas when incarnate as Fourth Round humans, with their attributes on other globes and planes. They are definitely much more than what we see and know of them in their outer personalities. We get in trouble when we attribute to their human personalities characteristics that are appropriate to them *when outside their ordinary personalities*. >That devalues and desacralizes human life on earth while >exalting some imaginary realm of Mahatmic hegemony. It's a problem of mixing levels. We are talking about characteristics of beings on a different plane with the Mahatmas *as they appear in human life on Globe D*. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Sep 1995 06:27:21 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Art group project I & II Dear JRC, You sound like the disillusioned young person I once was. I miss one description in your post, which maybe isn't that much a quality of religious organizations as of individuals, and perhaps groups within the organizations. I'm not sure I can describe what I mean, but I'm gonna try. There are people, and probably groups, who out of the wide stream of ideas which compose a religion like Christianity or Buddhism, or Theosophy (which calls itself a religious philosophy) can find & absorb a dynamic strength which makes that religion come very much alive for them. Their beliefs, derived from a variety of sources, or perhaps only from 1 or 2 sources within that stream, somehow give them the strength & courage to carry them through life. They live their beliefs, & find it's a process of continual spiritual growth, continual reaching out, continual adjusting to new circumstance. Since everyone is different, the source of their personal belief system might be different, even within the same stream. What is alike is that it makes the spirit soar, & the heart sing, and the person a wiser, better, more caring human being, also one who can better cope. And if it can accomplish that, let the organization be a bit cockeyed. Let it go where it will, as long as it somehow manages to nourish the stream in which the seekers can explore & find, and having found, perhaps add their own imprint to it. The vision is that we'll find unity in our diversity. That each person and/or group (including other forms of life besides human) will add their distinctive note to the universal symphony. The thing is we all need to come more out of Maya and learn to discard the dross. But I think we're doing that, over the thousands of years. Here we are discussing types of organizations. Well, maybe we're learning. No, not "maybe", we *are* learning how better to work together. (isn't that one of the things we're perhaps learning via computer as well?) And I think the Ancient Wisdom is a good guide, if one can understand & utilize it, in one of its many forms. I hope that what I wrote here is somehow meaningful to some of you, other than myself. Shalom, Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Sep 1995 11:06:18 GMT From: John R Crocker Subject: Re: interference with nature On Sun, 24 Sep 1995, Brenda S. Tucker wrote: > >Rich quotes HPB: > > The crime committed lies precisely in the willful and sinful destruction > >>of life, and interference with the operations of nature, hence--with > >>KARMA > > > >> But foeticide is a > >>crime against nature. > > > >May I ask a common sense question here? Do we interfere with the operations > >of nature? Under what circumstances? When is it correct to do so? > > Here's one additional comment regarding whether nature cooperates with the > process of abortion. Many, many miscarriages take place at all stages of > fetal development. There are souls subjected to this process "naturally." > How much more difficult would it be to include "assisted" miscarriages in > the karmic lot? Maybe nature could slow down on her "natural" abortions and > just incorporate the number of "assisted" ones. For instance, one neighbor > had seven miscarriages before her child was born. One neighbor had five. If > you ask around, there are lots and lots. You guys just don't always know > about these. > > Brenda Brenda: Couldn't agree with you more. I've always thought the "crimes against nature" argument was somewhat weak - as it seems to believe that human life is somehow more important than any other sort of life ... that is, apparently the enormous rise in medical abilities and other technological advances that now permit *far* more children to both come to term and survive childhood, and that has increased life expectancy from an average (in the US) of around 49 years to around 75 in this century alone is not "going against nature", but foeticide is ... i.e., the assumption is that anything that preserves and prolongs the life of the individual human is somehow working "with" nature. Problem is that even with the abortions in the modern world, the human population is increasing at an astonishing rate, and the effects on the biosphere are frightening - the outright extinction of several species a *day* ... is this "natural"? Many species have been observed, upon reaching the limits of the carrying capacity of a particular ecosystem, to use various different means of limiting their reproduction - in fact I read somewhere last year that sperm counts among the earth's males are beginning to show a decrease ... this may be one of a number of biological feedback mechanisms that are triggered by overpopulation, and the widespread relaxation of the foeticide taboo (which some biologists believe to be genetically based) may well be another. "Nature", in almost every species plant or animal, generally sows a number of seeds enormous in proportion to the actual number of them that successfully turn into organisms. Many deaths, at all stages of development from gestation to adolescence, is not a *bad* thing in the view of "nature", and seems to be built into natural systems themselves. We have, as a species, this century, *temporarily* been successful in going *against* this "natural" process (and the numbers are very hard to get a subjective grasp of - it took from the beginning of recorded history until around 1850 to for our species to hit its first billion, and in less that 150 years we have grown to over 5.5 billion). I do not believe that abstract or ideological beliefs formulated 100, 200, 300 years ago are suitable grounds to address this problem - we cannot simply ignore the fact that largely because of our "unnatural" science, we have overcome so many different "laws" of nature that our species is now preventing numerous other "group-souls" from even having a doorway through which to experience physical plane incarnation (which is what a species extinction is). -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Sep 1995 14:22:12 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Quotes from "The Mahatma Letters" Following are some quotes from "The Mahatma Letters", third edition. I've followed each quote with a short comment. The quotes and comments are arranged in the form of a discussion, following a certain theme of thought, rather than outlined as a "proof", with each comment of mine exactly mirroring the preceding quote. -- Eldon "From first to last every sphere has its world of effects, the passing through which will afford a place of final rest to each of the human principles -- the seventh principle excepted." [73] Our seven (or twelve) globes are the spheres of causes. Each has its sphere of effects, which follows its. We leave behind our six lower principles in the spheres of effects as we leave our globe behind in the after-death states. "The worlds of effects are not lokas or localities. They are the shadow of the world of causes, their souls -- worlds having like men their seven principles which develop and grow simultaneously with the body." [71] The worlds of effects are the states of consciousness that we go through as we drop our lower principles. There are not a "place" in the sense of something objective, external to our own subjective states of consciousness. "Thus the *body* of man is wedded to and remains for ever within the body of his planet; his individual *jivatma* life principle, that which is called in physiology *animal spirits* returns after death to its source -- *Fohat*; his *linga shariram* will be drawn into *Akasa*; his *Kamarupa* will recommingle with the Universal *Sakti* -- the Will-Force, or universal energy; his "animal soul" borrowed from the breath of *Universal Mind* will return to the Dhyan Chohans; his sixth principle -- whether drawn into or ejected from the matrix of the Great Passive Principle must remain in its own sphere -- either as part of the crude material or as an individualized entity to be reborn in a higher world of causes." [71-72] Our principles are dropped in the after-death states. They are, in a sense, our Shandhas, and return to their elements as the fabric of our personal consciousness unravels. We are leaving behind our conscious Globe D self, first in the lower principles, then in the higher ones. "The seventh will carry it from the *Devachan* and follow the new *Ego* to its place of re-birth." [71-72] The highest of our Atmic consciousness is universal, and carries over to the next Globe, or around the Globes to an immediate rebirth on Globe D. "... there are great varieties in the Devachan states, ... And it is that variety which guides the temporary personal *Ego* into the current which will lead him to be reborn in a lower or higher condition in the next world of causes." [100] The "next world of causes" is either Globe E, or a return to Globe D, after a quick passage of the Globes without a stopover on any of them. "... no sensual, material or unholy recollection can follow the purified memory of the *Ego* to the region of Bliss. The Karma for these recollections of evil deeds and thought will reach the Ego when it changes its *personality* in the following world of causes." [102] As we progress in our after-death states, and successively drop the lower principles, the relatively evil and gross consciousness of them departs us, and eventually we are at a level that is that of bliss. When we subsequently clothe ourselves in our seven principles appropriate to either Globe E, if we go on to it, or back again on Globe D, we then become subject to that part of ourselves again. "these *seven* groups ... form the principle divisions of the Dwellers of the subjective world around us" [105] The sphere of effects about our Globe D has seven classes of dwellers. (1) "Rupa-devas" -- Dhyan Chohans, having forms; Ex-men. (2) "Arupa-devas" -- Dhyan Chohans having *no* forms; Ex-men. (3) "Pisachas" -- two-principled ghosts. (4) "Mara-Rupa" -- Doomed to *death (3 principled). (5) Asuras -- Elementals -- having human form; Future Men. (6) Beasts -- Elementals -- 2nd class -- animal Elementals; Future men. (7) Rakshasas (Demons) Souls or Astral Forms of sorcerers ... [104-05] This is both where the Dhyani-Chohans, men in their after-death states, the "psychic corpses" of men, the elementals, and sorcerers dwell. We would also find here the Mahatmas and Nirmanakayas. "... in enumerating the seven lokas of the "Kama-Loka" ... Every such "world" within the Sphere of Effects has a Tathagata, or "Dhyan Chohan" -- to protect and watch over, not to interfere with it." [105] There are various "worlds" within the sphere of effects. Each has its own ruling Dhyan-Chohan and therefore "laws". "... there are two fields of causal manifestation, to wit: the objective and subjective. So the grosser energies, those which operate in the heavier or denser conditions of matter manifest objectively in physical life ... The moral and spiritual activities find their sphere of effects in "Devachan." [188] The moral and spiritual energies of our consciousness work themselves out in the sphere of causes. The physical energies work out in the sphere of causes, on our physical Globe D. We are engaged in moral and spiritual activities both while alive, and in working them out when dead. This implies we are active in the subjective spheres about it even during life. "And this "dream" lasts until Karma is satisfied in that direction, the ripple of force reaches the edge of its cyclic basin, and the being moves into the next area of causes. This, it may find in the same world as before, or another, according to his or her stage of progression through the necessary rings and rounds of human development. [189] In our after-death states, we work out the unspent energies in each of our higher, non-physical principles. When that energy is spent, we are drawn into rebirth in the next sphere of cauess that is appropriate to us. "You postulate an intercourse of entities in Devachan which applies only to the mutual relationship of physical existence. Two sympathetic souls will each work out its own devachanic sensations, making the other a sharer in its subjective bliss, but yet each is dissociated from the other as regards actual mutual intercourse. For what companionship could there be between two subject entities which are not even as material as that ethereal body-shadow -- the *Mayavi-rupa*? [195] In the sphere of effects, we don't share with others the "mutual relationship of physical existence." There is no companionship with others as we know it. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Sep 1995 14:53:35 GMT From: John R Crocker Subject: Re: More thoughts on abortion On Sat, 23 Sep 1995 Richtay@aol.com wrote: > > Whose welfare is furthered through abortion? Do we do it for the baby? But > we know that any baby comes to incarnate with us because it has karmic ties > with us. I does not come to us randomly. So we are rejecting the > fulfillment of that karma when we kill the vehicle of that incoming soul. > > Perhaps we rationalize it and say the baby will do better elsewhere. Will > it? Or will it's karma just bring it back to us later, this time with a much > darker edge? And if the baby comes to us in part because of it's karma with > our race, social and economic status, etc., in short, the kind of life it > would lead with us, then when we abort the fetus, he baby will still have the > same karma it alsways had, and will seek a similar birth elsewhere, no? How > has it gained through the process? Yes but unfortunately the problem with using the "karmic" argument to justify any moral position is that it is impossible to ascertain whether the specific situation is karmically generative or is in fact a karmic "return" - if you hold abortion to be "bad" karma, well, there have been millions of them performed over history ... and perhaps a woman who aborts a foetus today was *herself* aborted by that very incoming soul a milennia ago - hence making the current abortion a "balancing of the ledger" as it were. In fact most of those who believe in a determinative law of karma will hold that the incoming soul does not blindly pick parents, but does so delibrately ... hence an incoming soul cannot be blind to whether or not a particular set of parents hold within them the predilection that would make it likely that an abortion would result from a pregnancy. That is, just as (again, if one operates within the "karma" paradigm) many births into bad families or brutal cultures are explained by saying that the child "knew" the conditions and "chose" them, so (it seems) it might equally be said that some incoming souls "chose" the experience of abortion - either to "pay off" past karma, or for other reasons. Very difficult to ascribe to the incoming soul a remarkable enough prophetic insight to be able to "choose" the parents, economic status, culture & etc. and somehow also be alledged to be blind to the probabilty of the parent/parents having an abortion. > Rather, abortion seems destructive all around. And you will never have to experience trying to raise a child alone with no education and nothing but poverty conditions even without a child. Additionally, our species' population problem is also immensely destructive, and to many lifeforms *other* than those within our own kingdom. > Does this mean we should go around making women who have had or will > have abortions feel miserable? No, this would be cruel. Right ... and it is only your opinion that abortion is wrong; and as Liesel so well stated, women are not chattel - who are men, who will never have to have an abortion, nor will ever be able to fully grasp the subjective state behind that decision, to chose to make women feel bad or not feel bad? The curious thing is that the vast number of people currently in power, who are deciding whether abortion is "right" or "wrong", are men - who generally speak as though their standing to make such decisions isn't even open to question. > What's done is done, but education is what is necessary > to reduce this unfortunate crime. It is a crime against Nature, and Nature's > processes, so let Nature punish if she will, not us. Education of what nature? If you mean education about a particular spiritual perspective, I cannot agree - as this implies a sort of moral/intellectual superiority, in which those who have abortions are implied to simply be those who have not yet "seen the light", and that naturally when they do, they will stop and repent of their "crime". If you mean mainstream education, this is not true either, as abortions are currently chosen by women from every level of educational background. Perhaps what is really necessary is alterations of a whole number of the attitudes and economic structures surrounding the valuation of children and childraising in this current world. >And let the mother-to-be make her own decision, but with all the FACTS in >hand. And which "FACTS" are those? This is a *significant* question. Last year the Montana legislature (for instance) (which is two thirds male - and was dominated by Republicans with a very specific religious ideology) passed an "informed consent" law requiring women to wait 24 hours before having the procedure (quite a trick if you are poor, rural, and had to travel several hundred miles to get to the clinic), and have to be "informed" about a number of things surrounding abortion. The content of this "information" was, of course, decided not by doctors, but by the State - the same State that is, of course, hard at work cutting funds for low-income programs. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Sep 1995 15:27:23 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: abortion Dear Brenda, To back up your stand. The guys can talk all they want, & present all sorts of logical and illogical arguments. The fact of the matter still is that the women are the ones who carry & give birth to the babies. It's the woman who lends her body to this, not the man, & it's the woman who usually does most of the time consuming nurturing of offspring into adulthood. That being so, I can't see anyone disputing that it's the woman's choice whether she wants to spend part of her life doing this or not. We are not men's chattels or slaves any longer. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Sep 1995 15:33:19 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Globes To Jerry S., Rich and Eldon and others Daniel C. Sure value your input of late. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Sep 1995 15:53:54 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: abortion to Brenda, PS I guess I should add that I think where there's a loving, communicating & understanding relationship between the future mother & the future father of the child, I'd be in favor of making the decision jointly, considering the feelings of both & hopefully coming to an agreement. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Sep 1995 18:06:29 GMT From: John R Crocker Subject: Re: Art group prject I & II On Mon, 25 Sep 1995 Richtay@aol.com wrote: > JRC writes: > > > I think one of the problems with spiritual and religious > > organizations (and Theosophy is no exception) is that most are founded by > > either one individual or a small group of individuals who do have > > virtually unlimited authority while alive, but after they go, their > > spiritual descendants then institutionalize that original authority (or > > at least attempt to) - but the personal magnetism of the founder(s), from > > whence their authority derived, is not present. > Is that where authority is derived, from personal magnetism? Or is that just > where people THINK it is derived? > > RIch Well, two things ... I am not personally saying that the founders' personal magnetism might not have a source other than the person themself - it is clearly (IMO) within the range of possibility that connection with a larger inner current/tradition may give the person's personal energy a huge charge ... but either way the person themself is imbued with a powerful magnetism that is an attractive force (that is, attractive to some, repellent to others - point is, people will react strongly). Probably (IMO) the source is a combination - as in Theosophy where HPB continually gave all the credit to her Masters, who in a couple of different Mahatma Letters stated that she was being rather too humble, and that she had considerable strength of her own (that, if I remember right, they chided her for using to the point of her own disability). Secondly, if we are talking about foundations for authority in the generations succeeding that wherein the founder lived (which is what the post was about), then where people think it was derived from is quite as important as where it really did flow from. Especially since most of the people *within* a tradition do *not* think it is just personal magnetism, but almost invariably claim their particular founder was connected to a "higher" source. The main point is that wherever the source of the magnetism lies, in virtually all major religions on the planet it at least *focussed* first through an individual energy-system - the founder - and virtually no one in the succeeding generations ever manages to be able to compel the authority that the founder did. Hence, the problem I was pointing out - that great arguments concerning the legitimate source of organizational authority after the founder has gone generally ensue. It is clear that from whatever the source, HPB *herself* was powerful enough to get a number of people to believe in Masters that almost no one (other than a few others) saw, a philosophy that makes enormous assertions about the nature of almost everything in the arts, sciences and religions of the time ... assertions most of which are completely unverifiable - and it is further clear that since she has gone, no one in Theosophy has been able to gain the standing she did. All three formal organizations (in the US) seem to have different ideas about where the proper post-HPB authority lies (and in fact this issue may be at the root of *why* there are three different organizations), and within each there are cells, and local groups, and factions that differentiate even further ... The very interesting thing about this list is that almost everyone that comes here comes with assumptions about what "real" Theosophy is, and I have seen, over the last year or so, almost every different foundation for authority (mentioned in the list in the previous post) be asserted (often in charmingly, if subtly, demeaning tones), but ultimately be put in its place - as a thing *partially* legitimate, but not universally compelling ... as individuals can dominate a specific lodge, and specific mindsets can dominate institutions, but as of yet no one's been able to dominate the list - and I actually believe I'm starting to witness here an unusual thing ... an emergent concept of what 21st century Theosophy will have to become (if it is to survive): Open and tolerant of vastly different opinions and types of people in practice as well as in words. Cheers, JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Sep 1995 19:38:30 GMT From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Way out > > Finally, HPB, speaking as the Messenger of her Teachers, made it clear that > Christianity is on its way out. > > Just an opinion. > > Rich An opinion which, as an EX-Independent Catholic Bishop, I share. Having said that, the underlying wisdom teaching from which it first emerged (not quite the same thing as modern rabbinic Judaism) remains in its corpus of literature, "canonical" and otherwise. As the Rabbi Hillel is quoted as saying, "When you see the Torah is forgotten in Israel ... you gather it in." - ~Pirke Avot~ ("Sayings of the Fathers"). I guess that this is what some of us on theos-l are trying to do for a dwindling theosophical ideal ..... Note I said "trying to do" - no big claim being made! Liesel: Thanks for the comment about my merry quips :-). I am 62 and Taurus. Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Sep 1995 19:50:21 GMT From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: The E.S. Eldon: > > We're also taught of a different "school", which any of us could approach > in our hearts and minds, and be admitted based upon our sincere interest > in the spiritual. That school does not issue membership cards, and we may > never meet a teacher or fellow student. Or if we meet them, we may never > know that they belong to it. We can read about it in "The Mahatma Letters" > in a general sense, as we read about the requirements of chelaship. And > it's something that we join *by changing ourselves*. Fascinating. This has been my *experience* and very occasionally (very very, O yes!) I have met people who "belong" to it. Can you give a Mahatma Letter source reference please? TIA. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Sep 1995 19:53:49 GMT From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: interference with nature > > May I ask a common sense question here? Do we interfere with the operations > of nature? Under what circumstances? When is it correct to do so? > > Brenda Off topic a wee bit, but in my eyes, we interfere with the operations of nature whenever we murder animals for food, when none of us, so far as I am aware, needs to eat animal flesh at all. I don't. If, like my cat, my metabolism actually *needed* meat, it migth be different. We build huge abbatoirs to kill defenceless creatures in assembly-lines, and then try yo take a "moral" position over the life of a human foetal presence *exising in someone else*! Surely it is the moral and ethical business of the "someone else" and no other? We certainly object most strongly if people on the list try to tell us what to do in our lives. Our puny human intelligence is, IMHO, quite incapable of deciding either when or how it is "correct" to interfere with the operations of nature, though we do it all the time, probably. Nature, folks, is BIG! Upset her at your own risk :-). Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Sep 1995 20:24:52 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: idea on becoming organizational Art wrote: > This is why right now I prefer to stay deeply committed to definition >number one [REALIZATION] and avoid the historical local relationship to theosophy. Any >ideas how to over come that dilemma? Or is it something that ought not to >be overcome. Art, I totally see your reasons for remaining independent, and I see no reasons that anyone should try to convince you otherwise. The one big benefit I think I realize in being an associate of a local ULT is that I get to meet with folks regularly who know the philosophy, and I can bounce ideas off of them. But I could do this just as well in daily life with ANY bunch of people if I were committed to listening and learning from them, as I am to the folks at my lodge. Another benefit I feel I receive is that I get to be part of a "center of force" which Mr. Judge talks about, namely working in a center which is already active, and I can add my own energy to the effort to keep the teachings alive and make them available to so many in the public who would really like them but don't know that they exist, or where to find them. At the same time, each individual is a center of force, and the potential for activity is infinite, no? It may be that lodges are for weaklings and people who need external supports. I can certainly see that, especially in the modern age, with technology allowing all of us to exchange ideas instantly on-line, that we on this board already form a "center of force" from which true Theosophy radiates, and more and more people are signing on. From the comfort and privacy of our own homes, we can educate and be educated by literally hundreds, and perhaps someday soon, thousands of people. No need for lodges or local affiliations, unless one wants and needs them. I applaud, you, Art, for your thoughtful posts and insightful comments. it does not seem to me that you suffer in the slightest for being an independent Theosophist and an independent thinker. Your pal, Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Sep 1995 20:24:59 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Art group prject I & II JRC writes: > I think one of the problems with spiritual and religious > organizations (and Theosophy is no exception) is that most are founded by > either one individual or a small group of individuals who do have > virtually unlimited authority while alive, but after they go, their > spiritual descendants then institutionalize that original authority (or > at least attempt to) - but the personal magnetism of the founder(s), from > whence their authority derived, is not present. Is that where authority is derived, from personal magnetism? Or is that just where people THINK it is derived? RIch From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Sep 1995 20:25:00 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Globe/Plane Confusion Daniel Caldwell writes: > "The shells, the victims and suicides" are among "the several groups of > subjective entities" who "find their attractions" in Kama-Loka. > > As far as I can read English, KH is referring to the same subject in all these > sentences. And one sentence with its meaning flows in the next sentence with > its meaning with no confusion whatsoever. Yes, I agree. The problem may come in with taking HPB's comparison with Kabala on P. 200 of the S.D. Vol. 1 too literally. Does HPB mean to indicate that the Globes she is teaching are SIMILAR to and PARALLEL with Kabalistic ideas, or IDENTICAL with them? If we take them as identical to Kabalistic Sephiroth, far more problems are created than solved. I sincerely think HPB brings in Kabalistic Sephiroth for an interesting parallel construction, which was for the benefit of certain Christian Kabalists and Masons last century who wold have been drawn in to look at the topic more closely if it looked similar to their own teachings. This is pure speculation, however, and I freely admit it. What does not seem speculative is Daniel Caldwell's reading of K.H. in Mahatma Letter 25, for I think the English is very clear. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Sep 1995 22:34:18 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: re: CWL and Mars Jerry H-E wrote > Later sworn police testimony by Oscar Kollestrom and the > collaborating eye witness testimony of Mrs. Martin that CWL > masturbated Oscar did not occur until 1914. Yet, I question > whether the label "homosexual" fits CWL in light of what we know > about his activities, and I would not use this term. > Man, the more I learn about this guy, the more AWFUL he sounds. Are we sure that this is the same guy people are running around calling an "Adept"? What do the students and followers of Leadbeater make of these allegations? That they were all made up? By whom and for what purpose? RIch From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Sep 1995 22:38:39 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Jehovah's Witnesses Brenda writes: > I especially love all of the little books that are associated with the > Jehovah Witnesses. These are really easy reading and are delightfully > illustrated. They are wonderful aids in teaching children religion, etc. Yes, they are delightful, aren't they? So crisp and sharp and pretty, and so full of false teachings about the world's religions. I just looked over one last week claiming to "impartially examine" the religions of the world. Not surprisingly, we find words like "ignorant" for the Hindus, "heretics" for Muslims, etc. The LAST person I wold give a Jehovah's Witness book to is a child, and I am friends with a psychotherapist who leads a Jehovah's Witness SUPPORT GROUP for those who leave the fold. Apparently when you leave the "one and only true church" you are shunned. Since when you are a Jehovah's Witness, outside friends and social activities are frowned upon, when you are shunned you have NO social network to fall back upon. Your family and friends desert you, and it is a devastating experience, designed to bring you back to the church by sheer psychological isolation. My friend the therapist grew up Jehovah's Witness, left the church at 17, and was disowned by her whole family, including her mother. It is a vicious group disguised by sweetness and light, and I truly feel sad for those trapped within. I saw an interview with one devout fellow who had been going door-to-door for 25 years. "How many converts have you gained?" The interviewer said. "Well, somebody came once for a few weeks." "That's it?" asked the shocked interviewer. "Yes," was the reply. You have to admire the dedication, even while feeling sad for the cultish quality of the group. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Sep 1995 22:54:05 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: More thoughts on abortion JRC wrote: > Does this mean we should go around making women who have had or will > have abortions feel miserable? No, this would be cruel. Right ... and it is only your opinion that abortion is wrong Um, yes, it is only my opinion. I also thought HPB's opinion was remarkably clear and categorical as well. Did you miss that part? Of course, we can just say that she and I share the same wrong opinion ... Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Sep 1995 23:00:57 GMT From: Tracey Benson Subject: Re: abortion On Wed, 20 Sep 1995, Eldon B. Tucker wrote: > Rich: > > >It would seem that abortion is murder, whatever may be the age of > >the fetus. It may be the karma of the incoming soul (manas) to lose the > >vehicle INTO WHICH IT HAS NOT YET INCARNATED, but it is not justifiable to > >bring on that karma. It is never right to cause pain or suffering to another > >being, least of all out of self-interest. > > The biggest argument against abortion would be made by those with the > Christian notion that a new soul is created for each physical birth, > and therefore we are cheating someone out of their chance for a one-and-only > existence in the physical world. We know better with Theosophy, there is > near-immediate rebirth in the circumstances of an abortion or miscarriage. > > One comparison that we can make is to suicide. When a person is ready to > die, should their death be assisted in any manner? Is it too much to > offer them poison or a gun? Could we draw the line at their decision to > stop eating food? One member of the Los Angeles T.S. was dying of cancer, > and when he knew that his time had came, stopped eating, and quietly passed > away that day. Was this wrong? > > There is a natural end to life. On a inner level, when we have completely > readied ourselves, we could almost do like some Tibetans, to sit in > meditation, close our eyes, and consciously participate in our physical > death. The time has come and our life energies departed and it happened > naturally, without physical intervention. > > Could the same be said of an incoming birth that is proving to be a > mistake? The initial birth was attracted by what was in the minds and > hearts of the parents, perhaps before the time of the sex act and of > the actual physical conception. The incoming person's life energies > interacted with the process and "caused" the particular set of genes > that the new body will have. A process of coming into birth has been > engaged. > > After the start of the birth process, it may later prove to be a > mistake. Perhaps something has changed in one or both of the parents, > where the situation is no longer suitable for rearing of the child. > The change could be inner, or in outer circumstances. If the change > is deeply felt, perhaps we would find a natural miscarriage happening. > The mother's body reacts to the changing situation, reponding to the > now unsuitable birth circumstances. > > Certainly, in this day and age, there is no such "natural miscarriage," > but perhaps in a future age when our bodies are more responsive to > the changes that happen in us, it may appear. > > In this day and age, an abortion is like a physician-assisted suicide. > We are using medicine to help out with the termination of a life. We > have decided that it would be the best thing to do. One big question > is: Are we really sure of our decision? We can't change our minds after > the fact. And: Is there a general rule wherein we can always say that > a particular decision is right, or always is wrong? And with this, I'd > say "no," that we need to carefully evaluate each situation on a > case-by-case basis, sometimes with incredible insight required of us, > in order to know what is the right way to proceed. > > -- Eldon > Eldon, Thankyou for expressing succintly the complexities of the abortion issue, I have been finding some of the posts disconcerting, in particular Rich's position as he is a Theosophist. I do not believe anyone can make such a decision lightly, only with great consideration for the well being of all parties: the potential parents and the inevitiability of the situation also to meditate with love to make the "right" choice for the emerging soul who will enhabit this situation. Tracey From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Sep 1995 23:12:46 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: "source teachings" Jerry S. wrote: >Rich:language of the people, accessible and understandable. And I agree that >that's our job, to keep the teaching available in that way.> > This from the person who wants me to talk about upper and lower >manas, buddhi, kama-manas, buddhi-manas, atma-buddhi-manas, etc., etc..? > Who in today's society has ever heard of such things except a handful of >theosophists, and how many of them really understand the terms? Hello, Jerry. Nice to see you back again. It is one thing, I think, to teach Theosophy to the public using very clear language and presenting the basics. No Sanskrit,, definitely. I only ask that those of us here who really want to hammer out in-depth topics like psychism and globes etc. watch our language. Terms are quite important when you get down to subtleties. This is neither a truly "public" forum nor is someone like you likely to be confused by a few Sanskrit terms which are comparatively precise. When we say "manas," well that's a broad subject. In public, when I am giving the teachings, I just give the seven basic principles, and say "mind" and let it go at that. When we are questioning what is psychic, what is noetic, what is lower and higher, dangerous and safe, spiritual and pernicious, a little more sophistication is needed, no? I'm fairly certain that you are up for it. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Sep 1995 23:29:16 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: numerology >> Eldon >>We have to be careful of numerology. An important distinction >>that we don't always make is between numeric attributes of >>things and artificial constructs. Calling this year "1995" is >>an artificial construct, for instance, since we could just as >>well call it any other number. It has not been 1995 years since >>the start of the earth, nor since the start of time, just 1995 >>years since the particular year that we wanted to call zero. >>Real numbers or attributes are like natural numbers, where we >>clearly see there are three oranges on the table before us, >>or the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle. >>With numerology of names, if there is some actual, consistent >>relationship between the written letters and the sounds spoken >>in sounding the name, numbers might be applied to the name. >>On the other hand, if there are many ways of spelling a particular >>name, a name that sounds the same on the lips regardless of >>spelling, the written name is an artificial construct and the >>numbers do not particularly indicate something. > Brenda >Oh, Eldon, but they do. We only have to have agreement and common usage of >such "artificial construct" for it to bring images to our mind. Our house >number will not change just because someone counted houses from the end of >the block. Our true number is the number upon it and the number everyone >uses when they address us. This is where our associations dwell. You seem to be talking about something different. The distinction that I'm making is similar to that made between "sign" and "symbol" by the Jungians. In one case, we have an arbitrary naming or numbering scheme, in the other case, we have something based upon an actual attribute. When we name a new planet, and pick a term from mythology, the true meaning of that planet, astrologically, is not *caused by that choice of name*. There is not some magic name-picking process that makes us pick a name that matches, in all its meanings, the astrological influence of that planet. If I would be holding a rock, and I say that it weights X grams, or Y ounces, or Z of someother unit of measure, the true numerology of that rock does not change based upon my choice of arbitrary scale. If the houses on a block are arbitrarily renumbered, according to some new local ordinance, the numerology of the houses does not change. When we are dealing with numerology, we're looking for attributes of objects or living beings. From these attributes, we can infer additional information. But I would only expect the numerology to work if we obtain *real attributes*. Otherwise, we are just "tossing the dice" and doing a psychic reading. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 00:20:57 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: More thoughts on abortion >JRC >In fact most of those who believe >in a determinative law of karma will hold that the incoming soul does not >blindly pick parents, but does so delibrately ... hence an incoming soul >cannot be blind to whether or not a particular set of parents hold within >them the predilection that would make it likely that an abortion >would result from a pregnancy. But I would say that karma is not deterministic. Our karma has made us what we are today. The "karmic content" is really the living relationships that we hold, deep in our natures, with others. Coming into birth may be by chance in the sense that when we are ready to be born, we are drawn to suitable parents. The parents are suitable because of their natures being sympathetic to our own. We'd have to study the particular past-life history of both the child and the parents to see how much this attraction resulted from previous experiences together, in past lifetimes, and how much we are talking about establishing a new relationship with unfamiliar, but compatible people. >That is, just as (again, if one operates >within the "karma" paradigm) many births into bad families or brutal >cultures are explained by saying that the child "knew" the conditions and >"chose" them, so (it seems) it might equally be said that some incoming >souls "chose" the experience of abortion - either to "pay off" past >karma, or for other reasons. This seems to over-simplify the idea of karma. We are not responsible for the actions of others. We may know that they are predisposed to certain types of action, like so-and-so has an explosive temper. But we are not responsible for that person's temper, and have not associated ourselves with that person because we're looking forward to experiencing it. The choice of parents is like the choice of friends. When we go to a new place, and meet new people, perhaps some of them will end up being friends. How do we choose those friends? How much of it is old karmic ties being reactivated, and how much is new ties being forged? We'd have to be able to read the past to really tell, but that doesn't help much, because in a certain sense *the past does not exist*! What exists of the past is in terms of *living content* in our Shandhas and consciousness, and so it is a moot point, from this point of view, if the karma is based upon old or newly-formed ties with other people. >Very difficult to ascribe to the incoming >soul a remarkable enough prophetic insight to be able to "choose" the >parents, economic status, culture & etc. and somehow also be alledged to >be blind to the probabilty of the parent/parents having an abortion. When we say that we choose our parents, we are using terms we understand to describe a process and state of consciousness that is outside the experience of our normal, waking personality. How are we prophetic enough to pick the right spouse? >> Rather, abortion seems destructive all around. >And you will never have to experience trying to raise a child alone >with no education and nothing but poverty conditions even without a child. It's hard to pass judgement on the quality of life of a child-to-be, based upon the economic status of its western parent or parents. Even the worest conditions in America are better than in some countries. I've heard examples on the news, for instance, how in a famine in Africa a mother may have to let one of her two babies die, because she does not have enough breast milk to feed both of them. When we start to judge quality of life based upon an arbitrary standard that we set up (and I'm not saying that you're doing so here), we are going too far in forcing our judgements on others. Should retarded or mentally-ill women be sterilized? Should the state impose abortions based upon the economic policy of the land (like China with its women)? The decision needs to be carefully made by the mother, but I'm not sure that economic reasons are sufficient justification for the decision to have an abortion. >Additionally, our species' population problem is also immensely >destructive, and to many lifeforms *other* than those within our own kingdom. I expect that the human population won't be able to grow at its current rate, but will reach a maximum, then decline, with an onset of either infertility or some diseases and natural disasters to bring the population back down. Nature adjustes itself, and too big a percentage of the human lifewave in birth at any moment of time won't be tolerated. >> Rich >> Does this mean we should go around making women who have had or will >> have abortions feel miserable? No, this would be cruel. >Right ... and it is only your opinion that abortion is wrong; Most people would agree that it is wrong, but not in an absolute sense where other factors cannot come into play, and lead to a balanced, perhaps heart-rending decision for or against it in a particular situation. >as Liesel so well stated, women are not chattel - who are men, who will >never have to have an abortion, nor will ever be able to fully grasp the >subjective state behind that decision, to chose to make women feel bad or >not feel bad? A woman who has not had an abortion *in this lifetime* is in the same position as a man. We've all had lifetimes as women, and had the various experiences of childbirth and childrearing. Women not having been put to the real-life situation of choosing an abortion are in the same position as men, physical plumbing notwithstanding. Agreed that women are not chattel, nor are men "meal tickets". There are many social roles that are pressured upon us by current society. We can play the roles or improvise our own manner of living. >The curious thing is that the vast number of people >currently in power, who are deciding whether abortion is "right" or >"wrong", are men - who generally speak as though their standing to make >such decisions isn't even open to question. Blavatsky was not a man. The ideas that Theosophy are based upon do not come from the particular social order of any particular society. We cann't use the shortcomings of modern society or of some culture in the recent past to bias our thinking. > [JRC commenting to Rich] >Education of what nature? If you mean education about a >particular spiritual perspective, I cannot agree - as this implies a sort >of moral/intellectual superiority, in which those who have abortions are >implied to simply be those who have not yet "seen the light", and that >naturally when they do, they will stop and repent of their "crime". We see this "education" usually from the politically-correct crowd, who would "train" us in the proper way to think, act, speak, write, and live our lives according to their multicultural values. We're given a long list of slogans to use in our communications. The same is true of fundamentalism and the religious right, where people are ready to tell us what to think. This is why many people are at a loss when it comes to Theosophy, because it doesn't not give us all the answers on a sliver platter, but makes us work for those fragments of Truth that we can discover. >Perhaps what is really necessary is alterations of a whole number >of the attitudes and economic structures surrounding the valuation of >children and childraising in this current world. The raising of children is highly important, and we often undervalue it. There were a number of approaches tried by Theosophists, including Maria Montessori and by Katherine Tingley at Point Loma with her Raja Yoga School. The real issue regarding abortion and many other subjects that come up for discussion is: How do we live up to various ideals in actual life? Each idea, apart from actual life, considered as a thing in itself, is quite clearcut and can be agree with. Take one: Don't kill. It is just fine and we can agree to it in the abstract. But when we apply it to a particular situation in life, we have problems. Why? Because the situation is complex, there are many factors to weigh and balance, and perhaps a dozen ideals are coming into play, come in conflict with others. The complexity of life comes from our having to sort out the conflicts and come up with a "good" choice in each sitation. This requires a deeper kind of insight than the contemplation of the ideas, apart from life, and is something we all could work on. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 00:29:55 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Reincarnation Daniel: >Has everyone had a previous life. Or in other words >has everyone been reincarnated numerous times? The general idea, as I understand it, is yes. We are external going into the past. As sparks of the divine, we never had a beginning. The finite, mortal part of us, though, is born and dies. Then we take on another one, and then yet another. We continue to be born and live some kind of life, followed by a period of rest, forever. It is just that over vast periods of time we spiritually evolve, taking on more complex forms and existing on higher worlds or planes of consciousness, suitable to our unfolding consciousness. >I have lived as another person in the 1800s, 1500's, etc...? There is disagreement with how long we spend in the after-death states between lifetimes. What I've heard is, for most, starting at a few thousand years and upwards from there. The New Age literature indicates a very-short period between lifetimes, but the classic theosophical writings indicate a much-longer time period between lives. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 02:22:42 GMT From: Daniel Subject: Reincarnation I thought I posted this before... guess not. Has everyone had a previous life. Or in other words has everyone been reincarnated numerous times? I have lived as another person in the 1800s, 1500's, etc...? Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 02:22:53 GMT From: Daniel Subject: JW's & Heb 1: Jehovah Witnesses believe many errancies related to scripture and they also promote mind-control (life control over members) to influence the followers. JWs believe that Jesus Christ is actually Micheal the Archangel. They do not believe in a literal hell. They have there own version of the bible called the New World Translation, which every respected greek scholar calls a joke. They believe that Jesus already returned in 1874, 1914, 1915... and on and on. They believed the Gentiles would all be killed or destroyed during Armageddon...Which certainly has not yet accurred. They have had numerous false prophecies and their foundational beliefs are subject to change without notice. Many JW's have been cast out because of their disagreement with some doctrine as espoused by the WatchTower then in moments or years the Organization would change their doctrinal stand and yet no act of restoration will be made to the previous member who was "right" all the time. I could go on and on... The Watchtower and LDS church are two fine examples of organizations that promote "Divine Unique Election" as a church and that all others are in error. Yet at the same time the rules with which they judge their members if you were to hold them accountable for the same, they would certainly fall condemned...The key is a double standard and due to revelation from the current prophets or organization all doctrines are subject to change. Nothing like a strong foundation to keep you standing. But when the kindess and love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit whom he poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior. Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 02:40:12 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Protection >Right! The very concept of "protection" indicates a fear or need within >yourself. If you truly have a sincere compassion for others, this will cause >your fear to dissipate - "perfect love casts out fear" - see, I DO know the >Bible :-) and the whole idea of protection is seen as silly. But this >ability takes time to master, and most students can't just jump into it. For >them. building up a protective shield (rather like a magic circle) is >necessary. For Initiates and Adepts, magic circles are no longer really >necessary, and if done at all, are only done for effect. > > Jerry S. Jerry: Don't you think this is true for themselves, but that adepts don't just work for themselves. I think they are always busy with protecting humanity and all of those who are weaker than themselves and in this way, the process of protection never ends. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 02:51:30 GMT From: Daniel Subject: Re: interference with nature I thought that I would tell you that I had a wonderful breakfast this weekend. I have a friend who owns a ranch and there were three late hatched Bald Eagle eggs left abondoned in the loft of his barn. Well as soon as it was obvious that mom left, he got the eggs and put them in an incubator. I got over to his house early saturday and we cooked ourselves up the best omelette I have ever had. It was great. Thought you would like to know. Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 02:55:23 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: re: CWL and Mars >Jerry H-E wrote > >> Later sworn police testimony by Oscar Kollestrom and the >> collaborating eye witness testimony of Mrs. Martin that CWL >> masturbated Oscar did not occur until 1914. Yet, I question >> whether the label "homosexual" fits CWL in light of what we know >> about his activities, and I would not use this term. >> >Man, the more I learn about this guy, the more AWFUL he sounds. Are we sure >that this is the same guy people are running around calling an "Adept"? What >do the students and followers of Leadbeater make of these allegations? That >they were all made up? By whom and for what purpose? > >RIch This is very impolite stuff. Some people out there are not being nice. Try to think how many souls are in existence and what they are capable of, and then go on and read CWL and enjoy him. Similar trash has been said about JESUS, after his life was over. There are sick minds out there bent on destroying the good and the beautiful, and you of all people should be aware of the attacks that theosophists have had to suffer. Is it the black brotherhood behind this? Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 03:01:19 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: attacks on our leaders Why is it that attacks can be leveled at HPB, Judge, etc., but when attacks are aimed at CWL, theosophists can't place their origin? Do you think the Masters are capable of protecting and preventing EVERYONE who attempts to do their work? Do you think there is no end to their ability to work miracles? As long as the TS is guaranteed a firm origin and a long life, they may not have been able to interfere any further. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 03:09:59 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: false impressions of JW I believe your message was well-intended, but missed its mark. I am able to form my opinion through my own experiences with people, and my experience tells me that they are not "in-human" therefore capable of making mistakes, but basically good and nothing to be afraid of, unless your life is desiring more of the "deeper truths" of theosophy. Or unless karmically it is the time for you to become dissatisfied with anything less than theosophy. See for yourself. It's a wonderful, loving church. Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 03:14:01 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: numerology >If the houses on a block are arbitrarily renumbered, according to some >new local ordinance, the numerology of the houses does not change. The numerology of the house would change at this time and just as moving into a new "number" means new and different experiences, you would find yourself compatible or incompatible with the "new number." >When we are dealing with numerology, we're looking for attributes of >objects or living beings. From these attributes, we can infer additional >information. But I would only expect the numerology to work if we obtain >*real attributes*. Otherwise, we are just "tossing the dice" and doing >a psychic reading. No, Eldon, we're not. We're looking for influences and clues that help us to meet or defer our destiny. Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 03:30:11 GMT From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: From the spring to the pond John Crocker, >>KPJ: There's no point in boring everyone with details of how >>beautiful the hike was, or how peaceful it was .... > >JRC: Oh, I don't know ... about either point. I don't think its >boring, and have myself made major sacrifices (in the eyes of >what modern society considers to be important) to live in the >midst of scenic splendour. > >>KPJ: Living in the city and >>driving to nice rural spots created a sense of distance and >>deprivation. Nature was not continuous with the reality in >>which I lived; it was something you had to escape to. > >JRC: I grew up in suburban >Detroit, and moved to Montana 15 years ago, and the sensation was >the same - how remarkable to live where human presence is dwarfed >by the natural world; where it is but a hop skip & a jump to be >alone and facing the immensity of the galaxy. > >- perhaps a bit of gushing about the magnificence of a >hike, the tenderness in a friendship, or the accomplishments in >our (often seemingly) mundane jobs, would serve to humanize this >medium ... to make it easier to remember that we are not all just John, This post lifts my spirits and encourages me to share some of the feelings I have about living in the city. My wife, Jocelyn, and I moved to a new house in a suburb of Auckland, New Zealand, only 8 minutes' drive from the city centre, just over a year ago. We took it on for the express purpose of being near to our workplaces and near to the Auckland theosophical lodge and NZ headquarters. The idea was to reduce time spent travelling so we'd have more time for our relationship, theosophical work, and home life in general. Living in that part of the city is also an excellent financial investment, due to the rate of rise of property values - again with a view to freeing us up financially sooner to do things we really want to with our time, especially theosophical work in a wider sense. The compromise we had to make for this combination of advantages, was to accept a pretty ordinary urban environment, ie on flat ground, not high, not much of a view, and close to other houses. All pleasant enough, but leaving the spirit wanting, at times. For others in other parts of the city, it can be a lot worse. Perhaps a bit of a sacrifice, here, on the other side of the fence from yours. I see this period of our lives as being one where our connections are best served by being this close to them physically, but I have a strong impulse at times to break out and find a more beautiful natural environment, and keep in touch with the world via the Internet when I want to. I feel that our time in the present house could be quite short and we're holding it lightly, ready for a significant change. Meanwhile, we live in a kind of ongoing creative tension. I often think of nature as expressed in city dwelling areas, and have been delighted to find that native birds are beginning to move into the city. It's a real thrill to hear a tui or a morepork in a tree nearby. When we plant more flowers, perhaps there'll be more nature spirits around. When we first moved into the house, I was very conscious of its being a collection of materials put together, perhaps not yet well integrated into a "being" as our Maori indigenous people conceive a dwelling place. All the walls a clean akashic slate, relatively speaking. I have often thought love into those walls and asked for the embrace of any interested orders of beings. When we leave, it will be for the next inhabitants. The soil in the garden was a heavy layer of clayey stuff dumped on top of an older fertile volcanic soil, with stones and even the odd small car part in it. Must have been in a garbage dump, some of it anyway. Made me quite sad, and at times resentful at what the builders had done. So, in my morning meditations, I sometimes think of that soil and the psychic "gunge" that I once read sinks into the soil in a city as a byproduct of human activity, and decided that it needed more love and light to sink into it, just as aeration and oxygen is good for soil. Sometimes I think of that and try to see it as a vibrant reality. Finally, though this was addressed to KPJ, >I, for one, would be interested in hearing, over the next few >months what changes you observe in your energy, in your perspective, in >your spiritual practices, as your system integrates (or reintegrates) >into surroundings that you must feel immensely blessed to be living in. I have experienced a considerable shift in my perspectives and increasing interest in, and sense of, unity as expressed in connections and relationships of all kinds, over the last two years. My time in this city house is perhaps a node in a multi-dimensional net where I can dream of living away from city lights, in the silence, for it to become a reality when the time is right. Murray Stentiford From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 04:11:58 GMT From: John R Crocker Subject: Re: More thoughts on abortion On Mon, 25 Sep 1995 Richtay@aol.com wrote: > JRC wrote: > > > Does this mean we should go around making women who have had or will > > have abortions feel miserable? No, this would be cruel. > Right ... and it is only your opinion that abortion is wrong > > Um, yes, it is only my opinion. I also thought HPB's opinion was remarkably > clear and categorical as well. Did you miss that part? Of course, we can > just say that she and I share the same wrong opinion ... > > Rich I presume the similarity with HPB's opinion is meant to give your opinion clout? As I mentioned in a couple of posts (including the one you respond to) HPB wrote when population was but a quarter of what it is now, when the environmental effects of population on the animal and plant kingdoms was scientifically unknown, when (as someone else pointed out) the mother often lost her life in the procedure - in short, in a very, very different time. HPB's argument was that it was "against" nature - but when animal and plant populations begin to exceed carrying capacity, it becomes their "nature" to begin limiting themselves - fo their own self-preservation. Did you miss that part? -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 04:12:29 GMT From: Daniel Subject: JW FAQ To get the real scoop on JWs... http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/apl/jw/1ethics.html This is a good site for all kinds of info. Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 04:50:51 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: re: CWL and Mars Brenda: > [responding to a discussion of Leadbeater] >This is very impolite stuff. Some people out there are not being nice. Try >to think how many souls are in existence and what they are capable of, and >then go on and read CWL and enjoy him. Similar trash has been said about >JESUS, after his life was over. There are sick minds out there bent on >destroying the good and the beautiful, and you of all people should be aware >of the attacks that theosophists have had to suffer. Is it the black >brotherhood behind this? The discussion reminds me of a talk show I heard on the radio yesterday. The name of a library was changed. It had been named after a famous scientist that invented the space suit and greatly helped the US space program. He was from Germany, and may have participated in war crimes against jewish people before coming to the US at the end of the war. The scientist achieved fame for the good that he did, despite any bad he had done earlier in his life. The decision now was to take away any recognition for the good that he had done, because he was potentially an awful person earlier in his life. What I thought while listening to the show was: Who are we trying to punish by doing this? The scientist is dead, and certainly cannot be puished by the withdrawal of any recognition for his accomplishments. We don't have a policy of punishing the descendents for crimes of their ancesters. Is it possible to allow him recognition for his accomplishments in the space program, quite apart from his participation in the holocost? With Leadbeater, we have two issues. One is how we handle a historic discussion of his personal life, and his relationships with others. The other is with regard to the reliability of his psychical investigations. When we talk about the former, we have to take care not to offend anyone wanting him as a hero. When we talk about the later, we have to take care not to offend anyone involved in psychical investigations. Strong emotions can be stirred and we have to chose words with care. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 04:57:01 GMT From: John R Crocker Subject: Re: interference with nature On Mon, 25 Sep 1995, Lewis Lucas wrote: > > Lewis: I think some balance between total disregard for nature and > all its creatures and abject worship of nature is what we should aim > for. I see the potential for us to work wisely with nature, aiding > the evolutionary push from the other kindgoms in nature. It is > similar to becoming a good tenant or neighbor. Lewis: Extrordinarily well put. I wish both the ranchers and the environmentalists/conservationists I work with could grasp this attitude. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 05:25:28 GMT From: John R Crocker Subject: Re: More thoughts on abortion On Mon, 25 Sep 1995, Eldon B. Tucker wrote: > > But I would say that karma is not deterministic. Our karma has made us what > we are today. The "karmic content" is really the living relationships that > we hold, deep in our natures, with others. Coming into birth may be by > chance in the sense that when we are ready to be born, we are drawn to > suitable parents. The parents are suitable because of their natures being > sympathetic to our own. We'd have to study the particular past-life history > of both the child and the parents to see how much this attraction resulted > from previous experiences together, in past lifetimes, and how much we are > talking about establishing a new relationship with unfamiliar, but > compatible people. My point exactly ... that using "karma" as an argument for or against a particular behaviour in general is a very difficult proposition - as knowledge of the personal connections unfolding over centuries, even millenia, would be necessary. > >That is, just as (again, if one operates > >within the "karma" paradigm) many births into bad families or brutal > >cultures are explained by saying that the child "knew" the conditions and > >"chose" them, so (it seems) it might equally be said that some incoming > >souls "chose" the experience of abortion - either to "pay off" past > >karma, or for other reasons. > > This seems to over-simplify the idea of karma. We are not responsible for > the actions of others. We may know that they are predisposed to certain types > of action, like so-and-so has an explosive temper. But we are not responsible > for that person's temper, and have not associated ourselves with that person > because we're looking forward to experiencing it. Agreed - but the post I was responding to seemed to be using a very simplified view of karma. > The choice of parents is like the choice of friends. When we go to > a new place, and meet new people, perhaps some of them will end up > being friends. How do we choose those friends? How much of it is > old karmic ties being reactivated, and how much is new ties being > forged? We'd have to be able to read the past to really tell, but > that doesn't help much, because in a certain sense *the past does > not exist*! What exists of the past is in terms of *living content* > in our Shandhas and consciousness, and so it is a moot point, from this > point of view, if the karma is based upon old or newly-formed ties with other > people. This is your reading of karmic links, but even on this list there is a wide diversity of views on what karma is and how it works - heence (again) the point I was making, that the "law" of karma is a tricky one to use to try to justify a particular position on a current issue. I personally don't believe in the law of karma, as articulated in spiritual literature, but am beginning to try to formulate another principle that would produce, as aftereffects, many of the phenomena associated with "karma". But I certainly would not presume to pass judgement on the actions of other based upon that paradigm. > >Very difficult to ascribe to the incoming > >soul a remarkable enough prophetic insight to be able to "choose" the > >parents, economic status, culture & etc. and somehow also be alledged to > >be blind to the probabilty of the parent/parents having an abortion. > > When we say that we choose our parents, we are using terms we understand > to describe a process and state of consciousness that is outside the > experience of our normal, waking personality. How are we prophetic enough > to pick the right spouse? Apparently many people are not (-:). > >> Rather, abortion seems destructive all around. > >And you will never have to experience trying to raise a child alone > >with no education and nothing but poverty conditions even without a child. > > It's hard to pass judgement on the quality of life of a child-to-be, based > upon the economic status of its western parent or parents. Even the worest > conditions in America are better than in some countries. I've heard examples > on the news, for instance, how in a famine in Africa a mother may have to let > one of her two babies die, because she does not have enough breast milk to > feed both of them. Yes, I agree ... and the post I was responding to, as well as a large political movement in this country, *is* passing judgement on the experience of individuals. And I have a bit of experience in ghettos - and telling someone in inner city Detroit that despite their poverty, they should not have an abortion because, after all, there are people in Africa whose poverty is far more brutal won't go very far. > When we start to judge quality of life based upon an > arbitrary standard that we set up (and I'm not saying that you're doing so > here), we are going too far in forcing our judgements on others. Should > retarded or mentally-ill women be sterilized? Should the state impose > abortions based upon the economic policy of the land (like China with its > women)? The decision needs to be carefully made by the mother, but I'm > not sure that economic reasons are sufficient justification for the decision > to have an abortion. Yes! Exactly! The decision needs to be made *by the Mother* - who should not have to care whether you, or I, or anyone else thinks her reasons are "justified". > >Additionally, our species' population problem is also immensely > >destructive, and to many lifeforms *other* than those within our own kingdom. > > I expect that the human population won't be able to grow at its current > rate, but will reach a maximum, then decline, with an onset of either > infertility or some diseases and natural disasters to bring the population > back down. Nature adjustes itself, and too big a percentage of the human > lifewave in birth at any moment of time won't be tolerated. Yes, I believe (as most ecological science does) that large disasters loom, and the chance of major die-offs are becoming likely - *unless* our species has the foresight to *voluntarily* limit its growth, in which case such thing very well might be avoided. > >> Does this mean we should go around making women who have had or will > >> have abortions feel miserable? No, this would be cruel. > > >Right ... and it is only your opinion that abortion is wrong; > > Most people would agree that it is wrong, but not in an absolute sense > where other factors cannot come into play, and lead to a balanced, perhaps > heart-rending decision for or against it in a particular situation. I'm not sure about the "most people" statement, but I agree with your point, that ethics can be absolute principles, but actual decisions are commonly composed of weighing a whole number of factors, and often deciding which of several *conflicting* principles to weigh more heavily. Again, who but the Mother has standing to make the decision? > >as Liesel so well stated, women are not chattel - who are men, who will > >never have to have an abortion, nor will ever be able to fully grasp the > >subjective state behind that decision, to chose to make women feel bad or > >not feel bad? > > A woman who has not had an abortion *in this lifetime* is in the same > position as a man. We've all had lifetimes as women, and had the various > experiences of childbirth and childrearing. Women not having been put to > the real-life situation of choosing an abortion are in the same position > as men, physical plumbing notwithstanding. Agreed - hence the previous point ... it is the one wrestling with the decision whose perspective is relevant. > Agreed that women are not chattel, nor are men "meal tickets". There are > many social roles that are pressured upon us by current society. We can > play the roles or improvise our own manner of living. Yes. I believe an entirely new model of male/female roles & attitudes is not only in order, but beginning to be articulated. > >The curious thing is that the vast number of people > >currently in power, who are deciding whether abortion is "right" or > >"wrong", are men - who generally speak as though their standing to make > >such decisions isn't even open to question. > > Blavatsky was not a man. The ideas that Theosophy are based upon do not come > from the particular social order of any particular society. We cann't use > the shortcomings of modern society or of some culture in the recent past to > bias our thinking. No, HPB was not a man, but never had children, had (apparently) little interest in biological reproduction, and in addition was for whatever reason free of the dominance of the man in the home at the time (very few women fought in *wars*). The ideas in Theosophy may be timeless, but HPB's opinions were not necessarily timeless, and the expression of those timeless ideas certainly were spoken in the language of the time, and spoke to many of the assumptions (scientific and religious) of the time. And yes, your last sentence is exactly the point I was trying to make: That things are *different* now - *population* is the single largest environmental problem facing the globe, and even as we speak is badly damaging many other species. It is, IMO, bizarre for Theosophy to speak so strongly for vegetarianism, so strongly about not taking the *individual* lives of individual animals, and to be so curiously silent about the large scale extinction of entire *species*. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 05:26:40 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: "source teachings" >>> Rich >>>I agree that the presentation of the teaching need to be in the >>>lnguage of the people, accessible and understandable. And I agree that >>>that's our job, to keep the teaching available in that way. We need to distinguish which version of Theosophy that we're talking about. There's the general concepts that are intended to spice up the thoughtlife of the West. These are intended for everyone. And there are those Teachings that are fragments of Mystery Teachings, and beyond what can be popularly taught. For the former materials, we certainly would want to clothe them in many different kinds of words, in music, in poetry, in drama, etc. For the later materials, a technical language is needed. If we were to simply substitute typical English words for the Sanskrit, we'd obscure the meanings rather than make them clear. Every specialty of thought has its own terminology, and Theosophy is not different in this respect. When we do something like Trungpa in his Buddhist writings, and simply use English terms, we force an unnecessary burden upon the reader. >>Jerry S >>This from the person who wants me to talk about upper and lower >>manas, buddhi, kama-manas, buddhi-manas, atma-buddhi-manas, etc., etc..? >> Who in today's society has ever heard of such things except a handful of >>theosophists, and how many of them really understand the terms? That talk is fine, when writing to fellow students, and when working to preserve the Mystery Teachings. It is inappropriate when speaking to the general public and trying to reach the millions. >Rich >It is one thing, I think, to teach Theosophy to the public using very clear >language and presenting the basics. No Sanskrit,, definitely. Yes, when we are weaving themes of the Esoteric Philosophy into modern thought, or in introductory lectures. I'd disagree when we have a study class that attempts to go into the deeper Teachings. >I only ask that those of us here who really want to hammer out in-depth >topics like psychism and globes etc. watch our language. Terms are quite >important when you get down to subtleties. Having many terms indicates a richness of thoughtlife. Look at the many terms for spiritual things in Sanskrit, and compare it to English. We are still mostly inarticulate about the spiritual in the West, we simply don't have the language for it. >This is neither a truly "public" forum nor is someone like you likely to be >confused by a few Sanskrit terms which are comparatively precise. We shouldn't need to explain why we'd attempt to go beyond the sort of materials found in public lectures on 'theos-l'. This is a place where we can experiment with our deeper, if not deepest thoughts on the Philosophy, knowing there may be some that appreciate our words. And since we're not "in print", we don't have the same karmic burden for hastily and incorrectly spoken words, that we would in a published article or book. >When we >say "manas," well that's a broad subject. In public, when I am giving the >teachings, I just give the seven basic principles, and say "mind" and let it >go at that. Sometimes there is a direct translation, in a particular context. But it's best to learn the language. When we study chemistry, we don't learn popular terms for the elements because we are unfamiliar with terms like "hydrogen" or "helium". >When we are questioning what is psychic, what is noetic, what is lower and >higher, dangerous and safe, spiritual and pernicious, a little more >sophistication is needed, no? We have the additional problem of having a borrowed terminology, where the terms don't necessarily mean the same thing as they do where they were taken from. Our idea of "nirvana", for instance, is not guaranteed to exactly match the Buddhist idea. What I hope will happen over the years is that we evolve a consistent and agreed-to terminology that will serve to communicate the Teachings, as we have been presented them, a terminology helps keep the ideas clear rather than confuses because of misleading connotations. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 05:35:08 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: false impressions of JW Brenda: >I believe your message was well-intended, but missed its mark. The mark was different. Rich is speaking from an intellectual perspective, addressing their ideas and how that affects their lives. You are looking at them from a feeling level, where the ideas aren't too important, but where the warm, social circle of family and friends is paramont. >I am able to form my opinion through my own experiences with people, and my >experience tells me that they are not "in-human" therefore capable of making >mistakes, but basically good and nothing to be afraid of, unless your life >is desiring more of the "deeper truths" of theosophy. As people, they can be friendly, kind, and loving to others, just as any other people. This is quite independent of their thoughtlife and beliefs. Rich was also concerned with how they treat their outcasts, those that leave them. The treatment he mentions that they give those quitting their group does not sound good. We can speak out again treating people that way, without having to cast a shadow on their other, better qualities. >Or unless karmically it is the time for you to become dissatisfied >with anything less than theosophy. They will look for something more than a happy, ordinary life when an inner urge is felt and they become seekers. Sometimes this happens through suffering and disillusionment. Othertimes it arises spontaneously. >See for yourself. It's a wonderful, loving church. Rich is busily engaged in working to show people the "something more" that some are looking for. I'm sure he recognizes the good that can be found in the hearts of people, regardless of their status as seekers. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 05:43:24 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: interference with nature JRC: > [writing to Brenda] >I do not >believe that abstract or ideological beliefs formulated 100, 200, 300 >years ago are suitable grounds to address this problem If you're referring to Theosophy, then you're making the statement that it is something made up by Blavatsky. I'd say, myself, that Theosophy as we know it is derived from a definite body of knowledge that is about 18 million years old. The knowledge is in the safekeeping of the Masters, which are as real as any non-physical being we may encounter. >we cannot simply >ignore the fact that largely because of our "unnatural" science, we have >overcome so many different "laws" of nature that our species is now >preventing numerous other "group-souls" from even having a doorway >through which to experience physical plane incarnation (which is what a >species extinction is). I'd expect the animals to be primarily active on a later globe, perhaps Globe E. The animal lifewave is ahead of the human lifewave, and what we see of animals on this Globe may not be representative of the way they are on a Globe where their lifewave predominates. The populations of all the lower kingdoms will decrease over time, as their respective lifewaves move onto higher Globes, and they exist on the respective higher planes on which those Globes reside. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 05:46:09 GMT From: murdicrj@esvax.dnet.dupont.com Subject: Theosophy As a lurker to this list and a member of the Adyar TS, I have enjoyed the different perspectives offered by those of you that express yourself so clearly. I have little, if any, I can add to the disscussions. The times that I do feel that there is a point to add someone ALWAYS brings it to the forum. I have been having a little dialog on AOL with Joe Fulton and I have attached a copy of one of his replies. The ideas he presents are in-tune with some of the threads that are currently going on Theoso_L. I have given Joe the info he would need to subscribe to the mailing list but I'm unsure if he has connected yet. He has no problem with his message being posted to the list and wished to continue the dialog with others. SO, until he does subscribe, all replies should be forwarded to the address in the attached message. Keep the Ideas flowing, Bob Murdic jpfulton@ix.netcom.com (Joseph P. Fulton) I will happily take up the invite to comment and debate. I do not make the following comments in any "negative" sense, but simply in a spirit of truthfulness about Theosophy and the T.S.. The "Freedom of the Society" and the "World View" were lifted off of the American Theosophist and the mention of the number of "sections" around the world makes the "Adyar" Society seem very impressive. The truth is that the American Section is in a VERY sick condition, something acknowledged by most serious students in the movement. The T.S. has virtually run out of people who understand very much of what H.P.B. was trying to do, her methodology and her writings, most of which are available either in her "Collected Writings" series, or in the form of her major works, "The Secret Doctrine," and "Isis Unveiled" (as well as other works such as "Practical Occultism" and "Voice of the Silence"). The "Voice of the Silence" has been endorsed by the Panchen Lama (preface to 1935 Point Loma ed.) as being written by someone with intimate knowledge of the inner, secret teachings of "higher lamaism." Christmas Humphreys, founder of the Buddhist Society had his copy of "Voice of the Silence" signed by the Dalai Lama, who has spoken for the T.S. several times. So much for the aside. The T.S. has become "infected" by a crisis caused by lazy mindedness and a lack of rational integrity. Most of this trend can be traced and tagged onto A.P. Sinnett and his "inductees" into Theosophy, namely, the London Lodge spiritualists and C.W. Leadbeater. When Sinnett was "cut off" he started consulting the medium he referred to as "Mary," who started "channelling" the Mahatma's. After 1900, particularly after 1905 the T.S. (Adyar) got involved in a frenzy of members "past lives," which culminated in the Krishnamurti (Alcyone) affair. A vast departure took place in the methodology applied by H.P.B. to herself and her immediate "followers" (hardly, in the traditional sense). She held Mead, Besant, Olcott, Wilder and others to a simple standard. If you make a statement or assertion, you had better be able to back it up. As a result, the pages of the Theosophist, and later Lucifer under H.P.B.'s editorship not only made lively reading, but also attracted the best minds in the world they lived in. In addition, H.P.B. was not afraid to use the Theosophist to engage in attacking the cant and hypocrisy rife in the Victorian Age (most of it still present). I make the above points partially to give background to what the original Theosophical movement was and what has become of it. In my own view, and partially (at least in Adyar) the craziness that Besant, Leadbeater and Arundale perpetuated in their "occult" work (which lead in 1923 to that "Freedom of the Society" statement because the Liberal Catholics, Co-Masons and the Order of the Star had overrun the movement and distorted it into a raving madhouse where certain members received three "initiations" in one week ("Krishnamurti - Years of Awakening," Mary Lutyens, Pp. 231, 232). The traditional concept of "Initiation," according to H.P.B. is tied very closely with the mastery of the various stages of yoga (dharana, dhyana, samadhi [and its various levels]). The Adyar Society came out of this position quite embarrassed, their coming (Krishnamurti) having went (with most of their members) to the "pathless land." After this point the Society became something of a timid, inward looking group with hopes that 1975 would somehow save them with the advent of a new teacher, as predicted by H.P.B.. 1975 also came ... and went. Since then the American Section has been plagued by a series of leaders, either ineffectual in management skill, knowledge of Theosophy (usually both) and faced with local groups intent on going their own way. Freedom of thought is certainly a wonderful thing, but I would assert for an organization like the T.S. to function properly, this "freedom" like all other "freedoms" must be handled responsibly. Freedom of thought has become a license for looseness of thought, under the guise of "spirituality" fostered by pop psychology and the teachings of "new agers" such as Alice Bailey and others who thrive on ungrounded assertions and devotional natures. Modern Theosophy also suffers from another malady, that is SELFISHNESS. In the "Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett," Sinnett's correspondent gives a description of the London Lodge and of a mysterious group of European occultists who formed some twenty years earlier. Theosophy made its name, contrary to the statements made by Paul Gillingwater in the next posting on Theosophy. The problem with the lack of "Universal Brotherhood," now and always is that truth always takes a back seat to Mrs. Grundy and that almighty GOD of this age, public opinion. The truth is that no major innovation or advance in civilization ever took place without a struggle and it never will. To go along with the flow is to assure continuation of the "same old, same old." A good example of this is the Judaeo-Christian monstrosity we refer to as God. H.P.B. and her teachers would not budge one micron on the non-existence of this "being" (see Letter #10, Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett), but modern Theosophists go out of their way to sophistrise and rationalize the existence of an entity that all Buddhists reject as an untenable possiblity (the Dali Lama refers to worship of such as "foolish chatter") and which the Sankhyas would relegate to the status of a "created being," thus stripped of all qualities assigned by his followers. I hope that this exposition has been coherent enough to draw a threat (sutra) through and make some sense of. My hope for the T.S. is that (in strict defiance of the Kali Yuga cycle) is that a moral, intellectual and spiritual resurgence take place, that its members and leadership would once again fearlessly speak on the issues that raise their heads every day and try to understand the full implications of the three objectives placed before them. But this is probably as likely to happen as the Kalki Avatara appearing at the wrong point in the cycles or the Christian God repenting of His sins against nature. Anyway, so much for my two cents. I am more than happy to correspond with you, or anyone seriously interested in Theosophical work. Take care, Joe P.S. to tyagi nagasiva: Thank you for the opportunity to create some discussion and help fertilize some of the thought in the Theosophical world. Please feel free to post publicly. I have no qualms about defending my positions, and learning from another if I am wrong. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 06:04:47 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: What authenticates what we Believe? Lewis: You made a number of comments to Jerry S. that I would like to respond to. >Lewis: I agree the limitations of the finite mind make it incapable >"of the infinite." I think of the bridge aspect more along the lines >of a scientist working on a problem who uses his rational mind to do >the ground work then suddenly awakes in the middle of the night with >the answer. When we look at the gulf between our finite mind and the infinite, there is no direct connection. It's like a finger pointing at the moon. The distances are cosmic. But there is another "bigger" to look at. There are relatively higher levels of knowing. We can look to the next higher level, and behold something higher, grander, and achievable. There are, I'd say, an infinite number of finite steps between where we are at and the ultimate, even for our minds, and it is a very real thing to seek "the next step". >In brain stroming sessions participants are encouraged to throw >every idea that occurs to them immediately into the discussion, >not editing them in any way. The more creative ideas seem to only >come once we have run through all the more "logical" or rational >ideas. There are different types of knowing or thought. One is not higher, just qualitatively different. We need all of them. > [speaking to Jerry S] >I have to confess to being one of those who knows little of Jnana >Yoga. I am sure you are not suggesting we should push are selves to a >point of a mental breakdown. It is true the brain can be overtaxed >which can lead to some paranormal experiences. The contemplation of the Teachings can be used as an approach that opens inner spiritual faculties. This is not due to exhaustion, but from a flowering over time of our inner natures. >I met a man who said that he had a religious experience while >studying for long hours the texts of different religions. He said >Jesus appeared to him and told him he was going to far and should >stop. He interpreted this as a warning that his interest in these >other religions was getting him into trouble. He is now a devoted >Christian. Some TS writers have a less "revelational" point of view >on these type experiences. The aim of the study is not to induce visions, nor are they necessarily a sign that progress is being made. Rather, we find ourselves transformed inwardly. We think less of ourselves as personalities with specific desires and needs, and our minds and hearts are filled with grand thoughts and inspired. >This reminds me of the genius who has surpassed us in his area of >expertise, but lacks other simple attributes readily found in others. It is possible to have an unbalanced development. But that is different than the approach where the spiritual nature is awakened, and the rest of external life will naturally, almost magically rearrange itself according to the higher power that appears in our lives. >I think it is a matter of time and the -- I was going to say >perfection, but that word has some loaded connotations -- mastery of >all our faculties will come but not all at once. Naturally, we may >achieve mastery of some before others. There are two things here. There is the sense of initiation or the awakening of qualitatively different faculties of consciousness. And there is the gradual development of those faculties over vast ages of use. >I agree there is a difference between knowledge as you are >using it and Gnosis or wisdom. Our thoughts are tools which can be >put to great service, but require much practice and training. Wisdom is knowledge that has become a living part of our lives. It is not so much specific factual information as it is a understanding about how things work, combined with the ability to quickly perceive things. >This reminds me of the a meditation technique in which the >student disassociates himself first from the physcial body, then the >emotions, then the thoughts thus slowly withdrawing his consciousness >form the vehicles of normal activity. We can make an effort to disassociate ourselves from these various parts. But that is a form of looking for the spiritual by "double negation". We say "don't look at this," then "don't look at that." There is a more direct approach of simply gazing at, with utter amazement and fascination, the living spiritual presence and fount of wisdom that is before and within us. >It was very difficult for me to >accept the notion that "I am not this body." When you think of the body and try to say "I am not this," you're taking the approach of trying to disassocate from that which you behold. It doesn't work well that way. Rather, I'd suggest, look at that which you want to see, and you'll quickly become interested enough to forget the body and externalities. >Then I discovered the opposite correlation which approaches this >exercise by having the student recognize the body as a part of >himself, but that he is more than just the physcial body. He also has >an emotional and mental component. This accepts rather than rejects >these elements of our complex being and was for me much more >satisfying. That's part of the way, as I'd put it. Don't push away anything. Simply contemplate the object of contemplation, and if you truly behold it, nothing will stand in the way of your vision. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 07:13:38 GMT From: "David J. Kunz" Subject: Re: Groups On 25 Sep 95 at 12:02, Lewis Lucas wrote: [snip] > Lewis: This reminds me of a statement in one of the Mahatma letters > which advises we judge an organization by its *motives* and not by > what it manages to accomplish. In another place they say we should > not be attached to results. I think they even go so far as to > suggest that if one looks for results it is (to use a British > witicism) rather bad form, because it shows a lack of understanding > of the natural laws. Ever cause MUST have its effect. (De-lurking, just for the heck of it.) Yeah. But the effect needn't have very much to do with the intent behind it... looking for the actual results of one's actions helps one gauge how intelligently one has *applied* one's intent. I don't know about you, but I've done lots of things which have had results I neither expected nor wanted. Maybe I'm locked in some kind of perceptual trap, but I have the feeling that if I don't keep looking out for the reality of what things I do actually accomplish then I'll never gain that understanding of natural laws to begin with. I'm not (I hope) going to pretend I have understanding of them when I don't yet. Why do people like to try to appear perfect beforehand (other than as a tantric practice)? Seems quite stupid to me. They'll just be caught out eventually and maybe lose the opportunity to learn in the meantime. Peace. David J. Kunz | Isles of Ether, Citadel+/065, 206.367.6443 gremlinked From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 07:23:44 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: 666 post > From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu > Subject: 666 post > Say ... I've tried to post something called "666: A Kabalistic > Interpretation" to the list twice ... and it doesn't seem to > be working ... has anyone gotten it? (My University's mainframe > has beeen acting strangely lately). > > Thanks, -JRC > Lewis: I got it and printed it out for my wife, who likes to read the tarot cards. I thought the comments about the significance of numbers would interest her. llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 07:50:51 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Groups Liesle wrote: > Dear JRC, > > You sound like the disillusioned young person I once was. Lewis: We all wrestle with this "divine discontent" don't you think? Liesle:>... And if it can accomplish that, let the > organization be a bit cockeyed. Let it go where it will, Lewis: This reminds me of a statement in one of the Mahatma letters which advises we judge an organization by its *motives* and not by what it manages to accomplish. In another place they say we should not be attached to results. I think they even go so far as to suggest that if one looks for results it is (to use a British witicism) rather bad form, because it shows a lack of understanding of the natural laws. Ever cause MUST have its effect. Liesle: > long as it somehow manages to nourish the stream in which the > seekers can explore & find, and having found, perhaps add > their own imprint to it. The vision is that we'll find unity in > our diversity. That each person and/or group (including other > forms of life besides human) will add their distinctive note to > the universal symphony. The thing is we all need to come more > out of Maya and learn to discard the dross. But I think we're > doing that, over the thousands of years. Here we are discussing > types of organizations. Well, maybe we're learning. No, not > "maybe", we *are* learning how better to work together. (isn't > that one of the things we're perhaps learning via computer as > well?) And I think the Ancient Wisdom is a good guide, if one > can understand & utilize it, in one of its many forms. > > I hope that what I wrote here is somehow meaningful to some of > you, other than myself. > Shalom, > Liesel Lewis: It was meaningful to me. llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 07:59:04 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: interference with nature Brenda and JRC, Thought you both made some interesting points on this topic. Have either of you come across an idea in theosophy, (which I want to attribute to HPB, but don't know the source) that nature unaided fails? Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 08:03:28 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Globes & Planes My understanding of the relation of Schemes-Chains-Globes and Planes is that they are analogous to our centers and bodies. A Planetary scheme is a center in the Solar Logos. As we have etheric, astral and mental centers which relate through our different energy bodies so the Chains occupy relational places in the different bodies/planes of the solar logos. Cheers, Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 08:03:29 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: "Source" Teachings Hello, I think the original source teachings for the current human cycle would be the teachings of Krishna (Bhaghavad Gita and the Gospels). Theosophy meaning "God's wisdom" would include truth wherever it is found. It seems that to restrict theosophy to one set of writings is as delusionary as saying that theosophy includes all writings. Theosophy is the threads of wisdom which flow through all. There are writings which are "purely" from the Mahatmas and there are the writings of Initiates and there are also writings by the deluded which take people away from truth. Our task is one of learning to discern the difference and in this we develop the spiritual qualities which allow us to eventually ascertain "God's Wisdom" for ourselves. Most of the writings of H.P.B., A. Bailey, The Teachings of the Temple and some of the writings attributed to Helena Roerich (in the original Russian) are to my discernment by the Mahatmas. There are also others as well as many books by Initiates. Peace, Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 08:36:25 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: interference with nature > > > > May I ask a common sense question here? Do we interfere with the operations > > of nature? Under what circumstances? When is it correct to do so? > > > > Brenda > > Off topic a wee bit, but in my eyes, we interfere with the > operations of nature whenever we murder animals for food, when > none of us, so far as I am aware, needs to eat animal flesh at > all. I don't. If, like my cat, my metabolism actually *needed* > meat, it migth be different. We build huge abbatoirs to kill > defenceless creatures in assembly-lines, Lewis: I pass one every day on my way to work. It is a chicken slaughtering plant. The company that owns it, Fieldale, has put a sign up out front which says, "FIELDALE FARMS". The word "farm" implies to me nuturing and growing, and it disturbs me that we (the public and our representative government) permit them to hide behind such wholesome images. They have also put up a chain link fence with barbed wire across the top and a security gate. Reminds me of Beterand Russell's description of watching the Nazis herding people onto the cattle cars, then later observing the cattle being herded of cattles cars outside his Chicago apartment. It was enought to make him adopt vegetarianism. He argues that if we cannot show mercy to the poor dumb animals, which can only bleat their protest, man is surely doomed to suffer even more than they. > ..Our puny human intelligence > is, IMHO, quite incapable of deciding either when or how it is > "correct" to interfere with the operations of nature, though we > do it all the time, probably. > > Nature, folks, is BIG! Upset her at your own risk :-) Alan Lewis: I think some balance between total disregard for nature and all its creatures and abject worship of nature is what we should aim for. I see the potential for us to work wisely with nature, aiding the evolutionary push from the other kindgoms in nature. It is similar to becoming a good tenant or neighbor. llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 09:18:24 GMT From: Stephan.Clerc@psi.ch (STEPHAN H.-R. CLERC) Subject: RE: 666: A Kabalistic Interpretation Dear Participants, The interpretation of the day (from Steiners Apocalypse lectures): 400 200 6 60 Taw <--- Resch <--- Waw <--- Samech read in reversal (von Rueckwaerts) and adding vocals leads to S O R A T H the name of the sun-demon. * * * * * * * From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 10:56:01 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: CWL Rich: >Man, the more I learn about this guy, the more AWFUL he sounds. Are we sure >that this is the same guy people are running around calling an "Adept"? What >do the students and followers of Leadbeater make of these allegations? >they were all made up? By whom and for what purpose? In reply to a recent post by Dr. Bain, I created a probable natal chart for CWL based on what has been said about him. I wished to do this because one can usually see the original energies that drive a created personality from a chart. This was the result: After having my computer calculate it for noon and looking at it, I decided to try a Leo Ascendant with a 3:30 pm birth time, since CWL always struck me as having a Leonine appearance. That also places Neptune, Venus and Mercury in Pisces in the Eighth House, along with his Aquarian sun. I felt the Neptune in the 8th would fit his clairvoyant abilities. This put Pluto into the 10th house, indicating leadership and a controversial career. Uranus also fell here, giving him an unusual profession and possible leadership in the occult. It also would indicate a rapid rise and fall from prominence. Jupiter was in the 6th, indicating work in a service organization. The Moon shone in the 3rd house, suggesting one prone to fantasy and thinking that was strongly influenced by imagination. The most glaring aspect was Mars (2nd house) opposed Neptune in the 8th (55 min. orb). This sometimes indicates abnormal sexual desires and alliances which affect the home and professional reputation. It can also mean unrealistic visionary experiences and a desire to be special. Whether astrology means anything to you or not, what I am getting at is that we all are definitely far from perfect. If I checked each and every chart for all the people on Theos-l, including my own, there would be some "flaw" in the mix. Every spiritual person who I have admired in the last 25 years has had some problem. Sometimes it is one of the big three - sex, money or power, or even some combination of those. Stop worrying about all the "bad" out there and look to the good stuff various people may have to offer. Then you can get down to the real work - your self. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 11:40:58 GMT From: John R Crocker Subject: Re: numerology On Mon, 25 Sep 1995, Brenda S. Tucker wrote: > >When we are dealing with numerology, we're looking for attributes of > >objects or living beings. From these attributes, we can infer additional > >information. But I would only expect the numerology to work if we obtain > >*real attributes*. Otherwise, we are just "tossing the dice" and doing > >a psychic reading. > > No, Eldon, we're not. We're looking for influences and clues that help us > to meet or defer our destiny. I agree - first, again the demeaning attitude towards "psychism" - some actually believe that at least some "psychic readings" are a tad more than "tossing the dice" - I have a friend (for instance) that three years ago went to one of those "psychics" to ask about a relationship problem. The "psychic", upon looking at the person's system, identified a very dense region that seemed to connect to the physical body; the person, on the advice of the psychic, went to a medical doctor ... and the cancer was caught early enough to treat. Fortunately for this woman (who didn't have the faintest suspicion that she had medical problems) she hadn't run into a Theosophical Lodge that would have encouraged her to avoid such things. Second, I'm inclined to agree with Brenda about how numerology and other such tools work - *none* of them define things, but are rather more like a means of inducing a particular state of mind that becomes open to intuitive flashes ... and this is not just in numerology, Tarot, the I Ching & etc., but even in the mainstream sciences - Doctors will use medical jargon, economists will use statistical manipulations ... but the good ones in every field will admit that sometimes (if not a *lot* of the time) these scientific tools provide data, but that ultimately it is something far more than the math that they use to actually reach their conclusions - it is *intuition* ... but using the tools somehow seems to help the intuition to speak its voice. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 12:24:50 GMT From: Thom Nelson Subject: RE: 666 post I've gotten it twice. Thom Thanks, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 13:04:56 GMT From: John R Crocker Subject: Bald Eagles? > > I thought that I would tell you that I had a wonderful > breakfast this weekend. > > I have a friend who owns a ranch and there were > three late hatched Bald Eagle eggs left abondoned > in the loft of his barn. > > Well as soon as it was obvious that mom left, he > got the eggs and put them in an incubator. > > I got over to his house early saturday and we cooked > ourselves up the best omelette I have ever had. > > It was great. > > Thought you would like to know. > >Daniel Daniel, Out of curiousity, exactly what are you saying with this post? -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 13:35:10 GMT From: John R Crocker Subject: Re: From the spring to the pond Murray ... A very interesting post - especially the attitude that has you delibrately attempting to affect the location in which you live in such away as to elevate it for its future occupants ... makes me wonder what sort of societies we might build if a significant number of people began thinking in such ways ... (-:). -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 13:38:33 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: The latest censorship >Brenda, > >Please try and get over your prudishness. This board is not Theos-L, it is >for the serious investigation of Theosophical history. > >To judge by the number and variety of sexual allegations made against >Leadbeater, he is quite guilty as charged. Even Besant admitted this. > >Please do not try and control this forum, the more you try to do so the more >we who are interested in the history will dig in our heels and stick to it. This comes from somebody who feels himself free enough to tell others to "GET OFF OUR LIST." Who made you the spokesman who could decide who could stay and who couldn't." If I thought you were trustworthy enough to write regarding decent particulars instead of choosing to respond to a "personal" subject matter which does "bother" people who have bad experiences with sex. You may feel proud that you are able to speak so forthrightly, but there are other people who don't feel the subject is open for discussion. You might even decide to let us know what's going on in your bedroom, who knows? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 14:37:00 GMT From: portelli@calon.com Subject: Re: The latest censorship Hello, I hate to bother any serious students of "theosophical history" (whatever that is), but somehow this stuff is getting sent to my e-mail address. I am a serious student of some other kind of history. United States, or some such thing. Anyhow, I've been getting the stuff from your list...unprovoked. I didn't even sign up for theos roots. I did have the misfortune of "asking" to get on theos-l, from which I've thankfully relieved myself. I havn't been as successful at relieving myself of this serious stuff. Can you spare a moment of your serious inquiring time to help me get off this list? I'd really appreciate it. Consider it part of the work...The Great Work. Helping a little brother get out of where he might be way over his head. It's really tough being early fourth root race. Kinda weird learning that the few who are chosen are actually so way ahead of us kids. See what I mean? I'm in way over my head. The TRUTH will only injure these feeble minds of inferior races. History is a real burden. A White Mans burden. Late nineteenth century stuff. Coolies turned gurus... Oh, by the way. I've been in touch with Charles. He's alright. Never did mean no harm. He's been a real help to me. Funny how he alway liked all that pomp and circumstance. But his liturgical perspective was pretty keen. He talks a lot about power...but all he ever wanted to do with it was help this silly race of people that he had the misfortune to associate with. He probably over estimated the status of human souls by a galaxy. No wonder he prefered Mars! Puritanism + Papish ritual = Victorian mysticism. Great aura! Funny how people can make such a fuss over the obvious. Charles is ok though. How can you convey to people that there is no greater light to be had than the morning Sun? Cover it with a bunch of ceremonial garb. Boy did Bishop Leadbeater go for all that stuff! He still does. Always shows up wearing a miter carrying that gold dang crozier. Sometimes he's all ring. Big purple stone...all stone. Sometimes I think that the guy's crazy. Then I remember that it's just history. He never did mean no harm. He really does think that he's helping humanity. A kid's gotta learn to wash in all the right places. Makes him pure. Pure bull shit. Now kindly help this poor listless soul get off this list. Brenda... get off while there's still hope. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 16:21:17 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: idea on becoming organizational Re Rich's post, 1.) Seems to me that most Theosophists are independent thinkers. That's the name of the game. The people who take part in this list are no exceptions. 2.) I think a cohesive group develops an aura, an atmosphere that is far more conducive to spirituality than a single individual. I felt this when I belonged to a branch, I've felt this during church services ... even an old empty church has an atmosphere of holiness & reverence, which, it is said, is an accumulation created by the many souls who have come to worship there. I remember the awe I felt when I visited the Cathedral of Chartres, which is said to have been built over a Druid place of worship, & which was said to be sacred even before anyone ever worshiped there. Standing in that Cathedral, with awe, one can certain feel that this might well be true. It has been a holy place for a long long time. A branch meeting doesn't feel as holy as Chartres, to be sure, but it has a certain spiritual group aura more impressive than the individual one. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 16:27:46 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Art group prject I & II Cheers to you, JRC Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 16:46:59 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: interference with nature Interfering with nature We build dams. We have lighnting rods. We cross pollinate plants, to say nothing of genetic engineering. We fertilize our farm fields. We drink milk. We cook string beans. We make concrete. We use magnetism to work a computer. We take out appendixes. We fly heavy spacecrafts. I 'll need to go to bed before I can finish the list, and my bed is made of wood & plastics. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 17:01:37 GMT From: John R Crocker Subject: Re: More thoughts on abortion On Mon, 25 Sep 1995 Richtay@aol.com wrote: > JRC wrote: > > I personally don't believe in the law of karma, as articulated in spiritual > > literature, > > Well, that sheds a lot of light on your problems with HPB's view, now, > doesn't it? Yes. To the extent that one sentence, picked out of a long post and quoted out of context, and without the second, qualifying clause of the sentence (in which I believe I said I was attempting to work out the articulation of a larger principle that might well produce, as aftereffects, many of the phenomena associated with karma). > The heart of the matter seems to be that you really don't accept > a lot of Theosophy's teachings, and so it is no surprise that you struggle > against HPB's presentation of the occult view on abortion. > Rich Don't "accept a lot of Theosophy's teachings" ... well, I don't know about either the "a lot" or the "accept" parts. If you mean I don't simply *believe* everything HPB and other Theosophists wrote, why no I don't, as I don't simply *believe* in *anything* another person writes. I have read HPB extensively, but also literature from other large occult systems, as well as from a dozen or so modern sciences ... and have reached the point of *believing* that the world and its multidimensional reality is just out and out too vast for any particular point of view to anything other than one angle of vision on that immensity. And I fear I have a difficult time telling the difference between being considered "wrong" about an issue because I don't believe HPB's ideas and opinions are absolute, being considered wrong beecause I don't believe "Jesus's" ideas are absolute, and being considered wrong because I don't accept the assumptions current in the sciences I study. You seem to ground your opinion in HPB's, and claim it to have some sort of additional authority because you do so. You imply that your opinion is identified with the (alledgedly "correct") Theosophical "teachings". All of which is certainly fine so long as you don't expect everyone to accept that authority as absolute in some way. That said, I still stay around Theosophy because 1) I greatly admire HPB, (who I actually believe would be somewhat appalled to be used as an absolute authority of any sort), 2) "There is no religion higher than truth" is a positively smashing attitude, as I *am* seeking *truth*, and will seek it through every avenue available - including many that have nothing to do with the Theosophical canon, 3) I have met some absolutely splendid people in the Theosophical current, people who are very intense, sincere seekers of truth who have also thoroughly integrated a profound service ethic in their lives, and 4) one of the main currents of "angels" with whom I serve in the innerland, and who have taken the time to teach me much about the nuances of using energy in service, has indicated that while the original generating current that began this current century's notions of what "Theosophy" is has mostly expended itself, it still contains at least a possibility to be of some partial service for another century (despite its currently severely introverted and self-involved state) if it can open itself far enough to entertain another burst of energy and thought suitable for the *next* century. The ideas articulated by HPB are in some places completely unverifiable one way or another, in others very interesting premises, in others the glimpse of a paradigm that is useful, and in others a good contribution to the body of spiritual and religious thought of our species. But articulations of the "ancient wisdom" are all over the place, and there is no way of knowing, for instance, that the intense mathematics of chaos and complexity theorists (which is where I'm drawing the concepts required to try to find a principle far more expanded than the current "law of karma") are not *this century's* articulations of part of the "ancient wisdom", being released now because our science and math have reached a point of development that allows a fuller articulation of the "ancient wisdom". Current Theosophy is not a truth, but one of many rooms - and while it may be used for guidance, should not be used in attempts to dominate: It is a foundation, not a shackle. In the quest, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 17:01:45 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Reincarnation Dear Daniel, One usually doesn't know the exact dates of when one has lived before, but somewhere along the line we have had antagonistic dealings with you before ... and now we're trying to equalize out the Karma of it, so that we can, in the future, live in peace as brothers, & not talk of killing each other anymore, or telling each other how vile we are. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 17:03:18 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: JW's & Heb 1: Daniel, We think your sect practices mind control as well. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 17:07:20 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: interference with nature Dear Daniel Yech! Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 17:11:17 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: More thoughts on abortion Dear Rich, I believe that HPB would be the first one to say that she wasn't infallible. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 17:19:47 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: interference with nature Hi Lewis, Your apt HPB quote reminds me of another, one of my favorites from "The Voice..." ... "Help nature & work on with her, and nature shall regard thee as one of her creators, & make obeisance." Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 18:14:34 GMT From: John R Crocker Subject: Re: More thoughts on abortion On Mon, 25 Sep 1995 Richtay@aol.com wrote: > JRC wrote: > > > As I mentioned in a couple of posts (including the one you > > respond to) HPB wrote when population was but a quarter of what it is > > now, when the environmental effects of population on the animal and plant > > kingdoms was scientifically unknown, when (as someone else pointed out) > > the mother often lost her life in the procedure - in short, in a very, > > very different time. HPB's argument was that it was "against" nature - > > but when animal and plant populations begin to exceed carrying capacity, > > it becomes their "nature" to begin limiting themselves - fo their own > > self-preservation. Did you miss that part? > > Nope, I didn't. What is most noticeable in your post, however, is the > reduction of HPB and her Masters to the scientific knowledge available at > that time. I assume you are saying that they couldn't see the trends into > the next century, and that was once a crime against nature would not be a > hundred years hence? Well, HPB couldn't even see those who in the immediate present were holding thoughts of betrayal (i.e., the Coulomb controversy & etc.) - and the Masters continually imply in the Mahatma letters that *much* of the specifics of the "future" are up in the air - in fact they continually wonder whether the TS is going to make it or not. None of them, not HPB or the Masters themselves, claim the omniscience you are giving them credit for. The Masters did seem to claim that they could see general trends operating at a large scale ... but even in that they indicated that there was leeway, that there were (as they would have said if they had *current* scientific vocabulary to use) "bifurcation points" where a given situation could go in one direction or another. > HPB claims to be speaking not from popular science or from the thought of the > day, but from the occult philosophy. She says that even if the mother > survives, her life will be shortened and her stay in Kamaloka will be > lengthened. This does not sound like a reliance or a concern with 19th > century science or demographics, and I am surprised you would limit HPB and > her Teachers in that way. It sounds *exactly* that way, and it is not a limitation of her or her teachers to say that she applied a philosophy to the time in which she lived. When she wrote, the mother's life, because of the state of medicene, *was* usually shortened, often considerably - hence a longer stay in "Kamaloka" - but in modern times there is no statistical link between an medically supervised abortion in sterile conditions and shortened lifespan ... principly *because* women no longer are forced to use coat-hangers in dirty back rooms. And women are now living on average half again as long as they did in HPB's time. That is, a modern woman who has an abortion will live 26-27 years longer than a woman of HPB's time that didn't have one. > I also strongly doubt that any populations can exceed carrying capacity. > When capacity is full, no more can come. Unfortunately, modern science has vast amounts of empirical proof that populations can, and most assuredly do exceed carrying capacity. The idea that "nature" has a sort of natural equilibrium state that species tend towards (which was the dominant 19th century opinion) is increasingly being replaced by far more complex understandings in population biology in which non-linear, nonequilibrium dynamics have been understood to govern the population blooms and die-offs in species. Even further, a population that exceeds capacity in a given ecosystem (due to, for instance, the sudden absence of a main predator or the introduction of a new food source into the system) not only sometimes becomes subject to group effects that wipe it out almost completely, but can also take out other, linked species with them (as the entire food-web is affected). >It's a big planet, however, and who among us knows its limits? Desertification is increasing at an extrordinary rate. The yearly ozone hole over the pole is growing larger yearly. Large amounts of farmland are being lost to overgrazing and overfarming every year. Indicator species (i.e., species whose health or illness tend to indicate larger systemic trends) are disappearing at an alarming rate. Etc., etc. Modern science certainly cannot say as an absolute truth that "x" is the total carrying capacity of the planet for humans, but it can and does calculate food requirements and many other variables, and it can measure current trends - and right now an awful lot of scientists are deeply disturbed at the twin trends of increasing population and declining resources that will be needed to support it. >The real problem right now, it seems to me, is unequal distribution of >resources and brutalization of the environment, not simply "too many >people." Oh, *please* look at some of the science before coming to this conclusion. Unequal distribution is a problem, but affects only the quality of human life. And in many areas, brutalization of the environment is an effect of overpopulation plain and simple. That is, if you envisioned the entire human population living in an environmentally friendly way, there would *still* be a considerable amount of damage done simply through sheer numbers. As much as we conserve, as efficiently as we use fuel, we will need still warmth in he winter. We will still clothe ourselves. We will still eat. There are scientists working in many fields that have been looking intensely for the means by which to at least slow the train we are now on, and a surprising number are reaching, through different roads, a similar conclusion: That in many areas, there *is* no solution (which is *not* a thing a scientist easily admits) given current population growth. We will either limit our own population, or "nature", but a short time down the road, will begin "limiting" it for us, and the limiting mechanisms observed in other species are ugly and painful to look at. > I don't see how overpopulation is an argument for abortion of fetuses or > murder of any class of beings in general. Rather, overpopulation seems to > suggest more and better birth control and abstinence from sexual activity. > No? Again, in your opinion (and in that of the Christian Right) it is "murder". Abstinance might be a nice theoretical solution, but is hardly a practical one. Sexual desire is an immensely powerful drive ... one of the most basic in our (and for that matter, all other) organism(s). More and better birth control certainly is a good idea, but I think the issue is not one that has any single, simple solution. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 19:00:25 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: More thoughts on abortion JRC wrote: > I personally don't believe in the law of karma, as articulated in spiritual > literature, Well, that sheds a lot of light on your problems with HPB's view, now, doesn't it? The heart of the matter seems to be that you really don't accept a lot of Theosophy's teachings, and so it is no surprise that you struggle against HPB's presentation of the occult view on abortion. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 19:04:25 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Theosophy To Bob Murdic, Excellent, excellent summary of some of the problems the T.S. face. I agree one hundred percent, especially the lines on trying to make Theosophy "work" with any kind of version of the Christian God. It doesn't, and the Masters, HPB and Judge were clear on that, as the letter stated. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 19:04:42 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: More thoughts on abortion JRC wrote: > As I mentioned in a couple of posts (including the one you > respond to) HPB wrote when population was but a quarter of what it is > now, when the environmental effects of population on the animal and plant > kingdoms was scientifically unknown, when (as someone else pointed out) > the mother often lost her life in the procedure - in short, in a very, > very different time. HPB's argument was that it was "against" nature - > but when animal and plant populations begin to exceed carrying capacity, > it becomes their "nature" to begin limiting themselves - fo their own > self-preservation. Did you miss that part? Nope, I didn't. What is most noticeable in your post, however, is the reduction of HPB and her Masters to the scientific knowledge available at that time. I assume you are saying that they couldn't see the trends into the next century, and that was once a crime against nature would not be a hundred years hence? HPB claims to be speaking not from popular science or from the thought of the day, but from the occult philosophy. She says that even if the mother survives, her life will be shortened and her stay in Kamaloka will be lengthened. This does not sound like a reliance or a concern with 19th century science or demographics, and I am surprised you would limit HPB and her Teachers in that way. I also strongly doubt that any populations can exceed carrying capacity. When capacity is full, no more can come. It's a big planet, however, and who among us knows its limits? The real problem right now, it seems to me, is unequal distribution of resources and brutalization of the environment, not simply "too many people." I don't see how overpopulation is an argument for abortion of fetuses or murder of any class of beings in general. Rather, overpopulation seems to suggest more and better birth control and abstinence from sexual activity. No? Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 19:06:01 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: The latest censorship Brenda, Please try and get over your prudishness. This board is not Theos-L, it is for the serious investigation of Theosophical history. To judge by the number and variety of sexual allegations made against Leadbeater, he is quite guilty as charged. Even Besant admitted this. Please do not try and control this forum, the more you try to do so the more we who are interested in the history will dig in our heels and stick to it. If you are uncomfortable with the subject matter, simply sign off and stick to Theos-L. Sincerely, Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 19:51:15 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Theosophy Christmas Humphreys was the founder of the *London* Budhist Society, you forgot to mention, & what does the fact that his copy of the "Voice..." was signed by the Dalai Lama have to do with the price of eggs? You wish "to correspond with anyone seriously interested in Theosophical work." Man, are you serious?! Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 21:34:29 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: re: re Group Project > > Further argumentation on my part would > bring the added charge that I'm bring dis-harmony to the Lodge, > etc. Believe me it is very effective, and I have watched many > many Adyar meetings over the years being controlled this way. > > Jerry Hejka-Ekins In my Lodge it is called "being divisive ..." Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 21:39:19 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: More thoughts on abortion Liesel wrote, > Dear Rich, > > I believe that HPB would be the first one to say that she > wasn't infallible. > > Liesel No offense (really!) but isn't it remarkable that we mention that HPB wasn't "infallible" when she disagrees with what we think, but when she agrees with us we like to quote her as an "authority." It seems to me that whether HPB was infallible or not (it seems clear she was) the point is that it was her job to teach the occult philosophy of the Masters. She did, and what she said on abortion I assume to be what the great Lodge teaches. We are free to make of it what we will, but bringing up how "human" HPB was doesn't reduce her articulation of Theosophy and its principles. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 22:09:48 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: 666: A Kabalistic? Interpretation > Dear Participants, > > The interpretation of the day (from Steiners Apocalypse lectures): > > 400 200 6 60 > Taw <--- Resch <--- Waw <--- Samech > > read in reversal (von Rueckwaerts) and adding vocals leads to > > S O R A T H > > the name of the sun-demon. Huh? The natural order is Taw Resh Samech Waw, which is not a word or name or anything in either Hebrew or Aramaic. There is no sensible reason for altering the numerical order just to produce a result. My name is Alan Bain, not Ian Alban, though the same letters are used. Mind you, it *could* just be, Taw Resh Waw Samech - Taurus, my sun-sign. Grrrrrr! [beastly bull-type noise, intended to frighten sun-demons - or any demons, for that matter]. Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 22:24:12 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Reincarnation > > There is disagreement with how long we spend in the after-death > states between lifetimes. What I've heard is, for most, starting > at a few thousand years and upwards from there. The New Age > literature indicates a very-short period between lifetimes, but > the classic theosophical writings indicate a much-longer > time period between lives. > > -- Eldon C.L.Jinarajadasa, in ~First Principles of Theosophy~ (Wheaton, please reprint) cites varying intervals, from quite short to quite long - varies from monad to monad or some such. Of course, my karma and dharma is such that in *this* life I don't believe in reincarnation at all, except now and then. :-) Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 22:30:49 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: CWL and Mars > Jerry H-E wrote > > > Later sworn police testimony by Oscar Kollestrom and the > > collaborating eye witness testimony of Mrs. Martin that CWL > > masturbated Oscar did not occur until 1914. Yet, I question > > whether the label "homosexual" fits CWL in light of what we know > > about his activities, and I would not use this term. > > > Man, the more I learn about this guy, the more AWFUL he sounds. Are we sure > that this is the same guy people are running around calling an > "Adept"? > RIch Yep. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 22:33:56 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: More thoughts on abortion Re abortion: > > Um, yes, it is only my opinion. I also thought HPB's opinion was remarkably > clear and categorical as well. Did you miss that part? Of course, we can > just say that she and I share the same wrong opinion ... > > Rich Okay. HPB and you share the same wrong opinion. One of the Masters (didn't leave her name) told me. Alan P.S. Hi pal! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 22:38:09 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Numbers > IHVH, for instance, is also the number 26. No it isn't. Its component may *add up* to 26. In post-biblical Hebrew, 26 is CS - Caph Samech. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 23:24:03 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Roots! >From ~Old Diary Leaves~ 1st edition 1895 (Adyar) by H.S.Olcott: "This wonderful organisation [The Theosopical Society] which grew out of a commonplace parlour gatheringin a New York house, in the year 1875, has already made for itself such a record that it must be included in any veracious history of our times. Its development ..... having neem so closely - for some years almost exclusively, connected with the personal efforts if its two founders, Madame Blavatsky and myself, it will perhaps help the future historian if the survivor sets down truthfully and succinctly the necessary facts. The series of chapters which now compose this book was begun nearly three years in the ~Theosophist~ magazine ... "The controlling impulse to prepare these papers was a desire to combat a growing tendency within the Sociey to deify Mme. Blavatsky, and to give her commonest literary productions a quasi-inspirational character. Her transparent faults were being blindly ignored, and the pinchbeck screen of pretended authority drawn between her actions and legitimate criticism. Those who had least of her actual confidence, and hence knew least of her private character, were the greatest offenders in this direction. It was but too evident that unless I spoke out what I alone knew, the true history of our movement could never be written, nor the actual merit of my wonderful colleague become known. In these pages I have, therefore, told the truth about her and about the beginnings of the Society - truth which nobody can gainsay. "..... I have pursued my present task to its completion, despite the fact that some of my my own most influential colleagues have, from what I consider mistaken loyalty to "H.P.B.," secretly tried to destroy my influence, reduce the circulation of my magazine, and prevent the publication of my book. Confidential warnings have been circulated against me, and the current numbers of the ~Theosophist~ have been removed from Branch reading-room tables. This is child's play: the truth never yet harmed a good cause, nor has moral cowardice ever helped a bad one." >From the same Foreword, re HPB: "To have know her was a liberal education, to have worked with her and enjoyed her intimacy, an experience of the most precious kind. She was too great an occultist for us to measure her moral stature. She compelled us to love her, however much we might know her faults; to forgive her, however much she might have broken her promises and destroyed our first belief in her infallibility. And the secret of this potent spell was her undeniable spiritual powers, her evident devotion to the Masters whom she depicted as almost supernatural personages, and her zeal for the spiritual uplifting of humanity by the power of the Eastern Wisdom ....." H.S.OLCOTT "GULISTAN." Ootacamund, 1895. Seems that the censoring of theosophical writers started rather earlier than is commonly supposed? Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 23:28:46 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: numerology Brenda: >>If the houses on a block are arbitrarily renumbered, according to some >>new local ordinance, the numerology of the houses does not change. > >The numerology of the house would change at this time and just as moving >into a new "number" means new and different experiences, you would find >yourself compatible or incompatible with the "new number." Where I would disagree is in saying that when we change a descriptive label, that we've changed the actual object. My understanding of what numerology is trying to achieve is to know numerical attributes of, say, a person, and from those known attributes be able to infer other things about that person. >>When we are dealing with numerology, we're looking for attributes of >>objects or living beings. From these attributes, we can infer additional >>information. But I would only expect the numerology to work if we obtain >>*real attributes*. Otherwise, we are just "tossing the dice" and doing >>a psychic reading. > >No, Eldon, we're not. We're looking for influences and clues that help us >to meet or defer our destiny. Agreed that there are influences. But the influences do not come by how we describe something. When we choose a particular, arbitrary number or name as a label, we haven't caused that thing to change. (An exception to this would be when we pick the name of a child, since the child will grow up using that name and being psychologically influenced by its sound, meaning, and acceptance by the child's peers.) What I would say is that real numbers or attributes of living things come from the things themselves, and are not things that we make up. If we were to rename the planet mars to call it "prometheus", for instance, we haven't by changing our name for it thereby changed its properties and astrological influences. I'd agree with the basic idea of numerology, but be careful not to take it too literally, and suggest it is important to make a clear distinction between our mental artifacts and actual perceptions of living things. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Sep 1995 23:35:37 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: More thoughts on abortion Rich: > HPB ... says that even if the mother >survives, her life will be shortened and her stay in Kamaloka will be >lengthened. This does not sound like a reliance or a concern with 19th >century science or demographics, and I am surprised you would limit HPB and >her Teachers in that way. I was just reading this and made a connection with something that I had read in "The Mahatma Letters" to the effect that they remain cool, passionless, avoiding the extremes of emotion, in order to conserve their life energies. Perhaps the trama, regret, and grief associated with an abortion is a major source of such grief, and the resulting dissipation of life energies leads to the shortening of life. Regarding kamaloka, it would probably be an individual thing, although HPB could generalize and speak for the typical case. Kamaloka is not a form of punishment for the bad that we did in life. It is a state where we exhaust all the unspent desire and passion life energies. If there are regrets, bitterness, and other clouds over a mother's mind and heart that she carries through life, that would certainly contribute to her kamaloka. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 00:21:57 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: Abortion Mills >Women have regulated their reproductive biology for millenia, in >Koori (Aboriginal) culture:strictly WOMEN'S BUSINESS. Every month is a >death, a loss, a potential misscarriage. > >The discussion going around re natural/unnatural is also starting to >grate. Is it "natural" that we all sit in front of a device exuding low >doses of radiation, powered by a substance that is rapidly depleting the >ozone layer? The abortion issue is one of control: who does control >women's bodies. I don't anyone can argue who should! > >To change the subject, I would like to talk about Blavatskys writing on >Speech and the Mind**TSD**Stanza iv (4). Is anyone interested in helping >me with this reading > >Tracey Tracey, I'm sorry this discussion got out of hand. I've looked over Stanza IV, Sloka 4 and don't know how to begin the discussion. I don't know if I could help you with any of it, but I am willing to try. Also, I ran across a passage from a book by Robert Ellwood, THEOSOPHY, which brings up a point that would contradict Blavatsky regarding "natural law" in man. I mean, who was more natural than the neolithic? This passage also ties in with the Jewish Holiday I wrote about earlier, and it appears that it is because of religious law that man HAS progressed, because remember religious law arrives with those great teachers who bring it. Here it is: "In the Neolithic era, the New Stone Age of archaic agriculture, the spiritual focus shifts to Mother Earth. Farming brought much that was good: stability in one place, a relatively more dependable food supply, villages and towns and eventually cities, a rapidly expanding human population leading to division of labor. Yet in the mythological accounts of the discovery of agriculture, we sometimes find it portrayed as a sort of a fall, marked by a crime: the killing of a beautiful maiden out of whose body came the variuos crops, or a heartless cutting into the flesh of Mother Earth. Religiously, too, the Neolithic era shows an upsurge in the dark magical side of belief in spirit, referred to in theosophical accounts of a debased Atlantis. It is here, not in the Old Stone Age, that headhunting, and animal and human sacrifice, proliferate. For with agriculture comes fresh awareness that life and death are intertwined and that fertility requires victims. The seed must die and be buried before it sprouts; the shrunken head of an enemy danced through the fields will give them its still-potent life force. For life to continue generation after generation, the first-fruits, including one's first-born, should be sacrificed to the gods who hold all weather and the fruit of all wombs in their hands. In this stage too we find much increased sexual antagonism, an undercurrent of tension between men and women, marked by separate secret societies for each sex, often with horrendous initiatory ordeals. Perhaps the antagonism paralleled the new sacred power given women by agriculture with its fresh emphasis on fecundity and the mother goddess." This is why theosophy is so great, because when we look at our origins and our past, we know why life has developed the way it has and can be thankful. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 00:25:09 GMT From: Tracey Benson Subject: Re: Abortion Mills On Wed, 20 Sep 1995 LIESEL@delphi.com wrote: > Daniel, > > Did you ever hear it said "Thou shalt not kill"? > > Liesel > Wow!! This whole discussion is spinning my head in circles,and has the possibility of doing so endlessly. When I was 21, I fell pregnant to a boy who I was engaged to, any for many reasons, that I won't go into, we decided to terminate the pregnany. I was in depression for some time after this, as I was similtainously bound to my Anglican beliefs and the the fear of shaming my family as they were strict. About two years after that I read a book about Edgar Cayce, a door opened. Part of that process was the realization that you can't change things, and if I had to go through it again I wouldn't change them. Women have regulated their reproductive biology for millenia, in Koori (Aboriginal) culture:strictly WOMEN'S BUSINESS. Every month is a death, a loss, a potential misscarriage. The discussion going around re natural/unnatural is also starting to grate. Is it "natural" that we all sit in front of a device exuding low doses of radiation, powered by a substance that is rapidly depleting the ozone layer? The abortion issue is one of control: who does control women's bodies. I don't anyone can argue who should! To change the subject, I would like to talk about Blavatskys writing on Speech and the Mind**TSD**Stanza iv (4). Is anyone interested in helping me with this reading Tracey From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 00:44:58 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: More thoughts on abortion JRC: > [writing to Rich] >If you mean I don't >simply *believe* everything HPB and other Theosophists wrote, why no I >don't, as I don't simply *believe* in *anything* another person writes. What about something like Jerry H-E's "reasoned certitude". Do you study with deferred judgement the writings of authorities on a subject, until you know about it sufficiently? If you grant this status to a college professor, you are more likely to learn from him than if you come to the classroom filled with personal views that block further learning. We're not asked to "believe in" what Blavatsky wrote, since it is not offered as nor intended to be another belief system, for somelike Daniel H. to drop his religion and take up with equal conviction. The materials often go beyond the power of the written word to convey their meanings. A guru or knowledge of the materials from prior lifetimes is almost necessary to pick out some of the deeper Teachings. While we cannot take what Blavatsky wrote in a dead-letter sense, because there is much more to it than that, we can use the intellect and see how far we can go with a logical application of what she wrote. I would, myself, give much more weight to a passage by Blavatsky, than, for instance, to an except from a Cayce reading. We're still left, though, having to answer the question, in looking at the words: What does this really mean? >I have read HPB extensively, but also literature from other large occult >systems, as well as from a dozen or so modern sciences ... and have >reached the point of *believing* that the world and its >multidimensional reality is just out and out too vast for any particular >point of view to anything other than one angle of vision on that >immensity. There are limits to any manner of expressing the occult side of life. Life is vast, and exceeds our ability to comprehend it. All we can do is to open up to it in all directions, and take in what we can. Part of this opening up is to benefit from the wisdom and learning of those far ahead of us. There's much to be gained, for instance, from HPB's works. Without the training and assistance of others ahead of us, the road is long, slow, and much more difficult. If we grew up on a desert island, surrounded by nature and with no other people about us, we would not be able to derive a knowledge of mathematics on our own. By growing up around others that know and teach us matehmatics, we learn far more than we could have achieved on our own. The idea of the Path and the Masters is that there is a tremendous amount of learning and wisdom that we can take advantage of, if we choose, wisdom that represents an entire Round's worth of evolution. >And I fear I have a difficult time telling the difference >between being considered "wrong" about an issue because I don't believe >HPB's ideas and opinions are absolute, being considered wrong because I >don't believe "Jesus's" ideas are absolute, and being considered wrong >because I don't accept the assumptions current in the sciences I study. In a discussion of *personal views*, you are not wrong. And Daniel H. is not wrong. And I'm not wrong. In a discussion of Theosophy, when we focus on the source Teachings, any of us can be wrong and subject to correction, when our writings stray from that which has been given us. >You seem to ground your opinion in HPB's, and claim it to have >some sort of additional authority because you do so. You imply that your >opinion is identified with the (alledgedly "correct") Theosophical >"teachings". If Rich is writing from the source Teachings, and identifies his views with it, that is fine. He can claim no personal authority for those views, but just say that he is trying to accurate present Theosophy *as it has been taught us*. He may also at times write his own personal ideas, and label them as such. >All of which is certainly fine so long as you don't expect >everyone to accept that authority as absolute in some way. When writing on behalf of the theosophical philosophy, Rich can agree with you at times, and say you're wrong at other times. When he is doing so, this is simply intellectual honesty. It is often possible to tell when something is in accord with what we have been taught, and in the name of further studying it we can examine things that are said for consistency with it. When Rich does this, though, he is not saying that you or any particular person has to *believe in* the whole package. The choice is yours as to what degree of authority you ascribe to the Teachings, as presented through Blavatsky. >That said, I still stay around Theosophy because 1) I greatly >admire HPB, (who I actually believe would be somewhat appalled to be used >as an absolute authority of any sort), She would not want to be considered an absolute authority. We share an admiration of her. But what she wrote about is not just her personal opinion. >2) "There is no religion higher >than truth" is a positively smashing attitude, as I *am* seeking *truth*, >and will seek it through every avenue available - including many that >have nothing to do with the Theosophical canon, This is something that we all try to do in our own ways. The problem is that personal opinion can be as misleading as psychic vision, in clouding and biasing and distorting what we perceive. >3) I have met some >absolutely splendid people in the Theosophical current, people who are >very intense, sincere seekers of truth who have also thoroughly >integrated a profound service ethic in their lives, We find these people everywhere. The theosophical groups are one of many junior colleges or extension courses for those of us wanting to enroll in the Mystery Colleges. >and 4) one of the >main currents of "angels" with whom I serve in the innerland, and who >have taken the time to teach me much about the nuances of using energy in >service, I would not accord special status to what any particualar person or being tells me, be it physical or non-physical. We pick our friends and teachers, be they physical or not, and learn from interaction with them. What authority you might give to your angels is a personal thing, since you are in charge of what external sources you tap for information and guidance. If you were to want others to also give weight to what they tell you, you would have to demonstrate their nature and status to us. >has indicated that while the original generating current that >began this current century's notions of what "Theosophy" is has mostly >expended itself, The current presentation of Theosophy in the world is losing energy, in its role working to "spice up" western thought life. For this role, it could use a workover. The other aspect to it, as Mystery Teachings, does not age, and refers to aspects of life that were as true millions of years ago as in millions of years to come. >it still contains at least a possibility to be of some >partial service for another century (despite its currently severely >introverted and self-involved state) if it can open itself far enough to >entertain another burst of energy and thought suitable for the *next* >century. True, with regard to its role as "spice". Not needed with regard to its role as "junior college to the Mysteries". >The ideas articulated by HPB are in some places completely >unverifiable one way or another, in others very interesting premises, in >others the glimpse of a paradigm that is useful, and in others a good >contribution to the body of spiritual and religious thought of our >species. The further we get into the ideas, the harder they will become to verify, except by personal experience through initiation. The metaphors and philosophical concepts that Blavatsky used are partial expressions of a type of thinking and understanding that I don't think we have a good understanding of. The thoughtlife and mental faculties of a Fifth Rounder are not just quantitatively greater than our, but also qualitatively different; there are additional faculties of understanding that are *simply different* than what we now know and use. >But articulations of the "ancient wisdom" are all over the place, The articulations are not the truths themselves. These truths, in the care of the Masters, are something that we in time will learn, Most of the wisdom is hidden under exoteric blinds, or reqiring certain keys to unlock the deeper meanings. Some of these keys are taught to us by our early theosophical writers. I especially appreciate Purucker for what I've found in his writings with regard to these "keys". >and there is no way of knowing, for instance, that the intense >mathematics of chaos and complexity theorists (which is where I'm drawing >the concepts required to try to find a principle far more expanded than >the current "law of karma") are not *this century's* articulations of >part of the "ancient wisdom", There is rich symbolism in the field of chaos. We can learn much from studying it. By itself, though, it provides no philosophical or metaphysical understandings. It is an area of mathematical symbolism. >being released now because our science and >math have reached a point of development that allows a fuller >articulation of the "ancient wisdom". The base of knowledge of our current society is rapidly growing. The field of chaos depends upon computers, which depend upon electricity, etc. Everything we have is build upon what has come before it. The same is true of the great truths that the Mahatmas preserve. They have had not a few hundred or a few thousand years to build upon previous experience, but literally millions of years. >Current Theosophy is not a truth, but one of many rooms - and >while it may be used for guidance, should not be used in attempts to >dominate: It is a foundation, not a shackle. When we talk about a particular expression of Theosophy, I'd agree that it can be used for guidance, but not to dominate the thought life of a student. And as a foundation, we build upon it. Building upon something means that you've firmly attached yourself to it, and make it a part of the structure of your life. The word "shackle" means the same thing, except that it also implies the holding of an unwilling person to a place when that person wants to move on. Our relationship to Theosophy can appear in either form. We can see ourselves firmly rooted in something that goes deep into the earth, and is solidly a part of our lives. Or we can see it as something that imprisons us, that holds us back from exploring other places. How should we view it? It's an individual choice. We both make the choice for ourselves and should allow others to make their own choices as well. Fellow Student, Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 00:59:30 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Quotes from "The Mahatma Letters" In his reply to me, Jerry S. apparently send the message to my email id, rather than to theos-l. From reading the message, it is clear that Jerry intended to post the message, so I'm posting it for him. -- Eldon >"From first to last every sphere has its world of effects, the passing >through which will afford a place of final rest to each of the human >principles -- the seventh principle excepted." [73] >Eldon:sphere of effects, which follows its. We leave behind our six lower >principles in the spheres of effects as we leave our globe behind in >the after-death states.> > > We obviously can't leave a principle on each Globe - there are >12 Globes and only 6 principles. Even looking at HPB's lower 7 Globes, >there is still one Globe too many. What do you mean by "We leave >behind our six lower principles in the spheres of effects" plural? I think >that if we try to see our planet Earth (Globe D) as only a cause (and thus >can't be effected by us) we could have a lot of problems with ecology. > >"The worlds of effects are not lokas or localities...> >Eldon:through as we drop our lower principles. There are not a "place" in >the sense of something objective, external to our own subjective states >of consciousness.> > > Every subjective state must have a corresponding objective >world or place. This is a fundamental law having to do with duality - >you can't have subjectivity without a corresponding objectivity, though >you might not be aware of it at the time. > So, when we drop off our principles after death, and >our consciousness alters in a serial-type order, may we not consider >that we could have just as well gone to some other place? Since >that "place" is not a sphere of effect, I would submit that it must be >one of the other Globes or planes. You can't drop off six principles in > "states of consciousness." > >"Thus the *body* of man is wedded to and remains for ever within the >body of his planet; his individual *jivatma* life principle, that which >is called in physiology *animal spirits* returns after death to its >source -- *Fohat*; his *linga shariram* will be drawn into *Akasa*; his >*Kamarupa* will recommingle with the Universal *Sakti* -- the >Will-Force, or universal energy; his "animal soul" borrowed from the >breath of *Universal Mind* will return to the Dhyan Chohans; his sixth >principle -- whether drawn into or ejected from the matrix of the Great >Passive Principle must remain in its own sphere -- either as part of >the crude material or as an individualized entity to be reborn in a >higher world of causes." [71-72] > > After death, our physical body returns to the physical >plane, our etheric components return to the etheric plane, our >astral components return to the astral plane, our lower and higher >mental components return to the lower and higher mental planes, >which accounts for the lower 5 principles. Only atma-buddhi, in the >form of the Reincarnating Ego, remains untouched, and eventually >re-expresses itself in a new incarnation on the lower planes. As >Eldon says, "Our principles are dropped in the after-death states" >and one each is dropped in a particular region. Here the problem >is one of defining the planes - I would make the etheric to be the >upper portions of the physical, and divide the mental into lower and >upper in the manner of AB/CWL to make all of this business take >place on the lower three cosmic planes. The Reincarnating Ego >is located on the Causal Plane (i.e., the plane which causes each >incarnation on the three lower planes). > >"The seventh will carry it from the *Devachan* and follow the new *Ego* >to its place of re-birth." [71-72] > > While the human consciousness is in Devachan (which AB/CWL >locates on the third or mental plane) the atma stimulates the buddhi toward > the next incarnation - which is with an entirely new ego. This idea, that each >birth is with a new personality/ego, is one which differentiates theosophy >from many New-Age teachings about reincarnation. But its not only New-Age, >the idea of reincarnation being like a change of clothes in which we simply >"forget" our past life is also found in the Gita, and is one of the reasons why >I don't especially like the Gita - its OK for beginners, but is too simplistic >and I >usually won't recommend reading/studying it. > >Eldon:after a quick passage of the Globes without a stopover on any of them.> > > I can see Globe C, which leads into D, but since the outgoing >"person" already left through Globe E, I can't see any need to a return there. >Remember, the flow of consciousness and energy is counterclockwise >and Globe E is on the upward arc and within the astral plane. The *only* way >to get to E is through D if we don't use horizontal pathways. Since I do use >them, I can see the possiblity of entering E through C. All incoming >devachanees must enter D through C because the *only* way to get to the physical >plane is through the astral (we cannot skip any planes) and the *only* astral >Globe >leading downward is C (Globe E leads upward to F). > >Eldon: > > How can this be, when we were just told above that the sphere >of effects is not a locality or place??? > >Eldon:the "psychic corpses" of men, the elementals, and sorcerers dwell. We >would also find here the Mahatmas and Nirmanakayas.> > > Whoa Eldon. I hope that you are not trying to tell me that >the Mahatmas and Dhyani-Chohans exist on the same level as elementals >and "psychic corpses." I would prefer to think them to be above such things. >Your elementals, pyschic corpses, and sorcerers (whatever the devil they >are??) exist on the astral plane. Mahatmas are living men and women, >still on the physical plane. Dhyani-Chohans are spiritual and exist just above >the Abyss. Why would you want to lump these all together? > >"... there are two fields of causal manifestation, to wit: the >objective and subjective. So the grosser energies, those which operate >in the heavier or denser conditions of matter manifest objectively in >physical life ... The moral and spiritual activities find their sphere >of effects in "Devachan." [188] > > This exactly reflects what I said in an earlier posting. >Our "sphere of effects" is the Devachan, which is not a locality as >such, but rather a state of human consciousness. > >Final Comment: I want to thank Eldon for posting the quotes, and for his >interpretations. I don't share all of Eldon's interpretations, and in some >cases I seem to have my own. Nevertheless, I can't see anything in >the quotes per se to argue with. What does this tell me? It suggests >to me that much of the MLs (and also HPB's works) are deliberately >written in a poetic style that is meant to be subject to several ways of >interpretation. This makes it rather like the Christian Bible, and many >other classic works that have us students spending lifetimes trying to >understand. > > Jerry S. > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 01:10:02 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: The E.S. Alan: >> We're also taught of a different "school", which any of us could approach >> in our hearts and minds, and be admitted based upon our sincere interest >> in the spiritual. That school does not issue membership cards, and we may >> never meet a teacher or fellow student. Or if we meet them, we may never >> know that they belong to it. We can read about it in "The Mahatma Letters" >> in a general sense, as we read about the requirements of chelaship. And >> it's something that we join *by changing ourselves*. >Fascinating. This has been my *experience* and very >occasionally (very very, O yes!) I have met people who "belong" >to it. Can you give a Mahatma Letter source reference please? I don't have "The Mahatma Letters" with me at work today, but the first quote that comes to mind is the one where they say that if we but approach their precincts but in thought, we are "on probabation". Some more stray thoughts on the subject: When we put off chelaship and the Path as something that only saints do, and consider it not possible except in the days of Blavatsky, we doing exactly what the Christians do with saying that the age of miracles was when Jesus walked the earth, and that miracles cannot happen just as well in our modern era. When we make the whole process seem too big, too far-removed from life, too difficult to enaged, we're really saying "sour grapes" for something we won't take the effort to achieve. And it's really, I'd think, not that far from our ordinary lives, nor that difficult to begin. The biggest obstacle is our own unwillingness to try. How do we try? Not by joining a group and getting a membership card. But by looking within and searching for what is missing in our lives. We look in ways that are *qualitatively different* than before, it's not simply that we try harder, intensify our devotions, study longer hours, or become more severe on ourselves in any direction. This "membership" is attained by an awakening in our minds and hearts, and is self-taken. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 03:40:31 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Authenticity On Line and In Life Rich: Art, I totally see your reasons for remaining independent, and I see no >reasons that anyone should try to convince you otherwise. Art: I am not a spiritual lone ranger or anything. I live basically in a spiritual community. It is not economic community but our lives intersect at a deep level. The community has gone through many struggles together over ten years but still holds together. While there is not overt hierarchy I would be considered the "leader" or the founder of this community. To me that sounds damn pretenious but it is the case. I don't like either leading or following. I am frightened of both the use and the misuse of power. More frightening however is pretending that you have no power when you do - that leads to the greatest abuse. Rich: >The one big benefit I think I realize in being an associate of a local ULT is >that I get to meet with folks regularly who know the philosophy, and I can >bounce ideas off of them. But I could do this just as well in daily life >with ANY bunch of people if I were committed to listening and learning from >them, as I am to the folks at my lodge. Art: There is a great worth in having fellow pilgrims to bounce ideas off of but I don't think that it is best just to self select some friends to sit down and chaw with. To be rooted in some sort of Tradition at the very least gives you a point to start from, a history to affirm and react to. There is something profoundly spiritual in my estimate in trying to remain tethered to the core teachings of your group and yet be flexible enough to adapt those teaching to new environments or if the teaching prove inadequate to abandon them altogether after sufficient grappling. > >Another benefit I feel I receive is that I get to be part of a "center of >force" which Mr. Judge talks about, namely working in a center which is >already active, and I can add my own energy to the effort to keep the >teachings alive and make them available to so many in the public who would >really like them but don't know that they exist, or where to find them. At >the same time, each individual is a center of force, and the potential for >activity is infinite, no? It may be that lodges are for weaklings and people >who need external supports. Group life, in my estimate, is ambiguous; without it there is a danger of becoming totally inflated, and to live within a legalistic community can crush your spirit entirely. To live in community takes a very strong individual; otherwise, unconscious collectivity sets in and destroys creative responses. There is some very good work done on how individuals respond in community based on spiritual development by James Fowler. For some, the movement of their hearts and lives involves breaking away from any collective values and finding out what they believe themselves. For others, the movement involves rediscovering the benefits of group life as a free agent who is not coersed out of fear to conform but has individually affirmed the tradition they are in. Within every group there are always those who need the security of being guided into what to think but the first step for them is to realize that they are making an individual choice about where to put there trust. This could be the beginning of their consciosness of independence. Most of the Theosophists I have read place a very high value on independent thinking and I really appreciate that perspective. But how to develop toward that place of independence is really a question for all of us. > >I can certainly see that, especially in the modern age, with technology >allowing all of us to exchange ideas instantly on-line, that we on this board >already form a "center of force" from which true Theosophy radiates, and more >and more people are signing on. From the comfort and privacy of our own >homes, we can educate and be educated by literally hundreds, and perhaps >someday soon, thousands of people. No need for lodges or local affiliations, >unless one wants and needs them. Art: Theos-l is one of my places of spiritual nurturance. I come here to learn but more I come here to commune with those who want to affirm the spirituality of life in a variety of ways . I don't think cyber communication is in many ways superior to life on the street - so to speak. I was telling a friend that what we are on line is often a better self than what we are in the midst of the emotions in our life (sometimes this is not true:) ) and that in many way we can share a very deep part of ourselves on line that our closest colleagues cannot see in life. I need the life in a historic community of spiritual seekers to check my self perceptions. Yes, I believe this and that - but how do I react? how do I live those beliefs? The lack of groundedness in cyber communication has both advantages and disadvantages. I like to maintain a balance between those two lives. One way of bring them together which I have engaged in is communicate on line with those in my life so that they can see another side of who I am. Another way that has brought these two together is that once a firm basis of trust has developed and you are very sure you know what you are getting into a phone call to someone you communicate to on line is helpful. The voice carries so much communication. I don't advise this lightly however because God knows we don't want to become cyber snoops or anything but an occassional action like that is I think helpful. > >I applaud, you, Art, for your thoughtful posts and insightful comments. it >does not seem to me that you suffer in the slightest for being an independent >Theosophist and an independent thinker. I appreciate that affirmation, Rich. I just hope that I can maintain authenticity in both sides of my life on line and off. Thanks for allowing me to share this with you. Arthur Paul Patterson. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 03:57:47 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: passage re: who adepts are >First-- the "obvious" ones won't be so to people who haven't >read my work. So for starters, let's state that there is one >major Tibetan among my Master nominees, the Sengchen Tulku who was an >informant of Sarat Chandra Das and his companion Ugyen Gyatso. >The latter two are also nominated as Masters, and are Tibetan >Buddhists, although Das was Bengali. Gyatso (the surname of >the present Dalai Lama) was Sikkimese by nationality but of >Tibetan race and religion. > >Since the Sengchen Tulku was the Prime Minister of the Panchen >Lama, we may assume that the latter (who died 1883) could have >been informed of his subordinate's Theosophical connections, >and approved them. Later Panchen and Dalai Lamas have made >favorable statements about HPB and/or Theosophy. > Paul, Wasn't this story written about in the last section of your book IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS and isn't it some unfortunate mistake with a small pox vaccine that kills the Panchen Lama and then the Sengchen Tulku is executed for allowing foreigners to enter the country and initiate trade? In the meantime though important literary works did leave the country with the traders. Do you write the story again in THE MASTERS REVEALED? Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 04:26:29 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: globes and rounds >>"From first to last every sphere has its world of effects, the passing >>through which will afford a place of final rest to each of the human >>principles -- the seventh principle excepted." [73] >>"Thus the *body* of man is wedded to and remains for ever within the >>body of his planet; his individual *jivatma* life principle, that which >>is called in physiology *animal spirits* returns after death to its >>source -- *Fohat*; his *linga shariram* will be drawn into *Akasa*; his >>*Kamarupa* will recommingle with the Universal *Sakti* -- the >>Will-Force, or universal energy; his "animal soul" borrowed from the >>breath of *Universal Mind* will return to the Dhyan Chohans; his sixth >>principle -- whether drawn into or ejected from the matrix of the Great >>Passive Principle must remain in its own sphere -- either as part of >>the crude material or as an individualized entity to be reborn in a >>higher world of causes." [71-72] >>Eldon:>after a quick passage of the Globes without a stopover on any of them.> >> >> I can see Globe C, which leads into D, but since the outgoing >>"person" already left through Globe E, I can't see any need to a return there. >>Remember, the flow of consciousness and energy is counterclockwise >>and Globe E is on the upward arc and within the astral plane. The *only* way >>to get to E is through D if we don't use horizontal pathways. Since I do use >>them, I can see the possiblity of entering E through C. All incoming >>devachanees must enter D through C because the *only* way to get to the >physical >>plane is through the astral (we cannot skip any planes) and the *only* astral >>Globe >>leading downward is C (Globe E leads upward to F). Jerry S. and Eldon, I hope you don't mind my jumping in. This is the first time that a quote was actually presented which suggests how you two arrived at your conclusion that when we die our principles pass through the other globes. I'll repeat the quote here. >>"From first to last every sphere has its world of effects, the passing >>through which will afford a place of final rest to each of the human >>principles -- the seventh principle excepted." [73] This is the only quote I've ever read which "might" be miscontrued. The passing through could be viewed as done after each life or it could be viewed as occurring according to the entire picture of life around the globes. Eldon and Jerry both suggest we have access to globes A-C and E-G before and after our incarnation on globe D. I never construed this from my reading. I always felt life continued "only" on globe D until the end of a Round. There would be no access whatsoever to the other globes until a full Round or seven races were completed on globe D. In order for this to be true, all that would be required would be seven planes exclusive to Globe D souls (or maybe only 5 planes would be necessary). The seven (or five) planes around the other globes would also be separated from Globe D's planes and there would be little if any crossover. When death occurs, the souls and bodies stay right here. They don't move up to "Minor-pralaya" land. It is the quote regarding "passing through" which might be open to new interpretation. Do you have other quotes which go hand in hand with this one? Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 04:33:27 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: astrology and the origin of evil Ann, Glad to have you back for awhile! I enjoyed your post re: the chart of CWL, and wonder if you have had any exposure to Sabian Symbols. I would love to correspond with someone who has read about these and wants to compare what they know. I believe the only author who considers them besides Dane Rudhyar is Mark Edmund Jones.(?) There is a symbol for each degree of the Zodiac and degree is the degree forward to where the planet is. For instance, 9 degrees 10 minutes would land the planet on the 10th degree for interpretation of the symbol on the 10th degree. I was only able to borrow books on this subject from Sarah (Remember IXCHEL?). So far I haven't purchased any. Sarah may be returning soon from Austria where Astrea and Paul live. I wonder if she was able to meet or speak with them. She has a friend and business associate who lives there after their working together for 10 years in Mexico and U.S. making clothes. Renee's little boy was friends with my daughter, Galina. I sure hope some of these people return to theos-l. Perhaps if we invite them back they'll get word of it and join us again. It's nice to take a little break once in a while. Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 04:41:37 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: Groups >Yeah. But the effect needn't have very much to do with the intent >behind it... looking for the actual results of one's actions helps >one gauge how intelligently one has *applied* one's intent. I don't >know about you, but I've done lots of things which have had results >I neither expected nor wanted. Maybe I'm locked in some kind of >perceptual trap, but I have the feeling that if I don't keep looking >out for the reality of what things I do actually accomplish then I'll >never gain that understanding of natural laws to begin with. I'm not >(I hope) going to pretend I have understanding of them when I don't >yet. Why do people like to try to appear perfect beforehand (other >than as a tantric practice)? Seems quite stupid to me. They'll just >be caught out eventually and maybe lose the opportunity to learn in >the meantime. Hi David! I don't think any of us appear perfect. Correct me if I'm wrong. HPB and other writers may have sometimes appeared perfect because they didn't really write about their personal lives that much. They just wrote about the teachings and in that way we were all humbled because we aren't as easily removed from our personal lives. Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 04:55:07 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: The latest censorship Ann B: >Rich: >Control of the forum? Your obnoxious attitude in this post and past posts >shows a blatant wish to control others. >If you don't like what Brenda, who IMHO is a very intelligent person, has to >say, than you'll just have to live with it. Just like the rest of us have to >live with your inflammatory posts. The historic discussion was voluntarily moved to theos-roots, so that those that don't want to read it could have a way to avoid it by only subscribing to theos-l. This was a compromise that was arrived at. Brenda saw a posting of Rich's and thought "not more of this stuff!" and responded to it, not noticing that the posting was from theos-roots. She replied against it. Rich saw Brenda's message and replied with something like "this is our place, don't come here too and tell us to not discuss the subject". He apparently thought that Brenda was trying to dictate what appears on theos-roots, when Brenda had thought she had read something on theos-l. Both Brenda's initial posting was mistaken and Rich's response to it was mistaken as well. >As for CWL, he lived, made his mistakes, accomplished a great deal and died. >I would hope we could have a calm, intelligent discussion of those historical >facts, RATHER A SCREAMING MATCH IN CYBERSPACE! Agreed. Let's not get upset. We have much better things to write about than how angry we are at things we don't like. We should forget what does not appeal to us, and be motivated by that which we find useful. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 05:45:52 GMT From: John R Crocker Subject: Re: More thoughts on abortion On Tue, 26 Sep 1995, Eldon B. Tucker wrote: > JRC: > > > [writing to Rich] > > >If you mean I don't > >simply *believe* everything HPB and other Theosophists wrote, why no I > >don't, as I don't simply *believe* in *anything* another person writes. > > What about something like Jerry H-E's "reasoned certitude". Do you study > with deferred judgement the writings of authorities on a subject, until > you know about it sufficiently? If you grant this status to a college > professor, you are more likely to learn from him than if you come to the > classroom filled with personal views that block further learning. Certainly ... but even my economic professors introduced not just one point of view, but many. No professor told me that Marx alone was correct economics, and that every question regarding economics should be answered by referring to Marx, and then - were I to disagree - that I obviously do not "accept" Marx, with a tone implying that I had yet to see the light. Rich seemed to do this with HPB on the issue of abortion. > We're not asked to "believe in" what Blavatsky wrote, since it is not > offered as nor intended to be another belief system, for somelike Daniel H. > to drop his religion and take up with equal conviction. But it is a belief system. It is one of many "occult" systems of thought, each that contains (IMO) something of value ... and to those within it, it is often spoken of as "the" system - which is fine, so long as this attitude does not become domineering - as I've most definitly seen it do. > The materials often go beyond the power of the written word to convey > their meanings. A guru or knowledge of the materials from prior lifetimes > is almost necessary to pick out some of the deeper Teachings. Yes. But I was responding to a post in which the written word was being used to support a person's viewpoint on a current issue. > While we cannot take what Blavatsky wrote in a dead-letter sense, because > there is much more to it than that, we can use the intellect and see how > far we can go with a logical application of what she wrote. Yes, as we can with a whole host of different writers. We can even speculate that HPB & the Masters might have written differently, and applied applied the ancient wisdom differently, were they writing in these very different times. > I would, myself, give much more weight to a passage by Blavatsky, than, > for instance, to an except from a Cayce reading. We're still left, though, > having to answer the question, in looking at the words: What does this > really mean? Me too. I don't disparage HPB, and certainly give her Cosmogenesis more weight than the "Creationism" preached by fundamentalists. But it is still, finally, one perspective. > >I have read HPB extensively, but also literature from other large occult > >systems, as well as from a dozen or so modern sciences ... and have > >reached the point of *believing* that the world and its > >multidimensional reality is just out and out too vast for any particular > >point of view to anything other than one angle of vision on that > >immensity. > > There are limits to any manner of expressing the occult side of life. > Life is vast, and exceeds our ability to comprehend it. All we can do is > to open up to it in all directions, and take in what we can. Part of this > opening up is to benefit from the wisdom and learning of those far ahead > of us. There's much to be gained, for instance, from HPB's works. Yes, I do not dispute this and have been enriched by HPB, but also by many, *many* others - I don't put her writings on a pedestal above all other writings, however, and hence will always get in trouble with those that do. > Without the training and assistance of others ahead of us, the road is > long, slow, and much more difficult. If we grew up on a desert island, > surrounded by nature and with no other people about us, we would not be > able to derive a knowledge of mathematics on our own. By growing up around > others that know and teach us matehmatics, we learn far more than we could > have achieved on our own. You seem to be making a point that simply doesn't apply to myself or what I wrote. It is not that I somehow refuse to learn from HPB, it is that I've learned from many more as well, and actually have the gall to try to formulate my own ideas on things - and while I will often see what HPB had to say, I'll also survey what dozens of others have to say, and will not simply choose which one of them I accept, but may even come to a conclusion different than all of them. I don't need Theosophy 101 lectures on why we should read someone else before thinking about something. > The idea of the Path and the Masters is that there is a tremendous amount > of learning and wisdom that we can take advantage of, if we choose, wisdom > that represents an entire Round's worth of evolution. Yes. And I don't think current Theosophy holds more than one piece, one angle, on that wisdom. A very valid angle, but not by any means the only one or the "highest" one. > >And I fear I have a difficult time telling the difference > >between being considered "wrong" about an issue because I don't believe > >HPB's ideas and opinions are absolute, being considered wrong because I > >don't believe "Jesus's" ideas are absolute, and being considered wrong > >because I don't accept the assumptions current in the sciences I study. > > In a discussion of *personal views*, you are not wrong. And Daniel H. is > not wrong. And I'm not wrong. In a discussion of Theosophy, when we focus > on the source Teachings, any of us can be wrong and subject to correction, > when our writings stray from that which has been given us. But it *was* a discussion of Rich's personal views on abortion. And he was quoting HPB with the same attitude of Daniel quoting the bible - and I was pointing out that things have changed dramatically since HPB's time, and that it is even possible that *she* might have a different opinion today. > >You seem to ground your opinion in HPB's, and claim it to have > >some sort of additional authority because you do so. You imply that your > >opinion is identified with the (alledgedly "correct") Theosophical > >"teachings". > > >All of which is certainly fine so long as you don't expect > >everyone to accept that authority as absolute in some way. > > When writing on behalf of the theosophical philosophy, Rich can agree > with you at times, and say you're wrong at other times. When he is doing > so, this is simply intellectual honesty. It is often possible to tell > when something is in accord with what we have been taught, and in the > name of further studying it we can examine things that are said for > consistency with it. Rich can do whatever he wants. When he speaks to me, however, with the attitude of the Christian ("HPB is quite clear, Or did you miss that"), I'll respond to him as I respond to the Christian. When I was his age, I was also deeply emeshed in the SD, and thought I had found the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I have grown since then. > >That said, I still stay around Theosophy because 1) I greatly > >admire HPB, (who I actually believe would be somewhat appalled to be used > >as an absolute authority of any sort), > > She would not want to be considered an absolute authority. We share an > admiration of her. But what she wrote about is not just her personal opinion. > > >2) "There is no religion higher > >than truth" is a positively smashing attitude, as I *am* seeking *truth*, > >and will seek it through every avenue available - including many that > >have nothing to do with the Theosophical canon, > > This is something that we all try to do in our own ways. The problem is > that personal opinion can be as misleading as psychic vision, in clouding > and biasing and distorting what we perceive. And precisely what do you mean by this? That either I accept the Theosophical canon, or anything else is "personal opinion"? Seems to me that the way to remain as unclouded and unbiased as possible is to survey the widest possible range of ideas of others, and then to draw them into one's own system, evaluate them, and reach conclusions (where it is possible). The mind of one that believes one point of view is higher than all others, and whose sole method of comparative evaluation lies in comparing everything to that one system is in far more danger of bias and distortion, are they not? > >3) I have met some > >absolutely splendid people in the Theosophical current, people who are > >very intense, sincere seekers of truth who have also thoroughly > >integrated a profound service ethic in their lives, > > We find these people everywhere. The theosophical groups are one of many > junior colleges or extension courses for those of us wanting to enroll in > the Mystery Colleges. Yes. One of many. > >and 4) one of the > >main currents of "angels" with whom I serve in the innerland, and who > >have taken the time to teach me much about the nuances of using energy in > >service, > > I would not accord special status to what any particualar person or being > tells me, be it physical or non-physical. We pick our friends and teachers, > be they physical or not, and learn from interaction with them. What > authority you might give to your angels is a personal thing, since you are > in charge of what external sources you tap for information and guidance. > If you were to want others to also give weight to what they tell you, you > would have to demonstrate their nature and status to us. Was there a request that this be accorded special status? I will not try to demonstrate their nature and status in an arena where people have already reached conclusions prior to evidence even being presented. There are too many other places containing a spirit of genuinely open-minded inquiry. And I was not requesting, here, that anyone give my opinions any weight ... merely stating the reasons why I am still associated with Theosophy. And, by the way, you seem to often make rather large, universal statements about what is true without identifying your source(s) of knowledge, do you not? If you wish to continually hint that I need to name and justify my sources, I would request that you first do so yourself. > >has indicated that while the original generating current that > >began this current century's notions of what "Theosophy" is has mostly > >expended itself, > > The current presentation of Theosophy in the world is losing energy, in its > role working to "spice up" western thought life. For this role, it could use > a workover. The other aspect to it, as Mystery Teachings, does not age, and > refers to aspects of life that were as true millions of years ago as in > millions of years to come. A nice belief system. > >it still contains at least a possibility to be of some > >partial service for another century (despite its currently severely > >introverted and self-involved state) if it can open itself far enough to > >entertain another burst of energy and thought suitable for the *next* > >century. > > True, with regard to its role as "spice". Not needed with regard to its > role as "junior college to the Mysteries". And how do you know this? You do not think the Masters alter college curriculum and methods of teaching to take into account the changing nature of both the inner worlds and the nature of the pupils? You, Rich, and others seem to see the ancient wisdom in state space - as containing the final words on reality, and pupils as people who simply must fit themselves to gain access to that wisdom, integrate it, and so alter themselves that they finish the evolutionary cycle ahead of the norm. I see the ancient wisdom in phase space, as an evolving, dynamic system whose expression, and even essence alters and refines over time - *we are told* that even the Masters, even those in "charge" of the ancient wisdom have not "finished" evolution, but are on a higher cycle of it - you don't think *they*, as *they* grow and evolve, don't alter what they do as they gain fuller understandings of the "Plan" - don't *themselves* frame it to themselves in fuller terms (which from our point of view would mean that the ancient wisdom has *changed*) - don't change the ways they work with students to fit the changing nature of the students (which they are said to know better than anyone else) - think you that the "junior colleges" in Atlantis were the *same* as they are now? You may see the process of learning in the junior college as one of integrating knowledge into your being, and altering your energy-system so as to gain access to the full university. I see it as generating currents from within myself that are of a nature and refinement required to blend into the larger currents of wisdom flowing on the planet - as bending my tributary to enter the larger river. You may not agree with my perspective, but I don't think your assumptions about the nature of the ancient wisdom and the methods of teaching it are more "correct" than mine ... which come from not just reading the SD & other works, but thinking through the ramifications of what is written there. > >But articulations of the "ancient wisdom" are all over the place, > > The articulations are not the truths themselves. Tell this to Rich, who seemed to be using them as such. I've never made this mistake, in fact most of the "wisdom" I believe I've touched can not even be vaugely hinted at in words. Wisdom, in my subjective world, only *begins* at the "arupa" level - the formless- it is a *flow* composed of multiple currents, not a *thing* ... and that flow will take on very different forms depending upon the prism through which it refracts (the personality layers of a particular generation). >and there is no way of knowing, for instance, that the intense > >mathematics of chaos and complexity theorists (which is where I'm drawing > >the concepts required to try to find a principle far more expanded than > >the current "law of karma") are not *this century's* articulations of > >part of the "ancient wisdom", > > There is rich symbolism in the field of chaos. We can learn much from > studying it. By itself, though, it provides no philosophical or metaphysical > understandings. It is an area of mathematical symbolism. There is in Complexity Theory. And looking at some of the SD through its eyes is a very interesting exercise. And in fact in a number of different areas it is (IMO) clear that the Masters saw things from the Complexity point of view, but lacked the vocabulary currently being developed in the sciences. A lot of the cutting edge of modern science is *remarkably* occult knowledge. > >Current Theosophy is > >not a truth, but one of many rooms - and > >while it may be used for guidance, should not be used in attempts to > >dominate: It is a foundation, not a shackle. > > When we talk about a particular expression of Theosophy, I'd agree that > it can be used for guidance, but not to dominate the thought life of a > student. And as a foundation, we build upon it. Building upon something > means that you've firmly attached yourself to it, and make it a part of > the structure of your life. The word "shackle" means the same thing, > except that it also implies the holding of an unwilling person to a > place when that person wants to move on. Our relationship to Theosophy > can appear in either form. We can see ourselves firmly rooted in something > that goes deep into the earth, and is solidly a part of our lives. Or we > can see it as something that imprisons us, that holds us back from exploring > other places. How should we view it? It's an individual choice. We both > make the choice for ourselves and should allow others to make their own > choices as well. Yes. I agree. Again, tell that to the fellow you are defending, who seems to wish to reslove the entire abortion debate by saying "this is what HPB said, and that's all there is to it - and if you don't agree you are wrong". I have been saying throughout that it is a *choice* of the woman (and man) involved, and that anyone else's judgements (including mine) are secondary and quite irrelevant. > Fellow Student, > Eldon With kind regards, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 05:49:15 GMT From: Lynn.M.Oelgart@Dartmouth.EDU (Lynn M. Oelgart) Subject: Re: interference with nature Dear Daniel, Did you know that Daniel Hedrick is an anagram for Nickel Diehard? Just thought you'd like to know. Lynn From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 07:08:43 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: The latest censorship Rich: >Please do not try and control this forum. . . >If you are uncomfortable with the subject matter, simply sign off and stick >to Theos-L. Control of the forum? Your obnoxious attitude in this post and past posts shows a blatant wish to control others. If you don't like what Brenda, who IMHO is a very intelligent person, has to say, than you'll just have to live with it. Just like the rest of us have to live with your inflammatory posts. As for CWL, he lived, made his mistakes, accomplished a great deal and died. I would hope we could have a calm, intelligent discussion of those historical facts, RATHER A SCREAMING MATCH IN CYBERSPACE! - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 07:32:50 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: ES Hi. If you're interested in the E.S., you can go in on a probationary basis. In fact, everyone is probationary for about the first three years. Then, if you decide it's not for you, you can just quietly walk away. Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 08:04:00 GMT From: murdicrj@esvax.dnet.dupont.com Subject: Re: Theosophy On 25-Sept-95 Rich wrote; >To Bob Murdic, >Excellent, excellent summary of some of the problems the T.S. face. I agree >one hundred percent, especially the lines on trying to make Theosophy "work" >with any kind of version of the Christian God. It doesn't, and the Masters, >HPB and Judge were clear on that, as the letter stated. >Rich Rich, As much as I would like to take the praise offered by you for the article I posted, I can not. For I was, in that case, only the messenger. The author was Joseph P. Fulton. Joe can be reached at jpfulton@ix.netcom.com. I don't know if Joe is online yet with theos-l. I will post the balance of our dialog later. Bob From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 08:07:22 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: passage re: who adepts are According to Brenda S. Tucker: > > I've seen plenty of Punjabi Singhs in Paul Johnson's two books: IN SEARCH OF > THE MASTERS and THE MASTERS REVEALED, but I haven't seen many Tibetans. Does > anyone (including Paul) know of other Tibetans (besides the obvious) who > could be included as adept? First-- the "obvious" ones won't be so to people who haven't read my work. So for starters, let's state that there is one major Tibetan among my Master nominees, the Sengchen Tulku who was an informant of Sarat Chandra Das and his companion Ugyen Gyatso. The latter two are also nominated as Masters, and are Tibetan Buddhists, although Das was Bengali. Gyatso (the surname of the present Dalai Lama) was Sikkimese by nationality but of Tibetan race and religion. Since the Sengchen Tulku was the Prime Minister of the Panchen Lama, we may assume that the latter (who died 1883) could have been informed of his subordinate's Theosophical connections, and approved them. Later Panchen and Dalai Lamas have made favorable statements about HPB and/or Theosophy. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 08:16:57 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Questions about the ES >>Liesel and/or Paul: [I'm not sure whom I'm quoting because of the way that the ">" are used.] >> 1. Should it be permissible for the President of the TS to also >> be leader of any other organization, secret or not? John Coats >> felt obliged to give up his LCC status, but Radha Burnier >> serves as Outer Head of the ES and President of the TS. Does >> this not blur the lines of the two, and raise questions about >> the status of non-ES members in the TS? It could *if you question the esoteric authority of the person wearning both hats*. This was true of the Point Loma T.S. (and may be true of the ULT but since their E.S. and rulership is underground we may never know for sure). It's fine if the person is accepted as a qualified representative of the Masters. It's terrible if not. >> 2. In any group, is it a good thing to have a secret >> organization-within-an-organization with an agenda unknown to >> those who don't belong? The secret nature of the other organizations may not be good. That would be unfair to people joining and participating in the T.S. that may not agree with or be aware of the underground politics. >> 3. Is there any way of knowing the truth about ES participation >> in TS politics? We would have to ask an E.S. member and believe that they gave us the full answer. I'd suspect not, that they do not participate as a group, but rather act as individuals. >> 4. How is the Outer Head selected? Good question. In the Pasadena T.S. someone steps forth and proclaims himself, and if accepted, becomes the new head of the Society. In the ULT, it's underground, and we may never know. In the Adyar T.S., there's probably politics involved, but again we'd be guessing. >> 5. What can we know about the motives of TS leaders in general >> if their behavior may be determined by ES >> loyalties? I don't think that the E.S. sends out instructions regarding the operation of the T.S., how to vote, or how to conduct affairs -- at least in the Adyar T.S. >>For example, if no TS member has to obey the TS >>President, but every ES member has to obey the OH and only ES >>members become national officers... the implication is that our >>democracy is a sham. Obey? We don't have to obey the T.S. President either. The job of the President is to maintain the organization of the Society, and to actively promote Theosophy in the world. This does not include giving orders to members. >> 6. To what extent is TS opposition to historical research a >> manifestation of its domination by a secret inner group? Many >> have been turned away from the Adyar archives, and one wonders >> why there is such a secretive atmosphere. There's no conspiracy here. The reason for the opposition is simple, I'd think. People don't want to have their basic beliefs questioned. Say someone were to say to you that your ideas about the Masters were totally wrong, and they had proof. How would you feel? It's natural for people to deny things they don't like to hear, and to get angry if those ideas are too forcefully presented to them. This is without regard to how much truth there is in the challenging ideas. We don't want to be told that we're wrong, to be prematurely forced into paradigm shifts as our current worldviews are shattered and we're forced to change. >> 7. Is the progressive loss of significance of our TS >> democratic procedures due to the power of the ES? There's always been politics in all the groups. It's quite independent of the E.S. as an organization. >> (For example, the current international president will likely never >> be opposed after it was decreed that 12 national secretaries must >> nominate any opponent-- as I understand it. And the pool of candidates >> for national president was recently shrunk drastically by >> limiting it to former board members). The circle of people in charge of an organization wants to retain control, including control over their succession. They want to insure that their sucessors hold similar beliefs. This is true of spiritual organizations in general. >> 8. How would the TS be changed by the abolition of the ES? No real change. >> These are questions I ask myself about this vexing question. It's not a problem. The problem is with the stubborn resistance to change that is found in human nature, including in Theosophists, where the status quo is perferred over change as a general policy. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 08:55:01 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: All those Christians! According to Richtay@aol.com: > > Paul, > > I also want to compare your figures. Where are yours from? From the World > Almanac, 1994, the figures for Protestants is 400 million. For Catholics, > 650 million, and 300 million Orthodox. That makes 1.35 billion. And those > are Christians by birth, not by "confession." My 1994 World Almanac, p. 727, gives 1,025,585,000 Roman Catholics, 170,422,000 Orthodox, 373,698,000 Protestants, 74,883,400 Anglicans, and 188,433,600 other Christians, yielding a total of 1,833,022,000. Muslims= 971,378,700 So when I said "almost 3 billion" that was give or take a hundred million or two. > > I don't think we can count Muslims as people who in general think much abot > Jesus, the tradition honors him mostly as a figure in history, the way > Christians honor Ezekiel. Does that make Jesus in any way central? No. Some Muslims expect Christ to return to usher in the Last Judgment-- not Muhammad. That's pretty central, but in other ways I'll concede your point. OTOH there are plenty of Hindus who accept Jesus in their own way. > > So out of 5.6 billion people, we can count 1.35 billion as Christian. It is > also very interesting to me that after 300 years of missionary activity, 2% > of India is Christian, 1% of Japan, and ZIP among Tibetans. I wonder why so > little luck? As compared to Africans, with vast numbers of conversions? I'd say that a deeply-rooted literate culture is much more resistant to evangelism. PJ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 09:29:16 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Re: Re: re: CWL and Mars In response to a brief exchange between Alan and myself concerning CWL on Theos-roots there were several comments. Below, I tried to respond to all of them that I noticed: Rich commented: >Man, the more I learn about this guy, the more AWFUL he sounds. >Are we sure that this is the same guy people are running around >calling an "Adept"? What do the students and followers of >Leadbeater make of these allegations? That they were all made >up? By whom and for what purpose? > >RIch Well, now you have had a few days to see what students and follows of CWL make of these allegations. This time there wasn't much (thank [Daniel's] God). However, last time this came up, the responses were a bit more interesting. Liesel said in essence that it was impossible for these allegations to be true because CWL was a great shaman, and great shamans don't do those things. Brenda classified it as "gossip", therefore untheosophical and not worthy of consideration. I think it was Lewis with whom I had a rather extended and interesting dialogue exploring the possibility that CWL's motives and actions were misjudged. I believe that it was Murray who finally asked what was my documentation for the allegations. What surprised me about the question was that he was only person who bothered to ask, and the question, wasn't raised until several weeks after the subject first came up. Whenever I read a new allegation or a new historical fact, the very first question that always comes to my mind is: what is the documentation for this? Well, since Murray asked (thanks again Murray), I posted a bibliography of about eight or ten of the more important source documents including some of the evidence that was used against him, and the stenographer's transcript of the inquiry that had CWL's replies to the evidence. But as you might have guessed by now, there is really nothing rational about how most people respond to information that conflicts with their feelings. All in all, I think the responses proved that Tillett was right when he indicatied that the Adyar TS really should modify the motto to reflect the true attitudes to the majority of its controlling membership: "There is no religion higher than a carefully edited version of the truth." Brenda responded (in part): >This is very impolite stuff. Yes, and I think you would find historians to be very impolite people when they discuss history. When one separates history from the doctrinal interpretations of history, heros become more human--sometimes they emerge with lots of warts. Based upon my past experiences with you, I would suggest that you would most probably perceive historical discussions as ranging from irrelevant (for you) to impolite. I recommend that you drop theos-roots. By the way, I do respect the fact that you take a stand for CWL. Like you, I believe it is our duty as theosophists to stand up for those whom we believe have been unjustly attacked or criticised. One the other hand, I wonder why you never speak up when "impolite" things are occasionally said about HPB on this net? >Is it the black brotherhood behind this? On the other side of this question, I have heard serious discussions that the "black brotherhood" was behind the promotion and rise of CWL in the Theosophical Society in order to destroy its effectiveness in the world. You see, it can work both ways. Frankly I try to stay away from conspiracy theories. They are impossible to prove and besides, it is much easier to show a causal relationship between events and people's ignorance, stupidity, greed etc. Ann Bermingham responded with a rather interesting speculative horoscope. In part she wrote: >The most glaring aspect was Mars (2nd house) opposed Neptune in >the 8th (55 min. orb). This sometimes indicates abnormal >sexual desires and alliances which affect the home and >professional reputation. It can also mean unrealistic >visionary experiences and a desire to be special. I believe you are on to something. Leo rising does seem to fit CWL. Venus and Neptune together also usually makes for a charisma does it not? In my astrological experiences, I've found that Mars-Neptune conjunctions and oppositions seem to also occur with psychic personalities. What has been your experience? I don't have it anymore, but I recall reading a reply to Alan Leo from CWL in ~Modern Astrology~ for 1916. As I recall, CWL was responding to a request for a confirmation of his birth date. He instead expressed his disbelief in astrology, and if I remember correctly, he never confirmed his 1847 birth date to Leo. In light of the correct birth date, this little exchange took on new meaning for me. >Every spiritual person who I have admired in the last 25 years >has had some problem. Sometimes it is one of the big three - >sex, money or power, or even some combination of those. Stop >worrying about all the "bad" out there and look to the good >stuff various people may have to offer. Then you can get down >to the real work - your self. Well, as my aunt used to say; "if we were perfect we wouldn't be here." On the other hand, sometimes the spiritual qualities in others out shine their warts. The "real work" is truly ourselves, as you say. Yet we can't grow spiritually in a vacuum. It seems that we have to do a lot of rubbing against each other to ware down some of those rough spots. "portello@calon.com" wrote: >Can you spare a moment of your serious inquiring time to help me >get off this list? I'd really appreciate it. Consider it part of >the work...The Great Work. John, please help this poor reader! Eldon comments: >With Leadbeater, we have two issues. One is how we handle a >historic discussion of his personal life, and his relationships >with others. The other is with regard to the reliability of his >psychical investigations. When we talk about the former, we have >to take care not to offend anyone wanting him as a hero. When we >talk about the later, we have to take care not to offend anyone >involved in psychical investigations. Strong emotions can be >stirred and we have to chose words with care. > >-- Eldon Yes, we have a problem here, and I don't see a solution. Do you? We can choose words with care--for instance, "self abuse" sounds better to most ears than "masturbation," but I don't think these kinds of word choices are going to help historical discussions be anymore palatable to those who have a distaste for them, especially if they concern our "heros." As for discussion concerning CWL's reliability as a clairvoyant, there seems to be less problems here. Everyone seems to be OK about them--so far. Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 09:30:38 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Theos-roots and censorship Eldon Wrote: >As we get bigger and bigger, we may start to choose to post topics >and have discussions on side lists in order to better follow them, >so that our discussions aren't lost in hundreds of unrelated >messages. But this is something that will arise naturally and >voluntarily as we continue to grow, and is not the result of >structure being imposed upon us because someone does not like a >particular topic. > >-- Eldon As I read your entire post (the above is only your concluding paragraph), I'm left with the impression that you are saying that everything will take care of itself naturally. My crystal ball is on strike this week, so I don't know if your prediction will come out or not. At any rate, as long as others do not try to structure those they do not agree with, then that is fine. If the change to "side lists" grows out of the present discontent (which I think is more likely), then we all need to take responsibility, not just those who annoy the status quo. I hope you prediction is right--it sounds more pleasant. --Jerry HE From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 09:32:10 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Re: Re: re re: CWL and Mars Liesel wrote: >Harumph! >I'm just wondering who got flamed around here that time. Were >his initials CWL, maybe? huhn? just maybe? > >Liesel Nope, they were KPJ and JHE--no question about it. CWL is dead and beyond any flames anyway, unless Daniel H. is right and there is a theological Hell :-) Good post thanks Jerry HE From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 10:01:45 GMT From: Aki Korhonen Subject: Our Friends at STEINER-L. Hello all. You may already know that there is a antroposofical mailing list, STEINER-L, out there. I have been participating both THEOS-L and STEINER-L about two years and I have to admit that both are good and inspiring, but I have had more to discuss with people at STEINER-L. I think it is because I'm a member of TS and most of those are antroposophists and these slightly different views seems to generate a lot to discuss. As I stated in my earlier posting, I regard both Antroposofy and Theosophy as working to same goals. I would like that John Mead would Fraternally and officially announce and invite our Brothers and Sisters at Steiner-l to Theos-l if they are interested to share and participate their views. Also I would like to see more co-operation between individuals at Antroposofy and Theosophy - it need not to be anything very grand or practical. But as an Idea. The Idea and a principal agreement that we share same aims; Brotherhood of Man, Karma, reincarnation, compassion to sentient beings. This kind of agreement in the mental-level, just this kind of attitude, would increase greatly the feeling of Fraternity, sympathy and mutual understanding between Antroposophist and Theosophist, which would generate many positive things - is our goal to promote the Fraternity of Man or not? What is your opinion? Fraternally, Peace. aki korhonen Rovaniemi, Finland. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 10:04:26 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: (none) > when we use this medium (the Internet) that it is easy to forget > that only certain fragments of our prisms can be refracted though > cyberspace - perhaps a bit of gushing about the magnificence of a > hike, the tenderness in a friendship, or the accomplishments in > our (often seemingly) mundane jobs, would serve to humanize this > medium ... to make it easier to remember that we are not all just > ideas that are either clashing or in harmony, but whole humans > who travel the path with the entirety of our beings. This strikes home for me in terms of the fourfold T-F, N-S model. Theosophy is pretty insistent that thinking is superior to feeling, and intuition to sensation. That "sits right" with intuitive thinking types like me-- and I reckon most Theosophists. But in my 40s I'm shifting focus to the less-developed domains of sensation and feeling. Deemphasizing culture and focusing on nature is one aspect of this. But on theos-l we've pretty much stayed in the thinking and intuitive realms. I'd welcome posts with a more earthy feel. > far more than just the "lack of humans"). In some way or another > (IMO) ... your move must inevitably cause profound changes in > your entire energy system - perhaps it is indeed even an outcome > of a transformation? Precisely the "silence" of which you spoke. My urban neighborhood got more and more offensive with things like multiple dogs barking all night, occasional gunshots, late-night pedestrians talking at the top of their lungs, etc. Removing all that stress makes for better sleep, better meditation, a general increase in well-being. I'd hazard a guess that there is indeed a transformation that led to this move. For the last ten years, my life has been dominated by intellectual concerns. With the second SUNY book and the resolve not to write in that vein any more, I pretty much opted to "get back to basics." Do you find that some sort of reintigration > of the civilized with the deeply natural aspects of your being > happened prior to its outward, physical manifestation as a move > to where you now live? (Actually, I'm kinda curious about this if > its not too personal of a question). For the last seven years-- exactly the period in which my writing has been center stage-- I've been an avid, even fanatical paddler. First a canoe, then a bigger canoe, then a kayak. All along, it's been a compulsive retreat to raw nature as often as circumstances allowed-- at least 20-30 trips a year, I guess. That had a strong mystical component and met a real need. But it sorta fragmented my being, with the outdoorsman taking a definite second place to the bookperson. My next writing project may be something like "A Paddler's Guide to Halifax County" to compensate. Anyhow, the move to the country feels like an embrace of that weekends-only outdoors person as a fully-equal partner in this complex thing we call "selfhood." > > When I was first doing long hikes and learning rock climbing (to > get to *really* inaccessable places) I began noticing that a sort > of meditative state was being induced with no conscious effort - > a whole distinct perspective is generated by the interaction > between the human energy system and the natural world - and I > think this is far more than just "another" perspective, it is the > *orginal* perspective, the one that was the first possessed by > our ancestors, the one so enormous and ageless that even whole > civilizations are as blinks of an eye. ABSOLUTELY. Last time in the woods, I was struck by the way that finding one's path in a pathless wilderness is done by something like an "automatic pilot." One doesn't think about what to do next, rather everything flows effortlessly into the right configuration from moment to moment. For a second, this opened some kind of inner vortex. But frankly, I am most struck by the consciousness-altering aspect of the forest when on the verge of leaving it. There's a distinct sense of losing something precious and sacred. Almost a sense of having one's boundaries snap back into place around one's physical body-- while before they had expanded to include the forest. > in the day I ran into him (he had apparently seen me too). We > chatted for awhile, decided to have dinner together, spoke about > completely unremarkable things, and went our seperate ways the > next day. As I thought about this, however, it occured to me that > something almost transcendental lurked in the event - that > embedded within it was exactly that bond, that foundation for the > nucleus I was thinking about: *Recognition*. That in the midst of > a landscape as large as the eye was capable of seeing my eyes > would have been drawn to the one other speck of humanity within > it; that we both would have, as though by a spiritual magnetism, > slightly altered our steps so as to meet; that there was a > sensation, a very fundamental sensation, that existed prior to > any of the layers upon which religion, or politics, or spiritual > orientation, or career, social standing or past; a sensation that > might be stated simply as "There is another *like myself*". The > foundation for a universal family, the bond needed to tie such a > thing together, does not need to be created ... but rather > *revealed* - and for some strange reason, the larger the > concentration of people, the more that sensation recedes into > unconsciousness ... leading even the most minor differences to > loom enormous, while surrounded by the enormity and beauty of the > natural world, that bond of its own accord seems to unfold itself > gently, but so strongly that *all* differences, however great, > become of secondary relevance. Southside Virginia manifests that kind of recognition in a way that I find very soul-nurturing. There is a long-standing tradition that whenever you're driving out in the country, you exchange friendly waves with EVERY person you see. It's a completely race-transcendent bit of country living that struck me as quite odd and charming at first. (My origins are urban-- coastal VA). Later, I realized it was no mere quaint habit, but a deeply meaningful way of saying "Namaste." Or rather, of course, saying what Namaste means-- the divinity in me salutes the divinity in you. It's a real blessing to live in a place where such folkways persist. Speaking of "blessings" I'll close with one report of a change in the month I've been living in the country. For some weird reason, I have felt called to send loving, blessing thoughts/feelings toward houses and their inhabitants on some of my commutes. Don't know why, how or if it has any real meaning, but this is just something that has started to well up spontaneously. > Well, this has become longer than intended. I, for one, > would be interested in hearing, over the next few months what > changes you observe in your energy, in your perspective, in your > spiritual practices, as your system integrates (or reintegrates) > into surroundings that you must feel immensely blessed to be > living in. > Cheers, -JRC I also feel blessed to be sharing theos-l with people who can resonate to and encourage these changes. Namaste > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 10:38:43 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: On CWL I have also heard that CWL had a sexual involvement with Krishnamurti and his brother, Nitya. It seems this was the cause of their father wanting the boys to leave Adyar and come back to live at home. There was a court battle over the situation, I don't remember how it turned out. What are the relevant historical documents and facts about the case? Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 11:57:00 GMT From: portelli@calon.com Subject: Re: On CWL what is your obsession with the "historical facts" of some dead guys sex life? Do you envy Krishnaji, another dead guy? Where are the "roots" in all this. I guess that I failed, once again to relieve myself of all this stuff. Please help me get off this list. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 12:41:46 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Questions about the ES > Liesel makes some good points about the ES, on the basis of a > lot more experience in the TS than I have. My > questions/problems with the ES are based on a general reading > of the situation rather than personal knowledge. But here goes. > > 1. Should it be permissible for the President of the TS to also > be leader of any other organization, secret or not? John Coats > felt obliged to give up his LCC status, but Radha Burnier > serves as Outer Head of the ES and President of the TS. Does > this not blur the lines of the two, and raise questions about > the status of non-ES members in the TS? > 2. In any group, is it a good thing to have a secret > organization-within-an-organization with an agenda unknown to > those who don't belong? > 3. Is there any way of knowing the truth about ES participation > in TS politics? > 4. How is the Outer Head selected? > 5. What can we know about the motives of TS leaders in general > if their behavior may be determined by ES > loyalties? For example, if no TS member has to obey the TS President, but every ES member has to obey the OH and only ES members become national officers... the implication is that our democracy is a sham. > 6. To what extent is TS opposition to historical research a > manifestation of its domination by a secret inner group? Many > have been turned away from the Adyar archives, and one wonders > why there is such a secretive atmosphere. > 7. Is the progressive loss of significance of our TS > democratic procedures due to the power of the ES? (For > example, the current international president will likely never be opposed > after it was decreed that 12 national secretaries must nominate > any opponent-- as I understand it. And the pool of candidates > for national president was recently shrunk drastically by > limiting it to former board members). > 8. How would the TS be changed by the abolition of the ES? > > These are questions I ask myself about this vexing question. > Any answers? > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 14:45:55 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: to Brenda Brenda: I think the conflict here may have to do with the word "access." I agree with Eldon that we cannot "fully embody" on any Globe except Globe D, and I think that this is clear from Purucker's lengthy discussions of the life-waves and Rounds, and so on. I am coming at this whole model of Globes from the viewpoint of pathworking, not of evolution or "living" on the Globes. What I am saying is that we can consciously experience each of the 12 Globes of our planetary chain now, while living on Globe D via the technique of pathworking - which is an imaginal technique used a lot in the Qabala, Enochian Magic, and many other places. Contrary to what Eldon keeps insisting upon, I am not advocating kama-manas techniques, not have I personally ever practiced kama-manas techniques. When I pathwork, I remain fully conscious in my physical body, and I am never "possessed" by anyone, nor do I have a "spirit guide" etc etc. I am talking about buddhi-manas where you raise consciousness to higher planes and then just relax and listen to the ideas that flow into your head. I do not see colors. I do not see anyone living on Mars. I do, however, see relationships, and I sometimes feel forces and powers acting, and I sometimes get ideas which I later have to put into words and write down before I forget. Then I check what I have written against the core teachings, etc, to make sure my ideas are not against anything that was taught. Sometimes I am amazed at what I wrote down, and wonder at how I did it. This is how most of my books have been written. I actually "see" them on a higher plane, and the basic ideas of each book are made known to me. I then must write it all down before I forget. I can usually write down a good outline, and this, in turn, jogs my memory as I write. In a sense, this is a form of channeling. In another sense, maybe I am simply getting in touch with my unconscious possibilities. Its hard to say. Maybe its something else again. But I don't think its any kind of kama-manas - there is no detail, and no emotion, for example. Anyway, our human life-wave is currently incarnating on Globe D, and I have never disputed Eldon's contention that we can only fully incarnate on Globe D at this time. But we do, in fact, have "access" to the other Globes. Brenda:< The seven (or five) planes around the other globes would also be separated from Globe D's planes and there would be little if any crossover.> I don't believe that this is possible, if I understand what you are saying. According to HPB, there are 7 cosmic planes of which the physical plane is the lowest or most gross. The other planes are not out in space somewhere. They are right in front of us. All of these planes overlap each other. But they are invisible to our physical senses, just like dreams, emotions, and thoughts are all invisible, but exist nonetheless. Anyway, the planes do not go around the globes, but rather the globes are situated in the planes. One Globe can only fit on one plane at a time. Globe D is on the physical plane. If it has an astral counterpart, this counterpart would be located on the astral plane (because there is only one astral plane, so everything astral has to be on it somewhere). If Globe D has a mental component, this would have to be located somewhere on the mental plane, and so on. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 14:46:29 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: To Aki re steiner-l Aki:<- is our goal to promote the Fraternity of Man or not? < Subject: To David David:< I don't know about you, but I've done lots of things which have had results I neither expected nor wanted. > This happens with everyone. its part of the human condition. I call it the Chaos Factor. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 14:47:40 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re To Eldon Eldon:<. Every specialty of thought has its own terminology, and Theosophy is not different in this respect. When we do something like Trungpa in his Buddhist writings, and simply use English terms, we force an unnecessary burden upon the reader.> Very true. But in some ways, this fact does not sit well with me. I am currently working in a Ph.D. program, and Ph.D.s like big words and flowery confusing terminology. But you can often get your point across without a lot of big words - i.e., without a unique terminology. I have read critics of physics, for example, who show historically that specific technical jargon was deliberately developed over the years to confuse the readers and to make them seem mysterious and awesome in the eyes of the public. Newton, for example, deliberately used fancy technical jargon because he didn't want to be bothered by a lot of people asking him questions. So he wrote in a way that only a few could understand. Galileo deliberately used technical jargon to avoid church persecution. And so on. I dropped my subscription to Gnosis because I found myself falling asleep in midsentences. I have already written about this problem, which I called the Fog Index, before. I think that theosophy will have a much broader impact in the future if we KISS instead of hanging onto outdated jargon that only a few other theosophists can decipher. But, this is just my own opinion. Anyway, I will always try to put my thoughts into plain English whenever I can. The real danger with doing this, is that then others will be able to understand what I am saying, and can challenge me. IMHO, HPB avoided a lot of arguing by deliberately throwing terminology at her critics and obscuring her real message (not that I blame her). I am still waiting for someone to explain to me what "the Rupa- Loka of Deva-Chan" is, for example (I am sure that you could do this, Eldon, but I especially want to hear it from Rich or Daniel). Lets not forget, that specific terminology always separates a group from others, and sets up an air of mystery and a sense of "I don't know what they are saying, but it must really be important!" Now, virtually all of our scientific disciplines deliberately wanted this kind of atmosphere. I don't think its appropriate for theosophy, which after all, is really rather simple and straightforward - both Judge and Purucker were able to put HPB's teachings into more or less plain English. This loses the mystique that is associated with HPB, but sure goes a long way to make her ideas easier to understand. Do we want to mystify others, or do we want to share our ideas? Also, I am not so sure that members of theos-l all share in the same terminology, and all can follow what is being said at times. If I am wrong about this, then I will return to my quiet room. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 14:48:11 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: More Re to Eldon < Subject: Re: censorship flames Ann: >>facts, RATHER A SCREAMING MATCH IN CYBERSPACE! Eldon: >Agreed. Let's not get upset. We have much better things to write about >than how angry we are at things we don't like. We should forget what does >not appeal to us, and be motivated by that which we find useful. My capital letter statement was an echo of what I had heard on Theos-l, not a personal one. Rich's overblown response to Brenda was just one of many I'd seen in the past. Actually, I think the members of the list have been very patient with someone who consistently reponds with fire coming out of his nostrils to the most innocent statements. Classes in netiquette are needed here. I'm very glad roots is being utilized for the CWL issue. The primary reason I logged off Theo-l was that 50 posts a day in my mailbox was just too time consuming to handle. The traffic on roots fits my schedule. Another member of the list was disturbed because I voted to send the Masters' issue to roots, but I think it was a good idea. Separating issue into categories would give us a chance to discuss subjects we are most interested in rather sifting through many posts. I personally detest flaming and ugly arguments. My best memories of the list are those of calm discussion, exchange of information and agreements to disagree. As far as I am concerned, obnoxious comebacks are out of order. After all, we are adult Theosophists here, not a bunch of high school kids getting their kicks on the Internet. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 15:08:05 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Questions about the ES to Paul, 1.) To me, the whole ES set -up raises questions about the status of non-ES members in the TS. There's always a limit as to how far they can go in the TS. I was lucky in that I found a way to more esoteric knowledge without belonging, which is really what I wanted. 2.) I'm not too thrilled about having a secret organization within the organization. It serves no purpose that I can see, & creates animosity. I think I'd like it much better if they'd make themselves known, explained their functions, & then we all would go about our business. I do think that anyone who wants to can apply for membership. 3.) I just take for granted that the politicking is done by ES members. 4.) No one on the outside knows their by-laws or procedures, so who knows how the Outer Head is selected. 5.) I think the TS is democratic to a degree. 6.) Who knows what's happening with the Adyar archives, & why people are being turned away. Some people about whom I know, who 've asked for access, were hostile, & if I were in charge of the archives, I wouldn't give them access either. For what? Smear some more Theosophists? 7.) My feelings about the current International President are very mixed. They only come from having stood next to her in a Lunch line at Wheaton once for a few minutes, the vibes I get from the little bits of her speeches I've had the patience to listen to, & some hearsay. So that's not a very firm foundation for an opinion. If board members are elected democratically, I can see some sense in making a prerequisite to becoming the TS President that you be a board member first. In that way, you gain some experience as to how the TS is run before you take the helm. 9.) I have no idea how the TS would be changed if the ES would be abolished. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it should, because its motives are very postive. Again, I would go so far as to say it should stop being a secret organization. As far as I can see, there's nothing gained by that. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 15:12:28 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: To: The Tuckers HAPPY FIRST BIRTHDAY TO GEOFFREY GLENN TUCKER! and a big hug from Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 15:21:01 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: More thoughts on abortion Dear Rich, I just hope your girl friend never gets pregnant, before you're ready for a child. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 15:21:52 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Re: re the latest consorship Eldon wrote to Ann Bermingham: >Brenda saw a posting of Rich's and thought "not more of this >stuff!" and responded to it, not noticing that the posting was >from theos-roots. She replied against it. Rich saw Brenda's >message and replied with something like "this is our place, apparently thought that Brenda was trying to dictate what >appears on theos-roots, when Brenda had thought she had read >something on theos-l. Both Brenda's initial posting was mistaken >and Rich's response to it was mistaken as well. This is very interesting and also a very understandable mistake. I could see how one might not note the section that the posting was made. What I don't understand is that if Brenda mistakenly thought Rich's post was on theos-l, why did she post her response on theos-roots? Jerry HE From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 15:25:24 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: More thoughts on abortion Dear Rich, I stand on what I said. I don't think the Pope is infallible either, nor any other human being, no matter how esoterically or otherwise informed they are. I think even God makes mistakes. I think he experimented at times.There are creatures who didn't make it very far. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 15:29:38 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Yet More on Globes Daniel C: Could be. But then, what does the rupa-loka and arupa-loka refer to? Do you think that these are two other after-death states? Are you familiar with the Mahayana Buddhist three-realm teaching of kama, rupa, and arupa which are the external maanifestations of body, speech, and mind, and also connected to Dharmakaya, Sambhokaya, and Nirmanakaya as the three vehicles of a Buddha? I am not disagreeing with you, Daniel. My real point is that they made their passages so confusing that it is nigh impossible to really follow what they are saying. Either they meant the paragraph the way I said it, or else they are throwing rupa and arupa into the picture as some kind of blinds. They do seem to be sugggesting that a deceased person can go to kama, rupa, or arupa realms - which is against Buddhist teachings (Buddhists believe that the deceased will enter any of six possible realms, one of which is the animal kingdom. These 6 realms are all below the Abyss, and are all in the kama-loka, as far as I understand it - where kama-loka is the "desire realm" which is the name given to the four lower cosmic planes) and also against my understanding of theosophy, which says that we must return to another rebirth. Only Buddhas or their equivalent, as far as I know, can hope to enter the arupa realms. Maybe you can explain this better than I can? Maybe I need to "carefully" read it again? Daniel C:<"The shells, the victims and suicides" are among "the several groups of subjective entities" who "find their attractions" in Kama-Loka.> Agreed. But I thought that *everyone* found their karmic attraction in the sense that we all gravitate to wherever our karma takes us. If we use "kama-loka" in the sense of "desire-realm" being the four lower cosmic planes, the sentence still makes perfect sense to me, because every monad within the four lower planes is driven/attracted by their own personal and collective karma. Daniel C: Absolutely. I admit to being confused, because "kama-loka" can mean two different things, and to put the term in the same sentence with rupa and arupa certainly does confuse me. Actually, while we are on the subject, I find theosophical terminology in general very confusing, and I have said before that I think it to be one of the reasons so many students give up and go elsewhere. Eldon seems to have a good grasp of it. But I don't have the time or inclination to figure out what every little term meant to each writer and so on. I have enough trouble just keeping up with HPB (who changed her own terminology several times). As far as I know (and please correct me on this, if I am wrong) ther term "kama-loka" as a specific purifying after-death state was invented by either HPB or her Adepts, and is not found in any Buddhist or Hindu literature, and the same with Deva-Chan. Daniel: I don't think so. I look at Globe D as being pretty much located on the physical plane. Kama-Loka (the after-death state) is located on the astral plane (per AB/CWL) and is highly charged with emotions (most of which are being purged here). In the AB/CWL worldview (can I call it that?) physical things are located on the physical plane, emotions are located on the astral plane, and thoughts are located on the mental plane. I rather like this arrangement. It tallies well with my own experiences, and the terminology is easy to remember and to understand. Also, it dovetails nicely with the Qabala. HPB is doubtless more technically correct, but she is difficult to understand to the point where theosophists, even today, are still arguing over what she taught. I also look at the Globes from a different angle. She primarily viewed them from the perspective of the Rounds, Root-Races, and so on. G de P as well. I look at them from the perspective of what is called pathworking. This puts me in the uncomfortable position of seeming to advocate psychism - which I do not. I seem to rile Eldon all the time about this, for example. He takes me to task about leaving the physical body and visiting the Globes all the time. But I think that the danger is overrated, and I have learned much by doing this. I guess its all in one's viewpoint (?). Daniel C: The only misunderstanding is in my own perception. I don't believe that I ever accused anyone else of "misunderstanding." If so, I apologise. The GV, like the Sephiroth, is only a model, and there are many ways of looking at it (probably all with some validity). The only "proof" to a model is how well it works, and how well it predicts things. The GV Model that I have generated, based on my own understanding and my own synthesis of various theosophical writers (so it will never appeal to the purists of any TS) works well for me, and thats all I can ask of it. Daniel C: I haven't seen this one. The problem here is that these "source teachings" are very subject to interpretation (does this sounds better than saying they are confusing?). Also, there is a little difference between viewing the Globes in terms of Rounds and Root-Races and in terms of pathworking - which views them in terms of individual experience in the here-and-now rather than from a historical perspective. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 15:29:42 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: To Rich, Re Terminology Rich: Eldon and I have had some long arguments over some finer points in doctrine just to discover that our definitions (semantics) were different, but our doctrinal ideas were identical. Doubtless this happens all the time on a network like theos-l. As to psychism, I have already admitted to using the generally accepted definition, which includes both kama-manas and buddhi-manas, while HPB defines it for theosophical purposes as only kama-manas. Imagine my embarrassment - I was defending kama-manas on theos-l, and wondering why Eldon was so upset. This kind of terminology problem gets me into a lot of trouble. It would help if everyone defined their terms, I suppose, but then again this would make all postings longer. If I use CWL's terminology, for example, and someone else never read CWL, they may think I am some kind of nut because it is so un-HPBish. I suppose we will simply have to learn as we go. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 15:29:49 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: More on Globes Daniel C:< snip snip snip Rich: No Rich, it is meant to be taken literally, or she would have so stated, though I will agree with you that HPB probably implies a parallel rather than an equality. I don't think I have ever said that Globes=Sephirah, and am sorry to have given you that impression. For one thing, by changing the positions, as she did, she automatically changes much of the characteristics. My problem here is terminology, not taking something literally Rich: Very glad to hear you admit to speculation. I hear you and Daniel keep saying how you understand it and "the English is very clear" etc etc. but I don't hear any explanations. I asked Daniel, and I will now ask you: Please tell me what KH means by tying Rupa-Loka and Arupa-Loka to Kama-Loka as an after-death state. What does he mean in Letter XVI when he mentions, in passing, "the Rupa-Loka of Deva-Chan?" Please show me a Tibetan source (with your extensive background this should be easy for you - this is not meant as a jibe, Rich, I am serious, you must have a lot more books than I do) that shows a Rupa-Loka of Deva-Chan. I am really curious about this, and both you and Daniel obviously know more than I do (I certainly don't pretend to know everything). Hopefully, either you or Daniel can help me on this one, but just saying that you understand it doesn't help me much, because I don't. I am also uncertain as to what any of this has to do with the Globes and Planes Model. Maybe you can help me here too (?). Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 15:31:21 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: More thoughts on abortion "It is a foundation not a shackle." Hear hear. You express my Path very well. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 15:55:10 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Re: Globes and Rounds RE: Quotes from MLs RE: Globe/Plane Confusion Thanks to Eldon for posting quotes on globes from MLs and thanks to Jerry S. for his commentary on Eldon's quotes and commentaries. A few comments: (1) Jerry S. seems to make a number of comments which require explication of underlying ASSUMPTIONS. (a) Jerry writes: "We obviously can't leave a principle on each Globe ---there are 12 Globes and only 6 principles. Even looking at HPB's lower 7 Globes, there is still one Globe too many." Did the quote from MLs or from Eldon indicate that we leave a principle on each globe??? Where in the ML quotes did it say there are 12 globes? (b) Jerry writes: "Here the problem is one of defining the planes --- I would make the etheric to be upper portions of the physical, and divide the mental into lower and upper in the manner of AB/CWL to make all of this business take place on the lower three cosmic planes." Jerry also mentions the "astral plane". First of all what are the three cosmic planes? and the other 4 cosmic planes? Are the etheric, astral mental and causal planes within the sphere of effects of globe D or.....? Or how do these planes relate to globe D's sphere of effects? (c) Jerry writes: "....our astral components return to the astral plane..." Is *this* "astral plane" within the sphere of effects of globe D? or is it somewhere else? Just how does this "astral plane" relate to the physical world (globe D) and the sphere of effects of Globe D? Eldon in his ML quotes does NOT give the first time (chronologically speaking) that the Master speak of the globes, the chain of worlds and the spheres of causes and effects. This is in ML #9 in the 2nd and 3rd editions of the ML. Almost 3 pages of text in ML #9 deal with the chain of worlds and the after death states. I suggest that these pages need to also be read and studied in order to put the other ML quotes in better context. And when Jerry writes: "...our astral components return to the astral plane..." and I asked Jerry above whether the astral plane is within the world or sphere of effects of Globe D, I would suggest that Jerry and others read this passage in Letter 9: "The lower world of effects is the sphere of such distorted Thoughts; of the most sensual conceptions, and pictures; of anthropomorphic deities, the out-creations of their creators, the sensual human minds of people who have never out-grown thier *brutehood* on earth. Remembering thoughts are things ---have tenacity, coherence, and life---that they are real entities---the rest will become plain. Disembodied---the creator is attracted naturally to its creation and creatures; sucked in---by the Maelstrom dug out by his own hands......." Is this "lower world of effects" "the sphere of such distorted Thoughts", etc. the "astral world", Jerry, you are referring to in your own commentary? does "lower world of effects" = "astral world"? Why does KH say *lower* world of effects? Is this in contrast to *higher* world of effects? (4) Again Jerry writes: "Dhyani-Chohans are spiritual and exist just above the Abyss." And in his previous post on theos-l, Jerry writes: "When KH says `....Rupa Loka, Arupa Loka, and Kama-Loka.....'.....he [KH] is not referring to the after-death states of Kamaloka, but to the four cosmic planes below the Abyss, and so to the Dhatus...." What is the Abyss in these two quotations? Again what are the "four cosmic planes"? Again, you say "that Rupa Loka, Arupa Loka, and Kama-Loka" [in that one sentence] has no relation to "the after-death states of Kama-Loka"? What are your assumptions for this statement? You say there are in fact a distinction between the "kama-loka" of "Rupa-Loka, Arupa-Loka and Kama-Loka" and the "kama-loka" of the after death states? What do you base all of this on? What are your assumptions? An observation: No wonder, that Jerry and Eldon disagree with each other (I am assuming that do disagree on several points, possibly several fundamental points. It seems to me that Eldon is writing with a certain number of assumptions (like he is on the 17th story of the Eldon building) and Jerry is wrtiing with a certain number of assumptions (like he is on the 17th story of the Jerry S. building). Now some of us (outside observers) may assume they are talking about the same thing??? Or maybe Jerry and Eldon think they are talking to each other using a common language when in fact they use the same words but the words have different meanings! Also what foundations and 16 stories (x 2) underlie what they appear to say on the surface?!!!??? Are we willing (for purposes of discussion on theos) to go back to the foundation and in one sense start over? That is, examine with a mental searchlight ( and maybe also use some intuition too!) the basic premises about globes, planes, principles, etc.? I will ask both Eldon and Jerry S ( and others too) where does this teachings of the globes, etc. *originate* in modern Theosophy? Where does it first appear in Theosophical literature? Is it possible (even as an exercise or experiment) to go back to those original sources and try to see if we (Eldon, Jerry, Dan C, Brenda, Rich, etc.) can approach these teachings ANEW and see if as a group we can reach a consensus of understanding, trying to be aware of assumptions (especially unconscious) ones that we make start to make, etc. etc.? Both Eldon and Jerry S. have quoted AB/CWL or GdP in their discussions of globes. Are they filtering the original teaching through these writers? I'm not saying that these writers are wrong or right, but they did NOT write the original Theosophical material on the globes, etc. Is it possible that Eldon and Jerry S. ( and Dan C. too!) could all take to heart what KH said to A.O. Hume who was trying to understand the Mahatmas' teachings: "I tell you plainly you are unfit to learn, for your mind is too full, and there is not a corner vacant from whence a previous occupant would not arise, to struggle with and drive away the newcomer." Could we all have a little too much Hume in us, too! I also have a series of questions to ask Eldon, but have run out of time and steam! And Jerry brings up a good point when he says: "How can this be, when we were just told above that the sphere of effects is not a locality or place?" This is in reference to Eldon's comment that "the sphere of effects about our Globe D has seven classes of dwellers" but in a previous comment Eldon has said "The worlds of effects are the states of consciousness.....There [these?] are not a `place' in the sense of something objective, external to our own subjective states of consciousness." Now maybe Eldon "means" something other than what Jerry thinks Eldon means. Exactly what does Eldon mean? And is the "lower world of effects" (mentioned in letter 9) in Eldon's "world of effects"? Can a "thought" exist in the "world of effects" as "something objective, external to our own subjective states of consciousness'? Can elementals, shells,etc. exist in the "world of effects" as "something objective, external to our own subjective states of consciousness'? I personally would like to try to understand the assumptions upon which Eldon and Jerry S. build their own conceptions of the globes, etc. Can we explore the foundations and the underlying 16 floor of assumptions that possibly exist to muddy the water. Now maybe I am making assumptions about all of this myself! Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 16:06:17 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Our Friends at STEINER-L. Dear Aki, As far as I'm concerned, Antroposophists are most welcome on this list, not only because we're all part of the same human family, but also because we & the Antroposophists have the same roots. I think if our different thesophical factions can come together in at least semi-peacerul discussion on theos-l, this is a real step towards becoming a nucleus of the "brotherhood/family of man/human beings. Shanti Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 16:08:26 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: on CWL Rich wrote: >I have also heard that CWL had a sexual involvement with >Krishnamurti and his brother, Nitya. It seems this was the >cause of their father wanting the boys to leave Adyar and come >back to live at home. There was a court battle over the >situation, I don't remember how it turned out. > Yes, their father made some accusations to that effect, but they were never proven, and no legally meaningful evidence was presented to support the accusation. >What are the relevant historical documents and facts about the >case? > >Rich The most important document is the court transcripts of the case, but this is over a thousand pages of material--a lot of heavy reading. J. Narayaniah (the boy's father) sued for custody of his children in 1912. My reading of the material is that the father was basically concerned that CWL had guardianship over his children against his expressed wishes, and that he (CWL) was having "unnatural relations" with them. Narayaniah never trusted CWL and gave his children to the charge of Annie Besant in the first place with the expressed demand that CWL not be in physical charge of them. When he found that this understanding was violated, he sued for their return. The case is complicated and at first glance one would wonder how a natural father could lose custody of his own children. Two factors were plain to my reading however: the Judge was an Anglo-Indian; and the economic advantages that the children would have under their foster mother was very heavily taken into consideration. My opinion is that if the Judge were an Indian, the decision would have been different. The tragedy of this case (IMHO) is how Narayaniah's own wishes and concerns over his own children were disregarded in favor of higher "occult" purposes. The 1906 scandal was also introduced into this trial, but since there was no police involvement, arrests and conviction, the court gave it very little weight. However, a lot of interesting details emerge in this document. The documents also have some funny moments. One of my favorites is CWL under cross examination explaining that he has clairvoyantly seen the Martian civilizations but never physically visited them. Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu . From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 16:28:16 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: CWL's chart >Glad to have you back for awhile! I enjoyed your post re: the chart of CWL, >and wonder if you have had any exposure to Sabian Symbols. I would love to >correspond with someone who has read about these and wants to compare what >they know. I believe the only author who considers them besides Dane Rudhyar >is Mark Edmund Jones.(?) Thanks, Brenda. Actually, I've never heard of the Sabian Symbols, but then I'm sure there are many things about astrology that I've never heard of. I imagine the whole subject would take lifetimes to fully study. I learned the astrological basics when I was involved with Kriya Yoga and have done some study of esoteric astrology from the Bailey material. I'm reading CWL's Ancient Mystic Rites, put out by Quest, and really enjoying it. Best wishes, - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 16:32:39 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Authenticity On Line and In Life Art, My usual few comments back to your sensitive post to Rich. You're not one to ever abuse power. That you say you are afraid, means you're proceding with caution, ie not abusing. But I'm not basing my judgement on just this post of yours. "...trying to be tethered to the core teachings of your group, & yet be flexible enough to adapt those teachings to a new environment, or if they prove to be inadequate abandon them..." I truly believe that our core teachings are flexible enough to adapt to new circumstance. Ingenuity, imagination, &, as you say, intellectual independence are part & parcel of what we teach. I don't think we're trying enough of this nowadays, & to me, this is 1 of the faults of today's TS. (John Algeo is doing it more than his predecessor) If you know theosophy fairly well & apply it as you need it in your everyday circumstances, I firmly believe it will stand the test of time, & will never be inadequate. Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 16:52:15 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Groups Guys, Maybe the answer lies somewhere with that we can look at our past acts to learn from them how to do it better, but that we're not meant to go around chuckling with glee for a very long time & admiring how good we did, or wringing our hands desperately how bad we did. Better to look at what we did without being judgemental, learn what is to be learned, & then move on. Also, don't tie yourself to the other person or people by expecting a favor in return. Do what you can for them & move on. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 19:49:28 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Vote: HPB for Pope A day or so ago I wrote the following: >It seems to me that whether HPB was infallible or not >(it seems clear she was) the point is that it was >her job to teach the occult philosophy of the Masters."< No one has called me on it yet, so I want to be the first to point out my error. I mistakenly typed "It seems clear she was" when I meant, "It seems clear she was NOT (infallible)." Just thought y'all would like to know I do actually realize the woman was human. I do often think she is underestimated, however, she was not exactly what she appeared to be in my opinion. Even her so-called emotional "outbursts" may have had their purpose. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 19:53:21 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Jesus et al OSMAR: Awesome post. You write really well, and I was giggling before I even got halfway through. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 19:53:38 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Theosophy To Bob Murdic, I realized at the time that you did not write the post yourself, but I thought it was excellent, and I tahnk you for posting it. It seems somewhat similar to the criticisms and insights offered by J.J. Van der Leeuw from 1930 posted by Jerry H-E. If Joseph is planning to come on-line with us, please encourage him! It seems you both have a lot to contribute! Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 21:01:14 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: globes and rounds Brenda wrote: > Eldon and Jerry both suggest we have access to globes A-C and E-G before and > after our incarnation on globe D. I never construed this from my reading. I > always felt life continued "only" on globe D until the end of a Round. There > would be no access whatsoever to the other globes until a full Round or > seven races were completed on globe D. Well, here I am agreeing with Brenda. Perhaps we are both naive, but what she is presenting is the way I have been picturing life here -- that most of our work is confined to Globe D for the present, other humanities and other life waves are doing their OWN thing on the other globes. I, like Brenda, would be interested in relevant quotes which might help to educate me. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 22:30:58 GMT From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: From the spring to the pond JRC: >Murray ... > A very interesting post - especially the attitude that has you >delibrately attempting to affect the location in which you live in such >away as to elevate it for its future occupants ... makes me wonder what >sort of societies we might build if a significant number of people began >thinking in such ways ... (-:). Thanks, John. I have a clairvoyant friend who suggested people could visualise what a street COULD be like, whenever they walk along it. Seeing a garden where there is rubble, architecturally pro-life buildings where there are drab monstrosities, etc etc. All in the context of service - and fun - for those who have a bit of that kind of imagination. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 22:33:45 GMT From: brenda@theosophy.com (Brenda S. Tucker) Subject: Re: On CWL >what is your obsession with the "historical facts" of some dead guys sex life? >Do you envy Krishnaji, another dead guy? Where are the "roots" in all this. > I guess that I failed, once again to relieve myself of all this stuff. >Please help me get off this list. > Portelli, I really love you. Do you have to go? Brenda From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 22:36:18 GMT From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: Reincarnation Alan: >>Eldon> There is disagreement with how long we spend in the after-death >> states between lifetimes. What I've heard is, for most, ... > >C.L.Jinarajadasa, in ~First Principles of Theosophy~ (Wheaton, >please reprint) cites varying intervals, from quite short to >quite long - varies from monad to monad or some such. > The research work of Ian Stevenson indicates the interval can be quite short, 20 years and less; even in a few cases almost instantaneous. Many of these recall a premature death in the previous life, suggesting that when life energies and desire for accomplishment are cut short, they can project forward to expression in a new life. The fact that nearly all his cases of apparent memories of a former physical life recalled dying within the last 20 years or so, does not of course mean that longer between-life periods are ruled out. It simply means that memories seem to be accessible only when the between-life period is short. Furthermore, these memories or whatever they are, usually become less and less accessible as the child grows up and its consciousness more and more focused into the new personality and circumstances. Does anybody on the list know of children who seem to remember a previous life? I'd be very interested to hear. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 23:09:22 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Globes and Rounds RE: Quotes from MLs RE: Globe/Plane Confusion Daniel Caldwell writes: "Is it possible (even as an exercise or experiment) to go back to those original sources and try to see if we (Eldon, Jerry, Dan C, Brenda, Rich, etc.) can approach these teachings ANEW and see if as a group we can reach a consensus of understanding, trying to be aware of assumptions (especially unconscious) ones that we make start to make, etc. etc.?" It would be great if we could do just that. I am now re-reading ML #9 and seeing what I think. I can't wait for the discussion to begin! Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 23:17:30 GMT From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: censorship flames Hi, Ann. It's good to see you back on line again. I know how you feel about the volume of messages. I love getting and reading them, but it's a real pressure on time and disk space. I've recently gone switched to getting theos-l in digest mode which bunches the messages up into files of 15 to 20 messages. You don't lose any messages but it saves disk space (I'm saving them as resource material for talks etc) and makes for fewer interruptions during the day. Murray Stentiford For convenience of people who want to switch to digest mode without looking up the help file, you send a message containing the line set theos-l mail digest to listserv@vnet.net To resume individual reception of messages, send set theos-l mail ack to the same address From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Sep 1995 23:59:51 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: numerology JRC: >Some actually believe that at least some "psychic readings" are a tad >more than "tossing the dice" - I have a friend (for instance) that three >years ago went to one of those "psychics" to ask about a relationship >problem. The "psychic", upon looking at the person's system, identified a >very dense region that seemed to connect to the physical body; the >person, on the advice of the psychic, went to a medical doctor ... and >the cancer was caught early enough to treat. Fortunately for this woman >(who didn't have the faintest suspicion that she had medical problems) >she hadn't run into a Theosophical Lodge that would have encouraged her >to avoid such things. The value of the "readings" depends upon the faculties of the reader. The quality of readings that we might get from someone hanging a "Psychic" sign outside their house may be a bit less than with someone with genuine, natural-born faculties. Granted, it was fortunate for the woman to have been warned about her cancer. Could she have been warned in other ways? Perhaps. Should we all seek out psychics to diagnose medical problems, act as psychologists, tell us future trends, etc.? As a general rule, I'd say no, but you could probably provide me with more examples where there would have to be exceptions. My comment that if we try to do numerology based upon arbitrary numbers, numbers that aren't based upon real attributes of the person, we're just doing a psychic reading. Your response is to provide an example where a psychic reading turned out to be a very good thing. Perhaps you're being a bit defensive, responding to my word "merely" in "merely a psychic reading", and feeling a call to defend the use of psychical facuilties. >Second, I'm inclined to agree with Brenda about how numerology >and other such tools work - *none* of them define things, but are rather >more like a means of inducing a particular state of mind If Brenda means that, then the three of us agree with regard to popular numerology. The numbers are like a crystal ball, an astrological chart, or a tarot reading; they are a means to focus our awareness on a particular subject. >ultimately it is >something far more than the math that they use to actually reach their >conclusions - it is *intuition* ... but using the tools somehow seems to >help the intuition to speak its voice. My original posting on popular numerology is that it is primarily based upon "being a means of inducing a particular state of mind", because the numbers themselves are not *real* attributes of the person we are considering. When we get to real attributes, rather than artifacts like arbitrary street numbers, we have something that is directly correlated to the individual, like with palmistry, where the lines on the hand are not an arbitrary convention but can simply be observed. Working with something that is a real attribute, we can know about the person, because a part is inseperable from the whole. That attribute or part of the individual reveals, through correlation, the unseen nature of the individual. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 00:02:28 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Group Project Follow Up Theos-l I found the exercise of responding to a focused piece of work very helpful in my understanding and sorting out my personal response to Theosophy. I wanted to know how the rest of the felt about the exercise and whether we should continue with my original idea of posting one response/reaction piece a week. Like I said it doesn't have to be a treatise just a personal and applicable group of thoughts we can discuss. Does anyone want to volunteer to post the next topic. Perhaps since we have been hammering away at the Daniel posts of late someone might suggest how theosophy understand and relates to exoteric traditions such as mainstream Chrisitianity or Buddhism etc. Regardless of the topic I would like to hear whether it worked for you. Also on a personal note I hope my posting II wasn't too critical or arrogant sounding - there was a certain silence on the topic after I wrote it - so I suspect that it was either offensive or off topic, perhaps obscure? - let me know. Just checking:) for feedback. Art From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 00:28:19 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: CWL's chart Perhaps we should have a separate board for astrology? Or are we giving up the whole idea of keeping theos-roots for history? I would actually prefer that, and post everything on theos-L. I only came here for the CWL discussion because I thought this was the appropriate place, and history was the topic at hand. If I was mistaken, please correct me. Otherwise, I will continue the CWL and molestation thread on Theos-L. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 00:35:24 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: globes and rounds Rich: >>Brenda: >> There >> would be no access whatsoever to the other globes until a full Round or >> seven races were completed on globe D. >Rich: >Well, here I am agreeing with Brenda. Perhaps we are both naive, but what >she is presenting is the way I have been picturing life here -- that most of >our work is confined to Globe D for the present, other humanities and other >life waves are doing their OWN thing on the other globes. What form of access do we have to the other Globes during sleep, death, initiation, and the long time periods of the Rounds? At least one of my ML quotes states that after devachan, we either return to our world of causes, or go on to the next one. The circulation through the Globes, as I see it, is in one direction, taking us from D to E, F, G, A, B, C, then back to D again. As we pass the other Globes, we may have some awareness of that passage, but we generally don't come into embodied existence. The Mahatmas become Fifth Rounders by taking embodiment on the other Globes, and acquiring experiences that the general humanity won't have until the human lifewave passes through the other Globes. The general flow of life energies is along the direction of the Globes. Passage from one Globe to the next is through a laya center, that takes us onto the plane that the Globe is on. As we go along, it's like walking from one train car to the next, except that the first and last cars are connected. How do we pass through a Globe without existing on it? We do not come into embodied existence in its sphere of causes, but simply touch, momentarily, its sphere of effects, and have a passing subjective state that corresponds to the swabhava or quality of consciousness of that Globe. We all agree, I suspect, that the human lifewave is here on Globe D, and that this is the place where our evolution is primarily focused. But in treding the Path and evolving *inwardly* beyond our external Globe D circumstances, we are drawn into lifetimes on the other Globes, and personally race ahead. In our personal, external evolution, we can ride the crest of the wave of humanity. In our inner evolution, we can separate from the wave and experience more. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 00:48:42 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: globes and rounds Brenda: >Eldon and Jerry both suggest we have access to globes A-C and E-G before and >after our incarnation on globe D. And also "during", as in sleep and initiation. To have access to the Globes requires a temporary stepping aside of the human personality that we know ourselves as. >I never construed this from my reading. I >always felt life continued "only" on globe D until the end of a Round. There >would be no access whatsoever to the other globes until a full Round or >seven races were completed on globe D. In the ordinary sense, this is right. We can only exist as fully-embodied humans where the human lifewave is. Our ability to exist apart from the collective is difficult, and it is not something generally done. When we speak of us going to the other Globes, it is not of our coming into full incarnation, but only in a subjective state. The only general exception would be Mahatmas and Initiates. >In order for this to be true, all that would be required would be seven >planes exclusive to Globe D souls (or maybe only 5 planes would be >necessary). If I remember right, from "Transactions of the Blavatsky Lodge", our Globe D is on the lowest cosmic plane. Our seven principles, as we know them, for that Globe, are derived from that plane. Globes C and E are on the next cosmic plane, and the seven principles that we have on those globes are derived from that plane. >The seven (or five) planes around the other globes would also be >separated from Globe D's planes and there would be little if any crossover. The planes are a continuous spectrum. The Globes are specific places of existence on that spectrum. We pass from one Globe to the next through a laya center. When we pass to another Globe, we say that we've passed to another plane, and that is true, since the other Globe is on another plane. We might consider the planes as states and the Globes as the places where beings exist and experience the states. >When death occurs, the souls and bodies stay right here. They don't move up >to "Minor-pralaya" land. The principles return to their sources, except for the highest of Atman, which is universal. That is, we depart the fabric of consciousness of our Globe D Ego or center, and either clothe ourselves in the fabric of consciousness of our Globe E Ego, or we quickly pass through the Globes and reenter the Globe D Ego again. We can say that our principles do stay right here. They are Skandhas that were drawn from the plane on which Globe D exists. They stay here and we leave them behind. We are not the principles, we are the Monad, the observer, and have principles and a center of consciousness developed for each Globe that we may visit. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 01:16:57 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: to Brenda Jerry S: >I am coming at this whole model >of Globes from the viewpoint of pathworking, not of evolution or "living" >on the Globes. What I am saying is that we can consciously experience >each of the 12 Globes of our planetary chain now, while living on Globe D >via the technique of pathworking - which is an imaginal technique used >a lot in the Qabala, Enochian Magic, and many other places. This is the same thing as a visit to the Globes in their spheres of effects, without coming into embodiment on the Globes. The Globes are particularly places of existence within the earth chain. The qualities behind the Globes, which we may wish to experience, can be realized without a visit to the Globes. Behind each of the Globes is the influence of the Seven (Twelve?) Sacred Planets. Each is a Ray of the Sun, and carries with it a separate and distinct quality. We can experience these qualities, while embodied here on Globe D, without "leaving" the Globe. That experiencing of the qualities sounds like what you mean by "pathworking". >When I pathwork, I remain fully conscious in my physical body, and I >am never "possessed" by anyone, nor do I have a "spirit guide" etc etc. >I am talking about buddhi-manas where you raise consciousness to >higher planes and then just relax and listen to the ideas that flow into >your head. So far it sounds like a good practice. >I do not see colors. I do not see anyone living on Mars. >I do, however, see relationships, and I sometimes feel forces and powers >acting, and I sometimes get ideas which I later have to put into words >and write down before I forget. It sounds like through directed attention you are putting yourself in touch with great life-currents (if I may coin a new term). These currents correspond to thought-currents in Mahat, but aren't precisely the same. >Then I check what I have written against >the core teachings, etc, to make sure my ideas are not against anything >that was taught. Sometimes I am amazed at what I wrote down, and >wonder at how I did it. This is how most of my books have been written. We're generally amazed by what we come up with in a creative process. It's also good that you check your ideas against the core teachings, which provides a sounding board and external reality check to the information. >I actually "see" them on a higher plane, and the basic ideas of each book >are made known to me. I then must write it all down before I forget. When we say "see", we need to clarify if we mean "with the mind's eye" or "with the psychical senses". Here, you seem to mean the former. There are two different faculties that "see" could refer to. >I can usually write down a good outline, and this, in turn, jogs my memory >as I write. In a sense, this is a form of channeling. "Channelling" is not a good word, because it is not an eternal being that is using you as stenographer or typist. It is you own understanding that you are trying to capture in words, and the outline helps you stay in touch with the thought-current that has fueled your new ideas. >In another sense, maybe I >am simply getting in touch with my unconscious possibilities. "Unconscious possibilities" is a psychological term, and we are talking about an occult process that goes beyond western psychology. We have to be careful not to belittle our grand ideas either through scientific reductionism nor through psychological reductionism (reducing everything to terms of how it relates to the personality). >But I don't think its any kind of >kama-manas - there is no detail, and no emotion, for example. With kama-manas, we have taken on the sense of ego and personal self (manas) and its interest and desire to act in the world (kama). We would not take on more than Atman, Buddhi, and perhaps higher Manas on the other Globes, since we don't come into existence to the point of desiring to do things in the world, through an embodied existence, on those Globes, a desire that comes with taking on Kama. >Anyway, our human life-wave is currently incarnating on Globe D, and I have >never disputed Eldon's contention that we can only fully incarnate on >Globe D at this time. But we do, in fact, have "access" to the other Globes. Agreed. >The planes do not go around the globes, but >rather the globes are situated in the planes. One Globe can only fit >on one plane at a time. Globe D is on the physical plane. I agree with this so far ... >If it has >an astral counterpart, this counterpart would be located on the astral >plane (because there is only one astral plane, so everything astral has >to be on it somewhere). If Globe D has a mental component, this would >have to be located somewhere on the mental plane, and so on. But with how this is worded, I'd disagree. The astral, desire, mental, etc. principles of Globe D are all on the same cosmic plane as Globe D is. But I'd say we are not "on a plane", but "on a Globe, experiencing various states of consciousness." Those states of consciousness correspond to the planes. As part of existing on Globe D, we have a manasic principle. The same is true if we came into full existence on Globe E, we'd also have a manasic principle, drawn from the cosmic plane that Globe E is on. The manasic principle that we experience on Globe D is not the same as that we experience on Globe E. Globe D's manas is not from the same plane as Globe E's. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 01:34:54 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Re To Eldon Jerry S: >I am >currently working in a Ph.D. program, and Ph.D.s like big words and >flowery confusing terminology. But you can often get your point across >without a lot of big words - i.e., without a unique terminology. I find this true in computer programming too. It's easy to design some software that seems quite complicated and advanced, but with additional work can be simplified to the point that an apparently-difficult problem is made to seem quite simple. With any attempt at formulation and communication of deep occult truths, we are faced with the same problem. Our initial attempts at description are more complex than needed, and can be reworked and improved. But there is a limit to this process, and we can go only so far before the simplification turns into cutting out features from programs or information and occult truths from our descriptions. >I have read >critics of physics, for example, who show historically that specific technical >jargon was deliberately developed over the years to confuse the readers >and to make them seem mysterious and awesome in the eyes of the public. Perhaps. We would want to do the opposite. >Newton, for example, deliberately used fancy technical jargon >because he didn't want to be bothered by a lot of people asking him >questions. So he wrote in a way that only a few could understand. Galileo >deliberately used technical jargon to avoid church persecution. And so on. >I dropped my subscription to Gnosis because I found myself falling asleep >in midsentences. I have already written about this problem, which I called >the Fog Index, before. I think that theosophy will have a much broader >impact in the future if we KISS instead of hanging onto outdated jargon >that only a few other theosophists can decipher. But, this is just my own >opinion. We're novices at communicating occult truths. The Masters have said that their knowledge cannot be simply imparted by writing or telling someone something. When we try to do what they say cannot be done, we're bound to meet limits on what we can accomplish. We quickly come to the point where further simplifications require cutting out some of what we would say. >Anyway, I will always try to put my thoughts into plain English >whenever I can. The real danger with doing this, is that then others will >be able to understand what I am saying, and can challenge me. IMHO, >HPB avoided a lot of arguing by deliberately throwing terminology at her >critics and obscuring her real message (not that I blame her). The arguments come when a "debate mode" is engaged, and one is trying to prove his ideas, and discredit the differing ideas of the other person. Another mode of communication may be that of sharing views and ideas, where we are in a "descriptive mode" and others can freely disagree, but don't have to challenge and oppose what they don't want to hear. >Lets not >forget, that specific terminology always separates a group from others, >and sets up an air of mystery and a sense of "I don't know what they are >saying, but it must really be important!" This is a side effect, but certainly not the intent. With every field of study there comes a specific terminology, and that arises from the richness of thoughtlife in an area that is not publically explored. The terminology expresses a wealth of understanding, it does not exist as a smoke screen to hide pretentous and false claims of special wisdom from others. >Now, virtually all of our scientific >disciplines deliberately wanted this kind of atmosphere. I don't think >its appropriate for theosophy, which after all, is really rather simple >and straightforward - both Judge and Purucker were able to put HPB's >teachings into more or less plain English. This loses the mystique that is >associated with HPB, but sure goes a long way to make her ideas easier to >understand. They did some good work in making the ideas more accessible to the reader. >Do we want to mystify others, or do we want to share our ideas? To share, of course. But a terminology is needed to carry the ideas, and its purpose is to improve clarity, not to mystify and reduce the clarity of expression. >Also, I am not so sure that members of theos-l all share in the >same terminology, and all can follow what is being said at times. That's a problem that we continually face. If we take a term used by Jinarajadasa and show that it differes from how Blavatsky used the term, it would be good to know, so that someone first reading one of his books would not be mislead when subsequently reading one of Blavatsky's. >If I am wrong about this, then I will return to my quiet room. Why? -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 02:01:05 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Re: Planes and Globes Eldon says in his latest posting to Jerry S: "The astral, desire, mental, etc. principles of Globe D are all on the same cosmic plane as Globe D is. But I'd say we are not `on a plane', but `on a Globe, experiencing various states of consciousness." Now does Jerry S. agree with this? Are the principles of Globe D all on the same cosmic plane as Globe D is? When you answer this, what core teaching references support your answer? Also, Eldon, what core teaching references support your view that I just quoted? Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 02:52:10 GMT From: thomn@bev.net (Thomas Nelson) Subject: Re: On CWL >what is your obsession with the "historical facts" of some dead guys sex life? >Do you envy Krishnaji, another dead guy? Where are the "roots" in all this. > I guess that I failed, once again to relieve myself of all this stuff. >Please help me get off this list. > You could be a little more polite, instead of ridiculing the subject matter. Obviously it's your Karma to be put on lists you don't want to be on. =) But if you want, try sending a message with "Unsubscribe Theos-Roots" in the body to listserv@vnet.net. Thom Nelson *The Plant Plant* >> Specializing in Herbs thomn@bev.net *Christiansburg, VA* >> and Perennials From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 04:53:14 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: A Question Last night I posted a fairly long posting asking Jerry S a series of questions about his comments on globes and planes. I said I ran out of time and steam and did not ask Eldon any questions or very few. I see this morning that Rich received the posting since he quoted and commented on something I said in this posting. I personally did not recieve my posting from theos-l as I alway do. Did Jerry S, Eldon and everybody else receive their copy of my posting. Is the listserver still acting up??? Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 04:54:08 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: On CWL Dear Nick-- Send to listserv@vnet.net the following message: unsubscribe theos-l [your name] I think that'll do it. Namaste PJ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 05:10:24 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Questions about the ES According to Eldon B. Tucker: > > >> 5. What can we know about the motives of TS leaders in general > >> if their behavior may be determined by ES > >> loyalties? > > I don't think that the E.S. sends out instructions regarding the > operation of the T.S., how to vote, or how to conduct affairs -- > at least in the Adyar T.S. > > >>For example, if no TS member has to obey the TS > >>President, but every ES member has to obey the OH and only ES > >>members become national officers... the implication is that our > >>democracy is a sham. > > Obey? We don't have to obey the T.S. President either. The job of > the President is to maintain the organization of the Society, and > to actively promote Theosophy in the world. This does not include > giving orders to members. But my point is, that if the same person wears both hats, she can put on the ES hat to give orders to an ES member who also happens to be a TS official. And those orders being secret, like everything else in the ES, leaves non-ES members wondering how much the TS may be influenced. > > >> 6. To what extent is TS opposition to historical research a > >> manifestation of its domination by a secret inner group? Many > >> have been turned away from the Adyar archives, and one wonders > >> why there is such a secretive atmosphere. > > There's no conspiracy here. The reason for the opposition is simple, > I'd think. People don't want to have their basic beliefs questioned. That'd explain why Tillett and I were denied access. (Although in Tillett's case it's very weird in that John Coats gave instructions to the entire staff to give him free access to all information, and RB simply refused to comply-- being archivist/librarian at the time. This according to Tillett.) But I know of at least two others with no such controversial subject matter who have also been refused access. > >> These are questions I ask myself about this vexing question. > > It's not a problem. The problem is with the stubborn resistance to > change that is found in human nature, including in Theosophists, where > the status quo is perferred over change as a general policy. You may be right about the root cause, but it seems to me that change in the TS is made less feasible by the power of the ES than it otherwise might be. Thanks for sharing your insights, Eldon. PJ > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 05:30:29 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Questions about the ES According to LIESEL@delphi.com: > > to Paul, > 1.) To me, the whole ES set -up raises questions about the > status of non-ES members in the TS. There's always a limit as > to how far they can go in the TS. I was lucky in that I found a > way to more esoteric knowledge without belonging, which is > really what I wanted. On the basis of your years of membership, do you have a guess as to what proportion of TS members are ES? I reckon 35%? > 5.) I think the TS is democratic to a degree. True, I didn't mean to overstate the problem. Locally and regionally (board members) TS elections are fine. Go higher, and there are barriers to democracy. > 6.) Who knows what's happening with the Adyar archives, & why > people are being turned away. Some people about whom I know, > who 've asked for access, were hostile, & if I were in charge > of the archives, I wouldn't give them access either. For what? > Smear some more Theosophists? I understand where you're coming from, but I think it flies in the face of our expressed principles. John Coats gets great credit for encouraging Tillett to keep digging even when he (Coats) was disturbed by what he was finding. "No religion higher than truth" and all three Objects suggest that it is untheosophical to restrict information access on the basis of partisan bias. > 7.) My feelings about the current International President are > very mixed. They only come from having stood next to her in a > Lunch line at Wheaton once for a few minutes, the vibes I get > from the little bits of her speeches I've had the patience to > listen to, & some hearsay. So that's not a very firm foundation > for an opinion. Like you, I've had only moments in her presence, and like you the feelings are very mixed. Welcoming back Krishnamurti to the Adyar grounds was a wonderful, healing way to begin her presidency. But since then... > > If board members are elected democratically, I can see some > sense in making a prerequisite to becoming the TS President > that you be a board member first. In that way, you gain some > experience as to how the TS is run before you take the helm. True enough, but the circumstances under which the rule was adopted are questionable. > 9.) I have no idea how the TS would be changed if the ES would > be abolished. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it should, > because its motives are very postive. Again, I would go so far > as to say it should stop being a secret organization. As far as > I can see, there's nothing gained by that. 100% agreement. Namaste. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 05:53:06 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: A Question Daniel Caldwell: >Last night I posted a fairly long posting asking Jerry S a series of questions >about his comments on globes and planes. I said I ran out of time and steam >and did not ask Eldon any questions or very few. >I see this morning that Rich received the posting since he quoted and commented >on something I said in this posting. I personally did not receive my >posting from theos-l as I alway do. Did Jerry S, Eldon and everybody else >receive their copy of my posting. Is the listserver still acting up??? I got the posting, but still haven't time to comment on it ... just yet. Writing from work, I can express my understanding, but do not have source books before me to give citations from. That is something that I can do at home at night or on a weekend. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 06:26:29 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: RE: Questions about the ES Paul, Though I have never been a member of the ES because of reasons based upon principles, I have over the past thirty years collected a considerable amount of ES documents and interviewed many disenchanted ex-ES members. Therefore I think I can offer answers to many of your questions that even a pledged member might not be permitted to discuss. > 1. Should it be permissible for the President of the TS to also > be leader of any other organization, secret or not? John Coats > felt obliged to give up his LCC status, but Radha Burnier > serves as Outer Head of the ES and President of the TS. Does > this not blur the lines of the two, and raise questions about > the status of non-ES members in the TS? You question is really a complicated combination of many questions, but let me break it down. a) Precedence for the President to be the leader of any other organization began when Besant became the International President of the TS. Olcott was very much against having one person being both the head of the TS and ES. But the ES was pretty inactive around the time he died, so it was understandable that he would endorse Annie Besant as the next President. Less than one year after she was elected, she reorganized the ES and Olcott's worst nightmare came true. b) Yes, the lines are blurred, and a person holding both offices has a great deal of power without the checks against it. Though HPB tried to keep the ES separate from the TS, in practice this is not the case. A casual study of TS history clearly shows that the inner circle--those who control the TS are ES members. I believe Liesel very correctly pointed out in an earlier post that the TS is controlled through the ES. This remains true today, though the old garde are dying off and the ES is becoming very weak. > 2. In any group, is it a good thing to have a secret > organization-within-an-organization with an agenda unknown to > those who don't belong? This question calls for an opinion. Mine is that it is not good--it makes the democracy of the TS a sham. It also makes those not in the ES second class citizens. > 4. How is the Outer Head selected? Normally the outer head is appointed by the previous outer head. > 5. What can we know about the motives of TS leaders in general > if their behavior may be determined by ES loyalties? For >example, if no TS member has to obey the TS President, but every >ES member has to obey the OH and only ES members become national >officers... the implication is that our democracy is a sham. My view also. > 6. To what extent is TS opposition to historical research a > manifestation of its domination by a secret inner group? Many > have been turned away from the Adyar archives, and one wonders > why there is such a secretive atmosphere. If an organization does not control its own history, it risks exposure and embarrassment. IMHO the TS has much to be embarrassed about. Considering the control they put upon the archives, I would conclude that they feel the same way. The irony is that most any university archive is open to any researcher regardless of their background. This guarantees a diversity of view points and an opportunity for the quest for truth. Yet Theosophical archives are only opened to researchers at the discretion of the President of the Organization with the hope of keeping researchers who might not support the status quo away from the documents--thus suppressing any undesirable truths. "There is no religion higher than..." > 7. Is the progressive loss of significance of our TS > democratic procedures due to the power of the ES? (For > example, the current international president will likely never be opposed > after it was decreed that 12 national secretaries must nominate > any opponent-- as I understand it. And the pool of candidates > for national president was recently shrunk drastically by > limiting it to former board members). The Wheaton TS has a history of creating bylaws for the purpose of preventing undesirable persons from gaining power. Bing Escudero is the most recent example. > 8. How would the TS be changed by the abolition of the ES? My crystal ball is rusty, but the TS might have a better chance of functioning as a more democratic Organization. Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 06:30:49 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Astrology & Symbols Hello Brenda & Ann, I also have studied the Sabian Symbols. As a mathematician I like the precision of interpretation that a symbol for each degree gives. I love the symbolism and have also been working on more abstract geometric symbols for each degree (like the symbols for the four elements) -- I find such contemplations very enjoyable. I have an evolving illustration that I can send over the net in MIME format for those interested. Cheers, Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 06:31:09 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Globes and Rounds RE: Quotes from MLs RE: Globe/Plane Confusion Daniel C.: >(a) Jerry writes: "We obviously can't leave a principle on each Globe >---there are 12 Globes and only 6 principles. Even looking at HPB's lower >7 Globes, there is still one Globe too many." >Did the quote from MLs or from Eldon indicate that we leave a principle on >each globe??? Not with my reading. My understanding is that we leave the six lower principles in their respective places in the Globe D's sphere of effects. >Where in the ML quotes did it say there are 12 globes? The scheme of 12 globes, principles, etc. is extensively written about by Purucker. I'm don't off hand remember reading it written about by Purucker. >Eldon in his ML quotes does NOT give the first time (chronologically speaking) >that the Master speak of the globes, the chain of worlds and the spheres of >causes and effects. This is in ML #9 in the 2nd and 3rd editions of the ML. The chronological sequence is important if we consider the ideas as changing over time, where we would need to know the time period when a particular passage was written. How is it important to our discussion? >does "lower world of effects" = "astral world"? We read in the quotes that the earth's sphere of effects has various levels or areas to it, and one is for the kamaloka, another for the devachan. The term "area" is misleading, thought, since it implies a place, and we are not in existence as we would think of it, but are in a subjective state of consciousness, and not in objective interaction with other beings. >Why does KH say *lower* world of effects? Is this in contrast to *higher* >world of effects? The lower worlds refer to the effects or unspent energies of our lower principles, the higher ones refer to the energies of our higher principles. >Again, you [Jerry S] say "that Rupa Loka, Arupa Loka, and Kama-Loka" [in that > one sentence] has no relation to "the after-death states of Kama-Loka"? What are your assumptions for this statement These lokas are the "places" if we can use such a term for the subjective states within the sphere of effects. >An observation: No wonder, that Jerry and Eldon disagree with each other (I am >assuming that do disagree on several points, possibly several fundamental >points. It seems to me that Eldon is writing with a certain number of >assumptions (like he is on the 17th story of the Eldon building) and Jerry >is wrtiing with a certain number of assumptions (like he is on the 17th >story of the Jerry S. building). We can both talk from our vantage point, and from contructing another structure, from the ground up. Perhaps you will feel more comfortable in that one. I'm happy to have a Purucker floor or two, and don't feel that it is inconsistent with a HPB floor. You may choose to skip floors of that type. It will be interesting to see how far up, in stories, we can go, before finding points of difference. >Now some of us (outside observers) may >assume they are talking about the same thing??? Or maybe Jerry and Eldon >think they are talking to each other using a common language when in fact >they use the same words but the words have different meanings! It's possible. With further discussion, we may find ourselves coming to closer agreement, as well as identifying more clearly where the differences exist. Some of my Purucker floors may come from "Fundamentals of the Esoteric Philosophy" and "The Dialogues of G. de Purucker." If there are some missing girders or faulty wriing, I'd like to know about them. You may choose to exclude Purucker in your building, but that does not ban me from using "Purucker parts" in my construction, as long as there's truth in labelling, where I don't claim that a particular building is strictly-HPB. >Are we willing (for purposes of discussion on theos) to go back to the >foundation and in one sense start over? That is, examine with a mental >searchlight ( and maybe also use some intuition too!) the basic premises >about globes, planes, principles, etc.? Fine, for the Blavatsky building or mental contruct of the Globe Chains. But that's alongside any comments we may make regarding our overall understanding or views on the subject, from our own thought and studies. >I will ask both Eldon and Jerry S ( and others too) where does this >teachings of the globes, etc. *originate* in modern Theosophy? If by "originate" you mean first appeared in contemporary literature, I really could not say. If by "originate" you mean when the idea first occurred to someone, it would have to be back in the Third Race when the light of mind first was given to humanity, and we were first taught something about the nature of life and the world in which we exist. >Where does it first appear in Theosophical literature? This would only matter if the first person to write about it came up with the idea, and others copied and elaborated upon it. It would not matter if the idea was presented, as taught by the Masters, by several of their representatives at different times. >Is it possible (even as an exercise or experiment) to go back to those >original sources and try to see if we (Eldon, Jerry, Dan C, Brenda, Rich, etc.) >can approach these teachings ANEW and see if as a group we can reach a >consensus of understanding, trying to be aware of assumptions (especially >unconscious) ones that we make start to make, etc. etc.? I'm glad to take a fresh look, but won't discount Purucker as an authority for my own exposition of Theosophy, apart from this exercise in HPB's presentation of the Teachings. >Both Eldon and Jerry S. have quoted AB/CWL or GdP in their discussions of >globes. Are they filtering the original teaching through these writers? Yes, to the extent we consider one or both as speaking for the Masters in exactly the same way as HPB did. >I'm not saying that these writers are wrong or right, but they did NOT >write the original Theosophical material on the globes, etc. Agreed that they were not the first people to write in the West on the ideas. We may disagree on where individual writers arrived at what they wrote on. If Blavatsky wrote on reincarnation and karma, and if we can show that people wrote about reincarnation and karma before her, does that mean her ideas are derived from these earlier writings? >Is it possible that Eldon and Jerry S. ( and Dan C. too!) could all take >to heart what KH said to A.O. Hume who was trying to understand the >Mahatmas' teachings: > >"I tell you plainly you are unfit to learn, for your mind is too full, and >there is not a corner vacant from whence a previous occupant would not >arise, to struggle with and drive away the newcomer." We need to take a fresh look at things. That means that we're willing to take the chance that as we think them through anew, we may arrive at different conclusions than before. I'm willing to give it a try. Are you also open to set aside what you currently accept if you find things that suggest that the Globe Chains are different that you currently conceive of? >Could we all have a little too much Hume in us, too! True. >I also have a series of questions to ask Eldon, but have run out of time >and steam! If they require citation searching, I really cannot respond except during evenings or weekends. >And Jerry brings up a good point when he says: "How can this be, when we >were just told above that the sphere of effects is not a locality or place?" It is, *for us*, but perhaps not so for the elementals and Dhyani-Chohans, which reside there. >I personally would like to try to understand the assumptions upon which >Eldon and Jerry S. build their own conceptions of the globes, etc. For our current views, apart from the simplier presentation we may give based upon a book in a study session, our assumptions are best arrived at by taking our ideas, and breaking them apart into their basic elements. That is how we can answer the question, for a personal view, "Why do I think this?" We can only partially reconstruct our viewpoint by going back and looking up some of the quotes that we may have read ten, twenty, or thirty years ago. >Can we explore the foundations and the underlying 16 floor of assumptions that >possibly exist to muddy the water. There are two kinds of foundations. There are the key ideas that compose what we think. And there are the key references that we can find to build an "earthquake proof" structure upon. We should explore both ideas, but be careful to distinguish between the two. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 06:47:23 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Re: re the latest consorship >I could see how one might not note the section that the >posting was made. What I don't understand is that if Brenda >mistakenly thought Rich's post was on theos-l, why did she post >her response on theos-roots? I think Mercury is in retrograde. P From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 07:05:29 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Questions to Eldon on Globes Eldon: You are obviously negating CWL's teaching that Kamaloka is on the astral plane, and Devachan is on the mental plane. I think that his scheme fits well with G de P's explanation of the Globes. Where is "between Globes D and E?" If D is on the physical, and E is on the astral (as per HPB's and G de P's diagrams) then you must be talking about the etheric plane (?). Or are you taling about the path D-E that connects them (this path goes through a laya center, BTW). Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 07:49:37 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: "Source" Teachings [Perhaps this thread is more appropriate for theos-roots] Hello, I think the original source teachings for the current human cycle would be the teachings of Krishna (Bhaghavad Gita and the Gospels). Theosophy meaning "God's wisdom" would include truth wherever it is found. It seems that to restrict theosophy to one set of writings is as delusionary as saying that theosophy includes all writings. Theosophy is the threads of wisdom which flow through all. There are writings which are "purely" from the Mahatmas and there are the writings of Initiates and there are also writings by the deluded which take people away from truth. Our task is one of learning to discern the difference and in this we develop the spiritual qualities which allow us to eventually ascertain "God's Wisdom" for ourselves. Most of the writings of H.P.B., A. Bailey, The Teachings of the Temple and some of the writings attributed to Helena Roerich (in the original Russian) are to my discernment by the Mahatmas. There are also others as well as many books by Initiates. Peace, Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 08:52:05 GMT From: Aki Korhonen Subject: Re: To Jerry, re steiner-l Hello Jerry and the others. You wrote: > Good question. I think I see my own goal as the > realization that the "Fraternity of Man" is already a fact. > I have read a lot of Steiner, and I can see problems > down the road, when people start saying things that > are in opposition to the beliefs of others. If I thought > such a cooperative effort would bear any real fruit, I > would champion it. But I have grave reservations. My view is that it doesn't have to bear any 'real' fruit. But just have exhange of ideas and news between them, to have a friendly attitude. They have their own ideas and doctrines, which are different at many matters, I agree. But we share a lot of same ideas and same roots as Liesel pointed out. I would concentrate on these rather than to differences - and secondly to my knowledge; Theosophy doesn't have any fixed doctrine or dogma but it should research every religion and philosophy. And we should not 'believe' anything, since Thruth is what it is and our beliefs doesn't really affect it at all. But a Theosophical frame is a one way to get 'to know' instead of 'believing'. One finnish Theosophist used to say that it is out of human reach to know The Truth, but if a human sincerelly aspires for truthfulness that he/she will surely attain. I would like to see that we would recognize Antroposophist as our brothers and sisters, working on their branch towards better world and let them have their views and beliefs - and again; I believe that just a mental, friendly attitude would create a lot of synergy and energy at the mental level. You can try. > Have we, for example, accomplished anything > worthy of our efforts with Daniel H, yet? I think we have. Daniel communicates with us, he is sensible and intelligent, he reads peoples messages, answers to questions that are directed to him, comments... Many of his views are a bit controversial compared to others but they are not random. And we have had to think about our moral values and to define them thanks to Daniel. Peace. aki korhonen Rovaniemi, Finland. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 09:30:41 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: Group project In reply to my questions regarding van der Leeuw's pamphlet, Art wrote: Regarding theosophy as experience of the divine, art writes: Art: If that is the understanding of the word "Theosophy" then there has never been a time when I has not a theosophist. I usually understand the experience in classical mystical terms. That beneath all our language is a reality, a unity in which we all participate and express- this reality is the background of our Being. In this definition Plato, Eckhart, Swedenborg, Blake, Tillich, Jung, and many others are my chief thesophical interpreters. I feel much more comfortable with these figures because I am familiar with them. Yes, Blavatsky would call the people you mentioned some of the great minds of the Theosophical Movement. I favor Plato and Blake. Leeuw: "Secondly, the word has been used in an early theosophical manifesto as "the archaic system of esoteric wisdom in the keeping of the brotherhood of adepts." Art: This I am only beginning to understand and can't comment definitively except to say that I am a bit concerned about the hidden tonality of the esoteric tradition. I am not at all the sort of person who gravitates toward what Blavatsky calls "blinds" etc. I understand your feelings here and share them. However I think that most of the negativity came from a traditional (mis) reading of Blavatsky rather than the tone she herself intended. As for "blinds," HPB pointed them out in sacred Hindu writings. Essentially they are just literary devices to avoid getting too specific. We do a similar thing all of the time in our writing. An instance in Hindu scripture might be the use of the word "Dev", which means "shining one". It could refer to a god or to a nature spirit. By using the general term, the writer is trying to avoid giving out a teaching that he might have been pledged to be silent about. Art:I am not at all oriented toward hierarchy but believe in a sort of participatory democracy of the spiritual life in which there are those who are advanced but they are not in any sense authoritarian or intrinsically superior to others. And the TS did have such a democracy until Besant reorganized the ES in 1908. Art:As little a I know of the Theosophic movement, I can not help but see it as schismatic as that of denominationalism in Chrisitianity. Yes, and we did it in far less time. Leeuw: "Thirdly, theosophy is taken to mean the system of doctrines put forward in literature or lectures since the beginning of the Theosophical Society. This is what the world at large knows as theosophy." Art: This is I think the "conceptual core" teachings of Theosophy as represented in the various factions of the movement. (Creedal or Doctrinal Theosophy) There seems to me to be some difference as to what bodies of literature compose these core teachings. The group I have decided to start my exploration with is Adyar -- I don't however know exactly what distinguishes the various emphasis' of the different varieties of Theosophy. I have detected that this list is trying to function ecuemenically that is going beyond the sectarian interests, even though we bump into one another sensitive spots. Yes, and this is because of the "schisms" that you alluded to above. In truth, the Adyar Society (the one you belong to) is the most schismatic. The others, generally speaking function with a greater amount of solidarity. I'm not saying this as a condemnation of Adyar; on the contrary, it might me a sign of health. However, the great test is how the Society handles the differences within its domain. In the 1970's John Coates (then the international President) did not hold the double rank of President of the TS and Outer Head of the ES. Rather than proclamations through the ES, he tried to bring everyone into solidarity by becoming more universal. At the 1975 Centenary, under tremendous opposition within the inner circle, he affirmed that William Q. Judge was a founder of the TS. Further, he made the Adyar Archives open to all researchers. Coates' attitude was that we should not have anything to hide. He died very suddenly under circumstances that some have questioned. Our latest International President, Radha Burnier has an approach directly opposed to John Coates. She holds both the ES headship and the TS Presidency. She has done nothing to continue the acceptance of Judge as a founder, and opposed Coates when he proclaimed it in the first place. Whenever a section opposes (or appears to oppose) her policies, she resolves the issue by expelling the section. Since 1984, she has expelled the Yugoslavian section, the Canadian Section, and the Danish Section. Much of the conflict on this internet comes from a lack of clarity of what this theosophy is that we are all interested in. Only a minority of up have an historical understanding, while the interests of the majority is a-historical. Paul Johnson, Dan Caldwell, and myself tend to look at the movement from this historical point of view. Thus we tend not to repeat the doctrinal answers but rather seek historical answers to questions concerning the teachings. Most others are doctrinal, and rely upon the teachings of their tradition to supply the answers. But among them, they are divided by the traditions. Thus they have different views. Rich and Liesel would be the two who contrast the most I would think. Then we have those who operate from revelation, but even they seem to be often following very different calls. Take Brenda on the one hand and Patrick on the other. Van der Leeuw discusses the different theosophies, and I think this is a big part of the problem. Many people on this net predicate their understanding of theosophy upon on or another definition. But as I have outlined above, it is more complicated than that--even in his time. I'm sure he was aware of the other factors, but time and space forced him to be selective about the issues that he could confront. Leeuw: "Finally, there is the practice in important centres of theosophical work, where, in the work actually done and in the aims held before people, we can see what is looked upon as valuable. At the moment I am speaking only about these last two forms of theosophy, that is to say, about that which has been presented to the world in books or lectures or can be seen in centres of theosophical work. " Art: This seems to be refering to the organizational "service values" of the societies. The praxis of theosophy in local situations. What is interesting to me is that I have never meet a theosophist in the flesh. "Lodges" to me seem akin to fellowship groups. I also get the idea that service to humanity is a vital part of the theosophical lifestyle. This has come out in many posts. Good Theory is the basis of Good service. When I first joined the TS in 1963, I wined and screamed in frustration that the Lodge was not involved in social service. Efforts are made, and the Theosophical Order of Service is the most important remnant of much more socially active days gone by. But sadly, I would give the TS a "D -" in social activism. Jerry's question: 2. van der Leeuw argues that the world has changed considerable since the 19th century--that there was an antithesis between spirit and matter that no longer exists in the 20th century. Do you agree? Do you feel that the Present TS still operates under this antithesis? Do you feel that Blavatsky's writings expressed this antithesis? The Mahatma Letters? Since Quest is a Theosophical journal, I think of the finest quality, I see that the idealism charge of van Leeuw has to be at least modified. On line I have tried to follow the dialogue especially between Jerry S. and Eldon on physics subjects, and I have heard of Liesel's interest in new physics so I conclude that a change has occurred. Strangely, though ~Quest~ is a "Theosophical journal", it is written and marketed to appeal to the general population, not to the theosophical student, as understood by the status quo in the TS. The doctrines and values of the Adyar TS are not really reflected in this journal, yet it was marketed partially for the purpose of attracting people into the TS. It is an interesting paradox, and may have the future result of bringing the membership more and more estranged from the doctrines of the status quo. On the other hand, I feel that there is a direct link between the theosophical movement and the "pop physics" of today. So in a way, the TS through the ~Quest~ is embracing its own step children. 3. van der Leeuw says that "...a thinker is always a disturbing influence." and that there has been no place for thinkers in the Theosophical Society. Do you agree with van der Leeuw's assessment? What about the great thinkers who joined during HPB's time but soon left after she died: i.e. Yeats; Gandhi etc. Why did they leave? Art quoting Emerson: Beware when the Great God lets loose a thinker on this planet. Then all things are at risk.. The very hopes of man, the thoughts of his heart, the religion of nations, the manners and morals of mankind, are all at the mercy of a new generalization. Generalization is always a new influx of divinity into the mind. Hence the thrill that attends it. p. 138 Great quote. It says it all. Art:The generalization Emerson speaks of is the message that is incarnate in these people. The message is one that is timely and transforms the consciousness of the world. It breaks history out of its current circle or ripple and plunges it toward a new one with great pain. I wonder as we approach the twentieth century if a new individual or group of individuals will be the ones to more us to the next circle. Right now the pain is here but the message is not as clear. Yes, and hopefully it was be an expression of the ideals within the TM. 4. van der Leeuw says that the "brotherhood" offered by the TS actually creates a barrier. What does he mean by this? Do you agree? 5. van der Leeuw says that Lodge life breeds mediocrity. What has been you experience in Lodges? Do you find anything familiar in van der Leeuw's description? Art:First off it is impossible today to ignore the word "brotherhood" it must be translated into human community or siblinghood or something but it is distracting and tones the discussion with a flavour of undue patriarchy which was never the intention of the early Theosophist. There is an effort afoot to update the language, but has run into considerable opposition. This family is very dysfunctional in case you haven't already guessed. 6. What is your evaluation of van der Leeuw's central argument that revelation and Authority have worked disharmoniously in the TS? How can the TS conquer this duality? None of these perspectives are superior or inferior intrinsically, in my opinion, since all can work together to form a balancing corrective to one another. The only problem, as I see it, is when we get too identified with our opinions. Yes. Closely and dearly held opinions along with unconditional devotion to a dynamic leader is the formula to create another holocaust. Enjoyed your post, Art. Thanks. Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 10:33:34 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Critical Notice? SUNY Press just sent me the first review of Initiates of Theosophical Masters, which is good although brief. But they sent only the ge on which it appears, which is headed by the words CRITICAL NOTICE in capitals. At the bottom is the address, 2966 Diamond St., Suite 290, San Francisco. An OCLC search yielded no publication entitled Critical Notice, and a search in Gale's directory for San Francisco publications was equally frtless. The only reason I think someone on theos-l might know of this publication is that is seems to devote great attention to esoteric titles; Godwin's newest and an interesting one called Modern Esoteric Spiritualities, edited by Faivre and Needleman, are reviewed on the same page. Does this ring any bells with anyone? PS I'll send a copy of the review to anyone who requests it, but posting it here would be inviting others to disagree with the reviewer. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 10:51:21 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: re CWL Ann, I guess I can offer the simple answers to your questions: 1. Yes the children were consulted. 2. Yes they wanted to stay with Besant 3. Yes they were told that they we being groomed for some great work In fact, everything was quite proper legally speaking, but I was coming more from my feelings about this case and not so much about procedure. K. really loved Besant and found in her the mother that he lost in his childhood. He was in his teens and not getting along with his father at the time (boys at that age often don't). He had before him the promise of living a very secure life as opposed to an uncertain one if he returned to his father. On the other hand, Narayaniah did not trust CWL and was adamant that his children not be entrusted to him. When he and another witness saw CWL with the children who was (in Narayaniah's view) leading K. into "improper habits", he protested and sought to recover custody of his children. Once again, it is a matter of honor to me here. Even if CWL was the finest influence in the world on K., the fact remains that CWL's non involvement with K. was a condition of Narayaniah for Besant to take possession of the children. Besant violated that condition. My own feelings rebel against the idea that any higher occult purposes would justify deceiving a father into giving up his children. As it turned out, K. did not like CWL anyway. I don't know how K. felt about Besant's and CWL's ideas as a young child. I would guess that his affection towards Besant might put that question into the background for the time being. But by the time K. was thirty, his rebellion against CWL's revelations was clear. This rebellion resulted in situation described in van der Leeuw's pamphlet. I very much agree with you that K.'s decision to dissolve the Order of the Star and to resign from the TS did a great service to the TS. It was a blow against the revelations that were running the society, which ironically CWL was the major source. Thanks for the post Jerry HE From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 11:15:35 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: CWL Jerry HE: >The tragedy of this case (IMHO) is how Narayaniah's own >wishes and concerns over his own children were disregarded in >favor of higher "occult" purposes. My questions are: Were the children ever consulted on whether they wanted to live with Besant and did they understand they were being groomed for some great work? If Krishnamurti was never truly dedicated to the ideas of Besant and Leadbeater, then it's no wonder he bailed out. There's a big difference between whole-hearted sacrifice and being "volunteered" by someone else. Lately, I've thought that maybe Krishnamurti did everyone a favor by deciding to dissolve the movement. After becoming a exalted figure of salvation, he got up and told everyone he wasn't playing the game anymore. He told his followers to get out of the cart and start pushing their own enlightenment. I'm sure it's much more complicated than this, so I'd appreciate any comments. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 12:05:00 GMT From: portelli@calon.com Subject: Re: On CWL You know, I was afraid that someone might allude to my getting stuck in this stuff was somehow "meant to be". Please! That's the problem with a lot of the so called occult: If everything was as-it-should-be than we have no responsibility for the world's social, political, economic, and on and on and on.... problems. So we can justify wasting our lives speculating some demensions or planes that aren't relevant to now. Who cares what this looks like in cinamatic color on some mental plane? People are unnecessarily dying and living miserably due directly to the lack of interest and action of people like us who speculate the absurd. If Rich wants to do history that is relevant to this plane now and also is covered with all kinds of yummy homosexual scandal, try J. Edgar Hoover. Hell, CWL is one of us. He actually thought that he was helping uplift mankind. Hoover's your guy, Rich. He may have even dabbled in the occoult, as so many of those who decided that it was their destiny to be some sort of historical figures and who left nothing but misery and death in their wake. You want to study history? I think that you're starting in the wrong place. Anyway, back to the other person. This ain't meant to be, It just is. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 12:14:58 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: CWL According to Ann E. Bermingham: > > Jerry HE: > >The tragedy of this case (IMHO) is how Narayaniah's own > >wishes and concerns over his own children were disregarded in > >favor of higher "occult" purposes. > > My questions are: Were the children ever consulted on whether they wanted to > live with Besant and did they understand they were being groomed > for some great work? My understanding is that both were firmly in favor of remaining with Besant and Leadbeater. By this time, they were of college age so being returned to their father was an unappealing prospect. Both were loyal Theosophists. If Krishnamurti was never truly dedicated to the ideas of Besant and > Leadbeater, then it's no wonder he bailed out. There's a big > difference between whole-hearted sacrifice and being > "volunteered" by someone else. Considering how young he was when "discovered" I'm not sure it's meaningful to talk about him making a choice. > > Lately, I've thought that maybe Krishnamurti did everyone a favor > by deciding to dissolve the movement. After becoming a exalted > figure of salvation, he got up and told everyone he wasn't playing > the game anymore. He told his followers to get out of the cart > and start pushing their own enlightenment. > > I'm sure it's much more complicated than this, so I'd appreciate any comments. > > - ann IMHO it's the only thing that saved the TS from being left "stranded on some sandbank of thought or other, to moulder and to die" to (mis?)quote HPB in the Key. Krishnamurti administered a shock that turned things back in the right direction-- VERY gradually. John Algeo's review of a new Krishnamurti book in the AT quotes Radha Burnier as expressing the same view. Cheers Paul PS-- Glad you're back. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 12:19:00 GMT From: portelli@calon.com Subject: Re: On CWL Yes I do, because I really cannot take "theosophical history" very seriously. I would only serve to upset too many people who do. Like the guy who thought that my response to Rich was "ridiculing the subject matter". Crazy! That subject matter riducules itself. The way that I see CWL is the way that I see any public personality. They give/gave us their work! Whether it be music, art, or literature. All that we really have a right to analize is the work. Leave their personal histories to the biographers and the scandal sheets. It's a different matter when public work determines public policy that effects the lives of people. But not entirely different. What about the English (in reference to the affair with Krishnaji) imperialism that allowed for the circumstances which put the family of Krishnamurti in the situation that led to the expedience of dealing with the theosophists? Was it their karma? Did someone explain that to Gandhi? I gotta go... But before I do... Even if I wanted to continue with this cyberbabble I really do not have the time to do it. Bye From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 16:08:19 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Questions > The problem is with the stubborn resistance to > change that is found in human nature, including in Theosophists, where > the status quo is perferred over change as a general policy. > > -- Eldon You can say that again! :-) Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 16:08:43 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: bits & pieces from here & there Thought some of you might be interested in some thoughts I've come across in my AM studying Taped talk of Harry VG If something you did didn't turn out right don't, say "I'm no good", ask "why didn't it work?" This on the power of thought (made up of words), from "Forgiveness" by Robin Casarian, p.125, Bantam '92. "Rosenthal & Jacobson noted 'If animal subjects, believed to be brighter by their trainers, actually became brighter because of their trainer's belief, then it might also be true that school children believed by their teachers to be brighter would become brighter because of their teacher's beliefs'. "A study was designed to test this hypothesis at the Oak School, ... in San Francisco. Children were randomly selected, & identified as students who would show dramatic intellectual growth in the academic year ahead. ... The belief or expectation of the teacher that these students were brighter became a self-fulifilling prophecy...." I've had "Talks on The Path of Occultism" on my shelf for year, & decided it was time to read it. The first quote from "The Voice ..." is "These instructions are for those ignorant of the dangers of the lower Iddhi." There follows a very clear explanation of clairvoyance, something we've been talking about, and also for the first time I understand this business of why to try to become a more spiritual person first, & then the higher Iddhi will come to you. Without too much detail (whoever is interested can get the book from our library),the lower Iddhi are a muddied kind of clairvoyance, of slower vibes, with all kinds of easily misunderstood perceptions. When you undertake training (which includes moral training, & I guess being vegetarian) to be able to receive finer & faster vibes (something like that), then you'll be able to avoid the lower iddhi & be able to receive the clearer higher ones. I don't really want to sit down & copy off the whole passage, but I will, if some of you want me to. It clarifies what we've been talking about. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 16:11:01 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Creatures > Dear Rich, > > I stand on what I said. I don't think the Pope is infallible > either, nor any other human being, no matter how esoterically > or otherwise informed they are. I think even God makes > mistakes. I think he experimented at times.There are creatures > who didn't make it very far. > > Liesel And some that don't work too well - like humans. Alan :-( From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 16:12:25 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: The E.S. Right you are, Eldon. Well put. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 16:14:56 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Re: re the latest censorship This is my fourth attempt at posting this: Eldon wrote to Ann Bermingham: >Brenda saw a posting of Rich's and thought "not more of this >stuff!" and responded to it, not noticing that the posting was >from theos-roots. She replied against it. Rich saw Brenda's >message and replied with something like "this is our place, apparently thought that Brenda was trying to dictate what >appears on theos-roots, when Brenda had thought she had read >something on theos-l. Both Brenda's initial posting was mistaken >and Rich's response to it was mistaken as well. This is very interesting and also a very understandable mistake. I could see how one might not note the section that the posting was made. What I don't understand is that if Brenda mistakenly thought Rich's post was on theos-l, why did she post her response on theos-roots? Jerry HE From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 16:15:43 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: the stars & CWL >>I could see how one might not note the section that the >>posting was made. What I don't understand is that if Brenda >>mistakenly thought Rich's post was on theos-l, why did she post >>her response on theos-roots? Patrick: I think Mercury is in retrograde. Yes, it is! And next weekend, both Neptune and Uranus will be at station points at almost the same time. Think of how much fun that will be. BTW, Patrick, I see you've hanging out on alt. gnostic, as well. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 16:17:27 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Re: CWL and Mars This is my fourth attempt at sending this one too: In response to a brief exchange between Alan and myself concerning CWL on Theos-roots there were several comments. Below, I tried to respond to all of them that I noticed: Rich commented: >Man, the more I learn about this guy, the more AWFUL he sounds. >Are we sure that this is the same guy people are running around >calling an "Adept"? What do the students and followers of >Leadbeater make of these allegations? That they were all made >up? By whom and for what purpose? > >RIch Well, now you have had a few days to see what students and follows of CWL make of these allegations. This time there wasn't much (thank [Daniel's] God). However, last time this came up, the responses were a bit more interesting. Liesel said in essence that it was impossible for these allegations to be true because CWL was a great shaman, and great shamans don't do those things. Brenda classified it as "gossip", therefore untheosophical and not worthy of consideration. I think it was Lewis with whom I had a rather extended and interesting dialogue exploring the possibility that CWL's motives and actions were misjudged. I believe that it was Murray who finally asked what was my documentation for the allegations. What surprised me about the question was that he was only person who bothered to ask, and the question, wasn't raised until several weeks after the subject first came up. Whenever I read a new allegation or a new historical fact, the very first question that always comes to my mind is: what is the documentation for this? Well, since Murray asked (thanks again Murray), I posted a bibliography of about eight or ten of the more important source documents including some of the evidence that was used against him, and the stenographer's transcript of the inquiry that had CWL's replies to the evidence. But as you might have guessed by now, there is really nothing rational about how most people respond to information that conflicts with their feelings. All in all, I think the responses proved that Tillett was right when he indicatied that the Adyar TS really should modify the motto to reflect the true attitudes to the majority of its controlling membership: "There is no religion higher than a carefully edited version of the truth." Brenda responded (in part): >This is very impolite stuff. Yes, and I think you would find historians to be very impolite people when they discuss history. When one separates history from the doctrinal interpretations of history, heros become more human--sometimes they emerge with lots of warts. Based upon my past experiences with you, I would suggest that you would most probably perceive historical discussions as ranging from irrelevant (for you) to impolite. I recommend that you drop theos-roots. By the way, I do respect the fact that you take a stand for CWL. Like you, I believe it is our duty as theosophists to stand up for those whom we believe have been unjustly attacked or criticised. One the other hand, I wonder why you never speak up when "impolite" things are occasionally said about HPB on this net? >Is it the black brotherhood behind this? On the other side of this question, I have heard serious discussions that the "black brotherhood" was behind the promotion and rise of CWL in the Theosophical Society in order to destroy its effectiveness in the world. You see, it can work both ways. Frankly I try to stay away from conspiracy theories. They are impossible to prove and besides, it is much easier to show a causal relationship between events and people's ignorance, stupidity, greed etc. Ann Bermingham responded with a rather interesting speculative horoscope. In part she wrote: >The most glaring aspect was Mars (2nd house) opposed Neptune in >the 8th (55 min. orb). This sometimes indicates abnormal >sexual desires and alliances which affect the home and >professional reputation. It can also mean unrealistic >visionary experiences and a desire to be special. I believe you are on to something. Leo rising does seem to fit CWL. Venus and Neptune together also usually makes for a charisma does it not? In my astrological experiences, I've found that Mars-Neptune conjunctions and oppositions seem to also occur with psychic personalities. What has been your experience? I don't have it anymore, but I recall reading a reply to Alan Leo from CWL in ~Modern Astrology~ for 1916. As I recall, CWL was responding to a request for a confirmation of his birth date. He instead expressed his disbelief in astrology, and if I remember correctly, he never confirmed his 1847 birth date to Leo. In light of the correct birth date, this little exchange took on new meaning for me. >Every spiritual person who I have admired in the last 25 years >has had some problem. Sometimes it is one of the big three - >sex, money or power, or even some combination of those. Stop >worrying about all the "bad" out there and look to the good >stuff various people may have to offer. Then you can get down >to the real work - your self. Well, as my aunt used to say; "if we were perfect we wouldn't be here." On the other hand, sometimes the spiritual qualities in others out shine their warts. The "real work" is truly ourselves, as you say. Yet we can't grow spiritually in a vacuum. It seems that we have to do a lot of rubbing against each other to ware down some of those rough spots. "portello@calon.com" wrote: >Can you spare a moment of your serious inquiring time to help me >get off this list? I'd really appreciate it. Consider it part of >the work...The Great Work. John, please help this poor reader! Eldon comments: >With Leadbeater, we have two issues. One is how we handle a >historic discussion of his personal life, and his relationships >with others. The other is with regard to the reliability of his >psychical investigations. When we talk about the former, we have >to take care not to offend anyone wanting him as a hero. When we >talk about the later, we have to take care not to offend anyone >involved in psychical investigations. Strong emotions can be >stirred and we have to chose words with care. > >-- Eldon Yes, we have a problem here, and I don't see a solution. Do you? We can choose words with care--for instance, "self abuse" sounds better to most ears than "masturbation," but I don't think these kinds of word choices are going to help historical discussions be anymore palatable to those who have a distaste for them, especially if they concern our "heros." As for discussion concerning CWL's reliability as a clairvoyant, there seems to be less problems here. Everyone seems to be OK about them--so far. Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 16:19:39 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: globes and rounds "Scintillate, scintillate, globule specific, Could I but determine thy nature specific." or "Twinkle twinkle little star. How I wonder what you are." (Just in case someone hasn't heard it before.) When it comes to globes and rounds, I prefer round globes. Square ones are most confusing, as alas, are some of the postings on this topic. Time for theos-jargon or theos-globes or summat? Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 16:23:15 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: To Aki re steiner-l Jerry, I don't think Steiner followers are as inflexible as fundamentalists. Besides, they're theosophists. I'm for taking a chance & giving it a try. I think one of the theosophical movement's worst fault is that there are so many splinter groups fighting among themselves. If the Protestants can get together on many issues, why can't we? Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 16:30:57 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Re To Eldon Jerry, Stupid long winded terminology has been one of my pet peeves for a long time. I always try to talk/write the King's English. I've never done a PhD, & never will, but if I did, I'd rebel against talking like a scholastic bag of wind, & probably get flunked on my thesis. I'd rather sound learned for content than for flowery verbiage. To me, that's fake. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 16:35:24 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Re: Re: Questions about the ES Liesel, I think you mis-read my message. I've known Bing for many years and supported him in his running for National President. We are very good friends. Try re-reading my message, there is a meaning there that you missed. thanks Jerry HE From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 16:39:34 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Group Project Follow Up Art, I didn't think you were critical or arrogant. I thought you contributed a great deal to the discussion. I also think the Van der Leeuw letter brought out a lot of good theosophical discussion. I'd like to see us continue with another piece of theosophical lit. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 16:43:45 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Questions about the ES Question, Would somebody please re-post Eldon's letter? I didn't get it. Did anyone get my reply to Paul? Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 16:49:11 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Questions about the ES Paul, I have no idea what % of the TS belongs to ES. Agree, the circumstances under which the rule that only board members can become President are questionable Liesel. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 17:01:35 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Questions about the ES Jerry, You have a knack for putting your foot in your mouth. Whatever your opinion is of Bing Escudero, he is not an "undesirable person." Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 17:57:30 GMT From: "Mark A. Foster" Subject: Re: To Aki re steiner-l Folks - I apologize for jumping into this discussion as a brand new subscriber (as of two hours ago ). However, I am impressed with the high level of discourse that I have observed so far. It is really quite refreshing. I have been on many lists where the typical postings are of low quality and name-calling is normative. I enjoyed reading the short posting on Anthroposophy as a form of Theosophy (which of course it is) and the need for a dialogue framed around commonly held ideas. As the writer alluded to, the ecumenical movement has made some important inroads in this direction - and not only among Protestants (viz., the National Conference of Christians and Jews). There is certainly no reason why this model could not be followed among groups with Theosophical roots. However, as I see it, the major focus of ecumenism has been on common points of doctrine and on service projects. I once belonged to an ecumenical organization, and, in this particular case, even doctrine was rarely discussed. Instead, the emphasis was on soup kitchens and homeless shelters. IMO, whatever value their activities may have had, and I was pleased with the work and with the level of dedication of those in the organization, it stopped short of my vision of inter-religious dialogue. From my perspective, discussions between, say, the Theosophical Society, the United Lodge, and the Anthroposophical Society should be on the level of the Noosphere, the Akasha, the Kingdom of Heaven Within, the (Neo-) Platonic world of forms, or New Thought's Universal Mind. In short, what is the commonality of mystical experience and how can it be tangibly expressed in service to humanity? As I see it, the the emphasis should be on mystical awareness and its practical implications - not on the rational plane of linguistic contradictions. Blessings, Mark * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion * *President (1995), Kansas Sociological Society * *Kansas Director, Foundation for the Science of Reality * *Founding President, Two-Year College Sociological Society * *Address: Department of Sociology, Johnson County Community College * * 12345 College Blvd., Overland Park, KS 66210-1299 U.S.A. * *Phones: 913/469-8500, ext.3376 (Office) and 913/768-4244 (Home) * *Fax: 913/469-4409 Science of Reality BBS: 913/768-1113 (8-N-1; 14.4 kbps) * *Email: mfoster@tyrell.net or mfoster@jccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us (Internet) * * 72642,3105 (Staff on Three CompuServe Religion Forums) * * Realityman (America Online Ethics and Religion Forum Remote Staff) * * UWMG94A (Prodigy) RealityDude (Microsoft) Realityman (Interchange) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ___ * UniQWK #2141* Structuralists Know the Lingo ;-) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 20:02:51 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Globes and Rounds RE: Quotes from MLs RE: Globe/Plane Confusion Daniel C:<(1) Jerry S. seems to make a number of comments which require explication of underlying ASSUMPTIONS.> Yes, my understanding of the GV Model, like all models, is based on some initial assumptions. Also, scope. I am looking at pathworking and personal experience rather than the collective experiences of an entire life-wave. This gives us some different results when we exercise the model. I am using the GV Model in the same way that magicians and occultists use the Tree of Life: as a map of the invisible worlds that surround us. I am assuming that Globe D is on the physical plane, that C and E are on the astral plane. That C is along the Arc of Descent leading into D, while E is on the Arc of Ascent leading upward from D, etc. etc. etc. All models have assumptions, and as everyone knows "garbage in equals garbage out" with any model. BTW, HPB's three theorems or occult laws as given in the proem to the SD are also part of my initial assumptions - what I have called the Law of Duality, the Law of Periodicity, and the Law of Identity all play significant roles in how my model functions. Dan: Eldon's response gave me the impression that this is what he was saying. Did I misinterpret? Dan: I don't know if the ML says this anywhere. But HPB alludes to it in her Esoteric Instructions, and Purucker detailed it in his writings. As I have already pointed out, I am using Purucker's 7-plane 12-Globe Model as my basic source or foundation for what I have called the GV Model. It is, in my view, the most complete version. I don't think that Purucker himself consciously realized the full extent of what he was doing, because his 12-Globe version has lead me to conclude that Globes B' and F' are in the Abyss itself - i.e., that they equate to Daath. Dan: There are several versions of what the 7 planes are. Here are just three (the one of the far right is from Purucker): 1 Physical Physical Sthula-Sarira 2 Etheric Astral Astral Light 3 Astral Mental Cosmic Jiva 4 Lower Mental Causal Cosmic Kama 5 Higher mental Lower Spiritual Mahat 6 Spiritual Higher Spiritual Adi-Buddhi 7 Divine Divine Paramatman Dan quoting the MLs:<"The lower world of effects is the sphere of such distorted Thoughts; of the most sensual conceptions, and pictures; of anthropomorphic deities, the out-creations of their creators, the sensual...etc> This quote is talking about the lower subplanes of the astral plane (each of the 7 planes is divided into 7 subplanes), and this description also includes portions of Globe E. Dan: Not a complete equality. the "lower world of effects" is equal only to the lower and most gross portions of the astral world. The higher subplanes are relatively pleasant. Dan:< Why does KH say *lower* world of effects? Is this in contrast to *higher* world of effects?> Yes, as I have already shown. Dan: The Abyss, or Great Outer Abyss, or Veil of the Abyss, is the Ring-Pass-Not of the human mind. It lies at the top of HPB's 7 Globes, and thus at the top of the causal plane. The human mind cannot conceive of anything higher, and in pathworking, the human mind cannot cross this Abyss nor experience the spiritual planes above it. We can discuss, and talk about, anything on the lower 4 planes, but beyond the Abyss, words simply fail, and attempts are pretty useless - though many people, myself included, have tried to do this anyway. Experiences above the Abyss are therefore mystical and, in fact, such things are called "mystical experiences." Dan: It started with the MLs, and Sinnet. Then HPB's SD gave us an update. Then her Esoteric Instructions gives us more hints. Judge says little or nothing. Tingley says little or nothing. Then along comes Purucker, who gives us so much detail, it would appear that he was talking from his own experiences (which he may have been). Now, to add to this, CWL talks a lot about the planes, but with little mention of the Globes. Basically, I have been putting this stuff from all over the place together - a synthesis - to form a reasonably coherent whole. Dan: No, these writers did not "filter" but rather they added. I don't really see any conflict at all between them. As I have already said, I am using a synthesis, which as far as I know, does not dispute or go against anything that any theosophical writer from any TS has said. So, in order to see where I am coming from, you will have to research a lot of writers, which is pretty much what I did. I also include a lot of stuff from Qabalistic pathworking, which does not, as far as I know, conflict with anything either. If there is any "conflict" it is probably with interpretation, which is sometimes uncertain. But, my "interpretations" do not conflict. Dan: Yes. They are very real. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 20:02:59 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: globes and rounds Rich:< most of our work is confined to Globe D for the present, other humanities and other life waves are doing their OWN thing on the other globes.> Only our waking state is confined to Globe D. Since we "work" in our waking state, I agree with you here. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 20:03:07 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: globes and rounds Eldon: There are at least two ways of looking at this. The view given by HPB and Purucker is that of the life-wave in its evolutionary progression around the planetary chain. This is, as you say here, from A to G (although I prefer to include the 5 Globes that Purucker gives us as well). However, there is another view. This view has to do with pathworking in the sense that it looks at individual, rather than life-waves or collectives. To my knowledge CWL is the only theosophist to ever look at this view (my reading of Adyar authors is very limited, and so I could well be missing someone here). Remember that I have said several times that my version of HPB's model is one of pathworking - i.e., of movement by individuals rather than life-waves. According to my pathworking model, in addition to the 12 paths between the 12 Globes, there is an addition 5 paths, one each along each of the 5 inner planes. Our consciousness can move in either direction along these horizontal pathways. This arrangement allows me to conclude: When we go to sleep, our consciousness shifts first to Globe E. In sleep, it can stay on E, go anywhere along the connecting path, or enter C (astral plane - dreams with emotions). It can also rise to F and cross over to B (mental plane - dreams without emotions). Before we can wake, it must enter C and from there return to D. So, our typical sleep cycle would be Globes D to E to C and back to D. However, it is probable that we enter each of the 6 globes above D every night during our sleep. Now, this "entering" is subjective in the sense that we are not fully embodied. Dreams with emotions occurs on the astral plane (Swapna) on C and E. Dreams without emotions take place on the mental plane (Sushupti) on B and F. Deep dreamless sleep takes place on the causal plane (Turiya) on A and G. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 20:03:28 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: The E.S. Eldon: I absolutely agree with you, Eldon. This IMHO, is an extremely important thought, that we need to remember every day. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 20:59:30 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: to Brenda Eldon: I have some problems understanding what Eldon is trying to say here. The manas of Globe D, according to the MLs is the vegetable and animal kingdoms. The manas of Globe D is NOT our manas. The word manas itself means mind, and is usually linked only to us humans. The idea of a manas for a Globe must be considered as a correspondence via the principle of 'as above so below.' Human beings are only connected to Globe D via the physical body (actually the lower three "principles"). Our principle of kama, the emotions, is based on the astral plane. Our mind or manas is on the mental plane. All of this is IAW AB/CWL, so I am not on too-thin ice here (unless, of course, you just don't want to believe anything at all that they taught - which is anyone's right). Eldon's last sentence makes no sense to me, unless he is trying to say that Globe E's plants and animals are not the same as those on D - which I would agree too. Anyway, our manasic principle is obtained during the bardo after Devachan, as we begin our descent back down to D. As we go through B, we take on a new manas, and as we go through C we take on a new kama, and when we are born, we take on a new physical body (I include all 3 lower principles here). Our manas, which is to say the human mind, is not on Globe D - by anyone's definition, thinking and thoughts are not physical and so cannot be on the physical plane. Nor can emotions, which by definition can only be located on the astral plane. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Sep 1995 20:59:34 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Planes and Globes Dan: Yes. Well, practically, anyway. Let me quote you a message that I posted some time ago: ************************ Speaking of Globe D, KH describes its 7 principles as follows: "In the Globe, the elementals (of which there are in all seven species) form (a) a gross body, (b) her fluidic double (linga sariram), (c) her life principle (jiva); (d) her fourth principle kama rupa is formed by her creative impulse working from centre to circumference; (e) her fifth principle (animal soul or Manas, physical intelligence) is embodied in the vegetable (in germ) and animal kingdoms; (f) her sixth principle (or spiritual soul, Buddhi) is man (g) and her seventh principle (atma) is in a film of spiritualized akasa that surrounds her." (Letter XV) **************** There are lots of possible interpretations for this. I think that the veg and animal kingdoms mean that their physical bodies only comprise the manas of Globe D, and that humanity as the buddhi of Globe D refers to our physical bodies, but this is just one possible interpretation. The atma of Globe D could be the earth's magnetosphere. Anyway, it could be argued that, using the three invisible subplanes of the physical plane, which are sometimes lumped together and called the Etheric Plane, all of the principles of Globe D are on the physical plane. