From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Oct 1995 03:22:05 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: re questions about the ES Liesel 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 >> John Comments: > *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. My reply to John: Exactly the point I was trying to make in my original post. Thanks John. Jerry HE From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Oct 1995 07:44:00 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Re: Source Teachings Thanks, Patrick for your recent postings on Source Teachings. You write: >It seems that to restrict theosophy to one set of writings is as delu- >sionary 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 the 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.... I certainly agree with this more or less. When writing my essay in parts on Source Teachings, I wa n When writing my essay in parts on Source Teaching, I was not claiming that HPB's writings of 10,000 + pages were the only source for Theosophy. Surely Theosophy is not something of recent invention. BUT I was simply pointing out the facts which show that HPB was the first person in modern times to claim contact with the Masters and also to claim that she was giving out (at least) portions or the basics of their Esoteric Science. *Isis Unveiled* I, v-vi: "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 designate them as the sages of the Orient. To thier instructions we lent a ready ear.... Our work...is a plea for the recognition of the Hermetic philosoophy, the anciently universal Wisdom Religion." [This last sentence is from p. vii of Vol. I.] *The Path*, Dec., 1886, p. 257: "...I was the first in the United States to bring the existence of our Masters into publicity...having exposed the holy names of two members of a Brotherhood hitherto unknown to Europe and America (save to a few mystics and Initiates of every age), yet sacred and revered throughout the East, and especially India...." *The Key to Theosophy*, 1889 ed., pp. 302 & 301: "We Theosophists were, unfortunately, the first to talk of these things, to make the fact of the existence of in the East of `Adepts' and `Masters' and Occult knowledge known....Great are the desecrations to which the names of two of the Masters have been subjected. There is hardly a medium who has not claimed to have seen them. Every bogus swindling Society, for commercial purposes, now claims to be guided and directed by `Masters,' often supposed to be far higher than ours!...." So HPB claimed to be in contact with these Masters and to convey throught her writings some of the teachings of this Theosophy. She claimed this to be true. It is for the interested inquirer and seeker to determine if these claims merit his or her attention. But as far as I can ascertain she was the first to make this claim in modern times. Later even during her lifetime and especially after her death, Judge, Besant, Leadbeater and many others made similar claims BUT all their claims are based upon her original claim. If HPB's claims can be proven false, then all the LATER claims are therefore false. But the later claims are dependent on HPB's original statements. IF Alice Bailey's claims can be shown to be false, then such a finding does NOT invalidate HPB's claims. The truth or falsity or whatever of HPB's claims are not dependent on Bailey's statements. I remember reading a book about 20 years ago in which the author wrote that he regarded highly Bailey's work and teachings but had serious doubts about Blavatsky's! That is truly getting the cart before the horse!!!! >From a historical perspective, therefore, I contend that HPB's writings (plus the Mahatma Letters) constitute alone "Source Teachings" of modern Theosophy. And to say this, is not to say that Theosophy is only as old as HPB's claims. For KH himself says: "...this Theosophy is no new candidate for the world's attention, but only the restatement of principles which have been recognised from the very infancy of mankind...." Nor do I contend that AFTER H.P.B.'s initial claims that there were not other individuals who may have had contact with HPB's teachers and who may have also given out genuine Theosophical teachings. Each claim (like HPB's initial claim) would need to be considered on its own merits. But, Patrick, most of the serious Blavatsky students I personally know, do not accept the claims and teachings of Bailey, the teachings of the Temple and some of the writings of Helena Roerich. In telling you this, I am not saying that you are wrong and they are right. But what I am saying to you is that they AND you would all agree that HPB's claims and teachings are of merit and deserve careful consideration. Therefore, her writings can be considered the SOURCE teachings on which all students of Theosophy can (at least in theory) agree that the modern Theosophical movement was founded. And I, at least, don't believe that HPB should be considered as some ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY or INFALLIBLE SOURCE. But having said that, I believe that her writings deserve serious study in order to really understand the teachings she gave. And study does not mean that one has to accept or reject, believe or disbelieve what one is reading and studying but to serious study in order to UNDERSTAND the ideas HPB puts forth as "this Theosophy" KH talks about. Many students of Theosophy have spent far too much time squabbling over who was or was not the next messenger after HPB and little if any time studying the writings of the first "messenger". Even during HPB's time, theosophical writers gave out erroneous conceptions of some of the Theosophical teachings. This according to HPB herself who writes in *The Secret Doctrine*, I, viii: "The publication of many of the facts herein stated has been rendered necessary by the wild and fanciful speculations in which many Theosophists and students of mysticism have indulged, during the last few years, in their endeavour to, as they imagined, work out a complete system of thought from the few facts previously communicated to them." And as early as 1882, Master K.H. said the following about one person who was trying not only to understand Theosophy but also to write about it: "I dread the appearance in print of our philosophy as expounded by Mr. [A.O.] H[ume]. I read his three essays...and had to cross out nearly all. ..if he publishes what I read, I will have H.P.B. or Kual Khool deny the whole thing; as I cannot permit our sacred philosophy to be so disfigured. He says that people will not accept the whole truth; that unless we humour them...our philosophy will be rejected *a priori*. In such a case the less such idiots hear of our doctrines the better for both. If they do not want the whole truth and nothing but the truth, they are welcome. But never will they find *us*---(at any rate)---compromising with, and pandering to public prejudices...." And this was in 1882! And HPB herself admits that there is such a thing as PSEUDO-THEOSOPHY. Students of Theosophy can believes whatever but those who accept HPB's original claims would be wise to also carefully consider the warnings given by HPB and the Masters about bogus claims and distortions of Theosophy. If such could happen in the 1880s, why not after 1891? "Each tub stands on its own bottom." Food for thought, Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Oct 1995 09:03:25 GMT From: Tracey Benson Subject: Re: from my study 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 DEar Liesel Thankyou very much for sharing that, I don't want a copy but I will be saving this wonderful insight. It reminds of what I have been thinking lately; that everyone has their own truth that they alone must find, as a process of self affirmation and moral obligation. I particularly enjoyed the part about the student surpassing the teacher, this reflects the need to find faith within ourselves, fostering that ideology into our everyday lives Thankyou again Love and light Tracey> > --Boundary (ID 8UhA/Q38nZ7PBoU9O2/CBA)-- > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Oct 1995 09:28:03 GMT From: Tracey Benson Subject: Re: More thoughts on abortion On Thu, 28 Sep 1995, Jerry Schueler wrote: > < > > 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. > Jerry Perhaps you can help me. I'm trying to find out more about Henri Bergson's theories in relationship with to Theosophy, was he influenced by Blavatsky SD? I have been reading a book called "Inventing Bergson" by Mark Antliff, in the introduction there is a discussion of particle theory and his ideas on intuition. Antliff states this as being representitive of the spiritual and the material, but does not index Theosophy. I am looking at the interwar years, and Theosophy's influence on Australian cultural life. I am also very curious about the moebius strip, in the context of spirit and matter as a possible analogy to what you said about chaos and order. What do you think? Tracey From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Oct 1995 09:38:21 GMT From: Tracey Benson Subject: Re: Cayce On Wed, 13 Sep 1995 Murray Stentiford wrote: > 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 > Dear Murray, I have not looked at the archive yet, but I will be looking for his name now, thankyou for telling me. I will let you know if it is if you are interested Tracey From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Oct 1995 12:18:44 GMT From: John R Crocker Subject: Re: Alert! On Sun, 1 Oct 1995, Jerry Schueler wrote: > JRC:< (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 ...).> > > I have received messages with quotes from older > postings and new comments, and then one or two days later > received the original post. Weird huh? > > Jerry S. Yes, as a matter of fact I just got the post you are responding to two days ago, and I mailed it nearly two *weeks* ago. Weird thing is, some posts to the list have come back to me almost immediately, while others seem to be delayed by days. (I wonder if this hurts theos-l conversations, or helps them (-:). Oh, well, as Nietzsche said, "You must have chaos within yourself to give birth to a dancing star". -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Oct 1995 13:57:08 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: To: Daniel H from Daniel C Thanks for your answers to my long list of questions, but I have two more which I think I posted some time ago but have not seen your answers. (1) What books on Theosophy by Theosophical writers have you read and studied? (2) What books on Theosophy by non-Theosophical writers have you read? I think some of us on theos would like to know what knowledge you have of Theosophy? Thanking you in advance, Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Oct 1995 14:26:58 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Globes and Rounds RE: Quotes from MLs RE: Globe/Plane Confusion Eldon: This is one of those areas in which Eldon and I seem to always part company. Anyway, I want to express an alternate view here. I do not believe that *any* subjective state of consciousness is possible without a corresponding objective body and objective world. G de P writes: "every cosmic plane or world as well as every planet provides its own suitable vehicles for the self-expression of the hosts of entitative monads journeying upwards or downwards along the circulations of the cosmos; and consequently no such vehicle or body can leave the sphere or planet to which it belongs." (FS of O, p 637) This quote can be taken to mean that we have a suitable body on every cosmic plane. Thus we have a physical body on the physical plane, and an astral body on the astral plane, and so on. In kamaloka, we are in our astral body on the astral plane. In devachan we are in our mental body on the mental plane. I agree that kamaloka and devachan are not on any of the globes, but rather are "spheres of effects" of Globe D. Only pure consciousness in the sense of 'cit' needs no objective world, because it is not really subjective, but rather is nondualistic. But whenever you divide subjective consciousness, then you also have to have a corresponding objective world, and this means a suitable body with senses. We can't just go off somewhere into a "subjective state" without a corresponding objective "place." In medical science or psychology, yes. In theosophy, no. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Oct 1995 14:27:02 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Alert! JRC:< (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 ...).> I have received messages with quotes from older postings and new comments, and then one or two days later received the original post. Weird huh? Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Oct 1995 14:27:08 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: from my study > "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...." Studies have also shown that teachers expect more from boys than girls, especially in math. This too becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is exactly why being labeled as a slow learner in the early grades is such a shame, because future teachers will not expect as much, and those labeled as "slow" will tend to stay that way. The same with "trouble makers." Once a student is labeled, they tend to stay that way. In my senior year at U of Md. my dean had a list of each student and their grade to date. No matter what anyone did in his class, every student received the grade that was on his list when his class began. I am sure that this goes on all the time. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Oct 1995 16:16:42 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Questions about the ES JRC, I'm living in the hope that this is past history. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Oct 1995 16:48:44 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: A poem Hi, Daniel, What a nice poem! I'll go there & get me some peace. I could use it. I think we differ from you in 3 items mentioned in the poem. 1.) The person went to buy salvation in the grocery store. According to us, the only way you can be saved is by what you do yourself for yourself. 2.) "When I stepped outside I would run right into sin." Probably true, but we like to think that there are at least some people who live righteously. We don't believe in original sin. Only in acquired stupidity. 3.) "Jesus paid your bill a long time ago." Our belief is that no one except you yourself can pay your bill. Jesus can help you find the Way, but then you must find it yourself. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Oct 1995 16:57:10 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Alert! Jerry, Same here. First newer postings with answers, then the original message lateron. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Oct 1995 17:07:56 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: To Aki re steiner-l Mark, Some of us would be only too hapy to explain things, non-theosophists aren't familiar with. Or, if you'd be interested in taking another route, most of it can be found in a Basic Theosophy manual by Imogene Simons, which costs around $10.- I believe. It's put out by the Theosophical Publishing House, Box 270, Wheaton Ill. 60189, from the East Coast 1-800-669-9425. But I think for now one of us could serve as your dictionary. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Oct 1995 17:20:51 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: CWL and Mars Incidentally, John Mead puts in a number of hours of service to vnet.net each month, so that we can have theos-l without charge & unhindered. I don't think that's very well known. I found it out by the by, while phoning with him. I think we owe him a vote of thanks. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Oct 1995 19:12:51 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: CWL and Mars I never did understand this business with the globes anyway. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Oct 1995 23:47:31 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Welcome to Joe Fulton Joe, I read the comments re: Adyar that Bob posted and I found them very insightful and timely. I hope you will join in the discussion and continue to benefit us with your thoughts. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Oct 1995 23:52:26 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Daniel on Globes At first blush, what Daniel Caldwell is showing from the ML's on the globes is what I have thought all along (although Daniel is considerably more articulate and learned). It seems that all of our human evolution -- for the time being -- takes place here on Globe D. Physical incarnation is where all of our energies are manifested in setting up causes. Kamaloka, Rupaloka, and Arupaloka, are where the effects are played out. This is orthodox Buddhism, as well, but more importantly, it seems to be what the Mahatmas themselves are sketching out in Their letters. Being not familiar with Purucker, it is hard to say how his stuff applies, but the concept of going to other globes for our after-death states strikes me as intuitively wrong and misunderstanding the Globes as complete, seven-fold centers of evolutionary life in themselves. They have their own astral aspects, their own kama-lokas, etc. How all the globes inter-relate in their inner natures is for me a very curious question. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Oct 1995 23:52:32 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Globes, Planes, Principles: some Comments to Jerry S. From Daniel C. Jerry S. writes: > 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.? This quote on the face of it presents us with some problems. How can the "world of effects" for Globe D include the "Causal Plane"? How can what is causal be a plane of effects? The whole idea of associating Globes simply with planes is quite problematic. Rather, eaech Globe would appear from HPB's teachings to have its own set of planes, at least as relates to those beings experiencing life in a Globe. The "astral" body does not exist on some other Globe, it exists right here on this one, we can see its effect on the physical matter here. When a medium manifests their "astral arm" or whatever, it can move physical objects, etc. Likewise when we think (using our Manas) we are not thinking on Globe G, we are thinking right here and now, on this Globe D in this physical body. How could different parts of our own septenary nature exist on different globes? This makes no sense to me, literally. If the globes are just the planes, why name them as different things at all? To me the teachings are extremely clear that the Globes are complex worlds of planes in themseves, and cannot be reduced to simply one plane or another. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Oct 1995 23:52:36 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: censorship flames Ann, I actually have no idea what I am saying that is so annoying to you. You're angry that I quote HPB to make my points? That I don't enjoy Bailey's take on Theosophy? That I think Leadbeater was a very disturbed person and the opposite of an Adept? I have no idea what you think I've written that sounds like a "screaming match" but it is weird to me. Your comments mystify me. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Oct 1995 23:52:43 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: From 26 to 41 Thom -- Eldon gets flamed all the time, and funny -- he expresses a lot of the same thoughts I do (not all). There is a very hard time avoiding the discussion of people and their personalities, and there is a hard time focusing on the issues and the philosophy of Theosophy. Why just today, I've read comments on my sex life, my age, and my immaturity. And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? More importantly, what do such discussions yield us as far as fruits in the study of Theosophy? I would venture -- very little. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Oct 1995 23:52:47 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: re: on CWL So let's get this straight: Charles W. Leadbeater was accused (with some proof) of molesting children, he is pretty much proven to be a very bad clairvoyant, and he founded the Liberal Catholic Church to carry on those very rituals and dogmas which HPB took such great pains to criticize. I don't understand why CWL would be drawn to use Theosophy as a vehicle for his "teachings" in the first place. When we compare Leadbeater to say, Judge, the difference is so great as to astonish one who realized that both were called "Theosophists" in their day. Nearly all of Leadbeater's books deal with psychism, while almost none of Mr. Judge's writings even mention psychic studies, except to condemn them. I'm still incredulous that the majority of Theosophists in the world at that time respected and followed CWL while scorning HPB's teachings. Is it any wonder that Theosophy has so little public hearing today, so little attention paid by the intelligentsia and empowered folks? It makes me very, very sad that Theosophy was de-railed by the very people who were charged with upholding it until the next Messenger was to come. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Oct 1995 23:52:50 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Reincarnation Liesel wrote: > 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. I've read just the opposite in Theosophical teachings, that those who are killed prematurely (provided they are old enough to have incarnated Manas, say 7 or 8 or so) spend their natural lives in the after-death state, usually unconscious and "dreaming" if they were good people, and then a long rest in Devachan proportionate to the unfulfilled spiritual energies they had set in motion. I also read that Chelas are helped out of Devachan early by the Adepts, because they can do much better world in the world. I was not aware that the Adepts had Devachan at all, being beyond such dreamy, illusionary, "assimilative" states. Since Devachan is only produced by one's UNACTUALIZED spiritual aspirations, thoughts, hopes, etc., and since the Adepts are fully conscious of their spiritual energies and use them to the highest, their is no "unabsorbed" or "unrealized" energy to produce the Devachanic state. I will try and find sources to document these thoughts when I have a moment. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 01 Oct 1995 23:52:54 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: A Question Daniel, Very often I get posts out of order, for instance I always get Eldons' stuff quickly, even when he is replying to a post that I haven't yet received. I suspect the time it takes for different messages to reach us depends upon the nodes through which they are sent, and the system with which you receive. I am on AOL, which due to its phenomenal growth constantly has e-mail delivery problems. How's your local mainframe? Is it possibly the source of the delay or deletion? Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Oct 1995 01:17:46 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Daniel on Globes Rich: >It seems that all of our human evolution -- for the time being -- takes place >here on Globe D. Physical incarnation is where all of our energies are >manifested in setting up causes. Kamaloka, Rupaloka, and Arupaloka, are >where the effects are played out. This is orthodox Buddhism, as well, but >more importantly, it seems to be what the Mahatmas themselves are sketching >out in Their letters. Yes, for most of us that is true. But I'd suggest that the way that we get to become Fifth Rounders is through incarnations on the other Globes. This would be an exeception to the general rule that you mention. Some of the ML quotes do say that after our after-death states in the Globe D's sphere of effects, we either return to Globe D or go on to an existence on the next sphere of causes (e.g. Globe E). >Being not familiar with Purucker, it is hard to say how his stuff applies, >but the concept of going to other globes for our after-death states strikes >me as intuitively wrong and misunderstanding the Globes as complete, >seven-fold centers of evolutionary life in themselves. It might depend upon how you picture that we "go" to the other Globes. If we are just passing through their spheres of effects, without coming into incarnation, then it's really saying that in the subjective after-death states we touch upon the consciousness of the planes that the other Globes represent. In terms of the Rounds, the Lifewave moves from A to B, C, D, E, F, and G -- in a single direction. In our after-death states, we go on to Globe E, or back again to Globe D. How do we get "back again"? Not by a reversal of direction, but by quickly passing along the current from E to F, G, A, B, C, and back again to D. >They have their own astral aspects, their own kama-lokas, etc. True. And we don't visit the lower parts of their spheres of effects, but may only "touch" these Globes in our Atman, and perhaps Buddhi. >How all the globes inter-relate >in their inner natures is for me a very curious question. We could draw some quotes from "Transactions of the Blavatsky Lodge", where Blavatsky mentions that Globe D is on the lowest Cosmic Plane, and that its principles are drawn from that plane, and Globes C and E on the next Cosmic Plane, and their principles drawn from that plane, etc. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Oct 1995 02:44:30 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: CWL and Mars > > 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 A bit puzzled that the post in which the above occurs is under Subject: CWL & Mars? There may be some folk who still have slow modems or pay premiums for e-mail. Tonight I downloaded 52 postings from theos lists alone, some of which will have me reaching for the delete key as a routine activity. IMO some of the discussions on Globes and such has become extremely intellectual and technical - too much for a *general* discussion list. Imagine being a newbie to Theosophy and finding oneself in the middle of all this on theos-l. Such a person might be frightened away from Theosophy altogether, thinking they would never get the hang of it. Some of us went to theos-roots for historical discussions, not because we were pushed there, but because theosophical history *is* about our common roots, and is therefore appropriate there. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Oct 1995 03:00:14 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: theos-roots and censorship > > 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 Indeed, let us use the lists in the spirit they were created. I am all for this, and find it difficult to see why anyone would want to object, or insist that *every* posting on *any* topic should go to theos-l when there are alternative lists to use constructively - like a matter of nettiquette, perhaps? All my comments on matters historical or "root-like" will in future go to theos-roots as a matter of course, as it seems to me to be the correct place for them. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Oct 1995 03:22:01 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) 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 No, there is not. Methinks the best thing (which is what I am doing) is to delete his posts on sigt of his header. If no one replies to him, he will go away out of boredom. I gave him a long list of questions, which elicited one biblical quote or two, but not one actual reply. IMO, saying *anything* to him is a waste of time. Sigh. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Oct 1995 05:01:28 GMT From: thomn@bev.net (Thomas Nelson) Subject: Re: From 26 to 41 Rich wrote: >Eldon gets flamed all the time, and funny -- he expresses a lot of the same >thoughts I do (not all). I wouldn't say all the time; he definitely doesn't inspire the kind of anger that you often do, and when he gets "flamed" it usually isn't because of the tone of his message, it's the content. > >There is a very hard time avoiding the discussion of people and their >personalities, and there is a hard time focusing on the issues and the >philosophy of Theosophy. Why just today, I've read comments on my sex life, >my age, and my immaturity. And what does this have to do with the price of >tea in China? > >More importantly, what do such discussions yield us as far as fruits in the >study of Theosophy? I would venture -- very little. Yes, these discussions won't yield any direct fruit in the way of Theosophical knowledge, but they do help us to lay some ground rules on how we communicate on theos-l. Proselytizing (sp?), condescending, and argumentative posts have no place in any theosophical forum -- I'm as guilty as anyone in this respect. My use of Eldon as an example was somewhat of a mistake, since none of us are perfect, but I usually find the tone of his posts to be respectful, whereas yours usually aren't, unless you're agreeing with someone. But I also think that others saying "Oh, Rich, so young and so..." is condescending and also isn't appropriate. We have to discuss these personal issues if we want to get down to real business, IMO. 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: 02 Oct 1995 05:41:43 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: To Paul re steiner-l According to Aki Korhonen: > > I don't see your point. My point is that many groups are moving toward theosophical ecumenism, but the anthroposophists aren't likely to participate given their attitudes toward the rest, as found in Steiner's writings. Steiner didn't mention much about his > Theosophical background that is true. I see that he wanted to go by his own > way. And what is wrong with that? Nothing at all. However, to use theosophical ideas but claim to derive them elsewhere looks somewhat manipulative. Another who did that was Max Heindel. If Antroposofists want to follow > Steiner and his teachings instead of Blavatsky - it is not a bad thing as > I see it. The point in co-operation is not to believe in same things, > Teachers and such - but to understand, respect and maybe work together. As individuals, of course that's possible. Organizationally, don't hold your breath. (Sorry, that's an idiom-- meaning it won't happen anytime soon.) > And if RS said some unpleasant things, I don't know. But what we really > are dealing with here, is a group of individuals, and not every Antroposofist > say bad things about Blavatsky and so on... True > > I want to say, that we can't put a blame on every Antroposofist because of > what RS said or did. Every person is responsible of his own deeds and words. True > > I also think that the goal is not to make every, would be spiritual > aspirant, identical but just the opposite. True Namaste From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Oct 1995 05:49:16 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: From 26 to 41 According to Richtay@aol.com: > > There is a very hard time avoiding the discussion of people and their > personalities, and there is a hard time focusing on the issues and the > philosophy of Theosophy. Why just today, I've read comments on my sex life, > my age, and my immaturity. And what does this have to do with the price of > tea in China? You appear fascinated with the personality of CWL and keep bringing up his sex life (who brought up yours?) and his spiritual immaturity. What does this have to do with your noble goal of transcending "personal" discussion? > > More importantly, what do such discussions yield us as far as fruits in the > study of Theosophy? I would venture -- very little. > > Rich > Sorry you're as offended by my post as by Jerry's. We're trying to reach out to you and say "lighten up, relax, we're all in the same boat." Personality issues are going to keep arising as you approach the study of Theosophy with an either/or, punish-the-evildoers attitude. Theosophy is more than a set of teachings. A Master is quoted by HPB as saying that he who is entitled to the name of Theosophist will sit in judgment on no one. To me that means Theosophy is about understanding others in their full complexity, not sorting them into "approved" and "condemned" columns. Namaste PJ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Oct 1995 06:09:23 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Hereditary Successors This week I received my first copy of Venture Inward, the magazine of the Association for Research and Enlightenment, which I joined a few weeks back. It contains some rather startling news that relates to a theme I've contemplated in relation to Baha'i, Theosophy, Radhasoami, and other traditions. The headline is "A.R.E. shifting to team management." I quote: The Board of Trustees has approved a "new paradigm" plan to invest top administrative authority at A.R.E. in an executive team instead of a single administrator. This structural change eliminates the positions of president, held by Charles Thomas Cayce since 1977, and chief executive officer, vacant since Edwin Johnson departed last March. In their place will be an executive team of three directors plus Cayce, in his capacity as president of the Edgar Cayce Foundation. It goes on to say that CTC helped plan the transition. This is extremely important in that it marks the end of hereditary successorship in the ARE presidency-- by abolishing the office. In joining ARE I had worried about precisely this issue because it has been troubling elsewhere. TS President Radha Burnier is daughter of a previous president, and ran against her own aunt, sister of the previous president in question, and widow of an earlier one. At present it appears that she will be unopposed for life. This gives the appearance of dynastic succession, and is similar to the way the Nehru/Gandhis became royalty manque in an officially democratic state. In the case of Baha'i, hereditary succession is at the root of the most troubling and divisive issue in its history-- "covenant-breakers." Baha'u'llah, allegedly omnisicient, and his son `Abdu'l Baha developed a model of the "Covenant" that relied upon a hereditary succession of leadership. At many points in history, sibling rivalry created power struggles resulting in excommunications. Finally, the expected future succession of Guardians ended due to the childlessness of the first and only Guardian. I can only wonder why Baha'u'llah would design, and his son further define, a future religious succession through a family that was destined to experience such a series of divisions and disappointments. Clear foresight would seem to have been lacking, and a hereditary model for Baha'i administration was chosen due to its cultural ubiquity rather than its inherent appropriateness. Shi`a Islam, perhaps especially the Isma`ilis, has been marked by frequent violent power struggles involving family domination and religious succession. The Sunnis have been much more stable by avoiding the issue to some degree. In short, I am encouraged to see ARE consciously and deliberately choosing to end its dynastic succession, something that in the case of Baha'is was brought about by unconscious and accidental factors. OTOH it is not so encouraging to see the TS as an example of the emergence of such dynastic motifs in an organization which had not had them heretofore. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Oct 1995 06:43:16 GMT From: thomn@bev.net (Thomas Nelson) Subject: Re: Source Teachings > I find this an interesting phenomena as the writings are geniune as part >of the Mahatmas' work. All of the statements I have heard that purport to >show that they are not so have been easily dispensed with. "Source" >teachings would be all those by Mahatma's and Initiates. I don't know Patrick. For me the effect the Bailey teachings have had on my studies is indescribable, yet I am wary of saying that they should be considered "source" teachings. Actually, I'm wary of anything being called that, but if anything, Blavatsky's original works are the only ones I'd be sure about, as far as that part of the "Ageless Wisdom" which is called Theosophy goes. By saying the Bailey teachings are "source", you say that "Well, everyone who calls themself a theosophist should read Alice Bailey and agree with her." This is not the case, but I do think that anyone who calls themself a theosophist should have a grasp of and agree somewhat with the general principles that H.P.B. laid out. (I don't call myself a theosophist, but I do groove with H.P.B.) Every individual has their own way of approaching the truth, and this is an eternal process. Books are simply a way of facilitating that. A business person reading about a new management style might be in their own way expanding their consciousness just as much as a theosophical student reading a particularly resonant part of the S.D. or T.C.F. I mean, we are still on such a low level with this stuff, that it would do us well to be humble and non-judgemental. We are ASPIRANTS and have no way of really KNOWING what's what anyway! Your companion on the Path, 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: 02 Oct 1995 06:55:52 GMT From: thomn@bev.net (Thomas Nelson) Subject: Re: re: on CWL Rich said: >It makes me very, very sad that Theosophy was de-railed by the very people >who were charged with upholding it until the next Messenger was to come. The whole concept of a "next Messenger" is liable to produce more conflict and delusion than it's worth (just as the concept of a Messiah does). I don't know why H.P.B. even brought it up. As for C.W.L., I think his teachings were a mix of Kama-Manas and Buddhi-Manas. He wasn't an initiate, IMO, but he did have some impression from the Masters. I agree with his concept of the planes (though his diagrams can lead to misunder- standings), but I think his thinking was so laden with Astral experiences, that most of the deeper meaning that you get in the S.D. was lost. I don't think this is tragic, it was symptomatic of the movement at that time. The Masters were always skeptical of whether the movement would work, so these failures came as no surprise. They were instructive, and if the present T.M. is to survive, they will heed the warnings. 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: 02 Oct 1995 07:08:51 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: RE: Rich on CWL & Censorship Riich: >I actually have no idea what I am saying that is so annoying to you. I have no doubt of that. >You're angry that I quote HPB to make my points? That I don't enjoy Bailey's >take on Theosophy? That I think Leadbeater was a very disturbed person and >the opposite of an Adept? I have no idea what you think I've written that >sounds like a "screaming match" but it is weird to me. The phrase, "screaming match", was directed at anyone on the list that overeacts or perhaps writes an emotional post, sends it out before calming down, thinking it over and rewriting it an hour later. Your opinions regarding various people in the theosophical movement make ABSOLUTELY NO IMPRESSION on me. They are yours and if you find value in them, then I applaud that. I have always considered Brenda to be a very intelligent, highly advanced and sweet person. She opened my eyes to the beauty of the Secret Doctrine by her posts. When you took it upon yourself to tell her to remove herself from the list, I simply could not tolerate your rudeness any longer. >When we compare Leadbeater to say, Judge, the difference is so great as to >astonish one who realized that both were called "Theosophists" in their day. I am very near to finishing Ancient Mystic Rites, a book by CWL. It is about the history of the Masons. Everyone on this list has the basic freedom to read whatever book we want, by whatever author we choose. There may be others on the list who are eager to debate CWL versus Judge, Bailey versus Blavatsky, etc. In my vision, it's just a lot of apples and oranges, but basically still fruit. Which one goes down the gullet better for you. >Is it any wonder that Theosophy has so little public hearing today, so little >attention paid by the intelligentsia and empowered folks? Who are the empowered folk? The media, who panders to the lowest common demoninator with talk shows, soap operas and tabloids? The government? Who are the empowered? I think the real power exists with Christ, Buddha, the Masters, their disciples, the New Group of World Servers, Theosophists and any sincere person working for unity and brotherhood. The real power is on the inner planes. -ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Oct 1995 07:11:04 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Re: Source Teachings Hello, Great discussion! The discernment of the buddhic/intuitive presence of the Mahatmas' influence behind various writings is a wonderful knowing. >But, Patrick, most of the serious Blavatsky students I personally know, do >not accept the claims and teachings of Bailey, the teachings of the Temple and >some of the writings of Helena Roerich. I find this an interesting phenomena as the writings are geniune as part of the Mahatmas' work. All of the statements I have heard that purport to show that they are not so have been easily dispensed with. "Source" teachings would be all those by Mahatma's and Initiates. >And HPB herself admits that there is such a thing as PSEUDO-THEOSOPHY. Indeed so -- and its quality is easily discernable (sectarianism, self-importance, caustic personal criticims, authoritarian control, etc.) >Students of Theosophy can believes whatever but those who accept HPB's >original claims would be wise to also carefully consider the warnings >given by HPB and the Masters about bogus claims and distortions of Theosophy. >If such could happen in the 1880s, why not after 1891? Yes, it continues to happen today but those who see with the eyes of the heart will know the truth. Peace, Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Oct 1995 07:32:48 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: CWL and Theosophy Rich Writes: >So let's get this straight: > >Charles W. Leadbeater was accused (with some proof) of molesting >children Yes. Keep in mind that he originally admitted the charges made against him, but after the testimony was sealed by Olcott and Besant brought him back into the TS in 1908, he denied all of it. >he is pretty much proven to be a very bad clairvoyant, I never seen any formal proofs, but upon reading his observations that they don't publish anymore, he looks pretty ridiculous to me. The Mars civilization observation is just one example. >and he founded the Liberal Catholic Church to carry on those >very rituals and dogmas which HPB took such great pains to >criticize. Others were involved in the LCC chapter too. Since it was supposed to be the vehicle for the new religion that Krishnamurti was to bring into the world, one wonders why it still exists. >I don't understand why CWL would be drawn to use Theosophy as a >vehicle for his "teachings" in the first place. Interesting question. Tillett suggests a likely answer to this: In the early 1880's the Theosophical Society's membership was mostly among the educated upper and professional classes of people. When CWL joined through Sinnett, he made himself seven years older, invented a university education for himself, had traveled to South America, and gave his father an upper class profession. Thus the TS was CWL's opportunity to move up in society and make a name for himself. As for his teachings, they don't strike me as original or systematic, but sort of a hodgepodge of Sinnett's misreadings and CWL's imagination. Remember CWL was in London Lodge and began by taking his queues from Sinnett. >When we compare Leadbeater to say, Judge, the difference is so >great as to astonish one who realized that both were called >"Theosophists" in their day. CWL was very much in the background until 1895 when he started publishing a series of articles on occult chemistry. By that time Judge was on the outs and the American Section was declaring autonomy. So Judge and CWL were never really contemporaries in this sense. Judge died just as CWL's career was starting. Another difference was that Judge's writings stayed very close to HPB's, while CWL, in the beginning, played off of Sinnett who was involved with contacting the Masters through a medium at that time. In the general sense of the term, I think we have to call CWL a theosophical philosopher. The more important question to me is whether CWL's writings are a true continuation of HPB's. IMHO they are not. >Nearly all of Leadbeater's books deal with psychism, while >almost none of Mr. Judge's writings even mention psychic >studies, except to condemn them. I think some of Judge's best articles are on psychism. The difference is that Judge wrote about psychism, but didn't write on the authority of his own clairvoyance, as did CWL. I think the quality of Judge's writings on this subject still hold today. Perhaps this is what you mean. >I'm still incredulous that the majority of Theosophists in the >world at that time respected and followed CWL while scorning >HPB's teachings. Ignored might be a better word than scorned. CWL and Besant just allowed her books to go out of print while they promoted their own books. The explanation at the time, and even today, was that HPB is very difficult to read, and that her writings are "full of blinds" because she was not allowed to give out the teachings in a clear manner. CWL and Besant on the other hand, were able to give out the teachings in a more conplete and clearer manner. Therefore, one should read Leadbeater and Besant instead, and once you have a full understanding of the teachings, you might take a look at HPB. This was the Adyar line, I still hear it today, and most members don't question it. I think Brenda's recent post suggests the reason why people love, respect and follow CWL. Remember she ended her "Love that CWL" post with something like: "And to think, someday we will be just like him." My guess is that most people who are long time devotees of the Adyar TS find it exciting to think that we have the potential to remember our past lives, to see what is going on anywhere in the world or on other planets without leaving our living room sofa. That through our benign will we can bring blessings onto the world and raise its spiritual vibration, and that someday we will be revered by the masses as one of the Masters of wisdom. CWL's writings promise all of this, and the ES was the path to accomplish all of these things. On the other hand, HPB's writings are hard to read and they only offer philosophical ideas. She also discouraged people from practicing occultism until they get their own act together on a moral level. Look at the ES instructions in Volume 12 of the collected writings. HPB's rules had to do with behavior--gossip, back stabbing, pride, passive agressiveness etc.--all of the problems that plague the TS today. Yet, members wanted practical teaching not moral training. Thus when the magical order of the Golden Dawn formed in 1888, TS members left in droves to join that organization. Nothing like it was offered in the TS or the ES. The Golden Dawn had ceremonies that were supposed to create magical effects. People want to learn practical occultism and to be powerful. They want to fight those nasty black magicians who conspire to destroy the TS by spreading all of those "lies" about CWL. They want to be clairvoyant just like CWL. In 1908 (now that Olcott was safely dead) CWL and Besant revived and reformulated the ES to include CWL's notions of an inner government of Masters, with the ES becoming the door through which a member may gain initiation into Masterhood. They also created ceremonies to create "eucharistic forms" to raise the spiritual vibration of humanity. They were told that they were "doing the Master's work" by participating in these ceremenies. Thus the desire for personal power was satisfied, and all of HPB's warnings about moral and ethical behavior is lost in confusion. Even today, people in general, never mind the TS, confuse following the law with moral behavior, and education in moral and ethical reasoning is passe. Kant's ethical imperative of acting in the best interests of the whole is replaced by the situational ethic of asking onself; "what action will bring the most personal advantage. No wonder HPB commented in the ~Voice of the Silence~ that the Eastern ethics are so far beyond the West that it would do no good to repeat them. I think Damodar was right when he argued that TS members should be given a moral and ethical education before they are allowed to study theosophical teachings. I raised this issue on theos-l a year or so ago. I was angerly told by one participant that "ethics has no place in theosophy." Another told me that the "discussion of ethics was a waste of time." So this is where we are, and it makes me sad. >Is it any wonder that Theosophy has so little public hearing >today, so little attention paid by the intelligentsia and >empowered folks? Under HPB the TS was a progressive and controversial organization that attracted some of the greatest minds of the time. After 1908, the TS became a cult, and today is ridiculed as such. As far as I'm concerned, the TS is just reaping its own karma. What bothers me is that due to general ignorance concerning TS history, the general public blends CWL and Besant together with Blavatsky. HPB's accomplishments are forgotten in light of what CWL and Besant made of the TS. >It makes me very, very sad that Theosophy was de-railed by the >very people who were charged with upholding it until the next >Messenger was to come. The members assumed in the early 1890's that Judge would succeed Olcott, since Judge was the only other founder of the TS who stayed with it. This was never questioned until Besant and Olcott began their campaign to discredit him. As for the successor to the ES, it is not at all clear what HPB's intentions were. Adyar has a pseudo history that the successorship was passed to Besant at the time of HPB's death, but this was impossible because Besant was out of the country when HPB died. Also there are no domuments or witnesses to support this supposed successorship. IMHO, the ES and the Inner Group should have been closed because no teacher equal to HPB ever appeared. But one thing is very clear, neither Olcott, Blavatsky nor the Masters ever intended that one person hold both the offices of President and Outer Head. See letter #19 in Jinarajadasa's ~Letters to the Masters of Wisdom.~ IMHO, putting all of that power into the hands of one person was the tragic mistake that created the monster that we have today. Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu, and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Oct 1995 08:14:28 GMT From: Aki Korhonen Subject: Re: To Paul re steiner-l Hello Paul and the others. You wrote: .. > (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. I don't see your point. Steiner didn't mention much about his Theosophical background that is true. I see that he wanted to go by his own way. And what is wrong with that? If Antroposofists want to follow Steiner and his teachings instead of Blavatsky - it is not a bad thing as I see it. The point in co-operation is not to believe in same things, Teachers and such - but to understand, respect and maybe work together. And if RS said some unpleasant things, I don't know. But what we really are dealing with here, is a group of individuals, and not every Antroposofist say bad things about Blavatsky and so on... I want to say, that we can't put a blame on every Antroposofist because of what RS said or did. Every person is responsible of his own deeds and words. I also think that the goal is not to make every, would be spiritual aspirant, identical but just the opposite. Peace. aki korhonen Rovaniemi, Finland. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Oct 1995 09:15:59 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Re: Reply to Algeo's article in AT Hello Don, I was very glad to read your letter on this topic of science and theosophy. As a mathematical scientist and theosophist I agree totally with your excellent critique. >Any idea that cannot withstand >experimental tests againsts Nature are destined to be banished from science. This being so, as I agree, science will eventually discover the truth of theosophy. Inded, the general evolutionary tendency of humanity is of this type of search for truth. True theosophy embraces science in general as a means of discovering truth. Your last paragraph is inspiring: 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. Cheers, Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Oct 1995 09:35:08 GMT From: "john.d.tullis" Subject: Re: Reply to Algeo's article in AT Don, Overall I agree with your analysis. However, perhaps John Algeo was meaning to refer to "the scientific method", rather than "science", when he was talking about "...ordinary science...is a game played according to certain strict rules limiting the scientist to what is repeatedly observable under controlled conditions." Clearly there are scientific specialties where the above definition is not appropriate - such as paleontology et. al. (view into the past), and the naturalist sciences (view into the present). These branches of science seldom have have the "repeatedly observable under controlled conditions" opportunity! However, you comment that "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." In the strictest sense, it appears to me that you are actually repeating John Algeo's point! That is, the concept of running repeated experiments (your point) appears pretty similar to "limiting the scientist to what is repeatedly observable under controlled condition" (John Algeo's point). Also, you state that "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. " However, I believe that this definition of science is loose. This is because it raises the question - whose experience? This is why science in general has avoided spiritual issues - because it is not possible to have controlled conditions. So, in conclusion - I think the following: 1st - there is a whole area of science that insists on the more restrictive experimental, repeatable, controlled conditions concept. I would call this the hard science area. 2nd - there is a whole area of science where experiments and controlled conditions are not possible - see examples above. This is the soft science area. But if they could do experiments and control the conditions, they would! 3rd - there exists "sciences" such as psychology. However, because psychologist have tended to not insist on controlled conditions, and have permitted all kinds of theories without trying to strongly test them, many scientists insist that psychology is not actually a science. I would tend to agree with them. Unfortunately, most work with spiritual activities falls in this area. Therefore - I think that both you, Don, and John Algeo are right - but you are arguing different areas of what science is. John appears to be talking only about "hard science" - and you are talking about "soft science". But for spiritual studies, there are requirements of repeatibility. If you can't describe how to do certain things, and get repeatable results, under specified conditions - then it ain't science, it's art. Regards, John Tullis From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Oct 1995 09:54:51 GMT From: Stephan.Clerc@psi.ch (STEPHAN H.-R. CLERC) Subject: RE: 666 post +be working ... has anyone gotten it? [...] Yes, twice, too. Stephan Clerc, Dornach ....yet another unemployed physicist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Oct 1995 10:08:49 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: One of JRC's comments JRC: Since I see my name showing up a few times in your posting, I thought I'd make a few 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? No one including myself questions the subjective reality of your experiences. We will each have our own explanation, perhaps partially derived from our study of Theosophy and partially from our own individual thoughts. >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), Your experiences are interesting to hear. Several people on the list have expressed an interest in them. It's good to hear that you're not using them to make claims. >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. Agreed. What any of us says is an personal expression of view, just backed up by our assertions, unless we find some way to authenticate it in the eyes of others. >Nonetheless, if you or anyone else read this as implying a >judgement on any other individual Theosophist My idea of what is going on is based upon a combination of my own ideas with those I've derived from a study of Theosophy. Does it matter if I change my mind about what is happening, when I hear your descriptions? Are you as open to changing you mind about what is happening, as you talk about it, as you expect others to be upon hearing you? >(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 If I'm writing about Theosophy, when does what I say become a personal view, and when am I allowed to say that something is theosophical? If everything becomes a personal view, we've rejected the body of theosophical teachings and accepted in their place the rule of personal views. Perhaps I don't make a distinction between my views and my literal understanding of Theosophy enough. Do you also try to make this distinction, or do you discount the value of talking of Theosophy apart from your personal views? >... 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" ... It's fair to speak of people in general in requiring some demonstration of the validity of a source. >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" The theosophical literature provides us with various concepts that describe the outer and inner workings of nature. If I have a preexisting idea from that literature, and apply it to what you say, am I wrong? Is there nothing said in that literature, so everything I think is just my opinions? I don't think the problem is with a "predrawn picture", but with an inflexibililty of mind and unwillingness to be open to change. That openness to change, though, does not mean that we will change, only that we're open to it. > ... 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 Your job is to describe what you understand and believe in the best possible manner, and in a flexible interchange with others compare your views. An open exchange allows us to better understand our positions, but does not necessarily mean that we'll change our views. >... 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, If you think I've misunderstood your words, you can clarify them. I can write about a school of spiritual development where the psychical is deemphasized, and you can write about your psychical investigations. Apart from the two of us, there are many other different views being promoted on 'theos-l'. I'm also inclined to write about "inner abilities," but may refer to something different that you might. >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 The two of us speak for different views that are not exclusively our own. We come from different backgrounds and approaches, which are shared by others. >...) ANYway, if you [Daniel C.] or >anyone else took my words as a personal judgement, I do genuinely apologize. You're being too sensitive here. People are interested in hearing your experiences. We're all allowed to apply the thesophical tenants to them for purposes of study and understanding. The reactions that you will always get will vary from uncritical, gushing acceptance to harsh rebuke. >> [Daniel C.] >> How do you KNOW that people in this "arena" have already reached conclusions >> about your experiences with angels prior to evidence even being presented? You can expect a fair, polite hearing, but cannot expect in advance that we'll come around to your way of thinking. Do you keep the same openness with regard to things that I might, for instance, say, pending further discussion? >Was not going to write about this anymore, but perhaps I will. Several people are looking forward to this. >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. Are you assuming that your views are true and the views of others are not? Do you assume that you just have to tell us what you've seen and experienced and we'll all see the light and agree with you? You cannot expect an open dialog unless *your* views are as open to change as you would have others be. >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. And this is why our discussions are useful, as a microcosm for what happens with large numbers of people in the theosophical groups. >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, Psychism is something that is put down because the attempt in most of the theosophical books is to stress a more-direct path to spiritual unfoldment. There is not denial of the reality of the experiences. People are encouraged to not seek to develop latent psychic faculities, but those with naturally arising abilities are an exception to the rule. >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 It is possible to use our faculties to do good in the world. We can use our fingers to type, our mouths to speak, our eyes to see. The psychical is a natural extension to our existing senses, which will be the birthright of everyone in some future race. When we consider *what* we would express, we have a different question. Our creativity is based upon self-expression and insight, and we can express it through whatever senses are at our avail. >... and it does not take 100+ people arguing against >them, but merely a few voices, to cause these people to choose silence - The experiences are valuable for us to hear. It would *also* be interesting to hear of spiritual experiences, and those involving some form of enlightenment -- except that most such experiences are even more difficult to put in words, were it possible and wise to speak of them. >Theosophy is rejecting these people without even realizing it ... you >must understand that they become *used* to being rejected, disparaged, >demeaned - Blavatsky has some harsh words to speak of Spiritualism, with mediums and spirit guides. We read of elementals and spooks that impersonate people and confuse the unwary. We're taught to be skeptical. A critical standpoint is needed in an area that is filled with so much uncertainity. This does not mean that we need to be unkind, nor to flatly deny things without even hearing about them. The need for caution does not need to translate into rejection of others and demeaning them. >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. I also believe in "angels", but I'd call them elementals, and would not choose to consult them for information and advice. Perhaps I'd change my mind if I talked to some? It's hard to say. My approach is to go for sources of "knowing" where there is no sense of "dialog" in the mind, but rather a sense of "source of information", a source that is not personified. >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 I'd say that it's important to tie our personal experiences back into Theosophy. We need a philosophical context to our views and experiences. Any new research ties in with the existing body of knowledge. >... there are others who like to write about the stuff) The writing about the "stuff", if it involves a deep exploration of the philosophy, is as real an experience on the astral plane. I'd suggest that it can be *more real* in the sense that it may involve higher parts of our nature. >... 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. The emphasis that I've usually seen is on "inner abilities" involving higher faculties of consciousness, rather than higher faculties of sensory perception, and upon one's inner ability to know rather than dialog with beings of the astral plane. That emphasis may discourage people if their interest is strongly in the psychic, because apart from the interest they may not be attracted to the theosohical philosophy. (I'm writing here about "many people", and not of JRC particularly.) We have a question about what is "valid abilities" and what is "serious work". It is allowable for a Theosohical Psychical Research Society, but this is *in addition to* the spiritual work, as a form of coexistence, and not in replacement of it. >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, This can happen for any type of material. If people get enought criticism they'll keep quiet on a topic. We'll all challenged to be diplomatic and to coexist with others of dramatically different viewpoints on theos-l. >by creating an environment that cannot help but be perceived as judgemental. I'm not sure that anything that I've said regarding the psychic is new with me, but can be found in the theosophical textbooks. There are reasons for the ideas, and we can discuss the pros and cons of them. >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), Nor would I speak of Theosophy generally at work, because the people there may not have the background to appreciate it. Just because we keep silent, though, does not demonstrate that we're in possession of a higher form of wisdom that others aren't ready to accept. >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 - There's a tendency in us to deny what we haven't experienced, things that challenge the status quo of the way that we see things. >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 When you speak of spiritual growth lightly, you're denying a reality experienced by others, and you are doning the very same thing you don't want those without psychic experiences to do with you. >to try to somehow get adulation of some sort Some psychics do this. You and your friends may not. > warned about all sorts of weird danger they are placing themselves in, Some warnings may not be realistic. You can't say, though, that because you're experienced no ill effects from what you've done that there are no dangers. Your exploration of the psychic is a personal choice, and if it comes out of naturally flowering abilities, and not forced psychic development, it may not be as bad for you as it would be for others. >and encouraged to avoid such things until their "moral" natures are developed This is a definite path of spiritual development. You can choose another path -- that's your choice -- but the path still exists and is of value to many people. .. and may even be given the inestimable gift of essays from "source" writers Some of us may be working on our writing skills, trying to put the philosophy in our own words. This is different than saying that we know better than the sages of humanity, including Blavatsky, because we've developed astral sight. >- i.e., to be *condescended to* every bit >as much as they would in the roomful of scientists. The negative attitude works both ways. Our expectations affect how we react to others, and that reaction changes the nature of the interchange. An condenscending attitude would be bad for me, you, or any of us to take. We are not judging people, but exploring philosophy, widening our understanding of both inner and outer life about us. >> 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 this diversity of topics allows our different discussions to coexist. >.. 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. I think it's a good place too. It provides us with a good opportunity to both express our understanding and experiences in writing, and to exchange views with those of quite different backgrounds. Hopefully we're learning from each other -- JRC and Eldon -- and not just defending fixed positions. >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. Again, you're using "inner abilities" to apply to the psychical, and classing yourself among "those who possess them", and excluding other abilities or faculties that you don't recognize or aren't going after. >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. It's not a contradiction. Extensions of the senses and ability to act non-physically are useful, as is the ability to type or drive a car. But these are powers of senses, and not of mind, or of buddhi. We can train to ice skate or work on acquiring self-knowledge and wisdom about life. Acutal experiences in life lead to the acquisiton of wisdom, but those experiences don't have to be non-physical. And a form of "deep study" is a second source of wisdom. But I would be skeptical about talking to non-physical entities for reliable information. Perhaps if you write more about your experiences, I would hear something to help me change my mind? >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, If they're developing spirituality, they don't particularly need paranormal senses nor dialog with astral entities. I'm not saying they shouldn't use any special "gifts" that naturally arise. We have three models of development here. (1) Awaken the spiritual and the lower powers will naturally arise of their own accord. (The model I most approve of.) (2) Awaken the lower powers and belittle or ignore the spiritual. (3) Awaken the lower powers and work on the spiritual. (What you're mentioning here.) For the path that you mention, you'd have to describe what you mean by "integrates spirituality into this exercise" to see if we are talking about the same thing. >to whom warnings about "delusion" or "mistaking the psychic for the >spiritual" are really incredibly condescending, Most of what I've heard about the nature of astral senses and perception is that it is very subjective, where we see things according to our expectations and to obtain some degree of "objectivity" is highly difficult. If you have experiences to the contrary, it would be useful for us to hear of them. >who are engaged in all sorts of very >interesting research and service with those abilities, That research presumably duplicates the abc's of inner powers that the Mahatmas have long ago mastered. They presumable had a reason for not simply making publically available information on the occult arts. If it is in the public good to keep such knowledge secret, should we work to uncover and reveal fragments of that knowledge? >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. There are useful skills that aren't discouraged. Mesmerism, for instance, where raw prana is used in healing, is considered good. And using a mild form of "mind reading" is helpful in knowing the right thing to say to family or friends. Respectfully, though not always in agreement, -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Oct 1995 10:39:52 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Daniel on Globes Eldon, It seems that you, Daniel Caldwell and I basically see things similarly, namely that the great mass of humanity ("our" humanity) has its whole evolution, for the time being, here upon our Globe. Where we may have some disagreements (mostly, I assume, through unfamiliarity with Purucker) is how Fifth Rounders become so advanced (here on Globe D or elsewhere?) and how, esxactly, when one emerges from Devachan on Globe D, one comes back to the physical plane to incarnate -- by passing through all the globes or simply descending through Globe D's spheres until reaching the physical. The old Aryans of India have a very interesting doctrine that the souls awaiting incarnation are drawn into the clouds, descend to the earth as rain, become involved in certain plant life (not all kinds), the plants are eaten by males, who during coitus introduce the "seed of life" into the womb. It is not clear to me (with a tip of the hat to Paul Johnson) that this whole story is to be taken literally. What do the clouds symbolize? The rain? The plants? etc. It is quite possible that this teaching is also LITERALLY true, but we might find hints of the doctrine of globes in it, especially as HPB and Wllm Q. Judge were at such pains to highlight the ancient Indian view on cosmology and anthropology. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Oct 1995 10:44:08 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Source Teachings Original: > >But, Patrick, most of the serious Blavatsky students I personally know, do > >not accept the claims and teachings of Bailey, the teachings of the Temple > and > >some of the writings of Helena Roerich. > Patrick responds: > I find this an interesting phenomena as the writings are geniune as part > of the Mahatmas' work. All of the statements I have heard that purport to > show that they are not so have been easily dispensed with. "Source" > teachings would be all those by Mahatma's and Initiates. > > >And HPB herself admits that there is such a thing as PSEUDO-THEOSOPHY. > > Indeed so -- and its quality is easily discernable (sectarianism, > self-importance, caustic personal criticims, authoritarian control, etc.) It seems a little disingenuous to say that statements to the effect that Bailey's work is not in line with HPB are "easily dispensed with." Again, we see the pseudo-Theosophy is "easily discernable." If all of this is so easy, why do we have such masses of pseudo-literature? Why do that mass of Theosophists find Bailey's work unconvincing? It doesn't sound so easy to me. Perhaps, Patrick, you could expound on your position. Could you name some typical examples of "Pseudo-Theosophy" and show where they demonstrate "sectarianism, self-importance, caustic personal criticims, authoritarian control, etc." I am also curious where you get the list of 4 criteria "sectarianism, etc." Is this in Bailey's writing somewhere, or a list of criteria you developed? Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Oct 1995 10:44:16 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: re: on CWL Thom writes: > The whole concept of a "next Messenger" is liable to produce more conflict and > delusion than it's worth (just as the concept of a Messiah does). I don't know > why H.P.B. even brought it up. This may be. What is curious to me is why nearly every major movement seems to bring it up. Christianity expects the second coming. Zoroastrians have long expected their Soishyant, and the Jews the Messiah. Buddhists expect Maitreya, and Hindus, the Kalki Avatar. Muhammed is the "Seal of the Prophets" and when he comes again, it is THE END. Many native American tribes expected a Messenger to lead them away from the White Man's Destruction, and millenial movements (often called "cargo-cults" in African communities) have expected Jesus or another Savior to help them. What is HPB up to when she mentions that in one hundred years (i.e. 1975) another Messenger(s) will arrive for the West? What is merely her hope? Part of a "plan"? Merely an allegory of the cyclic nature of things? Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Oct 1995 12:26:01 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: The Hum (for JRC) Last week when I posted about living next to woods, JRC said he'd be interested in further reports of changes I observed as the result of moving to the country. Here's a weird one. This weekend I drove up to Northern Virginia to help a friend move. After we got most of his stuff moved, he and two other friends and I went out to eat. Almost as soon as we sat down, I noticed that the whole building seemed to be vibrating. Sort of a metallic hum as if some HVAC component was right under our table in the basement. So I asked the other three "do you feel that?" Blank looks, so I described the humming, vibrating sensation. No one else felt it. Later on, while helping in the final stages of moving, I noticed the same effect in the mid-rise building we were in. Sitting on the bed I could feel the whole building vibrating. Again I asked if others felt it too; again no one did. What I finally concluded was that these sensations were simply those of modern buildings in high-density areas with lots of traffic. The buildings themselves are full of vibrating machinery, and are on streets vibrating with non-stop traffic. But all that was just "background" noise of which I was totally unconscious before. Only after moving someplace that DOESN'T vibrate like that was I able to perceive the hum of the city. This is metaphorical, I think, of the way that we can be oblivious to the most evident sensations as long as our sensitivity threshold is high due to constant stimulation. Lessen the stimulation, the threshold lowers, and soon one starts noticing things that "weren't there before." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Oct 1995 14:24:59 GMT From: Aki Korhonen Subject: Re: To Paul re steiner-l Hello Paul and the others. On Mon, 2 Oct 1995, K. Paul Johnson wrote: > Nothing at all. However, to use theosophical ideas but claim > to derive them elsewhere looks somewhat manipulative. Another > who did that was Max Heindel. But theosophical ideas come elsewhere, Blavatsky herself said that all theosophical ideas can be found in every religions and in myriad books around time and place. As theosophist here use to say; theosophical world view is a collection of ancient wisdom which has existed always. But you are right that TS has promoted them a lot, but we can't copyright them. If somebody has a part of the truth and operates by this knowledge, I think it is good, it is not so important, where the information comes. > As individuals, of course that's possible. Organizationally, > don't hold your breath. (Sorry, that's an idiom-- meaning it > won't happen anytime soon.) Yes, I think you are right. I want to return to my original issue, which was to invite people at STEINER-L to participitate our THEOS-L, I suppose not very many would come anyway, since they have enough to follow in their own lists, but as a friendly gesture. Peace. aki korhonen Rovaniemi, Finland. P.S. To my knowledge Max Heindl was Steiner's student. Recently I have browsed his Rosicrusian Cosmo-Consept, and I found it quite 'theosophical' and it is written in a clear style. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Oct 1995 15:06:03 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: CWL and Mars >I never did understand this business with the globes anyway. > >Liesel What part of globes don't you understand? Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Oct 1995 15:06:11 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Globes, Planes, Principles: some Comments to Jerry S. From Daniel C. Some responses to Rich (and I really am trying to be nice here folks): Rich: Every second in time, is the cause of the next second, and the effect of the last. This is known in physics as the Law of Causation. Very few things (if any) are all cause, or all effect. Everything is effected by other things and in turn will cause other things. Its kind of like a network in which we are all tied together. The Causal Plane is simply one name given to the fourth plane upward. Some call it the Upper Mental Plane. Our Reincarnating Ego is located on this plane, and this, in turn, is where the plane gets is quaint name. I am very sorry if all of this is "problematic" to you, Rich. Its not a problem to me. When the Masters labeled areas as "spheres of causes" and 'spheres of effects" they were, IMHO, unconsciously muddying the waters. They were trying to get a somewhat scientific view of karma. They are quite right, but it is confusing because it relates only to our human condition seen through the Law of Karma, which is but another way of looking at the Law of Causality. In short, the "principles" and "spheres of causes and effects" have little to do with the theory of globes. Rich: If this is your understanding, Rich, then go for it. But occultism and magic see it the way that I have discussed with globes being located on the planes. Personally, I find the idea that each globe is surrounded by its own unique set of planes to be pretty problematic. Your idea (and other theosophist may agree with you) has many theosophists confused and confounded about the whole teaching of the globes (it goes without saying that your "confusion" is seen from my own viewpoint, and that it could be me who is confused - so don't get all bent out of shape and take this as some kind of personal attack. OK? I am not attacking, just simply telling others on the list that another viewpoint is possible). Rich:< How could different parts of our own septenary nature exist on different globes? This makes no sense to me, literally.> I never said that they did. I said that they exist on other planes, and they do. Its funny how these work, isn't it? For example, your idea that emotions and thoughts, and spirit can all exist on the physical plane make no sense to me, literally. Rich: As far as I know, Rich, you are the only one on this list to ever say such a thing. Neither Eldon nor I have ever said that the globes are just planes. In fact, I pointed this out to you once before. Why do you keep saying this? Is our planet earth the same thing as the physical plane? I don't think so. My own personal view here is that earth is on (or in) the physical plane - along with a whole lot of other globes/spheres/sephiroth/planets. Rich:< To me the teachings are extremely clear that the Globes are complex worlds of planes in themseves, and cannot be reduced to simply one plane or another.> These "clear" teachings are nowhere to be found, my friend. Please say "the globes are on the planes" one hundred times for me. I challenge you to find a single quote from any Source Teaching (define this in any way, shape, or form, that you want) that says each globe has its own set of planes. Our universe has 7 cosmic planes of manifestation. On these planes are 12 globes, situated as shown by both HPB and Purucker. If you want more planes, I am afraid that you will have to go looking in other universes. Jerry S. No flames please. No personal attacks intended. My challenge for source material quotations is perfectly in line with Rich's strong desire for such. Should be a piece of cake. :-) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Oct 1995 17:50:45 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: several The latest "American Theosopist" published the Convention Resolutions. These are voted on by everyone attending the Convention. I think one bears repeating on this list: "The Theosophical Society of America sends fraternal greetings to the United Lodge of Theosophists; the Theosophical Society, Pasadena; and the Temple of the People, Halcyon." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Oct 1995 18:02:36 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: an article in the "Syracuse Post Standard"The headline reads In our local paper today, there is a picture of a man preaching to inmates at the county jail. He is described as a former convict, who'd escaped from Alabama prison 3 times. The story goes on that while he was fleeing for the third time, he somehow saw the light, became "born-again", & turned himself in. He eventually was pardoned, & went to a Bible College in Oklahoma. He now has a family, & flies around the country evangelizing to prisoners. It's not the first time i've heard such a story. I thought it'd be of interest, because it fits Daniel H. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Oct 1995 18:03:27 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Marley's ghost. Liesel Writes: >I was taught to learn what I could from the past, but to live >in the Now. Otherwise you're always dragging all sorts of Karma >chains around with you, like Marley's ghost. Marley's ghost forged those chains one by one during his life because of his greed and his own spiritual blindness. Amidst his suffering in death, he sent to Scrooge the Ghost of Christmas Past so that he could avoid the fate awaiting him with the ghost of Christmas future. Recognizing the errors of the past is one thing, but moving on without taking steps to assure that the errors do not happen again guarantees that they will. If you would like, just think of me as your friendly Ghost of Christmas Past reminding all of us of those errors that are yet to be fixed and are ready to confront us again in the future. >Also according to a quote from Martin Luther King I've >mentioned before, but it fits in here: >"Hate the deed, but love the doer". If you can't forgive, >you'll get all shrivelled up inside. All in all, it's my firm >belief that it's more productive to keep on going happily, & >just keep a little watch out of the corner of your eye, because >we don't want that kind of nonesense to happen again. This may be your philosophy "to keep on going happily" but King fought on for justice until stopped by an assassin's bullet. King wasn't "going happily" watching "out of the corner of his eye", but he was fighting in the trenches during every moment of his life. I would rather think that King's happiness might have come from knowing that he made a difference, even if the cost was his life. Whether King took his own advice to "love the doer" of the deeds of racism, I don't know, but whether he did or not, he continued to fight their deeds. His example is one worthy of following IMHO. Namaste Jerry HE From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Oct 1995 18:22:08 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Bing To JRC and Jerry H-E It so happens that I voted for Bing as well. I think that at the time, he got a dirty deal. But that was 4 and 6 years ago, I believe. I was taught to learn what I could from the past, but to live in the Now. Otherwise you're always dragging all sorts of Karma chains around with you, like Marley's ghost. Also according to a quote from Martin Luther King I've mentioned before, but it fits in here: "Hate the deed, but love the doer". If you can't forgive, you'll get all shrivelled up inside. All in all, it's my firm belief that it's more productive to keep on going happily, & just keep a little watch out of the corner of your eye, because we don't want that kind of nonesense to happen again. The realitiy of today is Bing is on the Board. If I judge Bing correctly, he's not holding any grudges. Well, I think neither should we. I did a heap of protesting while things were happening. But that doesn't apply anymore today, not to me anyway. I'd rather go on to something more productive now. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Oct 1995 18:36:00 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: To Paul re steiner-l Dear Aki, I agree with your friendly gesture. If you know 1 or 2 brave ones, why not let them try to communicate with us. Some of us will be friendly, & some won't. So that's the way the cookie usually crumbles. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Oct 1995 19:20:49 GMT From: John R Crocker Subject: Re: One of JRC's comments On Tue, 3 Oct 1995 Richtay@aol.com wrote: > This whole thread of attacking Eldon is not nice. It is one thing to > criticize dead persons, especially those who have had a large impact on > Theosophical history (HPB, WQH, CWL, Besant, Jinarajadasa etc.) It is quite > another to continually lambaste someone, still living, in a public forum. Okay, I'm not nice. But I fear such a criticism, coming from you, won't exactly keep me up nights. > If JRC would not like to share his experiences, that is his choice. If he > would like to share them, either on the public board or in private e-mail to > individuals, that is also his choice. > But to single out Eldon as the reason why certain discussions may not take > place here strikes me as a subtle attempt to discredit Eldon and draw > criticism to him. Gee, perhaps I need to say it *again*: It was not just to be able to talk about my own experiences that I was arguing ... and not just against Eldon as an individual. It was on behalf of a growing number of people who are using various inner abilities ... dismissed in condescending tones as "psychic" ... and against a large thoughtform that Eldon does articulate quite clearly - and let's talk about "subtle attempts" shall we? Is not this post one of those? You never accuse *me* by name, but this is "personal", is it not? Eldon certainly has the right to voice his opinions, and he does, and quite often, about "psychic abilities" - and *my* opinion, whether *you* like it or not, is that the ideas Eldon voices (which are held by far more people than Eldon) create an environment *hostile* to those many who have a whole range of inner experiences they might begin to share were there a more open environment. Clearly neither you nor Eldon agree with this (or perhaps you do, but don't care). And this is now the *fourth* time you have seen fit to "on a public list" critisize my manner of discourse ... you, who in the opinion of more than just myself may be one of the single most judgemental people to have ever spoken on this list. I would suggest you look to yourself for awhile before you begin telling others how they ought to communicate. > One may disagree with Eldon's positions without blaming > Eldon for events on this board, and I have to speak up for Eldon that I do > not see him blaming others, labeling others, or in general using personal > arguments to make his points. And Eldon certainly seems willing to engage in > dialogue, examine his positions, etc. No of course you do not see Eldon "labeling" others, both because you and Eldon both seem to be interceding for one another, and because many of his "labels" are in agreement with your labels. > Why is it that in the "psychic powers" department the board has stooped to > blaming, personal considerations and nastiness? I don't think it makes the > issues and the ideas about them any clearer, rather it muddies the waters. Say! Why don't we replace the words "psychic powers" with the intitials "CWL"? > Why not leave all of our names out of things, and only mention them for > signatures and quotes? It really strikes me that personal stuff has no place > here, and only seems to lead to enmity. I know that sounds barren, but I'm > tired of the jibes and labels, let's just stick to the discussions at hand. You want the path, or do you want a nice, uncomplicated purely abstract discussion of "occultism". As *HPB* mentioned in her Esoteric Writings, the *first* thing that happens when people actually step onto the path is that *everything buried is thrown to the surface* - tremendous psychological energies are unleashed ... and in general people become an *enormous* pain in the ass. You think *I'm* nasty? Christ, I thought you knew something about HPB ... you would have kicked *her* off the list months ago. Have you read the Mahatma Letters? Those guys were often *scathing*, and had no problem getting personal. We are all adults here, and many of those here are in the middle of withstanding the periodic internal pressures that are the first steps of the actual path - which has very little to do with abstract philosophy, and quite a bit to do with the transformation of the whole human energy system. The road to harmony is *not* through avoidance of conflict, but through entering fully into it - in staying engaged - and having the emotional courage to remain engaged until some final point of view, perhaps much much larger than both individual points of view emerges out of the discourse. This may, by the way, be one of the reasons why you seem "young" to some on this list. Eldon and I have been, off and on, engaged in a large dispute ... we have very *very* different conversational styles, use terms completely differently, and hold exceedingly different points of view - and after a month long and very intense discussion (that has been about something far deeper than "psychic abilities") there is as of yet only the barest beginnings of anything that might be called resolution ... but there may *be* some much larger picture *neither* of us as of yet grasp - that may not appear until he and I engage one another on various different topics for several *years* ... but I believe in staying engaged with one another we are delivering to one another gifts that little else could ... can you perhaps grasp that possibly a decade from now we will each consider one another to have been teachers .. that precisely *because* of the intensity of our disputes a spiritual bond of great beauty may be being forged? Can you grasp that what you are objecting to is but a superficial, and almost epiphenomenal aspect of the real debate - which is one in which both of our root paradigms are withstanding pressure ... being pushed to expand beyond their current limits ... and that far from being a "distraction", such stuff is at the very core of what the actual travelling of the path *is*? If you want to *study* the "path", keep reading the "source" materiels, and discussing the finer points in them ... but if you actually intend to *walk* the damn thing ... then you are going to invoke whirlwinds of turmoil (and there are a considerable number of people on this list that know this through terribly personal experience) ... and if you can't even stand the discomfort of minor and fleeting personal squabbles on the list ... then you're *really* gonna be upset when the first few demons of your buried anger, your sublimated sexuality, or carefully hidden judgements come raging out of your basement with fangs bared. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Oct 1995 21:21:54 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: CWL and Theosophy Jerry H-E writes: "What bothers me is that due to general ignorance concerning TS history, the general public blends CWL and Besant together with Blavatsky. HPB's accomplishments are forgotten in light of what CWL and Besant made of the TS." Yes, exactly. When I mention in class or to an acquaintance that I study Theosophy, those who have EVEN HEARD OF IT say "Oh, yes, I've heard of Annie Besant." And I think, "O God, we're doomed." Give me some hope here people: is the movement a failure the way K.H. worries that it would be in the ML? Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Oct 1995 21:22:01 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: One of JRC's comments This whole thread of attacking Eldon is not nice. It is one thing to criticize dead persons, especially those who have had a large impact on Theosophical history (HPB, WQH, CWL, Besant, Jinarajadasa etc.) It is quite another to continually lambaste someone, still living, in a public forum. If JRC would not like to share his experiences, that is his choice. If he would like to share them, either on the public board or in private e-mail to individuals, that is also his choice. But to single out Eldon as the reason why certain discussions may not take place here strikes me as a subtle attempt to discredit Eldon and draw criticism to him. One may disagree with Eldon's positions without blaming Eldon for events on this board, and I have to speak up for Eldon that I do not see him blaming others, labeling others, or in general using personal arguments to make his points. And Eldon certainly seems willing to engage in dialogue, examine his positions, etc. In the recent globes debate, Eldon has a very particular view, makes no bones about it being based largely on Purucker, and discussed the whole topic very clamly and openly. Why is it that in the "psychic powers" department the board has stooped to blaming, personal considerations and nastiness? I don't think it makes the issues and the ideas about them any clearer, rather it muddies the waters. Why not leave all of our names out of things, and only mention them for signatures and quotes? It really strikes me that personal stuff has no place here, and only seems to lead to enmity. I know that sounds barren, but I'm tired of the jibes and labels, let's just stick to the discussions at hand. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Oct 1995 21:22:05 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: several Liesel wrote: > The latest "American Theosopist" published the Convention > Resolutions. These are voted on by everyone attending the > Convention. I think one bears repeating on this list: > > "The Theosophical Society of America sends fraternal greetings > to the United Lodge of Theosophists; the Theosophical Society, > Pasadena; and the Temple of the People, Halcyon." Well, the original and my reply probably belong in "Theos-roots," but people seem to ignore that board. This fraternal greeting extended by the President of the T.S. (Wheaton) was printed in a U.L.T. newsletter, called ERGATES, and it was met with a warm welcome. There is a large discussion taking place in U.L.T. circles right now, how to bring the entire Theosophical movement closer together into more of a brotherhood without sacrificing our position that the original teachings of Theosophy are those upon which we stand. There is much interest in fraternal work and cooperation in U.L.T. lodges, I think -- we are just now feeling out how we may do that, and how we can respectfully work together, while maintaining our commitment to the undiluted Message we believe was delivered. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 02 Oct 1995 22:30:44 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Globes, Planes, Principles Jerry S. writes: > Every second in time, is the cause of the next second, and the > effect of the last. This is known in physics as the Law of Causation. > Very few things (if any) are all cause, or all effect. Everything is effected > by other things and in turn will cause other things. .... > When > the Masters labeled areas as "spheres of causes" and 'spheres of > effects" they were, IMHO, unconsciously muddying the waters. Well, this is certainly possible, but (1) I think what the Masters are saying is right on and (2) I tend to trust Them a whole lot, so I try to make sense of what They write, and perhaps I fool myself when I do so. Maybe. What I read from the Mahatma Letters on the topic, and what I understand Buddhist cosmology to be saying as well, is that the only plane of CAUSES for human beings is here, on the physical plane, where ALL of our energies can (potentially) manifest, and where Manas is incarnated to take responsibility. I think you are right, that HERE, on THIS plane, causes and effects are all tangled up, because we are experiencing Karma even while we make more. Effects lead us simultaneously to produce new causes as we react, mostly unconsciously I'm afraid. The Kama-, Loka-, and Arupa-lokas are all planes of EFFECTS only, no new causes are set in motion, which is why early Buddhism taught that the devas and asuras etc. could not reach Nirvana from there: those devas etc. are US IN DEVACHAN. When the Buddhists teach that we are reborn as devas if we are very, very good, they don't mean on some other globe, I think, but in Devachan, which may last for thousands of years. It may not be typical for Theosophists to think of Devachan as "rebirth" but it is, when you emerge from Kamaloka, you are "born anew" into the blissful realms. You are -- temporarily -- a Deva, with a possible "lifespan" there of tens of thousands (or more) years. But no new causes are set in motion, only effectfs from earth life are experienced, until worn out, then "descent" back down to earth for another go at it. That, at least, is what I understand the Theosophical teaching to be (according to HPB/her Teachers). All causes are set in motion here, "down below" and those effects which CAN be experienced here ARE. Many effects CANNOT be experienced here, and so we have the after -death states for those energies to manifest in their appropriate way. Jerry S. again: >For example, your idea that emotions and >thoughts, and spirit can all exist on the physical plane make >no sense to me, literally. Well, according to HPB and Mr. Judge, the Atman or "spirit" is not of this plane, and will not incarnate until some vast period hence. All of humanity is said to be preparing for the Great Event, and while "many are called, few are chosen." For now, the teaching on Atman appears to be that it is "attached" through the monad to the individual in incarnation, but only as a witness, a Perceiver. But the rest of our nature appears to be incarnated in the body. When here in my physical body, I write these thoughts on the screen, I experience different emotions. When I am afraid, I get a certain "tightness" in my stomach. When I am glad a smile break out on my face. When I am stressed for time my eyes don't read so well, etc. Emotions and thoughts seem pretty clearly on this plane, at least those aspects of emotion & thought that are able to manifest here. There may well be other emotions and thought of the Higher Manas above my personality, and as I do not have waking access to them, they may perhaps be said to exist "on another plane." But most of conscious human waking life (for the non-Initiate) appears to be here, on the physical plane. Most of us are not aware of the astral or higher planes most of the time, and so if thoughts are relegated to a distant "mental" or "causal" plane, it is not clear how we could be experiencing them here, in the physical brain and body. Jerry S: > These "clear" teachings are nowhere to be found, my friend. Please say > "the globes are on the planes" one hundred times for me. I challenge you to > find a single quote from any Source Teaching (define this in any way, shape, or > form, > that you want) that says each globe has its own set of planes. I thought Daniel Caldwell presented quotes to the effect that the different "lokas" are all within Globe D's "sphere of effects." I understood "lokas" to mean planes. Not cosmic planes, but different states of consciousness on different "layers" of space within a certain Globe. I didn't sense your post as a "flame" at all, even though you seem to be strongly disagreeing with me. To me, it just sounded like you were expressing your views, and the reasons for them. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Oct 1995 01:27:52 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: One of JRC's comments JRC: Since I see my name a number of times in this posting, I think that I'd like to make a comment or two. We should be able to allow differing views to be discussed and to coexist without having to silence any of them. That doesn't mean that we agree with something, once we've heard it, just that we give everyone's ideas a place in the sun. We can comment on the other ideas from our standpoint, or from the standpoint of the source teachings, without attempting to silence anyone. >> Rich > JRC >Gee, perhaps I need to say it *again*: It was not just to be able >to talk about my own experiences that I was arguing ... and not just >against Eldon as an individual. It was on behalf of a growing number of >people We both agree that we're speaking for different classes of people, a group of people with similar beliefs, and not simply the two of us as individuals. How well we can understand each other and coexist as individuals may show on a small scale what the groups may or may not be able to do in a larger scale. >who are using various inner abilities ... dismissed in condescending >tones as "psychic" It's not really condenscending until you start using "higher than" or "lower than". We could say that the physical is "lower than" the feelings, but that doesn't mean we will always refuse to go jogging, and instead spend our time writing love poems. The difference is that we are offered a spiritual path that involves a different part of our nature than the psychic. >... and against a large thoughtform that Eldon does articulate quite clearly I'd call it a body of thought or belief system, and say that it is based upon the source teachings of Theosophy, althought I might not be able to do a point-for-point justification of it using HPB quotes. >... the ideas Eldon voices (which are held by >far more people than Eldon) create an environment *hostile* to those >many who have a whole range of inner experiences they might begin to >share were there a more open environment. That sense of hostility is something we should work on removing, to the extent that it is present. Certainly differing beliefs about what is happening during a paranormal experience should not per se require hostility. I've sensed a similar argument with Daniel H., where my different ideas that would describe his subjective experiences, where I don't use the Bible and Jesus and God in my descriptions, may be seen as hostile. With him too, I accept the experience but may not accept the explanation offered. Is that hostile? Only to the fixed ideas. > ... you and Eldon both seem to be interceding for one another, and >because many of his "labels" are in agreement with your labels. We use labels when we want a pat answer, when we want to say that "you're just one of *those* people," and want to end any discussion and dialog. We're labelling you when we dismiss things as "merely psychic" without giving them a second though. You're labelling us when you dismiss us as "hostile critics" and not give our viewpoint a second thought. >You want the path, or do you want a nice, uncomplicated purely >abstract discussion of "occultism". The Path is when we get practical with our lives. Getting practical involves opening ourselves up in unexpected ways. It's not obivious until such an opening happens in what direction it will come. We cannot make a generalization for everyone. >As *HPB* mentioned in her Esoteric >Writings, the *first* thing that happens when people actually step onto >the path is that *everything buried is thrown to the surface* This is why we're warned to ripen ourselves, and consider gravely any pledges we might take, for we don't want to open ourselves to more than we can handle. But the appearance of paranormal powers is more akin to the ability to run a six-minute mile than it is to the ability to write a book or compose a concert. Their presence does not indicate that one is closer to (or farther from) the Path than another person. >tremendous psychological energies are unleashed ... and in general people >become an *enormous* pain in the ass. They don't *have to be*. That's like driving too fast, and being unable to stay in your own lane on the freeway. The energies can channel into great creative works, or a profound sensitivity to and empathy with others. How the energies channel in your life, or in my life, depend upon the structure of our respective personalities. Are we really ready to "let 'em rip"? >You think *I'm* nasty? Christ, I thought you knew something about HPB ... >you would have kicked *her* off the list months ago. HPB had her particular style. She often would go for shock value in her communications. That was to make an emotional impact on people. When writing (with the assistance of her Masters) "The Secret Doctrine", we see more of an attempt at communication of grand ideas. You can also use words for their emotional impact, and grab our attention. But you'll also need some philosophy to go along with your words, or you'll sound like Daniel H. promising us hellfire if we don't convert. >Have you read the Mahatma Letters? Those guys were >often *scathing*, and had no problem getting personal. They had little patience at times with those untrained in their methods. They also had a fairly low view of Spiritualism and spirit guides. >We are all adults here, and many of those here are in the middle >of withstanding the periodic internal pressures that are the first steps >of the actual path True. And it happens in our lives in quite individual ways. > - which has very little to do with abstract philosophy, and quite a >bit to do with the transformation of the whole human energy system. Which has very much to do with our deep studies, leading to awakening a budding sense of direct knowing of things, an opening of higher faculties of mind, quite apart from any sense of sence perception. This opening is metaphorically spoken of as our "inner teacher", which is not a voice of some external being, but rather a power of mind. The whole human energy system is in flux, and in transformation, but the Path involves hastened evolution for the purpose of participating in the work of the Hierarchy of Compassion. And the Path does not involve riding the crestwave of modern thought -- or "post-modern" if that term is preferred -- but rather evolving in ways that are unrelated to any particular culture or society. The training is in Fifth-Round consciousness, not in the advances of the current Fourth-Round subrace. >The road to harmony is *not* through avoidance of conflict, >but through entering fully into it - in staying engaged - and having the >emotional courage to remain engaged until some final point of view, perhaps >much much larger than both individual points of view emerges out of the >discourse. A certain degree of change may be possible in both of our views, but I see that we'll come to a point where we understand and can describe the other's views, but cannot come any closer to agreement on it. >there is as of yet only the barest beginnings of anything that might be called >resolution ... but there may *be* some much larger picture *neither* of >us as of yet grasp It's always possible for us to change over time. Or for others to read our discussions and benefit by seeing the different sides presented. >- that may not appear until he and I engage one >another on various different topics for several *years* Perhaps years. We do change over time, and we are altered to a degree by the people that we associate with. >... but I believe >in staying engaged with one another we are delivering to one another >gifts that little else could ... can you perhaps grasp that possibly a >decade from now we will each consider one another to have been teachers Rich is responding from a different standpoint, I think. We're taught to not defend ourselves when slighted, but to quickly rise to the defense of others. Rich is rising to defend me, and the defense is appreciated. >.. that precisely *because* of the intensity of our disputes a spiritual >bond of great beauty may be being forged? Can you grasp that what you are >objecting to is but a superficial, and almost epiphenomenal aspect of the >real debate - which is one in which both of our root paradigms are >withstanding pressure ... being pushed to expand beyond their current >limits ... and that far from being a "distraction", such stuff is at the >very core of what the actual travelling of the path *is*? It's possible that we'll grow from the dialog, but we also need to be cautious about thinking about ourselves in terms that are too grand. It's easy to find something that one is doing in life, and to tell oneself that one is therefore on the "fast track" and stops the hard work of questioning life, and looking in unexpected places for spiritual treasures. >If you want to *study* the "path", keep reading the "source" >materiels, and discussing the finer points in them ... but if you >actually intend to *walk* the damn thing ... then you are going to invoke >whirlwinds of turmoil (and there are a considerable number of people on >this list that know this through terribly personal experience) But I'd say there's a way to "walk" it *through the reading*, a method of engaging the process which then starts opening up in other areas of life on its own. >... and if >you can't even stand the discomfort of minor and fleeting personal squabbles >on the list ... then you're *really* gonna be upset when the first few >demons of your buried anger, your sublimated sexuality, or carefully hidden >judgements come raging out of your basement with fangs bared. Why do I think of a dragon breathing fire at this point? A bit of a flame? On the Arcana list I was critiqued for not speaking with enough passion in my writings. My response was that it was possible to speak with passion, but that passion did not need to be fueled by anger. Passion comes from really caring about something, and that caring can come out in many different kinds of feelings. Perhaps we can keep the passion but find more useful feelings to convey it? -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Oct 1995 04:27:42 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Re: CWL, LCC, Adyar, Olcott, etc. Ann, thanks very much for your postings. You bring up some very good points and I LOVE your questions!!!!! It will be interesting to see what answers and thoughts Rich , Jerry HE and others give to your questions. I will jot down one or two of my own thoughts as I briefly reflect on your posting. I think we must always distinguish between the validity of a belief or idea and the sincerity of the person who holds the belief or idea. >From time to time over the past 25 years I hae have had some dealings with the Jehovah Witnesses. I believe that most of the Jehovah Witnesses are very good, sincere people. Furthermore, I believe that their beliefs give them hope and faith in a world that sometimes seems very cruel and impersonal, etc. Having said all that, I would ask: Are their beliefs "true" and "valid"? THeir beliefs may be totally wrong and false and yet these beliefs are uplifting to the beleivers and the beleivers can also be very honest, kind and gentle people. Concerning the Liberal Catholic Church, I know one priest in the LCC who is a very kind, gentle soul. I would trust my life in his hands. Yet does that therefore mean that his LCC beliefs are necessarily true? Read the preface to Part II (pp. iii-iv) in *Isis Unveiled* (Vol II) and see what HPB says about "beliefs" and "people". I'll write more later, Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Oct 1995 05:18:39 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: CWL and Theosophy According to Richtay@aol.com: > > Yes, exactly. When I mention in class or to an acquaintance that I study > Theosophy, those who have EVEN HEARD OF IT say "Oh, yes, I've heard of Annie > Besant." And I think, "O God, we're doomed." > > Give me some hope here people: is the movement a failure the way K.H. worries > that it would be in the ML? > > Rich > Could you be more specific? It's both a spectacular success and a dismal failure, depending on how you measure it. Annie Besant is equally involved in both: a truly great person in terms of her role in history, but a leader who took the TS down a path it was never intended to pursue. Under her presidency, the membership quadrupled and even now is three times what it was when she took over. The Adyar property was vastly expanded, and lodges grew around the world. But with an increase in quantity there was a decrease in quality. If you can specify what KH was worried about, in what passage, perhaps we can give you hope-- or sadly conclude that the TS has failed. It all depends on how you phrase the question. Cheers PJ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Oct 1995 05:48:38 GMT From: 1712.yungkans@westside.com (james yungkans) Subject: All This Bickering I have been reading Theos-l for a while, and feel that well too much arguing about how someone takes a position. Souldn't theosophists be beyond this, and approach comparitive discussion in a little more "LIGHT"....it would be nice to see. James From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Oct 1995 05:48:42 GMT From: 1712.yungkans@westside.com (james yungkans) Subject: Steiner Wasn't he the President of the German TS ? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Oct 1995 06:05:05 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Re: Source Teachings >By saying the Bailey teachings are "source", you say that >"Well, everyone who calls themself a theosophist should read Alice Bailey >and agree with her." Actually "source" would mean anything of God's Wisdom (the meaning of theosophy). At the beginning of each of D.K.'s books (written down by A.A.B.) there is a passage which says that we should only accept writings which call forth a response from the true spiritual intuition. As long as one is sincerely seeking God's Wisdom the truth will eventually be found. Cheers, Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Oct 1995 06:05:28 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: RE: CWL & Theosophy Rich: >This may be. What is curious to me is why nearly every major movement seems to bring it up. Christianity expects the second coming. Zoroastrians have long expected their Soishyant, and the Jews the Messiah. Buddhists expect Maitreya, and Hindus, the Kalki Avatar. Muhammed is the "Seal of the Prophets" and when he comes again, it is THE END. Many native American tribes expected a Messenger to lead them away from the White Man's Destruction, and millenial movements (often called "cargo-cults" in African communities) have expected Jesus or another Savior to help them. Perhaps everyone externalizes what will eventually happen from within. When the Light is ignited inside the person and the internal teacher appears, then it is the end for the old ways, the way of selfishness and personal concern. Perhaps this is all allegory or myth, that is not really fulfulled until it happens within each and every person. The problem comes when the myth starts becoming a historical fact or an expected reality in the minds of men. This can lead to fanaticism and all kinds of insanity perfomed in the name of the one who is expected. Back in the early seventies, Ray Manzarek, keyboardist for the Doors, had an obscure album out called The Goldn Scarab. One song was about all the expected messiahs in history and the refrain went, "He can't come today, maybe he'll come tomorrow!" - ann PS Like many good things, the album is no longer available. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Oct 1995 06:20:30 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: One of JRC's comments According to John R Crocker: > Gee, perhaps I need to say it *again*: It was not just to be able > to talk about my own experiences that I was arguing ... and not just > against Eldon as an individual. It was on behalf of a growing number of > people who are using various inner abilities ... dismissed in > condescending tones as "psychic" ... and against a large thoughtform that > Eldon does articulate quite clearly - I am one of those who feels silenced, so JRC is indeed not alone. > > > Why not leave all of our names out of things, and only mention them for > > signatures and quotes? It really strikes me that personal stuff has no place > > here, and only seems to lead to enmity. I know that sounds barren, but I'm > > tired of the jibes and labels, let's just stick to the discussions at hand. The ULT solution to personality conflicts in the Theosophical movement is to cut the Gordian knot. Let's all pretend that we have no personalities and names. Somehow this just doesn't cut it; I don't get the impression from being around ULTers that this kind of avoidance is any more productive than all the explicit personality conflict in the Adyar TS. > The road to harmony is *not* through avoidance of conflict, > but through entering fully into it - in staying engaged - and having the > emotional courage to remain engaged until some final point of view, perhaps > much much larger than both individual points of view emerges out of the > discourse. Being engaged in the conflict but also engaged in a recognition of the divinity of your "opponent"-- that's the challenge. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Oct 1995 06:32:59 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: CWL, LCC, Adyar, Olcott etc. Ann writes regarding the LCC: >I for one, am very glad it existed in 1971. Both my parents >were emotionally and physically abused as children. They >brought what had been shown to them to their parenting. I was >an only child and by the time I got to college I was pretty >messed up. > >In 71' I began reading Cayce books that I had borrowed from the >public library. At the college I was attending, someone from >the local LCC put up a poster for the church. It opened up a >whole new world for me, one that I did not even know existed. >It saved my life. I was married in the church and still have >friends from that time. Thank you for bringing up a very important aspect of organizations. Though the primary objective of the LCC (to be the vehicle for K.'s new religion) is no longer relevant, you have demonstrated very well that it doesn't mean that the Organization cannot still have a positive function in society. Who knows how many thousands or perhaps millions of people's lives were changed for the better through joining some kind of church or fraternity. This is the positive side of spiritual organizations, and I thank you, Ann, for being here to remind us of this. As critical as I'm about the TS, I must also add that I feel that I have benefitted tremendously from my association with it, and consequently have a deep love for Theosophy and what it can do for the world. But my deep love for Theosophy is also what motivates me to be critical of those Organizations--those vehicles of theosophy--which so often stifles the spiritual power of the Movement. >Perhaps, Brenda, who "loves that Leadbeater", has found great >personal satisfaction in his works. We both have had good >experiences with things you are condemning and we may find it >difficult to comprehend your negativity. I've known Brenda for some ten years, consider her a friend, a very very bright, and a very delightful person. I'm very aware of her feelings towards CWL, as she is aware of mine. I enjoy reading Brenda's point of view precisely because it is so different from my own. However, I would not dream of concealing my opinions from this board just because Brenda is on it, nor would I expect her to do so for me. I would think that hiding my opinions from Brenda would be doing her a real disservice--it would be a real put down to her. I'm aware that Brenda sometimes finds my viewpoint dificult to comprehend, and I also sometimes find her difficult to follow. But I still listen and appreciate what she has to say. >Personally speaking, I have a problem with Deepak Chopra. The >guy makes me squirrelly. I think he's just rehashing yogic >stuff and making a bundle off of it. But I know there are >people who are benefiting. I saw a video of him for the first time the other night, and got exactly the same feeling. >While I'm on the subject, I've also been every satisfied with >Olcott in Wheaton. Nothing is perfect, but I have enjoyed the >annual meetings, summer school, lectures, study group, lodge and >newsletter. I find Quest to be a bit too intellectual for me, >but that's me. Olcott is serving my needs just fine, thank you. I'm sure that there are many who feel as you do. If Olcott wasn't doing a service it would not exist for very long. I'm Glad it meets your needs. But keep in mind that there are also a lot of us who have been turned off. Remember, more than 95% of those who join the Adyar TS quit within two years. Can we afford to ignore that 95%? >I would like to pose some questions to Jerry and Rich: >What is your ideal theosophical organization? There ain't no such animal. I don't believe that ideal organizations of any type are possible. They are by their very nature imperfect. For instance, an Organization is like a person, it grows through experiencing conflict and learning from it. But like people, Organizations become sick. Typically a sick Organization works to hide the very conflicts that they need in order to recognize their mistakes and become better Organizations. Healthy Organizations are very rare, but they happen. Though they are not perfect, you won't find them laden with pathology. >What ideas would it be founded on? The three objects of the TS are not the objects which it was founded on in 1875. World brotherhood was not adopted until 1878, and the present wording was not adopted until 1896. So even the TS, has changed the "ideas" upon which it was founded. I'm in support of the "ideas" expressed in the present expression of the three objects (though the wording needs to be updated), yet I don't feel that those objects have been carried out in the TS. The Leeuw pamphlet that I posted recently goes into some of those reasons. >How would it be structured? There is no ideal structure any more than there is an ideal organization. However, the International Adyar TS has been run by the same family for over 50 years. I call this a dynasty and do not find it ideal. The Wheaton Society has been run by the same click for almost 50 years also. But you asked for ideals so here goes: For starters, an ideal structure for me would be that there is 100% member participation in the organization; that those in power encourage rather than be threatened by members with innovative ideas; that those in power will be more invested in the progress of the Organization then they are invested in maintaining their influence in it; that the Organization is open and honest about past errors and learns from them; that the Organizations cooperates from principles of cooperation rather than co-optation; and I can go on and on. >Would it have a central headquarters? Branches? If that is what the members want. >What would membership be based on? Depends upon the objects of the Organization. >Would it ban Leadbeater and Besant from being studied? Why should it? >What works would it emphasize? It shouldn't emphasize any works. >What do think should happen to the ES? The ES was originally founded as a separate Organization, not connected to the TS, except that one must be a member of the TS to join it. If the ES operated upon the principles for which it was founded, it would be fine. On the other hand, the existence of the ES implies to me the existence of an Outer Head of equal or better status to HPB as a spiritual teacher. >What would you do to make HPB easier to understand? I have been teaching HPB for over twenty years, so I think I can address this with some personal authority. To make HPB easier to understand to others, one must first understand what HPB was saying, and not confuse it with what other theosophical writers say, or what they say she says. Secondly, my experience in teaching HPB and training others to teach HPB, is that once one understands HPB, one can make her understandable to others. Therefore, in order to make HPB easier to understand, I would first make sure that those who are teaching HPB have really read her writings, have a comprehensive understanding of her, and that they don't confuse her teachings with other writers. Thirdly, one does not have to use theosophical jargon to teach HPB's ideas. Obviously we use the jargon in class because that is what she uses. But when we do, I make sure that the student has an understanding of what those terms mean in context to the material we are studying. Yet, true evidence of understanding the ideas is when the student is able to put the teachings into their own words and rise above the jargon. So when I'm on the university campus, I talk about Theosophy all of the time--though I don't use the word, and I don't use the jargon. >How would you make theosophy more acceptable to the >intelligentsia and those with "real power"? Under our present circumstances, most of our students have a university education at the Bachelor or Masters level. My wife has a Phd and is a Professor at the University. I'm a Grad. student working on my thesis, and occasionally teach freshmen writing classes. We talk about theosophy all of the time to our University students, though we never, or rarely mention the word. When we teach theosophy classes out of our home, we have no trouble at all making theosophy acceptable to our students, and they have no problem accepting Blavatsky. On the other hand, we don't teach "neo-theosophy" because we don't believe in it, but also because the people we get are simply too educated to accept those teachings. But even more importantly, we don't associate ourselves with present day neo-theosophy which is (I think rightfully) considered a cult. >Also, in what ways do you think theosophy would be different if >Judge would have succeeded HPB? Personally, I don't believe in spiritual successorship, so the question has no meaning to me. But if you were to ask what would be different if Judge would have lived, was not discredited and pushed out of the Society by Besant and Olcott, and followed Olcott as President of the TS, I think things would have been vastly different. First; the TS would not have split in half in 1895, and perhaps it would not have continued to split into warring factions. I would not have been campaigning for networking across the Movement for over ten years, and Wheaton finally sending greetings to ULT, Pasadena and Halcyon in 1995 would not have been a significant event. Secondly; the TS would more likely have stayed on the original lines as outlined by HPB and the Masters. Thirdly; we would not have had the crises of 1930, and fourthly; the Theosophical Society would not be regarded by the public as a cult as it is today. >And finally, what would you do if another group of theosophists, >who did not agree with your ideas, formed a rival organization? Welcome and embrace them as Judge tried to do with Adyar. Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu, and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Oct 1995 07:28:31 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Re: Reply to Algeo's article in AT >1st - there is a whole area of science that insists on the more restrictive >experimental, repeatable, controlled conditions concept. I would call this the >hard science area. The scientific method is not actually restrictive but is a set of rules for learning most efficiently from experience -- this is its genius. >2nd - there is a whole area of science where experiments and controlled >conditions are not possible - see examples above. This is the soft science >area. But if they could do experiments and control the conditions, they would! The actual goal in all science is, per the same scientific metod, to make predictions which can be tested. Evolutionary and astronomical sciences can do this for their theories. Even though they cannot, say, cause a star to be born, they can predict that if a star is born by certain causes then certain effects will be observed when a star is so many billions of years old. In this way the rules of the scientific method (hypothesis and prediction and observation) are always followed. >3rd - there exists "sciences" such as psychology. However, because >psychologist have tended to not insist on controlled conditions, and have >permitted all kinds of theories without trying to strongly test them, many >scientists insist that psychology is not actually a science. I would tend to >agree with them. Unfortunately, most work with spiritual activities falls in >this area. Woa partner! I am a mathematician and a psychologist and modern psychology follows the scientific method exactly in all of its professional work and is a "hard" science like all the others. It is "pop" psychology that is off in fruitcake land. The theories of modern psychology as practiced by those with Phd's from rightly accredited institutions is in good alignment with many of the ideas of theosophy and esoteric psychology which they have discovered over the last few decades. Let us remember that there is science research and then there is science application (i.e., engineering). Research eliminates wrong ideas while engineering works out the right ideas in a practical demonstrable and positive fashion. In this regard, by demonstrating the results of research in observable experience to all human beings, science can positively discover and work out all of the truths of theosophy that are in any way relevant to the human experience. >John appears to be talking only >about "hard science" - and you are talking about "soft science". This is a "pop media" distinction and has no basis in the scientific community. >But for >spiritual studies, there are requirements of repeatibility. If you can't >describe how to do certain things, and get repeatable results, under specified >conditions - then it ain't science, it's art. Or modern chaos theory. All of theosophy IS describable and repeatable under appropriate conditions. Cheers, Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Oct 1995 07:55:28 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: CWL, LCC, Adyar, Olcott etc. Rich: >>and he founded the Liberal Catholic Church to carry on those >>very rituals and dogmas which HPB took such great pains to >>criticize. Jerry: > Others were involved in the LCC chapter too. Since it was >supposed to be the vehicle for the new religion that Krishnamurti >was to bring into the world, one wonders why it still exists. I for one, am very glad it existed in 1971. Both my parents were emotionally and physically abused as children. They brought what had been shown to them to their parenting. I was an only child and by the time I got to college I was pretty messed up. In 71' I began reading Cayce books that I had borrowed from the public library. At the college I was attending, someone from the local LCC put up a poster for the church. It opened up a whole new world for me, one that I did not even know existed. It saved my life. I was married in the church and still have friends from that time. Maybe if the LCC had not existed, I would not exist either. Perhaps I would have turned to drugs, alcohol or who knows what. IMHO, every group that works with a sincere heart, can do good in the world. Even if they do not happen to agree with your personal opinions or philosophy. Perhaps, Brenda, who "loves that Leadbeater", has found great personal satisfaction in his works. We both have had good experiences with things you are condemning and we may find it difficult to comprehend your negativity. Personally speaking, I have a problem with Deepak Chopra. The guy makes me squirrelly. I think he's just rehashing yogic stuff and making a bundle off of it. But I know there are people who are benefiting. While I'm on the subject, I've also been every satisfied with Olcott in Wheaton. Nothing is perfect, but I have enjoyed the annual meetings, summer school, lectures, study group, lodge and newsletter. I find Quest to be a bit too intellectual for me, but that's me. Olcott is serving my needs just fine, thank you. I would like to pose some questions to Jerry and Rich: What is your ideal theosophical organization? What ideas would it be founded on? How would it be structured? Would it have a central headquarters? Branches? What would membership be based on? Would it ban Leadbeater and Besant from being studied? What works would it emphasize? What do think should happen to the ES? What would you do to make HPB easier to understand? How would you make theosophy more acceptable to the intelligentsia and those with "real power"? Also, in what ways do you think theosophy would be different if Judge would have succeeded HPB? And finally, what would you do if another group of theosophists, who did not agree with your ideas, formed a rival organization? -ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Oct 1995 08:15:23 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Seeing Auras Having observed the back-and-forth about whether or not theos-l is hostile to reports of paranormal experiences, I'll volunteer to serve as a test case. Ever since college, when a friend first told me what to look for, I have been intermittently able to see certain aspects of the human energy field. Until recently, it required "just right" lighting conditions and/or intentionality. What I saw was sort of like what you see through windows that have radiators under them in the winter: a wavy, transparent radiance. I never saw more than specks of color, although was occasionally able to see individual differences. After reading Barbara Brennan's Light Emerging and spending a week in California-- including some very high-energy spots-- everything changed last spring. From rare and intermittent, the aura-seeing became almost constant. From being something that I had to will myself to see, it became something that continually sneaked up on me and surprised me. From being just a vague radiance, it became a large auric egg with fairly definite boundaries and layers. And occasionally I can see chakras, more especially a vortex above the head. What I'd like JRC and Patrick to comment on is that I am reluctant/unable to see individual differences. I can look at a roomful of people and see a roomful of auric eggs with sparks of color and undulating layers and chakras and vortices-- but they all look alike. Partly this may be explicable by the fact that I don't *want* to see individual differences, as it seems like an invasion of privacy. I don't want to "know" things about people from seeing their auras. Or maybe it's all imaginary and anyone who *really* sees, sees profound individual differences. The vivid intensity of the experience (which is tapering off now, months after the trip) makes me feel sure that there is real perception going on, not just "seeing what I want to see." In other words, objective reality is involved. But then I think, "if it's that objective, why does everyone look the same?" For better or worse, the sameness has a wonderful, uplifting effect on my consciousness. That is, being struck by the large, radiant auric field of someone working in the yard as I drive by evokes a whole set of pleasurable associations: 1. That person is a spiritual being with many layers of consciousness and materiality; so are all persons. 2. My spiritual consciousness is magnetized by the sight of another person's aura, provoking feelings of impersonal love, compassion, peace. 3. The emergence of the ability to see this is a promise of further unexpected unfoldings ahead, maybe in this life and maybe not. But it is encouraging. OK, JRC, here's your guinea pig. Let's see if anyone has anything helpful or critical to say about my "confession." Cheers PJ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Oct 1995 09:59:44 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: All This Bickering James: >I have been reading Theos-l for a while, and feel that well too >much arguing about how someone takes a position. Souldn't >theosophists be beyond this, and approach comparitive discussion >in a little more "LIGHT"....it would be nice to see. Welcome to the list. We could certainly use a light touch to our writings, where there is more genuine excitement of discovery rather than anger at offended beliefs. A comparative discussion is good, and we can deal with issues that aren't easily resolved, and may be talked about for years, as JRC suggests. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Oct 1995 12:13:59 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: All this bickering James Writes: >I have been reading Theos-l for a while, and feel that well too >much arguing about how someone takes a position. Souldn't >theosophists be beyond this, and approach comparitive discussion >in a little more "LIGHT"....it would be nice to see. > > James I appreciate your concern. Perhaps you might come on line an model for the rest of us how to have a proper theos-l discussion. Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu,and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Oct 1995 12:16:24 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: Marley's ghost >I'm not fighting wind mills. I'll fight for Pedro & Rocinande >(whether Lady or prostitute), if they need someone in their >corner, but not for wind mills. As for instance, I took the >time to read over the by laws published in the last AT, & put >in a few protests, where I thought they were needed. Did you, >Jerry? Alan you're in Britain, so these aren't your by laws. > >Liesel Sorry Liesel, I saw nothing in the By-laws changes that I felt to be worthy of protest. Perhaps you can enlighten me. Besides, my experience is that once something is published in the AT it is pretty much of a done deal anyway. I would consider it very close to "fighting windmills" to wait this long to protest a bylaw change. For instance, when the Board decided to change the bylaws to prevent anyone from running for President who had not previously served on the Board (remember, that was done to exclude Bing and gain more control over who can run), my wife and I signed a petition of protest about it and wrote a letter to Dorothy expressing our feelings long before a word of it was ever printed in the AT. We didn't wait for an announcement in the AT to begin the fight. As you know, we lost that battle (In fact, we lose almost all of the battles), but that doesn't mean that we stop fighting. An injustice once made, must be corrected and not allowed to let stand. Precisely because the members don't maintain a sustained protest, an Organization can get away with a lot because they know that most of the membership will soon forget about it. Though we lose most of the battles, once in a while we gain a small victory. Ten years ago we started a networking movement, and for a time it became a worldwide phenomena--in fact it still is. Wheaton tried to undermine the movement, ULT remained neutral and Pasadena adopted it and has made continuous efforts over the years towards its support. Though Wheaton would probably rather die than acknowledge our part in this effort, it was a small (very small) victory for us to find that Wheaton has taken the generous step of sending greetings to ULT, Pasadena and Halcyon at their 1995 convention. By the way, this is not the first time Wheaton has done this, but it wasn't done before 1984. I don't want to get into a "who has done the most" contest with you. I'm sure that you have also worked devotedly for the cause. I just want you to understand that we have put most of our time, money and personal resources into the Movement over the years, and I have worked for it for over half of my life. I have served as Refreshment chairman, Book sales, Lecturer, Class leader, Treasurer, Publicity, Program Chairman, Lodge President, as well as Federation President many times in the Adyar TS. We have traveled all over California, around the country, into Canada and Europe for the cause of Theosophy over the years, and all at our own expense. If fact, there is very little that we do that does not have a theosophical consideration involved. After thirty-two years with this Organization, I feel that I have earned the right to speak up when I see a wrong done. Maybe I don't make much of a difference, I believe that I have made some difference in this Organization, and it is a better place for it. At any rate, I would rather be remembered as some old fool who "fought windmills" than as someone who was part of the Movement and played it safe by doing nothing. Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu,and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Oct 1995 13:20:32 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Marley and the Ghost of Christmas Past Below I have included a part of an article I wrote on the Christmas Carol that was published in the Dicken's Journal a year ago. It points to the function of memory as a healer. Perhaps the memories of the past history of the Theosophical Society can be a healer. That is why history is so important because it opens up our hearts to what has gone before - making us contrite about those things we are less than proud of and grateful for the grace of life in spite of our desire to stamp out our memory. So the Marly Post inspired me to think of this story once again. To begin with Scrooge's memory was dead. The legacy of the Ghost of Christmas Past is the heart-felt transformation of memory. That Scrooge attempted to repress his recollection of the past, especially the feelings of his past, is revealed by his reception of the first spectre. The coming of this first ghost is accompanied by theophany, a light that emanates from the head of the ghost that Scrooge wants to repress. Men and women prefer darkness to the light. "Although the light has come into the world, humanity has shown that they prefer darkness to light because their deeds were evil." (John 3:19) Scrooge begged that the light of memory be taken away. The ghost chided him, "What!, exclaimed the Ghost, "would you so soon but out, with worldly hands, the light I give?" With memory uncapped Scrooge is taken back to his youth where his pain, loneliness, and joy are recounted. In addition to early friendships, celebrations, and a jilted love affair, Scrooge meets his inner child, who becomes an emblem of every child. The ghost of Christmas Past was especially helpful to remind him of his own misery of being a rejected little boy placed in a boarding home by a Father who was as calloused as the adult Scrooge. When he allowed the pain of his own past to have its full impact on his paralysed heart Ebenezer could begin to see the plight of other maligned children whom he formerly considered pestering waifs. He began to see the children again. He saw how he was presently treating them. Whether this is an account of Dicken's himself or Scrooge is negligible. Dicken's shared the Carol's loneliness as he worked in the "blacking factory" (shoe polish) while his father payed of his debt in Marshalsea prison house. Like Scrooge his only solace was the voracious reading of books and creating of alternative realities. Imagination was the healer in his heart. The elder Scrooge show no such interest in fancy. He is coerced to witness his young heart leap as Ali Baba of the Arabian Nights, Robinson Crusoe, and others came one Christmas and urged him to hope. Memory, not moralism, was the motive for Scrooges charitable impulses. Scrooge responded to the vision, "I wish he muttered, putting his hands in his pocket, and looking about him, after drying his eyes with his cuff... There was a boy singing a Christmas carol at my door last night. I would like to have given him something that's all." To sponge away the writing on our memory-repressed souls requires that our callousness be challenged by recollection in league with imagination. The way the ghost takes Scrooge through his past seems parallel to the Progoff method of working in the life history log where the steppingstones of our lives reveal our roads not taken. There is an implication that Scrooges present insensitivity is the result of stifling the memory of his own early suffering and his experience with simple human joys. Memory wounds and heals our frozen hearts. The words of a holocaust memorial echo the ghost's lesson, "To remember is the beginning of redemption." Remembering is an act of vulnerability and courage. Scrooge was a prisoner of his immediate experience. His memory led him to a new identity in continuity with the better parts of his past. Even those unsightly abuses which he felt as a young boy moved him as an adult to a new stance as a protector of children like his old self. Stifling our memories, harding our hearts to the past, engraves judgment on ourselves. The Carol's conception of conversion involves a tranformation of consciousness through living simultaneously in the past, present and future. The actions of gratefully uncapping our memories, joyfully reviving Return-Path: From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Oct 1995 15:12:42 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Marley's ghost. Dear Jerry & Alan, I'm not fighting wind mills. I'll fight for Pedro & Rocinande (whether Lady or prostitute), if they need someone in their corner, but not for wind mills. As for instance, I took the time to read over the by laws published in the last AT, & put in a few protests, where I thought they were needed. Did you, Jerry? Alan you're in Britain, so these aren't your by laws. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Oct 1995 15:17:52 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: All This Bickering Dear James, I agree. Unfortunately some people enjoy bickering. It takes all kinds. Most times their statements can be ignored, sometimes they need to be talked about. On the whole, I think we do pretty well. We've gotten into some pretty fruitful discussions, & that's after all what counts. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Oct 1995 15:19:07 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: More thoughts on abortion Tracey: Sorry, I am not familar with Bergson. I am somewhat familiar with particle physics and with quantum theory. The " moebius strip" rings a dusty bell in my mind, but I can't put my finger on it. Maybe someone else could help? Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Oct 1995 15:42:24 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: several Dear Rich, >From where I sit, these 2 messages belong on theos-l. It's what's happening today, & i also think it's of interest to everyone. It also shows that theos-l is part of a more widespread attempt to work together. To me, the material that should go on roots, is material of historical interest, that hasn't much to do with, isn't useful for what's happening with us right now. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Oct 1995 16:17:39 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: CWL and Mars Jerry, Not any of it. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Oct 1995 16:49:09 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: RE: CWL, LCC, Adyar, Olcott Thank you, Daniel. >I think we must always distinguish between the validity of a belief or idea >and the sincerity of the person who holds the belief or idea. >Concerning the Liberal Catholic Church, I know one priest in the LCC who is >a very kind, gentle soul. I would trust my life in his hands. Yet does that >therefore mean that his LCC beliefs are necessarily true? No. I would not say that for any organization. But the LCC did not require its members to hold any of its beliefs, whatever they might be. My husband claims to be an atheist and was always welcome to play the organ for service or receive the sacraments. Only clergy were required to profess certain beliefs. I'm sure this is much more liberal than most Christian groups. As for the Second Coming, I did not read about this until 1994. In over twenty years, only one person ever mentioned it at church and that was in passing. Responding again to "why it exists", I should like to add that it survives and will survive as long as there are people to support it. Many are active theosophists who wish to receive the sacraments, yet would probably be thrown out on their ear in a regular Catholic church. >Read the preface to Part II (pp. iii-iv) in *Isis Unveiled* (Vol II) and see >what HPB says about "beliefs" and "people". I don't own a copy, but I'll see if I can locate it at the Olcott library or the book store. If you see any short, pithy points, I wouldn't mind reading them in a post. Looking forward to other comments and questions, -ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Oct 1995 16:54:37 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Reply to Algeo's article in AT Dear Patrick & Don, Patrick writes"true Theosophy embraces science in general as a means of discovering the truth." You 2 seem to be too young to remember that as late as the 1960ies, a short 30 years ago (figuring some sort of science to be thousands of years old) psychology was battling to be considered a science. It was the first intangible realm of knowledge to ask to be admitted as a science, & it was having a deuce of a time, believe you me. We theosophists deal with the intangible atma, budhi, manas. I think, from the little I've read, that these 3 are just entering the rim of scientific experimentation, but this is not as yet quite accepted. In the 1980ies, a short 10 years back, I remember doing some research for a talk to my lodge on biofeedback. The literature mentioned that in order to get research grants, the researchers had to do certain psychic research on the QT, or else no grants. This in spite of the fact that the USSR was forging ahead with its own psychic research. The Truth, I believe, has no boundaries. It can't have any, because scientifically, a particle can be a vibe, can be a particle, depending on the wish (conscious or unconscious) of the observer. Science is an edifice with boundaries, as John Algeo wrote, but it seems to me that, as human time goes on, the boundaries are being pushed further & further back, so that present & future scientists are able to more fully explore what's approaching Truth ... which includes intangible realms, realms which Theosophy & its antecedents have dealt with for millenia, but modern science is just beginning to. "Lift one vail & there's another", wrote Theosophist HVG, who was an engineer/scientist. Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Oct 1995 17:11:28 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Seeing Auras Dear Paul, Please don't call it "a confession". Seeing auras is not a sin, but a gift. I think what's a "sin" in other people's eyes is when one person is different, has an ability that most others don't have. The others then have a tendency to hack around on the gifted one, for some reason I haven't as yet figured out. I have some special talents, not psychic, & I've gotten hacked around on for them. I know that until very recently our Theosophical psychics were very leery about revealing their gift. One of our theosophical books re auras didn't get published until the author was well into her eighties, I believe. You started the ball rolling now. It's a subject that I think concerns us & our 3rd Object. Let's see whether we can't handle it as decent human beings, who also believe in our 1st Object, which I'd rather call something like the cohesion of everyone's humanity. Hopefully, Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Oct 1995 17:48:21 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Source Teachings That's exactly my point all along. "The truth will eventually be found," & not necessarily in theosophical "source material". How about the "Gita", just for instance ? I find it easier from theosophical material, someone else might get it better from the "Gita". Liesel Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Oct 1995 17:48:43 GMT From: 1712.yungkans@westside.com (james yungkans) Subject: Seeing Auras Paul, I can give you some correlation (Unpublished) in regard to your layers, if your seeing the same ones referred to by Barbara Brennan. If you study the Heindel model (Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception) you will find similar layers described. The exact coorelations are as Follows: Brennan Heindel: Physical Astral Mental -------- -------------- ------------- ------------- Etheric Chemical Ether Emotional Passion, Impression, &Wishes Mental Life Ether Astral Feelings Eth. Template Form Archetype Celestial Soul Life Ketheric Light Ether '8th' Level Soul Light '9th' level Reflecting Eth. As you can see, Brennan's sight is not all that special in the sense that she is not all that far beyond the ASTRAL plane of the human form. For your reference, 'Core Star' is the 'Soul Power' of Heindel (if my model holds true), and the 'Haric' level is correlated to the Mental region of 'Concrete Thought.' If it helps, I can confirm for you that the 'Etheric Double' (or the 'currents' in Cosmo-Conception ??) correlate to your early auric sight. It's an early phase, usally as the eyes are just opening. I rarely see the 'Egg', but then again I don't work at developing 'Auric Sight.' A warning: Don't let the 'PSYCHIC VISION' draw you off developing yourself SPIRITUALLY. To many people have permitted themselves to delve too deeply into that arena without knowing what was waiting on the other side of that 'Door.' Speaking from experience, you will encounter everything from astral entities (such as Kama-Rupas) to lower spiritual beings (such as Heyoan). If your will is not strong enough, you face the risk of POSESSION. Not a nice thought. Also, you should emphasise opening your 'Third Eye', which caries true vision, rather than "Psychic" abilities (which are the realm of the Astral "Spook" (to honor old HPB's wording). 'Third Eye' is a most overused term, as it relates to the True vision of the MIND (Manas), and not to the Pituitary (as many people now believe). I might be crying wolf in your case, but to many people get excited about this stuff, and allow Glamour to cloud Common Sense. I Know. James From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Oct 1995 17:59:57 GMT From: John R Crocker Subject: To Eldon On Tue, 3 Oct 1995, Eldon B. Tucker wrote: > JRC: > > Since I see my name a number of times in this posting, I think that > I'd like to make a comment or two. > > We should be able to allow differing views to be discussed and to coexist > without having to silence any of them. That doesn't mean that we agree with > something, once we've heard it, just that we give everyone's ideas a place > in the sun. We can comment on the other ideas from our standpoint, or from > the standpoint of the source teachings, without attempting to silence anyone. Yes we can, except that the tone we use, and some of those opinions we speak can serve to effectively silence numbers of people from speaking of a whole range of experiences that to them are as much a part of Theosophy as the "source" teachings are. Clearly you do not wish to even slightly mitigate your attitudes about "psychic" abilities, and clearly you will forward them as often as you like. This does not please me, but I have no standing or ability to cause you to re-think anything you say, or your manner of saying it. Neither, however, can you cause me to cease responding when you do this, and to respond with my own perception - which is that some of the ideas you speak do serve to supress the pursuit of the Third Object. While you may not evaluate the Objects highly in your own understanding of Theosophy, this list, while inviting contributions from members of all three Theosophical organizations, was nonetheless begun as a discussion list for the TS - to whom the Objects are publically stated goals. > >Gee, perhaps I need to say it *again*: It was not just to be able > >to talk about my own experiences that I was arguing ... and not just > >against Eldon as an individual. It was on behalf of a growing number of > >people > > We both agree that we're speaking for different classes of people, a > group of people with similar beliefs, and not simply the two of us as > individuals. How well we can understand each other and coexist as > individuals may show on a small scale what the groups may or may not > be able to do in a larger scale. Yes, and we are doing about as well as the groups on that larger scale are. (-:) > >who are using various inner abilities ... dismissed in condescending > >tones as "psychic" > > It's not really condenscending until you start using "higher than" or > "lower than". We could say that the physical is "lower than" the feelings, > but that doesn't mean we will always refuse to go jogging, and instead > spend our time writing love poems. > > The difference is that we are offered a spiritual path that involves a > different part of our nature than the psychic. You seem to have primarily an intellectual basis - and one of its most dominant characteristics is differentiation ... in making distinctions, drawing maps. The words "psychic" and "spiritual" have so many different meanings as to almost be meaningless here. We are offered not one, but many paths - some of them that may involve what you refer to as "psychic" abilities, and others that focus purely on what you call "spiritual/intellectual". The notion that there is some single approved method of travelling the path is not one that I agree with, and smacks (to me) of the uniquely modern, western predilection to universalize every personal perspective into a general principle. There may be many humans whose underlying orientations towards life are so different than yours that for them the path you say "we" are offered will make little sense - and may not even be an appropriate one for them to try to follow. When, however, this particular perspective of yours is spoken of in universal, general terms as "the" path "we" are offered, you may be telling these people that Theosophy is not a place for them. You may claim that your ideas are based upon Theosophical "sources" - but so are mine. You can point to a number texts that back up your ideas ... but I may point to the people that *wrote* them, many of whom most definately did pursue the development of inner abilities. > >... and against a large thoughtform that Eldon does articulate quite clearly > > I'd call it a body of thought or belief system, and say that it is based > upon the source teachings of Theosophy, althought I might not be able to > do a point-for-point justification of it using HPB quotes. Yes, and mine is based upon the *behaviour* of the "source" Theosophists. and upon other writings that indicate awareness of the fact that abilities were going to start arising spontaneously in many people in this century - which they are. This "body of thought" or belief system is based upon a particular perspective on Theosophical sources - but it is not necessarily the only valid perspective. > >... the ideas Eldon voices (which are held by > >far more people than Eldon) create an environment *hostile* to those > >many who have a whole range of inner experiences they might begin to > >share were there a more open environment. > > That sense of hostility is something we should work on removing, to the > extent that it is present. Certainly differing beliefs about what is happening > during a paranormal experience should not per se require hostility. > > I've sensed a similar argument with Daniel H., where my different ideas > that would describe his subjective experiences, where I don't use the Bible > and Jesus and God in my descriptions, may be seen as hostile. With him too, > I accept the experience but may not accept the explanation offered. Is that > hostile? Only to the fixed ideas. With respect, this seems to imply my ideas and Daniel's are "fixed", while yours are fluid? Your ideas seem every bit as fixed as you seem to be saying mine are. But you do bring up a very important point here: Upon what foundation do you claim the wisdom to evaluate and hold opinions about someone else's inner experiences? This, perhaps, is the source of much of what may seem to be my anger - I do not think I have ever placed your inner experiences into my paradigm (save to say that what you call "higher wisdom" is just as subjective as what you call "psychic" experiences and label as unreliable) - in fact I do not know what you mean subjectively when you talk about this "inner knowing" ... and would not think myself in any way capable of placing it into *my* map of the inner worlds (which, by the way, has come from a lot of reading, of Theosophy as well as a number of other systems and philosophers, seasoned with as much empirical testing as abilities have allowed me to do). The trouble your posts give me is that they seem all too easily to place the inner experiences of others into your own map of the inner worlds - but this evaluation is then described with impersonal pronouns, as though this evaluation is *the* "Theosophical" evaluation. This, to me, seems incredibly arrogant (and this is not an accusation ... I'm not saying "Eldon, you are arrogant" ... only that what I have described feels, to me, to be terribly judgemental ... and seems to imply that not only do you have the standing to evaluate someone else's inner experiences, but your evaluations might well be "higher" or *more* "correct" than the person's own evaluations - I believe you would be not at all pleased if I began continually labelling what you call "inner wisdom" to be merely the delusions of the mental plane, starting quoting all sorts of Theosophical writings (and there *are* a lot of them) "warning" against the delusions of the mental plane, and using language that suggests that this evaluation of your experience is more Theosophical than your own.) > > ... you and Eldon both seem to be interceding for one another, and > >because many of his "labels" are in agreement with your labels. > > We use labels when we want a pat answer, when we want to say that "you're > just one of *those* people," and want to end any discussion and dialog. > We're labelling you when we dismiss things as "merely psychic" without giving > them a second though. You're labelling us when you dismiss us as "hostile > critics" and not give our viewpoint a second thought. Seems to me we've both given one another's viewpoints equal consideration, no? > >You want the path, or do you want a nice, uncomplicated purely > >abstract discussion of "occultism". > > The Path is when we get practical with our lives. Getting practical involves > opening ourselves up in unexpected ways. It's not obivious until such an > opening happens in what direction it will come. We cannot make a > generalization for everyone. Yes, Yes! The point I've being trying to make all along! (And there is a wonderful paradox in that last sentence of yours, is there not? (-:) - it reminded me of those paradoxes in classical logic ... "This statement is a lie" & etc.). Have you not, all along, been speaking of a generalized idea of what the "path" is? And even using this idea to say some activities are related to that path, while other behaviour is not? (I really am not trying to bicker or be divisive here, by the way, and please do not take this as a personal attack - it is not meant as such, but...) can you see how I might be a bit upset at many of your posts? This is the first time I have spoken, just briefly, of some of what I believe comprises the "path" - and it is a notion that both fits my personal experience and can be supported by much Theosophical "source" literature - but it does not fully agree with your ideas ... and hence the first reaction from you is "We must not generalize" - but Eldon, with all due respect, you generalize almost continually. > >As *HPB* mentioned in her Esoteric > >Writings, the *first* thing that happens when people actually step onto > >the path is that *everything buried is thrown to the surface* > > This is why we're warned to ripen ourselves, and consider gravely any > pledges we might take, for we don't want to open ourselves to more than > we can handle. But the appearance of paranormal powers is more akin to > the ability to run a six-minute mile than it is to the ability to write > a book or compose a concert. Their presence does not indicate that one > is closer to (or farther from) the Path than another person. That depends greatly on what you mean by "paranormal" powers. In some people, some abilities may be almost meaningless. In other people, other abilities may be an aspect of the final fruition of the spiritual entity that we may all someday become. And my personal feeling is that one would have to be fairly close to being a "Master" before they could claim they had the wisdom to make such an evaluation of either the abilities in another, or where they fit in that person's overall spiritual development. > >tremendous psychological energies are unleashed ... and in general people > >become an *enormous* pain in the ass. > > They don't *have to be*. That's like driving too fast, and being unable > to stay in your own lane on the freeway. Well, both some Theosophical writing as well as some evidence from the founders might seem to dispute this. > The energies can channel into great creative works, or a profound sensitivity > to and empathy with others. How the energies channel in your life, or in my > life, depend upon the structure of our respective personalities. Are we really > ready to "let 'em rip"? "We are taught" that the personality undergoes periods in which it is exceedingly difficult to control itself, and that those very structures that normally channel our energies begin to be dissolved (and in fact will unltimately need to be shattered completely). > >You think *I'm* nasty? Christ, I thought you knew something about HPB ... > >you would have kicked *her* off the list months ago. > > HPB had her particular style. She often would go for shock value in her > communications. That was to make an emotional impact on people. When writing > (with the assistance of her Masters) "The Secret Doctrine", we see more of an > attempt at communication of grand ideas. > > You can also use words for their emotional impact, and grab our attention. > But you'll also need some philosophy to go along with your words, or you'll > sound like Daniel H. promising us hellfire if we don't convert. Again, with all due respect, I haven't been the one warning of the "dangers" of your perspective - and you have been warning people of the dangers of mine, no? And I also believe the "we" is a bit misplaced. I have been arguing from a very distinct philosophical position - a position that not only do others on the list apparently see, but even to varying degrees agree with. And if I have had to crank up the emotional currents a wee bit, it is because we did not start on even footing - your perspective is by far the (currently) dominant one in the Theosophical current. One always raises more dust and makes more noise building a road than one does doing maintenance. > >Have you read the Mahatma Letters? Those guys were > >often *scathing*, and had no problem getting personal. > > They had little patience at times with those untrained in their methods. > They also had a fairly low view of Spiritualism and spirit guides. As do I - and had you been not quite as quick to catagorize my experiences, we might have had a different discussion. I realized yestarday, when reading the post in which you described what you believed "angels" to be, that these being haven't the faintest thing to do with what I refer to when I use that word. I am aware of the things you speak of, but I never bother with them at all and would probably consult the cat in my office before I would consult any of them for advice. (And its not even that smart of a cat, as cats go (-:). > >We are all adults here, and many of those here are in the middle > >of withstanding the periodic internal pressures that are the first steps > >of the actual path > > True. And it happens in our lives in quite individual ways. YES! > > - which has very little to do with abstract philosophy, and quite a > >bit to do with the transformation of the whole human energy system. > > Which has very much to do with our deep studies, leading to awakening a > budding sense of direct knowing of things, an opening of higher faculties > of mind, quite apart from any sense of sence perception. This opening is > metaphorically spoken of as our "inner teacher", which is not a voice of > some external being, but rather a power of mind. Two different approaches, both perhaps overly universalized, yes? > The whole human energy system is in flux, and in transformation, but > the Path involves hastened evolution for the purpose of participating in > the work of the Hierarchy of Compassion. And the Path does not involve > riding the crestwave of modern thought -- or "post-modern" if that term > is preferred -- but rather evolving in ways that are unrelated to any > particular culture or society. The training is in Fifth-Round consciousness, > not in the advances of the current Fourth-Round subrace. But involves *serving*, with every ability one has, in current Fourth-Round subrace civilization. > >The road to harmony is *not* through avoidance of conflict, > >but through entering fully into it - in staying engaged - and having the > >emotional courage to remain engaged until some final point of view, perhaps > >much much larger than both individual points of view emerges out of the > >discourse. > > A certain degree of change may be possible in both of our views, but I > see that we'll come to a point where we understand and can describe the > other's views, but cannot come any closer to agreement on it. I couldn't say how any discussion, genuinely engaged in, might end. > > >there is as of yet only the barest beginnings of anything that > >might be called resolution ... but there may *be* some much > >larger picture *neither* ofus as of yet grasp > > It's always possible for us to change over time. Or for others to read > our discussions and benefit by seeing the different sides presented. I really do hope at least a few people have gotten something out of this discussion - as I have gotten so much out of threads I haven't had time to participate in. > >... but I believe > >in staying engaged with one another we are delivering to one another > >gifts that little else could ... can you perhaps grasp that possibly a > >decade from now we will each consider one another to have been teachers > > Rich is responding from a different standpoint, I think. We're taught > to not defend ourselves when slighted, but to quickly rise to the > defense of others. Rich is rising to defend me, and the defense is > appreciated. Possibly ... though I s'pect its possible Rich is also defending his own ideas - many of which he shares with you - more than he is rising to your defense based based on a totally impersonal ideal of "defending others but remaining silent when attacked" ... as not only has he not defended, but has helped to attack those those he does not agree with. And I fear lectures coming from him about my tone at this point only make me giggle a bit. > >.. that precisely *because* of the intensity of our disputes a spiritual > >bond of great beauty may be being forged? Can you grasp that what you are > >objecting to is but a superficial, and almost epiphenomenal aspect of the > >real debate - which is one in which both of our root paradigms are > >withstanding pressure ... being pushed to expand beyond their current > >limits ... and that far from being a "distraction", such stuff is at the > >very core of what the actual travelling of the path *is*? > > It's possible that we'll grow from the dialog, but we also need to be > cautious about thinking about ourselves in terms that are too grand. > It's easy to find something that one is doing in life, and to tell oneself > that one is therefore on the "fast track" and stops the hard work of > questioning life, and looking in unexpected places for spiritual treasures. Again I fear your pronouns confuse me. Are you talking in general principles and applying them to everyone equally (in which case you are not answering me, but using my post to make a different point), or are you saying that *I* am thinking of myself in terms too grand, believing myself to be on the "fast track" (which by the way, I don't), that I have stopped the hard work of questioning life, and am missing some unexpected treasure? This is not to be nasty ... I *really* do not know which of those you intend. It *seems* to be a *personal* comment directed at me - and perhaps the personal attacks Rich accuses me of making against you come from this misunderstanding ... as it is quite possible for people to attack others without every using their names - but still make it completely clear that it is an individual they are talking about ... and it seems to me you are doing this here - and what you are saying (if it is personal) is in the tone of a master addressing a pupil ... and when that is done, I do not reply with impersonal pronouns, but rather make it personal ... because I think this is both more truthful and leads to greater clarity - if we are to talk personally, I prefer to use personal pronouns and names, and if we are to talk of general principles, then impersonal pronouns are suitable. I do not like confusing the two however. If *you* think that *I* have too grand of an idea of myself, or have focussed on one thing and because of that *I* believe that *I* am on the "fast track", then you are holding a personal and very judgemental attitude towards me ... and I will respond to you personally - and simply because I use your name but you don't use mine does not mean I am attacking personally but you are not. Before responding this time, however, I will ask, what *did* you mean? And if you were speaking purely impersonally about general principles that you are applying equally to yourself, can you understand how this might be misunderstood as being personal when it is in response to something I wrote, and seems to relate to the topic I was writing on? When someone is responding directly to a paragraph in a post, is it not quite natural to assume it is a comment about that paragraph, regardless of the lack of personal pronouns? > >... and if > >you can't even stand the discomfort of minor and fleeting personal squabbles > >on the list ... then you're *really* gonna be upset when the first few > >demons of your buried anger, your sublimated sexuality, or carefully hidden > >judgements come raging out of your basement with fangs bared. > > Why do I think of a dragon breathing fire at this point? A bit of a flame? > On the Arcana list I was critiqued for not speaking with enough passion in > my writings. My response was that it was possible to speak with passion, > but that passion did not need to be fueled by anger. Passion comes from > really caring about something, and that caring can come out in many different > kinds of feelings. Perhaps we can keep the passion but find more useful > feelings to convey it? It seems clear you have no intention of altering the way you communicate, regardless of anything I've said. And I wasn't flaming Rich. both you and Rich seem to be continually commenting on how I communicate. Neither of you likes it. Fine. There are also others that seem to actually appreciate it. Again, when you say "Perhaps *we* can keep the passion but find more useful ways to convey it" - don't you mean *me*? - as the rest of that paragraph seems to imply yourself to be demonstrating the "correct" way to convey passion. I have gotten used to the fact that you will never communicate in a way that is comfortable to me ... but likewise you and Rich will have accept that I am not very disposed to alter my conversation so as to better fit your pictures of a Theosophical discussion list. I will, however, say that I will not initiate any further of what might be perceived as personal attacks (though in my own view, I have never initiated them ... but have rather responed in a personal fashion when the person seemed to be refering personally to me) - and I will stop and consider carefully what you are saying before assuming that you are responding to me personally when you are responding to one of my posts (though I believe some of this burden of solving possible confusion is in your hands ... it *is* natural to believe the response is personal when it is a specific paragraph being addressed). And I will not say anything further about your style of conversation, if you agree to cease continual "suggestions" to me about mine. I may well sometimes seem like a Baptist preacher to you ... but you and Rich often seem to me to be Catholic Bishops speaking down to the masses with the tone of authority. I suppose we must learn to live with this (and to me, it actually isn't that important) ... and perhaps try to mitigate the sparks for the sake of the larger list. With respect, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Oct 1995 18:05:00 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Jnana Yoga The latest American Theosophist has an excellent description of Jnana Yoga on page 5. I am heartened to see that Wheaton understands how this important yoga works. I highly recommend anyone interested in this form of yoga to read the delightful article on Ancient Wisdom in Poetry "The Chambered Nautilus" by Oliver Wendell Holmes. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Oct 1995 18:05:11 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: One of JRC's comments JRC:< If you want to *study* the "path", keep reading the "source" materiels, and discussing the finer points in them ... but if you actually intend to *walk* the damn thing ... then you are going to invoke whirlwinds of turmoil (and there are a considerable number of people on this list that know this through terribly personal experience) ... and if you can't even stand the discomfort of minor and fleeting personal squabbles on the list ... then you're *really* gonna be upset when the first few demons of your buried anger, your sublimated sexuality, or carefully hidden judgements come raging out of your basement with fangs bared. > Well said, John. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Oct 1995 18:39:46 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Marley's ghost. > > >Also according to a quote from Martin Luther King I've > >mentioned before, but it fits in here: > >"Hate the deed, but love the doer". If you can't forgive, > >you'll get all shrivelled up inside. All in all, it's my firm > >belief that it's more productive to keep on going happily, & > >just keep a little watch out of the corner of your eye, because > >we don't want that kind of nonesense to happen again. > > This may be your philosophy "to keep on going happily" but > King fought on for justice until stopped by an assassin's bullet. > King wasn't "going happily" watching "out of the corner of his > eye", but he was fighting in the trenches during every moment of > his life. I would rather think that King's happiness might have > come from knowing that he made a difference, even if the cost was > his life. > Whether King took his own advice to "love the doer" of the > deeds of racism, I don't know, but whether he did or not, he > continued to fight their deeds. His example is one worthy of > following IMHO. > > Jerry HE > I'll say "Amen" to that, Jerry. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Oct 1995 21:22:15 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: One of JRC's comments JRC wrote: > Can you grasp that what you are > objecting to is but a superficial, and almost epiphenomenal aspect of the > real debate - which is one in which both of our root paradigms are > withstanding pressure ... being pushed to expand beyond their current > limits ... and that far from being a "distraction", such stuff is at the > very core of what the actual travelling of the path *is*? My understanding -- and experience -- is that being earnest about the Work does in fact bring up all kinds of nasty personal stuff in oneself. The on-going, uphill test of of the neophyte (which I and certainly most of this board can probably be considered) is to REIN IN this personal stuff, overcome it, rise above it. Brotherhood is the first object of the Theosophical Movement, and it seems to me important that (a) we don't attack living individuals (b) we defend our brothers/sisters when we feel they are abused (c) we try to stick to the teachings and the principles they indicate (studying AND living them) and not to personalities. It can be hard, I think, to separate individuals from their ideas, but ideas are temporary, held for so long, and then let go. They are impersonal entities, even when "personal" in content. Individuals are our brothers/sisters and never, ever deserve our enmity or harsh words. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Oct 1995 21:22:26 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: CWL and Theosophy Paul -- good point about phrasing the question. The exact location of the quote escapes me, but it was from 1884 I believe, and runs something like -- "the movement has almost totally failed in Europe, and even in India only a partial success." Gosh, I hope I'm not fabricating the quote. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Oct 1995 21:22:32 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: CWL, LCC, Adyar, Olcott etc. Ann wrote: > Maybe if the LCC had not existed, I would not exist either. Perhaps I would > have turned to drugs, alcohol or who knows what. IMHO, every group that works > with a sincere heart, can do good in the world. Even if they do not happen to > agree with your personal opinions or philosophy. Well, (excuse my language) a DAMN good point. I needed to hear that. At the same time, while acknowledging a group have served some people well, we can acknowledge that it has served others poorly, and perhaps has some serious issues and problems to work out. Ann: > What is your ideal > theosophical organization? What ideas would it be founded on? How would it be > structured? Would it have a central headquarters? Branches? What would > membership be based on? Would it ban Leadbeater and Besant from being studied? > What works would it emphasize? What do think should happen to the ES? What > would you do to make HPB easier to understand? How would you make theosophy > more acceptable to the intelligentsia and those with "real power"? > > Also, in what ways do you think theosophy would be different if Judge would have > succeeded HPB? And finally, what would you do if another group of theosophists, > who did not agree with your ideas, formed a rival organization? Whoooopps! A WHOLE lot of questions. I will answer -- tentatively -- to those I have an opinion on. My ideal Theosophical organization is one that has as little organization as possible, at least in terms of "power" relationships. The more team-work, the better, but "top-down" stuff is difficult for me. (Maybe it works for others, I'm just stating MY ideal.) Even U.L.T. could do with less "organization" IMHO. This un-organized organization would be founded on the principles of Theosophy laid down by the Masters, study the original teachings first, secondary works second, and leave people perfectly free to read WHATEVER THEY WANT TO while emphasizing the "source material" for group meetings. (Unless a number of folks wanted to organize their own separate groups for study of non-source material.) Membership would be voluntary, very cheap or free, without election or vote. I see no need for a headquarters, let every lodge be its own headquarters. Some lodges may have more resources of people and money, but that shouldn't give them more power. HPB is not hard to understand if you read her with a group that has some background and promotes a spirit of free enquiry and supports a diversity of opinion (not silent censorship). What makes Theosophy appeal to the masses as well as the intelligentsia is being able to demonstrate, IN PRACTICE, high ideals, a coherent philosophy, and EVIDENCE and REASONS for why certain things are taught. We have a good idea of what the T.S. would be like if Mr. Judge succeeded HPB, because he DID succeed HPB for the Point Loma group. And with VERY few complaints it seems they do an absolutely MARVELLOUS job of keeping the source material available, in print and in circulation, while allowing people to think for themselves. There are tons of rival Theosophical groups, there is nothing to be done about it except go on with the Work as one sees it and try to work as brothers with everyone. This doesn't have to mean saying in public "I like and agree with everything." YOu can have disagreements and work together as a team. Every organization will have diverse opinions within itself, relationships with other groups are no different. I don't belong to the Adyar or Pasadena T.S. organizations (yet) but I have a lot of "team-mates" in each and I treasure our team-work. In no other way, I suspect, will Theosophy (as we have it) survive the 21st century. The Masters would have to "mop up" and start again, building upon whatever remains could be made to serve. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 03 Oct 1995 21:22:37 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Seeing Auras Paul wrote: > OK, JRC, here's your guinea pig. Let's see if anyone has > anything helpful or critical to say about my "confession." Well, I'm feeling EXTREMELY HOSTILE right now. I can't even believe how hostile. (What exactly did you say they looked like? What shape? Hmmmm ....) Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 03:28:24 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Reining in Personal Stuff: Bad Idea Lewis will probably laugh at me because of the fact that I told Daniel H. to do some reining:) Anyway, I would make a distinction between reining in hate literature and intolerance - from reining in personal passion and commitment to a particular viewpoint. I have gotten the most of this group precisely when we do bicker when our feelings are on the top and get worked through; not on the ideational level but on the level or understanding and learning limited tolerance. There is obviously a dispute about psychic experience and the founders attitudes toward it but the same old appeal to tradition, experience, reason and revelation keep showing that these things bind us to the persepectives we have. They should, but the more we learn about how we configure the authority (or authenticating )issues the better we will understand each other. For those rooted in experience and who have had direct encounters with psychic phenomena I am sure that Blavatsky herself is not as important as the encounter. I am sure that they would not cower if someone says Blavatsky says don't dabble in spiritualism. So what? That's a "Blavatsky (or the Masters) tells me so arguement".,they might respond. Some rooted in tradition will go the full root and say well it is not enough that Blavatsky or whoever, said it. They will try to reconstruct why they said it. I recall reading that Blavatsky was first published in a spiritualist magazine. So lets figure out what the "situation in life" is that caused the founders to be wary of spiritualism. But more importantly lets shine the light on our principles of interpretation so we can know why we are saying what we are saying. I see this happening in the dialogues and my heart is lightened. Personally I like the commitments of people on the list and while we can sometimes be defensive I think that we are not ill meaning. Arthur Paul Patterson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 03:48:37 GMT From: 1712.yungkans@westside.com (james yungkans) Subject: One Of Jrc's Comment The following may be of interest: 1. Groundless condemnation on Hearsay of others, theosophists or not, but be refrained from, and charity to each other's faults widelsy practiced within, as well as without, the theosophical area. 2. Repetition of statements or gossip derogatory of others must be AVOIDED. But the condemnation of crime, of social evils, and systems of every description, in the abstract is the duty of every member. Above all, the duty of every member is to fight against cant, hypocrisy, and injustice in every shape. 3. A DEROGATORY OR SLANDEROUS STATEMENT MADE AGAINST A FELLOW THEOSOPHIST IN THE PRESENCE OF A MEMBER, SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED BY HIM TO PASS WITHOUT PROTEST, UNLESS HE KNOWS IT TO BE TRUE, IN WHICH CASE HE SHOULD REMAIN SILENT. The above is from H.P.B. in 1888, to the then to be formed esoteric section. If this is the way old HPB wanted her society to be, perhaps we should set the example on theos-L ???? Does anyone feel we should adopt these 'Rules' for Theos-L posts? l james From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 05:27:38 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: CWL, LCC, Adyar, Olcott etc. Anne wrote: > I for one, am very glad it existed in 1971. Both my parents were emotionally > and physically abused as children. They brought what had been shown to them to > their parenting. I was an only child and by the time I got to college I was > pretty messed up. > > In 71' I began reading Cayce books that I had borrowed from the > public library. At the college I was attending, someone from the > local LCC put up a poster for the church. It opened up a whole > new world for me, one that I did not even know existed. It saved > my life. I was married in the church and still have friends from > that time. > > Maybe if the LCC had not existed, I would not exist either. Perhaps I would > have turned to drugs, alcohol or who knows what. IMHO, every group that works > with a sincere heart, can do good in the world. Even if they do not happen to > agree with your personal opinions or philosophy. > > Perhaps, Brenda, who "loves that Leadbeater", has found great personal > satisfaction in his works. We both have had good experiences with things you > are condemning and we may find it difficult to comprehend your negativity. > > Personally speaking, I have a problem with Deepak Chopra. The guy makes me > squirrelly. I think he's just rehashing yogic stuff and making a bundle off of > it. But I know there are people who are benefiting. > > While I'm on the subject, I've also been every satisfied with > Olcott in Wheaton. Nothing is perfect, but I have enjoyed the > annual meetings, summer school, lectures, study group, lodge and > newsletter. I find Quest to be a bit too intellectual for me, but > that's me. Olcott is serving my needs just fine, thank you. > > I would like to pose some questions to Jerry and Rich: What is your ideal > theosophical organization? What ideas would it be founded on? How would it be > structured? Would it have a central headquarters? Branches? What would > membership be based on? Would it ban Leadbeater and Besant from being studied? > What works would it emphasize? What do think should happen to the ES? What > would you do to make HPB easier to understand? How would you make theosophy > more acceptable to the intelligentsia and those with "real power"? > > Also, in what ways do you think theosophy would be different > if Judge would have succeeded HPB? And finally, what would you > do if another group of theosophists, who did not agree with your > ideas, formed a rival organization? > > -ann Lewis: Thank you Ann for expressing some of my thoughts and feelings on these topics. It seems to me we get so involved with what is "wrong" with these people and their associated organizations that we don't talk about what is "right" and very helpful about them. The old adage of not being able to see the forest for the trees. llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 05:44:36 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Jnana Yoga > The latest American Theosophist has an excellent description > of Jnana Yoga on page 5. I am heartened to see that Wheaton > understands how this important yoga works. I highly > recommend anyone interested in this form of yoga to > read the delightful article on Ancient Wisdom in Poetry > "The Chambered Nautilus" by Oliver Wendell Holmes. > > Jerry S. Lewis: I read the article, but didn't make a connection to Jnana Yoga. Is it overt? Anyway, I too enjoyed it. llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 05:54:02 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: re: CWL, LCC, Adyar, Olcott etc. According to Jerry Hejka-Ekins: > > I'm sure that there are many who feel as you do. If Olcott > wasn't doing a service it would not exist for very long. I'm > Glad it meets your needs. But keep in mind that there are also a > lot of us who have been turned off. Remember, more than 95% of > those who join the Adyar TS quit within two years. Can we afford > to ignore that 95%? Appalling statistic indeed. But I think that our solutions to that problem would be quite different. I'd say, "to retain more members the TS should become more like the ARE, providing group settings that nurture one's independent pursuit of the spiritual path, and intellectual engagement with cutting-edge trends in contemporary thought." Whereas mightn't you say "to retain more members the Adyar TS should become more like the Pasadena TS or the ULT, focusing more consistently on the source teachings and deemphasizing subsequent developments"? While neither of us would ignore that 95%, how to know what's the right way to keep more of the them? > the question has no meaning to me. But if you were to ask what > would be different if Judge would have lived, was not discredited > and pushed out of the Society by Besant and Olcott, and followed > Olcott as President of the TS, I think things would have been > vastly different. That strikes me as a highly partisan way to state the situation. If you were to ask me what would be different if Judge had not successfully turned Besant against Olcott in an effort to make him resign as President (to whose benefit?), and if Olcott had not changed his mind about resigning, decided to fight back, and with the help of a huge number of eminent Indians and Sinhalese, won over Besant... you see the point. It was Judge's ambition, Olcott's (mis?)perceived vulnerability, Besant's indecisiveness and two-facedness, that started the "split." Judge and Besant came mighty close to dumping Olcott overboard, which if it had succeeded would be an injustice to top that which befell Judge. First; the TS would not have split in half in > 1895, and perhaps it would not have continued to split into > warring factions. I would not have been campaigning for > networking across the Movement for over ten years, and Wheaton > finally sending greetings to ULT, Pasadena and Halcyon in 1995 > would not have been a significant event. Secondly; the TS would > more likely have stayed on the original lines as outlined by HPB > and the Masters. Thirdly; we would not have had the crises of > 1930, and fourthly; the Theosophical Society would not be > regarded by the public as a cult as it is today. > > >And finally, what would you do if another group of theosophists, > >who did not agree with your ideas, formed a rival organization? > > Welcome and embrace them as Judge tried to do with Adyar. > > Jerry Hejka-Ekins > Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu, > and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 05:57:00 GMT From: "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ" Subject: RE: One Of Jrc's Comment These rules are more in line with what I have instinctively felt we should strive for. Thank you James for your posting. Nick Porreco The following may be of interest: 1. Groundless condemnation on Hearsay of others, theosophists or not, but be refrained from, and charity to each other's faults widelsy practiced within, as well as without, the theosophical area. 2. Repetition of statements or gossip derogatory of others must be AVOIDED. But the condemnation of crime, of social evils, and systems of every description, in the abstract is the duty of every member. Above all, the duty of every member is to fight against cant, hypocrisy, and injustice in every shape. 3. A DEROGATORY OR SLANDEROUS STATEMENT MADE AGAINST A FELLOW THEOSOPHIST IN THE PRESENCE OF A MEMBER, SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED BY HIM TO PASS WITHOUT PROTEST, UNLESS HE KNOWS IT TO BE TRUE, IN WHICH CASE HE SHOULD REMAIN SILENT. The above is from H.P.B. in 1888, to the then to be formed esoteric section. If this is the way old HPB wanted her society to be, perhaps we should set the example on theos-L ???? Does anyone feel we should adopt these 'Rules' for Theos-L posts? l james Return-Path: From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 06:02:51 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: CWL and WQJ Paul writes: > the question has no meaning to me. But if you were to ask what > would be different if Judge would have lived, was not >discredited and pushed out of the Society by Besant and Olcott, >and followed Olcott as President of the TS, I think things would >have been vastly different. >That strikes me as a highly partisan way to state the situation. In what way is it partisan? In what way is this question more Partisan than your restatement? >If you were to ask me what would be different if Judge had not successfully turned Besant against Olcott in an effort to make him resign as President (to whose benefit?) Can you show Judge's role in this through *source* documentation, other than Besant's own (presumably) biased statements that she made after turning against Judge? >and if Olcott had not changed his mind about resigning, decided to fight back, and with the help of a huge number of eminent Indians and Sinhalese, won over Besant... you see the point. Yes, I see your point. But your implied motivation of Olcott to get Judge ignores the antagonistic attitude Olcott had towards Judge over the previous ten or more years. I think the issue runs deeper then this. >It was Judge's ambition, Olcott's (mis?)perceived vulnerability, Besant's indecisiveness and two-facedness, that started the "split." Judge and Besant came mighty close to dumping Olcott overboard, which if it had succeeded would be an injustice to top that which befell Judge. And you call my statement of the question partisan....Hmmm. OK, concerning your comparison of CWL and WQJ, let me first put my own biases up front before I comment on them. First of all, I really don't like Judge that much as a writer. I think it, and she likes to teach it. I don't. As for Besant, my opinions are almost exactly the same as what I understand yours to be. As for Olcott, well, we've gone into that before. >1. WQJ and CWL both convinced Annie Besant that they were the primary channels through which she could communicate with HPB's Masters. Your interpretation ignores the fact that Besant claimed to have her own contact with the Masters. See her ~The Case Against Judge.~ Another interpretation (mine) is that like so many victorian women, she had a psychological dependency on men. Abundant evidence of this can be seen not only in her relationship to Judge and CWL, but to Bradlaw and Shaw. If my interpretation turns out to be the case, then Besant was deeply influenced and swayed by any man she was involved with, whether the man took advantage of it or not. For what ever it is worth, I have also seen astrologers point this weakness out in her horoscope. >They used this to control her behavior. I agree that there is ample evidence of this with CWL. But what is your evidence for Judge doing this--Besant's account of her relationship with WQJ after she turned against him? Might this evidence perhaps be biased, and needs to be balanced by more neutral sources? Do you have any such sources? >At different times each succeeded in turning her against Olcott and the positions he held on the ES, Masters, HPB. (In CWL's case, this occurred after Olcott's death.) OK, but in light of my above observation, Judge's intent is in question. Because of lack of documentation (in my opinion), I would just say that Besant's opinions changed after she became involved with Judge. But we can also say that about her involvement with Shaw, Bradlaw and CWL. >2. In CWL's case, most informed students of the MLs and HPB's body of writings concur that his claimed intimacy with her Masters is not supported by primary sources. OK >In Judge's case, we have enthusiastic partisans asserting that he was producing genuine Mahatma letters. But where is the evidence, e.g. those letters, and what about them confirms this claim? Some of those letters have been published by Pasadena. As for authenticity, what is there about the letters to Sinnett now in the British Museum that proves they are authentic? Your question once again affirms the point that Judge was trying to make all along. >In the absence of supporting evidence, why should claims on Judge's behalf by his admirers receive any more credence than claims on CWL's behalf by his? Because Judge's ideas and claims are more consistent with what we find in the writings of HPB, HSO and the Mahatma letters. >3. In either case, the question that strikes me most strongly is "what if Besant had adhered to the lines laid down by the Masters as understood by Olcott and expressed in the 1900 letter?" Her allegiances to WQJ and CWL both led her astray from these "lines laid down": "Be accurate and critical rather than credulous...No one has a right to claim authority over a pupil or his conscience...The cant about `Masters' must be silently but firmly put down. Let the devotion and service be to that Supreme Spirit alone of which one is a part..." I don't feel that you have yet established a case that Judge led her astray. At least not by intention. As far as what Besant made of her association with Judge, we of course, have her testimony on that--and Judge's reply by the way. >4. Contemporary partisans of both CWL and WQJ tend to make defenses of their respective heroes that boil down to sectarian loyalty based on feeling and intuition. Not in my case. I already put myself on record as not being in complete agreement with Judge, Besant, Olcott or CWL. I also have some problems with HPB and the Mahatma letters too, but that is another issue. In light of the above, what "sectarian loyalty" is possible for me? >Some people complain about the way CWL fans jump on anything critical of him. Is there anything different about WQJ admirers? I would think it depends upon whom you are comparing with whom. But generally speaking, my observation is that CWL admirers defend him from out of feelings of loyalty and admiration. So many times I have seen old ladies oohing and aahing over a portrait of CWL--it seems to be almost sexual somehow. I have never seen that behavior towards a portrait of Judge. >In short, it seems to me that there is an extreme double standard at play here. If Judge partisans look at Leadbeater and see someone intent on manipulating Besant with claims of Mahatmic communication, someone intent on expanding his power in the TS through these claims, and someone who placed his own influence above the welfare of the entire society-- I'd say you can find another example of the same much closer to home. Interesting opinion, and there could possibly be some truth to it. I would be interested in seeing what kind of evidence you could find to support this position. Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu,and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 06:05:17 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Seeing Auras According to Richtay@aol.com: > > Paul wrote: > > > OK, JRC, here's your guinea pig. Let's see if anyone has > > anything helpful or critical to say about my "confession." > > Well, I'm feeling EXTREMELY HOSTILE right now. I can't even believe how > hostile. > > (What exactly did you say they looked like? What shape? Hmmmm ....) That falls under the helpful category. Sort of like giant iridescent soap bubbles about 18 inches out from the surface of the skin. Only what's inside isn't empty air, but rather a sort of jellyfish-like fluid with sparks of color and apparent layers of density that are hard to distinguish. Chakras are even harder to distinguish, but there is definite movement of the fluidic stuff with vortices along the spinal column, and especially visible over the head. I don't see the "haric" or "core star" phenomena at all. The most striking effect is the overall shape and "brightness." It looks more like Brennan's illustrations than Leadbeater's, but that may be because his emphasize color and for me it's mostly a black and white picture. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 06:08:24 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: One of JRC's comments > JRC:< If you want to *study* the "path", keep reading the "source" > materiels, and discussing the finer points in them ... but if you > actually intend to *walk* the damn thing ... then you are going to invoke > whirlwinds of turmoil (and there are a considerable number of people on > this list that know this through terribly personal experience) ... and if > you can't even stand the discomfort of minor and fleeting personal squabbles > on the list ... then you're *really* gonna be upset when the first few > demons of your buried anger, your sublimated sexuality, or carefully hidden > judgements come raging out of your basement with fangs bared. > > > Well said, John. > > Jerry S. Lewis: In one of the ML's, Sinnet (I think) is asked when he will learn that is possible for someone to admire and respect him while telling him of his faults--words to that effect, but At the Feet of the Master caution us to mind our own business and leave others alone except in some specific exceptions. I wonder if these are familiar to any of you and how these concepts fit (or don't) into your own experiences. llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 06:12:15 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Seeing Auras According to james yungkans: > > Paul, I can give you some correlation (Unpublished) in regard to > your layers, if your seeing the same ones referred to by Barbara > Brennan. Too hazily to tell which model looks more like what I see. > opening. I rarely see the 'Egg', but then again I don't work at > developing 'Auric Sight.' Me neither. This just happened, although it's hard not to notice it. > > A warning: Don't let the 'PSYCHIC VISION' draw you off developing > yourself SPIRITUALLY. To many people have permitted themselves > to delve too deeply into that arena without knowing what was waiting > on the other side of that 'Door.' Speaking from experience, you > will encounter everything from astral entities (such as Kama-Rupas) > to lower spiritual beings (such as Heyoan). If your will is not > strong enough, you face the risk of POSESSION. Not a nice thought. > Also, you should emphasise opening your 'Third Eye', which caries > true vision, rather than "Psychic" abilities (which are the realm > of the Astral "Spook" (to honor old HPB's wording). 'Third Eye' > is a most overused term, as it relates to the True vision of the > MIND (Manas), and not to the Pituitary (as many people now believe). Pineal, that is. I meditate according to the Cayce readings' guidelines with some input from the Voice of the Silence, Shabd Yoga, etc.-- all of which emphasize raising awareness to the Eye Center (or Brow chakra). So far no spooks or demons, and if I see any all I know to do is to invoke the protection of the Christ. (Understood again in an ARE sense) > I might be crying wolf in your case, but to many people get excited > about this stuff, and allow Glamour to cloud Common Sense. I Know. It's just as well that it didn't emerge until after my books were written, because this sort of development would have been a distraction from the intellectual dharma of my previous experience. Thanks for your comments PJ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 06:16:31 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Seeing Auras According to LIESEL@delphi.com: > > Dear Paul, > > Please don't call it "a confession". Seeing auras is not a sin, > but a gift. I think what's a "sin" in other people's eyes is > when one person is different, has an ability that most others > don't have. The others then have a tendency to hack around on > the gifted one, for some reason I haven't as yet figured out. I > have some special talents, not psychic, & I've gotten hacked > around on for them. People are right to be suspicious of "claims" about such things, but if the atmosphere of suspicion grows too thick (as JRC alleges and I incline to agree) then we can't even compare notes on our experiences. Surely, some people opposed to my books would say "now he's pretending to be clairvoyant in order to lend further authority to his subversive ideas." In the TS, I think it's the relationship between power plays and paranormal abilities that scares people into avoiding the subject. > > I know that until very recently our Theosophical psychics were > very leery about revealing their gift. One of our theosophical > books re auras didn't get published until the author was well > into her eighties, I believe. You started the ball rolling now. > It's a subject that I think concerns us & our 3rd Object. Let's > see whether we can't handle it as decent human beings, who also > believe in our 1st Object, which I'd rather call something like > the cohesion of everyone's humanity. > > Hopefully, > > Liesel > Thanks, and I share your hope. This is one topic that is getting so much validation OUTSIDE the TS that it may gradually become less "suspicious" within it. Cheers PJ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 07:03:24 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Organizational structure > Ann: > > > What is your ideal > > theosophical organization? What ideas would it be founded on? How would > it be > > structured? Would it have a central headquarters? Branches? What would > > membership be based on? Would it ban Leadbeater and Besant from being > studied? > > What works would it emphasize? What do think should happen to the ES? What > > would you do to make HPB easier to understand? How would you make > theosophy > > more acceptable to the intelligentsia and those with "real power"? > > > Rich: My ideal Theosophical organization is one that has as little > organization as > possible, at least in terms of "power" relationships. The more team-work, > the better, but "top-down" stuff is difficult for me. (Maybe it works for > others, I'm just stating MY ideal.) Even U.L.T. could do with less > "organization" IMHO. > > This un-organized organization would be founded on the principles of > Theosophy laid down by the Masters, study the original teachings first, > secondary works second, and leave people perfectly free to read WHATEVER THEY > WANT TO while emphasizing the "source material" for group meetings. (Unless a > number of folks wanted to organize their own separate groups for study of > non-source material.) > > Membership would be voluntary, very cheap or free, without election or vote. > I see no need for a headquarters, let every lodge be its own headquarters. > Some lodges may have more resources of people and money, but that shouldn't > give them more power. Lewis: You raise two interesting points here. 1) What do we consider our "resources"? 2)How do we define "power"? The need for a "center", I think, is a fundamental law of nature. Whether that center needs a clearly defined circle around it depends on its stage of evolution. To use the chick and egg analogy, the shell protects the embryo until the development reaches a stage at which the shell no longer protects and instead limits growth. On the other hand, in Isabel Cooper Oakley's book on St. Germain, I read that he refused to organize all the disparate groups he was working with into a single large entity because it would then come to the attention of the church and be torn apart. He felt is was better they worked in small groups until they grew strong enough to withstand the attacks. Seems somewhat contradictory, I know, but both concepts seem relevant to the TS. We are working in small groups now and the organization(s) are young in comparison to the organized religions of the world. We are still in an early developmental stage which would benefit from a "center" around which to coalesce, and a protective shell inside which we can grow, working in small groups provides some anonymity for our own protection. Resources (in terms of people and money) are in short supply, which inhibits the physical growth. But there is lots of mental "resources" ie. all the literature we have to study which feeds a rich intellectual life. A necessary precondition for the evolution of the movement. We are looking for growth on the physical and not recognizing the mental and emotional preparations that are going on. As our thoughts become more clear, then our emotional and physical growth will become more vital. All the various groups need to find ways to increase the "resources" needed to promote growth. llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 07:28:44 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Seeing Auras Dear Paul, Thank you for forthrightly sharing. There are many different ways and levels of seeing auras. Today seeing auras is not a glamour or a lower psychic phenomena to be railed against as unfortunately many do -- what we should be promoting is positive purity, spiritual qualities and the truth about the matter. With the dawning of the new age humanity is recapitulating the subtle etheric sensitivity that, of course, was an unconscious part of our nature in ages past. In order to be safely aware of the world of energies we have to have the qualities of good character and of purity on all levels (for anyone who is an Initiate, of course, can spiritually flow these qualities at their convinience as they have accomplished certain spiritual qualities which can override the personal manifestation). What you are seeing is accurate to my uderstanding but also these images would be subject to the perceptual interpretation by the brain of the qualities that someone as sensitive as yourself is aware of anyway. The individual differences are there but as they are not registering as a visual perception it is best and healthiest to focus on the qualities of what you are feeling on all levels rather than be too concerned with visual perceptions. My own experience is that many visuals are deceptive and there can be masking by con-artists. I follow my best knowing with the mind and heart -- so to speak. What you are seeing I believe is something that should be accepted as normal and matter-of-fact in our daily lives -- the fact of the subtle energy world. Of course, all types of people (good and bad) can be aware of this and even see somewhat -- but the importance of this for humanity today is in the overcoming of the too-materialistic view of the universe and the elimination of the fear of death which recognizing the world of energies will bring. One of the main tasks in the hands of those cooperating with evolution today is to promote the truth about the various planes of energies and their relevance to human experience and psychology. Some quotes: "For ages people have talked about seeing auras. From the eastern "body of light" to the western Christian halo some image of the energy that surrounds us and radiates from us is a part of the lore of every religion and culture. These images are the testimony of those who see the world of energy around us and who seek to understand how we can all become more aware of these realities. Today, in the last decade of the twentieth century, there are far more people alive than ever before who can not only feel but also see the energies around them. This is a natural event in human evolution and as more years pass we will all find our abilities to sense auras and energies increasing." "The colors that a person who sees auras is aware of are most often really an interpretation by the perceptual faculties of the physical brain of a quality of impression or feeling. Unless the person is very pure the impressions will be seen through the filter of the seers own psychology and the qualities will be misinterpreted. For example, if a person's aura radiates yellow and your aura is blue then you would see the other person's aura as green. The solution to this is to have a pure or clear strong aura so that one simply feels the qualities without any of one's own impurities getting in the way." "These centers develop and unfold naturally if one lives a life of purity, humility and service. It is very dangerous if the centers are worked on directly or specifically concentrated on unless one knows perfectly what one is doing. Rather we should cultivate the virtues of love, humility, courage, honesty, etc. and we will find our sensitivity unfolding naturally. The principle reason for knowing somewhat of the centers is to begin to understand why we have different feelings in different parts of our bodies....." "It is far more important for us to be able to sense qualities than to see colors in the world of energy. The virtues of honesty, humility, courage, steadfastness, and kindness will help you clear your energy bodies and auric radiations." >From "Seeing Auras" Cheers, Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 07:39:39 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" 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. > > David wrote:(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. Lewis: I agree we need to learn from our mistakes. I didn't mean to suggest in my comments that one should "try to appear perfect beforehand", as I agree that would be pretty stupid. Your points seem to be more related to "self discovery", while I was thinking more about judging "others" and organizations. Nice to hear from you. Good point. llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 07:47:03 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: WQJ and CWL I have noticed that there appears to be little or no overlap between partisans of Judge and partisans of Leadbeater, and very few Theosophists who aren't one or the other. From my point of view, the similarities between the two are more significant than the differences. Neither strikes me as particularly admirable, certainly not in comparison to Olcott, HPB or Besant. Herewith some similarities: 1. WQJ and CWL both convinced Annie Besant that they were the primary channels through which she could communicate with HPB's Masters. They used this to control her behavior. At different times each succeeded in turning her against Olcott and the positions he held on the ES, Masters, HPB. (In CWL's case, this occurred after Olcott's death.) 2. In CWL's case, most informed students of the MLs and HPB's body of writings concur that his claimed intimacy with her Masters is not supported by primary sources. In Judge's case, we have enthusiastic partisans asserting that he was producing genuine Mahatma letters. But where is the evidence, e.g. those letters, and what about them confirms this claim? In the absence of supporting evidence, why should claims on Judge's behalf by his admirers receive any more credence than claims on CWL's behalf by his? 3. In either case, the question that strikes me most strongly is "what if Besant had adhered to the lines laid down by the Masters as understood by Olcott and expressed in the 1900 letter?" Her allegiances to WQJ and CWL both led her astray from these "lines laid down": "Be accurate and critical rather than credulous...No one has a right to claim authority over a pupil or his conscience...The cant about `Masters' must be silently but firmly put down. Let the devotion and service be to that Supreme Spirit alone of which one is a part..." 4. Contemporary partisans of both CWL and WQJ tend to make defenses of their respective heroes that boil down to sectarian loyalty based on feeling and intuition. Some people complain about the way CWL fans jump on anything critical of him. Is there anything different about WQJ admirers? In short, it seems to me that there is an extreme double standard at play here. If Judge partisans look at Leadbeater and see someone intent on manipulating Besant with claims of Mahatmic communication, someone intent on expanding his power in the TS through these claims, and someone who placed his own influence above the welfare of the entire society-- I'd say you can find another example of the same much closer to home. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 08:15:08 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: RE: CWL, LCC, Olcott, etc. Rich: >At the same time, while acknowledging a group have served some people well, >we can acknowledge that it has served others poorly, and perhaps has some >serious issues and problems to work out. Whart are the problems? I would like to hear your viewpoint. From my perspective, I think it's been rather short on reaching out to the public and making itself known as a church that is liberal. I also think it is reaching a crucial crossroads in making the changeover from a Piscean organization (heirarchy, dualism, paternalism) to blending with the energies of the Aquarian age (equality, science). I do think ritual could be important in the Aquarian age, as Uranus is related to the seventh ray. Perhaps the rituals with be more scientific and less devotional. >My ideal Theosophical organization is one that has as little organization as >possible, at least in terms of "power" relationships . . . Your descriptions sound very Aquarian and I would guess they would probably be implemented or any organization won't survive in the 21st century. >What makes Theosophy appeal to the masses as well as the intelligentsia is >being able to demonstrate, IN PRACTICE, high ideals, a coherent philosophy, >and EVIDENCE and REASONS for why certain things are taught. Here I disagree. I think the masses want titillation, not anything that challenges their gray matter. But I am open to the possibility this could change. Especially in the future, I believe scientific explanation will be important. Last Friday I heard an esoteric astrologer say that he believed "science and technology would cause people to come to know God" in the Aquarian Age. The first thing I thought of was the theosophical movement. >The Masters would have to "mop up" and start again, building upon whatever >remains could be made to serve. Might take a pretty big mop. -ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 08:29:03 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Seeing Auras James:< If your will is not strong enough, you face the risk of POSESSION. > Actually, compassion works better than willpower, IMHO. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 08:29:06 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: To Eldon JRC:< Yes, and mine is based upon the *behaviour* of the "source" Theosophists. and upon other writings that indicate awareness of the fact that abilities were going to start arising spontaneously in many people in this century - which they are.> HPB says : "Psychism, with all its allurements, and all its dangers, is necessarily developing among you, and you must beware lest the Psychic outruns the Manasic and Spiritual development. Psychic capacities held perfectly under control, checked and directed by the Manasic principle, are valuable aids in development." (letter to 5th annual convention of Amer Section). I liked this quote so much, I added it to the intro of my Enochian physics book. It tells us that, as JRC says, psychic phenomena is on the rise in the west. She warns about it, and tells us the need to guide and direct it with the mind - i.e., we need to use some intelligence. She clearly says that it can be an aid to our development. So, I think that JRC is quite right in his argument, while Eldon is also right in his warnings. But it sounds to me like John clearly understands the dangers, and accepts them. I feel that I have too. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 08:29:08 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Jnana Yoga Lewis: Yeah, pretty much so. Read the paragraph on page 5 beginning "H.P. Blavatsky said that Theosophy is a kind of jnana yoga" to the end of the next paragraph which sums it all up: "That is the zenith of jnana yoga: using the mind and understanding to pass to a realization of Reality that surpasses the mind and understanding." The goal of jnana, as well as raja and kundalini, yoga is to take consciousness beyond the human condition. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 08:48:27 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: TS as a cult  Ann Quotes: Cults, in a book by Marc Galanter, MD, a professor of Psychiatry at NYU of medicine and published by Oxford University Press, 1989, were characterized by the following psychological elements: 1. Shared belief system 2. Sustains a high level of social cohesiveness 3. Strongly influenced by group's behavioral norms, 4. Impute charismatic (sometimes divine) power to the group or its leadership "Often, defensiveness and paranoia exist to protect the cohesiveness of group. To the extreme, it asks that members sever all ties with family and friends. Anyone outside the philosophy of the group. The noose gets tighter. It is okay to deceive outsiders, for a "higher" purpose. Religious sects generally have a universalist philosophy and a code of behavior touching all aspects of the lives of their adherents: promote an ideology ostensibly intended to transform the world. The role of the charismatic leader is defined in terms of his ability to galvanize people into pursuing a transcendent mission. The transcendent mission of a routinized charismatic group is expressed in its rites and rituals. Using these behavioral prescriptions, the group establishes standards of how its members should conduct themselves in their own lives and in their joint activities, in conformity with the group's mission. Danger comes when power is concentrated in the hands of a single individual, who proves unfit to manage it. Deranged leaders may possess improper concentrations of power and stifle contact with the outside world. The pursuit of new members is an important component of ritual. It supports members' commitment by underlining the credibility of the movement, since the testimony of new members provides further validation of the group's ideals. Involvement in newfound rituals creates conflict in the member's preexisting relationships, since major changes in commitment and lifestyle do not come without a disruptive effect. There is a tendency to divide the world into good within their own group and the evil lodged in their enemies." How does this definition of a "cult" fit current theosophical groups? - ann Ann, I have never seen this definition before, and if you had asked me for one, I would have offered a popular definition rather than an academic one. However, I'm absolutely stunned as to how perfectly Dr. Galanter's definition does fit the inner circle of the Adyar TS. (which runs the Organization) You would have to spend some time at Krotona (the national headquarters of the ES) and get into touch with the social system there in order to fully appreciate what I mean. The same atmosphere and norms permeate Adyar too, I am told by many, but never personally visited there. Thanks for the quote. I'm really stunned. Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 11:53:20 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: WQJ and CWL On the comparison with CWL and WQJ: Speaking for myself, I don't dislike CWL's work because it tried to manipulate Annie Besant. She really holds no interest for me, nor the political antics at Adyar last century. The problem with CWL is his *writing*, which emphasized HIMSELF and his PSYCHIC abilities, and does not refer back to the source material written by HPB and the original Mahatma letters. If he had been more conscientious in comparing his stuff to his Teacher's, he would have found the divergencies most of us see today, and he would have corrected himself (I hope). WQJ did not attack HPB's writings, WQJ did not ignore her writings, and WQJ did not distort. Nor did WQJ promote his personal occult abilities in public, though we suspect that they were prodigious. The letters he delivered from the Mahatmas were not public property, no one but their recipients head of them, and many of the recipients assumed that the letters were from Judge himself, because he did not *say* they were "Mahatma" productions. (Can't you just see this as a name for a Hollywood film company?) I understand that many of the original Mahatma letters delivered by WQJ (by no means ALL) are held at the T.S. headquarters (Pasadena) because they held to him as a Source. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 11:53:24 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: WQJ and CWL Paul -- Doesn't your latest post of WQJ and CWL belong on Theos-roots? Or is everybody pretty much agreed to give up the separate board thing? For the time being I will respond on Theos-roots. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 11:57:52 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: RE: CWL, LCC, Olcott, etc. Ann, We're having a pretty civilized discussion, huh? I just thought I would take a minute to remark on that -- no flames in sight! Some of the problems of the LCC which come to *my* mind are these: (1) Emphasis on rituals. Neither the Masters, HPB, nor Mr. Judge in any of their writings indicate that ritual has any value whatsoever, particularly Christian ritual. I know Alice Bailey has a very different view of this based on the rays, but her idea of rays isn't in the primary source literature either, it seems to me to conflict withthe original stuff. (2) Authority. The idea of having a bishop with spiritual authority over me makes me shudder. I would like no mediation between me, the Masters without, and the Divinity within. (3) Churchiness. For those who grew up in a church, I suppose it is kind of nice to have a quasi-Theosophical service. For those of us who, like HPB, found the Christian church to be an entirely man-made institution, with little or nothing of Christ or the divine in its structure or worship, the LCC produces a revulsion. The eucharist, atonement, a personal Christ figure -- all these seem to militate against Theosophical principles. (4) History. The founding of the LCC does not appear to *me* to be from Masters, but from ordinary folks who thought "Hey, let's reform Christianity!" Questions about Leadbeater's character and those of his compatriots make the founding of LCC and its subsequent history hard for me to appreciate. But before I get flamed for my uppity, arrogant objections, I also want to say one more thing. I DO NOT SAY that the LCC has no right to exist, I do not make fun of those who benefitted or currently benefit from it. I can strongly disagree with the LCC and its practices, without attacking those who participate PERSONALLY. I will simply have to find other modes of brotherhood with those folks, because I will not participate in LCC. I do believe, however, that others should be free do to do, if it meets needs of theirs. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 11:57:53 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: One Of Jrc's Comment James, The attitude you are bringing up for the forum is EXACTLY that which I would like to try and maintain. Ideas in the asbtract are fair game, but I agree the "tone" of discussion makes a great deal of difference (something I have learned here, actually). Personal issues seem to me absolutely inappropriate, especially when derogatory, and I do hope we can all stick up for one another. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 12:08:59 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: RE: RE: CWL, LCC, Adyar, Olcott Jerry Hejka-Ekins: >However, I would not dream of concealing >my opinions from this board just because Brenda is on it . . . Your dissenting opinions are always expressed in a calm and intelligent manner. What I object to are those that get overly emotional and unnecessarily negative in their posts. However, a good flamer can also perk up a dull day. >I saw a video of (Chopra) for the first time the other night, and >got exactly the same feeling. At least I know I'm not alone. Remember, more than 95% of those who join the Adyar TS quit within two years. Can we afford to ignore that 95%? Has there ever been a survey of those who left that asks them why and what they would like changed? >But even more importantly, we don't associate >ourselves with present day neo-theosophy which is (I think >rightfully) considered a cult. . . >Thirdly; we would not have had the crises of >1930, and fourthly; the Theosophical Society would not be >regarded by the public as a cult as it is today Cults, in a book by Marc Galanter, MD, a professor of Psychiatry at NYU of medicine and published by Oxford University Press, 1989, were characterized by the following psychological elements: 1. Shared belief system 2. Sustains a high level of social cohesiveness 3. Strongly influenced by group's behavioral norms, 4. Impute charismatic (sometimes divine) power to the group or its leadership "Often, defensiveness and paranoia exist to protect the cohesiveness of group. To the extreme, it asks that members sever all ties with family and friends. Anyone outside the philosophy of the group. The noose gets tighter. It is okay to deceive outsiders, for a "higher" purpose. Religious sects generally have a universalist philosophy and a code of behavior touching all aspects of the lives of their adherents: promote an ideology ostensibly intended to transform the world. The role of the charismatic leader is defined in terms of his ability to galvanize people into pursuing a transcendent mission. The transcendent mission of a routinized charismatic group is expressed in its rites and rituals. Using these behavioral prescriptions, the group establishes standards of how its members should conduct themselves in their own lives and in their joint activities, in conformity with the group's mission. Danger comes when power is concentrated in the hands of a single individual, who proves unfit to manage it. Deranged leaders may possess improper concentrations of power and stifle contact with the outside world. The pursuit of new members is an important component of ritual. It supports members' commitment by underlining the credibility of the movement, since the testimony of new members provides further validation of the group's ideals. Involvement in newfound rituals creates conflict in the member's preexisting relationships, since major changes in commitment and lifestyle do not come without a disruptive effect. There is a tendency to divide the world into good within their own group and the evil lodged in their enemies." How does this definition of a "cult" fit current theosophical groups? - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 06:00:32 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: To Eldon JRC: >> We can comment on the other ideas from our standpoint, or from >> the standpoint of the source teachings, without attempting to silence anyone. >Yes we can, except that the tone we use, and some of those >opinions we speak can serve to effectively silence numbers of people from >speaking of a whole range of experiences that to them are as much a part >of Theosophy as the "source" teachings are. We can work on the tone that we use. When se speak from an understanding of the source teachings, we can offer relevant quotes like Rich, or put the ideas in our own words and perhaps slant the writing to the person we are addressing. When we speak from our opinion, where we know that we've either gone beyond what we've read or disagree with it, if we label what we say as our views, and don't speak harshly, we should be allowed to disagree with the interpretation of others. >Clearly you do not wish to >even slightly mitigate your attitudes about "psychic" abilities, and >clearly you will forward them as often as you like. How about your attitudes about them? How open are they to mitigation? >This does not please >me, but I have no standing or ability to cause you to re-think anything you >say, or your manner of saying it. Neither, however, can you cause me to >cease responding when you do this, When we see something that we don't agree with, after a while, we feel it necessary to say something. Since we disagree, there will be that tendency for either of us to respond to what we see written, offering our alternate viewpoint. You seem to be saying that I should do all the rethinking, and don't admit to any being necessary on your part. This sounds like you're coming from a fixed position. >and to respond with my own perception >- which is that some of the ideas you speak do serve to supress the >pursuit of the Third Object. For purposes of science, we may investigate things that are known to be dangerous, like perhaps doing medical experiements with radiation and x-ray equipment, even though human subjects may be harmed. When the subjects are informed of the risks, and their participation in the experiments is for the purposes of scientific investigation, an execption to the "don't do it -- it's dangerous" rule might apply. We could also, in scientific experiments, allow for a controlled observation of phenomena in seances, to question spirit guides, photograph protoplasm, observe the knocks on tables, etc. There may be harmful consequences from participation in these activities, but they may advance scientific knowledge and if the subjects were informed of the risks then it would be ok. Going to seances, though, is not something that I'd suggest that people do as a spiritual practice. >While you may not evaluate the Objects >highly in your own understanding of Theosophy, this list, while >inviting contributions from members of all three Theosophical >organizations, was nonetheless begun as a discussion list for the TS - >to whom the Objects are publically stated goals. Here you seem to be asserting some control over the unrestricted nature of discussions on 'theos-l' by appeal to authority, the authority being perhaps some wording or early ideas of what the list could be used for. The list is a group with its own dynamics and has taken on a life of its own. >The words "psychic" and "spiritual" have so >many different meanings as to almost be meaningless here. We've talked about what respective parts of our nature that they refer to. We can go over that discussion again. Perhaps another approach would be to break apart all the different things that might be labelled as "psychic" and discuss their individual merits and shortcomings, so that they aren't all lumped into a single category. >We are offered >not one, but many paths - some of them that may involve what you refer to >as "psychic" abilities, and others that focus purely on what you call >"spiritual/intellectual". I've said this too, that there are many paths. Some schools may involve the psychic in their training. I'd still want a Mahatma or Chela to oversee my training, if I were to enter such a school, and not experiment on my own. >The notion that there is some single approved >method of travelling the path is not one that I agree with, and smacks >(to me) of the uniquely modern, western predilection to universalize >every personal perspective into a general principle. Each of us travels the path in his own way, although we don't get far without adopting a tried-and-proven practice. We need to associate ourselves with one of the many spiritual practices, and there are many. The spiritual/intellectual approach is not an exclusive one. It's one that is often spoken of in our theosophical literature, and one that I find valuable. Sometimes when you write you seem to deny that there is such a school, and I feel inclined to offer an alternate view. >There may be many >humans whose underlying orientations towards life are so different than >yours that for them the path you say "we" are offered will make little >sense - and may not even be an appropriate one for them to try to follow. When we speak of people in general, and not the few that feel a special awakening, were talking about "the path" rather than "the Path". The former is the individual search for meaning of people moving along with the progress of culture and society, for people emersed in the human Lifewave. The later is for the rare individual looking for a path that is not externally available, neither understood nor appreciated by external society, for a path that leads to one of the Mystery Schools. >When, however, this particular perspective of yours is spoken of in >universal, general terms as "the" path "we" are offered, you may be >telling these people that Theosophy is not a place for them. In our literature, perhaps behind some of our books, can be found fragements of the Mystery Teachings. A contemplation of these Truths can work as a very real spiritual practice. Apart from that, we have theosophical groups where anyone can come and study and compare notes on their personal approaches. These people you refer to can come, study, and take whatever of value they find in the books. And they can do whatever practices that they find suitable, with no one telling them they "have to do this" or "have to do that". >You may claim that your ideas are based upon >Theosophical "sources" - but so are mine. You can point to a number texts >that back up your ideas ... but I may point to the people that *wrote* >them, many of whom most definately did pursue the development of inner >abilities. They had inner abilities, and some also had various paranormal powers. But what did they say about the powers, their use, and the desire for powers? >> I'd call it a body of thought or belief system, and say that it is based >> upon the source teachings of Theosophy, althought I might not be able to >> do a point-for-point justification of it using HPB quotes. >Yes, and mine is based upon the *behaviour* of the "source" >Theosophists. and upon other writings that indicate awareness of the fact >that abilities were going to start arising spontaneously in many people >in this century - which they are. I agree that various abilities will arise spontaneously. And unless a particular person is involved in an approach to the spiritual which requires the shutting down of these powers, there's no reason not to explore them. I would expect that any astral perceptions would be subjective and not very reliable, but still useful for people to awaken to a sense that there's much more to life than we see with our physical eyes. >This "body of thought" or belief system >is based upon a particular perspective on Theosophical sources - but it >is not necessarily the only valid perspective. You're free to have your personal interpretation, as am I. But apart from our personal views, it should be possible to see what is plainly said in the books, with the exception of deeply esoteric truths. >> I've sensed a similar argument with Daniel H., where my different ideas >> that would describe his subjective experiences, where I don't use the Bible >> and Jesus and God in my descriptions, may be seen as hostile. With him too, >> I accept the experience but may not accept the explanation offered. Is that >> hostile? Only to the fixed ideas. >With respect, this seems to imply my ideas and Daniel's are "fixed", >while yours are fluid? Your ideas seem every bit as fixed as you seem to >be saying mine are. I'm not saying that my ideas are fluidic and yours are fixed. I agree that the experiences that you have are real to you, and don't attack the experiences. When I disagree with you explanation of your experience, I'm not attacking the experiences, I'm only disagreeing with the explanation. You feel your experiences are under attack, when they are not. The same is true with Daniel H. When I might disagree that Jesus is literally speaking to him in a spiritual experience, I'm not attacking his experience, only his explanation that the experience involved Jesus personally speaking to him. >But you do bring up a very important point here: Upon what >foundation do you claim the wisdom to evaluate and hold opinions about >someone else's inner experiences? I cannot evaluate them in terms of what they mean to you. I can evaluate them in terms of what mechanism or process is going on, based upon your description and what we are taught in Theosophy, combined with whatever additional insight I can bring to the analysis. Can I really know for sure? No, not any more than I can know for sure if OJ really was a killer, even after hearing the evidence, since I wasn't there to watch the murders. >This, perhaps, is the source of much of >what may seem to be my anger - I do not think I have ever placed your >inner experiences into my paradigm (save to say that what you call >"higher wisdom" is just as subjective as what you call "psychic" >experiences and label as unreliable) The problem here is the distinction between art and philosophy. With art, you may write a poem, and it has a certain feeling, and it stands without explanation. With philosophy, we attempt to describe and understand the things before us in life. Your experience may be akin to a poem, and you resentment comes from a philosophical analysis of it. >- in fact I do not know what you >mean subjectively when you talk about this "inner knowing" ... and would >not think myself in any way capable of placing it into *my* map of the >inner worlds (which, by the way, has come from a lot of reading, of >Theosophy as well as a number of other systems and philosophers, seasoned >with as much empirical testing as abilities have allowed me to do). Jerry S. has also asked me about this, and apart from stray comments that I may write in email, I may have to write an article. What I'm saying is that just as the psychic senses are extensions of the physical senses beyond the perceptive powers of the physical body, there are extensions to the power of the mind to know and understand that go far beyond our normal method of rational thought and arriving at opinions. >The trouble your posts give me is that they seem all too easily to place the >inner experiences of others into your own map of the inner worlds - but >this evaluation is then described with impersonal pronouns, as though >this evaluation is *the* "Theosophical" evaluation. Art P. would probably say here that I was attempting to define "theosophical canon". The whole process of philosophy is placing a roadmap of ideas over the raw nature of life, so that we can superimpose human understanding upon something that otherwise is pure mystery. Perhaps here you're saying that I'm not clear enough at times to distinguish my personal views from the theosophical source teachings, and should bring in more quotes? We can always ask Rich for help with some supporting quotes from Blavatsky on items that we're discussing, if we're uncertain in this regard. >This, to me, seems >incredibly arrogant (and this is not an accusation ... I'm not saying >"Eldon, you are arrogant" ... only that what I have described feels, to >me, to be terribly judgemental I do not judge your experiences, just your explanations. And when I judge your explanations, I'm not trying to just dismiss them and say "that's wrong," but to offer alternate ideas and theories, in a theosophical context. >... and seems to imply that not only do >you have the standing to evaluate someone else's inner experiences, but >your evaluations might well be "higher" or *more* "correct" than the >person's own evaluations When we say that the experience of a person can only be explained by that person, then we're back to complete subjectivity, where any opinion goes, and any attempt by Theosophy to explain things will be ignored. We read, for instance, that most spirit guides in seances are likely kamarupas, and not the actual departed people. The Spiritualists, though, have "inner experiences" where they would say that they believe they are really in contact with their departed loved ones. I'd say that I'm entitled to offer an alternate explanation to theirs, based upon what Theosophy says, without addressing the subjective value of their experiences to themselves. >- I believe you would be not at all pleased if I >began continually labelling what you call "inner wisdom" to be merely the >delusions of the mental plane, starting quoting all sorts of Theosophical >writings (and there *are* a lot of them) "warning" against the delusions >of the mental plane, and using language that suggests that this >evaluation of your experience is more Theosophical than your own.) True. And I would be made more defensive and forced to find supporting quotes and sharpen my writing skills on that subject. But we could come under attack for any idea that we express, whether it is in the literature or not, and the fact that such an attack is possible does not discredit a particular idea nor force us to keep silent on all but the most easily aggreed to subjects. >> The Path is when we get practical with our lives. Getting practical involves >> opening ourselves up in unexpected ways. It's not obivious until such an >> opening happens in what direction it will come. We cannot make a >> generalization for everyone. >Yes, Yes! The point I've being trying to make all along! (And >there is a wonderful paradox in that last sentence of yours, is there not? It's funny how in a discussion we seem to be at battle for a long time, then come to some key point where we both find unexpected agreement. After a discussion with Jerry S. on spiritual evolution, he and I found the same thing on my statement about "dancing the dance of life". >(-:) - it reminded me of those paradoxes in classical logic ... >"This statement is a lie" & etc.). Have you not, all along, been speaking >of a generalized idea of what the "path" is? We cannot make a generalization for everyone, that is true. But we can talk about the inner nature of man, and use the theosophical philosophy to both describe things and to help us understand them. We can say "this is a good approach" or "that is bad" and speak in a general sense, although circumstances may vary on an individual basis. >And even using this idea to say some activities are related to that path, >while other behaviour is not? For a particular school, there may be a method that one is taught to follow. Followers of another school, or non-students may take different approaches. Even though each school has its own methods, though, we cannot say that all behavior is good. >(I really am not trying to bicker or be divisive here, by the way, >and please do not take this as a personal attack - it is not meant as >such, but...) can you see how I might be a bit upset at many of your posts? I'm not upset, you're not upset, but perhaps our ideas are a bit agitated. >This is the first time I have spoken, just briefly, of some of >what I believe comprises the "path" - and it is a notion that both fits >my personal experience and can be supported by much Theosophical "source" >literature - but it does not fully agree with your ideas Perhaps you can write a bit more about it. >... and hence >the first reaction from you is "We must not generalize" - but Eldon, with >all due respect, you generalize almost continually. Generalizations naturally arise when we -- you or I -- try to write about general laws or principles of life, like when we discuss the nature of karma. The opposite of generalizations is writing little descriptions of personal experiences, saying "this is what I saw, thought, and felt." Both types of writing are helpful. >> But the appearance of paranormal powers is more akin to >> the ability to run a six-minute mile than it is to the ability to write >> a book or compose a concert. Their presence does not indicate that one >> is closer to (or farther from) the Path than another person. >That depends greatly on what you mean by "paranormal" powers. Yes. We need to define the various powers of perception and of consciousness, and discuss them in greater detail, to see their relative merits. >In some people, some abilities may be almost meaningless. In other people, >other abilities may be an aspect of the final fruition of the spiritual >entity that we may all someday become. Various psyhic and occult powers may naturally occur to people reaching advanced spiritual development, without their seeking those powers. I'm not sure that we would have abilities that are meaningless, though, since we are self-made, and whatever faculties that we have are not given to us, but brought forth from within. We have a wealth of faculties to use in self-expression, but the important thing is not so much the particular faculties as our creative and constructive use of them in the world. >And my personal feeling is that >one would have to be fairly close to being a "Master" before they could >claim they had the wisdom to make such an evaluation of either the >abilities in another, or where they fit in that person's overall >spiritual development. And I cannot evaluate your abilities, nor can you deny abilities of others, based upon your belief in the possibilities of those abilities. We cannot evaluate the abilities of a particular individual, and see into their particular case, but we can attempt to learn and understand about what is going on, about the mechanisms involved, about what *may* be happening. >> >tremendous psychological energies are unleashed ... and in general people >> >become an *enormous* pain in the ass. >> They don't *have to be*. That's like driving too fast, and being unable >> to stay in your own lane on the freeway. >Well, both some Theosophical writing as well as some evidence >from the founders might seem to dispute this. There are vaious forms that tremendous psychological energies can come out in. We have various forms like a fire-breathing dragon, a trickster, or spellbinding storyteller. I wouldn't classify the form that overpowering energies come forth all into a single category. >"We are taught" that the personality undergoes periods in which >it is exceedingly difficult to control itself, and that those very >structures that normally channel our energies begin to be dissolved (and >in fact will unltimately need to be shattered completely). True, for certain people, in certain stages. But not for all people at all stages on the Path. >Again, with all due respect, I haven't been the one warning of >the "dangers" of your perspective - and you have been warning people of >the dangers of mine, no? True to a certain extent. I make the distinction between forced psychic development and the exploration of naturally-occurring powers. I also talk about the unreliable nature of information gathered from the astral senses, where the experience is not in itself harmful, just an uncritical taking of the information as accurate and true. >And if I have had to crank up the emotional >currents a wee bit, it is because we did not start on even footing - your >perspective is by far the (currently) dominant one in the Theosophical >current. We do that to get attention. Once we've gotten attention, then hopefully there's communication. That doesn't necessarily mean agreement, but mutual respect and tolerance and understanding. We still can disagree but not have to be disagreeable. And we won't be as misinformed about the other's viewpoints. >As do I - and had you been not quite as quick to catagorize my >experiences, we might have had a different discussion. And as you explain more of your views, there will be less misunderstanding about them. You're the best person to speak for what you say. >I realized >yestarday, when reading the post in which you described what you believed >"angels" to be, that these being haven't the faintest thing to do with >what I refer to when I use that word. I am aware of the things you speak >of, but I never bother with them at all and would probably consult the >cat in my office before I would consult any of them for advice. (And its >not even that smart of a cat, as cats go (-:). Why don't you give your explanation of what you mean by "angels", about where they appear in the theosophical scheme *in terms of the source literature*, so that we can have a common language of communication? >But involves *serving*, with every ability one has, in current >Fourth-Round subrace civilization. I'd put the "serving" in a different perspective. We do, I think, things for the common good, and that common good includes all of life, both human and otherwise. The thought is upon the highest ideals, where we are filled with an excitement and sense of creativity that seeks expression in the world. The perspective is that the highest spiritual and beauties of life seek their place in the world. "Service" implies a sense of "me" and "thou", and we would be operating without a sense of separation from the other. We feel the pain and suffering about us. That pain is not from physical existence, I'd say, but from the desire of the spiritual to find itself expression in those people from whom it is consciously absent. >I s'pect its possible Rich is also defending >his own ideas - many of which he shares with you - more than he is rising >to your defense based based on a totally impersonal ideal of "defending >others but remaining silent when attacked" ... as not only has he not >defended, but has helped to attack those those he does not agree with. I'll give someone the benefit of the doubt, with regard to motives, until proved wrong on more than one occasion. Just like I'll do with Paul Johnson with his books, whereas others might rush to judge him without simply taking the time to ask why. >> It's possible that we'll grow from the dialog, but we also need to be >> cautious about thinking about ourselves in terms that are too grand. >> It's easy to find something that one is doing in life, and to tell oneself >> that one is therefore on the "fast track" and stops the hard work of >> questioning life, and looking in unexpected places for spiritual treasures. >Again I fear your pronouns confuse me. Are you talking in general >principles and applying them to everyone equally (in which case you are >not answering me, but using my post to make a different point), or are >you saying that *I* am thinking of myself in terms too grand, believing >myself to be on the "fast track" (which by the way, I don't), that I have >stopped the hard work of questioning life, and am missing some unexpected >treasure? I'm talking about the general tendancy to think in terms too grand. And hoping *we* don't do so in our dialog. We're not solving the problems of the universe, and should not make too much of our dialog. I'm not saying that you think yourself too grand; I'm saying let's not feel too grand about ourselves because of the dialog. >This is not to be nasty ... I *really* do not know which of those >you intend. It *seems* to be a *personal* comment directed at me - and >perhaps the personal attacks Rich accuses me of making against you come >from this misunderstanding ... A greater precision in my writing would have been helpful here. >... as it is quite possible for people to >attack others without every using their names - but still make it >completely clear that it is an individual they are talking about ... and >it seems to me you are doing this here - and what you are saying (if it >is personal) is in the tone of a master addressing a pupil ... and when >that is done, I do not reply with impersonal pronouns, but rather make it >personal I'm not trying to set myself up as your teacher, nor tell you what to do. I may comment on my philosophical understanding of your experiences, but not give you personal direction as to what is right for you to do. >... because I think this is both more truthful and leads to >greater clarity - if we are to talk personally, I prefer to use personal >pronouns and names, and if we are to talk of general principles, then >impersonal pronouns are suitable. I do not like confusing the two however. We need to make it clear what we are writing about -- I agree. When I might refer to you personally, I should clearly note it, and not use any form of writing that involves indirect criticism. >If *you* think that *I* have too grand of an idea of myself, or >have focussed on one thing and because of that *I* believe that *I* am on >the "fast track", then you are holding a personal and very judgemental >attitude towards me This "too grand" stuff is your reading into my earlier comment, which I have explained above. It was to *us* and *our dialog*, not to *you* and *your viewpoints*. >... and I will respond to you personally - and simply >because I use your name but you don't use mine does not mean I am >attacking personally but you are not. Before responding this time, >however, I will ask, what *did* you mean? That's always useful to do, rather than simply assuming something. It applies to both what someone means when they say someting and to what someone's motives are. We -- you, I, and the rest of us -- need to ask people rather than presume to know what they mean, when we're not sure from the words. >And if you were speaking purely >impersonally about general principles that you are applying equally to >yourself, can you understand how this might be misunderstood as being >personal when it is in response to something I wrote, and seems to relate >to the topic I was writing on? Again, it's a matter of clarity in writing. I'm open to improving my writing style. >When someone is responding directly to a >paragraph in a post, is it not quite natural to assume it is a comment >about that paragraph, regardless of the lack of personal pronouns? Not always. We can respond with a general principle that the paragraph is related to, or respond personally to the person that wrote the paragraph. >It seems clear you have no intention of altering the way you >communicate, regardless of anything I've said. You can let me decide about that. >both you and Rich seem to be continually commenting on how I communicate. >Neither of you likes it. Fine. There are also others that seem to >actually appreciate it. That's your decision. Are you willing to try different approaches at communication? >Again, when you say "Perhaps *we* can keep the >passion but find more useful ways to convey it" - don't you mean *me*? - >as the rest of that paragraph seems to imply yourself to be demonstrating >the "correct" way to convey passion. In this case you, and perhaps Rich, when the passionate nature of the message leads to defenses going up and communication being obstructed. >I have gotten used to the fact that you will never communicate in >a way that is comfortable to me ... but likewise you and Rich will have >accept that I am not very disposed to alter my conversation so as to >better fit your pictures of a Theosophical discussion list. There are two parts to our communication. First is the manner of writing, the means used. Second is the content, the ideas expressed. The manner of writing can use improvement for every one of us -- you, me, Rich, and the rest of the list. The content may never be completely agreeable to all parties, because of our differing views. I'd like to see the media used -- the manner of writing -- facilitate communication rather than become another type of barrier. >I will, however, say that I will not initiate any further of what >might be perceived as personal attacks (though in my own view, I have >never initiated them ... but have rather responed in a personal fashion >when the person seemed to be refering personally to me) I'm growing accustomed to your manner of writing, but it may be misinterpreted by some readers. I can accept your statement of your intentions, and not read anything into you words that you say are not intended. >- and I will stop >and consider carefully what you are saying before assuming that you are >responding to me personally when you are responding to one of my posts >(though I believe some of this burden of solving possible confusion is in >your hands You can ask me to clarify certain statements, and I can do the same with you. >... it *is* natural to believe the response is personal when >it is a specific paragraph being addressed). It depends upon the content of the paragraph, if a universal principle can be discussed that applies to you, perhaps to me, and to others, or just applies to you. I'll have to be clearer to you in my writing, and you will have to ask me to clarify if you're not sure about something I've said. >And I will not say anything further about your style of >conversation, if you agree to cease continual "suggestions" to me about >mine. It's okay to continue talking about our styles, if the comments can lead to some form of self-reflection and improvement in writing styles -- in your writing or in my writing. >I may well sometimes seem like a Baptist preacher to you ... but >you and Rich often seem to me to be Catholic Bishops speaking down to the >masses with the tone of authority. Perhaps Rich and I sound that way at times? It's hard to deal with the tone of communication, but also something any of us can work on if we will. As it is pointed out to me, I'll keep that in mind as I write. >I suppose we must learn to live with >this (and to me, it actually isn't that important) ... and perhaps try to >mitigate the sparks for the sake of the larger list. Yes, because someone else can see us as being at each other's throats, whereas we're sipping tea, having cookies, and having a lively chat. Respectfully, -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 13:44:20 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: RE:CWL and WQJ Questions to Jerry HE and Paul J An Observation: I believe that Paul J posted his original posting on CWL and WQJ on theos-l. Then Jerry HE and Rich T post their replies on theos-roots and Liesel posts her reply on theos-l !!!!!!!! I guess I will just post mine on theos-roots!! Question to JE: In the copy of your posting I read: "First of all, I really don't like Judge that much as a writer. I think it, and she likes to teach it. I don't." Is there a sentence or two missing here? Why don't you like Judge that much as a writer? Question to JE: You write: "I already put myself on record as not being in complete agreement with Judge....I also have some problems with HPB and the Mahatma letters too, but that is another issue. In light of the above, what `sectarian loyalty' is possible for me?" Could you please expand on what you mean "not being in complete agreement with Judge? Specifics? What problems do you have with HPB and the Mahatma letters? Specifics please? Question to Paul J: Jerry HE writes: "As for authenticity, what is there about the letters to Sinnett now in the British Museum that proves they are authentic?" A good question for you to answer, Paul. Plus if you are saying that you question the authenticity of the Mahatma Letters through Judge, what are you comparing Judge's MLs with? With the MLs through HPB? or? Question to Paul J: Jerry writes: "I don't feel that you [PJ] have yet established a case that Judge led her [AB] astray?.....Can you show Judge's role in this [Judge turning Besant against Olcott] through *sources* documentation, other than Besant's own (presumably) biased statements that she made after turning against Judge." PJ, what are your sources? Question to Jerry: When Annie turned against William, was she justified or not in so doing? Sources please? Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 14:09:55 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Psychism, Intuition, Eldon & JRC First, thanks to Murray S. for his latest posting. Well said! For the last 25 years I have been a student of HPB's writings but also during those years I have also been a student of parapsychology. And have even had psychic and as well as mystical experiences! I have had some Blavatsky students almost horrified at the thought that I would waste my time in the study of parapsychology, those psychic subjects! Focus you efforts on higher things, I've been told. I don't believe HPB and her Teachers ever wanted students to ignore the *study* of psychism, call it what you may. We can learn a great deal from such a study and Blavatsky and her teachers give us alot of insight on this subject. Furthermore, if psychic experiences come your way naturally why ignore them or be afraid of them, try instead to understand them and evaluate them. Again Theosophy gives some valuable insights and perspectives on psychic things. And if one meditates one will also from time to time have "psychic" experiences. Again don't overestimate the value of those experience, don't necessarily accept those experiences at face value, but what's wrong in trying to understand them if they happen and they are part of your experience, world and nature. I agree that you shouldn't focus on them, develop an obsession about them, but what's wrong with trying to understand them, evaluate them, etc? HPB and her Masters say a great deal about such phenomena and experiences and I have certainly taken that to heart, but I'm not afraid of such things nor do I think it is wrong to try to understand such experiences especially when they happen to you or to your relatives and friends. Challenge them (the experiences) just as you no doubt should challenge or inspect or judge various thoughts and emotions you experience----asking yourself what is the source of that thought or emotion. More could be said on this subject but I will close for now. Daniel CAldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 15:50:09 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: To Eldon Dear Eldon & JRC, I wonder whether both of you could agree that human personalities are loosely classified into 7 rays ... I think that idea comes from the Masters. I say "loosely", because there's said to be overlap from 1 ray to the other. And that the Path taken by people on each ray are different ... like there's Raja Yoga, Karma Yoga, Jjana Yoga, & etc. ... all valid Paths chosen by individuals according to their talents, inclinations & beliefs. Seems to me, we owe it to each other to respect them as such. Matter of fact, it seems to me that each person's Path is different. No 2 people are exactly alike, so neither are their Paths. I was hoping you could agree on that & I was hoping that you could take it into account when you think of each other. You differ, & there's nothing wrong with that, except that you're throwing darts. I haven't been around Wheaton very much, but 1 thing I learned there from someone who was there. "Don't condemn someone else's actions, but try to show even the harshest some understanding, some tolerance, because you never can be sure of what the motivation is." Not that I always manage to think of this myself in the heat of things, but it seems to be a good rule to try to live by. Let JRC travel his chosen Path, let Eldon travel his, & think of each other with a bit of sympathy as "fellow travelers"(it just fits in here, even though I don't mean red ones.) Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 16:00:57 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: One of JRC's comments Lewis My own experience is that you don't tell someone their faults, unless they ask you first. If they don't ask you, they tend to get offended and/or angry. I don't always stick to that, especially when it's someone I really care about, but then, I try to remember to tell them what I've always told my kids, If I'm free to express my opinion, you're free to accpet or reject it. Sometimes it helps. This is 1 person's way of handling it. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 16:07:40 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Seeing Auras Dear Paul, I would hope that you could feel free to compare your experiences on a theosophical mailing list. Maybe, for safety/comfort's sake, John Mead could establish Theos-esp? You might get some real far out material mixed in with sincere searching, comparing & reporting. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 16:21:21 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Seeing Auras Paul, Just don't get caught looking at just that, to the detriment of your spiritual development. That's CWL's interpretation of the "Voice" of the passage about a snake coiled under each flower (I think that's the way it goes.) Also, I know that different people advise trying to develop different chakras. If you don't mind, I'd like to tell you what Harry taught us. I want to tell you, because I think Harry was knowledgeable, at a very high level, certainly much higer than my own. But it's up to you to accept or reject this. He taught us to concentrate on the crown & the heart chakras, by thinking beauty & love. He said, when we'd developed those 2, the development of all the others would just follow... For what it's worth. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 16:47:09 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Seeing Auras Patrick, "I follow my best knowing with the mind & heart ... so to speak..." "It is very dangerous if the centers are worked on directly.... unless one knows ... what one is doing, rather we should cultivate the virtues of love" etc "& we will find our sensitivities unfolding naturally. " Glad to see that someone else sees it the way I've been taught. Paul & JRC, to me, this is different from repression & pooh poohing. I think the idea is that you both use what you are able to perceive, especially JRC, but be sure that you keep on developing spiritually, so you don't get stuck in the ESP of the astral plane, but get to perceiving the more advanced & reliable ESP of the realms with finer vibrations. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 16:59:09 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: WQJ and CWL Dear Paul, I don't know enough about the interrelationship between Besant, Judge and Leadbeater to comment on what you say. I do, however, know something about Annie Besant. She was a very strong-willed, & independent-minded woman. So I doubt very much (& that's putting it mildly) that she could be led & unduly influenced by either of these 2 gentlemen. She certainly wasn't a wishy washy who would play "yassuh" to a pair of stronger men. She was a very strong person herself, with some strong ideas of her own. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 17:03:24 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: One Of Jrc's Comment James Aye Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 17:36:19 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Marley's ghost Dear Jerry, I think I made a mistake in my Don Quichote quote. I seem to remember after I wrote that Rocinande was the horse, & the lady was Roxane. So I want to stay that I'll stick up for horses too. Not accidental that I raised a veterinarian. To answer to some of your other comments, I agree with you that my protesting is probably not going to change anything, because the changes in the by laws have already been decided on, but I feel I want to protest about certain things anyway, just because I belong to the organization & I feel I should be heard. 1 thing I protested about, is that they'd already made up their minds before they listened to what some of the membership had to say. We're not dummies, or peons! Too long to mention all I protested about, but for another thing I objected to the 2d & the 3rd Object being reworded, & not the 1st, which to me is the most outdated as far as wording is concerned. If I see something I don't like, or if I see something that I *do* like, I try to let them know. At the time, I too protested about the ruling that one had to be on the Board to qualify for running for President, because it was meant against Bing. Today, I think it's not such a bad idea. That way, our President will have some prior knowledge as to how to run things. Incidentally, I voted for Bing twice, but if he runs again, I'm not so sure anymore that he'll get my vote. remains to be seen. I too have devoted a good part of my life to Theosoophy, even though I've also been active in other endeavors. I think you yourself have a perfect right to speak out, only sometimes what you say reminds me of an introductory video tape we once aired at Pumpkin Hollow, which had been sent to one of us by the Reverend Moon's organization. The video started out by stating certain truths we all could agree on, but as the film went on, the logic deviated bit by tiny bit off what we would recognize as truth. You're in the habit of doing this sometimes, so it's hard to really try to trust what you say. Besides, sometimes you get belligerent & that isn't conducive to getting a good dialogue going on this list. I'm not saying that I can't get argumentative too, but I try hard not to, & I wish you would too. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 21:18:35 GMT From: Don DeGracia <72662.1335@compuserve.com> Subject: reply to: john.d.tullis John: Thanks for offering your comments in this dialoge. I appreciate your attempts to find a comprimise point of view in this debate. Indeed, there is validity in John's viewpoint in spite of my criticisms. The issues of science, and science and spirituality are many faceted issues and can be seen from many angles. < That is, the concept of running repeated experiments (your point) appears pretty similar to "limiting the scientist to what is repeatedly observable under controlled condition" (John Algeo's point).> Yes, the ideas are similar, but not identical. The only limit is one's imagination for devising ways to test ideas. Its not so much the similarity of ideas between John and I, but the difference in the implications of the attitudes implicit in what we are saying. John is implying that science has limits that prevent it from addressing issues of spirituality or of transcendance. I am saying essentially the opposite. You touch on a very important and fundamental issue here with the question: whose experience? This gets into issues of consensus reality, issues of world-views and language. But I don't want to dwell on these broader implications here, important though they are. More specifically, I am talking about our experience as indivduals. Let me give a concrete example. I have learned how to astral project. This is a part of my real and living experience and it is subject to (within qualified boundaries) the same kind of rational and logical testing as is physical reality. However, astral projecting is not a part of mainstream society, although the idea is out there if one wants to learn about it. Nonetheless, because astral projecting is not as common as, say, our mutual experience of gravity, that does not mean the experience is invalid or beyond scientific approaches. Furthermore, astral projecting is indeed an experience with highly reproducible qualities, and it is something that can be taught. I have much experience teaching people how to astral project. Thus, as more people learn this experience, it becomes less "subjective" and more a consensual thing. So, yes, my definition of science is loose, but this is necessary because we (meaning the Human race as a whole) hardly have a grasp on reality to begin with, so its important we leave things loose so that we may be open to new discoveries. Its bad intellectual manners to assume we already know and understand everything. I fully agree with Patrick here. Psychology is indeed a science in every sense of the word. I don't know where you are getting your information from John, but your view of psychology is dead wrong. As a matter of fact, there is currently a scientific revolution underway due to the convergence of a number of fields including computer science, neurology, molecular biology and cognitive psychology that is in the midst of creating a whole new science about the brain and human mind. This is a most formidible science and it would be better if the general public knew what was happening than to operate under misconceptions. Anyway, John, details aside, I agree with your sentiment fully. John and I are both right and we are both coming from different perspectives. However, the point is to keep balance in one's perspective. Part of my problem with John's article, aside from facts he was wrong about, was the imbalanced tone to his presentation. Issues as complex as science have many facets, all of which are important to understand and appreciate if one wishes to investigate such issues. Best wishes to you! Don From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 04 Oct 1995 23:52:34 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Elementals and Dhyani Chohans I found a good description of some terms by HPB in "Transactions of the Blavatsky Lodge", p. 76: "Q. What is the difference between an Elemental and a Dhyan-Chohan or Dhyani-Buddha?" "A. The difference is very great. Elementals are attached only to the four terrestrial Elements and only to the two lower kingdoms of nature -- the mineral and the vetetable -- in which they *immetalize* and *inherbalize*, so to speak. The Hindu term *Deva* may be applied to them, but not that of *Dhyan-Chohan*. The former have a kind of Kosmic intelligence; but the latter are endowed with a supersensuous intellect, each of its kind. As to the Dhyani-Buddhias, they belong to the highest Divine (or omniscient) Intelligences, answering best, perhaps, to the Roman Catholic Archangels." >From this, I'd say, we can speak of the Devas as Elementals, but not as Dhyani-Chohans. And we can refer to Dhyani-Chohans as Archangels when speaking in Christian terms. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Oct 1995 00:00:41 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Seeing Auras > OK, JRC, here's your guinea pig. Let's see if anyone has > anything helpful or critical to say about my "confession." > > Cheers > PJ Sounds good to me! Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Oct 1995 00:12:54 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Seeing Auras > Paul wrote: > > > OK, JRC, here's your guinea pig. Let's see if anyone has > > anything helpful or critical to say about my "confession." > > Well, I'm feeling EXTREMELY HOSTILE right now. I can't even believe how > hostile. > > (What exactly did you say they looked like? What shape? Hmmmm ....) > > Rich Rich: What the H... are you trying to say here? I am totally baffled. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Oct 1995 00:15:46 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Regarding Science and Metaphysics In "The Inner Group Teachings of H.P. Blavatsky," pages 7-8, we have an interesting passage by Blavatsky which I'm responding to. >The white Adept is not always at first of powerful intellect. In fact, >H.P.B. had known Adepts whose intellectual powers were originally below >the average. We often hear of the importance of a strong intellectual foundation. It is possible to strongly awaken the spiritual first, with the intellect closely following it. It is not always necessary for the spiritual and intellectual to go at the same pace, although the spiritual should not be outrun by the intellectual. >It is the Adept's purity, his equal love of all, his working >with Nature, with Karma, with his "Inner God", that gives him his power. These things indicate a flowering spirituality, out of which all the rest will naturally arise in our lives. >Intellect by itself along will make the Black Magician. For intellect >alone is accompanied with pride and selfishness: it is the intellectual >plus the spiritual that raises man. For spirituality prevents pride and >vanity. We can face dangers when any part of our nature outpaces the spiritual. It is not just with the psychic, but with the intellectual as well, that we can become out of balance and diverted from the path. >Metaphysics are the domain of the Higher Manas; whereas physics are that of >Kama-Manas, which does the thinking in physical science and on material >things. Metaphysics involves an attempt to directly know things, using a faculty that transcends, but depends upon, rational thought. The attempt to deal with the laws and nature of concrete, physical things falls into science; the dealing with higher things comes under metaphysics. Science draws a circle and says everything inside that circle is known and true. It considers everything outside the circle as suspect, and is continually working on the circle's boundary to make it bigger. Metaphysics deals with everything, both inside and outside the circle, provable and accepted as scientific canon or not. >Kama-Manas, like every other Principle, is of seven degrees. The >mathematician with spirituality, however great he may be, will not reach >metaphysics; but the metaphysician will master the highest conceptions of >mathematics, and will apply them, without learning the latter. This may indicate how the Mahatmas know what they do, and how they preserve the storehouse of human knowledge and wisdom as a living tradition. It is possible to know something in its essence, and from that understand its behavior in the physical world. Perhaps certain occult powers are used to apply the essential understandings to specific individuals and things, a combination of empathy, compassion, and psychic sight. (I never said the Adepts don't use paranormal abilities, but that doesn't make them appropriate for people in a general sense.) -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Oct 1995 00:35:39 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Daniel H. Daniel H. keeps sending me private messages about Who is Jesus Christ and that I should be concerned about the security of my soul,but he won't answer on theos-1, my two questions about what books he has read about Theosophy written by Theosophical and non-Theosophical writers. In the future all private e-mail messages to me from Daniel H. will be auto- matically deleted as soon as I seen the heading. I am mor than happy to read and sometimes respond to Daniel H's theos-l postings. Daniel Caldwell P.S. Daniel H.: in answer to your question Who is Jesus Christ? I would suggest that you read IN SEARCH OF THE PRIMORDIAL TRADITION AND THE COSMIC CHRIST by Father John Rossner. I don't necessarily agree with everything Dr. Rossner says but I think he is on the right track. What is the penalty for disbelieving in Daniel H.'s brand of Christianity? Hell? Eternal damnation? A religion based on FEAR? If you don't believe THIS way, be concerned about the fate, the security of your soul. What is the penalty for disbelieving in any form of Theosophy? I don't believe there is a penalty! A person's life or fate or destiny is not worse because he or she rejects Theosophy or disbelieves in the Theosophical philosophy. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Oct 1995 00:50:35 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: To Eldon Liesel: >I wonder whether both of you could agree that human >personalities are loosely classified into 7 rays ... I think >that idea comes from the Masters. You're making the suggestion that because we are of different temperaments our approaches would be different. I'd agree to a certain extent. A good deal of differences, though, I'd expect to be due to unequal development. We're each ahead of the other in different areas, and have to play catch up in different aspects of our lives. Using the "seven rays" is not a good example for this point, though, because I'd tend to discount the idea. That's another discussion, though ... >there's Raja Yoga, Karma Yoga, Jjana Yoga, & etc. ... all valid >Paths chosen by individuals according to their talents, >inclinations & beliefs. We may all be at different points on the mountainside, and have different paths in front of us to climb, but we're climbing to the same peak. The paths are different because we're starting from different points, not because we are essentially different in essence. The common idea is that the different yogas provide a path for people of different types to travel a path appropriate to them. But I'd disagree that we are essentially different, regardless of the typology, be it astrological, Jungian, numerological, or according to the seven rays. Using a typology, we can classify people according to their respective strengths and weaknesses. As the people grow and evolve, they overcome the weaknesses and round out their development. When we're all relatively perfected in the Seventh Round, we're not pure forms of seven, eight, or twelve qualitatively different types of humans. We're individualized and unique in our own individual ways. I've seen the idea of typology abused, where we simply categorize everyone by the way they are, and end up saying everything's ok, everyone's ok, nothing's better or worse among people. This thinking is seen in the "politically correct" thought, where recognition for individual intelligence and merit are discarded and the lazy and stupid are held in equal esteem with the achivers in society. An example of the abuse of this type of thinking is with Brenda, where in a discussion she is simply dismissed as being "a feeling type", and therefore what she says can be dismissed, for she is therefore someone ruled by feeling rather than by mind and it doesn't matter what she says. It does matter what we say and think, and regardless of our classification into some arbitrary type, we are responsible to learn to control our feelings, to mature, to develope intelligence, and to awaken our spiritual faculties. (Note that I'm not getting on your case for anything that you've written, but your comment on the seven rays provided me an opportunity to write about something I consider important.) >Seems to me, we owe it to each other >to respect them as such. Matter of fact, it seems to me that >each person's Path is different. No 2 people are exactly alike, >so neither are their Paths. We can agree that each path is individual. We may not agree on a theosophical description of what happens with varous psychic experiences, nor upon when and where they are appropirate. >I was hoping you could agree on >that & I was hoping that you could take it into account when >you think of each other. You differ, & there's nothing wrong >with that, except that you're throwing darts. The appearance of "darts" may be due to the occasional sharp words used, but not due to any actual hostility. >I haven't been >around Wheaton very much, but 1 thing I learned there from >someone who was there. "Don't condemn someone else's actions, >but try to show even the harshest some understanding, some >tolerance, because you never can be sure of what the motivation >is." Yes. We don't judge others, always give them the benefit of the doubt, and ask them what they mean by what they say or why they've done something. We let the living person speak for his or her motivation, rather than put words in their mouthgs. >Not that I always manage to think of this myself in the >heat of things, but it seems to be a good rule to try to live by. There may be a bit of heat here, in my discussion with JRC, but it just means that things are cooking! >Let JRC travel his chosen Path, let Eldon travel his, & >think of each other with a bit of sympathy as "fellow >travelers"(it just fits in here, even though I don't mean red >ones.) He is free to travel his path, but not to require me to believe as he does. I can comment on psychic experiences from either my standpoint of that of the theosophical teachings. He can offer his interpretation of his angels as his personal view, but cannot insist that only rosy, gushing admiration be offered in response. (Nor can I expect such adulation to be poured upon my personal views, which are on an equal basis of being open to commentary by others.) -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Oct 1995 01:08:51 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: re: CWL, LCC, Adyar, Olcott etc. Paul J: >> Jerry H-E: >> But keep in mind that there are also a >> lot of us who have been turned off. Remember, more than 95% of >> those who join the Adyar TS quit within two years. Can we afford >> to ignore that 95%? There's a large turnover in membership, but not 95 percent. In the first four years, a large percentage of members have lapsed (very few actually quit). I don't remember if it's 40 percent, but that figure comes to mind. I could look up the figure, since I've had the data for about seven years, but since Wheaton has not released such statistics, I'm not sure that I would be permitted to give the actual figure out. We have to ask if people have received their benefit from a theosophical group by joining, becoming acquainted with the literature, then dropping out to follow an individual quest. Their spiritual progress is not limited to the time period that they continue to pay membership dues. There's a good side, in a sense, to this turnover. It means that our 4200 membership does not represent everyone reached by Wheaton, but there are many more thousands of people that have been exposed to Theosophy that don't show up in that count. The membership count does not reflect the total count of people reached in the past decade or two. >Appalling statistic indeed. But I think that our solutions to >that problem would be quite different. I'd say, "to retain >more members the TS should become more like the ARE, providing >group settings that nurture one's independent pursuit of the >spiritual path, and intellectual engagement with cutting-edge >trends in contemporary thought." That's one approach. >Whereas mightn't you say "to >retain more members the Adyar TS should become more like the >Pasadena TS or the ULT, focusing more consistently on the >source teachings and deemphasizing subsequent developments"? And that's another approach. >While neither of us would ignore that 95%, how to know what's >the right way to keep more of the them? The question might be what's the right way to *benefit* them, rather than what's the right way to *keep* them. >> the TS would >> more likely have stayed on the original lines as outlined by HPB >> and the Masters. They started it along certain lines. If they were around since then, perhaps they would have changed it as appropriate to the changing social climate and spiritual thawing in the west. We can't take their original *intent* and assume that it is a dogma to be followed. It is a *work plan*, not a divine truth. We can change our theosophical groups as necessary to carry out any form of spiritual work. And both Jerry H-E's and Paul's approaches can appear in different lodges and theosophical organizations. >> the Theosophical Society would not be >> regarded by the public as a cult as it is today. Regardless of how we try to define "cult", it is often used as a hate word to put down groups one doesn't like. One person may call, for instance, the Mormon Church a cult, another may call it the best church in Christianity. >> >And finally, what would you do if another group of theosophists, >> >who did not agree with your ideas, formed a rival organization? We could treat the organization appropriately. If the organization was "rival" in the sense of being hostile, we'd have to treat it more cautiously than if it was "rival" in the sense of being complimentary and coopertive with us. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Oct 1995 01:10:48 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: To: Don and Patrick on Science and Theosophy I sincerely hope that scientists are and will be more open to trying to apply the scientific method to the "intangible realms". But why are psychololgists in general skeptical of even telepathy and ESP? Why do we not find every university with parapsychology departments or at least classes on parapsychology being taught in the psychology departments? Are you aware of the uphill battle parapsycholgists are fighting today to find funding in order to do just minimal amounts of research? If you all know of new interest in these subjects and people willing to give funding for research in parapsychology and related areas, please contact the Parapsychology Association. Its members will be more than happy to take the funds and try to devise scientific experiments concerning the intangible realms. Reductionism is still alive and well within the scientific community. Hopefully things are changing. For example, read the books by the psychologist Susan Blackmore on out of body experiences and near-death experiences. She denies the reality of these experiences and reduces them to something else: physical processes in the brain; nothing gets out of the body; there is nothing to get out of the body! This is reductionism, at its best. As I said hopfully things are changing or at least starting to change, but I don't get the feeling that the scientific community and the power structure within the scientific community is opening its arms to embrace the paranormal. Not yet. I think this is part of what Dr. Algeo is talking about. If you [Don and Patrick] disagree, please give us a list of books and articles that indicate differently. I'm sure Dr. Algeo will be happy to know that scientists are willing to give up reductionism (ie. physical reductionism). Do introductory textbooks on physics even consider the possibility of "levitation", etc.? Do any textbooks in psychology deal with Dr. Ian Stevenson's researchon children who claim to remember previous lives?etc etc. Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Oct 1995 02:17:02 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: To: Arthur Paul Patterson Thanks for your recent posting on Theosphy and Christianity. I think that many members on Theos may like to give their own perspective on the issues you raised. Let me just start the ball rolling by the following: Some time ago I believe it was Paul Johnson who said something to the effect that H.P. Blavatsky was anti-Christian as evident from her writings. I would ask Paul to correct me if I am wrong in what he wrote or not. If he feels that she had an "anti-Christian" stance, could he please tell us what he means by "anti-Christian" and gives some example from HPB's writings to illustrate this. Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Oct 1995 02:52:06 GMT From: 1712.yungkans@westside.com (james yungkans) Subject: Dainiel..jesus Chris I think the boy has promise....Here, let me have him...or, borrowing from the Life of HPB: (Aboard the S.S.Navarino) "A very different type was an ernest but quite uneducated missionary from America, named Daniel...and so, as he put it, the Lord had called him to preach the Gospel to the heathen.[Sound familiar?] Perhaps because of his ignorance, he was apt to be agressive, and used frequently to engage in arguments with Madame Blavatsky which were a source of great amusement to the passengers. I am afraid that our Leader took a kind of impish pleasure in entangling him in his talk... She knew the Bible far better then he did, and would constantly quote unexpected and little-known texts which drew from him the indignant protest: "That's not in the Bible! I'm sure that's not in the Bible!" Then Madamme Blavatsky ( Moi? ) would would turn to (Eldon) with deadly composure: "(Eldon), fetch my bible from my cabin!" and would proceed to confound him with chapter and verse... the ripple of amusement which ran around the audience warned him to avoid such rash assertions in the future." So...Daniel...Tell me about your 'Christ' and your 'YHVH'. I do very much wish to hear what you have to say, however I must state hear and now that I will NOT tollerate being proselytized to WITHOUT DOCUMENTATION (I.E. Scriptural Proof). After all, I could say that you came from a Baboon, and would get no farther with you then with the 'Lord Primate' of all England, would I? I feel I would rather affiliate myself with the 'WORD' and "AHYH" rather than your "Personal" God. Now, Do you wish to talk, I'm all ears! The Adversary From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Oct 1995 03:13:21 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Elementals and Dhyani Chohans JRC: >> >From this, I'd say, we can speak of the Devas as Elementals, but not as >> Dhyani-Chohans. And we can refer to Dhyani-Chohans as Archangels when speaking >> in Christian terms. >I would agree, adding, however, that I believe there is an >enormous range of conscious life inhabiting the "inner" worlds that are >not mentioned at all in the SD or other writings. It is hints, and by no >means anything resembling a complete picture, that is presented in >Theosophical source literature. I'd agree that there are more than Elementals and Dhyani-Chohans on the "inner worlds". (I'm using this term to avoid saying "globe" or "plane" because it's a different discussion as to which term may apply.) We have beings that are Monads at the mineral, plant, animal, and human level as well on the "inner worlds". *Where* these worlds are, though, and where they are in our scheme of things, is open to discussion, and regards our discussion of planes, globes, spheres of causes and effects, and other concepts. I'd consider that subjective astral experiences are populated by self-created Elementals, with little interaction with higher or lower beings. (Here I use "lower" with reference to sorcerers.) These experiences are to be had in the sphere of effects that surrounds our Globe D physical experience of life. For an experience of "higher planes" or self-conscious existence on another Globe, we'd need to have a mind-created vehicle (mayavi-rupa) on that Globe, which requires a far-more advanced development of us than a "normal incarnation" on that Globe. Apart from advanced magic, where we meet others "off stage" in the sphere of effects, we would, in my view, meet others in normal incarnation on the other Globes. (My expected responses to the above include, perhaps, Liesel to say "I don't understand a word of that!" Daniel C. to ask me for references. And you (JRC) to discount it as speculative opinion from someone who "hasn't been there". Perhaps I'll be surprised by a different response? Still, it's my view on the subject, and we all get our turns to speak.) -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Oct 1995 03:38:04 GMT From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Symbols and bridges A few thoughts prompted by recent discussions on "Sources" and the Eldon/JRC polarity. I think it's important to remind ourselves that theosophical, as well as other spiritual/religious/philosophical writing, is language and therefore a system of symbols. Small symbols (words & phrases) are used to construct, or refer to, larger symbols such as the concepts of Globes, "psychic", "spiritual", intuition, the Path, the Masters, etc etc. All the hot topics on the list plus a host of others. So we have grand symbols, small ones, deep ones, rich ones, shallow ones, crabbed ones, clear-windows-on-truth symbols and cloudy symbols. Symbols we're just discovering with excitement, and symbols we're outgrowing - all to our own timetables, tho' also in a shared process. The theosophies of different times and cultures have great breadths and depths of symbols. Now for some bridge-building (I hope) based on this idea: Even the best "Source" writer is offering us a set of symbols we can try and reconstruct their thought around, tho' it's more than intellectual knowledge, in theosophy. It's insight and experience in realms that may yet be far beyond us that we are being encapsulated. Perhaps we are being offered stakes to grow up as young plants until our own stems have grown into trunks. So, like Rich, we can treasure the clarity and inspiration of the top-quality symbols while, like JRC, we can see them as necessarily limited compared with what they're trying to express. (I'm not trying to put you guys in little boxes, here, because I actually see you both as having something of both qualities, as well as heaps of others.) Then Eldon has frequently distinguished "psychic" and "psychism" from "spiritual" and "intuition", using adjectives like lower and higher. (Again, I'm not boxing-in, but rather picking highlights.) He wonders if there can be much further coming-together between him and JRC, and JRC wonders if it could take years to realise the potential of the dichotomy. Well, for what it's worth, I have personally walked the bridge between a position similar to Eldon's in this regard to one similar enough to JRC's to support the distinction I'm making. When I joined the TS, the contrast between "psychic" methods of perception and "spiritual" faculties like intuition was made very clear, and I went along with it. Some of my life experiences, like going through the terminal illnes of my first wife, taught me in a vivid way just how much of the knowledge we theosophists hold is second-hand, perhaps third-hand. When the searchlight shines into the basement window, you soon see what you're entitled to by way of understanding and experience, and what is framework adopted from someone else. Some people in that particular test, lose faith in their religious concept set, never to regain it. Well, I lost the WAY I held theosophy but gained something far more valuable in its place, though still centred on theosophy. As the years went by, I was privileged to have extended contact with Geoffrey Hodson and some others with inner perception. That tapped hard on the shell of some of my ideas as well, letting in a bit more light and air. The net result is that, today, I am very conscious of the symbolic nature of much of our theosophical knowledge. It really is a collection of MODELS of reality. Wonderful models, and by the magic of all good symbols, partaking in the life and essence of what they portray, but models nevertheless. So, when I speak or write about theosophy, I often draw on the concepts to hand, but am deeply reluctant to make certain sorts of definitive statements, for the simple reason that I've come to sense that reality is much deeper and richer than the set of symbols we have. I can't easily describe this awareness, but it's a change that won't go away. To complete this little bridge-building attempt, let's take the word "psychic". IMO, there are modes of perception that are non-physical, centred on relatively small concerns including a limited concept of the seer's self, involving shifting and rather dense energy currents and information pathways, that are the "lower" psychism that we are so often warned about. It corresponds to small, self-centred modes of consciousness. Our "pigmy self", as Kahlil Gibran put it. On the other hand, there are modes of perception that are non-physical, centred on larger concerns, involving subtler, clearer energy currents etc etc that may be called intuition. Yet as I write, the very idea of perception seems too separative, for this realm of knowing is much more a resonance phenomenon, a blending of knower and known in a consciousness space. Yes, I'm at the edge of my knowledge here but, like all of us, reaching to express an insight. The problem arises when a person like Eldon (and Eldon, I say this in a context of much admiration and respect for all that you do) takes the ready-made word "psychism", with a set of associations that link it firmly with the lower of the two examples I gave above, then applies it to certain others who demonstrate non-physical perception. But that may not be doing justice, and could miss much of the truth. It could be that the experiential inputs of the other person include, but also go well beyond, the lower perception modes. There are so many possibilities that who can fully tell, without a superb sensory apparatus able to encompass the whole field? I have come to see that it is terribly easy to box somebody in, in our language and thoughts, with the best intentions, and quite unconsciously, by applying ready-made terminology and concepts. And if that somebody is feeling their way, building understanding in a new world, they could quite understandably be unwilling to open to others they perceive as too ready to categorize. Maybe we need to use other words than the terribly-overworked "psychic". I've used "non-physical" above, and there are others like "superphysical". What about direct cognition? Experiential resonance? Mind-space frequency-lock? Energy pseudopodia sampling? I'm brainstorming now; what can you come up with? To close, a big thanks to you guys who are the direct participants in these on-going discussions. They certainly give the rest of us a great deal to think about, in many ways. Murray Stentiford murray@sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Oct 1995 03:55:49 GMT From: John R Crocker Subject: Re: Elementals and Dhyani Chohans On Thu, 5 Oct 1995, Eldon B. Tucker wrote: > I found a good description of some terms by HPB in "Transactions of the > Blavatsky Lodge", p. 76: > > "Q. What is the difference between an Elemental and a Dhyan-Chohan or > Dhyani-Buddha?" > > "A. The difference is very great. Elementals are attached only to the four > terrestrial Elements and only to the two lower kingdoms of nature -- the > mineral and the vetetable -- in which they *immetalize* and *inherbalize*, > so to speak. The Hindu term *Deva* may be applied to them, but not that of > *Dhyan-Chohan*. The former have a kind of Kosmic intelligence; but the > latter are endowed with a supersensuous intellect, each of its kind. As to > the Dhyani-Buddhias, they belong to the highest Divine (or omniscient) > Intelligences, answering best, perhaps, to the Roman Catholic Archangels." > > >From this, I'd say, we can speak of the Devas as Elementals, but not as > Dhyani-Chohans. And we can refer to Dhyani-Chohans as Archangels when speaking > in Christian terms. > > -- Eldon > Eldon - I would agree, adding, however, that I believe there is an enormous range of conscious life inhabiting the "inner" worlds that are not mentioned at all in the SD or other writings. It is hints, and by no means anything resembling a complete picture, that is presented in Theosophical source literature. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Oct 1995 04:10:47 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Continue the Theosophy Christian Dialogue Daniel C, Daniel I received you excellent response to Daniel H. this morning. It reminded me that I sent you a e-mail the other day that I didn't get a reply from. Server problems, whatever. I would like you to consider my request for a Theos-l group project. If you are not interested or anyone else wants to pick it up then that would be great. I was wondering if you could put together a informal presentation on theosophy and inter-religious dialogue especially at it relates to Christianity. As I read it there are various responses to religion among Theosophists. One of the issues that I would like to see discussed is the "religious" or spiritual nature of theosophy. When theosophy because collective does it become another form of human dogma? Anyway I am sure you can even articulate the questions I am getting at better with your knowledge of the movement. Would you be willing to either put a small section of Theo lit. to discuss or your own perspectives, which ever suits you. If you are to swamped or not inclined that is fine I'll keep searching for a contribution. By the way - how did you feel about responses to the group project, is it a worthwhile idea of should be just discuss as things come up. I was just distracted by so many subjects that overwhelm a newbe. thanks for you time, Arthur Paul Patterson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Oct 1995 06:22:39 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Science & Theosophy >Science is an edifice with boundaries My friend, this is simply not the case. The only boundaries to science are our experiences and our capacity to understand them. The scientific method of learning works well at all levels of experience. >but it seems to me that, as human time goes on, >the boundaries are being pushed further & further back, so that >present & future scientists are able to more fully explore >what's approaching Truth ... which includes intangible realms, >realms which Theosophy & its antecedents have dealt with for >millenia, but modern science is just beginning to Yes, this is what we are saying. - Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Oct 1995 06:59:21 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Algeo's Stil-Light program on Labyrinths Lewis: This past weekend I was introduced to labyrinths, the history, myths, and use as a spiritual tool. John first told the Cretian myth about the Theseus and the Minotaur. He then talked about the different types of labyrinths and places they are found. One of the more interesting ideas to me was his identification of two basic types, meandering and maze. Meandering, he said, did not have dead ends or offer choices to the walker like a maze does, and suggested that each were metaphors for the path of the individuality and the personality respectively. He noted how we are constantly faced with choices and cannot see how they will work out until we have gone down them a ways. On the other hand, he sees the individuality following a path, if we stay on it, leads directly to a goal. He gave some symbolic correlations between the 7 cycle labyrinth and the planetary order given in traditional astrology based on the Ptolemic view of the universe which orders the planets by their apparent speed of motion. Thus the outer most circuit was correlated to Saturn, while the next was to Jupiter, then Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury, Moon, and the Earth at the center of the labyrinth. These were then related to the seven principles in theosophy, for instance, Mars to passion (Kama), Venus to intuition, the Moon to Etheric, and Saturn to Manas. We were given a simple pattern for constructing a 7 circuit labyrinth and then given an opportunity to practice drawing one. One was also layed out on the grounds and all the participants were invited to walk it. Later, they were asked to share their experience and some reported it had a unexpected impact or influence on them, such as making those who tended to be more emotional felt their mind was stimulated, while those who were more mental had strong feelings and emotions invoked within them. Several books were recommended (no, I don't have the titles, but JEM may as he also attended) and the group decided to make the labyrinth a more permanent feature of Stil-Light by filling in the lime lines with stones from the creek and surrounding woods. llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Oct 1995 07:28:56 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: re Marley's ghost Dear Liesel, >I think I made a mistake in my Don Quichote quote. I seem to >remember after I wrote that Rocinande was the horse, & the lady >was Roxane. So I want to stay that I'll stick up for horses >too. Not accidental that I raised a veterinarian. So do we. One of our members has a 400 acre ranch dedicated to giving a home to abandoned animals. >To answer to some of your other comments, I agree with you that >my protesting is probably not going to change anything, because >the changes in the by laws have already been decided on, but I >feel I want to protest about certain things anyway, just >because I belong to the organization & I feel I should be >heard. Well, your protest gives Wheaton feedback that one member is unhappy about something. We found that organized protests are more effective than individuals acting independently. An organized group is more effective because that means that a bunch of people might vote that administrator out of office if they don't get action. On the other hand, Wheaton knows that a little over half of their membership are members at large, who don't know anything except what they are told in the AT. Because Wheaton has exclusive control over that mailing list, it is not possible for the members at large to organize or to be organized, except by Wheaton. Our leaders also know from experience that the members at large will rubber stamp almost any decision or endorsement that they would make. Therefore, even organized protests are rarely much of a problem. >1 thing I protested about, is that they'd already made >up their minds before they listened to what some of the >membership had to say. We're not dummies, or peons! It reminds me of the Field work project Wheaton started about six years ago. Linda Jo Pym, the coordinator, asked me to participate in it. I accepted, so she sent me a "tentative" list of the goals for consideration and comment. The first one read: "To increase the SENSE [their capitalization, not mine] among the members of being supported by and a part of the Theosophical Society in America." I wrote back and suggested that instead of giving the members the "sense" of being supported, to actually work to support the members and the Lodges. I thought their goal was a very candid admission of what is typically done--lots of talk but no decisive efforts. Of course, they didn't give my suggestion any consideration. >Too long to mention all I protested about, but for another >thing I objected to the 2d & the 3rd Object being reworded, & >not the 1st, which to me is the most outdated as far as wording >is concerned. I don't feel that there is much connection between the Organization and the Objects anymore anyway, so I figured that it doesn't matter. >If I see something I don't like, or if I see something that I >*do* like, I try to let them know. Good. Me too. >At the time, I too protested about the ruling that one had to >be on the Board to qualify for running for President, because >it was meant against Bing. Today, I think it's not such a bad >idea. That way, our President will have some prior knowledge as >to how to run things. I remember when Dorothy offered this rationale. Of course we know that wasn't the real reason for the bylaw. If the TSA was set up so that the membership had half the say that they think they have, then I would agree with this reason too. But the truth is that it is nearly impossible to be elected to the Board without endorsement from those who are already in power. If they do get on, then they are marginalized and have no real say. That is the situation Bing is in right now. In effect, this bylaw change give those in power even greater control in keeping out those who they don't want. >Incidentally, I voted for Bing twice, but if he runs again, I'm >not so sure anymore that he'll get my vote. remains to be seen. I ran for the Board once in the mid eighties, and was shocked and devastated by the nasty, filthy lies and rumors that spread around the district about me. I felt absolutely helpless, because no one stepped forward as being responsible for the gossip, and no one would formally confront me with the rumors. So there was no way for me to answer any of it. My experience was child's play compared to what Bing had to go through. Just for the suffering that Bing went through, he has earned my continuing support and respect. By the way, after the election results came through, Bing called me and expressed real surprise at what an exceptionally good showing I made--especially since I was running against Joy Mills. Apparently, there are some people who ignore the gossip. >I too have devoted a good part of my life to Theosoophy, even >though I've also been active in other endeavors. I think you >yourself have a perfect right to speak out, only sometimes what >you say reminds me of an introductory video tape we once aired >at Pumpkin Hollow, which had been sent to one of us by the >Reverend Moon's organization. The video started out by stating >certain truths we all could agree on, but as the film went on, >the logic deviated bit by tiny bit off what we would recognize >as truth. >You're in the habit of doing this sometimes, so it's hard to >really try to trust what you say. Thank you for that feedback. When I appear to deviate from what you "would recognize as truth," I need you to confront me with what you believe is wrong, and demand that I provide evidence to support my opinion. I think this is only fair. Perhaps, I was wrong, or perhaps I was mis-understood, or.... At any rate, unless the statement is challenged, we will never know. >Besides, sometimes you get belligerent & that isn't conducive to >getting a good dialogue going on this list. I'm not saying that >I can't get argumentative too, but I try hard not to, & I wish >you would too. This brings us full circle to our first discussion. I think we live and learn. With my 20-20 hindsight, I recognize that I have made lots of mistakes in life and on this board too. I try not to repeat those mistakes, and I'm sure that you make the same efforts concerning yourself. One the other hand, the warts we see on others are sometimes only reflections of the warts on ourselves. Thanks Liesel, this is the best post I have seen you do. Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Oct 1995 11:46:51 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: CWL and WQJ According to Jerry Hejka-Ekins: > > Paul writes: > > the question has no meaning to me. But if you were to ask what > > would be different if Judge would have lived, was not > >discredited and pushed out of the Society by Besant and Olcott, > >and followed Olcott as President of the TS, I think things would > >have been vastly different. > > >That strikes me as a highly partisan way to state the > situation. > > In what way is it partisan? In what way is this question > more Partisan than your restatement? Partisan in that it puts the burden of responsibility on Besant and Olcott (which of the two would you blame more?) and portrays Judge as an innocent victim. I'd say my restatement is also partisan, intentionally so to exemplify "loaded" ways of stating historical relationships. > > >If you were to ask me what would be different if > Judge had not successfully turned Besant against Olcott in an > effort to make him resign as President (to whose benefit?) > > Can you show Judge's role in this through *source* > documentation, other than Besant's own (presumably) biased > statements that she made after turning against Judge? Who other than Besant is a reliable source on the influence Judge exerted on her? As you know, my sources for the section of the book that discusses this are ODL, Garrett (thanks to you), Nethercot-- a secondary one, and the 1900 letter. > > >and > if Olcott had not changed his mind about resigning, decided to > fight back, and with the help of a huge number of eminent > Indians and Sinhalese, won over Besant... you see the point. > > Yes, I see your point. But your implied motivation of > Olcott to get Judge ignores the antagonistic attitude Olcott had > towards Judge over the previous ten or more years. I think the > issue runs deeper then this. >From HSO's own account he was on cordial terms with Judge until more recently than this. Of course, Olcott was probably suspicious of Judge due to the ES and his role in it. From the moment of HPB's death, there was an unstable situation in which neither Olcott's, Judge's nor Besant's position was secure because each was somewhat threatened by the others. Anyhow, could you say more about HSO's antagonism to Judge prior to 1891? > > >It was Judge's ambition, Olcott's (mis?)perceived > vulnerability, Besant's indecisiveness and two-facedness, that > started the "split." Judge and Besant came mighty close to > dumping Olcott overboard, which if it had succeeded would be an > injustice to top that which befell Judge. > > And you call my statement of the question partisan....Hmmm. But I'm clearly expressing my opinion, whereas you seemed to be introducing your opinion into an ostensibly factual account of the situation. > > >1. WQJ and CWL both convinced Annie Besant that they were the > primary channels through which she could communicate with HPB's > Masters. > > Your interpretation ignores the fact that Besant claimed to > have her own contact with the Masters. See her ~The Case Against > Judge.~ Another interpretation (mine) is that like so many > victorian women, she had a psychological dependency on men. > Abundant evidence of this can be seen not only in her > relationship to Judge and CWL, but to Bradlaw and Shaw. If my > interpretation turns out to be the case, then Besant was deeply > influenced and swayed by any man she was involved with, whether > the man took advantage of it or not. For what ever it is worth, > I have also seen astrologers point this weakness out in her > horoscope. Definitely. > > >They used this to control her behavior. > > I agree that there is ample evidence of this with CWL. But > what is your evidence for Judge doing this--Besant's account of > her relationship with WQJ after she turned against him? Might > this evidence perhaps be biased, and needs to be balanced by more > neutral sources? Do you have any such sources? I have the ULT history done in 1950-- the 1925 is inaccessible by ILL or at least my efforts. DIdn't use it, and would not consider it "more neutral." However, it has the most complete discussion of the period from a pro-Judge POV. If I were to write in depth about it, such material would need to be taken into account. Do you have any other such balancing sources? > > OK, but in light of my above observation, Judge's intent is > in question. Because of lack of documentation (in my opinion), I > would just say that Besant's opinions changed after she became > involved with Judge. But we can also say that about her > involvement with Shaw, Bradlaw and CWL. The crucial question from my POV is the way the ES ended up being used as the means for power struggle within the TS. Olcott withdrew the TS charges against Judge after realizing that they were unconstitutional (as argued by WQJ). But then Judge, "at Master's direction" deposed Besant as co-Outer Head. From my reading of Nethercot it would seem that Mahatma letters convinced Besant to share the Headship with Judge in the first place. Thus he used Mahatma letters both to establish his half-share in the ES leadership, and then to take over the whole enchilada. You seem to say that to establish that he was motivated by a desire to expand his power in the TS would require credible sources. But in the case of a pattern of behavior is there not some basis for reading motivation? I'm hard pressed to imagine a primary source that would clarify Judge's motivation, other than private letters. > Some of those letters have been published by Pasadena. As > for authenticity, what is there about the letters to Sinnett now > in the British Museum that proves they are authentic? Your > question once again affirms the point that Judge was trying to > make all along. But how is it possible to let Judge off so easily while condemning Leadbeater (and Bailey) for the same thing? > claims on CWL's behalf by his? > > Because Judge's ideas and claims are more consistent with > what we find in the writings of HPB, HSO and the Mahatma letters. That's true enough about his published works, but what about those 500 letters Rich talks about? BTW I did find a hum-dinger of a contradiction of HPB by Judge somewhere, and now I can't locate it. Maybe in the Ocean, he says that Masters are so psychically charged that their appearance would be striking to any observer-- so much so that they must remain in hiding so as not to overwhelm us with their obvious power. This is quite un-HPB, but I cannot find it so my memory may be playing tricks. > > Not in my case. I already put myself on record as not being > in complete agreement with Judge, Besant, Olcott or CWL. I also > have some problems with HPB and the Mahatma letters too, but that > is another issue. In light of the above, what "sectarian > loyalty" is possible for me? I wasn't talking about you in particular. But your sectarian loyalties are surely there; there must be people you like and are inclined to give the benefit of the doubt and others you dislike and view with general suspicion. Complete objectivity is not to be found on this planet, to my knowledge. > > Interesting opinion, and there could possibly be some truth > to it. I would be interested in seeing what kind of evidence you > could find to support this position. We may have gone over this ground before, but the existence of the evidence and anyone's ability to get at it are two different matters. Is it not true that the Olcott side of the Judge/Olcott controvery is documented in letters held by Pasadena's archives, while the Judge side resides in the Adyar archives? I heard a rumor that years ago Joy Mills (perhaps when Intl VP?) suggested that each side share its Judge case documents with the other, but that this was declined. As to what relevant sources may have ended up in the PLP archives, I don't know. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Oct 1995 12:14:23 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: RE:CWL and WQJ Questions to Jerry HE and Paul J According to MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU: > > An Observation: I believe that Paul J posted his original posting on CWL and > WQJ on theos-l. Then Jerry HE and Rich T post their replies on theos-roots > and Liesel posts her reply on theos-l !!!!!!!! I guess I will just post mine > on theos-roots!! Sorry-- I was replying to something of JHE's on theos-l, but belatedly admit that it would have been better to post it to roots. > Jerry HE writes: > > "As for authenticity, what is there about the letters to Sinnett now in the > British Museum that proves they are authentic?" > > A good question for you to answer, Paul. Nothing, in the sense that it could be proven that they were written through precipitation or telepathy. A lot, in the sense that it can be determined that they contain teachings that do not appear in HPB's other writings and therefore imply the existence of some information source other than her own mind. Plus if you are saying that you > question the authenticity of the Mahatma Letters through Judge, what are > you comparing Judge's MLs with? With the MLs through HPB? or? Well, I'm not comparing them because they're not available. But I would look at them in comparison to the MLs in print to evaluate whether they seemed to be coming from the same source. With CWL's revelations, and Bailey's, I conclude "I don't think so." But with WQJ's there's too little basis on which to judge. > > PJ, what are your sources? see answer to JHE From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Oct 1995 12:25:27 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Re: CWL and WQJ Paul writes: "From my reading of Nethercot it would seem that Mahatma letters convinced Besant to share the Headship with Judge in the first place." Refresh my memory, Jerry HE, but Besant herself writes that the decision for Judge and Besant to serve as Co-Heads was decided before any Mahatma letter was received endorsing the decision. And she says more in that state- ment which would indicate (taking it at face value) that there was no way Judge could have palmed the ML off on her in the circumstances involved. I will have to hunt for the document. Here is a good example (if I'm right!) of not relying exclusively on a secondary source like Nethercot. What is the source (forgive me Eldon!) for Rich's statement concerning WQJ and 500 Mahatma Letters? PJ, I'm surprised that you could not obtain somehow a copy of the 1925 ULT history. I have gone through 3 copies of that book in 20 years and I got all three copies from the Theosophy Co, LA. Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Oct 1995 12:26:00 GMT From: portelli@calon.com Subject: Re: reply to: john.d.tullis Take two of these and call me in the morning... From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Oct 1995 17:13:38 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: reply to: john.d.tullis Dear Don, For a while now, I've been looking for the answer to a question. Maybe you, or one of the other young scientists have an answer to it. It only touches you post periferally, namely with one sentence. "We ...humans... hardly have a grasp on reality to begin with." What is your concept of reality? I haven't found an answer as yet that satisfies me. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 05 Oct 1995 20:18:48 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: CWL and WQJ Paul writes: > BTW I did find a > hum-dinger of a contradiction of HPB by Judge somewhere, and > now I can't locate it. Maybe in the Ocean, he says that > Masters are so psychically charged that their appearance would > be striking to any observer-- so much so that they must remain > in hiding so as not to overwhelm us with their obvious power. Well, it would be interesting if WQJ said that (it sounds rather un-WQJ too ..) but it CERTAINLY is not in the Ocean of Theosophy, which I have read enough times to place most any sentence. WQJ says such a thing no where to my knowledge, possibly he is confused with someone else. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Oct 1995 01:17:44 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Algeo's Stil-Light program on Labyrinths Lewis: Interesting account, and, IMO, the best place for it, ie., theos-news. Just thought I'd let you know! Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Oct 1995 02:52:07 GMT From: 1712.yungkans@westside.com (james yungkans) Subject: The Book I think it would be an Excellent idea! the benefit, at the least, would be an overview of each of these teachings, with commentary as to how each of them 'Stack up' against the other. Such a book would prabably benefit from review, not only by the 'review committe' but by having each chapter in question reviewed by the respective school (I.E. let A.R.E. review and comment on the Cacye chapter, Rosacrucian Fellowship-Oceanside on the Heindel chapter, etc.) Even with the potential for confusion, perhaps a chapter talking about which teachings are in agreement/disagreement with each other would be a good summary chapter (tward the end). Time is limited, but would love to see it happen. James From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Oct 1995 05:09:53 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: re: on CWL Bee: >I wonder if the messenger needs to be physical. It may be a matter of semantics, but I've generally heard the term "messenger" used to describe someone sent out by the Lodge to openly act on its behalf. A messenger would be someone like Blavatsky that was authorized to not only teach and work in the world, but also to openly state her ties to the Mahatmas. The Mahatmas are continually, I'd say, at work in the world, and that work involves teaching and introducing knowledge and spirituality where it can help out. The distinction with a messenger is that we have one of them, or one of their representatives, that is permitted to work in the open. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Oct 1995 05:34:45 GMT From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Subject: Re: re: on CWL >Thom writes: > >> The whole concept of a "next Messenger" is liable to produce more conflict >and >> delusion than it's worth (just as the concept of a Messiah does). I don't >know >> why H.P.B. even brought it up. >This may be. What is curious to me is why nearly every major movement seems >to bring it up. Christianity expects the second coming. Zoroastrians have >long expected their Soishyant, and the Jews the Messiah. Buddhists expect >Maitreya, and Hindus, the Kalki Avatar. Muhammed is the "Seal of the >Prophets" and when he comes again, it is THE END. Many native American >tribes expected a Messenger to lead them away from the White Man's >Destruction, and millenial movements (often called "cargo-cults" in African >communities) have expected Jesus or another Savior to help them. > >What is HPB up to when she mentions that in one hundred years (i.e. 1975) >another Messenger(s) will arrive for the West? What is merely her hope? > Part of a "plan"? Merely an allegory of the cyclic nature of things? > >Rich > I wonder if the messenger needs to be physical. There have been a lot of changes in the consciousness of humanity in the last 10 years or so. Russia, Berlin Wall etc. The upsurge in New Age writings and groups have been tremendous. I have heard talk of Jesus being back on the 5th dimension or the invisible realm, anyway. Maybe this time the upliftment is coming from the next spiritual dimension, whatever that may be, and some are expecting to be physically transformed to meet up with the messenger in that plane. Interesting. Bee.> From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Oct 1995 06:23:42 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: RE: RE: CWL, LCC, Adyar, Olcott Eldon: >Regardless of how we try to define "cult", it is often used as a hate >word to put down groups one doesn't like. One person may call, for >instance, the Mormon Church a cult, another may call it the best >church in Christianity. Quite true. Galanter's definiton would have applied to many religious groups, including the Catholic church. He claimed the difference was not in the structure, but in whether it is destructive or constructive. Galanter compared many groups and found Alcholic Annonymous to be one of the most successful "cults". His take on AA was that it greatly benefited the people involved, partly because of good leadership. The other end of the spectrum would be David Koresh. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Oct 1995 06:29:31 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: RE:RE:RE:CWL Bee: >I wonder if the messenger needs to be physical. . . I have heard talk of Jesus >being back on the 5th dimension or the invisible realm, anyway. Maybe this time >the upliftment is coming from the next spiritual dimension, whatever that may be, >and some are expecting to be physically transformed to meet up with the >messenger in that plane. The Bailey material has stated that it was very possible that the Christ would not return in a physical body, but be born in the hearts of mankind. This suggests to me that many people would be taking the first initiation. En masse. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Oct 1995 07:16:41 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: GROK Hey folks! Just found this in my electronic dictionary. It's an official word. grok grok (grok) verb, transitive grokked, grokking, groks Slang. To understand profoundly through intuition or empathy. [Coined by Robert A. Heinlein in his Stranger in a Strange Land.] The American HeritageR Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright C 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights reserved. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Oct 1995 09:16:36 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: re CWL and WQJ Paul Writes: JHE [writing to Ann] >>the question has no meaning to me. But if you were to ask what >>would be different if Judge would have lived, was not >>discredited and pushed out of the Society by Besant and Olcott, >>and followed Olcott as President of the TS, I think things >>would have been vastly different. KPJ [commented] > >That strikes me as a highly partisan way to state the > situation. JHE >>In what way is it partisan? In what way is this question >>more Partisan than your restatement? KPJ >Partisan in that it puts the burden of responsibility on Besant >and Olcott (which of the two would you blame more?) and >portrays Judge as an innocent victim. JHE How does my statement portray Judge as "an innocent victim"? A victim, yes, but I don't see any rhetoric in my statement that evaluates Judge's innocence or guilt. Where do you see it? Are you suggesting that it is partisan for me to put the burden of responsibility on Besant and Olcott for discrediting Judge? If they didn't do it, then who do you think did? KPJ >>It was Judge's ambition, Olcott's (mis?)perceived >>vulnerability, Besant's indecisiveness and two-facedness, that >> started the "split." Judge and Besant came mighty close to >> dumping Olcott overboard, which if it had succeeded would be >>an injustice to top that which befell Judge. JHE >> And you call my statement of the question partisan....Hmmm. KPJ >But I'm clearly expressing my opinion, whereas you seemed to be >introducing your opinion into an ostensibly factual account of >the situation. JHE Where? How? KPJ >I'd say my restatement >is also partisan, intentionally so to exemplify "loaded" ways >of stating historical relationships. JHE If you didn't tell me, I never would have guessed this to be your intention. Now that you have revealed your intention, what is your point? KPJ >>If you were to ask me what would be different if >>Judge had not successfully turned Besant against Olcott in an >>effort to make him resign as President (to whose benefit?) and >>if Olcott had not changed his mind about resigning, decided to >>fight back, and with the help of a huge number of eminent >>Indians and Sinhalese, won over Besant... you see the point. JHE > Can you show Judge's role in this through *source* > documentation, other than Besant's own (presumably) biased > statements that she made after turning against Judge? KPJ >Who other than Besant is a reliable source on the influence >Judge exerted on her? JHE Under the circumstances, almost anybody other than Besant. Would you consider someone who is out to get you a "reliable source" for any information concerning your relationship with them? Besant's testimony has to be considered in light of her object, which was to discredit Judge. Therefore, I would want to look at testimony from a variety of individuals KPJ >As you know, my sources for the section >of the book that discusses this are ODL, Garrett (thanks to >you), Nethercot-- a secondary one, and the 1900 letter. JHE And where did you find Besant's testimony in these sources? Certainly not ODL--Olcott wrote that. Not Garrett, he had no first hand knowledge about Besant's and Judge's relationship. The 1900 letter does not mention Judge. That leaves Nethercot-- your secondary source. Therefore, you are basing your conclusions on Nethercot's account of Besant's account of her association with Judge, which was in turn written for the purpose of discrediting him. So the answer to my original question: "Can you show Judge's role in this through *source* documentation...." is that you never used source documentation in the first place. KPJ >Anyhow, could you say more about HSO's antagonism to Judge prior >to 1891? JHE Look at Olcott's references to Judge--not in ODL, which is his memoirs--but in ~The Theosophist~ and in the letters that we have that were written at the time. KPJ >> >1. WQJ and CWL both convinced Annie Besant that they were the >> primary channels through which she could communicate with >>HPB's Masters. JHE >I agree that there is ample evidence of this with CWL. But what >is your evidence for Judge doing this--Besant's account of her >relationship with WQJ after she turned against him? Might >his evidence perhaps be biased, and needs to be balanced by more > neutral sources? Do you have any such sources? KPJ >I have the ULT history done in 1950-- the 1925 is inaccessible >by ILL or at least my efforts. DIdn't use it, and would not >consider it "more neutral." However, it has the most complete >discussion of the period from a pro-Judge POV. If I were to >write in depth about it, such material would need to be taken >into account. Do you have any other such balancing sources? JHE I don't consider either ULT history a "source", but only a secondary commentary--nice background reading, therefore I wouldn't take them or any other secondary work "into account" if I were writing "in depth" on the subject. KPJ >Do you have any other such balancing sources? JHE "Such balancing" secondary sources? For secondary sources, I would look at Ransom, Ryan, Campbell etc.--same books you have already seen. But unlike you I don't base my research on these. Even my professor would give me an "F" on a paper based upon secondary sources, if I got caught (and I probably would). Apparently English majors are trained to operate on different standards than Library Science majors. JHE [Concerning Besant's relationship with WQJ and CWL] >OK, but in light of my above observation, Judge's intent is in >question. Because of lack of documentation (in my opinion), I >would just say that Besant's opinions changed after she became >involved with Judge. But we can also say that about her >involvement with Shaw, Bradlaw and CWL. KPJ >The crucial question from my POV is the way the ES ended up >being used as the means for power struggle within the TS. >Olcott withdrew the TS charges against Judge after realizing >that they were unconstitutional (as argued by WQJ). JHE Not "TS charges" but Besant and Olcott's charges. The TS membership knew nothing about it until Besant published her accusations and distributed them to the membership. KPJ >But then Judge, "at Master's direction" deposed Besant as >co-Outer Head. From my reading of Nethercot it would seem that >Mahatma letters convinced Besant to share the Headship with >Judge in the first place. JHE That might be Nethercot's opinion based upon what he read, but he wasn't present when the decision was made. On the other hand, Alice Cleather was there and gives a eye witness hand account. Why do you take Nethercot's second hand opinion and ignore Cleather's first hand account? KPJ >Thus he used Mahatma letters both to establish his half-share in >the ES leadership, and then to take over the whole enchilada. JHE >Personally, I would be embarrassed to publish such an >unsupported conclusion. KPJ >You seem to say that to establish that he was motivated by a >desire to expand his power in the TS would require credible >sources. But in the case of a pattern of behavior is there not >some basis for reading motivation? JHE Yes. I agree that the pattern of behavior gives some bases for reading motivation. But the pattern of behavior you are using as evidence is based upon Olcott and Nethercot's accounts of what Judge did. Nethercot wasn't there, and as I proved in a former discussion, he was relying on Besant and Olcott's accounts. Olcott was there, but he is the prosecutor in this case. Don't you think that Olcott's account of Judge's behavior might be just a little bit selective in order to convince his readers of Judge's guilt? KPJ >I'm hard pressed to imagine a primary source that would clarify >Judge's motivation, other than private letters. JHE Well, you could start with those letters that have been published. You might also consider Judge's own account of his actions and compare them to Besant and Olcott's account of them. That way, at least, you will be looking at both the case for the prosecution and the case for the defense. So far, you have only read the prosecution's side of the story--not very fair to my sense of justice. You could also look at the commentaries of the other witnesses. There are lots of them. JHE > Some of those letters have been published by Pasadena. As >for authenticity, what is there about the letters to Sinnett now >in the British Museum that proves they are authentic? Your >question once again affirms the point that Judge was trying to >make all along. KPJ >But how is it possible to let Judge off so easily while >condemning Leadbeater (and Bailey) for the same thing? Huh? My point is (and Judge's point also), is that in the end the authenticity of the letters and of the existence of the Masters is unprovable. JHE [Ans. to a question re. a comparison of WQJ's and CWL's claims] > Because Judge's ideas and claims are more consistent with > what we find in the writings of HPB, HSO and the Mahatma > letters. KPJ That's true enough about his published works, but what about those 500 letters Rich talks about? JHE Ask Rich about them. I've never seen those "500 letters." Have you? KPJ BTW I did find a hum-dinger of a contradiction of HPB by Judge somewhere, and now I can't locate it. Maybe in the Ocean, he says that Masters are so psychically charged that their appearance would be striking to any observer-- so much so that they must remain in hiding so as not to overwhelm us with their obvious power. This is quite un-HPB, but I cannot find it so my memory may be playing tricks. JHE Probably not. I catch those little "hum-dingers" every now and again. HPB caught Judge on one, and really let him know about it. JHE >>Not in my case. I already put myself on record as not being >>in complete agreement with Judge, Besant, Olcott or CWL. I >>also have some problems with HPB and the Mahatma letters too, >>but that is another issue. In light of the above, what >>"sectarian loyalty" is possible for me? KPJ I wasn't talking about you in particular. But your sectarian loyalties are surely there; there must be people you like and are inclined to give the benefit of the doubt and others you dislike and view with general suspicion. Complete objectivity is not to be found on this planet, to my knowledge. JHE Unfair Paul. "Sectarian" refers to the beliefs of a sect (according to my Oxford American Dictionary). I only claimed to by unsectarian on this issue, not in a state of perfect objectivity. Since "complete objectivity is not to be found on this planet", why are you now criticizing me for what I share with every one else on this planet? JHE [re Paul's opinions] > Interesting opinion, and there could possibly be some truth > to it. I would be interested in seeing what kind of evidence > you could find to support this position. KPJ We may have gone over this ground before, but the existence of the evidence and anyone's ability to get at it are two different matters. Is it not true that the Olcott side of the Judge/Olcott controversy is documented in letters held by Pasadena's archives, while the Judge side resides in the Adyar archives? JHE Not quite. It is true that there was an exchange of letters between Olcott and Judge. Adyar has Judge's side of the Correspondence and Pasadena supposibly has Olcott's side. *Some* of Olcott's accusations rests upon the evidence of *some* of those letters from Judge that are in the Adyar archives. Judge is the defendant here--he didn't bring the charges, he is the one who was charged. So if Adyar were to make those letters in question public, we would be able to better evaluate *some* of Olcott's claims. But with the thousands of pages of evidence that we do have, I think it is rather silly to think that we can't draw any conclusions for lack of a couple of letters. On the other hand, with all that is available, I wouldn't anchor my opinions on just three documents and a secondary source either. KPJ I heard a rumor that years ago Joy Mills (perhaps when Intl VP?) suggested that each side share its Judge case documents with the other, but that this was declined. JHE I heard the same rumor and confronted Joy, Grace and Kirby with it. (It would be nice if people would check out rumors rather than condemning others in the weight of their supposed authority. But I seem to be the only person who is bothered by this) Joy said that Pasadena was not willing to publish their half of the correspondence. Grace and Kirby said that they were willing if Adyar agrees to publish their half so that both sides of the correspondence be available--"as a matter of fairness" Grace said. KPJ As to what relevant sources may have ended up in the PLP archives, I don't know. JHE Quite a lot, as a matter of fact. You ought to take a look at it sometime. Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Oct 1995 12:52:22 GMT From: 1712.yungkans@westside.com (james yungkans) Subject: Somewhere In The Indian Ocean Purser, please ensure that any letters I receive be left in my public box, and not on my pillow. I don't like access to my cabin unless I give the key. (I know that Daniel is not a Mahatma :) Hmmm...So you want to listen in?, lets read together, shall we... "You are scheduled to appear before a judge at a very near date [I certainly hope So]....Must seek council prior to judgement, or be prepared to defend yourself [hmm... you think K.H or M is experienced as an attorney (remarks in [] are mine..James)]... Oh...Daniel..You forgot the Ground Rules...I don't see any scriptural references here...I think one of our 'Spooks' has posessed poor daniel...please remember in the future, rmember to think for yourself and provide REFRENCES! "we have an advocate...the Lord Jesus Christ" As I remember it, Daniel, there will come a day when YOU will say 'did I not Feed you?', and your God, your 'Advocate', will tell you 'I don't know you, Be GONE'...and there will be 'a crying and a gnashing of Teeth'...I think the passages are clear..don't you? "You will be scorned, ridiculed, and persecuted"...yes, i think I agree with you...wasn't old HPB treated in this way...and aren't we all being treated that way, if we are open, in our understanding, in the world where the "Christian" pundits condemm us at every turn? However, I feel I have strength enough. Eldon, the Bible, on the nighttable...thank you...Ah yes...Daniel Ch.3 "The king made an image of gold...at what time you the sound of the horn, pipe, harp, [Church Bells ???]...you must fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezer the King hath set up; and whosoever falleth not down and worship shall the same hour be cast in to the midst of a burning fiery furnace..." No, I do not like worshiping images. AND, I told daniel about the Idol he worships, you remember, the one with the hammer? Well, I'm NOT about to worship an Idol. And, as I remember, Jesus of nazereth taught only to pray to the father. What father did he mean? I think poor Daniel had better identify the Father, whom I believe to be the Unmaifested Logos, or the first pseuto manifestat of AIN, or the DIVINE MONAD, before he continues to lecture me on who is, and who is not, going to be judged harshly... You know, (speaking to the others listening to the Letter), this sounds like us, "...Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego; these men, O King, have not regarded thee...they do not serve thy Gods (daniel should look at the Hebrew for 'Gods' here) nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up." DAMM RIGHT!...and the king questions them, and they reply "If our God whom we serve (our purified selves, freed from Kama) is able to deliver us, he will deliver us from the burning Fiery Furnace [Dyzan 3:7 'turns the upper into a shoreles sea of Fire', and for Daniel "he shall baptize with the holy Spirit, AND WITH FIRE"], and out of thy hand, oh King..." Oh, here's a note from Daniel "Do you tempt the Lord thy God?" I sure as Heck [Children Present] am gonna tell that King off! I say let's throw that Golden Idol of his into the fire, and see if to melts. What you all say? Oh wait, let me continue with Daniel 3..."He (the King) commanded that certain mighty men that were in his army bind Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and to cast them into the fiery furnace [the Ring Pass-not ???]. Then the men were bound...and cast into the Burning fiery furnace...The 'Flame of the Fire'[what esoteric meaning can we place to this one?] slew those men that took up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and these three men...fell down bound into the midst of the Fiery Furnace." You know, Daniel wrote 'There is not one prophetic utterance of the Holy Scriptures that can be proven to not have come to pass.' Remembering our 'Christian Soldiers', don't they always say that Daniel is a book of Prophesy that is Yet to come to pass? If "Christ, the King" has commanded our poor Daniel to cast us into the Furnace, then let him, by all means. However, if in doing so this prophesy should come to pass on poor Daniel... I'll be Heartbroken...[slight tear...and then a evilish grin] But what of Us (comming from one of the audience) we're in the 'Fiery Furnace." Don't get panicked, just listen, "The king was alarmed, and rose up in haste; he spoke and said unto his ministers (Priests, Cardinals with 'Red Hats'?): 'Did we not cast three men bound into the midst of the fire?' They answered 'True, Oh King', He (the King) answered and said: 'Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the Midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like the Son of the Gods (Plural!, again Daniel should read Hebrew :) [For the theosophical viewpoint, Three entered, and became Four. As we move from one Round/Globe to the next, our THREE becomes FOUR on the next dimemsion up, to be embrased by another THREE. there's something here worthy of theosophical discussion, me thinks!] If any of you see Daniel, you might tell him I still haven't seen him on deck. This was yesterday morning's discussion (Historical) Now (Daniel) Look round you! See the calm shining see, and the lively colours! See how good your God is! Surely on such a Glorious morning as this you can't tell me that I am going to b burnt in hell for eer and eve!" I mut do the Rev. Daniel the justice to admit that he blushed deeply and looked very uncomfortable, but he stuck manfully to his guns, and replied with an evident effort: "Well, I'm very sorry, ma'am, but I guess you will!" Radda-Bai From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Oct 1995 14:03:19 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Seeing Auras Rich: Of course she is not responsible for most of them. And she did bend over backward to give most a chance to learn. But, if HPB could have seen into the future, just a little, would she have left her life's work in the hands of the Coulombs? She was a lot of things, but not, I think, a masochist. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Oct 1995 14:05:37 GMT From: Coherence@aol.com Subject: HPB and Christianity It abundantly clear from HPB's writings that the problem she has with Christianity is the DOGMATIC Christianity expounded by "The Church" and its "pernicious dogma of Vicarious Atonement" . ISIS UNVEILED is filled with a litany of the crimes of the church throughout its history, those crimes committed in the name of God and for his greater glory (and told with her most humorous biting sarcasm!). She specifically devotes substantial space answering the Inquirer's questions about the difference between Theosophy and Christianity and its accompanying blind faith in KEY TO THEOSOPHY, calling it (Christianity) a "lip religion" only. At the same time, she refers to the teacher called Jesus as an "innocent victim" (KEY) and saying that people should follow the ethics Jesus taught and his example of love and forgiveness. The Mahatma Letters refers to Jesus as "one of the greatest among us." In the great length devoted to this topic, HPB shows that what was taught by the great Adept Jesus has little to do with the Church supposedly built on his teaching and what is commonly refered to as "Christianity", and herein lies her difficulty with these. One comment made in a post stated that HPB's writings were much more Gnostic and Neo-Platonic in nature. I would say that HPB, in her synthesizing SD, demonstrated how the Gnosis and Neo-Platonic philosophy are both valid traditions within the Wisdom-Religion. In another vein, I have been watching these posts for awhile now, and I can't help but think how the Masters must shake their wise heads at the dissension that exists among we who should know better. While pleas for sanity and impersonality are made, there is a distinct tone of that favorite adolescent anatomy game, "My Mahatma is Bigger than Your Mahatma." It is so difficult to live these noble teachings and walk the damn path (as so well put by one contributor) that no one is exempt -- not any group I've seen, from the smallest of study groups, of which I am a part, to the students of ULT, to the multiple TS's, and any and all factions, fractions and sub-groups of the foregoing. I guess the best we can hope for is sincere effort and bright, shiny mirrors for us to look into at every moment so that we may KNOW OURSELVES. We would do well to remember what HPB told an inquirer when asked what was the one thing that was needed to become an occultist, to which she replied, "A sense of Humor." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Oct 1995 14:09:43 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Chakra Development > Liesel:< Harry ... taught us to concentrate on the crown > & the heart chakras, by thinking beauty & love. He said, when > we'd developed those 2, the development of all the others would > just follow...> > > Jerry S.: I kind of agree, but the generally accepted > procedure is to begin with the lowest and work your way > up sequentially. Technically, the sequential method is > supposed to be the safest. But it really depends on having > a good teacher, and exactly how one "concentrates." There > are "knots" just below the heart chakra, for example, that > must be untied before the heart chakra can open properly. > These "knots" are opened best by cultivating compassion > for others. However, I think that more is needed for a full > "development" of the heart chakra itself. > Lewis: I think it was Besant or maybe Ernest Wood who recommended during meditation focusing on the heart, throat, and brow chakras for three breaths each, saying this would stimulate them and thereby the associated principles while avoiding all together the dangers associated with the lower chakras. llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Oct 1995 14:16:40 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Symbols and bridges > Murray:< When the > < > > Jerry S.: Well said. This is how I lost my faith in > Christianity. Lewis: Curious about the nature of this event. I have often found people have had some trumatic experience which led them into a search for answers and thereby to the TS. However, there are also those who seem to have been born with some sort of "divine discontent" that has driven them throughout their life on this search and arrived at the TS's doorstep that way. llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Oct 1995 14:41:14 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: 7 Rays > Eldon: though, because I'd tend to discount the idea. That's another > discussion, though ...> > > Jerry S.: I rather agree with you here, Eldon. Lewis: Ok, I'll bite. Why do you guys think the "seven ray" concept should be discounted? > Eldon: of the typology, be it astrological, Jungian, numerological, > or according to the seven rays.> > > Jerry S.: These are possible true, to some extent, for the ego > or human personality that we take on with each life, and explain > why we each take different paths. But these differences are > not true for the individuality. Lewis: John Algeo was telling me the two models for labyrinths (the meandering and the maze) could be applied to the individuality and the personality, respectively. He said that what looks like chaos on the personality level may be order on the individuality level. I only have a rather vague notion of what he was talking about, but I see something in what he was telling me in what Jerry in saying. > Jerry S.: Our Divine Monads are exactly alike > and have no inherent differences whatsoever. So, using the > topology metaphor, as we near the mountain's peak, our > individual paths and worldviews become closer and closer > together. But even slightly below the peak, indiviudal teaching > styles and doctrinal emphases are noticed. > Lewis: I like the metaphor, but thought while we started out "exactly alike" our unique experiences color the individuality. I remember a portion of poem that draws an analogy to a thread which passes through different colored inks and then is weaved into a beautiful tapestry, which is the accumulation of our lives. I also thought that in the ML's one of the Mahatma says that they each retain their uniqueness after reaching the summit. llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Oct 1995 15:03:33 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: RE: Cults > Eldon: > >Regardless of how we try to define "cult", it is often used as a hate > >word to put down groups one doesn't like. One person may call, for > >instance, the Mormon Church a cult, another may call it the best > >church in Christianity. > > Quite true. Galanter's definiton would have applied to many religious groups, > including the Catholic church. He claimed the difference was not in the > structure, but in whether it is destructive or constructive. > > Galanter compared many groups and found Alcholic Annonymous to be one of the > most successful "cults". His take on AA was that it greatly benefited the > people involved, partly because of good leadership. The other end of the > spectrum would be David Koresh. > > - ann Lewis: I am always talking about "motive". Does "destructive or constructive" have motive connotations? llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Oct 1995 16:14:45 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: re Marley's ghost Liesel Writes: >I think I should have added yesterday that your extensive >theosophical knowledge is surely an asset, to you & to the >list. I think it would be even more welcome, if it didn't throw >people on the defensive with the little barbs you intersperse >at times. Thanks for the tip--though I wasn't aware of interspersing barbs. Perhaps you can give me an example of what you are observing. Thanks Jerry From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Oct 1995 16:16:05 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: re CWL and WQJ Daniel Caldwell writes: >Refresh my memory, Jerry HE, but Besant herself writes that the >decision for Judge and Besant to serve as Co-Heads was decided >before any Mahatma letter was received endorsing the decision. >And she says more in that state-ment which would indicate >(taking it at face value) that there was no way Judge could have >palmed the ML off on her in the circumstances involved. >I will have to hunt for the document. Here is a good example >(if I'm right!) of not relying exclusively on a secondary source >like Nethercot. Yes, the decision to make Judge and Besant co-heads was made by the IG right after HPB died. Judge had nothing to do with it. As for that famous Mahatma Letter, even in her charges against Judge, Besant does not question the authenticity of the Mahatma letter, but how it was used. C'est tres bizarre--n'est-ce pas? >What is the source (forgive me Eldon!) for Rich's statement >concerning WQJ and 500 Mahatma Letters? I've been meaning to ask Rich that question myself. Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Oct 1995 21:53:20 GMT From: 1712.yungkans@westside.com (james yungkans) Subject: Reply For Daniel Thank you, Mark, for recient reply. I look forward to our many discussions. Please note that I am limited to 99 lines per posting, so don't expect 'verbose' responses from me. . First, I am NOT arguing whether Jesus of Nazareth had any, or many, special powers which would make him considered a 'Son of God.' To the contrary, I believe he did. So we can set aside this topic. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Oct 1995 21:53:27 GMT From: 1712.yungkans@westside.com (james yungkans) Subject: Daniel's Champion I received the following post last night... . From : Marc_Welsher@bubbs.biola.edu Subject: Re: David, Christianity From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Oct 1995 22:34:48 GMT From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Subject: RE:RE:RE:CWL >Bee: >>I wonder if the messenger needs to be physical. . . I have heard talk of >Jesus >being back on the 5th dimension or the invisible realm, anyway. Maybe >this time >the upliftment is coming from the next spiritual dimension, whatever >that may be, >and some are expecting to be physically transformed to meet up >with the >messenger in that plane. > >The Bailey material has stated that it was very possible that the Christ would >not return in a physical body, but be born in the hearts of mankind. This >suggests to me that many people would be taking the first initiation. En masse. > >- ann > That seems to be the general idea. There is a growing belief in that scenario. I look around the Web in that scene and the stuff some of them write is a little wacky even for me but there is so much of it. There are groups formed to teach the concept of ascension and many channelers are advocating all sorts of things. I know of a group that has moved themselves 2 times because of advise through channelings. There seems to be a sort of expectation and I wonder if that has been seeded in our consciousness so that we will look beyond our little selves and see that something has to be done to make ourselves and our world a better place to live in. It is interesting to see the sort of people that come to the various lectures the our Lodge has. Here in NZ we are quite small and we rely on our HQ to organise visiting lecturers to the Lodges. The topic draws certain people and I see the same ones appear at specific lectures. We had a talk, last year on the Spiritual Aspect of the Tarot and we had a full house. Then we have a good solid Theosophical talk and only the members were there. We had 18 to a workshop on Dreams and 7 to one on Alchemy. There seems to be a reluctance to use the 'grey matter' which seems to be reflected in attendance. If, as president, I was to bring in to speak some of the local New Agers, I know that lots of people would come. I am sorry about that and we try to keep a balance between talks for members and talks for the public. They are definitely interested in the current ideas but need to have them presented in the New Age way. Won't they be surprised if in fact, it actually comes about, en masse. Bee> > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Oct 1995 23:30:12 GMT From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: HPB's Anti Christianity > Although I am not Paul, I recall many many essays by HPB > in which she lombasts Christian missionaries, including the Jesuits. > I don't think she was really against Christianity per se, so much as > the egotistical attitude she found in most missionaries and Christian > writers. > > Jerry S. > My reading of HPB suggests that she was against *churchianity* rather than Christianity. Her attacks seem mostly directed against "The Church" - usually the Roman Church rather than against the religion itself. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Oct 1995 23:47:30 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: CWL and WQJ Daniel Caldwell: >What is the source (forgive me Eldon!) for Rich's >statement concerning WQJ and 500 Mahatma Letters?"< The source is Mr. Judge himself, in a speech entitled "Reply by William Q. Judge To Charges of Misuse of Mahatmas; Names and Handwritings" read April 29, 1895, where he claims: "from that time on [1875], with exceptions when I was physically in unfit condition, or when I allowed doubt, jealousy, or other defects of character to interfere, I have been in comunication with the Master and friends of his, receiving help and direction from him and them in my Theosophic work and sending for him, very frequently,--I may say hundreds of times--messages to friends and correspondents, without identifying them all as such." In a statement delivered weeks before the "Judiciary Committee" convened to "try" him, (July 10, 1894 in London), Mr. Judge said that he was quite prepared to furnish whatever of proof anyone wanted of the Mahatma's reality and Their work with him. However, Mr. Judge pointed out, to do so would violate the Constitution, for producing Mahatma letters at an official "Theosophical gathering" would in fact presume that Theosophy enforced belief in Mahatmas, and had the power and authority to decide what was and what was NOT from Mahatmas. Mr. Olcott agreed that such would plunge the T.S. into an "abyss" and therefore, in his address to the "Judicial Committee" convened in London to "try" Mr. Judge, Olcott said, "Mr. Judge's defense is that he is not guilty of the acts charged; that Mahatmas exist, are related to our Society and in personal contact with himself; and he avers his readiness to bring many witnesses and documentary proofs to support his statements.... "The moment we entered into these questions we should violate the most vital spirit of our federal compact, its neutrality in matters of bleif ... For the above reason, then, I declare as my opinion that this inquiry must go no farther ..." It is interesting that in a private interview with Laura Holloway, in 1906, Mr. Olcott is reported to have said the following: "We learn much and outgrow much, and I have outlived much and learned more, particularly as regards Judge ... I know now, and it will comfort you to hear it, that I wronged Judge, not willfully or in malice; nevertheless, I have done this and I regret it." Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Oct 1995 23:49:03 GMT From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: No wind mills > Dear Jerry & Alan, > > I'm not fighting wind mills. I'll fight for Pedro & Rocinande > (whether Lady or prostitute), if they need someone in their > corner, but not for wind mills. As for instance, I took the > time to read over the by laws published in the last AT, & put > in a few protests, where I thought they were needed. Did you, > Jerry? Alan you're in Britain, so these aren't your by laws. > > Liesel Here in England all the rules are mostly observed in the breach, as they say; ie., no one takes too much notice of them - except when they are trotted out in power struggles. I never see the AT, though we do get Quest here when it comes out. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Oct 1995 23:54:04 GMT From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Latest Revelation! > > Maybe this is one of those inspirations that is best ignored, > but at this point it feels like something worth pursuing. > > Thanks > PJ IMHO it will never fly. I think if I saw it advertised I would not buy it, nor borrow it from a library. Just a personal view, no big deal. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Oct 1995 00:02:57 GMT From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: WQJ and CWL > Paul: between partisans of Judge and partisans of Leadbeater, and > very few Theosophists who aren't one or the other.> > > I admire both, and have learned from both of them. > > Jerry S. I admire neither, and have learned from both of them. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Oct 1995 00:03:30 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Latest Revelation! Paul, Most of the "claimants" you mention are so clearly cranks. I mean, ELIZABETH CLARE PROPHET? come on! Why give these silly folks more air time? Why not focus on the serious Theosophical traditions today, comparing their approaches, philosophies, practical works, thoughts on the future. You could include Anthroposophy, Roerichs, etc. too. That's a project we could ALL cooperate on, and it wold do more practical good than reviewing the history of "claimants." Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Oct 1995 02:52:04 GMT From: 1712.yungkans@westside.com (james yungkans) Subject: Daniel's Champion (Re-transmitted, do to transmission error) I received the following post last night... From : Marc_Welsher@bubbs.biola.edu Subject: Re: David, Christianity James writes to Daniel: >"We aren't so easily swayed", I believe I read here some time ago. Now, Daniel, I told you that story (from Hebrew Tradition) to point out that your belief appears more like "Idol Worship" than anything else. Would you like to convince me otherwise. I'll give you an idea to think about. If you tell me that the world is round, I may believe you. If you tell me that it is filled with little >green men that make flowers grow, what am I to think? Perhaps you believe you're descended from a Baboon, and wish us to believe you. Well, perhaps you'd like an oportunity. Here it is. ONE RULE! You must argue your case based on documented references which are NOT based on IMAGINATION, ILLUSION, OR PURE SPECULATION! Because some 'Primate' said something yesterday doesn't count. You have to thin for yourself, and back your arguments. >I await your reply, as you may wish to convert this 'Heathen' to your christian ways. However be warned. While Abram was placed into a furnace and "while the furnace was very hot, abram was cool".. >but Haran (his brother) was"then cast into the furnace. Since Haran's faith was not perfect, he was quickly burned to a crisp." > >I wait you in the Furnace. I've had a belly full about the way you have responded to him. Although he may have come on a little strong regarding his faith, he has not deserved the battering he's received. However, James, how would you like to discuss Scripture with me? Let's begin by discussing Christian. Contrary to what others might think, the Christian faith is NOT a blind faith. This view implies intellectual suicide on the part of the Christian. Personally, my heart cannot rejoice in what my heart rejects. They were created to work in harmony, not dichotomy. Hence the command to "Love the Lord your God with ALL your HEART, and with all your soul, AND with ALL your MIND." Matt. 22:37. And it goes on....and on...(I won't repeat it unless requested) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Oct 1995 03:52:13 GMT From: 1712.yungkans@westside.com (james yungkans) Subject: The Reply Thank you, Mark, for recient reply. I look forward to our many discussions. Please note that I am limited to 99 lines per posting, so don't expect 'verbose' responses from me. First, I am NOT arguing whether Jesus of Nazareth had any, or many, special powers which would make him considered a 'Son of God.' To the contrary, I believe he did. So we can set aside this topic. Our problem lies in your UNDERSTANDING. I will refer you to Matthew 23:29 "You err, because you do not understand the scriptures not the power of GOD" I will make this obvious in as little time as possible, since everyone here gets tired of overly long posts. Matthew 22:37 is a good quote. Shame not many people chose to follow this. have you looked up the Greek for 'God'? You'll find that it is the same word as is used in John 1:1 "In 'Beginnings' was the 'WORD', and the 'WORD' was with GOD, and God (different greek word) was the 'WORD'. Have you studied the kabalistic meaning of 'Beginnings' (a single 6 letter WORD?) you will find esoterically, by placing the letters of Genesis 1:1 on the 'Tree of Life' that the last letter lands on the sepharoh called GLORY For another coincidence, Dyzan corresponds to this WORD, when it states "THAT WHICH IS AND YET IS NOT". Therefore, love for the 'Lord thy God' is not inappropriate, since everything come from THAT, and will return to THAT ('I am the Alpha and the Omega'). The first argument is that Jesus of Nazareth is the only 'Son of God', according to most Christian beliefs. Does it not state in John 1:12 "But to all that received him (the WORD?), he gave to them to right to become 'Sons of GOD'. First, this passage CONFIRMS that others may be 'Sons of GOD', which we do afirm. it is called becomming a perfected soul, and not alien to most teachings. If you review the Gospels, I believe you will find mention of another performing works in 'his name', which the disciples rebuked, and for doing so the disciples were rebuked. By the way, do not say I left out the line about "Believe in his name". If you study the Greek, you will find that this phrase is attached to the following verse, and that misplacement has occured in most translations. Why? You tell me. For discussion, is it not possible that this 'WORD' to be received is none other than our DIVINE MONAD. You have quoted John 8:32 out of context. Starting with 8:31 "Then Jesus said to the Jews who believed in him, 'if you abide by my 'WORD', you are truly my disciples and you will know the truth..." Again, we are referred to the 'WORD' (or 'THAT'), in order to know the truth. H.P.Blavatsky did teach there is no religion greater than TRUTH, and you will find in dyzan (at 1.6) reference to the seven TRUTHS. This is the same position referred by me before. Continuing on your I Peter 1:16, v.17 states "for he received from GOD the Father Honor and Glory". This is not out of line based on becomming a Mahatma and obtaining true Siddi powers. this occured when Jesus received the 'Spirit'. The question must be asked: Was the 'beloved Son' Jesus, or the Spirit that descended. Anything referenced after the baptism doesn't answer this, since after this point Jesus and the SPIRIT were One,in the same manner that the 'Bride' and 'Bridegroom' are bound together. However, in this case, Jesus is the 'Bride', and the Spirit is the Bridegroom (Physical is often feminine, as in 'Mother Earth' for an easy example) One of the most notable problems is that the Nazarene NEVER EVER desired worship, and in fact rebuked worship of him to even his disciples. He always referred to himself as a servant. By the same token Angels always told humanity that they were Fellow- Servants. In our theosophical texts we say "There is neither first or last, for all come from No-Number." Worship of Jesus as a deity began after his death, and is akin to Idol Worship. THIS is the 'Golden Statue' set up by Nebuchadnezzer, and this is EXACTLY why we do NOT worship Jesus as a Deity. He was, and IS, a BROTHER, and a NIRMANAKAYA! This is not difficult to believe, even in our circles. Perhaps if you study the refereces to Nirmanakayas, you may be surprise at what is possible in the light of EASTERN scriptures. This alone will take into account most of your scriptural passages in regard to being a witness to the risen Christ. One last note, As I am running out of space. We have had a belly full as well. I was kinder than most would have been, given the nature of the posts (sent to my personal ID directly, and not posted on THEOS-L.) I happen to be both 'CHReSTIAN' and a Theosophist, and find NO DISAGREEMENT between the two. As you can read in the current posts (if you are a subscriber to Theos-l) we are discussing the Christian/Anti-Christian aspects of HPB's work. Please read these posts. They may surprise you. Yours in CHRIST (and I'll explain that later, as well) James From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Oct 1995 04:32:40 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Wheaton and Cults Eldon Writes: EBT >There's a large turnover in membership, but not 95 percent. In >the first four years, a large percentage of members have lapsed >(very few actually quit). I don't remember if it's 40 percent, >but that figure comes to mind. I could look up the figure, since >I've had the data for about seven years, but since Wheaton has >not released such statistics, I'm not sure that I would be >permitted to give the actual figure out. JHE It's been about five years since I've seen the data (several people have it) and I don't remember the exact numbers either. But the actual numbers on your seven year old data sheet was only a confirmation of what the old timers in the TS already knew-- that the majority of the new members leave within a short time. So this isn't a matter of revealing Wheaton's secrets. I remember this mass exodus being a matter of continued discussion and speculation as far back as the 60's, and no doubt much longer. Also, I'm not sure if it tells us that much that members let their dues lapse rather than quit. Letting one's dues lapse is a passive way of quitting. Writing a letter of resignation would require a special effort that I think most people don't bother to make. EBT We have to ask if people have received their benefit from a theosophical group by joining, becoming acquainted with the literature, then dropping out to follow an individual quest. Their spiritual progress is not limited to the time period that they continue to pay membership dues. JHE I think this is a fair and important question and we can hope that some benefit was gained. On the other hand, it appears that the TS was at best, beneficial to the new members for only a short time. Why is this so? My own theosophical teaching experience has been that it usually takes about five years of study before a student of Theosophy is really able to grasp the teachings. So it isn't that people come in, master what we have to offer and then leave. I'm sure that these people take something with them when they leave, but what is it that they take? EBT There's a good side, in a sense, to this turnover. It means that our 4200 membership does not represent everyone reached by Wheaton, but there are many more thousands of people that have been exposed to Theosophy that don't show up in that count. The membership count does not reflect the total count of people reached in the past decade or two. JHE Fair enough. But what kind of exposure did they get? Apparently it did not impress them enough to stay around for further exposure--or perhaps some were so negatively impressed that they just bailed out. JHE >> the TS would >> more likely have stayed on the original lines as outlined by HPB >> and the Masters. EBT They started it along certain lines. If they were around since then, perhaps they would have changed it as appropriate to the changing social climate and spiritual thawing in the west. We can't take their original *intent* and assume that it is a dogma to be followed. It is a *work plan*, not a divine truth. JHE I think that the original intent is indeed the heart of the TM, and is immortalized in the first object. HPB wrote herself, that the first object is the only dogma of the TS. I do agree, however that "changing social climate" etc. cannot be ignored, but that would affect our approach, not the goal. JHE >> the Theosophical Society would not be >> regarded by the public as a cult as it is today. EBT Regardless of how we try to define "cult", it is often used as a hate word to put down groups one doesn't like. One person may call, for instance, the Mormon Church a cult, another may call it the best church in Christianity. JHE Yes, it is often used as a hate word, particularly by one cult labeling another cult. It is also used as a precautionary word such as, "don't get hooked into that nonsense" by many others. One of our students tell us that he has been constantly jibed at work since he mentioned his interest in theosophy to them. This is so common, that I think we all have had more than our share of experiences like this. When I mention Theosophy to the typical uninformed person, they think of Besant and Krishnamurti, Blavatsky as a "tea leaves reader," fraud, fakery and pop psychism. I submit that most, if not all of these negative images could have been prevented. Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Oct 1995 12:52:16 GMT From: 1712.yungkans@westside.com (james yungkans) Subject: The Unseen Solar System Refencing an article by this name in Discover (Nov. 1995), there is a discussion about the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud. Comets that cycle by the sun at least once every 20 years are said to reside in the Kuiper belt (with roughly circular orbits) while the Oort clound contains those comets with cycles greater than 20 years. Has there been any discussion as to how these fields coorilate to Secret Doctorine? And what do people understand metaphysically about these comet fields? James From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Oct 1995 13:16:27 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Question to Jerry HE Jerry in your messae of Oct 4 in reply to Paul Johnson, you write: "I also have some problems with HPB and the Mahatma letters too, but that is another issue....." I and probably others on the theos network would be interested in you elucidating what you mean by "some problems." Please explain Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Oct 1995 13:28:34 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Symbols and bridges Subject: Re: 7 Rays Lewis: Mainly because it puts labels on people. Also, I have little data to show that it works, unlike the Jungian and astrology personality topologies which have been demonstrated to have at least some accuracy. Lewis: We start out and end up as a Divine Monad, unique while at the same time having no differences. The Divine Monad expresses itself in space-time as an individuality, which in turn, expressess itself as a series of personalities. Each personality and individuality is different, but each Divine Monad is the same. The individuality "grows" by incorporating into itself the "essence" or "flavor" of the personality after each incarnation. When we reach the mountain's peak and can shift our consciousness into the Divine Monad, we retain our sense of individuality, unlike drops returning to the sea. However, because each and every Divine Monad is exactly alike and all are outside of space and time, this sense of individuality is combined with an overwhelming sense of oneness. One and Many are two sides of a duality that we can talk about here, but the whole duality evaporates away at the level of the Divine Monad. This is not easy to put into words. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Oct 1995 16:53:35 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: RE: Wheaton & cults The discussion between EBT and JHE about why people may leave the Society is lacking one important item. Collected responses from those who left. Without knowing why these people chose to leave, we are left with only speculation. JHE >When I mention Theosophy to the typical >uninformed person, they think of Besant and Krishnamurti, >Blavatsky as a "tea leaves reader," fraud, fakery and pop >psychism. I submit that most, if not all of these negative >images could have been prevented. How could this have been prevented? Is there something the Society could have done that it not do or does not do now? Many of those negative images were created by the popular press. Any person who happens to make a big enough splash in the public eye will be ripped apart by them. As long as the buyers are eager to see the dirt on a public figure, someone tabloid or newspaper will print it. No wonder the Masters want to hide out in the hills. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Oct 1995 17:09:21 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Should Theos-l Remain Free? James, I don't know too much. It's the way Harry Van Gelder taught us to meditate. He believed in opening out, & we do it by listening to Beethoven's symphonies 1-9, piano concerti 3-5, violin concerto, or any other music which sends you. Maybe a poem he wrote once will give you a clearer concept of what he meant. I'll copy it off for you below, & then equate some of his nomenclature with the "bodies" which Harry thought were force fields. "Focus the mind on what is. Expand this focus beyond The world of form, into the world Of Ideas. Then the mind Begins to enter into cognition. Let the mind expand beyond this By the realization of Love & Beauty. Beauty as an experience is the Realization of the Universal Unity. Love is the realization of the synthesis Of all that is, and all that will ever be. The process of growth is infinite. The expansion of the mind can lead To the realization of unity, the Beauty Inherent of it; the loss of identification With the personality, to the infinite Progression of consciousness. Tear one veil away and there is Another behind it... "Concentration of the mind is Opposite of expansion and leads To the blockage of life. Only the process Of Cognition and understanding is expansion to infinity. Harry often quoted Plato, & Plato's archetypes. 3rd dimensional field - physical body 4th " " - psyche 5th " " - cognition (eidos) 6th - Being - Synthesis (Nous) 7th - Beness - Consciousness Maybe this is something of what you were looking for. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Oct 1995 17:29:12 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: To Eldon To Eldon, Noted. I don't have any comments back, except that I tried to express that I wish you wouldn't hurt each other's feelings, but respect each other as individuals, even though differing. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Oct 1995 17:34:09 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Latest Revelation! Dear PJ Dunno the answer to most of your questions, but I like the idea of such a book. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Oct 1995 18:00:04 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Daniel's Champion Marc, I'm not sure of what you're arguing. But speaking of unity not dichotomy "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy soul, with all thy might, & with all thy heart" "& these Commandments which I have given you this day..." & I forget the rest of it something like "shall be as signposts between thine eyes .." thou shalt think of them "when thou risest up, when though sittest down & when thou walkest along the way .... Thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children" Those are pieces of what could also be straight out of a Jewish prayer book. I haven't been to a Temple in quite a very long time, but what I remember is that this followed the Sabbath reading of the 10 Commandments. Glad to hear that it's also in the NT. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Oct 1995 19:09:02 GMT From: taliesin@magic.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: Daniel's Champion James, I agree with a lot of what you have to say to Daniel but there are few points in your posting that puzzles and concerns me. > Well, perhaps you'd like an > oportunity. Here it is. ONE RULE! You must argue your > case based on documented references which are NOT based on > IMAGINATION, ILLUSION, OR PURE SPECULATION! Because some > 'Primate' said something yesterday doesn't count. You have > to thin for yourself, and back your arguments. I understand where you are coming from. In fact, Eldon tried to get Hendrik to express his own opinion untethered to his Fundamentalist worldview. I am not sure that it is unfair. I think that Daniel has made a choice very specifically not to trust personal religious experience, or human reason. I think that his position is a tautology but it is the way he thinks. So I don't know about the netiquette of asking him to think in another manner. My problemwith Daniel is not that he speaks from a small stream of Christian tradition called fundmentalism but that he does so in the language of spiritual terrorism, that is with threats and insults. As for content of what he believes I am perfectly ok with his holding those views in a gracious manner. Marc: > I've had a belly full about the way you have responded to > him. Although he > may have come on a little strong regarding his faith, he > has not deserved the battering he's received. However, > James, how would you like to discuss Scripture with me? Art: I think that Marc may be suggesting is that you have swallowed the Shadow of Daniel and are nailing him in the way he thinks he is nailing those pagan theosophists. I think the tone of your post may have sounded somewhat paternalistic as you wrote back to Daniel. I must confess I know how hard it is not to get paternal with Fundies:) They are a great target because they are in many ways fairly black and white in their perspectives and those of us who consider ourselves at a more progressed stage of moral or spiritual development can get pretty huffy with them. It might be that your use of the Blavasky material cause the language to be skewed this way. It was an account of a trip up the Nile with a Fundy wanting to convert the pagans. Blavatsky may have been toying with the poor sot.But I don't think it is good to toy with Fundamentalists. I believe in respecting them for what their desire to move spiritually, even if the beliefs and interpretations they hold seem simplistic, and sometimes brutal. Marc: > Let's begin by discussing Christian. > > Contrary to what others might think, the Christian faith > is NOT a blind faith. This view implies intellectual suicide on the part > of the Christian. Personally, my heart cannot rejoice in > what my heart rejects. They were created to work in > harmony, not dichotomy. Hence the command to > "Love the Lord your God with ALL your HEART, and with all > your soul, AND with ALL your MIND." > Matt. 22:37 I would wonder what Marc means by "blind" faith. Faith is not, under any understanding of the word, direct empirical knowledge that is scientific. Faith is a position of trust and trust requires a bit of darkness and vulnerability at least. It could be a leap into the light or a leap into the dark but that depends on the personality and temperament of the seeker. For instance as I do my spiritual travelling I feel that many times I take wild leaps into the dark in the trust that I will be caught by something greater than myself. Others take a more reasoned approach but we all have different approaches to our beliefs. I am much more interested in what approach we take to the Work, the Task , the Faith than I am the content that we think makes up the faith. >And it goes on....and on...(I won't repeat it unless requested) I would like to see what Marc said. If I read the address properly Marc may be affiliated with Biola which is a Evangelical College in California. Arthur From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Oct 1995 23:21:26 GMT From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Wheaton and Cults I read the posting on this with interest, especially vis a vis the nature of lapsed or resigned members of [Adyar] TS (Wheaton). Probably a similar picture obtains in England. Those reading theos lists may be interested to know that I began studying Theosophy via Astrology (Alan Leo) then Jinaradasa, then HPB [Isis et al] in 1956. I did not *join* the TS in England until 1988/9. Right now I am so p..... off with all the politics that I wonder whether, like others I know, I might let my own membership lapse in '96. My *worst* experience of the TS was during the two years I was local Lodge president! Something to think about? Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 07 Oct 1995 23:52:19 GMT From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Subject: Re: re: on CWL >Bee: > >>I wonder if the messenger needs to be physical. > >It may be a matter of semantics, but I've generally heard the term >"messenger" used to describe someone sent out by the Lodge to openly >act on its behalf. A messenger would be someone like Blavatsky that >was authorized to not only teach and work in the world, but also to >openly state her ties to the Mahatmas. > >The Mahatmas are continually, I'd say, at work in the world, and >that work involves teaching and introducing knowledge and spirituality >where it can help out. The distinction with a messenger is that we >have one of them, or one of their representatives, that is permitted >to work in the open. > >-- Eldon > What about the Christ & Buddha energies? They appear from time to time in physical form and I think maybe they are what are expected. The Mahatmas are always at work, as you say, but at certain times in evolution the big guns come and shake things up. Is this one of these times, I wonder? This time it may not be necessary for the big gun to be physically visible. Perhaps we have progressed to the stage where the effect is to be mental rather than emotional. I have read that we are now at the stage that we need to evolve our mental body and then some time later join it with the emotional and then eventually activate the causal. Until the other two are on the way to being used properly, there isn't a lot of development in the causal. I have read A E Powell among others and that is the impression I have gathered. I gather impressions rather than hard facts because facts are hard to remember. It just seems that so many people these days are going to tarot readers, numerologist, in fact the whole range of what's around now, to find out what is in store for them. Even people that 10 years ago would have no discussion about it at all, are now interested in these things. It is almost as if a general influence is abroad and people are interpreting it in many different way, yet the need to find themselves is still looking outward rather than inward. It is interesting times we live in. Bee> > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Oct 1995 03:52:18 GMT From: 1712.yungkans@westside.com (james yungkans) Subject: Your Wish Is My Command ( Part 2 : 10/7 message from Marc_Welsher@bubbs.biola.edu) When Jesus and the apostles called upon people to exercise faith, it was NOT a blind faith. The apostle, Paul, said: "I KNOW whom I have believed" (II Tim. 1:12). Jesus said, "You shall KNOW the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32). This implies accepting and dealing with facts, not denying or ignoring them. Paul Little, in "Know Why You Believe," wrote: "Faih in Christianity is based on EVIDENCE. It is reasonable faith. Faith in the Christian sense goes beyond reason BUT NOT AGAINST IT. The first thing to consider when dealing with this intellectual faith is the Eyewitnesses. The writers of the New Testament either wrote as eyewitnesses of the events they described or recorded eyewitnesses firsthand accounts of the events. 2 Peter 1:16 says: "For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty and power." These writers certainly knew the difference between myth, legend and reality. There is an obvious difference between Greek or Roman myths and Christianity: The similar events, such as the resurrection, etc. were not applied to real, flesh and blood individuals by the Greeks and Romans, but rather to mythological characters. However, when it comes to Christianity, these events are attached to a person the writers and MANY of their audience knew in time-space dimension history, the historic Jesus of Nazareth whom they knew personally. S. Estborn in "Gripped by Christ" explains this very concept. He had studied both the Bible and the Shastras. He dwelled on two biblical themes: The reality of the Incarnation and the Atonement for human sin. He sought to harmonize these doctrines in the Hindu Scritpures. He found a parallel to Christ's self-sacrifice in Prajapati, the Vedic creator-god. He also saw a VITAL DIFFERENCE: Where the Vedic Prajapati is a mythical symbol, which has been applied to several figures, Jesus of Nazareth is a HISTORIC PERSON. He concluded that "Jesus is the true Prajapati, the true Saviour of the world." A myth may be properly defined as a "pre-scientific and imaginative attempt to explain some phenomenon, real or supposed, which excited curiosity of the mythmaker, or perhaps more accurately as an effort to reach a feeling of satisfaction in place of bewilderment concerning such phenomena. It often appeals to the emotions rather than the reason, and indeed, in its most typical forms, seems to date from an age when rational explanations were not called for." James> I will transmit part 3 (the Final Installment) after I can confirm proper receipt of this part. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Oct 1995 04:10:22 GMT From: lmoffitt@monmouth.com (Lee Moffitt) Subject: Re: Should Theos-l Remain Free? Liesel: Thanks so much for sharing the poem and thoughts from Harry Van Gelder. It really resonated with me. Lee Moffitt (a lurker) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Oct 1995 04:28:14 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Marley's ghost Dear Jerry H-E If I answer your question, you're going to refute me. If I don't answer, you're going to say I'm making vague accusations. Best you figure it out by yourself. If you can't, I'm afraid I can't help you. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Oct 1995 04:36:23 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: HPB and Christianity Dear Coherence, Well put, & Amen to the sense of humor. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Oct 1995 04:53:02 GMT From: 1712.yungkans@westside.com (james yungkans) Subject: Why The Daniel Cruise was the humor taken improperly? I thought that, after all the negativity generated by Daniel's prior posts, a little polite but sharp humor might lighten up this board in regard to 'Christian' discussions/postings. For reference, I addded actual material 'Verbatim' from "How Theosophy Came to Me" by CWL, Ch VII "Our Voyage to India", where Blavatsky is having discussions with a Daniel Smith. This is the 'Historical' data I referred to in the posts. Can you tell me more about Biola? What kind of a school is it, theological breakdown, etc. I like to know these things. James P.S. Liesel, was the Amen a positive or a negative comment. I couldn't really tell. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Oct 1995 04:53:03 GMT From: 1712.yungkans@westside.com (james yungkans) Subject: Rt 3 (marc Welsher Letter) ( Part 3 : 10/7 message from Marc_Welsher@bubbs.biola.edu) Now, lets examine the above definition in light of Scrpture: (1) "What was from the beginning, what WE HAVE HEARD, WHAT WE HAVE SEEN with our eyes, WHAT WE BEHELD AND OUR HANDS HANDLED, concerning the Word of LIfe - and the life was manifested, and WE HAVE SEEN AND BEAR WITNESS and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father AND WAS MANIFESTED TO US - WHAT WE HAVE SEEN AND HEARD we proclaim to you also..." (1 John 1:1-3) (2) "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, JUST AS THOSE WHO FROM THE BEGINNING WERE EYEWITNESSES and servants of the Word have handed them down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, HAVING INVESTIGATED EVERYTHING CAREFULLY FROM THE BEGINNING, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus." (Luke 1:1-3) As a commentary on this passage it might be interesting to note what The Cambridge Ancient History has to say about Luke: "He is naturally concerned to state a good case for the religion he professes -- and that not merely because he believed it to be true (and there was no inducement in those days to profess Christianity UNLESS ONE WAS PASSIONATELY CONVINCED OF ITS TRUTH)..." (3) "After that he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, he appeared also to me." 1 Cor. 15:6-8. It would be interesting to observe that he mentions there were many of those 500 who saw him still alive at the time of the writing of this letter. Wouldn't it stand to reason that someone could have called Paul on this at any time and called his bluff? It stands to reason that there was a major opportunity to disprove this very fundamental ideal of the Christian faith. Take this away and the whole religion falls before it even gets off the ground. Yet it never happened. Why? (4) "Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed IN THE PRESENCE OF THE DISCIPLES, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God..." John 20:30, 31. Threre are three other verses to consider: Acts 10:39-42; I Peter 5:1 and Acts 1:9. John Montgomery observes that "...the inability to distinguish Jesus' claim for Himself from the New Testament writers' claim for Him should cause no dismay, since (1) the situation exactly parallels that for all hstorical prsonages wo have notthemselveschosen to rite (e.g, Alexande the Grea, Augustu Caesar, Chrlemagne), We would hrdly claimthat in thse cases e can acieve no adquate historical portraits. Also, (2)the New Tetament wrters...RECRD EYEWITESS TESTIMONY concerning Jesus, AND CAN THREFORE BE RUSTED TO CONVEY anaccurate historical picture ofhim." The apostls were eyeitnesses o his resurected life: Luke 24:48; Acts 1:8; :32; 3:15;4:33; 5:32 10:39; 1:41; 13:31;1 Cor. 154-9, 15; 1Jno. 1:2;Acts 22:15 23:11; 2616. In he near fuure I'll g deeper ino firsthan knowledg, historical prejudices, blind faith and intellectual excuses. Then we'll get into why I trust the Bible. I hope you'll allow me the luxury of developing my argument at my own pace. I've got a lot to cover and so little time to do it in. However, flame me once and I'll quit. I'll grant you the respect as one intelligent person to another. I would hope you will grant me the courtesy of responding in kind. Sincerely, Marc From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Oct 1995 09:00:47 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: The power behind TS KPJ >Thus he used Mahatma letters both to establish his half-share in >the ES leadership, and then to take over the whole enchilada. Ah, yes. The little known, but often feared, Enchilada Section. If you step out of line they douse you in chili sauce and roll you in a tortilla. They claim to be in touch with Don Diego, who also goes under the name of Master Zorro. They meet in secret at various Taco Bells around the country. Speaking of food, I got a delicious recipe for Artichoke and Wild Rice Casserole that was served to us at Olcott's Saturday workshop. If you wish a copy, please e-mail me and I will send it along. - ann 72723.2375@compuserve.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Oct 1995 09:05:34 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: RE: cults Lewis: > I am always talking about "motive". Does "destructive or >constructive" have motive connotations? Does the end justify the means? IMHO, a group could start out with a positive desire, need or impulse and then proceed to use the worst possible ways to accomplish their objectives. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Oct 1995 10:05:22 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: re Wheaton and Cults Ann Writes: >Many of those negative images were created by the popular press. >Any person who happens to make a big enough splash in the public >eye will be ripped apart by them. As long as the buyers are >eager to see the dirt on a public figure, someone tabloid or >newspaper will print it. No wonder the Masters want to hide >out in the hills. > >- ann Surely it is the popular press that creates the prevailing image of Theosophy, and they need something to "rip apart" in order to sell newspapers. However, if the Theosophical Organizations were involved in relief for the starving; finding ways to better live in harmony with our environment; teaching people practical ways to work towards word peace etc. then the TS would probably be pretty much ignored. On the other hand, an Organization whose primary teachings and activities are things like: revealing to the world the existence of advanced civilizations on Mars; that the world is really run by an inner government that no one can see or confirm the existence of; teaching that we can help the Masters in their work while we sleep; promoting the return of the Christ, only to have that Christ resign etc. creates a lot of attention for the popular press. However, I personally neither blame the newspapers nor the public. It is the karma of the TS, created by the TS, and the TS needs to take responsibility for it. Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Oct 1995 10:06:38 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: Question to Jerry HE Dan Writes: >Jerry in your messae of Oct 4 in reply to Paul Johnson, you >write: > >"I also have some problems with HPB and the Mahatma letters too, >but that is another issue....." > >I and probably others on the theos network would be interested >in you >elucidating what you mean by "some problems." Please explain > >Daniel Caldwell Ok. First, let's put this statement back into the context from which I wrote it. My overall point was that I don't see the historical characters of the Modern Theosophical movement in black and white terms. Judge was not the paragon of good and Besant the paragon of evil. I don't look at theosophical history as grand struggles against the "dark forces," nor do I see one character as honest and wonderful, whom I can take every word as true and accurate, and another person as a liar and/or deceiver. Thus, I don't see Besant as more or less capable of telling the truth than Judge; or Olcott's version of what happened as necessarily more or less accurate than Blavatsky's. I try to put them on a level playing field and let them all tell their stories. I see them all as human beings with strong and weak points. With the above in mind, let's look at HPB and also the Mahatmas from the point of view of doctrine and regarding their character, based upon what we can determine about them from their writings. After years of attentively reading these writings, I don't find any justification in the attitude that so many students have of trusting and hanging on to every word issued from them as divine revelation. For instance, HPB's definition of Devachan as being "the abode of the gods" appears to be unacceptable to every living Buddhist scholar. Why? Perhaps she did know something that the modern scholars don't; but on the other hand, she just might have made a mistake. Look at ~Isis Unveiled~ and her lengthy discussion of fetuses taking on grotesque forms because of the thoughts of the mother--or her discussion on false pregnancies. Obviously (to me), we have an HPB who not only drew from some rather outstanding sources of inspiration and made some very distinctive contributions to our body of knowledge, but the same HPB also can make some rather silly statements that apparently came from her own ill informed personal beliefs. A reader has to beware as to when HPB is relating knowledge from her learned teachers; when she is speaking from personal experience; when she is inserting her own sometimes ill informed or sometimes deeply insightful opinions; when she is not stating an opinion, but just quoting someone elses; and when she is being her own ill tempered Helena Blavatsky arguing with reporters or critics. After reading HPB for many years, it became rather easy for me to tell the difference--but try teaching her to new students. As for the Mahatmas, they also have to be humanized. The students we've had the biggest problem with, are those who have made up their minds that the Mahatmas are some kind of demi-gods running around on the astral currents doing their bureaucratic thing as part of an inner government. These students are the ones who fall into a state of big time cognitive dissonance when KH writes about his pipe, or of his annoyance with Hume, or his chauvinistic comments like: "A woman is like an echo, she always must have the last word." To me, it is obvious that these Mahatmas have personalities, preferences and viewpoints just like every other human being. They are not omniscient, nor did they ever claim to be. So, for the present context, my original statement might be clearer if I reword it. It isn't that I have a problem with HPB and the Mahatmas themselves, but that they are often problematical like every other human being. I guess my biggest problem is with trying to communicate with others who refuse to see the humanness in our past leaders. Does this help Dan? Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu,and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Oct 1995 11:03:30 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Re: Question to Jerry HE Jerry, I agree with JRC when he wrote: "*Extraordinarily* well put." Thanks for your elucidation. Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Oct 1995 11:11:20 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: RE: LCC Rich: >Some of the problems of the LCC which come to *my* mind are these: >(1) Emphasis on rituals. Neither the Masters, HPB, nor Mr. Judge in any of >their writings indicate that ritual has any value whatsoever, particularly >Christian ritual. . . Would you express the same view for Masonic, American Indian or Buddhist rituals, as well? How about social rituals, like weddings, funerals and coming-of-age parties? The dating ritual of dinner and a movie? My guess is that religious ritual simply does not do anything for you and your primary sources back up what you already feel within. You seem like person who is intellectually inclined and that is probably the path you should follow. Although he is not by your definition, a "primary source", I would like to quote Stephan Hoeller from his booklet, "The Mystery and Magic of the Eucharist". Mr. Hoeller is a respected lecturer for the Adyar TS and a devote follower of HPB. He writes: "Many persons, particularly within the so-called New Age-New Thought-Metaphysical field, can see no use for ceremony, ritual and prayer and tend to dismiss the entire subject as some much superstition. The practice of a sacramental form of worship by occult, theosophical and mystically inclined persons appears most incongruous to some. It is easy indeed to say there is no need for ceremony and ritual in the life of the aspirant. It is also easy to state that mystical truths can be understood without ritual. However this may be, in our experience we find that abstract ideas must be made concrete within our own field of vision and activity and that their assimilation is made easier when presented symbolically rather than in the form of mere intellectual statements." I was recently informed that the HPB CD-ROM will be out next year. I look forward to exploring it and seeing what she does have to say or not say about ritual, as well as a great many other things. >(2) Authority. The idea of having a bishop with spiritual authority over me >makes me shudder. . . Me, too. As an authority is one who exacts obedience, commands and judges, it begins to sound like the spiritual police. Unfortunately, this was what the term, bishop, came to mean for the orthodox church. IMHO, I believe it was originally meant to be someone who was closer to the Light and could give a greater blessing than a priest. In my experience, bishops in the LCC held no authority over the layperson, only the clergy under them. >(3) Churchiness. >(4) History. The founding of the LCC does not appear to *me* to be from >Masters, but from ordinary folks who thought "Hey, let's reform >Christianity!" Questions about Leadbeater's character and those of his >compatriots make the founding of LCC and its subsequent history hard for me >to appreciate. Recently, Theos-l had a raging discussion about the rather tawdry lives of the founders of this country. Many of the past Popes fathered children. Several gurus have fallen from grace because they couldn't keep their hands out of the cookie jar or off their disciples. One great blessing in the study of history is that we learn from the mistakes of the past. I hope! >But before I get flamed for my . . . There is only thing you'll get flamed for and that is forgetting number 5! ! ! 5) No female clergy I've always wondered what possessed CWL to exclude women, when he was so gung-ho about including them in the Co-Masons. My guess is that it would have been too revolutionary for the times, since the church started before women could even vote. Unfortunately, the idea of a male-only clergy is still being vigorously upheld, making the church look like dinosaur from the past. That's one of the reasons I left the LCC and joined the gnostic church, where I have been admitted to holy orders. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Oct 1995 12:36:39 GMT From: John R Crocker Subject: re: Question to Jerry HE Jerry, *Extraordinarily* well put. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Oct 1995 13:19:27 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: re: re Wheaton and Cults Jerry H-E: > [writing to Ann]: >Surely it is the popular press that creates the prevailing image >of Theosophy, and they need something to "rip apart" in order to >sell newspapers. However, if the Theosophical Organizations were >involved in relief for the starving; finding ways to better live >in harmony with our environment; teaching people practical ways >to work towards word peace etc. then the TS would probably be >pretty much ignored. Anything that supports the status quo is accepted. There is no general disagreement over feeding starving people, or working towards general harmony and peace in the world. Theosophists have worked for this in the past. Katherine Tingley worked in soup kitchens and later supported programs for peace. Annie Besant founded universities. Col. Olcott reformed Buddhism in Sri Lanka. We don't draw the ire of others until we're a threat to their cherished beliefs. It's just when we open our mouths that we start to get into trouble. >On the other hand, an Organization whose >primary teachings and activities are things like: revealing to >the world the existence of advanced civilizations on Mars; that >the world is really run by an inner government that no one can >see or confirm the existence of; teaching that we can help the >Masters in their work while we sleep; promoting the return of the >Christ, only to have that Christ resign etc. creates a lot of >attention for the popular press. Were we to teach nonsense, we'd be readily dismissed as oddballs, and also ignored, since we'd clearly be no threat to established beliefs. It's just when we start teaching the Esoteric Philosophy and challenge the authority of established religions and popular thought that we're considered a threat and draw fire. >However, I personally neither >blame the newspapers nor the public. It is the karma of the TS, >created by the TS, and the TS needs to take responsibility for >it. Each theosophical group has its own respective karma to bear. There's fault to find with each organization, and with a number of writers after Blavatsky. We need the source Teachings as a check against the various writings we'd promote, and it's important that we work for the highest good that we have to offer to society: the sharing of the Treasury of spiritual teachings given us through Messengers of the Mahatmas like Blavatsky. We're selling ourselves short when we divert our energies, as a movement, into feeding the poor, fighting bad laws through political challenges, or concentrating on psychological self-help. As individuals, we may feel a personal calling into such avenues of service, but as a movement, it's not, I'd think, a good thing to do. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Oct 1995 13:39:45 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: re: on CWL Bee: >What about the Christ & Buddha energies? They appear from time to time in >physical form and I think maybe they are what are expected. Yes, but I'd describe it as an Avatara appears at times that are both appropriate in terms of cycles and when a great need is felt in humanity. >The Mahatmas are >always at work, as you say, but at certain times in evolution the big guns >come and shake things up. Is this one of these times, I wonder? Yes. And there doesn't need to be a single gun. Perhaps Blavatsky was one. >This time it may not be necessary for the big gun to be physically visible. I'd tend to disagree here. Great beings like the Buddha are always at work, so when we have great people walking the earth, it is when they take on physical form to do some great work openly among us. >Perhaps we >have progressed to the stage where the effect is to be mental rather than >emotional. Or perhaps the effect is felt on all levels -- mental, emotional, and physical. The effort is not to teach something new to us, but rather to give us a nudge back in the proper direction. In times of spiritual darkness, the Avataras come to restore spirituality. We're learning and growing in many ways, but need this occasional effort to keep from getting derailed in our evolution. >I have read that we are now at the stage that we need to evolve >our mental body and then some time later join it with the emotional and then >eventually activate the causal. Until the other two are on the way to being >used properly, there isn't a lot of development in the causal. The general development process is to unfold the lower principles first, then work on the higher ones. But there are unbelievable amounts of evolution still needed for all our principles. We are not rapidly outgrowing the lower principles. There's a whole Round of evolution on Kama-Manas before us, before we get to the Fifth Round and work on Manas proper. That doesn't mean that we're being held back and forced to stick with the lower principles for vast ages before the schoolhouse of life is ready for more advanced lessons. What it means is that there is a tremendous amount of experience and powers of awareness in Kama-Manas for us yet to unfold. We've only just started, so to say, and there's a wealth of experience in it that awaits us. >I have read A >E Powell among others and that is the impression I have gathered. I gather >impressions rather than hard facts because facts are hard to remember. Perhaps he was writing in a simpler manner for new students, and glossed over certain aspects of the philosophy. >It just seems that so many people these days are going to tarot readers, >numerologist, in fact the whole range of what's around now, to find out what >is in store for them. Even people that 10 years ago would have no discussion >about it at all, are now interested in these things. We want to understand what is going on in life, and often look to external sources for a sense of meaning. We may wonder: What is going to happen to me? Inside, we know -- there's a part of us that has a panoramic view of life -- but externally, in the personality, we cling to external beliefs and to people for reassurance. People may be going to psychics or astrologers now, when they used to go to psychologists or priests, but the seeking for reassurance is the same. It comes from a lack of inner certainity, a feeling that comes from a living, dynamic spiritual process that we can awaken in ourselves, something that we are trained to awaken by the various spiritual teachers in the world. >It is almost as if a >general influence is abroad and people are interpreting it in many different >way, yet the need to find themselves is still looking outward rather than >inward. It is interesting times we live in. Externally, things are changing. And yes, I'd agree, inward is the way to look. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Oct 1995 13:54:16 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: 7 Rays Lewis: >Lewis: Ok, I'll bite. Why do you guys think the "seven ray" concept >should be discounted? This is something that I can't completely answer in a single post, but perhaps we'll have a discussion. I still have to comment on the seven ray posting by zfenton@aol.com. In our inmost, we are Monads, untained by our excursion into existance and our participation in evolution. We are pure, perfect, though desiring increased self-consciousness, which we aspire to through projecting forth a ray of ourselves into matter, and sending that ray, an Ego, through the evolutionary process. It is only in existence, when we leave our primal purity as Divinity, that we participate in life, and are subject to influences. The Seven Rays are the various influences that the Solar Logos breaks apart into. It is somewhat like white like, in a prism, breaking apart into seven distinct colors. The influence of the Seven Rays on our Earth is through the Seven Sacred Planets, each planet representing one Ray, and having a predominant influence on one of the Globes of our Earth Chain. Being on Globe D, one of these Rays or Sacred Planets predominates, it rules the nature of life in general, and not a single class of humans. The idea that somehow in our essence, in our inmost beings, we've come from seven different cookie cutters or belong to one of seven primal groups, is wrong. It assumes that influences and affects that others have on us, while in a particular existence, carry into our beings, and even determine our Essential Nature. >Lewis: I like the metaphor, but thought while we started out "exactly >alike" our unique experiences color the individuality. Our unique experience colors our Reincarnating Ego, and that experience carries forward from one lifetime to the next. We develop, over time, specific characteristics. We individualize in a personal way, not according to our being on a particular "ray". >I remember a >portion of poem that draws an analogy to a thread which passes >through different colored inks and then is weaved into a beautiful >tapestry, which is the accumulation of our lives. Granted that in a particular lifetime we may build ourselves a personality that is radically different that the previous lifetime. Each time we come out with a subset of our entire qualities and abilities. That subset can vary, making us seem like different people. And we can catagorize people by different temperaments, and come up with names for those differences. But we're ignoring the inner man, and describing things by the color of shirt someone is wearing, rather than by the unique mind and heart that the person carries within. >I also thought that >in the ML's one of the Mahatma says that they each retain their >uniqueness after reaching the summit. I'd expect that they not only retain it, but it becomes radically more unique as they develop increased faculties of consciousness. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Oct 1995 14:52:39 GMT From: 1712.yungkans@westside.com (james yungkans) Subject: Blavatsky's "golden Jerry, the difficulty I see is that everyone reads the words written, and they do not look beyond the veil, beyond Literal meaning I haven't 'read' Isis (I use an Index to reference it), but find some outlandish statement true from a certain point of view. Examples: 1) Devachan as "the Abode of the Gods". Using the view that we are 'Gods in the making', perhaps she was thinking of describing our 'God-Like' abode after transition. 2) Fetus gets grotesque forms due to the thoughts of the mother. If you look on the 'mother' as anyone, and the Fetus as the thought-forms created by the individual on the Astral(Water) plane, then her statement would be a Literal Truth! The thoughts, being the Mental plane, take form in the Astral. You MUST remember that this form of writing, using one analogy to mean another, was common among the initiates of Greece, Rome, Egypt, as well as many other places today unknown. Don't judge the book by it's cover, I believe is the correct phrase to use. WOuld you please provide a list of 'Outlandish' comments from Isis, in particular the 'False Pregnancies'...I'd like to refer to them and see what I think. Thanks. James From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Oct 1995 15:54:32 GMT From: John R Crocker Subject: Re: To Eldon On Wed, 4 Oct 1995, Eldon B. Tucker wrote: >=20 > >Clearly you do not wish to=20 > >even slightly mitigate your attitudes about "psychic" abilities, and=20 > >clearly you will forward them as often as you like. >=20 > How about your attitudes about them? How open are they to mitigation? =09They come from 20 years of reading, contemplating, and needing to=20 match philosophy with experience. They are open to alteration and growth,= =20 but you have not mentioned anything that I haven't heard over and over=20 again in Theosophical circles. > >This does not please=20 > >me, but I have no standing or ability to cause you to re-think anything = you=20 > >say, or your manner of saying it. Neither, however, can you cause me to= =20 > >cease responding when you do this, >=20 > When we see something that we don't agree with, after a while, we feel it > necessary to say something. Since we disagree, there will be that tendenc= y > for either of us to respond to what we see written, offering our alternat= e > viewpoint. You seem to be saying that I should do all the rethinking, and > don't admit to any being necessary on your part. This sounds like you're > coming from a fixed position. =09Do you remember how this conversation started? I did not begin by=20 asserting "psychic" powers should be developed, or that psychic=20 experiences should be spoken about, or that they were higher than any=20 other experience. I responded to an initial post of yours in which I=20 heard the oft-repeated Theosophical dogma about "psychic" powers being=20 forwarded. I began by saying that this position, to me as well as to=20 others I know, effectively suppresses the willingness of people to=20 discuss experiences that are relevant to their spiritual lives, and=20 further, that to myself and to at least some others I know, that dogmatic= =20 model is not sufficient to explain actual experience. Several others on=20 the list, since the discussion began, have mentioned that this dogma, in=20 Theosophical circles, *has* stopped them from even bringing the topic up.= =20 =09My position may be "fixed" every bit as much as yours, but it=20 does not close conversational doors. > >and to respond with my own perception=20 > >- which is that some of the ideas you speak do serve to supress the=20 > >pursuit of the Third Object. >=20 > For purposes of science, we may investigate things that are known to be > dangerous, like perhaps doing medical experiements with radiation and > x-ray equipment, even though human subjects may be harmed. When the > subjects are informed of the risks, and their participation in the experi= ments > is for the purposes of scientific investigation, an execption to the > "don't do it -- it's dangerous" rule might apply. =09I don't know where you've learned of these dangers you mention,=20 but I have experienced none of them. In fact, to myself, and to the=20 others I research with, there seems to be an obsession in Theosophical=20 circles with darkness and danger and all manner of spooky things. To me,=20 however, this is the equivilent of telling someone I'm going to New York,= =20 and then being warned that there is dirt in the gutters and that I might=20 be deluded by its inhabitants - to which my response would be, so what? I= =20 have no desire to walk in the gutters, and I'm certainly not gullible=20 enough to believe everything someone says simply because they are from=20 New York anyway - to me a lot of the Theosophical dogma about such things= =20 seems like anachronistic superstition. >=20 > >While you may not evaluate the Objects=20 > >highly in your own understanding of Theosophy, this list, while=20 > >inviting contributions from members of all three Theosophical=20 > >organizations, was nonetheless begun as a discussion list for the TS -= =20 > >to whom the Objects are publically stated goals. =20 >=20 > Here you seem to be asserting some control over the unrestricted nature o= f > discussions on 'theos-l' by appeal to authority, the authority being perh= aps > some wording or early ideas of what the list could be used for. The list = is > a group with its own dynamics and has taken on a life of its own. =09No, I am not - I am merely=A0referencing something you said=20 earlier, and I do not especially like being characterized as attempting=20 to control the unrestricted nature of discussions - you have made=20 continual appeals to the "authority" of "source" teachings as the=20 foundation for justifying your position on inner abilities ... and in=20 fact seem to assert the point that the development of abilities is not=20 part of the "path" we are offered in Theosophy. In response, I mentioned=20 that the Third Object seems to make both the discussion and use of inner=20 abilities valid "Theosophical" pursuits. You mentioned, both in my=20 original response, and in this one, that apparently the Third Object is,=20 in your mind, no foundation that means anything to you. In what way is=20 using the Third object as a foundation, in the same way as you use quotes= =20 to back up your position, an attempt to "restrict" the list? > >The words "psychic" and "spiritual" have so=20 > >many different meanings as to almost be meaningless here. >=20 > We've talked about what respective parts of our nature that they refer > to. We can go over that discussion again. Perhaps another approach would > be to break apart all the different things that might be labelled as "psy= chic" > and discuss their individual merits and shortcomings, so that they aren't > all lumped into a single category. =09Actually, this is my last post on this subject for now. I was=20 making an attempt, as I have periodically over the years I've visited=20 Theosophy, to assert a particular position that might perhaps make some=20 people more comfortable to discuss particular aspects of their spiritual=20 life within the Theosophical current ... an attempt to put a crack in=20 what I perceive to be a very thick wall (and I understand those who=20 uphold that wall do not perceive things this way ... but I do.) > >We are offered=20 > >not one, but many paths - some of them that may involve what you refer t= o=20 > >as "psychic" abilities, and others that focus purely on what you call=20 > >"spiritual/intellectual". >=20 > I've said this too, that there are many paths. Some schools may involve > the psychic in their training. I'd still want a Mahatma or Chela to overs= ee > my training, if I were to enter such a school, and not experiment on my o= wn. =09Yes, but you may not be one of that growing number of people to=20 whom such things are arising quite naturally. > >The notion that there is some single approved=20 > >method of travelling the path is not one that I agree with, and smacks= =20 > >(to me) of the uniquely modern, western predilection to universalize=20 > >every personal perspective into a general principle. >=20 > Each of us travels the path in his own way, although we don't get far wit= hout > adopting a tried-and-proven practice. We need to associate ourselves with= one > of the many spiritual practices, and there are many. The spiritual/intell= ectual > approach is not an exclusive one. It's one that is often spoken of in our > theosophical literature, and one that I find valuable. Sometimes when you= write > you seem to deny that there is such a school, and I feel inclined to offe= r > an alternate view. =09This seems to be rather re-doing the history of this discussion a=20 bit. Where, precisely, have I even *implied* that your approach does not=20 exist, or even that it is not valid? All I've ever said is that it is not= =20 *exclusive*, and not the only valid path for Theosophists to follow. You=20 are the one saying that it is *the* one being spoken of in Theosophical=20 literature. To somehow cast this discussion as one in which I've been=20 trying to deny the existance of the "spiritual/intellectual" approach,=20 while you are simply humbly defending it and offering an alternative=20 point of view is disingenuous - you have said that as a general rule=20 elements of what *I* consider to be my path are to be discouraged,=20 because Theosophy offers us another, "higher" path. =20 > >This "body of thought" or belief system=20 > >is based upon a particular perspective on Theosophical sources - but it= =20 > >is not necessarily the only valid perspective. >=20 > You're free to have your personal interpretation, as am I. But apart from= our > personal views, it should be possible to see what is plainly said in the = books, > with the exception of deeply esoteric truths. =09But this gets into the "Christian" problem. The founders wrote so=20 much that one can enter those "writings" from any angle one wishes, and=20 by selectively quoting, can justify many different, and very=20 contradictory, positions. Both the Pope and Jerry Falwell read the same=20 Bible. They would both say they are seeing "plainly" what is said. My=20 view of what Theosophy is includes this current incarnation ala HPB, but=20 goes considerably beyond it. I would, for instance, include the writings=20 of some neo-Platonists (as HPB herself did as well) , and many of them,=20 as well as the Gnostics, showed signs of advanced levels of the=20 development and use of inner abilities.=20 > I'm not saying that my ideas are fluidic and yours are fixed. I agree tha= t > the experiences that you have are real to you, and don't attack the exper= iences. > When I disagree with you explanation of your experience, I'm not attackin= g > the experiences, I'm only disagreeing with the explanation. You feel your > experiences are under attack, when they are not. The same is true with Da= niel H. > When I might disagree that Jesus is literally speaking to him in a spirit= ual > experience, I'm not attacking his experience, only his explanation that t= he > experience involved Jesus personally speaking to him. =09Ah yes, but I've said virtually nothing about my actual personal=20 experiences. This has been a general discussion ... and before I've even=20 offered personal experiences, you've already stated clearly the=20 theoretical construct in which they would be placed - and what I've been=20 saying all along is that to myself, and to others, this appears as=20 prejudgement. You have evaluated my experiences, and are stating your=20 right to hold your evaluations, before I've even submitted any specific=20 experience.=20 =20 > >This, perhaps, is the source of much of=20 > >what may seem to be my anger - I do not think I have ever placed your=20 > >inner experiences into my paradigm (save to say that what you call=20 > >"higher wisdom" is just as subjective as what you call "psychic"=20 > >experiences and label as unreliable) >=20 > The problem here is the distinction between art and philosophy. With art, > you may write a poem, and it has a certain feeling, and it stands without > explanation. With philosophy, we attempt to describe and understand the > things before us in life. Your experience may be akin to a poem, and you > resentment comes from a philosophical analysis of it. =09No. My experiences have not yet been discussed. To paint me as=20 the poet and yourself as the dispassionate philosopher seems a bit=20 condescending. I have been arguing a philosophical position about the=20 place of inner abilities in people's spiritual lives. The point I was=20 making here is that you do *not* seem to be doing a philosophical=20 analysis of my experiences, but rather that you seem ready to catagorize=20 experience before experience is even presented - which is *not* philosophy. My position has been a philosophical one: I've been saying that, from the= =20 point of view of both myself and others who are working with them, the=20 *catagories* and *assumptions* at the root of the standard Theosophical=20 dogma badly need to be re-thought, as they may not match experienctial=20 reality. If you wish to be the dispassionate philosopher, (IMO) you must=20 be as willing to open your catagories and assumptions to question as you=20 are to fit the experience of others into them. =20 > >And even using this idea to say some activities are related to that path= ,=20 > >while other behaviour is not?=20 >=20 > For a particular school, there may be a method that one is taught to foll= ow. > Followers of another school, or non-students may take different approache= s. > Even though each school has its own methods, though, we cannot say that > all behavior is good. =09Modern Theosophy, however, is not a "school" ... the Masters may=20 run schools, HPB may have run a school, but Theosophy is a large set of=20 writings, a number of different philosophical perspectives, and was=20 intended (IMO) to be a vehicle (one of very many) the Masters could use=20 to serve humanity *through*. Theosophy is not a school with "a" method. > >... and hence=20 > >the first reaction from you is "We must not generalize" - but Eldon, wit= h=20 > >all due respect, you generalize almost continually. >=20 > Generalizations naturally arise when we -- you or I -- try to write about > general laws or principles of life, like when we discuss the nature of ka= rma. > The opposite of generalizations is writing little descriptions of persona= l > experiences, saying "this is what I saw, thought, and felt." Both types o= f > writing are helpful. =09But there is a difference between the philosophical=20 generalization and the institutional generalization. The philosophical=20 is, as you say, the opposite of the speecific - where one may say here is= =20 a particular rose, and here is Plato's "ideal" rose, that exists as a=20 pure form seperate from any particular manifestation. This is different=20 than saying something like "Theosophy teaches a path, and that path is to= =20 avoid development of the psychic and follow the intellectual/spiritual=20 path" ... this is not a generalization of a specific event in nature into= =20 a general form, but the generalization of a particular view of Theosophy=20 into a general (or "the") view.=20 > >It seems clear you have no intention of altering the way you=20 > >communicate, regardless of anything I've said. >=20 > You can let me decide about that. =09Didn't say you wouldn't, but up to now you haven't. =20 > >both you and Rich seem to be continually commenting on how I communicate= .=20 > >Neither of you likes it. Fine. There are also others that seem to=20 > >actually appreciate it. >=20 > That's your decision. Are you willing to try different approaches at > communication? =09I'm not upset about conversational styles. I'll accept the=20 differences ... and will from here on in only comment when someone first=20 critisizes me.=20 > >Again, when you say "Perhaps *we* can keep the=20 > >passion but find more useful ways to convey it" - don't you mean *me*? -= =20 > >as the rest of that paragraph seems to imply yourself to be demonstratin= g=20 > >the "correct" way to convey passion. >=20 > In this case you, and perhaps Rich, when the passionate nature of the mes= sage > leads to defenses going up and communication being obstructed. =09However I do not agree with your view of what "appropriate"=20 expressions of passion are. It was the defenses that your initial posts=20 sparked in me that began this whole discourse ... yet you would say you=20 did nothing inappropriate. > >I suppose we must learn to live with=20 > >this (and to me, it actually isn't that important) ... and perhaps try t= o=20 > >mitigate the sparks for the sake of the larger list. >=20 > Yes, because someone else can see us as being at each other's throats, wh= ereas > we're sipping tea, having cookies, and having a lively chat. =09Good point (-:). =09=09=09=09=09=09=09=09-JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Oct 1995 17:11:43 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: God's fertile imagination >Surely it is the popular press that creates the prevailing image >of Theosophy, and they need something to "rip apart" in order to >sell newspapers. However, if the Theosophical Organizations were >involved in relief for the starving; finding ways to better live >in harmony with our environment; teaching people practical ways >to work towards word peace etc. then the TS would probably be >pretty much ignored. This is interesting. But if TS became a world-wide environmental and charitable organization, that wouldn't erase its past. I know Olcott has groups that deal with the elderly, provide Braille books for the blind and other things. Am I right in assuming from your post that you think they should spend less time on the esoteric and more energy on the exoteric? >On the other hand, an Organization whose >primary teachings and activities are things like: revealing to >the world the existence of advanced civilizations on Mars; that >the world is really run by an inner government that no one can >see or confirm the existence of; . . . creates a lot of >attention for the popular press. These events happened many years ago. It's too late to hang Leadbeater by his toes. Your comment on an inner government suggests that you personally wish TS to disclaim the Masters. Correct me if I'm wrong. Seems to me if you took the Masters out of theosophy, you'd be cutting the guts out of the movement. How far can you homogenize until you suddenly realize you have another bland and trivial organization, very acceptable to the *masses*, but devoid of any esotericists. Maybe they will all join the ARE, a group that follows the teachings of man who spent a large portion of his time in a trance and gave out info from the Akashic records. Or they dashed to the Bailey group, ready to chant invocations and meditate to lift the illusion of the world. O they could help Dannion Brinkley, a former mercenary, build his centers around the country. He got zonked by lightening through his telephone and died not once, but twice and when he as revived, found he had *psychic* powers. God's a great writer. He's sure got one heckuva imagination. I hope he never succumbs to the clamors of his publishers, the business men who never look at the quality of a book, but only at how many copies it will sell. His writing would simply go to the devil. >However, I personally neither blame the newspapers nor the public. It is the >karma of the TS, created by the TS, and the TS needs to take responsibility for >it. How do you think they should take responsibility? How should those in present leadership and membership deal with the karma created by those who were in power in the early part of this century? In a sense, no one could blame the press for being anything than what they are. Unconscious and adrift on the astral. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Oct 1995 17:21:08 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: Marley's ghost Dear Liesel, >Dear Jerry H-E > >If I answer your question, you're going to refute me. >If I don't answer, you're going to say I'm making vague >accusations. >Best you figure it out by yourself. If you can't, I'm afraid I >can't help you. > >Liesel On the other hand, the act of criticizing others and then refusing to explain those criticisms is called "passive aggressive behavior." I suggest that you give it some thought. Peace Jerry From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Oct 1995 17:22:49 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: the power behind the TS Ann wrote: >Speaking of food, I got a delicious recipe for Artichoke and >Wild Rice Casserole that was served to us at Olcott's Saturday >workshop. If you wish a copy, please e-mail me and I will send >it along. > >- ann Sounds great! Please send. I have a great recipe for curried black eyed peas you might like. Jerry From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Oct 1995 17:24:31 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: One of JRC's comment James, Nick: >The above is from H.P.B. in 1888, to the then to be formed >esoteric section. If this is the way old HPB wanted her society >to be, perhaps we should set the example on theos-L ???? Does >anyone feel we should adopt these 'Rules' for Theos-L posts? You've got my vote. Jerry HE From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Oct 1995 17:25:52 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: God's fertile imagination Ann, JHE >Surely it is the popular press that creates the prevailing image >of Theosophy, and they need something to "rip apart" in order to >sell newspapers. However, if the Theosophical Organizations were >involved in relief for the starving; finding ways to better live >in harmony with our environment; teaching people practical ways >to work towards word peace etc. then the TS would probably be >pretty much ignored. AB This is interesting. But if TS became a world-wide environmental and charitable organization, that wouldn't erase its past. I know Olcott has groups that deal with the elderly, provide Braille books for the blind and other things. JHE I wasn't suggesting the TS becomes anything. I was trying to draw attention to the irony that Organizations that are dedicated to charitable and environmental causes seem to get a lot less media attention than Organizations with strange (to the general public) beliefs. I'm aware of the TOS and the TBAB and we participate in this work. AB Am I right in assuming from your post that you think they should spend less time on the esoteric and more energy on the exoteric? JHE They wasn't what I was suggesting, but I for one wouldn't object to more concentration on charitable work. JHE >On the other hand, an Organization whose >primary teachings and activities are things like: revealing to >the world the existence of advanced civilizations on Mars; that >the world is really run by an inner government that no one can >see or confirm the existence of; . . . creates a lot of >attention for the popular press. AB These events happened many years ago. It's too late to hang Leadbeater by his toes. Your comment on an inner government suggests that you personally wish TS to disclaim the Masters. JHE My "personal wish" would be that the TS disclaim the Masters as represented by CWL--but not the Masters as they represented themselves. AB Correct me if I'm wrong. Seems to me if you took the Masters out of theosophy, you'd be cutting the guts out of the movement. JHE I agree AB How far can you homogenize until you suddenly realize you have another bland and trivial organization, very acceptable to the *masses*, but devoid of any esotericists. JHE I think you are reading something into my post that isn't there. AB Maybe they will all join the ARE, a group that follows the teachings of man who spent a large portion of his time in a trance and gave out info from the Akashic records. Or they dashed to the Bailey group, ready to chant invocations and meditate to lift the illusion of the world. O they could help Dannion Brinkley, a former mercenary, build his centers around the country. He got zonked by lightening through his telephone and died not once, but twice and when he as revived, found he had *psychic* powers. JHE People join what ever turns them on. My interest in this Organization is because of HPB's now forgotten denotation of theosophists as being seekers of truth--not recipients of revelation. AB God's a great writer. He's sure got one heckuva imagination. I hope he never succumbs to the clamors of his publishers, the business men who never look at the quality of a book, but only at how many copies it will sell. His writing would simply go to the devil. JHE Think you could ask him to post something on theos-l? :-) JHE >However, I personally neither blame the newspapers nor the >public. It is the karma of the TS, created by the TS, and the >TS needs to take responsibility for it. AB How do you think they should take responsibility? How should those in present leadership and membership deal with the karma created by those who were in power in the early part of this century? JHE They could start by allowing CWL's writings to stand or fall upon their own merits, instead of hiding his errors and making him appear as something that he was not through the selective editing of his writings. They could do this by either: (1) publishing his works as he had originally written them or; (2) Publishing them in an edited form, but admitting in a publisher's preface that they are indeed extensively edited, and explain exactly what was edited out and why. They by the way, this option is the standard procedure of any respectable publisher who feels that a writer, though partially out of date, still has some merit. (3) Admit how racist, outdated and foolish the original works are, dump them and get on with the work that this Organization was intended to do in the first place. Interesting post. Thanks Jerry HE From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Oct 1995 17:28:31 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Why The Daniel Cruise James, The Amen was a postive comment ... like hurray & halleluh Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Oct 1995 18:50:29 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: answer to 2 posts I'm trying to condense, because yesterday Delphi sent me a statement for September. My bill was over $361.- I'm still in a state of shock. Tomorrow AM I'm being tutored by the Dreamscape people, which is a local service, & offers unlimited access for very little money. After I know what I'm doing, I'll be changing over. Re: Question to Jerry HE I agree with the other 2, Jerry. Your answer is nicley put. Re: to Eldon I'd like to make a few comments, which arise for me out of your discussion, but may not have anything at all to do with your bones of contention. "psychic" is by now derogatory. "spiritual" isn't the right nomenclature. I like to say ESP, but John called it "inner abilities" or "paranormal powers". To me, any of these sound good. "I'd stil want a Mahatma or Chela to oversee my training ... & not experiment on my own." "These people ... can come study, & take whatever of value they find in the books." I believe that some of the teaching needs to be transmitted from 1 person to another. Books are a valuable beginning, but can get you just so far. I have heard speak of a person who was very effective at teaching meditation because she could see auras, & thus could more easily tell what the learner was doing right or wrong. Also, I think that some things are transmitted by imitating someone who knows how to do it. "...although we don't get far without a tried & proven practice." I wonder how true that is. I know that my meditating, for instance, though mostly Harry's teaching, also has elements in it from Rabbi Arieh Kaplan. Also, even though I was taught to be alone & undisturbed, my cat Chou chou likes to come & cuddle up next to me when I meditate, & it feels very comfortable, even though I think CWL wouldn't agree. I found out what way was easiest for me to do. Seems to me, you need to adapt the tried & true to your own needs & bent. Any comments on this? "I do not know what you mean subjectively when you talk about the'inner knowing'" Not very clear to me what you're asking, but I found out fairly recently that the so called "higher realms" are subjective. Does that fit in there? I'm not sure whether the "Psychic senses" are an extension of anything. My perception, which may not be right, is that they're autonomous senses, in the same way as the senses of hearing, taste., smell etc. Anyone have any good info on this? Shalom Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Oct 1995 23:41:13 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: re: on CWL >Rich: >>Thom writes: >> The whole concept of a "next Messenger" is liable to produce more conflict >> and delusion than it's worth (just as the concept of a Messiah does). I >> don't know why H.P.B. even brought it up. The concept is similar to the one where the day of miracles is past, that Mahatmas walked the earth in Blavatsky's day but are to be found no more. (Sounds like Christianity.) In this case, we're putting off the day we'll see the more advanced ones into the future rather than the past. The effect is the same: we ignore the living reality of the moment for another time, another place. >This may be. What is curious to me is why nearly every major movement seems >to bring it up. Christianity expects the second coming. Zoroastrians have >long expected their Soishyant, and the Jews the Messiah. Buddhists expect >Maitreya, and Hindus, the Kalki Avatar. Muhammed is the "Seal of the >Prophets" and when he comes again, it is THE END. Many native American >tribes expected a Messenger to lead them away from the White Man's >Destruction, and millenial movements (often called "cargo-cults" in African >communities) have expected Jesus or another Savior to help them. You're right, Rich, that most religions teach that their Avatara will return again. The problem for them is that their Avatara may return as a founder of a new religion rather than someone to reauthenticate their religion, to bring back to it a sense of meaning and religious zeal that has been lost ages ago. >What is HPB up to when she mentions that in one hundred years (i.e. 1975) >another Messenger(s) will arrive for the West? What is merely her hope? > Part of a "plan"? Merely an allegory of the cyclic nature of things? There's the idea that since Tsong-ka-pa at the end of every century there's an effort to improve things in the west. Perhaps this on-going project is the source of western Messengers. If that's the case, it's unrelated to Avataras or cyclic events. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Oct 1995 00:02:18 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: What draws them in? Bee: >We had a talk, last >year on the Spiritual Aspect of the Tarot and we had a full house. Then we >have a good solid Theosophical talk and only the members were there. We had >18 to a workshop on Dreams and 7 to one on Alchemy. There seems to be a >reluctance to use the 'grey matter' which seems to be reflected in >attendance. You bring up an important point here that we're all making in different ways. What do we teach and how do we teach it? When we change the materials we present, we can draw in large crowds. Is that good? It depends. There's an important distinction between changing the manner of presentation to make the theosophical teachings more attractive and easy to comprehend and changing the content to something more popular. When we look at the declining membership at Wheaton, for instance, from a high of 5550 in June 1989 to 4246 at the present, we see a dramatic drop, one which has only leveled off in the past few months. We have to ask ourselves some hard questions. Is the competition winning out (other metaphysical groups attracting people)? Could we be slow to change to current forms of organizational structure and educational methods? Or could the public need for what we are offering be declining, along with memberships? I'd say that the simpler part of Theosophy that was intended to work its way into public thought, as a minor adjustment to the materialistic western science of the last century, has done its work. There are many groups promoting similar ideas and ideas like reincarnation and karma and the reality of the spiritual life have found popular, though not universal, acceptance. Our work in this area may be declining, being taken over by groups that offer generic philosophical thought to the masses. The other aspect to the work, that of providing a junior college to the Mysteries, is something that may appeal to a handful of people. The numbers of people in this regard are small compared to the spiritual quest of the masses. I could see the theosophical groups eventually going underground, or semi-private, in future years, if they end up specializing in this regard, where membership is by invitation. Granted, ideals like a general acceptance of universal brotherhood and tolerance for other views and open inquiry into the unknown are all useful. But we as theosophical groups have no exclusive claim to these goals, and we're not particularly effective in always carrying them out. What makes us special, I'd say, is the Teachings themselves, and as long as we preserve them as a living tradition, where there are students with an understanding of them that can act as mentors to new students, our highest value is maintained. When that is gone, we'll end up being another fraternal organization like the Elks or Moose, and a publisher of obscure, not-understood, metaphysical books of antiquity. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Oct 1995 01:03:39 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Symbols and bridges Murray: >I think it's important to remind ourselves that theosophical, as well as >other spiritual/religious/philosophical writing, is language and >therefore a system of symbols. True. Language describes things, it is not the things in themselves. But a clear idea is closer to the truth than a fixed set of words in a book. And a clear, flexible, growing, adapting idea is the best prism or lens with which to view the living reality of things with the mind. >Small symbols (words & phrases) are used >to construct, or refer to, larger symbols such as the concepts of Globes, >"psychic", "spiritual", intuition, the Path, the Masters, etc etc. All >the hot topics on the list plus a host of others. It's easy to get caught in a tower of Babel, and have everyone speaking with no one understanding the other. The basic truths, though, are simple. Purucker spoke of them as the Seven Jewels of Wisdom. They include things like Atma-vidya, self-knowledge. About the basic or essential truths, the rest can be build. Some of the discussion, though, is not arbirary. If we were discussing geography, for instance, we could have our opinions of the layout of the world, but the coastlines won't change to suit everyone's opinions. The map of the world is a particular way, and we can talk about it without getting involved in subjective opinions. With worlds of causes, things take on this "objectivity", where the rules of the game are laid out for us, and we have little influence over them. We play the game of life by the rules if we want to exist. In the worlds of effects, though, things take on an subjectivity, where the appearance and behavior of things is subject to the contents of our consciousness, like in devachan, where we populate the world about us from within. >So we have grand symbols, small ones, deep ones, rich ones, shallow ones, >crabbed ones, clear-windows-on-truth symbols and cloudy symbols. Symbols >we're just discovering with excitement, and symbols we're outgrowing - >all to our own timetables, tho' also in a shared process. The theosophies >of different times and cultures have great breadths and depths of >symbols. We have ideas of all types. Some are beliefs that we've chosen to give ourselves confort and meaning in life. Some are actual understandings of the outer or inner workings of the universe. There's brilliant insights mixed with confusion and lack of understanding. And we have a language barrier at times. But amidst all this, we're learning from each other and growing from the interchange. We have a place to sound out our ideas with our peers, and shouldn't be too concerned if every idea we try out won't stand up as orthodox theosophy. >Even the best "Source" writer is offering us a set of symbols we can try >and reconstruct their thought around, tho' it's more than intellectual >knowledge, in theosophy. It's insight and experience in realms that may >yet be far beyond us that we are being encapsulated. Perhaps we are being >offered stakes to grow up as young plants until our own stems have grown >into trunks. The literal words and initial concepts we're trained in are these stakes. And what we are offered is more than intellectual knowledge, that is just the beginning. >So, like Rich, we can treasure the clarity and inspiration of the >top-quality symbols while, like JRC, we can see them as necessarily >limited compared with what they're trying to express. The materials we are offered allow us to articulate the inner nature of life and experiences we have that go beyond the external physical world. This is just like a study of psychology allows us to be aware of the functioning of our personality and of the personalities of those about us. Knowledge is power, and without it personal experience is far less valuable. >Then Eldon has frequently distinguished "psychic" and "psychism" from >"spiritual" and "intuition", using adjectives like lower and higher. Yes. Lower in the same sense that jogging is a "lower" form of activity than reading the book. >(Again, I'm not boxing-in, but rather picking highlights.) He wonders if >there can be much further coming-together between him and JRC, and JRC >wonders if it could take years to realise the potential of the dichotomy. >Well, for what it's worth, I have personally walked the bridge between a >position similar to Eldon's in this regard to one similar enough to JRC's >to support the distinction I'm making. It's possible at a certain point in life to change our views, and *for us* the change will be viewed as an improvement. I'm not sure that this can be generalized, though, to say that the change is generically good or bad, and should be emulated by others. >When I joined the TS, the contrast between "psychic" methods of perception >and "spiritual" faculties like intuition was made very clear, and I went >along with it. This sounds like the general idea that is promoted. As we see when we go into more detail, like in my discussions with JRC, there's a lot more to it than meets the eye. >Some of my life experiences, like going through the terminal illnes of my >first wife, taught me in a vivid way just how much of the knowledge we >theosophists hold is second-hand, perhaps third-hand. Unfortunately, that's true. Many stop at book learning, get some awareness of the ideas that are being taught, and don't take the next step to make those ideas a living reality in their lives. Without taking this step, the ideas are second-hand or third-hand, and don't provide much insight into the significant events in our lives. >When the >searchlight shines into the basement window, you soon see what you're >entitled to by way of understanding and experience, and what is framework >adopted from someone else. Yes. Significant events in our lives shake us up, take us out of our comfort zones, and get us moving again. Perhaps our thinking was too settled, too pat, too smug, and life needs to stir it up. We need a healthy dose of turbulence in our thoughtlife, so that a newer, fresher order can arise. >Some people in that particular test, lose faith in their religious >concept set, never to regain it. Well, I lost the WAY I held theosophy >but gained something far more valuable in its place, though still centred >on theosophy. And that unsettling can happen again and again. And when we approach chelaship, and enter probation, perhaps it becomes a continual fact of life for us. >As the years went by, I was privileged to have extended contact with >Geoffrey Hodson and some others with inner perception. That tapped hard >on the shell of some of my ideas as well, letting in a bit more light and >air. People with paranormal powers make good gurus, since they can see or do things that make a strong psychological impression on us. Sai Baba, for instance, with daily materializations, is able to inspire a sense of spiritual enthusiasm in thousands of people. >The net result is that, today, I am very conscious of the symbolic nature >of much of our theosophical knowledge. It really is a collection of >MODELS of reality. Wonderful models, and by the magic of all good >symbols, partaking in the life and essence of what they portray, but >models nevertheless. Yes. They are models. But the models can have a degree of objectivity to them, when they deal with the manifest worlds (the spheres of causes). The uncertainity only enters when we talk about the spheres of effects, which is what we experience out-of-the-body when in our Globe D personalities. >So, when I speak or write about theosophy, I often draw on the concepts >to hand, but am deeply reluctant to make certain sorts of definitive >statements, for the simple reason that I've come to sense that reality is >much deeper and richer than the set of symbols we have. I can't easily >describe this awareness, but it's a change that won't go away. You bring up an important point -- that of humility. It requires a good deal of assimilation and integration into our lives before an idea is ready to be taught to the world. Purucker mentions (and I've seem some confirmation in "The Mahatma Letters") of the first three initiations as dealing with our personal approach to the Teachings. The first initiation involves the commencement of our intellectual study of the Teachings. The second involves our "going beyond the words" and having direct insight, a dialog with an "inner teacher". And the third involves our ability to start teaching what we've learned. (These three involve the personality, after which the following four involve the individuality, leaving the personality behind in trance, and are held at the solstices and equinoxes.) >To complete this little bridge-building attempt, let's take the word >"psychic". IMO, there are modes of perception that are non-physical, Yes, I'd call psychic the extension of the physical senses (Linga-Shirira) into the sphere of effects or subjective world that surrounds our earth. >centred on relatively small concerns including a limited concept of the >seer's self, involving shifting and rather dense energy currents and >information pathways, But I wouldn't involve a sense of self nor one's understanding of things with psychic. We can compare thought to energy, and there's an analogy, but thought is like the flame, not the wax (or energy) that fuels it. Cousciousness is independent of its vehicle of expression. Our mind uses the brain, but is not the brain. Our manasic principle uses "mental energies" but is not those energies. >that are the "lower" psychism that we are so often >warned about. It corresponds to small, self-centred modes of >consciousness. Our "pigmy self", as Kahlil Gibran put it. The sense of personal self is a lower function of manas. It is the sense of separate self, and if it becomes the predominate keynote of our awareness, we become selfish and self-centered. The sense of self, though, is unrelated to that of sense perception and manipulation of physical objects of this or the astral plane. >On the other hand, there are modes of perception that are non-physical, >centred on larger concerns, involving subtler, clearer energy currents >etc etc that may be called intuition. I would not call intuition as a wider or more universal functioning of thought, but rather a qualitatively different manner of arriving at understandings. A scientist may have a flash of intuition that solves a difficult problem, then take months or years to "prove" it and demonstrate it scientifically. He did not arrive at it by the rational, step-by-step thought of step a, then step b, then step c, etc. And an author may in a flash get the entire story for a book that takes half a year to write. This is a different faculty than rational thought, and both are different faculties than psychical or physical sense perception. >Yet as I write, the very idea of >perception seems too separative, for this realm of knowing is much more a >resonance phenomenon, a blending of knower and known in a consciousness >space. Yes, I'm at the edge of my knowledge here but, like all of us, >reaching to express an insight. We relate to others on all levels at once. Not just physically, psychically, intellectually, or spiritually. The entire spectrum of consciousness is engaged. So it does not matter a lot if we call the psychic lower than the intellectual or not. It's just one of many ingredients that go into the overall experience. >The problem arises when a person like Eldon (and Eldon, I say this in a >context of much admiration and respect for all that you do) takes the >ready-made word "psychism", with a set of associations that link it >firmly with the lower of the two examples I gave above, then applies it >to certain others who demonstrate non-physical perception. "Lower" is not necessarily bad or inferior. And I distinguish between the dangers of forced development as opposed to natural faculties. There is the aspect of the unreliable nature of information gathered in the subjective worlds. There is much value in the writings of the great sages and seers of the past. And *there are* faculties of consciousness that we can tap into, just as solidly rooted in reality as the psychical, even thought they may be equally far from our being able to physically demonstrate them. >But that may not be doing justice, and could miss much of the truth. It >could be that the experiential inputs of the other person include, but >also go well beyond, the lower perception modes. There are so many >possibilities that who can fully tell, without a superb sensory apparatus >able to encompass the whole field? We cannot tell what is experienced by another. Perhaps a Mahatma could? But we can seek to understand life and apply our understanding to what we see and hear. And that includes our interpretation of the stated experiences of others. Also, I'd still suggest that there is a way of knowing things without "being there and doing it", a faculty of knowing that we are able to develop. >I have come to see that it is terribly easy to box somebody in, in our >language and thoughts, with the best intentions, and quite unconsciously, >by applying ready-made terminology and concepts. And if that somebody is >feeling their way, building understanding in a new world, they could >quite understandably be unwilling to open to others they perceive as too >ready to categorize. That "boxing in" is only if our ideas appear to be a put down, or are harshly critical and judgemental, or fail to understand and appreciate someone's personal experiences. In that case, it would be natural for people to clam up and say nothing. But while we listen with shared appreciation to someone's descriptions of their psychical or mystical experiences, we are not required to accept their personal explanations of what happened. In the 1960's, someone may tell us "I talked to God when I dropped acid." We may listen to the person's experience, but think that the person did not really talk to God, and offer alternate explanations to that person's mystical experience. Since we're in a tradition that promotes the motto "there is no religion higher than truth," we should be seeking it in many ways. One way is by the sharing of personal experiences. Another is by learning and sharing our insights into the Teachings. The two approaches should coexist and be in some form of harmory. >Maybe we need to use other words than the terribly-overworked "psychic". >I've used "non-physical" above, and there are others like >"superphysical". Agreed that the term "psychic" includes too much, and we need more specialized language. With more terms, we might be able to narrow down our focus on what is good and bad, harmful and beneficial, pro and anti spiritual development, etc. >What about direct cognition? Experiential resonance? >Mind-space frequency-lock? Energy pseudopodia sampling? I'm brainstorming >now; what can you come up with? Those terms don't appeal to me, but we'll come up with some. The only danger we should avoid is the approach where we say this is good when I do it, and we'll use this term for it, but it's bad when you do it, and so we'll use this other term for it. If something is not good, coining another term does not make it good. >To close, a big thanks to you guys who are the direct participants in >these on-going discussions. They certainly give the rest of us a great >deal to think about, in many ways. JRC and I still have a lot to work out. Hopefully there will be some further good out of our discussions. The comments of others, like yours, are helpful too, so that JRC and I don't get locked into a too-predictable interchange. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Oct 1995 02:23:03 GMT From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: Symbols and Bridges To Jerry S. and Lewis: >> Murray:< When the >> > > > < >> > > >> Jerry S.: Well said. This is how I lost my faith in >> Christianity. > >Lewis: Curious about the nature of this event. I have often found >people have had some trumatic experience which led them into a search >for answers and thereby to the TS. However, there are also those who >seem to have been born with some sort of "divine discontent" that has >driven them throughout their life on this search and arrived at the >TS's doorstep that way. > >Jerry S to Lewis: >Actually, the two are one and the same. What is "trumatic" to one, is >often no problem at all for another. The incident that I found trumatic >enough to leave Christianity, merely made members of my family >even stronger in their Christian faith. In my case, I had been seeking from a fairly early age, and had known theosophy for about 16 years when my wife's illness came to a head and she died. I used a metaphor of a searchlight in the basement window to describe the way all the foundations of my theosophical "knowledge" were revealed in stark simplicity. I was faced with the question "What do I really know, here?" The pain was only partially alleviated by knowing the theos. ideas of continuation of life, the astral & higher planes etc etc, as they themselves were under the spotlight. Along with this was the feeling that my personal consciousness was such a small, dark space. The old brain box, the place of the skull, thinking of resonances with Golgotha. It's interesting, that though knowledge felt as if it was stripped away and the main "sensation" was of darkness, that that in itself implies an innate memory or intuition of light. Similarly with feeling the brain consciousness to be so small. Maybe that's what guides us all through the valley of the shadow etc. That experience reorganised the way I hold theosophy, making it more essence-oriented and vibrant, and less form-oriented. This took a couple of years to emerge, as the pain softened. Maybe Jerry's experience could be seen as a breaking of a form (Christianity as he held it) followed by expansion into a larger space, theosophy etc. Reminds me of something George Bernard Shaw said that, as he looked back on his life, whenever he was feeling pain, he was learning something. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Oct 1995 05:28:40 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: TS as a cult > [book quoted by Ann, talking about cults]: >"Often, defensiveness and paranoia exist to protect the >cohesiveness of group. To the extreme, it asks that members >sever all ties with family and friends. Anyone outside the >philosophy of the group. The noose gets tighter. It is okay >to deceive outsiders, for a "higher" purpose. The limiting of exposure to outside influence may be done with cults to protect members from the common sense of friends and family. But it also can be because one is working with materials that are not appropriate for public teaching. When a chela is pledged to the Mysteries, his lips are sealed. >Religious sects generally have a universalist philosophy and a >code of behavior touching all aspects of the lives of their >adherents: promote an ideology ostensibly intended to transform >the world. We hear this in every attempt at idealism, be it post-modern science, marxism, fundamentalist Christianity, or some New Age group with a living guru. We're told: Adopt these beliefs and live this life and you'll help transform the world. The problem is that we transform nothing until we are free agents, and have an awakened transformative power within, apart from whatever movements we may join. >The role of the charismatic leader is defined in terms of his >ability to galvanize people into pursuing a transcendent mission. This is true of any group -- good or bad -- and within theosophical groups we have the example of the charisma of Jerry and April Hejka-Ekins building up the LA Lodge (a good thing), which seems to have been running an a much lower energy level since their departure. Another example is John Drais with the San Diego Lodge, which went from a few dozen members to hundreds in a year, then mostly died off when he moved it out of town onto a desert site near Dulzura, California. The lodge eventually moved back to San Diego, but with John's departure, it had but a handful of members, and folded in a few years, being totally without any remaining inspiration and energy. >The transcendent mission of a routinized charismatic group is >expressed in its rites and rituals. Using these behavioral >prescriptions, the group establishes standards of how its members >should conduct themselves in their own lives and in their joint >activities, in conformity with the group's mission. With any social group, there is a manner of dress, a method of living life, and other external signs of belong. Members of street gangs dress in gang colors. Members of a certain religious group may shave their heads or wear robes. In the case of spiritual groups, these are external reinforcements for the individual still looking to be told what to do. >Danger comes when power is concentrated in the hands of a single >individual, who proves unfit to manage it. Deranged leaders may >possess improper concentrations of power and stifle contact with >the outside world. This is very true. But power is self-conferred. We choose to follow others. A leader only has power to the extent that the followers accord it. The problem is not protecting the followers from dangerous leaders, it is in awakening people into self-responsibility. >The pursuit of new members is an important component of ritual. >It supports members' commitment by underlining the credibility of >the movement, since the testimony of new members provides further >validation of the group's ideals. This sounds like Daniel H. seeking converts, rather than simply being happy to share his views with others of different beliefs. I don't care if he "converts" to Theosophy or not -- that's his choice. He probably cares a lot if some of us convert to his belief system. >Involvement in newfound rituals >creates conflict in the member's preexisting relationships, since >major changes in commitment and lifestyle do not come without a >disruptive effect. A good example of this is when someone becomes vegetarian for religious reasons, and is eager to let others know of their foul ways. >There is a tendency to divide the world into >good within their own group and the evil lodged in their >enemies." Yes. This is the problem with the "exclusive source" or "exclusive approach" mentality, which we see even in the theosophical groups. >How does this definition of a "cult" fit current theosophical >groups? There are some correspondences, but not an exact match, except perhaps with certain lodges or centers. That would be the fault of the people in those branches, and not of the movement itself. Theosophy is geared towards providing us with keys to understand many of the problems of life, but does not come with a prepackaged religion with rules regarding pious living. We are not told what to do, but taught pure philosophy and trained in learning to both think for ourselves. We eventually learn, if we're fortunate, to awaken our "inner teacher" and go beyond the intellectual content of our teachings into a more direct perception of Truth. At that point, we cannot be mislead, because we're not dependent upon the purity of the source of the book that we read, because we can also look inward for answers and confirmation of what we externally read. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Oct 1995 05:55:17 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: RE: Rich on CWL & Censorship Ann (writing to Rich): >I have always considered Brenda to be a very intelligent, highly advanced and >sweet person. She opened my eyes to the beauty of the Secret Doctrine by her >posts. When you took it upon yourself to tell her to remove herself from the >list, I simply could not tolerate your rudeness any longer. I remember about 1 1/2 years ago Brenda and Jerry Hejka-Ekins also got into an argument over if he would be entitled to continue posting regarding CLW. Brenda asked him to stop writing on the subject, and he replied that he should not have to stop writing about something just because she did not want to read it. A few months later, Jerry had a particularly long post on CLW and Brenda decided to drop out, not wanting to see the historic materials anymore. She came back about eight months later, and continued on the list for perhaps half a year, but now has dropped out again, for the same reason: not wanting to read the historic discussion about Leadbeater. >I am very near to finishing Ancient Mystic Rites, a book by CWL. It is about >the history of the Masons. Everyone on this list has the basic freedom to read >whatever book we want, by whatever author we choose. True. And to offer our own book reviews, which don't necessarily flatter the authors. >There may be others on the list who are eager to debate CWL versus Judge, Bailey >versus Blavatsky, etc. In my vision, it's just a lot of apples and oranges, but >basically still fruit. Which one goes down the gullet better for you. The discussion goes back to the granting of "authority", as Arthur Patterson has described it. We decide which authors are authoritative, and give their books greater weight. >>Is it any wonder that Theosophy has so little public hearing today, so little >>attention paid by the intelligentsia and empowered folks? It's all based upon what we teach, and how well that appeals to the spirit of others. If we can deeply stir them, we can do them good. If we don't overpower the natural inertia and resistance against change, we leave them untouched. >I think the real power exists with Christ, Buddha, the Masters, >their disciples, the New Group of World Servers, Theosophists and any sincere >person working for unity and brotherhood. Not so much, I'd say, for unity and brotherhood, as for leading people to realize that "the kingdom of heaven is already on earth." That is, to bringing people to awaken to the spiritual treasure that is *found within*, and to become expressive of it in the world. >The real power is on the inner planes. The inner planes are impotent on this plane, except through us as agents. The spiritual is impotent on the physical, except as we give it expression. We are responsible to manifest the highest, most lofty, most deeply moving of the divine as we are capable. It is in our creative acts that the spiritual manifests in this world. What happens on the other planes has no direct effect on our world, except in and through us. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Oct 1995 07:29:03 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: (none) hy >I sincerely hope that scientists are and will be more open to trying to >apply the scientific method to the "intangible realms". They are and they do. There is a distinction between science as a formalized process of discovering truth and the opinions of so-called scientists. Science as a process if perfectly applied is infallible while scientists make mistakes. The central idea of science is making and testing predictions. If one can make a prediction which comes true based upon one's ideas then one is at least heading toward some right understanding of reality. As the intagible realms become real in our experience they will be "discovered" by science. The skepticism in science is a good thing and serves a shield against all the mistakes and delusions that the mystically inclined (and many who purport to be theosophists) fall into. Science will accept anything that is demonstrated by the test of prediction. Theosophists would be well served by following a similar process in dealing with all the fantastical (and mostly foolish) psychic claims of so many new agers today. Reductionism is one way of problem solving but it is not wired into science. There are any number of books and articles on holistics and synergetics in all areas which are accepted by science in general. Peace, Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Oct 1995 08:02:30 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Latest Revelation! According to Richtay@aol.com: > > Paul, > > Most of the "claimants" you mention are so clearly cranks. I mean, ELIZABETH > CLARE PROPHET? come on! > > Why give these silly folks more air time? Objective, scholarly discussion of them isn't necessarily "air time." The sillier ones collapse of their own weight, but are well known enough to merit inclusion. > > Why not focus on the serious Theosophical traditions today, comparing their > approaches, philosophies, practical works, thoughts on the future. You could > include Anthroposophy, Roerichs, etc. too. That's a project we could ALL > cooperate on, and it wold do more practical good than reviewing the history > of "claimants." My network of potential collaborators is much more outside Theosophical ranks than within it. And I don't expect much Theosophical support for such a book. Thus a diverse coverage better reflects the situation of the writers and potential editor. PJ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Oct 1995 12:27:28 GMT From: Coherence@aol.com Subject: Re: Question to Jerry HE The explanation of position by this apparently long-time student presents some wise words about how we should view our "Teachers". Of course HPB and the Masters are human and fallible. They themselves have said so, clearly. That some students idolize them or assume they are perfect is the problem of the students not of the Teachers. In the ML's, KH states that an Adept is only one when acting as one, using the analogy of a permanently flexed muscle -- not easy, if not impossible -- and even then when acting as one, subject to some difficulties. KH tells the very funny story of one of his fellow workers "communicating" with a friend in some telepathetic manner and ran into a beam, bloodying his nose. Now let's face it, these are the stories of inspiration to us because they tell us that these great beings ARE OR WERE MEN, HUMAN, and that we too can reach the level where they are. Personally, for me, I feel closest to them when I realize that they are just like me, only a little further along, and that if I try real hard, I can catch up.. What better picture is there than HPB continuously rolling smoking her own cigarettes? What fun! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Oct 1995 12:27:29 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: RE: Chakra Developmrnt TO: James Yungkans When I first started using Harry's way, I wasn't allowed to teach it or talk about it. After I'd pestered him long enough, Harry said OK, I can tell others about it. I have a page he wrote up himself, but I also wrote up several pages for a young friend who'd never meditated before, & then went on to use it successfully. Would it be ok with you, if you'd send me your mailing address, so I could put it into the snail mail? Please note my new e-mail address liesel@dreamscape.com Namaste Liesel PS I saved your comments about HPB the wrong way, & can't find them anymore. If you still have them, could you please forward me a copy. I find I'm often in agreement with what you have to say. LFD From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Oct 1995 12:27:29 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: koans, from WWW My 1st evening on Dreamscape, they have an easy browser for WWW & I've been vrowsing through Buddhist things. Found 2 koans I thought you'd enjoy, so here they are: "2 sages were standing on a bridge over a stream. One said to the other,"I wish I were a fish. They are so happy." The other replied "How do you know whether fish are happy, or not? You're not a fish." The first one said "But you're not me, so how do you know whether or not I know how fish feel?" Joshu asked the teacher Nansen,"What is the True Way?" Nansen answered, "Every way is the true Way." Joshu asked "Can I study it?" Nansen asnwered, "the more you study, the further from the Way." Joshu asked, "If I don't study it, how can I know it?" Nansen answered,"The Way does not belong to things seen: nor to things unsee. It does not belong to things known: nor to things unknown. Do not seek it, study it, or name it. To find yourself on it. open yourself as wide as the sky." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Oct 1995 15:30:32 GMT From: LIESEL@delphi.com Subject: Re: Marley's ghost Jerry Riiiight. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Oct 1995 15:43:50 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: The power behind TS > KPJ > >Thus he used Mahatma letters both to establish his half-share in > >the ES leadership, and then to take over the whole enchilada. > anne: > Ah, yes. The little known, but often feared, Enchilada Section. > If you step out of line they douse you in chili sauce and roll > you in a tortilla. They claim to be in touch with Don Diego, > who also goes under the > name of Master Zorro. They meet in secret at various Taco Bells > around the country. > Lewis: You got me smilin' Thank YOU! llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Oct 1995 15:50:10 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: RE: cults > ann: > Does the end justify the means? IMHO, a group could start out with a positive > desire, need or impulse and then proceed to use the worst possible ways to > accomplish their objectives. Lewis: Good point. You've got me thinking again. I know motive is an important element, and agree with you that the end may not justify the means. These damn platitudes have got me all balled up! Guess I'll have to do a little contemplating. llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Oct 1995 21:28:04 GMT From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: The power behind the TS Subj: RE: the power behind the TS >Ann: >>Speaking of food, I got a delicious recipe for Artichoke and >>Wild Rice Casserole that was served to us at Olcott's Saturday >>workshop. If you wish a copy, please e-mail me and I will send >>it along. > >Jerry: >Sounds great! Please send. I have a great recipe for curried >black eyed peas you might like. Please send it to me too! Talk of Olcott events reminds me of when Jocelyn & I worked at Olcott from June to September 1989. People, events, food ... . Loved them all. This recipe stuff is the REAL roots of theos! Murray murray@sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Oct 1995 21:28:05 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: Re: The power behind the TS Dear Murray, I'd love to have a copy of your recipe for the artichoke & wild rice casserole. Sounds yummy. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Oct 1995 22:29:14 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Rich on CWL & Censorship Brenda comes as goes as she pleases, apparently, and this seems okay to me. I have just read what is apparently the only biography on CWL, namely *The Elder Brother* by Gregory Tillet, published by a major publisher, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1982. Flabbergasting, really. There was of course mentio of his questionable sexual practices, which went WAY BEYOND teaching masturbation, and the author quotes primary sources from the people themselves who were CWL's inner students. The evidence is abundant, and very convincing, not just one or two vague statements but extensive court records, testimony, eye-witnesses, letters from the boys themselves, etc. BUT that is not the primary focus of the book at all. It is rather on CWL's life and work, and in 21 chapters, only 2 focus on the sexual questions at length. And what is most marked about CWL's life, from source documents and his own books and speeches, is the degree to which he was aware of his own duplicity. WL conferred initiations on all kinds of people "on the authority of Masters" and constantly quoted "Master" as the authority for this or that action. He almost never said "let's do it because of this or that philosophical or ethical reason." Rather, it was what the Master SAID to do. And as for his writings, it was almost entirely psychic visions. His writing is far beneath HPB's, for she gives extensive footnotes and documentation for what she says -- Plato, Shankaracarya, Tsong-Kha-Pa, etc. etc. etc. She takes on nearly every human field of knowledge, sums up their (then-) current positions, and challenges them to go further. HPB almost NEVER says "on my personal authority, I have seen it in the astral plane, and so it is." It is hard to find an author more dedicated to backing up what she says with historical and contemporary secondary material. The differnce not only in style but in caliber between CWL and the Founders is more clear to me than ever before, and while this biography has plenty of nice and generous things to say about CWL (the author is not a Theosophist and seems to have no personal axe to grind), the evidence is in on CWL's Theosophy, and it seems very degraded and authoritarian indeed. Yet when others, like Besant, Arundale, Wedgwood, or Jinarajadasa, spoke "for the Masters" CWL denied it. They were not allowed to do what he did. When Krishnamurti started to complain about the ritualism, the costumes, the 2 and 1/2 hour LCC services, the "initiations" CWl would say that the Christ wasn't speaking through Krishnaji just then. If ever Krishnamurti said something good about the LCC or whatever, THEN CWL declared that Krishnaji was speaking for the Christ. Sad. Quite an education. I hope I haven't pissed people off with the report on this biography. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Oct 1995 22:29:16 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Psychism Why is it, JRC, that one is allowed to make appeals to the "authority" of the 3rd Object, which you say seems to allow the PRACTICAL investigation of psychic phenomena, and then ignore the "dark, spooky" warnings of those Founders who DESIGNED those 3 original objects? If anyone should know what was intended by those 3 objects, and what they were meant to "authorize" (if anyone cares for their "authority"), wouldn't it be the Founders who wrote out the objects and the constitution that went with them? In their writings, ALL THREE Founders, HPB, HSO and WQJ make clear their worries and the worries of their Teachers regarding psychic investigation. All three seem to speak urgently of having an immense background in ethics and philosophy before even beginning PRACTICAL occultism. We are of course free to follow or disregard their advice. But I do not think Eldon is being a hypocrite (a word which you did NOT use) for quoting the source teachings of Theosophy to shed light on the 3rd Object. I do not hear Eldon saying "Boo, hiss, JRC shall NOT pursue his psychic experiments." Rather, I hear from Eldon caution, careful consideration, and a highlighting of our sources on the topic. No condemnation. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 09 Oct 1995 22:44:52 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: re: re Wheaton and Cults Eldon wrote: > We're selling ourselves short when we divert our energies, as a movement, > into feeding the poor, fighting bad laws through political challenges, or > concentrating on psychological self-help. As individuals, we may feel a > personal calling into such avenues of service, but as a movement, it's > not, I'd think, a good thing to do. In general, I agree with this, although Jerry H-E's point, I suspect, was not to pitch the Theosophical organizations headlong into strictly volunteer work for social change. Rather, all the Theosophical organizations could put more stress on individual responsibility in this area, and give more credit and notice of work (not PEOPLE) in this direction. I personally know of a great many good deeds that are done by Theosophists, and it might be nice to hear more of them (without names attached) in the interest of inviting people to make the philosophy APPLICABLE and to rejoice in the fact that we do more than talk, we work our butts off too! RIch From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 01:09:06 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: To Eldon JRC: > > How about your attitudes about them [psychic powers]? > > How open are they to mitigation? > They come from 20 years of reading, contemplating, and needing to > match philosophy with experience. They are open to alteration and growth, > but you have not mentioned anything that I haven't heard over and over > again in Theosophical circles. I'm 44, and so we're at similar ages. I started in Leadbeater's version of Theosophy in August 1965, and joined the T.S. at that time. I think that it was around 1970 that I was introduced to Purucker and adopted his particular theosophical school. Being familar with the ideas that I'm discussing and not being satisified with them, you're not impressed with them. That's fine. Not everyone finds the ideas useful in their lives. My experience with the ideas has been different than yours, since I find them highly valuable. Regarding our discussion of psychic powers, we should probably break out the numerous powers that come under that general heading, so we can discuss their respective merits and shortcomings. > > When we see something that we don't agree with, after a while, we feel it > > necessary to say something. Since we disagree, there will be that tendency > > for either of us to respond to what we see written, offering our alternate > > viewpoint. You seem to be saying that I should do all the rethinking, and > > don't admit to any being necessary on your part. This sounds like you're > > coming from a fixed position. > Do you remember how this conversation started? I did not begin by > asserting "psychic" powers should be developed, or that psychic > experiences should be spoken about, or that they were higher than any > other experience. I responded to an initial post of yours in which I > heard the oft-repeated Theosophical dogma about "psychic" powers being > forwarded. Then we can say that for this round of discussions my comments came first. If you want to tell me that there is value to the psychic powers, you'll need to describe how and why this value exists, and not dismiss my discounting of them as "oft-repeated Theosophical dogma." > I began by saying that this position, to me as well as to > others I know, effectively suppresses the willingness of people to > discuss experiences that are relevant to their spiritual lives, How or in what way are the experiences relevant to their spiritual lives? Is it because of some external validation for some beliefs that cannot stand on their own? I would suggest that we can have the same spiritual experience without the psychic, like in gazing upon a sunset or listening to a moving piece of music. The psychic provides added variety to the sights and sounds of life, but in itself is unrelated to what goes on in our minds and hearts. > and further, that to myself and to at least some others I know, > that dogmatic model is not sufficient to explain actual experience. Give an example of where you see things not fitting, and we can discuss it. > Several others on > the list, since the discussion began, have mentioned that this dogma, in > Theosophical circles, *has* stopped them from even bringing the topic up. You seem to be calling certain ideas that you disagree with as "dogma". That implies that the ideas are taken on someone's authority, that one accepts them without thinking. This seems to be saying that my ideas are dogmatic, whereas yours are not, since you're not referring to your ideas as dogma as well. We may disagree on some of the ideas, but my acceptance of the ideas that I present is because I'm convinced that they are true, and that what you belief is in error. We can discuss our respective beliefs and come to some understanding of each other, but I'm not sure if we'll come to an agreement. If we want to make progress in a discussion, all of us have to give up our pet authorities and talk from our own understandings. Daniel H. would have to give up his Bible quotes and say what he thinks. I would have to speak my views without theosophical quotes. And you would have to speak your understanding without using personal psychical experiences in any authoritative sense. > My position may be "fixed" every bit as much as yours, but it > does not close conversational doors. So let's keep the doors open. They remain open when we each can speak from our own views, apart from any of us resorting to some external authority to back us up. > > For purposes of science, we may investigate things that are known to be > > dangerous, ... When the subjects are informed of the risks, and their > > participation in the experiments is for the purposes of scientific > > investigation, an execption to the "don't do it -- it's dangerous" > > rule might apply. > I don't know where you've learned of these dangers you mention, > but I have experienced none of them. In fact, to myself, and to the > others I research with, there seems to be an obsession in Theosophical > circles with darkness and danger and all manner of spooky things. What are the dangers? That's another area of discussion that we could go into. I'll try to mention the few that immmediately come to mind. Perhaps Daniel C. or Rich Taylor could help out with a few quotes to illustrate what is said in the theosophical literature. We could meet a mediumistic person, among whose "spirit guides" include some kama-rupas. One could follow us home, being attracted to some weakness in our character to which we fall prey. We could open up the ability to hear voices, or see various images, while awake, and have unwelcome voices or images intruding upon our daily awareness. This would be much like someone living in a bad neighborhood, when leaving the windows open, hearing the unwholesome sounds outside. We might take our subjective experiences as objective and real, and start teaching others about the astral world, as seen through our eyes. But the world that we see is what we've expected, and is greatly a product of our own unconscious contents. There is psychic intoxication, perhaps as powerful as that of any physical experience. You might call an experience "damn thrilling". I'd compare one to the same trill as is found in skydiving or a rollercoater, the thrill of the senses. We're warned of the addictive nature of the exercise of occult powers. The possession of occult powers can be an obstacle to spiritual development, to the extent that it leads to an intensification of the sense of personal self and ego. Having or not having the powers does nothing for one's spiritual nature. If their posession leads to a sens of self-importance and personal pride, they are a new obstacle to the Path. With the practice of the iddhis or paranormal powers, there's the danger than kundalini may be aroused, with the danger of maddness or physical death if not in the presence of overpowering spirituality. Desire can be magnified, and if one is sexually active, or drinks, or uses various drugs, the power over one's consciousness of these stimulants can be too much to handle. I'm sure if I had time I'd think of more... These were all negatives. How about you listing the positives that readily come to mind with you? > To me, > however, this is the equivilent of telling someone I'm going to New York, > and then being warned that there is dirt in the gutters and that I might > be deluded by its inhabitants - to which my response would be, so what? I > have no desire to walk in the gutters, and I'm certainly not gullible > enough to believe everything someone says simply because they are from > New York anyway - to me a lot of the Theosophical dogma about such things > seems like anachronistic superstition. There may be sorcerers on some subplanes of the astral. They would be dangerous to encounter. Generally, the biggest danger is taking what is seen to be real, whereas it is no more real or objective than our personal opinions. > you have made > continual appeals to the "authority" of "source" teachings as the > foundation for justifying your position on inner abilities ... and in > fact seem to assert the point that the development of abilities is not > part of the "path" we are offered in Theosophy. Authority is self-conferred, and if you've read the literature and find little value in it, you would naturally not accept it in support of my position. But I don't say that my position rests solely on being able to find Blavatsky quotes. My position comes from what I consider to be a practice of the spiritual/intellectual approach. My experiences in this regard, though, are no more an authority to you than your experiences would be to me. And we have differing explanations of what is really happening in the other's experiences. > In response, I mentioned that the Third Object seems to make both the > discussion and use of inner abilities valid "Theosophical" pursuits. In a theosophical group, if the third object is interpreted in a certain way, I'd agree that it would be within the charter of the organization. For people with natural abilities, their exploration with those abilities might be useful. But I would not take someone's explanations as authoritative because of their psychic abilities. > In what way is using the Third object as a foundation, in the same way > as you use quotes to back up your position, an attempt to "restrict" > the list? We're free to share both our personal experiences and our personal understandings. And we can discuss the theosophical philosophy too, based upon source Theosophy. We are not a theosophical society, though, we are an independent group. So the agenda of any group neither gives us permission to do things nor restricts us as to what we can do. > > Perhaps another approach > > would be to break apart all the different things that might be labelled > > as "psychic" and discuss their individual merits and shortcomings, so > > that they aren't all lumped into a single category. > Actually, this is my last post on this subject for now. I was > making an attempt, as I have periodically over the years I've visited > Theosophy, to assert a particular position that might perhaps make some > people more comfortable to discuss particular aspects of their spiritual > life within the Theosophical current People may feel uncomfortable about talking about their paranormal experiences if they expect to be met with harsh criticism. They deserve to be treated with friendliness and kindness. If they are puzzled or troubled by their experiences, and they are looking to Theosophy for some answers, we can share our understanding of the Teachings. But we cannot give them answers; we can only help them with their studies as fellow students. What may be resented by a psychic in coming to a theosophical group is if he is criticized and put down rather than given hope and encouragement in his personal spiritual quest. When we talk about Theosophy to him, what we say would seem to be cold, lifeless, cruel words, unless there's the warmth of spirituality, a sense of heart, and loving kindness behind the words. > ... an attempt to put a crack in > what I perceive to be a very thick wall (and I understand those who > uphold that wall do not perceive things this way ... but I do.) The "wall" is not the doctrines and teachings that we have, but rather a negative psychological attitude that any of us can fall prey to. The attitude is that we help people by telling them what to think or how to live their lives. (Here, "we" is you, me, and all the rest of us, in varying degrees.) > > there are many paths. Some schools may involve the psychic in > > their training. I'd still want a Mahatma or Chela to oversee my > > training, if I were to enter such a school, and not experiment on > > my own. > Yes, but you may not be one of that growing number of people to > whom such things are arising quite naturally. For them, they have to deal with their experiences. But the experiences are those of the senses of future races, enhanced powers of the external senses and flesh-and-blood man. The experiences are not the Path, but rather a mutation of our external form, like being born with six toes on our feet. The Path is something different, and psychic people as well as non-psychic can be attracted to it, or indifferent to it. Having psychic abilities is not a sign of advancement nor spiritual status -- not any more than is having blue eyes or black hair. Regarding various occult powers and paranormal experiences, I'm not holding my breath while waiting for them in my life. I'm quite happy to work with self-development and trying to live a creative life in the world. I don't need astral sight, a spirit guide to talk to, nor visits to the astral plane to awaken a spiritual awareness nor enhance my ability to express my higher faculties in this world. > > The spiritual/intellectual approach is not an > > exclusive one. It's one that is often spoken of in our > > theosophical literature, and one that I find valuable. Sometimes > > when you write you seem to deny that there is such a school, and > > I feel inclined to offer an alternate view. > This seems to be rather re-doing the history of this discussion a > bit. Where, precisely, have I even *implied* that your approach > does not exist, or even that it is not valid? You've talked about mere book learning, as though it is something less than your approach, without seeming to recognize that there can be a strong spiritual/intellectual practice associated with it. I'm glad that you accept the validity of the spiritual/intellectual approach. > All I've ever said is that it is not *exclusive*, and not the > only valid path for Theosophists to follow. Then we can agree on this. But there is a difference between the many valid paths for us as individuals to follow, and what is in the highest good for theosophical groups to promote. > You are the one saying that it is *the* one being spoken of in > Theosophical literature. If you read Blavatsky, Judge, and Purucker, you may see a particular approach being prompted. There are definite statements about chelaship and the Path to be found in "The Mahatma Letters". We could discuss what they said, althought I don't have access to books to quote when writing at work on my laptop, at the start of the day. With the third object of the T.S., we have a goal of investigating unexplained powers in nature and man. That does not, in itself, imply a path of development, but rather a pursuit of knowledge. There may be other methods of training spoken of by other theosophical writers. Perhaps you could outline a few alternate approaches. There *are* other approaches in the world. The Indians may have used peyote and sweat lodges in their training, and physically induced paranormal experiences as a way of awakening people. In the mideast, dancing may have been used. In India, there are various forms of yoga. In Tibet, various methods of visualizations of deities are used. > To somehow cast this discussion as one > in which I've been trying to deny the existance of the > "spiritual/intellectual" approach, while you are simply humbly > defending it and offering an alternative point of view is > disingenuous My reaction to some of your writings is that you are either denying or heavily discounting the approach. Since you say you're not doing so, I stand corrected. We *are* both defending our views and offering them as an alternative viewpoint at times, when we've heard too much of the other side, and no one else has spoken up. > - you have said that as a general rule elements of > what *I* consider to be my path are to be discouraged, because > Theosophy offers us another, "higher" path. How or in what way is talking to your non-physical friends a path? Does it tie in with some formal method of training? Forced psychic development is to be discouraged. An awakening heart and soul are to be encouraged. If you are working on your self-awakening, that's fine. It's just that I would have to disagree if you were to suggest that there's some connection between paranormal experiences and the inner awakening. The paranormal is an incidential side effect, and not always present; it is not the cause of anyone's spiritual awakening. (I'm not suggesting here that you've said that it was.) > > You're free to have your personal interpretation, as am I. But > > apart from our personal views, it should be possible to see what > > is plainly said in the books, with the exception of deeply > > esoteric truths. > But this gets into the "Christian" problem. The founders wrote so > much that one can enter those "writings" from any angle one wishes, and > by selectively quoting, can justify many different, and very > contradictory, positions. That's true to an extent. When we stop at the dead letter of the books, and hold fast to literal quotes, we're missing the content, the message, the Teachings, and there's no real personal understanding or insight. In some clear-cut cases, the quotes can clearly indicate a point. Other times, they are open to interpretation. But they are an imperfect attempt at putting into writing various doctrines and knowledge of the Mahatmas, and that *content* is of significant value. We cannot discount it by playing word games, nor by an abuse of the written word. > Both the Pope and Jerry Falwell read the same Bible. They > would both say they are seeing "plainly" what is said. That is why I've said at times that Theosophy is much more than the mere printed books. We need a living tradition of people that understanding the Teachings to pass on what they've learned, to help with study classes, and carry forward in their understanding a living knowledge of what cannot be contained on the printed page. The fact that there are multiple possible interpretations of writings, and people can interpret things to their own advantage, points out how writing, as a communication media, is subject to abuse, and has many shortcomings. It does not disprove the presence of fragments of Mystery Teachings contained in the theosophical literature. > My view of what Theosophy is includes this current incarnation > ala HPB, but goes considerably beyond it. I would, for instance, > include the writings of some neo-Platonists (as HPB herself did > as well) , and many of them, as well as the Gnostics, showed > signs of advanced levels of the development and use of inner > abilities. I don't say that great teachings cannot be found in other traditions. And advanced individuals would potentially have occult powers, although many may not talk about them. But at the same time, they may also have great faculties of consciousness that they likewise don't openly speak about. > Ah yes, but I've said virtually nothing about my actual personal > experiences. This has been a general discussion ... and before > I've even offered personal experiences, you've already stated > clearly the theoretical construct in which they would be placed - In a sense, yes. The construct is the theosophical doctrines, and their description of the outer and inner processes of life. I would use what keys I've been provided in my studies, meditations, and inner work, to provide an understanding of things that I see and hear in life. Until you outline your actual personal experiences, we're talking in generalities, since I cannot comment on your specific situation. Any "theoretical construct" that you or I may apply to an experience is subject to review, growth, and change. When you use terms like "theoretical construct", you're saying that the way of knowing about things is either through personal experience or through theories about life. That seems to be denying a form of *direct knowing*, a faculty of mind, which I'd say is available for any of us to unfold. > and what I've been saying all along is that to myself, and to > others, this appears as prejudgement. You have evaluated my > experiences, and are stating your right to hold your evaluations, > before I've even submitted any specific experience. I'm evaluating things in the sense of talking about them and seeking to understand them. I'mnot evaluating them in the sense of passing personal judgement on you, when all the facts and evidence has not yet been presented for my review. > No. My experiences have not yet been discussed. To paint me as > the poet and yourself as the dispassionate philosopher seems a > bit condescending. In writing my comments, my intent was not to be condescending. As a student of Theosophy, I'd apply its philosophy to your experiences. And I'd also apply my own views. If there are aspects of your experiences that would be useful for the list to consider, you should present them. > I have been arguing a philosophical position > about the place of inner abilities in people's spiritual lives. You keep calling the psychic as "inner abilities" which does not distinguish them from mental and spiritual faculties. One difference that we have it that I don't lump it all together and equate, say, seeing someone's aura with an genuine enlightenment experience at a Zen retreat. As to their place in people's spiritual lives, it's the same as the place of the ability to ice skate, cook pizza, or sing -- they're all faculties of perception and external skills at doing things. They say nothing of the *content* of our consciousness. > The point I was making here is that you do *not* seem to be doing > a philosophical analysis of my experiences, but rather that you > seem ready to catagorize experience before experience is even > presented - which is *not* philosophy. Yes, I cannot analyze *your* experiences, until you tell them. But I can talk about the nature of the psychic, where it functions in our life, and its relevance to the Path. I can deal with the big picture even if you haven't provided sufficient information for me to comment on your particular life situation. > My position has been a > philosophical one: I've been saying that, from the point of view > of both myself and others who are working with them, the > *catagories* and *assumptions* at the root of the standard > Theosophical dogma badly need to be re-thought, as they may not > match experienctial reality. I'd like to know where you feel you've experiences a "mismatch". If you consider the theosophical doctrines to be poorly thought out dogma, needing revision to match actual life, perhaps you've read the wrong books, or not gone beyond the dead-letter of the printed page to see some of the wonders that the books contain. The books are only the start, the "diving board" off of which we "leap" to engage a tremendous inner process. My experience with what is found with the Teachings is different than yours. I'm not sure that when you talk about your experiential reality that is validated by yourself and others, that it's really validated, apart from a subjective, personal sense. We tend to hang out with others of similar beliefs, those that reinforce our views, and your "and others" may be such people. Experiential reality is found *by doing things*. But "doing things" is not limited to physical events or psychic experiences. We can "do" spiritual states of consciousness, and other inner changes that are as real as any vision or out-of-the-body experience. > If you wish to be the dispassionate > philosopher, (IMO) you must be as willing to open your catagories > and assumptions to question as you are to fit the experience of > others into them. We can talk about our various foundation beliefs -- you about yours and me about mine. As students of Theosophy, we both should be open to comparing our beliefs to the source teachings, to see how and why we may differ from them. > Modern Theosophy, however, is not a "school" ... the Masters may > run schools, HPB may have run a school, but Theosophy is a large > set of writings, a number of different philosophical perspectives, The Masters run and may yet be students in the Mystery Schools. Some of their representatives like Blavatsky or Purucker may have junior schools for non-chelas. These are schools in the sense of there being a Teacher present, acting in the capacity of a Guru, to the students. I'd say *the study of Theosophy* itself constitutes a school, and can lead to an inner awakening, and eventual acceptance into the Mysteries. Yes, in the theosophical literature, there are many books, showing a number of different perspectives. We'd have to consider each author individually to see if he was speaking of the same Esoteric Philosophy, or not. All differences are not simply matters of viewpoint on the same truth. Some differences are simply based upon error or misunderstanding. > and was intended (IMO) to be a vehicle (one of very > many) the Masters could use to serve humanity *through*. Yes. One of many projects to tend to the needs of infant humanity. > Theosophy is not a school with "a" method. Theosophy is not, but the theosophical groups have the literature, which itself represents *a* method. This does not exclude other approaches within or without the T.S. > But there is a difference between the philosophical > generalization and the institutional generalization. ... saying > something like "Theosophy teaches a path, and that path is to > avoid development of the psychic and follow the > intellectual/spiritual path" ... this is ... the generalization > of a particular view of Theosophy into a general (or "the") view. One particular school within Theosophy, which Purucker aptly describes in his books, does teach avoiding development of the psychic and the following of the spiritual/intellectual approach. There are other schools and approaches. If a theosophical group wishes to itself be a school, it needs to adopt *a* approach. If it wishes to be a meeting ground for people, but not a school itself, it needs to adopt *no approaches*. Which way should a group go? It depends upon the group and its leadership. > However I do not agree with your view of what "appropriate" > expressions of passion are. It was the defenses that your > initial posts sparked in me that began this whole discourse ... > yet you would say you did nothing inappropriate. Perhaps we cannot generalize, and say that any manner of communication is bad, although offensive styles are best to be avoided, except when there's a good reason for them. It all depends upon whom we're writing to, and the desired reaction, and how we want the interchange to go. > > someone else can see us as being at each other's throats, whereas > > we're sipping tea, having cookies, and having a lively chat. > Good point (-:). Of course, the more concrete and detailed we get in our writings, the more likely we'll get the other mad, and the more likely we'll get flamed by others reading this. We don't really have to have any goals for this discussion. The ideas are useful to mull over and each of us will learn as much from one's self, in doing the writing, as from the other. In writing, we're bringing a sense of consciousness to a perhaps ill-defined area of disagreement in the theosophical community. That's useful, even if we don't work out an agreement on the philosophical ideas. More cookies? -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 04:35:01 GMT From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: The power behind the TS Liesel, Slight misunderstanding. Ann's the one with the artichoke and wild rice casserole. I just chipped in and asked for a copy of it, like half of theos-roots. Hey - welcome to theos-roots, where all the best recipes are!!! ;-) Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 05:22:12 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: Blavatsky's "golden James writes: JY >Jerry, the difficulty I see is that everyone reads the words >written, and they do not look beyond the veil, beyond Literal >meaning I haven't 'read' Isis (I use an Index to reference it), >but find some outlandish statement true from a certain point of >view. JY >You MUST remember that this form of writing, using one analogy >to mean another, was common among the initiates of Greece, Rome, >Egypt, as well as many other places today unknown. Don't judge >the book by it's cover, I believe is the correct phrase to use. I think it is fascinating that you read meaning into HPB's writings in this manner. You are quite right that the Greek, Roman and the Egyptian cultures used certain imagery in their writings that were really analogies for other, deeper concepts. Probably the most impressive demonstration of this kind of interpretation that we have is Porphyry's essay "On the Cave of the Nymphs" written in the third century of our era. The interpretation concerns a description of the cave in Homer's ~Odyssey~, near where Odysseus re-awakens on his home island after twenty years of being lost at sea. Porphyry considers each image in the cave: the stone looms, the purple cloth, the honey pots, and of course the two entrances. Porphyry interprets the description as symbolic of the death and reincarnation of humanity and the comings and going of the gods. He also connects it to an astrological system. It is quite a fascinating read and is instructive for the interpretation of sacred texts in general, whether they be certain (but not all) Bible stories, like Sampson or Jonah, or the Greek myths. However, it is also clear that these symbols had fixed meaning within their own systems. Blavatsky also discusses this method of interpretation and gives lots and lots of examples of how it works although ~The Secret Doctrine.~ On the other hand, ~The Secret Doctrine~ is not the type of text that Blavatsky or Porphyry would identify as being intended for this kind of interpretation--which leads me into the more problematic side of your system here. Even if ~The Secret Doctrine~ was intended for this kind of interpretation, we would still need to know the system of correspondences before we could apply them. Otherwise, a free wheeling use of this system can make almost anything say almost anything. On the other hand, there are "blinds" in ~The Secret Doctrine~, if you want to call them that. For instance the Sanskrit word "Dev" could mean an elemental or a god. When HPB uses this word, we have to stop and think about which one she means. If you ever get around to reading the ~SD~ or ~Isis~ from cover to cover, rather than jumping around by using key words in the index, I think you will find a context and a theme that runs through these works, and the temptation to interpret meanings through analogy will disappear. My experience is that the SD is more of a work intended to help us to discover the keys to assist us in unlocking the mystery teachings hidden in the ancient literature, rather than it being an enigmatic modern example of one of those works. Good post. Thanks Jerry HE From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 05:22:59 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Brenda and CWL Eldon wrote: EBT A few months later, Jerry had a particularly long post on CLW and Brenda decided to drop out, not wanting to see the historic materials anymore. She came back about eight months later, and continued on the list for perhaps half a year, but now has dropped out again, for the same reason: not wanting to read the historic discussion about Leadbeater. JHE I'm deeply and sincerely sorry to hear that Brenda has dropped out again. I had hoped that the removal of historical discussions to theos-roots would have been a fair compromise for her. Why doesn't she just not subscribe to theos-roots? Brenda, we do appreciate your input (me included) and hope that you reconsider and join us again. Jerry HE From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 05:57:42 GMT From: "David Parker" Subject: L. Frank Baum and theosophy Greetings to all on the Theos-lists. I have been intrigued by the notion that the "Wizard of Oz" series of children's books reflect L. Frank Baum's belief in Theosophical principles. John Algeo's articles in THE AMERICAN THEOSOPHIST ("A Notable Theosophist: L. Frank Baum," Aug./Sept. 1986, and "The Wizard of Oz: The Perilous Journey," Oct. 1986) offer a good starting place, but I wonder if others on these lists have any ideas, comments, etc. I will appreciate hearing from folks, either on- or off-list (dparker@kscmail.kennesaw.edu). Many thanks! -- David B. Parker David B. Parker dparker@kscmail.kennesaw.edu Asst. Professor of History Kennesaw State College (770) 423-6713 (office) PO Box 444 423-6294 (department) Marietta, Georgia 30061 (770) 423-6432 (fax) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 06:26:04 GMT From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@compuserve.com> Subject: What draws them in; an alternate view. At The Theosophical Society in Miami & South Florida (TSA) in Deerfield Beach, we do not see as an issue whether theosophical teachings have to be changed to be more attractive and easy to comprehend. We think they are fine just the way they are. Some studies are more difficult, some less. At present we offer the following specifically Theosophical courses/study groups: 1. Theosophy: Its Mystical Roots (Sundays 11 am, bi-weekly). This is an easy going Theosophical history course, using Old Diary Leaves as the text. 2. Theosophy: Light on the Path (Thursdays 7:30 pm, weekly). Somewhat more difficult but certainly understandable. 3. Theosophy: Introduction to The Secret Doctrine (Sundays 2:00 pm, weekly). An 8 week course using the introductory booklet prepared by Wheaton plus "Foundations of Esoteric Philosophy". Certainly easy to understand and we are getting a fair turnout of about 8 people for the present course, which will be repeated in January. 4. Theosophy: The Secret Doctrine Study Group (Sundays 1:00 pm, bi-weekly). This is a heavy duty study of the Secret Doctrine. It has been going on at our Branch for several years, and has a steady following. 5. Theosophy: The Spiritual Path (Sundays 11:00 am, bi-weekly). A members only meeting to discuss Theosophy, the purposes of The Theosophical Society, and specific themes. 6. Basic Workshop in Metaphysics (Saturdays 2:00 pm, restarts in Nov.). This is Enrique Renard's top notch 15 week course reviewing all the Theosophical concepts in plain language. Enrique gets an excellent turnout usually 15-25 people. That's a lot of Theosophy, but if we only offered the above 6 study groups, we would have a limited membership and, in our view, we would not be fulfilling the 3 declared objects of The Theosophical Society. We too often overlook these objects and forget that when HPB founded the T.S. there was no Secret Doctrine, no Mahatma Letters. These seminal documents were given to us but only later. The original members were hearing lectures on the lost canon of proportion of the Egyptians. There is, in our view, a really important reason to pay more than lip service to the declared objects, which are the only things we agree to when becoming TSA members. That means our members might want to look at related religious, philosophical, scientific and unexplained laws of nature (occult phenomena perhaps) disciplines. So we have a lot of other Study groups. This makes the T.S. non-dogmatic and so far as we know, there are no other non-dogmatic groups of significance. Other religions, groups etc. say, in effect, "other stuff is O.K. but our teachings are more worthy." We do not believe that the people behind the founding of the T.S. thought that way. I've put out the list of our related offerings once before on Theos-L and it changes a bit every few months. Here are the current related courses/study groups: Astrology, Bhagavad Gita, Course in Miracles, Dream Workishop, Esoterica (an informal metaphysical discussion group), Esoteric Science (examining modern science and how it relates to spirituality), Gurdjieff Introductory course, Gurdjieff Study Group, Huna Healing, Light Touch Healing, Krishnamurti, Meditation, Star Trek, Basic Tarot, Tarot and Numerology, Transmission Meditation, Urantia Book. These groups all meet either weekly or bi-weekly. We also have an active weekly guest speaker program, and periodic workshops. But the above courses and study groups are all facilitated by members, not guests, and these are people who know their stuff in the various disciplines. It's amazing how much collective knowledge we have in a sizable Branch. And it is true that someone coming to the Branch for Astrology, for example, and never having heard of the Secret Doctrine, gets interested. But it's okay with us if they just want to do Astrology. We make the Theosophical teachings available and its up to people to find their way into what suits them. All this makes us a big active Branch with well over 100 members and growing. We are not at all concerned locally about the chronic decline in TSA membership, but respectfully suggest that those of you interested in Branch work might wish to take a look at what we are doing here. We are convinced that if more Branches followed a broad program of course and study group offerings, the TSA would be growing, not shrinking. It's not hard to do and you do not need a lot of money. Just members of goodwill who wish to give some service for the overall benefit. We do this all in a small (1000 sq ft) store in a shopping center which also contains our Quest Bookstore and Branch library. We presently send out our bi-monthly Program, Calendar and Catalog of Courses to several other Branches, and we receive some of theirs. If you would like to be put on our mailing list, just reply to me and we will do it. Sy Ginsburg, Branch President 72724,413@compuserve.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 07:37:43 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Question to JRC It has been interesting to read the discusssion between you and Eldon, but it is somewhat hard to follow since we don't have to many specifics and details. You say something to the effect (I may not be paraphrasing you correctly) that the Theosophical teachings on psychism (which you sometimes seem to characterize as dogmas) maybe need to be rethought and that your experiences and other people's experiences do NOT fit the Theosophical explanations. This is all interesting but not too informative. Can you state what the theosophical teachings are on psychism and then tell us how certain experiences (whether yours or someone else's) do not FIt or cannot be adequately explained by the theosophical viewpoint(s)? If you don't want to share your personal experiences can you share someone's else experience (for example, T.B. had this experience, etc., etc.) that illustrates your points about the inadequacy of the Theosophical teachings to fully explain this or that experience? I'm sure many on Theos network will be interested in this area. Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 07:39:51 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: L. Frank Baum and theosophy According to David Parker: > > Greetings to all on the Theos-lists. > > I have been intrigued by the notion that the "Wizard of Oz" series of > children's books reflect L. Frank Baum's belief in Theosophical > principles. John Algeo's articles in THE AMERICAN THEOSOPHIST ("A Notable > Theosophist: L. Frank Baum," Aug./Sept. 1986, and "The Wizard of Oz: The > Perilous Journey," Oct. 1986) offer a good starting place, but I wonder if > others on these lists have any ideas, comments, etc. > > I will appreciate hearing from folks, either on- or off-list > (dparker@kscmail.kennesaw.edu). > > Many thanks! > > -- David B. Parker Greetings and welcome. I have a particular interest in The Wizard of Oz because of its psychological acuity regarding attitudes toward the Masters. Dorothy travels a great distance to seek the aid of someone who has been portrayed as having superhuman powers and status. But she finds out instead that there is a man behind the curtain pulling levers, a man who really cannot do anything more for her or her friends than to point to their own inner resources. Still, that is all that is necessary to get Dorothy home successfully, get the scarecrow a brain, the tin man a heart, and the lion courage. Each of them, all along, had what they needed to make the journey. It was only an illusion to think that they needed a great Wizard. And yet by pursuing this illusion they found reality instead-- and lived happily ever after. Having pursued the mystery of Blavatsky's Masters around the world (including India, which is much more exotic than Oz) I ended up feeling that what I found was both a) disappointing and a let-down compared to the supermen of Theosophical lore and b) sufficient to get me "home" in terms of a renewed understanding of my own resources and the way spiritual influence works in history rather than in myth. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 07:47:04 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Re: 7 Rays The seven ray qualification is a completely accurate idea about the nature of reality and is supported by the writings of HPB and others. >The idea that somehow in our essence, in our inmost beings, we've come >from seven different cookie cutters or belong to one of seven primal >groups, is wrong. In an absolute essence we are all divine sparks but the Monad itself is in manifestation in a cosmic sense and is qualified by one of the three aspects of Diety. The sevenfold qualification occurs also at all levels of manifestation. In relation to human evolution and identity all spiritual and personal aspects are qualified by the three and the seven rays. "As above, so below." >It assumes that influences and affects that others >have on us, while in a particular existence, carry into our beings, >and even determine our Essential Nature. From where is this assumption derived? The essential nature is always pure. >Our unique experience colors our Reincarnating Ego, and that experience >carries forward from one lifetime to the next. We develop, over time, >specific characteristics. Yes this is true. >We individualize in a personal way, not according >to our being on a particular "ray". Ray qualification is also from individual development on different levels in ages past. Rays can and do shift and change according to personal evolution. >But we're ignoring the inner man, and describing things by the color of >shirt someone is wearing, rather than by the unique mind and heart that the >person carries within. The inner man is also associated with the seven aspects of Diety -- depending on the evolutionary needs of the time. The interaction of inner and outer ray influences is like the interaction of the different influences of an astrology chart. Cheers, Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 11:22:31 GMT From: Tracey Benson Subject: Re: koans, from WWW On Mon, 9 Oct 1995, Liesel F. Deutsch wrote: > My 1st evening on Dreamscape, they have an easy browser for WWW & > I've been vrowsing through Buddhist things. Found 2 koans I thought > you'd enjoy, so here they are: > > "2 sages were standing on a bridge over a stream. One said to the > other,"I wish I were a fish. They are so happy." The other replied > "How do you know whether fish are happy, or not? You're not a fish." > The first one said "But you're not me, so how do you know whether or > not I know how fish feel?" > > Joshu asked the teacher Nansen,"What is the True Way?" > Nansen answered, "Every way is the true Way." > Joshu asked "Can I study it?" > Nansen asnwered, "the more you study, the further from the Way." > Joshu asked, "If I don't study it, how can I know it?" > Nansen answered,"The Way does not belong to things seen: nor to > things unsee. It does not belong to things known: nor to things > unknown. Do not seek it, study it, or name it. To find yourself on > it. open yourself as wide as the sky." > Beautiful!!!!! I love it! Tracey> > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 14:19:47 GMT From: Don DeGracia <72662.1335@compuserve.com> Subject: Ongoing science/theosophy stuff Good for you, Patrick! Don From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 14:19:48 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: Re: science Dear Patrick, I realize that science is, thanks goodness, coming more & more to explore intangible realms. However, I don't agree with your "if one can make a prediction which comes true ... then one is heading toward some right understanding..." The trouble is that if a scientist makes a prediction, he is liketly to look for proofs that will validate his prediction, & he will ignore (not one purpose) other factors, because they don't prove his prediction. One person who talked about this in a lecture at Krotona Institute, (of which I have a tape) is Rupert Murdock. It's not that simple. Shalom Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 14:59:52 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: 7 Rays Eldon wrote: > The idea that somehow in our essence, in our inmost beings, we've come > from seven different cookie cutters or belong to one of seven primal > groups, is wrong. It assumes that influences and affects that others > have on us, while in a particular existence, carry into our beings, > and even determine our Essential Nature. Lewis: Lost me. I guess you are splitting one more hair than I had to split. The "individualization process" as I recall it being described in Besant & Leadbeater's "Man, How, Whince and Wither" has only two possible paths -- love and hate. Once this occurs then there is this seven fold approach to the succeeding incarnations. At least, that is my own and perhaps unique interpretation of what I read. Until this "individualization" occurs life is evolving with only two of the three outpourings (don't know whose term that was, but as I understand it these are primordial forces in nature which imbue all of manifestation. > Eldon: > Our unique experience colors our Reincarnating Ego, and that experience > carries forward from one lifetime to the next. We develop, over time, > specific characteristics. We individualize in a personal way, not according > to our being on a particular "ray". > Lewis: Sounds like you view "individualization" as a/the (?) goal of the personal self. I was thinking of it being a distinction between the self-conscious and the kingdoms in nature which have not yet reached that point. llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 15:08:55 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Symbols and Bridges Murray wrote: > In my case, I had been seeking from a fairly early age, and had known > theosophy for about 16 years when my wife's illness came to a head and > she died. Lewis: Just the thought of losing the companionship, the love and support of my wife brought tears to my eyes. It must be a very difficult thing to endure. Please accept my heartfelt condolences. llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 15:58:45 GMT From: 1712.yungkans@westside.com (james yungkans) Subject: Re: Symbols And Bridges Jerry: They (Psychic_ are not extensions of the physical senses Unfortunatly, I'ts very clear that these 'senses' are received bia the Pineal and Pituitary Glands (Physical Organs), and their perceptions relayed through the physical brain in order that we may perceive them. if we did not have these 'Sense organs', we on the physical plane would not be able to perceive the "Other Planes", which are only Maya to our senses. James From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 16:16:49 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: RE: Chakra Developmrnt Liesel: How about posting it on theos-l? I'd like to read it too. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 16:16:52 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Symbols and bridges Eldon:<"Lower" is not necessarily bad or inferior. And I distinguish between the dangers of forced development as opposed to natural faculties. There is the aspect of the unreliable nature of information gathered in the subjective worlds.> Maybe its just me, but I see "higher" as closer to the divine and "lower" are closer to the gross and material, with the "lowest" being matter itself. Thus "higher" is closer to Truth, and "lower" is farther away from Truth. In this sense, the most "unreliable" of all are data obtained from the physical senses on this physical plane, which are the fartherest away from spirituality and divinity or Truth. In short, I find more truth to our dreams than to our waking lives. Why? Because we more honestly expressing true thoughts and feelings in our dreams, and often cover or mask these in our waking state. Also, I believe that dreams and bardo have as much objectivity and more "reality" as the physical plane. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 16:16:56 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Symbols and Bridges 1 Eldon: Eldon, why do you suggest the psychic as an "extension of the physical senses?" Is this from Purucker? I see the physical senses as perception on the physical plane via the physical body. We have bodies with appropriate senses on each plane. I see the "psychic" as data incoming through the astral or mental senses on either the astral or mental planes. They are not extensions of the physical senses in any way that I can see and act quite independent of the physical body and/or the physical senses. Jerr y S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 16:16:59 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Symbols and Bridges 2 Murray: Yes, but the forms themselves probably don't matter much. All we human beings can possibly know must be formalized into a model of some kind in order to bring it into human understanding. In other words, the human mind only knows the exoteric. The esoteric must be lived, but we can't stick it into a box or put labels on it without turning it into more exoteric stuff. If we only have an exoteric model, then when death faces us, or when we must confront our own mortality, our models are sometimes caught lacking. In such cases, we usually must squirm around and seek out better models, or possibly place some improvements on the old one. In my case, I knew with inner certainty that I needed a new model. The Christian model couldn't explain my experience of my own mortality nor alleviate the induced fear such confrontation generated. I had simply lost faith. I spent many years of searching before finding the Buddhist and theosophical models that have brought me comfort and through which, together with some esoteric experiences, I have been able to accept my mortality and explain my experiences, both inner and outer. Until such time as these need overhaul, I am content. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 16:17:03 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Origin of Sense of Self Eldon: I have to disagree here. I think that our sense of a separate self is much more insidious than a manas phenomenon. I believe that we obtain our first vague sense of self immediately after the Divine Monad expresses itself on the next plane down - the upper spiritual, or 6th counting upward. I have detailed this is my Enochian Physics as the I-Not-I Monad. The Divine Monad expresses itself as an I-Not-I Monad which contain a self and not-self connected by a fohatic attraction. In theosophical terms, our atma-buddhi sees itself as separate and distinct from others and from the world around it. Only atma itelf is free from the sense of separation. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 16:17:06 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: koans, from WWW Liesel, Thanks for the koans. I had not heard them before, and loved them both. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 16:44:40 GMT From: John R Crocker Subject: A Beautiful Autumn Interlude A couple of weeks ago I heard, in a couple of different places, about a unique artistic exhibit at a New York gallery, and it is beautiful and strangely moving enough that I thought a few people on the list might enjoy it as well. There is an old Jewish folk tale that has a Biblical scholar coming across a simple, uneducated man whose prayers seem remarkably successful. Upon being questioned, the man told the scholar that he could not read or write - causing the suprised scholar then to ask the man how he could pray ... and the man replied that all he knew was the alphabet, so he just asked God to accept his letters and make them into prayers. Diane Samuels, a Pittsburg sculptor, had apparently for years been keeping a sketchbook of different but recurring shapes that she drew on over and over again in her sculpting, and when she heard that folk tale, it moved her, and starting her thinking that in those shapes was her own personal "alphabet" - and the art that grew out of it (called "the Alphabet Project" I believe) came about as she started "offering her letters to God". She chose 30 (or so) of the shapes (each one corresponding to a letter in the Roman or Hebrew alphabets), and began translating them into three dimensional sculptures all over the world. In Poland she scratched her letters into a frozen lake; in France she did them in the sand on a beach; she even talked a multilingual class of schoolchildren in Ohio into forming their bodies into the shapes of her letters. Photographs were then taken of all of these different forms, and the current exhibit has both three dimensional sculptures as well as sets of these photographs ... arranged to spell out, in numerous different ways, the "simple man's prayer". While the sheer creativity and aesthetic beauty of such an artistic endeavor certainly moved me, it also caused deeper sort of reflection about what it is we do when we speak words aloud. While my particular orientation doesn't quite resonate with the simple man's belief in such a personal God - the concept embedded in both the story and the art does. I began thinking about all the free energy poured daily into the planetary biosphere, at both the inner and outer layers (from cosmic spiritual energy to purely physical solar energy) - energy that then moves through all the different layers of individual lifeforms ... and is again re-radiated as action, movement, and in perhaps one of its most refined forms ... words. I wonder what it might be like to be able to sit on the moon ... with enhanced hearing, and to listen to what the totality of all the human voices speaking at once, in thousands of different dialects, would sound like - and then adding to that the voices of the other knigdoms ... birdsong and cats' meows and chirping crickets and roaring streams - I wonder whether Earth is speaking a *word* ... and what that word sounds like. And even (pushing this even further), wonder whether perhaps the Biblical phase "In the beginning was the Word" might be understood as a single supreme foundational vibration that was the original source of all that energy that now flows into our little planet from so many apparently different directions ... and whether the spiritual "evolution" so many esoteric traditions speak of could be conceived as the struggle of our planet to hear that "word" completely, and to *speak it back to its source* - that perhaps that fellow with the good hearing sitting on the moon, were he to sit there for all these millions of years listening to Earth's Voice ... would first hear a low murmering as life began, gradually building to crescendos followed by quit periods as the various waves of periodic evolution and extinction cycle through the kingdoms ... taking on crisper and clearer forms as life individuates and the "word" acquires more precision, but also becoming more cacophanous and often disharmonious as the awareness of differences (a natural and necessary phase of evolution) come into focus ... and perhaps leading, sometime in the distant future, to a planet where individuality has been harmonized with awareness of the whole, and every "instrument" plays its own tone perfectly, but also with full awareness of the rest of the orchestra - I wonder if to that fellow on the moon, the whole planet might seem to be struggling, over a scale of several billions of years, to sound a single clear word ... that will resonate outward in all directions ... that will be the "answer" to that original "Word" that was in the beginning - and whether the moment that word is spoken all the kingdoms participating in its speaking might just dissolve back into the One ... liberated instantaneously by the sheer and unbearable beauty of such a sound. Oops, got a bit carried away (comes from spending the day in the mountains (-:) ... but still, maybe I'll at least take the tiles from my Scrabble game and leave them out on the table in my yard tonight. Face up, but in no particular order (-:) ... -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 16:52:46 GMT From: 1712.yungkans@westside.com (james yungkans) Subject: Re: Origin Of Sense Of Self Jerry: Only atma itself is free from the sense of Separation The Atma, at the point of Origination, or separation from THAT which forms it, knows itself as separated. It is only at the point at which one return to non-being (AIN) that there is true union and 'Non-Separateness.' While you may argue this, remember that the Divine Spark, while still connected to the Flame by the thread of FOHAT (Being universal on all levels, in the same manner as PRANA is universal on all planes.) The spark, representing our Monadic essence, lies above Atma in the same manner as a spirit lies above a material body, separate yet connected (Referring to one's own spirit, and not an astral 'Spook.) At the level of Atma the 'Spark' is already separating from itself, for it see's itself as a Chaya, or shadow. Just an opinion. James From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 17:27:53 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: RE: God's fertile imagination JHE >I was trying to draw attention to the irony that Organizations that are dedicated >to charitable and environmental causes seem to get a lot less >media attention than Organizations with strange (to the general >public) beliefs. I hadn't noticed this, but perhaps the press is afraid of looking bad if they attacked a charitable group. JHE >My "personal wish" would be that the TS disclaim the Masters as >represented by CWL--but not the Masters as they represented >themselves. Was not aware of the discrepancy, probably due to the short time I have been a member. CWL's representation of the Masters must in publications I have not read yet. Could you refer to specific books? JHE >People join what ever turns them on. My interest in this >Organization is because of HPB's now forgotten denotation of >theosophists as being seekers of truth--not recipients of >revelation. Theology defines revelation as a disclosure of the truth. If your statement is almost a direct HPB quotation, maybe the context of that passage would help me understand what she was driving at. JHE >Think you could ask him to post something on theos-l? :-) Which one? God or the devil? :-) JHE >They could start by allowing CWL's writings to stand or fall upon >their own merits, instead of hiding his errors and making him >appear as something that he was not through the selective editing >of his writings. . . Sounds fair enough to me. My husband also agrees with this. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 17:27:54 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: re: re Wheaton and Cults Dear Jerry, A moot question. If you think so little of CWLeadbeater, why do you maintain membership in Wheaton/Adyar? Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 17:27:54 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: RE: Rich on CWL & Censorship Dear Eldon, I'm really sorry, if Brenda has decided again not to participate. I wish she'd reconsider. As for Jerry HE, I'm under the impression that the rest of us have been getting into really fruitful & enlightening discussions about the various facets of Theosophy, whereas Jerry, has some sort of an annoying bent in his character which is just always itching to provoke a fight. I'm sure glad I'm not married to him. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 17:27:54 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: Re: Rich on CWL & Censorship Dear Rich, Too bad you brought this subject up again. We've had 2 fights about CWL on this net. I don't intend to get into a third one, so I'm going to answer what you just wrote now, & then won't answer you any more. I got as far as reading Tillet's intro, & part of chapter 1, before I made the 7 Rays Book Stoke take the book back. In the intro Tillet states clearly that he was refused access to the Adyar archives, & also that the Outer Head refused to speak to him (naturally, but not understanding the secrecy of the ES he gets angry about this) so who knows where he got his material from. I personally have known 2 of CWL's pupils, & have read a letter from a third one; all of them were entrusted to CWL's care as preadolescent children; all of them refute the whole sexual mishmash. All of them had parents who cared deeply about them. The lives of these 3 people bear out that they weren't molested as kids, because 1) they'd have done the same thing as adults, & they didn't & 2) they would have been psychological cripples from the experience. All 3 of them were very dynamic & mature personalities, whose lives were led to the good of mankind. Having been partly brought up by CWL, the way they conducted their own lives bears withness to the fact that CWL did very well by them. CWL's writings were not only about psychic visions, as you've been led to believe. I consider some of it, like "The Masters & The Path" the most beautifully put explanations of theosophy. They make your heart soar. You say he doesn't quote anyone. I just happen to be reading "Talks on The Path of Occultism", a commentary by CWL on "The Voice ..." In it he often quotes HPB as his Teacher, & also Hindu & Buddhist sages & etc. Shanti Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 17:35:54 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: For Murray S Tried to send this to your e-mail address and it was sent back, so I decided to post it to roots. Knew that the recipe things was a bit off-the-wall for this extremely intellectual and esoteric theos-list, but this casserole was so great I just had to share it. - ann Wild Rice and Artichoke Casserole (from the world famous gourmet vegetarian kitchen of The Theosophical Society in Wheaton, IL) 1 box wild & long grain rice, prepared 2 c shredded Monterey Jack cheese 2 chopped tomatoes 1/2 c each of mayonnaise & sour cream 4 chopped green onions 1/2 c bread crumbs 2 cans artichoke hearts, rinsed and quartered Mix mayonnaise, sour cream and green onions together in a bowl. Layer in a greased casserole the rice, half of the cheese, bread crumbs, artichokes and tomatoes. Top with mayonnaise mixture and rest of the cheese. Bake at 350 degrees for 30 - 40 minutes. Serves six. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 17:35:55 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: Re: The power behind the TS Murray, When I sent that, I hadn't read the post about the ES enchiladas. I was going backwards through the mail. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 22:59:25 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: L. Frank Baum and theosophy Interesting, Paul, that while the Wizard guy in Oz is a hoax, there really are good and evil witches in that country. Curious that Dorothy never asks Glinda the good witch for help, eh? later books expand on the pantheon of those special kinds of beings who have powers. I don't think the whole thrust of L. Frank Baum's 30 something books on OZ was to de-bunk Masters, but only "pretenders to the throne." Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 22:59:33 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Rich on CWL & Censorship Liesel, speaking of the CWL biographer, writes: > In the intro Tillet > states clearly that he was refused access to the Adyar archives, & > also that the Outer Head refused to speak to him (naturally, but not > understanding the secrecy of the ES he gets angry about this) so > who knows where he got his material from.? He got his material from OTHER archives, and one of his primary documents was the 1,000+ page court document where CWL was tried. Tillet does not make up his sources, I've seen some of them with my own eyes, including the court document. Because someone is refused access to Adyar doesn't mean there are no other sources in the world which are accurate. Liesel: > I personally have known 2 of CWL's pupils, & have read a letter from > a third one; all of them were entrusted to CWL's care as preadolescent > children; all of them refute the whole sexual mishmash. Tillet, the biographer, brings out the point that CWL had two "rings" of students, those who were intimately (so to speak) associated with him, and those who were indeed direct students, but not so intimately. Not all his students knew the same thing, because they had not all experienced the same thing. Liesel, since you admit that you didn't read past chapter 1, you missed the entire letters Tillet prints from former CWL students, where they discuss in detail what went on. And statements from various boys' mothers. And witness testimony in courts. It is interesting that when HPB was defamed by the missionaries and Coulombs in India, she was anxious to go to court to defend herself, and Theosophists told her not too. CWL made every attempt to stay OUT of court, and his friend Wedgwood, formerly the presiding bishop of the Liberal Catholic Church, ADMITTED his promiscuity, with kids and adults. He didn't even deny it, left the country where he was accused, and resigned from the LCC. Liesel: > You say he doesn't quote anyone. I just happen to be reading "Talks > on The Path of Occultism", a commentary by CWL on "The Voice ..." In > it he often quotes HPB as his Teacher, & also Hindu & Buddhist sages > & etc. Well, CWL makes passing references to people, but compare ANY of his works, which are mostly assertions and psychic visions, with a few quotes of whatever, to HPB's ISIS UNVEILED and SECRET DOCTRINE, where we find literally 10,000+ references to books, authors, historical evidence, philosopers, scientists, etc. etc. etc. The comparison is overwhelming. HPB works in English, but draws freely from Tibetan, Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Egyptian, etc. You need her GLOSSARY just to wade through her writing. Leadbeater didn't speak ANY of those languages, and merely repeated what HPB said, usually WRONG. As for declaring himself an "Arhat" or an Enlightened Buddhist Sage, and declaring Krishnamurti the WORLD CHRIST, that is probably the single greatest loss of credibility in the T.S. If Theosophists lost Leadbeater and his books, or as Jerry H-E has stated, to publish his stuff un-edited, as we do HPB's works, the Theosophical movement would gain IMMEASURABLY. CWL is a huge liability, and just cannot be defended from the FACTS about his life and teachings. I don't see what he offers that can't be gotten from other, more respectably teachers, and instead, he really drags the T.S. down. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 22:59:39 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Symbols and Bridges 1 Jerry S. writes, > Eldon, why do you suggest the psychic as an "extension of the > physical senses?" Is this from Purucker? I see the physical senses > as perception on the physical plane via the physical body. We have > bodies with appropriate senses on each plane. I see the "psychic" as > data incoming through the astral or mental senses on either the astral > or mental planes. They are not extensions of the physical senses in > any way that I can see and act quite independent of the physical body > and/or the physical senses. HPB and William Q. Judge both speak of the psychic/astral as the ROOT of the physical senses. The physical organs do not sense OF THEMSELVES, but have their actual seats on the astral plane. On that plane, those senses are potentially unlimited, but when expressed through the veil of matter in a physical body, they are greatly curtailed because of the density of matter. When one awakens to one's astral self, those senses become activated there, and are greatly extended, since this is their natural place. "Psychic" in HPB's and WQJ's terms means simply "astral" and has little or nothing to do with "mental" since lower manas is focused (in general in humanity (including us)) on the PHYSICAL PLANE. Lower Manas is "embodied mind" and so deals with the physical, temporal, spatial, sensible. Higher Manas is not in a vehicle of gross matter, and thus is NEVER called psychic, but "noetic." We are not taught any "mansic" body by early writers, in fact they call it "arupa", formless or bodiless. No where do I see HPB or WQJ teaching that we have "bodies" and "senses" on each plane. The three higher principles (Atma, Buddhi, Higher Manas) are absolutely formless, have no bodies, nothing that we could call senses, and experience "directly," or intuitively, without instruments (on their own planes). Only when they work in the lower realms do they require bodies. As for the Kama principle, we know that it too is "bodiless" in life except for being groudned in the physical body (rupa). After death, the kamic coalesces with the astral body, forming what is called the "kama-rupa" of body of desire, but this is the ASTRAL body informed by Kama, kama has not body of it's own. In all primary Theosophical sources (and Crosbie and Purucker stick to this) only 2 bodies are spoken of, physical and astral, and only 7 senses -- 5 developed, 2 to go. I have never heard that Manas has a "body" on its own plane, with or without senses. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 23:22:51 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: A Beautiful Autumn Interlude JRC writes: > And even (pushing this even further), wonder whether perhaps > the Biblical phase "In the beginning was the Word" might be > understood as a single supreme foundational vibration that was > the original source of all that energy that now flows into our > little planet from so many apparently different directions ... HPB makes a very similar point in *The Secret Doctrine* and in the Stanzas of Dzyan of that book, we read in Stanza III that the last vibration "thrills throughout infinitude," the vibration "sweeps along" touching "with its swift wing the whole unniverse." A very potent image/idea, no? I included the Stanzas in my "Myth, Ritual, Symbols" class at UC Davis, and the kids are into it. Of all the cosmogonies, HPB's is the most engaging, poetic, and captivating. No wonder, if its the "source" cosmogony for most (all?) of the others. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 23:22:53 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: RE: Rich on CWL & Censorship Liesel writes, > the rest of us have > been getting into really fruitful & enlightening discussions about the various > facets of Theosophy, whereas Jerry, has some sort of an annoying bent in his > character which is just always itching to provoke a fight. Huh? Provoking a fight? To me Jerry H-E, if that's who you're referring to, always seems to me pretty neutral, but very up-front about the facts. I think he posts pretty responsibly, naming and quoting sources, and just engaging in dialogue like the rest of us. I haven't noticed any deliberate attempts to anger or hurt others. Am I missing something? Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 23:22:54 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: (none) Knew that the recipe things was a bit off-the-wall for this > extremely intellectual and esoteric theos-list Dear Anne, I hate to write such a personal note on such a public board, but you've really done it this time. I am WAY too esoteric, WAY too self-important, WAY too self-absorbed, to be interested in such a mundane topic as a casserole. And I can't BELIEVE you would take up valuable and VERY ESOTERIC time with such petty anti-intellectual pursuits. This list is only for the intellectual elite, the better-than-the-rest, the cream of the esoteric milk, the ... (Oh, wait, the casserole is done, I'll be right back ... MMMMMMM....) What was I saying? Oh yes -- too esoteric, too ego-centric, too .... Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 23:35:40 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: God's fertile imagination > > AB > God's a great writer. He's sure got one heckuva imagination. I > hope he never succumbs to the clamors of his publishers, the > business men who never look at the quality of a book, but only at > how many copies it will sell. His writing would simply go to the > devil. > > JHE > Think you could ask him to post something on theos-l? :-) Too busy creating. Love, GOD. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 23:41:58 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Bridges > > Along with this was the feeling that my personal consciousness was such > a small, dark space. The old brain box, the place of the skull, thinking > of resonances with Golgotha. > > It's interesting, that though knowledge felt as if it was stripped away > and the main "sensation" was of darkness, that that in itself implies an > innate memory or intuition of light. Similarly with feeling the brain > consciousness to be so small. Maybe that's what guides us all through > the valley of the shadow etc. > > That experience reorganised the way I hold theosophy, making it more > essence-oriented and vibrant, and less form-oriented. This took a couple > of years to emerge, as the pain softened. > > > Murray This is *very* similar to experience(s) of mine, which I often associate with the apostle Paul's "Third Heaven" experience in 1 Corinthians. Reading the above helps to further validate the nature of such experience - it would be interesting to hear of other contributors' similar experiences. Thanks for sharing this. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 23:42:11 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: science Liesel: > [writing to Patrick]: >However, I don't agree with your "if one can make a prediction which >comes true ... then one is heading toward some right >understanding..." I'd agree that we can know something, it can be true, yet it is not subject to prediction. The subject of chaos has a description for systems in this state: strange attractors. A system is ordered, deterministic, yet completely unpredictable either in time (when an event will next occur) or in space (where something will next arise or in what quantity). Sounds like karma, for instance ... -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 10 Oct 1995 23:52:14 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: re: re Wheaton and Cults Liesel: >Dear Jerry, > >A moot question. >If you think so little of CWLeadbeater, why do you maintain >membership in Wheaton/Adyar? > >Liesel I can't speak for Jerry, but can add a few comments of my own. The T.S. Adyar has the widest range of beliefs of the different theosophical groups. This is both a strength and a weakness. There is not a requirement to believe in Leadbeater, even in its associated E.S. (I was a member for about three years, from age 17 to 20, but quit just before the end of my third year. The pledge that I was shown to sign, in order to join, which I was allowed to see as a non-member and is presumably itself not confidential, allowed one to accept one of two alternate views. One could accept a succession that included Besant and Leadbeater as Outer Heads, or one could simply accept the current head of the E.S. as Outer Head. (That is, even here one did not have to accept Leadbeater.) Given the openness, Jerry, Rich, JRC, you, and I could coexist in membership, if not in agreement on every idea. We can each have our respective study groups and decry the lack of insight of others that disagree with us. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Oct 1995 00:10:01 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Rich on CWL & Censorship Rich: > [writing to Liesel] >CWL is a huge liability, and just cannot be defended from the FACTS about his >life and teachings. I don't see what he offers that can't be gotten from >other, more respectably teachers, and instead, he really drags the T.S. down. Many of us *want* to believe in an astral plane, in mastery of occult powers, in being a magician, an occultist, an "invisible helper". This touches a part of us that perhaps remembers better times, when we weren't so mired in materiality. There is talk of spirits and the spirit world in the various religions of the world. To picture oneself with the power to walk the skies stirs powerful feelings. If we don't care about the literal accuracy of Leadbeater's writings, and consider them as good stories, with hints at occult truth in them, intermixed with fantasy and error, then it's not so bad. If some of the books appeared in bookstores under "occult fiction", they would still have a fan club. For myself, I found the books appealing, although they did not prepare me for reading Blavatsky or for the more advanced studies that I was opened up to in later coming to read Purucker. I would, as you, disagree with some of the materials in the Leadbeater books as wrong, and inconsistent with source Theosophy. My approach is to work on the clarify of my writing about what I consider to be true, and correct, to approach the differences with a positive rather than a double negative. Both approaches, thought, are useful at different times, if handled diplomatically. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Oct 1995 00:31:06 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Symbols and Bridges 1 Rich: > [writing to Jerry S] >In all primary Theosophical sources (and Crosbie and Purucker stick to this) >only 2 bodies are spoken of, physical and astral, and only 7 senses -- 5 >developed, 2 to go. I have never heard that Manas has a "body" on its own >plane, with or without senses. I was reading in "The Inner Group Teachings of H.B. Blavatsky" (pages 108-10): "When a man visits another in his Astral Body, it is the Linga-Sharira which goes, but this cannot happen at any great distance" [Note that Blavatsky equates astral with Linga-Sharira, whereas Leadbeater makes them two things and calls the Linga-Sharira the "etheric body".] "When a man thinks of another at a distance very intently, he sometimes appears to that person. In this case it is the Mayavi-Rupa, which is created by unconscious Kriyasakti, and the man himself is not conscious of appearing. If he were, and projected his Mayavi-Rupa consciously, he would be an Adept. No two persons can be simultaneously conscious of one another's presence, unless one be an Adept." [Note that we are not aware of others in the sphere of effects until we're Adepts.] "Dugpas use the Mayavi-Rupa and sorcerers also. Dugpas work on the Linga- sharira of other perople. ..." "The Astral Body is the subjective image of the man, ... the model of the physical body in which the child is formed and developed." "The Linga-Sharira may be hurt by a sharp instrument ... Nothing however can hurt the Mayavi-Rupa or thought-body, since it is purely subjective." "The projection of the Astral Body should not be attempted, but the power of Kriyasakti should be exercised in the projection of the Mayavi-Rupa." The astral body is the image in the astral light that governs our physical form, and is the seat of our senses. The physical is really concreted astral, and not a separate plane or principle. Our sense perception is astral, though we usually depend upon the physical eyes, ears, etc. for sensory input, upon which to base that perception. Apart from the astral body, of which the physical is a precipitation, we can using the creative power of mind create a projected body or seat of awareness, the Mayavi-Rupa. This is not a "mental body" on "the mental plane", but rather a mind-created body. It also is in the astral light of our Globe D earth, as also is the nirmanakaya, yet another type of self-created seat or focus of awareness. The physical Globe D earth that we see is concreted astral, which is the real Globe D. It's sphere of effects consists of the -- to us -- subjective states as we are disembodied, yet in the atmosphere of Globe D. We are still with the earth, but in the after death states we give up the lower principles, and are no longer manifest and engaged in the karmic give-and-take of outer life. I realize that all these ideas would sould strange in the context of the picture that I onced studied from Leadbeater's books, but seems both consistent with Blavatsky (and Purucker), and much more satisfying an explanation to me. I'm also open to further adjusting and refining the ideas with additional studies -- and also from learning from others in a give-and-take interchange of ideas. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Oct 1995 01:12:03 GMT From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Subject: Re: What draws them in? >Bee: > >>We had a talk, last >>year on the Spiritual Aspect of the Tarot and we had a full house. Then we >>have a good solid Theosophical talk and only the members were there. We had >>18 to a workshop on Dreams and 7 to one on Alchemy. There seems to be a >>reluctance to use the 'grey matter' which seems to be reflected in >>attendance. > >You bring up an important point here that we're all making in different >ways. What do we teach and how do we teach it? When we change the materials >we present, we can draw in large crowds. Is that good? It depends. By a full house I mean 25 people so in a population of around 42,000 that isn't a lot anyway. I do not advocate changing the material but rearranging it so that it is interesting to a wider range of seekers. Our dream workshop was by a ex national lecturer and included aspects of the astral world and other Theo ideas that fitted into the context. All who attended really enjoyed it and they got a little look at the Theo teachings in amomgst the Dream Session that actually drew them in. > >There's an important distinction between changing the manner of presentation >to make the theosophical teachings more attractive and easy to comprehend and >changing the content to something more popular. > >When we look at the declining membership at Wheaton, for instance, from >a high of 5550 in June 1989 to 4246 at the present, we see a dramatic drop, >one which has only leveled off in the past few months. > >We have to ask ourselves some hard questions. Is the competition winning out >(other metaphysical groups attracting people)? Could we be slow to change to >current forms of organizational structure and educational methods? Or could >the public need for what we are offering be declining, along with memberships? > >I'd say that the simpler part of Theosophy that was intended to work its >way into public thought, as a minor adjustment to the materialistic western >science of the last century, has done its work. There are many groups >promoting similar ideas and ideas like reincarnation and karma and the >reality of the spiritual life have found popular, though not universal, >acceptance. Our work in this area may be declining, being taken over by >groups that offer generic philosophical thought to the masses. > >The other aspect to the work, that of providing a junior college to the >Mysteries, is something that may appeal to a handful of people. The numbers >of people in this regard are small compared to the spiritual quest of the >masses. I could see the theosophical groups eventually going underground, >or semi-private, in future years, if they end up specializing in this >regard, where membership is by invitation. > >Granted, ideals like a general acceptance of universal brotherhood and >tolerance for other views and open inquiry into the unknown are all useful. >But we as theosophical groups have no exclusive claim to these goals, and >we're not particularly effective in always carrying them out. I intend to give it a try. We are selling our present building and have an option on one in a higher profile area. I hope to be able to open it to casual visitors 2-3 afternoons a week in the library and encourage our few members to participate. We have a Poly Tech just up the road and maybe a cuppa and a chat may be the start of something more profound in their learning. Who knows but it doesn't hurt to give it a go. I have the time and that is free. > >What makes us special, I'd say, is the Teachings themselves, and as long >as we preserve them as a living tradition, where there are students with >an understanding of them that can act as mentors to new students, our >highest value is maintained. When that is gone, we'll end up being another >fraternal organization like the Elks or Moose, and a publisher of obscure, >not-understood, metaphysical books of antiquity. It would be a pity to see the teachings go underground. I have just discovered de Purucker and feel he should be promoted more as he is easier to understand than HPB. After him then maybe, for us mere mortals, HBP might be more understandable. Next year our study group should have arrived at Vol 3 of SD and after reading Esoteric Traditions, it will be interesting to see if I can understand more clearly. Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Bee > >-- Eldon > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Oct 1995 01:12:04 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: Re: re: re Wheaton and Cults Rich, Wheaton does have a service organization, the Theosophical Order of Service. It has its own officers & heads of various departments. For instance, the Peace department has members round the world who meditate for peace. One department once put out an encyclopedic book describing all the diferent ways of alternate healing. It had pictures, sometimes poems, & always references for further study. I still keep it to look up methods I'm not familiar with. I wrote a cat story for a small children's book, & others for a now defunct children's magazine. If we want to, we can be active in it. I prefer to do service on my own, as it comes my way. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Oct 1995 01:12:13 GMT From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Subject: What draws them in; alternate view Sy, Many thanks for that interesting post. You seem to have a great diversity to call upon. We have only 22 members and of those about 10 are active so we have difficulty in doing anything very ambitious. I would be pleased for any study group materials or pointers that might help a small group spread a bit of Theosophy aound. I have an urge that won't go away to do this and I think I had better go with the flow. We have 2-3 really dedicated members who are bothered by their lack of intellectual understanding and sometimes express doubts if Theosophy is too hard for them. I try to reassure them as I do not want to lose them. This is the problem that we find the hardest to deal with in attracting new people to us even though they are looking hard for a path of some sort. Is Theosophy meant to be for the intellect? I wouldn't have thought so but I do wonder sometimes. Carry on the good work, Bee. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Oct 1995 02:23:35 GMT From: John R Crocker Subject: Re: What draws them in; an alternate view. > We too often overlook these > objects and forget that when HPB founded the T.S. there was no Secret > Doctrine, no Mahatma Letters. These seminal documents were given to us > but only later. The original members were hearing lectures on the lost > canon of proportion of the Egyptians. An *excellent* point, and one that, if remembered, might curb the attempts so many have made over the years to narrow the orginally broad range of studies and activities that composed Theosophy. HPB *herself* never would have claimed to be teaching "source" Theosophy, only that she was one of countless messengers that have appeared over the centuries, each articulating but a tiny and incomplete piece of an almost incomprehensibly large body of teachings ... none of the messengers claiming to be talking about anything other than a small piece, and all of them framing those pieces to be suited to the times in which they were living. As Robbins says, "Ideas are made by masters, dogma by disciples, and the Buddha is *always* killed on the road." I sometimes think the reason why the spirit of great leaders rarely lasts long is because they are nailed to crosses by their enemies while they are alive, and nailed to pedestals by their followers after they're dead. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Oct 1995 02:37:28 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Paul Johnson's Two SUNY books on the Theosophical Masters, etc A few months ago, I promised to do a more in-depth review of Paul Johnson's books on HPB's Masters. I have done alot of research since then and will try in a number of postings to offer my observations on Johnson's thesis concerning the Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi. To set the stage, I quote 3 extracts from Dr. Joscelyn Godwin's Foreword to Johnson's THE MASTERS REVEALED: "The principal Masters in question were Koot Hoomi and Morya, supposedly residents of Shigatse in Tibet...." p. xv "The theme of this book is that HPB's Masters were not the Himalayan sages whom she invented to distract her co-workers...." p. xviii "Mr. Johnson's suggestion---and he makes it clear that it is no more than that---is that the Mahatmas Morya and Koot Hoomi are fictitious Tibetan personae that conceal well-documented historical figures: Ranbir Singh and Thakar Singh." p. xviii And Johnson in his own Introduction to THE MASTERS REVEALED writes: "Thakar Singh Sandhanwalia, founding president of the Amritsasr Singh Sabha, corresponds in intriguing ways to clues about Koot Hoomi's identity in the writings of Olcott and HPB.... "Maharaja Ranbir Singh of Kashmir has many correspondencs to Morya as described by HPB.... "Although much of HPB's portrayal of Morya and Koot Hoomi was designed to mislead in order to protect their privacy, enough accurate information was included to make a persuasive case for their identities as these historical figures...." pp. 5-6. Let me give several brief comments: (1) Godwin tells the reader that Johnson is only making a suggestion wheras Johnson himself says he is making "a persuasive case." suggestion = persuasive case??? On p. 172 of THE MASTERS REVEALED, Johnson writes: "That K.H. was Thakar Singh is a suggestion which will meet vigorous resistance due to its unwelcome implications...." So I would ask which is it: merely a "suggestion" or a "persuasive case"? (2) Notice that in the statement quoted from p. 6, Johnson writes: "Although much of HPB's portrayla of Morya and Koot Hoomi was designed to mislead in order to protect their privacy, enough accurate information was included....." This statement by Johnson contains at least one assumption: HPB gave out both misleading information and accurate information about Morya and Koot Hoomi and Johnson beleives that he can tell when the information is misleading and when it is accurate. We will come back to this point later in another posting. My *major* criticism of Johnson's thesis concerning the *true identities* of Morya and Koot Hoomi has been that Johnson *ignores* possibly 95% of the evidence and testimonies concerning the Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi. Furthermore, much of this *ignored* evidence and testimony refutes Johnson's thesis as to the *true identities* of Morya and Koot Hoomi. For example, Colonel Henry Olcott gives the following firsthand description of a physical encounter with the Master Morya: "[I] had visit in body of the Sahib!! [He] sent Babula to my room to call me to H.P.B.'s bungalow, and there we had a most important interview..." (From Olcott's handwritten diary entry for Tuesday, July 15, 1879. Olcott was in Bombay, India on this date) In a letter to A.O. Hume (dated Sept. 30, 1881), Olcott describes this July 1879 meeting and interview in greater detail: "This same Brother once visited me in the flesh at Bombay, coming in full day light, and on horseback. He had me called by a servant into the front room of H.P.B.'s bungalow (she being at the time in the other bungalow talking with those who were there). He [Morya] came to scold me roundly for something I had done in T.S. matters, and as H.P.B. was also to blame, he *telegraphed* to her to come, that is to say, he turned his face and extended his finger in the direction of the place she was in. She came over at once with a rush, and seeing him dropped to her knees and paid him reverence. My voice and his had been heard by those in the other bungalow, but only H.P.B. and I, and the servant *saw* him." How does Paul Johnson explain this incident? Is this "Brother" to be somehow identified with Ranbir Singh, the Maharaja of Kashmir whom Johnson says is the real person behind the Morya persona? Notice that Olcott says that the Master Morya came "in the flesh" and "on horseback." Furthermore, Morya's voice "had been heard by those in the other bungalow." Now Johnson has previously said that he does *not* believe that this was Ranbir Singh who traveled all the way from Kashmir without his court attendants to visit HPB and Olcott. But, Johnson has *not* even attempted to explain Olcott's narrative of this event or who else this Morya might be? Unfortunately, readers of Johnson's two SUNY books are not informed as to this and similar meetings Olcott had with Morya. Now Johnson has told me in a *private* e-mail message why he feels my above outlined criticism carries no weight with him. I now ask Paul Johnson to address his point of view to interested readers of THEOS-ROOTS. Daniel Caldwell (TO BE CONTINUED IN PART II) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Oct 1995 05:10:01 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Re: What Draws then in, etc.: JRC's comments JRC writes: "An *excellent* point, and one that, if remembered, might curb the attempts so many have made over the years to narrow the originally broad range of studies and activities that composed Theosophy. H.P.B. *herself* never would have claimed to be teaching `source' Theosophy, only that she was one of countless messengers that have appeared over the centuries each articulating but a tiny and incomplete piece of an almost incomprehensibly large body of teachings....none of the messengers claiming to be talking about anything other than a small piece ....." Although I would more or less agree with this statement, it seems to somewhat be an *overstatement* Yes, I know what HPB *herself* says about `a few truth' on p. xxii of Vol. I of *The Secret Doctrine*: "I say `a *few* truths,' advisedly, because......" etc. etc. But she also says in the preceding sentences of that text: "...the outline of a few fundamental truths....is now permitted to see the light, AFTER LONG MILLENNIUMS of the most profound silence and secrecy." And elsewhere KH says: "We have broken the silence of centuries...." Well, I'm certainly for "the orginally broad range of studies and activities that composed Theosophy." But surely anyone who seriously studies HPB's writings and the Mahatma Letters will by necessity have to study world religions, philsophies east and west, other esoteric systems, etc. ,e tc. in order to comprehend and see in context much of what HPB gives out. As far as I am concerned , students of theosophy can read and study or not read and study whatever they choose. But what has concerned me over 25 years is that so many students of Theosophy have little comprehension of what HPB wrote and taught. And yet they themselves beleived that they knew what HPB had taught! John Coats, the late International President of the Adyar Theosophical Society once wrote: "The percentage of members, who have not as yet ever read any books by H.P. Blavatsky is regrettably high." And he is quoted in one pamphlets as saying: "There's a great need for the deepening of the individual member's understanding of theosophy. A lot of people skate superfically over the surface of theosophy without really going into it in depth." In my 2 decades of study of Theosophy and interaction with students, I have found that Coats' observations are pretty accurate. Now if people want to study Seth or Cayce or Oahpse or Urantia or a thousand other things, that's great, but what's wrong with students of Theosophy wanting to study HPB's writings and the Master's letters. Maybe, JRC, you have mastered the 10,000 + pages of HPB's writings and have already moved on to deeper and more esoteric things. But others may still want to study what Blavatsky left us. In some of your postings to Eldon you have mentioned that HPB only gave out a tiny portion of what could be given out on the Devas and other beings of the inner worlds. Well? Do most students of Theosophy even understand that tiny portion? And if you know more or have access to more than that "tiny portion" given out by HPB and other Theosophical writers, then maybe you need to write a book and help all of us expand our knowledge and understanding on these subjects. You say that HPB was "one of countless messengers that have appeared over the centuries each articulating but a tiny and incomplete piece of an almost incomprehensibly large body of teachings..." How do you know? What are your sources for this statement? Now as I first said, I more or less agree with this statement of yours, but where does this statement take us? Does this imply that we need not study HPB's writings since she articulated but "a tiny and incomplete piece" of the "incoprehensibly large body of teachings"? JRC, what other writings should we study? HPB in her writings point to literally hundreds of religious, occult and esoteric writings that might be of some benefit to serious students. I'm sure that you can point out others. I believe I can, too! And you say that HPB was "one of countless messengers..." Would you please inform the Theos network of whom you refer to. Would you be so kind as to give us a list of say 100 of these messengers. Some of us may find the time and energy to read some the writings of these other countless messengers. I personally find that most Theosophical students don't have the time, energy and stamina to read and study even HPB's own writings, not counting the voluminous writings of Judge, Besant, Leadbeater, de Purucker, Bailey, Steiner, Ballard, Prophet, etc, in the *limited* Theosophical tradition of the last 120 years. I am NOT saying that students should blindly believe what HPB wrote, but it would be nice if they would at least read some of what she wrote. Now if they don't want to read her, okay, that fine! But I believe (and I think Jerry HE, Rich, Eldon and even possibly Paul J would agree to some extent) that there is alot of pseudo-Theosophy out there in the marketplace; tons of "wild and fanciful speculations" on Theosophical and Esoteric subjects that bear little if any resemblance to Theosophy as given by HPB and yet the writers of this pseudo-Theosophy would want you to believe that this "stuff" comes from the same SOURCE as where HPB got her stuff! I certainly agree that we should NOT nail HPB upon a pedestal but all I'm advocating is that *interested* students should try to take some time and effort to read and possibly even study HPB's writings and give them thoughtful consideration! Attempting to seriously understand the *ideas* to be found in HPB's writings and to try to understand the *system of philosopohy* which she outlines should not be equated with some attempt to establish her as an ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY, an INFALLIBLE SOURCE, and some attempt to put her on some pedestal! If you have found other reliable sources of esoteric knowledge, that's great, I would suggest that you turn your efforts to trying to embody some of that in a book to help point out to others those sources that you have discovered. The above is food for thought, Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Oct 1995 05:36:23 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: RE: Rich on CWL & Censorship Liesel: >As for Jerry HE, I'm under the impression that the rest of us have >been getting into really fruitful & enlightening discussions about the various >facets of Theosophy, whereas Jerry, has some sort of an annoying bent in his >character which is just always itching to provoke a fight. I'm sure glad >I'm not married to him. You must be upset with Jerry at the moment, since you're making the mistake that you've just told him not to make: a personal barb. His were at, you say, Leadbeater. Yours is at him: "I'm sure glad I'm not married to him." In a way, you have a double barb. When we're in a group talking to people, and we start talking about one of us in the third person, as though he's not there, that is ususally an indirect way of snubbing the person. Your comment can be taken in two ways. Without the "" it's possible to take it literally as a barb. With a better choice of words it might come off as funny. I know Rich has attempted to be funny, and one of the earlier attempts was not taken as a joke (saying "I object to PJ writing about seeing auras"), but later making his humor more clear in the writing. I can give you the benefit of the doubt and find humor in your comment, but not everyone will. I wonder how Jerry takes the comment? -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Oct 1995 05:45:59 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Re: science Deaar Liesel, Well, again the process of science is being confused with the mistakes of scientists. Theosophy as "God's Wisdom" is a valid ideal even though many who call themselves theosophists make mistakes and disagree about precepts. The same is true for science. >However, I don't agree with your "if one can make a prediction which >comes true ... then one is heading toward some right >understanding..." >The trouble is that if a scientist makes a prediction, he is liketly >to look for proofs that will validate his prediction, This is actually fine. Hypotheses based on our current experiential framework which make true predictions about observable effects are what theosophy does also. The scientific process works. >& he will >ignore (not one purpose) other factors, because they don't prove his >prediction. Only a small minority of those who claim to be scientists fall into this trap for very long. Science is, as Don said, self-correcting and has a peer review process which helps greatly in this. Theosophy would be well served if theosophists followed similar formula. Peace, Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Oct 1995 06:24:13 GMT From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: Question to Jerry HE Jerry Hejka-Ekins: > So, for the present context, my original statement might be >clearer if I reword it. It isn't that I have a problem with HPB >and the Mahatmas themselves, but that they are often >problematical like every other human being. I guess my biggest >problem is with trying to communicate with others who refuse to >see the humanness in our past leaders. Thanks for a really perceptive and common-sense post, here, Jerry. Murray Stentiford murray@sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Oct 1995 10:42:19 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: re what draws them in Someone wrote: > We too often overlook these objects and forget that when HPB >founded the T.S. there was no Secret Doctrine, no Mahatma >Letters. These seminal documents were given to us but only >later. The original members were hearing lectures on the lost > canon of proportion of the Egyptians. JHE We also must not overlook the fact that when the TS was founded, there were no three objects. The now familiar first object did not appear until 1878--three years after the TS was founded. The present wording of the three objects (of the Adyar TS) was not adopted until 1896. JRC (responding to the first quote above) An *excellent* point, and one that, if remembered, might curb the attempts so many have made over the years to narrow the originally broad range of studies and activities that composed Theosophy. HPB *herself* never would have claimed to be teaching "source" Theosophy, only that she was one of countless messengers that have appeared over the centuries, each articulating but a tiny and incomplete piece of an almost incomprehensibly large body of teachings ... none of the messengers claiming to be talking about anything other than a small piece, and all of them framing those pieces to be suited to the times in which they were living. JHE An interesting view. Mine is a little different, but not necessarily contradictory. HPB called her teaching "the secret doctrine" and claimed it to be the teachings of her teachers. Those teachings of her teachers are what I (and I think you) would call "source Theosophy." Yet HPB's teachings are also what I would call "source", though they are admittedly secondary to her teachers, and not "source" in the sense that I think you mean to use the word, they are still source to us because they form the soul of our modern theosophical literature, from which the later writers played off of. So I think we can fairly use the word "source" in two senses here with equal validity. As you say, HPB was not giving out the whole of "the secret doctrine" yet neither has anyone else, so we can only speculate upon what that complete body of teaching would look like. But if we accept HPB's teachings to be a piece of that body of teachings, then it is reasonable to expect that the larger whole, and any further teachings by others will be consistent with what she has given to us. If they are not, then I think it should be noted and we need to ask why. Thus this comparison of teachings to HPB is not because she is necessarily less fallible, but because HPB's teachings came first, and the later teachings claim consistency with her's. These claims of consistency gives us an opportunity to test those newer teachings by comparing them back to HPB's. JRC As Robbins says, "Ideas are made by masters, dogma by disciples, and the Buddha is *always* killed on the road." I sometimes think the reason why the spirit of great leaders rarely lasts long is because they are nailed to crosses by their enemies while they are alive, and nailed to pedestals by their followers after they're dead. JHE Amen Jerry HE reply to JHE@TOTO.CSUSTAN.EDU From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Oct 1995 10:43:47 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: RE:Wheaton and Cults Liesel Writes: >Dear Jerry, > >A moot question. >If you think so little of CWLeadbeater, why do you maintain >membership in Wheaton/Adyar? > >Liesel I guess they forgot to tell me that thinking highly of CWL was a requirement for membership. :-) Jerry HE From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Oct 1995 10:47:33 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: Rich on CWL & Censorship Liesel, Liesel, speaking of the CWL biographer, writes: > In the intro Tillet > states clearly that he was refused access to the Adyar >archives, & also that the Outer Head refused to speak to him >(naturally, but not understanding the secrecy of the ES he gets >angry about this) so who knows where he got his material from.? I'm afraid that you may have misread Dr. Tillett's Introduction. He was in fact given access to the Adyar Archives. It was the archives of the Esoteric Section that he "was not given access" (p. x). As interesting as this material might have been, Tillett's book does not stand or fall on it, and it does not mean that he did not have full access to ES material from other sources. In fact he did. CWL's true date of birth was uncovered by Miss Lillian Storey, now President of the London Lodge TS, who found CWL's actual birth certificate in the Dept. of vital statistics. The stenographer record of CWL's 1906 inquiry in London concerning the Chicago scandal was found by Tillett in the Adyar Archives, exactly where Olcott had ordered it to be put. The Sydney police reports of 1914 are still in the files of the Sydney police in Australia. As a native Australian, Tillet had no trouble accessing them. For access to rare and unique Krishnamurti material and oral history, Tillett worked with Miss Mary Lutyens (Daughter of Emily Lutyens, and author of several books on K.), who also assisted by reading over his mss. For oral history on K. as a child, and also rare and unique material on K. and CWL, Tillett interviewed extensively Dick Balfour Clarke, in his 90's at the time, and had worked with K. as a child. For CWL's esoteric sexual teachings, Tillett had Balfour Clarke's account and confirmation with Kollerstrom letters, diaries etc., that were in the possession of his widow, who also lived in Australia. At Adyar, he had John Coates' full cooperation, who indeed allowed him into the archives, over the protests of many others who lived there. As for source references, I counted about 512 of them, including CWL's own writings and ES material. The book came out of Tillett's dissertation towards a doctorate of philosophy in the Department of Religious studies at the U, of Sydney. A Doctorate degree was granted to him for his research, as well as a Commonwealth Post graduate Research Award. Also, I interviewed Greg Tillett for two days when he was in this country a few years ago. Since the publication of his book, he had found much more information about CWL, but alas, it was all far more damaging to Mr. Leadbeater's reputation than what Dr. Tillett had already published. I hope this clears up any confusion on this matter. Jerry HE please reply to jhe@toto.csustan.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Oct 1995 12:38:05 GMT From: Coherence@aol.com Subject: Re: Origin of Sense of Self In a message dated 95-10-10 23:14:44 EDT, you write: >In theosophical terms, our atma-buddhi >sees itself as separate and distinct from others and from the >world around it. The KEY TO THEOSOPHY, p.33, indicates that the feeling "I am I" refers to the Ego. On p. 121 of the KEY, in answer to the question, "But what is it that reincarnates . . .?" HPB answers, "The Spiritual thinking Ego, the permanent principle in man, or that which is the seat of MANAS. It is not Atma, or even Atma-Buddhi, regarded as the dual MONAD, which is the indiviual, or divine man, but Manas; for Atman is the Universal ALL, and becomes the Higher-Self of man only in conjunction with BUDDHI, its vehicle. . . . For it is the Buddhi-Manas which is called the Causal body, . . . and which is Consciousness. . . KEY, p. 176, The Spiritual divine Ego, is the Spiritual soul or Buddhi, in close union with Manas, the mind-principle, withouth which IT IS NO EGO AT ALL, BUT ONLY THE ATMIC VEHICLE. (Caps mine) >From the above, it would seem that it is Manas that provides the sense of I am I, the sense of self. Elsewhere in the KEY, HPB tells us that the Monad (Atma/Buddhi) is passive, which would indicate that it cannot/does not think or "see itself", therefore cannot perceive itself at all, even though an individuality. It is Manas which allows or provides this perception. The Monad is the power to perceive while Manas is the perceiver. Could you explain your position a bit more, because I cannot reconcile your statements with what HPB says? Thank you From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Oct 1995 12:46:28 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: What Draws then in, etc.: JRC's comments According to MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU: > > And you say that HPB was "one of countless messengers..." Would you please > inform the Theos network of whom you refer to. Would you be so kind as to > give us a list of say 100 of these messengers. Some of us may find the time Good lord! This way of interrogating people can come across as a way of silencing them. A list of 100? Why not ask for 10? > don't want to read her, okay, that fine! But I believe (and I think Jerry HE, > Rich, Eldon and even possibly Paul J would agree to some extent) that there I do, except that neo-Theosophy is a less loaded term to use. "Pseudo" has the implication that we can dismiss it just because it doesn't agree with HPB. There are reasons to dismiss a lot of this material. But I don't think we can afford to make coherence with HPB the sole criterion by which we evaluate later teachings; she herself would say (I hope) that we should weigh that but also take into account other factors. > is alot of pseudo-Theosophy out there in the marketplace; tons of "wild and > fanciful speculations" on Theosophical and Esoteric subjects that bear little > if any resemblance to Theosophy as given by HPB and yet the writers of this > pseudo-Theosophy would want you to believe that this "stuff" comes from the > same SOURCE as where HPB got her stuff! > > I certainly agree that we should NOT nail HPB upon a pedestal but all I'm > advocating is that *interested* students should try to take some > time and effort to read and possibly even study HPB's writings > and give them thoughtful consideration! Attempting to seriously > understand the *ideas* to be found in HPB's writings and to try > to understand the *system of philosopohy* which she outlines > should not be equated with some attempt to establish her as an > ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY, an INFALLIBLE SOURCE, and some attempt to > put her on some pedestal! But you would not deny that such attempts have been made? > It seems to me that all the Theosophical publishers bear some of the responsibility for the way HPB's teachings are neglected even by many Theosophists. All of them publish her works, but rarely package them so as to make them more accessible to today's readers. (Exception-- I haven't seen Michael Gomes's HPB Teaches, but even from the announcement of it I would assume it is a better book to give a beginning student of HPB than her original works.) Back in 1988 I proposed to TUP that they consider a series of brief compilations, by subject, bringing together HPB's most currently relevant writings. There was considerable interest, several volunteers were involved, but none of the proposed compilations was acceptable. ULT reprints articles in booklet form, but what we had in mind was something that would excerpt from books as well as articles, pulling together all the most germane material on such subjects as reincarnation, the spiritual path, What is Theosophy, etc. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Oct 1995 13:02:53 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: 7 Rays >> Eldon: >> Our unique experience colors our Reincarnating Ego, and that experience >> carries forward from one lifetime to the next. We develop, over time, >> specific characteristics. We individualize in a personal way, not according >> to our being on a particular "ray". >> >Lewis: Sounds like you view "individualization" as a/the (?) goal of >the personal self. I was thinking of it being a distinction between >the self-conscious and the kingdoms in nature which have not yet >reached that point. Individualization is the goal of the personal self. However, it is an illusion or maya, and cannot ever be attained because the Self, and thus self- consciousness, is a maya. Those who think that animals don't have self-consciounsess (and I believe Purucker - who called them all "beasts" - and others fall into such a category) have obviously never lived with a Norweign Forest Cat. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Oct 1995 14:26:47 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Dreams > In short, I find > more truth to our dreams than to our waking lives. Why? Because > we more honestly expressing true thoughts and feelings in our dreams, > and often cover or mask these in our waking state. Also, I believe > that dreams and bardo have as much objectivity and more "reality" as the > physical plane. > > Jerry S. > Lewis: Have you read HPB on dreams where she gives three kinds? As I recall one was the result of chemical reactions in the physical brain caused by such things as food digestion. One was rememberances of our astral wanderings, and the last was rememberances from past lives. llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Oct 1995 15:42:34 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Re: Comments on Subtle Bodies RE:Jerry S, Rich T and Eldon T If any new students of Theosophy are reading the exchange between Eldon, Rich and Jerry S., they may be thinking about how to find the closest exit and get the hell out of the Theosophy building! Are you three guys talking in the same language?? Rich speaks of the "astral" and Jerry S. speaks of the "astral" but are the two of you referring to the same idea? Rich writes: "`Psychic' in HPB's and WQJ's terms means simply `astral' and has little or nothing to do with `mental"....." Rich, I don't know what you mean by `astral' but in HPB's writings and in the letters of the Masters, `psychic' usually refers to the `kama-manas' personality. Jerry S. in replying to Rich writes: "It is unfortunate indeed, that the TS founders chose a word to indicte astral that actuallymeans the mental. My small paperback Webster's Dictionary says that psychic means `pertaining to the mental and spiritual life'......I use the word daily in my writings on psychology and therapy to indicate the mental...." Again, Jerry S. I don't exactly know how you are using the word "astral." I expect you mean by that word "emotions" "emotional" etc. But the word psychic or psyche can mean more than just mental and some dictionaries will define it as involving both mind and emotions. The psyche is mento-emotional personality or the kama-manas personality. And certainly in one definition, psychology can be defined as the study of a human being's thoughts and emotions. Agreed this is a simplistic definition. Rich writes: "We are not tuaght any `manasic' body by early writers....." Again Rich writes: "In all primary Theosophical sources (and Crosbie and Purucker stick to this) only 2 bodies are spoke of, physical and astral......" Rich, I don't mean to be unkind, but where are you getting this stuff from? Turn to at last one source written by HPB: "Dialogue Between the Two Editors" (Lucifer, Dec. 1888, pp. 328-333) in HPB's Collected Writings, Vol. X, pp. 218-219. I think this article is also printed in the Theosophy Company's Theosophical Articles by HPB. Anyway, HPB speaks of three doubles or bodies: (1) The Protean or Plastic Body (the linga-sarira); (2) The Mayavi-Rupa or Thought or Dream body; and (3) The true Ego, Casual Body or Karmic Body. And in this article , HPB says (p. 219) that the Mayavi-Rupa (the Thought Body) is the "vehicle both of thought and of the animal passions and desires, drawing at one aand the same time from the lowest terrrestrial manas (mind) and Kama, the element of desire..... In other words, the Myaavi-Rupa is the same as what HPB says elsewhere is the psyche. And since the word psychic comes from psyche, we see where we get the phrase "psychic phenomena" since such phenomena and experiences originate on the kama-manasic "plane" or "realm". Eldon and Jerry S. both quote the following from HPB: "When a man visits another in his Astral body, it is the Linga-sarira which goes, but this cannot happen at any great distance....The Linga-Sarira may be hurt by a sharp instrument...Nothing however can hurt the Mayavi-Rupa or thought body, since it is purely subjective....The projection of the Astral body should not be attempted, but the power of Kriyasakti should be exercised in the projection of the Mayavi-Rupa...." It is interesting that this distinction between the Linga-sarira and the Mayavi-rupa as both vehicles of projection has been discovered (using different terminlogy) by Dr. Robert Crookall in his dozen or more books on astral projections, out-of the body experiences, etc. In one of his books (I forget the title) his research of various people's experiences out of the body clearly shows that there are these two basic types of out-of the body experiences. Some projectors find that they cannot travel too far from the physical body and are in fact captives of a "astral" or silver cord whereas other projectors never see a silver cord and are not limited to the vicinity of their physical body but in fact can travel great distances from the physical body. The limited out of body travelers are using the linga-sarira as their astral body of projection whereas the travelers who do not experience limited travel are projecting in their mayavi-rupas. Also we can correlate HPB's teaching above with studies of physical and mental mediumship. Physical mediums like Eusapia Palladino "use" their linga sarira to "move" objects and cause ectoplasmic manifestations. Mental mediums like Mrs. Piper do not produce "physical" phenomena but instead produce "mental" phenomena such as telepathic communications, etc. Whole books could be written on the differences between the two kinds of mediumship. Jerry S. writes: "Here HPB clearly distinguishes the astral and mental bodies. Someone please show this quote to Rich. He thinks that there is only an astral body. This quote is a good example of how confusing words can be when we talk about these things...." yes, I agree that Rich should look at this quote, but at the same time, I would caution Jerry S. to carefully define what he means by "astral" and "mental bodies". Jerry, do you define "mental body" as "mayavi-rupa"? If so, the "mayavi-rupa" is not only mental but also emotional. And as HPB uses astral, the astral body is not the emotional body but the linga-sarira which HPB says "play the part of materialized grandmothers and `John Kings." (see C.W., X, p. 218. Now of course the reality behind these words is more complex than what you might expect from just reading what I have written but I believe the correlations with Dr. Crookall's work and with a study of physical and mental mediumship of HPB's teachings helps the Theosophical student to understand all of this a little better. On those few occasions when I have "astral projected" I have found myself in an objective body yet within myself I was aware of my own thoughts and emotions. On one of these excursions, I suspect I was in the linga-sarira since it was difficult to go far from the body and I felt constrained. In several other expeiences I experienced no constraining influences of my physical body and in fact was able to travel a great distance with no thought of the physical body. My projected body seemed quite energetic and light and probably I was in the mayavi rupa. These projections whether in the linga sarira or in the mayavi rupa are quite different (at least for me) than being in the physical body and yet in deep thought or meditation and all of the former three pale in comparison to mystical states of consciousness that I have experienced whether in or out of the body. These mystical states (to my perception at least) are totally superior to the former three. In these mystical states I have experienced there are no bodies, no distinction between inner and outer, just a consciousness of supreme bliss that flows through your being. Your sense of self is merged with a greater self which includes everything. Bliss, intense love and compassion wells up within "you" from an inexhaustible source. These mystical experiences make projections in the linga sarira or the mayavi rupa almost of no consequene whatsoever. Sorry for getting sidetracked and relating some of my personal experiences which I usually try to avoid doing. Enough for now. Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Oct 1995 16:47:12 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Symbols And Bridges < Clear by whose definitions? What you seem to be saying is certainly not clear to me. I am afraid that you are using too many pronouns for me to follow exactly what you mean. If you mean to imply that the astral and mental bodies effect the physical body via the pineal and pituitary glands in the brain, than I have no problem with that. I think that that is true. My Christian Science background assures me that there exists a cause-effect relationship between mind, emotions, and body. But I still believe that each subtle body has its own set of senses appropriate to its plane. When I am in my astral body, I see astral objects, not physical ones. And I can't do this via the brain or physical body at all. In fact, I have to "forget" the physical for awhile in order to let my consciousness shift out of my physical and into the astral or mental. Even little children dream. Dreams are but astral experiences (else, please someone explain them another way). Emotions exist on the astral plane. Thought exist on the mental plane. Our mental body is a thought-body, in a sense a thought-form, - manas meaning mind. Our astral body is a desire body - kama meaning desire. We only have direct knowledge of whats going on upon Earth via our physical senses. In the same way, we only can directly experience the astral plane via the astral senses in our astral body, and we can only have direct experience on the mental plane via the mental senses of the mind. However, if you want to connect our subtle bodies with our physical, you need to do so through the chakras, not the glands of the brain. The chakras directly link our physical body to all of the subtle bodies that we cannot see but exist nonetheless. Of course, it is sometimes said that the brow chakra is now the pineal gland, or whatever the third eye is supposed to be. But each of the chakras also has its physical equivalent, and we don't want to ignore them and just look at the pineal or pituitary. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Oct 1995 16:47:17 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Origin Of Sense Of Self James: Subject: Re: What draws them in; an alternate view. JRC:< ...she was one of countless messengers that have appeared over the centuries, each articulating but a tiny and incomplete piece of an almost incomprehensibly large body of teachings ... none of the messengers claiming to be talking about anything other than a small piece, and all of them framing those pieces to be suited to the times in which they were living. > I don't know if everyone is aware of this, but Aleister Crowley claimed to also have been a messenger from the Great White Lodge, the same as HPB was from. He taught that the Lodge sends out many messengers, and that most return in new incarnations to continue teaching. There are many ways in which such messengers help others. They can stay in the background and help only a few. They can write books. And, they can teach openly and found new organizations like HPB and AC both did. The latter path, though, is the most difficult, because it induces the most karma (probably because it effects the most people). If this is true (and I think that it is) then there are a great number of messengers at all times, each striving to do their own work, which focuses on a select group of people. Only in rare cases do these messengers try to reach out to all people in a universal message. Such was HPB's case, and that of most religious founders. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Oct 1995 16:48:22 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Comments on Subtle Bodies Re: Re: Symbols and Bridges 1 Some comments to Rich and Eldon: Subject: Re: Origin of Sense of Self Coherence: Please someone show this quote to Rich who will doubtless take gas :-) KEY:< for Atman is the Universal ALL, and becomes the Higher-Self of man only in conjunction with BUDDHI, its vehicle. > Here Buddhi is clearly called a vehicle or body. It is the subtle body of atma, and together they form the causal body. KEY: The causal body is not an ego, or defined self, per se. It is only when it combines with manas to form the mental body that we have an ego. This is why I have been saying that our ego resides on the mental plane. I totally agree with your quotes, and have no problem with relating them to what I said about separation. Don't think that you need an ego in order to feel a sense of separation or a sense of self - because you don't. The ego is a defined self. The vauge undefined sense of separation and self that we find in atma gets very defined on the lower planes. You might think of this as a general sense of I slowly becoming I am I, which is a more defined self. Also, we have to remember that for every I, there is a corresponding not-I or environment or world which also slowly becomes more defined as we sink onto the lower planes. According to non-dualism, there is no subjectivity without objectivity. Another thing to remember here is that all of our lower six principles exist below the Abyss. This leaves only Atma for all of the planes above the Abyss. Actually, we have more bodies/principles than these, but HPB only gave out the lower 7. Hope this helps. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Oct 1995 17:39:34 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re Dreams Lewis: I believe that this is in Transactions of the Blavatsky Lodge. And yes, I am aware of the different types of dreams. I was speaking in generalities. Remember, there are also many types of lives being lived on Earth in physical bodies. Some of these are more "real" and more "objective" than others too. Does a blind person have less objectivity than one who sees? Does an infant have less reality than a grown up? I say again that, in general, there is more reality in our dreams than in our waking state. I also agree with Tibetan Buddhism that the Path can only be tread as a human in the waking state. But how well we tread that Path directly effects the objectivity and reality of our dreams and bardo. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Oct 1995 21:04:12 GMT From: Don DeGracia <72662.1335@compuserve.com> Subject: Predictions? Liesel This is a pretty weak scientist who does this. Any scientist knows that the best test of an idea is to try to find as many ways as possible to INVALIDATE it. If an idea can stand up against repeated tests to invalidate it, then the idea probably has merit. This, is actually how most practicing scientists work. This is precisely how we work in my laboratory. Professional scientists do this to each other reguarly - that is - attempt to invalidate each other's ideas. This is how the game is played, and we are all comfortable with it. We are out to understand Nature, not get on some ego trip. Any *real* scientist is not at all afraid that you try to disprove her ideas. Don From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Oct 1995 23:02:14 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Self & Maya Jerry S. writes, > Individualization is the goal of the personal self. However, it is an illusion > or maya, and cannot ever be attained because the Self, and thus self- > consciousness, is a maya. Say what? The Self is Maya? I thought that everything was "Maya" (illusion) EXCEPT the Self or Atman? That's what the Bhagavad-Gita seems to teach, and the original Theosophical thinkers seem to follow that path. I agree with "Coherence" (who lately joined the list -- welcome!) that the Atman is from our perspective "passive" and thus not self-conscious. Rather, the teachings (which Coherence selects) seem to point to Manas as the seat of self-consciousness, and Atma-Buddhi as substratum, support, backdrop of evolution. Have I gotten it all messed up? Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Oct 1995 23:02:19 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: What Draws then in, etc.: JRC's comments JRC wrote, > H.P.B. *herself* > never would have claimed to be teaching `source' Theosophy, Er, well -- that's exactly what she DID claim. HPB claimed in pretty categorical language that Masters exist, that They preserve the Wisdom of the Ages, that They worked with her directly for about 20 years before she was instructed to give out the teachings, and that what she gives out is (fragments) of the actual teachings -- the SOURCE teachings, from the SOURCE. We all are proud to say that HPB was only one of "countless" messengers, but the first one who POINTED THIS OUT in the West anyway was Blavatsky herself. We owe this whole concept of "countless Messengers" to HPB, although we might say in retrospect she only got it from her "Buddhist" teachers, for in Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. this is a common concept. HPB spent a great deal of time pointing to other teachers (here's 50-some toward that list of 100 -- Plato, Socrates, Plotinus, Ammonius Saccas, Porphyry, Proclus, Iamblichus, Pythagoras, Plutarch, Celsus, Marcus Aurelius, Diogene Laertius, Apuleius, Apollonius of Tyana, Hypatia, Hermes Trismegistus, Aeschylus, Euripides, Boethius, Berosus, Clement Alexandrinus, Origen, Synesius, Valentinus, Philo Judaeus, Seneca, Pindar, Julian, Lactantius; Gautama Buddha, Krishna, Kapila, Katyayana, Vyasa, Shankara, Patanjali, Panini, Padmasambhava, Vasubandhu, Aryasanga, Nagarjuna, Santirakshita, Milarepa, Tilopa, Gampopa, Tsong Kha Pa (and countless Sanskrit, Chinese and Tibetan texts); Cagliostro, Anton Mesmer, Saint-Martin, Count de Saint-Germane, Meister Eckhardt, Paracelsus, Thomas Paine, the list could easily find 1000 candidates for messengers of wisdom or people inspired by the Masters). When we run around saying she was one of a long line, this does not discredit HPB. In fact we quote her and give her all the more credit when we place her in line, because it means she was of that caliber, and that she has a right to speak for the SOURCE tradition and tell us more about her predecessors. HPB did claim to teach source material, and often pointed to her books and her work as DIRECTLY inspired by "Those Who Know." Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Oct 1995 23:02:27 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Comments on Subtle Bodies Jerry S. writes: > I am not at all sure of what the heck you mean here, > Rich. The physical senses and their relationship to the > brain (sensory and motor nerves, etc) are well documented. > Medical science needs no astral or mental causes for physical > sensations. Medical science has its theories, Theosophy has others. We are free to choose what we like, but let's be clear on the Theosophical position according to its Teachers. William Q. Judge writes, in *THE OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY* p. 42, "The astral body has within it the real organs of the outer sense organs. In it are the sight, hearing, power to smell, and the sense of touch." HPB says exactly the same thing in ISIS UNVEILED, I just don't have time to go digging around that voluminous source for a handy quote. The astral senses are the basis of the physical ones, and as we all know, the eyes can be open and not SEE when our attention is directed elsewhere. The physical senses are DEAD and do not function alone. They need the INNER MAN to use them (or mis-use them.) Jerry S. > You > seem to be saying that the astral body has virtually > unlimited senses, which I rather doubt. Again, Mr. Judge, p. 44: "The astral--which are the REAL--organs, do the seeing and the hearing, and as all material objects are constantly in motion among their own atoms the astral sight and hearing are not impeded, but work at a distance as great as the extension of the astral light or matter around and about the earth." So no, not "unlimited," but limited to the dimensions of the astral light which surrounds the earth and extends beyond it quite a distance, measured best in hundreds of miles. Jerry S: > Do you see, Rich, how holding onto > such anachronisms gets us theosophist into so much trouble > with the outside, as well as with new (and sometimes > not so new) members? The trouble is easily avoided if we explain our terms to newcomers at the beginning, and in truth, when one reads the source materials, the meanings of the words are pretty clear. I'm afraid Leadbeater, Besant, Alice Bailey and friends messed up the terms by screwing around with them for no good reason. Jerry S: > < We are not taught any "mansic" body by early writers, in > Depends on how you define "early." HPB mentions > just such a "mind body" and said that manas "in conjunction > with its vehicle becomes Kama-rupa and Mayavi-rupa--body of > desire or "illusion body." " (CW Vol VII, p 188). Well, it's a temporarily projected form FROM the mind, not the body OF the mind, and it lasts only so long as one concentrates upon it. It is certainly not a "body" in the sense of physical or astral, which form vehicles for a lifetime. Jerry S.: > I am tired of arguing with you on this one. Please > read the 1000+ books in any Adyar (or Wheaton) TS library. > You are not Adyar, and you admit to having read nothing from > this group. When did I admit I had read nothing from Adyar? I have most of Annie Besant's and Leadbeater's books nearby, either in my own library, or at my local lodge. I have read a great deal of their works, and that is how I came to form my present (low) opinion of them. We disagree, that's all, and it is not very comfortable to have the disagreement simply reduced to my ignorance of "Adyar." (Is Adyar some homogenous thing of which we should be aware? It's as diverse as any place I've been, at least when I was there. All kinds of people had all kinds of ideas, and none of them agreed. Which is fine.) Jerry S.: > There is manas, Rich, and only manas - which means mind and > especially the human mind. Which, BTW, exists on the mental > plane and only on the mental plane. If it exists "on the mental plane and only on the mental plane," how is it we experience mind here in the physical body, using the physical brain as its vehicle? You have never explained this, though I've asked about 4 times. Jerry S.: > Where on earth did you find this idea, Eldon? > Just as the physical is "concreted astral" so the astral > is concreted mental. No, that's not what the teachings (or Eldon) say. The two are not parallel. Jerry S.: > I don't believe for a minute that we "create" > our mental body, which I see as exactly the Mayavi-rupa. > Its already there, on the mental plane. We simply > learn to focus in it, thats all. No, that's not what the Mahatma Letters of HPB say. The KriyaShakti is an energy controlled by the mind to TEMPORARILY project a vehicle for itself. Jerry S.: > The > exoteric teaching is that we must create such a body > (and this can be found in many Taoist texts, for example) > but the esoteric teaching is that it already exists > and we simply learn to focus consciousness in it (the > Tibetans, for example, teach this). The Tibetans do not teach this to my knowledge. A Tibetan source for this assertion would be very interesting. Rather, the Tibetans teach that there are 5 skandhas, only one of which is a body in any sense (Skt. "rupa,: Tbtn. "sku"). Esoterically they teach a "lung" body, which is able to leave the physical, etc. COnsciousness, however, is pure, "clear" "natural" and needs no vehicle WHATSOEVER. Jerrys S.: Any "mind-created body" or mind-created anything soever MUST be on the mental plane, by definition of "mind-created." So when HPB or other Adept materializes something on the physical plane, it is not "mind-created"? Where does this idea that the mind is ONLY on a mental plane come from? The mind can create on ANY plane if it is trained, it is not limited to some one sphere. Jerry S.: > IMHO, the *only* > connection that we have with Earth is via the physical > senses of our physical body. HPB often speaks of all seven planes of Globe D as "the earth" or "our earth" and it included the Kama-lokas and Devachans of Globe D. "Earth" is not just physical, it is that very misunderstanding that HPB tried to clear up. The earth itself has seven aspects or planes, as do every other of the 6 globes. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Oct 1995 23:02:32 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Origin of Sense of Self Jerry S. > But the > teaching of a very subtle sense of separation at the highest level > can be found in Mahayana Buddhism and other nondualistic > schools, if not theosophy. I am not aware of this teaching in Mahayana Buddhism. Can you think of a handy source for this idea? I'd like to check it out. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Oct 1995 23:02:34 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Origin of Sense of Self Jerry S.: > KEY:< For it is the Buddhi-Manas which is called the Causal body, . . . > > Please someone show this quote to Rich who will > doubtless take gas :-) Why should I take gas? HPB is clear, and the "Causal body" is not the same thing as the Mayavi-rupa, in fact, quite polar opposites. Buddhi-Manas is called the "casual body" because it is the VEHICLE of Atma, and the producer of causes (i.e. thinking, attractions, repulsions, etc.) It seems you are speaking of a BODY of the MIND, and in that case Buddhi-manas won't serve, because Manas (taken as one principle) can't be it's own cause AND effect. So which is it? The word "body" is no magical key to a parallel to "bodies" on different planes. When one is "in" the causal body (meaning, I assume, conscious on that plane) one does not assume some particular form with particular senses. Rather, it indicates free and unlimited consciousness unblocked by any and all formes. It is a-rupa, formless, but serving as a focal point (of consciousness) for Atma, which is aboslutely universal and NOT conscious of separation whatsoever (though the Monad may be, let's find out ...) Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 11 Oct 1995 23:31:54 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Comments on Subtle Bodies RE:Jerry S, Rich T and Eldon T > (2) The Mayavi-Rupa or Thought or Dream body; and > > (3) The true Ego, Casual Body or Karmic Body. > > And in this article , HPB says (p. 219) that the Mayavi-Rupa (the Thought > Body) is the "vehicle both of thought and of the animal passions and desires, > drawing at one aand the same time from the lowest terrrestrial manas (mind) and > Kama, the element of desire..... Yes, the word body appears, and it is true that they are vehicles. They are not "bodies" in the sense Jerry is using the term, meaning possessing definable limits, particular sense organs, existing on a single plane, etc. In this sense, English is a very poor language, and we are heaping upon the single word "body" these senses of "kosha" (sheath of consciousness), "rupa" (form) "yana" (literally, chariot, liberally: vehicle, support, basis) etc. I have taken Jerry's use of the word "body" (i.e. having sense organs, existing on a certain plane, possessing a recognizable, inherent form) as "rupa" and I stick to what I said, there are only two, the physical and astral, which, as Eldon has been kind enough to point out, really just boils down to one. To speak of the "causal" body as a "form" with "senses" seems to me gross materialism, and it gets us in the trouble of treating them as objects, rather than as subjects. Truly, they can be seen as both (to Adepts) but for us, the "causal body" is simply the subjective mind. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Oct 1995 00:19:09 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: 7 Rays Patrick: >The seven ray qualification is a completely accurate idea about the >nature of reality and is supported by the writings of HPB and others. The idea of the seven rays was one that I studied when reading Leadbeater, and I understand that it's taught in Bailey's writings too. I left it behind when I started studying Purucker and Judge. I would classify the idea, along with that of group souls and of soul mates, as misconceptions where unnecessary and artificial distinctions are made, without regard to the eternal nature of the Monad. >>The idea that somehow in our essence, in our inmost beings, we've come >>from seven different cookie cutters or belong to one of seven primal >>groups, is wrong. >In an absolute essence we are all divine sparks but the Monad itself is >in manifestation in a cosmic sense and is qualified by one of the three >aspects of Diety. When we come into existence, we are qualified by all aspects of the world we're in, all it's cosmic principles, like it's Mahat having an affect on our Manas, it's Fohat on our Kama, etc. We're not the offspring of a single principle of the heavenly man. >The sevenfold qualification occurs also at all levels of manifestation. We are, I'd say, qualified in a sevenfold way. Each of our seven principles draws upon the storehouse of nature, drawing to itself what is appropriate, what is its own, what belongs to it (e.g. our Skandhas). It is possible to say that we're centered, perhaps in kama-manas. That is one of the priciples. But we shouldn't call the seven principles as rays, and say that "we're on the kama-manasic ray". That's because we're active in all seven principles. All are necessary ingredients of conscious existence, and we could not exist as fully-manifest beings without something of each of them. When we say that we're centered in kama-manas, that means that kama-manas is our seat of consciousness, it is the prime mover or initiator of causes or center of action in our consciousness. Our focus of awareness may be in that principle, and so our motivation and initiation of action arises out of it. But we're not "on that ray". >In relation to human evolution and identity all spiritual and >personal aspects are qualified by the three and the seven rays. >"As above, so below." We *are qualified* by these influences. But not by a single one, but by all of them. The Solar energies come to us through the Seven Sacred Planets, and from them as influences to the seven globes of our chain, on which we experience those respective qualities as the *keynote* of manifest activity. (Even though the influence of a Sacred Planet predominates on a particular Globe, the influences of all the rest are still present and active.) >The essential nature is always pure. Agreed. And we do not belong to any ray. We are not subject to this influence or that influence depending upon which ray we happen to belong to. We are subject to all influences and build and master our own temperaments. Depending upon our level of awakening, we could belong to one "ray", to two or three "rays", or perhaps all seven "rays", as we live out the various qualities of consciousness. The biggest problem that I have at the moment with the idea of the seven rays is that we "belong to a ray". We don't belong to anything, and are only subject to the quality of consciousness and swabhava or individual nature of the world or universe into which we find birth. >Ray qualification is also from individual development on different >levels in ages past. Rays can and do shift and change according to >personal evolution. The closest thing that I'd find to "shifting a ray" would be when we move from rebirth on Globe D to rebirth on Globe E, under the influence of a different Sacred Planet. >The inner man is also associated with the seven aspects of Diety -- >depending on the evolutionary needs of the time. The interaction of inner >and outer ray influences is like the interaction of the different influences >of an astrology chart. I tend to find no need for the idea of rays, since our qualities of consciousness is already better defined in terms of the seven principles. Talking about the rays sounds, to me, like trying to put people into categories for trying to understand them, like in astrology saying that "you're a virgo, so you're such and such a way". The categories are a mental construct and not a metaphysical reality. When I write the above, I expect you to disagree with me, beause Bailey uses the idea of the seven rays throughout her writings, and you accept her as an authority and spokeswoman for the Masters. From that standpoint, you'd be inclined to accept everything she says on an equal basis -- as true -- and seek to defend any portion of it that was disagreed with. >From my standpoint, Bailey is not a representative of the Masters, but a channeller receiving materials from the astral light of mixed quality and accuracy. I'd feel free to pick and choose from what she said what I would find true or disagree with. (I'm not trying here to get you to rethink your position towards Bailey, only to describe our respective positions towards her materials, which may qualify how we approach a discussion of the seven rays.) In friendly disgreement, Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Oct 1995 00:19:22 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: What draws them in; an alternate view. Sy: >At The Theosophical Society in Miami & South Florida (TSA) in Deerfield Beach, >we do not see as an issue whether theosophical teachings have to be changed to >be more attractive and easy to comprehend. We think they are fine just the way >they are. Some studies are more difficult, some less. You've found a formula for running a group that is highly successful, and we all applaud you and your fellow workers. >... All this makes us a big active Branch with well over 100 members > and growing. We ... respectfully suggest that those of you interested > in Branch work might wishto take a look at what we are doing here. We are > convinced that if more Branches followed a broad program of course and study > group offerings, the TSA would be growing, not shrinking. We should take a close look at what you're doing and see how it might be adopted elsewhere. One thing I wonder about, as I read your description, is how do you handle rapid growth? How does a core group of people grounded in Theosophy maintain control when quickly outnumbered by new members with perhaps different beliefs, people who could quickly outvote the old members and change the direction of things? >It's not hard to do and you do not need a lot of money. Just members of >goodwill who wish to give some service for the overall benefit. We do this all >in a small (1000 sq ft) store in a shopping center which also contains our >Quest Bookstore and Branch library. With your group, do you have one or two strong people leading the way and looked up to by the rest, or is there a core group of five or ten that share the inititive on an equal basis? (Just wondering.) -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Oct 1995 05:10:48 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Origin of Sense of Self Jerry S: I'd like to get in a few more comments on the subject, and your posting is handy. >"All aggragates are impermanent" In Theosophy we have a number of aggregates. While in full embodied existence on a sphere of causes, we are an aggregate of Monads. (We're really the Human Monad, in association with Divine, Spiritual, Higher-Human, Beast, etc.. Monads. Each such other Monad contributes to our aggregate experience of being an incarnate human being. In another sense, we are our karma, and we are our Skandhas, and are not a fixed self. In a third sense, we are, in existance, a series of concatenations of causes (the nidanas), each of which provides a self-sustained stream of cause and effect, different types of karma leading to manifest existence. Looking at our seven principles, we have both modes of viewing things. When we take the "fixed self" view, we have Atman through Sthula Sharira. When we take the "stream of conscousness" view, we have Auric Egg through Linga Sharira. I'd suggest that both are equally true and valid modes of experiencing life. Life takes on one face or the other based upon *our perception*, but it only changes *to us*. Outside of us, it exists both ways at once. >"All things are devoid of a self (atman: "ego" or "soul")"." >(Secret Oral Teachings of Tibetan Buddhists Sects, p 45.) This is true *from one point of view*, which is being taught in that passage. It is false from the other point of view. >In other words, Mahayana Buddhists don't believe in atman, Rich. They may teach the "stream of consciousness", a everflowing fountain of life springing out of the Auric Egg. Another school may teach the "eternal self", a fixed experiencer of life, the Atman or Monad. There *is* a part of us that is timeless, eternal, never-changing, yet *uniquely us*. It is our personal version of the Heavenly Man, our personal exprience of the timeless. It acts as the ideal that ever drives us forward in time, seeking to continually express and get closer to what it represents. This could be considered the eternal self, yet at the same time, since it's above and out of manifest existence, we cannot call it a self in the traditional sense. It is not us as we know ourselves in existence. >"What is described as the self [atman] is the essence or the inborn >entity, the existence of which does not depend upon external conditions. Yes, it is an essence, the "flavor" of us, our essential nature, and totally without dependence upon external conditions, as it transcends time and evolution. >Selflessness [anatman] is without such a self" (p 54) The Self that we know ourselves as, the Self that grows and changes over evolution, is corruptible, subject to time and decay, and is eternal over the time period of its respective manvantara. That part of us that transcends this, the Not-Self, does not have changeable qualities, but is forever and unchangingly *us* ourselves. >"By conceivning the self, >One perceives the existence of others. >Differentiating between self and others >Causes attachment and hatred." >(p 55) Now we get into a discussion of the seven principles. When we first start coming into existance, we take on the seven principles in succession. Before we take on the principles in a universe or world, we do not exist, we have no sense of time, and the universe *does not exist* as far as we are concerned. With Atman, we are first taking on a sense of that universe. We taste its flavor, we are aware of it in a universal, near-nirvanic sense. We are like non-existence goldfish that know the feel of the water in the aquarium that they will appear in. We do not exist to the point of being aware of others in any manner. There is no sense of self or others, just of pure existence. We are in a state where we've basically opened a laya center allowing for entry into that world, but ourselves continue in a state of total dissolution of our Skandhas or unity with all of life. Coming into that world, passing through that opening or laya center, we take on our first sense of awareness of the content of that world, through Atma-Buddhi. Buddhi is the first vehicle per se, the first sense of there being something to us that is not universally identified with all that is. With Buddhi, we are aware of the different beings in the universe. That awareness comes to us through living links between us and others. Those links are the "inbetween space" that exists between any two beings. That space is the storehouse of interpersonal karma. We are aware of others as particular beings, but have a blissful sense of unity with them, the sambhogakaya, the awareness of losing self in other. Still, we don't have any sense of *personal self*. To this point, we exist as a separate being, and we have pure perception of others, but there's no awareness of us as *separate from others*. That sense of separation or personal ego comes with Manas. When we've taken on Atma-Buddhi-Manas, we're aware of the universe, and of others, and of ourselves as distinct from the rest. With Manas, we have a consciousness of selfhood, of separation. Before Manas, we still had an individual existence, but without awareness of self. At this point, with Manas, we are pure beings, without concern for action in the world. We couldn't care less if we got married, wrote a book, travelled to Tibet, or ate pizza for dinner. The sense of personal self needs further qualification, there needs to be a *desire to do things*, which comes with Kama. But even with the desire of Kama, we need the actual life energies to do our will in the world, Prana, which is that portion of universal life or Jiva that we are able to contain and direct in our consciousness. Without Prana, we may be burning with desire, but impotent to do anything about it in the world. (This is the state of people that have freshly entered Kamaloka, having dropped the lower principles, but still having to exhaust their unspent desire energies.) Having that desire, Kama, and the life energy to carry it out, what do we now need? We need *contents*, both sensory input (Linga-Sharira or the astral, the seat of sense perception) and a physical form to exist in (Sthula-Sharira or the physical body). We are then completely manifest on a Globe or world. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Oct 1995 05:29:49 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Group Auras & Energies Hello, Here are some quotes on the energy flow in herds, groups and organizations. "A *group* is an organization of individuals whose personality energy fields are controlled from within themselves. In a real group there is never any coercion, manipulation, intimidation or deception. Honesty, humility and inner steadfastness are the characteristics of a real group. A group aura is formed not by the breaking down and blending of the individual energy fields but by the collective radiations of all the diverse individual auras. Groups are formed as part of the natural evolution of humanity toward higher energy realms. A group aura is a beautiful sight. The family is an excellent learning opportunity for the evolution of herds into gatherings of individuals and into groups. As more families become groups many of society's problems will disappear. Eventually the nations of the world will be true groups but this must come about through individual freedom and natural societal evolution." "All energy that is taken through any means (even by tricking a person into giving it) must eventually be given back and no adult who has a developed intuitive and spiritual energy field ever takes energy from anyone for any reason. Herds are right and normal in the animal kingdom but human beings should be free individuals evolving toward group awareness. Being in a herd can make you feel the illusion of safety and security through the feeling of "belonging", but it also causes one's development to mostly stagnate (despite appearances). " "A herd is an organization of people whose energy field boundaries are controlled by a leader who violates them by his stronger personality aura and vampires off their energy to make himself more powerful. He usually does this by getting people to trust or worship him and then causing them to doubt themselves or by using intimidation and fear. The leader then appears to be very powerful and creative (and even to have magical abilities) but this is really from the theft of the energy of others. Herd leaders try and get people to be grateful to them rather than to God in order to use this energy to sustain themselves. I have known "gurus" (men and women) who do this and who try to destroy anyone who discovers what is really going on." "In a herd there is really only one giant personality energy field controlled by the leader with the individuals involved usually trying to be like the leader as much as possible. These herd leaders like to surround themselves with as many young people and children as they can because of the greater vital energy present in younger people and their ease of control. Herd leaders usually put on a very good show and may appear to be doing much good for others but in reality they are doing everything for themselves and have a subtle vanity as a significant influence behind all they do. Individuals of a true spiritual ability are free from any significant influences of personal pride and vanity. " "Many totalitarian nations are simply herds and this accounts for the generally devitalized energy level of many people who live in them. Governments and government organizations who use intimidation and fear to control their people are herd creators and will eventually disintegrate when people realize the type of manipulation that is going on. All "psychic" hotlines and similar organizations are attempts to create herds at a distance through fostering personal psychological dependency." "When you watch a television program your energy bodies begin to merge with others through sympathetic vibration at a distance into a type of generalized herd. News programs, talk shows and even lectures which give off negative emotions allow those in control of the programs to vampire off the vitality of those watching. This is because fear and other negative emotions lower one's energy level and can cause one's protective aura to go limp -- when this is the case one naturally looks for a stronger person to depend upon -- and unless that person is a truly good person (free from emotional reactions and vanity) who wants you to learn to depend on yourself and for you to be strong within, he will take your energy. This can and does happen at a distance as energy relations are not limited by the conventional perspectives of time and space. News reporters and talk show hosts usually design their presentation to create a negative emotional state in the audience and then to produce a focus on themselves as the "wise one" who is explaining the situation to you. This allows them to consciously or unconsciously absorb the energy generated by your need for a solution to the unpleasant emotions. People who have strong auras with a spiritual focus, however, can watch television programs and magnetize the energy being generated onto good lines and actually help those who are involved in the program by freeing them somewhat from herd influences." >From "Seeing Auras", (copyright, etc.) Light & Love, Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Oct 1995 07:36:32 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: RE: Re: Wheaton & cults Eldon: >We're selling ourselves short when we divert our energies, as a movement, >into feeding the poor, fighting bad laws through political challenges, or >concentrating on psychological self-help. As individuals, we may feel a >personal calling into such avenues of service, but as a movement, it's >not, I'd think, a good thing to do. I agree. I see TS as a spiritual atmosphere where ideas and ideals can be formed, than acted upon by individuals or groups in the outer world. I do not know how much of that is being done now, but I can envision some members participating in a "think tank" to solve problems. Scientists and visionaries included. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Oct 1995 07:36:33 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: Re: Rich on CWL & Censorship Rich, cheri, t'es un peu rasoir. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Oct 1995 10:09:47 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Comments on Subtle Bodies Rich to me: Sorry for taking so long. You do not experience mind in your physical body. Neither do I, nor does anyone else. Mind is on the mental plane. Emotions are on the astral plane. You give me the impression that you think that these planes are way out in space somewhere (?). Our astral and mental bodies surround and envelope our physical body and all are linked together through the chakras and nadis. Anyway, if your mind was in the physical body, as you seem to think, then perhaps you can explain to me how you can think in your dreams, or in meditation, when you are no longer in your physical body? If the mind was located in the physical body, out-of-body experiences would be impossible. As far as the chakras are concerned, many people think of them as located along the spine of the physical body. This too is an error. The chakras are in the astral body, at locations which align with certain parts of the physical body. The heart chakra, for example, is not located in our heart, but along the sushumna nadi at a position in the astral body that corresponds to the physical heart (the central channel is not located in the spine, but in the astral body at a point which corresponds to the physical spine). The mind is located in the mental body at a point which corresponds to the brain in the physcial body. Our bodies all overlap each other. When our consciousness is focused in our physical body (i.e., in the waking state) it seems like our mind is actually in our physcial body, but this is an illusion. Most people think that emotions are in the mind, too, but is also an illusion. I hope this helps. Rich: I think that this is a matter of interpetation. I see Kriyasakti as an energy that can be used to allow us to temporarily shift consciousness to the mental body. Rich: Again, there are lots of sources for this. How about Nagarjuna, who wrote "The illusory body dwells within our body, but because we lack good fortune we do not comprehend it." (Nagarjuna's Five Stages of Completion Stage, as translated by Geshe Gyatso in Clear Light of Bliss (Tharpa Publications) p. 201). There is a lot of info around on the Tibetan "illusory body" which has both a pure (mental body) and an impure (astral body) form. Gyatso describes them very well, but old Evans-Wentz also talks about them in his classic Tibetan Yoga and Secret Doctrines. While on this subject, let me also quote Gyatso, who writes 3 descriptions of the illusory body: "1) it is free from any type of ordinary appearance 2) it is perceived only by the meditator and by those who have also attained the illusory body 3) it is not an object realized by logicians who do not practice. " (p 198) Perhaps you are a "logician who does not practice," Rich? I have practiced the yogas, and I can use my "illusory body" to a degree (which, BTW, is equivalent to the Body of Light taught in magical schools). We are fast getting into a semantics problem here, with all these technical terms being tossed around. But the basic concept is a simple one. Rich: Yes, physical things can be mind-created. This is called precipitation, and I have a ritual for it in one of my magic books. What does this have to do with planes? How can the human mind create on *any* plane? What a novel idea. Can it create on the spiritual plane? As far as I am concerned, the mind can create only on the mental, astral and physical planes and cannot effect any of the planes above it. It is not "mind" that travels to higher planes, Rich. It is consciousness. The human "mind" can be defined as consciounsess when focused in the mental body, if you want a nice definition. Rich: IMHO, you are misreading HPB and confounding the planes. Globe D refers to our physical planet, Earth. Kamaloka is on the astral plane, and Devachan is on the mental plane. This does not mean that they are way off in space somewhere. They are within the "environment" of Earth. And, yes, Globe D does have "bodies" on all 7 cosmic planes, but this gets very confusing, and so HPB and the MLs refer to Globe D as Earth. But this is not true for the other Globes, which have no physical counterpart. Kamaloka and Devachan are regions on the astral and mental bodies respectively of Globe D. Perhaps it would help if we changed the word "body" to "vehicle of consciousness?" I look at the mind-body duality in the same way as the more general subjective-objective duality. I don't much care what we call it. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Oct 1995 10:09:52 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Origin of Sense of Self Jerry: << But the << teaching of a very subtle sense of separation at the highest level << can be found in Mahayana Buddhism and other nondualistic << schools, if not theosophy. Rich: Subject: Re Aleister Crowley & Messengers Subject: Self & Maya Rich: I think that you are right about the Gita. Whether the "original Theosophical thinkers" thought so or not, I don't know or care. All non-dualistic schools teach that there is no Self, no matter how much we want to capitalize the word. This includes all of Mahayana Buddhism (which you should know very well) and Vedanta. as well as Taoism. The beginning of the Self or atma, is thew beginning of duality. Self is one pole and World or Not-Self is another, and both only exist in dualism. I am a non-dualist, and so I interpret the theosophical writings that way. This leads to a lot oc conflicts with you and Eldon and others who have no understanding of non-dualism. Rich: Yes, I think you have it wrong by a mile (IMHO). None of our principles are inherently self-conscious. None. Neither is any of our "bodies" including the physical body, although medical science likes to think so. Only one thing has consciousness - the Divine Monad, which as Purucker says, is a mass-less, form-less, and space-less consciousness-center. The Divine Monad sends out a ray of consciousness that extends downward through all of the bodies (objectivity) and egos (subjectivity). When this ray focuses in the physical body through the physical senses, we are in what is called the waking state. When this consciousness shifts upward to the astral body and focuses through the astral senses we are in what is called the dream state. When this consciousness shifts upward some more to the mental body and focuses through the mental senses we are in what is called the sleep state. Same with the causal body, where it is called the deep dreamless state or coma. We have only one consciousness, and this is rather like a ray of light that focuses through sensory equipment of our bodies in order to experiences the cosmic planes. Consciousness shifts upward or downward through what HPB calls the sutratma, but which in the West is called the Silver Cord. If you try to make manas have an inherent self-consciousness, you are going to have logic problems in other areas of your worldview. BTW, Rich, atma-buddhi is a fancy technical Sanskrit word for causal body. And in a sense, the causal body is the background or evolutionary support for our personality. Jerry S. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Oct 1995 10:10:09 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Comments on Subtle Bodies RE:Jerry S, Rich T and Eldon T Rich: I would like to clarify a different view here. The causal body is NOT "simply the subjective mind" which is manas, not the causal body. And this is true by anyone's definition of the causal body. The causal body is atma-buddhi according to HPB and many others, and I rather like the term. Every "body" or vehicle must have a corresponding subjectivity or "ego" and the causal body is no exception. When consciousness focuses in the causal body, it is called the Reincarnating Ego. If Rich and Eldon can logically comprehend a subjective state without a corresponding objective body and world, then so be it. But I can't. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Oct 1995 10:10:12 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Group Auras & Energies Patrick's quote:< A group aura is formed not by the breaking down and blending of the individual energy fields but by the collective radiations of all the diverse individual auras.> Thanks for the quotes, Patrick. I agree with them. The one above, especially because it shows that group auras are synergistic effects of its collective members, which is exactly what Purucker taught. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Oct 1995 10:57:39 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Digest option Recently someone (Murray?) posted about the option of getting theos-l as a daily digest rather than individual messages. Could this be reposted? I'm doing an ARE home study/research project on transforming attitudes and emotions. Exercise #1 is to scrutinize one's mental diet with the same criteria the Cayce readings give for one's physical diet: 1) avoid toxic substances 2) have a balanced intake and 3) combine different foods carefully rather than randomly. I think it would be healthier to read all the messages at once, and mull over responses, than to check in every couple of ours and react immediately to the latest whatever. This seems like a way of applying principle #3. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Oct 1995 13:20:31 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Group Auras & Energies This theme brings to mind a question I've had but never brought up. I've been in Deodars at Pasadena, Olcott in Wheaton, TS headquarters in Adyar, and the London and Paris TS headquarters. Also the New York ULT although I don't know if this applies to them. Anyhow, there is a certain family aura that pervades them all. Yes, Pasadena is a very distinct Theosophical group. Nevertheless, the first visits to all the Adyar places mentioned above were always striking to me because there was a common TS atmosphere that seemed contiguous, but not identical, to that I'd breathed in Pasadena. Deodars and Olcott even look quite similar inside. Have others had this same uncanny sensation? Yes, one can distinguish different "feels" in ULT, Adyar and Pasadena sites. But they all "feel" related, too. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Oct 1995 13:20:32 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: Re: Origin of Sense of Self Jerry S. To corroborate what you said, here's a quote I just came across this morning in "Talks on The Path of Occultism" : " Even in the buddhic plane there is a certain duality, or separateness. We cannont love ourselves; love needs an object, even though it be not a material object, but the divine life manifested in many spiritual souls. Buddhi is the first veil, the Avalokiteshvara of the Higher Self, not the Parabrahman. The "dire heresy of separateness" has to be disposed of on every plane in turn, the physical, the astral, the mental, and even the buddhic." Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Oct 1995 13:20:32 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: Re: A Beautiful Autumn Interlude John, Your "Beautiful Autumn Interlude" found an appreciate audience ... namely me. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Oct 1995 16:11:44 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Comments on Subtle Bodies RE:Jerry S, Rich T and Eldon T Daniel C: I sometimes wonder myself. Daniel: I suspect not. Daniel C: Agreed, except that Jung defines the psyche as higher than the mind or ego, which he sees as a "complex" within the psyche itself. I personally use the term psychic as equivalent to mental (i.e., manas). If theosophists want to include kama (desire or emotions) then thats ok, and I have been trying to keep this in my mind when responding to questions. I see the astral body as the "desire body" and the mental body as the psyche (in its usual definition, not the Jungian). But Rich is right in a way, when he says that there is only one subtle body. Occultism and magic, for example, usually only speak of one subtle body which they call the Body of Light or Astral Body. It is theosophy that breaks the Body of Light into the astral, mental, causal, etc., divisions, and I can't get over the idea that Rich says he is unaware of these divisions while stating that he has carefully studied all of the theosophical literature. Eldon has never said that he is "unaware" of these bodies, only that he disagrees with the concept. I find it very interesting that when you actually go out-of-body or try astral traveling as HPB defines it (see the last chapter of Isis) these fine-tuned intellectual distinctions don't make a hill of difference. It is only after the experiences, when the human mind tries to find a reasonable "explanation," that these models come into play. I can live with one single Body of Light, or with multiple bodies. Its all the same to the experience itself, but I think that the multibody model gives a fuller account of what is going on. I can say this because I have some experience. Without personal experience, I don't see how anyone can make these technical distinctions, and I suspect that this is why Rich keeps bringing up the literature (which is ok by me, because whatever is going on in these experiences should be addressed in the literature, and it is, but it is somewhat subject to interpretation). Anyway, after such an experience, I usually ask myself if I experienced any emotions at all. If so, I conclude that I was in my astral body. If not, I conclude that I was in my mental body. So, its kind of like using a green thumb here. There is no note attached to you at the time saying "I am your astral body" or whatever. So there is no way of really knowing what body you are in until you later buck the experience against your model. Also, as you note from HPB, there is no real clear cutoff between astral and mental, and sometimes the mental carries a little of the astral with it. But when you rise higher, into the causal or beyond, it is pretty clear, because there is little or no sense of "body" at all, and no emotions or thoughts either. The whole personality is left behind. Just intense images and degrees of what could be called "bliss" but this is not an emotional blissfulness, but something else altogether. I think that most people who practice Yoga will understand this. < Anyway, HPB speaks of three doubles or bodies: < <(1) The Protean or Plastic Body (the linga-sarira); < <(2) The Mayavi-Rupa or Thought or Dream body; and < <(3) The true Ego, Casual Body or Karmic Body. Here, as usual, she is being very technical. I would call these three the astral, mental, and causal bodies for simplicity, while acknowledging that some of the finer points are lost in the process (I believe that this is exactly what CWL did). As I have already said (somewhere?) the third, or causal body, is the vehicle of the Reincarnating Ego and so Karmic Body is an apt name (but one that is simply not used much). Calling the astral body the Protean Body is misleading because the same could be said for all three of them. The Mayavi-Rupa is the body that our consciousness focuses in when we are alseep, and so Dream Body is apt. It is also the Bardo Body of the Tibetan Bardo Thodol and the body we take with us into Devachan. Names are sometimes confusing, I agree. But these bodies were given different names to indicate their function, so the mental body can have several appropriate names depending on how it is being used, or what it is doing. For example, it is the mayavi-rupa when we do astral traveling and it is the dream body when we are asleep and it is the bardo body during the after-death state, and so on. Same body or vehicle, but different names according to usage. Daniel C: I absolutely agree with you here. BTW, I wrote all of the above stuff before getting to this part (I am commenting on the fly). I think its great that your descriptions tally so well with my own. Daniel C: I noticed that after avoiding personal stuff for so long, I can't describe the planes and bodies without bringing my own in somehow. Don't apologise, I appreciate hearing your experiences. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Oct 1995 16:11:47 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Comments on Subtle Bodies Daniel C: Thanks for your posting, Dan. I have a perverse enjoyment hearing about the bizillion ways these things can be defined. But it really all comes down to direct experience. I think that anyone who tries to understand all of this intellectually, without experience or at least an intuitive insight, will be lost. I have a real problem with your above quote because I have been studying Jung, and Jung views the psyche in a higher sense than kama-manas. He would put it closer to atma-buddhi because according to Jung, the psyche pre-exists and post-exists our egoic life on earth. Jung defines the psyche in a way that is very similar to HPB's definition of the Reincarnating Ego. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Oct 1995 17:42:41 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Eldon on Origin of Sense of Self Eldon: Since we are talking here about Mahayana Buddhism, could you give me one "school" which teaches a "fixed experiencer of life" because I don't think you will find one. In fact, I am pretty sure that the Theravadins (Hinayana) agree with the Mahayana on the doctrine of anatman. Hinduism may teach such a self in terms of sat-cit-ananda, but I am not aware of any school of Buddhism doing so. Since HPB and HSO were Buddhists, I can't help but think that they included the doctrine of monads for the benefit of the Hindus. I agree with you, Eldon, that our lives can be lived with either concept. But in a technical sense either the "human monad" is eternal and indivisible, or it is not. Theosophy tends to say that it is, while Buddhism clearly teaches that it is not. In fact, Buddhism would even doubt the indivisibility of the Divine Monad, simply on the grounds that such a concept is dualistic, and the Mahayana is very much non-dualistic. Eldon: This is theosophy, but again, you won't find any Mahayana Buddhists agreeing with you on this. Eldon: Exactly what a Buddhist would say. And, because there are simply no words in English to convey this lofty idea, HPB reached for the doctrine of monads. Its close, but not quite there. A Buddhist would see a monad as a disguised self, and rule it out. However, if you accept my definition of the Divine Monad as an I-Not-I three-in-one non-dualistic unit, then perhap they might agree (but I don't know for sure). BTW, one hundred years after HPB, and there are STILL no words for such concepts in English. Eldon: While groping for a good term, Purucker came up with "monadic essence" which I rather like, but alas, is still somewhat subject to interpretation. Eldon: I suspect that new students could have a rough time following you on this one, Eldon. We are in an area here where words are breaking down. I would use the term Self for any kind of subjectivity, and Not-Self for any kind of objectivity. What Buddhism teaches, is that Nirvana, which is non-dualistic, goes beyond both concepts entirely, so that neither Self (a subjective sense of I) nor Not-Self (an objective sense of body or world) exists. In so-called mystical experiences, the dualistic concept of self and not-self break down because the feeling is one of total oneness with the environment. The I and Not-I merge together in blissful union. This is what I have tried to indicate by the I-Not-I Monad - a self and not-self merged together by the power of fohat into a single unit. However, the fact that this unit can express itself as three components (the I, the Not-I and fohat) on the lower planes technically negates its indivisibility. This is why most Buddhists texts don't even try to define these concepts in words. Thanks for your posting. I enjoyed it. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Oct 1995 21:32:40 GMT From: Don DeGracia <72662.1335@compuserve.com> Subject: To Daniel - On Science Daniel: These points are valid and well taken and their answers lie in a study of the history of science, which I will not review here. Most of what we are discussing here stems from the misconception that science is somehow distinct from the rest of society. It simply is not. Scientists live in the same world we all do. Thus, they are as influenced by the moods and philosophical opinions of the times as everyone else is. Science is not some idealized thing. It is a living institution poplulated by living people, people subjected to the same failings we all are. But this said, as I've pointed out, the hallmark of science is its self-correcting nature. At any moment in time there may be all kinds of philosophical opinion layered around the science of the day, but this is always only a temporay situation. As times and philosophies change (often as the result of science moving on despite current philosophies), so will the way that science is seen. What will not change though is the method of testing ideas against reality. Specifically, because the methods of parapsychology pioneered by Rhine are garbage. I've read this stuff myself and think its a bunch of statistical hogwash. Its one step below clinical research (which is pretty low on the ladder of scientific credibility). Furthermore, psychologists are discovering these things anyway with much more reliable tools. Parapsychology was an attempt that was before its time. It was a scientific abortion because though the attitude was there, convincing tools were not. This is changing rapidly. LaBerge's work on lucid dreams is an excellent example. Progress in other fields is oftern required before a specific field can bloom. This was true of the science of genetics. Mendel was unknown for 40 years in Europe before the time was ripe for the science to grow. Likewise, the advent of chaos theory has given rise to a plethora of new sciences, none of which could evolve until adequate tools (in this case the mathematical theories embodying chaotic dynamics) were in place. It will be likewise with the study of psychic phenomena. Now that reliable tools exist for studying the dream state, it will be only a matter of time before this is extended to other altered states of consciousness. Furthermore, progress in neurology (the study of the function of the human brain) is begining to shed light on much of what was traditionally considered occult phenomena. John Algeo's article about Persinger missed this completely. Persinger is only one of many very good scientists who are discovering that the brain itself is no mere organ to be be eschewed but that it contains extremely marvelous properties that indeed could allow it to be a vehicle for telepathy and other such psychic phenomena. So, Daniel, you have to take all this in a historical context and realize that history moves on a different time scale than our individual lives. You or I may know and accept the validity of psychic phenomena, but general acceptance on a historical level is an altogether different matter. Yes I am very up on this issue. And I accept it. Again, they do not deserve the funding at this point. These are scarce resources. I don't know if you aware what is happening to science funding in general now that the cold war is over. Its an altogether different climate in the funding agencies and the money will not flow like water as it did during the cold war. Furthermore, I do not think psychic research is "big science". It can be done very inexpensively, as I have published articles about elsewhere. I am confident that the critical mass is growing and it is only a matter of time before what used to be the purview of occultism becomes the subject matter of science. As you can tell, I do not sympathize extensively with the PA. I feel they were before there time and the present system should be left to whither. With advances in brain science, chaos theory and a few other fields, parapsychology as its presently known will be unnecessary. Something I didn't address in my responce to John was this: what is wrong with reductionism? You make it sound like a bad word. Do you have any *practical* experience in reductionism? I do. I am a biochemist and use it every single day on my job. And you know what? It works! Reductionism is simply an approach to cause and effect that seeks to find the basic unit responsible for the actions of a system. In the case of what I do, reductionsim lead chemisty to the idea of atoms and molecules. These ideas have proven more fruitful than anyone would have ever suspected. They have proven so fruitful that we can now manipulate at will the chemical basis of life. So, I am not saying reductionism is inherently good or bad. I am simply calling you (or John Algeo for that matter) to task to explain why you think reductionism is bad. If I may suggest the following idea: reductionism and holism are a duality. Simply based on the idea of ying and yang, we know that any duality contains a bit of its opposite. And as Buddha taught: seek the middle way. So, the issue is not so much reductionsim verses holism. The idea is to balance both points of view so as to have a balanced perspective. Both approaches are valid, legitimate and real. To ignore one at the expence of the other is simply ignorant. A perfect example of lack of balance between holism and reductionism is large scale chemisty and polution. The massive chemical factories that are the foundation of our modern technological society were created in a purely reductionistic mind-set, ignoring the holistic aspects of chemistry (which today is called ecology). Thus, by having only half a viewpoint, a destructive system was created. However, with the balancing forces of history, this entire situation is coming back into balance as we realize both sides of the equation are operating here. I can assure you, creating a purely holistic system that ignores the reductionistic side of the equation will be as equally unbalanced and destructive. < For example, read the books by the psychologist Susan Blackmore on out of body experiences and near-death experiences. She denies the reality of these experiences and reduces them to something else: physical processes in the brain; nothing gets out of the body; there is nothing to get out of the body! This is reductionism, at its best.> Blackmore's work is one cog in a vast wheel of exploration. If you can't keep a grasp on this bigger picture, her ideas may appear bleak for people wanting to believe in transcendental realities. Nonetheless, her contributions are valid and worthwhile and will lead to things far beyond what she suspects just as Wohlers synthesis of urea back in the 1840s lead chemistry to heights cmpletely unimaginable back then. In general it is not, but it doesn't matter. The signs of this embrace coming eventually are everywhere. You can either see the writing on the wall or not. At this stage, it doesn't matter if the scientific community at large accepts the paranomral. The scientific community at large is a fat bloated system that is about to be pruned as it needs to be. After a couple decades of pruning, when all the dust settles, something more balanced should replace the present system. Don't forget, the present system is the product of the cold war. It was created and driven by a frenzied political mentality that showered it with money without question or accountability. This lead scientists to become smug and fat. This is all changing. Pick up any recent issue of Science and read the editorials. The smarter scientists can smell it coming: society is gonna require accountability and its not gonna mindlessly pich money to scientists anymore. So, again, the present system is in trouble. It doesn't matter what the present system thinks or believes because the tides of history are eroding it before our very eyes. 20 years form now, things will be very differnt. And if the handful of researchers such as myself and a few dozen others keep quietly plodding along with our investigations into so-called "paranormal" phenomena, then all the better. When the dust settles, we may have something to show for our efforts. < I'm sure Dr. Algeo will be happy to know that scientists are willing to give up reductionism (ie. physical reductionism).> Again, this is all very complex and involves historical forces way beyond my, your or John Algoe's control. Its not some cute little pat thing that we can smile upon because it suits our phiolosophical fancies or not. What I am saying is that if the TS as a whole were more committed to the 3rd objective of the Society, the TS itself would be in a much more creative and constructive situation. Most of the views I've gotten here from our discussions on THEOS-BUDS are woefully out of date and out of touch with what is presently occuring. This only reflects how the TS as a whole has basically neglected its original commitment to a scientific spirit, which is what attracted me to Theosophical writings in the first place. And this being out of touch with the "writing on the wall" is truely an unfortunate situation. It would be ideal if there would come a day when Theosophy would dovetail and fuse with science. The "writing on the wall" indicates that science is moving in this direction. Its unfortunate that the TS is not. J.J. van Der Leeuw wrote a book back in 1939 called "In Conquest Of Illusion" in which he foresaw exactly what I am talking about. Nobody in the TS has taken his ideas seriously even though history is going exactly in the fashion he saw it unfolding. And there are myriad other signs too besides the writings of early Theosophists. I'm not sure where the problem lies, but a significant part of it is the lack of commitment on the part of the TS to live up to its 3rd stated objective of promoting the study of the powers latent in man. I will close now. Thank you for you time considering these ideas. Don DeGracia From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Oct 1995 21:32:43 GMT From: Don DeGracia <72662.1335@compuserve.com> Subject: To Liesel from Don Liesel: "" What is your concept of reality?" Boy, you couldn't ask a bigger question! I simply don't have time to elaborate on this but I'll say a couple general remarks. We exist as parts of something greater than us. I suspect that what we are a part of defies our ability to comprehend it. I think our minds are very limited and that we, as humans, were designed this way. If our minds could open up to too much, we would no longer be human. This said, I personally like the Hindu concepts of dharma and maya and Brahman as guides to what reality is. Dharma is our place in the scheme of things. Maya is the illusion, yet truth of experience. Brahman is the one undivded unity that is the base of all existence and defies comprehension by our minds. Whatever the case, there is definately more going on here than meets the eye (or the senses I should say). I wrote a song about reality and part of the lyrics go: "The world is big enough that you and I may never even have to touch But that's ok because We're a part of somethign greater than us anyway And we're locked We're locked together In these ways that we can't fathom in our minds And it makes us Go nuts with our time..." Best, Don From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Oct 1995 21:33:13 GMT From: Don DeGracia <72662.1335@compuserve.com> Subject: re:re:Predictions? Liesel: < I took science courses, long time ago, & I've read through some scientific books since then. I'd never heard of this technique and I wonder whether you know when scientists began working in this manner.> This idea stems from a discipline called " the philosophy of science". The man who stated it most clearly was a philosopher Sir Karl Popper and this was back in the 1950s, if I remember correctly. The idea of trying to disprove an idea instead of proving it is called "falsifyability". That is, you want to try to falsify scientific ideas (i.e. prove they are false). Generally speaking, a hypothesis is not considered valid unless it can be stated in such a manner as to be falsified. This is extrememly common in statistics, where one states what is called the "null hypothesis". You attempt to prove the null hypothesis to be false when you perform experiments. To give an example from my profession (biomedical scieces), if I think drug X lowers blood pressure, I set up the hypothesis (my null hypothesis) that drug X does NOT lower blood pressure, and try to prove this statement to be false. If my experiment shows that drug X indeed lowers blood pressure, then I have proven my null hypothesis false. This is the general and accepted way that science works, particularly in my field. You make a negative statement and then prove it is false. This does not necessarily mean the converse statement (i.e. the opposite statement of the null hypothesis - in my example that drug X lowers blood pressure) is true, it only means that the null hypothesis is false. Again, this method derives from Popper and is based on pure logic. Simply stated, one can never make a positive statement and prove it absolutely true simply because one cannot test every instance of a phenomena. There is always the chance that one is wrong, that some instance will be discovered that contradicts what your hypothesis. However, one can easily prove something to be false because you only need to oberseve one instance of the false statement to be certain that it is false. So, what this means is that all theories of science are tentative in that at any moment some clever person could find a way to disprove a theory. Those theories that have lasted the longest in science are the ones that have withstood repeated attempts to prove they are false. A great example from physics is Einstein's hypothesis that the speed of light is constant. Since Einstein made this statement in 1908, physicists have repeated tried to prove him wrong, but everytime the speed of light is measured, it appears to be a constant. However, this is no guarantee that tommorrow, some bright person will find a way to show that the speed of light is not constant. Thus, any statement is always subject to doubt in science. Of course, it gets more subtle than this because science is complex and embraces many methods and approaches. The methods of physicists differ from those of a biologist or psychologist. Each discipline has its own tools that are relevent to the subject matter it studies. And of course, this idea of falsifyability is applicable to metaphysical statements as well - including those of Theosophy. For example, I read the book "The Astral Plane" by C.W. Leadbeater many years ago in which he claimed the astral plane existed. I set out to prove he was wrong, and do so, I attempted to learn how to astral project. What I discovered is that indeed I could learn to astral project, and furthermore, when I did astral project, I found myself to be in a place very similar to what Leadbeater called the astral plane. Thus, I could NOT falsify Leadbeater's claim that the astral plane exists. This is an example of testing a metaphysical claim in a scientific fashion. And of course, this does not mean that the whole phenomena of astral projection cannot be looked at from completely different points of view. But nonetheless, I set out to take Leadbeater at face value and accept his ideas as a hypothesis (as he himself suggested) and when I subjected his idea to the test of falsifyability, I could not proove him wrong. Thus, I can say for certain that the astral plane does not NOT exist. I cannot say for certain what this place is, however. Hope this is helpful and of interest. Best wishes, Don From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Oct 1995 23:05:44 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Origin of Sense of Self Jerry writes: > etc. etc. etc. Buddhists simply refuse to believe in the > existence of an atma (or atman)and teach the doctrine > of anatman (selflessness). They also refuse to accept > manas or any of the 7 principles as "real." They are, > in fact, maya. > > Jerry S. Jerry, WIth respect, I would like to carefully suggest that you have entered into a very complicated, finely-tuned debate and you are attempting to bash your way through solely on the use of one term, atman. There is a long background to the debate. In short, at the time of the Buddha, atman was seen as actually an "object" by many, a permanently existing "essence" which dwelled in the heart, and which was of a very small but measureable size. The heterodox group called "Jains" still teach that the self is the size of a thumb. (?!?!?) Shankaracharya came only later, re-popularizing the notion that Atman=Brahman, the Absolute, omnipresent, etc. So the Buddha, reacting again such materialistic notions, aught "an-atman," no-atman. This is NOT the word for "self" plain and simple, usually that word is "ahankara" or the feeling of "I." When disciples would ask the Buddha, "Is the universal eternal? Is it not eternal? Is there a permanent self? Is there not a permanent self?" He refused to answer. Later Mahayana teachings included Madhyamika (Middle-Way) School, which used logical means somewhat akin to modern "deconstructionism" to produce "reductio ad absurdum" for all propositions put forward by disputants. They were opposed by the Yogacara (mind-Only) School, which taught that behind the voidness of ALL phenomena was still CONSCIOUSNESS. The debate rages for centuries among educated Buddhists in India, and continued into Tibet. The doctrine is also taught in most, if not all Mahayana Schools, tathagatagarbha or "Buddha-embryo" in all beings. Each being has the nature of the Buddha within them, which at some point in the future will awaken, flower, and produce full-blown Buddha hood. Just last year I had an entire class called "Exploring the Buddha Within" where we examined various Buddhist authors who taught this indwelling reality as pure (shuddha) luminous (prabhasvara) permanent (nitya) not empty (ashunya) immaculate (amala) and yet, paradoxically, non-objectifiable. As I said previously, this is the Theosophical Monad with a vengeance. To simplistically and categorically state that "Buddhists simply refuse to believe in the existence of an atma" is to trivialize the subtlety and complexity of the teachings of Mahayana Buddhism in the 2,000+ years of its existence. So, while Buddhists will vehemently deny that they teach a self (mostly for rhetorical purposes) many, many schools of Mahayana Buddhism teach a permanent, pure consciousness, which contains the seeds of Buddhahood, and remains intact life after life. This is a "self" in Theosophical terms, though no good Buddhist will call it "atman." As for the Buddhist equivalent of Brahman, or the Absolute, we find Vairocana, or the Adi-Buddha, THE ABSOLUTE. Theosophy, Mahayana Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta can match each other nearly term for term, concept for concept, teaching for teaching. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Oct 1995 23:06:00 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Re Aleister Crowley & Messengers Jerry S. writes, > Perhaps this is because you see HPB as THE messenger > rather than A messenger. The Lodge also sends out messengers to > those outside theosophical circles, Rich. Jerry, it boggles tmy mind how you can read a post where I list 50+ "messengers" or teachers of the perennial philosophy, and then accuse me of claiming HPB as "THE messenger." I assume you are not willfully distorting my words or trying to ridicule or belittle my understanding, so I can only assume that you somehow missed that post. However, not everyone claiming to be a Messenger is such, of course, and I for one don't see how Aleister Crowley, often referred to as "the blackest of the Black magicians" who signed his name with the "A" making a penis and testicles, really has anything to do with the Great Lodge. But that is probably a discussion for Theos-roots, no? Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Oct 1995 23:06:07 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Self & Maya Jerry writes, > All > non-dualistic schools teach that there is no Self, no matter how much > we want to capitalize the word. This includes all of Mahayana > Buddhism (which you should know very well) and Vedanta. The name "Advaita Vedanta" means "non-dual Vedanta" and they teach Atman, which they call the one, true, non-delusionary "Self." The Mahayana Buddhists, as I showed in a previous post, do not use the word "atma" of course, but DO teach a permanent ("nitya") enduring consciousness which awakens eventually into a full-blown Buddha. Jerry S.: > This leads to a lot of conflicts with > you and Eldon and others who have no understanding of non-dualism. Sorry that my alleged ignorance so offends you! And all along I had been thinking that perhaps I had SOME TINY DEGREE of understanding -- but I see now that I was deluded. Thanks also for the Sanskrit lesson re: "atma-buddhi." Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 12 Oct 1995 23:06:09 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Rich on CWL & Censorship > Rich, cheri, > > t'es un peu rasoir. > > Liesel For those who are not such accomplished linguists as Liesel, let me humbly translate: "Rich, you are a bit of a bore." TO which the correct response is: C'est dommage, ou, peut-etre, tant pis. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Oct 1995 00:57:10 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: To Daniel - On Science Don: Welcome back to the list. (You've posted a few messages in the past week, and now seem to be getting active again.) > [writing to Daniel]: >Most of what we are discussing here stems from the misconception that science is >somehow distinct from the rest of society. It simply is not. Scientists live in >the same world we all do. Thus, they are as influenced by the moods and >philosophical opinions of the times as everyone else is. Science is not some >idealized thing. True. Scientists are all among us. In fact, many of us may be scientists and not know it! Most technical jobs require an understanding and application of science. And I would not reserve the honorary title of "scientist" to someone solely engaged in pure research, althought I might make the distinction between theoretical and applied science. A computer programmer, a lab chemist for a drug company, or an economist working for a major bank could all be considered as much scientists as someone working at a university on a research grant. And we *are* influenced by the moods and forces in society. Unfortunately. But as Theosophists, we have access to materials from the Mahatmas, materials that can broaden our understanding of life and aid us in our spiritual quest. These materials may not be in a form that is acceptable for inclusion into popular scientific thought, but *to us* can be highly useful. >It is a living institution poplulated by living people, people >subjected to the same failings we all are. But this said, as I've pointed out, >the hallmark of science is its self-correcting nature. This is necessary because it is a *living knowledge*, and has to grow, change, and adopt to changes in life or face stagnation and death. We are not living in a static, fixed universe -- it is alive, and grows and changes as it will. Science represents the common, public heritage of knowledge, as opposed to the *hidden heritage* preserved by the Masters. As the world changes, over time, these bodies of knowledge need to adapt as well. >At any moment in time >there may be all kinds of philosophical opinion layered around the science of >the day, but this is always only a temporay situation. As times and >philosophies change (often as the result of science moving on despite current >philosophies), so will the way that science is seen. Philosophy is not exactly science. Science gives us an equation, say for the acceleration of an falling object due to gravity. Philosophy means "the love of wisdom", and goes beyond the factual nature of the external physical or astral world. Philosophy deals with an understanding and integration of what we experience and learn. It deals with our assimilation of external experiences and information, leading to understand and self-mastery. It's quite possible that in different times the philosophical description of things changes, and that an *interpretation* of the external world will vary. The purpose is to fashion worldviews that facilitate *inner awakenings* in the populace, rather than express the factual nature of the physical world in the most efficient manner. There is meaning to a sunset, and something special on inner planes, that transcends our knowledge of sunlight passing through the earth's atmosphere. Both philosophy and science are useful for their respective purposes, but I would be careful to not make it seem as though philosophy was but a form of inaccurte science. >What will not change though is the method of testing ideas against reality. We have tried-and-proven techniques to arrive at scientific knowledge. Likewise, we learn from reading "The Mahatma Letters", that the Masters have their methods of learning and teaching, and for *their kind of knowledge* we must adopt their ways. > ... It will be >likewise with the study of psychic phenomena. Now that reliable tools exist for >studying the dream state, it will be only a matter of time before this is >extended to other altered states of consciousness. This will be interesting to see in the coming years. I'm looking forward to reading about it when it makes it to popular scientific magazines like "Discover". One limitation of the studies, thought, will be the subjects themselves. You cannot measure non-physical activities with physical instruments. To explore experiences that transcend the ordinary, either those of other planes or of higher states of consciousness, you keed suitable subjects. I don't expect either Chelas or Masters to offer themselves as subjects, because they've had a long-standing policy of *not* releasing occult knowledge in the west. Our best subjects may be little more advanced than the common man. >Furthermore, progress in neurology (the study of the function of the human >brain) is begining to shed light on much of what was traditionally considered >occult phenomena. If the senses are basically astral, and the physical body is an external form that we use for sensory input, I'd expect the same with the brain: thought is in the mind and the brain is the physical organ for the experience of thought. But that only applies while we're in the physical body, and not separate in the Linga Sharira or mind-created Mayavi-Rupa. If we alter or enhance the brain, we may be able to experience in the physical body forms of perception and thought that were not otherwise possible. (Except, of course, when we're apart from the body.) >John Algeo's article about Persinger missed this completely. >Persinger is only one of many very good scientists who are discovering that the >brain itself is no mere organ to be be eschewed but that it contains extremely >marvelous properties that indeed could allow it to be a vehicle for telepathy >and other such psychic phenomena. The physical brain is the key to our future faculties of perception, while existing as fully-embodied people on Globe D. >Furthermore, I do not think psychic research is "big science". It can be done >very inexpensively, as I have published articles about elsewhere. I am >confident that the critical mass is growing and it is only a matter of time >before what used to be the purview of occultism becomes the subject matter of >science. If this happens, we may end up with a subrace with additional psychical powers, but not as developed, I'd think, as back in Atlantean times. Is that a good thing? How does that affect our *spiritual* evolution? Those are other issues, one's that JRC and I have gone over many times, and still haven't completely worked out. Regarding your book on astral projection, I was curious about it and was going to take a look in the theos-l archives, but could not find it. Do you have an internet ftp site where it's sitting? >the issue is not so much reductionsim verses holism. The idea >is to balance both points of view so as to have a balanced perspective. There are uses for reductionism, when not carried too far, in an attempt to get at basic causes, as you've pointed out. There comes a certain point, though, when you cannot go any farther without losing the life or essence of the thing that you're looking at. Krishnamurti may overuse reductionism, reducing everything to primal motivations like that of fear. And Freud to that of sexual drive. It's like a child's questions: "why, why, why, etc." You eventually get to a meaningful explanation, with enough why's, but if you push it beyond that, you end up with meaningless answers. The criticism of reductionism is against going too far with it, with the fact that it's subject to abuse, and not, at least for me, with it's usefulness as a tool, when applied with common sense and intelligence. >So, again, the present system is in trouble. It doesn't matter what the present >system thinks or believes because the tides of history are eroding it before our >very eyes. 20 years form now, things will be very differnt. True. And hopefully the present religious and philosophical systems as well. And apart from the evolution of these external systems, we're free, as individuals, to directly persue the Path, and *go beyond*. >And if the handful of researchers such as myself and a few dozen others keep >quietly plodding along with our investigations into so-called "paranormal" >phenomena, then all the better. When the dust settles, we may have something >to show for our efforts. Your manner of research will lead to a better understanding of the brain and consciousness *as it functions in and through that brain*. You may also gain some gems of occult knowledge along the way. Knowledge is power, though, and I hope that if you uncover some truths of occultism that are otherwise kept secret, that you carefully consider their impact on the world before rushing into publication. There may be other forces, besides nuclear power, that are better kept unknown, until the general moral and ethic development of humanity advances far beyond its present sorry state. >What I am saying is that if the TS as a whole were more committed to the 3rd >objective of the Society, the TS itself would be in a much more creative and >constructive situation. Why don't you keep us updated with highlights from scientific thought? You could post a few paragraphs on discoveries or reserach of note, as you come across them. >Most of the views I've gotten here from our discussions on THEOS-BUDS are >woefully out of date and out of touch with what is presently occuring. >This only reflects how the TS as a whole has basically neglected its >original commitment to a scientific spirit It might be useful to discuss what views are out-of-date, and why you think so. >It would be ideal if there would come a day when Theosophy would dovetail and >fuse with science.The "writing on the wall" indicates that science is moving >in this direction. Its unfortunate that the TS is not. If a theosophical group wants to take that direction, that's fine. And the same for individual members. But there's another purpose for theosohical groups, and I'd hope that at least a few of them support that purpose: to provide an junior college to the Mysteries. This makes me think about a quote by Manly Hall: "Throughout the ages, the Mysteries have stood at the threshold of reality -- that hypothetical spot between numen and phenomenon, the substance and the shadow. The gates of the Mysteries stand ever ajar and those who will may pass through into the spacious domicile of spirit." -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Oct 1995 02:56:08 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Rich on CWL & Censorship > Rich, cheri, > > t'es un peu rasoir. > > Liesel > Getting a litle sharp with him, eh, Liesel? Alan :-) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Oct 1995 05:41:31 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Re: 7 Rays Dear Eldon, We seem to be missing each others' points. I agree with the idea that in our essential nature we are not limited by one of the seven aspects of Diety. However, in manifestation the maxim "as above, so below" applies to all kingdoms of nature. A few weeks ago someone posted a list of about twenty references from HPB's writings about the seven rays. As this is true of Logoic life it would also be reflected in the processes of human life. It is an easy extension to recognize that the different human expressions would have a seven fold qualification. All of the arguments I've seen against the seven ray idea were the "building a straw man" type in which the claim is asserted that the idea means something which it does not. All of the arguments that have been presented against the seven ray idea and the writings of A. Bailey (which are from the Mahatma D.K.) have always been based on misrepresentation or ignorance. If you wish to quote directly and in context and discuss that then I would be happy to do so. The treatise about the seven rays and the profound book "A Treatise on Cosmic Fire" are evidence for the rightness of these ideas as well as the inevitable intuitive recognition. Yours in peace, Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Oct 1995 05:41:37 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: (none) ssing world issues and spiritual work] You've hit on the key here. The question goes as to the why of this decadence and the nature of the solution. The why is because over the last 10 decades the chelas and those of spiritual inclination all over the world have not by and large had the courage to stand up for right values and principles and have generally retreated into their own world. As the saying goes: "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." And nothing, in terms of more directly interfacing with humanity, is exactly what has been done by most. Or when attempting to do more the workers have been easily side-tracked or corrupted by wrong compromises (usually based on material fears or the glamour of authority). The solution is public open forthright statements as to the truth of right values and spiritual realities and work is going on for this. The lethargy and negligence of the spiritually inclined has allowed certain small groups of materialistic powerful individuals to centralize material management of the world so that the vast majority of so-called crisis (wars, starvation, environmental, etc.) are being staged to foster a state of helplessness and negativity in people in general. Also these same groups are responsible for the gradual decay of the entertainment industry and the drug trade as efforts to manipulate humanity. The solution here, as strange as it way sound, in exoteric terms is economic freedom (i.e., no taxation and free trade) as this would disempower the money controllers and bring about the evolution of a mostly "good character" based trade economy -- which is the more natural spiritual way emphasized by the Mahatmas. As we encourage unselfishness (love,compassion, etc.) by our examples and work for freedom on all planes we can help in this. In terms of exoteric governments many [mystics] are under the mistaken impression that gov'ts are there to orchestrate a better society through coercion. But this idea is the complete opposite of the truth -- it is we who are to work for a better way through living a life of example and changing the way we and, by response, those around us do things. Gov't coercive influence in any area except in the protection of our freedom to change always works against the best spiritual possibilities (devitalizing the effect of our examples) and empowers the small groups of materially inclined individuals who are working against the changes we seek. The solution is to restrict all legal power to only protecting unalienable rights and leave solutions to all societies issues in the hands of the other responsible institutions of society (churches, businesses, etc.). In freedom the best spiritual possibilities work out fastest. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Oct 1995 05:48:18 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Globes, Planes, Principles Rich: >It may not be typical for Theosophists to think of Devachan as "rebirth" but >it is, when you emerge from Kamaloka, you are "born anew" into the blissful >realms. You are -- temporarily -- a Deva, with a possible "lifespan" there >of tens of thousands (or more) years. But no new causes are set in motion, >only effectfs from earth life are experienced, until worn out, then "descent" >back down to earth for another go at it. Here's a quote to think about from HPB's "The Inner Group Teachings", p. 10: "Advance may be made in Occultism even in Devachan, if the Mind and Soul be set thereon during life; but it is only as in a dream, and the knowledge will fade away as memory of a dream fades, unless it be kept alive by conscious study." Even though we're not making new karma, and in direct interaction with others, we can make some progress. There is an expression of consciousness in what we do, and we can benefit from it. The quote seems to imply that our spiritual desires, if so directed while alive, can have an affect upon the direction of our devachan, and the benefit that we derive from it. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Oct 1995 05:48:19 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: TO: Dan C. & Paul J. Dear Daniel, I found your post "Comments on Subtle Bodies" really interesting, including your personal experiences which you say at the end you're sorry you got side tracked into. One of these days, "subtle body" experiences are going to be more commonplace & better accepted. Then you who have such experiences won't have to avoid talking about them any longer. Dear Paul, Re: What draws them in. You mention having begun with others but never finished "pulling together all the most germane material on such subjects as reincarnation, the spiritual path, what is Theosophy etc." What are the chances of this work being re begun. It sounds really worthwhile to me, & extememly useful, if all cogent sources are quoted. Sort of a theosophical encyclopedia. Adam Warcup has something like that as the 3rd section of his "Cyclical Evolution" . He supports his exposition with almost 100 pp. from "early theosophical writers". Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Oct 1995 05:48:19 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: Re: Comments on Subtle Bodies Jerry S. You say "Perhaps it would help if we changed the word 'body' to 'vehicle of consciousness'" I've suggested several times that they might be called "fields". I'd love to hear an answer to this suggestion from you. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Oct 1995 05:48:19 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: Re Aleister Crowley & Messengers To Jerry S. "Truth cannot be owned by any single group & can be expressed in myriad ways." I agree, & like the way you put it. Trouble is, sometimes I forget to follow through on this belief, & get all tangled up in my Theosoophy. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Oct 1995 07:38:04 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Theosophical Reductionism I have recently had the reductionist label applied to my own work by Dr. Algeo, in a review for Theosophical History. The gist of what he said was "the most serious flaw of the book is that it is reductionist, reducing HPB's Masters to political agents of one sort or another, and treating everything else about them as blinds or myths." My response to this charge, which will appear in the same journal, is that it the book itself completely refutes it. At least equal attention is given to the spiritual and literary concerns of the Master nominees as to their political involvements. I explicitly renounce any wish to reduce HPB and her Masters to a solely socio-political interpretation. Even that much verbiage about the book may raise cries of "take it to theos-roots." But my point relates to Don's comments on another charge of reductionism from the same source. It seems to me that "reductionist" is the most au courant form of name-calling, a way in which a single word can dismiss an entire body of work. In HPB's time, the boo word was "materialist." In fact, much of the reaction against my work from Theosophists smacks of reductionism. One of our number, who I consider a friend, said to me in private email something like "the political activities of your characters are absolutely incompatible with the spiritual nature of the Masters." Dara Eklund writes in a letter to The Quest that it is "downgrading" the Masters to identify them as historical figures. The same point has been argued by several other persons. What this says to me is that they have reduced the multi-level reality of HPB's Masters (who were obviously interested in politics based on their own letters, apart from my identifications of them) to an exalted, transcendent level -- far too pure and holy to be real people with real relationships to the socio-political environment. Reductionism can be spiritualistic as well as materialistic. The effort to deny a connection to material reality for entities perceived as spiritual is every bit as reductionistic as the effort to deny a connection to spiritual reality for entities perceived as material. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Oct 1995 07:50:41 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: To Liesel & Rich >> Rich, cheri, >> t'es un peu rasoir. >> Liesel >For those who are not such accomplished linguists as Liesel, let me humbly >translate: "Rich, you are a bit of a bore." TO which the correct response is: >C'est dommage, ou, peut-etre, tant pis. >Rich OK, you guys! Cut out the love chatter. This is a serious mailing list. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Oct 1995 07:50:42 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: Re: To Daniel - On Science Dear Don, Well, let me tellya ... it seems we're going the same way on this one. First off a slight but important correction: the 3rd object says "powers latent in NATURE and in man." I have always thought that our 3rd object was very vibrant, in that it meant that we should all keep abreast of the latest findings of science, as good as we were able. Of course, my major was French, so my knowledge of what's going on in the sciences is minimal, but I have been trying to keep up at least with the most important findings, & also those of interest to theosophists. I noticed a while back that people on this list were talking about the 3rd object as just meaning to explore ESP & etc. which isn't all of nature & man that's unknown, and rather a narrow view. I sent a note to Wheaton requesting some clarification of this in the AT, & was informed back that they were thinking about doing it. You write "it would be ideal if there would come a day when Theosophy would dovetail & fuse with science." My suggestion is to write up your ideas on this, if you have the time, & submit them to the AT. If they have any sense at all, & you write in an interesting fashion, I think they'd print it. Of course, Theosophy should not only dovetail with science, because our beliefs also lead into religion, psychology, probably other fields of study I can't think of just now. That's what fascinates me so much about Theosphy, it's so broad based. Lastly, I wonder whether you've come across Serge King's "Earth Energies". It deals with experiments with Prana, known to Serge's Hawaiians as Mana, & to other researchers as orgone, & etc.. He goes into the history of people who've experimented with this force, beginning with Mesmer, I think, & ending with experiments he's done himself, & suggestions for further exploration. I read this book several years ago, so don't know with my present sense of what's right, how good his experiments are. I can't give a quick look, because Joe McD. borrowed the book. At the time, I thought they were real good. Serge's got a PhD in clinical psychology, & I think did some studying in archeology or anthropology. He's also a shaman, & my experience with shamans is that they're keen experimenters. Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Oct 1995 07:55:39 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Theosophy in title? About my new book idea-- The feedback I've gotten from potential contributors leads to several conclusions: 1. Books by single authors are more marketable than collections of works by multiple authors. 2. From experience, it can be concluded that editing other people's work can be extremely problematic. 3. It would be better to be somewhat more focused than what I had proposed. Based on this, and an offer of assistance received, I've dropped the idea of a collective work and am concentrating on what could be done to relate the Cayce material to the theosophical tradition. Note the small t; I want to compare and contrast Cayce's teachings on a range of subjects, not just to those of HPB but rather to their antecedents in esotericism generally. (As well as examine parapsychological similarities and differences from previous cases including HPB, and examine historical connections between Cayce and Theosophy.) This raises the question of an appropriate title. Here are some possibilities: Edgar Cayce and the Ancient Wisdom The Theosophy of Edgar Cayce Edgar Cayce and the Esoteric Tradition Edgar Cayce, Christian Theosopher So I'd like to hereby solicit comments on the use of "Theosophy" in a title, and what Theosophist readers would expect if I were to use it. Antoine Faivre, the world's leading historian/theorist on the subject, defines theosophy as: "a gnosis that has a bearing not only on the salvific relations the individual maintains with the divine world, but also on the nature of God Himself, or of divine persons, and on the natural universe, the hidden structures that constitute it in its actual state, its relationship to mankind, and its final ends. It is in this general sense that we speak of theosophy traditionally. Theosophy, in the sense we are using it, confers on esotericism this cosmic, or rather cosmosophic dimension, thereby introducing the idea of an intentionality in the world, that keeps esotericism from succumbing to solipsism. Theosophy opens esotericism to the entire universe and by the same token renders possible a philosophy of nature." pp. 23-24, Access to Western Esotericism By Faivre's definition, I'd be entirely within my rights to call Cayce a theosopher (if not Theosophist, which is misleading) and to call his system theosophical. But if use of such a term in the title would make Theosophists reject the book out of hand, as an effort to "pretend" that a "pseudo-Theosophist" was a real one, then to hell with it, I'd prefer to avoid the hot potato. Comments, suggestions? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Oct 1995 08:26:08 GMT From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: Digest option K. Paul Johnson: >Recently someone (Murray?) posted about the option of getting >theos-l as a daily digest rather than individual messages. >Could this be reposted? Yes, it was me. Send a message containing the line SET THEOS-L MAIL DIGEST to LISTSERV@VNET.NET Lower case letters are OK too. >I think it would be healthier to read all the messages at once, >and mull over responses, than to check in every couple of ours >and react immediately to the latest whatever. This seems like >a way of applying principle #3. I like the way it works, too. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Oct 1995 08:29:11 GMT From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: Symbols and Bridges Lewis: >Murray wrote: >> In my case, I had been seeking from a fairly early age, and had known >> theosophy for about 16 years when my wife's illness came to a head and >> she died. > >Lewis: Just the thought of losing the companionship, the love and >support of my wife brought tears to my eyes. It must be a very >difficult thing to endure. Please accept my heartfelt condolences. Thanks for your more-than-kind thoughts, Lewis. They are certainly appreciated. One of the positive things about a death you can see coming, as opposed to sudden accidental death, is that you both have time to say things to each other that you really feel but hadn't got around to saying. That can mean a great deal, and did to us. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Oct 1995 08:30:10 GMT From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: Symbols and Bridges Jerry S: ><< > >Jerry: Clear by whose definitions? What you seem to be saying >is certainly not clear to me. .... >If you mean to imply that the astral and mental bodies >effect the physical body via the pineal and pituitary glands >in the brain, than I have no problem with that. > ..... there exists a cause-effect relationship between >mind, emotions, and body. But I still believe that each >subtle body has its own set of senses appropriate to >its plane. ..... > However, if you want to connect our >subtle bodies with our physical, you need to do >so through the chakras, not the glands of the brain. >The chakras directly link our physical body to >all of the subtle bodies that we cannot see but >exist nonetheless. Geoffrey Hodson had an understanding of his own mechanism of consciousness and that of others, wherein the two glands (pineal and pituitary) are intimately involved in sensitising the brain to receive on bodies, planes etc. He was aware that the chakras are intimately involved as well, bidirectionally. In his now-out-of-print book "The Science of Seership", he describes (I'm remembering this - the book's at home) a sort of polarity of subtle energy or light set up between the two glands, coupled into and sitting on top of the spinal currents. Before beginning clairvoyant research, he would stimulate the kundalini to enter this system and get it going full-bore. I think we have to take this all this as a multi-level description, and see the different levels as intimately interacting, yet not fully so, at this stage of evolution. This ties in with Don de Gracia's description of the wonderful powers of the brain that are being discovered. I don't think it clashes with the idea that mental perception is on the mental plane etc. I think they're connected by the fact that the brain electrochemical activity somehow makes a model of the mental and astral plane processes, and that they're all connected via the chakras, brain and glands, and probably a whole set of multi-dimensional energy fields. It would be entirely possible for perception or contact to be made at mental-to-mental or astral-to-astral levels, provided the vehicles are sufficiently developed. Then, presumably, the impulses could filter "down" to the brain if it were receptive or energised enough. Geoffrey could certainly see brain activity in another person. One day when I and a couple of others were assisting him with research on music forms, he suddenly interrupted what he was saying to note that was struck by what was going on in my brain, and that I was somehow recreating the music in my head. He never said anything like that before or since, in perhaps 20 hours of sharing this kind of work. This rather hit me, because I was in fact strenuously trying to reconstruct the harmony and full sound of it at that very moment. The piece was the slow movement of the Haydn horn concerto, played without accompaniment, and I didn't know it. It sounded just like a long and dirgeful sequence of unconnected notes, and I was putting everything I had into trying to fit a musical pattern around it. There's more to the story, but that's the gist of it. Gee, I'm sure looking forward to more research being done on all this, and the convergence of science and occultism! Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Oct 1995 09:47:10 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Comments on Subtle Bodies Lewis: > You are not the only one who can't follow their logic in these >matters, and I appreciate your comments. I often find myself "dazed >and confused" after reading their posts, but find yours very clear. I >guess there is just more in your posts that reflects my own >understanding on these topics. There's two different models being spoken of. I'm somewhat aware of both, having started off reading Leadbeater as a teenager, and later reading Purucker, Judge, and Blavatsky. If you don't try to make the two *different models* converge, you'll avoid the confusion. But the understand the non-CWL model, you'll have to forgot what you've heard before, and treat the material with an open mind as though you're an entirely new student of Theosophy. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Oct 1995 14:16:31 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Symbols and Bridges Murray: First, thanks for your post. I would say that rather than the brain "making" a model of the mental and astral plane processes, that the reverse is really what is going on. The brain, and in fact all of the physical body, is an expression or precipitation of the mental and astral. So what we see going on in the brain is, I think, effects or physical expressions of astral and mental activity, although the physical can effect the astral and metal as well. When we open or stimulate the chakras, astral travel, or any other occult-type activity, the physical body expresses this in subtle ways, usually through chemical or electrical changes. Murray: Me too. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Oct 1995 15:07:30 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Comments on Subtle Bodies Lewis to Jerry S. You are not the only one who can't follow their logic in these matters, and I appreciate your comments. I often find myself "dazed and confused" after reading their posts, but find yours very clear. I guess there is just more in your posts that reflects my own understanding on these topics. llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Oct 1995 15:26:05 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Symbols And Bridges > Jerry S.: Dreams are but astral > experiences (else, please someone explain them > another way). Lewis: I have offered a few other causes for dreams. > Jerry S.: Emotions exist on the astral plane. > Thought exist on the mental plane. Our mental > body is a thought-body, in a sense a thought-form, - > manas meaning mind. Our astral body is a desire > body - kama meaning desire. We only have direct > knowledge of whats going on upon Earth via our > physical senses. Lewis: Then how do you explain paranormal experiences? I got the idea that while we are alive the "particles" from all these "bodies" are in constant motion, which gives us the ability to "sense" all these, but at death the bodies are normally reorganized into concentric spheres thus limiting our perceptions. > Jerry S.: In the same way, we only can > directly experience the astral plane via the astral > senses in our astral body, and we can only have > direct experience on the mental plane via the > mental senses of the mind. > However, if you want to connect our > subtle bodies with our physical, you need to do > so through the chakras, not the glands of the brain. > The chakras directly link our physical body to > all of the subtle bodies that we cannot see but > exist nonetheless. Of course, it is sometimes > said that the brow chakra is now the pineal gland, > or whatever the third eye is supposed to be. But > each of the chakras also has its physical equivalent, > and we don't want to ignore them and just look > at the pineal or pituitary. > > Jerry S. Lewis: I tend to agree with you here, but the descriptions of the movement of these forces through the chakras and into the aura, for instance in Besant's STUDY IN CONSCIOUSNESS, suggests to me that while not fully developed there is a constant interchange of mental and astral impressions to the physical. It is how we feel or think. llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Oct 1995 15:35:29 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re Dreams > I say again that, in general, there is more reality in our > dreams than in our waking state. I also agree with Tibetan > Buddhism that the Path can only be tread as a human in the waking > state. But how well we tread that Path directly effects the objectivity > and reality of our dreams and bardo. > > Jerry S. Lewis: I would agree with you that our astral (dream) life is effected by our waking state. Since you qualify your statement saying, "...But how well we tread that Path..", would you agree that our dreams become more significant as we progress on that Path, but may not be as important in the early stages? llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Oct 1995 16:09:05 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: 7 Rays Eldon writes: > The biggest problem that I have at the moment with the idea of the seven > rays is that we "belong to a ray". We don't belong to anything, and are > only subject to the quality of consciousness and swabhava or individual > nature of the world or universe into which we find birth. > <...SNIP...> > I tend to find no need for the idea of rays, since our qualities of > consciousness is already better defined in terms of the seven principles. > Talking about the rays sounds, to me, like trying to put people into > categories for trying to understand them, like in astrology saying that > "you're a virgo, so you're such and such a way". The categories are a > mental construct and not a metaphysical reality. Lewis: I tend to sympathize with your feelings of not wanting to be labeled or categorized. It used to bother me when someone would attribute certain attitudes or behaviors of mine to my astrological sign. However, having come to an appreciation of astrology from a very sceptical predisposition, I doubt it can be dismissed as just "a mental construct". It has survived more centuries and has attracted the attention of many bright people. Your objections sound more emotional than rational or logical. But as you say, you have no need for these ideas as you have found others. Wouldn't you agree that "trying to understand (others)" should be encouraged? If these systems help others gain more tolerance towards others, a greater appreciation for their uniqueness, then couldn't we respect and appreciate their power to uplift and enlighten? llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Oct 1995 17:33:37 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Comments on Subtle Bodies Subject: Re: Symbols And Bridges Jerry S:< We only have direct > knowledge of whats going on upon Earth via our > physical senses. < How about If you think of your astral body as the body of your emotions, and your mental body as the body of your thoughts, and the two acting together as your mind? Does this help? Yes, the particles of our subtle bodies are swirling around all the time. I can't "see" them in terms of forms and colors, by I can "feel" them in terms of vibrations. Years ago I used to smoke cigarettes. Sometimes after several good drags, I noticed that I felt dizzy, like riding a carnival whirl-a-twirl or something. I could "feel" my astral body swirling around in great agitation, and came to the conclusion that the inhaled smoke stirred up these astral particles so much, I was able to feel them. I don't know if anyone else ever had this experience or not (I quit smoking almost 20 years ago now) and can only speak for myself. If you question my quoted sentence above, then try a simple experiment. Go into a closet or and close the door or put on a blindfold (block your sight). Put cotton in your ears (block out your hearing). Don't eat anything (block out your taste) .... and so on, blocking out all of your 5 physical senses. Now tell me what is going on in the world around you. You can't because your connections to the physical world have all been severed. But your mind still functions, and your feelings are still there. And you may have a hunch or an intuitive feeling about something going on in another room. This is how I explain ESP or paranormal experiences - they come to us not through our physical senses, but through our astral senses in the form of desires and emotions, or through our mental senses in the form of thoughts, or through our causal senses in the form of intuitive insight, and sometimes through the higher two (buddhi-manas) or the lower two (kama-manas) acting together. I don't know about the reorganizing of our bodies into concentric spheres after our death. I do think that after Kamaloka, when we slough off our emotions and enter Devachan, the outer surface of our mental body hardens and our mind projects images onto it, like a movie and we become lost to the world around us. This is also what happens to some extent during normal dreams. But we can also have lucid dreams, and we can also have true dreams in which this hardening is reduced or eliminated and then we see what is really there. The same is probably true with Devachan. One problem occurs with this, though. When I do this in my dreams, I always wake up. I suspect that this phenomenon will hold in Devachan as well, and that if we can do this, we will reincarnate rather fast. In fact, I suspect that this is the magical technique used by some Adepts to deliberately reduce or eliminate their Devachan. Lewis: Agreed. And although I think her book is heavily exoteric, I learned a lot from reading it. Again, our "bodies" are only such when consciousness is using them as a vehicle. When consciousness is focused in our physical body (during the waking state) we can think of our astral and mental "bodies" as fields (see my posting to Liesel on fields). When we go to sleep and our consciousness shifts to the astral plane, for example, then the astral field becomes our astral body. The word body denotes a structure or vehicle for some kind of egoic consciousness, and without this consciousness being present, we can think of it as a field. The "interchange" that Besant talks about is due to the fact that these bodies or fields are all connected together by psychomagnetic forces - the Silver Cord (or Sutraman) is a relatively simplistic, albeit descriptive, name for these forces acting in harmonious unison. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Oct 1995 19:17:19 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re Dreams Lewis:< I would agree with you that our astral (dream) life is effected by our waking state. Since you qualify your statement saying, "...But how well we tread that Path..", would you agree that our dreams become more significant as we progress on that Path, but may not be as important in the early stages?> Absolutely. In fact, I would go even farther and say that you won't progress all that far along the Path unless you come to some understanding (and control over) your dreams. In other words, at some point in the Great Work, we must address our dream state, which we are in about 1/3 of the time. Some time ago, I had an article published in Sunrise about dreams. Basically, my thesis was that dreams can serve us as barometers along the Path, because how well we are doing will always be honestly reflected in our dreams. We may think we are doing well on the Path, and that we are compassionate, and honest, and so on. But if we have dreams of hurting others, or of acting in hurtful ways, then we are just kidding ourselves about our progress. If we are *really* compassionate, this will always be reflected in our dreams, and we will act that way no matter what others in the dream seem to be doing to us (in other words, irregardless of the dream content). When we tread the Path some distance, we should be able to recall our dreams, and then to control them via what is called lucid dreaming (which we do in degrees). You can learn a lot about yourself by recalling your dreams and reflecting on them. I have had dreams in which I remember past dreams. I have dreams in which I am Jerry Schueler, and I have dreams in which I am a totally different person, with a different memory and so on. I sometimes have dreams in which I have no special sense of ego at all. All of these kinds of dreams demonstrate to me the fragile and illusive nature of the ego. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Oct 1995 19:17:20 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: Re: Theosophy in title? Paul, I like "Edgar Cayce & The Esoteric Tradition" best. That says what you want to say, & avoids conflicts. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Oct 1995 22:23:46 GMT From: DAVID KUTTRUFF <71254.312@compuserve.com> Subject: UNSUBSCRIBING FROM THEOS-L I have tried to UNSUBSCRIBE about 7 times, and yet I continue to get a great many messages each day; I am just too busy at this time to read and/or respond. Please help get me off the theos-l list. Thank You, David From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 13 Oct 1995 23:22:38 GMT From: ciric@ix.netcom.com (Bill Maier ) Subject: Re: UNSUBSCRIBING FROM THEOS-L You wrote: > >I have tried to UNSUBSCRIBE about 7 times, and yet I continue to get >a great many messages each day; I am just too busy at this time to >read and/or respond. Please help get me off the theos-l list. > >Thank You, > >David > Yes, I also would like to unsubscribe. I've tried "unsubscribe theos-l", "unsub theos-l", and even just "help" and can't get any response from the server. However, if these posts go to a news group, I would like to occasionally browse through the postings when I have time. Is there a news group where these posts go? Bill From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Oct 1995 01:36:41 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Theosophy in title? > About my new book idea-- > By Faivre's definition, I'd be entirely within my rights to > call Cayce a theosopher (if not Theosophist, which is > misleading) and to call his system theosophical. But if use of > such a term in the title would make Theosophists reject the > book out of hand, as an effort to "pretend" that a > "pseudo-Theosophist" was a real one, then to hell with it, I'd > prefer to avoid the hot potato. > > Comments, suggestions? Errr... avoid the hot potato, you've had enough "flames" already! :-) Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Oct 1995 01:41:28 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Messengers Are we not *all* messengers when we share a discovery with each other? Maybe much of the time our message may not be world-shaking, but someone, somewhere, may be glad to get it. That's one reason I subscribe to the list! Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Oct 1995 04:32:44 GMT From: jem@vnet.net (John E. Mead) Subject: Re: Digest option >Recently someone (Murray?) posted about the option of getting >theos-l as a daily digest rather than individual messages. >Could this be reposted? > >I'm doing an ARE home study/research project on transforming >attitudes and emotions. Exercise #1 is to scrutinize one's >mental diet with the same criteria the Cayce readings give for >one's physical diet: 1) avoid toxic substances 2) have a >balanced intake and 3) combine different foods carefully rather >than randomly. > >I think it would be healthier to read all the messages at once, >and mull over responses, than to check in every couple of ours >and react immediately to the latest whatever. This seems like >a way of applying principle #3. > hi - to set up stuff in digest mode --- send to listserv@vnet.net set theos-l mail digest set theos-buds mail digest set theos-roots digest p.s. I've been gone/out/busy for a couple months (at least). hopefully, I've now got the time to catch up on stuff. or rather --- at least start reading my mail. peace - john mead John E. Mead jem@vnet.net [Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers] From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Oct 1995 15:00:29 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: comments on subtle bodies >You say "Perhaps it would help if we changed the word 'body' to >vehicle of consciousness'" > >I've suggested several times that they might be called "fields". >I'd love to hear an answer to this suggestion from you. Of course Jerry S. is using his own model, but unless we are intent upon changing the definition of words she has already established, then I suggest that we either stay with the terms as HPB defined them, or come up with new and different terms such as "fields." I not suggesting this to canonize HPB, but to minimize confusion, which seems to already be rampant. As I understand HPB, "body" denotes a vehicle of consciousness or of other, more subtle bodies. Therefore a vehicle of consciousness could be a "body", but may not have form. For instance Buddhi is the vehicle of Atma, but Buddhi is without form (arupic). The first recollection I have of the word "fields" in theosophical context was at a class I took some thirty years ago that was taught by Fritz Kunz. Fritz used the analogy of a magnetic field that he said was universal, but becomes "localized" in a magnet. Therefore the magnet would be the "vehicle" or "body" of that field. With this analogy, I understand Fritz's "field" to be an analogy for consciousness, while the magnet would be an analogy for the "body" or "vehicle." Hope this helps. Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Oct 1995 15:00:30 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: from my daily reading Thought this would be of interest to the scientists on this list, but as I finished the passage ... it's of interest to poets as well. Part of my morning reading is still short passages from "Talks on The Path of Occultism", which are commentaries on "The Voice of The Silence". >From The Voice (one of my favorite quotes ... it works) "Help nature & work on with her; and nature will regard thee as one of her creators and make obeisance. "And she will open wide before thee the portals of her secret chambers, lay bare before thy gaze the treasures hidden in the very depths of her pure virgin bosom. Unsullied by the hands of matter, she shows her treasures only to the eye of Spirit - the eye wich never closes, the eye for which there is no veil in all her kingdoms. "Then will she show thee the means & way, the first gate & the 2d, the 3rd, up to the very 7th. And then, the goal; beyond which lie, bathed in the sunlight of the Spirit, glories untold, unseen by any save the eye of the Soul." excerpts from the commentaries: ".... working with nature. It is perhaps unsympathetic to use the word 'conquered', when the fact is that all our power in the world is the result of harmony between man & nature. The man in the boat who sets his sail so that he may go against the wind is not overcoming the wind, but is harmonizing his affairs with its law. By working with the laws, man gains in power, not by fighting against them. ".... Nature is composed of life as well as matter, & it is through sympathetic feeling that that life becomes known, & harmonized with human life. .... "This sympathy has occasionally been shown especially by the poets. ... Another well known instance is that of the philosopher Emerson who, on returning from his winter lecture tours to his home at Concord, used to shake hands with the lower branches of his trees. He declared that he could feel that the trees were glad at his return, & no doubt that quality of sympathy was a great aid to his inspiration." CWL From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Oct 1995 15:39:50 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Messengers Alan: Yes. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Oct 1995 15:39:51 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: RE: Comments on Subtle Bodies in my reply to Jerry S., I made a blooper (the computer was malfunctioning) In the last paragraph, 2d sentence, should read: " His (Harry's) idea was that astral, mental & etc were all force fields of varied VIBES. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Oct 1995 20:34:02 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Publications Dear folks, I have posted this to both theos-news and theos-roots, but not to theos-l, as the main interest is in the area of theosophical history. Abraxas Publishing, here in Bristol, England, is embarking on a program of reprints and, in some instances, previously unpublished material from early TS sources. These will consist of pamphlets in limited editions of around 100 copies, printed to order. Copies will probably be numbered by hand. So far in hand are two pamphlets: 1. Concerning H.P.B. (Stray thoughts on Theosophy) by G.R.S. Mead, HPB's private secretary for many years - a moving account of the person behind the initials, and his great fondness for her and appreciation of her work. 2. *Similis Es*, attributed in MS to A.E. Waite, but said to be in the hand of Arthur Machen. This is a short work reproduced in the original handwriting. Others by G.R.S. Mead in line are: As Above, So Below; Yoga, the Science of the Soul; Theosophy and Occultism. Also: The Revelation of the Shechinah, or The Tree of Life in the Holy Royal Arch, by "Vincit, Qui Se Vincit," Hon. Magus, a Rosicrucian at the Metropolitan College. Probably an originally Golden Dawn pamphlet. Kooy Hoomi Unveiled, or Tibetan "Buddhists" versus The Buddhists of Tibet, a hostile but revealing work by Arthur Lillie of the Royal Asiatic Society circa 1883-5. Notes on Experiences in Egypt, by Q.L. - a Golden Dawn member's unpublished account (it is believed) by a member who took the Order to New Zealand. History buffs may detect the hand of R.A.Gilbert in this project ..... Anyone interested in any of the above, please e-mail me privately. Nothing is as yet published, but it is expected that the first two will be available during November. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 14 Oct 1995 20:34:02 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Publications Dear folks, I have posted this to both theos-news and theos-roots, but not to theos-l, as the main interest is in the area of theosophical history. Abraxas Publishing, here in Bristol, England, is embarking on a program of reprints and, in some instances, previously unpublished material from early TS sources. These will consist of pamphlets in limited editions of around 100 copies, printed to order. Copies will probably be numbered by hand. So far in hand are two pamphlets: 1. Concerning H.P.B. (Stray thoughts on Theosophy) by G.R.S. Mead, HPB's private secretary for many years - a moving account of the person behind the initials, and his great fondness for her and appreciation of her work. 2. *Similis Es*, attributed in MS to A.E. Waite, but said to be in the hand of Arthur Machen. This is a short work reproduced in the original handwriting. Others by G.R.S. Mead in line are: As Above, So Below; Yoga, the Science of the Soul; Theosophy and Occultism. Also: The Revelation of the Shechinah, or The Tree of Life in the Holy Royal Arch, by "Vincit, Qui Se Vincit," Hon. Magus, a Rosicrucian at the Metropolitan College. Probably an originally Golden Dawn pamphlet. Kooy Hoomi Unveiled, or Tibetan "Buddhists" versus The Buddhists of Tibet, a hostile but revealing work by Arthur Lillie of the Royal Asiatic Society circa 1883-5. Notes on Experiences in Egypt, by Q.L. - a Golden Dawn member's unpublished account (it is believed) by a member who took the Order to New Zealand. History buffs may detect the hand of R.A.Gilbert in this project ..... Anyone interested in any of the above, please e-mail me privately. Nothing is as yet published, but it is expected that the first two will be available during November. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Oct 1995 07:21:24 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: P. Johnson's 2 SUNY books on the Theosophical Masters, Part II Part II At the end of Part I of my critique, I recounted the experience Colonel Olcott had of meeting the Master Morya in Bombay in July, 1879. In Olcott's testimony to the 1884 London S.P.R. committee, we find additional interesting material about this 1879 encounter: "Colonel Olcott: One day at Bombay I was at work in my office when a Hindu servant came and told me that a gentleman wanted to see me in Madame Blavatsky's bungalow....I went and found alone there my Teacher [Morya]. ...The interview between the Teacher and myself lasted perhaps 10 minutes.... "Mr. Myers: How do you know that your Teacher was in actual flesh and blood on that occasion? "Colonel Olcott: He put his hand upon my head, and his hand was perfectly substantial....When he walked about the floor there was noise of his footsteps....He was then stopping at a bungalow, not far from Bombay, belonging to a person connected with this brotherhood of Mahatmas....He [Morya] came to our place on horseback.... "Mr. Myers: Was that the only occasion on which you hve seen him in the flesh? "Colonel Olcott: No; I have seen him at other times. "Mr. Myers: Have you seen him three or four times in the flesh? "Colonel Olcott: Yes, more than that....." As I said in Part I, how does Paul Johnson explain this July, 1879 incident? Is this Master Morya (coming "in the flesh" and "on horseback') to be somehow identified with Ranbir Singh, the Maharaja of Kashmir whom Johnson says is the real flesh and blood person behind the Morya persona? Johnson has said on several previous occasions that he does *not* believe that this "gentleman" waiting in HPB's bungalow to see Olcott was Ranbir Singh who had travelled all the way from Kashmir to Bombay to see Olcott and HPB. But Johnson has not either in his book or in response to my questions publicly dealt with this issue. In a private e-mail message to me, he said that this criticism of mine carried no weight with him. I will try to paraphrase what Johnson told me. If I misstate what his line of reasoning is, I hope that he will provide us on Theos-roots with a better description. One of Johnson's comments in response to my above stated objections was that unless one could somehow identified the person who appeared on horseback at Bombay this Bombay account or similar accounts do not help one to identify who the Master was or was not. Johnson said that unless one could find some document, etc. which would disclose that a certain identifed historical person had been in Bombay at this particular time, etc., Olcott's account is of little use. Johnson has also stated that the only kind of valid criticism of his identifications of the Masters (in this case Morya) would involve naming a different historical person and identifying that known person as the basis (or whatever) of the Morya persona. A few comments I believe are in order. On Johnson's first response, I would say that, indeed, it would be nice to be able to identify a known historical person who may have been in Bombay on July 15, 1879 at T.S. headquarters. If one could locate some reference in a Bombay newspaper, or discover some reference in a letter or diary of a known Indian that would place that person at Bombay on July 15, 1879, this kind of evidence might help the historian to identify who Morya riding up on horseback really was. But having said this, even if one cannot find such evidence (as Johnson wants), doesn't Olcott's account of his Teacher riding up on horseback have *some* relevance in assessing Johnson's hypothesis that the real flesh and blood person behind the Morya "persona" was Maharaja Ranbir Singh? If Ranbir Singh was *not* in Bombay on July 15, 1879 and Olcott reports that the Master Morya was in Bombay visiting with him and HPB, is not this evidence that can be adduced to show that Johnson's hypothesis is less than probable, that in fact (coupled with similar evidence) Johnson's hypothesis is wrong? We may not be able to identify (by giving the person's real name, etc) who was visiting Olcott and HPB on that July 15, 1879 day. But Olcott states his Teacher was there and we know from other sources that this Teacher used the name "Morya" which was his "initiate" name. [HPB writes: "...the personage known to the public under the pseudonym of `Koot Hoomi' is called by a totally different name among his acquaintances....The real names of Master Adepts and Occult Schools are never, *under any circumstances*, revealed to the profane; and the names of the personages [Koot Hoomi & Morya] who have been talked about in connection with modern Theosophy, are in the possession only of the two chief founders of the Theosophical Society." C.W, X, p. 126. It is this type of evidence which I am citing which helps to support Dr. John Algeo's conclusion which reads: "There is no evidence [in support of Johnson's hypothesis] that Ranbir was in fact the model for Morya's virtues OR ANYTHING ELSE IN CONNECTION WITH HIM." Caps added. Furthermore, when Johnson gives forth this "rule" that unless one can name "real" names when citing evidence that indicates that Morya was at such & such place at such & such time, one might ask: Does Johnson himself follow this rule he has invoked in response to my criticisms of his thesis? And finally, why does Johnson insist that the vali And finally, why does Johnson insist that the only valid criticism of his hypotheses concerning Morya and Koot Hoomi would be to show an alternate hypothesis pointing to the "real" identities of K.H and M? Yes, I agree that one approach would be to try to find alternate identifications and I do have some clues in that direction. But having said that, is it not also a valid approach to show that Johnson's supposed identities are not supported by an array of evidence. That in fact, possibly 90 to 95% of the evidence contradicts Johnson's thesis. In discussing Johnson's remarks on this last subject with a friend, the friend say that it seemed to him that Johnson was in effect saying: "Well, a bad identification is better than no identification!" I will close for now and let Johnson review my parphrasing of his private responses to my criticisms. If I have misunderstood or misstated his arguments, he can state them and add details so that I and other interested readers on Theos-Roots will have a better understanding of his viewpoint. Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Oct 1995 11:09:03 GMT From: RAINGER@delphi.com Subject: Review MICHAEL RAINGER BOOKS 22 Prices Lane York YO2 1AL England Tel:01904 670203 E-Mail: rainger@Delphi.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Oct 1995 11:09:04 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: re: comments on subtle bodies Thanks Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 15 Oct 1995 20:24:20 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: P. Johnson's 2 SUNY books on the Theosophical Masters, Part II This is my opinion as well, that Paul Johnson feels "A bad identification is better than no identification." We should not be looking merely for OTHER historical personages who might have been the "real" Mahatmas, but also for counter-evidence that ANY known historical personages were the Mahatmas. HPB and Col. Olcott both assert that the Masters assiduously closed the doors to any discovery of Their personal identities, because it would interfere with their work and only lead to hero-worship or devil-hunting. If there were fairly solid evidence that Master so-and-so was really this particular historical person, that would be interesting. Open-minded Theosophists do not discredit the possibility that more might be learned about the Mahatmas, nor that they did in fact live in flesh and blood bodies, eat, sleep, travel, etc. But Johnson should have emphasized MUCH MORE STRONGLY that the people he brought forward as candidates for the masters were HYPOTHESES, and not derive conclusions (such as HPB's primary motive for concealing their identity was POLITICAL) from hypotheses. In fact, I tend to agree with Daniel Caldwell that 90% tp 95% of the evidence stacks up AGAINST Paul Johnson's "Mahatma-candidates" and therefore those candidates should be dismissed. Others may be found, or HPB and Olcott may turn out to be right, that nothing solid is available regarding the personal natures of the masters, and we are wasting time looking for it rather than APPLYING the teachings they left us. RIch From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Oct 1995 00:40:03 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Theosophy and Naropa I have a quote from a book on Naropa ("The Life and Teaching of Naropa" by Herbert V. Guenther, Shambhala, pages 136-37) that relates to some of the topics discussed on 'theos-l' in the past month, from the standpoint of Buddhism. > The acquisition of transcending awareness is indicated by two formulas > ... 'all entities are pure by nature and so am I' and 'I am by nature > nothingness, transcending awareness and indestructibility'. This transcending awareness is likely the Atmic consciousness, the consciousness of the divine. It is where our consciousness is seated deep within, in our Inner God. > ... all the entites which make up our world are 'pure' and stainless, That part of us which is pure and stainless is the Monadic, the part that stands untouched by our participation in existence in the space and time *of our world*. The Monad sends forth a ray of consciousness, yet remains behind, pure, untouched by the excursion into material existence. > because they are merely appearances and not independent entities as > such. >From the standpoint of the Monad, this is true. > Yet they are not unreal. As a matter of fact, 'appearances' are > the realities which we perceive and it is only by becoming an > 'appearance' that anything can notify its existence to us. The act of "becoming an appearance" is our coming into existence. It is only when we exist that we notify others of ourselves. In an ultimate sense, that coming into existence refers to clothing ourselves in the seven principles, including Atman. In a more immediate sense, that coming into existence refers to our incarnation into a sphere of causes, where we are in direct physical interaction with other beings. > The important thing to note is the dynamic aspect of becoming an > appearance which implies the incessant activity of mind which, in a > certain sense, I am myself. Existing as an "appearance" requires the activity of mind, which creates the sense of self. Atman, as pure, stainless consciousness, needs to take on the direct perception of Buddhi, then the activity of mind, creating the sense of self, Manas, in order for us to create our illusory sense of selfhood. > Or, put otherwise, I as a mind create the world of objects which > I knowingly grasp. The activity of the mind or Manas creates, *to us*, the world of objects. When this activity ceases, the world *stops*, for us, and we see deeply into the divine nature of things. > However, creating the world is not so much creation > *ex nihilo* as an arranging and revealing ... This creation is not out of nothingness, because other beings and the external world preexist our participation in it. It is created *to us* in the activity of our minds, and so *for us* it has newly appeared. > The decisive point is that in this activity of mind that which > appears before the mind is believed to be veridical ... 'the sensa are > existing in truth'. "Veridical" means truthful, matching fact and reality. We believe that the world before us, created by the activity of our minds, is true and real, that the perception of the senses is of something real in nature. > Most mentalistic (idealistic) systems both in the East and West stop > short at this point, Thus far, we can say that the "mind is the great slayer of the Real". > but while Western idealistic systems tend to define the sensa as being > mental, most Buddhist systems reject this conclusion and merely content > themselves with stating that sensa are experiencable and, while an > experience is a mental phenomenon, it does not follow that that which is > experienced is mental. In the west, the senses are considered a mental activity, whereas in Buddhism, they are not. Senses are *one form of experience*. The experiencer and sense of experience is in the activity of the mind, Manas. > ... the second formula which means that on closer inspection the > subjective aspect, This is the aspect where we are aware of things outside ourselves, where we have a subjective appreciation of the external world. > which has only meaning in relation to its objective reference, Our subjective appreciation of the world only has meaning when it is relation to the external world, to the so-called objective. > is meaningless because in postulating mentalism the subjective and > the objective instead of reducing the one to the other, When we say that the senses are a mental activity, we cannot explain what really happens; we are still caught up in the illusory nature of the sense of subjective and objective. > we arrive at an act of becoming aware which is neither subjective nor > objective, but an act of being aware in itself and brilliantly > perspicuous in itself. [Perspicuous means clearly expressed, but using that word is not clear to everyone without a dictionary!] There is an activity of mind that is pure awareness, brilliant, clear, and transcending any sense of objective and subjective. (This is the consciousness that transcends the sense of self, and is really the activity of Buddhi, rather than Manas.) > This is the meaning of 'nothingness (sunyata) transcending awareness > (jnana) and indestructibility (vajra)' and the conviction that sensa > are delusive. This is talking about the sense of emptiness or void or space that transcends the mental awareness or mental constructs that we use to interpret and give meaning to life. It transcends the activity of mind that creates *our* world, and our sense of fixed, personal selfhood, our sense of indestructibility. > This whole procedure, however, is not merely an intellectual method; > on the contrary, the intellectual formulation is the outcome of an > immediate experience. And like many of the deeper theosophical teachings, which in this case comes from a Buddhist book, we find the need for an immediate experience of life out of which our ideas or intellectual formulations arise. The inner experience *in consciousness* comes first, and the words follow. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Oct 1995 02:17:54 GMT From: Diana Cooper Subject: unsubscribing problem I have also tried several times to unsubscribe. It doesn't seem to be possible. Hundreds and hundreds of messages....too busy to delete them some days. Causing me a lot of problems. Please get me off . Thanks in advance. *************************************************************** ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Diana E.M. Cooper 604-822-3943 Fine Arts Reference Librarian Fine Arts Library 604-822-3893 (fax) University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall INTERNET:dcooper@unixg.ubc.ca Vancouver,B.C. V6T 1Z1 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: **************************************************************** From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Oct 1995 02:17:55 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: Re: The Nature of Space (Science & Theosophy) 2 Questions for Patrick or any other scientist or science buff out there. You start out with "space is n-dimensional". Is there some rational explanation for this, that a layman can understand? Something experiential would be even better. My understanding goes as far as 3 dimensions, & I know the 4th dimension is time, but that already doesn't make any sense to me. I've puzzled about this for quite a while because here's dimensions from 1 of Harry's charts which also doesn't make any sense to me: physical body (the electrosomatic field) - 3 dimesional psyche (personality, emotions, thought processes, electro psychic field) - 4 dimensional cognition (eidos, field of archetypes & potentials of function) - 5 dimensional synthesis (nous, being, awareness of man & universe as unity) -) 6 dimensional consciousness (beness, field of all encompassing unity; indefinable) - 7 dimensional That, as far as Patrick's interesting post is concerned. Something else I just don't understand is part of the chaos theory. What's "non-linear" equations, non linear time, or what have you? I'd appreciate anyone's answer, if it can be done so a 7th grader can understand it. Thanks Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Oct 1995 02:17:55 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: (Fwd) from my daily reading Thought this would be of interest to the scientists on this list, but as I finished the passage ... it's of interest to poets as well. Part of my morning reading is still short passages from "Talks on The Path of Occultism", which are commentaries on "The Voice of The Silence". >From The Voice (one of my favorite quotes ... it works) "Help nature & work on with her; and nature will regard thee as one of her creators and make obeisance. "And she will open wide before thee the portals of her secret chambers, lay bare before thy gaze the treasures hidden in the very depths of her pure virgin bosom. Unsullied by the hands of matter, she shows her treasures only to the eye of Spirit - the eye wich never closes, the eye for which there is no veil in all her kingdoms. "Then will she show thee the means & way, the first gate & the 2d, the 3rd, up to the very 7th. And then, the goal; beyond which lie, bathed in the sunlight of the Spirit, glories untold, unseen by any save the eye of the Soul." excerpts from the commentaries: ".... working with nature. It is perhaps unsympathetic to use the word 'conquered', when the fact is that all our power in the world is the result of harmony between man & nature. The man in the boat who sets his sail so that he may go against the wind is not overcoming the wind, but is harmonizing his affairs with its law. By working with the laws, man gains in power, not by fighting against them. ".... Nature is composed of life as well as matter, & it is through sympathetic feeling that that life becomes known, & harmonized with human life. .... "This sympathy has occasionally been shown especially by the poets. ... Another well known instance is that of the philosopher Emerson who, on returning from his winter lecture tours to his home at Concord, used to shake hands with the lower branches of his trees. He declared that he could feel that the trees were glad at his return, & no doubt that quality of sympathy was a great aid to his inspiration." CWL From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Oct 1995 02:17:55 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: (Fwd) re: comments on subtle bodies >You say "Perhaps it would help if we changed the word 'body' to >vehicle of consciousness'" > >I've suggested several times that they might be called "fields". >I'd love to hear an answer to this suggestion from you. Of course Jerry S. is using his own model, but unless we are intent upon changing the definition of words she has already established, then I suggest that we either stay with the terms as HPB defined them, or come up with new and different terms such as "fields." I not suggesting this to canonize HPB, but to minimize confusion, which seems to already be rampant. As I understand HPB, "body" denotes a vehicle of consciousness or of other, more subtle bodies. Therefore a vehicle of consciousness could be a "body", but may not have form. For instance Buddhi is the vehicle of Atma, but Buddhi is without form (arupic). The first recollection I have of the word "fields" in theosophical context was at a class I took some thirty years ago that was taught by Fritz Kunz. Fritz used the analogy of a magnetic field that he said was universal, but becomes "localized" in a magnet. Therefore the magnet would be the "vehicle" or "body" of that field. With this analogy, I understand Fritz's "field" to be an analogy for consciousness, while the magnet would be an analogy for the "body" or "vehicle." Hope this helps. Jerry Hejka-Ekins Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org >From Liesel PS On 2d thought, your recollection, Jerry, of what Fritz Kunz taught, jives with some of modern science, as I understand it. I think the belief nowadays is that "vehicles" or "bodies" are an aggregation of vibes. Well, it seems that the various "fields" are made of vibes as well, some grosser & more material, some finer & more etherial. The way I see it, the "bodies" are an aggregation of some of the vibes of a certain field. That fits in with what you tell Fritz stated that the magnetic field was universal & the magnet would be a "body" of that field. I think it fits. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Oct 1995 04:31:28 GMT From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd" Subject: Re: Symbols and Bridges Eldon: This is a reply to your lengthy post of 9th October, somewhat later than I would like it to be, but hopefully better late than never. >>Small symbols (words & phrases) are used >>to construct, or refer to, larger symbols such as the concepts of Globes, >>"psychic", "spiritual", intuition, the Path, the Masters, etc etc. All >>the hot topics on the list plus a host of others. > >It's easy to get caught in a tower of Babel, and have everyone speaking >with no one understanding the other. A danger that list-dwellers often dice with, but, while some of us seem to aspire to complete incomprehensibility at times, no-one has ever quite attained that lofty goal! :-) >The basic truths, though, are simple. >Purucker spoke of them as the Seven Jewels of Wisdom. They include things >like Atma-vidya, self-knowledge. Indeed. It is the distinction between levels or ways of comprehending that I was concerned with, from purely intellectual through to intuitive and experientially-grounded ways. >Some of the discussion, though, is not arbirary. If we were discussing >geography, for instance, we could have our opinions of the layout of the >world, but the coastlines won't change to suit everyone's opinions. The >map of the world is a particular way, and we can talk about it without >getting involved in subjective opinions. True of course, but to continue the analogy, a purely intellectual understanding is a bit like knowing a lot about the map without having been to the seashore, while an experiential understanding is like knowing the feel of sand under your feet and the smell of sea air in your nose. Then there's the matter of getting to know what's under the surface. I accept the need for maps, as well as for experience. While there has been a relative difference of approach between yourself and JRC that is somewhere on the metaphorical spectrum from maps to experience, I think that maps can be helpful in obtaining and understanding experience, and experience is helpful in understanding and reconstructing the information encoded in maps. I note that you agree with this concept in another part of your post, put in other words. Part of the trouble with theosophy is the limitation of language, where we have so few words to identify the countries in this global map, and some of them describe overlapping territory. Look at atma, mayavi-rupa, plane, principle, body - all terms that we have significant differences of understanding of, and that we wrestle to gain greater clarity with. The word "psychic" suffers badly from this affliction, hence much of the need for discussion. >We have ideas of all types. Some are beliefs that we've chosen to give >ourselves confort and meaning in life. Some are actual understandings of >the outer or inner workings of the universe. There's brilliant insights >mixed with confusion and lack of understanding. And we have a language >barrier at times. But amidst all this, we're learning from each other and >growing from the interchange. We have a place to sound out our ideas with >our peers, and shouldn't be too concerned if every idea we try out won't >stand up as orthodox theosophy. I quite agree. I think that bridges nicely to JRC's approach. >>Well, for what it's worth, I have personally walked the bridge between a >>position similar to Eldon's in this regard to one similar enough to JRC's >>to support the distinction I'm making. > >It's possible at a certain point in life to change our views, and *for us* >the change will be viewed as an improvement. I'm not sure that this can >be generalized, though, to say that the change is generically good or bad, >and should be emulated by others. Yes, but when the later view encompasses AND goes beyond the earlier view, it is hard to escape a sense of forward progression. Not trying to sound judgemental or superior here - it's an experience that we all have many times in our lives, and is the basis of natural heirarchies, whether of knowledge or ability. >>Some of my life experiences, like going through the terminal illnes of my >>first wife, taught me in a vivid way just how much of the knowledge we >>theosophists hold is second-hand, perhaps third-hand. > >Unfortunately, that's true. Many stop at book learning, get some awareness >of the ideas that are being taught, and don't take the next step to make >those ideas a living reality in their lives. Without taking this step, the >ideas are second-hand or third-hand, and don't provide much insight into the >significant events in our lives. Yes. Something for us all to bear in mind - all the time. >>Some people in that particular test, lose faith in their religious >>concept set, never to regain it. Well, I lost the WAY I held theosophy >>but gained something far more valuable in its place, though still centred >>on theosophy. > >And that unsettling can happen again and again. And when we approach >chelaship, and enter probation, perhaps it becomes a continual fact of >life for us. Very likely. >>As the years went by, I was privileged to have extended contact with >>Geoffrey Hodson and some others with inner perception. That tapped hard >>on the shell of some of my ideas as well, letting in a bit more light and >>air. > >People with paranormal powers make good gurus, since they can see or do >things that make a strong psychological impression on us. Sai Baba, for >instance, with daily materializations, is able to inspire a sense of >spiritual enthusiasm in thousands of people. > The strong impressions came in several ways for me, some of them best described as being near and absorbing through the skin. The classical thing about being in the guru's aura, I guess. >>centred on relatively small concerns including a limited concept of the >>seer's self, involving shifting and rather dense energy currents and >>information pathways, > >But I wouldn't involve a sense of self nor one's understanding of things >with psychic. See my next comment >>that are the "lower" psychism that we are so often >>warned about. It corresponds to small, self-centred modes of >>consciousness. Our "pigmy self", as Kahlil Gibran put it. > >The sense of personal self is a lower function of manas. It is the sense >of separate self, and if it becomes the predominate keynote of our awareness, >we become selfish and self-centered. The sense of self, though, is unrelated >to that of sense perception and manipulation of physical objects of this >or the astral plane. I agree that a sense of personal self is a lower function of manas, and believe it manifests as a person's belief system and self concept in relation to the world. The point I am making here is that modes of consciousness that can be called our pigmy self, where the motivations centre around a perceived small concept of separated self, seem to characterise "lower" psychic manifestations when they occur. This is a generalisation, of course, but as I see it, the self-believed nature of self has a profound effect on what a person thinks, feels, does and perceives. I was not talking about the sense of self in itself, but rather the quality and scope of self-concept and concerns. Just to stir the pot, I suspect this is closely related to one of the meanings of mayavi-rupa. >>On the other hand, there are modes of perception that are non-physical, >>centred on larger concerns, involving subtler, clearer energy currents >>etc etc that may be called intuition. > >I would not call intuition as a wider or more universal functioning of >thought, but rather a qualitatively different manner of arriving at >understandings. A "functioning of thought" is not what I had in mind. Intuition is certainly qualitatively different, but IMO can only appear in a person who has cleared away certain limiting parts of their belief and feeling systems. Its concerns are definitely wider, often to the point of being universal. >>The problem arises when a person like Eldon (and Eldon, I say this in a >>context of much admiration and respect for all that you do) takes the >>ready-made word "psychism", with a set of associations that link it >>firmly with the lower of the two examples I gave above, then applies it >>to certain others who demonstrate non-physical perception. > >"Lower" is not necessarily bad or inferior. True, but in most minds I would say it has these associations all the same. And this, I believe, is a key element in the off-putting attitudes that JRC was trying to articulate. I have seen for myself the presence of unacknowledged negative emotional attitudes alongside what appeared to be friendly warnings, and seen the discouraging effect they can have on people. >And I distinguish between the >dangers of forced development as opposed to natural faculties. Good. It's a matter of being responsible, in passing on the reasonable warnings that HPB, GH and others (including JRC - I remember a few weeks back) have issued, while being more willing to listen before we talk, when confronted with someone who is a "natural". I definitely think theosophists in general have more thinking to do in this area. >>But that may not be doing justice, and could miss much of the truth. It >>could be that the experiential inputs of the other person include, but >>also go well beyond, the lower perception modes. There are so many >>possibilities that who can fully tell, without a superb sensory apparatus >>able to encompass the whole field? > >We cannot tell what is experienced by another. Perhaps a Mahatma could? That's exactly what I had in mind. You mentioned a rightful humility above, and if it takes a Mahatma to know for sure, lesser mortals should have an appropriate humility in the face of those whose inner worlds are very different from their own. In my experience, not all theosophists have shown this humility, and I include myself. >But we can seek to understand life and apply our understanding to what we >see and hear. And that includes our interpretation of the stated experiences >of others. Also, I'd still suggest that there is a way of knowing things >without "being there and doing it", a faculty of knowing that we are able >to develop. Absolutely, but I wouldn't separate them as much as you seem to. In fact, at these levels, the distinction dissolves, as the faculty of knowing is itself an experience going to the core, while experiencing is an intimate way of knowing. I see this as a major connecting point between your position and JRC's, as they appeared at the beginning of the latest cycle of discussion on this topic. >>I have come to see that it is terribly easy to box some body in, in our >>language and thoughts, with the best intentions, and quite unconsciously, >>by applying ready-made terminology and concepts. > >That "boxing in" is only if our ideas appear to be a put down, or are >harshly critical and judgemental, or fail to understand and appreciate >someone's personal experiences. In that case, it would be natural for >people to clam up and say nothing. Well, that is what JRC was trying to portray, as I see it, and what I've seen myself in a few cases. Not as strongly as you put it, but still with the elements of being judgemental and significant failure to understand another's personal experiences. As you say, it is natural to then feel a tendency to clam up. >But while we listen with shared >appreciation to someone's descriptions of their psychical or mystical >experiences, we are not required to accept their personal explanations >of what happened. Of course. We need every bit of wariness as well as openness we can muster. >Since we're in a tradition that promotes the motto "there is no religion >higher than truth," we should be seeking it in many ways. One way is by >the sharing of personal experiences. Another is by learning and sharing >our insights into the Teachings. The two approaches should coexist and >be in some form of harmory. I think that's well put, Eldon. >>Maybe we need to use other words than the terribly-overworked "psychic". >>I've used "non-physical" above, and there are others like >>"superphysical". >>What about direct cognition? Experiential resonance? >>Mind-space frequency-lock? Energy pseudopodia sampling? I'm brainstorming >>now; what can you come up with? > >Those terms don't appeal to me, but we'll come up with some. Fair enough. I was verging on having a bit of fun here, along with a serious desire to stimulate some other contributions. Hey, but I noticed on a post of yours not long ago, that you talk about phase lock, citing the example of two grandfather clocks. That's closely related to the idea of frequency lock, but just a bit tighter, to somebody with a background of electronics, signal processing etc like myself. I certainly felt in sync. with you when you wrote that. I thought that energy pseudopodia sampling was destined to a very short life, but the idea was sparked by descriptions of Therapeutic Touch etc where at a certain level, energy streamers go out and connect people, or are extruded to pick up information about something. Just another corner of the large piece of map covered by the word "psychic". >JRC and I still have a lot to work out. Hopefully there will be some >further good out of our discussions. The comments of others, like yours, >are helpful too, so that JRC and I don't get locked into a too-predictable >interchange. Thanks. I have high hopes that good will come out of it all. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Oct 1995 04:52:40 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: The Nature of Space (Science & Theosophy) Hello, Here is an article about space nature written as scientist/theosophist style. On Space "The eternal parent wrapped in her ever-invisible robes had slumbered once again for seven eternities. "Time was not, for it lay asleep in the infinite bosom of duration. ... "Alone the one form of existence stretched boundless, infinite, causeless, in dreamless sleep; and life pulsated unconscious in universal space, throughout that all-presence which is sensed by the opened eye of the Dangma." The Secret Doctrine, Cosmogenesis, 27. Modern astronomical researchers are delving more and more into the qualities and effects of cosmic processes. In truth space is n-dimensional and is an evolving entity about which we are not yet learning the A-B-C's (although we are working on learning A). The current scientific determination that astronomical observations support the "big bang" theory of creation is most interesting and can tell us much about modern thought and where it is going. The observations which are being made are being interpreted in a three dimensional spatial context. But the energies which are being observed are actually part of etheric processes which reflect higher spatial dimensional relationships. In fact what is being observed is a three-dimensional reflection of four and five and higher dimensional spatial relationships. This reflection can make it appear that everything in the universe came from a central point just as our image in a mirror appears to be flat. But the conclusions which are being made from the observations of cosmic energies are the same as if we conclude from observing ourselves in a mirror that we are flat. Galaxies and groups of galaxies and whole fields of space are created by higher dimensional cosmic processes which at present cannot even be imagined by the best minds of humanity. The great sciences of cosmic beings are as far beyond us as nuclear physics is beyond an amoeba. Nevertheless by analogy and correspondence we can gain some sense of the next steps in our understanding of the origins of the universe. Science as a process of learning, under the impression of the intuition, will through experimental understanding help liberate humanity from the materialistic identifications and provide a practical means for humanity to cooperate with spatial energies. This book (A Treatise on White Magic) will be based also upon four fundamental postulates which must be admitted by the student ... as providing an hypothesis worthy of his consideration and trial. ... These postulates might be enumerated as follows and are given in the order of their importance: I. First, that there exists in our manifested universe the expression of an Energy of Life which is the responsible cause of the diverse forms and the vast hierarchy of sentient beings who compose the sum total of all that is. .. II. ... the one Life, manifesting through matter, produces a third factor which is consciousness. ... This is the Theory of Self-determination or the teaching that all the lives of which the one life is formed, in their sphere and in their state of being, become, ..., grounded in matter and assume forms whereby their peculiar specific state of consciousness may be realized and the vibration stabilized; thus they may know themselves as existences. ... III. The third basic postulate is that the object for which life takes form and the purpose of manifested being is the unfoldment of consciousness, or the revelation of the soul. This might be called the Theory of the Evolution of Light. ... IV. The fourth postulate consists of the statement that all lives manifest cyclically. This is the Theory of Re-birth of or re-incarnation, the demonstration of the law of periodicity. ... (A Treatise on White Magic, pp. 7-10.) (From Writings in Psychosophy Vol. 1) (copyright, etc.) Cheers, Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Oct 1995 11:00:08 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Forwarding Johnson's reply to Caldwell's Part II on the Masters I am forwarding to theos-roots Paul Johnson's reply to my Part II on P.J.'s 2 SUNY books on the Theosophical Masters. Johnson has brought up some good points and I plan later tonight or tomorrow to frame my comments on his points. Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Oct 1995 11:02:09 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Forwarding attached reply of Johnson to CAldwell's Part II > From: "K. Paul Johnson" According to MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU: > > Johnson has said on several previous occasions that he does *not* believe > that this "gentleman" waiting in HPB's bungalow to see Olcott was Ranbir > Singh who had travelled all the way from Kashmir to Bombay to see Olcott > and HPB. "Does not believe" can mean several things. I don't regard it as impossible, but implausible. Could not find evidence as to Ranbir's whereabouts at the time, but at any rate he was unlikely to travel alone. > > One of Johnson's comments in response to my above stated objections was that > unless one could somehow identified the person who appeared on horseback > at Bombay this Bombay account or similar accounts do not help one to identify > who the Master was or was not. Johnson said that unless one could find > some document, etc. which would disclose that a certain identifed historical > person had been in Bombay at this particular time, etc., Olcott's account is > of little use. Of little use in providing a historical identification, that's all. If you want to use it as weight against another identification, which you do, fine. But it lacks much weight when there is no confirmation of the account. > > Johnson has also stated that the only kind of valid criticism of his > identifications of the Masters (in this case Morya) would involve naming > a different historical person and identifying that known person as the basis > (or whatever) of the Morya persona. No, never. What I said was that my procedure was to comb through the Theosophical literature looking for clues that are specific enough to point to specific prototypes or identifications for the Masters. Passages such as the one you cite are not useful in that way. I have said that passages such as the one you cite could be used as "disproof" of ANY identification one could make, and therefore that their evidentiary value is weak. > > And finally, why does Johnson insist that the only valid criticism of his > hypotheses concerning Morya and Koot Hoomi would be to show an alternate > hypothesis pointing to the "real" identities of K.H and M? Yes, I agree I do not and never have insisted that. It's not just a matter of criticism of my hypotheses, but of the conflicting and limited evidence available for ANY hypothesis. I'm not saying your approach is invalid, just that I'm more interested in evidence that would actually point to someone as opposed to evidence that can only be used negatively. > In discussing Johnson's remarks on this last subject with a friend, the friend > say that it seemed to him that Johnson was in effect saying: "Well, a bad > identification is better than no identification!" What I am saying is that you, Dan, are using your intellectual faculties in a negative manner, trying to undermine the legitimacy of my work without offering anything in the way of alternatives. If I am wrong in any particular case, e.g. Morya, WHO WAS HE? If you claim to have 90-95% of the evidence in that case and it undermines my hypotheses, isn't that enough evidence for you to contruct one of your own? The general Theosophical attack against my work has seemed opposed not just to my particular hypotheses, but to the entire enterprise of identifying the Masters. The relentless negativity of your reaction to my work, with no sign of positive or creative effort to find the truth, suggests that you are defending something rather than seeking a better explanation. You also assume the accuracy of accounts by the Founders even when there is no evidence to confirm them. This will only fly with a Theosophical audience. > > I will close for now and let Johnson review my parphrasing of his private > responses to my criticisms. If I have misunderstood or misstated his > arguments, he can state them and add details so that I and other interested > readers on Theos-Roots will have a better understanding of his viewpoint. I am no longer on Theos-roots but you may forward this. PJ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Oct 1995 14:46:58 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: P. Johnson's 2 SUNY books on the Theosophical Masters, Part III P. Johnson's 2 SUNY books on the Theosophical Masters, Part III I appreciate Johnson responding to Part II of my continuing series. I want to first make a few replies to some of Johnson's comments and then delve deeper into certain key issues involving the primary sources relating to the Theosophical Masters. Johnson writes: >The general Theosophical attack against my work has seemed opposed not just >to my particular hypotheses, but to the entire enterprise of identifying >the Masters. Without commenting in general on this statement, I want to make it clear to all parties involved that I am NOT opposed to the "enterprise of identifying the Masters." I believe this is a worthy historical project and I see nothing wrong with this endeavour. In this regard, Johnson is to be commended on his efforts in this direction. But having said this, I am opposed to Johnson's particular hypotheses concerning Morya and Koot Hoomi because of various reasons which I will try to detail in the course of my series of articles on theos-roots. Again Johnson writes: >What I am saying is that you, Dan, are using your intellectual faculties >in a negative manner, trying to undermine the legitimacy of my work without >offering anything in the way of alternatives. As far as I know the only thing I have been doing is evaluating the validity of your hypotheses and attemtping to point out to you and other interested persons various points as well as evidence which I believe should be considered in order to properly appreciate the validity or not of your particular hypotheses. I have also from time to time tried to point out what I consider is misinformation or historical mistakes in your literary work involving the said Masters. Since you have offered your hypotheses to the scholarly and general public, you bear the burden of proof to prove those hypotheses. No one else bears that burden. Dr. Marcello Truzzi, the sociologist, in his attempt to create a dialogue between parapsychologists and the sceptics of the para- normal has pointed out repeatedly that the claimant bears the burden of proof. You claim that you have made a persuasive case for your identifications concerning the Masters and I have simply been attempting to evaluate that claim. I do NOT claim to know who these Masters were, i.e. what their real names were. All I have been trying to do is to show that you are barking up the wrong tree. I believe this was also one of the things Dr. Algeo attempted in his review of your book THE MASTERS REVEALED. Now to more specific issues in your comments: Johnson writes: > You [Dan Caldwell] also assume the accuracy of accounts by the Founders >even when there is no evidence to confirm them. Whether I assume.......or not is a valid subject for discussion, since we are attempting to review your books, I want to focus on what you, Paul Johnson, assumes in your published writings on this subject. In the statement of yours just quoted, who are the Founders? I assume you refer to HPB and Olcott. In this same statment you mention "accounts". I assume you are referring to accounts given of the Masters or accounts of meetings HPB & Olcott had with the Theosophical Masters. Again, what do you mean by "accuracy" of the accounts? For example, did Olcott make up (i.e. lie) about meeting Morya at Bombay on July 15, 1879? Or did Olcott misstate some detail of the encounter with Morya? etc. etc. Concerning the phrase" "....even when there is no evidence to confirm them..." what do you mean by "evidence" and the absence of evidence? And what does "confirm" mean in this sense? I want to go through your published writings and see if you [Paul Johnson] have in specific instances *assumed* the accuracy of accounts given of encounters with the Masters even when there is no "evidence" [??] to confirm these meetings. Again you write: "[Concerning my reference to Olcott's account of meeting the Master Morya in Bombay, this account is]of little use in providing a historical identifica- tion, that's all. If you want to use it as weight against another identification, which you do, fine. BUT IT LACKS MUCH WEIGHT WHEN THERE IS NO CONFIRMATION OF THE ACCOUNT." Caps added by Dan Caldwell. Again, what do you mean by "confirmation of the account"? Again, have you Paul Johnson when dealing with Olcott's accounts of meeting a specific Masters on a particular day in a particular locality given such confirmation? Everyone on Theos-roots may think I am asking stupid questions or playing dumb but I believe it is very important to clearly define what you mean in these quotes and even better to illustrate what you mean by specific cases you have written about. So I will list with a little detail at this point some of the specific encounters Olcott had with the Masters that you have written about and then allow you to explain the 2 just quoted comments by you in light of these accounts by Olcott. Here are the following accounts by Olcott" as given in your published writings: (1) in THE MASTERS REVEALED, pp. 59-62, you have a chapter entitled, "Ooton Liatto". You write (p. 60): "A recent discovery by Joscelyn Godwin provides intriguing evidence for the visit to New York by Hilarion mentioned in HPB's diary in 1875." You then relate Olcott's testimony in which he says he met sometime during late 1875 or early 1876 in New York City 2 men whom you describe as adepts. The younger of these two men told Olcott that his name was Ooton Liatto. Certain "paranormal" occurrences seeminly take place during their visit with Olcott. You end the chapter by stating the following: "The names Ooton Liatto and Hilarion Smerdis have been equally impossible to find in biographical and historical reference books. While both may be pseudonyms, there is little doubt that two real adepts visited Olcott in New York." (2) In THE MASTERS REVEALED, p. 149, you write: "Describing a visit to the Golden Temple in Amritsar on 23 October, 1880, he [Olcott] writes: `...I was greeted, to my surprise and joy, with a loving smile by one of the Masters, who for the moment was figuring among the guardians....'" At various points in this chapter "Thakar Singh Sandhanwalia" (pp. 148-175), you convey the impression that this "Master" met at the Golden Temple was Koot Hoomi, and was *in fact* Thakar Singh, "a Sikh officiating at the Golden Temple," in this case, Thakar Singh Sandhanwalia. (3) In your book IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS, p. 193, you relate Olcott's account of Aug. 4, 1880 in which a "Mahatma" comes to Bombay headquarters and visits both Olcott and HPB. Olcotts said: "a Mahatma visited H.P.B., and I was called in to see him before he left...." To this account you comment as follows: "In light of available knowledge of Afghani's [that is, Jamal ad-Din `al-Afghani'] comings and goings in India can he be connected to the Founders of the Theosophical Society?.....Although there is no stated identity of this Mahatma [in Olcott's account], the mention of Paris [in Olcott's account of this encounter with the Mahatma] rings true, since Afghani was indeed to proceed to Paris, where he must have had an influential friend from the evidence presented [? presented in Olcott's account?]...." (4) Again on p. 242 of IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS, your tell your readers: "K.H. did indeed visit Olcott, Damodar and Brown on the edge of Lahore [in Nov. 1883]." And in your book THE MASTERS REVEALED, pp. 157-159, you quote Olcott in great detail about this visit of KH to the three individuals named above. And on p. 154 you say that Koot Hoomi's "ONLY RECORDED FLESHLY APPEARANCES were in the same vicinity [i.e.Amritsar and Lahore] several years later." Caps added. (I will refer back to these caps in a future posting) Here in this quote from p. 154 you are referring (at the very least) to KH's appearance in the flesh in 1883 in Lahore "several years later" after his appearance to Olcott at the Golden Temple in 1880. Both in your earlier book IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS and your later one THE MASTERS REVEALED, you indicate that KH was really the historical figure Thakar Singh Sandhanwalia who met Olcott on these two occasions (Oct. 1880 in Amritsar and Nov. 1883 in Lahore). Now looking at the above 4 cited cases from your writings, I will rephrase your question to me and direct them back to you: (a) Do you Paul Johnson assume in the 4 above cases the accuracy of the accounts given by Olcott even when there is no evidence to confirm them? (b) Furthermore, in the 4 accounts quoted above, if you contend that there is evidence to confirm them, what is the nature of that evidence? (c) Do these 4 cases provide *historical* identification of the Adept, Master or Mahatma involved? What is the nature of that historical identification? (d) And in each account of Olcott's that you cite, is there "confirmation of the account." And what does this confirmation consists of in each case? (e) In each of these cases what is the evidence that points toward a "historical" someone? (f) Again, how have you judged "the accuracy" of each of these 4 accounts? (g) And most importantly, how do these four cases that you quote DIFFER from the account by Olcott in which he relates that his Teacher [Morya] rides up to T.B. Bombay headquarters on a horse and visist both Olcott and HPB? Does this July 15, 1879 account provide any less "historical identification" of the Master involved than the other accounts? If so, how? Futhermore, does this July 15, 1879 account provide us with less evidence to confirm it than the other accounts do? Or does this July 1879 account provide us with "no evidence" to confirm it while the other 4 accounts provides us with "evidence" to confirm them? But in each case what is the evidence that confirms them? Again can you confirm the accuracy of the July 1879 account? And if not, can you really confirm the accuracy of the other four accounts in some more substantial way? In one of your replies you seem to imply that in the July 1879 account the "evidentiary value is weak" wheras (I would assume since you cite the 4 cases in your writings) the other 4 cases must have some "evidentairy value", at least more evidentiary value than the July 1879 account? Since you cite these 4 cases and appear to accept them at face value as evidence of a physical Adept or Master visiting Olcott and others, I would assume that you consider that they have some "evidentiary value"? What evidentiary value do they have that you do not find in the July 1879 account? I have typed too much at this sitting. I hope a few readers may see what I am getting at! I will wait for Paul Johnson's reply and then make my observations on these 4 accounts as compared with the July 15, 1879 account. Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Oct 1995 18:42:23 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Theosophy and Naropa Eldon, Thanks for the quotes from a high Buddhist Master, Naropa. He was one of the great transmitters of the Buddha-vacana ("Dharma") from India to Tibet. Although Jerry S. has declined so far to respond to my assertion that Buddhism teaches a consciousness which corresponds to "atma" in Theosophy, these quotes from Naropa pretty clearly prove that Buddhists do believe in an eternal (nitya) unstained (amala) enduring consciousness. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 16 Oct 1995 18:56:45 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re The Nature of Space (Science & Theosophy) Patrick, thanks for the posting on Space. I enjoyed reading it, and only have one minor problem. The original S of Dyzan verse says: "Alone the one form of existence stretched boundless, infinite, causeless, in dreamless sleep; and life pulsated unconscious in universal space,..." And then the commentary says: " II. ... the one Life, manifesting through matter, produces a third factor which is consciousness." Because of the wording in the S of Dyzan (suggesting that life is unconscious during praylaya) and my own understanding of Space and Motion between manvantaras, I would prefer to write this as: " II. ... the one Consciousness, manifesting through matter, produces a third factor which is life." This is a small point, but I see life as an expression of consciousness rather than the other way around. Thanks again, Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 17 Oct 1995 00:18:53 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Purucker on the Seven Rays Following are some quotes from "Hierarchies and the Doctrine of Emanations", by G. de Purucker. The book was one of a private series for members of the Esoteric Section of the Theosophical Society [Point Loma] that were issued in the 1930's, and later printed in 1987 by Point Loma Publications. These quotes show the Point Loma attitude towards the idea of the "Seven Rays", both as regards what is found in Theosophy, and likely in disagreement with the Besant/Leadbeater and Bailey elaborations on the basic idea. I'm including them to show that I'm not unique in questioning the status quo regarding the idea of the Seven Rays as it is taught in the Adyar T.S. [From page 50:] > every Monad is a consciousness-center, with a definite swabhava of its > own, yet always in continuous and uninterrupted activity. This > activity ... is expressed on the lower planes of being by, we may say, > 'rays'. The basic idea of "rays" is that we, as Monads, establish an outpost of consciousness on the lower planes. We send forth rays and evolve them as ourselfs on the lower planes. [From page 25:] > every such Chain, Solar or Planetary, is a manifestation of a logoic > Hierarch, which is the Supreme Logos. We start off with a system, say a Planetary Chain, and it has its supreme being. > Thus the seven or twelve Globes of the Solar Chain are, each one such > Globe, the product, and therefore in a sense the dwelling, of one of > the seven, or twelve, Rays from the supreme Solar Logos or Solar > Hierarch. That supreme being or Monad sends out seven or twelve rays of consciousness into matter. > The analogy with the constitution of man is perfect and complete. > Just as the Atman of a man's constitution is the Supreme Hierarch of > that constitution, so the different foci in each of which dwells a > Monad, in the human constitution, are the centers of the Rays emanating > from the Atman of the constitution. And in us we have the same thing happening. Atman sends out seven rays, each of which becomes both a principle and an ego or center of consciousness: the divine ego, spiritual ego, higher human ego, human ego, beast ego, etc. [From page 17:] > Now when this Divine Thought, just mentioned, begins to awaken into > activity, it emanates from itself rays of divine-spiritual Intelligence, > and these rays are sevenfold, or even tenfold, or twelvefold in number, > and are really what are elsewhere called the Cosmic Logoi. As our world awakens into existence, the rays appear, and they can be called the Cosmic Logoi. >These Cosmic Logoi, or what H.P.B. in *The Secret Doctrine* has once > named the "Cosmic Sons of Light," are called in esoteric Buddhism by > the term Dhyani-Chohans. But like the Kumaras, the Dhyani-Buddhas and Dhyani-Bodhisattvas, the Celestial-Buddhas and Celestial-Bodhisattvas, and many others, we are talking about poetic names for an action of the Dhyani-Chohans, and not for individual beings. [Pages 50-51, footnote:] > ... I have stated that the Monadic Essence, or the Supreme Hierarch of > any spacial unit, whether such unit be a Planetary Chain or a Solar > System, or a Galaxy, emanates 'rays,' and that -- coming down to > microcosms -- every human being is 'born under' such or another Ray. The basic teaching, which is open to misunderstanding, is that we are "born under" one of the seven or twelve rays of our world. > This statement as thus simply put, without adornment or > ornamentation, is perfectly true; but there has been a good deal of > mere guess-work written about these Rays, When we take this as a simple statement, it is fine, but the further elaboration of it can lead to errors. > and furthermore, a great deal of really foolish and more or less > astralistic nonsense written about them and how -- among many other > statements -- they affect and guide mankind, and how such or another > individual 'belongs' to such or another 'Ray.' We do not "belong to" a Ray. The Rays are not influences that involve themselves with the affairs of humanity. Basically, from a certain perspective, we are lifeatoms in one of the Skandhas of a greater being, and that being has no awareness of governing or providing guidance to us as one particular class of lifeatoms. > It is of course true that every human individual is a 'child' of his > own spiritual Ray, or Sun, or Star, We have a Parent Star, which is our Inner God, and "gives birth" to our Divine Monad; our Spiritual Monad is given birth by our solar system; and our Higher Human Monad is given birth by the planetary chain. The coming into existence through these particular Logoi leads us to be associated with rays of their consciousnesses. > but, as H.P.B. points out in *The Secret Doctrine* (I, 572-73), this > sun or star must not be confused with the merely astrological sun or > star which marks the birth-chart of a man when he is born. The idea of rays has to do with our spiritual-divine origins, and not with the outer personality, nor the astrological influences of western, exoteric astrology. > The spiritual Ray here referred to is his highest and therefore first > Spiritual Originant, whether it be the Sun of our own Solar System or > one of the scores of billions of stars forming our glittering Galaxy. We are talking about the "birth" or our Monads, or how our Monads originally came into existence in this universe. Our Monads are lifeatoms thrown off by the Skandhas or principles of the Gods. > The matter of similarity and likeness among human beings does not mean > that they come from the same Monadic Esence of any individual, but that > they belong to identic planetary rays We as humans are alike each other because we belong to the same planetary ray. That is, we were born under the same planetary chain, bearing the impress of a particular Planetary Logos. > -- in other words that they are family-rays from a grander Monadic > Essence, a planetary Monad. Human beings resemble each other. They > are not as different from each other as human beings on Earth are > different from beings occupying a state equivalent to humanity, let us > say, on the planet Venus, or on the planet Mars, or on some other > planet. Our appearance and nature is governed by being born into this planetary chain, and therefore on its rays. > But among human beings, there are those who resemble each other more > closely still than merely in similar human traits; and these, as just > said, belong to the rays from the same planetary Monad. A human > 'Martian' does not have the same close similarity to a human 'Jovian' > as he does to some other human being of the 'Martian' type, and so > forth. Regardless of planet, we are human, but have the particular characteristics of the earth-nature, being humans born into the earth planetary chain. > I would that I could write at greater length upon this matter of the > Rays if only in order to point out the errors and mistaken conclusions > of the many astralistic and psychistic authors in different Theosophical > societies who have written or said so much flapdoodle about these Rays; Here Purucker expresses strong disagreement with what is being taught along the Besant/Leadbeater lines. At the time that this was written, it was perhaps ten years after Krishnamurti dissolved the Order of the Star and renounced Theosophy, and both Besant and Leadbeater have passed on. The idea of the seven rays, as taught in the Besant/Leadbeater school, and further elaborated by Bailey, is not accepted in the Point Loma tradition. It's probably dismissed in the ULT as well. And not everyone in Adyar may subscribe to it. I'm not alone in having troubles with the idea. > but it would take a volume to untangle all the errors that have been made with regard to them. Purucker sees quite a bit wrong with how it has been taught. > Yet, if the esoteric student will study the brief observations that I > have hereinbefore set down with regard to the Rays, he will have the > Ariadne's thread in his hand enabling him to distinguish, at least in a > general fashion, the genuine occult teachings on the subject from the > false or only partly true statements that have been made about this > matter. In Purucker's book, he is discussing "Hierarchies and the Doctrine of Emanations", and offering various keys to understanding the nature of how life originates and how worlds come into being. He is trying as much to provide keys as to offer specific teachings. > Fortunately, in our own beloved T.S., and with the wisdom and reserve > that our writers have shown due to their admirable training, there is > very little danger of confusion arising, The wisdom comes from considerable study and reflection upon the Teachings, and the reserve is in respect to self-restraint from speculation upon what has not been taught. > and I call attention to this matter only because writers belonging to > certain other Theosophical societies have falled into no small number of > errors simply because they trusted to misunderstood pictures in the > lower Astral Light 'seen' by Astralists and Psychists, Here Purucker is referring to the unreliable nature of information gleaned from the astral light. > and forgot the grand basic or fundamental teachings of Occultism > which have been cherished as so dear amongst all students of the > Esoteric Science. And he refers to the teachings of Occultism, which must stand as a measure against which we can compare our ideas and experiences -- both inner and outer -- against in our quest for Truth. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 17 Oct 1995 06:26:03 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Re: The Nature of Space (Science & Theosophy) >You start out with "space is n-dimensional". Is there some rational >explanation for this, "N-dimensional" just means any number of dimensions (we don't know how many). P From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 17 Oct 1995 15:33:10 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Buddhism & Non-Dualism Subject: Re: Purucker on the Seven Rays Eldon quoting Purucker: > every Monad is a consciousness-center, with a definite swabhava of its > own, yet always in continuous and uninterrupted activity. This > activity ... is expressed on the lower planes of being by, we may say, > 'rays'. While I tend to agree with Purucker on most things, including the idea of rays, Purucker is not without some problems as well. He insists, for example, that monads have 'swabhava' as if this is a Buddhist teaching. Let me give a short quote: "Svabhava. Self-being, self-existence, Selfhood, that which does not depend on others for its existence; the definite, irreducible and self-subsisting entity that is 'being' itself. The concept of Svabhava is completely rejected by the philosophy of Sunyata." (Glossary, The Buddhist Teaching of Totality, by Garma, C.C. Chang). "Sunyata. Voidness or Emptiness; the central philosophy of Buddhism. Sunyata, though translated as Voidness, does not mean nothingness or annihilation" (Glossary, The Buddhist Teaching of Totality, by Garma, C.C. Chang). According to Chang, the central philosophy of Buddhism is the doctrine of Emptiness, which completely refutes the notion of svabhava (or swabhava). Purucker is wrong in ascribing his ideas on this subject to Buddhism and I don't think he ever really tackles the doctrine of emptiness. I also think that he is misleading in ascribing a unique self-hood to the Divine Monad; only the lower monads (which is, IMHO, an unfortunate term to use) is such uniqueness evident. Eldon:< The basic idea of "rays" is that we, as Monads, establish an > This is a small point, but I see life as an expression of consciousness > rather than the other way around. Thanks again, > > Jerry S. Methinks 'tis a BIG point, like kind of *essential* - with which I concur entirely. The alternative would be a bit like trying to find your top pocket when wearing your coat back to front (er, sort of thing). Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 17 Oct 1995 23:42:58 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Narada and the Dark Night of the Soul There are some other interesting theosophical concepts found in the philosophy of Narpoa. The following quote is again from "The Life and Teaching of Naropa", by Herbert V. Guenther, Shambhala, p.172. > The temptation is great to see in the reference to utter darkness just > before the dawn of the primordial brilliant light something like that > which Saint John of the Cross describes as 'the dark night of the soul'. We've discussed this darkness which we leap into in order to achieve an inner awakening. This is also said to happen when we have an experience that shatters our worldview, that blows apart our cherished beliefs and requires us to reevaluate our understanding of life. But why does this happen and is it the only way? > There is in this experience in Tantrism nothing of the anxiety and > agonies associated with the dark night. If some comparison with feeling > may be allowed, there is here a feeling of contentment and > self-sufficiency which is almost indistinguishable from a serenity and > peace of mind that cannot be shaken and is referred to in the texts as > eternal delight. If we are rooted in the spiritual, the external turbulence and changes in our lives do not unsettle us. We are as serene, inwardly, as a cool, clear mountain lake. The idea of a personality with its shadow, and with negative compensatory reactions to any change in our lives -- this does not apply to us! We are not subject to inflation and depression, to nagging dark doubts that come uninvited, nor to having our inner life dependant upon external validation. We are in a state of *delight*, where life is wonderful, even if externally we are in painful situations. There is a state of joy that arises from within, from our spritual practice. There is no barrier of darkness separating us from the primordial brilliant light. > After all, there is here no longer a subject or an object and > thus there is nothing to communicate with. This mode of consciousness is the Sambhogakaya, the state in which a sense of subject and object has ended. It is the Buddhic consciousness, where we have transcended the sense of personal self created by the activity of mind, Manas. Functioning in this mode does not require the absense of Manas, just that *our awareness* functions in Buddhi, in the primordial light. > The difference between the two viewpoints (Tantric-Buddhist and > Christian) is therefore tremendous. The problem probably lies in western subraces, where there is a more pronounced sense of personal self, a tendency to individuality and separateness that is less pronounced than in the East. > William S. Haas has admirable assessed this difference when > he declares that the process of emptying consciousness: > > does not involve the same devastating psychological effect as > > the destruction of everything objective would necessarily produce > > in the Western mind. For there, the radical elimination of the > > object would dry up the very life-stream of the subject. Our dependence upon the objective world is a barrier to inner development. The destruction of that barrier is a devastating psychological event to us. But we don't need that barrier, we can exist without it, as is done in the East. > > The philosophical idea of an Absolute or the scientific > > construction of an objective world are congenial to the Western > > mind. This is our approach in the West. We use it when we approach modern science. But regarding *our personal viewpoint*, we don't have to follow it in our practice. > > So likewise is any kind of relationship of the subject with > > these conceptions such as subordination, union, identification, > > or absorption, because any form of participation in the Absolute > > means objectivation which is to say reality. This tendency to objectivize things applies to the Western approach to the spiritual, where we consider eternal deities to submit to, seek union with, or seek absorption into. > > In the East on the contrary the subject discovers reality in > > theoretical and active withdrawal from every object, which in > > turn is to say, in the dismantling of all other data and in the > > corresponding discovery of an ever more real existence of itself > > as consciousness. There is an approach to the discovery of reality that involves giving up objective data and looking at what exists apart from our mental constructs. The activity of the mind in creating the world has ceased, yet we perceive things -- we perceive their real nature. > Buddhist Tantrism even goes one step further in refusing to > commit itself to any ontology. It does not accept the statement > 'consciousness exists' as ultimate. When we seek to understand the nature of Atman and Buddhi, we are making constructs in the mind, we are functioning in Manas and not directly understanding their nature. When we talk about these higher principles, we are giving them an objective nature, and thereby ceasing to function in them. As soon as we talk about the highest principles in objective terms, we're functioning in a state of consciousness that veils them from our awareness. > In this respect Buddhist Tantrism endorses the words of Karl > Jaspers: > > Ontology purports to be a doctrine of being itself as such > > and as a whole. In practice, however, it inevitably becomes a > > particular knowledge of something within being, not a knowledge of > > being itself. Which is saying that some things are not directly knowable in words, that mental constructs hide them from our eyes. We know about the higher functioning of consciousness *by doing it*, and talking about it is an activity of mind that hides the experience from us. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Oct 1995 00:03:55 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Consciousness Alan B.: >> This is a small point, but I see life as an expression of consciousness >> rather than the other way around. Thanks again, >> Jerry S. > Methinks 'tis a BIG point, like kind of *essential* I agree. But first comes the void, or utter sense of completion. Then arises consciousness, clothing itself in various sheaths and ultimately in a physical form. Consciousness brings about external life, rather than being a by-product of it. And the objective nature of the external world is *created* by the action of mind. This is why I'd say that the contents of mind or Manas, for instance, are of "mental stuff". The contents of thinking are thoughts, and *not* forms on a "mental plane". Mind has its own "stuff", arising out of the operation of consciousness. Physical "stuff" arises out of the senses and sense perception. Mental "stuff" arises out of the action of mind. But the contents of Manas aren't images, shapes, colors, and other "mental plane forms", but rather thought, in our minds, as we know it. When we go to a higher plane, and exist there, we clothe ourselves in the seven principles. That includes sense perception and possibly a physical form. The sense perception is the Linga Sharira of that plane, and the physical form of that plane is the Sthula Sharira. Thought per se on that higher plane is as intangible as on this plane, because its contents are based upon understanding life from the standpoint of a fixed ego or personal self. The idea that the higher principles are but bodies and their actions on other planes objectivizes the subtle actions of consciousness, and seems to me to be a subtle form of materialism. (That is, consciousness arises through the action of material bodies, but now we put some of those bodies on higher planes.) Consciousness arises in its own right, regardless of plane, and is not derived from the action of bodies. It may express itself through senses and external bodies, but is not *caused by* such action. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Oct 1995 00:50:27 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Purucker on the Seven Rays Jerry S: >> every Monad is a consciousness-center, with a definite swabhava of its >> own, yet always in continuous and uninterrupted activity. This >> activity ... is expressed on the lower planes of being by, we may say, >> 'rays'. >While I tend to agree with Purucker on most things, including the >idea of rays, Purucker is not without some problems as well. He's not perfect, nor is Blavatsky, nor any of us. We can possibly find mistakes at times. His criticism of the Besant/Leadbeater idea of the Seven Rays, for instance, was fairly harsh considering that he did not go into much detail as to *why* he thought the way he did. >He insists, for example, that monads have 'swabhava' as if >this is a Buddhist teaching. The sense of personal self is true and exists, although we can be trained to function in a mode of consciousness that transcends it. We can still talk about that sense, and develop psychology to deal with it. The same is true of svabhava. I'd say that there are certain parts of our constitution in which it resides, and it is useful in describing a number of teachings. We have karma, and this has fashioned what we are today. Only a small portion of that karma can come out in any particular lifetime. The working out of the karmic contents of our being is a process of self-becoming that could be considered swabhava. Another aspect of swabhava regards us as Monads. We are eternal in an absolute sense. We have existed indefinitely into the past and never will cease to exist. But the word "exist" does not mean being in existence, but rather that there is an unbroken stream of experience, sometimes in manifest worlds and sometimes deep within a personal void or state of non-being. There is *something* about us that is unique, that is the reason that we're a distinct Monad. That unique nature is *timeless*, it transcends our participation in manifestation, and is the Ideal Nature or driving force behind our external evolutions into matter. >"Svabhava. Self-being, self-existence, Selfhood, that >which does not depend on others for its existence; the definite, >irreducible and self-subsisting entity that is 'being' itself. The >concept of Svabhava is completely rejected by the philosophy >of Sunyata." (Glossary, The Buddhist Teaching of Totality, by >Garma, C.C. Chang). This speaks of a part of us that is *higher* than the Ideal Nature or swabhava or the sense of being a Monad. It points to the Paramatman or Parabrahman, the sense of transcending all boundaries and embracing the *all*. But even here, it is *us* that is doing it, althought there's absolutely no *awareness* of us being individual entities while doing so. >"Sunyata. Voidness or Emptiness; the central >philosophy of Buddhism. Sunyata, though translated as >Voidness, does not mean nothingness or annihilation" >(Glossary, The Buddhist Teaching of Totality, by Garma, >C.C. Chang). Agreed. It does not mean nothingness or annihilation because that would still be in relation to the objective world. We cannot have a sense of nothingness without something to negate. We cannot have a sense of annihilation without something to annihilate. There is rather a sense of stoping the creation of the world through the activity of the mind, Manas. >According to Chang, the central philosophy of Buddhism >is the doctrine of Emptiness, which completely refutes >the notion of svabhava (or swabhava). We can speak of nirvana, and someday experience it, *as a mode of consciousness*, without literal loss of our eternal existence as a Monad. It is *our experience of life* for the time. The same is true of the sense of emptiness. In that state of consciousness, any sense of personal attributes -- be it of the human Ego or deep within the bosom of the Monad -- is gone. But the attributes *are not gone*. We've just entered into a mode of consciousness where they disappear from our awareness for the moment. It's possible to be reading a book, and be in a state of awareness where we forget our physical body. The body is *gone* from our consciousness, and does not exist for us at that moment. But it still exists, and we'll be aware of it again as we put the book down. The same is true with the sense of sunyata, the sense of emptiness, and the opposite, the sense of fullness. In terms of the overall nature of things, we have Tat ("that" or the unknowable) and Idam ("this" or the totality of all that exists and can be known). We have the same dual mode to our conscious experience of life. >Purucker is wrong in ascribing his ideas on this subject to Buddhism I'll have to defer to Rich to comment on Buddhism. >and I don't think he ever really tackles the doctrine of emptiness. The awareness of emptiness comes from pure buddhic consciousness, and I think that Purucker's teachings were geared to the awakening of Buddhi-Manas, or the higher aspect of understanding of life, one step short of the void. >I also think that he is misleading in ascribing >a unique self-hood to the Divine Monad; only the lower >monads (which is, IMHO, an unfortunate term to use) >is such uniqueness evident. I don't think that the Divine Monad is the highest, but that there are an uncountable number of higher Monads and schemes of existence. What is *highest* within us comes from the highest principles, the higher triad (the three above the seven), the principles that relate to a direct awareness of non-existence or the non-manifest, where we step out of existence (space), then out of time, and finally out of relation to participation in life itself, sinking deep into Mystery. < < The basic idea of "rays" is that we, as Monads, establish an < < outpost of consciousness on the lower planes. We send forth rays < < and evolve them as ourselfs on the lower planes. >Tibetan Buddhism uses the idea of rays to demonstrate exactly >what reincarnates in the sense of the tulku. Whenever a prominent >person dies, their 'reincarnation' is found who then takes over >their office. This is true for the Dali Lama, and a host of lesser >leaders, who are often the heads of monestaries. I would consider "rays" as being used in a difference sense in this case. When we as parents pay attention to our children, that act of loving attention affects them, and are "rays" of our consciousness. When in devachan we interact with dream-images of our loved ones, they aren't really with us, but we're interacting with "rays" of their consciousness. In exactly this sense, there may be a high Buddha, or perhaps a Dhyani-Chohan, whose loving attention establishes a "ray" of consciousness. This is not "avesa" or a taking over of a body for purposes of personally using it, but an "influence" being showered upon the target of our attention. In the sense of the Monads sending a "ray" of consciousness into matter, to work the long, difficult, but rewarding pathway of evolution, there is a sense of this same loving attention. But the attention in this case is complete, unfailing, and continuous. The ray would cease to exist where it to stop for a moment. The ray is the literal consciousness of that Monad, as projected into existence on a lower material plane. The ray is not an offshoot as much as a self-created center of awareness. It is much the same, although on a lower and much-less complete scale, were we to create via the power of mind a mayava-rupa to function as our vehicle of consciousness elsewhere, in which we would temporarily exist. >The teaching >is that immediately at death, the person sends forth a ray, and >that this ray is what reincarnates (not the ego and not any Self). >This ray is the strong and focused desire to continue helping >others in a special capacity. According to the teaching of tulku, >this desire will carry over into another life by incarnating into >an appropriate fetus. It is either the person himself, using avesa, taking over the body of the fetus, or it's a high being, having granted its "loving attention" to one man, now directs that attention to another, to continue that higher being's work in the world. >A. David-Neel, writes: There is thus no permanent ego which transmigrates. The personality does not transmigrate or reincarnate. It dies, its unspend inner energies are exhausted in kamaloka and devachan, then it goes on to existence in another world of causes (usually Globe D). The essense of the personality is absorbed by the Reincarnating Ego, and becomes part of its enduring experience. That essence continues over all our human lifetimes, lasting billions of years. When we say that "there is no permanent ego that reincarnates", we're really saying that the ego (personality) that we've built for ourselves in a particular lifetime is left behind as a finished product. This is much like we leave behind an article, when it has been written, or leave behind a painting, when it is finished. But the Writer or Painter then goes on to the next article or painting, staring with a blank sheet of paper or canvas. An higher self within us fashions the next creative act of self-becoming, the building of the next personality. And this building of personalities is not random, but according to our own essential nature. Now we can say that the Reincarnating Ego is not immortal, and it too will someday cease. That is true. But there are still higher Egos or centers of conscousness within, and they too with fashion our next higher self. There is, I'd say, *no highest Ego*. No matter how high we look, there are yet higher schemes of life that we participate in. There is never a time where our participation in the fullness of life, in Idam, ceases. Yet on the other hand, we also continuously participate in Tat, the Ultimate Void, regardless of our position in life. Both sides of life are ever-present, regardless of which we are aware of at a particular moment. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Oct 1995 05:31:11 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: re: Group project Jerry H-E: >Much of the conflict on this internet comes from a lack of >clarity of what this theosophy is that we are all interested in. Not just a lack of clarity, but a lack of agreement. We have different models of what Theosophy is about, and talking from different models, we find ourselves unable at times to understand others. The models different as to the nature of Theosophy. Some would say that it is the intellectual product of HPB, others might call it a set of theories, and yet others may credit it with fragments of occult knowledge from the Masters. There is disagreement, then, regarding what Theosophy is. A second form of disagreement is regarding the specific teachings themselves. We have the HPB model, the Besant/Leadbeater model, the Purucker model, etc. Talking from one model, we'll disagree on philosophical points. "Lack of clarity" does not simply mean lack of agreement with your definition of Theosophy nor your understanding of the actual doctrines. Nor does it mean lack of agreement with *mine*, nor with any particular participant in 'theos-l'. >Only a minority of up have an historical understanding, while the >interests of the majority is a-historical. True. And only a minority might be interested in the scientific/chaos theory angle. And yet another minority with the psychocentric approach. And another minority with the the psychical research aspect. There are many minorities, and we all belong to differing subsets of them. >Paul Johnson, Dan Caldwell, and myself tend to look at the movement >from this historical point of view. That's fine. >Thus we tend not to repeat the doctrinal answers but rather seek >historical answers to questions concerning the teachings. Would you prefer to tell me the year that the apple fell on Newton's head, or the natural philosophy that his insights led to? >From my standpoint, a study of history can allow us to examine the external lives of others, but does not take us closer to making the philosophy a living reality in our lives. There is a spiritual practice that involves the theosophical doctrines. This practice goes beyond an intellectual understanding, although that understanding is generally a prerequisite. I'd rather not be an outside observer, talking *about* the philosophy, as much as a participant, involved in a real, dynamic process. This also involves a study of the philosophy, and we talk about it, but in a much different way than someone trying to be "objective" and creating a barrier within through the artifical distinction of subject/object, a sense of being an observer rather than a participant. >Most others are doctrinal, and rely upon the teachings of their >tradition to supply the answers. The teachings are *the starting point* for answers, and leave much work to be done by the student. If we think that we have the answers, when we've first underlined our favorite passages in the source books, we're fooling ourselves. But they are true, as far as they do go in expressing the knowledge of the Masters. It may not be *provable* as to what doctrines and what writers represent the Masters, but that lack of provability should not be a barrier. If someone is unable to prove to the satisfaction of others that love exists, that does not prevent that person from experiencing love. If we are given occult truths that are not provable in the current scientific world, the truths remain true and useful for us to study. >But among them, they are divided by the traditions. Thus they have >different views. There is a bewildering assortment of different views offered to the seeker in the New Age movement. The variety of views within the theosophical community is few by comparison. But we are still faced with the same problem of personally having to find what is suitable for ourselves, and gradually work our way closer and closer to an understanding of the real nature of life. >Rich and Liesel would be the two who contrast the most I would think. True. There's quite a contract in times in what they say. >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. Yes. Someone cannot come to 'theos-l' and expect a single voice regarding the real definition of Theosophy or a single description of its teachings. But still we can learn from each other, and practice our communication skills. There's value to our interchanges, even in terms of a spiritual practice, where we develop various virtues like patience, tolerance, and open-mindedness. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Oct 1995 06:50:34 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Re: Purucker on the Seven Rays Hello, I read over Purucker's statements and, my friend, I find no contradiction between what he says and what A. Bailey wrote. I agree whole-heartedly that there is much astral flapdoodle on rays. But this is also true of astrology and does not invalidate the idea of astrology or rays and their influences at all levels. I find Purucker's radiance in his writings to be geniune, it is many of the inferences that are drawn from his writings in the post that are unfounded. >The idea of rays has to do with our spiritual-divine origins, and not >with the outer personality, nor the astrological influences of western, >exoteric astrology. From where is this conclusion derived or inferred? It is a more reasonable assessment to accept that the sevenfold qualities flow through all levels of manifestation - and this is in fact the case. The influences of planes, rays, centers (chains, globes, rounds) and astrological cycles all overlap and interrelate in a multi-dimensional and holistic manner. These influences work on all levels as far as humanity is concerned. The Identity that we call the Monad is also on a level from a cosmic perspective. Interestingly, interchanges between globes can and do occur very often via the planes of vibratory relationship. For example the earth humanity over the last few decades has effected energy transfers (also known as spaceships) on the physical plane with almost all of the other physical globes - and this is a reflection of what is going on on more subtle energy levels. All of this is qualified by the vibratory relation of rays, planes and cycles. >> I would that I could write at greater length upon this matter of the >> Rays if only in order to point out the errors and mistaken conclusions >> of the many astralistic and psychistic authors in different Theosophical >> societies who have written or said so much flapdoodle about these Rays; To be sure, here Purucker is expressing a need that has only increased today - and we can all work on helping in this. As mentioned, I find, so far, only agreement with his writings and those of A. Bailey and H.P.B. Peace, Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Oct 1995 06:50:35 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: an occultist's quote re 2d hand smoke "But it might be added also that smoking is a dirty habit; it befouls the bodies, and often causes much annoyance and discomfort to others. The worst of its dirty selfishness physically is that the smoke is made damp with saliva and then sent off to enter other people's lungs. It is a horrible feature of modern life that we are often compelled to contact and breathe smoke which has been so treated." This was wrtten down in a book first published in 1926 by CWL From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Oct 1995 06:50:35 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: occult view of smoking "But it might be added also that smoking is a dirty habit; it befouls the bodies, and so often causes much annoyance and discomfort to others. The worst of its dirty selfishness physically is that the smoke is made damp with saliva and then sent off to enter other people's lungs. It is a horrible feature of modern life that we are often compelled to contact and breathe smoke which has been so treated." "Talks on the Path of Occultism" 1st ed. 1926, p.153, by CWL Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Oct 1995 06:50:35 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: Tibetan culture publishing house on WWW Dear theos-l While cruising on the WWW, I found Snow Lion Publishing in Ithaca NY. They have a lot of authentic sounding books for sale, also artifacts. I thinks that's where my son Dave got me a really nice Tibetan necklace. everyone admires it. Of course, I looked at the book list subtopics which interest me. The first one that hit my eye BRENDA & ANN please note, they had a number of interesting sounding titles for women listed. Just to name a few which caught my eye "Buddhism through American Women's Eyes" $12.95 "The First Buddhist Women." $15.- "Learning True Love" biography of a nun in Nam during & after the war. "Weavers of Wisdom" 15 20th-century women mystics. I know this next one isn't very feminist, but I'll enjoy cooking from it "Kopan Cookbook" - Tibetan vegetarian recipes. The other section I looked up was re HH the Dalai Lama Loads of books by him, also "The Bodhagaya Interviews" His opinions on just about everything $8.95 "A Flash of Lightnigh in theDark of Night" , the way to make the bodhisattva ideal a living experience. $10.- "Songs of the 6th Dalai Lama" - love poems $5.95 (There's a more expensive version too) addresses: http://www.well.com/user/snowlion/ snowlion@well.com Snow Lion Publishers Box 6483 Ithaca NY 14851 800-950-0313 607-273-8519 Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Oct 1995 07:03:18 GMT From: John R Crocker Subject: Re: occult view of smoking On Wed, 18 Oct 1995, Liesel F. Deutsch wrote: > "But it might be added also that smoking is a dirty habit; it > befouls the bodies, and so often causes much annoyance and discomfort > to others. The worst of its dirty selfishness physically is that the > smoke is made damp with saliva and then sent off to enter other > people's lungs. It is a horrible feature of modern life that we are > often compelled to contact and breathe smoke which has been so > treated." > He would have been quite uncomfortable around KootHoomi, who smoked a pipe. (-:) -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Oct 1995 11:50:06 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Who was smoking the pipe? JRC--- I believe Morya was smoking the pipe. See the Mahatma Letters. Daniel P.S. I still like your point! :) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Oct 1995 13:40:52 GMT From: Coherence@aol.com Subject: Re: Buddhism & Non-Dualism In a message dated 95-10-17 19:51:27 EDT, you write: > Since karma originates in the mind, it follows that this > world was produced principally by mind ... There is > no valid reason for saying that it was created by Brahma, > or by any god. The entire world arose due to karma, and > karma arises from mind; therefore the actual creator > of this world is mind" Now, I profess no knowledge whatsoever of Buddhism and its various schools and beliefs, but merely try to apply (simple) logic and reason to that which is put forth and rely heavily on the postulates of HPB's (version of) Theosophy. My question would be, Whence Mind? The author of the above statements does not address this, or you have not included it in your quote. Since Mind or Universal Mind is an emination or differentiation of the Absolute in Theosophy, the question must be asked of the author. I would also argue the point regarding Karma originating in Mind. The manifested universe and all its principles arose from causes producing their effects according to Law (Karma). It seems that Karma is the highest aspect of an Absolute Principle of which Atman is a radiance, about which HPB says both are unknowable, only perceivable in their effects. Since Karma is action, motion, and motion is one of the aspects of the Absolute, it appears that the author did not carry his argument or logic far enough, and I would dismiss the above as incomplete. < This emptiness, which is called 'the non-duality of apprehended and apprehender', is the profound emptiness that is the door to liberation." > In this quote, it seems that the problem lies with the author's choice of the word, "emptiness." Since s/he is arguing for the non-existence of subject without object and vice versa, rather than emptiness, it appears that there is unity. The two are aspects of one, they cannot exist without one another, therefore they are the same. It is this UNITY which is the Absolute, from which all proceeds in differentiation. Therefore I would argue that the author's argument is again incomplete based on poor choice of words. Both cases point to the existence of an Absolute Principle, the radiance of which we refer to as Atman. Now if "Emptiness" is the word the Buddhists use, then maybe we need to see if by this word they are really meaning something which Theosophy offers another word for. . . I propose Unity, the Absolute. HPB, in the SD, refers to Spirit or the Absolute as a "negative abstraction", whatever that means. Could the various terms be relating to the same thing? I propose yes, since that exhaustive exercise of reconciliation of the world's system, the SD, shows us that if read in the light of esoteric philosophy, the various systems can indeed be shown to teach many of the same things. Perhaps a Buddhist scholar could help explain some of this. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Oct 1995 19:06:14 GMT From: Don DeGracia <72662.1335@compuserve.com> Subject: In responce to Eldon's Suggestion On 10/13/95, Eldon Tucker wrote me saying: This is a very constructive suggestion, so I thougt I'd take Eldon up on this and share with members of BUDS some material I'm reading right now. John Algeo had claimed that science is reductionistic and I countered that this is an out-of-date contention and that things are changing in science. Yesterday at work I went and visited one of my favorite profs in his laboratory. His name is Dr. Felix Hong (he is both an M.D. and a PhD) and he has an international reputation in a new field of science called "molecular computing". Dr. Hong gave me a copy of a paper he is currently writing which discusses ideas of consciousness and free-will. Below is a short quote from this paper. What is relevant about this quote is the negative attitude Dr. Hong displays on the reductionistic appraoch to science. I submit this quote as evidence that science has out grown reductionism as he sole approach to studying nature. Science has not abandoned reductionistic thinking, but it is now supplementing it with holistic thinking - leading to a much more balanced mind-set. The quote is: "The past three hundred years of science history is notable for the triumphant accomplishment of linear mathematics and its application to physics, chemistry and even biology. Nonlinear differential equations used to be considered intractable and were avoided whenever possible. That this avoidance is possible at all is a consequence of careful choice of problems - the privilege of a reductionist. Thus, it is possible to obtain an exact solution of the Schrodinger equation for the hydrogen atom but not for atoms more complex than that. It is possible to obtain an exact solution in celestial mechanics of two-body problems but not for many-body problems. For more complex problems scientists and engineers, amidst their desperate effort to preserve linearity, routinely linearize their problems and then add coefficients of correction. Unfortunately, linearization tends to eliminate intersting and often relevant features, and insertion of coefficients of correction tends to conceal the salient features. The conventional approach offers little hope for understanding complex proceses such as life, in which detailed understanding of the parts offers severely limited insights. The advent of high speed digital copmuters radically transformed options available to the analysis of complex problems." You all can see that here, Dr. Hong is quite critical of the reductionistic approach, yet is also balanced enough to recognize that reductionism has its purpose in a larger scheme. Thus, I offer this as the first in hopefully many installments about the current state of science in the hopes of better informing the Theosophical Society and in the hopes of enhancing our collective commitment to the third objective of the TS. Best to all of you! Don From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 18 Oct 1995 20:33:07 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: doctrinal and historical approaches Eldon: JHE >Much of the conflict on this internet comes from a lack of >clarity of what this theosophy is that we are all interested in. EBT Not just a lack of clarity, but a lack of agreement. We have different models of what Theosophy is about, and talking from different models, we find ourselves unable at times to understand others. JHE Actually I was on a slightly different track when I wrote the above. I had in mind that the lack of clarity might be at the root of the lack of agreement. Though the Adyar TS has no prescribed definition of the word "theosophy", definitions do exist. Some of these definitions are more formal than others, and do not necessarily have anything to do with the TS; other definitions were coined by early TS writers, and others have come into being through the influence of the TS. I had listed some examples of these definitions in an earlier post. The definitions formed by early TS writers; i.e. "the Ancient Wisdom"; teachings handed down by the Masters; etc. suggest the existence of a body of teachings. On the other hand, the TS also professes that it has no dogma, or that the first object is the "sole dogma" according to HPB. Blavatsky's original meaning was that the TS does not bind its membership to any doctrine as a condition of membership. However, a common misinterpretation of this no dogma statement is that there are no theosophical teachings at all. With the freedom of belief clause, we have a lot of people who define the theosophical teachings as anything that suits their fancy. The TS, instead of clarifying the confusion, long ago added to it by accommodating the error by adding the notion of "big T and little t theosophy" Big "T" theopsophy is anything written and published by theosophical writers (HPB, AB, CWL, CJ etc.), and "little t" being anything else that "sounds theosophical." This, and the notion of continuing revelation has created a mulligan stew of conflicting ideas that we now call theosophy. EBT A second form of disagreement is regarding the specific teachings themselves. We have the HPB model, the Besant/Leadbeater model, the Purucker model, etc. Talking from one model, we'll disagree on philosophical points. JHE If the problem was only over the models, a solution would be rather simple. We could have an open discussion comparing the HPB model to the Purucker model, for instance. I see two other problems however: The first problem comes in with one begins with the assumption that there are no conflicts between the two. At that point, an objective comparison of differences becomes impossible. The second problem is when the student creates a unique model out of the pieces of several other models. Jerry S's "Gupta Vidya model" is a familiar example on this board of such a compilation. In this case, any meaningful comparison is impossible, unless each party undertakes to learn the other's model. Otherwise, one ends up using the same terms with different meanings, as we all recently witnessed. EBT "Lack of clarity" does not simply mean lack of agreement with your definition of Theosophy nor your understanding of the actual doctrines. Nor does it mean lack of agreement with *mine*, nor with any particular participant in 'theos-l'. JHE No, but it does mean a communication barrier that prevents one from discovering whether or not an agreement exists. JHE >Thus we tend not to repeat the doctrinal answers but rather seek >historical answers to questions concerning the teachings. EBT Would you prefer to tell me the year that the apple fell on Newton's head, or the natural philosophy that his insights led to? JHE It appears that you completely missed my meaning here. Historical answers are concerned with what people believed at which time. Doctrinal answers are concerned with those answers that the organization would have us believe. For instance: a doctrinal answer to "what are the theosophical teachings" might include "seven principles of man"; "karma"; "reincarnation" etc. A historical answer would ask: "At what year are you referring to?" "The seven principles of man" was not presented until 1880, and was later modified; "Reincarnation" was introduced around 1883; The "inner government" teaching was introduced in 1908 etc. Therefore, an historical understanding of what the theosophical teachings are allows for the fact that they changed from year to year. A doctrinal answer, on the other hand, does not take this into account, thus leaving one to assume that the theosophical teachings appeared full blown with the Theosophical Society. So in answer to your question, I would submit that by beginning with the knowledge of the year that Newton published his gravitation formulas, I can trace their influence through the scientific revolution. This is done by an historical approach, not through a doctrinal approach. In other words: that an apple fell on Newton's head is a doctrinal answer. That Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492 is a doctrinal answer. What Newton thought and said about the apple falling, and how his thoughts affected our understanding of the universe is an historical answer. How humanity was affected by Columbus' voyage is an historical answer. dates are not the issue to distinguish doctrinal and historical answers. The issue has more to do with whether the ideas are viewed in or outside of their own contexts. EBT >From my standpoint, a study of history can allow us to examine the external lives of others, but does not take us closer to making the philosophy a living reality in our lives. JHE On the contrary, an historical approach gives meaning that cannot be found in a doctrinal approach. It is precisely the historical approach that brings us closer to "making the philosophy a living reality in out lives" ; whereas the doctrinal approach turns the teachings into religious dogma. EBT There is a spiritual practice that involves the theosophical doctrines. This practice goes beyond an intellectual understanding, although that understanding is generally a prerequisite. JHE Yes. HPB called it Jnana Yoga; it is an intellectual approach that takes us beyond the intellectual understanding. EBT The teachings are *the starting point* for answers, and leave much work to be done by the student. JHE Depending upon what kind of "work" you have in mind to be done, we might be saying the same thing here. EBT There is a bewildering assortment of different views offered to the seeker in the New Age movement. The variety of views within the theosophical community is few by comparison. But we are still faced with the same problem of personally having to find what is suitable for ourselves, and gradually work our way closer and closer to an understanding of the real nature of life. JHE The tool one needs to cultivate in order to navigate through these views is what HPB called "discrimination." Its development is part of the above mentioned Jnana Yoga practice. Jerry HE ------------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu,and CC to | |jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Oct 1995 02:14:08 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: In responce to Eldon's Suggestion The quote from Dr. Hong was EXTREMELY interesting and hopeful. I would like to chime in for more quotes and references in this vein, it bodes well for an exciting future in Science and possibly even a dialogue between some scientists and some Theosophists (and maybe even the production of a few who are BOTH !!) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Oct 1995 02:14:09 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: Re: In responce to Eldon's Suggestion Dear Don, Thanks for the enlightening quote from Dr. Hon. I'm looking forward of hearing more from you in that vein. He goes again with talking about non-linear equations & I still don't know what they are. Can you explain it to me, who doesn't know much about higher mathematics? I'd sure appreciate it. Shanti Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Oct 1995 02:41:12 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Buddhism & Non-Dualism Coherence, I make no claim to being a Buddhist "scholar" but your suggestions seem very much along the lines in which I have been taught both as a student of Buddhism and a student of Theosophy. "Emptiness" is a very loaded word in Buddhism, there is a book nearly 1,000 pages long by Bob Thurman discussing the subtleties, confusions and shades of meaning conveyed by the term. The great mistake of scholars in the West last century was to assume that "emptiness" meant ABSOLUTE VOID and that reaching the state of "emptiness" (nirvana) meant annihilation. This is a big mistake, and shows a misapprehension of fundamental Buddhist ideas and goals. How can a system, which promulgates the ideal of the Bodhisattva, the incarnation of compassion and wisdom, be aiming for the complete destruction of all life and consciousness. The Buddha supposedly reached Nirvana at age 35. He continued teaching until the age of 80. Clearly, the experience and state of nirvana did not annihilate him, nor was being in the state of "emptiness" destructive in his life and work. Nirvana literally means "blowing out," like a candle flame extinguished. This is the passions and desires of the personal man/woman, finally, permanently left behind. The question is asked by Buddhists, "where does the flame go when blown out?" The answer is "nowhere." Meaning, it ceases to manifest, to exist on the objective plane. "Emptiness" usualy refers to a thing or state being "empty" of our false notions, conditions, limitations, mental fabrications, mis-conceptions, etc. Nirvana, and ultimately all things, Buddhism teaches, are not what they appear to be to the deluded (namely us) but in fact are beyond words, beyond concepts, beyond imagination. They must be experienced "as they are" which is empty of selfness, empty of mental baggage, empty of anything we might lay upon them. Achieving the realization of "emptiness" is insight (vipasyana in Sanskrit, vipassana in Pali), literally "seeing into" something. The highest virtue of the Buddhist path is PRAJNA, "wisdom." This wisdom consists in non-duality, non-conception, non-discursive thinking. All negative terms. Hindus often use positive terms, like "atman," "Brahman" etc. Verbally, Buddhism and Hinduism seem opposed, on the exoteric plane. HPB uses both negative and positive terms, and to my way of thinking reconciles both traditions. Non-duality is another way of saying "unity," no-self is another way of saying "Absolute consciousness" etc. Some Buddhists would not agree with this analysis, many would. The question is, what do we as Theosophists choose to make of Buddhist and Hindu sources of insight? I for one think they are very valuable, but HPB is no less worthy of a guide than they are, and in some sense is far more valuable because she communicates in ways specially formulated for the Western mind. For that, I am very thankful. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Oct 1995 03:02:09 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Purucker on the Seven Rays Jerry S. > >Purucker is wrong in ascribing his ideas on this subject toBuddhism Eldon: > I'll have to defer to Rich to comment on Buddhism. Jerry S. > >and I don't think he ever really tackles the doctrine of emptiness. Buddhism is not the only tradition which considers "svabhava" or "eternal self-nature." Hinduism teaches is as the nature of Atma, and the Jains as well. It is important though, in thinking of the Hindu Atma, to remember that for the great teachers like Shankaracarya, there are not many "atmans" there is only one "Atma." We are all that ONE ATMA. That is why his school is called "advaita" literally "not two-ism." Purucker may or may not attribute his doctrine to Buddhism only, he may also refer to various Hindu schools. But who cares, really? Purucker is neither limited to Buddhism nor Hinduism, Purucker is as free as HPB or any other student to take old words and use them in news ways which are helpful for getting a teaching across. It helps, of course, to be very clear about terms, and what they mean, etc. But Eldon has pointed out several times, very rightly in my opinion, that Sanskrit and other foreign words used in Theosophical teachings are not bound by old meanings. HPB uses terms like Nirmanakaya etc. in ways that are similar to but subtly different from old Buddhist usages. It is our job as students to penetrate her thought so deeply as to grasp not merely the DENOTATION of words but the CONNOTATION as well. It is helpful to have some Sanskrit background, but MORE helpful to really understand what HPB is trying to say independently of all word-choices. After all, words are just messengers or vehicles, whereas the real point and goal is realization, no? >I also think that he is misleading in ascribing >a unique self-hood to the Divine Monad; only the lower >monads (which is, IMHO, an unfortunate term to use) >is such uniqueness evident. Purucker is not alone -- HPB also is very insistent that even though the personality has a FALSE sense of individuality, the monad is truly immortal as INDIVIDUALITY because it reflects the unique INDIVIDUALITY of the ONE source. One may be absorbed as INDIVIDUAL during pralaya, but re-emerge in Manvantara, just as salt dissolves in water, only to re-emerge as crystals when the water dries up. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Oct 1995 05:25:54 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: doctrinal and historical approaches JHE: >Though the Adyar TS has no >prescribed definition of the word "theosophy", definitions do >exist. Some of these definitions are more formal than others, >and do not necessarily have anything to do with the TS; other >definitions were coined by early TS writers, and others have come >into being through the influence of the TS. The word "Theosophy" is indeed used in many different ways. >The definitions formed by early TS writers; i.e. "the Ancient >Wisdom"; teachings handed down by the Masters; etc. suggest the >existence of a body of teachings. And I would say that there is such teachings, regardless of our choice to apply the word "Theosophy" to them or nor. >On the other hand, the TS also >professes that it has no dogma, or that the first object is the >"sole dogma" according to HPB. Blavatsky's original meaning was >that the TS does not bind its membership to any doctrine as a >condition of membership. This is a good idea, and allows for an open study of Theosophy. >However, a common misinterpretation of >this no dogma statement is that there are no theosophical >teachings at all. We've heard that far too many times! Or that since there is freedom of thought, that anyone's views, based on the teachings or in total disagreement of them, may be taught from a theosophical platform. >With the freedom of belief clause, we have a >lot of people who define the theosophical teachings as anything >that suits their fancy. Agreed. But on the other hand, we shouldn't be afraid to explore the teachings, and to go farther with them in our personal studies, even when unsupported by the authoritative texts. We'd be no better than a fundamentalist Christian that seeks Bible quotes for everything, if we could not entertain a thought that was not first found in a HPB quote. >The TS, instead of clarifying the >confusion, long ago added to it by accommodating the error by >adding the notion of "big T and little t theosophy" Big "T" >theosophy is anything written and published by theosophical >writers (HPB, AB, CWL, CJ etc.), and "little t" being anything >else that "sounds theosophical." I've heard distinctions made on 'theos-l' regarding differing perferences for the use of the big and little 't'. One is that the big 't' is reserved for some form of absolute truth, and the little one for the literal doctrines of the T.S. I don't myself go along with this, and would always use the big 't', considering Theosophy to be a religious philosophy or the Wisdom Religion. >This, and the notion of >continuing revelation has created a mulligan stew of conflicting >ideas that we now call theosophy. When someone is authorized by the Masters to present to the public certain occult knowledge, that could be considered revelation. We cannot speak for the Masters as to when and how *they* choose to do so. We know what HPB has said, and what is said in "The Mahatma Letters", and by others we might consider authoritative in this regard. I agree that the conflicting views arise from various individuals claiming to represent the Masters when they do not. Their mix of theosophical ideas and personal views can be confusing. We cannot, though, deny the Masters, when and where they actually work, simply because there are so many pretenders and imposters in the world. >>A second form of disagreement is regarding the specific teachings >>themselves. We have the HPB model, the Besant/Leadbeater model, >>the Purucker model, etc. Talking from one model, we'll disagree >>on philosophical points. >If the problem was only over the models, a solution would be >rather simple. We could have an open discussion comparing the >HPB model to the Purucker model, for instance. This can be a useful learning exercise. >I see two other problems however: The first problem comes in with >one begins with the assumption that there are no conflicts between >the two. We would need to examine the differences. Some may be additional teachings on the same subject, like moving from a sevenfold scheme to a tenfold or twelvefold scheme, or in making the distinction between the Inner Rounds and the Outer Rounds. For these we'd consider how Purucker expanded upon what HPB had said, and if what he said seemed useful and to make sense. A second type of comparison is regarding where Purucker conflicts with Blavatsky, or disagrees with her. I'd need to judicate in my mind the differences and see if it was just a matter of emphasis or viewpoint, or if one of the two was wrong. Having made that comparison, I'd then have to make a choice in my thinking. The fact that there are some differences does not mean that one of the two represents the Masters and the other does not. It can mean that people are subject to error and either could have made a mistake or have misunderstood their own training in the Mysteries. >At that point, an objective comparison of differences becomes >impossible. Why? We examine the differences then make a choice. It's a separate choice as to *which* individuals are representatives of the Masters. >The second problem is when the student creates a >unique model out of the pieces of several other models. Jerry >S's "Gupta Vidya model" is a familiar example on this board of >such a compilation. In this case, any meaningful comparison is >impossible, unless each party undertakes to learn the other's >model. Otherwise, one ends up using the same terms with >different meanings, as we all recently witnessed. This would be an example of one's personal understanding, that if taught as such is fine. (That is, with an open recognition of the differences between it and the HPB or CWL models.) >>Would you prefer to tell me the year that the apple fell on >>Newton's head, or the natural philosophy that his insights led >>to? >It appears that you completely missed my meaning here. >Historical answers are concerned with what people believed at >which time. While I agree that our beliefs change over time, and what we believe as teenagers may be entirely different than what we entertain in our 60's, I'm not sure how important this is. The historical aspect may be useful to determine, for instance, that Annie Besant wrote a certain way when Blavatsky was alive, and another way in the 1920's while Krishnamurti was being promoted as the coming Christ. It may help explain why her books may differ from each other a bit. But what does this buy us? What we face at this moment in time is our current beliefs, and the current beliefs of others. It is in the living present that we have to deal with our thoughtlife, and how it enables or blocks us from a direct experience of the living reality of life. We can look at what our teachers and gurus have thought in different stages in their lives, but more important is *what they teach us now*. It is our current challenge in learning about and gaining insight into life -- this is what is important. >Doctrinal answers are concerned with those answers >that the organization would have us believe. For instance: a >doctrinal answer to "what are the theosophical teachings" might >include "seven principles of man"; "karma"; "reincarnation" etc. There is both a *content* and a *process* involved in coming to the Mysteries. The doctrines taught us are a mild, fragmentary version of the content. I would find the thought that these grand truths are "what an organization would have us to believe" to be a form of discounting them. True, they are much more than the mere words on the printed page, which can leave us empty-handed, but they don't consist of organizational propaganda. >A historical answer would ask: "At what year are you referring >to?" "The seven principles of man" was not presented until 1880, >and was later modified; "Reincarnation" was introduced around >1883; The "inner government" teaching was introduced in 1908 etc. If we want to know what people were being taught in 1880, 1883, or 1908, that would be useful. But more important is what we're being taught and teaching others in 1995. We should concern ourselves with its quality. >Therefore, an historical understanding of what the theosophical >teachings are allows for the fact that they changed from year to >year. I don't think that the theosophical teachings change from year to year. Initial teaching may be followed by further occult knowledge over years, decades, or centuries. The initial teaching, of course, could also be followed by corruption and be lost over time, buried in speculation and personal opinions. How will we know? We can observe the introduction of ideas over time, but this does not tell us which are new teaching and which are error. The only way to know for sure is to undertake the Path ourselves and come to other ways of validating *to ourselves* what is correct. If we were to say that the teachings change from year to year, that would imply that they are being made up in an ad hoc fashion, which I would disagree with. I would rather consider them being progressively put into words, in a Western language, over time. >A doctrinal answer, on the other hand, does not take this >into account, thus leaving one to assume that the theosophical >teachings appeared full blown with the Theosophical Society. It does not take into account that less teachings were available at first, and that both further teachings along with possible error were introducted over time since then. >So in answer to your question, I would submit that by beginning with >the knowledge of the year that Newton published his gravitation >formulas, I can trace their influence through the scientific >revolution. With Theosophy, what teachings are accessible to the public may change with each generation. And also changing is the purity versus degree of adulteration of the teachings. We can examine this in a historical context. But for us, *as individuals*, we are not limited by what is available to the public in this or any particular generation. We are only limited by the depth of our spiritual practice and how far our studies take us. >This is done by an historical approach, not through a doctrinal approach. Yes, and it's akin to spiritual sociology or anthropology, rather than spiritual psychology which deals with *our* individual practice. It asks "at this time, what was openly available, and how did it affect people?" or "how did this idea in that age affect subsequent generations?" But it does not deal with the question: "what are the Mystery Teachings and how can a student approach them today?" >In other words: that an apple fell on Newton's head is a doctrinal answer. >That Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492 is a doctrinal answer. Those are historic facts, and they are commonly held beliefs. >What Newton thought >and said about the apple falling, and how his thoughts affected >our understanding of the universe is an historical answer. The philosophy and knowledge, as it is today, is doctrine of the scientific community. The history of science tells us how we came to the current scientific thought. History tells us how we got here, the geneology of ideas, but in the doctrine we have the treasury of what is now known, and working with that treasury leads us into the future. >How humanity was affected by Columbus' voyage is an historical answer. >dates are not the issue to distinguish doctrinal and historical answers. >The issue has more to do with whether the ideas are viewed in or outside >of their own contexts. This is a slightly different point now. Instead of history dealing with the evolution (or degeneration) of ideas over time, we're now talking about taking ideas inside or outside of their cultural context. Since Theosophy deals with timeless truths, and with things that go far beyond our current cultural context, they would of necessity be doctrines. And since when we initiate our personal evolution, and step outside the cultural norms, we're personally outside that context in our inner lives, if not the outer lives. The popular conception of Theosophy may change, and when viewed as a social phenomena, could be considered in a historic sense, but the living truths are an entirely different matter! >On the contrary, an historical approach gives meaning that cannot >be found in a doctrinal approach. It is precisely the historical >approach that brings us closer to "making the philosophy a living >reality in out lives" ; whereas the doctrinal approach turns the >teachings into religious dogma. The value to seeing how the popular conception of Theosophy changed over time can aid us in being more flexible in our approach to it, not getting too rigid in accepting the mere words that we're currently offered in the books. Making the philosophy a living reality in our lives deals first with understanding the teachings in our own words, then going further with them, approaching an inner sense of *knowing*. It is a spiritual practice. We don't take things dogmatically, but learn to question and freshly reconsider things not only upon first hearing them, but each time we think about them. The historic approach objectivizes the teachings, treating them as a historic phenomena, something to observe, whereas they are an integral part of the Mysteries. They should be accepted, I'd say, as something real in their own right, like Plato's archetypes, rather than considered as the byproduct of history and specific individuals that seem to originate ideas. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Oct 1995 07:13:00 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re Snow Lion Liesel: There is no "sounding" about it, Liesel. Snow Lion is authentic. I have been buying books from them for many years. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Oct 1995 09:51:24 GMT From: Coherence@aol.com Subject: Re: occult view of smoking Do we really need to mention again that HPB was a famous chain smoker, continuously rolling her own from a very exotic tobacco pouch? I would say that our time is better spent worrying about the filth and habits of our minds and cleaning those up, rather than outward physical habits. I don't have a reference, but it seems I have read somewhere, either HPB or Masters, that smoking is beneficial for some natures. As an avid smoker, I am well aware of the impact and unpleasantness that others feel toward smoking, so try to be conscientious and minimize the effect my choices may have on others. And this is the occult aspect of smoking which I perceive -- to what extent will we be aware of the effect our actions have on others? I really don't feel there are great Karmic effects from merely choosing to smoke. But then, I am assuming that pre-mature death from terrible cancers are not great Karmic effects! :) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Oct 1995 13:01:52 GMT From: Aki Korhonen Subject: Re: Steiner Hello James and the others. On Tue, 3 Oct 1995, james yungkans wrote: > Wasn't he the President of the German TS ? Yes he was. He departed at Krishnamurti-controversy. I don't recall the exact year. Peace. aki korhonen Rovaniemi, Finland. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 19 Oct 1995 20:38:37 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Smoking > > As an avid smoker, I am well aware of the impact and unpleasantness that > others feel toward smoking, so try to be conscientious and minimize the > effect my choices may have on others. And this is the occult aspect of > smoking which I perceive -- to what extent will we be aware of the effect our > actions have on others? > > I really don't feel there are great Karmic effects from merely choosing to > smoke. But then, I am assuming that pre-mature death from terrible cancers > are not great Karmic effects! :) If you were to smoke indoors in the presence of a friend of mine, who like thousands of people, is asthmatic, she will suffer considerably for about two days. You will not be aware of this, as you will not be there. The "vibes" you get from her when you are there, however, will, no doubt, re-enter your awareness when you are reviewing your karma in due course ...... Karma is: We can do whatever we like, so long as we are preapred to pay the price - even if we don't know what the price is. My understanding of theosophical teaching says, "For your own sake, find out!" Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Oct 1995 01:50:31 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Buddhism & Non-Dualism (Comments on Karma) Coherence: I'm offering my reply to your comments to another writer. >My question would be, Whence Mind? ... Since Mind or >Universal Mind is an emination or differentiation of the Absolute in >Theosophy, the question must be asked ... Each of our principles emanates in serial order: Atman, then Buddhi, then Manas, etc. down to the physical. They are brought into manifest existence *from within*, emerging through an initial point or laya center (which is another way of considering Atman itself). As the principle is brought forth, it clothes itself in its respective life-atoms or Skandhas, taken from the corresponding universal principles. We draw, for instance, our Manas from Mahat and our Prana from Jiva. Manas does not come directly from the absolute, but is emanated from within after Buddhi has been enmanated, and the "mind stuff" that belongs to us is regathered from the mental storehouse of nature, Mahat. >I would also argue the point regarding Karma originating in Mind. The >manifested universe and all its principles arose from causes producing >their effects according to Law (Karma). Law does not tie causes to their effects. The effects are inherent in the causes, and need no "glue" to tie the two together. Both cause and effect are aspects of the same action. The cause is what is done in this moment, and the effect is the resulting change in us and others. When we speak of laws, we're talking about the *behavior* of living things. Everything is alive. All that we see is an expression of living things. When we speak of the laws of nature, for instance, we're talking about the observed and often predictible behavior of material things (beings). In order to make personal karma, there needs to be a sense of volition, a sense of premeditation, a element of mind. The *personal* actions that we take both create karma and affect our minds and sense of personal identity. This is the making of personal karma. Karma, I'd say, is "stored in" Buddhi. It cannot be realized in Atman, where there is no longer any perception of ourselves as distinct from other beings. Buddhi is the highest principle in which there is a sense of "others", although the action of mind (Manas) has not yet entered to create a sense of personal identity. Buddhi involves a perception of others where we are unaware of a subject/object distinction, where we are involved in pure relationship. And it is in these living relationships, these dynamic links between us and others, that karma is stored. Karma is not something physical like a quantity of force, but rather is the *content* of that living link. And I'd suggest that our living links with others are just as real as our Egos or senses of personal identity. >It seems that Karma is the highest aspect of an Absolute Principle >of which Atman is a radiance, about which HPB says both are unknowable, only >perceivable in their effects. Karma, I'd say, is as knowable as any part of us -- through self-knowledge. We can be aware of the outer effects of our actions on others, just as we are aware of outer changes in our lives. How deep that awareness goes depends upon our spiritual practice. Karma is not an abstraction, nor something externally applied to us, but resides in our relationships with other living beings. Those relationships come into existence as we and they enter the manifest world. The content of those relationships is itself the Buddhic aspect of our Skandhas, the aspect of pure connectedness. We and others *cocreate* the world. How do we do this? From the highest standpoint, of Atman, there is just the universe per se, and no sense of individual beings. From Buddhi, we enter into relationship with others, we become aware of the sense of relationship or cocreation. Then with Manas, we take on the sense of egoity and create the objective universe as the action of mind creates the subject/object distinction. >... Karma is action, motion, and motion is one of the aspects of the Absolute Karma is not, I'd suggest, action or motion, but rather the dynamic content of our interrelatedness with others. Any action has the effects inseparably part of it. There is not a moment of time between action and effect. Where we see a delay in time is the *reaction* of others affected by us, and that reaction is due to their freewill and not the result of our having created karma. Their reaction is naturally in response to us, and may not be immediate, but is governed by *their will*. I would not describe karma in terms of our taking an action, then *waiting* for the punishment/reward/effects to come to us at some future time. The effects are immediate, and the *reaction* (which is not the same thing as the effects) depends upon the other that has been affected by us. Karma is the *dynamic content* of the living link between us and others, and not a delayed effect, according to some external law, due to an action that we've taken. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Oct 1995 08:40:36 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Cayce As I shift my literary focus to Edgar Cayce and the ARE, it would be helpful to receive suggestions along these lines: 1) What questions about Cayce do you feel are insufficiently addressed in existing books? 2) How do you see the relationship between the doctrines that came through in the readings and those learned by HPB from her Masters? Or any other relevant exponents of esotericism? 3) Any other suggestions for someone contemplating writing about him as a source of esoteric teachings? In light of the need to concentrate on this subject, I won't be participating in online discussion of my previous works or general Theosophical topics. But will remain lurking on theos-l, and welcome private email from subscribers. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Oct 1995 17:40:10 GMT From: John R Crocker Subject: Complexity Theory Hey Jerry ... Am in the middle of Stuart Kaufmann's new one ... "At home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity" - and its even better than "Origins of Order" -- and am finding it the most interesting thing I've read in a good long time --- the line between pure, theoretical hard science and "occult" science really is disappearing almost completely. Have you read it? (Anyone else?) Only people I've been able to discuss it with are fellow economists and a couple of physicists - and they aren't exactly given to following the ramifications of complexity theory in the directions I'd like to. Wondering what other Theosophists might think ..... -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Oct 1995 18:12:40 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: historical and doctrinal Eldon: JHE >The definitions formed by early TS writers; i.e. "the Ancient >Wisdom"; teachings handed down by the Masters; etc. suggest the >existence of a body of teachings. EBT And I would say that there is such teachings, regardless of our choice to apply the word "Theosophy" to them or nor. JHE My point is that the commonality of the Organizational definitions of theosophy suggest the existence of a body of teachings. I am not disputing the existence of those teachings here. JHE >On the other hand, the TS also >professes that it has no dogma, or that the first object is the >"sole dogma" according to HPB. Blavatsky's original meaning was >that the TS does not bind its membership to any doctrine as a >condition of membership. EBT This is a good idea, and allows for an open study of Theosophy. JHE Yes JHE >However, a common misinterpretation of >this no dogma statement is that there are no theosophical >teachings at all. EBT We've heard that far too many times! Or that since there is freedom of thought, that anyone's views, based on the teachings or in total disagreement of them, may be taught from a theosophical platform. JHE Yes, and this argument has often been used to justify activities and classes in Lodges that go far afield of what one normally thinks of as "theosophy." As I understand it, part of the objection Wheaton expressed concerning Boston Lodge was that its activities were "new age" rather than "theosophical." Yet, by the very loose definitions that the Adyar Society has for theosophy leaves them wide open for this kind of problem. The Danish section was expelled because of a devotion to Alice Bailey. JHE >With the freedom of belief clause, we have a >lot of people who define the theosophical teachings as anything >that suits their fancy. EBT Agreed. But on the other hand, we shouldn't be afraid to explore the teachings, and to go farther with them in our personal studies, even when unsupported by the authoritative texts. We'd be no better than a fundamentalist Christian that seeks Bible quotes for everything, if we could not entertain a thought that was not first found in a HPB quote. JHE If studied according to her own guide lines, HPB's writings need not to be at all limiting. She warned against making her writings a dogma, as we both know. I think it is also significant that in the ~Key~ she specifies that every Lodge should have a library containing the religious and philosophical classics. Surely she did not want this for the purpose of decorating the walls, but to fulfill the second object of the TS. I submit that the study of theosophy is much more than the reading of books published by the theosophical organizations. JHE >The TS, instead of clarifying the >confusion, long ago added to it by accommodating the error by >adding the notion of "big T and little t theosophy" Big "T" >theosophy is anything written and published by theosophical >writers (HPB, AB, CWL, CJ etc.), and "little t" being anything >else that "sounds theosophical." EBT I've heard distinctions made on 'theos-l' regarding differing perferences for the use of the big and little 't'. One is that the big 't' is reserved for some form of absolute truth, and the little one for the literal doctrines of the T.S. I don't myself go along with this, and would always use the big 't', considering Theosophy to be a religious philosophy or the Wisdom Religion. JHE I believe that the distinction that you are pointing out is a rather recent one that probably surfaced no earlier than the mid 1980's. Before that time, big "t" and little "t" theosophy was understood as I had described it. Ask any of the old timers at Wheaton. However, the newer definition is evidence of the growing confusion, since it drifts further from the original understandings of the word "theosophy" and further confounds it with the distinction HPB makes with "truth" and "TRUTH." JHE >This, and the notion of >continuing revelation has created a mulligan stew of conflicting >ideas that we now call theosophy. EBT When someone is authorized by the Masters to present to the public certain occult knowledge, that could be considered revelation. We cannot speak for the Masters as to when and how *they* choose to do so. We know what HPB has said, and what is said in "The Mahatma Letters", and by others we might consider authoritative in this regard. JHE It is this "revelation" that has been so close to the underlying causes of the fragmentation of theosophy and theosophical organizations into so many camps. HPB tried to downplay her teachers (notice that none of her teachings are by the authority of Master so and so). The Mahatmas tried to impress their humanness and fallibility to Sinnett. Yet AB and CWL played the master card, and teachings were issued under their authority. Of course it is a matter of discrimination (which I addressed further on) as to what is wheat and what is chaff. However, the sudden appearance of teachings under the authority of the Masters is for me, an alarm to be cautious. EBT I agree that the conflicting views arise from various individuals claiming to represent the Masters when they do not. Their mix of theosophical ideas and personal views can be confusing. We cannot, though, deny the Masters, when and where they actually work, simply because there are so many pretenders and impostors in the world. JHE Nor has their existence been proved. JHE >If the problem was only over the models, a solution would be >rather simple. We could have an open discussion comparing the >HPB model to the Purucker model, for instance. EBT This can be a useful learning exercise. JHE It can be. Yet, the point is that such discussion is impossible when the discussion rests upon the undisclosed biases that one is of a superior revelation than the other. JHE >I see two other problems however: The first problem comes in >with one begins with the assumption that there are no conflicts >between the two. EBT We would need to examine the differences. Some may be additional teachings on the same subject, like moving from a sevenfold scheme to a tenfold or twelvefold scheme, or in making the distinction between the Inner Rounds and the Outer Rounds. For these we'd consider how Purucker expanded upon what HPB had said, and if what he said seemed useful and to make sense. JHE First we need to level the playing field by bringing out into the open biases and assumptions. For instance your statement: "For these we'd consider how Purucker expanded upon what HPB had said..." already reveals the assumption that GdP "expanded" upon what HPB said." That would have to be discussed since it represents am assumption that probably contrasts with those held by the HPB student. EBT A second type of comparison is regarding where Purucker conflicts with Blavatsky, or disagrees with her. I'd need to judicate in my mind the differences and see if it was just a matter of emphasis or viewpoint, or if one of the two was wrong. Having made that comparison, I'd then have to make a choice in my thinking. JHE Yes EBT The fact that there are some differences does not mean that one of the two represents the Masters and the other does not. It can mean that people are subject to error and either could have made a mistake or have misunderstood their own training in the Mysteries. JHE Or, this very conjecture may be a rationalization to justify the (alleged) differences. We have to watch our thinking on many levels. JHE >At that point, an objective comparison of differences becomes >impossible. EBT Why? We examine the differences then make a choice. It's a separate choice as to *which* individuals are representatives of the Masters. JHE Because the playing field was not evened out in the beginning. JHE >The second problem is when the student creates a >unique model out of the pieces of several other models. Jerry >S's "Gupta Vidya model" is a familiar example on this board of >such a compilation. In this case, any meaningful comparison is >impossible, unless each party undertakes to learn the other's >model. Otherwise, one ends up using the same terms with >different meanings, as we all recently witnessed. EBT This would be an example of one's personal understanding, that if taught as such is fine. (That is, with an open recognition of the differences between it and the HPB or CWL models.) JHE Making clear that the model is such a personal compilation is a first step in leveling that playing field. EBT >>Would you prefer to tell me the year that the apple fell on >>Newton's head, or the natural philosophy that his insights led >>to? JHE >It appears that you completely missed my meaning here. >Historical answers are concerned with what people believed at >which time. EBT While I agree that our beliefs change over time, and what we believe as teenagers may be entirely different than what we entertain in our 60's, I'm not sure how important this is. JHE Awareness of our changing beliefs is important too--in the evaluation of our own ideas. But I was not referring to our beliefs, but to the prevailing beliefs of others at any given time. Ideas themselves are born out of a background of beliefs and values. We have to understand those beliefs and values to fully understand those ideas. EBT The historical aspect may be useful to determine, for instance, that Annie Besant wrote a certain way when Blavatsky was alive, and another way in the 1920's while Krishnamurti was being promoted as the coming Christ. It may help explain why her books may differ from each other a bit. But what does this buy us? JHE It "buys us" insight into where Besant got her ideas; how she regarded them; how and why they came to be accepted; who and what was a major influence upon her; etc. This background of information gives us a foundation to evaluate her ideas far beyond the "they feel right to me" way of measuring ideas. IMHO, whether or not ideas "feel right" is most more likely an emotional decision than an intuitive one. My observation is that most people don't make much of a distinction between the two. EBT What we face at this moment in time is our current beliefs, and the current beliefs of others. It is in the living present that we have to deal with our thoughtlife, and how it enables or blocks us from a direct experience of the living reality of life. JHE Too bad that it isn't that simple. Our current situation is a child of the past. If we have no past, then there is no context for the present. We must be cogniscent of both. EBT We can look at what our teachers and gurus have thought in different stages in their lives, but more important is *what they teach us now*. It is our current challenge in learning about and gaining insight into life -- this is what is important. JHE That would be a doctrinal approach, and most people live by such approaches. JHE >Doctrinal answers are concerned with those answers >that the organization would have us believe. For instance: a >doctrinal answer to "what are the theosophical teachings" might >include "seven principles of man"; "karma"; "reincarnation" etc. EBT There is both a *content* and a *process* involved in coming to the Mysteries. The doctrines taught us are a mild, fragmentary version of the content. I would find the thought that these grand truths are "what an organization would have us to believe" to be a form of discounting them. True, they are much more than the mere words on the printed page, which can leave us empty-handed, but they don't consist of organizational propaganda. JHE They did not start out a "organizational propaganda", but once ideas are embraced by an organization, they by necessity become so. It is the historical approach that side steps the "organizational propaganda" aspect in order to look at the teachings. JHE >A historical answer would ask: "At what year are you referring >to?" "The seven principles of man" was not presented until >1880, and was later modified; "Reincarnation" was introduced >around 1883; The "inner government" teaching was introduced in >1908 etc. EBT If we want to know what people were being taught in 1880, 1883, or 1908, that would be useful. But more important is what we're being taught and teaching others in 1995. We should concern ourselves with its quality. JHE If you want to teach theosophical doctrine, then this is fine. No historical understanding of the teachings in necessary. Just read the books and parrot the teachings until you can put them into your own words. This had been done for years and is IMHO DEAD. I taught theosophy this way for many years, and don't teach it this way any more. JHE >Therefore, an historical understanding of what the theosophical >teachings are allows for the fact that they changed from year to >year. EBT I don't think that the theosophical teachings change from year to year. Initial teaching may be followed by further occult knowledge over years, decades, or centuries. The initial teaching, of course, could also be followed by corruption and be lost over time, buried in speculation and personal opinions. How will we know? We can observe the introduction of ideas over time, but this does not tell us which are new teaching and which are error. The only way to know for sure is to undertake the Path ourselves and come to other ways of validating *to ourselves* what is correct. JHE Yours is a good doctrinal approach. EBT If we were to say that the teachings change from year to year, that would imply that they are being made up in an ad hoc fashion, which I would disagree with. I would rather consider them being progressively put into words, in a Western language, over time. JHE Can you prove that somebody had not "made up in an ad hoc fashion" these teachings? Of course you can't. Is it important whether they we "made up" or not? From a doctrinal point of view--yes. From a historical point of view--no. From an historical approach, the questions of veracity; how people are affected by the teachings; and how one is personally affected by the teachings are the important questions. Whether or not the teachings were "progressively put into words..." is a belief that cannot be confirmed by ordinary experience. Personally, I prefer as much as possible not to lean on that which I cannot confirm. If and when I learn to astral project to the snowy Himalayas and have tea with the Mahachohan every other thursday afternoon, I'll let you knom. JHE >A doctrinal answer, on the other hand, does not take this >into account, thus leaving one to assume that the theosophical >teachings appeared full blown with the Theosophical Society. EBT It does not take into account that less teachings were available at first, and that both further teachings along with possible error were introducted over time since then. JHE Right. But more importantly, doctrine within a vacuum creates a canon of dead letter teachings. JHE >So in answer to your question, I would submit that by beginning >with the knowledge of the year that Newton published his >gravitation formulas, I can trace their influence through the >scientific revolution. EBT With Theosophy, what teachings are accessible to the public may change with each generation. And also changing is the purity versus degree of adulteration of the teachings. We can examine this in a historical context. But for us, *as individuals*, we are not limited by what is available to the public in this or any particular generation. We are only limited by the depth of our spiritual practice and how far our studies take us. JHE Yet we have the published writings to indicate the nature of that practice. JHE >This is done by an historical approach, not through a doctrinal >approach. EBT Yes, and it's akin to spiritual sociology or anthropology, rather than spiritual psychology which deals with *our* individual practice. It asks "at this time, what was openly available, and how did it affect people?" or "how did this idea in that age affect subsequent generations?" But it does not deal with the question: "what are the Mystery Teachings and how can a student approach them today?" JHE It not only deals with this question, but gives context to it. JHE >In other words: that an apple fell on Newton's head is a >doctrinal answer. That Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492 is >a doctrinal answer. EBT Those are historic facts, and they are commonly held beliefs. JHE "Historic facts"; perhaps--"commonly held beliefs"; definitely. In other words: doctrine. JHE >What Newton thought >and said about the apple falling, and how his thoughts affected >our understanding of the universe is an historical answer. EBT The philosophy and knowledge, as it is today, is doctrine of the scientific community. The history of science tells us how we came to the current scientific thought. History tells us how we got here, the geneology of ideas, but in the doctrine we have the treasury of what is now known, and working with that treasury leads us into the future. JHE Yes JHE >How humanity was affected by Columbus' voyage is an historical >answer. dates are not the issue to distinguish doctrinal and >historical answers. The issue has more to do with whether the >ideas are viewed in or outside of their own contexts. EBT This is a slightly different point now. Instead of history dealing with the evolution (or degeneration) of ideas over time, we're now talking about taking ideas inside or outside of their cultural context. JHE Yes. It is the historical understanding that gives the context. EBT Since Theosophy deals with timeless truths, and with things that go far beyond our current cultural context, they would of necessity be doctrines. And since when we initiate our personal evolution, and step outside the cultural norms, we're personally outside that context in our inner lives, if not the outer lives. The popular conception of Theosophy may change, and when viewed as a social phenomena, could be considered in a historic sense, but the living truths are an entirely different matter! JHE This is a classic doctrinal position you are presenting here, and is not what HPB had presented. Even those "living truths" were communicated in an historical and cultural context. of Christianity and its relationship to gnosticism. HPB explores magic, science and phenomena through an historical context. In the flowering and oppression of the theosophical movement trough the cultures over the centuries. The teachings are one by one discussed through the comparison and contrast of historical religions and cultures ancient and modern. ~The Key to Theosophy~ opens with an account of the relationship of theosophy to neo-platonism. In fact, take any of HPB's books or articles and you will find the subject matter in each of them to be treated in a historical way. Even ~The Voice of the Silence~, which is a translation, has footnotes explaining the teachings in a historical and cultural contexts. JHE >On the contrary, an historical approach gives meaning that >cannot be found in a doctrinal approach. It is precisely the >historical approach that brings us closer to "making the >philosophy a living reality in our lives" ; whereas the >doctrinal approach turns the teachings into religious dogma. EBT The value to seeing how the popular conception of Theosophy changed over time can aid us in being more flexible in our approach to it, not getting too rigid in accepting the mere words that we're currently offered in the books. JHE Right EBT Making the philosophy a living reality in our lives deals first with understanding the teachings in our own words, then going further with them, approaching an inner sense of *knowing*. It is a spiritual practice. We don't take things dogmatically, but learn to question and freshly reconsider things not only upon first hearing them, but each time we think about them. JHE This is one approach. EBT The historic approach objectivizes the teachings, treating them as a historic phenomena, something to observe, whereas they are an integral part of the Mysteries. They should be accepted, I'd say, as something real in their own right, like Plato's archetypes, rather than considered as the byproduct of history and specific individuals that seem to originate ideas. JHE Whether or not Plato's archetypes are "real in their own right" is a matter of debate, as the transcendental reality of the teachings. One may come to that personal realization, but to accept this transcendent view of theosophy from the start is a doctrinal and religious approach. IMHO it is better to begin one's study of theosophy in a historical context and not as a revelation. As one's understanding of the ideas grow, then one will come to deeper realizations concerning them. Jerry HE ------------------------------------------|Jerry Hejka-Ekins ||Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu ||and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org |------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Oct 1995 18:12:41 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: Re: occult view of smoking Dear Coherence, I hate to tell ya. I used to smoke 2 packs a day. I became a non-smoker about 25 years ago, which wasn't soon enough, because today I've got a good-sized pulmonary problem. & please don't tell me on that one that I didn't create my own Karma. It also didn't help that I worked for years in a non-window office, where the ventilation was so poor that we all felt very sleepy around 2 every afternoon. Working in a lousy office wasn't that blatantly my doing. I worked for a living, & with the State, my employer, State workers don't count for too much. It's more important where they get the cheapest loft, or where some landlord is a big contributor. Just by the by, I was also in an office where they never shoveled snow, & people, lots of them, who needed to visit the office, had to walk over the ice. We started to salt it down, until someone told us, if we salted it, if someone fell anyway, we'd be liable. Well, that's an aside, that went a bit far afield from smoking. Actually, I thought CWL was quite far sighted to realize in 1926 what the scientists have just recently confirmed, that 2d hand smoke is also deleterious. If you want to smoke, that's your affair, as long as you're aware of what you're doing to yourself. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Oct 1995 19:08:08 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: doctrinal and historical approaches Eldon, thanks for defending the position of us revelationers. I appreciate all of the theosophical historians, but so far, I agree with you and can't see how history can help us understand or live the Teachings any better. Without assimilating the heart-doctrine, its seems to me that all you have is the dead letter. Meanwhile, I am reading your fencing with Jerry HE with great interest. On the other hand, I am pleased to hear Jerry's historical position as it allows us all to see where the historians are coming from. For one thing, I have to say that the historians seem to have the healthiest perspective of the Mahatmas. Historians don't idolize them, or deify them, as many non-historians do. Thanks to both of you. Question to Jerry HE - How do you envision that defining 'theosophy" as the "ancient wisdom" is going to help solve our communication problems on theos-l? You seem to be defining one nebulous word with two other nebulous words, which doesn't help much. But I do think if we can agree on a list of doctrines like reincarnation, cycles, and karma, that we will be getting at least somewhere. So far, we can't even agree on what are the "source teachings" let alone what are the "source doctrines." And, maybe it really doesn't matter (?). Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 20 Oct 1995 22:00:36 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: doctrinal and historical approaches >From Jerry S. writing to Jerry H-E: " So far, we can't even agree on what are the "source teachings" let alone what are the "source doctrines." And, maybe it really doesn't matter (?)." I would gently suggest that it does matter: without a focus, Theosophical energies in the world will scatter and be absorbed and diluted. There should be a way to lay out a core philosophy and a core set of ideas without making them dictatorial, enforceable, etc. To look to Buddhism for parallels, there are a number of schools, each with very specific texts, teachers, and meditation techniques. However, participation in those traditions is VOLUNTARY, and nothing is enforced. However, if you want to belong to a school of Buddhism, you are expected to believe what that school believes, practice what it practices, etc. Otherwise, switch school, right? Likewise, I hope that Theosophy will be reconized as a distinct, clear tradition with specific doctrines and approaches. No one is forced to accept such doctrines and approaches, but they also can't say that they don't exist. Being a Theosophist seems to me a VOLUNTARY thing, but the student who calls him/herself a Theosophist can not go about saying "I am a Theosophist and whatever I do and believe is Theosophy." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Oct 1995 01:17:19 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Publication SIMILIS ES, BY A.E.WAITE and ARTHUR MACHEN a new publication, is now available from ABRAXAS in England in a limited edition of 150 hand- numbered copies. The cost is five UK pounds plus postage etc. (About one pound to the USA). For further details e-mail me (see sig below). An explanatory introduction to this rare MS is included, written by R.A. Gilbert. NOTE ON THE MANUSCRIPT The original manuscript of Similis Es, now in a private col- lection, is on six leaves (last leaf being blank) of machine- made laid paper, measuring six and seven-eighths inches by four and a quarter inches, written in black ink in the hand of Arthur Machen. It is bound in full limp blue-green morocco, lettered on the upper cover: SIMILIS ES - A.E.WAITE From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Oct 1995 01:17:19 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Publication SIMILIS ES, BY A.E.WAITE and ARTHUR MACHEN a new publication, is now available from ABRAXAS in England in a limited edition of 150 hand- numbered copies. The cost is five UK pounds plus postage etc. (About one pound to the USA). For further details e-mail me (see sig below). An explanatory introduction to this rare MS is included, written by R.A. Gilbert. NOTE ON THE MANUSCRIPT The original manuscript of Similis Es, now in a private col- lection, is on six leaves (last leaf being blank) of machine- made laid paper, measuring six and seven-eighths inches by four and a quarter inches, written in black ink in the hand of Arthur Machen. It is bound in full limp blue-green morocco, lettered on the upper cover: SIMILIS ES - A.E.WAITE From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Oct 1995 04:22:41 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: historical and doctrinal Jerry S writes: JS Question to Jerry HE - How do you envision that defining 'theosophy" as the "ancient wisdom" is going to help solve our communication problems on theos-l? You seem to be defining one nebulous word with two other nebulous words, which doesn't help much. JHE I don't: nor did I define theosophy that way, but rather cited extant definitions in order to point out that these organizational definitions tend to imply that theosophy is a body of teachings. As for our communication problems, I don't have a solution. I suggested earlier (in a rather oblique way) that we build upon what we all agree upon, but that doesn't seem to work either--not because of disagreements in common ideas, but apparently because of an unwillingness by some to build upon these common ideas. JS But I do think if we can agree on a list of doctrines like reincarnation, cycles, and karma, that we will be getting at least somewhere. So far, we can't even agree on what are the "source teachings" let alone what are the "source doctrines." And, maybe it really doesn't matter (?). JHE Good luck. I've given up. On the other hand, I'm inclined to agree with you--in many ways it doesn't matter. Yet, I also have to agree with Rich who writes: RT I would gently suggest that it does matter: without a focus, Theosophical energies in the world will scatter and be absorbed and diluted. JHE And this is precisely what has happened. RT There should be a way to lay out a core philosophy and a core set of ideas without making them dictatorial, enforceable, etc. JHE This was done originally, but it appears that the Adyar Society never succeeded in refocusing after its diversion with the Krishnamurti episode. RT To look to Buddhism for parallels, there are a number of schools, each with very specific texts, teachers, and meditation techniques. However, participation in those traditions is VOLUNTARY, and nothing is enforced. However, if you want to belong to a school of Buddhism, you are expected to believe what that school believes, practice what it practices, etc. Otherwise, switch school, right? JHE Right. RT Likewise, I hope that Theosophy will be recognized as a distinct, clear tradition with specific doctrines and approaches. No one is forced to accept such doctrines and approaches, but they also can't say that they don't exist. Being a Theosophist seems to me a VOLUNTARY thing, but the student who calls him/herself a Theosophist can not go about saying "I am a Theosophist and whatever I do and believe is Theosophy." JHE This "Theosophy" that you speak of here makes up the body of teachings of what I like to call "the modern theosophical movement" to distinguish it from the earlier movements going back to the neo-platonists or perhaps earlier. Those doctrines of the modern TM (as I see it) were all given out during HPB's lifetime. However new doctrines were given out as early as 1895 that differ significantly from those given out by HPB and her teachers. This new set of doctrines are what I like to call "neo-theosophy." Jerry HE ------------------------------------------|Jerry Hejka-Ekins ||Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu ||and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org |------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Oct 1995 06:59:18 GMT From: John R Crocker Subject: re: historical and doctrinal Why hold that the branches and leaves of an oak tree are somehow wrong or in error simply because they no longer resemble the acorn? To one fixated on the seed, germination must look dangerous, sprouting must seem an error: The growth of the plant is the dissipation of the seed. And the only way to make sure the integrity of the seed is not damaged is to keep it dormant - to make sure it doesn't sprout - to freeze it into its "original" form. But once sprouted, no voice, no matter how domineering, will be able to stop the vast diversity of cells, profusion of leaves, and beautiful flowers, from each claiming they are as fully an aspect of the plant as any others are. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Oct 1995 11:43:40 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: An Open discussion comparing JHE writes: "We could have an open discussion comparing thte HPB model to the Purucker model...." I would suggest that this be done on theos-l. Eldon is very conversant with GdP and Jerry HE is on HPB and probably on GdP, too. And probably some of the rest of us could also contribute. Let's do it! Daniel Caldwel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Oct 1995 14:06:12 GMT From: jem@vnet.net (John E. Mead) Subject: smoking - the unrecognized sacrament hi - a few comments for info: 1) tobacco is a sacred gift to the american indian peoples. It is a religious herb used for sacred moments. 2) many people use tobacco for psychic/medicinal reasons. (I have met a few who need to use tobacco to prevent an overload of their receptive abilities... they use it to Block-out signals to prevent physic overload). shades of HPB?? 3) tobacco is also used for medicinal purposes, esp for respiratory problems such as allergies and congestions --- and it works. It is also very useful in Homeopathic treatments. What does this have to do with Theosophy?? i.e. acceptance of (or uses of) has much to do with a particular religious dogma. peace - john mead p.s. Krotona will not allow a Christian ceremony (Eucharist), nor an American Indian ceremony (pipe/tobacco medicine wheel) on its property. so much for religious freedom! John E. Mead jem@vnet.net [Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers] From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Oct 1995 14:10:10 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: doctrinal and historical approaches To Rich: I am a *Kabbalist* theosophist - HPB quotes Kabala for a number of *her* source arguments. So where do I fit in your schema? Good here, innit? Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Oct 1995 14:13:41 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: doctrinal and historical approaches > > But I do think if we can agree on a list of doctrines > like reincarnation, cycles, and karma, that we > will be getting at least somewhere. So far, we can't even > agree on what are the "source teachings" let alone what > are the "source doctrines." And, maybe it really > doesn't matter (?). > > Jerry S. I think it really doesn't matter - "theosophy" = "god-wisdom" is nebulous enough by definition. I would never accept the CWL/Besant model of reincarnation for example, so already you got one dissident! It's all a great worry :-) Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Oct 1995 16:52:04 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: doctrinal and historical approaches Alan writes, > I am a *Kabbalist* theosophist - HPB quotes Kabala for a number > of *her* source arguments. So where do I fit in your schema? MY scheme?!?!? That's the point -- it's not about my scheme or your scheme, but understanding the scheme that was delivered (which we all know was but fragments of a hidden whole). I have my "take" on Theosophy, you have your Kabbalistic "take" and that is probably exactly what HPB hoped for -- we would take the philosophy and USE it. But we cannot say that our understanding and our devices and models and uses are THEOSOPHY ITSELF. So when we teach Theosophy, as Eldon keeps suggesting, I agree that it is so important to say "this is what the TEACHINGS say, and this is what I personally think." HPB was sympathetic to the Kabbala (within certain limits) but Theosophy is not Kabbala. HPB and I are both very sympathetic to Buddhism and have taken pansil and vows -- but Theosophy is not bound by or equal to Buddhism either. Theosophy is simply that modern body of teachings that was presented by the Masters through their agents in the world as "Theosophy," and I am very committed to preserving and teaching it AS IT WAS GIVEN, even though I am free personally to take what I like, leave what I like, supplement with what I like. In Tibetan Buddhism (and probably in other branches of Buddhism with which I am not so familiar) Buddhist masters hold very often several "lineages" and "cycles" of texts and teachings and practices. They don't mix them up. When they teach Dzogchen ("Great Perfection"), they teach Dzogchen, but when they teach Perfection of Wisdom ("Prajna-Paramita") they teach that, likewise with Vipassana and Shamatha meditations, Mahamudra and various other Tantras, etc. Of course these Buddhist Masters would not hold separate lineages at the same time if they didn't think them compatible and mutually helpful. Still, they are SCRUPULOUS about keeping the link unbroken, keeping the teachings pure from egoism (meaning personal interpretation) and from mixed traditions. And so the teachings last for thousands of years. Will we be so fortunate? Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Oct 1995 16:52:07 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: High-brow chats Bee, Why not drum up some topic you are interested in, and make it clear that involved history and doctrine is not what you are looking for on that topic. There are said to be over 100 subscribers -- they might join you in chat, I certainly would. I think the "high-brow" stuff if important (and you seem to also) but after all, it's not the be-all end-all of Theosophy, is it? We in different Theosophical backgrounds (ULT, Adyar TS, Pasadena TS, etc.) have a lot a working out and talking to do, but there is no reason other stuff might not be going on as well. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Oct 1995 17:32:28 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re re: historical and doctrinal John Crocker writes: wrong or in error simply because they no longer resemble the >acorn? To one fixated on the seed, germination must look >dangerous, sprouting must seem an error: The growth of the plant >is the dissipation of the seed. And the only way to make sure >the integrity of the seed is not damaged is to keep it dormant - >to make sure it doesn't sprout - to freeze it into its >"original" form. But once sprouted, no voice, no matter how >domineering, will be able to stop the vast diversity of cells, >profusion of leaves, and beautiful flowers, from each claiming >they are as fully an aspect of the plant as any others are. < -JRC < Jerry S Replies: > John, this explains exactly why Rich's desire to preserve >the "teaching AS IT WAS GIVEN" must eventually come to naught. >The seed must either bloom into something else, or die. It has >no other options, no matter how hard we want to preserve it. >All of the world's religions eventually discover this, though it >may take thousands of years. Thus the need for periodic >Messengers. > > Jerry S. I feel that John's beautifully written prose expresses a deep truth. All things must grow and change and eventually die. Though Theosophy as an ideal is supposed to represent timeless and universal ideas, such a pure expression would be impossible in a material world such as ours. (See HPB's article "What is Truth" where she discusses this concept.) So the theosophy that came through the Theosophical Society can be only at best, a pale echo of its archetypal ideal, and is subject to the laws of change and corruption like everything else here on earth. HPB attributed a 2000 year cycle for religious movements. Any student of religion can follow the corruption of the sayings of Jesus into a major world wide authoritarian religion that in many ways echoes exactly the opposite values expressed by its proverbial founder. The same observation can be made for Buddhism, or any other religion. The TS has already gone through a significant metamorphosis in just 100 short years. What it will look like in 2000 (if it make it that long) is anybody's guess. Yet, Rich's sentiment to preserve the original teachings is noble and, I believe, a worthwhile endeavor. It is practicable, and is something that I am personally committed to. IMO the longer we are able to keep the link unbroken, the greater will be the benefit to humanity. Jerry HE ------------------------------------------|Jerry Hejka-Ekins ||Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu ||and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org |------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Oct 1995 17:33:44 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: historical and doectinal Jerry S. JHE < I ... cited extant definitions in order to point out that these Subject: another good quote, part 1 of 2 p.185 "Talks on the Path of Occultism" This is now commentary on the 2d fragment of "The Voice of the Silence" "The Secret Heart is the esoteric doctrine. It is a symbol that comes down to us from Atlantean days. In the innermost shrine of the great temple in the City of the Golden Gate there lay upon the altar a massive golden box in the shape of a heart, the secret opening of which was known only to the high priest. This was called 'The Heart of the World', and signified to them the innermost mysteries that they knew. In it they kept their most sacred objects, and much of their symbolism centered around it. They knew that every atom beats as a heart, and they considered that the sun had a similar movement, which they connected with the sun-spot period. Sometimes one comes across passsages in their books which give the impression that they knew more than we do in matters of science, though they regarded it all from the poetic rather than from the scientific point of view. They thought, for example, that the earth breathes and moves, and it is certainly true that quite recently scientific men have discovered that there is a regular daily displacement of the earth's surface which may be thought of as corresponding in a certain way to breathing. "When Aryasanga uses the term 'secret heart' he also means all the inner mysteries. Madame Blavatsky's footnote says: 'The Secret Heart is the esoteric doctrine.' Here the Teacher by 'shunning learning' certainly means that there are times when we must turn our attention away from the mere gaining of knowledge from the outside through the senses, that we may give time to the development of the inner learning through intuition. We cannot be wise without having sufficient learning or knowledge with regard to the things that we have to deal with in the world, in our particular sphere of duty; but on the other hadnd we should be much in error if we thought that the greatest thing in life was to acumulate great stores of knowledge, or were even to imagine that such knowledge had intrinsic value, apart from the use that we can make of it in the service of mankind." CWL From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Oct 1995 17:33:45 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: another good quote, part 2 of 2 Cont. P.186-7 "Talks on the Path of Occultism" "In the West there is a tendency to approach things and study them from the outside, while the Eastern method is rather to consider them from within. Both methods are necessary at our present state of evolution. When the buddhic vehicle is developed, and intuition comes down into the physcial brain from that level, it will give us true wisdom, perfect knowledge, but in very few people is it yet sufficiently developed. "Even if we are able to keep our heads among the clouds, it is necessary that our feet should rest firmly on the earth, and we must treat impressions coming from within with balanced judgement, just as we apply common sense to the experiences of every day life. This is necessary, because it is quite easy to mistake impulses, coming from the astral body, for intuitions which come from the higher Self. Sometimes it happens, for example,that a dead person seeing that we are interested in some particular point, offers a suggestion on the astral plane, and this may come down into the brain and seem like intuition. Yet, as a matter of fact, that dead person may be a very incompetent observer on the astral plane, and may therefore be giving quite wrong information. "This advice to shun learning is useful not only to those who are on the Path, but also to every one who is at all studious, if we take it to mean, as it does, that we should avoid mere learning. A great amount of study of the mere outside of things often leads to materialism. Because they see around them great cataclysms, sacrifice, oppression, sorrow and suffering, and a vast amount of praying to which no answer seems to be vouchsafed, many people come to think that conflict and struggle is the law of life, that nature is not compassionate. But to study the world as fully as possible, all the time regarding it as a great school for the life dwelling in its multifarious forms, leads to wisdom, which enables one to see that all things are moving together for the good. When one develops astral and higher forms of vision this fact that all is well is no longer a matter to be understood by careful reasoning; it leaps to the eyes. No one with such vision could be a materialist." CWL From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Oct 1995 17:36:53 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: objects Alan Bain Writes: >In typesetting a reprint of G.R.S. Mead's ~Yoga: The Science of >the Soul~ [1892] a statement of the Adyar TS objects of gives >the second two objects differently from today's version. They >read: > >Second, - To promote the stydy of Aryan and other Eastern >literatures, religions, philosophies and sciences, and >demonstrate the importance of that study. > >Third, - To investigate unexplained laes of Nature and the >psychic powers latent in man. > >I would be interested tp know when they were changed for the >present wording. TIA. JHE The present wording was done in 1896, under Olcott's authority, right after the Judge split. Ironically U.L.T. also uses this 1896 wording. ------------------------------------------|Jerry Hejka-Ekins ||Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu ||and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org |------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Oct 1995 18:31:03 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: doctrinal & hysterical approaches Rich: >Theosophy is simply that modern body of teachings that was presented by the >Masters through their agents in the world as "Theosophy," and I am very >committed to preserving and teaching it AS IT WAS GIVEN, even though I am >free personally to take what I like, leave what I like, supplement with what >I like. Sounds a lot like what they did with the gospels in the Bible. Took what they liked and threw out the rest. :-) >And so the teachings last for thousands of years. Will we be so fortunate? Why are you so worried if they will last till even next week? Seems to me these things are out of the hands of one individual. A large group must be responsible for such a task and they've got to agree on it and keep their heads on straight long enough to be able to do it, then pass it on, all the while keeping their fingers crossed that the next ones won't botch the job. If you're on a mission from the *Goddess* to keep the Teaching pure, then you're goin' to be coming back and fighting the good fight for many, many lifetimes to come. My hats off to you! That's quite a job you've taken on. - ann PS Yes, I'm back on theo-l From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Oct 1995 20:49:04 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: re: historical and doctrinal Subject: Re: Buddhism & Non-Dualism (Comments on Karma) Eldon: Sorry for butting in here, Eldon, but I would say that our relationships with others (and thus our karma) come into play even prior to our entrance into the manifest world. They begin in the 2 unmanifest planes above the 4 lower , and so when our manifestation begins on Globe A, our karma is already in operation. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Oct 1995 20:49:09 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Complexity Theory JRC:< Have you read it?> No, but it sounds like I should. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Oct 1995 20:49:12 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: re: historical and doctrinal < I ... cited extant definitions in order to point out that these Subject: Re: doctrinal and historical approaches Alan:< I would never accept the CWL/Besant model of reincarnation for example, so already you got one dissident! > Could anyone please explain to me what this model is? I follow the Purucker Model, if I can call it that. I have read only a little of AB/CWL, and am not familiar with how they describe reincarnation. Could someone contrast the two for me? Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Oct 1995 20:49:17 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: doctrinal and historical approaches Rich: Unless we present direct quotes (and even then, we may be taking things out of context), it would be better to say "this is what I think the TEACHINGS say, and this is what I personally think." Several of us have made presentations on this list of the TEACHINGS, and have had others come down on us, or take acception. It appears that we can't agree on what the source teachings are, let alone what they mean. In short, today's theosophists are in the same boat as Christians, Buddhists, and all other groups. We can each state what we personally think the TEACHINGS are, but not a single one of us is qualifed to state categorically what the theosophical TEACHINGS are. You may, in fact, think that you are able to teach the TEACHINGS as they were given, but you are really only teaching your interpretation of them exactly like Chrisitan theologians can only teach us their own interpretations of the Bible. And quite frankly Rich, I interpret some of the original TEACHINGS differently than you do, and differently than Eldon, and so on. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Oct 1995 20:55:01 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Objects In typesetting a reprint of G.R.S. Mead's ~Yoga: The Science of the Soul~ [1892] a statement of the Adyar TS objects of gives the second two objects differently from today's version. They read: Second, - To promote the stydy of Aryan and other Eastern literatures, religions, philosophies and sciences, and demonstrate the importance of that study. Third, - To investigate unexplained laes of Nature and the psychic powers latent in man. I would be interested tp know when they were changed for the present wording. TIA. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Oct 1995 21:40:15 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: doctrinal & hysterical approaches Ann wrote: > Why are you so worried if they will last till even next week? Seems to me these > things are out of the hands of one individual. A large group must be > responsible for such a task and they've got to agree on it and keep their heads > on straight long enough to be able to do it, then pass it on I don't think it takes a large group. most important things, it seems to be, are carried on by an extremeley small body of dedicated people who are willing to give all their time, resources, energies and hearts to the task. After all, how large do we think the Masters' Brotherhood is? Hard to estimate, I'm sure, but surely a very, very, very small percentage of the world's population are Adepts, let along Mahatmas. Likewise, in each tradition (every school of Buddhism, Hinduism, Theosophy, Judaism, etc.) very few people take on the responsiblity of completely absorbing the entire body of teachings and practices and dedicating their lives to practising, preserving, and teaching them. The few. The proud. [?!?!] The Theosophists. :) Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Oct 1995 22:00:50 GMT From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Subject: Re: doctrinal and historical approaches >Eldon, thanks for defending the position of us revelationers. > >I appreciate all of the theosophical historians, but so far, >I agree with you and can't see how history can help us >understand or live the Teachings any better. Without >assimilating the heart-doctrine, its seems to me that all you >have is the dead letter. Meanwhile, I am reading your >fencing with Jerry HE with great interest. On the other >hand, I am pleased to hear Jerry's historical position >as it allows us all to see where the historians are >coming from. For one thing, I have to say that the >historians seem to have the healthiest perspective >of the Mahatmas. Historians don't idolize them, or >deify them, as many non-historians do. > >Thanks to both of you. > >Question to Jerry HE - How do you envision that >defining 'theosophy" as the "ancient wisdom" is >going to help solve our communication problems >on theos-l? You seem to be defining one nebulous >word with two other nebulous words, which doesn't >help much. > >But I do think if we can agree on a list of doctrines >like reincarnation, cycles, and karma, that we >will be getting at least somewhere. So far, we can't even >agree on what are the "source teachings" let alone what >are the "source doctrines." And, maybe it really >doesn't matter (?). > > Jerry S. Hi to you all, I have been mainly lurking on this list for the past couple of months because I enjoy the discussions and the knowledge I have gained but it is too highbrow for me to feel tempted to join in. It is like the ant trying to say hello to the elephant. Could we not have a Theo chat list where the ants could chat about lesser Theological concern or exchange ideas that are not so lofty. The involved discussions going on by just a few on the list makes me wonder where are the rest and do they perhaps feel a bit daunted by it all, like me. I don't think I am unintelligent as I understand much of the neat stuff you talk about but my grasp of the Theo doctrines are not as clear or accessible for involved discussion. I will understand if noone agrees with me and will just keep lurking. I do not mean any offense by my comments as I do appreciate the ongoing discussions. Bee. > > Bee Brown........Senile.Com found, - out of memory. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 21 Oct 1995 23:09:23 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Review copies > Review > > MICHAEL RAINGER BOOKS > 22 Prices Lane > York YO2 1AL > England > > Tel:01904 670203 > E-Mail: rainger@Delphi.com Sorry Michael, but with limited edition(s) printed to order we cannot offer review copies. The Waite/Machin item just notified to the list is up to 150 copies, others are expected to be only 100 copies. The best we can offer is Five pounds post free for these (all will be the same price). My addressfor orders and cheques payable to: Dr. A.M. Bain 14 Tyndall's Park Road Clifton, BRISTOL BS8 1PY Good wishes, Alan. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Oct 1995 01:28:38 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: A Question to Jerrry S. In one of your postings on "RE: doctrinal and historical approaches", you write: "And quite frankly Rich, I interpret some of the original TEACHINGS differently than you do, and differently than Eldon, and so on." First question: In the phrase "some of the original TEACHINGS", what, Jerry S., do you mean by this? Can you define what you mean by "original TEACHINGS"? Second question: It would be interesting to try to ascertain why, for example, Jerry S., Rich and Eldon interpret these "original TEACHINGS" differently? When we were having discussions on globes and planes, there were different interpretations about the relationship between glbes and planes, but none of the participants in the discussion seemed that interested in trying to see what was the root cause or causes for the differences in opinions con- cernings globes and planes. I may be overstating it, but it seemed like no one was willing to stop and say, "Hey, maybe my understanding is wrong or incomplete. Maybe, just maybe, there's something more to learn here." Real dialogue and discussion might help us (as a group) to understand why there are these differences in understanding. Sometimes I have got the impression (which may be wrong!) that (for example) Eldon and Jerry S. were just ta [delete last two words "just ta"] not always having a "discussion" with each other but sorta talking "at" each other. Food for thought. Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Oct 1995 12:42:10 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: New topics Bee: >I have been mainly lurking on this list for the past couple of months >because I enjoy the discussions and the knowledge I have gained but it is >too highbrow for me to feel tempted to join in. It is like the ant trying to >say hello to the elephant. Could we not have a Theo chat list where the ants >could chat about lesser Theological concern or exchange ideas that are not >so lofty. Maybe the lack of participation of others is also due to a lack of interest in the subjects, along with being unfamiliar with the material. The members of a Lodge that have been studying the material since they were 12 (and are now 81), can really roll over the first-timers. I think the chat list for those of us who haven't attained highbrow status is a good idea, but I also suggest you throw out a topic and see what happens. I was intimidated when I started on this list in March. Now, look at me . . . I can't shut up. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Oct 1995 12:42:11 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: Re: doctrinal and historical approaches Alan: "So where do I fit into your schema?" Exactly, it's gotta be broad based enough to accomodate all shades of theosophical opinion & beliefs, & I would include Bailey people, & Steiner people in. All this infighting seems highly unproductive to me. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Oct 1995 12:42:11 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: Re: doctrinal and historical approaches Bee Brown quoting others "I can't see how history cam help us understand or live theosophy any better." Liesel - not me either Re the others who don't join in "do they perhaps feel a bit daunted by it all?" Liesel - as for myself, I've never liked scholasticism. I'd rather read about some ideas I can work with & use in my daily life, or else something of interest because it's brand new. So I just pass over these discussions about nomenclatures, & what the Masters were or are. My interest in the Masters, for instance, is rather in their teachings. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Oct 1995 12:42:11 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: Re: doctrinal and historical approaches Rich, I think it depends on whether people a thousand years hence can still use theosophy, or whether they will have outgrown it. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Oct 1995 12:42:11 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: Re: High-brow chats Yeah, let's try the chat, & see where it leads us. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Oct 1995 12:42:11 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: re: historical and doctrinal I agree too, with Jerry S, & Rich, not everything one believes is theosophy. But HPB meant for it to be broad based, & I'm all for that. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Oct 1995 12:42:11 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: re: historical and doctrinal agree with Jerry to try to preserve the teachings as they were given will eventually come to naught. They need to be restated in the medium of the current times. The basic ideas must be flexible enough to start with so that they can be restated in such a way that they mean something to present-day people, even 1000 years from now. If they don't fire the interest & the imagination, who is going to look at them. Someone who honors them because they happen to be 1000 years old? You don't believe that yourself. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Oct 1995 13:32:04 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: RE quotes by Bee B. and Liesel D. "I can't see how history can help us understand or live theosophy any better." "I've never liked scholasticism. I'd rather read about some ideas I can work with & use in my daily life....So I just pass over these discussions about nomenclatures, & what the Masters were or are. My interest in the Masters, for instance, is rather in their teachings." Well, as Sly and the Family Stone said 28 years: "Different strokes for different folks." I think they said that in one of their songs! But, at the same time, why not use every tool, every perspective one can in order to understand Theosophy? I am certainly interested in the teachings. But I am also interested in Theosophical history. I am also interested in the practical application of Theosophy to daily life. Am I don't underrate the devotional aspect of Theosophy or the inner life of Theosophy. And there are others aspects or perspectives. I have alwasys tried to use all these perspectives as "tools" in my work with Theosophy. For example, the Mahatma Letters are full of both history and teaching. As George Linton and Virginia Hanson write in their READERS GUIDE TO THE MAHATMA LETTERS: "In addition to the metaphysical and technical teachings, the book is a vertiable gold mine of information on such matters as the ways of the Adepts, the training of chelas for the probationary path, insights into character..... There is much in the letters of a personal nature, some of which seems rather inconsequential. Nevertheless, these passages are of value and deserve careful reading by the student; they contain interesting character studies as well as many hints regarding the ways of the adepts, the nature of their consciousness, their methods of training aspirants for the probationary path, and qualifications for discipleship." Yes, I'm interested in the teachings of the Masters, but also much insight can be gained about who the Masters were or are from the historical or bio0 graphical perspective. Are Morya and Koot Hoomi similar Masters or gurus to the hundreds of gurus we have come to know in the last one hundred years? My major criticism of Paul Johnson's books on the Theosophical Masters is that Johnson leaves out 95 % of the historical information on the Masters and ends up painting a caricature of the Theosophical adepts. Those who read his books with little knowledge and understanding of the true nature of the Masters will come away with all sorts of misconceptions, etc. I have already run across newcomers that have been totally misled by Johnson's misconceptions. These misconceptions can warp one's understanding of the teachings and give sincere, new students and even some older students all sorts of mayavic readings of the teachings. Enough of this history stuff on Theos-l! A focus on history can also help us to understand various Theosophical subjects better. HPB and her Teachers warn constanly of the dangers of "psychism." If one does a historical study (biographical study) on "Suby Ram", Anna Kingsford, Stainton Moses, William Oxley and other persons mentioned in the Mahatma Letters one can gain a vivid, fresh insight into what the Masters are talking about when they warn of the dangers and delusions of the astral world and the use of the lower siddhis. HPB and the Masters warn Theosophical students of practicing pranayamas since these practices can make one "mediumistic". They give specific examples and illustrate these examples with biographical material on various persons. A historical approach brings the whole subject alive and gives the student much food for thought. I could give many examples of this which (at least for me) has given me insights, etc. which the study of the teaching alone would not have done. Such an approach is not necessarily scholastic but in fact can have realistic and practical applications to one's own life. If one only experienced our every day life and had little knowledge of geography and history, I for one would feel a tremendous loss. A knowledge of geography and history adds new dimensions to our lives; adds new perspectives and an incredible richness. A better knowledge of geography and history helps us to transcend time and space and allows us to enter into the lives of other human beings of other times and cultures. I'm not saying we should ignore our own personal, day to day life. Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Oct 1995 13:33:14 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: re historical and doctrinal Liesel Writes: >agree with Jerry to try to preserve the teachings as they were >given will eventually come to naught. They need to be restated >in the medium of the current times. The basic ideas must be >flexible enough to start with so that they can be restated in >such a way that they mean something to present-day people, even >1000 years from now. Right. And restating the ideas in the "medium of the current times" is a method for preserving the teachings. It looks like you're catching on to this "scholastic" stuff. :-) Jerry HE From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Oct 1995 18:17:20 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: A Question to Jerrry S. Daniel: I mean HPB's description of the Gupta Vidya Model as given in the SD and as described briefly in the MLs. This model describes the globes and planes of the Earth planetary chain. Daniel: I interpret the diagram on page 200 as being a working comparison between the Sephiroth of the Tree of Life and the Globes of the GV Model, showing how each globe/sephiroth is located on the cosmic planes. To me, this picture is a graphic representation of the Earth planetary chain, and so on, as I have outlined it in many postings on theos-l. For reasons best known to themselves, Rich and Eldon interpret this differently, and I suspect that neither has a working knowledge of the Qabala (I apologise if wrong here) and therefore this comparison means little or nothing to them - otherwise I don't understand their far different interpretations of what a planetary chain is. To me, it is an alternate view of the Tree of Life. Daniel:< Sometimes I have got the impression (which may be wrong!) that (for example) Eldon and Jerry S. were not always having a "discussion" with each other but sorta talking "at" each other.> I think we are sharing ideas and viewpoints. Although our sources are the same (we both use Purucker for example) we have very different ideas about the Globes and Planes. We also differ on the teachings of bodies/principles, and I think that this even goes beyond semantics here. For example, I believe that we have a body & senses on each of the 7 cosmic planes with one consciousness that can shift its focus onto any of these bodies or vehicles in order to have experiences on the 7 cosmic planes. This model explains to me many otherwise mysterious experiences such as dreams and psychic phenomena. Eldon does not agree with this. Let me give you a quote to show everyone where I am coming from: "There are two basic ways of viewing man: one as being compounded of the seven cosmic elements, as H.P.B. at first presented it; and the other, as being a composite of interacting monads or center of consciousness working in and through and by means of the instrumental aid of the seven cosmic elements which give to man his seven principles" (CW XII, 647: ES Instruction III, taken from Purucker's FS of O p 442) I interpret Purucker's teaching of two views as being a subjective view (monads or consciousness centers) and an objective view (7 cosmic elements or bodies). We can view man in terms of either our subjective states or states of consciousness, or in terms of our vehicles for those states. Purucker then goes on to say: "Now the seven principles are the seven kinds of 'stuff' of the universe. The higher part of each kind is its consciousness side; the lower part of each is the body side through which its own consciousness expresses itself." (p 444) And finally: "...we must not have our minds confused with the idea that the seven principles are one thing, and the monads are something else which work through the principles as disjunct from them. That is wrong." (p 444) So, while Eldon and I both use Purucker as our source, we interpet him differently. I see the above quotes as saying that we all have a subjective and objective side on each cosmic plane and that these two working together form the 7 principles, one on each plane. Because I see Purucker teaching this, I can shift over to AB/CWL's description easily. I believe that what AB & CWL did, was to eliminate the concept of monads as being confusing as well as unnecessary (and I would agree that they are, because I think "monad" is a poor name) and instead equate "principles" with "bodies." I see little to nothing wrong with this, and therefore can't understand the horror that most Pasadena, Point Loma, and ULT folks associate with the AB/CWL description of bodies. If we can get around the semantics and see what is really going on, we find that we have an objective and subjective self (or at least a sense of self) on each cosmic plane. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Oct 1995 20:55:37 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: re: re historical and doctrinal Liesel: > >agree with Jerry to try to preserve the teachings as they were > >given will eventually come to naught. They need to be restated > >in the medium of the current times. The basic ideas must be > >flexible enough to start with so that they can be restated in > >such a way that they mean something to present-day people, even > >1000 years from now. > Jerry H-E: > Right. And restating the ideas in the "medium of the current > times" is a method for preserving the teachings. It looks like > you're catching on to this "scholastic" stuff. :-) Right. And keeping the ORIGINAL materials in print, and studying them, allows us to effectively RE-STATE the ideas in modern language for every generation, while being able to "check our work," so to say, against the Teacher's. No one is thinking that we should run around doing nothing but parrotting HPB and having nothing of our own to say. I believe that if you can't state the teachings in your OWN, CLEAR TERMS, you really don't understand them. And how are you going to LEARN the teachings, except by going to the originals, hopefully with the assistance of those who have spent their lives learning them? I never suggested that we should only read, re-read, and re-re-read HPB's and William Q. Judge's works. But it's nice to have them on hand so that you may carry on their work. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 22 Oct 1995 20:55:38 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: forgiving your body Hi, you all I found an entirely different quote I thought would be of interest in another book (I never read just one book, but skip around) it's from a book called "Forgiveness, A Bold Choice for a Peaceful Heart" by Robin Casarjian, Bantam, 1992. The book covers a number of people & things to forgive to be able to feel more at one with oneself. Making peace & friends with your body & body parts is done with a different technique in Harry's book, but I found Casarjian's lead in really enlightening, (she goes on into setting up certain affirmations to use in sickness & in health). I thought it might also strike some of you. "The concept of forgiving your body may seem strange at first; however, take a moment to consider the following. Do you know one individual who truly loves and accepts his or her body? Do you love & accept yours? "For most people the body is the object of ridicule, rejection, hatred, neglect, and abuse. If you are like most, the judgements you hold are likely to defy the natural inclinations of your unique body type. Facial features, body shape, and hair texture or color may be but a few aspects of your appearance that you are unhappy with. There may even be parts of your body that you reject just by virtue of their existence. Were you taught , for instance, that your genitals were "not nice" or "dirty"? Are you embarrassed by or do you ignore certain parts of your body putting them down as objects of disdain? "To heal & bring peace to your relationship with your body, you first need to forgive yourself for being human, for to be human is to have a body. And our bodies rearely look and do as we would ideally like them to. We have needs and drives that are sometimes powerful, such as the sexual drive, that can be distressing, confusing, and compelling. We don't always feel comfortable in our body, and it is certain to age & die. Forgiving yourself for being human means accepting that this is so. Again, acceptance doesn't imply defeat or resignation. Rather, as you let go of chronic judgment and resistance toward the condition of your body as it is, you will release energy that will hep healing to occur and you will undoubtedly feel better about being you." Have a good day. Shalom Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Oct 1995 06:53:27 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Re: Cayce Hello, In answer to your questions the references in HPB's writings to the difference between unconscious mediums and the fully conscious noetic individual would be helpful. Much of Cayce's information may be valid but the process of unconscious channelling is not considered a healthy approach. Some quotes from other posts: Higher Inspiration & Channelling: "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. " "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: 23 Oct 1995 12:56:31 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: high-brow chats Bee, I hope you don't mind my chiming in on your discussion with Rich. But it appears that your message already set the ground work for a more practical general discussion, drawing from personal experience, so I'm throwing in my two cents worth. BB >I am interested in all Theosophy on a level that I can respond >to. As I mentioned to Liesel, I would be interested to know how >theosophy is 'done' in Russia, Finland etc. These people have >popped in and left again. JHE Yes. Too bad that our Russian correspondent disappeared so fast. But he is probably listening in on the side, and may be back when the conversations come around to his interest. BB >Here in Wanganui we are doing our best to keep up with the >teachings and not letting them disintergrate into meaningless >warm fuzzies. JHE "Warm fuzzies" eh. I haven't heard that term in about twenty years. Is Transactional Analysis still current in New Zealand? What are your doing to keep the discussions at a high level? What kind of problems have you been having with your group? I'm asking because many of us who have had experience with Lodge dynamics have a lot to share in this area--perhaps some possible solutions too. BB: >What does lemniscate mean? It is on page 274 and we couldn't >find it in the dictionary. JHE A lemniscate is a figure 8--sort of an infinity symbol when laying on its side. Another, and older meaning concerns a ribbon that is hanging down. Both images in context to the passage on page 274 refers to the idea of evolution proceeding on a downward course from spirit to matter. HPB is using the lemniscate as a geometrical model which is more familiar to us, but fulfills the same function as the older caduceus symbol (illustrated on the preceding page). HPB is saying that the caduceus symbol would have been recognized by the Greeks as representing the same idea as the lemniscate figure does to us in this context of evolution. Notice that the intertwining snakes on the caduceus symbol are forming a repetitive lemniscate as it twines down the staff. HPB is playing off of Sir William Crook's point (pp. 273-74) that three conditions (symbolized by the two snakes and the staff) are needed for the evolution of matter to occur: time; cyclic activity; and space. From these three conditions, matter evolved from a simple protyle element into many elements (A course in high school or basic college chemistry would help to follow this, but is not necessary). In reference to Crook's three conditions, look back to the beginning of the SD where HPB talks about the "Absolute" which is unknowable but is the common source of Abstract Motion, Duration (unbounded time) and Abstract Space. >From these three conditions, according to HPB, the universe came into being. Apparently you are using the six volume Adyar edition (originally published in 1938). I recommend that you use the original (1888) edition instead. IMHO the editing done in the 1893 and the 1938 editions did much more harm than good. Editions true to the original are available from Theosophy Company and Theosophical University Press. The Adyar Society also has an edition annotated by Boris de Zirkoff, which is also OK. How is your study group organized? I have taught a dozen or so SD classes over the last twenty years, experimenting with different organizational models, and have a couple of suggestions: Before starting an SD class, I recommend studying Robert Bowen's pamphlet: "How to Study the ~Secret Doctrine~." Also, I have found that students have an easier time with the SD if the read the abridgement of the SD (available from Quest books) before trying the full size version. The abridged version is only 20% the size of the full version, and reading the abridgement seems to help give the student a better grasp on the larger book when they get to it, because they now have a sense of where it is going. Another thing I found that works well, is to rotate the leadership of the class, so that each person in tern is responsible to lead the study of the next section. That person, then must take some time read the material before the class, try to come to an understanding of the material, and prepare questions and perhaps comments. One class we began in 1980 in Los Angeles just finished reading the SD from cover to cover and have started over. So it took them fifteen years to get through the book, meeting on a twice a month schedule for most of it. BB >Did HPB make up words to suit herself? Sometimes >we wonder as we can't find them explained anywhere. JHE No, but she used a lot of foreign words that might not be in a regular dictionary. Another problem is that she was writing for an educated audience; but education has changed since her times. An education person in 1880 had what we call a "classical education." To be educated back then meant that one was able to translate for Latin and Greek and spoke French. Such a person was also well read in the classics of literature and philosophy, including an education in moral philosophy. Now a days, Greek and Latin are not offered at all in most universities, and most students try to get out of taking a modern language altogether. In the California universities, two years of a language is required for a masters degree in the non sciences, and only one semester for a BA. That is not enough time to really learn a language. The philosophy requirement has been reduced to a one semester introductory course, and classical moral philosophy is no longer discussed. The theory of education during HPB's time was to give a person an awareness of our own culture and of others. From the time of the Renaissance, classical learning was the bases of civilization. In this century, the goals of education in the industrialized countries have changed. Now the goal is to gain skills in order to get a job. I was teaching writing to freshman students last year, and assigned Plato's cave allegory as their first reading. Most of the class was unable to follow what Plato was talking about, and I had to draw it out of them during class discussion. Remember, these are university students. Most of them are business or accounting majors, so outside of my English class, they probably never would have been exposed to any literature or philosophy. For us students of theosophy, we are getting an education that is broader than anything that is offered in the universities today. But our education does not prepare us for it, so the study of HPB's writings are more difficult now then they were 100 years ago. Jerry HE ------------------------------------------|Jerry Hejka-Ekins ||Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu ||and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org |------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Oct 1995 13:20:09 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Cayce I read about Cayce many many years ago (60s I think). Didn't he predict that California and Florida would fall into the oceans? I seem to recall a lot of predictions about catstophes as well as one about Atlantis rising. And, wasn't all of this supposed to have occurred during the last 25 years of this century? Only a few years left. I also seem to recall a prophecy about someone finding scrolls or something under the paws of the great Sphinx in Egpyt. While they did discover some neat boats under the Great Pyramid, I don't think anything has yet been found under the sphinx. Anyway, has anyone ever listed Cayce's correct predictions versus his misses? Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Oct 1995 13:20:10 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: re: re historical and doctrinal To Jerry HE You'd be surprised as to what I'm all catching on to, but it ain't scholasticism, for sure. I'm not fascinated by idle chatter. To Daniel C. I guess it is chaqu'un a son gout. I enjoy reading history, & historical novels, like Irving Stone, & novels about Egypt or Atlantis. But I was really disappointed when I purchased a set of tapes from Ojai, made by Hanson & Linton about the Masters. It was all history, & even though interesting, I was disappointed, because I was looking for a refresher course on the "Mahatma Letters", which was the first Theosophical book I read when I first got interested in Theosophy years ago. I need to ration out my reading time very carefully, because I don't have an overabundance of it, & I just don't get enough meat out of the theosophical history books. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Oct 1995 13:20:22 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: RE quotes by Bee B. and Liesel D. Daniel: I suspect that your 95% is a bit high as well as a subjective opinion. I also suspect that you arrive at your opinion because Paul paints them as rather ordinary human beings rather than saints. As an "oldtimer" I can really only speak for myself, and I rather liked Paul's books. I liked the 2nd one best, actually; the first being a bit dry for me. I don't feel like I was given any "misconceptions" at all. In fact, my own feeling is that making saints and water-walkers of them is a worse misconception. Daniel: I think you are over-reacting, Dan. What you are saying here is very similar to why Catholics and fundamentalists put out banned book lists. When I was in Christian Science, many years ago, I was told not to read books on yoga or Zen because they would "confuse" me and give me misconceptions. Well, I guess they were right, because I became so confused, I left Christianity altogether and haven't been back. Dan: Agreed. Dan: Such practices will put one into a mode of mental acceptance. If one is unprepared, ideas may come via kama-manas, which is the reason for the warning. However, in fairness to pranayama practices, if one is prepared or properly "initiated" then such techniques can open one up to buddhi-manas and spirituality. Pranayama, like all forms of yoga, is a double- edged sword, and must be used carefully. But please, lets don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Oct 1995 16:34:43 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Science & theosophy Don, Thanks for the quote from Dr. Hong. Enjoying your posts. Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Oct 1995 16:45:43 GMT From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Buddhism & Non-Dualism Rich, Thank you for your post on this topic. I think I understand the issues a little better now. Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Oct 1995 17:44:28 GMT From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Subject: Re: MKNIT: Perfect Selvedge Edge for Rib At 01:27 PM 10/22/95 EST, Amy Stinson wrote: > Message sent by amys@iquest.net (Amy Stinson) > >This is how I get the perfect edge to my knits (when I actually do knit) on >the Brother machine. > >Unless the yarn is very thick (for your gauge machine) set the tension dials >to the lowest tension for both beds. (all the way past 0) > >Set the "slide" lever to II on the ribber. > >Knit a zig zag row. > >Hang the comb (NO WEIGHTS...this is the secret). > >Set machine for circular knitting > >Knit circular for 3 passes at the low tension OR up it by 1 click each pass. > >Move slide lever back to I. > >Adjust tension for actual rib. > >Set machine for normal rib knitting. > >Knit the rib. > >Knit the garment piece. > >Now when you take the comb out and stretch the knit you will have a flare to >the rib. Take your double eye needle and insert it at the bottom of the rib >(where the zig zag row is) and give it a pull holding onto the top of the >rib. Repeat all the way across. > >I believe flaring is made worse by not properly setting the stitches in the >ribbed areas and they are still pulled too far horizontally. Using the >double eye needle to pull the stitches will bring them in further than if >you used a small knitting needle. > >Amy Using a fine knitting needle does the job quicker. I have become very fond of the pull through rib cast on especially for 4 ply as it makes a neat edge and does not flare. Bee Brown. > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Oct 1995 18:50:17 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Lemniscate lemniscus Bee: Couldn't find lemniscate in my dictionary either, but perhaps the word defined below is related to what HPB is saying. lemniscus (lem-nis'kes) noun plural lemnisci (-nis'i', -nis'ki', -nis'ke) Anatomy. A bundle or band of sensory nerve fibers. [Latin lemniscus, ribbon, from Greek lemniskos.] The American HeritageR Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright C 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights reserved. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Oct 1995 19:09:53 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Once again, lemniscate Bee and others: I guess my on-line dictionary isn't as good as I thought. The dictionary I found in my Chicago alley gave this definition. lemniscate - (noun) [NL lemniscata, fr. fem. of L lemniscatus "with hanging ribbons", fr. leniscus]: a figure-eight shaped curve whose equation in polar coordinates is p squared= a squared cos 2(theta) Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 1980 - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Oct 1995 19:28:02 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: another good quote, part 1 of 2 Liesel, thanks for your two quotes from "Talks on the Path of Occultism." They were both quite good. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Oct 1995 21:28:06 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: High-brow chats > What does lemniscate mean? It is on page 274 and we couldn't > find it in the dictionary. Did HPB make up words to suit herself? Sometimes > we wonder as we can't find them explained anywhere. > Kind regards, Bee> I couldn't find it either. But I think that is largely because HPB was EXTREMELY learned, spoke to a very learned audience, and a lot of those "learned" words in Victorian English have dropped out of the language, or become very obscure. Part of the problem with "the original teachings" is that they become more and more removed from the vernacular. You almost need to be a 19th century scholar to get at some of the stuff in HPB, and yet if we don't understand the Secret Doctrine, how can we carry on the work at a deep level? Only by doing our best, I think, and applying, applying applying what we do know, hoping for more light. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Oct 1995 22:41:54 GMT From: Don DeGracia <72662.1335@compuserve.com> Subject: Don 2 Leisel Liesel: I have always taken the 3rd objective to mean that we should take it upon ourselves to investigate the powers latent within ourselves. And this is exactly what I have done. Discovering your latent potentialities will not happen by having others tell you about it. What others say may serve as a catalyst, but nobody can display the truth of your inner depths to you. Only you can do that. Well, this is a good start. Taking a broader approach simply opens you up the the whole rest of the world of ideas and knowledge. What is NOT Nature? If taken broadly enough, the third objective means simply "Know thy self and the world you inhabit." < My suggestion is to write up your ideas on this, if you have the time, & submit them to the AT> I've written an entire book about it, which I did submit to Quest, but which they rejected for fear that the book will not sell. The entire book attempts to fuse scientific and theosophical ideas. It is now collecting dust on my shelf. The truth is, when your mental vision becomes inclusive enough, labels such as "science", "religion" and "philosophy" become meaningless. These are mere lables created by men with the inability to see how all ideas are interwined with one another. God did not create the universe with neat and tiddy labels on it. Labels are a man made invention, and an highly artificial one at that. I've not heard of Serge King's work. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Best regards! Don From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Oct 1995 22:42:05 GMT From: Don DeGracia <72662.1335@compuserve.com> Subject: Don 2 Eldon Eldon: Thanks, but this is still all quite intermittant. Until I graduate, my ability to get back to the email thing will be slow. This is a very good point Eldon. I would amplify this by saying that we all use technology everyday, such as cars, TV sets, computers, toothpaste and kool-aid, all of which are products of science, albeit indirectly. It is a ubiquitous force in our lives. Are you saying here that the hidden knowledge also needs to adapt? My hope is that as time moves forward, the hidden and the public knowledge will converge. Of course, we all here on the list share the general opinion that this is a cyclic phenomena. Don't get me wrong here! I am definately not saying science and philosophy are identical, not by any means. Again, this is not my intention at all. The point I was making is that, at any given moment in history, there is a philosophical "envelope" that surrounds the scientific knowledge of the day. These are the broader interpretations and significance that people give to scientific knowledge. These philosophical opinions change much more readily than the scientific ideas they are based upon. As one simple example, consider the Darwinian view of evolution. Early in this century, it was given the philosophical overtones of Social Darwanism. Nowadays, social Darwanism doesn't exist. However, the facts of biological evolution have not changed since the 1920s. More facts have been added but these have not contradicted those that existed back in the '20s. So, the philosophies change, but the science doesn't, or at least not in the same way. Philosophies come and go whereas science grows. I am suggesting, Eldon, that there are tried and proven methods of obtaining spiritual knoweldge as well. The methods of yoga have remained unchanged for over 2000 years because they work. I am saying we should apply the same rigorous tests of validity to spiritual knowledge just as we do to physical knowledge. The actual tests are of course different, but the intention is not. And the intention is to validate our beliefs through experience and not just mindlessly say things or promulgate beliefs that do nothing for people spiritually. You are exactly right that you cannot measure the nonphysical with physical devices. What this means is we must be creative and devise new methods for observing nonphysical realities. However, this situation is not cut and dry because, if the planes really do interact with each other, then we should observe physical events that correspond to nonphysical events. And indeed these do exist. If, for example, we want to interpret dream experiences as perceptions of the astral plane, well, its widely known that dreams occur during REM sleep. And REM sleep is measured by EEG machines which measure the elctricity coming from the brain. Thus, this is a physical event that corresponds to a nonphysical event. So, as I learn more, it becomes apparent to me that none of this is simple or cut and dry, and the possibilities will not be captured with simple minded ideas. The important thing is to keep our minds open and to refine our ideas because, as Pastuer is attributed with saying: "luck favors the prepared mind". These kinds of statements, Eldon, can be taken as starting hypotheses to investigate the connection between physical and nonphysical things. The braodest possible hypothesis is that nonphysical things exist. In the early 1980s, Stephen LaBerge has set up a situation in which it is now basically impossible to conclude that nonphysical things do not exist (as long as we use nonphysical in a theosophical sense). LaBerge has extensively studied the phenomena of lucid dreams. Sometimes within lucid dreams, two living people can communicate with each other *within* the lucid dream. That is to say, both people are having lucid dreams, and they meet and communicate in their lucid dreams. LaBerge has proposed experiments to test whether these people actually meet or if their communication is telepathic in some sense. Either way you go with such an experiment, you are forced to conclude that either 1: there exists some world that is not the physical world where the two lucid dreamers met and communciated, or 2. the two lucid dreamers communicated by telepathy. In either case, conventional ideas are obliterated. Thus, the state of science today is much different than it was at the turn of the century. This idea that occult facts cannot be proven is no longer relevant. Scientists (mainly psychologists) have stumbled into this arena already. My point for getting on John Algeo about his attitude is that the TS could play a constructive role and help guide scientists as they begin to explore these regions of consciousness. Whether the TS wants to do this "officially" or not really doesn't matter. People such as myself, who are in both worlds (occultism and science) are taking it upon ourselfs to draw the connections and make sure that scientists without occult training are aware that they are not the first people to have discovered these realities. I agree with this as well. The way I like to say it is that the brain has latent properties that are not widely appreciated by brain scientists. This is a very big historical question, one we can speculate about, but I doubt that sure answers are not forthcoming. I think gradually over time Humanity as a whole will increase the general level of psychic abilities. It will begin in the investigation of dreams and grow from there. It will be a slow evolution and I do not foresee a seperate subrace forming as a result. Again, I fully agree. Reductionism in and of itself is not bad. Only when it is taken too far does it become a problem. Again, the key here is balance in our thinking. This, to me, is the bottom line. Humanity is at some "average" level of evolution, but this does not stop some indivduals from going far ahead of this average. This is a truism as it goes, but the thing about true occult knowledge is that it has built in safe guards. The general scepticism of our society towards occult knowledge is a manifestation of such a safeguard. Until a person is intellectually, emotionally and morally developed enough, occult knowledge appears to them as absurd. Thus, clearly, our society as a whole is not mature enough to deal with the deeper occult secrets of knowledge. Personally, Eldon, I don't worry about it. People only see what they are capable of seeing no matter what one says or does. And , if a "monkey see monkey do" situation comes about, then the dumb monkeys will burn themselves and perhaps learn. This is exactly the case with the nuclear weapons. When I have more time I will indeed take up this question. I will close here. Best! Don From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 23 Oct 1995 23:59:44 GMT From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Subject: Re: High-brow chats >Bee, > >Why not drum up some topic you are interested in, and make it clear that >involved history and doctrine is not what you are looking for on that topic. > >There are said to be over 100 subscribers -- they might join you in chat, I >certainly would. > >I think the "high-brow" stuff if important (and you seem to also) but after >all, it's not the be-all end-all of Theosophy, is it? We in different >Theosophical backgrounds (ULT, Adyar TS, Pasadena TS, etc.) have a lot a >working out and talking to do, but there is no reason other stuff might not >be going on as well. > >Rich > Thanks for your understanding. I am interested in all Theosophy on a level that I can respond to. As I mentioned to Liesel, I would be interested to know how theosophy is 'done' in Russia, Finland etc. These people have popped in and left again. Here in Wanganui we are doing our best to keep up with the teachings and not letting them disintergrate into meaningless warm fuzzies. There is 3 of us studying the SD and last night we got to the bit in Vol 2 where HPB was talking on the solar theory and and the chemical elements and how they passed down through figure 8. Now we actually saw a little light on that and we were so delighted that we had understood the general gist. What does lemniscate mean? It is on page 274 and we couldn't find it in the dictionary. Did HPB make up words to suit herself? Sometimes we wonder as we can't find them explained anywhere. Kind regards, Bee> From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Oct 1995 00:30:51 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: forgiving your body Aki: >I have noticed that there are many similarities between ego-body >as there are between a rider and a horse. The riding is much >more fun, when the horse is happy and healthy. >I think that a body is a different being from my ego, with its own >consciousness - though ego is very closely connected to it. Purucker offers some interesting ideas that this seems to relate to. The way that we get into the next kingdom of nature is by a form of apprenticeship in the next higher kingdom. In the middle of the Fourth Round, the door into the Human Kingdom closed. At this point, it was no longer possible for animals to progress into becoming human by the end of the Seventh Round. Those animals that made it through that "door" became the Animal Monads in our constitution. They as centers of consciousness are the animal nature which our human nature, the Human Monad, uses. The "horse" that you ride is an Animal Monad in the Human Kingdom, destinated, if it continues its evolution, to be a Human Monad in its own right at the end of the Seventh Round. In a similar fashion, I suspect, in the middle of the Fifth Round the door to the lowest Dhyani-Chohanic Kingdom will close. Up to that point, it is possible to be "infilled with a God" or become the Human Monad in the constitution of a Dhyani-Chohan. For those of us that make it, we will have several Rounds of apprenticeship in the Dhyani-Chohan Kingdom, learning or getting exposure to the qualities of their consciousness, so that we eventually will become one ourselves! This experience is that of having not just an awareness of our Inner God, but an awakened Inner God that plays an active role in directing our lives. It is the actual experience of deity that religious people seek. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Oct 1995 00:40:07 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: doctrinal and historical approaches Rich: >Theosophy is simply that modern body of teachings that was presented by the >Masters through their agents in the world as "Theosophy," and I am very >committed to preserving and teaching it AS IT WAS GIVEN, even though I am >free personally to take what I like, leave what I like, supplement with what >I like. And that preservation is in *both* an intellectual understanding of the core doctrines, accurately preserving their meaning, and in a living somewhat oral tradition of the passing on of an living understanding. The written word is the exoteric aspect, the outer crust to the Teachings. Without a body of people knowledgable in the doctrines, and living the life, we are left with another body of dead literature. The "as it was given" part is in terms, I'd suggest, of a philosophy that grips the life, that grabs one's vision of the world, thundering in the ears and casting rainbows before the eyes. It *stops the world*. It becomes a practice that takes us beyond the tendency of the mind to create an objective, external world, and makes the philosophy a living reality in our lives. The intellectual study is like the quiet before the storm, the moment of peace that comes before a sense of Grand Turbulence unsettles our lives. >And so the teachings last for thousands of years. Will we be so fortunate? As long as we maintain an *living link* with the Work. That link arises not only in the mind, but also in the heart, and yet deeper within. It must be real enought to completely undo our Western worldview and put radiance behind all things. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Oct 1995 01:07:18 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: re: historical and doctrinal Jerry S: >John, this explains exactly why Rich's desire to preserve >the "teaching AS IT WAS GIVEN" must eventually come to naught. >The seed must either bloom into something else, or die. It has no >other options, no matter how hard we want to preserve it. All >of the world's religions eventually discover this, though it may >take thousands of years. Thus the need for periodic Messengers. You're right, unfortunately, since all movements have their eventual end, and new Messengers need to be sent out by the Lodge. This is speaking, though, of the Theosophical Movement as an exoteric body or organization in the world. As an organization, it has its respective lifecycle. The timeless teachings themselves, though, do not ride this lifecycle, only their exoteric garb, the culture-specific words that they are clothed in. As individuals, we can enaged a spiritual practice, and get at the lifeblood of the Teachings, and use them to brighten our world and the world about us. This is regardless of the status of the external movement. Seeing that the Theosophical Movement continues, remains healthy, and is of public benefit, is a noble work. It's something that we should share responsibility for, having benefited from it. Our baby, though, will grow up, leave home, grow old, and die one day. Still, though, we love it, and work to see that it has its day in the world. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Oct 1995 04:22:09 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Re: Various comments made by Eldon and Jerry HE Thanks Jerry HE and Eldon for your most interesting dialogue. I'm sure many people on theos-l are finding your discussion most thought provoking. JHE writes: "Nor has their [the Masters'] existence been proved." Eldon comments: "Not proven, perhaps, *to you*. But there are different definitions of proof. Consider that in the American judicial system. The highest standard is `without a shadow of doubt'. This is used in criminal trials. If there exists a single doubt, the indictment is thrown out." Eldon, I'm afraid you have a misunderstanding here. The standard in a criminal case is "BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT." That is, is the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Or in other words, in light of the evidence presented, is there a reasonable doubt that he is guilty? If there is a reasonable doubt, then the defendant should be found NOT GUILTY. You write: "If there exists a single doubt, the indictment is thrown out." This is true IF you mean REASONABLE doubt. But the law states that all human endeavors are subject to doubt, that is, *possible* doubt. But a possible doubt or any doubt is not necessarily reasonable doubt. You can have UNREASONABLE doubt. And that is why the emphasis is on *reasonable* in the phrase "reasonable doubt." So the phrase "guilty beyond any doubt" is NOT the same as "guilty beyond reasonable doubt." NOr does "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" mean that you have to be 100% certain of the defendant's guilt. So in a criminal case, you can have doubts but you must ask: "Are these reasonable doubts?" And are these doubts mere *posssibilities*? Is there any evidence to support these doubts? Eldon writes: A lower standard is `the preponderance of evidence', and it is used in civil lawsuits...." This is true and the standard is lower than in a criminal case. In the O.J. Simpson trial, a doubt was raised: "Is it possible that Mark Furhman, the racist cop, planted the glove at O.J.'s estate?" Now, the answer would have to be: YES, it is POSSIBLE that Furhman planted the glove. YES, is is *possible* but to say that does not mean that he planted the glove. I could also say YES it is also POSSIBLE that Furhman did NOT plant the glove. Both cases are equally possible in the theoretical realm. But the deciding question is: Is there any evidence to point toward or even suggest that Fuhrman planted the glove. That is the issue that the jury must grapple with in deciding about the doubt and reasonable doubt raised by the suggestion that Fuhrman planted the glove. All human endeavors are suggest to doubt. That doesn't mean that the doubt is real, reasonable and substantiated. but just that there is room for possible doubt. Jerry HE writes: "Nor has their existence been proved." that is the existence or reality of the Masters of HPB. Proof is a word subject to much debate and can mean different things to different people. As a historian of Theosophy, I would say that a case can be made for the existence of the Mahatmas. That is, I believe, there is more than enough evidence to "prove" the existence of HPB's Masters. No not proof beyond any doubt or UNreasonale doubt. But a good case can be made for their existence based on the evidence and I would say that a reasonable case can be made. Or to say it differently or with less certainly, the preponderance of evidence would indicate that a reasonable case can be made for the reality and existence of HPB's teachers. And the evidence I speak of is the cumulative testimony given by those witnesses during HPB's lifetime who saw and/or talked with the Masters. Now I'm sure someone will ask how we can believe these testimonies? But this sketical view is always a problem in any human endeavor, especially in historical inquiries. Here is a relevant quote: "Facing the doubtful in all Reports" "`But,' says the skeptic, `you were not there. All you know is what others choose to tell you---in memoirs, newspapers, and your other vaunted evidences. How can you be sure? Most people are notoriously bad observers; some are deliberate or unconscious liars; there is no such thing as a perfect witness. And yet you naively trust any casual passerby, and on his say-so you proclaim: `This is what happened.'" Now this quote is not from some work skeptical of psychic phenomena. This quote is not by a skeptical writer or academic viewing those theosophical testimonies of encounters with etherial Masters. This quote is dealing with "plain" history (no parnormal, no Theosophy, etc.) and is extracted from THE MODERN RESEARCHER written by two historians, Jacques Barzun and Henry F. Graff. Barzun's and Graff's reply to the skeptic of history is as follows: "Except for the words `nairvely trust,' everything said above is true. But in its effort to discredit history it proves too much. The key sentences are `You were not there' and `There is no such thing as a perfect witnesss'. Granting the force of these two statements, what follows? *It is that if any of us had been there, there would simply have been one more imperfect witness on the scene. We might be convinced that our vision, our recollection, our interpretation was *the* right one, but other witnesses would still feel no less certain about theirs.*" There is no 100% proof of anything. There is no scientific test or medical test that is 100% accurate all the time in all places and circumstances. There are no 100% perfect "scientific" witnesses or observers. There are no perfect witnesses of historical events. But having said all that, that doesn't mean one can't have a reasonable degree of proof, an accurate medical test, etc. etc. Eldon writes: "The [the Masters] can be presumed to exist....With the Masters, we can likewise have a necessary place for them in the Teachings, and someday progress to the point where they are proven *to us*, by our personal experience...." What does Eldon mean by "our personal experience"? I have a friend who has seen in meditative states and even in his waking state, Rebazar Tarzs, one of the Eckankar Masters made famous to the public by Paul Twitchell. Rebazar was not physically in the room with my friend, but his "astral body" [??] seemed to be there. My friend could close his eyes and he would not see the Eck Master. AGain he would open his eyes and Rebazar was still there! For years my friend was convinced that because of his personal experience, Rebazar was real and Paul Twitchell was a genuine messenger of this Masters and of other Masters. Nowadays, my friend is not so sure that Rebazar is real. In fact, he has come to beleive that Rebazar is some sort of "thought form" that was induced in my friend's subconscious by reading books on Eckankar and by meditation. David Lane's book exposing Paul Twitchell as a fraud first got my friend rethinking his own assumptions and his own personal experiences. Should we or do we accept 100% all of our own personal experiences? I beleive we should examine critically our own experiences as much as we would be inclined to examine critically another person's personal experiences? Must close for now. Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Oct 1995 04:49:17 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: To Bee B. Thanks, Bee, for your postings on your lodge work in New Zealand. I find all of it very interesting. Keep up the good work! My only point on history (concerning quotes given by you and Liesel) was that history can given us a valuable and wonderful perspective on so many things and so many subjects. I agree that writers on history may be wrong on this or that or may distort this or that. What subject is exempt from such limitations and biases? My point was that a knowledge of history can enrich our lives by expanding our perspectives and perceptions. A knowledge of Theosophical history can also widen our perspectives on Theosophy. I think this is part of what Jerry HE has been trying to convey over many months. Sorry if I attributed the quote to you. My comments were directed more toward those on theos network who seem to be somewhat "a-historical" at least when it comes to Theosophy. ACtually we all do history and historical research everyday of our personal lives. We wake up each morning and reconstruct a own personal history and through out the day we do historical research (we don't call it that) answering such questions as "Who left the cap off the toothpaste?" or "Who threw that baseball through my living room window?", etc. We are continally reconstructing historical events and asking Who? Where? When? Why? We just don't call it "history" or "historical research" and we don't get PhDs and spent our professional life doing "history". P.S. to Jerry HE. I think some of us have found your descriptions of how you conduct class on Theosophy and the S.D. quite interesting. Could you maybe give us more insights based on your years of teaching Theosophy? Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Oct 1995 00:01:37 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: historical and doctrinal JHE: >My point is that the commonality of the Organizational >definitions of theosophy suggest the existence of a body of >teachings. I am not disputing the existence of those teachings >here. Given that we agree that there is a body of teachings, we must ask, what are they? The difficult task would be to define them sufficiently in words to distinguish what they are, without burying them in the dead-letter of dogmatism. >>Or that since there is >>freedom of thought, that anyone's views, based on the teachings >>or in total disagreement of them, may be taught >Yes, and this argument has often been used to justify >activities and classes in Lodges that go far afield of what one >normally thinks of as "theosophy." Perhaps we should make a distinction between what *may be taught* or studied at a theosophical lodge and what *is taught as Theosophy*. A theosophical group has the freedom to explore any avenue of learning. It just gets into trouble when it starts teaching *as Theosophy* anything that its members happen to think. >As I understand it, part of >the objection Wheaton expressed concerning Boston Lodge was that >its activities were "new age" rather than "theosophical." There does need to be, I'd think, something theosophical taught in a T.S. lodge. This does not mean that a particular belief is imposed upon its members from the overall organization. But its members should have some exposure to the theosophical teachings, so that they do not misrepresent it to the general public. This gets, though, into the difficult idea of what should *qualify* someone for membership. With an open membership policy, anyone of any belief can join. This is the policy of the Adyar T.S. Other theosophical groups like the School for the Study of the Esoteric Philosohy in the Netherlands requires prospective members to attend classes and after they have demonstrated a knowledge of Theosophy, they are *invited* to join. >Yet by the very loose definitions that the Adyar Society has for >theosophy leaves them wide open for this kind of problem. The >Danish section was expelled because of a devotion to Alice >Bailey. This gets into a definite problem area. With an open membership policy, anyone can join. If a majority of members in a National Section believe in Alice Bailey, they will teach her materials to the public as part of the theosophical literature. The same could happen with followers of Maharishi (founder of TM), the I AM group, or any other New Age belief system -- if a majority of members believe in one such group, and they also believe in Theosophy, they may confuse the two and teach, say, TM as Theosophy from a theosophical platform. >If studied according to her own guide lines, HPB's writings >need not to be at all limiting. She warned against making her >writings a dogma, as we both know. Agreed. And Purucker makes a good distinction between dogma and doctrine. Dogma is a required belief, to which a member of a group must accept without question. Doctrine is a concept, an explanation, a teaching, that explains and describes, but does not pronounce. It's not really possible to speak of Theosophy as dogmas, since the written literature falls short of the actual Mystery Teachings. The words on the printed page cannot convey the occult truths, which we are told in "The Mahatma Letters" require the proper state of receptivity and inner readiness in order to be communicated. When Theosophy is spoken of in terms of dogmas, the outer descriptions or exoteric garb of the Teachings is being taken as literal truth, and we're praising the wine bottle without tasting its contents. On the other hand, when Theosophy is spoken of in terms of doctrines, we open the door to relativism and the loss of the original Teachings, buried in generations of metaphysical speculations. What we really need, if it would be possible, is a delicate balance between dogma and doctrine, with people in charge of our organizations that are trained in the Philosophy and able to apply the wisdom of Solomon to the organizational problems that arise at times. >I think it is also >significant that in the ~Key~ she specifies that every Lodge >should have a library containing the religious and philosophical >classics. There's value in reading Plato, the Gita, the Kabala, etc. This would come after a basic study of Theosophy, and alongside a continued study of the theosohical Teachings. Why? Because Theosophy offers a key (or rather many keys) to revealing much of what is hidden in those great works of world philosophy and world religion. >Surely she did not want this for the purpose of >decorating the walls, but to fulfill the second object of the TS. It's a useful object. But the objects have changed at times. How would we word those objects today, if we could rewrite them? Would we possible add a few new ones to the list? >I submit that the study of theosophy is much more than the >reading of books published by the theosophical organizations. True. And that the study is much more than the reading of books. It is an inner practice, a spiritual process, an attempt to awaken the student to the Path. The study of karate involves training and practice sessions. The study of Zen involves sitting zazen. And the study of Theosophy involves awakening the inner teacher and the sense of the divine in our everyday life; e.g. the approach to chelaship. >I ... would always use the big 't' [with "Theosophy"] considering >Theosophy to be a religious philosophy or the Wisdom Religion. >I believe that the distinction that you are pointing out is >a rather recent one that probably surfaced no earlier than the >mid 1980's. Before that time, big "t" and little "t" theosophy >was understood as I had described it. Ask any of the old timers >at Wheaton. Ok. That definition says "Theosophy" is "our stuff" and "theosophy" is "sounds like our stuff". That's another way to use the word. (But not how I'd use it.) >However, the newer definition ["theosophy" is a belief system >and "Theosophy" is divine truth itself] is evidence of the >growing confusion, since it drifts further from the original >understandings of the word "theosophy" and further confounds it >with the distinction HPB makes with "truth" and "TRUTH." It should not be confused with that distinction. Theosophy is fragmentary doctrines and knowledge from the Mahatmas, and is based upon the highest and most advanced materials that humanity currently has. That knowledge is not absolute truth, but is one relative, finite step closer to the truth. Absolute Truth cannot be approached by going "bigger", because no matter how wise a Dhyani-Bodhisattva or Logos we may find, over however grand a cosmic system, there will be yet bigger schemes of existence and wiser beings. There is no top, in terms of the manifest worlds, in terms of *suchness* or Idam. The top is approached in another direction, towards *emptiness* or the Unknowable, Tat. It's not really a "top" because there's no "up" or "down", nor any other attribute. It is the purest state of being unmanifest, and is equally approachable (and equally unapproachable) from beings from all schemes of existence, however grand or humble they may be. >>When someone is authorized by the Masters to present to the >>public certain occult knowledge, that could be considered >>revelation. >It is this "revelation" that has been so close to the >underlying causes of the fragmentation of theosophy and >theosophical organizations into so many camps. True. Some are real, others are self-deluded or pretenders. Until the day when the Mahatmas walk openly among us, and speak for themselves, we have this problem. Daniel H. may face the same problem with the Bible. How is he to know when other writers speak the same divine truths, when so many people, often in contradiction, write their differing ideas? He could chose to ignore everything else, and solely study the Bible, or develop sufficient spiritual insight to tell what is authentic for himself. >HPB tried to >downplay her teachers (notice that none of her teachings are by >the authority of Master so and so). The Mahatmas tried to >impress their humanness and fallibility to Sinnett. She did not say she was speaking on the authority of the Masters. But she did say that her writings came from their teachings, like that the Stanzas of Dzyan were not something that she made up. And we're read how the handwritten manuscript of The Secret Doctrine was at times corrected in the handwriting of some of her Masters, while she slept. The Masters are human and fallible, yet there is something more to them. And they are at but one step along an evolutionary spectrum that leads to the Dhyani-Buddhas and yet higher! >Yet AB and CWL played the master card, and teachings were issued >under their authority. When someone is speaking for the Masters, that is what they are doing. This is regardless of whether they tell us that or not. Were Annie Besant and Charles Leadbeater speaking for the Masters? When I was young, I used to think so. Many of us still do. Issuing teachings under the authority of the Masters is like a preacher speaking for the word of God, when really just presenting personal religious views. It's a way to stifle dissent, to tell others to shut up, to originate dogma. Again, we come back to the issue of telling the pretenders apart from the real Teachers. In a Mystery Temple there may be a Hierophant that is justifiably empowered to speak with authority. And in a spiritual center a bona fide Guru may likewise be empowered. >However, the sudden appearance of teachings under the authority >of the Masters is for me, an alarm to be cautious. I would be skeptical of anything I come across bearing such claims, because of what they've said in "The Mahatma Letters" regarding wanting to avoid the public eye. We've seen what can happen by the example in Japan. The "Om Supreme Truth" group has a leader with such claims, and led his followers to kill people in subways with poison gas. >>We cannot, though, deny the Masters, when and where they actually >>work, simply because there are so many pretenders and impostors >>in the world. >Nor has their existence been proved. Not proven, perhaps, *to you*. But there are different definitions of proof. Consider that in the American judicial system. The highest standard is "without a shadow of a doubt". This is used in criminal trials. If there exists a single doubt, the indictment is thrown out. The scientific equalivant is the "null hypthoesis", which we are trying to reject in every possible way. A lower standard is "the preponderance of evidence", and it is used in civil lawsuits. In this case, there can be doubts, but if the scales tip in a particular direction, where the weight of evidence is higher in that direction -- that side wins the suit. Most of want we know is accepted by the lower standard. There are few things in life that we are totally without doubt regarding, that we know with absolute certainity. >From a philosophical standpoint, there is a logical necessity for the existence of the Masters. Consider the advances in modern physics. There may be the logical necessity (as proposed from theory) for the existence of certain subatomic particles. They can be presumed to exist. We then devise experiments that eventually lead to the observation or experimental proof of the existence of those particles. With the Masters, we can likewise have a necessary place for them in the Teachings, and someday progress to the point where they are proven, *to us*, by our personal experience. But that proof will not become part of the public knowledge, and proof for others, since the Masters desire their existence to remain unproven to the general public. >We could have an open discussion comparing the >HPB model to the Purucker model, for instance. >Yet, the point is that such discussion is >impossible when the discussion rests upon the undisclosed biases >that one is of a superior revelation than the other. That is why it is important to know the person we are talking to. We can take their biases into account when interacting with them. This is different that one aspect of the ULT approach, where they resort too often to "this student" rather than name from a public platform, or "A Student" rather than byline on published articles. Regardling "undisclosed biases", we first have to consider what is a bias. It is an inclination to take sides or grant the benefit of doubt to a source we consider authoritative. If we openly state what we consider our authorities, then nothing is undisclosed. Regarding "bias", we are, I'd suggested, biased or predisposed to consider Blavatsky as correct, and Crowley as in error. This is based upon our respective impressions of the different sources. There's nothing wrong with this. We continue to give different weight to the writings of different people until our evaluation of those sources changes and we see them differently. For myself, I'd consider Purucker on an equal basis with Blavatsky as a representative and source of teachings from the Masters. That is my bias or my granting of authority or status to them. Your evaluation of them may be different, that that is your bias. I would not consider either one as superior to the other in terms of "revelation", but would carefully consider any differences between their writings, and judicate in my own mind any apparent conflicts. >First we need to level the playing field by bringing out >into the open biases and assumptions. For instance your >statement: "For these we'd consider how Purucker expanded upon >what HPB had said..." already reveals the assumption that GdP >"expanded" upon what HPB said." Yes, I consider Purucker in the same light as Blavatsky. >That would have to be discussed since it represents am assumption >that probably contrasts with those held by the HPB student. It might conflict with the assumption by the Blavatsky-only student. Students of Purucker like Boris de Zirkoff, Geoffrey Barborka, and Gordon Plummer might disagree with the assumption that to study Blavatsky is to reject Purucker. >>The fact that there are some differences does not mean that one >>of the two represents the Masters and the other does not. >Or, this very conjecture may be a rationalization to justify >the (alleged) differences. We have to watch our thinking on many >levels. Granted, that there are many possible explanations for the differences. We have to use discrimination and determine if someone is a trained Chela, teaching on behalf of the Masters, or is not. An examination of the differences in what they say is one way help make this determination. >>We examine the differences then make a choice. It's a separate choice as >>to *which* individuals are representatives of the Masters. >Because the playing field was not evened out in the beginning. I'm not sure what would be a level playing field? When any New Age writer is accepted (or rejected) on an equal basis as an equally qualified candidate to sit alongside Blavatsky on our theosophical bookshelves? Saying "Blavatsky only" is like Daniel saying "Bible only", and begs the question but discards everything new in the world, accepting only classical philosophers and religious figures. >>>The second problem is when the student creates a >>>unique model out of the pieces of several other models. >>This would be an example of one's personal understanding, that if >>taught as such is fine. >Making clear that the model is such a personal compilation >is a first step in leveling that playing field. There seems to be an assumption here that what we know can only come from external sources, like the books we read, the authors we respect, the schools of thought that we belong to. Knowledge can come from with, be authentic, and allied with the Theosophy that Blavatsky taught. We just need to be clear regarding whether it came *from within*, or it is our current idea, or that we externally read it. (Here I'm making a distiction of *three* sources, not two, as in personal views versus external learning.) >Awareness of our changing beliefs is important too--in the >evaluation of our own ideas. That evaluation helps us achieve a degree of objectivity about our beliefs, allowing us to develop greater flexibility of mind. That does not mean that our beliefs are untrue, or that we should not hold strong beliefs, belifs that have a profound effect in our lives. What it means is that we keep a high degree of freshness to the belifs, rethinking them anew each time, continually at risk of coming out differently each time they are revisited. >Ideas themselves are born out of a background of beliefs >and values. We have to understand those beliefs and values to >fully understand those ideas. This is part of the process of self-discovery. We understand how our mind works to create "the objective world", and learn how to "stop the world" at times. Granted that our personality, including the language that we speak, and our belief system, is taken from the cultural context of the world, the subrace that we belong to. But we *can* rise above it, and inwardly learn and progress in advance of the external society. >>The historical aspect may ... help explain why [Besant's] books >>may differ from each other a bit. But what does this buy us? >It "buys us" insight into where Besant got her ideas; how >she regarded them; how and why they came to be accepted; who and >what was a major influence upon her; etc. This helps us evaluate the experiences of her life, but it does not tell us which books were more true, and the degree of accuracy from an occult standpoint of what she taught. Occultism or the Esoteric Philosophy does not change from one decade to the next, even though its exponents may. >This background of >information gives us a foundation to evaluate her ideas far >beyond the "they feel right to me" way of measuring ideas. This background lets us evaluate her personal relationship with Theosophy and to comment on the value of her different books. It provides the appearance of objectivity, which allows for a scholarly evaluation. But an understanding of the Teachings, apart from an initial intellectual study of the general doctrines, requires some inner development and resulting personal insight. It's not something that can be argued from an historical standpoint because it goes beyond what can be written down in a book meant for public consuption. >whether or not ideas "feel right" is most more likely an >emotional decision than an intuitive one. My observation is that >most people don't make much of a distinction between the two. There are other ways that we can recognize and accept occult truths. My understanding of how occultism is taught is that the student is brought to the necessary state of receptivity, so that the student can *originate the idea from within*. This is done rather than simply telling ideas, because the ideas are better learned, and the student is being trained to awaken his inner teacher. A good example is when a scientist has an brilliant flash, and realizes something grand in but a moment. It may take years to write about and prove that insight of a moment. When a theosophical writer is effective, he leads us to this experience frequently in our studies. If that writer is writing about Theosophy, what appears in the books "rings true" to us. We get a feel for the source of the writings, there's a definite "thought current" that can be detected behind certain writings that bears the stamp of the same source. >Our current situation is >a child of the past. If we have no past, then there is no >context for the present. We must be cogniscent of both. We have a past, and it provides a degree of stability to the present. The past does not cause the present, because the past does not exist. The effects of the past are found in the present, but the past does not reach forward and fashion us in this moment. We carry the effects of the past in ourselves, and determine, to a degree, how those effects are incorporated in our lives. >>The doctrines ... are much more than the >>mere words on the printed page, which can leave us empty-handed, >>but they don't consist of organizational propaganda. >They did not start out a "organizational propaganda", but >once ideas are embraced by an organization, they by necessity >become so. Perhaps we're using "propaganda" in a negative sense, when it doesn't have to be a negative thing. We certainly have as a goal the dissemination (progagation) of the Teachings. We're not trying to keep them to ourselves. When we say that "propaganda" is the material that we intend to propagate, then what we've learned of Theosophy can be positively called such. >It is the historical approach that side steps the >"organizational propaganda" aspect in order to look at the >teachings. But we're not looking at the Teachings per se when we consider them as a historical phenomena and see them chaning over times, and as the product of various individuals. We're looking at the Teachings when we consider them as a body of thought in their own right, apart from any exponent of them, in whatever historic period. >If we want to know what people were being taught in 1880, 1883, >or 1908, that would be useful. But more important is what we're >being taught and teaching others in 1995. We should concern >ourselves with its quality. >If you want to teach theosophical doctrine, then this is >fine. No historical understanding of the teachings in necessary. Agreed. >Just read the books and parrot the teachings until you can put >them into your own words. This had been done for years and is >IMHO DEAD. It is only *the first step* to a study of Theosphy, and if nothing follows, it is dead. The intellectual study of the books is a prerequesite to Theosophy as a spiritual practice. We contemplate the words then *go beyond them*. The movement is dead when there is no one taking this second step. And we are left empty-handed with the dead literature of the past should we come to the point where there's no one left to show us the way, to pass on or inspire in us this "fire of mind". >I taught theosophy this way for many years, and >don't teach it this way any more. Without teaching anything more than the intellectual learning of doctrines, you would be faced with the question: What do we do with this stuff once we've learned it? The teachings go hand-in-hand with a *process* of inner work that both provides insight into life and self-transformation and self-genesis. What we are approaching is the awakening of chelaship in the would-be students. >>The only way to know for sure is to undertake the Path >>ourselves and come to other ways of validating *to ourselves* >>what is correct. >Yours is a good doctrinal approach. We cannot otherwise know, "without the shadow of a doubt," the inner nature of life. >>If we were to say that the teachings change from year to year, >>that would imply that they are being made up in an ad hoc >>fashion, which I would disagree with. I would rather consider >>them being progressively put into words, in a Western language, >>over time. >Can you prove that somebody had not "made up in an ad hoc >fashion" these teachings? No. Not "without a shadow of a doubt". Nor likely by "the preponderance of evidence." The approach that I'd have to take would be mostly descriptive, rather than authoritative, and leave it to others to accept or reject what I say based upon how it appeals to them. I don't think that Theosophy needs to be "proven" to people. There will be a natural appeal to some people. Some will come to it and have an instinctive appeal. The appeal will be at a more primal level than simply a rational argument, although a rational case can be made for it. The appeal is to a part of our nature that is pre-thought or Buddhic, although it also provides satisfaction to the mind. >Of course you can't. True. Just as I cannot prove color to someone without eyesight. I can talk about it, and explain what it is, but without the actual experience what I say is received as but a theory. >Is it important whether they we "made up" or not? >From a doctrinal point of view--yes. From a historical point >of view--no. This is an important difference, if we're concerned with truth, with what is real, with actual occult teachings, and not just with observing the history of occult groups and writers. >From an historical approach, the questions of veracity; >how people are affected by the teachings; and how one >is personally affected by the teachings are the important >questions. This is the argument that it does not matter what one believes, nor what one thinks, just so long as it affects one for the better. It is found in relativism, where everyone's beliefs are considered on an equal basis, as equally true. I'd disagree. I'd suggest that it *does* matter what one believes, since those beliefs affect one's inner growth, relate to the direction that one takes in life, and strongly bias any psychical experiences to be had by that person. And the beliefs Whether or not they are true is important for a *practicioner* of Theosophy, althought it is a moot point for a scholar on the outside. >teachings were "progressively put into words..." is a >belief that cannot be confirmed by ordinary experience. Nor can reincarnation and karma, the creation of the world by a series of emanations, nor the true nature of mind. There is much to the world that cannot be confirmed by ordinary experience, but requires a spiritual practice for confirmation. Until or without that practice, we have theory rather than technique, hypothesis rather than proof, a belief system rather than an experiential description of life. >Personally, I prefer as much as possible not to lean on >that which I cannot confirm. Except where your "reasoned certainity" comes into play, where you have granted the status of authority to someone that you are studying, based upon your assumption that the teacher in question knows that he or she is talking about. >If and when I learn to astral project to the snowy Himalayas and >have tea with the Mahachohan every other thursday afternoon, I'll >let you knom. Now here's something that I would have trouble with, were you to say this. If you *really* did such a thing, you'd likely know to keep your mouth shut, and not say a word about. >>It does not take into account that less teachings were available >>at first, and that both further teachings along with possible >>error were introducted over time since then. >Right. But more importantly, doctrine within a vacuum >creates a canon of dead letter teachings. If the teachings take shape over time, is the canon that is being formulated arbitrary, and without substance, or is it a more complete expression of Theosophy taking shape? If you're writing an article, the first few paragraphs don't convey the full meaning, and the article may not take shape for many pages. With Theosophy, a partial expression of the Esoteric Philosophy, it may take several generations to take shape as a body of thought in the West. >>But for us, *as individuals*, we >>are not limited by what is available to the public in this or any >>particular generation. We are only limited by the depth of our >>spiritual practice and how far our studies take us. >Yet we have the published writings to indicate the nature of >that practice. To an extent the practice is outlined in the published writings. But also, the practice is self-initiated, and comes from taking additional steps in our lives, steps belong the intellectual study of the source writings. >>But it does not deal with the question: "what are the Mystery >>Teachings and how can a student approach them today?" > It not only deals with this question, but gives context to it. Dealing with the question involves *understanding* the Mysteries, which is something more than the understanding of the beliefs of a particular culture or time period. How the Mysteries are approached is a combination of *content* and *process*, Teachings and spiritual practice, and takes us beyond the books and speechs given from the lecture platform. The Mysteries take us out of our historic context; they don't originate within that context. >>History tells us how we got >>here, the geneology of ideas, but in the doctrine we have the >>treasury of what is now known, and working with that treasury >>leads us into the future. >Yes And there's much to history that will never meet our eyes. That's the history and geneology of ideas of the Mahatmas, something not to be found in our history books nor public archives. >>Instead of history dealing with the evolution (or >>degeneration) of ideas over time, we're now talking >>about taking ideas inside or outside of their cultural context. >Yes. It is the historical understanding that gives the >context. And this is one thing that distinguishes the occult or Mysteries from popular thought. The former is hidden, apart from (and going far beyond) the popular state of things; the later is what is readily available to the common man, until feeling a need for something more and beginning his spiritual quest. >>Since Theosophy deals with timeless truths, and with things that >>go far beyond our current cultural context, they would of >>necessity be doctrines. And since when we initiate our personal >>evolution, and step outside the cultural norms, we're personally >>outside that context in our inner lives, if not the outer lives. >>The popular conception of Theosophy may change, and when viewed >>as a social phenomena, could be considered in a historic sense, >>but the living truths are an entirely different matter! >This is a classic doctrinal position you are presenting >here, and is not what HPB had presented. I'm not sure where you would disagree, or think that HPB would disagree with this. Does Blavatsky think that Theosophy was made up, and a product of our culture? According to HPB, in "The Secret Doctrine", I, 272-3: ] The Secret Doctrine is the accumulated Wisdom of the Ages, ] and its cosmogony alone is the most stupendous and elaborate system ] ... This is the accumulated Wisdom of the Ages, not a culture specific product. ] The flashing gaze of those seers has penetrated into the ] very kernel of matter, and recorded the soul of things there, where ] an ordinary profane, however learned, would have perceived but the ] external work of form. ... The Adepts have learned of things that go far beyond our world of forms. ] It is useless to say that the system in question is no fancy ] of one or several isolated individuals. That it is the ] uninterrupted record covering thousands of generations of Seers ] whose respective experiences were made to test and to verify the ] traditions passed orally by one early race to another, ... of the ] teachings of higher and exalted beings, who watched over the ] childhood of Humanity. ... The system is not made up, and is not the product of isolated individuals. It is an oral tradition, passed on from one generation of Adepts to the next. ] How did they do so? It is answered: by checking, testing, ] and verifying in every department of nature the traditions of old ] by the independent visions of great adepts; i.e., men who have ] developed and perfected their physical, mental, psychic, and ] spiritual organizations to the utmost possible degree. The knowledge is proven anew with each generation. ] No vision of one adept was accepted till it was checked and ] confirmed by the visions--so obtained as to stand as independent ] evidence--of other adepts, and by centuries of experiences. And new knowledge is not accepted into the Master's body of thought until proven by centuries of experience. This sounds in a way like the scientific methodology, except that the repeatable experiment is in the experience of other adepts. It doesn't sound like we're talking about a culture-specific body of thought. >Even those "living >truths" were communicated in an historical and cultural context >of Christianity and its relationship to gnosticism. Agreed that the manner of communication is customized to the specific culture. But the *content*, the Teachings, are not culture-specific, just the exoteric garb. >HPB explores magic, science and phenomena through an historical >context. My assumption is that she was doing this to show the universality of the philosophy, rather than showing it as the product of this culture or that culture. >In the flowering and oppression of the theosophical movement through >the cultures over the centuries. The teachings are one by one >discussed through the comparison and contrast of historical >religions and cultures ancient and modern. We can observe the flowering and oppression of the movement during different historic periods. And we can contrast the beliefs held at each time with the theosophical doctrines. Blavatsky will state when the Esoteric Philosophy agrees with or disagrees with the views of various religions and peoples. She is teaching the timeless truths, and showing us that they can be found throughout the world and throughout the ages. She is also telling us when the various religions and philosophies are wrong. Blavatsky is talking from an established body of doctrines, and contrasting them with popular views. >~The Key to >Theosophy~ opens with an account of the relationship of theosophy >to neo-platonism. In fact, take any of HPB's books or articles >and you will find the subject matter in each of them to be >treated in a historical way. Even ~The Voice of the Silence~, >which is a translation, has footnotes explaining the teachings in >a historical and cultural contexts. This is for the purpose of showing the universality of the Wisdom Tradition. I don't think that her intent was to indicate that the theosophical doctrines were the byproduct of their respective ages. >Whether or not Plato's archetypes are "real in their own >right" is a matter of debate, as the transcendental reality of >the teachings. True. Some people with "believe in" Theosophy, others will remain skeptics. Much of Theosophy is only subject to proof by "living the life", and remains unprovable otherwise. >One may come to that personal realization, but to >accept this transcendent view of theosophy from the start is a >doctrinal and religious approach. Agreed. When someone accepts Theosophy as a belief, before it is proven in his life, it acts as a form of religion. But not everything is first proven *in this lifetime*. Some people are drawn to Theosophy because of a natural affinity; they have found it proven in their lives ages ago, and are drawn to it yet again in this lifetime because they recognize something special in it. >IMHO it is better to begin one's study of theosophy in a >historical context and not as a revelation. As one's >understanding of the ideas grow, then one >will come to deeper realizations concerning them. I'd put this last statement a bit differently. An intellectual study of Theosophy provides an important foundation for a later spiritual practice. But since each person is different, some may rush into a practice, because of instictively knowing what to do, resuming an inner work left off in another life. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Oct 1995 07:57:09 GMT From: Aki Korhonen Subject: Re: forgiving your body Hello Liesel and the others. On Mon, 23 Oct 1995, Liesel F. Deutsch wrote: .. > "Forgiveness, A Bold Choice for a Peaceful Heart" > by Robin Casarjian, Bantam, 1992. > > The book covers a number of people & things to forgive to be able to > feel more at one with oneself. Making peace & friends with your body > & body parts is done with a different technique in Harry's book, but ... Thank you for sharing that. I found your quote very meaningful. I think that my body is a living and sensing being (- as it/I of course am). But I, as an individual, ego can inhabit this body in many ways - to force it to do many things, to harm it, - or to co-operate with it. I have noticed that there are many similarities between ego-body as there are between a rider and a horse. The riding is much more fun, when the horse is happy and healthy. I think that a body is a different being from my ego, with its own consciousness - though ego is very closely connected to it. Our body is most essential to us - if you remove a ordinary person's body his/her manifestations and consciousness disappear at the same time. The Tibetan buddhists say; a human body is the most precious thing, that the Self can get. It is very difficult to get and very easy to lose. Peace. aki korhonen. Rovaniemi, Finland. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Oct 1995 08:07:31 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Cayce Jerry S.: >I read about Cayce many many years ago (60s I think). Didn't >he predict that California and Florida would fall into the oceans? >I seem to recall a lot of predictions about catastrophes as well >as one about Atlantis rising. And, wasn't all of this supposed >to have occurred during the last 25 years of this century? Only >a few years left. I don't have the books anymore with the exact dates, but I do remember that sometime in the early 80's the ARE started to back pedal on the predictions. They came out and said that those catastrophes don't HAVE to happen. That prayer and the raising of humanity's consciousness could change the course of events. I have been out of touch with the ARE for a few years, so I don't know the prevailing attitudes. Geologists have been predicting the "big one" for California for several years and some people have been scared enough by the last quakes to move to other states, so you don't really need Cayce for this one. I hear there are alligators walking the flooded streets in southern Florida. There's been so much rain down there that I wonder if the state could become uninhabitable by simply turning into one giant swamp. (What happens to Disney World?) My husband and I watch this closely because most of his relatives live in northern FL. His parents have discouraged us from visiting because their trailers are surrounded by deep mud. They've had their cars towed out to the front road and they wear boots to go from their trailer to the car. Cayce said that Atlantis was located near Bimini, east of Florida. The ARE journals used to feature articles about Dr. Zink, who was exploring this area. >I also seem to recall a prophecy about someone finding >scrolls or something under the paws of the great Sphinx >in Egypt. While they did discover some neat boats under >the Great Pyramid, I don't think anything has yet been found >under the sphinx. Anyway, has anyone ever listed Cayce's >correct predictions versus his misses? I attended an ARE conference at a downtown Chicago hotel back in the 70's, at which an excited and enthused Hugh Lynn Cayce (Cayce's son) spoke to members about this project. There was a digging team in Egypt that was looking for the scrolls, but the work was sporadic as the Egyptian government would only let them work for a short length of time. Then they had to reapply for permits and go through the bureaucratic procedure all over again. When they asked Cayce about the scrolls being found, he answered, "When humanity is ready." The scrolls would prove the existence of Atlantis, surely a big shocker to those who thinks it does not exist, including many religions. There is a book available from the ARE Press, titled "The Outer Limits of Edgar Cayce's Power", written by two of his sons, that addresses his misses. It costs $14.95. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Oct 1995 08:20:33 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: high-brow chats JHE: >One class we began in >1980 in Los Angeles just finished reading the SD from cover to >cover and have started over. So it took them fifteen years to >get through the book, meeting on a twice a month schedule for >most of it. I'm very interested as to what the students got out of their 15-year study. In what ways did they feel they had grown? >For us students of theosophy, we are getting an education that is >broader than anything that is offered in the universities today. >But our education does not prepare us for it, so the study of >HPB's writings are more difficult now then they were 100 years >ago. Nowadays, we're too busy learning how to drive cars, work ATMs and computers. Not mention the lure of the American dribble box, the television. My husband always talks about the way people in his youth (50's) used to claim that technology was going to free up our time. Seems we're busier than ever trying to keep up with it. - ann PS Really enjoyed your post, JHE. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Oct 1995 08:52:53 GMT From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Subject: high-brow chats Hi to JHE, Thanks, Jerry, for the very informative post. I won't use the reply button because it would make the whole thing too long. You ask what we are doing to keep a high level of discussion going. One thing is to stick to Theosophical related things as perceived by the few of us who take the trouble to organise something. There are 'new age' ideas that would not be in keeping with what we believe Theosophy is about. One has to be careful about making judgements in this area but I think Theosophists have a general line on which they agree. Our SD study group consists of the whole 3 of us and has done so for the past 18 months. Before that we had another couple of members who found it too hard and pulled out. We all take turns to read aloud and so come to grips with the language HPB uses. One of us is our librarian, a learned, intelligent astrologer who has read the SD before and has a working knowledge of the Indian words as she spent a couple of years there. We meet every Monday night and we are enjoying it. Our membership is mostly elderly so it is hard to instigate changes and I have learned a lot about setting change in motion slowly so that the members come around in the end. Getting them to sell the house we have been in since 1926 has been slow and we have had to tread carefully. It is nearly an accomplished fact now and most of them have accepted it. There are so few of us that are really active that it is constant hard work to keep the interest going. We hope the move and new premises will get a new energy going that will encourage more people to take an interest in us. We have just had our AGM and I am president again and I have persuaded to two youngest women to be vice-presidents so I hope they will get enthusiastic and give a new impetus to our endevours. Theosophists can be an ornery lot so we have a jar with bits of paper on which members have written questions for discussion topics and when we really have nothing else to offer we get out the jar and have a good airing of opinions. It gets quite vocal at times but in a nice way. Thank you for the explanation of lemniscate. I will take it to study class next week. I will pass on your recomendation re SD edition to our librarian. You ask how our group is organised. As you can see from above, really not at all. There is only the 3 of us who are interested in studying SD, the rest would rather not strain their brain. They will say so quite openly. They rely on HQ to send lecturers and maon a bit if not enough come but would rather not get involved themselves. I am sort of working on that behind the scenes and one day they will realise that they are doing something towards Theosophy. I appreciate what you say re classical education. Things have changed. Did you read the quote the dePurucker made from Disraeli? "the Victorians talk of progress because by the aid of a few mechanical inventions they have succeeded in establishing a society which mistakes comfort for civilization." How true. I reckon this is long enough now so I will buzz off. Regards, Bee From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Oct 1995 09:09:56 GMT From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Subject: Re: High-brow chats >> What does lemniscate mean? It is on page 274 and we couldn't >> find it in the dictionary. Did HPB make up words to suit herself? Sometimes >> we wonder as we can't find them explained anywhere. >> Kind regards, Bee> >I couldn't find it either. But I think that is largely because HPB was >EXTREMELY learned, spoke to a very learned audience, and a lot of those >"learned" words in Victorian English have dropped out of the language, or >become very obscure. Part of the problem with "the original teachings" is >that they become more and more removed from the vernacular. > >You almost need to be a 19th century scholar to get at some of the stuff in >HPB, and yet if we don't understand the Secret Doctrine, how can we carry on >the work at a deep level? Only by doing our best, I think, and applying, >applying applying what we do know, hoping for more light. > >Rich >This is why I have found de Purucker much easier to understand. I have only just started reading him and I get really excited over the new ideas I can understand. I have been absorbing his info re the 1,2,3rd root races and their construction. The idea that they brought the animal kingdom into existence is really fascinating. The mental picture I am forming is so huge that I am not sure I can ever get it into an organised form. First there was HPB's cosmogony which was large enough or what I am capable of understanding, then what I am learning now. It is the strangest experience to join a none Theosophical group, e.g. Philosophy, with ingrained Theosophical concepts. I joined the new U3A which is for retired people who want to stretch their brains a little so it a sort of open university teaching what can be found volunteer teachers for. We are studying Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. I do not say lot now because they think I am weird because I think in such a different way from them. Coming from a reincarnation and karma point of view, I find myself coming from a different line of thinking and sometimes I wonder what I am doing there. Once I would have been quite happy there but now I see the world in quite a different way and I did not realise just how differently it was until joining this group. They are ordinary folk like me and I am not sure how far to try their thought patterns. I do not want to upset anyone nor have them feel I am inflicting my beliefs on them. Funny thing, Life. Regards once more, Bee > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Oct 1995 09:18:36 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: high-brow chats Jerry HE:>Those animals that made it through that "door" became the Animal >>Monads in our constitution. They as centers of consciousness are >>the animal nature which our human nature, the Human Monad, uses. >>The "horse" that you ride is an Animal Monad in the Human Kingdom, >>destinated, if it continues its evolution, to be a Human Monad in >>its own right at the end of the Seventh Round. >My understanding is that up to the middle of the fourth round, the >highest of the animal souls (monads) were able to enter the human >kingdom as MAN, Humanity, at which point the door was closed. This is what I read in Leadbeater and Jinarajadasa, but not in Purucker. It is inconsistent with the model from "The Mahatma Letters". If you can find some Blavatsky quotes to support it, I'd like to read them. Basically, a Monad cannot outstrip the evolution of its lifewave by more than one Round. And it takes all Seven Rounds to complete the evolution in a Kingdom. (The only exceptions are the Bodhisattvas and Buddhas, which are Sixth Rounders.) It is not possible therefore to complete our human evolution, nor for animals to complete their animal evolution at this point. The door to the next Kingdom represents a critical point at which the Monads have to pass in order to continue their progress through the remaining Rounds in order to graduate. It is not the graduation itself. The reference to Animal Monads in the Human Kingdom that comes to mind is by Purucker, in (I think) Volume III of "The Dialogues of G. de Purucker", in a supplemental section on the Animal Monad. > Now these late-comers to the party are represented by the more > savage races that HPB talks about. These late-comers may by those *humans* in which the Manasaputras were late to incarnate rather than Animal Monads. > In these "lower", less developed races, they essentially are > irresponsible owing to the lack of development of MANAS, which is the > distinguishing feature between Man and Animal, but which will be > developed in these races in the course of time and evolution. This distinguishes the different classes of humans *to a degree*. But since we're in the Fourth Round, we're really working on Kama or Kama-Manas, and haven't really gotten to Manas proper until the Fifth Round. > It is not my understanding that the Animals who were able or developed > enough to enter the human kingdom became OUR animal natures. Can we > clarify this point? My primary source for this is Purucker. If you can show Blavatsky to disagree, I'd like to study what she says, since Purucker seems consistent with "The Mahatma Letters". -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Oct 1995 12:24:06 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: re high brow chats Ann, JHE: >One class we began in >1980 in Los Angeles just finished reading the SD from cover to >cover and have started over. So it took them fifteen years to >get through the book, meeting on a twice a month schedule for >most of it. AEB I'm very interested as to what the students got out of their 15-year study. In what ways did they feel they had grown? JHE Probably everyone will have a different answer. It wasn't until I worked my way through the SD that I began to feel that I had a real grasp of the ideas. Every time I go through the book, I feel that I understanding deepens. For me, it is a book that I can go back to again and again through my entire life and still not exhaust what it has to teach. It is kind of an initiation. However, for this particular class, though I started it in 1980, we left in 1990, so we didn't finish it. In fact, I believe that only one person stayed for the entire fifteen years. On the other hand, most of those who finished (about eight I think) were there for 8 to 10 years of it. It was a great class of real devoted students. I think this class, more than anything else, really held the Lodge together. JHE >For us students of theosophy, we are getting an education that >is broader than anything that is offered in the universities >today. But our education does not prepare us for it, so the >study of HPB's writings are more difficult now then they were >100 years ago. AEB Nowadays, we're too busy learning how to drive cars, work ATMs and computers. Not mention the lure of the American dribble box, the television. My husband always talks about the way people in his youth (50's) used to claim that technology was going to free up our time. Seems we're busier than ever trying to keep up with it. JHE I remember. The 60's were more fun though. Too much tension in the 50's. Everyone was worried about communists--or being accused of being one. Best Jerry HE From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Oct 1995 12:25:12 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: re historical and doctrinal Bee, BB >A bit like Jerry's previous comments about HPB writing to >classical scholars and us trying to find her unheard of words in >the dictionary. We are trying but a simpler version like de >Purucker is bearing more fruit for me, anyway. We are studying >SD because it is the horses mouth, so to speak yet the fact that >there are only 3 of us would indicate the lack of interest or >ability to come to grips with the way it is presented to our >1995 minds. Most of us are not scholars yet to me, the stuff she >talks about is fascinating, what I can understand, that is. >Regards, Bee> JHE When I was studying theosophy in the early 70's, my teacher assigned Purucker's ~Fundamental of the Esoteric Philosophy~ and told me not to go on to the next chapter until I felt that I had mastered the preceding one. I read every chapter at least twice- -some I read three and even four times before continuing. The book is a series of 48 lectures on ~The Secret Doctrine.~ Though he discusses teachings that are not in the ~SD~ (such as the twelve globe chain), I believe it to be an important introductory book into the ~SD~, and may make the eventual study of the ~SD~ easier. I must also add that when I finished ~Fundamentals~ I came to a realization concerning the nature of theosophical teachings that cannot be put into words. I can only say that it has to do with the teachings being inward, outward, above and below. I know others have had the same realization after reading this book, and they know exactly what I'm talking about. I also found this same realization in the ~SD~, but it is in ~Fundamentals~ where I was really struck with it. Please let me know if this is the book you are reading, and if you have this experience too. Thanks Jerry HE ------------------------------------------|Jerry Hejka-Ekins ||Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu ||and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org |------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Oct 1995 12:51:46 GMT From: Coherence@aol.com Subject: Re: forgiving your body In a message dated 95-10-24 10:40:02 EDT, you write: >Those animals that made it through that "door" became the Animal >Monads in our constitution. They as centers of consciousness are >the animal nature which our human nature, the Human Monad, uses. >The "horse" that you ride is an Animal Monad in the Human Kingdom, >destinated, if it continues its evolution, to be a Human Monad in >its own right at the end of the Seventh Round. > Can we have a little discussion about this point? My understanding is that up to the middle of the fourth round, the highest of the animal souls (monads) were able to enter the human kingdom as MAN, Humanity, at which point the door was closed. Now these late-comers to the party are represented by the more savage races that HPB talks about. (Please don't let this discussion degenerate into one of Racism.) In these "lower", less developed races, they essentially are irresponsible owing to the lack of development of MANAS, which is the distinguishing feature between Man and Animal, but which will be developed in these races in the course of time and evolution. It is not my understanding that the Animals who were able or developed enough to enter the human kingdom became OUR animal natures. Can we clarify this point? Thank you From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Oct 1995 15:07:27 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: historical and doctrinal Eldon: What we really need, it seems to me, is experience, which means living the teachings rather than just thinking about them. When we live them, dogma evaporates. But we still need doctrine because our human mind still has a need to explain/express our experiences in terms of visual and analytical models that we can understand and communicate. People "in charge of our organizations" should be living examples of theosophy. Eldon:< The study of karate involves training and practice sessions. The study of Zen involves sitting zazen. And the study of Theosophy involves awakening the inner teacher and the sense of the divine in our everyday life; e.g. the approach to chelaship.> Exactly! If we all did this, many organizational problems would disappear. Also, we would be more tolerant and understanding of folks like JRC. Eldon: You have mentioned this idea before. Can you give us one instance for such a conflict? I have read both and am not aware of any. Jerry HE: This brings up a very important issue that goes to very heart of "source teachings" versus secondary or neo teachings. If Purucker, or anyone else, expands on HPB without contradicting her, then why would this cause any problems with "the HPB student?" Are you of the opinion that if HPB didn't say it, it can't be true? Anything not spoken by HPB is false? It seems to me that by expanding her 7-globe 4-plane model into a 12-globe 7-plane model, for example, does not conflict with what HPB says and so where is the problem? This is especially true in light of the fact that she admitted to holding some teachings back. Jerry HE:<>>We examine the differences then make a choice. It's a separate choice as to *which* individuals are representatives of the Masters. > Unfortunately, one can represent the Masters in one subject while totally screwing up another subject. So, our discrimination must go farther than that between people; we also need to discriminate between the writings of the same individual, and yes, I am thinking about CWL here. Eldon:< But an understanding of the Teachings, apart from an initial intellectual study of the general doctrines, requires some inner development and resulting personal insight. It's not something that can be argued from an historical standpoint because it goes beyond what can be written down in a book meant for public consuption.> I agree, Eldon. Well said. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Oct 1995 16:44:36 GMT From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Subject: re: historical and doctrinal >agree with Jerry to try to preserve the teachings as they were given >will eventually come to naught. They need to be restated in the >medium of the current times. The basic ideas must be flexible enough >to start with so that they can be restated in such a way that they mean >something to present-day people, even 1000 years from now. If they >don't fire the interest & the imagination, who is going to look at >them. Someone who honors them because they happen to be 1000 years >old? You don't believe that yourself. > >Liesel > A bit like Jerry's previous comments about HPB writing to classical scholars and us trying to find her unheard of words in the dictionary. We are trying but a simpler version like de Purucker is bearing more fruit for me, anyway. We are studying SD because it is the horses mouth, so to speak yet the fact that there are only 3 of us would indicate the lack of interest or ability to come to grips with the way it is presented to our 1995 minds. Most of us are not scholars yet to me, the stuff she talks about is fascinating, what I can understand, that is. Regards, Bee> From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Oct 1995 17:06:24 GMT From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Subject: Re: RE quotes by Bee B. and Liesel D. > >"I can't see how history can help us understand or live theosophy >any better." Actually that is not my quote. I don't recall holding that opinion. I enjoyed Isis Unveiled for the vast stretches of the past that it opened up. It added to the growing concept in my mind of the enormous expanse of time that has gone before. Bee. > >"I've never liked scholasticism. I'd rather read about some ideas >I can work with & use in my daily life....So I just pass over these >discussions about nomenclatures, & what the Masters were or are. My >interest in the Masters, for instance, is rather in their teachings." > > > >If one only experienced our every day life and had little knowledge of >geography and history, I for one would feel a tremendous loss. A knowledge of >geography and history adds new dimensions to our lives; adds new perspectives >and an incredible richness. A better knowledge of geography and history >helps us to transcend time and space and allows us to enter into the lives >of other human beings of other times and cultures. I'm not saying we should >ignore our own personal, day to day life. > >Daniel Caldwell > >I do question how secure a base history really is. Any history book is someones perspective of history and is coloured by the current mindset as to what is history. I realise that a trained historian would perhaps be more objective. Just to read HPB telling how the Christian teachings have been changed to suit various purposes over the centuries and that what we have now is not how it started out, gives me reason to doubt how much credibility I can place on history. A rough idea of major events would be about it for me. Regards Bee From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Oct 1995 17:35:56 GMT From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Subject: Re: forgiving your body >Aki: > >>I have noticed that there are many similarities between ego-body >>as there are between a rider and a horse. The riding is much >>more fun, when the horse is happy and healthy. > >>I think that a body is a different being from my ego, with its own >>consciousness - though ego is very closely connected to it. > >Purucker offers some interesting ideas that this seems to relate to. >The way that we get into the next kingdom of nature is by a form >of apprenticeship in the next higher kingdom. > >In the middle of the Fourth Round, the door into the Human Kingdom >closed. At this point, it was no longer possible for animals to >progress into becoming human by the end of the Seventh Round. > >Those animals that made it through that "door" became the Animal >Monads in our constitution. They as centers of consciousness are >the animal nature which our human nature, the Human Monad, uses. >The "horse" that you ride is an Animal Monad in the Human Kingdom, >destinated, if it continues its evolution, to be a Human Monad in >its own right at the end of the Seventh Round. > >In a similar fashion, I suspect, in the middle of the Fifth Round >the door to the lowest Dhyani-Chohanic Kingdom will close. Up to >that point, it is possible to be "infilled with a God" or become >the Human Monad in the constitution of a Dhyani-Chohan. > >For those of us that make it, we will have several Rounds of >apprenticeship in the Dhyani-Chohan Kingdom, learning or getting >exposure to the qualities of their consciousness, so that we >eventually will become one ourselves! This experience is that of >having not just an awareness of our Inner God, but an awakened >Inner God that plays an active role in directing our lives. It >is the actual experience of deity that religious people seek. > >-- Eldon > Great stuff. Just what I need to help with my interest in elementals. That area somehow seems to tie together. My notes are growing rapidly. Anything that anyone has in this area is much appreciated. Regards, Bee > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Oct 1995 12:23:03 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: historical and doctrinal Eldon, JHE >My point is that the commonality of the Organizational >definitions of theosophy suggest the existence of a body of >teachings. I am not disputing the existence of those teachings >here. EBT Given that we agree that there is a body of teachings, we must ask, what are they? The difficult task would be to define them sufficiently in words to distinguish what they are, without burying them in the dead-letter of dogmatism. JHE I think our discussion is running on two registers here. I'm trying to look at theosophy from the point of view of a knowledgeable outside observer. This is a much broader perspective than one I would have as a theosophical devotee and defender of the faith. As an informed outside observer, I would say that the theosophical teachings are whatever the Organization and the membership believe them to be. This belief has changed over the years, and varies with the membership. As a devotee of modern theosophy, I would say that the source for the teachings of modern theosophy comes from Blavatsky, the Mahatma letters, and to a lessor extent, from Judge and from Sinnett's early writings. How you might want to summarize and categorize these teachings is up to you. On the other hand, my opinion is a minority one in the Adyar Society. Liesel, for instance, is more representative of the majority opinion when she adds Besant, Leadbeater, Jinarajadasa, and a host of newer writers such as Serge King, perhaps Jay Williams and others. Jerry S. would add Crowley, since he says that Aleister Crowley was a messenger from the same Lodge as HPB. Liesel's and Jerry S's opinions are just as valid as mine or yours. It is a matter of definition. I tried to suggest a definition based upon historical considerations, but you, Rich, Alan Bain and Dan Caldwell appeared to be the only ones on this net that were tracking with what I was talking about. So it seemed to be a futile exercise to continue a discussion going when half of those who responded were not tracking with me in the first place. I'm not suggesting that the problem is one of intelligence, but rather one of coming from very different reference points. For instance, if one rejects the value of history for understanding the present, then a discussion of a historically based definition of what the theosophical teachings are is rather meaningless, and would probably fall into Liesel's notion of "idle chatter." On the positive side (as I pointed out before), my suggested historically based definition and classification of theosophical teachings would unify the movement under a common history. On the negative side, it too is not acceptable for those who find no value in history. EBT Perhaps we should make a distinction between what *may be taught* or studied at a theosophical lodge and what *is taught as Theosophy*. A theosophical group has the freedom to explore any avenue of learning. It just gets into trouble when it starts teaching *as Theosophy* anything that its members happen to think. JHE Well, here is the great incongruity. The Adyar TS defines theosophy as being "without dogma" on the one hand, and on the other, enforces restrictions upon what is to be taught to the point that Lodge charters have been canceled when they go too far astray. EBT This gets into a definite problem area. With an open membership policy, anyone can join. If a majority of members in a National Section believe in Alice Bailey, they will teach her materials to the public as part of the theosophical literature. The same could happen with followers of Maharishi (founder of TM), the I AM group, or any other New Age belief system -- if a majority of members believe in one such group, and they also believe in Theosophy, they may confuse the two and teach, say, TM as Theosophy from a theosophical platform. JHE And by these very restrictions against teaching certain ideas as theosophy, then theosophical teachings become dogma. You can't have it both ways. If you, myself, Rich, Jerry S., Patrick and Liesel were to each make a syllabus for a class in theosophy, my guess is that each would look very different from the other. But it is the Adyar TS, who in practice, has the final say as to what is theosophy and what is not for their Lodges. Very much the same situation is also true with Pasadena and ULT. EBT What we really need, if it would be possible, is a delicate balance between dogma and doctrine, with people in charge of our organizations that are trained in the Philosophy and able to apply the wisdom of Solomon to the organizational problems that arise at times. JHE The Adyar TS first needs to educate the membership concerning the difference between doctrine and dogma. But, with the decades of confusion on these matters, reformation of this type is not IMHO in the foreseeable future. JHE >I think it is also >significant that in the ~Key~ she specifies that every Lodge >should have a library containing the religious and philosophical >classics. ETB There's value in reading Plato, the Gita, the Kabala, etc. This would come after a basic study of Theosophy, and alongside a continued study of the theosophical Teachings. Why? Because Theosophy offers a key (or rather many keys) to revealing much of what is hidden in those great works of world philosophy and world religion. JHE I would argue that the reading of these classics should come before a study of theosophy. Blavatsky assumed her readers to have a previous familiarity with most of these classics before they read her writings. JHE >Surely she did not want this [library of religious and philosophical classics] for the purpose of >decorating the walls, but to fulfill the second object of the TS. EBT It's a useful object. But the objects have changed at times. How would we word those objects today, if we could rewrite them? Would we possible add a few new ones to the list? JHE The wording of the second object has been revised several times, but the overall meaning has not changed. Rewriting of the Objects is up to Radha. That is her privilege alone, as I understand the bylaws of the Adyar TS. If I were in a position to rewrite the objects, I would update the language without making any additions or changes in meaning. EBT >I ... would always use the big 't' [with "Theosophy"] >considering Theosophy to be a religious philosophy or the Wisdom >Religion. JHE >I believe that the distinction that you are pointing out is >a rather recent one that probably surfaced no earlier than the >mid 1980's. Before that time, big "t" and little "t" theosophy >was understood as I had described it. Ask any of the old timers >at Wheaton. EBT Ok. That definition says "Theosophy" is "our stuff" and "theosophy" is "sounds like our stuff". That's another way to use the word. (But not how I'd use it.) JHE Fine. I just point out that this is the standard definition of big t and little t. You are welcome to make your own definitions too. JHE >However, the newer definition ["theosophy" is a belief system >and "Theosophy" is divine truth itself] is evidence of the >growing confusion, since it drifts further from the original >understandings of the word "theosophy" and further confounds it >with the distinction HPB makes with "truth" and "TRUTH." EBT It should not be confused with that distinction. Theosophy is fragmentary doctrines and knowledge from the Mahatmas, and is based upon the highest and most advanced materials that humanity currently has. That knowledge is not absolute truth, but is one relative, finite step closer to the truth. JHE Nevertheless, this confusion exists, and I have seen it expressed on theos-l on many occasions. EBT Absolute Truth cannot be approached by going "bigger", because no matter how wise a Dhyani-Bodhisattva or Logos we may find, over however grand a cosmic system, there will be yet bigger schemes of existence and wiser beings. There is no top, in terms of the manifest worlds, in terms of *suchness* or Idam. JHE That is one way of looking at it. EBT The top is approached in another direction, towards *emptiness* or the Unknowable, Tat. It's not really a "top" because there's no "up" or "down", nor any other attribute. It is the purest state of being unmanifest, and is equally approachable (and equally unapproachable) from beings from all schemes of existence, however grand or humble they may be. JHE That is a currently popular Buddhist approach. EBT >>When someone is authorized by the Masters to present to the >>public certain occult knowledge, that could be considered >>revelation. JHE >It is this "revelation" that has been so close to the >underlying causes of the fragmentation of theosophy and >theosophical organizations into so many camps. EBT True. Some are real, others are self-deluded or pretenders. Until the day when the Mahatmas walk openly among us, and speak for themselves, we have this problem. JHE A proper Jnana yoga approach would go a long way towards eliminating this problem. EBT Daniel H. may face the same problem with the Bible. How is he to know when other writers speak the same divine truths, when so many people, often in contradiction, write their differing ideas? He could chose to ignore everything else, and solely study the Bible, or develop sufficient spiritual insight to tell what is authentic for himself. JHE It is Daniel H's approach and underlying assumptions that put him into his position, just as it is our approaches and assumptions that put us where we are. Think about it. JHE >HPB tried to >downplay her teachers (notice that none of her teachings are by >the authority of Master so and so). The Mahatmas tried to >impress their humanness and fallibility to Sinnett. EBT She did not say she was speaking on the authority of the Masters. But she did say that her writings came from their teachings, like that the Stanzas of Dzyan were not something that she made up. And we're read how the handwritten manuscript of The Secret Doctrine was at times corrected in the handwriting of some of her Masters, while she slept. JHE And all of this was between HPB and her teachers. For those who are not in personal contact with the Masters, still have the Master within us. That is the relationship and the authority that we need to focus on. JHE >Yet AB and CWL played the master card, and teachings were issued >under their authority. EBT When someone is speaking for the Masters, that is what they are doing. This is regardless of whether they tell us that or not. Were Annie Besant and Charles Leadbeater speaking for the Masters? When I was young, I used to think so. Many of us still do. JHE And those who still follow CWL's and AB's lead that we be obedient and unquestioning soldiers of the Masters are welcome to their beliefs. I only point out that this kind of relationship to the Masters is precisely the opposite of what HPB and the Mahatma Letters prescribe. EBT Issuing teachings under the authority of the Masters is like a preacher speaking for the word of God, when really just presenting personal religious views. It's a way to stifle dissent, to tell others to shut up, to originate dogma. JHE And accepted as the word of God or the word of the Masters by many listeners. That is a problem when that preacher and those followers are running an Organization that was originally founded upon individual conscience. EBT Again, we come back to the issue of telling the pretenders apart from the real Teachers. In a Mystery Temple there may be a Hierophant that is justifiably empowered to speak with authority. And in a spiritual center a bona fide Guru may likewise be empowered. JHE So what if he truly is? Do we worship him now? Do we follow his orders? I would say no. It is more important that we follow our own inner teacher than any outward one. JHE >However, the sudden appearance of teachings under the authority >of the Masters is for me, an alarm to be cautious. EBT I would be skeptical of anything I come across bearing such claims, because of what they've said in "The Mahatma Letters" regarding wanting to avoid the public eye. We've seen what can happen by the example in Japan. The "Om Supreme Truth" group has a leader with such claims, and led his followers to kill people in subways with poison gas. JHE Exactly. EBT >>We cannot, though, deny the Masters, when and where they >>actually work, simply because there are so many pretenders and >>impostors in the world. JHE No, and I would not deny the existence of the Masters because there are pretenders. JHE >Nor has their existence been proved. EBT Not proven, perhaps, *to you*. JHE No. I mean *not proven*. My own beliefs are irrelevant in this context. EBT With the Masters, we can likewise have a necessary place for them in the Teachings, and someday progress to the point where they are proven, *to us*, by our personal experience. But that proof will not become part of the public knowledge, and proof for others, since the Masters desire their existence to remain unproven to the general public. JHE Which is my point. JHE >We could have an open discussion comparing the >HPB model to the Purucker model, for instance. >Yet, the point is that such discussion is >impossible when the discussion rests upon the undisclosed biases >that one is of a superior revelation than the other. >First we need to level the playing field by bringing out >into the open biases and assumptions. For instance your >statement: "For these we'd consider how Purucker expanded upon >what HPB had said..." already reveals the assumption that GdP >"expanded" upon what HPB said." >That would have to be discussed since it represents am >assumption that probably contrasts with those held by the HPB >student. EBT It might conflict with the assumption by the Blavatsky-only student. Students of Purucker like Boris de Zirkoff, Geoffrey Barborka, and Gordon Plummer might disagree with the assumption that to study Blavatsky is to reject Purucker. JHE A "Blavatsky-only student" is the only example I have raised here. A discussion with the your above named people would be on different grounds, with different assumptions and different conflicts. EBT >>The fact that there are some differences does not mean that one >>of the two represents the Masters and the other does not. JHE >Or, this very conjecture may be a rationalization to justify >the (alleged) differences. We have to watch our thinking on >many levels. EBT Granted, that there are many possible explanations for the differences. We have to use discrimination and determine if someone is a trained Chela, teaching on behalf of the Masters, or is not. An examination of the differences in what they say is one way help make this determination. JHE Whether someone is a trained chela or not is not something that can necessarily be objectively determined, and I do not see it as necessary to do so anyway. For instance, I have rejected most of CWL's teachings, but this rejection has nothing to do with whether or not he was a trained chela. For all I know, he was indeed a trained chela. I have based my rejections upon what he wrote, what he believed and what he taught. Therefore, whether or not he was a "trained chela" is not relevant. EBT I'm not sure what would be a level playing field? When any New Age writer is accepted (or rejected) on an equal basis as an equally qualified candidate to sit alongside Blavatsky on our theosophical bookshelves? Saying "Blavatsky only" is like Daniel saying "Bible only", and begs the question but discards everything new in the world, accepting only classical philosophers and religious figures. JHE And because of Daniel H's world view, and his unwillingness to negotiate other views, the playing field would not be level. It is Daniel's faith in the revelation that destroys opportunity for discussion on a level playing field. It does not matter whether that faith is in the revelation of Jesus or Blavatsky, it is the same problem. It pervades the TS as well as Christianity. JHE >>>The second problem is when the student creates a >>>unique model out of the pieces of several other models. EBT >>This would be an example of one's personal understanding, that >>if taught as such is fine. JHE >Making clear that the model is such a personal compilation >is a first step in leveling that playing field. EBT There seems to be an assumption here that what we know can only come from external sources, like the books we read, the authors we respect, the schools of thought that we belong to. JHE Not a general assumption, but there are implied assumptions in this particular observation. For instance, I'm assuming that Jerry S. is coming from his own experience and study, and not promulgating teachings from an unseen Master of which he is the messenger. In other words, my assumption is that Jerry S. is responsible for his one beliefs. EBT Knowledge can come from with, be authentic, and allied with the Theosophy that Blavatsky taught. We just need to be clear regarding whether it came *from within*, or it is our current idea, or that we externally read it. (Here I'm making a distinction of *three* sources, not two, as in personal views versus external learning.) JHE Unless I see evidence to the contrary, I'll continue to assume that Jerry S's knowledge comes the same way as everyone else's: External learning; personal views; personal insight. JHE >Awareness of our changing beliefs is important too--in the >evaluation of our own ideas. EBT That evaluation helps us achieve a degree of objectivity about our beliefs, allowing us to develop greater flexibility of mind. That does not mean that our beliefs are untrue, or that we should not hold strong beliefs, beliefs that have a profound effect in our lives. What it means is that we keep a high degree of freshness to the beliefs, rethinking them anew each time, continually at risk of coming out differently each time they are revisited. JHE Yes, but also being aware of the changes in our beliefs. If they don't change, then we are not growing. JHE >Ideas themselves are born out of a background of beliefs >and values. We have to understand those beliefs and values to >fully understand those ideas. EBT This is part of the process of self-discovery. We understand how our mind works to create "the objective world", and learn how to "stop the world" at times. Granted that our personality, including the language that we speak, and our belief system, is taken from the cultural context of the world, the subrace that we belong to. But we *can* rise above it, and inwardly learn and progress in advance of the external society. JHE We only rise above what we master. Ignoring our background of beliefs and values is not mastery. EBT >>The historical aspect may ... help explain why [Besant's] books >>may differ from each other a bit. But what does this buy us? JHE >It "buys us" insight into where Besant got her ideas; how >she regarded them; how and why they came to be accepted; who and >what was a major influence upon her; etc. EBT This helps us evaluate the experiences of her life, but it does not tell us which books were more true, and the degree of accuracy from an occult standpoint of what she taught. JHE On the contrary, it helps us to do precisely this. EBT Occultism or the Esoteric Philosophy does not change from one decade to the next, even though its exponents may. JHE Be that as it may, we only know what we know. I don't know Esoteric Philosophy in any ultimate sense. HPB says that it is beyond knowing anyway. I only know what I personally understand of that Esoteric Philosophy, and must call my own shots based upon my own understanding. JHE >This background of >information gives us a foundation to evaluate her ideas far >beyond the "they feel right to me" way of measuring ideas. EBT This background lets us evaluate her personal relationship with Theosophy and to comment on the value of her different books. It provides the appearance of objectivity, which allows for a scholarly evaluation. But an understanding of the Teachings, apart from an initial intellectual study of the general doctrines, requires some inner development and resulting personal insight. It's not something that can be argued from an historical standpoint because it goes beyond what can be written down in a book meant for public consumption. JHE An understanding of the teachings begins with an ability to discriminate. Without a means of evaluation, how can this discrimination be developed? I submit that inner development begins with the development of discrimination. Without discrimination, there is no way to distinguish between psychic and noetic insight. Why discuss spiritual insight when the world has yet to learn discrimination? JHE >whether or not ideas "feel right" is most more likely an >emotional decision than an intuitive one. My observation is >that most people don't make much of a distinction between the >two. EBT There are other ways that we can recognize and accept occult truths. My understanding of how occultism is taught is that the student is brought to the necessary state of receptivity, so that the student can *originate the idea from within*. This is done rather than simply telling ideas, because the ideas are better learned, and the student is being trained to awaken his inner teacher. JHE This is the method that we use. EBT When a theosophical writer is effective, he leads us to this experience frequently in our studies. If that writer is writing about Theosophy, what appears in the books "rings true" to us. We get a feel for the source of the writings, there's a definite "thought current" that can be detected behind certain writings that bears the stamp of the same source. JHE Many believe that CWL "rings true" to them. Others Believe that HPB "rings true" to them. Once again, we need to go back to discrimination before discussing spiritual insights. As HPB says in the ES instructions, we can't skip rungs on the latter. We must take every step. JHE >Our current situation is >a child of the past. If we have no past, then there is no >context for the present. We must be cognoscente of both. EBT We have a past, and it provides a degree of stability to the present. The past does not cause the present, because the past does not exist. The effects of the past are found in the present, but the past does not reach forward and fashion us in this moment. We carry the effects of the past in ourselves, and determine, to a degree, how those effects are incorporated in our lives. JHE In whatever metaphysics you want to cloth it, the present comes out of the past. That "the effects of the past are found in the present" is precisely the point and we have to deal with those effects whether we recognize them or not. So I submit that we learn to recognize them. EBT >>The doctrines ... are much more than the >>mere words on the printed page, which can leave us empty-handed, >>but they don't consist of organizational propaganda. JHE >They did not start out a "organizational propaganda", but >once ideas are embraced by an organization, they by necessity >become so. EBT Perhaps we're using "propaganda" in a negative sense, when it doesn't have to be a negative thing. We certainly have as a goal the dissemination (propagation) of the Teachings. We're not trying to keep them to ourselves. When we say that "propaganda" is the material that we intend to propagate, then what we've learned of Theosophy can be positively called such. JHE I think the theosophical "propaganda" that we have today is mostly negative. Making information available is one thing. The dissemination is where the problems start. Remember your earlier statement: "My understanding of how occultism is taught is that the student is brought to the necessary state of receptivity, so that the student can *originate the idea from within*. This is done rather than simply telling ideas, because the ideas are better learned, and the student is being trained to awaken his inner teacher." That is what I consider to be the proper dissemination of the teachings. JHE >It is the historical approach that side steps the >"organizational propaganda" aspect in order to look at the >teachings. EBT But we're not looking at the Teachings per se when we consider them as a historical phenomena and see them chaning over times, and as the product of various individuals. We're looking at the Teachings when we consider them as a body of thought in their own right, apart from any exponent of them, in whatever historic period. JHE Once again, as HPB said, that level of truth is beyond knowing here on this plane. See her article "What is Truth." I don't try to teach what cannot be taught. I only teach what we can know on this plane. What we know to be theosophy came from historical people who lived in historical time and taught ideas that have a historical reality. Anything beyond this, students have to discover for themselves. I teach very mundane theosophy, which students can use towards the discovery of deeper truths. IMO, teaching this mundane theosophy as something that exists on a higher plane is misrepresenting it. The real spiritual truths are not taught--but discovered. HPB taught theosophy as a "historical phenomena", I'm just following her example. EBT >If we want to know what people were being taught in 1880, 1883, >or 1908, that would be useful. But more important is what we're >being taught and teaching others in 1995. We should concern >ourselves with its quality. JHE Agreed. And I submit that to evaluate its quality, a historical context would help. JHE >If you want to teach theosophical doctrine, then this is >fine. No historical understanding of the teachings in necessary. EBT Agreed. JHE However, I don't do it that way. I found it to be a very poor method. JHE >Just read the books and parrot the teachings until you can put >them into your own words. This had been done for years and is >IMHO DEAD. EBT It is only *the first step* to a study of Theosphy, and if nothing follows, it is dead. The intellectual study of the books is a prerequesite to Theosophy as a spiritual practice. We contemplate the words then *go beyond them*. JHE For that method, we have to leave to student to do their own going beyond. I found this method to be a very poor one because students found the link between theory and practical application to large of a gap to jump. EBT The movement is dead when there is no one taking this second step. And we are left empty-handed with the dead literature of the past should we come to the point where there's no one left to show us the way, to pass on or inspire in us this "fire of mind". JHE Exactly JHE >I taught theosophy this way for many years, and >don't teach it this way any more. EBT Without teaching anything more than the intellectual learning of doctrines, you would be faced with the question: What do we do with this stuff once we've learned it? The teachings go hand-in-hand with a *process* of inner work that both provides insight into life and self-transformation and self-genesis. What we are approaching is the awakening of chelaship in the would-be students. JHE Exactly. That is why we don't do this. EBT >>The only way to know for sure is to undertake the Path >>ourselves and come to other ways of validating *to ourselves* >>what is correct. JHE >Yours is a good doctrinal approach. EBT We cannot otherwise know, "without the shadow of a doubt," the inner nature of life. JHE There are many paths.... JHE >Can you prove that somebody had not "made up in an ad hoc >fashion" these teachings? EBT No. Not "without a shadow of a doubt". Nor likely by "the preponderance of evidence." The approach that I'd have to take would be mostly descriptive, rather than authoritative, and leave it to others to accept or reject what I say based upon how it appeals to them. JHE This works too, when the student is ready for it. JHE >Is it important whether they we "made up" or not? >From a doctrinal point of view--yes. From a historical point >of view--no. EBT This is an important difference, if we're concerned with truth, with what is real, with actual occult teachings, and not just with observing the history of occult groups and writers. JHE Huh? I though we were talking about the teaching of theosophy. What does "observing the history of occult groups and writers" have to do with anything? Are you confusing an historical approach to theosophy with the historical investigation of occult groups? JHE >From an historical approach, the questions of veracity; >how people are affected by the teachings; and how one >is personally affected by the teachings are the important >questions. EBT This is the argument that it does not matter what one believes, nor what one thinks, just so long as it affects one for the better. It is found in relativism, where everyone's beliefs are considered on an equal basis, as equally true. I'd disagree. JHE Then we agree to disagree. EBT I'd suggest that it *does* matter what one believes, since those beliefs affect one's inner growth, relate to the direction that one takes in life, and strongly bias any psychical experiences to be had by that person. And the beliefs Whether or not they are true is important for a *practicioner* of Theosophy, although it is a moot point for a scholar on the outside. JHE If these beliefs are not "affecting the person for the better", then it does matter to the person. Doesn't it? Personally, I would not presume to make such judgements concerning the spiritual growth of others. I teach what I teach; people attend or not as they choose; and they go away with the experiences and understanding which they gain. My responsibility, as I see it, is to be accurate in what I teach and to know my limitations. And, by the way, I consider my self a *student* of theosophy who has taken a scholarly approach to it and found this approach to be tremendously beneficial, as HPB also did. As a student of theosophy, I also teach theosophy according to my understanding--which I presume to be fallible. I'm just another student, who is perhaps only a step ahead of those I teach--nothing more. As for being a *practitioner* of theosophy (one who prescribes for the spiritual needs of others), I wouldn't presume such a status for myself. Even the Mahatmas did not do such a thing. JHE >teachings were "progressively put into words..." is a >belief that cannot be confirmed by ordinary experience. EBT Nor can reincarnation and karma, the creation of the world by a series of emanations, nor the true nature of mind. There is much to the world that cannot be confirmed by ordinary experience, but requires a spiritual practice for confirmation. Until or without that practice, we have theory rather than technique, hypothesis rather than proof, a belief system rather than an experiential description of life. JHE And this is all that I can teach--those teachings which lead towards spiritual perception. They have to do their own perceiving. I can't do the spiritual practices for them, nor will I presume to tell them how to go about those spiritual practices. JHE >Personally, I prefer as much as possible not to lean on >that which I cannot confirm. EBT Except where your "reasoned certainity" comes into play, where you have granted the status of authority to someone that you are studying, based upon your assumption that the teacher in question knows that he or she is talking about. JHE No. The authority remains with me, and the reasoned certainty is mine alone: because it was earned through my own efforts of enquiry and experience. Any "status of authority" that I may grant to anyone else is highly conditional and subject to my own authority. JHE >If and when I learn to astral project to the snowy Himalayas and >have tea with the Mahachohan every other thursday afternoon, I'll >let you know. EBT Now here's something that I would have trouble with, were you to say this. If you *really* did such a thing, you'd likely know to keep your mouth shut, and not say a word about. JHE Exactly EBT >>It does not take into account that less teachings were >>available at first, and that both further teachings along with >>possible error were introduced over time since then. JHE >Right. But more importantly, doctrine within a vacuum >creates a canon of dead letter teachings. EBT If the teachings take shape over time, is the canon that is being formulated arbitrary, and without substance, or is it a more complete expression of Theosophy taking shape? JHE In the case of HPB's teachings, my opinion is that she was introducing an already extant body of teaching over a period of time. I have ample evidence to support this opinion. EBT If you're writing an article, the first few paragraphs don't convey the full meaning, and the article may not take shape for many pages. With Theosophy, a partial expression of the Esoteric Philosophy, it may take several generations to take shape as a body of thought in the West. JHE I see a different process. I can see an outline of the entire theosophical system in HPB's first "occult shot." The process has to do with the laying down of foundations so that the ideas could be developed. EBT >>But for us, *as individuals*, we are not limited by what is >>available to the public in this or any particular generation. >>We are only limited by the depth of our spiritual practice and >how far our studies take us. JHE >Yet we have the published writings to indicate the nature of >that practice. EBT To an extent the practice is outlined in the published writings. But also, the practice is self-initiated, and comes from taking additional steps in our lives, steps belong the intellectual study of the source writings. JHE Exactly. Therefore I don't dictate the spiritual practices of others. EBT >>But it [historical approach] does not deal with the question: >>"what are the Mystery Teachings and how can a student approach >>them today?" JHE > It not only deals with this question, but gives context to it. EBT Dealing with the question involves *understanding* the Mysteries, which is something more than the understanding of the beliefs of a particular culture or time period. How the Mysteries are approached is a combination of *content* and *process*, Teachings and spiritual practice, and takes us beyond the books and speechs given from the lecture platform. JHE Yes--"more than the understanding of the beliefs of a particular culture or time period" but not exclusive of it. This level of understanding is necessary too. EBT How the Mysteries are approached is a combination of *content* and *process*, Teachings and spiritual practice, and takes us beyond the books and speechs given from the lecture platform. JHE Exactly. That is why we abandoned the doctrinal approach. EBT The Mysteries take us out of our historic context; they don't originate within that context. JHE They do both. EBT >>History tells us how we got >>here, the geneology of ideas, but in the doctrine we have the >>treasury of what is now known, and working with that treasury >>leads us into the future. JHE >Yes EBT And there's much to history that will never meet our eyes. That's the history and geneology of ideas of the Mahatmas, something not to be found in our history books nor public archives. JHE Yes EBT >>Instead of history dealing with the evolution (or >>degeneration) of ideas over time, we're now talking >>about taking ideas inside or outside of their cultural context. JHE >Yes. It is the historical understanding that gives the >context. EBT And this is one thing that distinguishes the occult or Mysteries from popular thought. The former is hidden, apart from (and going far beyond) the popular state of things; the later is what is readily available to the common man, until feeling a need for something more and beginning his spiritual quest. JHE Fine. I don't teach popular thought--I teach theosophy. I don't teach the mysteries either, but only point in their direction. EBT >>Since Theosophy deals with timeless truths, and with things >>that go far beyond our current cultural context, they would of >>necessity be doctrines. And since when we initiate our personal >>evolution, and step outside the cultural norms, we're >>personally outside that context in our inner lives, if not the >>outer lives. The popular conception of Theosophy may change, >>and when viewed as a social phenomena, could be considered in a >>historic sense, but the living truths are an entirely different >>matter! JHE Fine. I just teach theosophy. I leave the teaching of the "living truths" (Truths?) to those who are qualified. On this dirty little planets, with the limitations of time, space, gravity, language, etc., all I can do is have classes where we talk about relative truths that lead towards those "living truths." JHE >This [i.e. Eldon's last statement] is a classic doctrinal >position you are presenting here, and is not what HPB had >presented. EBT I'm not sure where you would disagree, or think that HPB would disagree with this. Does Blavatsky think that Theosophy was made up, and a product of our culture? JHE When theosophy is expressed on this planet to humanity, it is expressed in historical and cultural contexts. EBT [here reproduces a page worth of SD quotes]. JHE Thanks for the lesson Eldon, but after 25 years of teaching the SD, I've seen these quotes. They all refer to "The Secret Doctrine", as "the accumulated Wisdom of the Ages" as you quoted. She is not talking about doctrine here, but something upon which that doctrine is based. First hand knowledge of that "accumulated wisdom of the ages" is beyond all by the highest initiates--so I'm not qualified to teach this, even if it were possible. Therefore, it is the teachings in ~The Secret Doctrine~ (i.e. the teachings in the book) that HPB presents in a cultural and historical context that I have access to and work with in order to teach theosophy. However, so that there is no understanding, I'm not so interested in the dead letter doctrines from the SD that have been taught and distorted ad nauseam over the last hundred years, but more in the process of spiritual growth that comes through the study of theosophy, whether it be through the SD or by other methods. EBT And new knowledge is not accepted into the Master's body of thought until proven by centuries of experience. This sounds in a way like the scientific methodology, except that the repeatable experiment is in the experience of other adepts. It doesn't sound like we're talking about a culture-specific body of thought. JHE It does to me. Or don't you believe that the Masters have a physical, historical and cultural existence. JHE >Even those "living >truths" were communicated in an historical and cultural context >of Christianity and its relationship to gnosticism. EBT Agreed that the manner of communication is customized to the specific culture. But the *content*, the Teachings, are not culture-specific, just the exoteric garb. JHE Right. But remember, we only know the "content" by the garbs. However, by an historical approach, we can see the same contents in different garbs, and by comparison gives up insight into what is behind those garbs. Get my drift? JHE >HPB explores magic, science and phenomena through an historical >context. EBT My assumption is that she was doing this to show the universality of the philosophy, rather than showing it as the product of this culture or that culture. JHE Of course she is showing the universality of the philosophy. She is also showing it in different "historical garbs." I never suggested that the "Ancient Wisdom" is the "product" of a culture, but only that it is expressed in different "cultural garbs" as you are now putting it. EBT We can observe the flowering and oppression of the movement during different historic periods. And we can contrast the beliefs held at each time with the theosophical doctrines. JHE Almost. Substitute "theosophical doctrines" with "Theosophy". The "theosophical doctrines" are just other expressions in other times. It is the "Theosophy" that we were seeking. EBT Blavatsky will state when the Esoteric Philosophy agrees with or disagrees with the views of various religions and peoples. She is teaching the timeless truths, and showing us that they can be found throughout the world and throughout the ages. She is also telling us when the various religions and philosophies are wrong. Blavatsky is talking from an established body of doctrines, and contrasting them with popular views. JHE She is not teaching the "timeless truths" but rather giving her own expression of them to us. The difference is crucial. She may also be "talking from an established body of doctrines" that she learned from her teachers. More importantly, I think she may be talking from her own spiritual insight. But the bottom line is that the "Ancient Wisdom" which is not anything so gross as a "body of doctrines" are only being, at best, given an historical and cultural expression. JHE >Whether or not Plato's archetypes are "real in their own >right" is a matter of debate, as the transcendental reality of >the teachings. EBT True. Some people with "believe in" Theosophy, others will remain skeptics. Much of Theosophy is only subject to proof by "living the life", and remains unprovable otherwise. JHE The point is--I only teach theosophy. The discovery of Theosophy as a transcendental reality is up to the individual student. I can in my own small way assist in that discovery as would the psychopomp at the time of initiation, but the discovery is up to the student. JHE >One may come to that personal realization, but to >accept this transcendent view of theosophy from the start is a >doctrinal and religious approach. EBT Agreed. When someone accepts Theosophy as a belief, before it is proven in his life, it acts as a form of religion. But not everything is first proven *in this lifetime*. Some people are drawn to Theosophy because of a natural affinity; they have found it proven in their lives ages ago, and are drawn to it yet again in this lifetime because they recognize something special in it. JHE Exactly. And I don't want to proselytize a religion for my students. Just the opposite. JHE >IMHO it is better to begin one's study of theosophy in a >historical context and not as a revelation. As one's >understanding of the ideas grow, then one >will come to deeper realizations concerning them. EBT I'd put this last statement a bit differently. An intellectual study of Theosophy provides an important foundation for a later spiritual practice. But since each person is different, some may rush into a practice, because of instinctively knowing what to do, resuming an inner work left off in another life. JHE I think you are tracking with me now. Jerry HE ------------------------------------------|Jerry Hejka-Ekins ||Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu ||and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org |------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Oct 1995 19:19:44 GMT From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Subject: Re: To Bee B. > >Thanks, Bee, for your postings on your lodge work in New Zealand. I find >all of it very interesting. Keep up the good work! > >My only point on history (concerning quotes given by you and Liesel) was that >history can given us a valuable and wonderful perspective on so many things >and so many subjects. I agree that writers on history may be wrong on this >or that or may distort this or that. What subject is exempt from such >limitations and biases? My point was that a knowledge of history can enrich >our lives by expanding our perspectives and perceptions. A knowledge of >Theosophical history can also widen our perspectives on Theosophy. I think >this is part of what Jerry HE has been trying to convey over many months. > >Sorry if I attributed the quote to you. >My comments were directed more toward those on theos network who seem to >be somewhat "a-historical" at least when it comes to Theosophy. > >ACtually we all do history and historical research everyday of our personal >lives. We wake up each morning and reconstruct a own personal history and >through out the day we do historical research (we don't call it that) answering >such questions as "Who left the cap off the toothpaste?" or "Who threw that >baseball through my living room window?", etc. We are continally reconstructing historical events and asking Who? Where? When? Why? We just don't call >it "history" or "historical research" and we don't get PhDs and spent our >professional life doing "history". I agree but that is personal history and is seen through our own cloudy lens. I recall the story told to me by a friend who was a police woman. She recalled that during training there were 10 of them in a room and a guy dressed in an overcoat, hat etc walked through the room. they were then asked to describe him. She said that all 10 of them saw something slightly different from each other. This surprised her because it was just one man with not that much descriptive clothes on. How much history is accounts of eye witnesses who are not trained to see objectively and how much is reconstruction of old history in light of evidence come to light. The fact that HPB went to such lengths to refute the Oriental scholars of her time gives food for thought. People, then, probably believed the improbable stories being published by travellers making sensational claims. An overview of possible happenings in the past will do me. I must confess to having read many fat historical novels in the past and enjoyed them as novels. Regards. Bee > >P.S. to Jerry HE. I think some of us have found your descriptions of how you >conduct class on Theosophy and the S.D. quite interesting. Could you maybe >give us more insights based on your years of teaching Theosophy? > >Daniel Caldwell > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Oct 1995 20:15:34 GMT From: JK1Carp@aol.com Subject: Theosophy Lodge Online Program - November 1995 Theosophy Lodge Online Program - November 1995 Live theosophical discussions are held every Wednesday from 9pm to 10:30pm ET. Discussions are based on articles that are available in the TLO library. Articles can be downloaded or viewed online; reading ahead in preparation for the meeting is encouraged. Upcoming Live Discussions: November 1 "Aphorisms on Karma", by William Q. Judge, Article # 125 November 8 "Psychic and Noetic Action - Part II", by H. P. Blavatsky, Article # 145 November 15 "Four Qualifications", Shankaracharya, Article # 137 November 22 "Evolution and Karma", by Raghavan N. Iyer, Article # 111 November 29 "Wheel of Change " by Sir Edwin Arnold, Article # 127 Theosophy Lodge Online is open at all times and has a growing library of theosophical articles. Feel free to 'page the hosts' while logged on if you have any questions or comments - or send email to jk1carp@aol.com. Theosophy Lodge Online is non-profit and is not associated with any theosophical organization. It is supported solely by individual contributions of time, work, and money; all are welcome to participate but nothing is compulsory. Our telnet address is: "theosophy.org" [without the quotes] Enter WWW URL as: "telnet:\\theosphy.org" [without the quotes] Our direct dial number: 301-942-4312 (14,400 bps only) [A note about the TLO mailing list: Sending mail to mulitple users necessitates a 'broadcasting' of addresses. If you would like to be removed from the list please send email to that effect to jk1carp@aol.com - thank you.] From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 24 Oct 1995 21:24:35 GMT From: Olcott Library Subject: Re: problem unsubscribing On Tue, 24 Oct 1995, Bill Maier wrote: > > Yes, I have also been trying to unsubscribe for some time now. My > polite requests are quietly ignored. I can't get any response from > listproc@vnet.net -- even "help" as a message is ignored. > > Bill > Instead of addressing your message to "listproc@vnet.net" try "listserv@vnet.net" [without the quotation marks, of course] The only text in the message should be one or more of the following lines (depending on which lists you have originally subscribed to): unsubscribe theos-l unsubscribe theos-buds unsubscribe theos-news unsubscribe theos-roots Hope this helps. Elisabeth Trumpler From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 00:13:06 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Not Escaping the World Following is another quote from "The Life and Teaching of Naropa" by Herbert Guenther, Shambhala, pages 189-91. The passage contains several points relevant to recent discussions on 'theos-l'. > ... in Tantrism the ordinary world of appearance is not unreal > but the ultimate in a limited and restricted way, and thus a > challenge to man to perfect and enhance it with beauty and value > which is more than earthy. The ultimate is found on *this plane* as well as on the higher planes. We are responsible to bring an unearthly beauty and value to this world. Our goal is not to escape physical existence as quickly as possible, but rather to manifest the deepest, the most spiritual, the highest creativity that we can give expression to. > Buddhist Tantrism is on the whole (there are of course > exceptions) what William Pepperell Montague calls 'positive > mysticism' and describes as: > > The positive mystic is one whose revealation of the invisible > > and transcendent serves not to blind him to the concrete details > > and duties of visible existence, but rather to illuminate and > > strengthen his earthly life. Our inner awakening can lead to a positive influence upon our earthly life. We find our experience of life in the world given added depth. We may drive the same car, cook the same dinner, or answer the same phone call, yet the world, to us, is different. It is richer, there is much more going on, a sense of magic and wonder fills our experience. > > His outlook on the world is devoid of illusionism, pessimism, > > asceticism, and occultism. We do not approach life with a sense of self-denial nor of looking at things hidden behind the external world. That does not mean that we are pleasure-seeking nor materialist. It means that we have no notion of personal self, and act for the common good without a second thought. We practice self-denial when appropriate but don't think of it in those terms. We don't seek the occult or hidden side of things because it is not hidden *to us*; we see it in and throughout external life. > > To mystics of this higher type nature seems more real rather than > > less real, and beautiful rather than ugly. There is no effort to seek escape from the material planes, because we recognize the divine throughout, and see its beauty in the outer world. We find beauty before us in life. We appreciate the opportunity to live in this world of causes, and enjoy the *sense of depth* to life. (This depth is the contrast between the experience of the highest planes and the physical. The lower the plane the greater the sense of depth to existence.) > > And instead of devoting their lives to the negation of the will > > to live and to a repudiation of earthly existence and its duties, > > they use their inner light to supplement the outer light of > > common sense and of science, and strive to incarnate the kingdom > > of heaven in the world. This is a different approach from some spiritual paths that teach that our goal is to escape the necessity of physical incarnation, and to seek rebirth on higher planes (globes). We are instead seeking to bring into manifest existence the treasury of the Spirit. Our work is to bring about the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Rounds, by creating the conditions in the world and in our inner natures for the external manifestation of Manas, Buddhi, then Atman. > Both ultimacy and semblance must coincide in a unitary experience > or the goal lived in everyday life. Technically this is known as > the coincidence of ultimate truth and relative truth. ... There is an experience of life in which the sense of the ultimate and of everyday life are unified. Grand, universal, cosmic truths and the details of our matter-of-fact world become unified in our consciousness. With Manas we have a notion of subject and object. With Buddhi comes a notion of non-separation with others. And with Atman comes the notion of dissolution, of unqualified oneness with all of life. This unificiation, where the ultimate and the everyday are no longer separate, comes yet higher in our inner nature. It transcends the apparent duality between the manifest part of ourselves (the ray of consciousness sent out by the Monad or the seven principles) and the Monad itself or the unmanifest part of ourselves. > The path is essentially the attempt to 'unfreeze' the common > state of hardened prejudices and opinions and to endow the > smallest thing with pulsating life in a transcendent glow of > ineffable beauty and value. We basically learn to find the same magic, wonder, and wisdom behind things of *this plane* which we are only able to currently do with things of much higher planes. What we are doing is awakening to a deeper consciousness on the physical plane, awakening its higher or spiritual qualities. > This comes about by a process of de-objectification, This process happens by stopping the action of the mind to create a false perception of an external, objective world. > ... The goal is the realization of reality as unitary and as > life out of this sphere which in normal behaviour becomes one > with a living transcending awareness as a positive contribution > to human life, not a flight from it, We seek to realize a unified consciousness where our normal activities take on transcendent qualities and lead to our making positive contributions to others. This is the opposite approach from seeking to find external life as without value, and seeking escape from the wheel of rebirth and the necessity of physical existence. > or as Padma dkarppo put it: 'As coincidence, the individuality of > authentic Being-in-the-world and noetic being as such.' ... We seek after a state where Manas functions in cooperation with our higher principles, leading to an unified experience of life, an experience of "authentic Being-in-the-world". > The idea of a double truth is thus essentially different from the > one which in the Western world found its specific formulation ... > as the double truth of science and faith ... In the West there is an artificial distinction between science and faith, or between the scientific methodology and religious experience. There is a hard-and-fast line drawn between that which can be readily objectified and "proven" and that which is unprovable and mystical. That line does not need to exist and is an inner barrier to spiritual progress. > The conflict still continues and most people live in 'a kind of > schizoid dissociation' which often assumes pathological > dimensions. We find the disassociation in many areas of life. Some people go to church on Sundays, then life the rest of the week doing horrible things. Others have a huge chasm between their religious beliefs and what they belive from popular thought, including Western politics, psychology, history, and science. There's an artificial and unnecessary gulf between what a Westerner thinks he knows and his spiritual beliefs and practices, which may seem somehow unworldly or not-quite-real. This is entirely different from the experience of life in which the spiritual *is a living reality* and an inseparable part of life. > The demand of Tantrism that ultimate truth and relative truth must > coincide and, in a certain sense, were in a state of coincidence > before they were split up by a mind, is not so much a novelty as a > new sphere which has as much an affective as a cognitive range. It is the action of the mind that creates the false sense of an objective world, and creates this "schizoid disassociation". The unified consciousness that arises when the ego-creating activity of Manas ceases is as real an experience as the power of cognition. And it is not merely an idea, but a qualitatively different type of experience of lfie. > It is experiencable as the experience process itself, not as the > content of the experience. And this higher functioning of Manas is not something that we do. Rather, it is a new way of doing things, a new way of experiencing life, a new mode of consciousness, wherein Buddhi is allowed to play a predominant role in ourselves, no longer subject to the rulership of the ego-creating aspect of Manas. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 00:48:14 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Various comments made by Eldon and Jerry HE Daniel C: >Eldon, I'm afraid you have a misunderstanding here. The standard in a >criminal case is "BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT." That is, is the defendant >guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I stand corrected on this point. The phrase "beyond a shadow of a doubt" sticks in my mind. Have you heard the phrase before? I'm wondering where I might have come across it. >> A lower standard is `the preponderance of evidence', and it is >> used in civil lawsuits.... > This is true and the standard is lower than in a criminal case. My point in bringing in some legal definitions is that because of the high degree of thought given to legal matters, there have evolved distinctions that may provide us another rich set of analogies to draw upon for metaphysical purposes. Consider the definitions for killing. The different crimes and what is involved shows a graduated scale of sentience or self-consciousness used. First degree murder requires a premeditated idea of killing: the intent, a deliberation, a weighing and balancing, an action of considering the consequences and deciding to kill. There is self-consciousness, an activity of the moral sense, and forethought to the action. Second degree murder comes from a rash impulse, where there is no planning in advance, but one is temporarily overcome, perhaps with anger, and without thinking about *intends* to kill and does it. Manslaughter is accidental killing, where one has killed another, but it was accidential or unintentional; the killing was unplanned and unwanted. The scale of sentience or self-responsibility is (1) intentional rather than accidental action, (2) action by impulse of the moment, then (3) action based upon reflection and forethought. The scale could go higher than this, but this is as far as Western thought takes the common man. >>The [the Masters] can be presumed to exist....With the Masters, >>we can likewise have a necessary place for them in the >>Teachings, and someday progress to the point where they are >>proven *to us*, by our personal experience. >What does Eldon mean by "[knowing the Masters by] our personal >experience"? ... My friend could close his eyes and he would not >see the Eck Master. Should we or do we accept 100% all of our own >personal experiences? I beleive we should examine critically our >own experiences as much as we would be inclined to examine >critically another person's personal experiences? There are a number of ways to know things by personal experience and I'm not sure I could list all of them at the moment. Most have been discussed on 'theos-l' at different times. A psychical experience is the one that comes quickly to mind for many people. I agree they can be unreliable and should be subject to extreme scrutiny. Through the entering upon the Path, and the becoming of a Chela, eventually one will become aware of the Masters as real people, and may come into contact with them. This is not necessarily by psychically means. When one engages a spiritual practice that bridges the chasm between the external world and inner experiences, the Philosophy takes on a real, living connection with life, and the proof of the Philosophy, including of the notion of Masters, is personally experienced. There is an activity of mind that provides another form of experience, which is as different from our ordinary experience as the sense of sight is different from the sense of touch. We can "experience" things through the "mind's eye". Using Western objective means, we can track down clues, like a police officer investigating a crime, and see what we can find out about the Masters in an ordinary manner. With sufficient evidence, we can "prove" in yet another way their existence. And the last form of "proof" is not really such, but is a suspension of judgement using Jerry HE's "reasoned certitude", where we defer judging doctrines or materials we are being trained in until we can verify for ourselves their validity. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 02:06:41 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: problem unsubscribing > You wrote: > > > >I still have been unable to unsubscribe to the theosophical > listservice. > >Does anyone have any suggestions? > >help..... > > > >*************************************************************** > >::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > >Diana E.M. Cooper 604-822-3943 > >Fine Arts Reference Librarian > >Fine Arts Library 604-822-3893 (fax) > >University of British Columbia > >1956 Main Mall INTERNET:dcooper@unixg.ubc.ca > >Vancouver,B.C. > >V6T 1Z1 > >:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > >**************************************************************** > > Yes, I have also been trying to unsubscribe for some time now. My > polite requests are quietly ignored. I can't get any response from > listproc@vnet.net -- even "help" as a message is ignored. > > Bill Try sending to listserv@vnet.net, *not* listproc. put "unsubscribe theos-l" as the message (without quote marks) delete sig(s). Hope this works ... From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 04:59:10 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: To Jerry S. Concerning Your comments about Johnson's book Jerry S., Concerning your remarks about what I said concerning Johnson's books on the Masters, I will briefly comment on Theos-l since your posting is also on theos-l. (I'm working on part IV of my critique of Johnson's thesis and it will be posted on Theos-roots in 3 to 4 days.) You (Jerry S) wrote: "I also suspect that you arrive at your opinion because Paul paints them as rather ordinary human beings rather than saints..." Your suspicion is totally wrong. If the masters are "rather ordinary human beings", that's okay with me. Whatever the historical evidence tells us, fine. Unfortunately, Johnson ignores the majority of evidence; I estimate it to be 90 to 95%. Maybe its only 85% that he ignores. Have you read Dr. John Algeo's review in Theosophical History? You write: "What you are saying is very similar to why Catholics and fundamentalists put out banned book lists." Isn't this, Jerry, taking things to extreme? When did I tell people to NOT read Johnson's books? I have actually encouraged people to read his books and would again say to readers of this posting, buy or borrow copies of Johnson's 3 books. You'll find lots of food for thought. But having said that, doesn't change what I said in the previous posting: "Johnson leaves out 95% of the historical information on the Adepts and ends up patinting a caricuature of the Theosophical adepts." Are you familiar with the historical records concerning HPB's Masters? Jerry believe what you want to concerning HPB's adepts but I try to inform myself of the historical and other records which constitute the primary source information we have on the historicity of these Teachers. Jerry, if you want to advocate pranayamas, fine. But HPB and her Teachers warn against the use of such practices. I know several individuals who have practisied pranayamas as well as other more "mental", less physical techniques. They have told me that pranayamas do produce "results" but they have experienced difficulties, including breathing problems, etc. There are other less physical, more mental techniques that can be used in the path of yoga. My own research indicates that pranayama can make one "mediumistic"; my friends just mentioned confirm that. No doubt, you will disagree and that's okay with me. But HPB and her Teachers warn of the use of such practices. Students of Theosophy will have to make their own decisions. Read HPB's E.S Instruction #3 and also the Mahatma letters. See also index to HPB's Collected Writings. Hopefully all of this will be covered in Henk Spierenburg's forthcoming book H.P. BLAVATSKY ON YOGA. "Each tub stands on its own bottom." Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 05:32:10 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: historical and doctrinal Jerry S: >>What we really need, if it would be possible, is a delicate balance >>between dogma and doctrine, with people in charge of our organizations >>that are trained in the Philosophy and able to apply the wisdom of >>Solomon to the organizational problems that arise at times. >What we really need, it seems to me, is experience, which >means living the teachings rather than just thinking about them. I agree with this too. >When we live them, dogma evaporates. But we still need doctrine because >our human mind still has a need to explain/express our experiences >in terms of visual and analytical models that we can understand and >communicate. *For us* dogma vanishes. But I was talking with regard to dogma being the required minimum beliefs that would constitute Theosophy. The dogma would be those beliefs that are taught on theosophical platforms that are required of someone to call themselves a Theosophist. The doctrine would be those teachings that are presented as Theosophy, but not required to be "believed in" in order to be a Theosophist. Perhaps the dogma would consist of the three objects of the T.S.? >People "in charge of our organizations" should be living examples >of theosophy. True, but who *decides* which people are living examples, and which are pretenders or self-deluded? There would need to be some form of certification or adoption of the credentials of a candidate T.S. leader if that was the criteria for their position in the society. Sometimes things happen by self-assertion, where we can take someone's claims or reject them. Consider James Long. He *asserted* his successorship and his right to head the Point Loma T.S. That assertion was accepted by some and rejected by many others. With every transition of leadership the same problem will arise. And we have the problem of how to participate in a society unless we accept the claims of the authorities at the top. >>The study of karate involves training and >>practice sessions. The study of Zen involves sitting zazen. And >>the study of Theosophy involves awakening the inner teacher and >>the sense of the divine in our everyday life; e.g. the approach >>to chelaship. >Exactly! If we all did this, many organizational >problems would disappear. Also, we would be more >tolerant and understanding of folks like JRC. But how do we teach this? JHE would teach the ideas from the books and leave the spiritual side to the individual to handle on his self-initiative. I'd want something more than that, but I'm not initially sure as to how to go about it. >>I would not consider either one as superior to the other in terms >>of "revelation", but would carefully consider any differences between >>their writings, and judicate in my own mind any apparent conflicts.> >You have mentioned this idea before. Can you give us one instance >for such a conflict? I have read both and am not aware of any. I can't think of any at the moment, but I'm not inclined to look for them since I accept Purucker as a spokesman for the same Masters that Blavatsky represented. I'm aware of what might be called "extensions" like the idea of the Outer Rounds and the Circulations of the Cosmos, but not of any area where there is a flat disagreement. I'm open to having any such disagreement pointed out, since it would be an interesting area to study. My comment, though, was not with a number of conflicts in mind. >If Purucker, >or anyone else, expands on HPB without contradicting her, then why >would this cause any problems with "the HPB student?" It shouldn't, but it's a matter of authority. If I studied Blavatsky and did not accord any special status to Purucker, I'd hold suspect anything that he said that I did not read in HPB, unless I was able to satisify myself that it was consistent. But I wouldn't make the effort to read Purucker unless I was confident that his materials were consistent with source Theosophy. If I believed that his writings contained numerous conflicts with Blavatsky, and he might not know what he's talking about, I'd decline to read and study him. >Unfortunately, one can represent the Masters in one subject >while totally screwing up another subject. So, our discrimination must >go farther than that between people; we also need to discriminate >between the writings of the same individual It's possible for any representative of the Masters, for any Teacher, to make mistakes and hold incorrect ideas. With a deep study of Theosophy, we reach a point where we can, hopefully, tell the difference between something that is correct and something that is in error. We are being trained to think for ourselves, and we need to apply this to everything that we study. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 05:58:55 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: forgiving your body Aki: >Thank you for your reply. I found this idea very interesting. It gives >an explanation to why I experience my body having kind of own >consciousness. And sometimes I even feel sorry about Him/it for abusing >or neglecting it. But if so, who am I now writing this? The uprising >animal Monad or inhabiting Human Monad? Or both? The idea is that as a aggregrate of cooperative Monads, we participate in each other's conscious exprience of life, while fully embodied on a sphere of causes like Globe D. In our after death states, the principles separate, and the Monads or Egos go to their respective realms or after-death experiences. Then they come together with the next rebirth on earth. The experience of the aggregation of the Monads in manifest life, here while incarnate on Globe D, provides an experience of life that is different and more complete than we have in the after-death states, where our experience is subjective, and without the added-influence of the other Monads in our perception of life. When you write, the Human Monad has the idea, and wants to write, and the Human-Animal Monad cooperates because it too wants to write, and receives direction from us. Currently we as Human Monads are the highest ones active in our constitution, until the Manasaputra becomes a living presence in our lives, then the Agniswatta, then yet a higher presence. Each of these Egos or centers of consciousness eventually become the prime motivator, the cause of action, the director of what we (the cooperative, impermanent being) chooses to do. These higher presences will happen in the later Rounds, should we continue to make the grade, working to become Mahatmas, Bodhisattvas, Buddhas, then something yet higher in the Seventh Round. >And what happens to Human Monad, when Animal Monad is full grown. >Are these monads going to mere to a single consciousness? Will the >ready Animal Monad be the inheritor of Human Monad's consciousness >and intelligent? We are a *cooperative* consciousness or cooperative, composite being, while in full seven-principled manifestation. This is akin to the Globe Chain, where each Globe is an Monad or Ego in the composite nature of a lofty being, itself in full existence in some greater "sphere of causes". We are not eternally linked to the other Monads in our constitution, but will continue together for vast ages, over who knows how many manvantaras. That link can only be broken in the case of lost souls, or those that completely break the link with their Spiritual Monad and fail completely in their evolution. They are "ground over in the eighth sphere", then resume their evolutionary pilgrimage on a lower cosmic plane. When the Seven Rounds are complete, if we all have made the grade, the Human-Animal Monad will have completed its Seven Rounds as an Animal Monad, and also completed its apprenticeship in the Human Kingdom, and will be ready to start out the First Round as a fully-functional member of the Human Kingdom, a Human Monad in its own right. And we, then, will be Dhyani-Chohans of the lowest grade, the Manasaputras to those Monads. >One more thing, our body is much older (Saturn period) than our other >principes eg. mind, so in a way it is much more perfect and wise. Our principles are emanated in serial order, so the first to emanate is the Atman. When we've reached the physical, we're fully functional (or at least started) on the different levels. Having thus emanated the various forms or sheathes for our consciousness, we then work on awakening, in reverse order, from the physical upwards, the sense of self-consciousness. The physical level, then, is the first level at which we become aware of our existence. Our evolution of self-consciousness towards the spiritual progresses, then, up towards the Atman, one principle after the next. At the end, we've awakened all seven principles to self-consciousness, and can express that consciousness *here on the physical plane*. >For example it has autonomous functions such as respiration, >digestion, sensing... etc, which are far beyond our mind's >capabilities. And our mind doesn't (yet) function automatically >as our blood circulation does. Eg. our feeling-system is already ?more automatic/perfect than our intelligent - being older (Moon >period). I want to say that we, as a Human Monad, could learn >much from our body. The body has a consciousness of its own. We are in close rapport or empathy with it, and can usually sense what that center of consciousness feels. But it functions with a self-directed intelligence that is not our own, but comes from a lower center of consciousness in our constitition (the Vital-Astral-Physical Monad or Ego). >To get a Dhyani-Chohan inhabit my soul, huh, I wonder would it be >nice? This starts with the Winter Solstice Initiation, with meeting our divinity face-to-face, then in the Spring we are inspired with the influence of that divinity, and in the Summer Initiation we are infilled with a god! At that point the Higher Human Monad (what we'd call our higher self) takes control and we are divinely inspired *from within*. That divinity is us, yet it is not us. There is the same degree of empathy and closeness and oneness of being between it and us, as there is between us and our animal nature. (Or as between one Globe of our Chain and another Globe.) The topic of the Animal Monad in the Human Kingdom is a difficult teaching, and is perhaps one of the more estoeric of the doctrines. It's something important to understand, though, because it's highly helpful in our understanding the composite nature of man, and how it relates to his essential eternal nature as a Monad. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 06:05:05 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: historical and doctrinal Jerry Schueler, JS >What we really need, it seems to me, is experience, which >means living the teachings rather than just thinking about them. >When we live them, dogma evaporates. But we still need doctrine >because our human mind still has a need to explain/express our >experiences in terms of visual and analytical models that we can >understand and communicate. People "in charge of our >organizations" should be living examples of theosophy. JHE Yes. Very well said. JHE Jerry HE: JS This brings up a very important issue that goes to very heart of "source teachings" versus secondary or neo teachings. If Purucker, or anyone else, expands on HPB without contradicting her, then why would this cause any problems with "the HPB student?" Are you of the opinion that if HPB didn't say it, it can't be true? Anything not spoken by HPB is false? It seems to me that by expanding her 7-globe 4-plane model into a 12-globe 7-plane model, for example, does not conflict with what HPB says and so where is the problem? This is especially true in light of the fact that she admitted to holding some teachings back. JHE Of course "the HPB student" I mentioned in my discussion is a hypothetical one--an averaging out (if I can offer a loose term) of the many that I have met over the years. It had been my experience the straight HPB students tend to reject Purucker-- particularly the more conservative students that have been trained by ULT. As for my own opinions, they are quite different--I don't fall under the category of "the HPB student" that I made. Speaking for myself, I read and have read Purucker, Leadbeater, Bailey, Fortune etc., and try to read then upon their own merits. Therefore, I only measure them up against HPB when they claim to be consistent with her. When they say that, I put them to the test. I have just finished a book entitled ~Psychic Initiation Secrets of 777~ by a Mark MacDougall. He begins by saying that Blavatsky's system was incomplete, Bailey's teacher, DK, was confused on many points, Leadbeater copied Bailey, the Mahatma Letters were written by Blavatsky, and Fortune was trying to get to much information into to little space. He strongly implied that he has a deeper understanding of cosmology and esoteric psychology then the above writers and had stated that he had been in personal contact with the Master Jesus. The book was a good read, but I found no extraordinary depth of understanding in it, and on several points, gross misunderstandings. I approached the book by trying to determine his system and how it is different from the other authors. Then I tried to determine his source of information. Since the book had end notes, this was easy to determine. Since I was already familiar with most of the books he used, it was easy for me to see just how he went about drawing from and organizing information from these other writers into his own system. Would I criticize this book on the grounds that it disagrees with Blavatsky? No. But I would point out areas were he got his information confused, and I would point out areas where he adopted other writers opinions as his own without questioning or analyzing them. Concerning your question about expansions of Blavatsky's seven globes into twelve--I have taught this on occasion, but when I do, I'm very careful to make it understood that the twelve globe scheme came from Purucker--not Blavatsky. Whether it is correct or not is something I leave up to my students to decide. As for my personal opinion--I find that it resolves questions left open by HPB's scheme and may very well be correct. On the other hand, Purucker's teachings concerning the historical Jesus appears to contradict what HPB writes on the subject. I have raised this question to many Purucker students, including some who had studied directly under Purucker, and I'm yet to get an answer resolving the contradictions. The best answer I ever received was from W. Emmett Small, who said that he didn't know but that the subject should be explored through further discussion with other Purucker students. I agree with him, but so far, I have been unsuccessful in finiding any Purucker students willing to discuss the subject to any extent. The discussion always degenerates into a discussion on faith--that they have faith that Purucker is right. That is fine for them, but since I don't operate on their faith, I'm left with the same questions. (???) Jerry HE:<>>We examine the differences then make a choice. It's a separate choice as to *which* individuals are representatives of the Masters. > JS Unfortunately, one can represent the Masters in one subject while totally screwing up another subject. So, our discrimination must go farther than that between people; we also need to discriminate between the writings of the same individual, and yes, I am thinking about CWL here. JHE I agree with you here in principle. However, your quote did not come from me. It sounds very much like something that Eldon would write, and your comment probably should be directed to him. The phrase "We examine..." is very much his writing style. Eldon likes to use "we" where I always use "one." On the other hand, I can't be absolutly sure that it came from Eldon either. Please let me know the date and title of the message that you got this quote from so that we can track it down. Thanks Jerry HE ------------------------------------------|Jerry Hejka-Ekins ||Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu ||and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org |------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 06:06:12 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: unsubscribing problem > Yes, I have also been trying to unsubscribe for some time now. My > polite requests are quietly ignored. I can't get any response from > listproc@vnet.net -- even "help" as a message is ignored. > > Bill I've had problem of this type also. When something doesn't work, I report it to John Mead and ask him for guidence. That is what he is here for: JEM@VNET.NET Jerry HE ------------------------------------------|Jerry Hejka-Ekins ||Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu ||and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org |------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 06:07:26 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: Cayce Jerry S. >I also seem to recall a prophecy about someone finding >scrolls or something under the paws of the great Sphinx >in Egpyt. While they did discover some neat boats under >the Great Pyramid, I don't think anything has yet been found >under the sphinx. Anyway, has anyone ever listed Cayce's >correct predictions versus his misses? Jerry S. There was a article in our local newspaper last summer, sometime, that some archaeologists had discovered a passageway near the paw of the Sphinx. They said that they did not expect to find anything at the end of the passageway, but will be clearing the rubble and descending the passage way in January. If Cayce's prediction is correct, they are supposed to find scrolls from the library of Alexandria at the end of that passage. Did anyone else see this article? It was one of those UPI fillers, and was probably in papers all over the country. If anyone saved the article, I would appreciate a copy. Thanks Jerry HE ------------------------------------------|Jerry Hejka-Ekins ||Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu ||and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org |------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 06:08:43 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: lemniscate The recent discussion over "lemniscate" brings to mind a precaution that should be addressed. Words do change meaning from time to time. Technical words, like "lemniscate" tend to hold their meaning, but sometimes find new applications as our scientific knowledge grows. For instance, we understand the word "atom" very differently today than we would have in HPB's time. On the other hand, more common words often change with the culture. For instance, I can well remember a time when the word "gay" had nothing to do with homosexuality. Therefore, with the study of the SD, it is helpful to keep the above in mind. The ideal situation is to have a dictionary or two published around the time that the book was written, but this is not practical for most of us. The multi-volumed Oxford English Dictionary is helpful because it traces the changes in word meanings, and a miniture edition of it is (or was) available through books clubs, and commonly appear in used book stores for about $80.00--a good investment. Jerry HE ------------------------------------------|Jerry Hejka-Ekins ||Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu ||and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org |------------------------------------------ . From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 06:27:24 GMT From: Don DeGracia <72662.1335@compuserve.com> Subject: Don 2 Liesel: Equations Leisel: Glad you enjoyed the article by Dr. Hong: Well, considering that one could take many years of formal training in mathematics, it would be hard to answer your question here, but I can try at least to give you a simple idea of what is going on. There are linear equations and nonlinear equations. Simply stated, linear equations give you a straight line when you make a graph of them. There is nothing mysterious going on here. It is that simple. Nonlinear equations do not give a line when they are graphed: the give some kind of curve such as a sine curve or an exponential curve, to name only two possiblities. The reason Dr. Hong's statments are significant is that, for most of the history of science, scientists have only used linear equations. This is because linear equations are easy to solve. Most nonlinear equations can only be solved by computers, and seeing as there were no computers for most of science's history, that meant that there were many equations people just couldn't solve. So, since these nonlinear equations couldn't be solved, scientists for the most part ignored anything that could not be described by linear equations (which is what Dr. Hong sarcastically called "the privilage of reductionism"). And its been this way pretty much until the 1960s with the wide spread use of calculators and computers. With computers, the nonlinear equations are very easy to solve. And since scientists have begun working with nonlinear equations they have discovered that for many things, the nonlinear equations work better at describing nature than the linear equations did. As a matter of fact, the linear equations didn't work very well anyway, but, until the computer, linear equations were all that people could solve. So, I've skipped the "what" about nonlinear equations and just went to the significance and a little history of whats going on here. I hope this helps. Basically, math is a kind of window on to how nature works. When you use math expressions, these tell you how things are related. Like Einstein's famous E=mc2 equation. This equation reads: "energy equals mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light". So, this equation tells you that energy is related to mass, and the factor that relates these is the speed of light. Thus, the math expression gives one insight on how the various parts of nature are related. Again, Liesel, I don't have time to write a book about this, but I hope the little I said here helps put this in perspective for you. Best wishes, Don From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 06:27:25 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: Re: Don 2 Eldon To Don DeG Re: "hidden heritage of the Masters' ... it's only occult until someone figures out what makes it tick, then it becomes known & no longer occult. To continue this thought, I agree with your assessment that eventually the hidden & the public knowledge will converge. Re exploring experiences that transcend the ordinary,... some early biofeedback researchers, I think it was the Greenes, once took some measurements of a cooperating yogi. I remember one was that the yogi stoped his heart & they got the proof via cardiogram. & the yogi said afterwards that he could have stopped his heart longer, but that he'd heard that the graph paper they were using was terribly expensive. I've forgotten what other measurements they did on him. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 06:27:25 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: Don 2 Liesel: Equations Hi, Don, What you wrote re non-linear equations is just enough. At least now I understand what they're talking about. It's a good thing you didn't get mathematical on me. For some reason, I got A's in HS Algebra & Geometry, but with college Calculus I just about made a C. It's just beyond me. I really agree with your statement re our 3rd object: "Know thyself & the world you inhabit." I think that's a real good statement. I'm sorry your book didn't get past the TPH editors. Please don't let that keep you from expressing your ideas. You're a young man with valid ideas which ought to be heard, or read, however it works out. I still haven't had a chance to read through your Don 2 Eldon, but mean to & will comment, if I have anything worth adding. I'm exhausted today, because I spent some of my recent spare time getting 2 little kids into hallowe'en costumes (from remnants & other materials I had around the house). I live in a Sr. Citizen's apt. complex, with services ... really a community, & yesterday was our monthly family night dinner, which this month became our hallowe'en party. I'd invited some friends with little kids, & since I love to make dress-up things from scraps, still from my Den Mother days, we devised a Pocahontas & a Power Ranger, who beat up a new found friend at the party with a bunch of balloons. Rather the 2 little boys went at each other with baloons, & the new found friend was finally dragged home by his mother screaming protest all the way. I'm exhausted. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 06:27:25 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: Re: Don 2 Eldon Hi, guys, Love your conversation. Don, I was wondering whether you're familiar with the work of Eric Peper. He started out with biofeedback research but branched out into other realms. He sometimes worked together with Dora Kunz. Like our Wheaton library has a paper about their research on dealing with pain. The Olcott LIbrary also has some other books by him, and compiled by him with experiments he did. He's also lectured at Wheaton & Ojai, & there are tapes. Don't know whether he's still there, but a few years ago he was at the Center for Interdisciplinary Science, of San Francisco U. Don't know whether his researches are of interest to you, but thought I'd mention him, case they are, & you don't know about him. I'm almost sure he's a theosophist. Re your point that there's a philosophical "envelope" at a given moment in history which surrounds scientific knowledge ... I submitted something to the AT in this vein, & it got rejected. I was trying to make the point that our thinking (out philosophy) makes our Karma. The essay started out with quotes from the works of a gynecologist of 150 years ago, when they thought, for instance, the study of Math, the sciences & etc. were too taxing on a woman's smaller brain, & would hinder her reproductive processes. They also had a fetish about modesty. At the time, women would rather die than unclothe under any circumstances. It was just considered unseemly. This MD was teaching med students about gynecology & about delivering babies from charts. When they actually went to practice, the woman was draped in a blanket & the baby was delivered by feel. Some MD in Buffalo paid a welfare mother to deliver, again under a blanket, in front of his class of med students. The students said they'd learnd from it, but the MD was censored by the AMA & harrassed by the newspapers. I called the essay "Mindset", well with this mindset many women died or were stunted for life, & so were some of their babies. I learned all this in an American women's history course, & thought it showed very graphically how our thoughts, or philosophies, influenced our lives, & made Karma, but Bill Metzger didn't agree with me. Well, so it goes, but the piece runs along the same idea as your idea that philosophies of the time build a background to what science does. I'm all for "validating our beliefs through experience." This has been true for me through the years with my theosophical beliefs. It has helped me, because I've come to accept that I can count on them to come through for me in the clinches. "We must be creative & devise new methods for observing nonphysical realities." I wonder whether you yourself have already come up with some new methods. If not, I'm sure you will as you go along. This is why I mentioned Peper. I thought he might give you some ideas. "People such as myself, who are in both worlds (occultism & science) are taking it upon ourselfs to draw the connections and make sure that scientists without occult training are aware that they are not the 1st people to have discovered these realitites." You were hoping that the TS would play a constructive role & help guide scientists as they ... explore new regions of consciousness. I hope you'll find that support. I was just thinking that there were other theosophical scientists who were inspired by theosophical thinking. Besant/Leadbeater's "Occult Chemistry", and Jinarajadasa's "First Principles of Theosophy" come to mind. The physical brain I read in some theosophical lit is considered a vehicle, & not the originator of what it produces. End of comments. Have fun. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 06:56:15 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Pandits and Gurus Eldon: EBT But how do we teach this? JHE would teach the ideas from the books and leave the spiritual side to the individual to handle on his self-initiative. I'd want something more than that, but I'm not initially sure as to how to go about it. JHE That is the difference between a pandit and a guru. I'm just a pandit--I only teach theosophy--and I teach it in such a way that students will be able to use it in their lives. Those who believe that they have some special enlightment, spiritual authority, superior spiritual understanding, or believe that they are speaking from the Masters, become the gurus. They have their job, I have mine. What I try to do is to teach people to develop the tools they need in order to listen to the Master that is within them--that is all a pandit can do. The meditation techniques, pranayamas, Aums, prayers, pujas, asanas and kundalini raising are things that I leave to the gurus who at least think that they know what they are doing. Personally, I would not want to take on the karma of a guru--especially one who is mistaken. Jerry HE ------------------------------------------|Jerry Hejka-Ekins ||Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu ||and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org |------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 07:42:15 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Cayce's Mysterious Master (?) I replied to Patrick's comments about Cayce to him directly, not realizing they were copied to the list. So let me begin by saying that Cayce was not a trance medium in the spiritualist sense. He was a trance clairvoyant whose distant viewing and knowing was abundantly documented in a medical context for 20 years before any metaphysical teachings began to emerge. When entranced, he occasionally acknowledged the presence of discarnate entities or angelic ones, but firmly and consistently refused to engage them in any way. The source of his information was (as best I can comprehend it) THE PERSON FOR WHOM HE WAS DOING THE READING; although the knowledge was not conscious on the part of the client. His ability to receive, decode, interpret that information was his own, and not derived from any other entity. So it's sort of theosophically reductionistic to dismiss him as a spiritualist medium. That said, it must be admitted that the readings themselves suggested that in a future life Cayce would evolve to be able to access such information without becoming unconscious. But just think how highly evolved a person would have to be to consciously read 8000 clients' health situations, past lives, etc. and not be overwhelmed by the process. There was some protection of his sanity implicit in the need to go unconscious to obtain his information. I have just learned something about Cayce that was previously unknown to me, and relates him mysteriously to the Theosophical concept of Masters. From Harmon Bro's A Seer out of Season: [after forming a partnership with his father and several others in Kentucky] a tall figure of darker complexion dressed in white and wearing a white turban walked up the stairs to his studio one day, looked him earnestly in the face, and said, "You are with the wrong people." Cayce was certain he heard footsteps, but when he recovered his composure enough to run down after him, the townspeople standing on the sidewalk nearby assured him flatly that nobody-- absolutely nobody-- had come by and entered or left the studio stairs. He thought the figure was Hindu, but a reading taken much later would explain that it was Persian. The startling visit from the stranger was not to be his last; in the decade ahead it was to recur at crucial times."(p. 287) Something that requires further investigation. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 10:36:34 GMT From: Aki Korhonen Subject: Re: forgiving your body Hello Eldon and the others. On Tue, 24 Oct 1995, Eldon B. Tucker wrote: > Purucker offers some interesting ideas that this seems to relate to. .. > > Monads in our constitution. They as centers of consciousness are > the animal nature which our human nature, the Human Monad, uses. > The "horse" that you ride is an Animal Monad in the Human Kingdom, > destinated, if it continues its evolution, to be a Human Monad in > its own right at the end of the Seventh Round. Thank you for your reply. I found this idea very interesting. It gives an explanation to why I experience my body having kind of own consciousness. And sometimes I even feel sorry about Him/it for abusing or neglecting it. But if so, who am I now writing this? The uprising animal Monad or inhabiting Human Monad? Or both? And what happens to Human Monad, when Animal Monad is full grown. Are these monads going to mere to a single consciousness? Will the ready Animal Monad be the inheritor of Human Monad's consciousness and intelligent? One more thing, our body is much older (Saturn period) than our other principes eg. mind, so in a way it is much more perfect and wise. For example it has autonomous functions such as respiration, digestion, sensing... etc, which are far beyond our mind's capabilities. And our mind doesn't (yet) function automatically as our blood circulation does. Eg. our feeling-system is already more automatic/perfect than our intelligent - being older (Moon period). I want to say that we, as a Human Monad, could learn much from our body. To get a Dhyan-Choan inhabit my soul, huh, I wonder would it be nice? Peace. aki korhonen Oulu. Finland. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 11:44:12 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Ignoring 95% Twice now, supplementing his lengthy posts to theos-roots condemning my books, Daniel Caldwell comes up with the impressive statistic that I have ignored 95% of "the evidence" regarding the Masters, From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 11:55:32 GMT From: William Parrette Subject: Hi again, and a few questions Hi all, It's been a while (since last May!) since I've been active on the theos-l list. I've had an ISP for several months now but they're running Linux and I've been taking my time trying to get used to the absence of some tools and the look-alikes available for others. The "water looks warm and inviting" so I thought I'd at least start to "stick my toes back in" and get active in some mailing lists again. First stop -- theos-l! Some of you may remember me from some of my posts about the Cincinnati Study Center (with which I am involved) and my thoughts on the need for some revamping of theosophical educa- tional materials. Well, it just so happens that a small group of us have been getting together in Cincinnati on a monthly basis and we have decided to start studying the booklet published by the TS called _Introductory_Study_Course_in_Theosophy_ (Part I). We got through Lesson 1 just fine -- no problems -- and, in fact, had some interesting discussions. However, when Lesson 2 came up for discussion ... Lesson 2 is entitled "The Plan and Purpose of Life" and deals in general with the three "aspects" and their "outpourings" or "life impulses" as well as with the journey of the Monad through the planes into dense physical forms and then back to join the Logos. Now, the text didn't seem to bother anybody in our group and most seemed to at least feel that they understood most of it (most being the operative word here ;-) ). However when we tried to correlate the text with two diagrams at the end of the lesson, all kinds of confusion and questions broke loose! Diagram 1 (page 23, if you have a copy) is a "graph" that shows the "planes of existence" on its vertical axis and a circu- lar "pipeline" that starts with three symbols at the top labelled first aspect, second aspect, and third aspect. The second aspect descends through the planes in what is labelled as the first out- pouring before it hits the physical plane and ascends back into the first aspect in what is labelled as the third outpouring. The "pipeline" has a dashed line that flows through it which gets thicker as it descends into the physical and then thinner as it heads back out. this line stops at another symbol in the thrid outpouring at the mental plane. This circular "pipeline" is bi- sected in the middle by another "pipeline" that starts with a symbol labelled as the third aspect and is itself labelled as the first outpouring. This "pipeline" has a solid line that flows through it that gets thicker as it descends into the physical. Diagram 2 (page 24) is entitled "Evolution of the soul" and seems to be another circular "graph" of the Monad's travel from the Logos through the planes into the mineral, vegatable, animal, and human realms before it starts its ascent back up through the planes to return to the Logos. There seems to be some connection between the two diagrams with their circular nature and some of their labels. On this diagram, Atma seems to correspond to the Adi, Monadic, and Nirvanic planes; Buddhi seems to correspond to the Buddhic plane; Manas seems to correspond to the mental and astral plane; while Minerals, Vegetables, Animals, and Individu- alization seem to correspond to the Physical plane. Once we started comparing the text of the Lesson to these two diagrams, confusion set in and all kinds of questions started to emerge. For example: * What is the correlation between the symbols and the termi- nology used in Diagram 1? That is to say do the circular symbols used at the top have some meaning with respect to the terms related to the aspects and does the pipeline con- taining the flowing line have some meaning with respect to the terms related to the outpourings. And, is there any meaning to the symbol that appears in the mental plane of the third outpouring. * What is the meaning of the joining of the three outpourings in the physical plane? * Is there any meaning to the dashed versus the solid lines contained within the outpourings? One goes from nadir to zenith and then starts back up only to stop in the mental. The other seems to only go in one direction and stops. * Is there any specific meaning behind the three symbols used at the top of the diagram which are labelled as the aspects? * Is there any correlation between Diagram 1 and Diagram 2? * What about all of the symbolism used in Diagram 2? The flames? ... The sparks? ... The upside down solid triangle (physical matter?) ... The right-side up hollow triangle? (spirit?) I hope that some of you more experienced Theosophists out there have a copy of this "course material," can look at the text and the diagrams, and give us a little help. I told the group that I would post these questions, gather any responses, and print them out for our next meeting (November 14). So any and all help will be sincerely appreciated. (BTW, I hope you'll excuse any spelling errors in this post -- I haven't found the spelling checker yet! :-( ) Thanks, in advance, for your thoughts and responses. And, as I am often wont to say in closing, may you always grok in fullness ... William A. (Bill) Parrette wap@one.net New personal signature work in progress ... From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 13:03:19 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Ignoring 95% The oft-repeated charge that I have ignored 95% of "the evidence" about the Masters'identities has recently been twice stated on theos-l. This inspires some reflections. 1. The Masters Revealed nominates 32 persons as possible adept teachers/sponsors of HPB. In his voluminous posts, and presumably forthcoming article and booklet, Daniel Caldwell focuses exclusively on two of them-- ignoring 93.75% of "the evidence" concerning my identifications of Master figures. Why? Moreover, he repeatedly generalizes from these two to condemn my entire output. Why? 2. John Algeo, in his Theosophical History review of the book, defines the "thesis" as being that I have successfully identified (i.e. conclusively established) historical prototypes for Morya, Koot Hoomi, Serapis, Djual Kul, Hilarion, the Chohan, and Tuitit Bey. I actually counted the number of pages devoted to these hypotheses, and it came to 5% of the book. It is overwhelmingly a collection of biographical and historical information about HPB's associates; connecting this information to the pseudonymous characters of Theosophical literature is admittedly speculative and given little space. Why such a misreading? 3. In the last twenty years, skeptical approaches to the Masters have appeared in books by Campbell, Tillett, Washington, and Meade. Totally flaky approaches to the subject have appeared in books by Prophet, Creme, and who knows how many others. Quite uncritical acceptance of HPB's claims appeared in books by Cranston, Fuller, and Murphet. Peter Washington's book in particular actually ridicules HPB and the Masters, was published simultaneously with mine, and has outsold it by 5-1 judging from OCLC holdings. Yet no TS leader dissected or condemned any of these books with 5% of the intensity that John Algeo has applied to mine, at least not in print. Why does my work, which represents far less than 5% of all books sold on the subject in the last 20 years, attract 95% of the condemnation-- even though it is sympathetic to HPB and written by a Theosophist? (I admit that Caldwell did a number on Fuller, but doubt that it's 5% of what he has said about me, and nowhere near as negative). 4. The only answer I can come up with as to the disproportionate scrutiny and condemnation from my fellow Theosophists, relates to the A.R.E. material I'm studying right now. It says that anger and resentment are often the conscious result of unconscious fear. Fear is defined as "a defensive reaction of mind and body to a situation perceived as threatening to the continuity of our self-image." I have found that angry reactions to my work come especially from people who 1) are older than I 2) are Theosophical "insiders" in comparison to me 3) are or believe themselves to be authorities on Theosophy or its history and 4) accept HPB's claims on the Masters with little or no questioning. If that anger is the result of fear, what are they afraid of? Perhaps a threat to the continuity of their self-image of being Theosophical authorities? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 14:05:58 GMT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: Eldon on Tantra etc. Reading quickly through the last theos-l digest 132, I was struck by several who struck a resonant echoing chord of something I have been thinking about. Eldon discussed Tantricism in a way to suggest (I think, without requoting) something like Tantra allows for the insight that the seven planes and the lengthy discussion about them end with the transparency of all to consciousness. Thus lowest spirit and highest matter meet and perculate, so to speak in man, and his various level of consciousness. I am still concerned with a special type of consciousness currently called lucid dreaming. I have again had several significant, to me, dreams whereby I experimented with trying to walk through a wall in a lucid dream, LD. The wall was very solid and resistant, not like in a Hollywood ghost story!. Yet art on the wall seemed to go back and forth like optical illusions, you know the uglywitch/beautiful lady is a famous one. So the dream world can be stable and unstable. Maya exists on all levels. One might think of the uncertainty principle as a type of bigtime Maya for the physical scientists. Art is a special type of existense that is not real as object or unreal as dream, but shares a certain quality of both. Some time back I brought up the idea that the reason Blavatsky talked so little about art is that she was afraid the scientific minds of the time might dismiss her work as "mere art". Perhaps her views on dreaming, or lack of them, suggest a similar possible fear, that is the SD could be a "mere dream". Of course today we might drop the "mere" and put "real" in the since of valueable on many levels! The tantric world sees dream states as almost more real or revealing as the physical world. I think much of the discussion of the Masters, seems a mirror game also. The Masters can be seen on many levels- archetypal, real ordinary historical figures (P.Johnson's work) or special entities a la ETs. Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 15:37:56 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: re: re high brow chats > > AEB > Nowadays, we're too busy learning how to drive cars, work ATMs > and computers. Not mention the lure of the American dribble box, > the television. *Dribble box*??? Please enlighten this ignorant Brit! > My husband always talks about the way people in his youth (50's) > used to claim that technology was going to free up our time. > Seems we're busier than ever trying to keep up with it. > > JHE > I remember. The 60's were more fun though. Too much > tension in the 50's. Everyone was worried about communists--or > being accused of being one. Not so much in the UK. I was regarded as a "beatnik" in the mid-50's, which was the equivalent of a "hippie" in the 60's, but allegedly less 'gentle' (no flower power). I played jazz (accordion!) studied 1. Astrology; 2. Theosophy; 3. Kabbalah or Qabalah. My favorite period is circa 1955-1965. TM ideas were flourishing, and I got the other TM (Maharishi) before the Beatles! > Best > Jerry HE P.S. to Jerry: Wea re adding to the Koot Hoomi pamphlet Arthur Lillie's letter to ~Light~ of August 2, 1884 as an Appendix. Oh Yes. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 16:31:03 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Pranayama > Dan: since > these practices can make one "mediumistic". > > > Such practices will put one into a mode of mental acceptance. > If one is unprepared, ideas may come via kama-manas, which is the reason > for the warning. However, in fairness to pranayama practices, if one is > prepared or properly "initiated" then such techniques can open one up to > buddhi-manas and spirituality. Pranayama, like all forms of yoga, is a double- > edged sword, and must be used carefully. But please, lets don't throw out the > baby with the bathwater. > > Jerry S. As without the preparation glamour can get in too easily, do you not think the warnings are rather important? "Hey, I just got into buddhi-manas, and the Masters told me blah blah, etc." Of course the "blah blah etc." has a very good chance, under such circumstances, of being a question of "When the student is ready, the student appears." :-) We've all met 'em along the way, no? Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 16:36:21 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: High-brow chats > . . . . . . .Here in Wanganui we are doing our best to keep up > with the teachings and not letting them disintergrate into meaningless warm > fuzzies. > Kind regards, Bee> Some meaning-full warm fuzzies can be nice though! Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 16:46:54 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: re: historical and doctrinal > > Eldon, [Massive snip] > JHE > >Just read the books and parrot the teachings until you can put > >them into your own words. This had been done for years and is > >IMHO DEAD. As a dodo. [Not quite so massive snip] > JHE > >From an historical approach, the questions of veracity; > >how people are affected by the teachings; and how one > >is personally affected by the teachings are the important > >questions. VERY important questions. If I tell you a lie in one subject, how are you to know if I am teeling the truth in another? *The same criterion applies to HPB, AB, CWL, and so on - and *also* to the Masters themselves. I will post an item on the Masters when I can find it in my files ..... [More snippin'] > JHE > >Personally, I prefer as much as possible not to lean on > >that which I cannot confirm. AMEN > EBT > Except where your "reasoned certainity" comes into play, > where you have granted the status of authority to someone > that you are studying, based upon your assumption that the > teacher in question knows that he or she is talking about. > > JHE > No. The authority remains with me, and the reasoned > certainty is mine alone: because it was earned through my own > efforts of enquiry and experience. Any "status of authority" > that I may grant to anyone else is highly conditional and subject > to my own authority. MORE AMEN > JHE > >If and when I learn to astral project to the snowy Himalayas and > >have tea with the Mahachohan every other thursday afternoon, > I'll let you know. > > EBT > Now here's something that I would have trouble with, were you > to say this. If you *really* did such a thing, you'd likely > know to keep your mouth shut, and not say a word about. > > JHE > Exactly Err... I already booked Thursday afternoons :-) [Guess what] > JHE > Right. But remember, we only know the "content" by the > garbs. However, by an historical approach, we can see the same > contents in different garbs, and by comparison gives up insight > into what is behind those garbs. Get my drift? Quite. I can come visit you dressed as a cop. That doesn't make me a cop. [GIANT SNIP] > Jerry HE Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 17:46:43 GMT From: Adam Warcup Subject: Re: Re The Nature of Space (Science & Theosophy) Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> writes: > Patrick, thanks for the posting on Space. I enjoyed reading it, and only > have one minor problem. The original S of Dyzan verse says: > > "Alone the one form of existence stretched boundless, infinite, causeless, > in dreamless sleep; and life pulsated unconscious in universal space,..." > And then the commentary says: > " II. ... the one Life, manifesting through matter, produces a third factor > which is consciousness." > > Because of the wording in the S of Dyzan (suggesting that life is > unconscious during praylaya) and my own understanding of Space > and Motion between manvantaras, I would prefer to write this as: > " II. ... the one Consciousness, manifesting through matter, produces a third > factor which is life." > > This is a small point, but I see life as an expression of consciousness > rather than the other way around. Thanks again, > > Jerry S. Jerry, I had always argued (to myself) that as Spirit and Matter (or Substance) is the prime duality, and as Spirit is equated by HPB with consciousness, then consciousness is one of the two poles of EXistence. Thus Life which is a non polar, non dualistic term must precede consciousness ... which is what I thought the SD was saying. Regards, Adam From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 19:09:07 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Not Escaping the World Eldon: Eldon, you have preached this before. Could you please give us an example of such a "spiritual path." I am not aware of any, while you sound like you know several. Jerry S. PS. Thanks for the quotes on tantricism. I have the Naropa book too, having read it years ago. Most theosophists are afraid of tanticism, I suspect because HPB had little good to say about it. Yet most Tibetans practice it, because the Buddhist verison is much different than the Hindu (which seeks after powers). I am not sure if HPB was even aware of this large difference in the two tantric schools, and I have always suspected that when she derides "tantricism" she is referring to the Hindu school. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 19:09:11 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Re: Re The Nature of Space (Science & Theosophy) Adam: I have always argued (to myself) that subjectivity (I) and objectivity (Not-I) were the prime duality. However, a good case can be made for existence and non-existence also. The very fact that life can be unconscious suggests to me that consciousness is dominant. On the other hand, we can set up a duality of consciousness and unconsciousness... It all comes down to semantics in the end. This is why I prefer nonduality, so I can just let the two poles fight it out amongst themselves :-) I am not so sure that "life" is non-polar. It depends on how you want to define it. Some say it is opposed by death. If we think of death as a final process, then it would be opposed by birth rather than life. But what is the polar opposite to bardo? Some may say that life is motion or action, in which case it would be opposed by stagnation or inertia. However you define it, you can oppose it. What I am trying to say, is that, there is virtually no word at all for something that is truly non-polar (nirvana comes close). Nonduality itself is opposed by duality. Our human mind functions only in dualisms. To reach nonduality, we must raise consciousness far above the human mind, where there are no words left at all. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 19:09:15 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: historical and doctrinal Eldon: The only way to teach it is through *techniques* of some kind. And even if we give techniques (Wheaton, for example, advocates basic meditation techniques that include visualization and prayer (sounds a bit like magical rituals to me), it would be hard to find anyone qualified enough to do the training - and the TS is not allowed to be any kind of training ground, etc. Most TSs stay away from all techniques except very basic meditation and perhaps karma yoga (doing good deeds). All in all, I am not sure but what JHE's method is about all we can do from within a TS. The only techniques that I know of, that really work, are all variations of yoga, some of which will force the development of psychism, and for which one must be prepared beforehand. Like I have said several times, those techniques that work the best and fastest are the most dangerous, while those that work the safest are the slowest and least reliable (because lifetimes are required and there is lots of time to get distracted). Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 19:09:21 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Hi again, and a few questions William, I am not familiar with your training lesson, but your description of Diagram I is very close to Plate III found in CWL's Man Visible and Invisible. I don't know anything about your Diagram 2, nor where you get "Adi" and "Monadic" for the names of the first two planes, though these are as good as any. < And, is there any meaning to the symbol that appears in Subject: historical & doctrinal I agree with Jerry S. "What we really need, it seems to me, is experience, which means living the teachings rather than just thinking about them" Daniel, I was thinking further about using history. I really enjoy history, but not bickering about things that happened so long ago that no one can really be sure of what really occurred, & there are 6 different versions. You say you use it to learn & understand better, & I really agree with that. I found a good quote in "The Voice of the Silence". It says what I mean, & perhaps also what Jerry S. means, "Before thou takest thy first step, learn to discern the real from the false, the ever-fleeting from the everlasting. learn above all to separate head-learning from Soul -wisdom, the 'eye' from the 'heart' doctrine. "Yea, ignorance is like unto a closed and airless vessel; the Soul a bird shut up within. It warbles not, nor can it stir a feather; but the songster mute and torpid sits, and of exhaustion dies. "But even ignorance is better than head-learning with no Soul-wisdom to illumninate and guide it." Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 19:09:22 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: to: Bee Brown Dear Bee, In one of your "high brow chats" you ask how theosophy is done in Russia. I'm in touch with the head of a study center near Moscow. There is a Theosophical Society Hq. in Moscow. Some of the theosophical classics are now available in Russian, it seems that they're printed up almost locally, by interested individuals. They're very interested in learning what's happened to theosophy since 1917, the time when they were cut off, & I've sent my "pen pal" a number of later Theosophical books, in which he'd expressed an interest. Dick Slusser in the "High Country Theosophist" once described conditions for theosophists under communism. Of course it wasn't allowed, & anyone found out practicing it was hauled off to jail or Siberia & etc. Theosophists used to go to see the head of the Study Center one at a time, & would receive oral instructions from that person. Don't ask me where the head got his material from. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 19:09:24 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: historical and doctrinal Jerry HE:< But I would point out areas were he got his information confused, and I would point out areas where he adopted other writers opinions as his own without questioning or analyzing them. > Sounds fair enough. Jerry HE:<-I have taught this on occasion, but when I do, I'm very careful to make it understood that the twelve globe scheme came from Purucker--not Blavatsky.> Also sounds fair enough. Jerry HE:< On the other hand, Purucker's teachings concerning the historical Jesus appears to contradict what HPB writes on the subject.> Sounds like something we could discuss here. I have read both, but missed this contradiction. Jerry HE:< I agree with you here in principle. However, your quote did not come from me. It sounds very much like something that Eldon would write, > Sorry. I was referring, of course, to the MLs where the idea is put forth that an Adept is such only when consciousness is shifted away from the human to something higher. It seems to me that a "lower" Adept (I am assuming that even an Adept has to start somewhere) could be such at times, and then get material through kama-manas once in awhile by mistake. I have no idea if this explains CWL, but I think its a possibility and also I find it hard to believe that all Adepts are perfect because they are, after all, still human. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 22:13:42 GMT From: Olcott Library Subject: Re: re: re Wheaton and Cults On Tue, 10 Oct 1995, Liesel F. Deutsch wrote: > Wheaton does have a service organization, the Theosophical Order of > Service. It has its own officers & heads of various departments. > The above statement is not quite correct: The Theosophical Order of Service is NOT an organization that is part of the TSA headquartered in Wheaton. In fact, it is organizationally not part of any Theosophical Society, but an independent international organization. However, most or all of its officers are members of the TS Adyar in various countries and the current international president of TOS is Radha Burnier. Members of TOS need not be members of the Theosophical Society. It was founded in 1908 by Annie Besant to "provide an opportunity for participation in activities which promote the first object of the T.S." TOS International publishes a newsletter, "THE SERVICE LINK." For information and a TOS start-up package, write to: TOS International Secretary Diana Dunningham-Chapotin 9 Avenue de la Republique 93420 Villepinte France In the U.S., subscriptions (US$3.00/year) may be placed with: Mrs. Alice Gamble 410 Carillo Ojai, CA 93023 The TOS in the U.S. publishes its own quarterly newsletter, "FOR THE LOVE OF LIFE," as well as several books. Another newsletter, "ALL CREATION," is published by the TOS Animal Welfare Dept. For information on TOS activities in the U.S. contact: Mrs. Jean Gullo PO Box 41584 Tucson, AZ 85717 I hope this information is useful to the readers of this BBS. Elisabeth Trumpler Olcott Library From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 23:01:59 GMT From: ciric@ix.netcom.com (Bill Maier ) Subject: Re: problem unsubscribing You wrote: >Instead of addressing your message to "listproc@vnet.net" try >"listserv@vnet.net" [without the quotation marks, of course] > >The only text in the message should be one or more of the following >lines (depending on which lists you have originally subscribed to): > > unsubscribe theos-l > unsubscribe theos-buds > unsubscribe theos-news > unsubscribe theos-roots > >Hope this helps. >Elisabeth Trumpler > Thank you. I simply am overwhelmed by the quantity of mail generated by this list. However, if these posts go to a newsgroup, I would be interested in browsing them on occasion. Is there such a newsgroup? Bill From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 23:10:28 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Pandits and Gurus > Personally, I > would not want to take on the karma of a guru--especially one who > is mistaken. > > Jerry HE > Likewise! My sig below was designed out of typical me-type mischief :-). Like you, I teach, but I make sure those I teach take responsibility for what they do with it. Thus: "This is the teaching as I have received it. Don't believe a word I tell you. Check it our from your own experience." Saint Alan of England. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 23:10:29 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: forgiving your body Dear Aki I don't understand what youre saying. I was taught that an entity has only one monad, human beings have human monads & animals have animal monads. The animals are eventually supposed to evolve into human beings, in this manvantara or the next one. So I'm teaching my little cat everything she can absorb. She dribbles as well as any good human football forward, only she doesn't head for a goal. I think that if you hang on long enough, you'll become a Dhyan Chohan. Namaste Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 23:34:09 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: re: lemniscate Jerry HE: >Words do change meaning from time to time. ... For instance, >we understand the word "atom" very differently today than we >would have in HPB's time. ... Therefore, with the study of the >SD, it is helpful to keep the above in mind. This is why, upon republication of ancient works, that the obsolete words may need replacement. The English language continues to move forward, and books get out-of-date. Also, the actual words of the books may "go stale" on the reader, after being read too many times. An "Secret Doctrine" quote may be old hat to you, and not have the same impact as it may on a new reader. The same idea, clothed in fresh words by another writer, may grip your attention with renewed vigor. It's the same as with music, where a melody that once was gripping simply does not carry the same power to touch the listener, if heard too many times. I've heard the argument that every word, and even the typos and misspellings in Blavatsky's books should be left untouched, being sacrosanct. How dare we presume to know what she really meant by a term? Someone might say that the material is so esoteric that we'd destroy the meaning if we dare make the slightest touch to the materials. When we look up a term that Blavatsky used in a dictionary of her era in order to know what she meant, we're saying that we know the meaning of the term. If we can know the meaning, we also could put the term in 20th (soon to be 21st) century English. An example of a term that would be misleading (at least in the U.S.) is "milliard" in "Esoteric Buddhism". It means "billion", but that is not obvious to many without a dictionary. I'm not talking here about rewriting her books, but picking the few, rare terms that are really misleading. The intent of the books is to convey the materials written about, not to be a jigsaw puzzle for macho scholars to idle their time away with!. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 23:54:17 GMT From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Subject: Not Escaping the World Many thanks, Eldon for that lovely post. Just a brief comment as I am off out of town shortly for 3 days. How you explained it really resonated with how it is when I live in the moment. I don't always stay there but I have been doing it intentailly for a couple of years and it gets better with practice. As you said, 'Our inner awakening can lead to a positive influence upon our earthly life.' Just so. Everything takes on a lustre that just is there, no reason, nothing special, just is. I will be back to do some more high-brow chat. Farewell for now, Bee. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 25 Oct 1995 23:56:07 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Pandits and Gurus Jerry HE: >>But how do we teach this? JHE would teach the ideas from the >>books and leave the spiritual side to the individual to handle >>on his self-initiative. I'd want something more than that, but >>I'm not initially sure as to how to go about it. >That is the difference between a pandit and a guru. I'm >just a pandit--I only teach theosophy--and I teach it in such a >way that students will be able to use it in their lives. The spiritual side is the part that the students can put to use in their lives. The intellectual ideas are the "clarity" to the teachings, and the spiritual aspect is the "depth". Without a sense of inspiration, of depth, of genuineness, of integration with life, the teachings remain but a mind-game. >Those who believe that they have some special enlightment, spiritual >authority, superior spiritual understanding, or believe that they >are speaking from the Masters, become the gurus. We don't have to become gurus when we strive to teach Theosophy. At least, not in the sense of trying to take on others as our spiritual students and to be training them. But to the extent that we have a spiritual practice integrated in our lives, it gives us something more significant to offer others. And that added depth is an important element, something that keeps us from being caught in dry intellectualism. Even as mentors or trainers of the intellect of others, we can try to maintain inside ourselves the fire of mind, and to pass it on -- not limiting ourselves simply to the tinder of mind, the contents of the teachings. Training others, I'd suggest, in an analytical process of how to study, or in the literal teachings of Theosophy unadorned with any sense of spirituality, is passing on something that is dead, something that life has not been breathed into. >They have their job, I have mine. This distiction between the intellect and the spiritual is an artificial one that arises in the West. There are not really two jobs, just one job. >What I try to do is to teach people to develop the tools they >need in order to listen to the Master that is within them -- that >is all a pandit can do. Acquiring the abililty to "listen within" is a technique, a practice. Perhaps you're just teaching those techniques that you approve of, and setting aside the rest? >The meditation techniques, pranayamas, Aums, prayers, pujas, >asanas and kundalini raising are things that I leave to the >gurus who at least think that they know what they are doing. The gurus in established traditions have centuries or perhaps longer of tradition in their respective schools to draw upon. They are teaching what has seemed to work over a number of generations. The ones that can get into trouble are the pioneers, the ones that are either teaching things ad hoc, from their own experimentation, or are leaders in some new tradition. In the theosophical field, we would be like these later gurus, being pioneers in a new tradition that does not have centuries of practice behind it. >Personally, I would not want to take on the karma of a guru-- >especially one who is mistaken. We pay for our mistakes, but everything in life represents a risk, and we can never be mistake-free. If we're experimenting with a dangerous drug, we'd conduct trials before mass marketing it. If we're experimenting with new spiritual techniques, we'd likewise try to find out on a small scale their workability before promoting them to the world. There's karma for everything that we do that affects others. When even a single word leaves our lips (or keyboard), we pay a price, as it touches others. Purucker has spoken on a number of occassions of the price that a Teacher has to pay. That price is paid by mentors as well as by spiritual coaches or trainers. I'd suggest, though, that the price is worth it, if we *can* affect people for the better, despite the mistakes that we may make at times. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Oct 1995 00:12:24 GMT From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Subject: Re: forgiving your body >Hello Eldon and the others. > >On Tue, 24 Oct 1995, Eldon B. Tucker wrote: > >> Purucker offers some interesting ideas that this seems to relate to. >.. >> >> Monads in our constitution. They as centers of consciousness are >> the animal nature which our human nature, the Human Monad, uses. >> The "horse" that you ride is an Animal Monad in the Human Kingdom, >> destinated, if it continues its evolution, to be a Human Monad in >> its own right at the end of the Seventh Round. > >Thank you for your reply. I found this idea very interesting. It gives >an explanation to why I experience my body having kind of own >consciousness. And sometimes I even feel sorry about Him/it for abusing >or neglecting it. But if so, who am I now writing this? The uprising >animal Monad or inhabiting Human Monad? Or both? And what happens to >Human Monad, when Animal Monad is full grown. Are these monads going to >mere to a single consciousness? Will the ready Animal Monad be the >inheritor of Human Monad's consciousness and intelligent? Having just been reading all about that, I feel what all that is not quite correct but hopefully an explanation will come as I would be very interested in it too. As I have mentioned, I am right into elementals and I vaguely know what the animal elemental essence we are made of, is. Not I think, an animal monad but lots of potential animal monads. > >One more thing, our body is much older (Saturn period) than our other >principes eg. mind, so in a way it is much more perfect and wise. For >example it has autonomous functions such as respiration, digestion, >sensing... etc, which are far beyond our mind's capabilities. And our >mind doesn't (yet) function automatically as our blood circulation does. >Eg. our feeling-system is already more automatic/perfect than our >intelligent - being older (Moon period). I want to say that we, as a Human >Monad, could learn much from our body. > >To get a Dhyan-Choan inhabit my soul, huh, I wonder would it be nice? Nice to see you back again. Bee > >Peace. >aki korhonen >Oulu. Finland. > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Oct 1995 00:26:20 GMT From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Subject: re: re historical and doctrinal > >JHE > When I was studying theosophy in the early 70's, my teacher >assigned Purucker's ~Fundamental of the Esoteric Philosophy~ and >told me not to go on to the next chapter until I felt that I had >mastered the preceding one. I read every chapter at least twice- >-some I read three and even four times before continuing. The >book is a series of 48 lectures on ~The Secret Doctrine.~ Though >he discusses teachings that are not in the ~SD~ (such as the >twelve globe chain), I believe it to be an important introductory >book into the ~SD~, and may make the eventual study of the ~SD~ >easier. > >I must also add that when I finished ~Fundamentals~ I came to a >realization concerning the nature of theosophical teachings that >cannot be put into words. I can only say that it has to do with >the teachings being inward, outward, above and below. I know >others have had the same realization after reading this book, and >they know exactly what I'm talking about. I also found this same >realization in the ~SD~, but it is in ~Fundamentals~ where I was >really struck with it. Please let me know if this is the book >you are reading, and if you have this experience too. > >Thanks >Jerry HE > Just finished Vol 1 of The Esoteric Tradition and about to start Studies in Occult Philosophy. I will certainly look for the one you mentioned as I think we have most of his stuff in our library. I just love the way he explains things. Why did I not get to him earlier? It has been my research into elemetals that actually began with him on the recommendation of our librarian. I hope to conduct a 6 week workshop on elementals, about 1-2 hour session per week. I am hooked on the idea of the habit forming aspects and the implications for addiction. I am half packed to go away but I cannot resist the theo-l so I will buzz. Many thanks, Bee >------------------------------------------|Jerry Hejka-Ekins > ||Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu ||and >CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org >|------------------------------------------ > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Oct 1995 00:26:21 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: Re: Cayce I always thought that it didn't depend on whether the person was awake or asleep, but on whether they stayed in control or gave over control to another entity. The latter, I was told, was deleterious. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Oct 1995 00:29:41 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Re The Nature of Space (Science & Theosophy) Adam: >I had always argued (to myself) that as Spirit and Matter (or Substance) is >the prime duality, and as Spirit is equated by HPB with consciousness, then >consciousness is one of the two poles of EXistence. Thus Life which is a non >polar, non dualistic term must precede consciousness ... which is what I >thought the SD was saying. There are different ways that we can look at this. (I'm thinking it would be fun to put this in my own words.) At the highest level, Spirit-Matter is unified (Alaya) and its plane is parentless (Anupapadaka), since there is no higher plane to emanate from. Each plane successively emanates out of the one above it, and is considered more material since the Spirit-Matter spilt widens. This creates a sense of being on a more-material plane. Anything in existence is life; all of manifestation is life. We could call the non-existing or unmanifest also "life" as well, except that in this case the life would be potential, without visible form or attribute. The fundamental nature of being (and of non-being as well) is consciousness. Consciousness precedes existence, and continues into the non-existant, when a being dissapears from the living universe. Consciousness transcends the *apparent* separation of Spirit and Matter, the apparent artificial distinctions created by the action of our mind in producing maya, in making the external world appear objective. Our thirst for material, objective existence comes from a hunger for self-consciousness (and self-expression, without which self-consciousness remains but an abstraction). This leads us into embodied existence. The appearance of the world in a bipolar form, in terms of dualities, arises from a mode of consciousness that we entertain. If we change our mode of consciousness, that appearance changes and the world is correctly perceived as non-dualistic. What I suspect is that the high point of evolution in a manvanatara is at its end, if we run the course successfully. At that time, we've fully developed our sheathes of consciousness, and are fully alert and self-aware in all our principles, from the physical through Atman, *while yet in the physical* on each of the Globes. That is, we've fully expressed, to the greatest possible extent, the wonders of the highest planes in and through our being, all the way down and into the outer body or Sthula Sharira. This represents a full spectrum of consciousness that is *more* that we have when we leave everything behind, and go into our nirvanic sleep, awaiting the next planetary manvanatara. It represents the *fullness* of outer completion, much like the feeling one gets upon writing the last word of a highly-creative book. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Oct 1995 00:29:42 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: various I thought about why I have an aversion to Aki's &, I think, Eldon's talking about a human "animal body". It's because to me calling a human being an animal has very negative connotations. It's like calling a body "evil". Animals, very often aren't evil. They're just doing their thing. I guess the human body is also just doing its thing. I've heard the human body called the sacred housing for the human spirit. I find that much more to my liking, even if that same body houses some desires which are sometimes not too easy to deal with. I think one needs to try to learn to deal with one's body, rather than to scold it, & call it names. And I like the idea of it being sacred. It implies that it's a good thing to take care of it, since it houses Spirit. >From browsing around in some of HPB's writings this AM, I think that the reason why we're having such difficulty with establishing what human "bodies" or "vehicles" or "fields" really exist is that HPB herself gives several versions, & you can have your pick. I'd like to call your attention to the October edition of Dick Slusser's "High Country Theosophist". Dick brings much of value (I don't know what's keeping him from being on theos-l. A while back he was thinking of joining in with us.) One of the items I like especially is "A Theosophical Get-Together", a transcript of a meeting by the Brookings, Oregon Study Center of the ULT. To quote just a little from the beginning of Dick's "verbatim summary": "Is choice free? How are choices made? Our nature determines our choices. From these consequences and results in the future, are self-produced. "There is no outside code of 'right and wrong' imposed. Each person is the sole judge of himself. If we are convinced that a line of action is 'right', we should verify that by consulting Narture's laws. We should consider our intent and motive - are they pure & fair? Is there any room for error because of some omitted factor? "Karma is a name given to nature's Law...." The discussion covers what is spirit, what's the universe made of, what is the symbol of the tree of life? In the West we speak of the 'business of life' Why do we look at life in that way? How are changes made? etc. If anyone is interested in getting a copy, I'm sure Dick would be pleased to mail you one. I would enclose $1.- to cover Dick's costs (it's $9.- for 12 issues) The address is Dick Slusser High Country Theosophist 140 S.33rd St. Boulder Colo. 80303 Shanti Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Oct 1995 07:10:53 GMT From: jem@vnet.net (John E. Mead) Subject: common errors when unsubscribing hi - the following are some of the most common errors which can reject listserv messages (in general): 1) bad subject. it is best to use a BLANK subject field for your message. If your message has RE:, ERROR, etc the listserver will ignore it as a message the *listserver* sent which has been reflected back to itself. 2) Your are trying to UNSUBSCRIBE or SIGNOFF from the wrong computer node. You must signoff from the same place you signed onto. i.e. smith@comp2.ibm.com is different from smith@comp3.ibm.com (as it should be!). Usually an error message from the listserv points out any "similar" addresses of subscribers to help you catch this. 3) don't add your name in the signoff (or unsubscribe) command. i.e. just say SIGNOFF THEOS-L 4) Remember that the listserver is a program (interpreter) which can only recognize predefined commands. If it finds a problem with your request, it will send you an error message with clues as what it is having problems deciphering. Hence, for case 1 (above) it usually tells you that your subject is "suspicious". If "subject:" looks like requests/commands/errors/RE: then something is weird. i.e. READ your returned e-mail from the server. hope this helps - peace - john mead p.s. if you are getting too much e-mail, then you should go to digest mode. The mail comes in one or two packages a day that way. kinda like a newspaper. to set this up send to listserv@vnet.net a message (blank subject) with the line set theos-l mail digest you can do this for any of the theos-xxx lists independently. to return to single-letter mode, send set theos-l mail ack (acknowledge letters individually) John E. Mead jem@vnet.net [Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers] From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Oct 1995 08:56:04 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Dribble box Dr. Bain: >*Dribble box*??? Please enlighten this ignorant Brit! A highly personal term which I used to describe the steady trickle of nonsense that is called net work television. In the US, we're inundated with soap operas, talk shows and TV tabloids. These days, the network executives and sponsors think the public is mesmerized by every sleazy detail of every person's life, famous and not-so-famous. And the ratings have proved them right. The public television channel here in Chicago shows reruns of Britain's Are You Being Served?, Keeping Up Appearances and Masterpiece Theater, along with British mysteries. How is television in the UK? My husband and I used to love Dr. Who. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Oct 1995 10:05:00 GMT From: "Porreco, Nick - CPMQ" Subject: RE: Publication yes I am very interested, thanks in advance for info. Nick Porreco nlporreco@bpa.gov or suria@teleport.com > From: theos-news > Subject: Publication SIMILIS ES, BY A.E.WAITE and ARTHUR MACHEN a new publication, is now available from ABRAXAS in England in a limited edition of 150 hand- numbered copies. The cost is five UK pounds plus postage etc. (About one pound to the USA). For further details e-mail me (see sig below). An explanatory introduction to this rare MS is included, written by R.A. Gilbert. NOTE ON THE MANUSCRIPT The original manuscript of Similis Es, now in a private col- lection, is on six leaves (last leaf being blank) of machine- made laid paper, measuring six and seven-eighths inches by four and a quarter inches, written in black ink in the hand of Arthur Machen. It is bound in full limp blue-green morocco, lettered on the upper cover: SIMILIS ES - A.E.WAITE From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Oct 1995 11:14:22 GMT From: Coherence@aol.com Subject: Re: historical and doctrinal In a message dated 95-10-25 15:42:42 EDT, you write: > But I was talking with regard to dogma being >the required minimum beliefs that would constitute Theosophy. The >dogma would be those beliefs that are taught on theosophical platforms >that are required of someone to call themselves a Theosophist. Pardon me for shouting but, THERE IS NO DOGMA IN THEOSOPHY. There is nothing in the Divine Wisdom which must be accepted. The doctrines are given out for our consideration, only. That this is even being brought up is amazing to me. Now, assuming dogma is that teaching which must me accepted because of the "authority" of the "source", here are some things to think about: "We are engaged in trying to develop a truer appreciation of the Light of Life which is hidden in every man, and so the "final authority" is the man himself." (Wm. Q. Judge, Articles, v. II, p. 543) "But no Theosophist has the right to this name, unless he is thoroughly imbued with the correctness of Carlyle's truism: 'The end of man is an ACTION and not a thought, though it were the noblest' -- and unless he sets and models his daily life upon this truth." (HPB, Key to Theosophy, p.230) "I do not refer to technical knowledge of the esoteric doctrine, though that is most important; I spoke rather of the great need which our successors in the guidance of the Society will have of unbiassed and clear judgment. Every such attempt as the T.S. has hitherto ended in failure, because, sooner or later, it has degenerated into a sect, set up hard-and-fast dogmas of its own, and so lost by imperceptible degrees that vitality which living truth alone can impart." (HPB, Key to Theosophy, p.305) "It (Theosophy) will gradually leaven and permeate the great mass of thinking and intelligent people with its large-minded and noble ideas of Religion, Duty and Philanthropy. Slowly but surely it will burst asunder the iron fetters of creed and dogmas, of social and caste prejudices. . . . . and will open the way to the practical realization of the Brotherhood of all men" (ibid.) There are numerous references to the destructive dogmas of Christianity throughout the literature of HPB. As numerous are the references to Theosophy being KNOWLEDGE which each of us can attain for ourselves through experience and observation. I would say that there is no room for dogma or authority in the "Divine Wisdom", and HPB and Judge have specifically said so and explained why. The opening quote from a previous post indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of what Theosophy is, but that's okay, that's why we're here: to learn and to clear up these misunderstandings. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Oct 1995 11:14:28 GMT From: Coherence@aol.com Subject: Re: Door to the Human Kingdom In a previous post the following assertion was made: >>>Those animals that made it through that "door" became the Animal >>>Monads in our constitution. They as centers of consciousness are >>>the animal nature which our human nature, the Human Monad, uses. >>>The "horse" that you ride is an Animal Monad in the Human Kingdom, >>>destinated, if it continues its evolution, to be a Human Monad in >>>its own right at the end of the Seventh Round. My question regarding the above was the source of the assertion that the Animal Monads become the "animal natures" of man. The source given was Puruker with a request for a Blavatsky source. Here is what I came up with. First to clarify, HPB tells us that evolution proceeds on three levels simultaneously: the Monadic (Atma-Buddhi) the Intellectual the Physical (SD, i 181) Now what we are discussing is the evolution and progression of the Monad. We are told that the Monad passes through all the kingdoms of nature to finally become Man. "The most developed Monads . . . reach the human germ-stage in the first Round; Become terrestrial, though very ethereal human beings towards the end of the Third Round, remaining on it (the Globe) through the "obscuration" period as the seed for future mankind in the Fourth Round, and thus become the pioneers of Humanity at the beginning of this, the Fourth Round. Others reach the Human stage only during later Rounds, i.e.those still occupying animal forms after the middle turning-point of the Fourth Round---will not become men at all during this Manwantara. They will reach to the verge of humanity only at the close of the seventh Round to be, in their turn, ushered into a new chain after pralaya . . . " (SD, i 182) This is the most concise statement I can find. The general principle is reiterated often and in various places throughout the SD. The Monad in the animal kingdom has passed through the mineral and vegetable kingdoms and is now ready to become Man, i.e.self-conscious. There is no reference to Animal Monads becoming "Human NATURES" or our lower attributes. This would be confusing the evolution of the Monad with the evolution of the Physical. Therefore there are not two Monads trying to inhabit our bodies (the animal and the physical). This concept prompted the very humorous question from another participant to the effect, What happens when the animal Monad grows up? The teaching of Purucker as given by you would lead to a question such as this, which may illuminate where Purucker has mis-spoken. The wonderful thing about Theosophy is its logical consistency. The pages surrounding the above citations are very interesting and may help your understanding of evolution. Anthropogenesis, by the way, occupies the entire Vol. 2 of the SD. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Oct 1995 11:14:31 GMT From: Coherence@aol.com Subject: Re: forgiving your body In a message dated 95-10-25 06:44:23 EDT, you write: >To get a Dhyan-Choan (sic) inhabit my soul, huh, I wonder would it be nice? I refer you to "source" Theosophy: "Withal, the Monad of every living being, unless his moral turpitude breaks the connection and runs loose and 'astray into the Lunar path' -- to use the Occult expression -- is an individual Dhyan Chohan, distinct from others, a kind of spiritual individuality of its own, during one special Manvantara. Its primary, the Spirit (Atman) is one, of course, with Paramatma (the one Universal Spirit), but the vehicle (Vahan) it is enshrined in, the Buddhi, is part and parcel of that Dhyan-Chohanic Essence . . . " (Secret Doctrine, i 265) So now, you tell me, is it nice? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Oct 1995 12:47:23 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: More Cayce Thanks to Patrick, both Jerrys, Liesel, and Ann for comments on earlier posts. Further thoughts: Sorting out the reliable from the unreliable aspects of Cayce's work has been an explicit emphasis in A.R.E. for a long time; his son Edgar Evans (still alive) wrote a book called The Outer Limits of Edgar Cayce's Power. Areas where he was demonstrably unreliable: locating oil wells and buried treasure, predicting earth changes, and depicting Egyptian history. (Although as mentioned there are aspects of his Egyptian stuff that may yet pan out). The most reliable aspect of his work seems to be the medical readings. I have found the study group readings to be wonderful food for the soul, as have many others. We Theosophists are likely to embrace most of the philosophical/religious teachings that emerged from the readings, although they can't be tested in the same way other things can. My co-author (whose identity I'll reveal when/if we get a contract) has taught parapsychology at the graduate level and will do all the parts evaluating Cayce's abilities. My parts will be doctrinal and historical in focus. So the above discussion relates more to him than to me. Here are some thoughts that motivate me as I start research. It is a very striking contrast and complementarity that nearly all the general teachings about philosophy, religion, history etc. given by Cayce emerge from readings for individuals. One has to extrapolate the general principles from the specific cases. Whereas with HPB and other Theosophical teachers, the reverse is true. Almost all the teaching is at the level of generalities; specific applications have to be deduced from these. This to me says something about Theosophical expectations of a "Messenger" in the 20th century. Perhaps rather than a new outpouring of general principles, what we need is a teaching that shows how to apply them. This raises the question of the value of esotericism. With Theosophy, there is a tremendous allure derived from the claim that the teachings are preserved in remote, inaccessible places by remote, inaccessible people. "Where it comes from" is tremendously important, and was even more so a hundred years ago. Whereas with Cayce, what is most important is the applicability of the teachings, and the source matters little. This seems to illustrate the esoteric becoming exoteric. Cayce didn't have to go to Tibet or get initiated by anybody; the information just poured through him. If Masters were involved they went to great lengths to conceal it. There's nothing secretive in the flavor of ARE and Cayce as far as I can tell; all versions of Theosophy and its offshoots are permeated with secrecy at least as an ideal. There's a personal issue for me in this. 18 years ago when I joined ARE and the TS almost simultaneously, the exotic, remote nature of Theosophy was much more appealing than plain old Edgar who I'd known about from childhood. If the value of a teaching was directly proportional to the remoteness and antiquity of its source, anything born in this century and headquartered in Virginia Beach couldn't be worth much. (Almost all of my life was spend in southeastern Virginia, FYI). It was only after spending time in India, researching Theosophical history, etc., that the glamor of the faraway in space and time started to wear off and the here and now started to look more sacred. There also a far vs. near dichotomy between Theosophy's focus on cosmic abstractions and Edgar Cayce's focus on individual mental and physical health. Intuition and thinking vs. feeling and sensation, you might say. As to questions of title. How does "The Message of Edgar Cayce" strike you all? The idea is that it is a double entendre, covering my approach to the content of his teachings, as well as my co-author's analysis of the implications of his paranormal abilities. One thing that Theosophists may knee-jerk to is Cayce's Christian terminology and belief system. But his Christianity seems pretty compatible with HPB's reading of it. In the case of Bailey and Leadbeater and Steiner, critics have regarded their Christianizing tendencies as subversive of true Theosophy. But I wonder if perhaps there was a natural redressing of an imbalance. HPB, due to historical circumstances, gave an anti-Christian spin to her writings. Perhaps what is really going on with Cayce, Bailey etc. is the subversion of Christianity by esotericism rather than vice versa. That could only happen through a more pro-Christian kind of esotericism than source Theosophy. Guess that's enough for now. Having had my say about "95%" I hereby declare a statute of limitations on discussion of my first two books. Others can of course post anything they wish, but I will participate henceforth only in discussion of the new one and the work in progress. Plus anything else of interest *except* In Search of the Masters and The Masters Revealed. Of course if anyone wishes to email me privately about these I'll try to respond to questions and comments. Namaste From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Oct 1995 13:37:04 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Forwarding Caldwell's Part IV on Johnson's Thesis about M & KH PART IV of Caldwell's article on Johnson's thesis follows: A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF PAUL JOHNSON'S THESIS = CONCERNING MORYA AND KOOT HOOMI, = PART IV by Daniel H. Caldwell In Part III of this series, I asked Paul Johnson a whole series of questions concerning what he had previously written in response to my Part II. He has now informed me in a *private* e- mail message that he has no intention of trying to answer these questions since he feels my review of his thesis is some sort of game, etc. I will continue the series with or without Johnson's participation, because I believe that there are many statements in Johnson's writings on the thesis concerning Morya and Koot Hoomi that need to be carefully examined. In Part II, I presented Colonel Henry Olcott's account of meeting the Master Morya on July 15, 1879. I want to quote again Olcott's testimony in which he states that the Master Morya came on horseback to Bombay T.S. headquarters: (Document 1) "[I] had visit in body of the Sahib [Morya]!! [He] sent Babula to my room to call me to H.P.B.'s bungalow, and there we had a most important private interview...." (Extract from Colonel Olcott's handwritten diary for July 15, 1879) (Document 2) "This same Brother [Morya] once visited me in the flesh at Bombay, coming in full day light, and on horseback. He had me called by a servant into the front room of H.P.B.'s bungalow (she being at the time in the other bungalow talking with those who were there). He came to scold me roundly for something I had done in T.S. matters, and as H.P.B. was also to blame, he *telegraphed* to her to come, that is to say he turned his face and extended his finger in the direction of the place she was in. She came over at once with a rush, and seeing him dropped on her knees and paid him reverence. My voice and his had been heard by those in the other bungalow, but only H.P.B. and I, and the servant *saw* him." (Extract from a letter written by Colonel Olcott to A.O. Hume on Sept. 30, 1881.) (Document 3) "MR. MYERS [speaking to Colonel Olcott]: We want now an account of seeing your Teacher in the flesh. COLONEL OLCOTT [in reply]: One day at Bombay I was at work in my office when a Hindu servant came and told me that a gentleman wanted to see me in Madame Blavatsky's bungalow---a separate house within the same enclosure as the main building. This was one day in 1879. I went and found alone there my Teacher. = Madame Blavatsky was then engaged in animated conversation with other persons in the other bungalow. The interview between the Teacher and myself lasted perhaps 10 minutes, and it related to matters of a private nature with respect to myself and certain current events in the history of the Society..... MR. MYERS [asking Olcott another question]: How do you know that your Teacher was in actual flesh and blood on that occasion? COLONEL OLCOTT [replies]: He put his hand upon my head, and his head was perfectly substantial; and he had altogether the appearance of an ordinary person. When he walked about the floor there was noise of his footsteps....He came to our place on horseback.... MR. MYERS [with another question]: Was that the only occasion on which you have seen him in the flesh? COLONEL OLCOTT: No; I have seen him at other times. MR. MYERS: Have you seen him three or four times in the flesh? COLONEL OLCOTT: Yes, more than that, but not under circumstances where it would be evidence for others. MR. MYERS: And about how many times [have you seen him] in the astral body? COLONEL OLCOTT: Oh, at least 15 or 20 times. MR. MYERS: And his appearance on all those occasions has been quite unmistakable? COLONEL OLCOTT: As unmistakable as the appearance of either of you gentlemen." (Extracts from the interview Olcott had with members of the = London S.P.R. Committee appointed to investigate Theosophical phenomena in the Spring of 1884) In light of Johnson's "suggestion" (to paraphrase Joscelyn Godwin, see p. xviii of Johnson's THE MASTERS REVEALED) that the Mahatma Morya is a fictitious Tibetan persona that conceals a well-documented historical figure---Ranbir Singh; or (to paraphrase Johnson's own words, see p. 6 of MASTERS REVEALED) since Maharajah Ranbir Singh of Kashmir has many correspondences to Morya as described by HPB and although much of HPB's portrayal of Morya was designed to mislead in order to protect their privacy, enough accurate information was included to make a persuasive case for Morya's identity as this historical figure (i.e. Ranbir Singh.), IN LIGHT OF THESE STATEMENTS, I ASK: what is a historian to make of Colonel Olcott's above quoted testimony of the Master Morya riding up on horseback to Bombay T.S. Headquarters on July 15, 1879? I have asked Johnson several times: was this gentleman who rode up on horseback to T.S. headquarters, Maharajah Ranbir Singh? And in his latest answer (Oct 16, 1995) Johnson replies: = "I don't regard it as impossible, but implausible. [I] Could not find evidence as to Ranbir's whereabouts at the time, but at any rate he was unlikely to travel alone." Yes, I agree with Johnson, the Maharajah of Kashmir, the monarch of a kingdom, would probably not travel alone but in fact would probably travel with his guards, servants, etc. Furthermore, if Ranbir travelled all the way from Kashmir to Bombay, his visit would be documented in historical records such as the various Indian newspapers. So the perceptive individual might ask: = Well, is something wrong here? Could Johnson's hypothesis (concerning Ranbir Singh/Morya) be incorrect? Or is something wrong with Colonel Olcott's testimony? Johnson in his latest comments (Oct. 16, 1995) also says that this July 1879 account of Morya coming to see Olcott is "of little use in providing a historical identification....If you want to use it as weight against another identification [like Johnson's own Ranbir Singh's identification?]....fine. But it lacks much weight when there is no confirmation of the account..." Let us scrutinize very carefully Johnson's words. We know from other sources that the name "Morya" is a pseudonym or an initiatic name and is not the "birth name" of Morya. I used to know a man whose name was Sarmad; but this was not his birth name. Sarmad was his initiation name which he received when he became a Sufi. Most of his friends knew him as "Sarmad;" I can't even remember his real name! Johnson writes that this July 1879 encounter is "of little use in providing a historical identification" of Morya. And I would agree that this account by Olcott does not tell us the real name of Morya. *But unless one has a skeptical reason for discounting Olcott's account*, Olcott's testimony places the physical man, known by his "pseudonym" Morya, at 108 Girgaum Back Road, Bombay on July 15, 1879. Now possibly Paul Johnson has a skeptical reason for discounting Olcott's account, but if so, what is the reason? One possibility might be that Johnson knows that if Morya was at Bombay on that particular day, this would show that Ranbir Singh is *not* the Master Morya. In the latter part of Johnson's comment quoted above, he says: "If you want to use it [the account of July 1879] against another identification...fine. But it [the account] lacks much weight when there is no confirmation of the account." What does Johnson mean by "...when there is no confirmation of the account."? Confirmation of the account by finding some document that will lead to the Master's "real name"? Or does Johnson imply by "confirmation of the account" that there should be some other person or persons (non-theosophical??) who saw the Master at Girgaum Back Road on that date? Would Johnson take HPB's testimony as "confirmation of the account"? HPB in a letter dated April 3, 1886 to Franz Hartmann testifies: "When we arrived [in India], and Master [Morya] coming to Bombay bodily, paid a visit to us at Girgaum....Olcott became crazy. He was like Balaam's she-ass when she saw the angel!...." Johnson himself (see p. 10 of THE MASTERS REVEALED) quotes from this same H.P.B. letter, but deletes the just-quoted passage and paraphrases it: "...Olcott met one [Master] in person at Bombay...." And in another section of THE MASTERS REVEALED (p. 144-145) Johnson, in hope of finding an additional fragment of evidence to "lend support to the identification of Ranbir Singh as the prototype for Morya", quotes some words from an 1890 letter written by H.P.B. Johnson writes: "...H.P.B. refers to Olcott's having met two Masters in person, `one in Bombay and the other in Cashmere.'" HPB's own words are: "one in Bombay and the other in Cashmere." Johnson then comments on part of HPB's words: "Olcott's only trip to Ranbir's kingdom was his 1883 journey to Jammu, but according to his own account of his visit there, he met no Mahatma, spending all his time in the company of the maharajah." No doubt, Johnson wants to believe and he wants his readers to believe that HPB's own words support Johnson's hypothesis of "the identification of Ranbir Singh as the prototype for Morya." But what Johnson does not focus on are the other words of HPB: "one [Master] in Bombay". Who is this Master in Bombay? From HPB's own letter of 1886 and Olcott's accounts of 1879, 1881 and 1884, it is obvious (at least to me!)that the Master in Bombay was Morya. HPB's "confirmation" of Olcott's account is probably unsatisfactory for Johnson, but note well that Johnson will quote HPB when her words might support his hypothesis. Johnson again comments: "...my procedure [used in Johnson's books] was to comb through the Theosophical literature looking for clues that are specific enough to point to specific prototypes or identifications for the Masters. Passages such as the one you cite [Olcott's 1879 account] are not useful in that way. I have said that passages such as the one you cite could be used as `disproof' of ANY identification one could make, and therefore that their evidentiary value is weak." If I understand what Johnson is talking about, then he is saying (at least in part) that accounts of meetings with the Masters (such as the 1879 account in Bombay) have little evidentiary value because such accounts don't point to a specific historical identification of the Masters. But whatever Johnson is trying to convey, the question is HAS JOHNSON FOLLOWED HIS OWN ADMONITION AND RULE IN HIS PUBLISHED WORKS? In other words, does Johnson quote and use accounts---*similar* to the 1879 one---where the only witnesses are Olcott and H.P.B. (or other Theosophical witnesses); where there is nothing in the accounts that would help us to identify the real name of the Master; and where there are no independent records or neutral witnesses? Near the end of his posting (Oct. 16, 1995), Johnson points the finger at me and says: "You...assume the accuracy of accounts [of meetings with the Masters] by the Founders [Olcott and H.P.B.] even when there is no evidence to confirm them. *This will only fly with a Theosophical audience*." Asterisks added. The meaning of the clause: "even when there is no evidence to confirm them" is somewhat vague as to the intended meaning. Does Johnson mean"evidence" that is given by non-theosophical witnesses? What kind of "evidence" might confirm the accuracy of accounts by the Founders that would *fly*, i.e., be believed by a non-Theosophical audience? Johnson seems to implying that the 1879 account and similar accounts are *not* confirmed by such evidence. = But let me take Johnson's last statement, turn it into a question and ask Johnson: "Have you assumed in your published writings the accuracy of accounts by the Founders even when there is no evidence to confirm them?" At this point I would like to examine four accounts given by Henry Olcott of his meetings with Masters that Paul Johnson quotes from and uses in his books. (I) OLCOTT'S ACCOUNT OF MEETING OOTON LIATTO. Johnson devotes a "chapter" of his work THE MASTERS REVEALED, pp. 59-62, to Henry Olcott's meeting with Ooton Liatto and another unnamed Adept. = Johnson believes that Ooton Liatto is the same person as the Adept Hilarion. Johnson writes: "In May 1875, HPB's scrapbook noted that Hilarion and a companion `passed thro' New York & Boston, thence thro' California and Japan...'...A recent discovery by Joscelyn Godwin provides intriguing evidence for the visit to New York by Hilarion mentioned in HPB's diary [scrapbook?] in 1875....A letter from Olcott...[dated]...late 1875 or early 1876...describes meeting an adept...." (pp. 59-60) Here are relevant extracts from Olcott's letter: "...I was reading in my room yesterday (Sunday) when there came a tap at the door---I said `come in' and there entered the [younger] Bro[ther] with another dark skinned gentleman of about fifty....We took cigars and chatted for a while....[Then Olcott relates that a rain shower started in the room. Olcott continues the account:] They sat there and quietly smoked their cigars, while mine became too wet to burn....finally the younger of the two (who gave me his name as Ooton Liatto) said I needn't worry nothing would be damaged....I asked Liatto if he knew Madam B[lavatsky]....the elder Bro...[said] that with her permission they would call upon her. I ran downstairs---rushed into Madams parlour---and---there sat these same two identical men smoking with her and chatting....I said nothing but rushed up stairs again tore open my door and---the men were not there---I ran down again, they had disappeared---I...looked out the window---and saw them turning the corner...." To this account, Johnson makes the following *significant* admission: "The names Ooton Liatto and Hilarion Smerdis have been equally impossible to find in biographical and historical reference books. While both may be pseudonyms, there is little doubt that two real adepts visited Olcott in New York." (p. 62) What are Johnson's own conclusions concerning this account? (1) Johnson accepts the accuracy and truthfulness of Olcott's account. (2) Johnson believes that two *real* adepts visited Olcott in New York. Note the phrase: "...there is little doubt [at least in Johnson's mind]...." (3) Johnson also admits that the two names were not located in any biographical and historical reference books; hence, both names "may be pseudonyms." (4) Johnson accepts the account at face value even though there is only Olcott's account. = How does this account by Olcott in 1875-76 significantly differ from the account given by Olcott of the Master Morya coming to Bombay headquarters on July 15, 1879? When I mentioned the 1879 account of Morya as evidence that Olcott had met a *real* adept whose pseudonym was "Morya", Johnson did not hesitate to point out the following three points: = (1) "[The July 15, 1879 account is]...of little use in providing a historical identification...If you want to use it as weight against another identification...fine. But it lacks much weight when there is no confirmation of the account." = (2) "...I have said that passages such as the one you cite [the July 15, 1879 account] could be used as `disproof' of ANY identification one could make, and therefore that their evidentiary value is weak." = (3) "You...assume the accuracy of accounts by the Founders even when there is no evidence to confirm them. This will only fly with a Theosophical audience." Could not one apply all three of these same points to Johnson's own use of Olcott's account of Ootoo Liatto? One could rephrase Johnson's point 3 to read: "You, Paul Johnson, assume the accuracy of this 1875-1876 account by Olcott even when there is no other evidence to confirm it. This will only fly with a Theosophical audience!!!" And the most important point that I can make in rebuttal of Johnson's *dismissive* attitude toward the evidentiary significance of Olcott's account of Morya visiting him in Bombay in July, 1879 is to take Johnson's own summarizing sentences to the chapter on "Ooton Liatoo" and rephrase them as follows: = "The name Morya has been impossible to find in biographical and historical reference books of 19th century persons. While it may be a pseudonym, there is little doubt that a real adept visited Olcott in Bombay on July 15, 1879." If the Adept Morya ("in the flesh...and on horseback") visited Olcott in Bombay on July 15, 1879, what impact does this account by Olcott (and *similar* accounts by Olcott and other witnesses) have on Johnson's "suggestion" that Morya is a fictitious Tibetan persona? If Johnson himself regards it as "implausible" that Ranbir Singh (whom Johnson speculates is the real individual behind the Morya persona) was actually in Bombay on that July 1879 day, then is it not fair to suggest that Johnson's own hypothesis is just as implausible? (II) ACCOUNT OF OLCOTT'S MEETING WITH A MAHATMA ON AUGUST 4, 1880 In Johnson's book IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS, in a chapter on Jamal ad-Din 'al-Afghani (described in the *New Encyclopaedia Britannica*, 15th Edition as a Muslim politician, political agitator, and journalist), we find the following narrative (p. 193): "In light of available knowledge of Afghani's comings and goings in India, can he be connected to the Founders of the Theosophical Society? The evidence is intriguing if not convincing. The first problem is that Olcott rarely identifies adepts when they appear in his narrative, beyond the fact of their status as such. Thus, on August 4, 1880, [Olcott wrote:]`a Mahatma visited H.P.B., and I was called in to see him before he left. He dictated a long and important letter to an influential friend of ours at Paris, and gave me important hints about the management of current Society affairs....[Old Diary Leaves, II, 1972 printing, p. 208]" = Johnson omits the following picturesque detail from Olcott's account: "...I left him [the Mahatma] sitting in H.P.B.'s room...." Johnson's commentary on Olcott's account is as follows: "*Although there is no stated identity of this Mahatma* [asterisks added], the mention of Paris rings true, since Afghani was indeed to proceed to Paris, where he must have had an influential friend from the evidence presented." What are Johnson's own conclusions about this account by Olcott? (1) Johnson accepts the accuracy and truthfulness of Olcott's account. (2) Johnson is willing to believe that a Mahatma in his *physical* body visited both Olcott and HPB on August 4, 1880. (3) Johnson also admits that there is "no stated identity of this Mahatma"; not even a pseudonym! (4) Johnson accepts the account at face value even though there is only Olcott's account. How does this account by Olcott of Aug. 4, 1880 significantly differ from the account given by Olcott of the Master Morya coming to Bombay headquarters on July 15, 1879? In accepting this account, does Johnson follow his own advice to me? "You [Dan Caldwell]...assume the accuracy of accounts by the Founders even when there is no evidence to confirm them. This will only fly with a Theosophical audience." In a letter of April 7, 1993 to Paul Johnson (a letter I wrote at his request for information, input and criticism), I told him: "But had you consulted Olcott's actual handwritten diary for August 4, 1880, you would have discovered that Olcott identifies this `Mahatma' as Morya....Now with this new piece of information at your disposal, are you still willing to accept Col. Olcott's testimony of this encounter with a Master [now identified as Morya] at face value?" NOTE: Johnson dropped this account of Aug. 4, 1880 from the chapter on Afghani in his 1994 book THE MASTERS REVEALED. The actual diary entry in Olcott's handwriting reads: "M [followed by a triangle of three dots] here this evening & wrote to Fauvety of Paris. He says 5000 English troops killed in Afghanistan in the recent battle." It can be concluded that Fauvety is the "influential friend of ours at Paris" to whom Morya "dictated a long and important letter." I would further suggest that Morya dictated this letter to H.P.B. who then wrote it in French to Monsieur Charles Fauvety, President of the Society for Psychological Studies, Paris. See HPB's *Collected Writings*, Volume II, pp. 500-507 for a letter dated Bombay, August 5, 1880 written to Charles Fauvety and signed by "H.P. Blavatsky, Corresponding Secretary of the New York Theosophical Society". I will summarize the significance of this August 4, 1880 account by paraphrasing Johnson's own summary of the Ooton Liatto account: "The names M. and Morya have been equally impossible to find in biographical and historical reference books of 19th century persons. While both may be pseudonyms, there is little doubt that a real adept visited Olcott and H.P.B. in Bombay on August 4, 1880." Is it "implausible" that Maharajah Ranbir Singh is the Adept in H.P.B.'s room dictating a letter to Monsieur Fauvety? And if it is implausible to believe that this Adept is the Maharajah of Kashmir, then is it not fair to suggest that Johnson's hypothesis concerning Ranbir Singh/Morya is also implausible? = (III) OLCOTT'S ACCOUNT OF MEETING A MASTER AT THE GOLDEN TEMPLE IN AMRITSAR ON OCTOBER 23, 1880. In THE MASTERS REVEALED, p. 149, Johnson states: "Describing a visit to the Golden Temple in Amritsar on 23 October 1880, he [Olcott] writes: `...at a shrine where the swords, sharp steel discs, coats of mail, and other warlike weapons of the Sikh warrior priests are exposed to view in charge of the akalis, I was greeted, to my surprise and joy, with a loving smile by one of the Masters, who for the moment was figuring among the guardians, and who gave each of us a fresh rose, with a blessing in his eyes....'" Johnson admits that this Master, "who for the moment was figuring among the guardians," was "unnamed by Olcott." Furthermore, Johnson puts H.P. Blavatsky on the witness stand and quotes from her CAVES AND JUNGLES OF HINDUSTAN where she writes: "Our new friend [Ram-Ranjit-Das] was a native of Amritsar, in the Punjab, and had been brought up in the `Golden Temple'....Our sannyasin was...a regular Akali, one of the six hundred warrior-priests attached to the `Golden Temple' for the purposes of divine service and the protection of the Temple...." Johnson assumes that Olcott and Blavatsky are describing the "same character." Johnson goes on to say: "It is apparent from *Old Diary Leaves* and *Caves and Jungles* that the same character is described by both as a Sikh officiating at the Golden Temple, in which he plays a supervisory role." Does Olcott state that this unnamed Master was a Sikh officiating at the Golden Temple? Olcott's own words are: "...I was greeted, to my surprise and joy, with a loving smile by one of the Masters, WHO FOR THE MOMENT WAS FIGURING AMONG THE GUARDIANS...." [Caps added.] Does Olcott's words mean that this Master was *one of the guardians*? Johnson, at least, wants to believe this: "It is apparent...[at least to Johnson!]". = Then, Johnson makes another assumption that Olcott's "unnamed" Master (who is "a Sikh officiating at the Golden Temple") is also "Thakar Singh Sandhanwalia, first president of the Singh Sabha" and "a sirdar from Amritsar." Johnson writes: "Seeking in and around Amritsar for a Sikh hereditary nobleman and religious functionary in 1880, one might find dozens of names to choose from." On p. 154, Johnson gives his reasons for choosing Thakar Singh from the "dozens of names to choose from." But Johnson does *not* produce one *non-theosophical* historical record that would even suggest that Blavatsky's "regular Akali" and Olcott's unnamed "Master" at the Golden Temple was, in fact, Thakar Singh Sandhanwalia. Where was Thakar Singh on October 23, 1880? = Johnson presents no primary source document to indicate his whereabouts on that day. Then Johnson makes another assumption that Thakar Singh is actually the Theosophical Mahatma Koot Hoomi. An equation of these assumptions might look as follows: = Unnamed Master =3D Regular Akali =3D Thakar Singh =3D Koot Hoomi. In THE MASTERS REVEALED (p. 154), Johnson writes: "K.H. dates one of his earliest letters from `Amritas Saras' (the Golden Temple) and refers to it as his home, but he makes it appear that he is only rarely there on visits from Tibet." Johnson is referring to a letter from K.H. to A.P. Sinnett that is dated October 29, 1880. In this letter K.H. tells Sinnett: "the other day...I was coming down the defiles of Kouenlun [mountains] --- Karakorum you call them....I...was crossing over to Ladakh on my way home....So I determined to emerge from the seclusion of many years and spend some time with her [HPB who was then in Amritsar]. I had come for a few days, but now find that I myself cannot endure for any length of time the stifling magnetism even of my own countrymen. I have seen some of our proud old Sikhs drunk and staggering over the marble pavement of their sacred Temple....I turn my face homeward to-morrow." (Mahatma Letter No. 5 in the new Chronological Edition of these Letters; No. 4 according to the older Editions). So Koot Hoomi himself says that he was at the Golden Temple on or about Oct. 29. But in this same letter, KH tells Sinnett that he had received Sinnett's letter on Oct. 27th "about thirty miles beyond Rawalpindi" and "had an acknowledgement wired to you from Jhelum" a few hours later. As the crow flies, Rawalpindi is located approximately 180 miles northwest of Amritsar; Jhelum is about 120 miles northwest of Amritsar. = Was Koot Hoomi at the Golden Temple at Amritsar on October 23, as Johnson wants to believe? First of all, the October 23rd date that Johnson gives for Olcott's encounter with a Master is wrong. = If one *carefully* reads the text of Olcott's account, the day of the encounter is October 26th. And this is confirmed by Olcott's own handwritten diary where under the entry for October 26th, one reads the following: "...In the afternoon we went to the Golden Temple again & found it as lovely as before. Saw some hundreds of fakirs & gossains more or less ill-favored. A Brother there saluted H.P.B. and me & gave us each a rose." Furthermore, according to Mahatma Letter No. 5, Koot Hoomi was on Oct. 26, 1880 hundreds of miles north of Amritsar and the next day (Oct. 27th) was near Rawalpindi (some 180 northwest of the Golden Temple). Subsequently K.H. then travelled to Amritsar and visited the Golden Temple. [NOTE: Johnson quotes selectively from the Mahatma Letters when some piece of information might support his hypothesis but when confronted with information (even in the same Mahatma letter) that negates his hypothesis, Johnson calls the latter statements "disinformation", i.e. as the dictionary defines the word: "false information deliberately...spread...in order to...obscure the truth." Notice Johnson's comment above: "...but he [KH] *makes it appear* that he is only rarely there on visits from Tibet." Asterisks added. = By this method, Johnson can discount any evidence that might conflict with his own hypothesis. I suspect this is part of Johnson's "Wonderland logic" that Dr. John Algeo illustrates on p. 244 (*Theosophical History*, July, 1995) of his review of Johnson's THE MASTERS REVEALED.] What are Johnson's own conclusions concerning this account of a Master at the Golden Temple on Oct. 23 (actually Oct 26), 1880? (1) Johnson accepts the accuracy and truthfulness of Olcott's account. He also accepts the accuracy and truthfulness of Blavatsky's account. (2) Johnson believes that a physical Master was seen by Olcott and Blavatsky at the Golden Temple on that Oct. 1880 date. (3) Johnson also admits that the Master is "unnamed by Olcott." (4) Johnson accepts the account at face value even though there are only the accounts by Olcott and Blavatsky. Johnson does *not* cite one historical document that would indicate that Thakar Singh was the "unnamed Master"; he does *not* give one source that would confirm that Thakar Singh was in Amritsar on Oct. 26, 1880. = Regarding this account one can take Johnson's own criticism directed toward me and rephrase it: "You, Paul Johnson, assume the accuracy of this Oct. 1880 account by the Founders even when there is no other evidence to confirm it. This will only fly with a Theosophical audience." The interested reader might compare what I have said above concerning this 1880 account with Dr. Algeo's section on "Kuthumi/Thakar Singh" in his review (pp. 243-244). (IV) OLCOTT'S ACCOUNT OF MEETING MASTER KOOT HOOMI ON NOVEMBER 20, 1883 ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF LAHORE. In the book IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS (p. 242), Johnson tells his readers: "K.H. did *indeed* visit Olcott, Damodar and Brown on the edge of Lahore." = Asterisks added. Johnson is ready to believe that Olcott's testimony can be taken *at face value*. Johnson is saying, in effect: Yes, Henry Olcott actually did meet `Koot Hoomi.' Of course, it was Thakar Singh. In Johnson's THE MASTERS REVEALED, he spends several pages (pp. 157-160) describing K.H.'s two visits on Nov. 20, 1883 to Olcott, Brown and Damodar. Again in his latest book from SUNY, *Initiates of Theosophical Masters*, Johnson relates William Brown's account of meeting K.H. at Lahore and subsequently at Jammu (see pp. 35-38) and Damodar Mavalankar's account of meeting K.H. at Lahore and later at Jammu (see pp. 39-42). Concerning Damodar's account, Johnson writes: = "Damodar had genuinely met Koot Hoomi outside Lahore and at the palace of Ranbir Singh....This is one of the great true Mahatma stories of Theosophical history; KH [Johnson means Thakar Singh] and his colleagues Dayal Singh Majithia and Bhai Gurmukh Singh did indeed welcome Olcott, Damodar, and Brown to Lahore." (p. 40) What are Johnson's own conclusions concerning these accounts by Olcott, Damodar and Brown? (1) Johnson accepts the accuracy and truthfulness of the accounts by Olcott, Damodar and Brown. (2) Johnson is willing to believe that a real Master in his *physical* body visited Olcott, Damodar and Brown. (3) Although Johnson knows that "Koot Hoomi" is a pseudonym; this fact does not keep Johnson from believing that a real Master visited the three Theosophists. (4) Johnson accepts the accounts at face value even though these accounts are all by Theosophists. Johnson elsewhere even asserts that Damodar was a liar and deceiver yet Johnson seems willing to believe Damodar when the latter's testimony fits in with Johnson's hypothesis. Remember Johnson's admonition to me? "You...assume the accuracy of accounts by the Founders even when there is no other evidence to confirm it. This will only fly with a Theosophical audience." What non-theosophical audience/scholar would accept the testimony of three Theosophical witnesses "when there is no other evidence to confirm" their accounts? Furthermore, Johnson cites no historical records that would indicate (let alone prove) that Thakar Singh was at Lahore and Jammu on the dates that Olcott, Damodar and Brown were. Apparently Johnson just assumes Thakar Singh was at those locations on those dates; and he further assumes that Thakar Singh was Koot Hoomi. Will this really fly with a non-Theosophical audience? In THE MASTERS REVEALED (p. 160), Johnson comments about the Sikh Sirdars that provided conveyances for Olcott, Damodar and Brown at Lahore: "His Highness Raja Harbans Singh *and other Sirdars* sent their conveyances to bring the party to their quarters....Most intriguing in all this are the references to `other Sirdars'....The lack of any mention of Thakar Singh's name seems inevitable if he was indeed the Master K.H." Algeo provides a very perceptive commentary on Johnson's statement: "By that sort of logic every text that lacks mention of Thakar Singh becomes evidence of his identity with Kuthumi....Lack of evidence thus becomes evidence." Algeo having cited a relevant quote from *Alice's Adventures in Wonderland*, goes on to say: "By [such] Wonderland logic [that Johnson uses], anything can be proved." = = = _________________________________ In light of the four accounts by Olcott cited above, why does Johnson so readily dismiss the July, 1879 account in which Morya rides up on horseback to Bombay to visit with Olcott, HPB and Babula? According to Johnson he dismisses this 1879 account for the following reasons: (1) The account is of little evidentiary weight since there is no confirmation of the account; (2) its evidentiary value is weak because one cannot identify the Master by his real name; and (3) there is no evidence to confirm the account therefore one cannot know the accuracy of the account. = BUT IF ONE ACCEPTS JOHNSON'S LINE OF REASONING, WOULD NOT ONE HAVE TO ALSO DISMISS THE FOUR EXAMPLES CITED BY JOHNSON HIMSELF AS EVIDENCE THAT REAL, PHYSICAL ADEPTS VISITED OLCOTT, BLAVATSKY AND OTHER THEOSOPHISTS? The answer may be based upon whether one uses normal logic or Wonderland logic! I await Johnson's answer. _____________________________ Part V will deal with Johnson's dismissal of certain testimonies = concerning the Masters when those testimonies conflict with his hypotheses. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Oct 1995 16:21:59 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Clive Harper This is embarrassing. A man named Clive Harper from England send me $20 cash for a copy of ISM, which I retrieved and put in a jiffy bag for him. But somewhere between my living room and my office, his letter seems to have vanished into thin air. So I have his money but no way of sending the book, unless the letter turns up. Does anyone out there recognize this name? Is he perchance a Theosophist known to any of you UK readers? I'll be MUCH obliged if anyone can provide the address. The absent-minded librarian From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Oct 1995 17:27:46 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: re: historical and doctrinal >> JHE >> >Personally, I prefer as much as possible not to lean on >> >that which I cannot confirm. >AB >AMEN Doesn't this attitude rule out the whole Secret Doctrine? Doesn't this attitude rule out reincarnation? (Alan has already admitted that it does for him). Doesn't this attitude rule out planes, globes, bodies, etc? I suppose it depends on what you mean by "lean" and "confirm." By confirm, do you mean historically? Or do you mean through personal experience (which we already know can be mayavic itself)? How should we confirm the teachings given in the SD to our own satisfaction? Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Oct 1995 17:44:03 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: lemniscate Eldon, JHE >Words do change meaning from time to time. ... For instance, >we understand the word "atom" very differently today than we >would have in HPB's time. ... Therefore, with the study of the >SD, it is helpful to keep the above in mind. EBT This is why, upon republication of ancient works, that the obsolete words may need replacement. The English language continues to move forward, and books get out-of-date. JHE If by "ancient works" you are referring to ~Beowulf~ or the order. These works are 1000 years old and written in a dialect of English that has not been spoken for centuries. It fact, it is now considered to be essentially another language, even though it is the direct ancestor of English. ~The Secret Doctrine~ on the other hand is just over a century old, and is in a dialect that is still easily readable by Americans and British alike, and probably will be for perhaps several centuries to come. I honestly don't recall seeing any "obsolete words" in the SD. Can you think of any? Yes, there are lots of foreign philosophical terms, i.e. karma, chyuta, dhyani, kuni-to, fohat etc., but she always defines these terms for the reader. There are also perfectly good English words that one doesn't run across very often, i.e. lemniscate, co-adunition, luniolatry, homunculi etc. It is true that she does not define them, but if you don't want to guess at their meaning from the context of the sentence, you can always find them in any good dictionary. For those who are not willing to guess at the meaning from context; or not willing to look up the word; or not willing to have a good dictionary, I would suggest that they find another book to read. Along with the polyglot (there's a big word) vocabulary, the concepts in the SD are not easy even for a nineteenth century reader. The book takes effort. Those who are unwilling to make the effort--that is sad for them. EBT Also, the actual words of the books may "go stale" on the reader, after being read too many times. An "Secret Doctrine" quote may be old hat to you, and not have the same impact as it may on a new reader. The same idea, clothed in fresh words by another writer, may grip your attention with renewed vigor. It's the same as with music, where a melody that once was gripping simply does not carry the same power to touch the listener, if heard too many times. JHE I bought my first copy of the SD in 1963. It was a six volume Adyar edition, and I bought it new for $16.00. Since then, I bought a barely used 1948 TUP one volume edition (for $4.50) and wore it out. Now, I'm working on my second Theosophy Company copy. I already wore out the first one. After 32 years the book hasn't gone "stale" for me. Though many of the passages are familiar to me, I still make new discoveries every time I read this book. There may be a point where I will have read the book "to many times" but I don't expect it to happen in this lifetime. I for leaving the SD as it is. If you want to cloth the ideas in the SD in "fresh words", I suggest that you just write another book. EBT I've heard the argument that every word, and even the typos and misspellings in Blavatsky's books should be left untouched, being sacrosanct. How dare we presume to know what she really meant by a term? Someone might say that the material is so esoteric that we'd destroy the meaning if we dare make the slightest touch to the materials. JHE Rex Datta was big on that. The number on page 60 was left off of the original edition of the SD. Theosophy Company added the number when they printed their "photographic facsimile". Rex was right, even adding a missing page number technically makes it no longer a photographic facsimile. On the other hand, whether or not HPB caused the number 60 to be left off though some occult power as a message to the world that she would die at the age of 60 is another question. But I prefer to leave those kind of questions up to people like Rex. I have other issues. :-) As for the obvious typos--i.e. "het" when obviously "the" was meant is an editorial change that I can live with. But I find a difference between an editorial policy that changes "het" to "the" and one that changes "higher Self" to "higher Ego". If the editor can't make those kinds of distinctions, then I would rather have an unchanged edition and put up with the occasional "het"s. TUP found that out. They had a perfectly good edition of the SD that was faithfully retype set. Obvious errors like "het" where corrected and the footnotes were numbered. It was a nice edition, but people preferred a photocopy of the original. So they changed. EBT When we look up a term that Blavatsky used in a dictionary of her era in order to know what she meant, we're saying that we know the meaning of the term. If we can know the meaning, we also could put the term in 20th (soon to be 21st) century English. JHE I have a Webster's unabridged dictionary published in 1875, and occasionally use it to look up words that I find in the SD, and compare the same word in a current dictionary. So far, I have not found a single instance where a word has changed so as to cause any confusion in reading the SD. Have you? Examples please. EBT An example of a term that would be misleading (at least in the U.S.) is "milliard" in "Esoteric Buddhism". It means "billion", but that is not obvious to many without a dictionary. JHE "milliard" is a perfectly good British term, though I admit that the British will see this term more often than Americans. However I think it is a bit premature to declare British English a foreign language, and start printing an "American translation" of a British work. I was over there recently, and I understood the language without any special training at all. As for the French--well, that's a different story--and a different language too. :-) Did you confuse "milliard" with another word? Which? Or, are you advocating the substitution of less familiar words with more familiar ones, such as: "thoughtful" for "pensive"; "satiate" for "cloy"; "deceive" for "cozen"; etc. These words are not obsolete. They are in any good current dictionary. Even though they are not used as often, they are still used, and they give variety and richness to our language. If we were to eliminate words like these from our literature, our language would be all the poorer for it. EBT I'm not talking here about rewriting her books, but picking the few, rare terms that are really misleading. The intent of the books is to convey the materials written about, not to be a jigsaw puzzle for macho scholars to idle their time away with!. JHE Can you give me some examples of misleading words in the SD, and how they are misleading? Interesting post. Thanks Jerry HE ------------------------------------------|Jerry Hejka-Ekins ||Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu ||and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org |------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Oct 1995 17:45:12 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: historical and doctrinal Bee, I hope to conduct a 6 week workshop on elementals, about 1-2 hour session per week. I am hooked on the idea of the habit forming aspects and the implications for addiction. I am half packed to go away but I cannot resist the theo-l so I will buzz. Many thanks, Bee Have you read GdP's material on the relationship between the elementals and the balance of the four elements that make up the human constitution? For an ambitious astrologer, this material has a lot of potential for research. Good luck on your workshop Jerry HE ------------------------------------------|Jerry Hejka-Ekins ||Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu ||and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org |------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Oct 1995 19:58:46 GMT From: Olcott Library Subject: Brancusi article In case anyone on this list is interested, the October issue of VOGUE magazine carries an article about the sculptor Konstantin Brancusi, in which a brief reference is made to his being "familiar with theosophy." The article coincides with a Brancusi retrospective exhibition which is opening this month at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Elisabeth Trumpler Olcott Library From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 26 Oct 1995 21:54:31 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: re: Cayce Jerry H-E: > There was a article in our local newspaper last summer, > sometime, that some archaeologists had discovered a passageway > near the paw of the Sphinx. They said that they did not expect > to find anything at the end of the passageway, but will be > clearing the rubble and descending the passage way in January. > If Cayce's prediction is correct, they are supposed to find > scrolls from the library of Alexandria at the end of that > passage. > Did anyone else see this article? It was one of those UPI > fillers, and was probably in papers all over the country. If > anyone saved the article, I would appreciate a copy. I seem to recall that scientists did an ultra-sound of the area just below the sphinx and found a large-sized "room" or whatever there. They had not yet located the entrance to it. However, due to the current controversy with John Anthony West and his team of geologists, the Sphinx has been re-dated from the period of Kephren (c. 2400 BCE) to about 10,000 BCE (due to extensive rain damage -- it hasn't rained like that in the Nile valley since about 10,000 BCE) and the Egyptian government, under pressure from Muslim fundamentalists, the site has been closed off to researchers. It seems that John Anthony West had dated the sphinx to several thousand years before God created the world, which for fundamentalists is 4,004 BCE October 16, Thursday, noon. I'm NOT kidding, folks. That's what they believe. So the Sphinx is either a Satanic object, or these archeologists are in league with the Devil, and the government has been forced to close the area. We'll see what happens in the near future. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Oct 1995 01:02:31 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Dribble box > > Dr. Bain: > >*Dribble box*??? Please enlighten this ignorant Brit! > > A highly personal term which I used to describe the steady trickle of nonsense > that is called net work television. In the US, we're inundated with soap > operas, talk shows and TV tabloids. These days, the network executives and > sponsors think the public is mesmerized by every sleazy detail of > every person's life, famous and not-so-famous. And the ratings > have proved them right. > > The public television channel here in Chicago shows reruns of > Britain's Are You Being Served?, Keeping Up Appearances and > Masterpiece Theater, along with British mysteries. How is > television in the UK? My husband and I used to love Dr. Who. > > - ann AAhh! We are getting into the dribble box era too these days. I think Masterpiece Theater is a US term for British "better stuff" - I did see one play when I was in Illinois in 1985. Keeping Up Appearances is into a new series here at the present time, and we never miss an episode! Most of the cast of Are You Being Served are now dead! Generally, though our TV output offers a better selection than the National Enquirer ..... Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Oct 1995 05:26:52 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Archival Information For anyone interested, I have a copy of the theos-* lists archives, in ascii format, dating back to early July, on: ~ftp/pub/el/eldon/theos-l (site ftp.netcom.com) The archives are in the form of the individual digest files for the various lists, with names like "TL083A" for theos-l digest #83, part 1. Feel free to ftp back issues. There's about 5 MB of discussion in the last three months! I'll have this online for a while, but am not sure how many weeks I'll keep it there. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Oct 1995 10:23:08 GMT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: THEOS-BUDS digest 17-Butting In Hello, Liesel. Eldon and Don! I have just had a bad accident and trying to get back into the threads of conversation. Are there any real "accidents"? I think this has been much discussed in relation to Karma and Dharma and chaos and entropy and all the other "gods" of occultism and science, but when you have a bad accident, I don't analyze, but I try to utilize. That is, I try to do everything to improve my health and situation without sorting out immediately my karmic guilt or my victimhood or the "just" wheels of the universe. In short, I hurt and want to stop the pain at all costs. TO DON: During my recovery from the car accident, I had a strong Lucid Dream that was like a delirium. I was sleeping and dreaming. I could see things as in a dream, but I was quite aware of being in a bed in pain. I would drift in and out of the dream state very quickly, but what was really wierd was not only was I concious of dreaming while I was dreaming (a lucid dream) I was aware that I was in two worlds or shifting between the dream world and real world very quickly. People who have been sick will know what delirium means although it is not widely approved as a tool on the spiritual path for obvious reasons. Who wants to be sick and near death. In fact all these terms, astral travel, dream, hallucination, out of by experience, near death experience seem to be very nearly the same thing or paths to the same thing of a UNITIVE CONCIOUSNESS. This unitive conciousness seems to be the 7th level, 7th chakra, enlightenment, satori so oftem talked about in theosophy, zen etc where one realized that one needs a definite vehicle of conciousness for each of the 7 levels, planes, globes, parallel universes an all that, but that concsiousness can be tuned as a radio (an idea form Ken WIlber) but the spectrum of consciousness is allways there and we have an ability to be consciouss ....my thoughts are incomplete...I am not sure if our consciousness, my conscionssness is eternal or just consciosness as the complete spectrum??? The insight a gainged was that I was supposed to examine all this very closely. I am so glad I have found out you already know so much, Don (and others). I want to E-mial you privately as I wrote a letter to Stephen LaBerge and hope to catch up on all the many things that seem to be going on in this area and though not always realted to theosophy, I think it should be. (Later!) To all: It is neat to find a lot of the people here as on theos-l. I see there are a lot of newcomers an activity there. But I was pleasently suprised to read some of theo-buds. Theos-l seems to have a lot of controversy which I enjoy and even enjoy "inspiring" sometimes. But there is also a need for a different type area that this seems to be. Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Oct 1995 11:17:37 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Creators - a synchronicity I've just had a synchronicity. The latest issue of The Eclectic Theosophist arrived in the mail. The feature article is by Lama Doboom Tulku, from his forthcoming book. On page 4, he quotes from A Guide to the Middle View by Acharya Chandrakirti: The mind itself creates the various animate and inanimate worlds. All the living beings are produced by karma, And without mind there can be no karma. This reminded me that about a week ago, I posted an essay about Buddhism's no-creator doctrine and quoted from Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's Ocean of Nectar. It just so happens that Ocean of Nectar is a complete translation of Chandrakirti's text (which Gyatso translates as Guide to the Middle Way) together with commentary. Gyatso's translation of the same passage is: All the various worldly environments And the living beings, the inhabitants, are created by mind. It is said that all living beings are born from karma; And if there is no mind there is no karma. You can see that both translations are very close, and say the same thing - that Globe D is created by mind, not by external Creators. Now, several people did not agree with this teaching, which is pure Mahayana Buddhism. Thats OK. I wasn't concerned with agreement as much as presenting the discrepancy here between HPB's SD and Mahayana Buddhism. Of course, this "discrepancy" goes away if we consider the "Creators" as archetypes. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 27 Oct 1995 23:14:56 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Is theos-Roots working? Is theos-Roots working? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 28 Oct 1995 13:48:43 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Is the Theos system working properly? Is the Theos system working properly? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 28 Oct 1995 15:31:26 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Dogma Versus Doctrine Coherence: >>But I was talking with regard to dogma being he required minimum >>beliefs that would constitute Theosophy. The ogma would be those >>beliefs that are taught on theosophical platforms that are >>required of someone to call themselves a Theosophist. >Pardon me for shouting but, THERE IS NO DOGMA IN THEOSOPHY. You say that, but when you start shouting, you help illustrate my point. Dogmas are required beliefs, and the prohibition against dogmas *is itself a dogma*. A good sign of the presence of a dogma is in the *reaction* of people holding it. The response to challenge is immediate, passionate, and defensive. We're taught that dogma is bad and doctrines are ok. Dogma is defined as required beliefs or practices (depending upon whether we're talking about the *content* of Theosophy or the *process* of living as a Theosophist). Doctrines, on the other hand, are defined as material presented for our consideration, with no requirements imposed upon us. We are not required to believe or accept as a practice anything that is told us. This is a matter of style, a manner of presentation, an approach that was taken by the founders of the Theosophical Society. It is not, I'd suggest, an universal approach to the Mysteries, but rather an approach tailored for the individualistic and opinionated Western temperament of the 1800's. The two terms are sometimes also used in a subtle form of criticism of others. One's own beliefs can be "doctrines", intelligently held, and the beliefs of others might be called "dogmas," when others diagree with us. This is like saying "I'm strong-willed, you're stubborn!" We have a way to criticize others by connotation, picking words with negative connotations to subtly put down others of different views. I would submit that the prohibitation against dogmas is a dogma of theosophical groups. And other dogmas are the three objects of the T.S. A belief in Universal Brotherhood *is required*, and not optional. This makes four dogmas. There are likely other unwritten assumptions that are requirements, but not articulated as such. They would make additional dogmas. If we can set aside our conditioning against the word "dogma", and allow us to think free of the prohibition against the idea for a moment, we can see that there is some good to it, and that it can be found in good, healthy social organizations. In various Buddhist sects, there is a body of belief and a practice that is required of its followers. A sect has its parctice, and there are a number of vows that one can take. Depending upon the number of vows taken, one is a lay Buddhist, or perhaps a Monk or Nun. We might, for instance, take the Bodhisattva vows and dedicate our lives to the saving of others, to the Path of Compassion. There is nothing bad in this, nothing wrong in having a specifically-formulated spiritual practice. With science, there is an established body of proven knowledge that are dogmas. They are *required belief* for scientists. After studying them, and learning them, and working with them, the scientist can suggest theory or doctrine. This theory, though, must be proven and subject to independent verification in order to be accepted into the body of scientific truth, the *canon* of scientific thought. Dogma is the skeletal or foundation ideas that give structure to and shape our belief system. Without it, we are philosophical invertibrate, holding "jellyfish philosophy". Each person has cornerstone beliefs that his worldview is based upon. With Theosophy, these are the core teachings that define the essential nature of its system of ideas. One approach to the teaching of Theosophy is to present it as theory, as speculative philosophy arising from Blavatsky's study of comparative religions. Another is to present it as teachings from the Mahatmas, through Blavatsky and others as their agents. It is fine to present Theosophy to the general public in the form of doctrine or theory, and have an open forum for personal study and speculation. (In fact, it is in the scope of this freedom that I'm daring to question the sacroscant prohibition against dogma.) This manner of presentation, though, is just that: a manner of presentation. This does not mean that Theosophy is *just that*. It is an approach that allows people of highly individualistic temperament to approach the Mystery Teachings. With Tibetan Buddhism and other approaches to the Mysteries, other approaches are used. It is both a strength and weakness of the Theosophical Movement that there is no definitive presentation of the philosophy, nor vows, nor formulated spiritual practice. It leaves one to devise a personal approach. Some of us can come to a theosophical group and benefit from this approach. Many may not, leaving empty-handed in their search for a spiritual practice. Theosophy is real, and its core doctrines are required belief in the same sense as the tenets of science are a required belief of would-be scientists. In this sense, it contains certain essential beliefs that would be dogma, if it were a mature spiritual movement. The fact that this has not yet happened is not, I think, due to it being somehow superior to the spiritual traditions of the workd. It has not happened yet because it may take a century or two more to arise in response to what is most useful in Western society. For now, we can present Theosophy as theory and a speculative body of doctrine. This is *one* approach. As Theosophy changes from intellectual puzzles to play with (doctrine), it can become proven in one's life and thus become living fact (dogma). I think we're simply playing word games when we say, on the one hand, that Theosophy is a well-defined body of doctrines, and on the other hand say that a Theosophist is someone with a general interest in exploring life and holding practically any belief. We may pay lip service to the commandment given to us -- no dogmas! -- yet still hear people denouncing reincarnation and karma and think to ourselves "that's not theosophical, that should not be taught on a theosophical platform!" As soon as the word "should" enters our minds and hearts, we're dealing with dogma. As our theosophical groups are currently organized, they are declining in number and enthusiasm, because the emphasis has been upon presentating speculative metaphysics, without any real sense of spiritual practice, of a living sense of the Path, of the actuality of chelaship *for anyone that would try*. The Teachings are important, and it's important to get them right. But they are found in deep understandings, profound insights into life that are only partially captured in the words of Blavatsky and other great philosophers. An important aspect of the Teachings is that they must be fresh, directly connected to life, and thought-out anew with each reflection upon them. Does this mean they aren't dogmas? No. Not if we consider dogmas as those doctrines that *are proven beyond any possible doubt in our lives*. In line with this approach of thinking things through afresh each time, I'm approaching the description of dogma versus doctrine that we've been told in the past. Certainly I've read the official line on this distinction many times since I joined the Adyar T.S. and started reading Theosophy 30 years ago. But I felt it would be a good time to take this teaching, and visit "dogma versus doctrine" again, and see if there's something more to it. I'm having fun with this , but I don't think that I'll hopelessly mislead any innocent mind into dark and destructive byways! >There is nothing in the Divine Wisdom which must be accepted. >The doctrines are given out for our consideration, only. As I've said, this is *one approach*, and not necessarily the highest. >That this is even being brought up is amazing to me. I'm not teaching this as a required belief of anyone wanting to be a Theosophist. We can explore our cornerstone beliefs or tenets without considering it amazing. >"We are engaged in trying to develop a truer appreciation of the Light of >Life which is hidden in every man, and so the "final authority" is the man >himself." > (Wm. Q. Judge, Articles, v. II, p. 543) When we say *final* with authority, that's true. But we're playing word games when we say that we don't have other, less than *final* types of authority, that we accord to our Teachers. >"But no Theosophist has the right to this name, unless he is >thoroughly imbued with the correctness of Carlyle's truism: 'The >end of man is an ACTION and not a thought, though it were the >noblest' -- and unless he sets and models his daily life upon >this truth." > (HPB, Key to Theosophy, p.230) Yes, this is basically saying that our ideas and noble intentions must find expression in the world, that we cannot bottle up our good intentions. When we refrain from acting out our good impulses, we are useless in the world and are merely making for ourselves a long devachan. Here we have another dogma, or required belief. It is an implied vow that we take as Theosophists: to give expression in our daily lives of the spiritual impulses in our hearts. We cannot rightfully call ourselves Theosophists without taking this vow. >"I do not refer to technical knowledge of the esoteric doctrine, >though that is most important; I spoke rather of the great need >which our successors in the guidance of the Society will have of >unbiassed and clear judgment. Every such attempt as the T.S. >has hitherto ended in failure, because, sooner or later, it has >degenerated into a sect, set up hard-and-fast dogmas of its own, >and so lost by imperceptible degrees that vitality which living >truth alone can impart." > (HPB, Key to Theosophy, p.305) The emphasis here is on "unbiassed and clear judgement". And the warning against "hard-and-fast dogmas". We can have dogmas that are an accepted, proven, and integral part of our system, and yet be flexible about them. The dogmas can be subject to change and evolution, and not crystalized, frozen, and lacking in depth of insight. Blavatsky here is speaking of a sect where the inner life has died, where there is no spiritual inpulse behind it, where it is an empty shell. When this happens, the dogmas lose their inner meanings, their flexibility, and their ability to grow and evolve over time. Something does not have to be a doctrine or theory in order to be dynamic, alive, and subject to growth. I would suggest that it is possible to have a spiritual practice to Theosophy, and theosophical groups with definite teachings and practice. It's possible for those groups to contain remarkable vitality and access to living truth. >"It (Theosophy) will gradually leaven and permeate the great >mass of thinking and intelligent people with its large-minded and >noble ideas of Religion, Duty and Philanthropy. Slowly but >surely it will burst asunder the iron fetters of creed and >dogmas, of social and caste prejudices. . . . . and will >open the way to the practical realization of the Brotherhood of >all men" > (ibid.) Yes, there are general ideas or principles contained in the theosophical teachings that will act as leaven and permeate the great mass of thinking. This is a second, and equally useful aspect to the Theosophical Movement, quite apart from the aspect of proving a door-adjar to the Mysteries for Westerners who would come knocking. >There are numerous references to the destructive dogmas of >Christianity throughout the literature of HPB. True. Dogmas can be destructive as well as constructive. As can doctrines or theories. >As numerous are the references to Theosophy being KNOWLEDGE which >each of us can attain for ourselves through experience and >observation. And I would submit that when our opinions or speculations become proven in our lives and turn into knowledge, that they have become dogmas in our lives, e.g. part of the skeletal framework of our worldview. >I would say that there is no room for dogma or authority in the >"Divine Wisdom", and HPB and Judge have specifically said so and >explained why. And I would say that those things in Theosophy that we are specifically told, in no uncertain terms, is the dogma of the theosophical philosophy, as currently presented in the West. This is in contrast to those things we are offered to think about, but not given definition instruction regarding. >The opening quote from a previous post indicates a fundamental >misunderstanding of what Theosophy is, but that's okay, that's >why we're here: to learn and to clear up these misunderstandings. You don't think, then, that Theosophy is literally true? I do, but realize that there is much that cannot be put into words on the printed page, and realize that our Messangers like HPB were human and subject to error at times. Where we might disagree is that you take the party line regarding the proper manner to teach Theosophy in the West, and are inclined to consider me wrong when I disagree with it. (I'm really just opening up the subject for discussion, and don't think that with the above words that I've arrived at the final word -- for me or anyone else -- on the matter.) I'd suggest that when we consider one of our basic assumptions, and allow it to be open to question, and try to rethink it, that we're doing a deeper study of Theosophy than we do when we simply read a page from "The Secret Doctrine" and talk about what Blavatsky's trying to say in that particular passage. We're involved in a form of self-discovery when we go at the roots of our belief system. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 28 Oct 1995 15:53:15 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Not Escaping the World (Zen style) Jerry S: >>This is a different approach from some spiritual paths that teach >>that our goal is to escape the necessity of physical incarnation, >>and to seek rebirth on higher planes (globes). >Eldon, you have preached this before. Could you please >give us an example of such a "spiritual path." I am not aware of >any, while you sound like you know several. Following is a description of a practice that ignores any psychical or other-plane phenomena, and instead attempts to achieve clarity of insight or *depth* to our consciousness. The following is from "The Three Pillars of Zen" by Philip Kapleau, on pages 38-41. > *Makyo* are the phenomena -- visions, hallucinations, fantasies, > revelations, illusory sensations -- which one practicing zazen is > apt to experience at a particular stage in his sitting ... the > disturbing or "diabolical" phenomena which appear during his zazen. > These phenomena are not inherently bad. They become a serious > obstacle to practice only if one is ignorant of their true nature > and is ensnared by them. ... > One may ... develop the faculty of seeing through solid objects > as though they were transparent, or he may experience his own body > as translucent substance. He may see Buddhas or Bodhisattvas. > Penetrating insights may suddently come to him ... All these abnormal > visions and senstations are merely the symptoms of an impairment > arising from a maladjustment ... > Other religions and sects place great store by experiences which > involve visions of God or hearing heavenly voices, performing > miracles, receiving divine messages, or becoming purified through > various rites ... In varying degrees these practices induce a feeling > of well-being, yet from the Zen point of view all are morbid states > devoid of true religious significance and hence only makyo. > What is the essential nature of these disturbing phenomena we call > makyo? They are temporary mental states which arise during zazen when > our ability to concentrate has developed to a certain point and our > practice is beginning to ripen. ... Makyo ... are a mixture of the > real and the unreal, not unlike ordinary dreams. Just aas dreams do > not appear to a person in deep sleep but only when he is half-asleep > and half-awake, so makyo do not come to those in deep concentration > or samadhi. Never be tempted into thinking that these phenomena are > real or that the visions themselves have any meaning. ... Above all, > do not allow yourself to be enticed by visions of the Buddha or of > gods blessing you are communicating a divine message, or by makyo > involving prophecies which turn out to be true. This is to > squander your energies in the foolish pursuit of the inconsequential. > ...Whenever makyo appear, simply ignore them and continue sitting > with all your might. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 28 Oct 1995 16:57:16 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Door to the Human Kingdom Coherence: >>Those animals that made it through that "door" became the Animal >>Monads in our constitution. They as centers of consciousness are >>the animal nature which our human nature, the Human Monad, uses. >>The "horse" that you ride is an Animal Monad in the Human Kingdom, >>destinated, if it continues its evolution, to be a Human Monad in >>its own right at the end of the Seventh Round. >My question regarding the above was the source of the assertion >that the Animal Monads become the "animal natures" of man. The >source given was Puruker with a request for a Blavatsky source. >Here is what I came up with. My comments can be called an "assertion" if they rest solely on my say-so. If I've shown them to be supported by Purucker, then I've shown them to be part of source Theosophy, for those that accept Purucker as speaking for the Masters. I realize that without an Mahatma Letter or HBP quote, the idea remains "unsupported" for others that may accept HPB but not Purucker. So be it. >First to clarify, HPB tells us that evolution proceeds on three >levels simultaneously ... Yes. I've heard of this in many different ways. We have Gods, Monads, and Atoms, or architects, builders, and materials. For us, perhaps, our three respective natures are stimulated and awakened by the action of the Dhyani-Chohans in their capacity of Agnishvattas, the Manasaputras or Solar Pitris, and the Bharishads or Lunar Pitris. The third class gave us our outer forms. The second class gave us our initial fire of mind, making us truly human and distinguishable from the animals in the Third Root Rave, and the first class has yet to work its magic on us. >Now what we are discussing is the evolution and progression >of the Monad. We are told that the Monad passes through all >the kingdoms of nature to finally become Man. Or discussing the evolution and progression of the "ray of consciousness" that the Monad sends forth into the material planes to participate in the cycle of evolution. The Monad itself remains on its own lofty level, untouched by the external events. We pass through all the Kingdoms, one after the other, skipping none, eventually coming into the Human Kingdom. Seven Rounds of evolutionary progress in a Kingdom are required before entry into the next. For an animal, being ready to enter the Human Kingdom part way through the Planetary Manvantara does not mean thet the opportunity exists for that experience. Just as we can outstrip Humanity by a single Round, and become Fifth Rounders or Mahatmas, but cannot go on to become Seventh Rounders and graduate from the Human Kingdom at this time, it is the same for the animals. They can outstrip their fellow animals for a Round, but cannot complete all seven Rounds and be ready for the Human Kingdom. The experiences are not physically possible, for external nature is too far removed from providing the necessary evolutionary experiences. It is simply not possible to undertake Seventh Round experiences in this Round, as we are told in "The Mahatma Letters". Even after the Seven Rounds are completed for a particular kingdom, I don't think that one can enter the next higher Kingdom as a full-fledged member of it's Fourth Round experience. Perhaps billions of years of evolution are necessary, representing the first Three Rounds, before the necessary background has been achieved and a newly-minted human could be a Fourth Round Human. Regarding the Door into the Human Kingdom closing, we have a good commentary on HPB, with citations, in "The Divine Plan", by Geoffrey Barborka, pages 318-19. There, we learn that the Mind-Principle was awakened in the Third Root Race, and as that awakening progressed into the Fourth Root Race, the divergence between the Human and Animal Kingdom widened to the point where there was a distinct separation between the Kingdoms. This made it no longer possible for any Monad using the vehicles of the Animal Kingdom for its evolutionary experience to enter the Human Kingdom. >"The most developed Monads . . . reach the human germ-stage in the >first Round; Become terrestrial, though very ethereal human beings >towards the end of the Third Round, remaining on it (the Globe) >through the "obscuration" period as the seed for future mankind >in the Fourth Round, and thus become the pioneers of Humanity at >the beginning of this, the Fourth Round. Others reach the Human >stage only during later Rounds, i.e.those still occupying animal >forms after the middle turning-point of the Fourth Round---will >not become men at all during this Manwantara. They will reach >to the verge of humanity only at the close of the seventh Round >to be, in their turn, ushered into a new chain after pralaya ... " > (SD, i 182) Granted, the most-developed of the Human Kingdom have their innate humanity arise in the First Round, and less-developed of us acquire humanity or the fire of mind in later Rounds. The deadline for this awakening in us is in the middle of the Fourth Round, during which the gap between the human-animal form and the strictly-animal form rapidly wides into an impassible gulf. These are all, though, humans in the Human Kingdom, although the outer distinction between human and animal bodies may not become inseparable and distinct until the middle of the Fourth Round. Until we are given the fire of mind, or awakened into strictly-human consciousness by our Manasaputras (higher selves, guardian angles, or Dhyani-Chohans acting in this regard), we're indistinguishable from animals in general. This would typically happen in the Fourth Round, since that Round first deals with some form of Manas (or rather Kama-Manas, using Blavatsky's 'esoteric' enumeration of the seven principles, from Linga-Sharira through the Auric Egg, c.f. "The Inner Group Teachings.) >This is the most concise statement I can find. The general principle >is reiterated often and in various places throughout the SD. The >Monad in the animal kingdom has passed through the mineral and >vegetable kingdoms and is now ready to become Man, i.e. self-conscious. I'd say that self-consciousness first starts with the Mineral Kingdom, where the greatest degree of materiality is obtained, since that is where the upward climb begins. In each of our principles is the possibility of self-consciousness. There is a particular form of it that we as humans experience, the sense of personality or the action of mind in objectifying the outer world. The self-consciousness that we evolve due to overcoming that is our manasic self-consciousness, the treasure that we acquire due to our evolution in the Human Kingdom. >There is no reference to Animal Monads becoming "Human NATURES" or >our lower attributes. When we consider individual Monads, this would be correct. But when we consider the composite nature of beings, while alive, as an aggregrate of Monads, then the picture changes. The divine ego spoken of in relation to Atman is our Inner God and the ray of a Divine Monad. The spiritual ego spoken of in relation to Buddhi is the offspring of the Spiritual Monad. The reimbodying ego or our "higher self" is the offspring of the Higher Human Monad, our direct parent or Manasaputra. The human ego or ourselves as we know us is just that -- ourselves. We are the Lower Human Monad, the Monad that embodies itself as a human personality. The other Monads in our constitution both *above* and *below* us are in relationship during our active lifetimes, and go their own ways in the after-death states. Purucker makes this clear in his writings, and I've found nothing inconsistent with it in HPB or the Mahatma Letters. >This would be confusing the evolution of the Monad with the evolution >of the Physical. When I speak of the Animal Monad in the Human Kingdom, acting as our animal nature, I'm not referring to the mere physical body as a living animal. I'm referring to another Ego, the expression of a different, lower Monad, in our psyche, acting in close relation to us in a cooperative experience of life. >Therefore there are not two Monads trying to inhabit our bodies (the >animal and the physical). Every part of our nature is seeking expression through the rest, all the way down to the outer physical form. Even our Inner God would act through us, where we more expressive of the divine. >This concept prompted the very humorous question from another >participant to the effect, What happens when the animal Monad grows >up? In the next Planetary Manvantara it might be in the Human Kingdom, if it makes the grade. And if we make the grade, we may be Dhyani- Chohans. And we might continue in relation to that particular Monad, being its Manasaptura. >The teaching of Purucker as given by you would lead to a >question such as this, which may illuminate where Purucker has >mis-spoken. The clear distinction between the seven principles and the centers of consciousness in us, and the doctrine of the aggregate and impermanent nature of man, in manifest life, are difficult teachings. The distinction is not clearly made in HPB, and Purucker makes a better job of explaining them. There's no mention of them in Leadbeater's books that I recall reading, and at one point I read all of them, when much younger. I'd suggest that due to the difficult nature of the doctrines involved, and because those of us without the benefit of having read Purucker may find the ideas new at first, that there would be many misconceptions about them. I've found the same thing with people new to the idea of reincarnation, with nearly the same objections and puzzlements being expressed at first as they initially study the materials. I find high value in them, and will continue to express them as best I can. I won't, of course, credit Blavatsky with something when Purucker deserves the credit. >The wonderful thing about Theosophy is its logical consistency. You can say that. And we'll all agree. But when we start trying to talk about it, and really express our understandings, you'll find a remarkable degree of differences. Look at how differently Jerry S. and I have come to view the Globe Chains and Planes of Nature, and we've read the same books! >The pages surrounding the above citations are very interesting >and may help your understanding of evolution. Anthropogenesis, >by the way, occupies the entire Vol. 2 of the SD. Fine. And you may find "Fundamentals of the Esoteric Philosophy" by Purucker to help your understanding of evolution. Unless, of course, you reject him as "source Theosophy". At that point, we'd diverge, since I'd consider you to be excluding an important part of Theosophy. Apart from your favorite "authorities" and my favorites, we can also simply discuss the philosophy in our own words, and see how clear a case we can make for our respective insights. It's a useful learning experience, and can prove helpful when we later write something "authoritative" in a published journal or book. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 28 Oct 1995 19:07:01 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Pandits and Gurus Eldon: Well said, Eldon. I had to consider this idea of generating karma when I had my first book published. I know that some people have been, and will be, hurt from them. But many others will be helped. Look at all the people who have died in the name of Jesus - yet he preached love and forgiveness. Are the Crusades and other atrocities perpretrated by Christians over the last 2000 years now a part of his karmic burden? Or does the karma generated belong to those who have misunderstood or abused his teachings? Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 28 Oct 1995 19:07:07 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: forgiving your body Aki: Coherence: I suspect that Aki meant consciously. It does us no good whatsoever to know that we are inherently spiritual if were aren't consciously aware of it. And if we were consciously aware of it, we would be an Adept, because that is basically the only difference between an Adept and everyone else. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 28 Oct 1995 19:07:26 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Cayce Liesel: You bring up an interesting point, Liesel. Is it *always* "deleterious?" How about Jane Roberts? Have you ever read the Seth material? For a medium, it is pretty darn good stuff. Far better than any other mediumistic information that I have ever read. Jane Roberts gave conscious control over to Seth, who talked about probable selves and all kinds of philosophical stuff - not the kind of material usually associated with channeling. Was she an aberration? An exception to the general rule? Or was there something more going on? Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 28 Oct 1995 20:21:07 GMT From: William Parrette Subject: Re: Hi again, and a few questions Hi Jerry, ... and thanks for the response. I was beginning to think that everyone was ignoring me with the lack of responses and all. But, then agian, there have been some interesting discussions go- ing on and I threw something completely elementary in the middle of it. Anyway, you responded to my post on the list with: > ... > I am not familiar with your training lesson ... That doesn't surprise me. It is a very thin 8.5x11" booklet again called _Introductory_Study_Course_in_Theosophy_ Part I and is "based on a course written by Emogene S. Simmons." The title page says that it is written by the Department of Education, The Theosophical Society in America. While the copyright is in 1967, I'm looking at the 1982 reprint of the sixth printing in 1964. The first printing was in 1938. > ... but your description > of Diagram I is very close to Plate III found in CWL's Man Visible > and Invisible ... Wow! It just so happens that I have a copy of that here. Just a second ... let me dig it out ... I know it's here some- where ... Ah! Here it is! Let's see, Plate III ... Well, as a matter of fact it is almost the exact same diagram. The artistry is slightly different and my Diagram 1 has labels on each of the planes -- but it is almost exactly the same diagram! > ... I don't know anything about your Diagram 2, > nor where you get "Adi" and "Monadic" for the names of the first > two planes, though these are as good as any. The labels on my Diagram 1 appear to the left of the graphic and are used as labels for each of the vertical divisions of the "graph." They are as follows: * Divine or Adi Plane * Monadic Plane * Nirvanic Plane * Buddhic Plane * Mental Plane * There are two subdivisions here But they are not labelled separately * Astral Plane * Physical Plane > ... > < And, is there any meaning to the symbol that appears in > > Yes, this respresents the human kingdom ... This is confusing. Why is the "human kingdom" positioned in the mental plane of the third outpouring? Maybe a better ques- tion that, perhaps, I forgot to ask originally: what is an out- pouring? > ... > < * Is there any specific meaning behind the three symbols used > < at the top of the diagram which are labelled as the aspects? > > All three symbols at the top of the diagram can be found in the > proem to the Secret Doctrine, and represent the three main stages of > manifestation ... I guess our study group should at least read the proem to the SD, eh? Maybe we should have a copy handy for our reference dur- ing our work through this study guide. During our last meeting, we found the glossary and index in the full _Key_to_Theosophy_ somewhat useful. > ... > < * Is there any correlation between Diagram 1 and Diagram 2? > > Yes. > > I can't talk about your Diagram 2, since I am unfamiliar with it ... I looked through Leadbeater's plates in the book and found nothing similar to my Diagram 2. In the books that I have looked through and those that I have read, I have seen no other diagram exactly like this study guide's Diagram 2. > ... > Comment: You are describing the manifestation scheme invented > by CWL, which many theosophists abhore. I personally don't like > it because it is an attempt to blend theosophy with Christianity, and > I prefer to keep religion out of my theosophy; or rather, I let theosophy > be my only religion. Most of the works of CWL are, IMHO, a mixed > bag having some good stuff, and some pretty bad stuff. Many > theosophists just throw it all out and ignore him. I prefer to take > what I like, and ignore those parts that I don't like. One of the > things that I don't like, and ignore, is his business of the Logos, > the Trinity, Outpourings, and so on. I prefer Purucker in these > areas. Hope this helps. I was unaware that this was a "Leadbeater thing." Since the booklet came from Wheaton, and I have seen it at both the Wheaton Quest bookshop and the Krotona bookstore, I had assumed that it was TS educational material sanctioned by the American Section. (Heck, we even sold copies of the thing during our regular month- ly meetings that we were holding a year or so ago -- its list price is always something less than $5.00.) If I get the gist of what you are saying, this material sounds like it might be a little dated and not exactly in line with the popular thinking of the current TS in America today? I am en- tirely in sympathy with you when you say that you don't like to mix today's organized religions with theosophy -- neither do I. But it suprises me then that the terms and the Diagram are still used in today's Theosophical Society educational materials. It sounds to me like our group needs to find some other *in- troductory* *educational* materials to study from. What do you think? Does anyone else have any input on this discussion? William A. (Bill) Parrette wap@one.net Personal signature work in progress ... From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 28 Oct 1995 21:55:30 GMT From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: HPB Booklet The recently announced program of publications begun with *Similis Es* by A.E.Waite and Arthur Machen continues with ~Concerning H.P.B.~ - Stray Thoughts on Theosophy by G.R.S. Mead, who was her private secretary towards the end of her life, and a gnostic scholar in his own right. The booklet contains a Preface by R.A. Gilbert, and a scanned picture of Mead himself, together with his signature. It is limited to 100 copies, individually numbered. Like the other booklets in the series, it is being distributed by ABRAXAS, based in Bristol England, who are acting for the Theosophical Research Group. It is hoped that many areas of Theosophical research may be covered in due course, with occasional offerings from contemporary authors as well as reprints such as the above. Clearly, no one is going to get rich on this project, which is beginning on goodwill and existing resources owned by UK-based theosophists rather than hard cash. These are limited to a degree, and most of the receipts from sales are likely to go into equipment rather than pockets! Further information from the E-mail address below. AB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 29 Oct 1995 06:02:17 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Cat evolution Liesel: >The animals are eventually supposed to evolve >into human beings, in this manvantara or the next one. So I'm >teaching my little cat everything she can absorb. Actually, I think my cats are teaching me. They have me jumping through hoops all the time. :-} I've read recently that in ancient Egypt worshipped the cat (called miw) and people who killed cats, even accidentally, were lynched. Domestic cats were officially equal with humans - they even sat at the table with them at mealtime. When the family cat died, the whole family mourned and the cat was buried with all the pomp and ceremony usually reserved for humans. Yet, during the Dark Ages they were a lot of superstitions about cats and they were killed. As the rat population increased, more people died from fatal diseases that were carried by the rats' fleas. Seems like the evolution of the cat species has periodically changed from being worshipped and valued to being hunted as companions' of witches. If the collective soul of the cat could talk, I wonder what it would say it had learned from these experiences? - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 29 Oct 1995 07:39:20 GMT From: Don DeGracia <72662.1335@compuserve.com> Subject: Don 2 Leisel Hi Leisel: Thanks for all your comments in this discussion. I'm going to go through all 3 of your letters that I have here and answer them all in this letter. This is a critical idea, one that is essential to understanding the evolution of human thinking. It is also something I bank on. < some early biofeedback researchers, I think it was the Greenes, once took some measurements of a cooperating yogi> There are a handful of studies along such lines. And they clearly show that yogis have conscious control over things that most of us do not, such as controling their heart rates. I don't know why such studies have not had more of an impact, especially in my field, which is physiology. I suspect, in large part because no one teaches about these studies. There are new technologies today that could expand on these earlier studies, such as using PET scans on brain activity. I'm not aware of anyone doing this currently, though I advocate it in my writings. I'm glad the explanation was helpful. Its important to realize that this kind of discussion gets into the "nuts and bolts" of what science is and how it works and, IMO, is much more important to understand that a lot of the philosophical hoopla that most people dwell on. Unfortunately, math gets a bad rap. I think it depends on how well you are taught it because math is actually very simple. Like science, math is meant to simplify things, not obscure them. The fact that most people don't appreciate this is a tribute to how poor our educational system is. Thanks for the encouragement! I really don't intend to let TPH's rejection hold me back. I'm sure I will eventually find an audience for my ideas. More and more scientists are open to these kinds of ideas, and there are a number of us who communicate out here on internet specifically about these kinds of topics. Thanks for sharing a little bit about yourself and your life. It helps a lot in getting to know you. Well, Leisel, I'd say its your conversation too! A friend of mine who lives in San Fransico met Eric a couple years ago. They only spoke briefly but I gather he is still doing the biofeedback stuff or at least lecturing about it. I'm not very familair with his work, but thanks for bringing his name up. I am aware that he has worked with Dora Kunz. Thanks for sharing about your essay. It reflects perfectly the point I was making, and even generalizes on it a bit. I was thinking specifically about how philosophers will take the latest scientific information and develop philosophical ideas from them. Your example is even more general in that it illustrates how the social attitudes and customs affect science, and in this case, medicine. <& thought it showed very graphically how our thoughts, or philosophies, influenced our lives, & made Karma, but Bill Metzger didn't agree with me.