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 28 Sep 1995 04:51:13 GMT From: Tracey Benson Subject: Re: More thoughts on abortion On Tue, 26 Sep 1995 LIESEL@delphi.com wrote: > "It is a foundation not a shackle." > > Hear hear. > You express my Path very well. > > Liesel > Make that for me too Tracey From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 28 Sep 1995 05:58:12 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Globes, Planes, Principles: some Comments to Jerry S. From Daniel C. Jerry, Thanks for your various postings on the above subjects and your specific answers to my questions. I want to make some observations based on my limited understanding of these subjects concerning globes, planes and principles. I am certainly believe that I can learn more about these somewhat abstruse subjects and am open to that but want to understand the basis for your various statements before I just accept what you say. Looking at what you and Eldon have written on these subjects, I beleive that Eldon's understanding and your understanding of these subjects have some MAJOR differences. I don't exactly know how these differences arose and I don't know what assumptions either one of you have made. I wonder if both of you are consciously aware of the various assumptions you each indivually made as you have built your understanding of these subjects. Now I will admit that these subjects are not all that simple and we can get into deep water fairly quickly without realizing it! Now you have admitted that these teachings on globes first appeared in the Mahatma Letters. And, indeed, we find the most detailed explanations of the Globes occurring in the MLs, but HPB mentions the chain of globes or worlds in *Isis Unveiled* and even earlier in a letter from 1875 to Colonel Olcott. But I would suggest that we use the quotations from the Mahatma Letters as a good basis upon which to base our (at least beginning) discussion of the globes, planes and principles. (And I hope Rich, Brenda and whoever else will also join in this discussion) Now Eldon has been kind enough to type the series of quotes from the MLs but there are a number of other relevant quotes in the MLs: the quote on the lower world of effects in ML# 9 (using 2nd and 3rd editions); the quote you give from Letter #15 on the principles of a "mother-globe"; the quote about the globes in question and answer #1 of ML# 14 and there may be other relevant quotes such as those about the Rupa-lokas and Arupa-lokas of Devachan. Reading over all the quotes Eldon gave plus the 3 I just mentioned, I will attempt to give my own understanding of the teaching. I won't quote from the ML extracts except from time to time. Later in our discussions, I can give you exact quotes if you want them to defend my thesis. As I look over these quotes on globes, principles, etc., I think it is important to try to see how the subject matter in these various quotes relate to one another. Possibly one extract taken into consideration with another help us to see which interpretation is valid or not. Yes, I agree that one quote by itself may be subject to more than one interpretation but why not try and see if all these quotes are like jigsaw puzzle pieces; they each help to give a larger picture. Okay, now here's my understanding. I will first try to focus on the earth, i.e., globe D and later possibly discuss the other globes. Globe D is composed of two "spheres" or "worlds": (1) the sphere or world of causes and (2) the sphere or world of effects. Or to put it a different way: Globe D (which is not just the physical globe we know of as earth) is composed of two aspects: an objective globe, world or sphere and a subjective globe, world or sphere. Now in one ML quote (p. 73 of the 3rd ed)it is said: "...every sphere has its world of effects, the passing through which will afford a place of of final rest to ech of the human priciples --the seventh excepted." Sorry for the mispellings! So can we not conclude that Globe D has "its world of effects" and this world of effects" is a "place of final rest to each of the human principles...." Return-Path: From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 28 Sep 1995 07:43:42 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: re CWL's chart Ann, >Mars/Neptune is not something that I have noticed, but it >prompts me to look back and check other charts. I've seen natal >charts for people who are involved in the spiritual movement and >have Neptune square their Sun. Both have been duped by >get-rich-quick speculators and dishonest gurus. My understanding of Mars/Neptune conjunctions is that it gives the person exceptional power to attract whatever is desired. Thus it is connected with kria shakti--the power of the imagination to create things. Back in the 60's the three great clairvoyants in the TS were said to be CWL., Dora Kunz and Phoebe Bendit. CWL was before my time but I knew and know the other two, and was deeply impressed with Phoebe's ability. I remember a discussion I had with her husband shortly before he died were he observed (based upon his 50 year marriage to his wife and experiences with other clairvoyants) that the biggest problem they had was that they could not separate what they saw from what they imagined. Seems like a Mars/Neptune problem to me. >Sounds like CWL feared the truth. And in a way, I can't blame >him. Looking at a chart is like seeing inside someone's skin, >stripped down to the very energy matrix that their soul created. >That kind of brutal honesty needs trust and a willingness to >expose one's self. Interesting analysis--in order to avoid being exposed through his horoscope, he just proclaimed that he didn't believe in astrology. Could be. The way it struck me was more in the form of an irony--he didn't believe in astrology because past horoscopes cast on him were seven years off because he lied about his year of birth. Since the astrologers failed to detect this discrepancy, he felt safe in not believing in astrology. He had his own secret "proof." >The reason I was interested in CWL's chart was to see any >evidence that he could done any of the things he's been lauded >or castigated for. Unfortunately, we don't have exact birth >date information, so this is all still conjecture. Would you be interested in attempting a rectification? I can supply you some timed events in his life. >I still remember my spiritual mentors with fondness. Some of >them gave me a great deal of knowledge, even when I later found >out they were trying to put their hand in my pocket for cash or >inside my pants. Once burned adn wiser, you always look a >little closer at the next one. I think we are all taken advantage of sometime in our lives- -some people more than others. Women, of course have even more problems with this because this culture makes them second class citizens power-wise, and they are typically raised from infancy to be nurturing and to care about the welfare of the whole over their own needs. There are a lot of men who prey on women, and a lot of men who prey on each other. I was hoping that the current post-modern ideas of racial and gender equality would move into the thinking of our culture, but if seems that we are moving in the opposite direction instead. My two major spiritual teachers were older women--an aunt who was 42 years my senior; and another theosophist almost 20 years my senior. Both are dead now, but very much alive in me. Jerry HE From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 28 Sep 1995 07:47:46 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Re:CWL's chart Jerry Hejka-Ekins: > I believe you are on to something. Leo rising does seem to >fit CWL. Venus and Neptune together also usually makes for a >charisma does it not? In my astrological experiences, I've found >that Mars-Neptune conjunctions and oppositions seem to also occur >with psychic personalities. What has been your experience? Venus/Neptune conjunction? The Astrologer's Handbook by Sakoian & Acker describes it as "a hypnotic power of attraction." Beauty and illusion joined together in a powerful force. Yeow! Mars/Neptune is not something that I have noticed, but it prompts me to look back and check other charts. I've seen natal charts for people who are involved in the spiritual movement and have Neptune square their Sun. Both have been duped by get-rich-quick speculators and dishonest gurus. > I don't have it anymore, but I recall reading a reply to >Alan Leo from CWL in ~Modern Astrology~ for 1916. As I recall, >CWL was responding to a request for a confirmation of his birth >date. He instead expressed his disbelief in astrology, and if I >remember correctly, he never confirmed his 1847 birth date to >Leo. In light of the correct birth date, this little exchange >took on new meaning for me. Sounds like CWL feared the truth. And in a way, I can't blame him. Looking at a chart is like seeing inside someone's skin, stripped down to the very energy matrix that their soul created. That kind of brutal honesty needs trust and a willingness to expose one's self. The reason I was interested in CWL's chart was to see any evidence that he could done any of the things he's been lauded or castigated for. Unfortunately, we don't have exact birth date information, so this is all still conjecture. >Yet we can't grow spiritually in a >vacuum. It seems that we have to do a lot of rubbing against >each other to ware down some of those rough spots. I still remember my spiritual mentors with fondness. Some of them gave me a great deal of knowledge, even when I later found out they were trying to put their hand in my pocket for cash or inside my pants. Once burned adn wiser, you always look a little closer at the next one. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 28 Sep 1995 08:00:08 GMT From: JK1Carp@aol.com Subject: Theosophy Lodge Online UPDATE TLO will post to theos-news various announcements and updates from time to time. NEW TIME - ONE HOUR EARLIER Meetings are now held from 9 pm to 10:30 pm eastern time every Wednesday. TLO is open 24 hours for library use and informal theosophical discussion and there is no charge at any time though donations of time or money are welcome PROGRAM SUBSCRIPTIONS Theosophy Lodge Online now maintains its own mailing list for sending out the monthly program. This prevents the duplication of theos-news suscribers and allows the program to get to those who do not subscribe to theos-news. To obtain the current program, simply send a request to jk1carp@aol.com. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 28 Sep 1995 09:08:04 GMT From: jpfulton@ix.netcom.com (Joseph P. Fulton ) Subject: Re: Questions about the ES You wrote: > >Paul, > >I have no idea what % of the TS belongs to ES. > >Agree, the circumstances under which the rule that only board >members can become President are questionable > >Liesel. > >From information I have heard, approximately 2%. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 28 Sep 1995 09:42:48 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: passage re: who adepts are According to Brenda S. Tucker: > > > Paul, > > Wasn't this story written about in the last section of your book IN SEARCH > OF THE MASTERS and isn't it some unfortunate mistake with a small pox > vaccine that kills the Panchen Lama and then the Sengchen Tulku is executed > for allowing foreigners to enter the country and initiate trade? In the > meantime though important literary works did leave the country > with the traders. > > Do you write the story again in THE MASTERS REVEALED? > > Brenda > Brenda- Actually I discovered this info well after ISM and just in time to include in TMR. Congratulations for making a connection that I did not. It's true that Das and Gyatso imported vaccine on their second voyage at the request of the Sengchen Tulku, who was fascinated by Western science and technology. (He also asked for science books in Hindi, a magic lantern, and so on.) Also true that the Panchen died of smallpox. None of my sources indicate that this was the result of misguided use of the vaccine by the Sengchen, and I never thought of that. But your intuition may well be right-- makes a lot of sense in light of how horribly he was later executed. The reasons alleged for his being beaten in the public square and then thrown into the Tsangpo to drown, was that word got out after Das and Gyatso returned to India that they had really been spies and not just spiritual seekers. For his hospitality to them, which included giving them 200+ Buddhist manuscripts to take back to India, he paid with his life. Some evidence cited in TMR suggests that Das, Gyatso and the Sengchen were feeding information to HPB for use in her writings. Most strikingly, her references to the Chohan Lama of the Tashilhunpo library corresponding with her. The Sengchen was the lama in charge of said library. Cheers Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 28 Sep 1995 10:17:27 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: To Aki re steiner-l According to Mark A. Foster: > > I enjoyed reading the short posting on Anthroposophy as a form of > Theosophy (which of course it is) and the need for a dialogue framed > around commonly held ideas. As the writer alluded to, the ecumenical > movement has made some important inroads in this direction - and not > only among Protestants (viz., the National Conference of Christians and > Jews). There is certainly no reason why this model could not be followed > among groups with Theosophical roots. It has been followed, with some success, among the TS-Adyar, the TS-Pasadena, the ULT, and the Temple of the People (Halycon, CA). But there is a reason why it would be difficult with Steiner disciples. Steiner said some very ugly things about HPB, gave no source for his information, but seemed to be echoing C.J. Harrison's The Transcendental Universe in his "occult captivity" theory. It is one thing to honor HPB and her teachers while claiming to go beyond them; this is what Bailey and numerous others do. It is quite another to base a large chunk of your teachings on hers, but to deny the connection and say insulting things about her. > > From my perspective, discussions between, say, the Theosophical > Society, the United Lodge, and the Anthroposophical Society should be on > the level of the Noosphere, the Akasha, the Kingdom of Heaven Within, > the (Neo-) Platonic world of forms, or New Thought's Universal Mind. In > short, what is the commonality of mystical experience and how can it be > tangibly expressed in service to humanity? As I see it, the the emphasis > should be on mystical awareness and its practical implications - not on > the rational plane of linguistic contradictions. To some extent this would seem to be what the Parliament in 1993 accomplished? Welcome aboard, Mark. I hope we live up to your first impressions :) Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 28 Sep 1995 12:12:59 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: One of JRC's comments JRC writes: "I will not try to demonstrate their nature and status in an areana where people have already reached conclusions prior to evidence even being presented. There are too many others places containing a spirit of genuinely open-minded inquiry." Is this directed to the 100 + members of the theos network? How do you KNOW that people in this "arena" have already reached conclusions about your experiences with angels prior to evidence even being presented? IF I had what seems to be such a low opinion of this Theosophical group, I wouldn't waste my time; instead I would go to those "many other places" where there is "a spirt of genuinely open-minded inquiry"! As a now famous judge has said many times over the last year, "everybody should take a few deep breaths!" Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 28 Sep 1995 14:38:25 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Kama Loka I am currently reading a new book by the Tibetan, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso called OCEAN OF NECTAR (Tharpa Publications, 1995). On page 100, he describes kama-loka, or the desire realm, as follows: "All samsaric beings live in one of the three realms: the desire realm, the form realm, or the formless realm. The desire realm is the grossest of the three realms. It has ten levels: the hell realm, the hungry ghost realm, the animal realm, the human realm, and the six realms of desire realm gods - Land of the Four Great Kings, Land of the Thirty-Three Heavens, Land Without Combat, Joyful Land, the Land of Enjoying Emanations, and Land of Controlling Emanations. The desire realm is so called because beings who inhabit it are afflicted with gross desirous attachment. Compared with the desire realm, the form and formless reamls are very pure and peaceful." As you can see from this short quote, Tibetans view the desire realm (kama loka) in a far different way than a theosophical after-death state. It is, in fact, the lower four cosmic planes as described by Purucker, although Gyatso divides it into 10 subdivisions (these are equivalent to the standard Tibetan 6 realms as described in the Bardo Thodol). Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 28 Sep 1995 14:48:40 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Rich the Label Man Thanks for your post about people labeling you. You stated your points quite well and I certainly agree with them. Keep up the good work. Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 28 Sep 1995 15:56:43 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Mars/Neptune Following up Ann and JHE on this conjunction: If Mars rules initiative, aggression, action and Neptune is psychism, illusion, sacrifice (to give just three keywords each) this conjunction suggests several things about CWL. First and most obvious is that his initiative and willpower will be focused on otherworldly goals. Second, that he may sacrifice himself for this realm (think of the miserable years in Ceylon). Third, that his actions may involve illusions-- either his own or those of others. Fourth, that he is able to convince himself that whatever he wills is spiritual even when it isn't. Just some thoughts. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 28 Sep 1995 16:04:38 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: To Aki re steiner-l Dear Mark, Thanks for the posies, and thanks for your suggestion re having a very high-minded spiritual discussion we can all share in on common grounds. That might be a good idea for starters, but, when we know each other better, I think we should also be able to discuss matters on which we differ, with a certain amount of calm & without throwing barbs at each other, with some respect for all sides, & agreeing to differ where we do. To me, that's part of the ideal Universal brotherhood (siblinghood, noosphere) as well. Since we seem to be going towards it on this mailing list, I don't think it's asking for the moon. Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 28 Sep 1995 16:44:02 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: More thoughts on abortion Eldon: The theosophical groups are one of many > junior colleges or extension courses for those of us wanting to enroll in > the Mystery Colleges. >JRC: Yes. One of many. Rich reminds me of myself some 20 years ago in his theosophical zeal. Back then, I wrote to Grace Knoche something to the effect that I thought theosophy was the sole exponent of truth, and she chastised me to the effect that theosophy was but one of many paths. This, coming from the Leader of the Pasadena TS, made me stop and think. I am sure that Rich will come to see this too some day. >> There is rich symbolism in the field of chaos. We can learn much from >> studying it. By itself, though, it provides no philosophical or metaphysical >> understandings. It is an area of mathematical symbolism. > There is in Complexity Theory. And looking at some of the SD >through its eyes is a very interesting exercise. And in fact in a number >of different areas it is (IMO) clear that the Masters saw things from the >Complexity point of view, but lacked the vocabulary currently being >developed in the sciences. A lot of the cutting edge of modern science is >*remarkably* occult knowledge. When Eldon says that Chaos theory is pure mathematics, he is speaking of it only from the viewpoint of the chaos scientist. In point of fact, the findings from chaos theory are spilling over into all disciplines, even those in softer sciences like psychology, biology, and management. My Ph.D. is on the interdisciplinary study of Jungian psychology in light of the findings of chaos theory. It is a fascinating field, and many of the ideas (no, not the math, which is only one language that chaos theory uses) are deeply related to theosophy and occultism (the close relationship between chaos and order - that one comes from the other - is only one example). Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 28 Sep 1995 19:57:01 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: More thoughts on abortion Jerry, Since you're talking about mathematics, that study led to a big disappointment for me recently. I had learned from "Turbulent Mirror" that a lot of these discoveries were preceded by solving mathematical formulae. Harry was always talking about the multi- dimensionality of what he described as "fields" & Theosophical lit usually calls "bodies". The physical has 3, the astral 4, & so on up the line to 7 or even 9. (I can't visualize it, but apparently he did.) He was an engineer among other things & in one of his talks, which I recently listened to on tape, he mentioned that he had worked out mathematically this thing with the many dimensions. I quickly got in touch with his wife to alert her to save these equations & papers, but they aren't in existence anymore. What a bummer! So now it remains for someone of another generation to rediscover how that works. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 28 Sep 1995 20:05:57 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Teachers besides HPB Great Theosophists: The Count De St. Germain One of the most mysterious characters in modern history is the famous Count de St. Germain, described by his friend Prince Karl von Hesse as "one of the greatest philosophers who ever lived, the friend of humanity, whose heart was concerned only with the happiness of others." Intimate and counselor of Kings and Princes, nemesis of deceptive ministers, Rosicrucian, Mason, accredited Messenger of the Masters of Wisdom-the Count de St. Germain worked in Europe for more than a century, faithfully performing the difficult task which had been entrusted to him. The amazing and inscrutable personality in which the Adept known as St. Germain clothed himself was the outstanding topic of conversation among the nobility of the eighteenth century. During the 112 years that he is said to have lived in Europe, he always presented the appearance of a man about forty-five years of age. He was of medium height, with a slender, graceful figure, a captivating smile, and eyes of peculiar beauty. "Oh, what eyes!" signed the Countess d'Adhemar. "I have never seen their equal!" He was an extraordinary linguist, speaking French, German, English, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian and Swedish without the slightest trace of an accent, and his knowledge of Sanscrit, Chinese and Arabic showed that he was well acquainted with the East. His proficiency in music was equally remarkable. As a violinist he is said to have rivalled Paganini, while his performances on the harpsichord called forth enthusiastic applause from Frederick the Great. His ability to improvise made a great impression on Rameau, who met him in Venice in 1710. St. Germain was also a composer. One of his musical compositions was given to Tchaikowsi, Prince Ferdinand von Lobkowitz inherited a second, while two others, bearing the dates 1745 and 1760, are the property of the British Museum. The Count de St. Germain was also a painter of rare ability, famed for his power to reproduce the original brilliance of precious stones on canvas. Although he refused to betray his secret, it was commonly supposed that he produced the effect by mixing powdered mother-of-pearl with his pigments. He was highly esteemed as an art critic and was frequently consulted in regard to the authenticity of paintings. The prodigious memory of the Count de St. Germain was a constant source of amazement to his friends. He would merely glance as a paper, and days afterward repeat its contents without missing a word. He was ambidextrous, and could write a poem with one hand while he framed a diplomatic paper with the other. He frequently read sealed letters without touching them and was known to answer questions before they had been put into words. Many of St. Germain's friends had practical proof of his alchemical knowledge. Casanova relates that one day while visiting St. Germain in his laboratory, the latter asked for a silver coin. In a few moments it was returned to Casanova as pure gold. St. Germain also possessed the secret of melting several small diamonds into one large stone, an art he learned in India, he said. While visiting the French Ambassador to The Hague, he broke up a superb diamond of his own manufacture, the duplicate of which he had recently sold for 5500 louis d'or. On another occasion he removed a flaw from a diamond belonging to Louis XV, increasing the value of the stone by 4000 livres. On gala occasions he appeared with a diamond ring on every finger and with shoe-buckles estimated to be worth at least 200,000 francs. The charming personality of the Count de St. Germain made him a welcome guest in the homes of the nobility of every land. But while he often sat at table with his friends, his own food was specially prepared for him in his own apartments. He ate no meat and drank no wine, his favorite beverage being a tea which he prepared for certain herbs, and which he frequently presented to his friends. His extraordinary popularity was due to his prowess as a raconteur, to his well known intimacy with the greatest men and women of the day, to his familiarity with occult subjects, and especially to the mystery of his birth and nationality, which he consistently refused to reveal. He spoke with feeling of things which had happened hundreds of years in the past, giving the impression that he himself had been present. One evening, while he was recounting an event which had happened many centuries before, he turned to his butler and asked if any important details had been omitted. "Monsieur le Comte forgets," his butler replied, "that I have been with him only five hundred years. I could not, therefore, have been present at that occurrence. It must have been my predecessor." If, as many claimed, St. Germain affirmed that he had lived in Chaldea and possessed the secrets of the Egyptian sages, he may have spoken the truth without making an miraculous claim. There are Initiates, and not necessarily of the highest, who are able to recall many of their past lives. This may have been St. Germain's way of calling attention of his friends to the doctrine of reincarnation. Or perhaps he knew the secret of "the Elixir of Life." Although no one knew when the Count de St. Germain was born, his life from 1710 to 1822 is a matter of history. Both Rameau and the Countess de Georgy met him in Venice in 1710. Fifty years later the aged Countess met him in Madame Pompadour's house and asked him if his father had been in Venice that year. "No, Madame," the Count replied, "but I myself was living in Venice at the end of the last and the beginning of this century. I had the honor to pay you court then, and you were kind enough to admire a little Barcarolle of my composing." The Countess could not believe her ears. "But if that is true," she gasped, "you must be at least a hundred years old!" The Count smiled. "That, Madame, is not impossible!" In 1723 the Count showed his mother's portrait, which he always wore on his arm, to the mother of the future Countess de Genlis. It was a miniature of an exceptionally beautiful woman, dressed in a costume unfamiliar to the Countess. "To what period does this costume belong?" the Countess inquired. The Count merely smiled and changed the subject. From 1737 to 1742 the Count de St. Germain was living in the Court of the Shah of Persia, occupied with alchemical research. On his return from Persia he settled in Versailles and became an intimate friend of Louis XV and Madame Pompadour. In the following year he was caught in the Jacobite Revolution in England. From there he went to Vienna, and afterward visited Frederick the Great in his castle of Sans-Souci in Potsdam, where Voltaire was also an honored guest. Although Voltaire was opposed to St. Germain's fellow-Theosophist Saint-Martin, his admiration for St. Germain was unbounded. In a letter to Frederick, Voltaire expressed his opinion that "the Count de St. Germain is a man who was never born, who will never die, and who knows everything." In 1755 the Count de St. Germain accompanied General Clive to India. On his return to France Louis XV gave him a suite of apartments in the Royal Chateau of Chambord, in Touraine. Here he often entertained the King and members of the Court in the alchemical laboratory with the King had provided for him. In 1760 Louis sent the Count de St. Germain on a delicate diplomatic mission to The Hague and London. At that time he discovered the Duc de Choiseul, who up to that time had been implicitly trusted by the King, was playing a double game. Although St. Germain confided this fact to the King, the former was determined that the Peace Treaty between England and France should be signed, no matter who received the credit. So one evening in May, 1761, St. Germain called upon the Duc de Choiseul and remained closeted with him the whole night. This conference resulted in the celebrated alliance known as the Family Compact. This in its turn was the forerunner of the Treaty of Paris, which brought the colonial war between England and France to a close. In the following year St. Germain was called to St. Petersburg, where he played an important part in the revolution which placed Catherine the Great upon the throne of Russia. he left the country in the uniform of a Russian general, with full credentials to which the imperial seal of Russia was affixed. Shortly afterward he appeared in Tunis and Leghorn while the Russian fleet was there, again in Russian uniform, and known under the name of Graf Saltikoff. After the death of Louis XV in 1774, St. Germain spent several years travelling in Germany and Austria. Among the Kings, Princes, Ambassadors and scholars who met him during those years, how many suspected that the soul of a great Adept looked out through the eyes of the Count de St. Germain? How many realized that they were conversing with an emissary of that Great Fraternity of Perfected Men who stand behind the scenes of all the great world-dramas, one who was directly not only the minor currents of European history, but some of the major currents as well? How many were aware of St. Germain's real mission, part of which was the introduction of Theosophical principles into the various occult fraternities of the day? The Rosicrucian organizations were certainly helped by him. While Christian Rosencreuz, the founder of the Order, transmitted his teachings orally, St. Germain recorded the doctrines in figures, and one of his exciphered manuscripts became the property of his staunch friend, Prince Karl von Hesse. H.P.B. mentions this manuscript in The Secret Doctrine (II, 202) and quotes at length from another (II, 582). While St. Germain was living in Vienna he spent much of his time in the Rosicrucian laboratory on the Landstrasse, and at one time lived in the room which Leibniz occupied in 1713. St. Germain also worked with the Fratres Lucis, and with the "Knights and Brothers of Asia" who studied Rosicrucian and Hermetic science and made the "philosopher's stone" one of the objects of their research. Although an effort has been made to eliminate St. Germain's name from modern Masonic literature, careful research into Masonic archives will prove that he occupied a prominent position in eighteenth century Masonry. He acted as a delegate to the Wilhelmsbad Convention in 1782 and to the great Paris Convention of 1785. Cadet de Gassicourt described him as a travelling member of the Knights Templar, and Deschamps says that Cagliostro was initiated into that Order by St. Germain. The Count de St. Germain is said to have died on February 27, 1784, and the Church Register of Eckernforde in Danish Holstein contains the record of his death and burial. But as it happens, some of St. Germain's most important work was done after that date. This fact is brought out in the Souvenirs de Marie-Antoinette, written by one of her ladies-in-waiting, the Countess d'Adhemar. This diary was started in 1760 and ended in 1821, one year before the death of the Countess, and a large part of it is concerned with St. Germain's efforts to avert the horrors of the French Revolution. Early one Sunday morning in 1788 the Countess was surprised to receive a visit from the Count de St. Germain, whom she had not seen in several years. He warned her that a giant conspiracy was under foot, in which the Encyclopaedists would use the Duc de Chartres in an effort to overthrow the monarchy, and asked her to take him to the Queen. When Madame d'Adhemar reported the conversation to Marie-Antoinette, the Queen confessed that she also had received another communication from this mysterious stranger who had protected her with warnings from the day of her arrival in France. On the following day St. Germain was admitted into the private quarters of the Queen. "Madame," he said to her, "for twenty years I was on intimate terms with the late King, who deigned to listen to me with kindness. He made use of my poor abilities on several occasions, and I so not think he regretted giving me his confidence." After warning her of the serious condition of France, he asked her to communicate his message to the King and to request the King not to consult with Maurepas. But the King ignored the warning, and went directly to Maurepas, who immediately called upon Madame d'Adhemar. In the midst of the conversation St. Germain appeared. He confronted Maurepas with his treachery and said to him: "In opposing yourself to my seeing the monarch, you are losing the monarchy, for I have but a limited time to give to France. This time over, I shall not be seen here again, until after three successive generations have gone down to the grave." The second warning from St. Germain came on July 14, 1789, when the Queen was saying farewell to the Duchesse de Polgnac. She opened the letter and read: "My words have fallen on your ears in vain, and you have reached the period of which I informed you. All the Polignacs and their friends are doomed to death. The Comte d'Artois will perish." His farewell letter, addressed to Madame d'Adhemar, arrived on October 5, 1789. "All is lost, Countess!" he wrote. "This sun is the last which will set on the monarchy. Tomorrow it will exist no more. My advice has been scorned. Now it is too late.x" In that letter he asked the Countess to meet with him early the next morning. In that conversation the Count de St. Germain informed her that the time when he could have helped France was past. "I can do nothing now. My hands are tied by one stronger than myself. The hour of repose is past, and the decrees of Providence must be fulfilled." He foretold the death of the Queen, the complete ruin of the Bourbons, the rise of Napoleon. "And you yourself?" the Countess asked. "I must go to Sweden," he answered. "A great crime is brewing there, and I am going to try and prevent it. His Majesty Gustavus III interests me. He is worth more than his renown." The Countess inquired if she would see him again. "Five times more," he answered. "Do not wish for the sixth." True to his word, the Count de St. Germain appeared to the Countess d'Adhemar on five different occasions: at the beheading of the Queen; on the 18th Brumaire; the day following the death of the Duc d'Enghien in 1804; in January, 1813; on the ever of the assassination of the Duc de Berri in 1820. Presumably the sixth time was on the day of her death, in 1822. What happened to the Count de St. Germain after that date? Did he, as Andrew Lang asks, "die in the palace of Prince Karl von Hesse about 1780-85? Did he, on the other hand, escape from the French prison where Gorsley thought he saw him, during the French Revolution? Was he known to Lord Lytton about 1860? Who knows?" Who indeed. One of the Masters spoke of the "benevolent German Prince from whose house, and in whose presence he (St. Germain) made his last exit-home." In the last decade of the eighteenth century St. Germain confided his future plans to his Austrian friend, Franz Graeffer, saying, "Tomorrow night I am off. I am much needed in Constantinople, then in England, there to prepare to new inventions which you have in the next century-trains and steamboats. Toward the end of this century I shall disappear out of Europe, and betake myself to the region of the Himalayas. I will rest; I must rest. Exactly in 85 years will people again set eyes on me. Farewell. " (Kleine Wiener Memorien.) These words were spoken in 1790. Eighty-five years from that date brings us to 1875. What part did St. Germain play in the Theosophical Movement of last century? What part is he going to play in the present century? H.P.B. gave a cryptic suggestion of the time when he would again appear: "The Count de St. Germain was certainly the greatest Oriental Adept Europe has seen during the last centuries. But Europe knew him not. Perchance some may recognize him at the next Terreur, which will affect all Europe when it comes, and not one country alone." Was the event of which she spoke the last great War, or does the real Terreur still lie before us? Theosophy Magazine, November 1938 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 28 Sep 1995 20:06:56 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Labels Jerry S. wrote: > Rich reminds me of myself some 20 years ago in his theosophical > zeal. Back then, I wrote to Grace Knoche something to the effect > that I thought theosophy was the sole exponent of truth, and she > chastised me to the effect that theosophy was but one of many > paths. This, coming from the Leader of the Pasadena TS, made > me stop and think. I am sure that Rich will come to see this too > some day." I have never, EVER said anything like "Theosophy [or HPB] are the sole exponents of truth." I defy you to find one post or anything I've published that has hinted at this. In fact, it seems so clear that I am not laying all authority for truth on Theosophy, that I can only understand it as willful distortion. Rather, the possibility raises itself in my mind that what I write is threatening, because I stick to the original Theosophy that was presented. Because this is threatening, I must be dismissed with convenient labels like "fundamentalist" "too young" etc. How long does one need to be in the Theosophical Movement before one is a "grown up"? While many others have been in Theosophy longer than I have, I should think that after my first decade in the Work, I am no longer a novice or unfamiliar with the basic texts, history, currents, etc. So the "too young" label really won't wash. As for "fundamentalist," I ground myself on the original material, as tried, true, and lasting. All later students follow from HPH, Mr. Judge and the Masters who stand behind them. The original material is the foundation of modern Theosophy, and I don't apologize for standing on it, in order that I might see farther. This does not mean there is nothing else BESIDES this foundational material that is valuable, that is a nonsensical attitude. The 20th century is full of good, valuable work by solid, idealistic, and clear-seeing men and women. But if people find my opinions offensive, PARTICULARLY when I reference HPB or Mr. Judge as a source, I say, hit the key. I use it plenty, in most cases it works fine. I also don't see that I spend a lot of time labeling folks. When Brenda and I argue, and we often do, I take her up on the ideas and arguments she puts forth. I don't try and nail her as a woman, or as a CWL fan, or as any "thing" else. That would be grossly unfair and de-humanizing. She is a student, I am a student, we argue. Likewise, Jerry, I have never labeled you to my knowledge, trying to dismiss your point of view by fitting you in a neat little box like Orientalism did to Asian cultures last centuries. If you want to discuss ideas, sources, reasons, thoughts, texts, etc., let's go for it, but I see no need to attack me personally with confining labels. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 29 Sep 1995 03:12:42 GMT From: Daniel Subject: A poem Subject: A Poem Heaven's Grocery Store (Author Unknown) I was walking down life's highway along time ago; One day I saw a sign that read, "Heaven's Grocery Store." As I got a little closer, the door came open wide, And when I came to myself, I was standing inside. I saw a host of angels... They were standing everywhere. And one handed me a basket and said, "My child, shop with care." Everything a Christian needed was in that grocery store, And all you couldn't carry, You could come back the next day for more. First I got some patience... Love was in the same row. Further down was understanding... You need that everywhere you go. I got a box or two of wisdom, A bag or two of faith. I just couldn't miss the Holy Spirit, For He was all over the place. I stopped to get some strength and courage to help me run this race; By then my basket was getting full, But I remembered I needed some grace. I didn't forget salvation for salvation...that was free... So I tried to get enough of that to save both you and me. Then I started up to the counter to pay my grocery bill, For I thought I had everything to do my Master's will. As I went up the aisle I saw prayer... And I just had to put that in... For I knew when I stepped outside I would run right into sin. Peace and joy were plentiful... They were on the last shelf. Song and praises were hanging near, So I just helped myself. Then, I said to the angel, "Now, how much do I owe?" He just smiled and said: "Just take them everywhere you go." Again I smiled to him and said, "How much, now do I really owe?" He smiled again and said, "My child...Jesus paid YOUR bill a long time ago!" Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 29 Sep 1995 04:30:11 GMT From: murdicrj@esvax.dnet.dupont.com Subject: Welcome to Joe Fulton Joe, I'm glad to see you made it. I look forward to your contributions. Bob Murdic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 29 Sep 1995 06:31:33 GMT From: Don DeGracia <72662.1335@compuserve.com> Subject: Reply to Algeo's article in AT Hi ALL! I'm uploading this responce to John Algeo's article in the recent American Theosophists entitled "Brain, Consciousness and Self". I wasn't too happy with John's attitudes here and would like to stimulate some discussion and see what other people think about the points John raised. I sent John Algeo the following letter and thought I'd share this with the cyber-community as well. I've also asked John Mead to post this message to Theos-l. Thanks everyone for your time with this. P.S. Please either respond on theos-buds or write me email directly. Thanks. Don DeGracia ***************************** "In volume 83, number 6 of the American Theosophist, John Algeo, in his article Brain, Consciousness, and Self, presents a viewpoint about science, and about the relationship between science and theosophy that I feel is both an oversimplification and an unhealthy attitude for theosophists in general to take. To briefly recap, John mentions the work of Canadian researcher Michael Persinger (whose name he fails to mention in the article) who is looking at the effects of magnetic stimulation of the brain. John quotes some of Dr. Persinger's comments but then goes on to take this researcher's conclusions as somehow representing all of science. John then proceeds to do some pretty typical science bashing; making blanket statements about the reductionist nature of science, commenting on science's failure to look at purpose, presenting the idea that "soul" and "spirit" are outside the purview of science. Finally, John ends with some comments about the nature of self as relates to the brain and consciousness. Throughout the article, John presents the idea that science is a "game" with rigid rules, and implies that science can't be blamed for its short comings because it is bound to stick to these limited rules. He contrasts the game of science with Theosophy and other esoteric traditions, saying, in effect, that there are other games in town. There are a number of weak points in this article and the overall attitude presented is simply not a theosophical attitude, in my opinion. To elaborate: The first weak point of John's article is that he takes the work of one man and from this draws conclusions about all of science. There is no justification for this leap in logic. I routinely study the scientific literature that pertains to the study of the brain and consciousness, and if anything, this literature reflects a very broad diversity of opinion and outlook. To make the blanket statement that this field of science (or even science as a whole) is reductionistic is simply false. Take for example the work of Charles Tart, one of the leading researchers in Altered States of Consciousness. Tart is both holistic and spiritual in his orientation, and has as well produced useful and practical results about the nature of consciousness, as well as starting the whole field of altered states studies and giving legitimacy to the academic study of these experiences. I could cite many, many other examples: Dr. Stephen LaBargre's work on lucid dreaming at Stanford, Dr. Arthur Ellison's work on parapsychology, Hiroshi Motoyama's work on chakras, just to name a few. The point here is that John is generalizing from only one example, and anybody that is used to making generalizations knows, drawing conclusions from only one example is a dangerous thing to do. Next, John goes on to state that science is a game: "...ordinary science...is a game played according to certain strict rules limiting the scientist to what is repeatedly observable under controlled conditions." I would assert that the view John is presenting here is so overly simplified as to be wrong. Since the dawn of science with Newton, philosophers and scientists alike have attempted to define science. There are as many definitions of what science is as a cultural activity as there are folks who have attempted to define science. In other words, there is no fixed, immutable definition of science. Anybody familiar with the history of science knows that science has changed as the culture around it has changed. If there is one common theme to science as it has existed over the past four centuries, it is that it is a method of eliminating false ideas. The layman's view of science is to think of science in terms of the content of the various branches of science: science is physics, or chemistry or biology, or what have you. However, these disciplines are only the accumulation of applying a method to ideas. The fact is, science is a method for determining if ideas are false. The main tool it uses in this determination is the experiment: if an idea can stand up repeatedly to experimental test, then the idea probably is not false. It is this method, or *attitude*, that is the heart of science; all the rest, all the accumulation of facts in physics, chemistry, psychology, ect. are the result of applying this criteria, called "falsifyability", to various ideas. So, in short, science is not inherently reductionistic, it is inherently a method, or a better way to state it, it is a tradition, a mind-set, for the testing of ideas. What all sciences share in common is their lack of belief or faith. No idea is sacred in science. Any idea that cannot withstand experimental tests againsts Nature are destined to be banished from science. When seen in this fashion, the way of science is general and can be applied to any wake of life, even to theosophical or spiritual ideas. Any belief we may have about our spiritual nature should not be taken for granted or simply believed in blind faith. It should be tested against the reality of our experience. This is something early Theosophists stated explicitly. For example, C.W. Leadbeater never taught his readers to blindly believe all his fascinating descriptions of the planes, auras and chakras. He presented these ideas as hypotheses to be tested and encouraged his students to prove for themselves the realities he described. Thus, Leadbeater was very much operating in the scientific spirit of testing one's ideas and not accepting things on blind faith. It is unfortunate that this attitude has not become a stronger part of Theosophical tradition. Thus, John's definition of science is ill-informed and even goes against the teachings of Leadbeater. Leadbeater, of course, worked closely with scientists of his day, particularly Sir William Crookes, who was also a member of the TS. John's ideas about science being reductionistic are less a reflection of science than they are a reflection of a particular philosophy of science called positivism. Positivism had its heyday in the early part of this century. But today, in the post-modern era, positivism is dead. Post modern philosophers have literally racked science through the coals and have dissected the positivistic influence right out of science (see for example, the works of Steve Woolgar). Aside from the attacks of post-modern philosophy, science itself has naturally outgrown positivism. The advents of quantum mechanics, chaos theory and cognitive psychology have destroyed reductionism is science and today, holism is the keynote. John is simply not well informed about the current state of scientific thinking. So, we have gotten John on two counts now: 1. overgeneralizing from one man's work and 2. presenting wrong ideas about the nature of science. But we are not done with our critique yet. John claims that science cannot address issues of the spirit or the soul. Here, John is building a straw man then knocking it down. As I said above, there is no fixed, immutable definition of science. Science changes as the culture itself changes. What is common to science is the attempt to test ideas against experience. In this regard, the essence of science can be applied to issues of our spirituality. And since our spirituality is so important, it is the last place we should want to have mindless, blind faith in ideas. The truth is, our secular culture has ignored spirituality as a whole. Because of this, our current sciences are not spiritual in their orientation. But there is nothing anywhere preventing us from applying the scientific method to our own spirituality. And the truth is, many are right now involved in this task. In particular, there is occurring today a ground swell in the UK where scientists are extremely interested in the facts of our spirituality and are groping to apply the scientific method to the understanding of our human spirit. The Theosophical Society should be attempting to contribute constructively to this movement instead of sitting on the sidelines criticizing what it only half understands. And this leads to the final criticism I have of John's article: it is divisive. By distinguishing between science as one game and theosophy or other esoteric systems as another game, John is artificially dividing what in fact does not - actually, should not - be divided. The fault of modern science is that it *has* divided itself from our spiritual sides. John is only reinforcing this when he could instead be attempting to correct it. Furthermore, it is supposedly the object of the TS to promote unity and brotherhood. John has done the exact opposite in this article: he has promoted divisiveness and difference - he has created an "us verses them" mentality which builts a wall between science and theosophy. This is completely inappropriate coming from the highest level of leadership in the American TS. Another weakenss of John's critique is he tries to make science look bad, which suposedly makes Theosophy look good in comparison. Not only is this a weak form of rhetoric, it reveals a basic insecurity when we must draw on the weakness of others to think it makes us look good. We, as theosophists, have nothing to be insecure about, and we can face the world in earnest as long as we are willing to interact with it, not wall ourselves off from it. Finally, this article is in fact offensive to theosophists such as myself who are both theosophists and scientists. It is offensive because it is wrong, because it portrays science and theosophy in an antagonistic fashion which simply does not need to be, because it is vastly oversimplified, because it misinforms non scientifically inclined theosophists and because it only serves ultimately to alienate scientifically inclined theosophists. If anything, we as Theosophists should embrace a scientific orientation. We should subject the ideas of theosophy to tests of falsifyability (which in fact has been started by small groups of British researcher-theosophists throughout this century, whose work serves as a model for future approaches). There is nothing inherently sacred about the ideas of Theosophy. They are only useful insofar as they improve the quality of our spiritual expression. To the extent theosophical ideas do not do this, they are not worth keeping around. Unless of course, we simply want a set of ideas we can believe in that, for whatever reason, make us feel comfortable, or even smug. However, if we seriously want to contribute to the betterment of Humanity, it is within our grasps as long as we possess the moral fortitude to truely analyze our own spirituality. See, no matter how you criticize science, it will continue on. Science is a tradition that is self-correcting. If it is mistaken in its outlook, it will inevitably correct itself because this is built into the very fabric of science as a tradition. Science never accepts anything on blind faith - it always finds a means to test what it posits, which incidently is the art of science - being creative enough to find a means to test the ideas you are considering. Theosophy could stand to imitate this approach and in doing so, lead to a deeper science that was, in fact, envisioned by the founders of the Society. Thank you for considering my remarks. Donald DeGracia From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 29 Sep 1995 08:10:22 GMT From: "Mark A. Foster" Subject: Re: To Aki re steiner-l Paul, Thanks for welcoming me to the list. I have been impressed so far with the quality of the postings. Though, like anywhere - cyberspace or three- dimensional space - what you find is real people dealing with real problems and dilemnas. I do not expect a utopia. According to Thomas More's pun, a utopia is a good place (eutopia) that's no place (utopia) . Unfortunately, I find that I do not follow some of the postings, but I will try. My knowledge of Theosophical doctrine is cursory. Hopefully, that will begin to change as I read the postings on the list. Mark Foster From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 29 Sep 1995 08:47:39 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: More thoughts on abortion JRC: >> Do you study >> with deferred judgement the writings of authorities on a subject, until >> you know about it sufficiently? >Certainly ... but even my economic professors introduced not just >one point of view, but many. If that was appropriate to the subject matter being taught, it would be a fine teaching technique. With Theosophy we're often taught the same things from a number of different angles, so there's a similarity here. It would depend upon if the teacher was speaking from knowledge and training, and had a degree of certainity about what he knew. When you make a comparison to Theosophy, you're also making a statement about what *you think* Theosophy is about. I may consider it differently. >> We're not asked to "believe in" what Blavatsky wrote ... > It is often spoken of as "the" system - which is fine, so long >as this attitude does not become domineering - as I've most definitly >seen it do. I'd agree that it is not *the* system, but it is a genuine system, and not the speculative philosophy of a 19th century woman. And even though it is not an exclusive system, a comparison with other systems can be made, and we can judge them in terms of consistency with the Teachings, to arrive at our own conclusions about those systems. We cannot tell the followers of those other systems what to believe, but we can arrive at our own evaluation of the value of those systems for ourselves. >> The materials often go beyond the power of the written word to convey >> their meanings. >Yes. But I was responding to a post in which the written word was >being used to support a person's viewpoint on a current issue. If the point in discussion is not deeply esoteric, it should be possible to use authoritative writings in support of (but not final proof of) one's viewpoint. >Yes, ... ... have been enriched by HPB, but >also by many, *many* others - I don't put her writings on a pedestal >above all other writings To the extent that we can make an intellectual study of various writings, I'd consider a comparison to be of value. I'd use a comparison to Blavatsky's writings as one manner of seeing if that other person spoke from the same wisdom, or was making up stuff, and not a representative of the Masters. >> [I'm writing about the need for teachers.] >You seem to be making a point that simply doesn't apply to myself >or what I wrote. It is not that I somehow refuse to learn from HPB, it is >that I've learned from many more as well, and actually have the gall to >try to formulate my own ideas on things ... Anything that we understand is our own formulation of ideas. I would also have ideas of my own, that I haven't necessarily read in theosophical books. > - and while I will often see what >HPB had to say, I'll also survey what dozens of others have to say, and >will not simply choose which one of them I accept, but may even come to a >conclusion different than all of them. That's fine. It really depends upon the subject we're studying how much we do so. Our ideas of the principles of chemistry should stay fairly close to what we're taught, so we don't end up with an explosion in the lab! But our ideas about "god" or the purpose of existence are certainly open to far greater latitude. >I don't need Theosophy 101 >lectures on why we should read someone else before thinking about something. It's one way of making a point, by illustration or metaphor, rather than by simply assertion. Sometimes if we've heard the same illustration too many times it gets boring. That's why we all challenged to continually find fresh words to clothe the higher truths in. >> The idea of the Path and the Masters is that there is a tremendous amount >> of learning and wisdom that we can take advantage of >Yes. And I don't think current Theosophy holds more than one >piece, one angle, on that wisdom. Agreed. But the piece is true, real, and worthy of our respect as far as it goes. >> When writing on behalf of the theosophical philosophy, Rich can agree >> with you at times, and say you're wrong at other times. >Rich can do whatever he wants. When he speaks to me, however, >with the attitude of the Christian ("HPB is quite clear, Or did you miss >that"), I'll respond to him as I respond to the Christian. We could all refine our communication skills so that our defenses go up and we prepare for battle. This is a matter of attitude, something we can be aware of when we write, or something that we can ignore. When we write with something like the Dalai Lama's "kindness and compassion" in mind, our words come out with much better affect. >When I was his >age, I was also deeply emeshed in the SD, and thought I had found the >truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I have grown since then. A number of people have brought this up. My experience was similar and yet different. From a teenager through my mid-20's, I was like Rich, then I got involved in work, Jungian psychology, and Zen Buddhism, but then had a renaissance in my spiritual life, and "came back" to a closer approach to Theosophy. My interest is not as literal and rigid as before, but it's quite real, and has more of a spontaneous nature to it. In the Fall of 1993, on 'theos-l', Paul Johnson and I had a discussion where he mentioned that he was like me at a earlier age (like some of us are doing with Rich