> Yeah, its unfortunate this piece didn't get into print. For one thing, it really shows how to apply theosophical ideas in a very practical manner. I wonder if sometimes, some theosophists, for some reason or another, disdain having theosophical ideas used this way, as if it belittles the ideas to apply them to "secular" circumstances. Anyway, I sure don't think like this and I agree with you fully. You are exactly right that this is one way of supporting the contentions about the nature of karma and illustrating karmic principles in action. Maybe its not dramatic or mystical enough for some folks, what with no talk of reincarnation or any other such trappings? Anyway, I think your ideas are wonderful. Thank you for sharing them. Yes, that is clear from the material you shared. You may want to consider posting your article here on BUDS. I'd like to read it. Anyway, this idea of "validating our beliefs through experience." is a tricky one. For, on one hand, we first need some kind of idea by which to understand experience in the first place. But, on the other hand, it is too easy to believe in ideas that have nothing to do with our immediate experience. This is something I address in my OBE book by saying that one needs to have a balance between theory and practice. On the theory side, the important dictum is "be informed", which means to understand as much about a thing as it possible, and not to close your mind to alternative ways to look at something (and also, not to dogmatically get caught up in any particular set of beliefs). But, the study of theory must be balanced by practical application. It is my opinion that theory without practical application is not as good as theories that lead to practical consequences. And again, the important point is to keep a healthy balance between theory and practice. This is just another example of the yin/yang principle in action. And its not even validating our beliefs as much as its the need to really test them. Some beliefs can be tested easier than others. But as I said already, its a matter of creativity as to coming up with ways to test ideas that otherwise seem intractable to testing. I've come up with a few new things, some of which I don't make public. Mostly though, I've tried "old" things and found them to work, such as, for example, learning how to astral project, or using yogic methods of purifying my mind and emotions. This stuff is readily available to all, but the crux is seeing how to *apply* it to ones immediate experience and take it out of the realm of talk or theory. Theosophists talk of the astral plane, but how many have made the effort to go there? Thanks. I don't worry too much tho. Its all so tangled and complicated that the best I can do is keep pumping along. Where it will lead, I have no idea, but then again, it doesn't matter. Whether the ideas I advocate are ever accepted by the TS, is not anything to bank on for me. What is clear though is that knowledge is moving in a certain direction. Many things are inevitable at this point. Its all just a matter of time. The mental plane is ever pregnant and pouring its contents into this physical plane. I am only another vehicle of this process. If it isn't me, then it will be someone else. It is all quite inevitable. If others don't see this inevitability right now, then they will see it when it manifests as actuality over the next few decades. < I was just thinking that there were other theosophical scientists who were inspired by theosophical thinking. Besant/Leadbeater's "Occult Chemistry", and Jinarajadasa's "First Principles of Theosophy" come to mind.> Yes, I am familiar with Dr. Phillips work with Occult Chemisty. I too study avidly the Occult Chemistry material and have recently come up with a theory of how Besant and Leadbeater may have actually seem these images. It is a theory much different than Leadbeater's contention of an "etheric tube" that magnifies vision. My theory is related to what is now known about how the brain operates. What is nice is that my view doesn not contradict Leadbeater's, it provides an alternative view from Leadbeaters. There is so much known now about the brain, that clinging to such ideas no longer makes sense. The theosophical ideas are too simple in light of current knowledge about the brain. For over 200 years, people have been studying the brain and much is known about it. And today, there are marvelous new technolgies, like PET scanners and CT scanners, that allow us to watch the living brain in action. If the TS wants to keep its ideas respectable to thinking people then they are going to have to modify them to deal with new knowledge. Of course, this line of thought applies to details. There are many elements of the "big picture" which theosophical teachings continue to have great validity. However, the idea that the brain is a vehicle of the soul needs to be revised and expanded. Furthermore, by going through this excercise, one develops a much deeper appreciation of what their soul is and how it relates to our physical existence. The old idea of the brain being a vehicle is too nebulous. It is, in my opinion, only a starting point for deeper exploration. Furthermore, and even more importantly to me than mere intellectual critisisms is the fact that people's needs are different now. People need explanations with substance, explanations that can affect their life and outlook and give them greater control of the factors that make up their existence. The world has gotten smarter, and these old Victorian, 19th century formulations that fill Theosophical thinking are not as relevant today. Yet, the essence of the ideas is still relevant, it just has to be put in a form relevant for post-modern civilization. You know, its interesting to dwell on this because John Algeo makes comments in his AT article that I never even address in my original posting that got this whole conversation started. And his statements illustrate many of the points I am making here. Let me quote John and then elaborate on what I mean: John said: "A factor that science does not consider, and cannot consider by its rules, is that variously called the "soul" or "spirit" or "self". We all have a sense of self-identity. Where is that sense centered? It is not in the consciousness. We have a sense of self apart from the brain and apart from any states of consciousness or unconsciousness we may happen to be in..." This quote is, in my opinion, much hot air. It is lacking in substance completely. It is woefully inaccurate. There are a number of angles I could take to support my claims and I will mention a few, particularly those that illustrate what I said above. Lets start with the less important criticisms and work our way up. First, John is sloppy in his terms here. What does he mean by "sense of self"? Yes, we all have a sense of self-identity, which is the center of our waking personality, and this is now known to be located in the functions of the frontal lobes of the brain. It has been known for over a century that if damage occurs in the frontal lobes, then the person's sense of self is radically altered. Furthermore, there are many drugs available that can alter brain function and severly alter the sense of self. Thus, it is clear that our sense of self identity is critically dependant upon brain function. Now, John may object and say something to the effect "this is not what I meant by sense of self. You are refering to the waking personality and I am talking about something else - the soul or spirit". And my responce is: well please explain what you mean and be precise with your terminology. Second line of criticism: John says we have a sense of self independent of our state of consciousness or unconsciousness. This flys in the face of what I say about ideas having relevance to our experience. Our experience consists of our immediate conscious awareness. How can one know anything outside of our conscious awareness? Thus, if whatever John is talking about is outside of our consciousness *and* our unconscious, then how can we ever know it? John is describing something of which we can have no experience at all, and this simply makes no sense. No, the simple point is, an educated person will read what John wrote, see all the flaws in it, and likely just ignore him or think what he says makes no sense. For what he says has nothing to do with our immediate and direct experience. Cleary we all have a sense of self, of who we are and what makes us unique as indivduals. *This* sense of self science has studied in great detail and has lots to say about. Now, I know where John is coming from. He is attempting to describe the transcendental aspects of our consciousness. This too is something scientists have a lot to say about. A psycholgist named Abraham Maslow defined a branch of psychology known as transpersonal psychology, which speaks of "peak experiences" when people go beyond their terrestrial personality and get a glimpse of a greater consciousness of which they are a part. LSD researchers have described this kind of thing again and again. The idea that there is some greater consciousness of which our normal personality is a part is no longer an idea exclusive to theosophy. It may have been in 1875, but it is not now. Throughout this century, people have studied these transcedental aspects of our psychology and it is definately a topic of scientific inquiry, even if it isn't mainstream or widely publicized. Furthermore, and what disturbs me the most is that ONE CAN DIRECTLY EXPERIENCE THIS TRANSCEDENTAL ASPECT AND LEARN TO SEE IT INSIDE ONESELF AND EVERYTHING ELSE. John's statements would not lead one to this realization. Having this experience is not simply thinking a thought or imaging it to be so. It is a real and direct experience that can be achieved by any number of means. And once one has the experience, one is altered profoundly. There is a vast literature of this kind of thing, variously called the "mystical experience", "satori", "nirvana", "seeing god", or what have you. I could go on, but I won't. Hopefully my point is clear. The ideas John expresses are out of date and they are not relevant to people's experience. Even more than trying to be up-to-date, its critical to be relevant. What good is an idea if it can't do something for people? I will close here. Take care! Don From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 29 Oct 1995 08:12:58 GMT From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: Forgiving our Body Aki and Eldon are in coversation below: >One more thing, our body is much older (Saturn period) than our other >principes eg. mind, so in a way it is much more perfect and wise. Our principles are emanated in serial order, so the first to emanate is the Atman. When we've reached the physical, we're fully functional (or at least started) on the different levels. Having thus emanated the various forms or sheathes for our consciousness, we then work on awakening, in reverse order, from the physical upwards, the sense of self-consciousness. The physical level, then, is the first level at which we become aware of our existence. Our evolution of self-consciousness towards the spiritual progresses, then, up towards the Atman, one principle after the next. At the end, we've awakened all seven principles to self-consciousness, and can express that consciousness *here on the physical plane*. >For example it has autonomous functions such as respiration, >digestion, sensing... etc, which are far beyond our mind's >capabilities. And our mind doesn't (yet) function automatically >as our blood circulation does. Eg. our feeling-system is already ?more automatic/perfect than our intelligent - being older (Moon >period). I want to say that we, as a Human Monad, could learn >much from our body. Keith: The body is often talked about in the Christian and Puritan traditions as corrupt and leading us to corruption, that is "sin". It is seen in most traditions as something to be transcended. But is it the body or the kama-manas that is causing the "sin", leading the body to indulgences etc? As anecdotal evidence I would like to relate that I had a car accident recently. I hit a utility pole while avoiding hitting another car. The world is very solid to me and the laws of physics hold, trust me. There was no maya about hitting an immovable body in space. My face was smashed up pretty bad, but what seemed like horrible swelling etc., was the body protecting itself. The swelling set some of the broken bones and I didn't have to have surgery. SInce then the swelling has gone down very fast. The body has a special consciousness of what to do without the help my mentality or will. It knows and remembers. It is WISE. However, I have a question as to why our body and feeling nature might be seen as more "perfect" because it is "automatic". Usually automatic is synonomous with "stupid" or machine-like, whereas self-conciousness and control of the bodies and will have been seen as the goal. In other words the limited conscious mind has been seen as the seat of the will and therefore responsible. The automatic processes have been seen as unconscious or not under the laws of Karma. Are the automatic processes even more the results of Karma and therefore our present responsibility? That is, are we responsible for the "perfection" or imperfection of our bodies from past lives or globes? It seems the conscious mind is very limited and in control of very little, as Jung and Freud suggested. Yet its effects are very evident in out modern world ina that science has created that is "not natural or artificial" but powerful in limited time and space.. I am thinking of things like cancer also. Is something like cancer a karmic debt? The body according to Depak Chopra and others is a stream of information and has the power to heal itself. I have just evidenced this. As you can tell I still not thinking clearly, but felt moved to find some meaning in my accident as many do in their illnesses and "bad" karma. The suprising thing I have learned so far is the complexity of a simple accident,in the sense of damage that can be healed and cannot be healed, but yet it seems that there is more good than bad about the body and its wisdom. Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 29 Oct 1995 14:40:45 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: historical and doctrinal Coherence: You, sir, are a dreamer, your scriptural quotes not withstanding. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 29 Oct 1995 17:40:38 GMT From: LaPea@aol.com Subject: Caldwell's Part IV on Johnson's A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF PAUL JOHNSON'S THESIS = CONCERNING MORYA AND KOOT HOOMI, = PART IV by Daniel H. Caldwell In Part III of this series, I asked Paul Johnson a whole series of questions concerning what he had previously written in response to my Part II. He has now informed me in a *private* e- mail message that he has no intention of trying to answer these questions since he feels my review of his thesis is some sort of game, etc. I will continue the series with or without Johnson's participation, because I believe that there are many statements in Johnson's writings on the thesis concerning Morya and Koot Hoomi that need to be carefully examined. In Part II, I presented Colonel Henry Olcott's account of meeting the Master Morya on July 15, 1879. I want to quote again Olcott's testimony in which he states that the Master Morya came on horseback to Bombay T.S. headquarters: (Document 1) "[I] had visit in body of the Sahib [Morya]!! [He] sent Babula to my room to call me to H.P.B.'s bungalow, and there we had a most important private interview...." (Extract from Colonel Olcott's handwritten diary for July 15, 1879) (Document 2) "This same Brother [Morya] once visited me in the flesh at Bombay, coming in full day light, and on horseback. He had me called by a servant into the front room of H.P.B.'s bungalow (she being at the time in the other bungalow talking with those who were there). He came to scold me roundly for something I had done in T.S. matters, and as H.P.B. was also to blame, he *telegraphed* to her to come, that is to say he turned his face and extended his finger in the direction of the place she was in. She came over at once with a rush, and seeing him dropped on her knees and paid him reverence. My voice and his had been heard by those in the other bungalow, but only H.P.B. and I, and the servant *saw* him." (Extract from a letter written by Colonel Olcott to A.O. Hume on Sept. 30, 1881.) (Document 3) "MR. MYERS [speaking to Colonel Olcott]: We want now an account of seeing your Teacher in the flesh. COLONEL OLCOTT [in reply]: One day at Bombay I was at work in my office when a Hindu servant came and told me that a gentleman wanted to see me in Madame Blavatsky's bungalow---a separate house within the same enclosure as the main building. This was one day in 1879. I went and found alone there my Teacher. = Madame Blavatsky was then engaged in animated conversation with other persons in the other bungalow. The interview between the Teacher and myself lasted perhaps 10 minutes, and it related to matters of a private nature with respect to myself and certain current events in the history of the Society..... MR. MYERS [asking Olcott another question]: How do you know that your Teacher was in actual flesh and blood on that occasion? COLONEL OLCOTT [replies]: He put his hand upon my head, and his head was perfectly substantial; and he had altogether the appearance of an ordinary person. When he walked about the floor there was noise of his footsteps....He came to our place on horseback.... MR. MYERS [with another question]: Was that the only occasion on which you have seen him in the flesh? COLONEL OLCOTT: No; I have seen him at other times. MR. MYERS: Have you seen him three or four times in the flesh? COLONEL OLCOTT: Yes, more than that, but not under circumstances where it would be evidence for others. MR. MYERS: And about how many times [have you seen him] in the astral body? COLONEL OLCOTT: Oh, at least 15 or 20 times. MR. MYERS: And his appearance on all those occasions has been quite unmistakable? COLONEL OLCOTT: As unmistakable as the appearance of either of you gentlemen." (Extracts from the interview Olcott had with members of the = London S.P.R. Committee appointed to investigate Theosophical phenomena in the Spring of 1884) In light of Johnson's "suggestion" (to paraphrase Joscelyn Godwin, see p. xviii of Johnson's THE MASTERS REVEALED) that the Mahatma Morya is a fictitious Tibetan persona that conceals a well-documented historical figure---Ranbir Singh; or (to paraphrase Johnson's own words, see p. 6 of MASTERS REVEALED) since Maharajah Ranbir Singh of Kashmir has many correspondences to Morya as described by HPB and although much of HPB's portrayal of Morya was designed to mislead in order to protect their privacy, enough accurate information was included to make a persuasive case for Morya's identity as this historical figure (i.e. Ranbir Singh.), IN LIGHT OF THESE STATEMENTS, I ASK: what is a historian to make of Colonel Olcott's above quoted testimony of the Master Morya riding up on horseback to Bombay T.S. Headquarters on July 15, 1879? I have asked Johnson several times: was this gentleman who rode up on horseback to T.S. headquarters, Maharajah Ranbir Singh? And in his latest answer (Oct 16, 1995) Johnson replies: = "I don't regard it as impossible, but implausible. [I] Could not find evidence as to Ranbir's whereabouts at the time, but at any rate he was unlikely to travel alone." Yes, I agree with Johnson, the Maharajah of Kashmir, the monarch of a kingdom, would probably not travel alone but in fact would probably travel with his guards, servants, etc. Furthermore, if Ranbir travelled all the way from Kashmir to Bombay, his visit would be documented in historical records such as the various Indian newspapers. So the perceptive individual might ask: = Well, is something wrong here? Could Johnson's hypothesis (concerning Ranbir Singh/Morya) be incorrect? Or is something wrong with Colonel Olcott's testimony? Johnson in his latest comments (Oct. 16, 1995) also says that this July 1879 account of Morya coming to see Olcott is "of little use in providing a historical identification....If you want to use it as weight against another identification [like Johnson's own Ranbir Singh's identification?]....fine. But it lacks much weight when there is no confirmation of the account..." Let us scrutinize very carefully Johnson's words. We know from other sources that the name "Morya" is a pseudonym or an initiatic name and is not the "birth name" of Morya. I used to know a man whose name was Sarmad; but this was not his birth name. Sarmad was his initiation name which he received when he became a Sufi. Most of his friends knew him as "Sarmad;" I can't even remember his real name! Johnson writes that this July 1879 encounter is "of little use in providing a historical identification" of Morya. And I would agree that this account by Olcott does not tell us the real name of Morya. *But unless one has a skeptical reason for discounting Olcott's account*, Olcott's testimony places the physical man, known by his "pseudonym" Morya, at 108 Girgaum Back Road, Bombay on July 15, 1879. Now possibly Paul Johnson has a skeptical reason for discounting Olcott's account, but if so, what is the reason? One possibility might be that Johnson knows that if Morya was at Bombay on that particular day, this would show that Ranbir Singh is *not* the Master Morya. In the latter part of Johnson's comment quoted above, he says: "If you want to use it [the account of July 1879] against another identification...fine. But it [the account] lacks much weight when there is no confirmation of the account." What does Johnson mean by "...when there is no confirmation of the account."? Confirmation of the account by finding some document that will lead to the Master's "real name"? Or does Johnson imply by "confirmation of the account" that there should be some other person or persons (non-theosophical??) who saw the Master at Girgaum Back Road on that date? Would Johnson take HPB's testimony as "confirmation of the account"? HPB in a letter dated April 3, 1886 to Franz Hartmann testifies: "When we arrived [in India], and Master [Morya] coming to Bombay bodily, paid a visit to us at Girgaum....Olcott became crazy. He was like Balaam's she-ass when she saw the angel!...." Johnson himself (see p. 10 of THE MASTERS REVEALED) quotes from this same H.P.B. letter, but deletes the just-quoted passage and paraphrases it: "...Olcott met one [Master] in person at Bombay...." And in another section of THE MASTERS REVEALED (p. 144-145) Johnson, in hope of finding an additional fragment of evidence to "lend support to the identification of Ranbir Singh as the prototype for Morya", quotes some words from an 1890 letter written by H.P.B. Johnson writes: "...H.P.B. refers to Olcott's having met two Masters in person, `one in Bombay and the other in Cashmere.'" HPB's own words are: "one in Bombay and the other in Cashmere." Johnson then comments on part of HPB's words: "Olcott's only trip to Ranbir's kingdom was his 1883 journey to Jammu, but according to his own account of his visit there, he met no Mahatma, spending all his time in the company of the maharajah." No doubt, Johnson wants to believe and he wants his readers to believe that HPB's own words support Johnson's hypothesis of "the identification of Ranbir Singh as the prototype for Morya." But what Johnson does not focus on are the other words of HPB: "one [Master] in Bombay". Who is this Master in Bombay? From HPB's own letter of 1886 and Olcott's accounts of 1879, 1881 and 1884, it is obvious (at least to me!)that the Master in Bombay was Morya. HPB's "confirmation" of Olcott's account is probably unsatisfactory for Johnson, but note well that Johnson will quote HPB when her words might support his hypothesis. Johnson again comments: "...my procedure [used in Johnson's books] was to comb through the Theosophical literature looking for clues that are specific enough to point to specific prototypes or identifications for the Masters. Passages such as the one you cite [Olcott's 1879 account] are not useful in that way. I have said that passages such as the one you cite could be used as `disproof' of ANY identification one could make, and therefore that their evidentiary value is weak." If I understand what Johnson is talking about, then he is saying (at least in part) that accounts of meetings with the Masters (such as the 1879 account in Bombay) have little evidentiary value because such accounts don't point to a specific historical identification of the Masters. But whatever Johnson is trying to convey, the question is HAS JOHNSON FOLLOWED HIS OWN ADMONITION AND RULE IN HIS PUBLISHED WORKS? In other words, does Johnson quote and use accounts---*similar* to the 1879 one---where the only witnesses are Olcott and H.P.B. (or other Theosophical witnesses); where there is nothing in the accounts that would help us to identify the real name of the Master; and where there are no independent records or neutral witnesses? Near the end of his posting (Oct. 16, 1995), Johnson points the finger at me and says: "You...assume the accuracy of accounts [of meetings with the Masters] by the Founders [Olcott and H.P.B.] even when there is no evidence to confirm them. *This will only fly with a Theosophical audience*." Asterisks added. The meaning of the clause: "even when there is no evidence to confirm them" is somewhat vague as to the intended meaning. Does Johnson mean"evidence" that is given by non-theosophical witnesses? What kind of "evidence" might confirm the accuracy of accounts by the Founders that would *fly*, i.e., be believed by a non-Theosophical audience? Johnson seems to implying that the 1879 account and similar accounts are *not* confirmed by such evidence. = But let me take Johnson's last statement, turn it into a question and ask Johnson: "Have you assumed in your published writings the accuracy of accounts by the Founders even when there is no evidence to confirm them?" At this point I would like to examine four accounts given by Henry Olcott of his meetings with Masters that Paul Johnson quotes from and uses in his books. (I) OLCOTT'S ACCOUNT OF MEETING OOTON LIATTO. Johnson devotes a "chapter" of his work THE MASTERS REVEALED, pp. 59-62, to Henry Olcott's meeting with Ooton Liatto and another unnamed Adept. = Johnson believes that Ooton Liatto is the same person as the Adept Hilarion. Johnson writes: "In May 1875, HPB's scrapbook noted that Hilarion and a companion `passed thro' New York & Boston, thence thro' California and Japan...'...A recent discovery by Joscelyn Godwin provides intriguing evidence for the visit to New York by Hilarion mentioned in HPB's diary [scrapbook?] in 1875....A letter from Olcott...[dated]...late 1875 or early 1876...describes meeting an adept...." (pp. 59-60) Here are relevant extracts from Olcott's letter: "...I was reading in my room yesterday (Sunday) when there came a tap at the door---I said `come in' and there entered the [younger] Bro[ther] with another dark skinned gentleman of about fifty....We took cigars and chatted for a while....[Then Olcott relates that a rain shower started in the room. Olcott continues the account:] They sat there and quietly smoked their cigars, while mine became too wet to burn....finally the younger of the two (who gave me his name as Ooton Liatto) said I needn't worry nothing would be damaged....I asked Liatto if he knew Madam B[lavatsky]....the elder Bro...[said] that with her permission they would call upon her. I ran downstairs---rushed into Madams parlour---and---there sat these same two identical men smoking with her and chatting....I said nothing but rushed up stairs again tore open my door and---the men were not there---I ran down again, they had disappeared---I...looked out the window---and saw them turning the corner...." To this account, Johnson makes the following *significant* admission: "The names Ooton Liatto and Hilarion Smerdis have been equally impossible to find in biographical and historical reference books. While both may be pseudonyms, there is little doubt that two real adepts visited Olcott in New York." (p. 62) What are Johnson's own conclusions concerning this account? (1) Johnson accepts the accuracy and truthfulness of Olcott's account. (2) Johnson believes that two *real* adepts visited Olcott in New York. Note the phrase: "...there is little doubt [at least in Johnson's mind]...." (3) Johnson also admits that the two names were not located in any biographical and historical reference books; hence, both names "may be pseudonyms." (4) Johnson accepts the account at face value even though there is only Olcott's account. = How does this account by Olcott in 1875-76 significantly differ from the account given by Olcott of the Master Morya coming to Bombay headquarters on July 15, 1879? When I mentioned the 1879 account of Morya as evidence that Olcott had met a *real* adept whose pseudonym was "Morya", Johnson did not hesitate to point out the following three points: = (1) "[The July 15, 1879 account is]...of little use in providing a historical identification...If you want to use it as weight against another identification...fine. But it lacks much weight when there is no confirmation of the account." = (2) "...I have said that passages such as the one you cite [the July 15, 1879 account] could be used as `disproof' of ANY identification one could make, and therefore that their evidentiary value is weak." = (3) "You...assume the accuracy of accounts by the Founders even when there is no evidence to confirm them. This will only fly with a Theosophical audience." Could not one apply all three of these same points to Johnson's own use of Olcott's account of Ootoo Liatto? One could rephrase Johnson's point 3 to read: "You, Paul Johnson, assume the accuracy of this 1875-1876 account by Olcott even when there is no other evidence to confirm it. This will only fly with a Theosophical audience!!!" And the most important point that I can make in rebuttal of Johnson's *dismissive* attitude toward the evidentiary significance of Olcott's account of Morya visiting him in Bombay in July, 1879 is to take Johnson's own summarizing sentences to the chapter on "Ooton Liatoo" and rephrase them as follows: = "The name Morya has been impossible to find in biographical and historical reference books of 19th century persons. While it may be a pseudonym, there is little doubt that a real adept visited Olcott in Bombay on July 15, 1879." If the Adept Morya ("in the flesh...and on horseback") visited Olcott in Bombay on July 15, 1879, what impact does this account by Olcott (and *similar* accounts by Olcott and other witnesses) have on Johnson's "suggestion" that Morya is a fictitious Tibetan persona? If Johnson himself regards it as "implausible" that Ranbir Singh (whom Johnson speculates is the real individual behind the Morya persona) was actually in Bombay on that July 1879 day, then is it not fair to suggest that Johnson's own hypothesis is just as implausible? (II) ACCOUNT OF OLCOTT'S MEETING WITH A MAHATMA ON AUGUST 4, 1880 In Johnson's book IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS, in a chapter on Jamal ad-Din 'al-Afghani (described in the *New Encyclopaedia Britannica*, 15th Edition as a Muslim politician, political agitator, and journalist), we find the following narrative (p. 193): "In light of available knowledge of Afghani's comings and goings in India, can he be connected to the Founders of the Theosophical Society? The evidence is intriguing if not convincing. The first problem is that Olcott rarely identifies adepts when they appear in his narrative, beyond the fact of their status as such. Thus, on August 4, 1880, [Olcott wrote:]`a Mahatma visited H.P.B., and I was called in to see him before he left. He dictated a long and important letter to an influential friend of ours at Paris, and gave me important hints about the management of current Society affairs....[Old Diary Leaves, II, 1972 printing, p. 208]" = Johnson omits the following picturesque detail from Olcott's account: "...I left him [the Mahatma] sitting in H.P.B.'s room...." Johnson's commentary on Olcott's account is as follows: "*Although there is no stated identity of this Mahatma* [asterisks added], the mention of Paris rings true, since Afghani was indeed to proceed to Paris, where he must have had an influential friend from the evidence presented." What are Johnson's own conclusions about this account by Olcott? (1) Johnson accepts the accuracy and truthfulness of Olcott's account. (2) Johnson is willing to believe that a Mahatma in his *physical* body visited both Olcott and HPB on August 4, 1880. (3) Johnson also admits that there is "no stated identity of this Mahatma"; not even a pseudonym! (4) Johnson accepts the account at face value even though there is only Olcott's account. How does this account by Olcott of Aug. 4, 1880 significantly differ from the account given by Olcott of the Master Morya coming to Bombay headquarters on July 15, 1879? In accepting this account, does Johnson follow his own advice to me? "You [Dan Caldwell]...assume the accuracy of accounts by the Founders even when there is no evidence to confirm them. This will only fly with a Theosophical audience." In a letter of April 7, 1993 to Paul Johnson (a letter I wrote at his request for information, input and criticism), I told him: "But had you consulted Olcott's actual handwritten diary for August 4, 1880, you would have discovered that Olcott identifies this `Mahatma' as Morya....Now with this new piece of information at your disposal, are you still willing to accept Col. Olcott's testimony of this encounter with a Master [now identified as Morya] at face value?" NOTE: Johnson dropped this account of Aug. 4, 1880 from the chapter on Afghani in his 1994 book THE MASTERS REVEALED. The actual diary entry in Olcott's handwriting reads: "M [followed by a triangle of three dots] here this evening & wrote to Fauvety of Paris. He says 5000 English troops killed in Afghanistan in the recent battle." It can be concluded that Fauvety is the "influential friend of ours at Paris" to whom Morya "dictated a long and important letter." I would further suggest that Morya dictated this letter to H.P.B. who then wrote it in French to Monsieur Charles Fauvety, President of the Society for Psychological Studies, Paris. See HPB's *Collected Writings*, Volume II, pp. 500-507 for a letter dated Bombay, August 5, 1880 written to Charles Fauvety and signed by "H.P. Blavatsky, Corresponding Secretary of the New York Theosophical Society". I will summarize the significance of this August 4, 1880 account by paraphrasing Johnson's own summary of the Ooton Liatto account: "The names M. and Morya have been equally impossible to find in biographical and historical reference books of 19th century persons. While both may be pseudonyms, there is little doubt that a real adept visited Olcott and H.P.B. in Bombay on August 4, 1880." Is it "implausible" that Maharajah Ranbir Singh is the Adept in H.P.B.'s room dictating a letter to Monsieur Fauvety? And if it is implausible to believe that this Adept is the Maharajah of Kashmir, then is it not fair to suggest that Johnson's hypothesis concerning Ranbir Singh/Morya is also implausible? = (III) OLCOTT'S ACCOUNT OF MEETING A MASTER AT THE GOLDEN TEMPLE IN AMRITSAR ON OCTOBER 23, 1880. In THE MASTERS REVEALED, p. 149, Johnson states: "Describing a visit to the Golden Temple in Amritsar on 23 October 1880, he [Olcott] writes: `...at a shrine where the swords, sharp steel discs, coats of mail, and other warlike weapons of the Sikh warrior priests are exposed to view in charge of the akalis, I was greeted, to my surprise and joy, with a loving smile by one of the Masters, who for the moment was figuring among the guardians, and who gave each of us a fresh rose, with a blessing in his eyes....'" Johnson admits that this Master, "who for the moment was figuring among the guardians," was "unnamed by Olcott." Furthermore, Johnson puts H.P. Blavatsky on the witness stand and quotes from her CAVES AND JUNGLES OF HINDUSTAN where she writes: "Our new friend [Ram-Ranjit-Das] was a native of Amritsar, in the Punjab, and had been brought up in the `Golden Temple'....Our sannyasin was...a regular Akali, one of the six hundred warrior-priests attached to the `Golden Temple' for the purposes of divine service and the protection of the Temple...." Johnson assumes that Olcott and Blavatsky are describing the "same character." Johnson goes on to say: "It is apparent from *Old Diary Leaves* and *Caves and Jungles* that the same character is described by both as a Sikh officiating at the Golden Temple, in which he plays a supervisory role." Does Olcott state that this unnamed Master was a Sikh officiating at the Golden Temple? Olcott's own words are: "...I was greeted, to my surprise and joy, with a loving smile by one of the Masters, WHO FOR THE MOMENT WAS FIGURING AMONG THE GUARDIANS...." [Caps added.] Does Olcott's words mean that this Master was *one of the guardians*? Johnson, at least, wants to believe this: "It is apparent...[at least to Johnson!]". = Then, Johnson makes another assumption that Olcott's "unnamed" Master (who is "a Sikh officiating at the Golden Temple") is also "Thakar Singh Sandhanwalia, first president of the Singh Sabha" and "a sirdar from Amritsar." Johnson writes: "Seeking in and around Amritsar for a Sikh hereditary nobleman and religious functionary in 1880, one might find dozens of names to choose from." On p. 154, Johnson gives his reasons for choosing Thakar Singh from the "dozens of names to choose from." But Johnson does *not* produce one *non-theosophical* historical record that would even suggest that Blavatsky's "regular Akali" and Olcott's unnamed "Master" at the Golden Temple was, in fact, Thakar Singh Sandhanwalia. Where was Thakar Singh on October 23, 1880? = Johnson presents no primary source document to indicate his whereabouts on that day. Then Johnson makes another assumption that Thakar Singh is actually the Theosophical Mahatma Koot Hoomi. An equation of these assumptions might look as follows: = Unnamed Master =3D Regular Akali =3D Thakar Singh =3D Koot Hoomi. In THE MASTERS REVEALED (p. 154), Johnson writes: "K.H. dates one of his earliest letters from `Amritas Saras' (the Golden Temple) and refers to it as his home, but he makes it appear that he is only rarely there on visits from Tibet." Johnson is referring to a letter from K.H. to A.P. Sinnett that is dated October 29, 1880. In this letter K.H. tells Sinnett: "the other day...I was coming down the defiles of Kouenlun [mountains] --- Karakorum you call them....I...was crossing over to Ladakh on my way home....So I determined to emerge from the seclusion of many years and spend some time with her [HPB who was then in Amritsar]. I had come for a few days, but now find that I myself cannot endure for any length of time the stifling magnetism even of my own countrymen. I have seen some of our proud old Sikhs drunk and staggering over the marble pavement of their sacred Temple....I turn my face homeward to-morrow." (Mahatma Letter No. 5 in the new Chronological Edition of these Letters; No. 4 according to the older Editions). So Koot Hoomi himself says that he was at the Golden Temple on or about Oct. 29. But in this same letter, KH tells Sinnett that he had received Sinnett's letter on Oct. 27th "about thirty miles beyond Rawalpindi" and "had an acknowledgement wired to you from Jhelum" a few hours later. As the crow flies, Rawalpindi is located approximately 180 miles northwest of Amritsar; Jhelum is about 120 miles northwest of Amritsar. = Was Koot Hoomi at the Golden Temple at Amritsar on October 23, as Johnson wants to believe? First of all, the October 23rd date that Johnson gives for Olcott's encounter with a Master is wrong. = If one *carefully* reads the text of Olcott's account, the day of the encounter is October 26th. And this is confirmed by Olcott's own handwritten diary where under the entry for October 26th, one reads the following: "...In the afternoon we went to the Golden Temple again & found it as lovely as before. Saw some hundreds of fakirs & gossains more or less ill-favored. A Brother there saluted H.P.B. and me & gave us each a rose." Furthermore, according to Mahatma Letter No. 5, Koot Hoomi was on Oct. 26, 1880 hundreds of miles north of Amritsar and the next day (Oct. 27th) was near Rawalpindi (some 180 northwest of the Golden Temple). Subsequently K.H. then travelled to Amritsar and visited the Golden Temple. [NOTE: Johnson quotes selectively from the Mahatma Letters when some piece of information might support his hypothesis but when confronted with information (even in the same Mahatma letter) that negates his hypothesis, Johnson calls the latter statements "disinformation", i.e. as the dictionary defines the word: "false information deliberately...spread...in order to...obscure the truth." Notice Johnson's comment above: "...but he [KH] *makes it appear* that he is only rarely there on visits from Tibet." Asterisks added. = By this method, Johnson can discount any evidence that might conflict with his own hypothesis. I suspect this is part of Johnson's "Wonderland logic" that Dr. John Algeo illustrates on p. 244 (*Theosophical History*, July, 1995) of his review of Johnson's THE MASTERS REVEALED.] What are Johnson's own conclusions concerning this account of a Master at the Golden Temple on Oct. 23 (actually Oct 26), 1880? (1) Johnson accepts the accuracy and truthfulness of Olcott's account. He also accepts the accuracy and truthfulness of Blavatsky's account. (2) Johnson believes that a physical Master was seen by Olcott and Blavatsky at the Golden Temple on that Oct. 1880 date. (3) Johnson also admits that the Master is "unnamed by Olcott." (4) Johnson accepts the account at face value even though there are only the accounts by Olcott and Blavatsky. Johnson does *not* cite one historical document that would indicate that Thakar Singh was the "unnamed Master"; he does *not* give one source that would confirm that Thakar Singh was in Amritsar on Oct. 26, 1880. = Regarding this account one can take Johnson's own criticism directed toward me and rephrase it: "You, Paul Johnson, assume the accuracy of this Oct. 1880 account by the Founders even when there is no other evidence to confirm it. This will only fly with a Theosophical audience." The interested reader might compare what I have said above concerning this 1880 account with Dr. Algeo's section on "Kuthumi/Thakar Singh" in his review (pp. 243-244). (IV) OLCOTT'S ACCOUNT OF MEETING MASTER KOOT HOOMI ON NOVEMBER 20, 1883 ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF LAHORE. In the book IN SEARCH OF THE MASTERS (p. 242), Johnson tells his readers: "K.H. did *indeed* visit Olcott, Damodar and Brown on the edge of Lahore." = Asterisks added. Johnson is ready to believe that Olcott's testimony can be taken *at face value*. Johnson is saying, in effect: Yes, Henry Olcott actually did meet `Koot Hoomi.' Of course, it was Thakar Singh. In Johnson's THE MASTERS REVEALED, he spends several pages (pp. 157-160) describing K.H.'s two visits on Nov. 20, 1883 to Olcott, Brown and Damodar. Again in his latest book from SUNY, *Initiates of Theosophical Masters*, Johnson relates William Brown's account of meeting K.H. at Lahore and subsequently at Jammu (see pp. 35-38) and Damodar Mavalankar's account of meeting K.H. at Lahore and later at Jammu (see pp. 39-42). Concerning Damodar's account, Johnson writes: = "Damodar had genuinely met Koot Hoomi outside Lahore and at the palace of Ranbir Singh....This is one of the great true Mahatma stories of Theosophical history; KH [Johnson means Thakar Singh] and his colleagues Dayal Singh Majithia and Bhai Gurmukh Singh did indeed welcome Olcott, Damodar, and Brown to Lahore." (p. 40) What are Johnson's own conclusions concerning these accounts by Olcott, Damodar and Brown? (1) Johnson accepts the accuracy and truthfulness of the accounts by Olcott, Damodar and Brown. (2) Johnson is willing to believe that a real Master in his *physical* body visited Olcott, Damodar and Brown. (3) Although Johnson knows that "Koot Hoomi" is a pseudonym; this fact does not keep Johnson from believing that a real Master visited the three Theosophists. (4) Johnson accepts the accounts at face value even though these accounts are all by Theosophists. Johnson elsewhere even asserts that Damodar was a liar and deceiver yet Johnson seems willing to believe Damodar when the latter's testimony fits in with Johnson's hypothesis. Remember Johnson's admonition to me? "You...assume the accuracy of accounts by the Founders even when there is no other evidence to confirm it. This will only fly with a Theosophical audience." What non-theosophical audience/scholar would accept the testimony of three Theosophical witnesses "when there is no other evidence to confirm" their accounts? Furthermore, Johnson cites no historical records that would indicate (let alone prove) that Thakar Singh was at Lahore and Jammu on the dates that Olcott, Damodar and Brown were. Apparently Johnson just assumes Thakar Singh was at those locations on those dates; and he further assumes that Thakar Singh was Koot Hoomi. Will this really fly with a non-Theosophical audience? In THE MASTERS REVEALED (p. 160), Johnson comments about the Sikh Sirdars that provided conveyances for Olcott, Damodar and Brown at Lahore: "His Highness Raja Harbans Singh *and other Sirdars* sent their conveyances to bring the party to their quarters....Most intriguing in all this are the references to `other Sirdars'....The lack of any mention of Thakar Singh's name seems inevitable if he was indeed the Master K.H." Algeo provides a very perceptive commentary on Johnson's statement: "By that sort of logic every text that lacks mention of Thakar Singh becomes evidence of his identity with Kuthumi....Lack of evidence thus becomes evidence." Algeo having cited a relevant quote from *Alice's Adventures in Wonderland*, goes on to say: "By [such] Wonderland logic [that Johnson uses], anything can be proved." = = = _________________________________ In light of the four accounts by Olcott cited above, why does Johnson so readily dismiss the July, 1879 account in which Morya rides up on horseback to Bombay to visit with Olcott, HPB and Babula? According to Johnson he dismisses this 1879 account for the following reasons: (1) The account is of little evidentiary weight since there is no confirmation of the account; (2) its evidentiary value is weak because one cannot identify the Master by his real name; and (3) there is no evidence to confirm the account therefore one cannot know the accuracy of the account. = BUT IF ONE ACCEPTS JOHNSON'S LINE OF REASONING, WOULD NOT ONE HAVE TO ALSO DISMISS THE FOUR EXAMPLES CITED BY JOHNSON HIMSELF AS EVIDENCE THAT REAL, PHYSICAL ADEPTS VISITED OLCOTT, BLAVATSKY AND OTHER THEOSOPHISTS? The answer may be based upon whether one uses normal logic or Wonderland logic! I await Johnson's answer. _____________________________ Part V will deal with Johnson's dismissal of certain testimonies = concerning the Masters when those testimonies conflict with his hypotheses. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 29 Oct 1995 22:08:52 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Door to the Human Kingdom Coherence wrote, > The general principle is > reiterated often and in various places throughout the SD. The Monad in the > animal kingdom has passed through the mineral and vegetable kingdoms and is > now ready to become Man, i.e.self-conscious. There is no reference to Animal > Monads becoming "Human NATURES" or our lower attributes. I agree, it doesn't make sense that a single monad makes up our physical body, rather I understood the physical as a collection of little lives who arrange themselves according to the magnetism and constitution of the astral form. Perhaps the one who originally posted the Purucker quote could further explain the idea rather than me sitting here dismissing the idea out of hand. Let me just say that right now, the idea of one single monad making up our human body doesn't make sense. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 29 Oct 1995 22:09:01 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Not Escaping the World Eldon wrote: that our goal is to escape the necessity of physical incarnation, > and to seek rebirth on higher planes (globes).> Jerry S.: > > Eldon, you have preached this before. Could you please > give us an example of such a "spiritual path." I am not aware of > any, while you sound like you know several. If I could butt in here for a moment -- some schools of thought that teach escape from this plane to other ones: Christianity (rebirth in heaven) Pure Land in Buddhism (rebirth in the pure land) Jainism (escape from the world where killing is necessary) Nichiren Buddhism (chant Nam-myo-ho-re-gye-kyo to be reborn in the pure land) Gnosticism (rebirth in the pleroma) Judaism (heaven) Islam (heaven) There are lots more, these just spring to mind. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 29 Oct 1995 23:04:06 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Tantric Theosophy Following is another passage from "The Life and Teaching of Naropa" by Herbert V. Guenther, Shambhala. [pages 112-13] > The line of thought which Naropa represents is named ... > Matrayana. It is an aspect of Mahayana Buddhism, This is the higher aspect of Buddhism, where the Path of Compassion is emphasized. One does not strive for nirvana for oneself, but for the enlightenment of all beings. > the product of an intensely philosophical spirit inspired by an > insatiable ambition to know reality directly, not by rumour or > description. This sounds much like what Theosophy *can be*, after we move forward with our philosophy towards an attempt to know reality directly. Our Path does not end with the philosophy, it starts there and goes much further! > It relies on the 'inner light' rather than on the mere > rationality of philosophy with which it is nevertheless well > acquainted. We first need a solid intellectual basis in the theosophical teachings, as a foundation for further work. We go beyond the normal intellectual apporach and go after "inner light". > By its very name it claims to be the expression of the Real or > the spirituality of Buddhahood. But since the immediate > experience of the Real is an unusual and privileged state of > being, it is also said to be 'secret'. The immediate experience of the Real is an unusual state of being, it is not typical. And it is a privilege to attain. Because of this, it is something that by its nature is esoteric. We are going beyond theosophical doctrine and approaching esoteric Theosophy. > The philosophical significance of Mantrayana has been much > obscured by irresponsibly applying to it the name 'Tantrism', > probably one of the haziest notions and misconceptions the > Western mind has evolved. The Tantric approach is misunderstood in the West. > It is customary in certain Western circles ... to consider > Tantrism as a medley of ritual acts, yoga techniques, and other > practices, mostly of an 'objectionable' type, and therefore as a > degenerative lapse into a world of superstition and magic. In the West, the Tantric approach is simply considered to be a collection of objectionable practices. > ... the Western world [has] ... reduced philosophy to a purely > academic pursuit. The possibility that philosophy itself might > provide guidance in conduct, and that as a way of life and quest > for meaning it might involve the whole of man and not merely his > brain, was overlooked. This statement could be out of any theosophical book. Philosophy is much more than a mind-game. It can and should involve the whole of man. Tantric Buddhism deals with the integration of philosophy into one's life. [page 113, footnote] > The main charge levelled against Tantrism is that it makes use of > sex. As is well known, sexual imagery is excluded from religious > symbolism in the West, while erotic forms are freely used in the > East for conveying religious feelings. Sexual imagery is included in Eastern religious symbolism. Tantric Buddhism is not alone in this regard. > Sex has no evil associations for a follower of the Tantras. But > this does not imply licentiousness. There is a presumption in Western thought to infer licentiousness when sexual symbolism is used. > To be unaware of the difference between East and West, and on the > bsis of such ignorance to outline a development of Buddhist > thought, can hardly be said to do justice to Buddhism. The > various histories of Buddhist thought that have been writtern, > all bear the stamp of the second half of the nineteenth century. In the Victorian Era, sex was considered bad. Eastern religious were depicted as degenerate, because of their use of sexual-based symbolism. This completely overlooked what the symbolism actually meant. [pages 122-23] > The above definition of 'Tantra' as continuity in Being-itself, > in its directive process and its emergent effect, is the one > adopted by all who follow the discipline of Tantrism. The term "tantra" refers to continunity, and it points to a practice where one sustains, on an on-going basis, the basis of one's consciousness in non-dualism. One sustains a state of pure beingness, out of which the experience of the world emerges or arises naturally, and out of which one's life is directed. > This definition shows that Tantra is the affirmation of the > absolute unity of reality and of its being known directly. This > it has in common with mysticism. The Tantric approach allows for a direct experience of absolute reality. It is possible to directly know this unified reality. There is a mode or functioning of consciousness the universe appears unified *to us*, and our lives is fashioned by this unity. > The important point to note is that it reveals our being in the > world where two ways are open: We have two modes of experiencing life, the Tantric and the common or ego-centric. There are two ways to be in the world, to participate in life. > either to give oneself over to one's being-there in one's > capacity of being-this-or-that, in which case we become untrue to > ourselves; The first mode, the common experience of life, is with a sense of subject/object, a sense of being a particular individual in a particular place. In this mode, I am aware of being myself, a person with specific characteristics ("being-this-or-that") in a specific situation ("being-there"). > or to give oneself over to the infinite openness of > being-oneself-*cum*-Being-in-itself and thereby become true to > ourselves. In the other mode, I am aware of my root beingness, of the nature of being quite independent of any particular situation that I may find myself in. I am purely myself, and true to my nature. > But the attainment of this privileged status does not come about > by chance or by constructing conceptual systems. The ability to function in this unified mode of consciousness is not an accidental happening. And it does not arise merely by formulating in words a description of how life works. > It is the result of a hard training -- the way of how we go about > making ourselves -- and this also is 'Tantra'. We are essentially self-made, and to undertake the Tantric path, the path of continuity in spiritual insight, requires hard work. When we endeavor to go beyond our intellectual study of Theosophy and undertake a spiritual practice, it is not easy nor effortless. There is much to be done in our lives, and it requires a sustained, continuous effort. > The training follows a definite plan, so that the frozenness of > our being-this-or-that is dissolved and wider and wider horizons > of reality are revealed to the student. We would follow tried-and-proven techniques to achieve the spiritual. The goal is to transcend the burden of a sense of personality, to dissolve the frozen nature of our minds. The sense of our "being-this-or-that" is to be overcome, which reveals wider horizons of reality. The mind is capable of direct experience, and of directly knowing things. It's vision is blurred; it is blinded to what is before us. The sense of "being-this-or-that" is like a cataract that blinds the mind's eye, and needs to be dissolved. When removed, we then can see things clearly. > Only a few will submit to such training in full. ... [with > Naropa] the whole course of training is available as laid down in > his biography and transmitted to others. There are defined systems of training available in the world, like in Tibetan Buddhism. We're at a disadvantage in Theosophy, having a body of doctrines to think about, but no formulated, tried-and-proved practice to undertake. We're akin to Olympic hopefuls with no coach to train us nor gym to work out in. What do we do? We improvise and do the best that we can, until we catch the attention of someone who would train us, and doors start to open in our lives. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 29 Oct 1995 23:21:02 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: lemniscate Jerry H-E: >I honestly don't recall seeing any "obsolete words" in the SD. Can >you think of any? When I was computerizing "Esoteric Buddhism", "The Key to Theosophy", and other theosophical books, I came across a list of terms that seemed obsolete. I don't recall most of the words on the list at the moment. (The list is at home, and I'm writing from work.) I'd expect, though, that as time passes, more and more words get obsolete, so we could have a growing list. Your familiarity with "The Secret Doctrine" and your having looked up all the unfamiliar words in it during you studies would make it harder for you to distinguish obsolete words from those in common usage, since you know what the terms mean. For a new Secret Doctrine student, aren't there English terms that a new student has to unnecessarily look up, terms that are no longer in common usage and easily replaced by some contemporary term? >As for the obvious typos--i.e. "het" when obviously "the" was >meant is an editorial change that I can live with. But I find a >difference between an editorial policy that changes "het" to >"the" and one that changes "higher Self" to "higher Ego". There's no disagreement on this. The grey area is found in between the two extremes. Replacing an obsolete English word with one in common usage is different than substituting technical theosophical terms for other terms. >So far, I have not found a single instance where a word has changed >so as to cause any confusion in reading the SD. Have you? Examples >please. Can you give me some examples of misleading words in the SD, >and how they are misleading? This is a different situation now. I'm talking about where an *English* word has dropped out of usage and can be readily replaced with a newer word. I'm not talking about an English word that has had its meaning changed since the late 1800's, so that the modern meaning is different than in Blavatsky's day and her use of the word is therefore misleading. This has happened too, and would be another area to consider changing or annotating future editions of books. An example would be with the term "atom", if it means something different now than in Blavatsky's days. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Oct 1995 01:41:06 GMT From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Subject: re: Cayce > >Jerry S. > >>I also seem to recall a prophecy about someone finding >>scrolls or something under the paws of the great Sphinx >>in Egpyt. While they did discover some neat boats under >>the Great Pyramid, I don't think anything has yet been found >>under the sphinx. Anyway, has anyone ever listed Cayce's >>correct predictions versus his misses? > > Jerry S. > > There was a article in our local newspaper last summer, >sometime, that some archaeologists had discovered a passageway >near the paw of the Sphinx. They said that they did not expect >to find anything at the end of the passageway, but will be >clearing the rubble and descending the passage way in January. >If Cayce's prediction is correct, they are supposed to find >scrolls from the library of Alexandria at the end of that >passage. > Did anyone else see this article? It was one of those UPI >fillers, and was probably in papers all over the country. If >anyone saved the article, I would appreciate a copy. > >Thanks > >Jerry HE > I read somewhere recently that they had discovered a door under there but it was jammed so they were sending minature cameras in to see if it was worth the effort to excavate further. There was a hold up getting permission from the Egyptian Gov. That's all I can remember. Bee >------------------------------------------|Jerry Hejka-Ekins > ||Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu ||and >CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org >|------------------------------------------ > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Oct 1995 02:30:18 GMT From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Subject: Re: Door to the Human Kingdom >My question regarding the above was the source of the assertion that the >Animal Monads become the "animal natures" of man. The source given was >Puruker with a request for a Blavatsky source. Here is what I came up with. If I understand correctly, and that will probably not be so, but is not what you call Animal Monad better understood as elementals that group together to co-operate in forming our bodies. de Purucker refers to them also as life-atoms in which the Monad is unfolding and being part of our constitution is part of their own evolution. They are still on the downward arc as opposed to our Monads who are on the upward path. As our consciousness grows so that effects them too and by the time we are ready to no longer use bodies, they proceed onwards with their evolution having benefitted from our refining them by our own evolvement. I think they are still on the way to being mineral monads in some other manvantara and then onwards to human status. Have I got some of that right? Bee. > > >This is the most concise statement I can find. The general principle is >reiterated often and in various places throughout the SD. The Monad in the >animal kingdom has passed through the mineral and vegetable kingdoms and is >now ready to become Man, i.e.self-conscious. There is no reference to Animal >Monads becoming "Human NATURES" or our lower attributes. This is where I would be inclined to refer to elementals as constituting our animal nature This would be >confusing the evolution of the Monad with the evolution of the Physical. > Therefore there are not two Monads trying to inhabit our bodies (the animal >and the physical). This concept prompted the very humorous question from >another participant to the effect, What happens when the animal Monad grows >up? The teaching of Purucker as given by you would lead to a question such >as this, which may illuminate where Purucker has mis-spoken. The wonderful >thing about Theosophy is its logical consistency. > >The pages surrounding the above citations are very interesting and may help >your understanding of evolution. Anthropogenesis, by the way, occupies the >entire Vol. 2 of the SD. > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Oct 1995 04:23:21 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Forgiving our Body Keith: >The body is often talked about in the Christian and Puritan >traditions as corrupt and leading us to corruption, that is "sin". >It is seen in most traditions as something to be transcended. >But is it the body or the kama-manas that is causing the "sin", >leading the body to indulgences etc? It would seem like none of the seven principles are corrupt per se, but it depends upon their undeveloped nature as to how much they mislead us from the truth and from true living. >The body has a special consciousness of what to do without the >help my mentality or will. It knows and remembers. Yes. It is guided by a will of its own. There is a center of consciousenss in us that governs it, apart from the personality or human Ego that we know ourselves as. >However, I have a question as to why our body and feeling >nature might be seen as more "perfect" because it is "automatic". I'd say that the "automatic" nature of it comes from a controlling intelligence, from sentiency, from another center of consciousness that helps to form our aggregate nature while alive. >I am thinking of things like cancer also. Is something like >cancer a karmic debt? The notion of "karmic debt" comes from the "banker's model" of karma. It fails to take into account that karma arises in the "inbetween-space" between individual lives, and is not an abstract quantity of energy with an existence of its own. While it is true that we can say that what happens to us is the result of our previous actions, we're really saying that what we've made ourselves into at this very moment of time is the results of our past. We are our karma, and as we change ourselves, we change our future as well, including what and how our karma will "come out" in the future. We're not predestined to a certain experience, where it will happen regardless of how we change in the intervening time. Cancer may happen due to the interaction between us and the rest of life, or it may not. As also will physical death happen at some time, without any sense of "debt" or "punishment" to it. It is just life happening, through our interaction with the external world. The body has its wisdom, but it is not the physical organism itself, but the center of consciousness within us that lives more directly in and through that body. We are composed of many centers of consciousness, in a "living coop", and our position in that organiztion, while alive, is the lower human Ego, the Manas or Kama-Manas. Each center in our complex structure of life has quite a degree of intelligence of its own, and it's amazing what they all can become, when they come together to form the living human! -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Oct 1995 04:35:00 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: World Solutions [text from a letter discussing world issues and spiritual work] You've hit on the key here. The question goes as to the why of this decadence and the nature of the solution. The why is because over the last 10 decades the chelas and those of spiritual inclination all over the world have not by and large had the courage to stand up for right values and principles and have generally retreated into their own world. As the saying goes: "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." And nothing, in terms of more directly interfacing with humanity, is exactly what has been done by most. Or when attempting to do more the workers have been easily side-tracked or corrupted by wrong compromises (usually based on material fears or the glamour of authority). The solution is public open forthright statements as to the truth of right values and spiritual realities and work is going on for this. The lethargy and negligence of the spiritually inclined has allowed certain small groups of materialistic powerful individuals to centralize material management of the world so that the vast majority of so-called crisis (wars, starvation, environmental, etc.) are being staged to foster a state of helplessness and negativity in people in general. Also these same groups are responsible for the gradual decay of the entertainment industry and the drug trade as efforts to manipulate humanity. The solution here, as strange as it way sound, in exoteric terms is economic freedom (i.e., no taxation and free trade) as this would disempower the money controllers and bring about the evolution of a mostly "good character" based trade economy -- which is the more natural spiritual way emphasized by the Mahatmas. As we encourage unselfishness (love,compassion, etc.) by our examples and work for freedom on all planes we can help in this. In terms of exoteric governments many theosophists are under the mistaken impression that gov'ts are there to orchestrate a better society through coercion. But this idea is the complete opposite of the truth -- it is we who are to work for a better way through living a life of example and changing the way we and, by response, those around us do things. Gov't coercive influence in any area except in the protection of our freedom to change always works against the best spiritual possibilities (devitalizing the effect of our examples) and empowers the small groups of materially inclined individuals who are working against the changes we seek. The solution is to restrict all legal power to only protecting unalienable rights and leave solutions to all societies issues in the hands of the other responsible institutions of society (churches, businesses, etc.). In freedom the best spiritual possibilities work out fastest. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Oct 1995 09:54:56 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: THEOS-BUDS digest 17-Butting In According to Keith Price: > > Hello, Liesel. Eldon and Don! > > I have just had a bad accident and trying to get back into the threads of > conversation. Are there any real "accidents"? I think this has been much > discussed in relation to Karma and Dharma and chaos and entropy and all the > other "gods" of occultism and science, but when you have a bad accident, I > don't analyze, but I try to utilize. That is, I try to do everything > to improve my health and situation without sorting out immediately > my karmic guilt or my victimhood or the "just" wheels of the > universe. In short, I hurt and want to stop the pain at all costs. Dear Keith, I'm sorry to learn of your collision (does that avoid the "accident" question"?) and hope you find the resources-- spiritual, physical, psychological-- to get through your recuperation rapidly. As for the philosophical question about accident, let me share with you what Gurdjieff says, which I have seen confirmed in my own experience. He distinguishes between the Law of Accident and the Law of Fate, saying our behavior and attitude can determine which law governs us. Under the Law of Fate, all circumstances are necessary instruction and are personally meaningful. Under the Law of Accident, we experience random events that have no relation to our personal fate. We choose which law applies to us by the way we think and live. If we live on the assumption that our experiences have personal instructional meaning, then we attract to us circumstances that are individually meaningful. If we live on the assumption that our experiences are random, that's what we get. What this means to me personally can be illustrated by the last car accident I had. I was visiting one friend in the DC area and had driven with him to see two others. A snowstorm started, and I kept looking out the window worriedly. But my hosts said "oh, this is nothing, we never get much snow here" and I ignored my sense of danger in order to enjoy the company. In a three hour period something like 6 inches of snow fell. I made it all the way back to the street on which I was staying. Just as I reached the last block, kids playing on sleds got in the road, I swerved to avoid them, skidded downhill into a parked car. My immediate thought was "goddamnit, it's my own fault, I knew better than to stick around, we should have left hours ago." Since then, I've noticed that every significant "accident" I've had could, after the fact, be recognized as the result of my failure to heed warnings from my own consciousness or omens of some kind. If I had taken those omens or warnings as personally meaningful, rather than random occurrences, then the "accident" would never have occurred. I experienced the "accident" precisely because I assumed that previous experiences were NOT meaningful. Looking back over your experience with the collision, were there any promptings you had not to take that route, or go out that night, etc.? This is all philosophical b.s. and cold comfort to someone in your position. But I have found it to be a pretty reliable explanation of how and why "accidents" have occurred in my own life. On the other hand, there have been times that I have heeded vague feelings of danger ahead, and been extremely glad I did. Best wishes for an end to your pain and a rapid recovery. Namaste Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Oct 1995 10:47:45 GMT From: jem@vnet.net (John E. Mead) Subject: discussion list down-time hi - Vnet was upgrading to a new mailer over the weekend. all VNET e-mail was delayed for a couple days). things seem to be back in order now. Stuff should not have been lost, but -- if you think any messages did not get through then you should probably resend it/them. peace - john mead p.s. VNET was processing their backup of 50,000 + msgs, so things may appear out of order. I think they have caught up now. John E. Mead jem@vnet.net [Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers] From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Oct 1995 13:21:23 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: responses to Jerry S. Jerry S., >> JHE >> >Personally, I prefer as much as possible not to lean on >> >that which I cannot confirm. >AB >AMEN JS Doesn't this attitude rule out the whole Secret Doctrine? Doesn't this attitude rule out reincarnation? (Alan has already admitted that it does for him). Doesn't this attitude rule out planes, globes, bodies, etc? I suppose it depends on what you mean by "lean" and "confirm." By confirm, do you mean historically? Or do you mean through personal experience (which we already know can be mayavic itself)? JHE I suppose my answer depends upon what you mean by "rule out." If by "rule out" you are suggesting a rejection of these doctrines, then the answer is no. What is not (or cannot be) confirmed is not necessarily rejected either. JS How should we confirm the teachings given in the SD to our own satisfaction? JHE I have noticed that HPB gives much more space in her writings to advancing arguments for the validity of her doctrines then she gives for explaining them in the first place. To me, this is an obvious indication that she was trying to advance and establish a philosophical system, as opposed to giving out revelation. It always seemed to me that if she promulgating a revelation (as did CWL for instance), all she had to do was expound the doctrines in the name of the Masters, or on the authority of her own 'superior spiritual perceptions." Instead, she quoted; analyzed; argued with; and advanced as supporting evidence, endless passages from the world's religious and philosophical systems as well as contemporary science. I believe that it was HPB's intention that her readers use this supportive material to analyze her arguments; make their own inquiries into the fields of science, philosophy and religion, according to their own experience and common sense; and come to their own conclusions concerning her arguments. For "spiritual development," I think HPB had very different ideas than what are promoted today. Rather than meditation and psychic development, HPB promoted the development of discrimination skills--or what we call today "critical thinking skills." As mundane as these skills may seem, they are scarcely developed among the general population, let alone among most students of the occult (who often appear to be ever more credulous than the general population). HPB seems to be arguing that one is not going to come to any deeper realizations in the study of occultism until one learns to think critically. Intuition is not the answer here either, because in HPB's Jnana yoga system, intuition must be developed upon a foundation of those "discrimination skills." JHE Jerry HE: JS Sorry. I was referring, of course, to the MLs where the idea is put forth that an Adept is such only when consciousness is shifted away from the human to something higher. It seems to me that a "lower" Adept (I am assuming that even an Adept has to start somewhere) could be such at times, and then get material through kama-manas once in awhile by mistake. I have no idea if this explains CWL, but I think its a possibility and also I find it hard to believe that all Adepts are perfect because they are, after all, still human. JHE According to those old time ES members who were around when CWL was still alive (I used to know a lot of them who lived in Los Angeles and Ojai in order to be close to Krotona, but most of them are dead now), when CWL became an "Adept," he was in a high state of spiritual consciousness all of the time. Since (according to the old timers) an Adept is one who has passed their fourth initiation, I guess an Adept starts with the first initiation and advances in spiritual powers as she moves towards the fourth. Since CWL was also in daily contact with the Masters, it also seems that he must have had ample opportunity to get confirmation of what he was teaching. Since CWL was an Adept, he was further along the path than HPB, thus his spiritual powers and knowledge of the teachings should have been superior to HPB's. Therefore, granting human error to CWL, yet accepting for the moment his claims, I would still expect his writings to be far superior to HPB's. After all, an Adept is very close to being on equal footing with the Masters themselves. Now let's look at this another way and ask the question: how do we know that CWL had any psychic abilities whatsoever? Since the source of CWL's information is from his clairvoyance and from the Masters, the question of his spiritual powers is an important one. HPB, on the other hand, relied upon scientific, philosophical and religious works to support her arguments; therefore whether or not she had any psychic abilities is of no importance (except for those who take her teachings as revelation). Greg Tillett shows in his biography that CWL consistently refused to be subjected to any testing conditions that could have made such a determination. Since CWL's abilities were never subjected to any test conditions, we have no objectively collected data to use for making any determinations concerning his abilities. In the case of his "Occult Chemistry" articles, for instance, regardless of the supposed "scientific method" of having two observers (CWL and AB), the whole thing rests upon whether or not any superior perception was going on here in the first place. Since, CWL refused to cooperate with any test conditions, this can't be confirmed. This leads me to my next question: what clairvoyant observations has CWL made that might confirm any superior spiritual powers? When I ask this question, the answer I almost invariably get from Adyar theosophists is that CWL correctly predicted Krishnamurti to be the "world teacher." This is not convincing evidence to me. It seems to me that if one were to adopt most any ten year old boy; daily tell him that he is the World Teacher for the next twenty- five years; surround him with admiring devotees who believe him to be this World Teacher; give him absolutely no vocational training except to be a World Teacher; he is likely to grow up to be some kind of "world teacher." I would have been more surprised if in 1930, when he denied being this World Teacher, he ran off and became anything other than a "world teacher." Another answer I used to get was the confirmation of Dr. Stephen Phillips dissertation that was supposed to confirm CWL's observations. But, this deception has been exposed in recent years so that even Dora Kunz in her recent talk to the Portland Lodge (published in the AT) has backed off of "Occult Chemistry" and suggests that CWL would not have wanted those writing promoted--and blamed CJ for pushing them. As for CWL's inner government, seven rays, initiations etc. we have nothing but CWL's authority for. Can you think of any clairvoyant observations, or revelations from the Masters made by CWL that has been substantiated by independent evidence? Of course, as I pointed out in the beginning, what is not confirmed is not necessarily rejected either. But what about observations that are later proven to be false though objective evidence? The Mars civilization observations, for instance. Evidence such as this gives ground to doubt CWL's abilities. Do you have any objective evidence to confirm them? So, in conclusion, it is not to me a matter of whether or not the Masters, CWL or HPB were perfect. For me, it is a question of the spirit which the information was given, and the spirit which we were to accept the information. In the case of the Mahatmas, we only have (for the most part) the letters to Sinnett to go by. Considering the context and the circumstances of those letters, not much can be proven or disproven by them for us, since this was between the Mahatmas and APS. CWL's writings ultimately rely on his authority (such as "occult chemistry") or on the authority of the Masters (such as the "inner government"), therefore are not testable except perhaps under the circumstances that I proposed above. That leaves HPB's writings, which were never intended as revelation, and never given under the authority of any Master. It was always up to the individual reader to do her own testing. Therefore, we much rely upon our own inner authority and our skills in critical thinking to make any determinations concerning the validity of HPB's writings. Jerry HE ------------------------------------------|Jerry Hejka-Ekins ||Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu ||and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org |------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Oct 1995 13:22:28 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re re Cayce Rich Writes: I seem to recall that scientists did an ultra-sound of the area just below the sphinx and found a large-sized "room" or whatever there. They had not yet located the entrance to it. However, due to the current controversy with John Anthony West and his team of geologists, the Sphinx has been re-dated from the period of Kephren (c. 2400 BCE) to about 10,000 BCE (due to extensive rain damage -- it hasn't rained like that in the Nile valley since about 10,000 BCE) and the Egyptian government, under pressure from Muslim fundamentalists, the site has been closed off to researchers. JHE Fascinating. I hope you are keeping copies of these articles as they come up. It look like Cayce's prediction will have to wait a bit longer. Thanks for the interesting reply Jerry HE ------------------------------------------|Jerry Hejka-Ekins ||Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu ||and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org |------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Oct 1995 13:23:15 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: more Cayce Paul Johnson Writes: PJ This raises the question of the value of esotericism. With Theosophy, there is a tremendous allure derived from the claim that the teachings are preserved in remote, inaccessible places by remote, inaccessible people. "Where it comes from" is tremendously important, and was even more so a hundred years ago. Whereas with Cayce, what is most important is the applicability of the teachings, and the source matters little. JHE I think the importance of the source of the teachings only became an issue with CWL and AB's introduction of the revelation element to theosophy. Before the revelation element, the idea of there being an ancient secret doctrine was just another teaching to be examined just like all of the others. PJ HPB, due to historical circumstances, gave an anti-Christian spin to her writings. Perhaps what is really going on with Cayce, Bailey etc. is the subversion of Christianity by esotericism rather than vice versa. That could only happen through a more pro-Christian kind of esotericism than source Theosophy. JHE I think this interpretation has more to do with a prevailing belief regarding HPB's writings than what she actually wrote. In fact, HPB seems to have been rather sympathetic to Christianity-- it was Churchianity that she was critical of. Jerry HE ------------------------------------------|Jerry Hejka-Ekins ||Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu ||and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org |------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Oct 1995 13:23:16 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: re: Hi again Dear William, I sort of skipped around what's been coming in under this title, because it's late in the day. But I want to tell you that I'm, familiar with Emogene Simons pamphlets, as a matter of fact I have them here, & I've been holding off using them with my incipient study group (Adyar) because I think the pamphlets are dated. Ed Abdill, one of our Board members, is in the process of making a set of video tapes with manuals. They should be much better to learn basic theosophy from, but they're not yet available. As far as we're concerned, Leadbeater's books & teachings are widely read by Adyar Theosophiststs. In spite of what the other TS factions say about him, he was a very learned & wise man, & I and many of the Adyar group (which is the largest faction of all Theosophists) have learned much from CWL. Shalom Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Oct 1995 14:13:43 GMT From: Coherence@aol.com Subject: Re: forgiving your body In a message dated 95-10-30 13:19:06 EST, you write: >Aki: > >Coherence: > > I suspect that Aki meant consciously. It does us no good >whatsoever to know that we are inherently spiritual if were aren't >consciously aware of it. And if we were consciously aware of it, >we would be an Adept, because that is basically the only difference >between an Adept and everyone else. > We'll have to wait and see what the writer meant by his question. It never hurts to begin at the beginning and start with fundamental statements. The wording of the statement/question indicates the idea that a separate being would come and inhabit his body (soul). If he were not aware that we, each of us, indeed are Dhyan Chohans in our essence, then by pointing out that fact will create an awareness where it did not previously exist, and the Path to realization has begun. I suspect many are unaware of what is meant by the term "Dhyan-Chohan". Also being aware of a spiritual nature inside of us is greatly different from just being consciously AWARE or fully self-conscious which is the primary attribute of an Adept. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Oct 1995 14:14:11 GMT From: Coherence@aol.com Subject: Re: Door to the Human Kingdom In a message dated 95-10-30 13:56:14 EST, you write: >>There is no reference to Animal Monads becoming "Human NATURES" or >>our lower attributes. >When we consider individual Monads, this would be correct.< This is the only point I was attempting to address. >>When I speak of the Animal Monad in the Human Kingdom, acting as our >>animal nature, I'm not referring to the mere physical body as a living >>animal. I'm referring to another Ego, the expression of a different, >>lower Monad, in our psyche, acting in close relation to us in a >>cooperative experience of life.> Now this not only seems to contradict your above admission, but again reiterates the point my post was trying to clear up, or at least show what HPB taught. This is not my understanding from the study of the SD or HPB's other writings. If this is your understanding based on Purucker, then there do seem to be inconsistencies, and we can leave it at that. One exercise that may be helpful is to define terms such as Ego and Monad, as you seem to be using them in ways not familiar to me. As far as I can tell from a close reading of your post, you use the term "Monad" where HPB would use the term "Principle". If I insert Principle where you use Monad I get a clearer picture, and even the above makes a little more sense to me. According to HPB, Monad is Spirit, Atma, a ray of the absolute and its vehicle, the Spiritual Soul, Buddhi. The reincarnating Ego is Atma/Buddhi/Manas. How do these relate to what Purucker teaches? The remainder of your overly long post is condescending and thinly veils your irritation. Because as you indicate, these doctrines are difficult, we should approach topics with a surgeon's knife, skill and patience to achieve a meaningful comparison and understanding. You also should not brush over the "no inconsistency" issue so quickly. I do appreciate you time and effort. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Oct 1995 14:14:19 GMT From: Coherence@aol.com Subject: Re: Hi again, and a few questions In a message dated 95-10-30 13:55:09 EST, you write: > If I get the gist of what you are saying, this material sounds > like it might be a little dated and not exactly in line with the > popular thinking of the current TS in America today? I am en- > tirely in sympathy with you when you say that you don't like to > mix today's organized religions with theosophy -- neither do I. > But it suprises me then that the terms and the Diagram are still > used in today's Theosophical Society educational materials. > > It sounds to me like our group needs to find some other *in- > troductory* *educational* materials to study from. What do you > think? You will find or have found that there are a number of different schools of Theosophy represented on this board. The confusion that exists on your part is a symptom frequently seen when confronted with the multiple teachings/writings offered as Theosophy, and the Theosophical Society has done little to provide any guidance to inquirers. At the risk of chastisement, I recommend you pursue UNEDITED versions of HPB's writings and those of Wm. Q. Judge. You mentioned KEY TO THEOSOPHY. I highly recommend a study of this. Also recommended for study would be THE OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY by Mr. Judge and include ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON THE OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY by Robert Crosbie. And, yes, you should have an UNALTERED copy of the SECRET DOCTRINE. Theosophists are free to study and believe whatever they like. However there is something to be said for the original writings, source Theosophy if you will, so that you may assess the other writings from a firmer basis. It's the only way to avoid the confusion you are experiencing and you may chose as you like. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Oct 1995 15:03:40 GMT From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: (none) ~Concerning H.P.B.~ - Stray Thoughts on Theosophy by G.R.S. Mead, who was her private secretary towards the end of her life, and a gnostic scholar in his own right. The booklet contains a Preface by R.A. Gilbert, and a scanned picture of Mead himself, together with his signature. It is limited to 100 copies, individually numbered. Like the other booklets in the series, it is being distributed by ABRAXAS, based in Bristol England, who are acting for the Theosophical Research Group. It is hoped that many areas of Theosophical research may be covered in due course, with occasional offerings from contemporary authors as well as reprints such as the above. Clearly, no one is going to get rich on this project, which is beginning on goodwill and existing resources owned by UK-based theosophists rather than hard cash. These are limited to a degree, and most of the receipts from sales are likely to go into equipment rather than pockets! Further information from the E-mail address below. AB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Oct 1995 15:59:30 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Not Escaping the World (Zen style) Eldon, thanks for the nice quotes about zazen, but I don't see what they have to do with "escape the necessity of physical incarnation" or " to seek rebirth on higher planes (globes)." The quotes are all about maya and avoiding/ignoring the mayavic illusions that will come to us in meditation. You seem to be saying tha Zen seeks to escape from the necessity of incarnation. It is my understanding that all of the Mahayana schools teach that we should become a bodhisattva, and deliberately return to physical existence. There may be a Hinayana school whose goal is escape, but even there the idea is seeing the physical and spiritual as one thing, and so what is there to escape from? And if you were to ask any Buddhist about rebirth on other Globes, they might think you were pulling their leg. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Oct 1995 15:59:38 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Hi again, and a few questions William:< * Divine or Adi Plane * Monadic Plane * Nirvanic Plane * Buddhic Plane * Mental Plane * There are two subdivisions here But they are not labelled separately * Astral Plane * Physical Plane> I like this enumeration. The mental plane is usually divided into the Higher mental Plane and the Lower Mental Plane. William:< This is confusing. Why is the "human kingdom" positioned in the mental plane of the third outpouring? Maybe a better ques- tion that, perhaps, I forgot to ask originally: what is an out- pouring?> It is positioned on the upper three subplanes of the mental plane where the second and third outpourings join. At this point there is self-consciousness, a characteristic of the human kingdom. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Oct 1995 15:59:44 GMT From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Cat evolution Ann: Subject: Forgiving our Body Keith: "Sin" only exists in the human mind. It is a way or mode of thinking, and otherwise does not exist. The whole idea of sin comes from the dualism of good and evil. We try to hold to good and eliminate the evil. Because one side of a duality cannot exist without the other side, it is impossible to eliminate evil while holding onto the good, but we all try to do this anyway. So, when the evil comes back to bite us, so to speak, we call it "sin" and feel the need for atonement and absolution. Instead of blaming ourselves, we blame our bodies as convenient scapegoats. BTW, because feminiinity has always been associated with matter and the body, the equation sin=body always translates to sin=women, and this is why most religions see women as evil and sinful. Keith:< The body has a special consciousness of what to do without the help my mentality or will. It knows and remembers. It is WISE.> True. Keith:< In other words the limited conscious mind has been seen as the seat of the will and therefore responsible. The automatic processes have been seen as unconscious or not under the laws of Karma.> I agree. Carl Jung points out the silly fear that we all have of the unconscious. Some people fear going to sleep at night. Many fear death, not so much because they must leave everything behind, but rather because they fear losing conscious control. Keith: The unconscious functions mostly under causality, but is not limited by that, because it also can function under synchronicity, which is not space or time dependent (karma/causality works within space and time). My answer to your second question is yes. And I would agree that the conscious ego is limited, being but a subsystem of the overall psyche, most of which is unconscious to us. Keith: The body would do quiet fine, for the most part, if left alone. But the mind simply won't leave it alone. Our body expresses our thoughts and emotions, our stresses, our fears, our shames, and so on. Most disease (not all) is brought on via mental causes. Keith:< As you can tell I still not thinking clearly, but felt moved to find some meaning in my accident as many do in their illnesses and "bad" karma. > Many accidents and diseases do have "meanings" for those who look for them. A few simply don't, and I have called the latter group effects of the Chaos Factor. A theosophist or Buddhist would probably say the cause, and therefore the meaning, lies in a past life that is no longer remembered. As this does us little good, and must be taken on faith, I would call them chaotic and therefore meaningless to the current ego, and let it go at that (two views of the same thing, perhaps?). Sorry to hear about your accident, Keith. Hope you recover quickly. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Oct 1995 17:20:15 GMT From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: re: historical and doctrinal > >> JHE > >> >Personally, I prefer as much as possible not to lean on > >> >that which I cannot confirm. > >AB > >AMEN > > Doesn't this attitude rule out the whole Secret Doctrine? > Doesn't this attitude rule out reincarnation? > (Alan has already admitted that it does for him). No he hasn't - read again. Alan has the matter on "hold." > Doesn't this attitude rule out planes, globes, bodies, etc? It *rules out* nothing. It recognises such teachings as working hypotheses, well worth taking on board as such. It also says that there may not be *any* teaching that is 100% reliable as absolute truth, if only because of the fallibility of human interpretation. There is no way we can confirm (from reliable experience) a day or night of Brahma .... :-) > I suppose it depends on what you mean by "lean" and By "lean" *I* mean "use as a crutch," an attitude I have seen all to often over the years. > "confirm." By confirm, do you mean historically? Or do > you mean through personal experience (which we > already know can be mayavic itself)? And how do we *know* that personal experience is "mayavic" (which term please define according to your understanding, TIA). We can confirm *nothing* historically that occurred before we were born - we were not there, and cannot bear witness. If a historian lies to us, we may not be aware of it, and accept the lie as fact. History, as taught, is a "working version" subject to amendment in the light of new evidence. > How should we > confirm the teachings given in the SD to our own > satisfaction? > > Jerry S. How do we define "common sense" - ? :-) Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Oct 1995 23:36:26 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Monads and Theosophical Writers Coherence: >>When I speak of the Animal Monad in the Human Kingdom, acting as our >>animal nature, I'm not referring to the mere physical body as a living >>animal. I'm referring to another Ego, the expression of a different, >>lower Monad, in our psyche, acting in close relation to us in a >>cooperative experience of life. >Now this not only seems to contradict your above admission, but again >reiterates the point my post was trying to clear up, or at least show >what HPB taught. It's part of the same topic, how Animal Monads get into the Human Kingdom. >This is not my understanding from the study of the SD or HPB's >other writings. If this is your understanding based on Purucker, >then there do seem to be inconsistencies, and we can leave it at that. If you find the word "inconsistencies" suitable to your outlook, you can use it. I would not use the term. I find Purucker providing more detailed descriptions of teachings that Blavatsky only hinted at. If you want to limit yourself to the subset of Theosophy that Blavatsky stated in definite terms, that's your personal choice. >One exercise that may be helpful is to define terms such as Ego and >Monad, as you seem to be using them in ways not familiar to me. The terms are used in a number of ways in theosophical literature. A particular being could be called a God, Monad, or Atom depending upon which stream of evolution it was associated. Regardless of the stature of the being, it evolves forth a center of self-consciousness (Ego) and outer vehicle (Soul). This is the generalized case, for any particular being. Taking us as humans, as composite beings during incarnation, we are an aggregate of associated Monads, in much the same way as the Globes of a Chain are an aggregate. We, particuarly, are the lower Human Monads. Looking upwards in our constitution, we have a Manasaputra. The term "Manasaputra" can both refer to an higher intelligence that informs and inspires us (a Higher Monad in our constitution or in association with us during life) and it can refer to our *innate* Manasaputra, our capability of being one ourselves one day. >As far as I can tell from a close reading of your post, you use >the term "Monad" where HPB would use the term "Principle". HPB speaks of one or both teachings without often clearly distinguishing them. Purucker clearly defines the two *as different*. The centers of consciousness and principles are difference in the same sense as the globes and planes are. >If I insert Principle where you use Monad I get a clearer >picture, and even the above makes a little more sense to me. I would say that the distinction is important. When it is not made, it would retreat to ideas you'd find more familiar. >According to HPB, Monad is Spirit, Atma, a ray of the absolute >and its vehicle, the Spiritual Soul, Buddhi. In one sense we can speak of each of the seven principles as the vehicle of the next higher one. But I'd have to say that the principles are the basic ingredients of consciousness and their progressive unfoldment shows the gradual coming into being of an entity. Only the Sthula-Sharira is a literal form or body, on whatever plane it may exist. >The reincarnating Ego is Atma/Buddhi/Manas. Yes, the sense of Ego arises with Manas. Before Manas, there is no notion of a separate self with personal attributes. >How do these relate to what Purucker teaches? He teaches the basic concepts along the traditional lines. Purucker also advances, I'd say, the philosophy with clear and useful teachings that Blavatsky only hinted at. (One good example of this is the idea of Inner Rounds and Outer Rounds, of which there is only a hint in "The Mahatma Letters", but on which Purucker has expounded upon with some quite profound teachings.) >The remainder of your overly long post is condescending >and thinly veils your irritation. I'm not sure what would be "overly long". Perhaps I wrote too much for you to try to reply to? I'm not irritated at what you might say. I can infer from what you write and your recommendation that a student read Blavatsky, Judge, and Crosbie, that you're from the ULT variant of Theosophy. When I intepret what you say in terms of the ULT party line I find it fairly consistent. Regarding "condescending", I'm not sure what I said that would sound that way, but it certainly was not my intent. I'm expressing my understanding of Theosophy. What I'm saying is clear and makes sense to me. You may find it confusing because of a lack of study on your part of certain authors. I'd suggest that there's quite a deep understanding of Theosophy to be found in Purucker's books. There is an unfortunate tendency to sectarianism in the theosophical groups -- Adyar, Point Loma, and ULT -- where each recognizes their own "esoteric succession" and encourages its members to only read approved authors. Adyar considers Leadbeater special; Point Loma considers Purucker special; and ULT considers Crosbie special. (Even within theosophical sects, there can be infighting, like where the Los Angeles and New York ULT lodges might ban writings of R. Iyer, a prominent ULT figure in the Santa Barbara lodge.) I'd say that we should lay aside all the rival claims and openly read the different books and evaluate them for their respective merits and shortcomings. >Because as you indicate, these doctrines are difficult, we >should approach topics with a surgeon's knife, skill and patience >to achieve a meaningful comparison and understanding. When skillfully crafting an article for publication, this approach can be highly useful. For general discussion, though, we're working with our personal understandings, and it may take many discussions for our understandings to grow and evolve. I'd use a different analogy, and say that we are working off the rough edges to our ideas using "sandpaper". >You also should not brush over the "no inconsistency" issue so >quickly. Sometimes an "inconsistency" is in the mind of the beholder. If you believe in advance that someone is a later writer with possibly deviate ideas, you're inclined to find inconsistencies even when they're not there. If I believe in advance that someone is a bona fide spokesman for the Masters quite capable of speaking new theosophical teachings, I'm inclined to not find inconsistencies. Either approach is biased, since it's taking the stand of a trial lawyer looking only for those facts that will support a predetermined case that one wants to make. When we do find an inconsistency, we may be inclined to take different methods of resolving them. You might judge Purucker wrong if you feel you've caught him in one. I would weigh and balance Purucker against Blavatsky and see which of the two equally-qualified teachers was less clear, or possibly mistaken. (Blavatsky and Purucker are both human, and subject to human error at times, and may have made mistakes.) >I do appreciate you time and effort. We're all working for the same goal, even when our personally-adopted traditions are at times in apparent conflict. Anything that we do will better humanity in the long run, if we give it our best effort. I appreciate your participation in 'theos-l' too. You might review your writing style, though, since it seems at times to invite conflict. When you disagree with someone, it's much better to offer alternate ideas or give your own understanding as such -- much better than to tell them that they are "confused". And when you reply to a statement by saying 'this is not what Blavatsky would say' you are making an appeal to authority rather than to reason. When you do that, you're passing up an excellent opportunity to do a theosophical practice of giving fresh, original, immediate expression to the grand philosophy. We're all here to grow and learn. We have an opportunity to experiment with new ideas and move beyond the party lines of our respective groups. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Oct 1995 23:47:50 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Not Escaping the World Rich: >>This is a different approach from some spiritual paths that teach >>that our goal is to escape the necessity of physical incarnation, >>and to seek rebirth on higher planes (globes). >If I could butt in here for a moment -- some schools of thought >that teach escape from this plane to other ones: >Christianity (rebirth in heaven) >Pure Land in Buddhism (rebirth in the pure land) >Jainism (escape from the world where killing is necessary) >Nichiren Buddhism ([seeking rebirth] in the pure land) >Gnosticism (rebirth in the pleroma) >Judaism (heaven) >Islam (heaven) It can be argued either way. We can say that in the long run we will find rebirth into higher worlds. We find rebirth into devachan between lifetimes. In many millions of years, we will find rebirth on Globe E, on a higher cosmic plane. And in each Round all the Globes will be on a higher cosmic subplane. In the short run, though, if we're concerned with our spiritual evolution, we *are here*. Globe D is the place for our development. We are told, in Buddhism, for instance, that it is a great priviledge to find birth in this world and we have a grave responsbility to take full advance of it. Out of our physical existence, we are in the earth's sphere of effects, and apart from that evolution. The desire to escape physical existence in order to achieve an experience of the spiritual, I'd say, is misguided. We are quite capable of direct experience of pure being while yet alive and in the body. Our obstacle is not the having of a physical form; the obstacle is the false barriers that we set up in our inner nature, primarily the action of the mind or manas as "the great slayer of the Real". -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 30 Oct 1995 23:55:56 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Channelling Patrick: >The rendering of the personality and body into a negative unconscious >state for an entity to possess or use it is *always* wrong. There are no >exceptions. There are many deceivers and manipulators on the astral plane ... Here's a point where we can find agreement. But there are at least two exceptions to this that we need to consider. Was Cayce unconscious while giving his readings? If so, does that make the readings wrong, when many proved helpful to the people they were done for? When Bee mentions channelling and says that she is aware of what is going on (e.g. she is not in an unconscious state), is her experience wrong? If she's aware of what is happenning, it is not a case of possession, but more like another form of interaction with non-physical beings. >The Masters may use the personality of a chela but this occurs >in full waking consciousness and the chela is completely aware ... This is what Blavatsky was said to do at times with her Teachers. I recall something that Col. Olcott wrote about watching HPB in New York when he could tell when KH or M was using her. Is the ability to do this highly exceptional, or is it something more common but just not talked about? -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 31 Oct 1995 00:18:07 GMT From: "M. Chenery" Subject: Summer School Greetings from Down Under! I thought some of the readers of theos-l might be interested in a Theosophical Summer School-Retreat to be held 51 lines more (you've seen 35%) Message 1/5 From theos-l@vnet.net Page 2 might be interested in a Theosophical Summer School-Retreat to be held after Christmas in the Australian summertime. Here are a few details. If you'd like a full brochure, you are welcome to email me directly or write to The Theosophical Fellowship, P.O. Box 300, Daylesford, Victoria 3460, Australia (fax, 61-53-48-1070). Letters from the Bodhisattva Office A Theosophical Summer School-Retreat held in the loving energy of the Lord Maitreya's Heart 27 December 1995 - to 3 January 1996 in the New Himalaya Retreat (Daylesford, Victoria, AUS) offered by The Theosophical Fellowship Ltd An eight day program of lectures, meditation, relaxing activities and celebration of the New Year Festival LECTURES . . . on Theosophy, Buddhism, Ananda Marga, and Health and Well-being. Such topics as the life of HPB, the Light of the Soul, Theosophical views on traditional medicine, naturopathy and homeopathy, Buddhism as a way of knowing, the meaning of community, the sacred landscape, goodwill and international cooperation, legitimate suffering. 31 lines more (you've seen 60%) Message 1/5 From theos-l@vnet.net Page 3 landscape, goodwill and international cooperation, legitimate suffering. . . MEDITATION . . .Theosophical meditation, including Buddhist meditation and Yoga Nidra relaxation practice. Learn meditations such as the Basic Exercise, the Puja, the Divine Heart CELEBRATION SERVICE . . .New Year's Eve. The Church Service to celebrate the New Year Festival will be a highlight of the School (celebrated in the new Church of Maitreya for All Faiths and in The Daylesford Inn) RELAXATION . . .Dancing, drama, videos, the beach, time to walk. . . Time to relax, plus a day's excursion to the beaches along the Great Ocean Road during the School, and other trips following the School for overseas visitors and others. *Theosophy teaches the Divine Wisdom in all religions and philosophies.* *The Lord Maitreya is the Risen Christ and future Buddha of Earth.* Closing date for enrolment, 1 December. Please note that early planning is recommended in order to obtain accommodation during Daylesford's busy 11 lines more (you've seen 86%) Message 1/5 From theos-l@vnet.net Page 4 is recommended in order to obtain accommodation during Daylesford's busy season. ********************************************************************* Mary-Faeth Chenery (Chenery@redgum.bendigo.latrobe.edu.au) Department of Outdoor Education La Trobe University Bendigo PO Box 199 Bendigo 3550 AUSTRALIA Phone 61 54 447801 Fax 61 54 447800 ********************************************************************* From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 31 Oct 1995 01:26:36 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: obsolete words Eldon, EBT When I was computerizing "Esoteric Buddhism", "The Key to Theosophy", and other theosophical books, I came across a list of terms that seemed obsolete. I don't recall most of the words on the list at the moment. (The list is at home, and I'm writing from work.) I'd expect, though, that as time passes, more and more words get obsolete, so we could have a growing list. Your familiarity with "The Secret Doctrine" and your having looked up all the unfamiliar words in it during you studies would make it harder for you to distinguish obsolete words from those in common usage, since you know what the terms mean. For a new Secret Doctrine student, aren't there English terms that a new student has to unnecessarily look up, terms that are no longer in common usage and easily replaced by some contemporary term? JHE I'm still interested in seeing your list and the substitutes that you would propose, though I would be opposed to substituting obsolete words with more contemporary ones, even if there are obsolete words. But as I had mentioned, I don't recall ever running across any. However, if necessary, I would not be opposed to following the queue of some editors of Shakespeare's plays who will add a contemporary synonym in a footnote, yet leave the original text untouched. I will admit that there are a lot of obsolete words in Shakespeare's plays, but remember, he wrote 400 years ago and lived in a very different world. I know that things have also changed in 100 years, but nother like the last 400. At least HPB wrote after the beginning of the industrial revolution (abt. 1827)--that was the most important cultural change that has changed our language. The enlightenment (abt 1700) comes second. The scientific revolution (1859) comes next. HPB would have been writing in the middle of the above mentioned scientific revolution, but besides the more technically scientific terms (like atom), most normal daily household words had already changed or were not affected in the first place. As for "atom," perhaps a footnote might be in order at best. JHE >So far, I have not found a single instance where a word has >changed so as to cause any confusion in reading the SD. Have >you? Examples please. Can you give me some examples of >misleading words in the SD, and how they are misleading? EBT This is a different situation now. I'm talking about where an *English* word has dropped out of usage and can be readily replaced with a newer word. I'm not talking about an English word that has had its meaning changed since the late 1800's, so that the modern meaning is different than in Blavatsky's day and her use of the word is therefore misleading. This has happened too, and would be another area to consider changing or annotating future editions of books. An example would be with the term "atom", if it means something different now than in Blavatsky's days. JHE I can't think of any "English" word that she uses that has dropped out of usage. If there was one, I would be more inclined to note and define it in a footnote rather than replace it. Once an editor begins to replace words, she is rewriting the text, and it is no longer HPB's. I would no more consider doing that than would I rewrite Shakespeare into contemporary English. Such an act would destroy the cultural context and his puns (an important element in his humor) would no longer work. I hope that 300 years from now, editors will treat HPB's writings in the same manner as they do Shakespeare's, or any other sixteenth century writer. As for words that have changed meaning (such as atom); I would treat them the same way, though I would try to be mindful of not insulting the intelligence of the reader. On the other hand, I wonder what the level of education is now-a-days. I recently saw a history book (published for Americans) with a footnote explaining who Jesus Christ was. Ages ago (it seems) when I went to public school--certain assumptions were made about what was common knowledge. Even though my schooling was in a Jewish neighborhood, no one ever had to ask who Jesus Christ was. Jerry HE ------------------------------------------|Jerry Hejka-Ekins ||Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu ||and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org |------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 31 Oct 1995 01:50:59 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Is the Theos system working properly? > > Is the Theos system working properly? > Errr - what *exactly* do you mean by "theos" - ? :-) Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 31 Oct 1995 01:53:57 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: > > Is theos-roots up and running again? > If you get this reply, yes! Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 31 Oct 1995 02:55:45 GMT From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Re: Ignoring 95% Paul Johnson choose to post his "Ignoring 95%" on theos-l, although it probably should have been posted on theos-roots. I will briefly comment on theos-l. It is somewhat amazing to me how Johnson has now become a psychologist, psychiatrist and psychoanalyst. Whether Dr. Algeo and I are motivated by fear or not in our criticisms of Johnson's books is really not the issue. The issue is whether our criticisms of Johnson's work have merit or not. Apparently Johnson would rather not deal directly with our historical criticismsand the issues raised by those criticisms; instead he seems to play the role of a martyr. This is all smoke and mirrors as far as I can see. I do have a degree in psychology but I will not attempt to analyze Johnson's psyche. Instead I will continue to review various ideas, hypotheses and issues in Johnson's books about the Theosophical Masters. These will be posted on Theos-roots. Those interested in these historical matters can read, study and assess the merits of my criticisms regardless of my motivations,etc. Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 31 Oct 1995 04:36:51 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Dogmatism Eldon wrote: > > > > You say that, but when you start shouting, you help illustrate my > > point. Dogmas are required beliefs, and the prohibition against > > dogmas *is itself a dogma*. No, a prohibition is not a belief. A belief is the acceptance of a truth-functional proposition, i.e. something that may be true or false. "Don't impose dogmas" is not a belief, but rather an organizational imperative or principle or value. The American Heritage Dictionary defines dogma as: 1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church. PJ-- To the extent that Theosophical groups set forth their doctrines "in an authoritative manner" and act like churches, they are dogmatic. 2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. PJ-- Again, it's the authoritative nature of the belief, etc., that makes it dogmatic. 3. A principle or belief or a group of them. PJ-- By this definition any organization from the American Library Association to the DAR has dogmas; but it's too broad. > > > > A good sign of the presence of a dogma is in the *reaction* of > > people holding it. The response to challenge is immediate, > > passionate, and defensive. Ten years ago I'd have said Theosophists were not dogmatic. By the above criterion, older but wiser, I'd now say they include some of the most passionate, defensive dogmatists who ever lived. -snip- > > > > This is a matter of style, a manner of presentation, an approach > > that was taken by the founders of the Theosophical Society. It > > is not, I'd suggest, an universal approach to the Mysteries, but > > rather an approach tailored for the individualistic and > > opinionated Western temperament of the 1800's. Which is no longer Western but approaching global saturation. Too late to turn back now! > > > > I would submit that the prohibitation against dogmas is a dogma of > > theosophical groups. And other dogmas are the three objects of the > > T.S. A belief in Universal Brotherhood *is required*, and not As I recall the phrase is "acceptance of the principle" which is not belief that a proposition is true, but agreement to live in a certain way. You're stretching the meaning of dogma here. > > > > With science, there is an established body of proven knowledge > > that are dogmas. They are *required belief* for scientists. After NO WAY! Let Don or somebody tangle with this! What science are you speaking of? Please name a required belief of that science. I bet you can find scientists in good standing who don't accept it. If you're talking about rules of evidence, etc. those aren't beliefs but conventions of how science operates. One can justify them with dogmatic statements but in themselves they are just operational principles. > > > > Dogma is the skeletal or foundation ideas that give structure to > > and shape our belief system. Without it, we are philosophical > > invertibrate, holding "jellyfish philosophy". Just call me a jellyfish philosopher. > > > > Each person has cornerstone beliefs that his worldview is based > > upon. With Theosophy, these are the core teachings that define the > > essential nature of its system of ideas. Eldon, I really think HPB would disagree with you most sharply. She explicitly said Theosophy is "not the tenets but the principle of rational explanation of things" (paraphrase). > > > > With Tibetan Buddhism and other approaches to the Mysteries, other > > approaches are used. It is both a strength and weakness of the > > Theosophical Movement that there is no definitive presentation of > > the philosophy, nor vows, nor formulated spiritual practice. It > > leaves one to devise a personal approach. Some of us can come to > > a theosophical group and benefit from this approach. Many may not, > > leaving empty-handed in their search for a spiritual practice. Theosophy was intended to be, not a religion, but a cornerstone for the religions of the future. That is why it can only be violated by those who would make a religion of it IMHO. > > > > Theosophy is real, and its core doctrines are required belief in > > the same sense as the tenets of science are a required belief of Required by whom? What happens to those who fail to meet the requirements? Who punishes them? > > > > As our theosophical groups are currently organized, they are > > declining in number and enthusiasm, because the emphasis has been > > upon presentating speculative metaphysics, without any real sense > > of spiritual practice, of a living sense of the Path, of the > > actuality of chelaship *for anyone that would try*. While the A.R.E. has nearly doubled in membership in the last twenty years, giving plenty of "real sense of spiritual practice, of a living sense of the Path." Yet the A.R.E. has vastly less dogmatism in my experience than the Theosophical organizations. You seem to be mixing apples and oranges here. > > > > You don't think, then, that Theosophy is literally true? I do, but HPB doesn't, as I understand it. Rather, Theosophy (i.e. the body of teachings in our books) is a fragmentary presentation of a vast and largely unspeakable wisdom. Its statements can be taken at many levels of meaning, let's say seven for convenience. Such a multilayered and symbolic and fragmentary teaching cannot be "literally true" in the way you seem to mean; literalism is its mortal enemy. I'm in a rush to get off-line and will pick up this thread later. Cheers PJ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 31 Oct 1995 04:38:06 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: Dogmatism Paul: >>You say that, but when you start shouting, you help illustrate my >>point. Dogmas are required beliefs, and the prohibition against >>dogmas *is itself a dogma*. >No, a prohibition is not a belief. A belief is the acceptance >of a truth-functional proposition, i.e. something that may be >true or false. "Don't impose dogmas" is not a belief, but >rather an organizational imperative or principle or value. I think you're making an unnecessary distinction here. We can have beliefs in the form of "nouns" or static ideas about things and in the form of "verbs" or the proper way to do things. The idea that dogmas are wrong is a belief. The prohibition against the use of dogmas can also be required. Perhaps for defined actions the term "vows" rather than "dogmas" would be appropriate? >The American Heritage Dictionary defines dogma as: >"1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such >as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by >a church." >To the extent that Theosophical groups set forth their >doctrines "in an authoritative manner" and act like churches, >they are dogmatic. True. And if the sense of authority is valid and justified then dogma in this sense is good. >"2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or >opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true." >Again, it's the authoritative nature of the belief, etc., >that makes it dogmatic. Perhaps it's just the word "authoritative" that's disliked? We could also say proven, canonical, an integral part of the system, or an inseparable part of the philosophy. >"3. A principle or belief or a group of them." >By this definition any organization from the American >Library Association to the DAR has dogmas; but it's >too broad. Too broad for what purpose? If dogmas are the integral, defining doctrines of a system of thought, they are authoritative in the sense that they both define it and speak for it. >>A good sign of the presence of a dogma is in the *reaction* of >>people holding it. The response to challenge is immediate, >>passionate, and defensive. >Ten years ago I'd have said Theosophists were not dogmatic. By >the above criterion, older but wiser, I'd now say they include some >of the most passionate, defensive dogmatists who ever lived. A dogmatist is a follower of a system of thought, someone that believes in and subscribes to it. This does not mean that there is narrowness of mind, nor inflexibilty in thought. The dogma *defines*, it does not *limit*. The sense of limitation is self-imposed by followers that exclude other writers, other philosophies, other approaches. >>This is a matter of style, a manner of presentation, an approach >>that was taken by the founders of the Theosophical Society. It >>is not, I'd suggest, an universal approach to the Mysteries, but >>rather an approach tailored for the individualistic and >>opinionated Western temperament of the 1800's. >Which is no longer Western but approaching global saturation. >Too late to turn back now! Yes, opinionated individualism can be found throughout the world, and we have to tailor our propagation of Theosophy to take it into account. >>I would submit that the prohibitation against dogmas is a dogma of >>theosophical groups. And other dogmas are the three objects of the >>T.S. A belief in Universal Brotherhood *is required*, and not >As I recall the phrase is "acceptance of the principle" which >is not belief that a proposition is true, but agreement to live >in a certain way. You're stretching the meaning of dogma here. You're allowing dogma to be ok as a "verb" or in regards to action, but disallowing it in terms of a "noun" or belief about things. I'd say that we can have defining beliefs to the theosophical scheme as well as a defining code of conduct. >>With science, there is an established body of proven knowledge >>that are dogmas. They are *required belief* for scientists. After >NO WAY! Let Don or somebody tangle with this! What science >are you speaking of? All science. There is an established body of knowledge that is considered true until proven otherwise. That body is the dogma. >Please name a required belief of that science. The earth is a sphere in space, and not a flat surface. Ice melts and becomes water, when heat is applied, and with further heat becomes steam. Water is H2O. Seven plus eight is fifteen. Most of what is established is not speculative, not a mere opinion, but considered proven and therefore part of the scientific canon. It is considered true and authoritative. >I bet you can find scientists in good standing who don't >accept it. Being dogma does not mean that there can be unproven theories that are later verified, shown to be reproducible, and accepted as new dogma, perhaps changing previous beliefs about life and nature. Dogma refers to the defining nature of the beliefs, and not to the degree of flexibility in how they are held. >If you're talking about rules of evidence, etc. those aren't >beliefs but conventions of how science operates. The ideas behind the methodology is part of the established belief of science, and not some higher order of belief that is itself beyond question. It is part of the dogma or defining nature of the sciences. >One can justify them with dogmatic statements but in themselves >they are just operational principles. How we do things can be either an autoritative or required part of an established system or optional. The methodology that science follows is required for something to be considered scientific. The methodology could change in the future, but as it currently stands it is considered authoritative. >>Dogma is the skeletal or foundation ideas that give structure to >>and shape our belief system. Without it, we are philosophical >>invertibrate, holding "jellyfish philosophy". >Just call me a jellyfish philosopher. I'm not sure that I can call you that. Even if you don't subscribe to a particular system of thought, you have significant ideas that form the framework of your worldview. These ideas are to you the personal equalivant of dogma, as are mine to me. >>Each person has cornerstone beliefs that his worldview is based >>upon. With Theosophy, these are the core teachings that define the >>essential nature of its system of ideas. >Eldon, I really think HPB would disagree with you most >sharply. She explicitly said Theosophy is "not the tenets but >the principle of rational explanation of things" (paraphrase). When she says that, she's talking about it in terms of *process*. It can be viewed as *process* as well as *content*. I'd consider both as well-defined. With process we have vows or requirements regarding how to live our lives or do things. With content we have the specific doctrines presented as a consistent body of thought. >>You don't think, then, that Theosophy is literally true? >HPB doesn't, as I understand it. Rather, Theosophy (i.e. the >body of teachings in our books) is a fragmentary presentation >of a vast and largely unspeakable wisdom. I agree that our written literature is fragmentary and refers to things greater than can appear on the written page. But this does not negate it as a definite body of doctrines or teachings. We go from being a collection of doctrines to a dogma or an authoritative body of thought when the ideas are well-defined, true in nature, and accepted as coming from a bona fide authority figure (e.g. HPB). >Its statements can be taken at many levels of meaning, let's say >seven for convenience. Such a multilayered and symbolic and >fragmentary teaching cannot be "literally true" in the way you >seem to mean; literalism is its mortal enemy. I'm not speaking for literalism. The theosophical body of thought is not the literal words on the printed page. It is not merely a collection of HPB quotes. But it is a system, it is (I'd say) true, and it can be taken as canon or a consistent, proven body of thought. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 31 Oct 1995 05:10:32 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Channelling The rendering of the personality and body into a negative unconscious state for an entity to possess or use it is *always* wrong. There are no exceptions. There are many deceivers and manipulators on the astral plane and their goal is to convince as many people as possible that being possessed is a good thing so that they can have a taste of physical life and sustain their personality by taking vitality/prana from the unconscious person and those who look to the channeler for information. Jane Roberts and Seth are just as deluded and wrong as the rest. The Masters may use the personality of a chela but this occurs in full waking consciousness and the chela is completely aware when in, when transfering control and when out of the body. When this occurs all that is noticed by those watching is that the chela seems to be radiating greater light, love and wisdom. - Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 31 Oct 1995 05:47:56 GMT From: Aprioripa@aol.com Subject: Caldwell & Johnson Debate I suppose that the best way to resolve this is to ask one of the Masters. They are working today as always and my understanding is that anyone who follows the basic rules of the spiritual path (humility, kindness, love, truth, etc.) develops a relationship with them. Namaste, Patrick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 31 Oct 1995 06:43:18 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Cayce In response to the many Cayce posts: IMHO, I think Cayce was and is valueable because he was a rather ordinary man with extraordinary powers. Maybe a person born in Kentucky, whose readings had a Christian bent would have gotten through to more people in this predominantly Christian country. He uttered many simple, poetic statements that could be understand by almost anyone. My favorite: You can't get to heaven without leaning on the arm of someone you've helped. Perhaps this isn't heavy Buddhist or Tibetan philosophy. You could even argue whether there is a heaven, especially the Christian heaven, but I think it gets the message across. The Secret Doctrine is a great work, but most of us could use the help of a study group and/or teacher to get through it, not mention the spare time of 15 years. If you can climp Mt. Everest, then go ahead and do it. But if you only jog around the park, that's ok, too. I believe everything has its place - Cayce, Bailey, HPB, Leadbeater, etc. - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 31 Oct 1995 06:48:33 GMT From: "Ann E. Bermingham" <72723.2375@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: C & J Debate Patrick: > I suppose that the best way to resolve this is to ask one of the >Masters. E-mail or M-Mail? Telephone or telepathy? Fax or falling letters? :-)) - ann From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 31 Oct 1995 07:06:22 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: Hi again, and a few questions As far as the material the the T.S. is putting out for education: it isn't that the CWL stuff is no longer "popular" in Theosophy today, but that when it was written it WAS popular and so went against the grain of what had been given out by HPB and the Masters in the beginning, which was not so easy to understand at first and not so "popular." In short, as Jerry seems to be hinting, for the most part CWL botched it pretty badly with his own delusions of grandeur and confused religious connections. Better introductions are *The Key To Theosophy* (HPB) *The Ocean of Theosophy* (William Q. Judge) *Epitome of Theosophy* (William Q. Judge) Collected articles of HPB and WQJ I'm sure Jerry H-E has more suggestions, including his own sophisticated introductory masterials. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 31 Oct 1995 07:29:38 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: To be a Theosophist Eldon's remarks about required beliefs, Daniel's comments about my works leading people astray, the ARE material I'm now studying, and the present passage of transiting Neptune opposing natal Uranus all contribute to these thoughts. As do other things which might be guessed from the message. 1995, which started out as the most wonderful year of my life, with the great NYTBR and Quest reviews and excellent sales of The Masters Revealed, and completion of a sequel, rather quickly became an annus horribilus. Theos-l played a major role in that, as did other avenues of theosophical communication. Despite harmonious interaction with Theosophists across the country, it's been a year of nearly constant agonizing over the karmic consequences of my books in terms of my relations with the movement. Only now do I feel I understand *where* it hurts, and thus can diagnose the illness and find a cure. The Cayce material I'm working with defines fear as "a defensive reaction of mind and body to circumstances perceived as threatening to the continuity of our self-image." 1995 has definitely been marked by a lot of defensive reactivity on my part, to circumstances that have been clearly threatening. But what's the self-image that's being attacked? My level of scholarship? No, I never imagined myself to be a great scholar or a thorough analyst of the material I've studied-- just a pioneer with some fruitful new ideas. The self-image that's been slashed away at, by Caldwell, Algeo, and others, is simply "I am a Theosophist, entitled to respect as a loyal member of the movement to which I've devoted much of my time, energy and money for the last 17 years." So every time someone made it clear that he/she *didn't* respect, in fact vociferously *disrespected* my identity as a Theosophist, it hurt like hell. Call me dumb, call me sloppy, and it rolls off my back. Say or imply that you disrespect me as a Theosophist, and I fall apart-- or *did*. Perhaps Dara Eklund's letter saying "it is a sad fact that the author is a Theosophist..." was the most striking evidence of this-- it tore me up. Sorry to be so confessional, but this is going somewhere. When Eldon talks about *required beliefs* it sounds to me very much like he wants a basis for *excluding* people, saying "you're no Theosophist if your thoughts don't pass my litmus test." When all of y'all go round and round interminably about what Theosophy is, what it's not, what to respect, what to disrespect, it reminds me of "I'm Chevy Chase and YOU'RE NOT." Who the hell cares, anyhow? I don't think HPB and Olcott intended to create a movement of exclusivistic, elitist nitpickers, and if they are/will be reborn I bet they'll put their energies someplace far more productive. Since rejoining ARE, and starting to do research on Cayce, I've realized to my surprise that my level of commonly-held beliefs and values is *much* higher with ARE members than with Theosophists. Although fairly high in both cases. There are also other aspects, like level of trust, that differentiate my feelings about the two groups-- but I don't want to get into a "mine's better than yours" game since that's exactly what I'm sick of about organized Theosophy. It is with a sense of tremendous relief and liberation that I say to you, I am NOT a Theosophist. Joining ARE doesn't give you a predicate nominative. You can't say "I am a Cayceite" (well you could but would be laughed at). There's no label, and there's much more respect for diversity-- perhaps because the organization is built on thousands of readings for diverse individuals. You're just one person, doing his or her best to live by the light you have and to gain more enlightenment as you go. That doesn't mean I'm unsubscribing from theos-l, but that from here on out I intend to be a witness to this truth: There are thousands and thousands of people who are interested in HPB and other Theosophical writers, who may have at one time joined a Theosophical organization, and have moved on not in anger but in regret. Regret that a great rushing torrent of spiritual energy that transformed the world has now become a muddy trickle incapable of transforming the dysfunctional organizations that commemorate its heroic past. Regret that the most creative, interesting people who have passed through the movement in this century-- like Ouspensky, David-Neel, and Dharmapala-- were stifled by its conformity and felt obliged to move on. Regret that "What is Theosophy" and "What is a Theosophist" have become ways of excluding and feeling superior to the outside world, rather than embracing and including the best it has to offer. This by no means describes all or even most of the individuals I have known in the Theosophical movement. But it surely describes the organizations and their inner circles. In closing, I found Theosophy as Uranus transited conjunct my Mercury and Sun. That was all about finding an elaborately detailed map of the cosmos, following the lead of a revolutionary thinker, pursuing a "higher wisdom" in the possession of an elite. But now that Neptune-- which as a more "outer" planet "trumps" Uranus-- is opposing natal Uranus, all that stuff seems irrelevant compared to the Neptunian themes embodied in the Cayce material. Themes like being one with all humanity, devoting yourself to service, gaining direct experience of inner realms, seeking to transcend an overly intellectual approach. Thank you, Theosophists, for a fascinating, stimulating and inspiring presence in my life for many years. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 31 Oct 1995 11:36:17 GMT From: Coherence@aol.com Subject: Re: Tantric Theosophy In a message dated 95-10-30 22:56:34 EST, you write: > We're at a disadvantage in Theosophy, having >a body of doctrines to think about, but no formulated, >tried-and-proved practice to undertake. We're akin to Olympic >hopefuls with no coach to train us nor gym to work out in. What do >we do? We improvise and do the best that we can, until we catch >the attention of someone who would train us, and doors start to >open in our lives The problem lies in humanities inability or unwillingness to think for themselves and see where the application of doctrine leads them. So many want a "Do this" rule, but in Theosophy each must determine the appropriate action for themselves. I don't see this as a disadvantage as much as an opportunity to learn, which is what Theosophy tells us life is all about. A knowledge of Theosophy is the ultimate advantage. Life is the gym we workout in. Our coach is our higher self, the "still small voice of conscience. We have been given guidelines, though, and these are fairly succinctly stated in HPB's, KEY TO THEOSOPHY, from which all the following have been taken: "Because the final goal cannot be reached in any way but through life experiences, and because the bulk of these consist in pain and suffering. It is only through the latter that we can learn." p. 227 ". . . because our philosophy teaches us that the object of doing our duties to all men and to ourselves the last, is not the attainment of personal happiness, but of the happiness of others; fulfilment of right for the sake of right, not for what it may bring us." p.228 quoting Peter, "Be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another; love as brethren be pitiful, be courteous; not rendering evil for evil, or railing; but contrariwise, blessing," p.229 "Duty is that which IS DUE to Humanity, to our fellow-men, neightbours, family, and especially that which we owe to all those who are poorre and more helpless than we are ourselves. . . . Theosophy is the quintessence of DUTY." P.229 ". . . our duty is to drink without a murmur to the last drop, whatever contents the cup of life may have in store for us, to pluck the roses of life only for the fragrance they may shed on others, and to be ourselves content but with the thorns, if that fragrance cannot be enjoyed without depriving someone else of it." p.230 To the question, "What do you consider as due to humanity at large?", HPB answers, "Full recongintion of equal rights and privilieges for all, and without distinction of race, colour, social position, or birth." p.230 ". . . it is only by all men becoming brothers and all women sisters, and by all practising in their daily lives true brotherhood and true sisterhood, that the real human solidarity, which lies at the root of the elevation of the race, can ever be attained." p.234 "Every Theosophist, therefore, is bound to do his utmost to help on, by all the means in his power, every wise and well-considered social effort which has for its object the amelioration of the condition of the poor." p.235 " . . . by inculcating those higher and nobler conceptions of public and private duties which lie at the root of all spiritual and material improvement." p 236 "In helping on the development of others, the Theosophist believes that he is not only helping them to fulfil their Karma, but that he is also, in the strictest sense, fulfilling his own." p. 236 "It is the development of Humanitiy, of which both he and they are integral parts, that he has always in view, and he knows that any failure on his part to respond to the highest within him retards not only himself but all, in their progressive march. By his actions, he can make it either more difficult or more easy for humanity to attain the next higher plane of being." p.236 "Every mean and selfish action sends us backward and not forward, while every noble thought and every unselfish deed are stepping-stones to the higher and more glorious planes of being." p. 237 To the question, "Is equal justice . . . the highest standard of Theosophy?" HPB responds, "No; there is an even far higher one . . . The giving to others more than to oneself -- SELF-SACRIFICE." p. 237 To the question, "Then you regard self-sacrifice as a duty?" HPB responds, "We do; and explain it by showing that altruism is an integral part of self-development." p. 239 "The first of the Theosophical duties is to do one's duty by ALL men. . . " p. 240 To the question, "And what may be the duty of a Theosophist to himself?" HPB responds, "To purify himself inwardly and morally; to fear no one, and nought save the tribunal of his own conscience. Never to do a thing by halves; i.e. if he thinks it the right thing to do, let him do it openly and boldly, and if wrong, never touch it at all. It is the duty of a Theosophist to lighten his burden by thinking of the wise aphorism of Epictetus, who says: "Be not diverted from your duty by any idle reflection the silly world may make upon you, for their censure are not in your power, and consequently should not be any part of your concern." p.241 "The Theosophical ideas of charity mean PERSONAL exertion for others; PERSONAL mercy and kindness; PERSONAL interest in the welfare of those who suffer; PERSONAL sympathy, forethought and assistance in their troubles or needs." p. 244 I'm running out of room, but the following pages continue the general drift outlined above. It is because of the perceived difficulty of "Living the Life" that one participant has said membership is dwindling. HPB provides clear and ample instructions, "tried and true practices to undertake." DUTY, CHARITY, SELFLESSNESS are the real rules. Most people would rather know how many candles to light, or how many times a day to pray, or how long to chant and meditate. These rituals are not the essence of Theosophy. We are left to our own discrimination and judgement in carrying out our daily lives along these general lines. If we err, we suffer the consequences and LEARN. Would any of us really have it any other way? I would argue that if we do the above, "doors will open in our lives." None other can do it for us. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 31 Oct 1995 11:36:18 GMT From: Coherence@aol.com Subject: Re: historical and doctrinal In a message dated 95-10-30 23:13:34 EST, you write: >Coherence: > > You, sir, are a dreamer, your scriptural quotes not withstanding. > > Jerry S.> Can you explain yourself? I really don't see where the dogma is or, by definition, how there can be any. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 31 Oct 1995 11:36:25 GMT From: Coherence@aol.com Subject: Re: Monads and Theosophical Writers In a message dated 95-10-31 10:53:02 EST, you write: >>One exercise that may be helpful is to define terms such as Ego and >>Monad, as you seem to be using them in ways not familiar to me. > >The terms are used in a number of ways in theosophical literature. >A particular being could be called a God, Monad, or Atom depending >upon which stream of evolution it was associated. Regardless of the >stature of the being, it evolves forth a center of self-consciousness >(Ego) and outer vehicle (Soul). This is the generalized case, for >any particular being. > >Taking us as humans, as composite beings during incarnation, we >are an aggregate of associated Monads, in much the same way as the >Globes of a Chain are an aggregate. We, particuarly, are the lower >Human Monads. Looking upwards in our constitution, we have a >Manasaputra. The term "Manasaputra" can both refer to an higher >intelligence that informs and inspires us (a Higher Monad in our >constitution or in association with us during life) and it can >refer to our *innate* Manasaputra, our capability of being one >ourselves one day. > I cannot find your offering of the definition of Monad and Ego in this. In refering to the chain of Globes analogy, this seems to fit the definition of Principles more so than Monads. I also understand "Manasaputra" (literally given to us as "Sons of Universal Mind") to be Manas. Is this how you are using the term? >>As far as I can tell from a close reading of your post, you use >>the term "Monad" where HPB would use the term "Principle". >HPB speaks of one or both teachings without often clearly distinguishing >them. Purucker clearly defines the two *as different*. The centers of >consciousness and principles are difference in the same sense as the >globes and planes are. In your definition then, are Monads then the "forms" as "globe" may be the form while "plane" may be the "center of consciousness"? >I would say that the distinction is important. When it is not made, it would retreat to ideas you'd find more familiar. This is condescending. The implication is that if one can't play in the Big Leagues, i.e. with you, then one should "retreat" to the Minors or never venture forth to new territory. Here you are missing an opportunity to teach and help. I will certainly review my writing style if you will also review yours. >In one sense we can speak of each of the seven principles as the >vehicle of the next higher one. But I'd have to say that the >principles are the basic ingredients of consciousness and their >progressive unfoldment shows the gradual coming into being of >an entity. Only the Sthula-Sharira is a literal form or body, >on whatever plane it may exist. I am not able to provide a reference, but remember reading that as consciousness develops or functions on each plane, that plane becomes objective, and hence we would have a "body" or "form" and that plane would seem to be a "place". By "entity" in your above passage, are you refering to your definition of Monad? >>How do these relate to what Purucker teaches? >He teaches the basic concepts along the traditional lines. This has not been demonstrated, yet. >For general discussion, though, we're working >with our personal understandings, and it may take many discussions >for our understandings to grow and evolve. This is true, but why not cite specific references as a starting point, so we can see what each author says about a topic, then work and reason through our individual understandings. This seems to be a better approach. You previously asked for an HPB reference, which was provided. Now what does GdeP say? > If I believe in advance that someone is a bona >fide spokesman for the Masters quite capable of speaking new >theosophical teachings, I'm inclined to not find inconsistencies. >Either approach is biased, since it's taking the stand of a >trial lawyer looking only for those facts that will support a >predetermined case that one wants to make Rush to Judgement. You are not giving us the opportunity to "not find inconsistencies" in the utterances of "bona fide spokesman for the Masters" > And when you reply to >a statement by saying 'this is not what Blavatsky would say' you >are making an appeal to authority rather than to reason. When you >do that, you're passing up an excellent opportunity to do a >theosophical practice of giving fresh, original, immediate expression >to the grand philosophy. I find that HPB provides the Universals and some particulars, the whole of which requires a great deal of reasoning powers to come to our own conclusions. Are we not to consider a person who knows a topic an authority? The distinction is that we do not rely on it JUST BECAUSE she said so. Since you have equated Purucker with HPB there is either the implication that they are both authorities or neither are. Yes I will turn to one I perceive to know a topic to be an authority while trying to reason and make the knowledge my own. A Math teacher is the authority until I have worked the exercises and solved the problems and possess the knowledge to become my own authority. >Sometimes an "inconsistency" is in the mind of the beholder. Agreed. < You might judge Purucker Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist On Tue, 31 Oct 1995, K. Paul Johnson wrote: > > That doesn't mean I'm unsubscribing from theos-l, but that from > here on out I intend to be a witness to this truth: There are > thousands and thousands of people who are interested in HPB and > other Theosophical writers, who may have at one time joined a > Theosophical organization, and have moved on not in anger > but in regret. Regret that a great rushing torrent of > spiritual energy that transformed the world has now become a > muddy trickle incapable of transforming the dysfunctional > organizations that commemorate its heroic past. Regret that > the most creative, interesting people who have passed through > the movement in this century-- like Ouspensky, David-Neel, and > Dharmapala-- were stifled by its conformity and felt obliged to > move on. Regret that "What is Theosophy" and "What is a > Theosophist" have become ways of excluding and feeling superior > to the outside world, rather than embracing and including the > best it has to offer. This by no means describes all or even most > of the individuals I have known in the Theosophical movement. But it surely > describes the organizations and their inner circles. Wow. *Exceedingly* well said. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 31 Oct 1995 11:38:13 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: Re: Cat evolution Dear Ann, Right you are! my 2 cats taught me too, ie 1 did & one still is. For one thing I'm learning her signals. For another, it seems that cats never move in a straight line, but at a kind of zig zag. For a third they were & are so loving, it provokes the same response in me. Chouchou most often does what I ask her to do. I think because I try to follow through with what she's trying to communicate to me. I do what she wants, so she does what I want. I think I've mentioned before, she was a handful as a kitten. She bit all the time, but not anymore, and she was all over the map. For some reason, even though she invariably sits somewhere near me, she doesn't like to be held, nor sit on my lap. By now, she wont bite when I try to pet her, unless she's had enough. Since some client of my son Dave, found her half dead in a ditch, maybe whoever had her when she was born mistreated her badly. Jerry speaking of our changing cultural views, I suspect that the medieval "witches", who were solitary human beings, had cats to keep them company. Do your wife Betty's books say anything about that? Jerry, I've finished copying off the reincarnation material for you as well. The envelope is going downstairs tomorow, so it should reach you in a few days. Shanti Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 31 Oct 1995 11:38:13 GMT From: "Liesel F. Deutsch" Subject: Re: Creators - a synchronicity Jerry, Please explain to me your reasoning as to why mind isn't an external creator. It's one thing that just isn't clear to me. Mind, to me, has to exist within some entity. Where is it, if it isn't part of a creator? Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 31 Oct 1995 12:23:30 GMT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: (none) For those who have observed the ongoing drama of Daniel Caldwell's attacks on my work and my intermittent defenses thereof, some background: I have never met Daniel, and first contacted him in early 1993 while revising and condensing In Search of the Masters for submission to publishers. He ordered a copy of it, and I then wrote to him asking for specific suggestions about the methodological flaws he had condemned in his annotated bibliography for The Occult World of Madame Blavatsky. At the time I made it clear that this was a revision in progress, and that to be useful his critique needed to come fairly soon. Unfortunately, it came several months later, just as the manuscript was ready to send off to SUNY. Instead of a personal letter suggesting improvements, as I had expected, I got a lengthy, elaborately printed document copies of which had been sent to quite a number of other people. It was full of boldface, exclamation points, numbered challenges: a confrontational, adversarial work if I ever saw one. Still, that was no reason not to try to use it in my revision, so I wrote a section (it being far too late to actually revise the ms. with it) responding to his points. This was inserted in the ms. that was sent to SUNY, and a copy was sent to Daniel. Many weeks later, after SUNY decided to publish, Daniel sent another lengthy reply, even more adversarial and confrontational in tone, indicating total dissatisfaction with my response. At this point, in consultation with the publisher, I decided to delete the entire section, and wrote Daniel to tell him so-- apologetically. The next contact I recall was when I signed on to theos-l in early 1994 while The Masters Revealed was in production. A friend of Daniel's announced that he was distributing an "Open Letter to Paul Johnson" which I had never even heard of. I protested that this was not very open, and Daniel decided to withdraw it. Last fall (I think, maybe winter) there was an extended exchange between Daniel and me here on theos-l. He posted his criticisms of The Masters Revealed, and I tried to respond. But for every point that I defended, he attacked with increased vigor. This escalated, with me more and more defensive and Daniel more and more aggressive, until the whole list got sick of it, asked that it be moved to theos-roots, and I got off both lists while working on the new book. After several months off the lists, I got back on last summer. Within two weeks, Daniel was back on with additional critiques of my work, and challenges/demands for me to defend myself. This time I declined to participate. But by then I had written thousands of words in response to his complaints, and spent many many hours worrying about it. How many authors, confronted with a clearly hostile critic whose attacks had only escalated over time, would have devoted as much time and energy as I did to trying to respond to his complaints? My guess is none. Now we have an eleven part series unfolding on theos-roots, and a couple of recent attacks on theos-l. Again, Daniel seems to think I owe it to him to reply to these; he and his admirers take my refusal to do so as evidence that his complaints are unanswerable. But it is abundantly clear that his will to attack and challenge is stronger than my will to defend. At this point, the actual word count of Daniel's critiques of my identifications of Morya and Koot Hoomi must be well ahead of that for the sections of my book that discuss this. The email I just forwarded gives some evidence of how much personal hostility is motivating him; I feel like the victim of a stalker. The man is clearly obsessed in a very negative way with me and my work. This despite acknowledging that it has some positive value for historical research, even going so far as to call it a "treasure trove." Some comments to Daniel's admirers. The person who called me a "psychological basket case" is right on the money in the narrow sense of describing the turmoil that Theosophical attacks on my work have caused in this one area of my life. However, the vast majority of people with whom I deal haven't a clue that any of this is happening. In my worklife, family relationships, friendships, I'm a pretty well-adjusted guy. (Something about having a stressed ninth house moon means that religion, publishing, etc. will be where the emotional turmoil is felt). To the person who complained of my "pissing and moaning"-- is it or is it not true that I have become the target of more hatred from Theosophists than anyone in living memory since CWL? But don't worry, you'll hear no more complaints about it because my ability to care about it is just about gone. To those who think that I should respond in a substantive manner to such critiques, I suggest that you read my forthcoming response to John Algeo's lengthy review in Theosophical History. Finally, a suggestion to Daniel. Get a life. You have devoted a tremendous amount of time and energy to attacking, not just one man's work, but one particular part thereof. Do you really want to go down in history as someone who, instead of creatively coming up with his own solution to a mystery, obsessively attacked someone else's work for several years? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 31 Oct 1995 14:15:53 GMT From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: Hi again and a few questions William Parrette writes: WP Well, it just so happens that a small group of us have been getting together in Cincinnati on a monthly basis and we have decided to start studying the booklet published by the TS called _Introductory_Study_Course_in_Theosophy_ (Part I). We got through Lesson 1 just fine -- no problems -- and, in fact, had some interesting discussions. JHE I have a copy of the 1968 correspondence course edition of this course. It probably has differences from yours, since Wheaton as a standard operating procedure makes changes in their books and courses whenever they go into a new edition, whether the original author is alive or not. For instance, the page numbering on mine is completely different than from yours. You are studying a very fine course on neo-theosophy. It is primarily based upon CWL's version of theosophy, though it gives lip service to Blavatsky. You might notice that none of the "References for supplementary reading" at the end of each lesson mentions any of the source writings such as those by Blavatsky, Judge or the Mahatma Letters. All of the books recommended are by secondary writers who expound upon CWL, such as: Clara Codd, Irving S. Cooper, the Laytons, E. Norman Pearson etc. The two diagrams are only related in that they describe cycles. The first diagram describes the cyclic formation of the solar planes, and is a modified version of the one originated by Leadbeater and published in ~Man Visible and Invisible~, originally published in 1903. The modification has to do with the change of the names of the planes, which was done in 1911, under Annie Besant's orders. I suggest that you get a copy of this book and read Leadbeater's own explanation of this diagram. The second diagram may be original to this study guide, and represents the evolution of the monad (or "soul" as they call it here) from its spiritual beginnings; descending into matter where it becomes a mineral; then vegetable; then animal; then human; then an initiated human (a Mahatma); then a god; and finally returning to its spiritual origin. WP [regarding the two diagrams] Once we started comparing the text of the Lesson to these two diagrams, confusion set in and all kinds of questions started to emerge. For example: * What is the correlation between the symbols and the termi- nology used in Diagram 1? That is to say do the circular symbols used at the top have some meaning with respect to the terms related to the aspects and does the pipeline con- taining the flowing line have some meaning with respect to the terms related to the outpourings. And, is there any meaning to the symbol that appears in the mental plane of the third outpouring. JHE The three symbols at the top represent the three aspects of the Solar Logos which exists upon three planes. Unlike Blavatsky, Leadbeater has an entity called a "Solar Logos" which he defines as comparable to a Christian personal God. WP And, is there any meaning to the symbol that appears in the mental plane of the third outpouring. JHE Yes. The triangle represents the triune nature of the Solar Logos on the mental plane. WP * What is the meaning of the joining of the three outpourings in the physical plane? JHE That is the lowest plane which the Solar Logos operates. WP * Is there any meaning to the dashed versus the solid lines contained within the outpourings? One goes from nadir to zenith and then starts back up only to stop in the mental. The other seems to only go in one direction and stops. JHE Yes, but CWL explains this in some detail, and I suggest that you go by his explanation. WP * Is there any specific meaning behind the three symbols used at the top of the diagram which are labelled as the aspects? JHE They represent the three aspects of the Solar Logos which lives on three planes. WP * Is there any correlation between Diagram 1 and Diagram 2? JHE As I had answered above. WP * What about all of the symbolism used in Diagram 2? The flames? ... The sparks? ... The upside down solid triangle (physical matter?) ... The right-side up hollow triangle? (spirit?) JHE The flames with the triangles represents the three elemental kingdoms. The large triangle represents the Logos, which CWL has a triune in nature. The upside down solid triangles represent spirit trapped in matter. JHE If you are interested in studying Neo-theosophy, then this is a fine book, but please be warned that this study will create confusion later on if you decide to study the core teachings later on. This is because neo-theosophy operates off of the IMHO false assumption that there is no conflict between the core teachings and neo-theosophy. On the other hand, if you are interested in the core teachings, then I would recommend Blavatsky's ~The Key to Theosophy.~ Also, my wife and I and an associate created a video and study guide entitled ~The Perennial Wisdom~ which is available through Quest Books in Wheaton, or through Theosophical University Press in Pasadena, or through us. Price is $24.95. It is non technical, and I think, perfect for where you are at. I hope this helps Jerry HE ------------------------------------------|Jerry Hejka-Ekins ||Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu ||and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org |------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 31 Oct 1995 17:11:29 GMT From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Sin The original meaning of the word(s) we render as "sin" as found in Greek and Hebrew scriptural writings relates to the concept of sin as "missing the mark," as perhaps in archery. It presupposes an aim, a goal to be achieved, so that "sin" is a falling short of the ideal or "perfect." The churches, as other organisations, have not surprisingly perverted the term to their own uses, e.g., not doing what we tell you is "sinful". The whole idea of sin depends (surprise!) upon there being a teaching (or dogma) to which the sin is relative. Thus, "sin" cannot be a law, only a subjective perception. This is one reason I favour Kabala, which is concerned with understanding the *law* of things. Whatever moral or ethical positions one takes up in the light of such understanding (also subjective) is up to me (or you, or you, or you, etc.). Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 31 Oct 1995 19:54:38 GMT From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Subject: Re: Channelling >Patrick: > >>The rendering of the personality and body into a negative unconscious >>state for an entity to possess or use it is *always* wrong. There are no >>exceptions. There are many deceivers and manipulators on the astral plane ... > >Here's a point where we can find agreement. But there are at least >two exceptions to this that we need to consider. > >Was Cayce unconscious while giving his readings? If so, does that >make the readings wrong, when many proved helpful to the people >they were done for? > >When Bee mentions channelling and says that she is aware of what >is going on (e.g. she is not in an unconscious state), is her >experience wrong? If she's aware of what is happenning, it is >not a case of possession, but more like another form of interaction >with non-physical beings. > >>The Masters may use the personality of a chela but this occurs >>in full waking consciousness and the chela is completely aware ... > >This is what Blavatsky was said to do at times with her Teachers. >I recall something that Col. Olcott wrote about watching HPB >in New York when he could tell when KH or M was using her. Is >the ability to do this highly exceptional, or is it something >more common but just not talked about? > >-- Eldon >Bee here, I don't think it is that exceptional but it is the ability to be neutral when channeling that seems to be the problem. Our own opinions seem to get mixed up with what is actually said. I can decide not to let something be said and cause confusion in the transmission, something like talk-back radio where it is just lagging behind enough to stop any bad language, eg. My good invisible friend terms himself the Elder Brother and implies he is attached to a teaching ashram of a master. That is all I know but there is also the implication that 'he' is an energy of some sort rather that a 'person' . I have internal conversations as well as audible channeling but only do it now and then when it seems required. I have to say that what is channeled is very theosophical and that brings in the question, is it me talking to myself through my theosophical knowledge. I have developed better intuition since doing all this and find that when reading, e.g de Purucker, I have an intuitive idea of what he is saying, almost as if it is a reminder of something I have known before. Strange sometimes. I have heeded the warnings and treat channeling with caution but value the knowledge that it is available should I want to use it or if it should required to be used. It seems to open the mind to another level of reality and it takes a while to feel comfortable there as it is not the usual way of feeling but is hard to explain. The only thing I come up with is that it is like having a foot in two worlds and the secret is to learn to balance oneself and not fall into one or the other. I also seem to switch into channel mode when I want to explain some aspect of theosophy to some one or sort out in my mind some of what I read on Theos-l. It almost feels like a real shift in consciousness and the knowledge comes in a flow from somewhere or it flows in and joins itself to the correct pigeonhole, so to speak. All this is probably as clear as mud, so I will leave it at that. > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 31 Oct 1995 20:26:48 GMT From: Don DeGracia <72662.1335@compuserve.com> Subject: DON 2 Keith Keith I'm sorry to hear about your accident. I'm glad to hear you are recovering fine and that you have a healthy attitude about your circumstances! Thanks for sharing your "delirium" experience. This has happened to me too when I get really ill with a fever. I think you are correct that these tie in to "astral travel, dream, hallucination, out of by experience, near death experience". All these states have much in common. I don't know that I would go so far as to equate them with the unitive experience of mystical consciousness, which, based on my experiences, is much different that OBE/dream related phenomena. However, the value of the dream related phenomena, even if it occurs in a fever delirium, is that it at least takes one into these states. The average person only gets their via their dreams, and then they are not lucid. Going there lucid, and having some sense of the difference between that state and the waking state is important, I think, again, because it opens one's eyes to what theosophists have traditionally called the "planes" and what I more reservedly call "altered states of consciousness". Actually, Keith, I think its both. And also, I don't believe in "my" consciousness or "your" consciousness. Such ideas are maya. There is only one eternal consciousness that fills all things. You can call it God, or Tao, or Sam for all it cares. But underneath the awareness of all seperate creatures (including atoms, galaxies and other seemingly inanimate objects) there is only one undivided, eternal consciousness. Its quite paradoxical actually. But then again, it is our human assumption that reality has to make sense. I don't recall God ever signing a contract with us to this effect. < I want to E-mial you privately as I wrote a letter to Stephen LaBerge> Yes, feel free to do so. I'll be curious to hear if Dr. LaBerge writes you back. Well, Keith, I wish you a speedy and uneventful recovery. Lets all sent good etheric healing vibes Keith's way, everybody! Best! Don From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 31 Oct 1995 23:21:03 GMT From: Richtay@aol.com Subject: Re: obsolete words If I may chime in here on Jerry's and Eldon's conversation, at the risk of seeming to pander both sides, I think there is something to be said for each of the "positions." I think Eldon's point about obsolete words is unequivocally true. It is easy for those of us working on advanced academic degrees to assume that certain knowledge is common, that most people have access to good dictionaries, etc. They don't. In fact, I teach an introductory religion class as UC Davis and I myself had to explain to the majority of kids who Jesus is. for instance, few people knew that our dating of centuries is dated to Jesus' birth. Those who DID know that, did not realize that we have dated Jesus' birth wrongly, though all Biblical scholars now date Jesus' birth between 7 and 2 BCE. (Of course we know HPB puts Jesus' death at around 76 BCE, but that is another topic). I think the problem with HPB's and Judge's writing is getting more severe with each decade. I have been compiling a list of words that I think are obsolete for some time, it is getting very long. Something NEEDS to be done, or only scholars will be able to read and appreciate our Founders' works. At the same time, I think Jerry H-E is quite right that we cannot just re-write texts to suit current trends. So I propose the following: (1) NO MATTER WHAT we should keep track of original manuscripts and first editions and keep them in good condition and ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC. Then anyone can check our work. (2) We should also begin considering works like Jerry H-E is suggesting, "edited" versions meaning that we will add a gloassary in the back, or footnotes, or whatever, as long as it is CLEARLY INDICATED that these are editorial changes, not part of the original work, and leave the main text itself exactly as it was. (3) We should begin preparing sophisticated introductory courses that will take people from the street, as it were, assuming NO BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE, and get them into the original texts with the aid of overviews of the teachings, examples of Theosophical works through history (Plato's Allegory of the Cave in the REPUBLIC, Gnostic works, Buddhist and Vedanta works), current works by Theosophical thinkers, etc. All with the aim of getting new students to the original stuff as quickly and thoroughly as possible. I believe this is exactly the kind of course Jerry and April H-E are preparing for public use. I look forward to it expectantly, hoping it will truly improve the (generally fair to poor) level of Theosophical education which as a rule ignores HPB and Mr. Judge's original stuff altogether. Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 31 Oct 1995 23:46:38 GMT From: eldon@theosophy.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Re: To be a Theosophist Paul: >Eldon's remarks about required beliefs ... contribute to >these thoughts. Theosophy is a well-defined body of ideas. It has been presented in the West as a collection of speculations or spiritual theories for the individual to consider because that suits the Western temperament. But there's more to it than that. My discussion of "dogma" was attempting to deal with this sense of individualism and I'd expect the discussion to lead to the resulting problems with Theosophy becoming the cornerstone of future religions in the West. The dictionary defines doctrine as a "body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma." >Despite harmonious interaction with Theosophists across the country, >it's been a year of nearly constant agonizing over the karmic >consequences of my books in terms of my relations with the >movement. This sounds like you're dwelling in the past. When you've written a book, it's done, and you can move on. Unless it's not a matter of simply writing a book and expounding a certain theory; unless you see youself on a crusade to "reform" Theosophists of some particular view of the Masters that you don't hold. >Only now do I feel I understand *where* it hurts, and thus can >diagnose the illness and find a cure ... The self-image that's >been slashed away at ... is simply "I am a Theosophist, >entitled to respect as a loyal member of the movement to >which I've devoted much of my time, energy and money for the >last 17 years." As a person, you deserve the same respect as others in the movement. This respect can exist even when some of your ideas are disagreed with. Personal attacks are inappropriate, but people will sometimes resort to them, rather than dealing with the issues. This is not new to you. >Sorry to be so confessional, but this is going somewhere. When >Eldon talks about *required beliefs* it sounds to me very much >like he wants a basis for *excluding* people, saying "you're no >Theosophist if your thoughts don't pass my litmus test." You can say "sounds like" and that's your reaction to the discussion. My intent is not to exclude people from anything. My point was that the very reason that Theosophy was presented in the West as a body of theory and in a pick-and-choose manner was to avoid this sort of reaction in Westerners. We don't want someone to tell us what to think, and find it difficult to study a complete system of metaphysical thought, because we might feel pressured to accept ideas that we don't like. But if the ideas are offered "buffet style", then we're not frightened away and may come and consider them. I'd find (at least) three stages of accepting Theosophy, of accepting the theosophical body of occult teachings presented for our acceptance or belief. (1) There might be a lay Theosophist, for which the only required belief was in universal brotherhood, and a degree of open tolerance for the spiritual practices of others. (2) Next would come the Theosophical practioner, someone that deeply embraced the teachings and attempted to follow the chela life as outlined therein. (3) Finally would come the actual chela, someone who had progressed to the point of inner teaching, training, and perhaps having a Master as mentor and guru. There are many different possible formulations. Each one, if having merit, might form the seed of a future Western religion. There would eventually be a family of religions that could be labelled "theosophical", and the apporach that I outlined would be one sect among them. >When all of y'all go round and round interminably about what >Theosophy is, what it's not, what to respect, what to >disrespect, it reminds me of "I'm Chevy Chase and YOU'RE NOT." >Who the hell cares, anyhow? As to defining and studying the Philosophy, the degree of meaning is in the mind of the beholder. Perhaps you're having a crisis of meaning with Theosophy? Perhaps it's become a cracked winebottle to you, no longer able to carry spiritual content? The study is not merely word games, but involves a literal understanding about how life and consciousness works, and that understanding can become experiential and lead to a progressive spiritual unfoldment alike that to be had in expert training at a spiritual center. >I don't think HPB and Olcott intended to create a movement >of exclusivistic, elitist nitpickers, and if they are/will >be reborn I bet they'll put their energies someplace far >more productive. We're not their followers in the sense that we do things simply because they wanted us to. Theosophists follow a particular approach to the Mysteries. When anyone attempts to talk about the Path, and to describe what its steps are, there will always be charges of exclusivism. If we talk about future steps along the way, we're called exclusive because we describe things most people are not ready for, and that is seen as a put-down. If we keep our mouths shut and perhaps have esoteric groups where we study the same ideas behind closed doors, we're also called exclusive, for not inviting everyone to attend those meetings. It's a no-win situation! Regardless of approach, it will be possible for people to mis-preceive exslusiveness when none it intended. >...my level of commonly-held beliefs and values is *much* >higher with ARE members than with Theosophists ... but I don't >want to get into a "mine's better than yours" game since that's >exactly what I'm sick of about organized Theosophy. You'll find that attitude in any group of people, the attitude that the group is somehow better than other groups. I would not accept relativism, though, the idea that all possible groups are of equal value and equally promote the truth. Theosophy is not an exclusive approach to the Mysteries, but it is a genuine one. And there are a lot of groups and organizations that *are not* approaches to the Mysteries. You cannot discredit Theosophy by pointing to the numbers of foolish people calling themselves Theosophists. >It is with a sense of tremendous relief and liberation that I >say to you, I am NOT a Theosophist. Joining ARE ... >You're just one person, doing his or her best to live by the >light you have and to gain more enlightenment as you go. Whether you call yourself a Theosophist or not, you remain on the same path of self-discovery. That may involve exploring interesting ideas and hanging out with compatible people, and perhaps may involve *a practice* as well, when you feel a need for such. Good luck. >There are thousands and thousands of people who are interested >in HPB and other Theosophical writers, who may have at one time >joined a Theosophical organization, and have moved on not in >anger but in regret. Agreed, but we may have different explanations for why this happened. >Regret that a great rushing torrent of >spiritual energy that transformed the world has now become a >muddy trickle incapable of transforming the dysfunctional >organizations that commemorate its heroic past. You can indict the current organizations. They certainly don't live up to our expectations. The torrent of spiritual energy continues to transform the world, through every person and group that would give it expression. It is not the exclusive property of any individual or organization. It's an oversimplification to speak of a single torrent of energy. There are many. One is with regard to the maintenance of the light of spirit in the world. Avataras return at cyclic times to rekindle the fire of the spiritual, and the Mahatmas work on maintaining that fire. A second has to do with the slow, gradual evolution of the human lifewave over vast periods of time, convering millions of years. This is deeper than the superficial social changes of a generation, a century, or a millennium. A third is related to the Mysteries, and a higher calling felt by a special few, that *is not elistist*. Your objection to elitism among Theosophists may be in regard to people pretending to relate to this third "torrent". I'd object to calling the past "heroic" and the present lacking. Agreed that the theosophical organizations are somewhat dysfunctional and declining in numbers. But that is because the spiritual practices associated with Theosophy remain ill-defined. Theosophy was intended to form the cornerstone of the future religions of the West, and the organizations are failing in their work to accomplish this goal. Theosophy remains a speculative metaphysical philosophy and that is not enough. People leave theosophical groups after finding nothing there that is spiritual nourishing to them, because it's hard to create a self-devised practice through Theosophy as it's currently taught. >Regret that the most creative, interesting people who have >passed through the movement in this century-- like Ouspensky, >David-Neel, and Dharmapala-- were stifled by its conformity >and felt obliged to move on. As individuals, they have their individual reasons for moving on. The general situation, though, as I see it, is that theosophical groups lack well-defined spiritual practices, and it is the lack of such that leads people to move on. Conformity is not a problem, although rigidity of thought is a problem. In the East, when you adopt a particular Buddhist practice, you're expected to give your whole being to the practice, and not stand at arms-length, picking and choosing what you like from it, like Buddists in the West tend to do. There is no well-defined theosophical practice for Westerners to give their whole being to; it is all pick-and-choose, and this is its downfall. >Regret that "What is Theosophy" and "What is a Theosophist" >have become ways of excluding and feeling superior to the >outside world, rather than embracing and including the best >it has to offer. Whenever you draw a circle to include things, you exclude everything outside that circle. That does not mean that you never draw a circle. It also does not mean that your intent and motivation is to exclude anything. While we may agree that there is too much rigidity of thought in theosophical groups, we may part company when you ascribe the motivation of excluding others and feeling superior to Theosophists. Theosophists may say: "Here is something special that we have to offer, take it if you find it of value," they wouldn't (or shouldn't) say "I'm better than you because I've got the right stuff." We may both agree that the existing theosophical groups need an overhaul, but differ as to what is needed. I would say that a greater degree of pick-and-choose presentation of theories is the wrong direction. My recommendation is that theosophical groups carefully examine the successful Eastern religious traditions, and formulate one or more practices for Westerners to join that can provide *genuine* training, that can truly act as an entry to the Mysteries. -- Eldon