now), and I replied true, but I had been like him, and also "fallen away", but then came back again. And so which was the higher state? He then discussed the idea of a "spiral" where neither point is the "higher". I think that it's really an individual thing what a particular phase of life means. >> This is something that we all try to do in our own ways. The problem is >> that personal opinion can be as misleading as psychic vision, in clouding >> and biasing and distorting what we perceive. >And precisely what do you mean by this? That either I accept the >Theosophical canon, or anything else is "personal opinion"? No, that our process of forming opinons is on a par with our process of sensory input from this or other planes. Either can mislead. I'm not particularly picking on the "psychic" for criticism in this regard, but also hold "false but sincere beliefs" an equal barrier to the perception of truth. >Seems to me >that the way to remain as unclouded and unbiased as possible is to survey >the widest possible range of ideas of others, and then to draw them into >one's own system, evaluate them, and reach conclusions (where it is >possible). That's fine. >The mind of one that believes one point of view is higher than >all others, and whose sole method of comparative evaluation lies in >comparing everything to that one system is in far more danger of bias and >distortion, are they not? Holding a particular point of view or opinion does not make one higher than others. This is the argument that Daniel H. might make to us, but hopefully we don't fall into this error. It doesn't matter what words we speak, if we're just parroting them, and they don't come from a genuine integration with our lives. >> I would not accord special status to what any particualar person or being >> tells me, be it physical or non-physical. >Was there a request that this be accorded special status? No, and it's fine that you mention your experiences and the sources of your views. The status I accord for purposes of my studies is with regard to my personal studies, and not something I need impose upon you. >I will not try to demonstrate their [the angels] nature and status in an arena >where people have already reached conclusions prior to evidence even >being presented. My views are based upon what I know through study and experience. We all should be open to new things. You're assuming that I'm fixed in my views because I've said things that disagree with your interpretation of them. Regardless of how we describe your angels, and how I may or may not describe them after learning more about them, I cannot discount the reality of the experience. You have an experience and describe it in our own way. I'm entitled to my understanding of the experience, which shouldn't discount you as an individual nor try to take away from you your beliefs about it. Daniel H. might have experiences of Jesus that are as real to him as yours of angels are to you. I'd let him talk of them, listen to his explanations, and offer my own. There's no attempt to tear him away from his beliefs nor discredit his perceptions. I shouldn't have to give up my alternate views on what happens with him, because he has had that particular kind of experience, and I have not. >There are too many other places containing a spirit of >genuinely open-minded inquiry. There will also be rigid thinkers in every group. You're more likely to find some flexibility of thought on 'theos-l' than elsewhere, as can be seen by the wildly differing views and fiery passions that are aroused -- and yet people somehow stick it out and learn from each other! >And, by the way, you seem to often >make rather large, universal statements about what is true without >identifying your source(s) of knowledge, do you not? If you wish to >continually hint that I need to name and justify my sources, I would >request that you first do so yourself. True. My preference is in putting what I understand and believe in my own words, rather than adding a bit of glue to "bible quotes". It's fine that you do so also. I don't want to be put back into the position of having to look up a quote for every little thing that I say. >> The current presentation of Theosophy in the world is losing energy, in its >> role working to "spice up" western thought life. For this role, it could use >> a workover. The other aspect to it, as Mystery Teachings, does not age, and >> refers to aspects of life that were as true millions of years ago as in >> millions of years to come. >A nice belief system. Even nicer if you think it is true. >And how do you know this? You do not think the Masters alter >college curriculum and methods of teaching to take into account the >changing nature of both the inner worlds and the nature of the pupils? The manner of presentation of ideas to the general public must take on a culture-specific mask, much like the major religions. Human nature and the workings of the psyche bas become well-known over the ages, and specific traning methods were found to work and adopted by the Masters. These methods don't change every few years, as different ideas and psychological trends emerge, then dissappear from popularity. >You, Rich, and others seem to see the ancient wisdom in state space - as >containing the final words on reality, and pupils as people who simply >must fit themselves to gain access to that wisdom, integrate it, and so >alter themselves that they finish the evolutionary cycle ahead of the >norm. I see it as a higher form of knoweledge that we have access to. This is *relatively* higher, one step or grade higher than what is available to us as Fourth Round humanity. We can go with the general tide of evolution or take a steeper path up the hillside, and work on hastening our development. >I see the ancient wisdom in phase space, as an evolving, dynamic >system whose expression, and even essence alters and refines over time - Yes, there is refinement over time. We are dealing with dynamic truths. The whole universe evolves, including its so-called laws. But the deeper side of life, which corresponds to the "hour hand", evolves over millions or billions of years, whereas the side we see is the "second hand", continually changing, yet dealing with things that are more superficial. >*we are told* that even the Masters, even those in "charge" of the >ancient wisdom have not "finished" evolution, but are on a higher cycle >of it - you don't think *they*, as *they* grow and evolve, don't alter >what they do as they gain fuller understandings of the "Plan" They change too. And the term "plan" is bad, because it implies that someone has sat down and devised a certain sequence of lessons for us to learn. The world we live in is subject to the natural processes of life, and follows them according to a certain pattern, just as the life courses through our blood veins according to the structure of our body and the pattern that our body is fashioned after. There's a structure to life, including our "evolution", and it is a pattern of life rather than a lesson plan devised by any particular individual. > - don't >*themselves* frame it to themselves in fuller terms (which from our point >of view would mean that the ancient wisdom has *changed*) - don't change >the ways they work with students to fit the changing nature of the >students (which they are said to know better than anyone else) Agreed that what we would be taught and our training might change as we became junior chelas, then change again as we became advanced chelas, and furthered our training. The training is appropriate to the faculties of consciousness being nurtured, and would be different depending upon both the individual temperament of the person and upon the person's state of unfoldment. > - think >you that the "junior colleges" in Atlantis were the *same* as they are now? Maybe. It's hard to say, since I don't remember. >You may see the process of learning in the junior college as one >of integrating knowledge into your being, and altering your energy-system >so as to gain access to the full university. I see it as generating >currents from within myself that are of a nature and refinement required >to blend into the larger currents of wisdom flowing on the planet - as >bending my tributary to enter the larger river. There are different conceptual models to describe the process. They address different aspects of what is going on. Either talks about opening up to greater wisdom. One emphasized knowledge, learning, and training. The other emphasizes opening up to the life forces about one. >You may not agree with my perspective, but I don't think your >assumptions about the nature of the ancient wisdom and the methods of >teaching it are more "correct" than mine ... which come from not just >reading the SD & other works, but thinking through the ramifications of >what is written there. My approach also includings thinking through the ramifications of what is written, and is not exclusively HPB-only. I include, for instance, Purucker, someone that is not a "source writer" by some standards. There's a give-and-take in the interaction between our thinking and what we are studying, and I'd give great weight to the value of the materials we have available to us. >> The articulations are not the truths themselves. >Tell this to Rich, who seemed to be using them as such. I've >never made this mistake, in fact most of the "wisdom" I believe I've >touched can not even be vaugely hinted at in words. With practice, there's a lot that we *can* put in words, although there are definite limits. One value to the study of Theosophy is that it gives us words and ideas to describe our insights, insights that might otherwise remain inarticulate. I don't think that Rich, though, is saying that you're missing the mark by not following the *words* that he would quote to you. He's using the quotes to refer to ideas which he feels that you do not understand or appreciate. Perhaps with practice he could also express the same ideas in his own words. Some of our differences may be due to differences in expression, so when we talk we can see that we are using different words to describe the same thing. Othertimes, we may find actual differences in ideas. You're free to disagree with any particular theosophical idea, as are Rich and I, but we all need to mention these disagreements as personal views, so that others aren't confused by what we say, and think we're refering to the source Teachings when we're giving our personal views. When you disagree, if you want others of us to give a fair consideration to your differences, you need to present your ideas as clearly, lucidly, and persuasively as possible. In dialogue, we can exchange views, and even if we don't change our basic opinions, we may have grown from the experience, and become more sensitive to our differences. >Wisdom, in my >subjective world, only *begins* at the "arupa" level - the formless- it >is a *flow* composed of multiple currents, not a *thing* ... and that >flow will take on very different forms depending upon the prism through >which it refracts (the personality layers of a particular generation). At different levels it is seen differently. We understand it in our minds, and in higher parts of ourselves. It transcends mind, yet it can also, to an extent, be articulated. It is a challenge to give expression to the inexpressible in words, just as it is to capture Truth and Beauty in music and art, but that doesn't mean we don't try. >There is in Complexity Theory. And looking at some of the SD >through its eyes is a very interesting exercise. And in fact in a number >of different areas it is (IMO) clear that the Masters saw things from the >Complexity point of view, but lacked the vocabulary currently being >developed in the sciences. We're guessing at their vocabulary. We do have more words, concepts, and ideas to capture life in words now than we did in the 1800's. Some come from complexity theory. It is useful for Theosophists to be exposed to these new symbols and metaphors. >A lot of the cutting edge of modern science is >*remarkably* occult knowledge. In a way, yes. But there's a lot that it misses. And it limits itself to a subset of life, unlike metaphysics and the occult, which attempts to deal with all the processes of life on all the planes. For *us*, modern science is one of many sources of study and we can benefit from it along with the mahatmic literature and whatever spiritual training or schools that we are called to undertake. Eldon eldon@theosophy.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 29 Sep 1995 09:51:24 GMT From: Tracey Benson Subject: Re: Rich the Label Man On Fri, 29 Sep 1995 MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU wrote: > > Thanks for your post about people labeling you. You stated your points quite > well and I certainly agree with them. > > Keep up the good work. > > Daniel Caldwell > Rich......Do you call yourself a Theosophist. I am just curious. Tracey From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 29 Sep 1995 14:50:41 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: (none) To use real simple terminology, the emotional body is cast off by the Higher Ego and this emotional body is left in Globe D's "world of effects" which affords a place of final rest for this emotional body. Now in Letter #9, KH introduces to Sinnett the chain of worlds or globes and also talks about worlds of causes and worlds of effects. And on p. 48 of the 3rd ed, KH describes "our world of effects" as a great halting place, a station in which discarnate humans---"the old and disembodied Egos of our planet find themselves after death. KH speaks of "that land of shadows", and says "in that world, we find but unconscious, self-acting, ex-human machines, souls in their transition state...." What is this "land of shadows"? I would suggest that this is kamaloka and kamaloka is within the sphere of effects. And in the next paragraph, KH mentions "the lower world of effects" and describes it as the "sphere of ..distorted Thoughts; of the most sensual conceptions, and pictures;..... thoughts are things....they are real entities....." Read all of this pargraph and see if this "lower world of effects" is not Kamaloka and that kamaloka is part of the "world of effects" of Globe D. In time, the kamarupa of the disembodied Ego will be left in this Kamaloka, the lower world of effects, which affords a resting place from this human principle---the kamarupa. Now this is somewhat of an oversimplication and ignores the imtimate relationship between emotions and thoughts. But hope- fully everyone sees what I am getting at! Now when KH mentions the ascending spheres of Kamaloka, Rupaloka and Arupaloka in the after death states he is referring to Globe D's "world of effects". We have already gone over kamaloka so let us turn our attention to Manas. The Atma-Buddhi monad experiences Devachan *through* Manas so above kamaloka in Globe D's "world of effects" is the Manasic plane or planes---the arupa and rupa lokas of Devachan. The mental world in the world of effects of Globe D can be broadly clasified into two "regions"---rupa (form) (concrete) and arupa (formless) (abstract). So the Monad finds itself still clothed in the essence of its mental sheath in the Rupa and Arupa Lokas of the Devachanic plane. By the end of the Devachanic experience, the monad has shed the various mental sheaths in the "world of effects....which....afford a place of final rest for the "mental bodies". Now my writing makes all of this very mechanical and we need to realize that the whole after death process is part of a continuum. And Eldon quotes one passage on p. 105, which reads: "...in enumerating the seven lokas of the "Kama-Loka"....Every such "world" within the Sphere of Effects has a Tathagata, or "Dhyan Chohan"...... These seven lokas of KamaLoka are *within* the sphere of effects, i.e. withing Globe D's "sphere of effects" that afford a place of rest for each of the human principles. Kamarupa finds its resting place in Kamaloka *withing* the sphere of effects. I can't spell "within"! Then Eldon lists the seven classes of dwellers that inhabit Globe D's "sphere of effects" (ML 16, pp. 104-105). Now many of these dwellers are in kamaloka which is defined in ML 16 as "the world of Desire" or our Earth's atmosphere or as defined in ML 9, the "lower world of effects" of Globe D. Again on p. 101, KH says: "When [physical] man dies his second and third principles die with him; the lower triad [ of 1st, 2nd and 3rd principles] disappears [ that is, reamins remains in the physical world or world of causes of Globe D] and the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh principles form the surviving *Quaternary*." Surviving where? I would suggest in the "world of effects" of globe D. "Thenceforth, it is a `death' strugge between the Upper and Lower dualities." Where does this death struggle occur? I would suggest that it occurs in the "world of effects" of Globe D? "If the upper [duality] wins......."etc. etc. "...[the remains of] the fifth and fourth remain in asssociation as an empty *shell*.....to roam in the earth's atmosphere [ie. Kamaloka---the lower world of effects of Globe D." Again on p. 103 of the ML, KH writes of "three sub-periods (1) when the Ego delivered of its mortal coil [the physical body] enters into KamaLoka [in the world of effects of Globe D] (the abode of Elementaries; (2) when it enters its `Gestation State'; (3) when it is reborn in the Rupa-Loka of Devachan......The *Agama Sutra* saying:---1In all these Rupa-Lokas, the Devas (Spirits) are equally subjected to birth, decay, old age, and death,' means only that an Ego is borne thither, then begins fading out and finally `dies,' i.e., falls into that unconscious condition which precedes rebirth; and ends the Sloka with these words: `As the devas emerge from these heavens, they enter the lower world again;' i.e., they leave the world of bliss [in the worlds of effects] to be reborn in a world of causes." I believe from all the quotes Eldon typed from the MLs and from ML #9 etc, a good case can be made that Kamaloka, Rupaloka and Arupaloka are all withing the sphere of effects of Globe D. Now how does one correlate planes and sub-planes with these globes composed of worlds of causes and worlds of effects? Looking at the diagram of the globes & planes on p. 200 of vol. I of the SD, the information given in this diagram needs to be correlated with what is said in the MLs, with what HPB says in her various collected writings and also with the numerous charts and diagrams about planes and principles in THE INNER GROUP TEACHINGS OF HP BLAVATSKY. Now I may be seriously mistaken on what I have written above, but if I am, I would like to know the Whys and the details of the whys. Written in haste with many mispellings. Sorry. Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 29 Sep 1995 17:01:42 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Labels Dear Rich, Just "saved" your story of StGermain for off line reading. I think you've shown considerable knowledge of TS background from the ULT point of view. But I also was of the opinion that you're a fundamentalist, & that your discussions sound sometimes not "too" young, but "very" young. Don't worry, you'll get older & more mature as time goes on. It just happens naturally. I was also glad to read from you that "the 20th century is full of good, valuable, work by solid, idealistic, & clear seeing men & women", because I too thought you read only HPB and Judge. As for "arguing"with Brenda, I think that, without belligerence, you have a right to. Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 29 Sep 1995 17:03:39 GMT From: OSMAR DE CARVALHO Subject: Re: Jesus et al > OSMAR: > Awesome post. You write really well, and I was giggling before I even > got halfway through. > Rich Thanks, Rich! I don't appear many times replying the messages but I'm always alert to the matters in the posts. Big and warm hugs from Brazil! Osmar .. Don't hit me, Mr. Moderator... I'll go back on topic... I swear! ___ GLASHwave/GWK v2.20 [NR] From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 29 Sep 1995 17:10:23 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Way out Alan, I'm older than you, & Aries. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 29 Sep 1995 21:01:01 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Globes, Planes, Principles: some Comments to Jerry S. From Daniel C. Daniel C: The interesting thing is that both of us are basing most of our understanding on Purucker. But then again, I think we have a lot more agreements than differences. And I suspect that many of the seeming differences are semantic or trivial. Eldon's approach is ala HPB and Purucker as life-wave evolutions, Rounds, and so on. My approach is more in line with AB/CWL while retaining the foundations of HPB & Purucker. Why? Largely because AB/CWL talk about planes, and they describe the four lower cosmic planes in some detail, but they omit the Globes and as far as I know, never tell us where the Globes come into their picture of the planes and subplanes. So, I have had to do that one myself. Eldon and I have different ways of looking at the same thing, and there may not be all that much difference. Daniel: The problem is that the MLs don't connect the Globes with the planes very well, leaving a lot to the imagination. Nor did HPB, except on page 200 of Vol I of the SD. We find talk about the planes, and talk about the globes, but very little about the two together and how they are related. Dan: Sounds fine. Dan: Right. This is because Globe D, like all of the globes, is alive. Dan:<"...every sphere has its world of effects, the passing through which will afford a place of of final rest to ech of the human priciples --the seventh excepted." Sorry for the mispellings! So can we not conclude that Globe D has "its world of effects" and this world of effects" is a "place of final rest to each of the human principles...."> Agreed. Like goes to like depending on the plane. Dan: The emotional body exists on the emotional plane or astral plane per AB/CWL, and also occultism in general agrees with this. Globe D's "sphere of effects" stretches to the astral plane. Our physical body only exists here on the physical plane and on no other. Our astral body exists on the astral plane and on no other, and so on. Dan:< And on p. 48 of the 3rd ed, KH describes "our world of effects" as a great halting place, a station in which discarnate humans---"the old and disembodied Egos of our planet find themselves after death. KH speaks of "that land of shadows", and says "in that world, we find but unconscious, self-acting, ex-human machines, souls in their transition state...."> Here is meant the lower astral plane, and I agree with the quote. Dan: Kamaloka lies within the four lower subplanes of the astral plane. Dan: Right. His intention here is that our entire Kama-Loka and Devachan experiences (what the Tibetans call the Bardo) are effected precisely by how we lived our life on Globe D (i.e., while we were incarnated). Our experiences on Globe D *cause* our experiences in the after-death states (the *effects* of our life). The same is true with our dreams. In this sense, the "world of effects" for Globe D lies on the Etheric, Astral, Mental, and Causal Planes. Dan: Manas exists only on the mental plane. And yes, Globe D's world of effects stretches to that plane in the sense that when we enter this plane after death, our experiences will be the effect of causes generated during our life embodied on Globe D. Dan: CWL taught that the lower four subplanes of the mental plane were with form, while the three higher subplanes were (relatively) formless. Dan: I would certainly agree that all of these realms are inhabited and that they are governed by "rulers" of whatever name you want to give them. Dan:<"When [physical] man dies his second and third principles die with him; the lower triad [ of 1st, 2nd and 3rd principles] disappears [ that is, reamins remains in the physical world or world of causes of Globe D] and the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh principles form the surviving *Quaternary*." Surviving where? I would suggest in the "world of effects" of globe D.> The lower 3 principles stay on the physcial plane. The kama goes to the astral plane, the manas goes to the mental plane, and the buddhi goes to the causal plane, leaving only the atma left to start again. Dan:<"Thenceforth, it is a `death' strugge between the Upper and Lower dualities." Where does this death struggle occur? I would suggest that it occurs in the "world of effects" of Globe D?> Right, but not on the physical plane. Dan: Be careful with that word "deva" because it also means god. The Tibetan meaning is one who has godlike qualities such as long life and high intelligence, and so on. However, gods do not learn or progress as we do (or can) and so the human condition is favored over being a god. Dan: I think I already answered this. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Sep 1995 02:47:04 GMT From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Subject: Re: One of JRC's comments > >JRC writes: "I will not try to demonstrate their nature and status in an >areana where people have already reached conclusions prior to evidence even >being presented. There are too many others places containing a spirit of >genuinely open-minded inquiry." > >Is this directed to the 100 + members of the theos network? > >How do you KNOW that people in this "arena" have already reached conclusions >about your experiences with angels prior to evidence even being presented? > >IF I had what seems to be such a low opinion of this Theosophical group, I >wouldn't waste my time; instead I would go to those "many other places" where >there is "a spirt of genuinely open-minded inquiry"! > >As a now famous judge has said many times over the last year, "everybody should >take a few deep breaths!" > >Daniel Caldwell > I must have missed that bit. There are some of us who have already expressed great interest to hear more about your angels. I have said so on the list and I know that Murray has shown much interest as well. I thought it was a neat post. There are lots of us on this list who do not say a lot but enjoy to read what comes across. It isn't always easy to express oneself on this sort of communication. Bee> From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Sep 1995 03:37:59 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: van der Leeuw Pt. II Liesel Writs: LFD - If you got a message from a Master to go jump off the Empire State Building, would you do it? I realize that it would be difficult to question a message from our revered Masters, but I still think one should examine whether the message made sense, & whether one would like to do what it said to do, & go by that. I also think that at the time VDL wrote this letter, people were going a bit half cocked with the revelations they believed hook, line & sinker, including some who were higher ups, & whom I otherwise love dearly. JHE Do you think that you might have believed these revelations "hook, line and sinker" that were coming from the one whom you "love dearly"? If not, what spiritual strength would have saved you from this? LFD now we get down to Krishnamurti. I think we can look at him from a bit more distance than did Van der Lieew, who wrote right in the middle of all that brouhaha. I think that Kirshnamurti was an offspring of theosophy just as was Alice Bailey & Rudolph Steiner. All 3 of them explained their missions in life in their own way, & their followers believed they were, whatever they wanted to believe they were. JHE Yes. LFD I don't think that theosophists today doubt theosophy. I don't think anyone on this list does. We differ about its components but not about that it's a belief system we want to live by. JHE I think there is a variety of theosophies represented on this list, and I wonder if the issues are deeper than a disagreement about components. The heart of some of this disagreement may concern the heart of Leeuw's argument--revelation vs realization. VDL - I maintain that the evil effects of revelation are caused by the fact that revelation can only be accepted or denied, but never criticized in the light of reason. LFD - That's true, if you don't expose revelation to the light of reason. Something non hysterical needs to tell you that the revelation is true for you. JHE Yes. VDL's point I think. LFD - I once was drawing nearer to the Master, & I criticised. At the time it felt like "the freedom of criticism meant giving up all that is held dearest & highest in the life of theosophists." It wasn't easy, but I still, to this day, think that my criticsm was right. I can tell you that my path since then may not have been the conventional one to draw nearer to the Masters, but I have gained a lot in esoteric knowledge going my own way. JHE Sounds like you have found your own path. In this way, I think we are very much alike, though we seem to have very different paths. But I suspect that this has as much to do with differing values as well as beliefs. Good post Liesel. Thanks Jerry HE From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Sep 1995 05:10:00 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: From 26 to 41 At 9:55 AM 9/30/95, K. Paul Johnson wrote: >Since the issue of youth vs (middle) age has been raised by >Jerry and Rich, I'd like to throw my 2 cents worth in and ask >for comment from others of you who have been Theosophists for a >while. It is educative to think about ourselves "in time". There is some illusion when we think that what is now has always been and will always be forever amen:) and yet that is how we are oriented isn't it? There is nothing more comfortable than an illusion, as RW.Emerson said. Having not been a theosophist (in JJ's 3rd and 4th sense) for years, I was hesitant to respond. But I know that changes in ways of holding beliefs as you mature or at least become older are universal. What surprises me about this listserv is that the topics I am dealing with in my life keep coming up in a synchronistic fashion. Below, I sent this response to someone in my Watershed group about changes in belief or approach over time. (bracketed by *) *At the early stages of spiritual development, and that can be until you are about 40 or 45, it is important to realize that whatever authority you choose - you are responsible for. For instance, when we were children we didn't even know there was another world view than the one that our parents taught us. At the early stage there is a complete identification with what is around us with absolutely no I/Thou features. If you were a Mennonite then it was a Mennonite (you could substitute Christian Scientist, Jewish, Theosophist, Wiccan etc) world the green texture of the hymnal, the sort of foods, the accents of older relatives and even parents, church and legalism, were all a deep part of our life which was unquestionable. When we break out of this Circle, we discover there are other worlds out there, worlds that at first pose a threat and very quickly offer an option. Usually these worlds are with our friends at school. Some of us needed to go even more far afield to check out others worlds even further away. My middle class fireman's kid world was left behind as I read biographies of Che Guevara , Mao, John Steward Mill, Buddhism, Communism, Electric Kool Aid Acid test ect. Music and rock and roll provided abit of a world apart- I wasn't listening to Chubby Checker forever soon the Beatles and the East became part of the piece of discovery. Destructive things were often done at this time things like sniffing gas and glue, mixing drugs, getting in tangle with police, active political rebellion. At any point this life could have ended in insanity, death or jail. Luckly it didn't. I got through my need to be independant quite well, I think (although some would disagree). As a result of these wierd experiments, I gained responsibility for what happened. I didn't go to high school (grade nine drop out), I missed a lot of good stuff as well as bad but as they say it was my life. This was my little journey, I took it and it was a rush. But my waterslide of independence had to slow down and get serious about life, especially spiritual life. So after a bit I discovered Jesus Christ Superstar and eventually re-entered my old tradition with a different tune in my heart. Walla - stage three! become responsible, really believe the tradition that you inhaled at youth. And so it was. I tried to conform with my will a way of life that promised certainty and stablity. God knows I needed it by then, eh? I studied and taught and fought through the strangest debates from the evils of roller skating, to inerrancy, to tricotomous vs dicotomous nature of human life, to evolution or creation and on to salvation and uniqueness of Christ. Tons of history,tons of learning, lots of commitment and devotion to the cause. My authentic individual nature came up again and on every issue of faith when I got down to it, I was not in the fold, not part of the collective. On one issue I remained "faithful" and that is on the issue of trust faith, grace, and love as the center of the Spiritual message. That hasn't changed and so I moved on. To a stage five- I affirm the heart of my old tradition but individually interpret the details in line with other resources and traditions. * That is the story I told my friend and now my Theos-l friends. One of the things that struck me as I read this is the contrast" between where I was and where I am". Often in the past, I looked at the distance between these positions and felt the need to judge where I was and loose critical evaluation of where I am. This I felt was reflected even historically when historians called the Medieval age the "dark age" and the 18 Century as the Age of Reason or Enlightenment. There is a moralizing about so called progress that disturbs me. When a young evangelical, I learned to denounce my "sinful" days of drugs, and rock and roll and feel ever so superior to that time. Later, when I learned the dark truths of modern scholarship, I denounced my evangelical naiv=E9ty. I looked back at my intolerance and judged and blamed myself for adopting the positions I held as if I were those positions. Now in my agnostic period I look at all my beliefs and say to myself what a fool I was to believe in anything didn't I realize it was all metaphor and illusion anyway - my new way is better. But if I have learned anything about life over this pilgrimage it is that what I am and what I believe will move and change and what I am obligated to do as I see it is to passionately state what I feel and believe knowing full well that that too shall pass away. Perhaps our fall into history is to teach us the lesson of the paradoxical truth of compassionate detachment - loving our truth and letting it go - to love more truth; and ultimately I hope to be loved by Truth. I once studied the great social prophet Amos- basically a laborer, not a prophet. He was a sheep herder and grape picker from Tekoa in Judah. He was a fiesty sort of fellow, called to denounce certain injustices and to make a lawsuit between the High Power which Israel called Yahweh and the nations. One error that was denounced that I didn't understand was "pouring lye on dead man's bones". That phrase intrigued me as I read about it originally it had to do with desecrating the remains of ancient kings who you have no use for anymore. I have been trying to apply that admonision to my life. I see the past as my dead kings ( reigning pieces of my consciousness) and I am trying not to exalt the current ideas above them but to honor their contributions in my life - I may have moved on from them but I refuse to denigrate them too harshly anyway. For I have stepped on their backs to get where I am. I am grateful even for my dogmatic moments however revolting my former words and beliefs are to my new self. Anyway, that was a long way of saying what I think about the process of maturing and growing. In short, "I refuse to throw lye on dead men's bones." Art From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Sep 1995 05:24:17 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Labels According to Richtay@aol.com: > > Jerry S. wrote: > > > Rich reminds me of myself some 20 years ago in his theosophical > > zeal. Back then, I wrote to Grace Knoche something to the effect > > that I thought theosophy was the sole exponent of truth, and she > > chastised me to the effect that theosophy was but one of many > > paths. This, coming from the Leader of the Pasadena TS, made > > me stop and think. I am sure that Rich will come to see this too > > some day." As you know, Rich, I have said exactly the same thing to you in private-- that you remind me of myself at 26 in the way you adhere to your understanding of Theosophy. > > I have never, EVER said anything like "Theosophy [or HPB] are the sole > exponents of truth." I defy you to find one post or anything I've published > that has hinted at this. You convey an attitude that exalts "the lines laid down" and dismisses everything else. It's a feeling you express, perhaps unconsciously, not a thought you express directly. In fact, it seems so clear that I am not laying all > authority for truth on Theosophy, that I can only understand it as willful > distortion. What motive would Jerry have for willful distortion? Please TRY to understand it in some other way. What you believe is clear in your communications may not be so; if someone else misunderstands you, perhaps it's because your conscious thoughts and unconscious feelings are in conflict and they're responding to the latter. > > Rather, the possibility raises itself in my mind that what I write is > threatening, because I stick to the original Theosophy that was presented. > Because this is threatening, I must be dismissed with convenient labels like > "fundamentalist" "too young" etc. Why would anyone be threatened by your personal interpretation of Theosophy? What's perceived as threatening (not to individuals, but to our group dynamics) is your tendency to bludgeon others with a know-it-all attitude that is typical of youth. > > How long does one need to be in the Theosophical Movement before one is a > "grown up"? While many others have been in Theosophy longer than I have, I > should think that after my first decade in the Work, I am no longer a novice > or unfamiliar with the basic texts, history, currents, etc. So the "too > young" label really won't wash. It has nothing to do with how long you've been in Theosophy and everything to do with age. More on that later. In my 20s I had a very high estimation of how much I knew about Theosophy; it's been going steadily downhill ever since. Such is life. > > As for "fundamentalist," I ground myself on the original material, as tried, > true, and lasting. All later students follow from HPH, Mr. Judge and the > Masters who stand behind them. The original material is the foundation of > modern Theosophy, and I don't apologize for standing on it, in order that I > might see farther. This does not mean there is nothing else BESIDES this > foundational material that is valuable, that is a nonsensical attitude. The > 20th century is full of good, valuable work by solid, idealistic, and > clear-seeing men and women. Glad to see you say that. > > But if people find my opinions offensive, PARTICULARLY when I reference HPB > or Mr. Judge as a source, I say, hit the key. I use it plenty, in > most cases it works fine. Not the opinions, but the fervent and intolerant way they are expressed. > > I also don't see that I spend a lot of time labeling folks. When Brenda and > I argue, and we often do, I take her up on the ideas and arguments she puts > forth. I don't try and nail her as a woman, or as a CWL fan, or as any > "thing" else. That would be grossly unfair and de-humanizing. She is a > student, I am a student, we argue. For Jerry to say "I once had the same attitude toward Theosophy that I see in you" is not unfair and dehumanizing as far as I can see. If someone 30 years my senior said the same to me, I'd be quite interested in pursuing the matter with them. > > Likewise, Jerry, I have never labeled you to my knowledge, trying to dismiss > your point of view by fitting you in a neat little box like Orientalism did > to Asian cultures last centuries. > > If you want to discuss ideas, sources, reasons, thoughts, texts, etc., let's > go for it, but I see no need to attack me personally with confining labels. To perceive age-specific behavior or attitudes and to thus bracket them somewhat is not a personal attack. Although whenever anyone said anything to me like "when I was your age I thought like you but now I'm over it" I would certainly take it as such. Yet another age issue. More later Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Sep 1995 05:41:30 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: From 26 to 41 Since the issue of youth vs (middle) age has been raised by Jerry and Rich, I'd like to throw my 2 cents worth in and ask for comment from others of you who have been Theosophists for a while. Some free associations: At 26, I was overwhelmingly impressed with the vast panorama of knowledge available in HPB's writings. At 41, I'm overwhelmingly impressed by the vast extent of the unknown. At 26, I thought if only other Theosophists thought the way I did, everything would be much, much better. At 41, I think that if only other Theosophists would give one another the freedom to think as they choose without condemnation, everything would be much, much better. At 26, I saw HPB as the great source from which much of modern esotericism derives. At 41, I see HPB as the great synthesizer who collected from many sources. At 26, I thought the world had an immense amount to learn from the Theosophists, and was frustrated that the world did not seem to care. At 41, I think Theosophists have an immense amount to learn from the world, and am frustrated when Theosophists do not seem to care. One could go on and on, but the bottom line is emerging. That is that there is a figure/ground shift that occurs in middle age. From seeing the fullness of the seeming void, one shifts into seeing the voidness of the seeming full. HPB contains multitudes, and will safely survive all our interpretations and misinterpretations of her-- retaining her sphynxlike smile. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Sep 1995 06:50:18 GMT From: thomn@bev.net (Thomas Nelson) Subject: Re: From 26 to 41 >Since the issue of youth vs (middle) age has been raised by >Jerry and Rich, I'd like to throw my 2 cents worth in and ask >for comment from others of you who have been Theosophists for a >while. Some free associations: > >At 26, I was overwhelmingly impressed with the vast panorama of >knowledge available in HPB's writings. At 41, I'm >overwhelmingly impressed by the vast extent of the unknown. As someone who's about the same age as Rich (24), I'd like to respond to this. I agree with some of both of what both Rich and Paul have said in regard to age, but I tend to side with Paul. While, IMO, Rich is justified in not wanting to be stuck in a box because of his age (especially since he's been actively studying theosophy for 10 years), I think it greatly eases the life process if we realize the kinds of attitudes people of different ages are likely to hold. We in our mid-twenties do seem to think that the world can learn a whole lot from us; we have the key to solving society's problems if they'd only listen. But by noticing this, we can consciously move away from that attitude and become more open-minded and look to our elders for the wisdom that can only come from years of experience. This is how to prevent age from becoming destiny (like anatomy??). So Rich, if you don't want to be labeled as a young-un, don't act like one. Respecting the experience of someone who has lived longer than you, as well as acknowledging the impossibility in this world of ever really grasping Truth, makes one seem a lot wiser and much more easy to get along with. Look at Eldon; you'll never see him get flamed, because he has a very kind and respectful attitude towards other people's views and a humble one toward his own (correct me if I'm wrong, Eldon). Thom Thom Nelson *The Plant Plant* >> Specializing in Herbs thomn@bev.net *Christiansburg, VA* >> and Perennials From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Sep 1995 08:33:34 GMT From: John R Crocker Subject: Re: One of JRC's comments On Fri, 29 Sep 1995 MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU wrote: > > JRC writes: "I will not try to demonstrate their nature and status in an > areana where people have already reached conclusions prior to evidence even > being presented. There are too many others places containing a spirit of > genuinely open-minded inquiry." > > Is this directed to the 100 + members of the theos network? Nope. It was directed at Eldon, who, despite the fact that I was making no claim whatsoever for the authority or status of a perspective I gained from a particular current of angelic energy (and in fact have always been exceedingly careful *not* to), and was merely mentioning it as one of several purely personal reasons for remaining connected to Theosophy, still felt the need both to sound a cautionary note about such sources, and to say I needed to somehow back up such claims if I wanted others to respect the authority of the claims. Nonetheless, if you or anyone else read this as implying a judgement on any other individual Theosophist (and upon reflection I can see how this could be done - Eldon tends to always speak in general terms even when things are personal, and I tend to speak in personal terms, even about general topics ... and I have been trying to mitigate this conversational disonance (as has Eldon) - but this, I fear leads to other confusions ... perhaps Eldon should have said "If you want *me* to accept input from the sources you've mentioned, you need to demonstrate them" ... and I should have replied "I didn't ask *you* to accept them, and have no interest in trying to demonstrate the nature of the angelic, or the reasons why I give them some authority in my own world, to one who already has a predrawn picture into which such experiences will be placed" ... but this would have lead to the charge that I was attacking Eldon, and that "we" should all learn to be less judgemental and use our words better ... so I was left with either remaining silent and allowing Eldon to misuse my words to forward, yet again, his view of the use of inner abilities, to respond in general terms and risk insulting other members of the list, or to respond to Eldon personally and risk getting lectured about not being nice ...) ANYway, if you or anyone else took my words as a personal judgement, I do genuinely apologize. > How do you KNOW that people in this "arena" have already reached conclusions > about your experiences with angels prior to evidence even being presented? Was not going to write about this anymore, but perhaps I will. After a couple of weeks of attempting to see whether a large set of attitudes about the use of inner abilities had altered since the last time I had said anything in Theosophical circles, I have concluded that they have not. It was not Eldon I was interacting with, nor simply for my own sake that I was speaking ... rather it was a discourse between two larger ideas circulating in Theosophy. One of the points I was attempting to get across (and that I completely failed to, judging by your post), is that there is a growing number of people who do not fit any of the catagories a few on this list clearly put "psychism" into, who are predisposed not to talk about their experiences, but to remain silent about them, but who nonetheless expend effort, engage in research, and do very real service ... and it does not take 100+ people arguing against them, but merely a few voices, to cause these people to choose silence - Theosophy is rejecting these people without even realizing it ... you must understand that they become *used* to being rejected, disparaged, demeaned - during the two week conversation with Eldon, there was also, for instance, a meeting of scientists in New York, meeting for the express purpose of committing to being more public in their denouncements of "anti-scientific" thinking ... and one of the specific things they mentioned was the "shocking" rise in the belief in "angels" among otherwise "intelligent" people. The conversation about inner abilities was not my attempt to find a place in Theosophy to talk about what *I* was doing (in fact, I am far more a researcher than a writer ... there are others who like to write about the stuff) ... but to argue a larger principle: That attitudes about inner abilities like those voiced by Eldon (and they articulate very well a set of attitudes held by many people ... especially in the Theosophical leadership) effectively *do* chase away people with valid abilities who are doing serious work. I am not arguing that Eldon, or anyone else, is not free to assert any perspective they wish - merely trying to suggest (and this is often difficult for people primarily intellectually based to understand) that to some, these are not just abstract positions, but have ramifications ... and can very well serve to choose *on behalf of the whole list* to cause people to remain silent, by creating an environment that cannot help but be perceived as judgemental. The people I work with would certainly not say a word of what they were doing in that meeting of scientists (even though some of the scientists may well have privately accepted the possibility of angels), or in their workplaces (and, curiously enough, most of them actually *are* scientists), or in a host of other places, *including* Theosophy ... why *should* they? In the meeting of scientists, they would just be condescended to, and told the abilities they have simply don't exist - Theosophy may be worse ... they might be told they are choosing "cheap thrills" instead of "real" spiritual growth, accused of talking about such things for ego reasons - to try to somehow get adulation of some sort - warned about all sorts of weird danger they are placing themselves in, and encouraged to avoid such things until their "moral" natures are developed ... and may even be given the inestimable gift of essays from "source" writers - i.e., to be *condescended to* every bit as much as they would in the roomful of scientists. > IF I had what seems to be such a low opinion of this Theosophical group, I > wouldn't waste my time; instead I would go to those "many other places" where > there is "a spirt of genuinely open-minded inquiry"! Again the either/or attitude. The current theos-l list has many different discussion threads, about a whole wealth of different topics .. and if you want to characterize my opinion for theos-l as "low" that's certainly your choice ... but that is your characterization, not mine. What I *have* said, several times and in a number of different ways, is that there definately *are* some attitudes, asserted strongly by more than one person on this list, that, *in the area of the use, for research and service, of inner abilities* create an environment that *to those who possess them and might discuss such things* seems to be filled with something considerably different than a spirit of genuine and open-minded inquiry. This does not mean the topics that are discussed do not have value, but it hasn't been me that has believed that there is some sort of contradiction between the "intellectual/spiritual" path and the use of inner abilities. My point has always been that there is a growing number of people exercising inner abilities in this world, doing it in a fashion that integrates spirituality into this exercise, to whom warnings about "delusion" or "mistaking the psychic for the spiritual" are really incredibly condescending, who are engaged in all sorts of very interesting research and service with those abilities, and whose service is as valid and empirically demonstrable as that of any MD, or psychologist, or physicist. And that this entire range of activity has been, for a number of years now, effectively suppressed and excluded from Theosophy. Lux et Veritas, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Sep 1995 09:02:57 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: personally speaking: That was very moving post Liesel. I can't help but wonder about the amazingly rich life you have had. I can't wait until I am in "devachan" or whereever, getting my assumptions dissolved as history unfolds. "Oh that is what is happening - nothing in my experience could predict it but my incarnated experience must have be so limited... maybe I will go back and learn more" - these might be my thoughts eventually. Art From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Sep 1995 11:41:18 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: personally speaking: Since I thought a few personal touches on theos-l is a good idea ... I was really moved when I watched, on C-Span, the signing of an interim peace treaty between Rabin & Arafat, ending an enemity which, as they said, goes back 100 years. A little less than that, in the 1930ies, my then husband-to-be, Fred, lived in what's now Israel. He made a living during the day, & during the night, he functioned as Captain in the Haganah, the moderate Underground, a group of men who'd taken it upon themselves to protect Israeli settlers against marauding Arab terrorists, whose leader was Yasser Arafat. I can just picture his devachanic eyes widen, when the vibes of Rabin & Peres shaking hands with Arafat & all the other Arab leaders who attended the signing, reached him, to say nothing of the vibes from Russia & the US acting in consort about it. And when his devachanic ears heard Arafat say "We must condemn use of violence", I'm sure there was great ashonishment on his face "Wha, what?". He must have imagined that it was all a devanchanic dream, or else he did 3 devachanic summersaults to celebrate. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Sep 1995 11:56:44 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Quote from "Gita", comments by CWL "Shri Krishna tells His, pupil ' All actions in their entirety culminate in wisdom.' "That great Teacher did not deprecate a life of activity, but encouraged it to the utmost; yet He said that one should not be attached to the activites and the things with which they deal, but should seek only the wisdom that can be obtained form them. It is in the wisdom that man has his own true being, as he is a part of the Logos. If he listens to the voice of wisdom he will become increasingly the master of himself and his life; the inner soul will thus put a stop to the outer clamour wich directs the feverish activities of ordinary men. "It is very true that a man should cease to give his attention to the many things which surround and play upon him, and should turn it inwards to the one witness of all these things; but he is not entirely free to do this until he has fully performed his dharma in the outer world. Any man at any time, whatever his duties may be, may set his affection upon things above, and not upon things of the earth . But he may not be at liberty to devotre is whole life to higher work until he has satisfied the demands of the karma which he has made in past lives or in the earlier part of his present life." >From "Talks on the Path of Occultism" p.555 part of the comments on the "Voice ..." "For when to himself his form appears unreal ...." --Boundary (ID 0HRqtYIsR9Hv6tanash99A)-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Sep 1995 13:16:02 GMT From: Tracey Benson Subject: Re: Way out On Fri, 29 Sep 1995 LIESEL@delphi.com wrote: > Alan, > > I'm older than you, & Aries. > > Liesel > Liesel, whens your birthday? I'm an Aries too- 26 March 1966 Long reply to your other message, will print out Marie's part and send it? I could phone her from work, its really no problem- up to you though talk to you soon sweetheart Tracey From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Sep 1995 13:19:12 GMT From: Tracey Benson Subject: RE: 666 post yOn Mon, 25 Sep 1995, Thom Nelson wrote: > I've gotten it twice. > > Thom > > Interpretation" to the list twice ... and it doesn't seem to > be working ... has anyone gotten it? (My University's mainframe > has beeen acting strangely lately).> > > Thanks, -JRC > yes, I got it on Friday?! Tracey From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Sep 1995 15:52:36 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Reincarnation Alan, I think it also depends on how you lived & died. I've read that people who get killed, like in a battle or accident, reincarnate much sooner. & adepts or chelas have a much longer period of rest inbetween lives than less spiritual folks. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Sep 1995 15:56:44 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: ES Brenda, The way I heerd it, if you go in on a probationary basis, which all new members do, & you quietly walk away, you can never again in this lifetime join the ES. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Sep 1995 16:04:44 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Way out Tracey, My birthday is on April 10. Long as you don't mind, please do phone Marie. I got another brief note from her today, that I was going to answer by snail mail. Please tell her that if I wanted to just get treated by acupuncture, I'd have to go in every 3 days, that's how long the effects of a treatment last. Debra-Lee charges $50.- each time. I can't afford that, so I'm on allopathic medine, poison or not, it works some, and the insurance pays for it. I don't feel good about it, but it's the only way I found to help myself. Tell her, please, that I thank her much for her efforts. The Veratrum Alb. worked just fine. Loveya both, Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Sep 1995 16:08:08 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Way out Tracey, PS I didn't read it right. No matter whether you send it snail mail or phone, whatever is better for you. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Sep 1995 16:11:16 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Way out Tracey PPS Please do ask Marie when Harry's birthday is. It's March 20 something. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Sep 1995 16:29:54 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: From 26 to 41 Dear Thom, You'd be surprised. By the time you're in your 40ies & 50ies, your same dynamic ideas will have ripened a little, perhaps, but when you're that age people will listen. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Sep 1995 16:33:55 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: van der Leeuw Pt. II Dear Jerry, Well, I'm sure glad we can agree on something. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Sep 1995 16:39:21 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: personally speaking: Thanks, Art. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Sep 1995 16:46:59 GMT From: John R Crocker Subject: Re: Questions about the ES On Wed, 27 Sep 1995 LIESEL@delphi.com wrote: > Jerry, > > You have a knack for putting your foot in your mouth. Whatever > your opinion is of Bing Escudero, he is not an "undesirable > person." > > Liesel > *No kidding!* ... and some of the stuff that went on at headquarters in the whole situation that lead to Bing being not only kicked off the grounds, but also to having bylaws passed to make sure he couldn't even run again for President ... was almost beyond belief. Some parts of Wheaton are as slimy and corrupt as even Washington politics are. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Sep 1995 16:54:50 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: One of JRC's comments Dear John, I think some of my posts got lost. I'd like to make sure that you get this one, so maybe it's a repeat. If you're interested in where the TS's viewpoint comes from, & haven't read "Talks on The Path of Occultism", please get it & read chapter 2, called "The Higher & The Lower Powers". In it CWL explains exactly his point of view, which the others seem to have adopted from him. After reading it very recently, I realized what the real picture is behind the garbled view expressed on theos-l. If you can't get hold of the book, & would like me to, I'll send the passage to you over the e-mail. Namaste, Liesel